Categories
Health

Abortion ban launched by Lindsey Graham after Supreme Court docket Roe ruling

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham introduced legislation on Tuesday that would ban most abortions nationwide after the 15th week of pregnancy.

The South Carolina senator introduced the bill less than three months after the Supreme Court ruled Roe v. Wade, overturned the landmark ruling that established the constitutional right to abortion. The measure would severely limit access to abortion in numerous states — particularly blue states, which tend to have more protections from abortion rights.

The law, as it stands, has little chance of passing Congress as Democrats hold narrow majorities in both the House and Senate.

It comes ahead of the crucial midterm elections in November, which have cast doubt on expectations of a Republican defeat as evidence mounts that Roe’s reversal has roiled Democratic voters. Abortion rights advocates have warned that a GOP takeover of Congress would erode women’s rights, and many were quick to tout Graham’s bill as a prime example.

Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Republican who would decide whether to vote on a statewide abortion ban if the GOP wins the chamber in November, was reluctant to pass Graham’s bill.

“I think most members of my conference would prefer this to be dealt with at the state level,” McConnell told reporters Tuesday afternoon. Other GOP senators have offered mixed messages on the bill.

While the title of Graham’s bill suggests it would only ban “late” abortions, it would limit the procedure nationwide after less than four months of pregnancy, a threshold that falls in the second trimester.

According to the health policy non-profit KFF, abortions are typically considered “late date” from the 21st week of pregnancy. However, the organization notes that this term is not an official medical term and that abortions at this stage are rarely sought and difficult to achieve.

The 15-week boundary precedes the point of fetal viability, which is generally considered to be around 24 weeks gestation. The Supreme Court ruled in Roe that women have the right to have a pre-viability abortion, and after that point states can begin to impose restrictions.

In June’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 for Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, another abortion-right case. The ruling by a court that had become much more conservative after nominating three of former President Donald Trump’s nominees gave individual states the power to set their abortion policies.

Numerous Republican-leaning states have immediately sought outright bans on abortion, while many Democratic leaders have attempted to enshrine safeguards over the procedure.

Graham, a close Trump ally, had previously expressed his support for states making their own abortion laws. “This is, in my view, the most constitutionally sane way to deal with this issue and the way the United States handled this issue up until 1973,” Graham tweeted in May.

But Graham has also introduced legislation to limit abortion nationally – although his 2021 bill would have banned abortion after 20 weeks, instead of the 15-week limit in the current version.

“Abortion is a controversial issue. After Dobbs, America has a choice to make,” Graham said at a Tuesday news conference unveiling the new legislation.

“States have an opportunity to do this at the state level, and we have an opportunity in Washington to speak on this issue if we choose to,” he said. “I have decided to speak.”

By the 15-week mark, Graham said, the fetus has developed enough to feel pain from an abortion. After that, his bill would no longer allow abortions except in cases of rape or incest, or to save the mother’s life. “And that should be America,” the senator said.

Flanking Graham was the leaders of several anti-abortion groups, including Pro-Life America President Susan B. Anthony, Marjorie Dannenfelser.

“This is incredible progress, but much more needs to be done,” Dannenfelser said in a statement.

The White House slammed Graham in a statement later Tuesday, calling the bill “wildly inconsistent with what Americans believe” and touting the Biden administration’s legislative goals while accusing Republicans of “spending millions of… taking away women’s rights”.

Abortion rights groups echoed this sentiment but tied the issue directly to the midterm elections.

“Republicans in Congress for anti-abortion rights are showing us exactly what they intend to do when they come to power: pass a national ban on abortion,” Alexis McGill Johnson, CEO of Planned Parenthood, said in a statement.

“We want to thank Senator Graham for making it clear to voters today that Republicans are pursuing a national abortion ban in this midterm election,” said Dani Negrete, national political director for progressive advocacy group Indivisible.

