Why We Are Approaching a Government Shutdown, and How It Will Affect Us

    For the past few months, the threat of a government shutdown has been a persistent one. Caused by Congress’ failure to enact annual appropriations bills (discretionary spending split among 12 subcommittees), government shutdowns halt the movement of all non-essential government functions. This is due to the 1884 (but later amended) Antideficiency Act, which prohibits any spending of federal agencies without an appropriation or other form of approval from Congress. Since last fiscal year (which ended September 30th), funding decisions have been repeatedly postponed, with a deadline of this Friday, March 1st. However today (February 29th), both the House and Senate have passed a temporary stop-gap bill, delaying 6 of the appropriation bills to March 8th and the remaining 6 to March 22. This has effectively narrowly avoided the partial government shutdown that would have otherwise started this Saturday.

President Biden met with Congressional leaders Mike Johnson (House Speaker) and Chuck Schumer (Senate Majority Leader) to discuss government shutdown concerns

    Although there are many factors that can lead to difficulties for Congress to apportion money, this particular delay was influenced by policy disagreements in the House. Some of the central areas include national security, immigration and the border crisis, abortion, spending levels, as well as funding for allies. Because of these disputes, some House Republicans (Freedom Caucus) have viewed the looming possibility of a government shutdown as a negotiation strategy.

    Although the subcommittees halted by government shutdowns are deemed “non-essential”, the pause in their funding has detrimental effects on the economy as well as the American people. Although generally reduction in GDP growth is recovered in the weeks following, in the 2018-2019 five-week partial government shutdown, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that about $11 billion were lost, with $3 billion unable to be recovered. These estimates did not include indirect losses, such as effects on businesses’ abilities to apply for federal loans. However, it is difficult to use past shutdowns to assess future ones. Especially since the 2018-2019 shutdown was the longest in history and took place at the end of the fiscal year, whereas we are now at the beginning of the fiscal year, its economic impact is not indicative of the economy’s outcome if there is to be a government shutdown in the near future.

    During government shutdowns, hundreds of thousands of “non-essential” workers are furloughed, while hundreds of thousands others, such as TSA officers, work without pay. The delay of paychecks to bureaucrats can be detrimental to their livelihood and families, for oftentimes they rely on their regularly scheduled paycheck. The low morale of government workers is also tied to reduction of work an affected agency can do. Certain components, such as national parks without state or local funding, would be forced to close. Other services–such as the processing of employee visas, securing grants or loans, and obtaining marriage licenses–would slow and potentially halt. Federal food assistance programs under the Department of Agriculture such as the Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), would likely be unable to meet demands. These are just a few of the issues that could arise from a prolonged government shutdown.

    Government shutdowns also decrease American trust in the government (68%), as well as support for both political parties. As House Speaker Mike Johnson has said, “‘This is not a time for petty politics’”. Hopefully, members of Congress can come to an agreement and pass funding legislation before the time created by this new stop-gap bill runs out. 

https://time.com/6836517/house-short-term-spending-measure-shutdown/
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congress-faces-looming-government-shutdown-deadline/story?id=107550520 
https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/majority/schumer-mcconnell-johnson-jeffries-murray-collins-granger-delauro-joint-statement-on-fy24-appropriations-agreement 
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-congress-makes-last-minute-bid-avert-government-shutdown-2024-02-29/ 
https://www.gibsondunn.com/what-a-government-shutdown-means-for-you/
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-is-a-government-shutdown-and-why-are-we-likely-to-have-another-one/ 
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/affected-partial-government-shutdown/story?id=107590352 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/02/25/government-shutdown-congress-gop/
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/29/politics/house-stopgap-bill-vote-shutdown/index.html
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/5-reasons-why-careening-from-near-shutdown-to-near-shutdown-is-bad-for-america/

UN Budget Cuts Lead to Unfortunate Changes in Afghanistan By: Arianna Koop

When the United Nations World Food Programme or WFP for short was founded, the main goal the founders had in mind was to help feed those who did not have stable access to food. With the help of this new program, millions of people were given aid. However in recent months, the WFP has undergone several changes leading to a lack of funding and causing those in charge to make difficult decisions. 

According to Cindy McCain, the director of WFP, “To put it succinctly so that it's easy for everyone to understand, for every 1% cut at WFP, this means 400,000 people are pushed further into hunger.” Unfortunately, with this change in funding amounts, the WFP struggles to provide emergency food as well as enough food that would sustain families for a longer term. Along with that, the rations being provided to people have also been downsized and some families have been cut off altogether.

