Tuesday, March 1, 2016

The rest of the story on “no email”

The rest of the story

Monday, Feb 29, 2016

* KMOX

No email for Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner. KMOX’s Michael Calhoun tells us that Rauner’s given up the habit and turned in his email address.

Rauner chuckled when asked about his email habits, before telling KMOX that he doesn’t have any – personal or business – and it’s improved the quality of his life.

“My life is very different as governor than it was as a private business person,” Rauner says. “My life is actually way better because I don’t use email.” […]

“I have not sent an email as governor of Illinois,” he says.

* Phil Rosenthal

None of us tethered to our smartphones should doubt for a second that Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner was absolutely correct when he said this week that giving up email has “improved the quality of my life dramatically.”

It’s also something that practically only the boss can do.

You have to be awfully powerful and/or wealthy — or poor and/or cloistered — to unplug like that in this day and age.

This may come as a surprise to him, but the little bit of nirvana he’s discovered is a luxury beyond the reach of most people.

* Doug Finke

Rauner didn’t have much political experience when he took office, but he apparently learned quickly the value of not leaving a trail.

Last week, a reporter asked Rauner about his email usage after unsuccessfully trying to get information about it.

“I have no email, none whatsoever,” the governor said. […]

“Email causes all kinds of troubles, as you’ve seen,” he said. “People send out spams. People send out emails, they copy emails, they forward emails. Nothing good comes from that. I’ll talk to somebody. I want to look somebody in the eye.”

* Not using e-mail may have also improved the “quality of life” of the governor’s many friends and associates.

Rauner had a large e-mail list before he was governor, and he was infamous among that group for constantly bombarding his recipients with rants on a myriad of topics, from the economy to education policy minutiae. At one point, Rahm Emanuel reportedly begged to be taken off the list.

I, for one, wish he’d kept his little side project going. Just imagine the possibilities of a governor with his very own newsletter.

But a guy with such a strong e-mail habit probably figured it would be best to go “cold turkey” so he didn’t get himself in trouble. Smart move.

- Posted by Rich Miller

28 Comments » </ID="COMMENTS">

  1. - Soccermom - Monday, Feb 29, 16 @ 10:36 am:

    This is so shady. Obviously there are emails that he sees and emails that he orders to be sent. But because he is not the named sender, it becomes very difficult to FOIA his correspondence.

    What a dishonest and incompetent governor. I never thought I’d miss Rod…

Above is from:  http://capitolfax.com/2016/02/29/the-rest-of-the-story-8/

Boone County Historical Society seeks Belvidere tornado eyewitness accounts

  • BELVIDERE — The Boone County Historical Society is seeking eyewitnesses of the Belvidere tornado that occurred April 21, 1967.

  • The society will republish “The Belvidere Tornado: Fifty Years Later” using existing documentation and first-person accounts of tornados that have struck the area. The book, which was first published by the society in 2007 under the title “The Belvidere Tornado, April 21, 1967,” will be available for the 50th anniversary of the tornado on April 21, 2017.
    For information: 815-544-2580.

Joining Flint, A Drinking Water Crisis Grows In Upstate New York

 

In this Jan. 21, 2016, photo, the Hoosic River runs through the village of Hoosick Falls, N.Y. New York regulators say Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics and Honeywell International are required to pay for the investigation and cleanup of a toxic chemical in the upstate village’s drinking water. (Mike Groll/AP)

In this Jan. 21, 2016, photo, the Hoosic River runs through the village of Hoosick Falls, N.Y. New York regulators say Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics and Honeywell International are required to pay for the investigation and cleanup of a toxic chemical in the upstate village’s drinking water. (Mike Groll/AP)

With national attention still on lead-tainted water in Flint, Michigan, another water crisis is growing in Upstate New York. Residents of Hoosick Falls, a village of 3,500 near Albany, may have been drinking water contaminated with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), also known as C8 and perfluorooctanoate, for months before state and federal environmental regulators stepped in to impose emergency filtration measures.

Last week, a federal class-action lawsuit was filed against the owners of the Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics plant, whose production of Teflon – the nonstick coating for pans – has been linked to the contaminated drinking water. And the crisis is spreading: PFOA is also suspected in the nearby towns of Petersburgh, New York and North Bennington, Vermont.

Here & Now’s Robin Young talks with Lucas Willard, the Southern Adirondack bureau chief for WAMC.

