North Korea Announces It's First COVID Outbreak

     

    On May 12, 2022, North Korea reported its first-ever COVID-19, and they go as far as to claim that this marks the nation's first infection ever. This is likely false, however, as despite North Korea’s secretive and private nature as a country, there have more than likely been cases within the country before now. It has also been confirmed that the Omicron variant is what has caused this recent outbreak. Many speculate that the only reason that this outbreak has hit international news is because of how it originated in Pyongyang, North Korea’s capital. Another point of evidence that people look to when supporting this idea is the fact that COVID-19 cases are labeled as “fevers” because North Korea lacks proper testing procedures and testing kits. Fifty people have been confirmed dead as of May 15, 2022, with many more speculated to come due to the country’s lackluster healthcare system. However, the true scale and scope of the original outbreak are unknown as of writing. 

    Part of why this outbreak is such large news is because almost all of North Korea’s citizens are completely unvaccinated. In fact, North Korea has declined multiple aid bundles that included vaccines. They rejected 3 million vaccines from China and another 2 million AstraZeneca vaccines over the course of the pandemic. These rejections have allegedly been over concerns about the vaccine's side effects. According to an infectious-disease expert at Seoul National University, it is too late into the outbreak at this point for vaccine distributions to make a large difference, and an estimated 34,000 people could die due to North Korea’s poor healthcare and an overall lack of resources. 

    While many parts of the country have gone into full lockdown, one sector of the country has not shifted much, the military. Shortly after the announcement of the outbreak, North Korea fired its 16th round of ballistic missiles into the ocean continuing its military efforts. The nation’s military has been accelerating missile tests for some time now. Shortly after the nation’s initial response to the outbreak did not go well, Kim Jon Un ordered the nation’s military to get involved with support efforts and even lambasted his own officials for an “irresponsible work attitude” in regards to how they handled the implementation of lockdown procedures. 

Questions:

1. How do you see this outbreak going?

2. How much do you think will come out from this outbreak news-wise?

3. Do you think that this outbreak will make North Korea more accepting of foreign aid packages?

Sources:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/north-korea-covid-kim-jong-un-rcna28949

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/16/north-korea-coronavirus-outbreak-kim-criticism/

https://apnews.com/article/covid-health-pandemics-south-korea-north-0e0cb1be7a3878a771124dcdcbdba06c

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/05/11/north-korea-coronavirus-omicron/

Republican Senator looking to change copyright

 

    About one week ago, republican Senator Josh Hawley(MO) proposed a bill to limit copyright protections to about half of their current duration. As of writing, copyright protections last up to 95 years, the proposed bill would limit them down to 56 years. The more interesting part of this bill, however, is the part where it will apply retroactively to copyrights that were made before the bill if it were put into action. This is interesting because of the US’ general policy of staying away from retroactive laws, even going as far as to have ex post facto laws be specifically labeled as unconstitutional. However, this law has a very small chance to pass due to how there are currently larger issues at play. To add some general background on copyright, it is stated to protect “original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture”(copyright.gov). Copyright also protects unpublished works if they meet other criteria. 

    The main target of this bill is Disney and more specifically their copyright over the character of Mickey Mouse. Disney has extended their copyright over the character, as well as copyright protections as a whole in two cases. They first lobbied to have it extended in 1976, and then did so again in 1998. The conflict between Disney and the republican party began when Disney stood openly against Florida’s “Don’t say gay” laws and later stopped sending political donations to the state of Florida. This is involved in a larger idea with the republican party to limit the power and influence of corporations that are “pandering to woke activists”(Sen. Josh Hawley). It’s important to distinguish, however, that according to “deadline,” the bill would not “ include a provision to delay implementation for up to 10 years. ” Another interesting detail about the bill is that it does not explicitly target Disney, but it only applies to “entertainment and theme park companies with a market capitalization of more than $150 billion”(deadline). This type of roundabout targeting of certain companies seems to apply that the bill would not pass if it were full copyright reform. 

    The main point of interest for me, however, is how senator Josh Hawley is a potential contender for the 2024 presidential election. This bill has attracted more media attention than most small bills like it, but the decision to target Disney specifically definitely contributed to its press coverage. This could be a potential play from the senator to make their name more recognizable or to begin to make himself more well known before the election. 