 What was once a program able to provide much needed resources to those seeking aid in Afghanistan has now unfortunately also been forced to cut off another two million families on top of the eight million that have already been unable to get further help. Many of these families who are in need are mostly made up of women who have been left widowed and need to provide for their families. Due to the fact that the Taliban is currently running the government in Afghanistan, a lot of women have been unable to find jobs, with families even sending their young sons out to go find work and help provide for the household. One such mother in Afghanistan has resorted to feeding her young child a type of allergy medicine to help curb the effects of going hungry via sedation–a common side effect of the drug. But that is not all, doctors have also stated that many families like this one have also had to resort to using other drugs such as antidepressants as a way of helping their children make it through this unimaginably tough time. Without the much needed help that would usually come from the WFP, unfortunately, malnutrition rates nowadays have been the worst that the UN has ever seen in Afghanistan and change must be brought about soon.

Sources:

https://www.npr.org/2023/09/12/1198925108/un-food-programme-hunger-starvation-security

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-67707715

https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/09/1140662

US Supreme Court to Hear Landmark Social Media Cases

We’ve devoted numerous class periods to the discussion of the US Supreme Court’s role around social media and online free speech, and now, the Supreme Court is set to make a pivotal decision which may transform the internet as we know it. As expected, the controversy primarly circulates around the theme of whether social media companies engage with First Amendment-protected speech by moderating content, here more specifically around misinformation and hate speech. The Supreme Court’s concerns have risen around two laws passed by Florida and Texas after the 2021 Capitol riot, and now they are ultimately being addressed as court justices hear two landmark cases on Feb 26, 2024.

The Republican-backed laws, passed by Florida and Texas, prohibited tech companies from removing certain political content which they deemed objectionable on their social media platforms. At the time, the states claimed that such laws were necessary to prevent platforms from discriminating against conservatives. State officials add on, claiming these restrictions on content moderation are constitutional as “they seek to regulate social media platforms’ business behavior, not their speech.” Yet this directly leads to, as a group of political scientists claim, “dangerous and violent election-related speech” which is then treated equal to innocuous posts. 

(Conservative Supreme Court heard arguments Monday: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2024-02-26/supreme-court-hears-a-1st-amendment-clash-on-whether-texas-and-florida-can-regulate-social-media)

Now, the Supreme Court considers arguements on if Texas and Florida should be given such control over tech companies. The two cases being held on Feb 26, 2024, NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, will ultimately result in a pivotal ruling: whether states can forbid social media companies from blocking or removing user content that goes against platform rules.

With the the First Amendment protecting the freedom of speech and expression of citizens from being censored by the government, supporters of the state laws claim against tech companies, who they believe are left-leaning, stating that the laws “protect the First Amendment rights of conservative users from censorship.” After being removed from Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube due to his inflammatory comments during the Capitol Riot, Donald Trump displayed support for the state laws, arguing that the right for tech companies to “discriminate” against a user is not protected by the Constitution. Similarly, conservatives within the US have long attacked major companies on moderation policies under their belief that they are unfairly biased towards left-wing views, and Gov Greg Abbot, who signed the Texas bill, claimed the law made it so “conservative viewpoints in Texas cannot be banned on social media.” Florida's solicitor general also added on, claiming companies act with too much power when they attempt to moderate posts, treating the First Amendment as if designed to enable the suppression speech rather than prevent it.

(Social Media: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/tech/supreme-court-social-media/index.html)

While at the current stage of the case it remains unclear how justices will ultimately rule, the divide against some of the court’s conservatives is evident and many strong points against the state laws have been voiced. As discussed within our lessons of numerous court cases, precedent has carried an enourmous weight in being used as a strong justification for the support or disapproval of a new case. Paul Clement, a lawyer presenting cases on behalf of NetChoice, brought up previous Supreme Court rulings which held that “private organisers could not be forced to carry messages they did not agree with.” Similarly, Federal opposition to the state laws have brought up prior rulings which have ephasized editorial control as being “fundamentally protected by the First Amendment.” Furthermore, a major justification for such opposition is that the platforms which the state laws attempt to attack, are private parties which thus does not make them bound to the First Amenment. Clement offerred a humorous example to support this arguement which prompted laughter in the courtroom, stating that a Catholic website could exclude a Protestant from participating in a discussion as it is a private forum and the government can not tell the website, as a private party, that they have to let the Protestant into the Catholic party. 

