Politics
Column: These red states say teens should be forced to have babies so the states don't lose congressional seats
The arguments made by antiabortion states to sugarcoat their manifestly misogynistic policies have always borne the acrid odor of cynicism and hypocrisy.
You know what I mean: that their restrictions on reproductive medical care are all about protecting the health of women, preserving the lives of the unborn, fulfilling a moral imperative to honor the sanctity of life, etc., etc.
So we should thank the red states Missouri, Kansas and Idaho for at least being honest. As they disclosed in a federal lawsuit this month, their real goal is to farm pregnant teenagers and their unwanted babies to keep up their population numbers, in order to avoid shrinkage in their congressional delegations and lose federal dollars from programs based on population.
That may sound incredible, but it’s set forth in black and white in a joint legal filing in federal court.
“Each abortion,” they write, “represents at least one lost potential or actual birth.” Because of this “loss of potential population,” the states face “subsequent ‘diminishment of political representation’ and ‘loss of federal funds,’ such as potentially ‘losing a seat in Congress or qualifying for less federal funding if their populations are’ reduced or their increase diminished.”
The target of their legal filing is the dispensing by mail of mifepristone, the abortion drug that the Supreme Court allowed to remain on the market in a decision in June. “Remote dispensing of abortion drugs,” they assert, “is depressing expected birth rates for teenaged mothers.”
So there you have it. Missouri, Kansas and Idaho think it’s of paramount importance to keep up the rates of teen pregnancy, lest they lose a congressional seat here or there or a few bucks in federal handouts. One might ask whether this sounds humane or even sane, but to ask the question is to answer it.
Here’s the background on this ghastly argument. It started with the Supreme Court’s ruling in a lawsuit brought by a passel of antiabortion fanatics that aimed to roll back the Food and Drug Administration’s approvals of mifepristone dispensing by mail. The lawsuit persuaded federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Amarillo, Texas, one of the Trumpiest of Trump-appointed federal judges, to overturn FDA approvals dating to 2020 and throw the drug off the market.
The Supreme Court overturned his ruling and an appellate court ruling. Its grounds were that none of the plaintiffs in the case had themselves suffered an injury from the FDA policy — so none of them had “standing” to bring the suit under constitutional rules in the first place.
The three states’ amended lawsuit, filed in Kacsmaryk’s court on Oct. 11, is designed to circumvent the standing issue. That required the states to show that they’ve suffered an “injury” from the FDA policy. Their argument is that medical abortions, or “chemical abortions,” erode their population, leading to those adverse consequences for the size of their congressional delegations (Idaho has two representatives, Kansas four, Missouri eight) and their grip on federal program dollars.
To be absolutely fair, that isn’t the states’ only injury claim. They also maintain that complications experienced by women taking abortion drugs will create a burden on their Medicaid budgets.
This would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical. The states’ lawsuit discloses how much they’ve spent on women who have needed emergency room care as a result of such complications. In 2022, they report, Idaho’s estimated costs ranged from a total of $839.20 to a maximum $13,556; Missouri’s estimate ranged from $2,524 to $6,274.
The differences arose from estimates of the “severity” of the complications being treated — the more severe, the higher per-patient cost. Missouri’s estimate of the number of ER visits in 2022 by women experiencing complications and enrolled in Medicaid was about eight to twelve, pegged to a range of complication rates.
Idaho’s estimate of the number of Medicaid patients treated for medical abortion complications in 2022 ranged from a low of fewer than four to a high of fewer than six. Plainly, the states don’t even know the real figures. They were basing their estimates on estimated complication rates, not empirical data. (Kansas data weren’t disclosed in the lawsuit.)
If anyone still thinks this is all about protecting the lives of mothers and babies, consider the broader landscape of maternal and infant medical care in these three states. All three landed in the below-average category in the Commonwealth Fund’s 2024 scorecard on women’s health and reproductive care: Idaho ranked 27th, Kansas 32nd and Missouri 40th. Kansas, by the way, hasn’t expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, or its spending might have been even lower.
You might think, under the circumstances, that this legal filing is just an election-season stunt by three state attorneys general who have nominated themselves as flag carriers for Donald Trump. There’s some evidence for that: Their filing name-checks the “Biden-Harris administration” or “Biden-Harris FDA” no fewer than eight times; it reads like a Trump-Vance bumper sticker. The original lawsuit didn’t mention Vice President Kamala Harris even once, but then again it was filed in November 2022.
The rest of the three states’ legal filing is filled with claims about the safety and efficacy of medical abortion drugs, many of which have long since been debunked, and aren’t particularly relevant to this civil court case anyway; it attempts to goad a judge into discarding the years of studies consulted by the FDA in approving the drugs and replacing it with his own ideological worldview and pseudoscientific judgments.
