Abortion pill access sets up fight with manufacturers, federal government

Alexis Keenan

·Reporter

Thu, June 30, 2022 

Amid the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, FDA–approved abortion pills are among the targets of states that outlaw or limit abortion.

The ensuing battles over rights to sell, purchase, and prescribe the drugs raise a host of untested legal questions.

On Friday, immediately after the ruling — which knocked down the landmark case that protected a women’s constitutional right to an elective abortion for the past 50 years — at least nine states enacted pre-approved laws known as trigger laws that ban or limit abortion within their borders. While some of those laws are on hold due to legal challenges, 26 U.S. states are predicted to take similar steps as a result of the decision.

Limited abortion access has sparked debate over diminishing access to abortion-inducing drugs. Under the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, states rather than the federal government have authority to regulate abortion. And with that authority, state governments could more directly target the medication.

Marjie Eisen, a counselor at Houston Women's Reproductive Services, offers counseling to a patient prior to her taking the first pill at the clinic for her medical abortion, in Houston, September, 30, 2021. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

Dara Purvis, a law professor and expert on reproductive rights at Penn State Law, predicted that states already taking steps to limit abortion will also push to outlaw the drugs.

“Anti-abortion states that are on the forefront of this are going to try to ban the pills, altogether," Purvis said, noting 19 states have enacted laws either banning or restricting abortion through telehealth appointments, and by requiring patients to personally visit a medical facility in order to pick up abortion medication. "I think that's clear." According to pro-choice advocacy organization, Guttmacher Institute, 32 states require that only licensed physicians prescribe the drugs.

So far, states have held back from making sales or purchase of the medication illegal. However, Rachel Rebouché, interim dean and law professor for Temple University School of Law, said that states with abortion-limiting laws have achieved near equivalency of outlawing pills by limiting providers’ authority to prescribe them.

“All the states that have put into place trigger laws that are enforced, in effect banned medication abortion,” Rebouché said.

Those state laws, Purvis said, rest on relatively solid legal footing because states are vested with power to regulate medical professionals practicing inside their borders. “It seems pretty likely that that's within the power of the state,” she said.

Two U.S. companies have FDA approval to produce and sell mifepristone, the first of two separate drugs taken to terminate pregnancy in a medical abortion: brand manufacturer Danco Laboratories and generic manufacturer GenBioPro. Another drug, misoprostol, also used to treat ulcers and other ailments, is used in the second step of the two-pill regimen.

So far, Danco said it hasn’t received communication from any state governments that have enacted trigger laws, though it expects the market for the drug to undergo drastic change. The company’s representative said it continues to ship its mifepristone as normal.

Legal scholars explain that state bans on the drugs themselves would set up a fight not only with manufacturers, but also with the federal government, specifically the FDA and Justice Department — scenarios that have little, if no, legal precedent.

“There isn't really another area of law where states have tried to restrict actions or create legal liability over this broad of a category of actions,” Rebouché said. “So there isn't a deep or rich history of cases that tell us how courts are going to rule.”

A pack of Mifeprex pills, used to terminate early pregnancies, is displayed in this picture illustration taken May 11, 2022. REUTERS/Caitlin Ochs/Illustration

Rebouché and others said just one instructive case offers clues for how a court might rule on a manufacturer's challenge against a state drug ban. In 2014, a federal district judge enjoined the state of Massachusetts from banning Zogenix's opioid called Zohydro, despite the state’s argument that it endangered its citizens.

“It’s a plausible argument but not a slam dunk case,” Stanford University Law Professor Hank Greely told Yahoo Finance.

GenBioPro is testing similar waters in a federal lawsuit that challenges a Mississippi state law that blocks doctors from prescribing abortion drugs by way of telehealth visits. The case, filed in 2020, is still pending and was put on hold to await the Dobbs decision. In court filings, GenBioPro argued that Mississippi’s law contradicts the FDA’s approval of mifepristone and that the agency’s federal policy preempts the state’s restriction.

“That is the kind of litigation that might occur to press this point,” Rebouché said. If states argue the drugs are unsafe or ineffective, she suspects the FDA will have a strong case for trumping state law. She and Greely caution that the preemption argument becomes less persuasive though if states argue that a ban should be upheld on moral grounds, or to protect the life of the fetus.

