Tag Archives: Project 25

by - 0 comments

“Abortion Rights Are Safe In Oregon” Says Oregon’s Attorney General. Don’t Believe It.

Survey shows Americans' conflicted ...

During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump was all over the map on abortion. But you’d be a fool to think this means abortion rights are safe in Oregon or the rest of the country. They are not.

In June 2023, addressing a Faith & Freedom Coalition Gala, Trump said he was the “most pro-life president ever.” As with so many of his other c campaign promises, he’ll likely follow through with that promise.

Oregon’s attorney general says all is well. The Oregon Department of Justice website is adamant that the overturning of Roe v. Wade has not affected abortion rights in the state: “Abortion is still SAFE, ACCESSIBLE and LEGAL in OREGON” its says. “The United States Supreme Court decision in June 2022 overturning Roe v. Wade(called Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health) did not change Oregon laws protecting a pregnant person’s right to have an abortion in Oregon.”

The fact is, however, that no state is immune from federal actions limiting abortion rights.

With Pam Bondi’s Senate confirmation as attorney general still ahead, for example, her chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, who is temporarily leading the Justice Department, issued a memo sharply limiting prosecutions of people accused of blocking access to abortion clinics, calling such cases the “prototypical example” of federal weaponization.

On January 23, 2024 Trump followed up by pardoning 23 people who were convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act), including many who were serving prison sentences for physically blocking patients from accessing their doctors. Some of the offenses committed included breaking into clinics, stealing fetal tissue, and accosting pregnant patients.

Jessica Valenti, a prominent writer on gender and politics, has reported that:

  • Dozens of Republican lawmakers held a private meeting with anti-abortion activists where they pledged to repeal the FACE Act
  • The Department of Justice announced that they won’t enforce the FACE Act unless there are “extraordinary circumstances…such as death.”
  • Conservative legal groups are working to overturn Hill v. Colorado—the Supreme Court decision that established abortion clinic buffer zones.

Efforts are also underway to limit Planned Parenthood’s operations in Oregon access to federal Medicaid money, potentially cutting off its ability to provide abortions. 

On January 27,  the White House Office of Management and Budget  (OMB) issued an order setting off  a temporary pause of  federal grants to give agencies time to review spending priorities. On Jan. 28, OMB sent another sent a directive telling federal agencies to fill out an attached spreadsheet answering questions about programs that might require funding and whether they aligned with Trump’s agenda. One of the questions asked if the program supports abortion “in any way.”

At his Senate confirmation hearing for  Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. assured Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) he would appoint only pro-life deputies.

Abortion access in Oregon may be constrained by restrictions on access to pills used in medication abortions.  Access to the abortion pill mifepristone, for example, still largely depends on a patchwork of state laws, with only about half of states allowing full access under the terms approved by the federal government. According to PBS, A dozen or so states have laws specifically limiting how mifepristone can be prescribed, such as requiring an in-person visit with a physician or separate counseling about the potential risks and downsides of the drug.

In a sign of the times, a New York doctor, Margaret Carpenter, was indicted by a Louisiana grand jury on January 29 for allegedly prescribing an abortion pill online in the southern state, which has one of the strictest near-total abortion bans in the country. Under the law, physicians convicted of performing an illegal abortion, including one with pills, face up to 15 years in prison, $200,000 in fines and the loss of their medical license. Carpenter was charged charged with criminal abortion by means of abortion-inducing drugs, a felony. Carpenter was operating under New York’s telemedicine “shield law,” which protects providers who ship abortion pills across state lines, but it may not matter.

Project 25, The Heritage Foundations blueprint for Trump’s actions, calls for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to encourage states to remove Planned Parenthood facilities from the Medicaid program. Project 25 also proposes mobilizing an array of federal agencies to limit access to abortion, including a national ban on abortion pills even in states like Oregon with liberal abortion laws. 

“The Dobbs decision (overturning Roe v. Wade) is just the beginning,” Project 2025 says. “Conservatives in the states and in Washington, including in the next conservative administration, should push as hard as possible to protect the unborn in every jurisdiction in America.”

Oregon Right to Life, which says “We work to reestablish protection for all innocent human life from conception to natural death” is also continuing its efforts to restrict abortion in the state.

“Being a pro-life legislator in Oregon comes with unique challenges,” says the group’s website. “That being said, our mission remains the same: provide tangible, encouraging support to women and families, and protect as many unborn lives as possible from abortion. Understanding the unique terrain of this issue in Oregon, we want to continue to put forward limits that are widely supported with key exceptions, and considered “reasonable” even by self-proclaimed pro-choice voters.” 