Polls show attitudes toward abortion are shifting toward the pro-choice position after the Dobbs ruling. Some Republican candidates who previously took tough positions on abortion during the GOP primaries have softened or toned down their views as they run in general elections.

Democratic candidates such as Pennsylvania Senate nominee John Fetterman have addressed the issue.

“Dr. Oz has made it *very* clear that he wants to take women’s reproductive freedom away,” Fetterman tweeted Tuesday of Republican opponent Dr. Mehmet Oz. “As the GOP introduces a national abortion ban, it’s now more important than ever that we stop it in November.”

Categories
Business

Michael Jackson’s Property Is Winner in Tax Choose’s Ruling

After Michael Jackson’s death in 2009 at the age of 50, executors began propping up the once-King of Pop’s fluctuating finances, settling debts, and closing new entertainment and merchandising deals. It didn’t take long for the property to be in strong shape, with debt reduced and revenues running into the millions.

But there was another matter that took more than seven years to process: Jackson’s tax bill with the Internal Revenue Service, where the government and the estate had very different views on what Jackson’s name and likeness were worth when he died.

The IRS thought it was worth $ 161 million. The property put it at just $ 2,105 on the grounds that Jackson’s late-life reputation was in tatters after years of reporting on his eccentric lifestyle and a widespread child molestation lawsuit in which Jackson was acquitted.

On Monday, in a closely watched case that could affect other prominent estates, Judge Mark V. Holmes of the U.S. Treasury Court ruled that Jackson’s name and likeness were worth $ 4.2 million and dismissed many of the IRS’s arguments . The decision will significantly reduce the tax burden on the estate from the government’s initial assessment.

The IRS believed the estate had underpaid its tax liability by nearly $ 500 million and that it could owe additional fines of $ 200 million.

At the height of his career, Jackson was one of the most famous people in the world, with some of the most popular records ever released. And since his death, he’s been one of the world’s highest paid celebrities. Forbes estimated that his estate made $ 48 million in the past year.

But the tax case revolved around the value of Jackson’s public image at the time of his death. His reputation had been badly damaged, and since 1993, Judge Holmes said, Jackson had no endorsements or stores unrelated to a musical tour or album.

However, the judge found that the estate’s estimate of $ 2,105 was simply too low, and that the estate “captured the image and likeness of one of the world’s most famous celebrities – the King of Pop – for the price of a heavily used $ 20 -Prize appreciated. Year old Honda Civic ”(complete with a footnote to a used car price guide).

In a 271-page judgment of literary references to Hemingway and Plutarch, Judge Holmes – known for his clear and sometimes humorous writing style that summarizes dense tax cases – summed up the vicissitudes of Jackson’s life, public reputation, and finances.

“We do not make any special judgment about what Jackson did or should have done,” the judge wrote, “but we have to decide how what he did and is supposed to have done affected the value of what he did left behind. “

Judge Holmes also ruled on the value of two other assets: Jackson’s stake in Sony / ATV Music Publishing, the company that controlled millions of song copyrights – including most of the Beatles’ catalog – and Mijac Music, another catalog, owned by the Jacksons contained own songs as well as others that Jackson had acquired.

The estate had argued that those assets, along with Jackson’s name and likeness, were worth a total of $ 5.3 million. Judge Holmes ruled that their total value was $ 111.5 million. (In 2016, Sony / ATV – now known as Sony Music Publishing – agreed to pay the Jackson estate $ 750 million to purchase its portion of this catalog.)

The Jackson case was closely watched to assess how celebrity real estate can be valued and what tax liabilities it has. Major tax issues ahead of the IRS include those of Prince and Aretha Franklin.

In a statement, John Branca and John McClain, co-executives of the Jackson estate, called the decision “a great, unequivocal victory for Michael Jackson’s children.”

“For nearly 12 years, Michael’s estate has claimed that the government’s valuation of Michael’s fortune on the day of his death was outrageous and unfair, which would have weighed on his heirs with an oppressive tax bill of more than $ 700 million,” said Branca and McClain . “While we disagree with some parts of the decision, we believe this illustrates how unreasonable the IRS assessment has been and provides a path forward to finally resolving this case in a fair and equitable manner.”