Sally, whose name has been changed to protect her privacy, looks at an abortion pill for unintended pregnancy from Mifepristone on May 8, 2020, in Arlington, Virginia. (Photo by Olivier DOULIERY / AFP)

Greely said states could try to bolster their case by arguing that abortion pills, specifically when used for abortion, should be banned not because they are unsafe or ineffective, but specifically because abortion in the state is limited.

“It seems to me harder to make a successful claim that federal law through the FDA preempts that action,” Greely said, adding that the merits of both arguments are unclear.

Established case law also supports the idea that on issues of broad importance and societal impact — under which the right to abortion and the protection of fetal life could arguably fall — Congress must explicitly hand over certain regulatory powers to a federal agency in order for it to assert it. That's another legal argument the lawyers anticipate from states.

“At the end of the day, it will be a federal court that decides if preemption applies,” Rebouché said.

Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on Twitter @alexiskweed.

Judges from Florida to Kentucky find privacy rights to abortion in state constitutions

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Michael Wilner

Thu, June 30, 2022

The decision by a Florida judge to block the state’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks is the latest salvo in a series of legal battles underway across the country over whether states have their own constitutional rights to privacy that protect women’s access to abortion care.

Already, judges in Louisiana and Utah have taken similar action to temporarily block abortion bans in their states. A judge in Kentucky rendered a similar ruling Thursday. And abortion rights advocates in Idaho, Arizona, Mississippi and Texas are pursuing parallel legal challenges.

Last week, a majority of Supreme Court justices overturned Roe v. Wade, a longstanding precedent established 50 years ago by the high court that found women had a constitutional right to an abortion. Five conservative justices said that no such right exists — and left it to the “democratic process” at the state level to determine how to regulate and restrict the procedure.

On the question of abortion, the Constitution is “neither pro-life nor pro-choice,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. “The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected representatives to resolve through the democratic process in the states or Congress.”

Several states already have more precise language in their state constitutions regarding privacy rights than in the U.S. Constitution, including Florida, which states that “every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided herein.” A right to privacy is unenumerated in the U.S. Constitution and remains a source of debate among legal scholars.

“It’s federalism in action,” said Kim Lane Scheppele, a professor of sociology and international affairs at Princeton University and faculty fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. “The U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs only said that the U.S. Constitution no longer protects the right of a pregnant person to choose abortion. But the U.S. also has 50 state constitutions, and those constitutions may contain protections that the U.S. Constitution does not.”

“The Florida court is looking at that section and has paused the operation of the Florida statute while it figures out whether the state Constitution offers more protection than the U.S. Constitution does,” Scheppele added.

Some states that allow for referendums on constitutional amendments are taking immediate action, placing abortion-related questions on their election ballots. California lawmakers have decided to codify a state constitutional right to abortion, while Kentucky is going in the opposite direction, proposing a referendum making clear that it protects no such right.

The Florida decision, by Judge John C. Cooper of the Second Judicial Circuit Court in Tallahassee, halted enforcement of the law signed by Florida’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, that was meant to take effect Friday. Cooper made his ruling from the bench Thursday but said it would not take effect until he signed an order. The judge did not say when that would be, so it is possible that the new Florida law will take effect briefly.

The DeSantis administration said it will appeal the decision, and that fight could end up in the Florida Supreme Court. Three of its seven justices have been appointed by DeSantis in recent years.

Even still, the court will have to rule based on what is in the Florida Constitution — not the U.S. Constitution.

“Dobbs should have little if any effect on the appeal,” said Ilya Somin, a professor of law at George Mason University. “Dobbs is only about the federal Constitution. State constitutions can — and often do — protect rights that the federal Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, does not.”

The U.S. Senate Might Be About to Kill 

Biden's Clean Energy Plans

Alejandro de la Garza

Thu, June 30, 2022 

Deepwater Wind installing the first offshore wind farm at Block Island, Rhode Island, August 14, 2016. Credit - Mark Harrington/Newsday RM—Getty Images

You might not expect to see fireworks in congressional debates over offshore energy worker regulations. But in a little-noticed March meeting of the House transportation and infrastructure committee, things got heated between Rep. Garret Graves (R., La.) and Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D., Mass.) as they argued over an amendment to the 2022 Coast Guard reauthorization bill that would ban foreign flagged ships with multinational crews from working off the U.S. coast. The back-and-forth ended on a sour note. “If my friend wants to keep hiring Russians, that’s fine,” Graves said.