Above is from:  http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2016/03/01/drinking-water-crisis-ny

 

Here is what EPA has said regarding the situation.

image


General Information

Testing by the New York State Department of Health and the Village of Hoosick Falls, New York, has revealed
that groundwater and drinking water in the Village of Hoosick Falls is contaminated with perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA). PFOA belongs to a group of chemicals used to make household and commercial products that
resist heat and chemical reactions and repel oil, stains, grease and water. PFOA was widely found in non-stick
pots and pans, carpets and fire-fighting foam.
PFOA does not break down easily and therefore is very persistent in the environment. Its toxicity and
persistence in the environment pose potential adverse effects to human health and the environment
. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been gathering information regarding the Hoosick Falls PFOA
contamination in conjunction with the Village of Hoosick Falls, the New York State Department of Health and
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
In 2009, the EPA established a provisional health advisory level of 400 parts per trillion (ppt) for short-term
(weeks to months) exposure to PFOA. People should not drink water or use it for cooking if it contains more
than 400 ppt of PFOA.
The EPA is developing long-term drinking water health advisories for PFOA based on the latest science. Once
finalized, these health advisories will supersede the EPA’s provisional health advisory issued in 2009. Shortterm
and long-term health advisories serve as guidance and are benchmarks for determining if concentrations
of chemicals in tap water from public utilities are safe for public consumption.
What do we know about contamination of Hoosick Falls’ drinking water and groundwater?
Four out of five water samples collected from various locations within the public drinking water supply system
in June 2015 had more than 600 ppt of PFOA. Additionally, groundwater sampling in 2015 at the Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics facility at 14 McCaffrey Street in Hoosick Falls found levels as high as 18,000 ppt. Some
private wells in the area have also shown the presence of PFOA, though not at levels above 400 ppt.
How long have I or my family been exposed?
The EPA does not know how long and at what levels PFOA has been in the public drinking water supply. If you
are concerned about past exposures, you should discuss this with your private physician.
January 12, 2016

2
Should I drink the water from the Hoosick Falls public water supply or use it for cooking?
No, not at this time.
Until a New York State Department of Health-approved treatment system is in place at
the public water supply and confirmed to be consistently removing PFOA to acceptable levels, the public
should not drink water from the Hoosick Falls public water supply or use it for cooking. Instead, the public
should take advantage of bottled water available at the Tops Market in Hoosick Falls. Five gallons a day per
household of free water is available to residents. EPA has recommended to the Village and Saint-Gobain that a
larger volume of free water be made available to households where needed. For more details on this program,
please see the Village’s website: http://www.villageofhoosickfalls.com/.
How can I get my private well tested?
If you have a private well, the New York State Department of Health will test it. To request testing of your well,
- contact Albert DeMarco at 518-402-7860;
- send an email to beei@health.ny.gov; or,
- write to Albert DeMarco at New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Environmental Exposure
Investigation Corning Tower, Room 1717, Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12237.
If you arrange for your own testing of your private well, please notify the EPA by contacting Larisa
Romanowski at 518-407-0400 or romanowski.larisa@epa.gov.
Is it OK to shower or bathe with water from the Hoosick Falls public water supply?
There is a lack of studies evaluating the human health effects from inhalation and skin exposure to PFOA.
Regarding inhalation, the EPA does not believe that routine showering or bathing would cause a significant
exposure. A minimal amount of inhalable water droplets (aerosols) are formed during showering or bathing.
PFOA also has a very low evaporation rate, which further minimizes inhalation exposure. Nonetheless, the use
of bathroom ventilation systems and opening bathroom windows while showering or bathing can help remove
the water vapor/aerosols that form during showering or bathing.
Similar to inhalation exposure, skin exposure from PFOA while showering or bathing is also not a significant
exposure. Studies have shown very limited absorption of PFOA through the skin, and the movement of PFOA
through the skin is extremely slow. However, as a precautionary measure and given the limited information on
skin exposure, children or people with skin conditions (for example, rashes, cuts and abrasions) should avoid
prolonged contact (such as long showers or long baths) with PFOA-contaminated water.
What about teeth brushing?
Consistent with the EPA’s recommendation not to use tap water from the Hoosick Falls public water supply for
drinking or cooking, the EPA recommends that bottled water be used for brushing teeth.
Can I use a humidifier?
Until a treatment system is in place at the public water supply and confirmed to be consistently removing
PFOA to acceptable levels, the EPA recommends the use of bottled water for a humidifier.
Can I do laundry and wash my dishes with water from the Hoosick Falls public water supply?
Yes. Neither doing laundry nor washing dishes with water from the Hoosick Falls public water supply pose a
significant exposure to PFOA.

