Just one part of the big group that showed up Monday evening at the North Carolina General Assembly.

Sarah Green, Everytown for Gun Safety

By CAP Action War Room

Fight Back Texas

by CAP Action War Room Posted on June 10, 2015 at 6:16 pm

The 5th Circuit Court Of Appeals Stuck A Knife In Roe v. Wade

Yesterday, three George W. Bush-appointed judges on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with anti-abortion lawmakers in Texas to uphold sweeping restrictions that will cause abortion clinics across the state to close. The case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, is a big blow to Texas abortion providers who hoped to fight against a law passed by Texas lawmakers that will shut down all but eight of the state’s abortion clinics.

The law in question—HB 2—requires clinicians who provide abortions to have admitting privileges in a nearby hospital and requires clinics to comply with a list of prohibitively expensive and completely unnecessary architectural and other requirements. The legal question at issue in the case was whether these restrictions place “undue burden” on women seeking abortion services. These restrictions would force hundreds of thousands of women to travel more than 150 miles to the nearest clinic but the 5th Circuit did not find that burden “undue.”

Here are three key takeaways from this case:

Politicians, not clinicians, are behind these restrictions: Anti-abortion lawmakers have pushed these laws through the legislature under the guise of making abortions safer for women despite the fact that there is little evidence to support that claim. In fact, a federal judge determined that there is “no rational relationship” between the restrictions included in HB 2 and improved patient outcomes.

The decision will cause almost all abortion clinics in Texas to close: In August 2013, before HB2 took effect, Texas had 40 licensed abortion clinics. If the law takes full effect, only eight clinics will remain open. What that means is 900,000 reproduction-age women will have to travel more than 150 miles to the nearest clinic.

If the case goes to the Supreme Court, it could undo Roe v. Wade: This case is almost guaranteed to be heard by the Supreme Court next fall. And if the Court were to side with the ideologically-charged 5th Circuit’s ruling many other states would have broad discretion to further restrict access to abortion. In the event that the Supreme Court does uphold the 5th Circuit decision, it could effectively destroy what little remains of Roe v. Wade protections.

Rather than working to pass sweeping abortion restrictions under the guise of protecting women’s health, lawmakers should focus on real ways to improve women’s abortion access. This report from the Center for American Progress cites expanding those who provide abortion services as a meaningful way to expand abortion access.

BOTTOM LINE: Texas’s law expanding abortion restrictions has already had a visibly detrimental impact on the state, and the 5th Circuit’s decision to uphold the restrictions could have far-reaching consequences. If this case goes to the Supreme Court and is another to fall victim to the ideology of the Roberts Court, it could mean the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

By CAP Action War Room

this is a repost

Conservatives Continue To Use The Court To Dismantle The Affordable Care Act

The amicus briefs were due for King v. Burwell¸ the Supreme Court case which threatens to cause a meltdown in the health care system. If the Supreme Court rules against the law, tax credits for health insurance offered through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces in approximately three dozen states would be eliminated. This case, as we have written in the past, is a thinly veiled attempt by ideologically-motivated conservatives to repeal the Affordable Care Act, despite the overwhelming evidence that the law is working.

Simply put, conservatives have no ground to stand on in making their argument—the text of the law is simply at odds with the plaintiffs’ view. Their case is so shaky, in fact, that many prominent conservatives who are fighting against the law have previously undercut their own arguments:

• In a 2013 interview with the Wall Street Journal, Gov. Scott Walker said he spent nearly two years studying the law, and found there is no functional difference between a federal and state exchange, “[b]ut, in the end, there’s no real substantive difference between a federal exchange, or a state exchange, or the in between, the hybrid, the partnership.”
• Sen. Orrin Hatch was one of six Republicans to file an amicus brief in favor of gutting the law. Yet the brief directly contradicts an op-ed Hatch co-wrote in 2010 in which he wrote that a state establishing its own exchange, “[i]s not a condition for receiving federal funds, which would still leave some kind of choice to the states.”
• The Heritage Foundation has supported the challengers in King v. Burwell, despite the fact that they wrote an entire white paper on the basis that subsidies would be available to any enrollee. According to that paper, “whoever controls the AHB exchange,” tax credits will be available.

Recently, the challengers in this case have turned to Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) to substantiate their case because during debates on the law he insisted that states should take the lead on establishing exchanges. But Sen. Nelson, now retired, set the record straight saying: “I always believed that tax credits should be available in all 50 states regardless of who built the exchange, and the final law also reflects that belief as well.”

Much more than a political victory rests on the decision of this case. Stripping premium tax credits from all eligible individuals enrolled in a federal marketplace would have dire consequences. Here are just a few examples:

• The non-partisan Urban Institute estimates that 8 million people would lose health coverage.
• Health insurance companies and hospitals have said stopping subsidies in 34 states “would create severely dysfunctional insurance markets,” and “[i]t would leave consumers in those States with a more unstable market and far higher costs than if the ACA had not been enacted.”
• Public health experts estimate that 9,800 preventable deaths will occur each year if the Supreme Court rules against the Affordable Care Act.

BOTTOM LINE: King v. Burwell is an ideologically-charged case whose real-world implications are much more serious than political gain. Many conservatives arguing against the law have undercut their argument in the past, showing the weakness of their own case. Conservatives should stop playing politics with the livelihood of the American people. The well-being and financial stability of millions of Americans is much more important that partisan politics.