Questions:

1. Do you think that this copyright bill could pass in the current senate?

2. Do you believe that the retroactive application of this bill sets a concerning precedent for future bills to hit the senate floor?

3. Do you think that this could help the senator make a name for themselves before the upcoming 2024 election cycle?

Sources:

https://deadline.com/2022/05/disney-copyright-josh-hawley-copyright-1235020896/

https://www.hawley.senate.gov/hawley-introduces-bill-strip-disney-special-copyright-protections

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#:~:text=What%20does%20copyright%20protect%3F,%2C%20computer%20software%2C%20and%20architecture.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/disney-copyrights-targeted-in-bill-proposed-by-sen-josh-hawley-1235144054/

13 Dead after Deadly Shooting in Buffalo, NY

 

    On Saturday, May 14th, an 18-year-old white man named Payton S. Gendron carried out a shooting that killed 13 people, 11 of whom were African American at a supermarket in Buffalo NY. Four of those who were killed worked at the store, and others were community figures. The trip to Buffalo is over 200 miles from Gendron’s hometown of Conklin, and he allegedly arrived one day before the shooting to “conduct reconnaissance”(NPR). The attack was live-streamed on twitch but was taken down approximately 2 minutes after the shooting began. He arrived in tactical gear and body armor strong enough to survive a bullet from a security guard. By the time police arrived Gendron had his gun pointed to his neck and he was put under arrest. Gendron is currently being charged with first-degree murder and potentially faces life in prison without parole. 

    Leading up to the attack, Gendron posted a 180-page racist and anti-Semitic “manifesto” to the online message board “4-chan.” This post contained plans for the attack as well as a full host of anti-Semitic and racist claims. Gendron consistently cites the “replacement theory” conspiracy as justification for his actions. This conspiracy claims that Black people seek to replace White Americans entirely in society and has even seen some mention from large right-wing names such as Tucker Carlson. The document also states that Buffalo was the target because how it had the “highest number of Black people in his vicinity”(NBC). Tucker Carlson has come under scrutiny due to his rhetoric surrounding the replacement conspiracy theory. Gendron also stated within his manifesto that critical race theory is “a part of a Jewish plot and a reason to justify mass killings of Jews.” 

Before the shooting Gendron was already a white supremacist and anti-Semite. He allegedly began following the replacement conspiracy around the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and continued to follow these ideas. He also threatened to cause a school shooting last year. As a result, he was given a mental evaluation and no other known punishments. This leads many to wonder how he was able to buy a weapon in the first place. Not to forget to mention that the massacre was carried out using an AR-15 assault rifle that had an extended magazine that was illegal in the state of New York. He also had another rifle and a pistol in his car which authorities discovered after the shooting. This means that he either acquired the weapon illegally or brought it across state lines after buying it elsewhere. 

    The fact that shootings like this continue to happen within the United States is a travesty and a horrible stain on the country as a whole. The fact that these continue to happen, and yet barely any action has been taken to reduce the second amendment is honestly horrifying. The racist motivations for the attack highlight how radical people can become through online media platforms, and how they could or should be held accountable for what comes from them.

Questions:

1. How is this different from the Kyle Rittenhouse case last year?

2. What are your thoughts as to how authorities dealt with the situation?

3. With shootings like this becoming so common, do you believe that the second amendment has a place in modern America?

Sources:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fox-news-tucker-carlson-fresh-scrutiny-buffalo-mass-shooting-rcna29084

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/buffalo-supermarket-shooting-suspect-posted-apparent-manifesto-repeate-rcna28889

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/15/1099028397/buffalo-shooting-what-we-know

Senate Fails to Pass Bill to Protect Right to Abortion, Rallies Continue

Last Wednesday, in response to the SCOTUS opinion leak on abortion rights, Democrats attempted to pass new legislation codifying Roe v. Wade and protecting individuals’ right to abortion. Such legislation would write a “constitutional right to abortion into federal law” (The Washington Post). For legislation to pass, the Senate needed to secure 60 votes. However, abortion advocates in Senate fell short with 51 Senators in opposition and 49 in support of the bill. Broken down, this opposition accounts for all 50 Republican Senators and 1 Democratic Senator, Joe Manchin. According to Manchin, legislation was too broad, allowing the expansion of abortion, rather than “simply codifying Roe” (NYT). While an unfortunate outcome for hopeful abortion activists, Senate Majority Leader Schumer and other Democrats also saw this bill as a call to action to mobilize voters amidst the upcoming midterm elections. Schumer explains, “Elect more pro-choice Democrats if you want to protect a woman’s freedom and right to choose.” 