3
Would an in-home treatment system help filter the PFOA out of the water?
Carbon filtration and reverse osmosis are two technologies that can remove low levels of organic
contaminants, such as PFOA, from water. While there are currently no commercially available point-of-use
(POU) filters (filters attached to a tap) or whole house filters specifically certified by the National Sanitation
Foundation to remove PFOA, it is expected that any activated carbon or reverse osmosis system will have the
capability of reducing PFOA levels. The Minnesota Department of Health tested several POU water treatment
devices and found many to be effective (visit
http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/hazardous/topics/pfcs/wateranalysis.html for a summary). If a
treatment unit is used, it is important to follow the manufacturer’s guidelines for maintenance and operation.
Moreover, testing of the treated water periodically would be necessary to ensure that the PFOA level remains
below the EPA’s health-based level.
Has the soil been tested for PFOA and is the soil safe?
There has been a limited amount of soil testing for PFOA in Hoosick Falls. Additional soil sampling may occur in
the future. If PFOA is found in the soil, there are practical actions that would minimize exposure to PFOA. For
example, where bare patches of soil are known to have PFOA contamination, grass, mulch, compost, etc. are
effective ways to prevent direct contact with the soil. Additionally, don’t eat or smoke or engage in other
hand-to-mouth activities while gardening.
Is it OK to eat vegetables from my garden?
To EPA’s knowledge, no gardens in Hoosick Falls have been tested for PFOA. In general, a number of studies
have evaluated the absorption into plants of the whole class of perfluourinated compounds (of which PFOA is
one). Absorption into plants depends on the size of the particular perfluourinated compound and its
chemistry. Smaller compounds have more uptake. PFOA is a relatively large compound and has lower uptake.
Absorption also differs by the type of produce. Root vegetables that grow in the ground and leafy green
vegetables (for example, lettuce) generally have greater absorption of chemicals, including PFOA. Root and
leafy vegetables also tend to adhere soil to the surface of the produce. If PFOA is found in soil, thoroughly
washing root and leafy green vegetables with bottled water will further reduce the minimal exposure to PFOA
from growing produce in soil contaminated with PFOA and/or watering produce gardens with PFOA
contaminated water. One could also peel root vegetables prior to consumption.
Can PFOA coat the inside of my home’s pipes?
Based on the high solubility of PFOA (ability of the chemical to dissolve) in water relative to the concentration
found in Hoosick Falls drinking water, it would be unlikely for PFOA to coat the inside of pipes.
Can PFOA be removed from the public water supply?
Treatment technologies exist that can remove PFOA from public water supplies. One such technology is
granular activated carbon (GAC) filtration. Another is called reverse osmosis. The Village of Hoosick Falls and
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics are negotiating an agreement under which Saint-Gobain would pay for the
installation of GAC systems at the Village’s water treatment plant. The systems need to be designed carefully
to ensure that they will successfully treat the water to remove PFOA to acceptable levels. The New York State
Department of Health will be working closely with the Village of Hoosick Falls as the treatment systems are
designed with the goal of removing PFOA to the minimum reporting limit that can be reliably achieved by the

4.
analytical laboratory when using EPA Method 537. Until the treatment systems are in place and confirmed to
be consistently removing PFOA to acceptable levels, the public should not use the Hoosick Falls public water
supply for drinking or cooking.
What is being done to address the groundwater contamination?
The EPA has begun discussions regarding steps that need to be taken to:
a. identify, control and clean up the source or sources of the PFOA contamination of the
groundwater;
b. determine the full extent of the PFOA contamination; and
c. achieve a permanent cleanup remedy for the groundwater contamination and any other
possible contamination.
How would these actions be paid for?
In this case, the EPA expects one or more private parties liable for the pollution to pay for addressing the
problems.
How can I get more information?
The EPA has a web page with information about the Hoosick Falls drinking water contamination. The EPA will
update this site as more information becomes available. Visit: http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/hoosick-falls-nywater-
contamination.
In addition, the Village of Hoosick Falls has information on its website at:
http://www.villageofhoosickfalls.com.
How do I contact the EPA?
Larisa Romanowski
EPA
187 Wolf Road, Suite 303
Albany, NY 12205
518-407-0400
Romanowski.Larisa@epa.gov

