Saturday, June 15, 2024. Annette’s News Roundup.
I think the Roundup makes people feel not so alone.
To read an article excerpted in this Roundup, click on its blue title. Each “blue” article is hyperlinked so you can read the whole article.
Please feel free to share.
Invite at least one other person to subscribe today! Here 👇 is the link to share for others to subscribe. https://buttondown.email/AnnettesNewsRoundup
Remember: when you share the Roundup, you are fighting Fascism and helping to bring about a Democratic victory in 2024.
_________________________________________________
Joe is always busy.
Statement from President Joe Biden on the Passing of Howard Fineman | The White House.
![](https://assets.buttondown.email/images/af1592f7-ab33-4100-8148-f2fb7e207b9b.jpeg?w=960&fit=max)
Great journalists hold a mirror up to the Nation to reveal the good, the bad, and the truth of who we are as Americans. For four decades, Howard Fineman was one of the great journalists of our time.
His career covered much of mine, and throughout the debates over big issues and historic campaigns, I respected his reporting and insights whether I agreed or disagreed with him.
Where I believe all politics is personal, Howard believed all journalism is personal. No matter the issue or who he was interviewing, he always thought about the people he grew up with in his cherished Pittsburgh, or where he first started as a reporter in Louisville.
He understood the fundamental role of journalism in our democracy is to illuminate, educate, and shed light. With his focus on the facts and ability to tell a great story, it’s no surprise why Howard was a trusted and respected voice for millions of Americans, and true friend and mentor to countless colleagues.
Above all, in the decades we knew each other, it was clear that his love of family was the greatest story he ever told. Jill and I send our love to Amy and their children Nick and Meredith. We know what it’s like when cancer takes away the life of a beloved family member. But no matter where you are, he will always be with you.
BREAKING: President Biden just announced he will be hosting a fundraiser with Jimmy Kimmel, Barack Obama, George Clooney, and Julia Roberts. While this happens, convicted felon Donald Trump will have to think about why 40/44 of his cabinet won’t endorse him.
— Biden’s Wins (@BidensWins) June 14, 2024
_________________________________________________
Antisemitism is out of control in America.
New York was hit hard this week.
Pro-Palestinian protesters vandalize homes of Brooklyn Museum director Anne Pasternak, several Jewish board members
— New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) June 12, 2024
Local elected officials are calling it an act of 'vile anti-Semitism'https://t.co/AI2ewRhoZX
The actor Wendell Pierce analyzes what this attack on the Brooklyn Museum director means.👇
![](https://assets.buttondown.email/images/db9e3e9f-866b-459f-9de9-a97f9c5d1222.jpeg?w=960&fit=max)
These vandals hide their antisemitism until the pretense of a human rights protest.
Here is another instance, on the NYC subway. Watch👇! “Raise your hand if you are a Zionist.”
_________________________________________________
Republicans will continue to use the 1873 Comstock Act to try to stop Mifepristone.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court turned down a case which would have stopped the abortion pill Mifepristone from because of inadequate standing by the plaintiffs. They Left the door wide open for different plaintiffs to file.
In 2023, Trump judge appointee Matthew Kacsmaryk entered a ban for Mifepristone nationwide, but was stopped by the Department of Justice. He will enter the abortion fray again.
The Comstock Law is an 1873 anti-vice law banning the mailing of obscene matter. The Right is now testing if it can be used against mailing of material related to abortion.
In 1996, Representative Pat Schroeder and others tried to have it removed from Law.
The Comstock Act Still On The Books – Sept. 24, 1996 | Archives of Women's Political Communication
Here is what her argument was on the floor of the Congress.
Former Representative Pat Schroeder, September 24, 1996— U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
![](https://assets.buttondown.email/images/0e6916d9-80c4-446e-aa43-b7ac2f93fd02.jpeg?w=960&fit=max)
Congressional floor speech
Madam Speaker, I take this 5 minutes to talk about something I hoped we would have been able to correct on corrections day, but we have not quite gotten to it yet. Maybe there is still time.