“If my friend from Louisiana wants to thwart the clean energy industry in the United States,” Auchincloss responded, “then that’s fine.”

Committee chairman Peter DeFasio (D., Ore.) stepped in to note his support for the amendment and it ultimately passed. While not yet enacted—the bill will likely come up before the Senate commerce committee in the next month—wind energy proponents are worried. American Clean Power, a renewables industry group, said the new provision would “cripple” the offshore wind industry and stymie President Joe Biden’s efforts to build 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030. (Unlike Europe and Asia, the United States has almost no offshore wind power at present, and even Biden’s aspirations lag far behind the ambitions of other countries.)

The crux of the debate comes down to certain kinds of highly specialized ships needed to perform mega-construction tasks like erecting huge turbine components and laying miles of underwater cables, which will be needed as offshore construction on the U.S.’s few approved ocean wind projects actually gets underway. The provision would mandate that only U.S. ships with American crews be allowed to work on offshore energy projects, including those big lift jobs, or, if foreign ships are used, they must be crewed either by Americans, or by sailors and workers that match the vessel’s flag of origin: for example, a ship flying the Norwegian flag should be crewed only by Norwegians.

There’s American boats to do a lot of the smaller supporting tasks around that construction, and the bill’s proponents say there’s a big problem of foreign boats with low paid workers taking American jobs. Of the few ships designed to do the specialized heavy lift work, most are registered in different countries than where the crew is from because of financial or regulatory expediency. Lower foreign wages give those ships an unfair advantage, say supporters of the new provision, effectively thwarting the U.S. shipbuilding industry from getting financing to roll out ships capable of building offshore wind turbines. “If the law continues to allow foreign entities to enjoy cost advantages we don’t have, and an unlevel playing field, we simply cannot compete with them,” says Aaron Smith, president of the Offshore Marine Service Association, an industry group that advised on the provision in the Coast Guard bill.

But that situation is also why the bill could mean big problems for offshore wind projects planned up and down the East coast: the U.S. simply doesn’t have many of those types of specialized ships, and the U.S. offshore wind market is so small that even blocking foreign ships from coming still might not make a good enough financial case to get American versions built.

“Every wind turbine installation vessel that is not able to come to the United States because of this provision would eliminate 1,460 megawatts of offshore wind from being installed a year, which would be 4.9 million tons of carbon dioxide,” says Claire Richer, federal affairs director at American Clean Power. Instead, she suggests subsidies to build U.S. offshore wind vessels, rather than mandates that block ships from working here.

In theory, foreign ships could switch their registrations and crews to comply with the law, though that could be difficult since some highly specialized personnel can’t be easily swapped out. Of some essential ships, like the nine worldwide designed to place wind turbine foundations on the seafloor, every single vessel is registered in countries like the Bahamas where the entire crew is permitted to be from somewhere else. And the harsh reality is that there’s so much offshore wind work to be done around the world that the owners of the ships are likely not to bother with the hassle, and just stick to construction jobs in Asia and Europe, leaving the fledgling U.S. offshore wind industry high and dry. And even if protectionism eventually helps build up a domestic offshore construction fleet, some in the offshore wind industry say that the result, free from international competition, would be inferior to the ships building wind power in Europe or Asia, meaning a slower offshore wind rollout.

The whole issue points to an uncomfortable opposition in the green energy transition: we need to decarbonize the economy as fast as possible to avert the worst effects of climate change, but the quickest and most efficient way of doing so sometimes means dropping politically popular protectionism in favor of free trade. The balance between efficiency and protectionism has been long established—things get cheaper when you open the doors to the foreign market, and some domestic industry suffers—and for decades the balance of U.S. policy was weighted firmly toward globalism. Then, around the 2016 election, Donald Trump’s campaign invoked the evils of the North American Free Trade Agreement (“The worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere.”) so many times as to make the position politically radioactive.