Above is from:  http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-01/documents/hoosickfalls_faqs.pdf

Two Pennsylvania Bishops Hid Hundreds of Child Sex Abuse Cases, Report Says

 

 

Grand-jury report says abuse involved more than 50 priests or religious leaders over a 40-year period

Associated Press

March 1, 2016 11:09 a.m. ET

ALTOONA, Pa.—A new grand-jury report claims two Roman Catholic bishops in a central Pennsylvania diocese helped cover up the sexual abuse of hundreds of children by over 50 priests or religious leaders over a 40-year period.

The 147-page report on sexual abuse in the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese was made public Tuesday by Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

Ms. Kane says none of the alleged criminal acts can be prosecuted because some abusers have died, statutes of limitations have run their course and victims are too traumatized to testify.

The findings are based partly on evidence from a once-secret diocesan archive.

The report is critical of Bishop James Hogan and his successor, Joseph Adamec. Bishop Hogan died in 2005 and Bishop Adamec retired in 2011. Bishop Adamec’s attorney says the accusations against the bishop are unfounded.

Above is from:  http://www.wsj.com/articles/two-pennsylvania-bishops-hid-hundreds-of-child-sex-abuse-cases-report-says-1456848570

The most important abortion case you never heard about

 

February 29, 2016 Shane Nicholson 305 Views 0 Comment

By Nina Martin
ProPublica

Everyone considers Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a woman’s right to an abortion, to be the most important ruling ever on the issue by the Supreme Court. But this year, a lesser-known progeny of Roe occupies center stage in potentially the most momentous abortion case confronting the justices in a generation. After Roe established abortion rights, Planned Parenthood v. Casey reined them in, creating a new legal standard that gave states greater leeway to regulate the procedure. Many conservative legislatures took advantage to enact a series of increasingly tough laws that reproductive rights advocates argue have made it more difficult — and sometimes impossible — for women to obtain abortions.

One of those states was Texas, which in 2013 enacted H.B. 2, an omnibus bill whose multiple provisions include restrictions, known as TRAP laws, targeting abortion providers. Now the Supreme Court is being asked to decide the constitutionality of two of these laws — one requiring clinics to meet the same building codes as other types of outpatient surgical centers, the other requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles — that have already shut down more than half of the state’s 41 clinics and could close 8 more. When the court holds oral arguments inWhole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt this week, the signs that protesters wave and the chants they chant will likely focus on Roe, but the outcome of the case will hinge on how justices interpret PP v. Casey.Abortion rights advocates contend the Texas rules are “sham” laws that pretend to protect women’s health while erecting so many hurdles — what

Abortion rights advocates contend the Texas rules are “sham” laws that pretend to protect women’s health while erecting so many hurdles — what PP v. Casey calls an “undue burden” — that abortion becomes “an abstract right that doesn’t have any meaning,” in the words of Stephanie Toti, a Center for Reproductive Rights attorney representing the clinics. Abortion foes insist that TRAP laws have a genuine medical purpose. They want the court to abandon the “undue burden” standard and allow lawmakers to pass abortion regulations as long as they have a “rational basis,” without having to prove that the laws actually benefit women. If the court goes along, it could have a sweeping impact on access to abortion across the country, but especially in conservative states in the South and Midwest, triggering not just a new wave of TRAP laws but other types of restrictions as well.

PP v. Casey was decided in 1992, a time of many political parallels to today. Here is the background to the most important abortion decision you may never have heard about.

The Rise of Incrementalism

In the period immediately following Roe, abortion opponents mobilized and pushed for a federal constitutional amendment declaring that a fetus was a “person” entitled to “equal protection” under the 14th Amendment. But those efforts stalled. Abortion opponents began arguing for a new, pragmatic strategy known as “incrementalism.” Instead of attempting to overturn Roe outright, “you would argue that certain abortion restrictions and regulations were compatible with Roe,” said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University and author of “After Roe: The Lost History of the Abortion Debate”. The idea was “to chip away at abortion rights until Roe was so incoherent and so full of holes that courts would finally get rid of it.”