If ruled in the favor of the states, decades of precent against “compelled speech” could potentially be reversed, and such could incite consequences which reach far beyond social media. Firstly, if companies were prevented from moderation content, they would practically be forced to carry all content, nevertheless the amount of antisemitism or pro-suicide content the posts carry as suggested by Clement. Moreover, the Florida law and arguement is so broad, that it brings out the question that if the law continuous to be upheld, not only would social media most definitely change in a variety of ways, but platforms such as Gmail, Amazon’s web services, and even Google lose all power of moderation. Despite such claims, the ruling remains uncertain as of now, and some justices are even signaling a desire to send the case to lower courts, suggesting a ruling will not be made until further review on the states’ laws’ provisions are made.

Sources:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68407977
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/25/tech/us-supreme-court-landmark-social-media-cases/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/tech/supreme-court-social-media/index.html
https://abc7chicago.com/supreme-court-social-media-texas-florida/14469953/
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/02/26/us/supreme-court-arguments-social-media

Israel and Hamas Deny Biden’s Claim of Breakthrough for Ceasefire

     This past Monday, President Joe Biden told reporters that he had hope Israel and Hamas would reach a ceasefire agreement by the following Monday (March 4th). Biden’s remark was likely a well-timed attempt to influence the Michigan primary, which took place the following day. Michigan, which is a November swing state, has a large Arab-American population, many of whom have protested Biden’s current policy by urging voters to pick “uncommitted” in the primary polls (CNN - Biden). Israel and Hamas officials, however, played down such a possibility of a ceasefire, finding the President’s remarks to be premature. The head of Hamas’ political division in Gaza, Basem Naim, said that Biden’s claim “did not match the reality on the ground.” Anonymous Israeli officials felt the same, stating that Hamas was continuing to push “excessive demands,” limiting the likelihood of a ceasefire (Guardian).

President Joe Biden talks on Late Night with Seth Meyers (https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/27/politics/joe-biden-israel-international-support/index.html)

    The current draft of the proposal contains a 40-day pause of all military activity and a 10:1 exchange of Palestinian prisoners for Israeli hostages, resulting in 40 Israeli hostages being freed and 400 Palestinian prisoners. The deal would also allow 500 aid trucks to enter the besieged territory each day, up from below 100 currently, and bakeries and hospitals in Gaza would be repaired (Guardian).
    The unofficial deadline for this deal is the start of Ramadan, which is expected to be March 10th (AP). When asked, Biden stated, “Ramadan is coming up, and there’s been an agreement by the Israelis that they would not engage in activities during Ramadan as well, in order to give us time to get all the hostages out.” Tensions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict almost always inflame during Ramadan, which is only expected to be more extreme given the current state of the conflict.

Displaced Palestinians wait to receive food at a tent camp in Rafah. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/27/hamas-and-israel-pour-cold-water-on-bidens-hopes-of-imminent-ceasefire#img-1)

    The day after Biden’s interview, the top US humanitarian aid official announced an additional $53 million in humanitarian aid, primarily to support food assistance (CNN - USAID). On top of this, they have called for even more aid, as “more than two million people in Gaza are at “imminent risk” of famine” (CNN - USAID).

    Of course, additional aid does not come from anywhere. In every economic decision, there are trade-offs, and aid to foreign conflicts, such as in Gaza, is no exception. Instead of spending the $53 million on aid, Congress could direct this money towards a domestic issue, such as an affordable housing plan, or could reduce taxes. It is therefore the job of policymakers to judge each trade-off, and make a decision based on which one would be most beneficial. This is where the importance of ethics comes into play with normative statements: the decision of whether or not to fund aid to Gaza does not come just from an economic standpoint, but also an ethical one, as this aid is entirely humanitarian and is meant to reduce the suffering in the region. 

    In the case that a ceasefire was near, I would not support the direction of funds towards Gaza until the ceasefire had been enacted, as only then would the aid be able to have the most impact without interference. However, given the current circumstances described by Israel and Hamas officials and the oncoming violence to be expected during Ramadan, I believe that policy makers made the right decision to send aid at this time, as there is no foreseeable end to the suffering of those in the Gaza region.

Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/27/politics/joe-biden-israel-international-support/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/27/hamas-and-israel-pour-cold-water-on-bidens-hopes-of-imminent-ceasefire

https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-02-27-2024-e17abedeaf5a005fcd5e7095fecacb7a

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/27/politics/usaid-gaza-aid-samantha-power/index.html

US Imposes Over 500 New Sanctions Against Russia

    As the second anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine passes on Feb 24, the war enters its third year with the US imposing sanctions on more than 500 targets connected to Russia’s war machine. Amidst heightened tensions between the two nations, the Biden administration's decision to impose this fresh slate appears to be in response to the death of Alexey Navalny. Navalny, who was imprisoned in 2021, has been a source of opposition against Putin, devoting his time to orchestrating a few of the largest anti-government protests in recent years and exposing corruption within the Kremlin. President Biden, who decided to meet with his widow and daughter, blames Putin for his death, claiming that “If Putin does not pay the price for his death and destruction, he will keep going.” While Congress struggles to reach agreements in providing aid to Ukraine, Biden continuously reiterates the dire need to support Ukraine, claiming that without it, “the costs to the United States — along with our NATO allies and partners in Europe and around the world — will rise.”