There’s lots of good reasons to prioritize U.S. green industry—and there’s an argument to be made that sometimes a bit of protectionism is necessary to get the ball rolling. But there are also trade-offs to blocking foreign competition. Usually, it means higher prices: more expensive steel and socks. In the case of offshore wind, it could mean even more delay in developing a desperately-needed source of green power as we wait for our own industry to catch up—assuming it ever really does. There’s a lot of jobs around offshore wind, and only some of them involve manning the ships that come by for a few months to drop components in the water. If the price of those additional American crews means tipping the climate balance even further in the wrong direction, our leaders should think carefully about if it’s really worth it for the rest of us.

Jon Stewart: Supreme Court is ‘the Fox News of justice’

Natalie Prieb
Fri, July 1, 2022

Comedian Jon Stewart blasted the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade on his podcast Thursday, arguing that the ruling was based in ideology rather than constitutional reasoning.

“In my mind, the idea that this was based in any kind of reasoned debate or philosophical education — the Supreme Court is now the Fox News of justice in my mind,” Stewart said on an episode of “The Problem with Jon Stewart.”

“It is a cynical pursuit in the same way that Fox News would come out with ‘we’re fair and balanced’ under the patina of what would be a high-status pursuit to the betterment of society, journalism. They are a cynical political arm,” the comedian argued.

Stewart went on to criticize the process by which justices are confirmed, which involves nominees going through rounds of televised questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — who all voted to overturn Roe — have been criticized for dodging questions about the landmark 1973 decision or saying they regarded it as an important precedent during the confirmation process.

“When you look at the ridiculous kabuki theater now of justice confirmation, where they can just go out there and just f—— lie, like if this were about debate, then they would’ve understood what perjury meant,” the former “Daily Show” host argued.

“But they are now the Fox News of justice. I mean, there is no consistency. States can’t regulate guns, but they can regulate [uteruses], you know?”

Stewart continued by referencing the Martin Luther King Jr. quote, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

“I think the thing that struck me was, you know, ‘the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.’ Right? And I think we’re all sort of steeped in that ethos. What you don’t realize is there is a goodly amount of individuals who are trying to bend it back.”

Stewart’s comments come amid a strong backlash from Democrats and abortion rights advocates following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, with recent polling showing that a majority of Americans are concerned the ruling will be used to overturn other rights.

Atlantic City Casino Workers Seal 

Labor Pacts With MGM, Caesars

Shivani Kumaresan

Fri, July 1, 2022 

• The Atlantic City, New Jersey, casino workers union has reached an agreement with MGM Resorts International (NYSE: MGM) and Caesars Entertainment Inc (NASDAQ: CZR).

• The agreements reached are likely to prevent strikes at MGM Resorts’ Borgata casino and Caesars Entertainment’s Caesars, Harrah’s, and Tropicana properties.

• Unite Here Local 54 union organizers have been asking for a pay raise and had voted in favor of a strike if no deal comes through, the WSJ reported.

• The union workers include housekeepers, bartenders, cooks, cocktail servers, and doormen.

• From January through May, casinos in Atlantic City reported $1.08 billion in slot machine and table game revenue, versus $1.03 billion in 2019 period, the report added.

• The union reportedly sought to set the minimum wage for workers at $18 per hour from the current wage of $13 per hour.

• Price Action: MGM shares closed lower by 0.75% at $28.95 on Thursday.

• Photo Via Unite Here Local 54 Union

Strike averted: 4 Atlantic City casinos reach deal with union
Associated Press - 


ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. — The main union for Atlantic City casino workers reached agreements on new contracts with four casinos on Thursday, providing for what one worker called “big raises” and labor peace that will avoid a strike on Fourth of July weekend, one of the casinos’ busiest of the year.

Local 54 of the Unite Here union reached tentative agreements with the Borgata, which is owned by MGM Resorts International and three Caesars Entertainment casinos: Caesars, Harrah’s and the Tropicana.

A Sunday strike deadline remains against the Hard Rock casino, but the new pacts appear to greatly increase the likelihood of a deal getting done with Hard Rock as well.

“I’m super excited,” said Ronnette Lark, a housekeeper at Harrah’s. “I’ve been here 24 years and we’ve never gotten a raise like this. We got big raises.”

The union did not reveal the terms of the settlement, saying they need to be presented to the full union membership and ratified before taking effect. But it said it had been seeking “significant” raises to help employees keep pace with rising costs.

The settlements come at a crucial time for Atlantic City and its casino industry, which is striving to recover from losses caused by the pandemic and exacerbated by inflation and a labor shortage.