The approach required “an accurate understanding of political power, an assessment of what is politically achievable, [and] recognition of the imperfect world in which we live,” Clarke Forsythe, senior counsel for Americans United for Life, a key of architect of anti-abortion strategies, wrote in a law review article around that time. That translated into retail politics on the state level, the election of anti-abortion candidates, the passage of model legislation and the defense of those new laws in court. The approach was extremely effective: By the late 1980s, states had enacted dozens of restrictions. Moreover, the political makeup of the Supreme Court had turned more conservative, and the court’s jurisprudence on abortion had become splintered and, to some, confused. Forsythe, though, could read the tea leaves: The justices seemed ready to show “greater deference to state abortion laws — quite a contrast from the Roe decision.”

The Pennsylvania Law

The battles over the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act were a prime example of incrementalism in action. A version of the law passed in 1982 was largely struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court four years later. But instead of giving up on the law, legislators amended it; the version signed by Gov. Robert Casey Sr. in 1989 included a 24-hour waiting period, informed consent rules for women seeking abortions, parental consent rules for minors and a requirement that married women notify their husbands before terminating a pregnancy. Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers challenged these rules, too. But this time, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld all the provisions except spousal notification. Planned Parenthood appealed the case to the high court.

Another Nasty Fight for the Supreme Court

Consider the events of 1991–1992. A presidential election loomed; the first war in Iraq was over; racial unrest after the acquittal of four white police officers in the videotaped beating of Rodney King left Los Angeles in flames. Massive job layoffs led to widespread economic resentment, and a blunt-talking billionaire emerged out of nowhere to become a populist hero and presidential spoiler (this one’s name was Ross Perot). On the abortion front, groups such as Operation Rescue were using aggressive, sometimes violent tactics to block access to abortion clinics. Then, in June 1991, an ailing Justice Thurgood Marshall resigned, touching off an epically ugly Supreme Court fight (although the one to replace Justice Antonin Scalia could make it seem like a model of decorum).

Clarence Thomas’s confirmation in October 1991 meant Republican appointees now clearly held the fate of abortion rights in their hands. “Our concern was that when the [Pennsylvania] case went before the Supreme Court, the majority would use this opportunity to go much further [than the Third Circuit appeals court] and say that any law that was rational, including the complete banning of abortion, would be constitutional,” said Kathryn Kolbert, the lead ACLU attorney challenging the Pennsylvania law, who is now director of the Athena Center for Leadership Studies at Barnard College. That was what many abortion opponents were urging: Indeed, they had been lobbying for the “rational basis” standard since Roe.

Figuring that they were going to lose anyway, Kolbert and her allies embarked on what author and legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin has called “one of the most audacious litigation strategies in Supreme Court history.” Instead of dragging the case out, they opted to “lose fast”: to push the case onto an exceptionally fast track in the hope it would be decided in the middle of the 1992 elections. And instead of making it a fight about Pennsylvania’s incremental law, they cast it as the ultimate showdown over Roe. This would let them take political advantage of the backlash that would ensue if abortion rights were gutted. According to Toobin, the conservative chief justice, William Rehnquist, resented this “transparent” ploy, but the court’s two liberal justices, Roe’s author Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens, supported it and Rehnquist’s hand was forced. The case was argued on the last possible day of the 1991–92 term.

Justice Kennedy’s Compromise

A central question facing the justices was whether the state could comply with Roe v. Wade while requiring women to go through additional hoops before getting an abortion.Oral arguments left both sides convinced that abortion rights were in peril; whenBlackmun’s papers became public years later, they showed that Rehnquist had drafted an opinion overruling Roe. But then the trio of Republican-appointed moderates — Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor and David Souter — had second thoughts. Instead of joining Rehnquist, they made a secret deal to thwart him.

The PP v. Casey decision, announced in June 1992, was stunning. By a 5–4 vote, the court reaffirmed Roe’s “essential holding” that the right to abortion was protected by the Constitution. Not only that, the opinion embraced women’s equality as central to the abortion right in a way that Roe had not. With abortion, the liberty of the woman is at stake “in a sense unique to the human condition and so unique to the law,” the decision read. “Her suffering is too intimate and personal for the State to insist … upon its own vision of the woman’s role, however dominant that vision has been in the course of our history and of our culture.”