Amidst the leak, thousands of individuals across the nation have continued to rally for abortion rights, hopeful to increase voter engagement and protect women’s rights. As Alexis McGill Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, explained, “We will not back down, and we will not forget those who put politics over our health and rights.” The recent Senate vote demonstrates just how polarizing the Senate is and highlights how important these next midterm elections will be. Moreover, continuing to rally support will be a critical tool in order to persuade legislators and constituents of women’s right to abortions. 

​​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/05/14/dc-bans-off-our-bodies-protest/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/11/abortion-senate-vote/?itid=lk_inline_manual_16

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/05/11/us/abortion-roe-v-wade-senate-vote

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000008349850/abortion-rights-march-new-york.html

Questions: 

What are your reactions to the recent Senate vote?

How do you think these rallies impact the current situation?

New York’s Top Court Denies Democratic Redistricting Under Anti-Gerrymandering Laws

 

On April 27th, the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the new congressional redistricting lines constituted a violation of the anti-gerrymandering laws. The Republican voters who sued along with the judges behind the decision state that the redistricting plans specifically violated anti-gerrymandering laws included in the state’s constitution. This decision followed a lower-level court decision that also ruled in favor of the Republican voters. 

Now, the judges have declared that “a special court master will pass new district maps” in place of the state legislature. The ruling is damaging to Democrats, who were hoping to score the three extra Democratic seats in the House that the redistricting plan would provide. With redistricting occurring throughout the nation as a result of the 2020 census, Democrats are hoping to maintain their majority in the house as fears of “expected losses in other states where Republicans control state government.”

Though I agree with the goals of anti-gerrymandering laws, I agree with the Supreme Court majority opinion in the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause case that states “fairness” in regards to redistricting is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to determine. If one argued that the New York legislature proposal for redistricting made unfair district lines more “fair,” what could be argued against that? This idea is hard to phrase, but the only argument that these district lines were “unfair” is the fact that the proposal gave Democrats 3 more seats than they previously had. What if Republicans already had 3 more seats than was “fair,” and the proposal was simply making it more equal? What is the basis for “fairness” in regards to gerrymandering? Is it simply maintaining each party’s number of seats since when the gerrymandering laws were formed? What if those proportions were already inherently unfair, and the conservative nature of the laws do nothing but reinforce that inequality?

I think that this New York case, in addition to the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause, is an example of the vagueness and blurred definitions of “fairness” with regards to congressional gerrymandering. While there are certainly examples of clear, substantial gerrymandering (as is the case with Shaw v. Reno), I believe that Congressional districting as a whole can never be completely “fair”. Congressional districting, in my mind, presents the same flaws as the electoral college system; it dilutes voting power based on geopolitical boundaries and hinders equality and fairness.

Is the electoral college system similar to Congressional redistricting? Given many Americans’ discontent with the electoral college system, does the redistricting system also need reform/clarity?

Is it possible for state legislatures/courts to determine what district lines are “fair”? What is the best way to determine this?

In an ideal world where solutions can be passed into law without gridlock between the parties, what solution would ensure the maximum amount of fairness in Congressional districting? Would an ideal solution even continue to use districting? In other words, how can America end conflicts over gerrymandering?

