LOL NY Times...

The NY Times seems to be testing a feature that is new to me - present the story they want to tell (and their Upper West Side readers want to read) early on and then run appropriate corrections and clarifications deep in the original story. No need for embarrassing appended editor's notes!

Here we go. The topic is Schumer's failed 'plant a flag for the elections' vote on a Dem abortion bill. Their narrative goal is evergreen: Common sense Dems thwarted by extremist Republicans, ie, all of them.

Bill to Guarantee Abortion Rights Fails in Senate

Dated May 11 and the byline goes to Annie Karni, a name we will keep in mind.

WASHINGTON — Democrats tried and failed on Wednesday to push forward legislation to guarantee abortion rights nationwide, as Republicans and one Democrat in the Senate blocked an effort to enshrine the landmark Roe v. Wade precedent in federal law.

With 51 senators opposed and 49 in support, Democrats fell short of the 60 votes they would have needed to take up sweeping legislation to ensure abortion access and explicitly bar a wide array of restrictions.

...

Republicans, who unanimously opposed the measure, were joined by one Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia. Mr. Manchin, who opposes abortion rights, said the legislation was overly broad, noting that it would go substantially further than simply codifying Roe and warning that it would “expand abortion.”

The resulting vote showed that a majority does not now exist in the Senate to support maintaining legal abortion nationwide. Democrats who supported the bill framed it as a call to action, ahead of midterm elections, for voters who support abortion rights to elect likeminded candidates who will preserve them.

People who read beyond the Times and have been following the debate will notice two howlers, because the bill goes well beyond enshrining Roe v. Wade, and majority does exist in the Senate for a pro-choice bill.

But don't take my word for it! Eventually (paragraph 17-18):

The legislation Democrats tried to advance on Wednesday, called the Women’s Health Protection Act, would protect abortion access nationwide, going beyond simply codifying Roe. It would explicitly prohibit a long list of abortion restrictions, including some that have been enacted by states since Roe was decided in 1973 and that have severely limited access to the procedure.

Democrats conceded that their bill was more expansive than Roe, saying that they had drafted the measure in line with their view that some of the statewide restrictions that have been put in place over the past decade are inconsistent with that precedent.

As to a possible Senate majority, that is retracted in paragraphs 19 and 20:

That position cost them support from Mr. Manchin and two Republicans who back abortion rights but said they wanted merely to preserve the status quo — not roll back existing abortion restrictions.

Senators Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, had proposed a narrower bill that they said would codify Roe by outlawing any limit that would put an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. It borrowed language from the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, which affirmed what it called the essential holding in Roe: that states may not prohibit abortions before fetal viability.

Democrats dismissed the proposal as toothless, noting that it lacked clear guidance about what states can and cannot do, and that it would not explicitly rule out abortion bans before a fetus is viable or bar any specific prohibitions on abortion methods.

So basically, the bill attempts to "codify Roe" by re-writing it as the law as abortion actists would prefer.

But at least this story gives determined (and patient!) readers a fighting chance at finding the facts. Last week Ms. Karni previewed the bill, and provided only the most opaque of belated clarifications. Here we go again, as common-sense Dems battle extremist Reps:

Democrats Plan a Bid to Codify Roe, but Lack the Votes to Succeed

In announcing a Wednesday vote on doomed legislation to enshrine abortion rights into federal law, the top Senate Democrat teed up a political fight for the midterm campaign.

May 5, 2022 by Annie Karnie

WASHINGTON — Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, moved on Thursday to set up a vote next week on a bill to codify abortion rights into federal law, acting quickly in the wake of a leaked Supreme Court draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade, despite clear evidence that the measure lacks the support to be enacted.

The plan is little more than an effort to send a political message before the midterm elections and a seismic ruling that could have major legal, cultural and electoral consequences, with deep significance for voters across the political spectrum.

The legislation is all but certain to be blocked by Republicans, falling short of the 60 votes needed to advance past a filibuster. It also appears to lack even the simple majority it would need to pass the 50-50 Senate, given that Senator Joe Manchin III, the centrist Democrat from West Virginia who opposes abortion rights, voted against bringing up a nearly identical measure in February and has shown no signs that he has shifted his position.

...

Even if Democrats have no real path to passing a bill to enshrine Roe into federal law, the vote will give them a chance to show their progressive core supporters that they are trying to do so. They also hope the action stokes a backlash against Republicans by swing voters, including college-educated suburban women, who might be alienated by the G.O.P.’s opposition to abortion rights.

OK, the headline and paragraph 8 talk about codifying Roe. Much late, starting at para. 17:

They have also altered the measure [from a February version] in an effort to garner more support among Republicans who back abortion rights, removing a lengthy series of findings, including passages that referred to abortion restrictions as “a tool of gender oppression” and as being “rooted in misogyny.” Also scrapped was a section clarifying that while the bill refers to women, it is meant to protect the rights of “every person capable of becoming pregnant,” including transgender men and nonbinary individuals.