There was in the past century a man named Mr. Comstock, and Mr. Comstock was one of these people who decided only he knew what was virtuous and right, and somehow he managed to convince all sorts of people that this was correct. He even in 1873 was able to get on the floor of this House, if you can imagine such a thing, and he stayed here all day long while the Congress was in session. He ran around with a satchel full of books and pictures, and he buttonholed every Member he could find saying, `Look at this, look at this.' He wanted a bill passed, which the Congress then passed unanimously, and they named it the Comstock Act after him because he had pushed so very hard for it.
Madam Speaker, what this bill did was allow almost him, himself, to define what would be lewd, what would be filthy, or what would be things that should be banned. He was particularly upset about anything dealing with family planning and also any kind of abortion or contraceptive information.
So, with virtually the entire Congress intimidated, they let this act go through, and, as a consequence, this man went on to really terrorize America, because shortly thereafter, it was not bad enough that the Congress passed this bill, but they then commissioned him as a special agent of the Post Office and vested him with the powers of arrest and the privilege of free transportation so that he could go around and enforce this law unilaterally. He went on to brag later on that he had been responsible for enough criminal convictions of people to fill a 61-coach passenger train. That is really fairly amazing.
And some of the people that he went after were particularly women. He went after Victoria Woodhull, who had tried to run for President even though women could not vote in the 19th century. He went after her on counts of obscenity and every other such thing. He was absolutely obsessed with Margaret Sanger and her husband. He arraigned Margaret Sanger on eight counts of obscenity, and then he went after Margaret Sanger's husband for the same thing.
This is really all very serious because Americans were living with censorship of their mail, druggists lived in constant fear of being prosecuted by this man or people enforcing this law, having anything that looked like a contraceptive, publishers were terrified and had to change an awful lot of the text book and scientific information because, again, this could happen, and George Bernard Shaw said from across the ocean, as he looked at this: `Comstockery is the world's standing joke at the expense of the United States. It confirms the deep-seated conviction of the Old World that America really is a provincial place, and second-rate civilization after all.' So, even George Bernard Shaw was watching all of this.
These were serious fines, too. They are now up to $5,000 to $250,000 for a first offense.
Now all of this is historic, and you say, `Why am I taking the time?' The problem is, this body just allowed the Comstock Act to be enforced on the Internet vis-a-vis anything doing with abortion. Previously, the Congress did away the Comstock Act dealing with family planning, thank goodness. But the Comstock Act has never been repealed; it is still on the books. And so, as a consequence, this has been thrown up on the Internet and could be used to bring people into a criminal conviction or arraignment if they decided to discuss anything about the big A word on the Internet.
Now I think when you look at this thing that I am sure more people started out thinking was a real anachronism from the 19th century, the fact that it is still on the books in the 20th century, and then to think that this Congress put it up on the Internet for the 21st century is really, really sad, and I would hope some time before this year is over we could go back and amend the Telecommunications Act, because at the time we are deregulating everything else, to think we are regulating speech about women and making it criminal I think is going the wrong way.
Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment today to recall a shameful chapter in the history of our country and this Congress. I want to talk about Anthony Comstock and the events historians now refer to as `Comstockery,' because I think we have to acknowledge that elements of Comstockery are all too present today.
Anthony Comstock was a religious fanatic who spent his life in a personal crusade for moral purity--as defined, of course, by himself. This crusade resulted in the arrest and imprisonment of a multitude of Americans whose only crime was to exercise their constitutional right of free speech in ways that offended Anthony Comstock. Women seemed to particularly offend Anthony Comstock, most particularly women who believed in the right to plan their families through the use of contraceptives, or in the right of women to engage in discussions and debate about matters involving sexuality, including contraception and abortion.
For example, on November 3, 1872, Mr. Comstock brought about the arrest, on charges of obscenity, of two feminists, Victoria Woodhull and Tennessee Claflin, because they published a story in their newspaper about the alleged infidelity of Henry Ward Beecher, a clergyman. Comstock went after Margaret Sanger in 1914, causing her arraignment on eight counts of obscenity for publishing newspaper articles on birth control. He obtained a conviction against Margaret Sanger's husband, William Sanger, in 1915 for selling a single copy of a pamphlet on birth control entitled `Family Limitation.'
Anthony Comstock, of course, could not conduct his fanatic crusade single handedly. His crusade was empowered by the Congress of the United States, which allowed him onto the floor of the House in January 1873, where he remained nearly all day. Carrying a satchel full of books and pictures he claimed were pornographic, he showed them to every Member of Congress he could buttonhole, and lobbied for a bill that would give him the legal authority to carry on his campaign of persecution and censorship in the name of fighting obscenity. One biographer notes that tears flowed from his eyes as he addressed Congress, begging for a law to stop the `hydra-headed monster' of vice.
The Congress, unfortunately, soon obliged Mr. Comstock, passing what is known as the Comstock Act. This act makes it a crime to advertise or mail not only every lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, paper, letter, writing, print, or other publication of an indecent character,' but also any information
for preventing contraception or producing abortion.' Congress passed this law with virtually no discussion, acting by unanimous consent in the Senate and under suspension of the rules in the House.
The Committee on Appropriations then set aside several thousand dollars for a special agent to carry out the Comstock Act, and on March 6, 1873, 1 day before his 29th birthday, Anthony Comstock was commissioned as a special agent of the post office, vested with powers of arrest and the privilege of free transportation on all mail lines so that he could roam the country arresting and prosecuting those who dared to send through the mails any information about contraception or abortion, or anything that Comstock deemed to be lewd or indecent.
As a result of Comstock's crusade, publishers were forced to censor their scientific and physiological works, druggists were punished for giving out information about contraception, and average Americans had to live with censorship of their mail, and without access to reliable information about contraception. Two years before this death in 1915, Comstock bragged that he had been responsible for the criminal conviction of enough people to fill a 61-coach passenger train.
George Bernard Shaw assessed this terrible series of events in 1905, saying, Comstockery is the world's standing joke at the expense of the United States. It confirms the deep-seated conviction of the Old World that America is a provincial place, a second-rate civilization after all.
Although its reach has been somewhat curtailed by the courts based upon first amendment principles, the Comstock Act remains on our books today. In 1971, Congress deleted the prohibition on birth control; but the prohibition on information about abortion remains, and the maximum fine was increased in 1994 from $5,000 to $250,000 for a first offense.
Comstockery, unfortunately, is not just a shameful part of our past. Comstockery has been given a new lease on life by this Congress.
The Telecommunications Act passed this year extended the Comstock Act's prohibitions to anyone who uses an interactive computer service. This Congress, therefore, revived Comstockery by making it a crime to use the Internet to provide or receive information which directly or indirectly tells where, how, of whom, or by what means an abortion may be obtained. A broader gag rule is hard to imagine. It could criminalize:
An Internet posting of the referral directory of your local medical society, or the yellow pages of the telephone directory;
A telemedicine consultation between two doctors who are conferring about a patient who may need an abortion to save her life; or
Uploading or downloading medical journal articles about RU-486, or about safe abortion techniques.
I have introduced legislation to repeal the abortion-related speech provisions of the Comstock Act, but unfortunately, the leadership of the Judiciary Committee and of the Congress has refused to move this bill. So Comstockery remains alive and well, and until the Congress is motivated to renounce Comstockery once and for all, I fear that women will pay a disproportionate share of the price, with the dark shadow of Anthony Comstock hanging over our health-related speech on critical topics such as abortion.
And Comstockery seems to be enjoying a revival in other ways, as well. Efforts to impose gag rules on doctors, punitive measures designed to make it harder for women to get access to information and services relating to contraception and abortion, laws that would allow the Anthony Comstocks of today to arrest and jail doctors who perform an abortion procedure that in their medical judgment is the safest to preserve the health and future fertility of their patients--all this is the Comstockery of today.
It is only President Clinton's veto of H.R. 1833 that stops us from seeing, on the evening news, the chilling image of medical doctors going in handcuffs to criminal trial for exercising their best medical judgment for women who wanted pregnancies have gone terribly wrong.
Republican control of the Congress has brought us more than 50 votes on abortion. Every imaginable form of Comstockery is represented in this array of antichoice measures.
Anthony Comstock's crusade against free speech and reproductive choice represents one of the worst chapters of our history. The last thing this country needs or wants is a bridge to the past represented by Comstockery. Suppression of free speech, suppression of reproductive choice, is an aberration from genuine American values.
As the Anthony Comstocks of today patrol the Halls of this Congress seeking to suppress free speech and reproductive choice in the name of morality, or family values, or whatever high-sounding purpose they may invoke, it is incumbent upon the Congress to ensure that no form of the Comstock Act is ever again enacted, and that no special agent is ever again commissioned to roam the land, persecuting Americans in the name of morality or family values.
Speech from http://gos.sbc.edu/s/schroeder.html.
_________________________________________________
Could Florida turn blue?
![](https://assets.buttondown.email/images/e9292ff1-f45a-4df5-9ba2-55de64ca4d95.jpeg?w=960&fit=max)
Donald Trump at Risk of Losing Florida, Recent Polls Suggest - Newsweek
Former President Donald Trump's lead over President Joe Biden in Florida is narrow and the Republican could be at risk of losing the Sunshine State, according to recent polls.
Trump won Florida in both 2016 and 2020 as what was once a key battleground state has become more solidly Republican in recent election cycles but two major polls this month have shown Biden just four points behind the former president in a straight race.
The FAU poll found that Trump has a four-point lead over Biden—46 percent to the president's 42 percent—in a head-to-head matchup. That's a decline on the findings of the of the same poll in April, which showed Trump with 50 percent to Biden's 42 percent.
That poll was conducted on June 8 and June 9 among 883 registered voters in Florida. (Newsweek).
_________________________________________________
Supreme Court strikes down Trump-era ban on rapid fire rifle bump stocks, reopening political fight.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a Trump-era ban on bump stocks, the rapid-fire gun accessories used in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history, in a ruling that threw firearms back into the nation’s political spotlight.
The high court’s conservative majority found that the Trump administration overstepped when it changed course from predecessors and banned bump stocks, which allow a rate of fire comparable to machine guns. The decision came after a gunman in Las Vegas attacked a country music festival with semiautomatic rifles equipped with the accessories.
The gunman fired more than 1,000 rounds into the crowd in 11 minutes, sending thousands of people fleeing in terror as hundreds were wounded and dozens killed.
The ruling thrust guns back into the center of the political conversation with an unusual twist as Democrats decried the reversal of a GOP administration’s action and many Republicans backed the ruling.
The 6-3 majority opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas found the Justice Department was wrong to declare that bump stocks transformed semiautomatic rifles into illegal machine guns because, he wrote, each trigger depression in rapid succession still only releases one shot.
The ruling reinforced the limits of executive reach and two justices — conservative Samuel Alito and liberal Sonia Sotomayor — separately highlighted how action in Congress could potentially provide a more lasting policy, if there was political will to act in a bipartisan fashion.
Originally, imposing a ban through regulation rather than legislation during Donald Trump’s presidency took pressure off Republicans to act following the massacre and another mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida. Prospects for passing gun restrictions in the current divided Congress are dim.
President Joe Biden, who supports gun restrictions, called on Congress to reinstate the ban imposed under his political foe. Trump’s campaign team meanwhile, expressed respect for the ruling before quickly pivoting to his endorsement by the National Rifle Association.
As Trump courts gun owners while running to retake the presidency, he has appeared to play down his own administration’s actions on bump stocks, telling NRA members in February that “nothing happened” on guns during his presidency despite “great pressure.” He told the group that if he is elected again, “No one will lay a finger on your firearms.”
The 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas was carried out by a high-stakes gambler who killed himself, leaving his exact motive a mystery. A total of 60 people were killed in the shooting, including Christiana Duarte, whose family called Friday’s ruling tragic.
“The ruling is really just another way of inviting people to have another mass shooting,” said Danette Meyers, a family friend and spokesperson. “It’s unfortunate that they have to relive this again. They’re really unhappy.”