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/27/1095100208/new-york-redistricting-rejected

Finland and Sweden Just Days Away from Deciding NATO Membership

 

Finland and Sweden's foreign ministers (left and right) with the NATO Secretary General (center) via AP News

Finland and Sweden are both currently in talks to join NATO, with a decision expected to come in the next few days. Finland, with a massive border against Russia, poses an incredible threat to Putin if this decision goes through. Putin has claimed “a military technical response” if Finland joins NATO (BBC). Given the current situation with Ukraine, I believe that this is the best time for Finland and Sweden to join NATO. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has the Russian military completely occupied (the majority of Russian troops normally stationed along the Russian-Finland border—among the entire majority of the Russian military—were deployed to Ukraine). It has the Russian economy in a downward spiral, and it has Russia alienated from the rest of the world; given the circumstances of their invasion, they are in no position to enact on their threats of “a military technical response.” The invasion of Ukraine is a first hand example of what might happen to Finland if they wanted to join NATO when Russia’s military was not occupied. If Finland wants to join NATO, the time is now, as Russia is too occupied by Ukraine to commit to any other action. 

Via AP News

The map above shows the expansion of NATO since the mid 1900s. Evidently, NATO members have been pushing towards the Russian border, threatening Putin more and more. This is why he invaded Ukraine, though it is possible that the invasion will become the reason for Finland and Sweden to join NATO. AP News reports that “After remaining firmly against membership for decades, public opinion in both countries shifted rapidly this year. Polls show more than 70% of Finns and about 50% of Swedes now favor joining.” 

Unlike Ukraine, NATO members have already vowed to protect Finland and Sweden in a possible Russian attack, even despite NATO membership not being declared just yet. This is a stark contrast to the much more passive approach of NATO members supporting Ukraine, and such a declaration may help to deter Putin from any attack as well. Military action against NATO members would be devastating for Russia in any situation and would certainly lead to a military defeat unless Putin utilized Russia’s nuclear arsenal; as Putin’s nuclear threats seem to be more of a deterrent than a real threat, I believe that Putin will be unable to act at all if Finland and Sweden do decide to join NATO. With a weakened military, a destroyed economy, and international disapproval, Russia is becoming more and more cornered both figuratively and geographically.

Is NATO membership from Sweden and Finland a good thing? Is it beneficial to only the security of NATO and not Sweden/Finland (does NATO membership jeopardize Sweden/Finland’s security in exchange for bolstering NATOs)? Or is it beneficial to the security of all parties involved?

Is the expansion of NATO worth angering one of the most powerful presidents in the world? Is it worth the bloodshed and terror that we’ve seen in Ukraine?

How do you believe Putin will respond if/when Sweden and Finland decide to join NATO?

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-world-war-ii-stockholm-sweden-258926c3bad81d918d7475cf95bfd992

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/10/finland-is-just-days-away-from-applying-for-nato-membership.html

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/10/europe/finland-nato-putin-analysis-intl-cmd/index.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61369963

CA Reservoirs Reach Record Lows, Drought Continues

As the winter season comes to a close, staggering numbers show that California, alongside other states in the west, is experiencing record-low levels of reservoir water. Recent US Drought Monitors show that Shasta Lake and Lake Oroville, the state's largest reservoirs, are well under sufficient levels with Shasta at 40% of its capacity and Oroville at 55% capacity (55%). These levels are no surprise, as rainfall in preceding years was exceptionally law. While last December yielded heavy snowfall, "January, February, and March have been the driest period record in Sierra Nevada dating over 100 years," (The Washington Post). Scarce rain and snowfall matched with record high temperatures have continued to make drought conditions more severe. With these reservoirs serving many California Residents, countries are beginning to take emergency action to conserve the resource. Recently, the metropolitan Water District of Southern California implemented an emergency limit “to reduce nonessential water usage” in local counties. These changes constitute limiting outdoor watering to once a week for ⅓ of residents (The Washington Post). Upon entering summer, more counties will follow suit, implementing further restrictions to reduce water intake. 

These reservoir water levels demonstrate one of the many consequences of climate change. While California has a long history of drought, recent record levels show how they’ve gotten increasingly worse and more severe. In terms of water restrictions, I think that such initiatives are essential to maintaining our water resources. Initiatives such as reducing shower time or limiting watering lawns are important as these are more wants than needs. Such conservation efforts would also allow more water resources for those individuals and communities most dependent on water -- agricultural farmers. While conservation efforts are important, initiatives to mitigate climate change are equally important, as climate change and water levels are closely linked to one another (especially long term). Moreover, drought can greatly impact the agricultural economy. For example, drought affects the supply curve. A shortage of water supplies may reduce the overall supply of crops and agriculture, thus shifting the supply curve left. If supply does not match demand, it can ultimately result in a shortage or production, potentially raising prices. 