    The new slate of sanctions displays the US reliance on financial tools to hinder Russia’s war effort and apply pressure on its economy. While previously imposed sanctions ranged from being cyber-related to ceilings on exports, the recently imposed sanctions target Russia’s core financial infrastructure, along with those entities that are helping supply Russia with critical technology and equipment. While Russia has appeared to adapt to the series of sanctions levied by the US and other Western governments in the previous years, this recent announcement has been marked as “the largest single-day tranche of sanctions” and the Biden administration hopes to severely deteriorate the Russian economy. Yet with the West’s sanctions having thus far appeared as mostly failures in efforts to deter Putin’s motives, the effectiveness is uncertain.

(President Joe Biden meets with Yulia and Dasha Navalnaya on Feb. 22, 2022: https://abcnews.go.com/International/us-impose-500-sanctions-russia-parties/story?id=107464889#:~:text=The%20Biden%20administration%20on%20Friday,s%20invasion%2C%20administration%20officials%20said.)

    The new sanctions begin digging further into Russia’s military supply chain, pursuing enablers in countries such as China and the United Arab Emirates. In fact, more than 24 entities providing Russia with assistance have been added to the sanction list. They include the Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics, which has enabled the production of attack drones used against infrastructure and civilian targets in Ukraine. Additionally, Russia’s two largest companies, SUEK, whose transportation and logistics operations assist the military, and Mechel, a specialty steel producer, have been targeted. This time, the Biden administration went further than simply major defense companies, also imposing sanctions against manufacturers of “lubricants, robotics, ball bearings and batteries used by the Russian military.”

    Furthermore, a major sanction has been placed against Russia's state-owned National Payment Card System Joint Stock Co. The NSPK is the “central bank-owned operator of the country’s Mir bank card — set up in 2014 as an alternative to Visa and Mastercard.” This widely used payment system has been targeted by the US Treasury as Russia has used it to bypass payment blockades by Visa and Mastercard since the invasion.

(President Joe Biden delivers remarks to US governors attending the National Governors Association on February 23: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/23/politics/sanctions-russia-navalny-ukraine-biden-administration/index.html)

    While the Biden administration has attempted to propose much greater foreign aid packages, all efforts are currently being blocked by Republicans in Congress alongside Trump’s opposition. Displaying the impacts of partisan majorities within Congress as we discussed in class, Kyiv and allies have made dire attempts, calling House Republicans to back the proposal in hopes of US military and economic support falling through.

    The Russian economy has grown by more than 3% since last year, which is faster than the US, yet US officials claim that such was only due to military spending that only makes Russia more vulnerable to targeted sanctions. Even with Russian energy dropping around 40%, they earned roughly $99 billion in oil and gas revenue last year. As the Biden administration attempts to explore further possibilities by taking much more drastic and aggressive measures, broader considerations hinder them. For example, even the cutting off of Russian oil sales may lead to a spike in prices, thus resulting in increased revenue for them while low-income nations are hurt. Over the past 2 years, around 2,000 sanctions have been imposed by Western nations in an effort to deteriorate the Russian war machine, yet expectations for many have fallen short. And while the new slate of imposed sanctions appears much more aggressive and addresses sectors previously left unaddressed, the expected effectiveness is truly uncertain.

Sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/23/business/us-sanctions-russia.html
https://www.npr.org/2024/02/23/1233410578/biden-russia-sanctions-ukraine-war-anniversary-navalny
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/23/politics/sanctions-russia-navalny-ukraine-biden-administration/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/europe/navalny-prisoner-swap-putin-russia-intl/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/02/23/us-sanctions-russia-navalny/
https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/16/europe/alexey-navalny-russian-activist-obituary-intl/index.html
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/24/russia-economy-west-sanctions-00142713

OpenAI's Sora: Navigating the Realities and Risks of AI-Generated Videos

        Last Thursday marked a significant milestone in the world of artificial intelligence as OpenAI unveiled its latest creation, Sora—an AI video generator capable of crafting 60-second videos from minimal input, such as a short prompt or still image. While there are some bugs in “some spatial and cause-and-effect elements” as OpenAI puts it, Sora's creations are undeniably astonishing, boasting a level of realism that could easily be mistaken for genuine footage. However, this breakthrough raises critical questions about the authenticity of videos and the potential misuse of AI technology.