Republican Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo, the former county sheriff in Las Vegas who has refused to sign multiple gun control measures the Democrat-controlled Legislature has sent to his desk, said in a statement Friday, “While I have always been a supporter of the Second Amendment, I have been a vocal opponent of bump stocks since my time in law enforcement, and I’m disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision today.”
The opinion comes after the same Supreme Court conservative supermajority handed down a landmark decision expanding gun rights in 2022. The high court is also expected to rule in another gun case in the coming weeks, challenging a federal law intended to keep guns away from people under domestic violence restraining orders.
The arguments in the bump stock case, though, were less about Second Amendment rights and more about whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a Justice Department agency, had overstepped its authority.
Bump stocks are accessories that replace a rifle’s stock, the part that rests against the shoulder. Invented in the 2000s, they harness the gun’s recoil energy so that the trigger bumps against the shooter’s stationary finger, allowing the gun to fire at a similar speed as an automatic weapon.
The Supreme Court majority found that the 1934 law against machine guns defined them as weapons that could automatically fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger. Bump stocks don’t fit that definition because “the trigger must still be released and reengaged to fire each additional shot,” Thomas wrote. He also pointed to over a decade of ATF’s findings that claimed bump stocks weren’t automatic weapons.
The plaintiff, Texas gun shop owner and military veteran Michael Cargill, applauded the ruling in a video posted online, predicting the case would have ripple effects by hampering other ATF gun restrictions. “I’m glad I stood up and fought,” he said.
In a dissent joined by her liberal colleagues, Justice Sotomayor said that bump stocks fit under the ordinary meaning of the law: “When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck,” she wrote. The ruling, she said, could hamstring the ATF and have “deadly consequences.”
ATF Director Steve Dettelbach echoed the sentiment, saying that bump stocks “pose an unacceptable level of risk to public safety.”
The high court took up the case after a split among lower courts. Under Republican President George W. Bush and Democrat Barack Obama, the ATF decided that bump stocks didn’t transform semiautomatic weapons into machine guns. The agency reversed those decisions at Trump’s urging. That was after the Las Vegas massacre and the Parkland, Florida, shooting that left 17 dead.
Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have their own bans on bump stocks that aren’t expected to be affected by the ruling, though four state bans may no longer cover bump stocks in the wake of the ruling, according to the gun-control group Everytown.
Cargill was represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a group funded by conservative donors like the Koch network. His attorneys acknowledged that bump stocks allow for rapid fire but argued that they are different because the shooter has to put in more effort to keep the gun firing.
The Biden administration had argued that effort was minimal, and said the ATF came to the right conclusion on bump stocks after doing a more in-depth examination spurred by the Las Vegas shooting.
There were about 520,000 bump stocks in circulation when the ban went into effect in 2019, requiring people to either surrender or destroy them at a combined estimated loss of $100 million, the plaintiffs said in court documents. (Associated Press)
![](https://assets.buttondown.email/images/2d4523f1-3ffe-40d7-873e-ccca324ddc14.jpeg?w=960&fit=max)
![](https://assets.buttondown.email/images/63eac6df-9069-4f3e-b74e-c89a6c6fa919.jpeg?w=960&fit=max)
![](https://assets.buttondown.email/images/405b97d2-9a81-43b4-8717-53d19fb710b6.jpeg?w=960&fit=max)
“We know thoughts and prayers are not enough,” President Biden said in his own statement about the Supreme Court’s decision, referring to the usual response of Republicans after a mass shooting. “I call on Congress to ban bump stocks, pass an assault weapon ban, and take additional action to save lives—send me a bill and I will sign it immediately.” (Source. Letters from an American, Heather Cox Richardson)
_________________________________________________
Your daily reminder.
Trump is a convicted felon.
On May 30th, he was found guilty on 34 felony counts by the unanimous vote of 12 ordinary citizens.
He will be sentenced on July 11.
![](https://assets.buttondown.email/images/07d85645-6e93-4d57-93df-180a7924f51d.jpeg?w=960&fit=max)
_________________________________________________