Questions: 

Do you agree or disagree with county restrictions on water?

Moving forward, what should be done to mitigate the problem presented?

What are initiatives individuals or communities can take?

Sources

https://ca.water.usgs.gov/california-drought/california-drought-comparisons.html

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/07/us/california-water-shasta-oroville-climate/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/04/27/california-drought-water-restriction/

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Clear-Lake-hitch-17152310.php

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2022/04/01/california-snowpack-summer-drought/

https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?West

Texas Court Deliberates If Death Row Inmate Melissa Lucio Should Receive a Retrial

Melissa Lucio, a 53-year old woman and mother to 14 children, has been on Texas’ death row since 2007 for the abuse and capital murder of her toddler daughter. She was scheduled to be executed on April 27th; however, following a wave of bipartisan support for Lucio’s clemency last month, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decided to grant her a stay of execution. Now, they are discussing whether Lucio ought to be granted a retrial. 

Lucio was first arrested back in February of 2007 after the lifeless, bruised body of her 2-year-old daughter, Mariah, was brought to a hospital in Harlingen, Texas. Immediately, Lucio was suspected of being responsible for the child’s death; upon questioning by police, Lucio initially claimed that Mariah had fallen down the stairs a few days earlier, but after five hours of interrogation, Lucio admitted responsibility. In 2008, she was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death.

As her execution date drew closer, so did speculation on the validity of Lucio’s trial. The Federal Appeals Court unanimously overturned Lucio's sentence in 2019, citing "trial court interference" in Lucio’s right to present a defense. However, this decision was again overturned, and Lucio stayed on death row. In 2020, Hulu released a documentary called The State of Texas vs. Melissa that brought the case national attention. Then, in January 2022, Lucio’s execution warrant was signed, and her execution was scheduled for the 27th of April that year. Lucio’s attorneys filed a clemency petition that garnered bipartisan support. Two days before her scheduled execution, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted her a stay of execution, finding merit in four out of nine claims raised in her application for a writ of habeas corpus. 

The picture painted of Lucio by the prosecution at her trial was far from forgiving. According to the prosecution, Lucio was an abusive, neglective, and cruel mother who struggled with drug addiction and had a history of investigation by Child Protective Services. Paramedics who had first arrived at the scene were immediately skeptical of Lucio’s version of the events, as their house had only one floor and a few steps to the front porch. The medical examiner testified that Mariah was a “battered child” who had died of blunt-force trauma to the head, and one of the ER doctors present at Mariah’s attempted resuscitation called it the “absolute worst” case of child abuse he had ever seen. He also claimed that a fall down the stairs could not account for Mariah’s injuries, which included severe bruising across her entire body, a fracture in her arms from several weeks prior to her death, and alleged bite marks on her back. 

But Lucio’s clemency petition paints a far different picture of Lucio. According to her attorneys and family, she led an extremely difficult life. Throughout her childhood, she was subject to sexual assault and abuse at the hands of her mother’s partners; at 16, she dropped out of high school to marry her first husband, whom she had five children with by the time she was 23. Her first husband eventually abandoned the family, and Lucio got remarried to a man with whom she’d have the rest of her children. Lucio’s relationships continued to be abusive all throughout her life.

Lucio’s seven youngest children were taken into foster care in 2004 due to neglect. She eventually regained custody of them in 2006. Several of Lucio’s children have pleaded for mercy for their mother, arguing that while she was often unable to properly care for them, she did the best she could under impoverished conditions, a history of drug addiction, and an abusive husband. Child Protective Services records corroborate their claims; while Lucio failed to keep their home clean, the children fed and supervised, and the entire family off the streets, there was never any evidence to show that she treated her children maliciously or physically abused them. 

Surrounding the events that led to Mariah’s death, the clemency petition also tells a very different story. Mariah had a mild physical disability that made her prone to falls and accidents. While Lucio was busy packing up the apartment and preparing for the family’s move, Mariah fell down a flight of over a dozen stairs. When Lucio found her daughter, she was crying and bleeding from her lip, but Lucio did not believe her daughter to be seriously injured. The family moved, but over the course of the next two days, Mariah slept excessively and started refusing to eat. Lucio considered taking Mariah to the doctor, but chose to wait and let her daughter nap. When Mariah stopped breathing, the family called 911. She was pronounced dead after the hospital failed to resuscitate her.