Yeah, swing voters worry about protecting abortion rights for transgender men. Whatev. They took that out. Still, para. 18-23:

But the fundamentals of the bill remain the same. It states that health care providers have a legal right to perform abortions, and patients to receive them, and would expressly nullify a wide range of requirements, restrictions and bans.

Democrats had hoped that removing the nonbinding findings could win over Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, two Republicans who support abortion rights.

But Ms. Collins said on Thursday that she still opposed the bill, because it went beyond simply codifying Roe v. Wade, which she supports, and lacked provisions that would allow Catholic hospitals to refuse to perform abortions.

Democrats said they were not interested in finding a compromise that might be acceptable to Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski, who have introduced a narrower bill that would bar states from imposing an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion before her fetus is viable.

The Democrats’ bill is more prescriptive, explicitly invalidating any abortion ban or restriction before viability, which it defines as the point at which the treating physician judges the fetus has “a reasonable likelihood” of “sustained” survival outside the womb.

“We’re not cutting back; we’re not compromising,” Mr. Schumer said at a news conference when asked if he would consider taking up the Republican bill. “We’re not looking to compromise on something as vital as this. This has been American law for 50 years.”

Ms. Karnie updated and clarified her description of the Collins/ Murkowski bill for her latest story. I'll reprise it for comparison:

Senators Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, had proposed a narrower bill that they said would codify Roe by outlawing any limit that would put an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. It borrowed language from the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, which affirmed what it called the essential holding in Roe: that states may not prohibit abortions before fetal viability.

Well, yes - the mysterious "undue burden" of the earlier story is now explained as coming from Casey (1992) which upheld restrictions (such as parental notification) which were found to be an undue burden.

 

 

 

Comments

[MissMarple2]

https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/vice-president-harris-brings-450k-book-royalties-first-year-office-ethics

I defy anyone to find more than 10 people in the country who have actually read the book.

[matt - deplore me if you must]

The Cossacks are from Ukraine and the Donbass and Caucasus. Tolstoy fought them and wrote about it.

The Hetmen were the traditional national leaders of the Cossacks. The Soviets did their best to extirpate them as well as the Ukrainians. In fact all of that fancy Russian dancing was stolen from the Ukrainians, Cossacks and Georgians.

While Russia is a kleptocracy the traditional leaders held power through the lineage and the collective will of their peoples. Big difference. That of course doesn't preclude kleptocracies within various groups.

The Russians are very good at subjugating, demeaning and marginalizing non-Russians a la Finland & Sweden this week. It is a national trait.

Just today the Telegraph had an interesting article on how looney tunes and extremist the Russian media is. Pravda, Izvestia and now the new monolithic media are all the same folks who brought you the record wheat harvests and tractor factory successes way back when.

[Jim Eagle]

MM,

Considering her own literacy, it probably took 10 editors and proofers to handle an incoherent mess of language she most likely would produce.

[jim nj]

https://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/elon-musk-poop-emoji-twitter-ceo-spam-fake-accounts

Elon Musk sends poop emoji to Twitter CEO in response to thread on spam, fake accounts
Twitter has estimated that spam, fake accounts make up less than 5% of the social media platform's users

[jim nj]

Two assessments of the Ukraine war:

https://militaryland.net/ukraine/invasion-day-82-summary/

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-16

[jim nj]

https://amgreatness.com/2022/05/15/the-cycles-of-revolutions-in-our-midst/

The Cycles of Revolutions in Our Midst
The world is fragmenting and changing in all different directions. Unfortunately, contemporary America is offering no guidance.

[jim nj]

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/05/16/tucker-carlson-responds-to-charges-he-inspired-buffalo-shooter-makes-his-critics-look-like-childish-ghouls-n565725

Tucker Carlson Responds to Charges He Inspired Buffalo Shooter, Makes His Critics Look Like Childish Ghouls

[jim nj]

Camille Vasquez, the secret weapon attorney on Johnny Depp’s team from Brown Rudnick, was unleashed on Amber Heard today during the 50 million dollar defamation trial in Virginia, where the Pirates of the Caribbean star is suing his ex-wife. Vasquez made a splash on social media with her brutal cross-examination, which started late in the afternoon on Monday after a ten-day break.

[jim nj]

I don't know how that happened. I lost my formatting.

I haven't been following this, other than headline coverage.

https://pjmedia.com/culture/megan-fox/2022/05/16/5-ways-johnny-depp-lawyer-wrecked-amber-heard-on-cross-examination-n1598378

5 Ways Johnny Depp Lawyer Wrecked Amber Heard on Cross-Examination

"Camille Vasquez, the secret weapon attorney on Johnny Depp’s team from Brown Rudnick, was unleashed on Amber Heard today during the 50 million dollar defamation trial in Virginia, where the Pirates of the Caribbean star is suing his ex-wife. Vasquez made a splash on social media with her brutal cross-examination, which started late in the afternoon on Monday after a ten-day break."

A few short video clips show a well-prepared defense attorney questioning, anticipating answers and refuting them with a quick follow on question.

Brutal.

[Melinda]

3% with Allegheny? pfft. Easier to wait til the manufactured outcomes are over.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/may_17th_2022_pennsylvania_gop_senate_primary_results.html