The IRS did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday evening.

Categories
Politics

Supreme Courtroom erases ruling in opposition to Trump over his Twitter account

President Donald Trump uses a cell phone during a small business reopening panel discussion in the State Dining Room of the White House in Washington, the United States, on June 18, 2020.

Leah Millis | Reuters

The Supreme Court on Monday overturned a federal appeals court ruling that former President Donald Trump violated the Constitution by blocking his critics on Twitter.

The judges cleared up the decision of the 2nd US Court of Appeals and sent it back to the lower court with instructions to dismiss the case as “in dispute” or no longer active, as Trump is now a private individual. The lawsuit means that the decision of the lower court no longer binds future judges.

A three-judge panel of the 2nd Circle decided unanimously in 2019 that Trump was acting in his official capacity when he used the block function of Twitter. In this way, the court said, Trump effectively banned people from a public forum, which went against the first amendment.

The announcement on Monday was made in an order list and without a written explanation of the court’s arguments. No disagreements were found.

Judge Clarence Thomas unanimously wrote that he agreed to the decision to overturn the 2nd Circuit Opinion as Trump was no longer in office.

Thomas said the petition highlighted “the main legal difficulty surrounding digital platforms – namely that applying old teachings to new digital platforms is seldom easy”.

“For example, respondents indicate that some aspects of Mr. Trump’s account resemble a constitutionally protected public forum,” Thomas wrote. “But it seems pretty strange to say that something is a government forum when a private company has full authority to get rid of it.”

The lawsuit was filed by people who were blocked by Trump on Twitter and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.

It was known as Trump v Knight First Amendment Institute, No. 20-197 until the change in administration, at which point the case automatically became known as Biden v Knight First Amendment Institute.

The Justice Department had originally asked the Supreme Court to overturn the 2nd Circle decision, but asked the judges to dismiss the case as in dispute on January 19, the day before President Joe Biden’s inauguration, because of the change in administration .

The Knight First Amendment Institute agreed that the case was contentious for another reason. The legal group said the case came up for discussion after Twitter kicked Trump off its platform in January following the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

In a statement, Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight Institute, said the case “is a very simple principle that is fundamental to our democracy: officials cannot exclude people from public forums just because they are with them disagree. “

“While we would have liked the Supreme Court to keep the Second Circle decision on the books, we are pleased that the Court of Appeal’s reasoning has already been adopted by other courts, and we are confident that they will how the public shapes them, will continue to shape them. ” Officials use social media, “said Jaffer.

Categories
Politics

Supreme Courtroom Vacates Ruling on Trump’s Twitter Exercise

The Supreme Court on Monday overturned an appeals court ruling that President Donald J. Trump violated the first amendment by banning people from his Twitter account after posting critical comments.

A unanimous three-person jury from the appeals court ruled in 2019 that Mr Trump’s account was a public forum from which he could not exclude people based on their views.

The Supreme Court move was anticipated as Mr Trump is no longer President and Twitter has permanently banned his account.

More surprising was a 12-page consensus opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas, who pondered the dangerous power some private corporations have over freedom of expression.

“Today’s digital platforms offer opportunities for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech from government actors,” he wrote. “But also unprecedented is the concentrated control over so much language in the hands of a few private parties. We will soon have no choice but to delve into applying our legal teachings to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructures such as digital platforms. “

No other judiciary followed suit, and Justice Thomas’ views on the First Amendment can be idiosyncratic. His opinion, however, reflected widespread frustration, particularly among conservatives, of letting private corporations decide what the public can read and see.

The Court of Appeal “feared that then President Trump would break off the speech by using the functions provided by Twitter,” wrote Justice Thomas. “But if the goal is to make sure the language isn’t stifled, the dominant digital platforms themselves must inevitably be the biggest concern.”