The structure of the ruling was also highly unusual: It was a “plurality” opinion by the three moderates — Kennedy, O’Connor and Souter — with the court’s two liberals agreeing with some parts and disagreeing with others. Kolbert notes that the plurality’s emphasis on “stare decisis,” the principle that courts must follow precedent, was a sign that the justices had understood “the challenge to the institutional integrity of the court was real.” Justice Kennedy in particular “did not want the court to be perceived as changing course” on abortion, Kolbert said, simply because the majority’s ideological balance had shifted.

But abortion foes like Paul Linton, later special counsel to the Thomas More Society,noted that a “moral ambiguity” about abortion pervaded the joint opinion, as well as “the nagging sense” that the three justices thought Roe had been wrongly decided but upheld it anyway: “That … does not promote respect for the judiciary, especially in a case where the stakes were so high.” Abortion opponents felt especially betrayed by Kennedy, a dismay that has only grown deeper over the years, as he has authored landmark opinions on gay rights and marriage equality. That’s one reason conservative expectations for the Texas abortion case are much more cautious today than they were for Casey. Kennedy “doesn’t have any clearly defined principles that allow you to predict what he’s going to do in any case, in any area,” said Lynn Wardle, a law professor at Brigham Young University who has written often about same-sex marriage and abortion. “The best test for being able to predict what he will do is to lick your finger and hold it out to the wind.”

A Clouded Victory for Abortion Rights

Even as PP v. Casey upheld the right to abortion, the plurality opinion took Roe v. Wadeapart, starting with its foundation, the trimester framework. Under Roe, states were almost completely banned from regulating abortion during the first trimester. They had more flexibility to pass laws protecting a woman’s health in the second trimester, and they could prohibit most abortions in the third. In contrast, Casey declared, “[T]he State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child.” Instead of the trimester approach, Casey established viability — the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb — as the new dividing line for determining whether an abortion law was valid or not. (When Roe was decided, fetuses weren’t considered viable until 28 weeks, or the third trimester; by 1992, medical advances had pushed the line to around 24 weeks.) Before viability, Casey said, states could only try to persuade a woman not to have an abortion; laws that made it difficult or impossible for her to act on her decision did not pass muster. After viability, though, states could restrict abortions pretty much however they liked.

More significantly, Casey also rejected Roe’s “strict scrutiny” test for evaluating abortion restrictions — a test that had stymied most state efforts to regulate the procedure — replacing it with the looser “undue burden” standard, which Justice O’Connor had proposed in dissents to earlier abortion rulings. An undue burden was defined as any law that had “the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.” Importantly for the pending Texas abortion case, this reasoning applied to medical rules as well as other restrictions: Although “the State may enact regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking an abortion,” the court held, “unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden.” Still, the court reiterated, just because a law had “the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion” wasn’t enough to invalidate it.

Under the new standard, the Pennsylvania rules aimed at giving women more information and time to reflect on their decisions were valid. Only the spousal notification provision was deemed to be an undue burden and thus unconstitutional: “A state may not give to a man the kind of dominion over his wife that parents exercise over their children.”

Scalia’s Dissent: “Hopelessly Unworkable”

Casey prompted one of Antonin Scalia’s most famous and blistering dissents: The plurality’s reasoning, he fumed, was “really more than one should have to bear.” Much as he disliked Roe, at least the trimester framework laid down clear guidelines, he wrote. In contrast, Casey’s “undue burden” standard was “created largely out of whole cloth,” “inherently manipulable,” and “hopelessly unworkable,” giving individual judges much more power to inject their own private beliefs into the abortion debate. “Its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation and of our Court,” Scalia scoffed. But he said the abortion wars would only be stoked by “this jurisprudence of confusion” — a view that would help frame the conversation aboutCasey for the next two decades. More recently, abortion rights advocates have fought back, arguing that Casey’s reputation as “squishy law” is undeserved and part of a long effort to delegitimitize the undue burden standard, much as critics have sought to undermine Roe. “Excuse me for simplifying, but there’s a there there,” said Reva Siegel, a Yale Law professor who has written extensively on abortion and gender equity. One reason Casey may be so misunderstood: It gave each side half a loaf, so neither embraced it, even though it reflected how most ordinary people felt. The decision “speaks to an America divided by conflict over abortion,” Siegel said. “It’s summoning each side to engage respectfully with the other.”