Experts are already concerned with these very questions before the software has even been released to the public. Sora is one of many products made with the goal of AI videos. Competitors including Amazon, Meta, and Elon Musk’s startup xAI have attempted this very feat, however, Sora stands out as the most successful in creating realistic content, sparking a significant conversation about the ethical implications and potential risks associated with this technology.. Hany Farid of the University of California, Berkeley notes, "This technology, if combined with AI-powered voice cloning, could open up an entirely new front when it comes to creating deepfakes of people saying and doing things they never did.” The main concern around misinformation with AI seems to be focused on the upcoming presidential election. With previous extreme reactions to misinformation around politics like the insurrection in reaction to a “stolen election” accusation, it is unnerving to think about the consequences of more easily spread information from AI videos. Oren Etzioni, the founder of a non-profit fighting against misinformation in politics due to AI claims AI videos “ [lead] to an Achilles heel in our democracy and it couldn't have happened at a worse time," right before the 2024 presidential elections. Other concerns have been raised as well around mental health, evidence in trials, and more. Fred Havemayer, head of US AI and software research at Macquarie, has predicted, “[AI videos are] a substantial issue that every business and every person will need to face this year.”

While there is an abundance of worries that come with this new technology, OpenAI (claims) to be doing its best to minimize negative outcomes. For example, the company plans to take “several important safety steps ahead of making Sora available in OpenAI’s products” including preventing users from creating violent, sexual, or hateful images along with the inability of the software to make videos of politicians or celebrities. Your next-door neighbor, on the other hand, might not be as safe. Other suggestions around safety have been made like watermarks on videos, however, these watermarks could be easily edited out. While these measures seem like good intentions, it is a question whether they will make a difference in the negative effects of Sora.

This situation is interesting as there is not a Supreme Court case that has set a precedent directly related to AI involving misdeeds. Artificial Intelligence was not even a conceivable idea when the Constitution was created which may hinder the federal government’s ability to form laws around it. A case that we learned about in class that could be related to a situation around false information from AI is New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. This case limited the First Amendment right to freedom of speech when involving defamation. Prior restraint is still unconstitutional, however, so suing for defamation because of an AI video may not undo all the damage it has done. If one is not a public figure this case will not help either. 

As society grapples with the advent of AI-generated videos, the landscape remains uncertain, with numerous challenges and ethical considerations. OpenAI's efforts to mitigate negative outcomes are commendable, but the true impact of Sora on our society is yet to unfold. With potential ramifications for politics, mental health, legal proceedings, and beyond, navigating the path ahead requires a delicate balance between innovation, regulation, and safeguarding democratic principles. The future will undoubtedly test the wisdom of our government officials in finding a safe and constitutional solution to this evolving technological landscape.

Sources:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/openai-sora-text-to-video-tool/

https://www.euronews.com/next/2024/02/18/sora-openais-new-text-to-video-tool-is-causing-excitement-and-fears-heres-what-we-know-abo

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2417639-realism-of-openais-sora-video-generator-raises-security-concerns/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2024/02/16/openais-sora-has-rivals-in-the-works-including-from-google-and-meta/?sh=37b69faf2843

Frozen Embryos Are “Children,” Alabama Supreme Court Rules

On Friday, February 16th, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed an earlier decision made by one of the state’s circuit courts (Mobile County Circuit Court), ruling that cryogenically preserved embryos are classified as “children.” 

In 2022, three couples filed a lawsuit against the Center for Reproductive Medicine in Mobile, AL under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, suing on the grounds that the clinic’s negligence had “wrongfully” killed their child.

One of the fertility clinic’s patients had somehow gained access to the cryogenic storage room, and when the freezing temperature of the embryo tube burnt their hand, they dropped the embryos onto the floor, killing them. The couples claimed that since the fertility clinic had “allowed one of its patients to leave from his or her room in the Infirmary’s hospital area and access the cryogenic storage area,” they could sue for wrongful death.

The original decision made by the county circuit court had stated that cryopreserved embryos were not considered “people,” and thus the lawsuit was dismissed because the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act did not cover embryos outside the womb.

However, the Alabama Supreme Court disagreed with the ruling, overturning it 8-1 on Friday. Alabama Supreme Court Justice Jay Mitchell wrote in the Court’s decision that the Wrongful Death of A Minor Act “applies to all children, born and unborn, without limitation. It is not the role of this Court to craft a new limitation based on our own view of what is or is not wise public policy.” 

The Heflin-Torbert Judicial Building in Montgomery, home to the Alabama Supreme Court.