Paramedics were unaware that the family had just moved, and believed the house they arrived at to be the house Lucio was claiming Mariah had fallen in. As for Mariah’s injuries, the clemency petition argued that the bruising could have been from a blood coagulation disorder that medical experts saw signs of. Additionally, the forensic pathologist had been told that Lucio had confessed to abusing Mariah, and did not review Mariah’s medical history of physical disability before they determined blunt force trauma as the cause of death.

Regarding the events following Mariah’s death, the clemency petition depicts a poorly-executed interrogation. On the day of Mariah’s death, Lucio, who was then pregnant with twins, vaguely admitted to being responsible for some of Mariah’s injuries after hours of interrogation, but never her death. Her attorneys argue Lucio’s history of abuse made her particularly susceptible to being coerced into a false confession. After she admitted to sometimes spanking her children, interrogators instructed Lucio on how much force to use when spanking the demonstration doll.

Perhaps most damningly, the clemency petition’s description of the trial claims that the prosecution had suppressed evidence that would have helped Lucio’s defense. The statements given to police by Lucio’s other children and family members were suppressed, and the state’s testimony, according to Lucio’s team, gave the jury a false impression. Several jurors from Lucio’s state trial have stated that they believe her execution should be stopped or that she should be retried.

For now, Lucio’s future remains uncertain. Her family members and legal team are hopeful that she may one day be vindicated, but the road there will undoubtedly be long. First, a trial court-level judge will have to make a recommendation to the state appeals court as to whether or not Lucio ought to receive a retrial. And that’s just the beginning.

Questions:

1. What are the benefits and drawbacks of the death penalty? Do you morally agree with it? Do you politically agree with it? Why or not?

2. How do biases involving race, class, sex, and other demographic categories affect the process of justice? How can these biases be eliminated from the justice system?

3. Based on the evidence currently available, do you think Lucio should be granted a retrial? Would you consider her first trial (the one that landed her on death row) to have been an obstruction of justice? If so, what should change this time around?

Sources:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/08/us/melissa-lucio-clemency-support/index.html

https://theintercept.com/2022/04/28/melissa-lucio-execution-stay-texas/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/01/us/melissa-lucio-claims-new-trial/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/20/us/melissa-lucio-texas-death-row-inmate/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/25/us/melissa-lucio-stay-of-execution/index.html

Leaked Court Documents Reveal that the Supreme Court Plans to Overturn Landmark Abortion Decision Roe v. Wade

On May 2nd, 2022, news company POLITICO published a leaked initial draft of a majority opinion by the Supreme Court that, if adopted, would strike down landmark 1973 decision Roe v. Wade and result in sweeping abortion bans in various states all across the country.

Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the pending case for which the opinion was written, involves the constitutionality of a Mississippi state law prohibiting abortion after 15 weeks. Since oral arguments in December 2021, many have speculated that the majority conservative Court would rule in favor of the state — now, there is confirmation. 

The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, completely and utterly rebukes the decades-old precedent set by Roe v. Wade and reaffirmed by 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Under Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled in 1973 in a 7-2 decision that abortion rights were constitutionally protected as a fundamental “right to privacy” under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This landmark ruling has effectively made abortion rights up till fetus viability “the law of the land” in the United States for over half a century now, although states were given the discretion to “regulate” abortion in the second trimester and prohibit abortion in the third trimester as seen fit. 

In his opinion, Alito did not shy away from insulting the prior decision. A 2006 Bush appointee with conservative beliefs, Alito’s argues that the right to abortion was never explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, pointing to the extensive bans on abortion in the U.S. up until 1973; thus, as a political issue and not a constitutional issue, its handling should be left to the states and the people. Within the 98-page document, Alito goes on to call the Roe v. Wade decision “egregiously wrong from the start” and its reasoning “exceptionally weak.” Alito also proclaims that making distinction between the “viability” of fetuses able to live outside the womb and those unable to “makes no sense,” and that “a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions.” 