 Undeterred by a generally hostile Legislature, the group is pursuing enactment of several bills during the 2025 session, including:

  • HB 2372 – would require a physician to provide a baby born alive during an attempted abortion procedure the same degree of care as any other baby at the same gestational stage.
  • HB 3248 – would place a limit on abortion when the baby can feel pain with exceptions for medical emergencies, rape, and incest.
  • HB 2381, 2382 – would establish the Pregnancy Launch Program to encourage healthy childbirth; support childbirth as an alternative to abortion; promote family formation; aid successful parenting; Increase families’ economic self-sufficiency; and improve maternal health, mortality, and postpartum outcomes. It would also create a hotline and set a requirement that this information be provided to an abortion-minded woman 48 hours prior to her abortion procedure. Finally, it would establishe an OHA grant program to help fund entities offering services related to encouraging and assisting mothers in carrying their pregnancies to term.
  • TBD – would require parental consent for minors (under 18) traveling into Oregon for an abortion.

The battle is on.

by - 0 comments

Trump’s Immigrant Solution: Manzanar Redux?

During World War II, President Roosevelt authorized the military to forcibly relocate people of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast to inland camps. 

Manzanar War Relocation Center near Lone Pine, Calif.; it operated from March 1942 to Nov. 1945. Some 10,000 people were confined there during this time. Resistance to the incarceration at Manzanar soon led to a prison uprising that the Army put down by shooting 11 prisoners, killing two.

In April 1942, officials posted Civil Exclusion Orders No. 25 and No. 26 on telephone poles and store windows throughout Multnomah County. A few weeks later, Civilian Exclusion Order No. 49 was posted in Hood River. The orders gave Japanese-Americans only a few days to put their affairs in order before they had to report for evacuation.

On May 5, 1942, Japanese-Americans in Military Area No. 1 reported to the Portland  Assembly Center, leaving their pets, possessions, and lives behind. The center—built on the site of the Pacific International Livestock Exposition—was surrounded by barbed wire, watchtowers, and military guards armed with machine guns. The center had a peak population of 3,676.

Those living in Military Area No 2, including the Japanese Americans in Hood River, were sent by train to the Pinedale Assembly Center in California’s San Joaquin Valley, a temporary location until later transfer to permanent internment camps. 

Now President-elect Trump and his coterie of illegal immigration hardliners want to use the military again and put arrested immigrants in the country illegally in camps run by the Homeland Security Department. 

Will he follow through with his threats?  Count on it.

“Trump 1.0 was a test for the system, but it was also a trial for an inexperienced leader who had the inclination of a wrecking ball but often lacked the capacity or the cadres to follow through,” Susan B. Glasser wrote in the Nov. 21 New Yorker.  “Trump 2.0 is about an all-out attack on that system by a leader who fears neither Congress nor the courts nor the voters whom he will never have to face again.”

During the Republican primary campaign, The New York Times reported that  Trump’s top immigration policy adviser, Stephen Miller, said military funds would be used to build “vast holding facilities that would function as staging )enters” for immigrants as their cases progressed and they waited to be flown to other countries.

 Earlier this month, Tom Fitton, who runs a conservative group, Judicial Watch, wrote that Trump’s administration would “declare a national emergency and will use military assets” to address illegal immigration “through a mass deportation program.”  Trump responded on his social media platform, Truth Social, reposting Mr. Fitton’s post with the comment, “TRUE!!!”

On Monday, Trump confirmed that he planned to declare a national emergency to carry out his promise to use the military in his mass deportations. 

Trump has also threatened to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 – which allows presidents to deport citizens of an “enemy nation” without the typical proceedings – as part of his mass deportation plans. 

Thomas Homan, a contributor to the Heritage Foundation’s controversial Project 25 and Trump’s proposed Border Czar, told Fox Business Network, “They’ll be used to do non-enforcement duties such as transportation, whether it’s on ground or air, infrastructure, building, intelligence.” Horman has also said transportation and supply assets from the Department of Defense, including military planes, could be used.  

Stephen Miller, Trump’s incoming deputy chief of staff for policy, has also floated the idea of “deputising” the National Guard  to carry out large-scale raids and detentions. The military could also be dispatched to the southern border with “an impedance and denial mission,” Miller has said. 

“You reassert the fundamental constitutional principle that you don’t have the right to enter into our sovereign territory, to even request an asylum claim,” Miller said  at the Conservative Political Action Conference  (CPAC) earlier this year. “The military has the right to establish a fortress position on the border to say no one can cross here at all.”

No matter how Trump plans to use the military, the move is likely to bring an avalanche of legal challenges.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said on Monday that under US law, presidents may declare a national emergency and exert emergency powers only in specific situations. “And ‘use the military for deportations’ isn’t one of those specific things,” Reichlin-Melnick wrote on social media.

Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, issued the following statement: on Nov. 18:

“We are crystal clear that the next Trump administration will do everything in its power to make mass deportation raids a reality. As we ready litigation and create firewalls for freedom across blue states, we must also sound the alarm that what’s on the horizon will change the very nature of American life for tens of millions of Americans.”

In 1983, the bipartisan Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians reported that the internment program was a “grave injustice” driven by “race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership.” In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act, which offered a formal apology to surviving victims.

It’s hard to believe all this current Trump-inspired turmoil is what the 76,744,608 people who voted for Trump this time around wanted.