As we learned in class, Alabama’s Supreme Court decision is a clear example of judicial restraint, in which judges will limit the exercise of their discretion and keep to the language of the law as much as possible. The Court restricted its own power, refusing to add age limitations to the Act, prioritizing instead the original intent and wording of the law. Since the Act doesn’t specify that an embryo is not a minor or that embryos are not protected under the law, then the lawsuit is applicable, according to the Court. 

The Court’s ruling mirrors the recent pro-life state policy changes after the overruling of Roe v. Wade, in which Alabama legislators immediately banned abortions except in cases where the mother’s life is threatened or put at severe risk. Additionally, Alabama’s own state constitution explicitly outlines the rights of “unborn” children: “It is the public policy of this state to recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life… Nothing in this constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion” (Alabama Constitution of 1901, Art. I, Sec. 36.06). 

Many fertility clinics and medical institutions in Alabama warn against the consequences that the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision will have on medical procedures that involve embryos, such as in vitro fertilization, where egg cells are fertilized in a lab, and the embryo is placed into the mother’s womb. The procedure allows people with fertility issues or genetic disorders to have children and start their own family.

The Medical Association of the State of Alabama states that “the increased exposure to wrongful death liability would – at best – substantially increase the costs associated with IVF. More ominously, the increased risk of legal exposure might result in Alabama’s fertility clinics shutting down and fertility specialists moving to other states to practice fertility medicine.”

In Alabama, a deeply conservative state, most reproductive health clinics either shut down or have shifted away from abortions entirely after the fall of Roe v. Wade, instead focusing their sights on family planning and contraception. The personhood laws enacted in multiple states post-Roe v. Wade can also affect IVF procedures now that the rights of embryos are protected and the usage of embryos is becoming the subject of legal controversy. 

112 million US residents face at least a 3.5-hour drive to the nearest clinic | CNN Analysis

Medical professionals fear that fertility clinics, similar to abortion clinics, may become scarce if IVF and other embryo-related procedures become legally restricted. In states like Alabama where the lack of reproductive health clinics is already at a crisis-level high, the effects of such Court decisions and pro-life legislation can have heavy consequences on the future availability of comprehensive reproductive healthcare.

Sources:

https://mynbc15.com/news/local/alabama-supreme-court-rules-in-vitro-embryos-are-children

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alabama-ruling-frozen-embryos-children_n_65d29a77e4b043f1c0aba2b9

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/05/29/alabama-abortion-clinic-problem-00096020

https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2024/02/frozen-embryos-are-children-alabama-supreme-court-rules-in-reviving-couples-wrongful-death-suits.html

https://www.al.com/news/mobile/2022/04/frozen-embryo-not-a-child-mobile-judge-rules-in-throwing-out-wrongful-death-claim.html

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2022/us/abortion-laws-access-by-state/index.html

Emily Ren 

Trump's Plans for Sweeping Abortion Restrictions

Trump, who has so far avoided taking a stance on abortion, recently privately expressed support for a 16-week national abortion ban, with exceptions only for rape, incest, or to save the mother's life. With this position, he seems to be hoping to appease the conservative Republicans without alienating independent or more moderate voters, although the flippancy with which he treats such an important right -- as a political bargaining chip and nothing more -- is quite off-putting: “Know what I like about 16? ... It’s even. It’s four months," he said in a private conversation. 

As appalling as it sounds to implement a nationwide restriction on abortion, it's important to know that a 16-week ban wouldn't actually have much of an affect on the state of abortions right now -- almost 94% of abortions take place before 13-weeks of pregnancy according to the CDC. Plus abortion is currently banned before or at 16 weeks in 20 states. However, as Trump's remarks implied, there's also no real medical reason for a 16-week ban (15-weeks has been called for by many anti-abortion activists), and many scans and tests for rare but potentially fatal conditions in fetuses take place after this mark. 

Trump speaking at a rally (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-campaign-scrambles-abortion-ban-report-democrats-16-weeks-rcna139223)

Also, while many countries do not allow abortion after 16 weeks -- the US is currently one of about a dozen that do -- these laws have very broad and much more flexible exceptions for a variety of reasons, like mental health or economic challenges. The bans currently in place in the US, however, do not -- for example, a few months ago, the Texas Supreme Court overturned a court order allowing Kate Cox to obtain an abortion. Cox was pregnant with a baby with trisomy 18, a rare condition where there is no live birth in about 70% of pregnancies (not accounting for the potentially short life-spans of babies who are born alive). She was frequently in and out of the emergency room, and doctors had declared that carrying the baby to term would have serious consequences to her health and ability to have more children. This is just one example of the strictness of US abortion bans, the likes of which Trump seems to support.