Yet those same factors were the driving force behind the union seeking a much larger raise than it had in past years; the exact amount has not been made public. In past contracts, the union concentrated on preserving health care and pension benefits, but this time sought what it termed “significant” raises for workers to help them keep pace with spiraling prices for gasoline, food, rent and other living expenses.

The deals avoided what would have been the city’s first casino strike since 2016, when the union rejected demands by billionaire Carl Icahn that the Trump Taj Mahal casino operate without health care and pension benefits that were terminated by a bankruptcy court.

The union went on strike on July 1, and the casino shut down on Oct. 10. It was sold months later to Hard Rock International, which gutted it and reopened it as the new Hard Rock Atlantic City in June 2018.

The finances underlying the current dispute are complex.

Including internet gambling and sports betting revenue, the casinos and their online partners have won $1.8 billion over the first five months of this year. That’s up more than 49% from the same period in 2019, before the coronavirus hit.

But the casinos claim those figures are misleading because third-party partners keep about 70% of internet and sports betting revenue, leaving little for the brick-and-mortar casinos.

They say a more accurate metric is money won from in-person gamblers. By that measure, the casinos have won only 5% more than they did from in-person gamblers over the first five months of 2019. Only three casinos — Borgata, Hard Rock and Ocean — have won more from in-person gamblers in that time frame.

Ecuador: Government, Indigenous leaders reach agreement ending strikes

Ecuador's government and indigenous groups' leaders on June 30 reached an agreement to end more than two weeks of protests against the social and economic policies of President Guillermo Lasso which left at least eight dead, indigenous leaders said.

Ecuador: Agreement ends 18 days of strikes






Indigenous leaders, Leonidas Iza, left, and Marlon Vargas, center, revise an agreement document with Monsignor David de la Torre during a dialogue session with the government, with Catholic Church representatives as mediador, at the Episcopal Conference headquarters in Quito, Ecuador, Thursday, June 30, 2022. The two groups are discussing solutions that could lead to the end of a strike over gas prices that has paralyzed parts of the country for two weeks. (AP Photo/Dolores Ochoa)More

Thu, June 30, 2022

QUITO, Ecuador (AP) — Ecuador’s government and the country’s main Indigenous group reached an agreement Thursday to end 18 days of often-violent strikes that had virtually paralyzed the country and killed at least four people.

The deal, which includes a decrease in the price of fuel and other concessions, was signed by Government Minister Francisco Jiménez, Indigenous leader Leonidas Iza and the head of the Episcopal Conference, Monsignor Luis Cabrera, who acted as mediator.


Ecuador protests: Indigenous leaders agree to call off strikes


Ecuador's government, indigenous leaders reach agreement ending protests

The agreement sets out that gasoline prices will decrease 15 cents to $2.40 per gallon and diesel prices will also decline the same amount, from $1.90 per gallon to $1.75.

The deal also sets limits to the expansion of oil exploration areas and prohibits mining activity in protected areas, national parks and water sources.

The government now has 90 days to deliver solutions to the demands of the Indigenous groups.

“Social peace will only be able to be achieved, hopefully soon, through dialogue with particular attention paid to marginalized communities, but always respecting everyone’s rights,” Cabrera said.

He went on to warn that “if state policies do not resolve the problem of the poor, then the people will rise up.”

“We know we have a country with a lot of divisions, a lot of problems, with unresolved injustices, with important sectors of the population that are still marginalized,” Jiménez said.

The two sides had started negotiations on Monday and an agreement appeared to be within reach until an attack allegedly carried out by Indigenous people against a fuel convoy killed one military officer and left 12 others wounded, leading the government to abandon talks.

Authorities have directly attributed four deaths to the 18-day strike.

The Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities had launched an indefinite national strike on June 13, demanding a decrease in the price of fuel and increase in the health and education budget as well as price controls on certain goods, among other demands.

Amid increasing shortages of food and fuel and millions in losses for farmers and business leaders, the two sides agreed to start negotiations.

The protests have been characterized by stringent road blockades that prevented the transportation of food, fuel and even ambulances. As a result, there has been a sharp increase in the price of the food that did manage to reach the cities, particularly in the Andean north, which has been one of the areas most affected by the strike.

Ecuador Protest Ends With Indigenous Groups, Government Deal

Stephan Kueffner
Thu, June 30, 2022

(Bloomberg) -- Representatives of indigenous organizations and Ecuador’s embattled government signed an agreement Thursday to end more than two weeks of nationwide protests over fuel prices and the high cost of living.

Mediated by the Catholic Bishops Conference, the government of President Guillermo Lasso agreed to increase subsidies at the pump. With other measures pledged by the conservative administration, the total is close to $1 billion, said Leonidas Iza, president of indigenous confederation CONAIE.

“We are going to continue our fight, but at this moment, according to the document that we’ve signed, comrades, at the national level we are going to suspend the de-facto measure,” said Iza, referring to road blocks that have strangled transport across large parts of the country.

“We have reached the supreme value we all aspire to: Peace in our country,” said Lasso via Twitter. “Now together we will start on the task of transforming this country in progress, wellbeing, and opportunities for all.”

Social pressures are unlikely to permanently go away, however. Lasso “is going to face very persistent threats of social unrest and demands for spending along with potential renewed efforts to remove him from office,” Risa Grais-Targow, Latin America Director at Eurasia, said. “He is getting squeezed.”

The protests slashed output of crude oil, the former OPEC member’s main export, and hit retail sales. The damage to the economy “evidently will be superior to the $800 million” of a previous indigenous protest in 2019, said Guillermo Avellan, Ecuador’s central bank chief, in an online press conference. “Close to 2.1 million barrels of oil have not been produced.”

The bank therefore no longer expects to increase the full-year gross domestic project growth outlook from the previous 2.8% for 2022, he added.

Subsidies, Agreement

The signing of the agreement, which the Church brokered in just hours, was delayed by last-minute demands and haggling over details amid the indigenous organizations, who finally publicly approved it through shows of hands.

“Our democracy is complicated,” said Iza.

The government agreed to extend offers made during the course of the 18-day often violent protests that included attacks on military convoys transporting food, fuel, and medicines, leaving one soldier dead and dozens of police and military wounded. At least two civilian deaths have been reported.

On Thursday, the government pledged to further cut diesel and gasoline prices accounting for close to 97% of demand by another 5 cents per gallon. This reduction comes on top of the 10-cent cut enacted earlier this week, which will increase fuel subsidies by a total of roughly $340 million in 2022 in addition to the $3 billion cost of the subsidy program, the Finance Ministry said.

The government also pledged to lift a state of emergency issued just 24 hours earlier and to cancel an executive decree aimed at increasing oil output. A decree to spur mining development will be changed to add additional environmental protections and to respect archaeological remains.

It will also maintain a public health emergency aimed at improving the distribution of medicines and subsidize fertilizers.

An unspecified list of further demands will be negotiated over coming weeks, with the Church continuing to mediate the talks. To sign the deal, the indigenous organizations had to relent on some items on their 10-point list of demands, including an end to privatizations planned by the administration of the former banker Lasso.

The deal came on the second day after Lasso obtained enough support in Ecuador’s fragmented National Assembly for him to survive an impeachment attempt by a major leftist opposition party.

“It feels like a fragile peace,” said Eurasia’s Grais-Targow.

Student-loan borrowers shouldn't have to pay off debt Biden 'has promised to cancel,' 180 organizations say — and they're calling for another payment-pause extension



Ayelet Sheffey
Thu, June 30, 2022 

President Joe Biden says he's nearing a decision on broad student-loan-debt forgiveness.Drew Angerer/Getty Images

• Over 180 organizations wrote to Biden urging him to extend the student-loan payment pause.

• They said borrowers should not have to make payments until debt cancellation is "fully implemented."

• Payments are set to resume on September 1, and no announcement of broad relief has yet been made.

Almost 200 organizations want to ensure that federal student-loan borrowers don't pay a penny on their debt until President Joe Biden cancels some of it.

On Thursday, 180 organizations led by the advocacy group Student Borrower Protection Center signed a letter urging Biden to cancel student debt and extend the current pause on most federal student-loan payments that's set to expire after August 31.

With recent reports suggesting Biden is considering $10,000 in relief for borrowers making under $150,000 a year, advocates have worried that targeting the relief will cut out the borrowers who need it the most — and they want to ensure payments do not resume before loan forgiveness hits all federal borrowers' accounts.

Groups, including the NAACP and trade unions such as AFSCME, wrote: "We strongly urge your administration not to threaten the financial security of people with student debt as a tactic to fight inflation. Instead our organizations urge you to enact robust student debt cancellation that is not means tested and does not require an opt-in for participation and to fully implement this policy before any student-loan bill comes due."

"People with student debt cannot be required to make payments toward loans your administration has promised to cancel," they added.

Mike Pierce, the executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, previously spoke with Insider regarding the bureaucratic hurdles that would accompany targeting student-loan relief. As seen in the past with income-driven repayment plans and the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, simple errors with paperwork could block borrowers from relief they were eligible for, and Pierce said the same could happen should borrowers need to take individual action to access broad debt cancellation.

"You're not making the policy more progressive because of how hard it's going to be for folks to demonstrate that they have a low enough income to benefit," Pierce said.

Biden is likely to announce broad student-loan forgiveness in July or August, but another extension of the payment pause doesn't seem as likely given his administration's concerns with inflation. Jared Bernstein, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, previously told The New York Times that "the key economic fact here is that if debt payment restart and debt relief were to occur at roughly the same time, the net inflationary effect should be neutral."

Republican lawmakers have also cited inflation as a reason not to extend the pause and cancel student debt, with some even introducing legislation to resume payments and block any broad debt relief. But advocates and Democratic lawmakers have maintained that now is the time for Biden to go big on relief and ensure it's a smooth process that all federal borrowers can access.

"It is important that borrowers get relief quickly and aren't hampered by unnecessary roadblocks and obligations," Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar recently wrote to the Education Department. "The American public will depend on your agency's ability to deliver debt cancellation quickly and efficiently, no matter the effort and resources required."

CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA

Abortion ruling by Attorney General 

Mark Brnovich sets Arizona women 

back to 1864

EJ Montini, Arizona Republic

Thu, June 30, 2022 

In order to file a dispatch on Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s latest ruling on abortion law, I feel I must first saddle up a horse and head to the telegraph office where a friendly operator will tap, tap, tap a message in Morse Code that will travel by wire to the towns and hamlets throughout the territory, letting the women-folk of Arizona know they are now living in 1864.

A time when inhabitants of our majestic desert paradise didn’t have indoor plumbing, and we were years away from telephones and those newfangled horseless carriages, let alone air conditioning.

Women were expected to be mothers and housekeepers in those days, with perhaps an outside job sewing, washing, cleaning houses or doing laundry in order to supplement the family income.

And they could not vote.

And abortion is outlawed.

A pre-statehood abortion law is back on the books

Brnovich announced in a tweet: “Our office has concluded the Legislature has made its intentions clear with regards to abortion laws. ARS 13-3603 (the pre-statehood law) is back in effect and will not be repealed.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has allowed states to craft new anti-abortion laws or revert to those still lingering on the books. Like Arizona’s 13-3603.

It originated in early territorial days and was codified later.

The law says: “A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years.”

How about hoop dresses and corsets?

No word if female Arizona residents also will be required to don long-sleeved hoop dresses that cover the wearers from neck to the floor. And corsets, of course, to accentuate the “S” shape of the female form.

I have not heard if Brnovich consulted with any women on his staff about his latest ruling.

Most abortion services paused: What you should know about alternatives

Then again, women couldn’t vote in the 1800s, so why would he ask their opinion?

When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a woman’s right to abortion back in 1973, ARS 13-3603 became unconstitutional. But the Legislature never voted to repeal it.

So Brnovich says it is now the law of the land.

The Republican-controlled Legislature will not change that.

Ballot initiative could get us back to the present

However, a group of citizens calling themselves Arizonans for Reproductive Freedom is giving it a try. They’re working on an initiative drive that would give women autonomy over their bodies once again.

Sort of the way it was, once upon a time, in the 21st century.

It’s not going to be easy. The group must collect 350,000 valid signatures by July 7. Here’s how you can find a place to sign their petition.

People like Brnovich might want to turn the clock back 158 years, but things have changed.

Women do all kinds of work now. They are independent. They are educated. They have hopes and dreams. They have daughters and granddaughters.

And, yes, they can vote.

Reach Montini at ed.montini@arizonarepublic.com.

For more opinions content, please subscribe.

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Attorney general's abortion ruling sets Arizona women back to 1864