If adopted, the ramifications of this majority opinion would be vast, undoubtedly changing the course of women’s rights in U.S. history. 13 states, primarily in the South and Midwest, have “trigger laws” that would immediately prohibit almost all abortions in the absence of Roe v. Wade. (Abortion’s legality in liberal states such as California would likely remain unchanged.)

But perhaps the only thing as shocking as the ramifications of this majority opinion is the opinion being leaked in the first place. Between the Justices’ life tenure and minimal media coverage, the judicial branch is widely considered the most well-insulated from public opinion of all three government branches — something the Supreme Court actually takes pride in. Thus, public leaks regarding the Supreme Court are exceedingly rare, and a leak like this pertaining to an ongoing case has never occurred before in the modern history of the Court. The tradition of secrecy surrounding the Court has been broken.

Because of the unprecedented nature of this leak, the future remains uncertain. Although seemingly unlikely, there is a slight possibility that public outrage will prompt Justices to change their votes, as they often do on controversial cases. Regardless of the impact of the leak, the future of reproductive rights in this country will likely be revealed some time in the next two months.

Questions:

1. What is your initial reaction to this majority opinion being leaked? Are you surprised by the contents of the document? Why or why not? How do you think the public at large, as well as the other branches of the government, will react to this?

2. Besides those listed in the post above, what are some possible consequences of this majority opinion being adopted, both short-term and long-term? How will this affect the political landscape, particularly with the upcoming 2022 midterm elections?

3. In his opinion, Alito states that in order for rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution to be considered constitutional rights, they ought to be based in long-standing U.S. history and tradition. What sort of precedent does this set for rights neither explicitly enumerated in the Constitution nor based in U.S. history and tradition, such as the right to contraceptives and the right to same-sex marriage?

4. In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton stresses the importance of "judicial independence," mainly from the executive and legislative branch. However, this concept can also be expanded to include independence from public opinion. How do you think highly confidential information from the Court being leaked to the public will affect "judicial independence"? Is this something to be concerned about? Will increased interaction between the judicial branch and public opinion make the Court more democratic, and is that something to be desired?

Sources:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-draft-opinion-00029475

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/19-1392

Biden announces new rule on "ghost guns" aimed at preventing gun crimes

    On April 11, 2022, President Biden announced plans to increase restrictions on ghost guns: unregistered, kit-assembled, or 3D-printed guns without serial numbers in light of recent gun violence during the pandemic (which Bryan wrote about here). Currently, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) does not consider ghost guns to be firearms, which means that they aren’t affected by weapon sale restrictions that involve background checks, even though they work the same as other guns once assembled.

    Biden’s “crackdown” on ghost guns essentially amounts to treating ghost guns as other firearms, requiring background checks and serial numbers for gun kits/parts. His new rules also involve a requirement for gun sellers to keep records “for as long as they are in business,” rather than being able to get rid of them after 20 years (Bloomberg). The president also announced a nomination for the new leader of the ATF, Stevel Dettelbach, a former US attorney for the Northern District of Ohio pending Senate confirmation.

    While a step in the right direction, Washington Post Columnist Paul Waldman expresses disappointment in the limited size of the step, and I’m inclined to agree. Requiring serial numbers for ghost guns will help law enforcement track down those responsible for shootings, yes, but “in their statement, the Justice Department notes that ghost guns were involved in just 692 ‘homicide or attempted homicide investigations’ in a six-year period running from 2016-2021,” with the overall number of gun homicides around 100,000 with incomplete 2021 data (Washington Post). Every little bit helps, but only going after ghost guns, which are involved in less than 0.7% of gun homicides, is not enough. Waldman says, “it shows how limited the administration’s tools are in the absence of legislation— which, of course, will by stymied by Republicans and a few pro-gun Democrats, unless the political incentives change.”

    Those opposing gun restrictions, as always, are up in arms (pun intended), claiming that more restrictions infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms, which is an argument that I fail to understand, especially when the currently planned restrictions amount to registration and background checks. It might take longer to purchase a gun, sure, but you can still purchase one, and this only applies to ghost guns.