Reshaping the Debate: “Partial Birth”

The 18 months or so immediately following Casey “were probably a low point in the history of the pro-life movement,” said Michael New, a conservative pundit and visiting assistant professor at Ave Maria University who has written often about abortion. At first most new restrictions introduced in the states were modeled closely on the Pennsylvania law. Then abortion opponents hit upon the mid–1990s version of last year’s Planned Parenthood videos: the rare but gruesome technique for third-trimester abortions that they dubbed “partial-birth abortion.”A flurry of bans on the procedure re-energized the incrementalists, providing new opportunities “to slowly convince [average] Americans that they’re just as uncomfortable about abortion as pro-life folks are,” Jack Balkin, a professor of constitutional law at Yale University, told PBS’ Frontline in 2005. That meant more chances to challenge not just Roe, but also Casey. Said Forsythe, of Americans United for Life: “The procedure served to humanize the unborn and produced a sea change in American public opinion on the issue.”

Ultimately, it was the sea change on the Supreme Court during the administration of George W. Bush that mattered most. In 2007, the court upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion; Kennedy wrote the majority opinion using language suggesting he might be open to tighter abortion restrictions despite the undue burden standard, especially in areas of “medical uncertainty.” Abortion, he said, was “a decision … fraught with emotional consequence,” one in which women would “struggle with grief more anguished and sorrow more profound” if they really understood what this particular procedure involved. Conservative strategists saw the ruling as a victory not just against partial-birth abortion but against Casey.

How Big a Burden?

It took the huge Tea Party wave of 2010 for abortion opponents to gain the political clout to push through laws like Texas’ H.B. 2. Since 2011, states in the South and Midwest have passed more than 300 abortion restrictions — TRAP laws, rules for how medication abortions may be performed, bans on abortion after 20 weeks (and sometimes earlier), longer waiting periods and greater impediments to teenagers seeking abortions without parental approval. The central question raised by many of these laws goes directly to the 24-year-old ruling in Casey: How undue must a restriction become before it renders the right to abortion meaningless?

Even before Scalia’s death, the outcome of the Texas case was anyone’s guess; his demise makes it even more uncertain. The biggest question has always been whether Kennedy, the last remaining PP v. Casey co-author on the Supreme Court, will see that decision as an important part of his legacy that he wants to defend, or whether he will be inclined to give states more leeway to restrict the abortion right.

As Casey itself shows, all kinds of court alliances and plurality rulings are possible.

What is clear: The Texas case, whatever its outcome, probably won’t settle the abortion issue any more than Casey did.


ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom.

Above is a reprint from:  http://rockrivertimes.com/2016/02/29/the-most-important-abortion-case-you-never-heard-about/

A tiny bit of good news

 

Tuesday, Mar 1, 2016

* The Pew Charitable Trusts’ “Fiscal 50” interactive has updated its 50-state employment data

Employment Rates Inch Closer to Prerecession Levels

The U.S. employment rate for adults of prime working age has been rising for four years, and the number of states with lower employment rates than before the Great Recession has been shrinking. Despite these signs of improvement, however, the labor market had not completely recovered from the economic downturn by mid-2015.

* Illinois is above the national average and, believe it or not, is ahead of Texas in the chart entitled “Employment Rate for Prime-age Workers by State, FY 2015″

* But we’re not doing extraordinarily well in the “Percentage-point Change in Employment Rate, CY 2007 to FY 2015″

Something’s gotta change here, man.

[And, yes, I read that second chart wrong, but it’s still not great.]

- Posted by Rich Miller

Above is from:  http://capitolfax.com/2016/03/01/a-tiny-bit-of-good-news-but-more-bad-news/

If Trump wins Super Tuesday, rich GOP donors won’t have anyone to give to

Here’s another head-spinning scenario Donald Trump has conjured: If he turns out to be the Republican nominee for president, rich GOP donors may not be able to find a presidential candidate willing to accept their money.

 

Trump, of course, is mostly self-funding his campaign, with a bit of help from small donors who have contributed about $8 million to his effort. While accepting donations subject to the $5,400 maximum, Trump has consistently blasted the “super PACs” that can accept unlimited amounts from wealthy donors. So it seems unlikely he’d change his mind and start his own super PAC. Trump has also touted the virtues of self-funding, saying repeatedly that he’s not beholden to any donor or interest group—a core tenet that seems to be a big part of his popularity.

