�鶹Ů��

Covid-19 cases are surging in states that took Donald Trump’s advice and reopened for business too soon. This new surge — is it OK now to call it a second wave? — is, on average, hitting people younger than the initial surge in the Northeast did. Perhaps as a result, rising infections haven’t been reflected in a comparable rise in deaths, although that may be only a matter of time. There is, however, growing evidence that even those who survive Covid-19 can suffer long-term adverse effects: scarred lungs, damaged hearts and perhaps neurological disorders. And if the Trump administration gets its way, there may be another source of long-term damage: permanent inability to get health insurance. (Paul Krugman, 6/29)

So much for all those crocodile fears about the end of abortion rights. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Monday that a state can’t even require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital. And the logic of the concurring opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts, who provided the fifth vote, suggests not even de minimis regulation of abortion will survive his Court’s scrutiny. A woman’s right to abortion wasn’t at issue in June Medical Services v. Russo. No woman seeking an abortion was a plaintiff. The case was brought by abortion providers, who claimed that Louisiana’s requirement that they have admitting privileges at a hospital would be an undue burden on the ability of women to obtain an abortion. Here’s the stunner: Four years ago a different Court majority overturned a similar Texas statute, with then Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the four liberals. Chief Justice Roberts dissented in that case. (6/29)

Commentators have been busy trying to discern what Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was up to when he joined the Supreme Court’s four liberals Monday in striking down a Louisiana abortion law virtually identical to a Texas statute the court overturned in 2016. Was he cynically voting to save the Republican Party from the political fallout of an anti-abortion ruling? Or maybe a concern for the court’s legitimacy led him to act hypocritically, genuflecting at the altar of precedent despite the fact that he himself has voted to overrule prior decisions such as a 2018 case in which the court reversed a41-year-old precedent that allowed unions to collect “fair share fees” from non-members. Or was Roberts signaling that he might be open to overruling Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed the “essential holding” of Roe vs. Wade. (Michael McGough, 6/29)

The Supreme Court upheld abortion rights on Monday, with Chief Justice John Roberts concurring with the liberals on the court to strike down a Louisiana anti-abortion law. That sentence might surprise a lot of people, given that the chief justice is a staunch conservative, and that the court now has a solid right-wing majority. President Trump achieved that majority by appointing two justices with the express purpose of pushing a hard-right agenda, as determined by legal groups like the Federalist Society. Obliterating abortion access in America is at the top of that priority list. (6/29)

To their credit, Justices Clarence, Thomas and Samuel Alito, as well as President Trump’s appointees Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, strongly dissented – but it was not enough to overcome a narrow majority. For that, we need President Trump to fill at least one more inevitable vacancy. Pro-life momentum cannot be ignored. In response to growing extremism in states controlled by pro-abortion Democrats, pro-life lawmakers are eager to implement protections for unborn children and challenge Roe v. Wade. A prominent pro-abortion think tank notes with alarm that more than one-third of all pro-life state laws since Roe have been passed within the last 10 years – nearly 60 of them enacted in 2019 alone. Just this month, lawmakers in Tennessee and Mississippi took bold strides for life. (Marjorie Dannenfelser, 6/29)

The perennial challenge for American democracy is fixing what is wrong with the system while preserving what is right. Today the trade-offs and tensions between change and stability seem more acute than they have been for many years. As in the past, however, the rule of law offers the best — the only — way for society to negotiate upheaval peacefully. And so it is cause for optimism that the Supreme Court has voted to strike down a law in Louisiana that would have imposed strict but medically unwarranted regulations on that state’s abortion providers. This is a victory for the right to choose and for women who rely on it. Equally, if not more important, however, it is a triumph for adherence to precedent, without which the judicial process degenerates into a raw exercise of power. (6/29)

By a 5-4 vote, a fractured Supreme Court Monday struck down Louisiana’s effort to regulate abortion by requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with four liberal justices that the state law imposed a “substantial burden” on a woman’s right to an abortion.While the decision guarantees that abortion will continue to roil our politics, it may prove an even more important signal of Roberts’ determination to foil President Trump’s agenda to remake the federal courts. (John Yoo, 6/29)

Medi-Cal, supported mostly from federal funds, has grown rapidly over the past decade. This past week, even as the legislature approved a budget with many cuts, Medi-Cal spending kept growing, to $112 billion annually. The increase covers the two million people expected to join Medi-Cal after losing jobs or insurance during the pandemic.All told, 14.5 million Californians — more than one-third of us — will be on Medi-Cal by summer’s end, double the number in 2010. (Joe Mathews, 6/28)

This is a pivotal year in our country’s history. The overwhelmingly peaceful uprisings have pushed cities like Oakland to meaningfully address police brutality. The Oakland City Council reduced police funding by $14 million last week, but that’s not nearly enough to combat systemic racism.If you believe Black lives matter, I urge you not to lose sight of the economic devastation facing marginalized communities because of the pandemic. And know this: Racial justice won’t ever be achieved without sustained investment in communities with historical gaps in health care, education and employment. (Otis R. Taylor Jr., 6/29)

The rule, finalized on June 12 by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights, rewrites part of the Affordable Care Act by interpreting “sex” discrimination to apply only to biological sex, thus allowing health care providers and insurance companies to refuse care or coverage to patients merely because they are transgender. Although the Supreme Court’s recent groundbreaking ruling that employers cannot fire individuals based on sexual orientation or gender identity sets an important precedent, it doesn’t keep the HHS rule from taking effect. (Aliza Norwood, 6/26)

The killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis was a brutal, senseless and avoidable tragedy, and one our country has witnessed countless times before. In many ways, his death was the match that ignited nationwide conversations about the racial injustices that have existed in our country for generations. These systemic problems have led to inequalities in everything from education, to health care, to housing, and while each of these must be addressed, the most important place to start is with police reforms. (John Cornyn, 6/29)