    Those who are less enthusiastic about these restrictions I can understand, as I am in the same boat, but with opposition in Congress and the difficulty passing legislation that comes with that, it’s hard to do much more. I don’t think these restrictions are going to majorly reduce gun violence, especially since those who really want to get a firearm without registering it are likely going to find a way to get one anyway, but if they can still do something, that’s definitely better than doing nothing.


Questions:

1. What do you think about these restrictions? Are they enough?
2. How big of an effect do you think the restrictions are going to have?
3. Do you think there’s a realistic way to decrease gun violence that doesn’t infringe upon the Second Amendment right to bear arms? If so, how?

Sources:

What Are Ghost Guns, and What Is Biden Trying to Do About Them?

Biden vows to crack down on ghost guns – 'weapons of choice for many criminals' | US gun control | The Guardian

Biden announces new rule on "ghost guns" aimed at preventing gun crimes - CBS News

Opinion | Biden's small steps on guns are both welcome and dispiriting - The Washington Post


(Good luck on your AP tests everyone!)

Loss of Pandemic Aid Stresses Hospitals That Treat the Uninsured

    

    As the pandemic comes to an “end,” we’re seeing a return to normalcy (how many times have you heard that in the last couple of years?) and, with the return of normalcy, we’re seeing a lack of financial aid for medicare for those in poverty. Funding for Covid-related medical issues just took a hit with an end to the emergency federal aid for pandemic programs; those without health insurance now have to pay for Covid testing (which can be over $100) and vaccination by labs and hospitals. The CDC still requires pharmacies to offer free vaccinations if they’re participating in the federal vaccination program— but that is optional, so even then free vaccine access is going to decrease (CNBC). Early in April, the Senate reached a $10 billion bipartisan Covid funding deal, but the deal does not include coverage for the uninsured, and voting has been pushed back (with no outcome as of yet that I could find), and is still less than half of what Democrats were hoping for— originally $22.5 billion.

    Meanwhile, the uninsured suffer from Covid and other non-Covid-related medical issues that took the back seat during the pandemic in addition to these new costs. Covid-related treatment “can cost anywhere from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars if the patient ends up on a ventilator” (CNBC). And with less easy access to free vaccination, that issue is made worse, especially when people who can’t qualify for cheaper insurance because they’re below the poverty line are the ones being affected.

    Even non-Covid-related medical issues have been made worse by the pandemic, as seen at the Nashville General Hospital in Tennessee (from NYT):

Nashville General has seen an average of just one Covid patient a week recently. But its doctors and nurses say that a wide range of health problems that worsened during the pandemic are now overwhelming the hospital.

Dr. Eric Neff, an orthopedic surgeon, said patients were afraid to visit the hospital during much of the pandemic and often had trouble finding transportation when they did. The consequences were dire: People waited six months to seek care for a broken wrist or ignored a torn rotator cuff, making it harder for him to fix their injuries.

“It’s horrible,” he said.

“We see a lot of putting off, putting off, because it’s like: ‘Maybe we can do it tomorrow. Maybe we can do it the next day, or maybe it’ll just go away,’” said Dr. Rosalena Muckle, an internal medicine physician.

Ms. Howard, the dishwasher, said her frustrations getting and affording health care were adding up. Her ailments were not improving. After a recent primary care appointment, she wondered aloud how she would come up with the $10 for her visit. “I don’t want to just be seen or heard,” she said. “Without any money, it’s hard.”

    The universal health care debate is a hot one in the United States and, in my opinion, the pandemic is a pretty big sign for a reevaluation of our policy, especially with people’s lives on the line. And, while I doubt that we’ll see any moves toward universal health care gain any traction with Republicans blocking the Senate’s Covid funding deal, here’s to hoping.

Questions:

1. Do you think help for the uninsured should/needs to be looked at with more urgency than it’s currently being given?
2. What are your hopes looking like for the end of the pandemic, related or unrelated to helping the uninsured?
3. Do you foresee any improvements in the future for the medically uninsured?

Sources:
Loss of Pandemic Aid Stresses Hospitals That Treat the Uninsured - The New York Times

Uninsured face surprise medical bills for Covid testing, hospital treatment after U.S. Congress fails to fund pandemic aid program

Senate punts $10 billion in Covid aid until after Easter amid stalemate over border policy - POLITICO


(Good luck on your AP tests everyone!)