If Trump wins the majority of delegates on Super Tuesday—as most polls suggest he will—he will become the prohibitive favorite to win the Republican nomination for president. And if he’s the nominee, what will top donors such as hedge funders Robert Mercer (a big giver to Ted Cruz), Paul Singer (Rubio) and Ken Griffin (Rubio) do with their money? Here are five possibilities:

1. Fund an anti-Hillary Clinton super PAC. Super PACs can spend their money either advocating for a favored candidate or campaigning against a rival. While Trump has said he doesn’t want a super PAC aligned with his campaign, he’d probably be happy to have GOP money stacked behind outside-spending groups devoted solely to attacking the Democratic nominee, who will most likely be Hillary Clinton. “Big donors can still fund super PACs pointing out the negatives with Hillary,” says GOP strategist Boris Epshteyn. “The party’s going to need a lot of money.”

There are already plenty of anti-Democrat super PACs that could be harnessed to attack Clinton, such as Karl Rove’s American Crossroads and Club for Growth Action, affiliated with Charles and David Koch. Most super PAC funding so far has gone to groups aligned with individual candidates—often to fund attacks on fellow Republicans in a hard-fought primary. But in 2012, that type of spending eventually coalesced around the nominee, when Mitt Romney’s super PAC, Restore our Future, raised an impressive $154 million. That was $37 million more than the No. 2 group, American Crossroads, which backed several GOP candidates.

Trump is different, given that he has bashed super PACs and big donors trying to buy influence all along. It would certainly be awkward for him to benefit from anti-Clinton super PACs he shuns in principle. But Trump also finds ways to change his positions while deflecting criticism for flip-flopping. So there still might be a big-dollar super PAC backing the Republican nominee and trashing his Democratic opponent in the home stretch next fall.

2. Give more to Congressional candidates. The House is a lock to remain in Republican hands after the elections, but the Senate is up for grabs, with more vulnerable Republicans running for reelection than Democrats. Republican Senators such as Mark Kirk of Illinois, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Rob Portman of Ohio will need all the help they can get, including a tailwind from million-dollar donors. With Trump doing his own thing in the presidential race, GOP kingmakers might feel their money is better spent helping keep the Senate in GOP hands, especially if the next president is a Democrat.

3. Fund a conservative third-party candidate. Politico reports that a few GOP donors are researching whether a late-entry third-party candidate would be viable. It's conceivable, but still a long shot. First, the candidate would face urgent deadlines for getting on the ballot in all 50 states. And second, any candidate who took votes away from Trump would raise the odds of a Democratic victory, perhaps decisively. 

4. Support Hillary Clinton. It might sound crazy, but some moderate, pragmatic donors who lean Republican could choose to throw their weight behind Clinton, on the assumption she’s more likely to win and they want to be on the right side come next January. Some of Bush’s prior donors might be most likely to side with Clinton, since they tend to be more moderate than those supporting Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. Certain Wall Street donors might even be tight with Clinton from her years as a New York senator (and 15-year resident of the state), and her role with the New York-based Clinton Foundation.

Clinton would welcome any Republican money she could get. Though her own super PAC, Priorities USA, is fairly well funded, with $51 million raised in 2015, that sum was still less than half the $119 million Bush’s super PAC raised. And toe-to-toe, there are more Republican donors willing to write a $1 million check than Democratic ones.

5. Sit on their cash. Several big Republican donors, most notably casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, have spent nothing so far, even though they had donated millions at a similar point in the 2012 Republican primaries. One lesson of that campaign was that Republican money used to attack fellow Republicans in the primaries can end up funding ads or opposition research the Democrats will exploit come the general election in the fall. Adelson is supposedly waiting for a single nominee to emerge, but once that happens, it’s possible he will object to that candidate on policy or ideological grounds, and keep his money to himself—especially since he’s said to favor Rubio. If Trump ends up being the only choice, Adelson will be one of many wondering what to do with his money.

Rick Newman’s latest book is Liberty for All: A Manifesto for Reclaiming Financial and Political Freedom. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman\

 

ABOVE IS FROM:  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/if-trump-wins-super-tuesday--rich-gop-donors-won-t-have-anyone-to-give-to-213944925.html#