Most experienced judges are wary of doing so. Not Kacsmaryk. It’s entirely conceivable that he’ll buy into this new attempt to outlaw a safe and effective abortion procedure, and send the three states’ threadbare case back up the judicial pipeline. So mifepristone isn’t out of the woods yet.
Politics
Appeals court declares DC ban on certain gun magazines unconstitutional
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
An appeals court struck down a local law in the District of Columbia that banned gun magazines containing more than 10 bullets, describing the measure as unconstitutional.
The ruling Thursday from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals also reversed the conviction of Tyree Benson, who was taken into custody in 2022 for being in possession of a handgun with a magazine that could contain 30 bullets, according to The New York Times.
“Magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition are ubiquitous in our country, numbering in the hundreds of millions, accounting for about half of the magazines in the hands of our citizenry, and they come standard with the most popular firearms sold in America today,” Judge Joshua Deahl wrote on behalf of the two-judge majority in the three-judge panel.
“Because these magazines are arms in common and ubiquitous use by law-abiding citizens across this country, we agree with Benson and the United States that the District’s outright ban on them violates the Second Amendment,” he added.
A salesperson holds a high capacity magazine for an AR-15 rifle at a store in Orem, Utah, in March 2021. (George Frey/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
“This appeal presents a Second Amendment challenge to the District’s ban on firearm magazines capable of holding ‘more than 10 rounds of ammunition.’ Appellant Tyree Benson argues that ban contravenes the Second Amendment so that his conviction for violating it should be vacated,” Deahl also wrote. “The United States, which prosecuted Benson in the underlying case and defended the ban’s constitutionality in the initial round of appellate briefing, now concedes that this ban violates the Second Amendment. The District of Columbia, which is also a party to this appeal, continues to defend the constitutionality of its ban.”
“We therefore reverse Benson’s conviction for violating the District’s magazine capacity ban. And because Benson could not have registered, procured a license to carry, or lawfully possessed ammunition for his firearm given that it was equipped with a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds, we likewise reverse his convictions for possession of an unregistered firearm, carrying a pistol without a license, and unlawful possession of ammunition,” Deahl said.
Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby, the judge who dissented, wrote that, “The majority bases its common usage analysis on ownership statistics that show only that magazines holding 11, 15, or 17 rounds of ammunition are in common use.”
GUN RIGHTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY DEBATED AT SUPREME COURT
Magazines at Norm’s Gun & Ammo shop in Biddeford, Maine, in April 2013. From left, the first two are high capacity magazines for handguns, an AK-47 magazine, an AR-15 magazine and an SKS magazine. (Shawn Patrick Ouellette/Portland Press Herald via Getty Images)
“The majority, however, fails to contend with the reality that these statistics do not support the conclusion that the particularly lethal 30-round magazine, such as the one Mr. Benson possessed here, is in common use for self-defense. It simply is not,” she added.
The District of Columbia can now appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, or ask the local appeals court to take another look at the ruling with a larger panel of judges, according to the Times.
High-capacity rifle magazines are removed from a display at Freddie Bear Sports in January 2023 in Tinley Park, Illinois. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The newspaper also reported that in a previous case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the constitutionality of the local law surrounding gun magazine sizes. It’s unclear how the two rulings will interact.
Politics
Contributor: The stars align for Democrats in Texas. Trump is helping them
If Democrats expect to flip a U.S. Senate seat in Texas, they’ll need all the stars to align. This almost never happens, because politics has a way of scrambling the constellations. But on Tuesday, the first star blinked on.
I’m referring to state Rep. James Talarico’s victory over Rep. Jasmine Crockett in the Democratic primary. Most political prognosticators agree that Talarico, an eloquent young Democrat who speaks openly about his Christian faith, is their best hope in a red state that Donald Trump won by 14 points.
The second star was Crockett’s conciliatory concession — far from a foregone conclusion after a nasty primary — in which she pledged to “do my part,” adding that “Texas is primed to turn blue, and we must remain united because this is bigger than any one person.”
The third star — a vulnerable Republican opponent — has not yet appeared over the Texas sky, although forecasters say it might.
Most observers agree that scandal-plagued Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton would be beatable in the general election, while incumbent Sen. John Cornyn would present a much tougher challenge. Cornyn is the kind of steady, conventional politician who tends to win elections, and so, of course, modern voters are extremely suspicious of him.
In the GOP primary on Tuesday, Cornyn’s 42% share of the vote edged out Paxton by about a point. Unfortunately for Republicans, neither candidate garnered enough votes to avoid a May 26 runoff election.
