Abbreviated Pundit Roundup is a long-running series published every morning that collects essential political discussion and analysis around the internet.
We begin today with EJ Montini of The Arizona Republic and his reminder that while Arizona 1864’s abortion law may have been repealed, the lack of an emergency clause means that the law will still be on the books and in effect for a period of time this year.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes is going to try to keep that from happening.
In a statement after the state Senate voted to repeal the law, she said in part, “Without an emergency clause that would allow the repeal to take effect immediately, the people of Arizona may still be subjected to the near-total abortion ban for a period of time this year.
“Rest assured, my office is exploring every option available to prevent this outrageous 160-year-old law from ever taking effect.”
Unless and until she succeeds, the repeal is a farce.
[...]
As it is, the repeal makes it look to the world outside of Arizona that we’ve shelved the brutal old law, but we haven’t.
Not yet.
And it gives time for Republicans who control the Legislature to pass resolutions that will get on the November ballot and — they hope — confuse people who would otherwise vote for the citizens’ initiative called the Arizona Abortion Access Act.
Jessica Glenza of the Guardian reports that researchers are trying to fight back against the “junk science” cited in cases resulting in abortion bans.
Seventeen sexual and reproductive health researchers are calling for four peer-reviewed studies by anti-abortion researchers to be retracted or amended. The papers, critics contend, are “fatally flawed” and muddy the scientific consensus for courts and lawmakers who lack the scientific training to understand their methodological flaws.
While some papers date back to 2002, the group argues that now – in the post-Roe v Wade era – the stakes have never been higher. State and federal courts now routinely field cases on near-total abortion bans, attacks on in vitro fertilization and attempts to give fetuses the rights of people. [...]
Large scientific bodies have found no evidence to suggest abortion causes increases in mental health problems. The best predictor of a woman’s mental health after an abortion is her health before. What’s more, there is substantial evidence that women who are denied a wanted abortion suffer both mental and financial harms.
Marianna Sotomayor and Josh Dawsey of The Washington Post say that even many Republican Party elected are tired of Marjorie Taylor Greene’s sh*t particularly now that Greene will go after House Speaker Mike Johnson’s job.
Greene’s escalation has further divided the deeply fractured Republican conference, with lawmakers eager to move past their internal rancor and focus on retaining their slender House majority in November.
Greene’s move has also frustrated top advisers to former president Donald Trump, and one person said Trump has repeatedly described the Republican infighting as “embarrassing.”[...]Trump has endorsed Johnson’s handling of the speakership, but it’s unclear if the presumptive GOP presidential nominee will proactively intervene to halt Greene from introducing her “motion to vacate” because she has been a consistently loyal ally. A fired-up Greene claimed Wednesday morning she was bringing her motion to help Trump, arguing that Johnson has fully funded the Justice Department that she charges wants to put Trump in jail “for life.”
Charles Blow of The New York Times thinks that while Drew Barrymore meant no offense in wanting Vice President Kamala Harris to be the “Mamala” of the country, he finds the episode too steeped in typical racial stereotypes.
The way that Harris and her family express love and connection is theirs, even when Harris shares it. It remains part of her private life, not her professional and political obligations. She deserves separation between the two, and we ought to respect that boundary.
That she would be called upon to comfort and nurture the country, rather than dutifully represent it, is demeaning and holds Black women captive to historical mythologies. Our country may indeed need moral guidance and collective counsel, but Black women are not obligated to provide it.
In elections, Black women are frequently heralded by liberals as the saviors of democracy because of their high rate of voting for Democratic candidates. Here, even unwittingly, Barrymore isn’t far from suggesting that Black women — at least this Black woman, arguably the most powerful in the world — should not only save the country but also nurse it.
It’s an illustration of the nanny-fication of Black women that casts them as racialized human security blankets — forgiving, tranquil and even magical.
Like Mr. Blow, I’m not going to shade Ms. Barrymore, either.
I do think it interesting that when a Black woman did explicitly imagine her role as First Lady as being, in part, a self-described “mom-in-chief”, people did not readily embrace her in that role, either.
Abigail Hauslohner of The Washington Post looks at the House passage of a controversial antisemitism bill.
The bill was approved by a vote of 320-91, with a majority of Democrats — 133 — joining Republicans.
[...]
It’s unclear what the bill’s prospects are in the Democratic-controlled Senate or how the White House views it. Previous iterations failed to muster sufficient support in Congress, but both its supporters and opponents say the ongoing protests and a rise in antisemitism since Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel have injected fresh momentum.
If it does become law, the federal definition of antisemitism, adopted from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, would include such speech as “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor”; “applying double standards” to Israel that are “not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”; and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”
The idea is that student-held signs, for example, like those displayed at Columbia University in New York this week, calling for “revolution” or “intifada” — which means “uprising” — would amount to antisemitism under the law. The Education Department, in turn, could then revoke federal research grants and other funding to a university that fails to take punitive action toward students who express such views, the bill’s proponents say.
Finally today, Rachel M. Cohen of Vox takes a closer look at what states are doing to address the housing crisis.
In Washington, DC, Congress has held more hearings on housing affordability recently than it has in decades, and President Joe Biden has been ramping up attention on the housing crisis, promising to “build, build, build” to “bring housing costs down for good.”
But it’s at the state level where some of the most consequential change is taking place.
Over the last five years, Republican and Democratic legislators and governors in a slew of states have looked to update zoning codes, transform residential planning processes, and improve home-building and design requirements. Some states that have stepped up include Oregon, Florida, Montana, and California, as well as states like Utah and Washington. This year, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey passed state-level housing legislation, and Colorado may soon follow suit.
Not all state-level bills have been equally ambitious in addressing the supply crisis, and not all states have been successful at passing new laws, especially on their first few tries. And some states have succeeded in passing housing reform one year, only to strike out with additional bills the next. Real housing reform requires iterative and sustained legislative attention; it almost never succeeds with just one bill signing.
Have the best possible day everyone!
Chitown Kev May 02, 2024 at 12:00PM From Daily Kos
0 Comments