Trump has held off on publicly expressing his opinion prior to gaining the nomination according to the Times, so the fact that he's consistently and pretty obviously has a large margin on Haley has probably encouraged him to be more open about these ideas. He has historically been pretty inconsistent about supporting or opposing abortion, previously criticizing DeSantis's six-week ban in Florida. His campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt has officially stated that he has not committed to a national abortion ban, and that he'd be willing to “sit down with both sides and negotiate a deal that everyone will be happy with.” (Which is pretty ironic given how little negotiating has been happening, the lack of which has been due, at least in part, to Trump's influence, in Congress). 

The status of state abortion laws in the US as of 1/12/2024 (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2023/nov/10/state-abortion-laws-us)

Beyond the nomination, however, Trump will have difficulty with abortion policy on the national stage as well -- nearly two-thirds of Americans disproved of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade (which was largely made possible due to Trump's three appointed justices), according to a CNN poll, and most do not support a national ban. The Democrats and Biden's campaign have been taking advantage of this issue in their campaign, and it seems to have hurt Republicans in elections as well. Plus, it just doesn't seem right (to put it lightly) for someone to take such a dismissive view on an issue that affects millions of lives and use it for their own political gain. 

This goes to show how the Supreme Court, as we've learned in this unit, can and does have an influence on politics, and that their decisions, while missing the actual power of implementation, can open the door for legislators to take action. Plus, the overturning of Roe v. Wade also exemplifies the concerns many have about the undemocratic nature of the nomination process for justices, as the fact that Trump alone was able to choose three justices seems to highlight. 

Sources:

• https://apnews.com/article/abortion-federal-ban-trump-2024-election-61c3edcd3780ce94be3bd8d65f100f23
• https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/us/politics/trump-allies-abortion-restrictions.html?searchResultPosition=1
• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-campaign-scrambles-abortion-ban-report-democrats-16-weeks-rcna139223
• https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/17/politics/biden-democrats-attack-trump-abortion-report/index.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/us/politics/trump-abortion-ban.html?searchResultPosition=4
• https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-privately-favors-16-week-national-abortion-ban-new-york-times-reports-2024-02-16/
• https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/16/trump-16-week-abortion-ban-00142007
• https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/17/upshot/trump-16-week-abortion-ban.html?searchResultPosition=3
• https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/22/upshot/abortion-us-roe-global.html
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/feb/16/trump-16-week-abortion-ban-exceptions-report
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/16/democrats-trump-abortion-report/
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-02-16/trump-tells-allies-he-backs-16-week-abortion-ban
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2024/02/16/trump-prefers-nationwide-16-week-abortion-ban-in-private/?sh=34a2e212551f
• https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22122830/abortion.pdf
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2023/nov/10/state-abortion-laws-us

Supreme Court Declines to Prevent West Point From Using Affirmative Action

Affirmative action, simply defined as efforts to provide educational or employment opportunities to historically marginalized groups, has long been a controversial topic. Affirmative action was first initiated around the period of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to improve opportunities for African Americans, and today beneficiaries include a variety of minority racial groups, women, and disabled individuals. Although proponents of affirmative action appreciate the opportunities it provides socioeconomically or historically disadvantaged individuals, it is often at a detriment to those not included, which adversaries find discriminatory. Because Americans’ wishes for diversity and opposition to being judged or held to different standards due to their skin color conflict, various interest groups have popped up on both sides of the debate.

Public opinion poll from Pew Research Center

Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), founded in 2014, is one that appeared on the conservative side. They have frequently challenged race-based admission in schools, though their most notable achievements may be their successes with Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, which overturned precedent (Grutter v. Bollinger) and banned affirmative action in college admissions. The Supreme Court had held that both Harvard and UNC race-conscious admissions process violated the Fourteenth Amendment, namely the equal protection clause. 

SFFA president Edward Blum at a rally one day before the trail of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard

Despite the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on affirmative action, they have held a different standard with the United States Military Academy West Point. Last month, SFFA sued West Point and requested the Supreme Court to stop their race-conscious admissions process on the basis of the inconsistency, but was denied. However, the Supreme Court had purposefully made military academies exempt from the 2023 ruling, due to “potentially distinct interests” there may be to consider applicants’ races. Because West Point is a "vital pipeline to the officer corps" (Department of Justice), their admissions strive to keep the officers as diverse as the enlisted personnel. Currently, there are some disparities, as Black and Hispanic representation among officers is only half of that of active personnel (11% to 20.2% and 9% to 18% respectively). 

Although affirmative action in college admissions and in military academies are essentially the same thing, the difference in outcomes comes down to strict scrutiny. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (and UNC), the schools were unable to prove their race-conscious admissions served a “compelling governmental interest”, as well as employed racial stereotypes and failed to offer specificities. West Point, on the other hand, seems able to provide evidence supporting the necessity of affirmative action on their admissions. Regardless, as of now, the Supreme Court is leaving the case open to possibility.

Sources:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-declines-immediately-block-west-point-considering-race-a-rcna136527
https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-military-academy-west-point-can-continue-consider-race-admissions-judge-rules-2024-01-03/
https://www.britannica.com/topic/discrimination-society
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/20-1199

Secretary of Homeland Security Impeached

The Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, was recently impeached (after a failed first attempt on February 6, 214-216) by an extremely close 214-213 vote in the House. He is the first cabinet secretary to be impeached since William Belknap in 1876. 

The vote was essentially divided along party lines, as all 214 votes for impeachment were from Republicans and all but three of the 213 votes in opposition were Democrats (the three Republicans that voted against impeachment stated that his actions were not severe enough to warrant an impeachment), whereas the Democrats were united in their opposition (two Democratic representatives were unable to vote due to COVID-19 and a delayed flight--had either voted, the impeachment would have failed again). House majority leader Steve Scalise proved critical, returning from cancer treatment to vote for impeachment after missing the previous attempt. 

Alejandro Mayorkas. (https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/our-history/explore-agency-history/commissioners-and-directors/alejandro-mayorkas)

Democrats argue that the standards of impeachment written in the Constitution, "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," were not reached, and that actions as severe as impeachments should not be used to express differences in political ideology and opinions about policy. Senate majority leader, Democrat Chuck Schumer, said that House Republicans "failed to present any evidence of anything resembling an impeachable offense," and President Biden condemned the impeachment as well.

Republicans in favor of the impeachment blame Mayorkas for the current state of immigration, including the influxes that have overwhelmed states like Texas and even cities not near the border like Chicago, New York, Boston, and Denver. Mark E. Green, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee where the impeachment originated (not the House Judiciary Committee where impeachments typically begin, as we've learned in class) stated that their investigations "demonstrated beyond any doubt that Secretary Mayorkas has willfully and systemically refused to comply with the laws of the United States, and breached the public trust." The two charges against Mayorkas include replacing Trump-era policies like Remain in Mexico and violating the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 by implementing a "catch-and-release" system, as well as breaching public trust by misrepresenting the state of the border.

The three Republicans that voted against impeachment, from left to right: Ken Buck, Tom McClintock, and Mike Gallagher. (https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/alejandro-mayorkas-impeachment-vote/index.html)

As we've seen in the past months, impeachments have become much more commonly used as political weapons, although convictions, which we've learned require a 2/3rds vote in the Senate, are much rarer. The charges against Mayorkas have been called "dead on arrival" in the Senate, which has a Democrat majority, due to this high bar. As a result, many have questioned whether this is a publicity stunt by the Republicans, who may be hoping to draw attention to immigration, which has emerged as a prominent concern ahead of the presidential election this year, in order to build support for Trump and his much more aggressive stance on immigration policy (if not for political motives, why impeach Mayorkas after Republicans recently refused to support a bill with much more restrictive immigration measures?). Additionally, some have suggested that this may be part of House Speaker Mike Johnson's effort to stabilize his position and appease Trump. This also relates to what we've recently covered in class about the balance between Congress and the bureaucracy and the role Congress plays as the "watchdog", although in this case, the check on power does not seem to be being used as intended. 

Political motives aside, it is definitely true that the border has been under a lot of pressure during the relaxed restrictions of the Biden administration. In 2022, the Border Patrol recorded 2.2 million illegal border crossings, a record amount (although previous numbers are considered extremely undercounted). However, while border policy has been very far from perfect and is definitely an extremely pressing issue, I'd be tempted to agree with the Democrats in that impeachment is not warranted. 

Sources :

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/13/us/politics/mayorkas-impeachment-house.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alejandro-mayorkas-impeachment-second-house-vote/

https://apnews.com/article/mayorkas-impeachment-border-immigration-congress-3bff388c2f0d1cc718f43d901bc50690

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68286641

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-you-should-know-about-the-impeachment-of-homeland-security-secretary-mayorkas

https://www.npr.org/2024/02/13/1230977868/house-impeachment-mayorkas-border

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/02/13/congress/mayorkas-impeached-house-gop-00141296

https://time.com/6590641/alejandro-mayorkas-impeachment-house-gop/

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/alejandro-mayorkas-impeachment-vote/index.html