Conventional wisdom suggests that when a majority of Republican voters choose someone other than the incumbent in the first round of voting, an even greater majority will inevitably break toward the challenger in the runoff. If that happens, Paxton would become the nominee, and Democrats would get their third star to align.
Even better for Democrats — a fourth star, so to speak — would be for this protracted runoff to become a “knife fight,” as one Texas Republican predicted, in which Paxton staggers out of the fight as the battered GOP nominee.
The only problem is that Republicans can see these stars aligning, too.
And while the Texas Senate seat matters a lot on its own, it matters even more in the context of nationwide midterm elections, in which a Texas win would help Democrats take back the Senate.
Enter the cavalry — or, more accurately, President Trump, who is now entering a second war in the span of a week, this one a civil war in the Lone Star State.
The day after the primary, Trump announced that he would be “making my Endorsement soon, and will be asking the candidate that I don’t Endorse to immediately DROP OUT OF THE RACE!”
Reports suggest Trump may endorse Cornyn in order to save the seat for Republicans. But who knows? Trump is famously unpredictable. And it’s likely he admires Paxton’s ability to survive scandals that would have caused most normal politicians to curl up in the fetal position. As they say, “game recognizes game.”
Whomever he backs, conventional wisdom also says Trump should make his endorsement “soon,” as he promised. That would save Republicans a lot of time and money. But Trump currently has enormous leverage. Right now, people are coming to him, pleading for his support.
Do you think he wants to resolve that situation quickly?
Me neither.
With Trump, you never know what you’re going to get. In 2021, he helped torpedo Republican Senate candidates David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler in Georgia, handing Democrats control of the Senate. The following year he backed football legend Herschel Walker in another Georgia Senate race, which did not exactly work out great. Democrat Raphael Warnock won and holds that seat, though Walker is now ambassador to the Bahamas so that’s something.
This is to say: Trump’s political assistance does not always assist.
It’s unclear whether Trump’s endorsement would be dispositive — and whether he could muscle the other Republican out of the primary race.
Paxton, for example, initially vowed to stay in the race, no matter what. (He later suggested he would “consider” dropping out if the Senate passes the SAVE America Act, a bill to require proof of citizenship to vote.)
There’s also this: Trump’s endorsements tend to either be made out of vengeance or to pad the totals of an already inevitable winner, so his track record is probably overrated.
Case in point: While most of his endorsed candidates won their Texas elections, his endorsed candidate for agriculture commissioner lost reelection. And according to the Texas Tribune, “at least three Trump-endorsed candidates for Congress were headed to runoffs, one of them in a distant second place.”
Another issue is that Cornyn needs more than a perfunctory endorsement: He needs a clear, full-throated endorsement.
In a 2022 Missouri Senate race, Trump endorsed “ERIC,” which was awkward because two candidates named Eric were running.
More recently, he endorsed two rival candidates in the same 2026 Arizona gubernatorial race — like betting on both teams in the Super Bowl.
This is all to say that the only thing standing between Texas Democrats and a rare celestial alignment may be the whims of the Republican Party’s one and only star.
Sure, establishment Republicans can beg Trump to quickly step in and settle the race, and maybe he will. But it’s entirely possible the president will find a way to blow up his party’s chances for holding the U.S. Senate — and there’s nothing they can do to stop him.
When you’re a star, they let you do it.
Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”
Politics
Video: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary
new video loaded: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary
transcript
transcript
President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary
President Trump fired Kristi Noem, his embattled homeland security secretary, on Thursday and announced his plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.
-
“The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake which looks like under investigation is going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back. Law enforcement needs to learn from that. You don’t protect them by not looking after the facts.” “Our greatness calls people to us for a chance to prosper, to live how they choose, to become part of something special. Anyone who searches for freedom can always find a home here. But that freedom is a precious thing, and we defend it vigorously. You crossed the border illegally — we’ll find you. Break our laws — we’ll punish you.” “Did you bid out those service contracts?” “Yes they did. They went out to a competitive bid.” “I’m asking you — sorry to interrupt — but the president approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently?” “Yes, sir. We went through the legal processes. Did it correctly —” Did the president know you were going to do this?” “Yes.” “I’m more excited about just ready to get started. There’s a lot of work we can do to get the Department of Homeland Security working for the American people.”
By Jackeline Luna
March 5, 2026
-
World1 week agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Wisconsin4 days agoSetting sail on iceboats across a frozen lake in Wisconsin
-
Massachusetts3 days agoMassachusetts man awaits word from family in Iran after attacks
-
Massachusetts1 week agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Maryland5 days agoAM showers Sunday in Maryland
-
Florida5 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Denver, CO1 week ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Oregon7 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling