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
Inside Mark Zuckerberg’s Sprint to Remake Meta for the Trump Era
Mark Zuckerberg kept the circle of people who knew his thinking small.
Last month, Mr. Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Meta, tapped a handful of top policy and communications executives and others to discuss the company’s approach to online speech. He had decided to make sweeping changes after visiting President-elect Donald J. Trump at Mar-a-Lago over Thanksgiving. Now he needed his employees to turn those changes into policy.
Over the next few weeks, Mr. Zuckerberg and his handpicked team discussed how to do that in Zoom meetings, conference calls and late-night group chats. Some subordinates stole away from family dinners and holiday gatherings to work, while Mr. Zuckerberg weighed in between trips to his homes in the San Francisco Bay Area and the island of Kauai.
By New Year’s Day, Mr. Zuckerberg was ready to go public with the changes, according to four current and former Meta employees and advisers with knowledge of the events, who were not authorized to speak publicly about the confidential discussions.
The entire process was highly unusual. Meta typically alters policies that govern its apps — which include Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads — by inviting employees, civic leaders and others to weigh in. Any shifts generally take months. But Mr. Zuckerberg turned this latest effort into a closely held six-week sprint, blindsiding even employees on his policy and integrity teams.
On Tuesday, most of Meta’s 72,000 employees learned of Mr. Zuckerberg’s plans along with the rest of the world. The Silicon Valley giant said it was overhauling speech on its apps by loosening restrictions on how people can talk about contentious social issues such as immigration, gender and sexuality. It killed its fact-checking program that had been aimed at curbing misinformation and said it would instead rely on users to police falsehoods. And it said it would insert more political content into people’s feeds after previously de-emphasizing that very material.
In the days since, the moves — which have sweeping implications for what people will see online — have drawn applause from Mr. Trump and conservatives, derision from fact-checking groups and misinformation researchers, and concerns from L.G.B.T.Q. advocacy groups that fear the changes will lead to more people getting harassed online and offline.
Inside Meta, the reaction has been sharply divided. Some employees have celebrated the moves, while others were shocked and have openly castigated the changes on the company’s internal message boards. Several employees wrote that they were ashamed to work for Meta.
On Friday, Meta’s makeover continued when the company told employees that it would end its work on diversity, equity and inclusion. It eliminated its chief diversity officer role, ended its diversity hiring goals that called for the employment of a certain number of women and minorities, and said it would no longer prioritize minority-owned businesses when hiring vendors.
Meta planned to “focus on how to apply fair and consistent practices that mitigate bias for all, no matter your background,” Janelle Gale, vice president of human resources, said in an internal post that was relayed to The New York Times.
In interviews, more than a dozen current and former Meta employees, executives and advisers to Mr. Zuckerberg described his shift as serving a dual purpose. It positions Meta for the political landscape of the moment, with conservative power ascendant in Washington as Mr. Trump takes office on Jan. 20. More than that, the changes reflect Mr. Zuckerberg’s personal views of how his $1.5 trillion company should be run — and he no longer wants to keep those views quiet.
Mr. Zuckerberg, 40, has regularly spoken to friends and colleagues, including Marc Andreessen, the venture capitalist and Meta board member, about concerns that progressives are policing speech, the people said. He has also felt railroaded by what he views as the Biden administration’s anti-tech posturing, and stung by what he sees as progressives in the media and in Silicon Valley — including in Meta’s work force — pushing him to take a heavy hand in policing discourse, they said.
Meta declined to comment.
In an interview with the podcaster Joe Rogan on Friday, Mr. Zuckerberg said it was time to go “back to our original mission” by giving people “the power to share.” He said he had felt pressured by the Biden administration and the media to “censor” certain content, adding, “I have a much greater command now of what I think the policy should be, and this is how it’s going to be going forward.”
The latest changes were catalyzed by Mr. Trump’s victory in November. That month, Mr. Zuckerberg flew to Florida to meet with Mr. Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Meta later donated $1 million to the president-elect’s inaugural fund.
At Meta, Mr. Zuckerberg began preparing to change speech policies. Knowing that any moves would be contentious, he assembled a team of no more than a dozen close advisers and lieutenants, including Joel Kaplan, a longtime policy executive with strong ties to the Republican Party; Kevin Martin, the head of U.S. policy; and David Ginsberg, the head of communications. Mr. Zuckerberg insisted on no leaks, the people with knowledge of the effort said.
The group worked on revising Meta’s “Hate Speech” policy, with Mr. Zuckerberg leading the charge, they said. They changed the name of the policy, which lays out what to do with slurs, threats against protected groups and other harmful content on its apps, to “Hateful Conduct.”
That effectively shifted the emphasis of the rules away from speech, minimizing Meta’s role in policing online conversation. Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Martin were cheerleaders of the changes, these people said.
Mr. Zuckerberg decided to promote Mr. Kaplan to Meta’s head of global public policy to carry out the changes and deepen Meta’s ties to the incoming Trump administration, replacing Nick Clegg, a former deputy prime minister of Britain who had handled policy and regulatory issues globally for Meta since 2018. The night before Meta’s announcement, Mr. Kaplan held individual calls with top conservative social media influencers, two people said.
On Tuesday, Mr. Zuckerberg made the new speech policies public in his Instagram video. Mr. Kaplan appeared on “Fox & Friends,” a mainstay of Mr. Trump’s media diet, saying Meta’s fact-checking partners “had too much political bias.”
(Fact-checking groups that worked with Meta have said they had no role in deciding what the company did with the content that was fact-checked.)
Among its changes, Meta loosened rules so people could post statements saying they hated people of certain races, religions or sexual orientations, including permitting “allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation.” The company cited political discourse about transgender rights for the change. It also removed a rule that forbade users to say people of certain races were responsible for spreading the coronavirus.
Some training materials that Meta created for the new policies were confusing and contradictory, two employees who reviewed the documents said. Some of the text said saying that “white people have mental illness” would be prohibited on Facebook, but saying that “gay people have mental illness” was allowed, they said.
Meta locked access to the policies and training materials internally late on Thursday, they said, hours after The Intercept published excerpts.
The company also removed the transgender and nonbinary “themes” on its Messenger chat app, which allows users to customize the app’s colors and wallpaper, two employees said. The change was reported earlier by 404 Media.
That same day at Meta’s offices in Silicon Valley, Texas and New York, facilities managers were instructed to remove tampons from men’s bathrooms, which the company had provided for nonbinary and transgender employees who use the men’s room and who may have required sanitary pads, two employees said.
Some employees were livid at what they saw as efforts by executives to hide changes to the “Hateful Conduct” policy before it was announced, two people said. While people across the policy division typically view and comment on significant revisions, most did not have the opportunity this time.
On Workplace, Meta’s Slack-like internal communications software, employees began arguing over the changes. In the @Pride employee resource group, where workers who support L.G.B.T.Q. issues convene, at least one person announced their resignation as others privately relayed to one another that they planned to look for jobs elsewhere, two people said.
In a post this week to the @Pride group, Alex Schultz, Meta’s chief marketing officer, defended Mr. Zuckerberg and said topics like transgender issues had become politicized. He said Meta’s policies should not get in the way of allowing societal debate and pointed to Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion case, as an example of “courts getting ahead of society” in the 1970s. Mr. Schultz said the courts had “politicized” the issue instead of allowing it to be debated civically.
“You find topics become politicized and stay in the political conversation for far longer than they would’ve if society just debated them out,” Mr. Schultz wrote. He said looser restrictions on speech in Meta’s apps would allow for this kind of debate.
Mr. Zuckerberg traveled to Palm Beach, Fla., this week, four people with knowledge of his activities said, and on Friday was said to have been at Mar-a-Lago.
In his interview with Mr. Rogan, Mr. Zuckerberg denied making sweeping changes to appease the incoming Trump administration, but said the election did influence his thinking.
“The good thing about doing it after the election is you get to take this cultural pulse,” he said. “We got to this point where there were these things that you couldn’t say that were just mainstream discourse.”
Theodore Schleifer, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan contributed reporting.
Politics
'Deeply disgusted': GOP senator shreds Biden admin in scathing letter on new immigrant deportation shield
FIRST ON FOX: Newly sworn-in Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, in his first letter as a member of the Senate, sent a blistering inquiry to the Department of Homeland Security demanding answers on the extension of deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals from a slew of countries.
“I write to express my sincere concerns regarding the extensions of the designations of El Salvador, Venezuela, Ukraine, and Sudan for Temporary Protected Status (“TPS”),” Moreno wrote in a letter to DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on Friday. “These 18-month extensions allow these noncitizens to remain in the United States through the Fall of 2026, when the designations were set to expire.”
“These decisions were shamefully made by an outgoing administration ten days before President Donald J. Trump takes the oath of office. One would think that after handedly losing the 2024 Presidential Election when voters overwhelmingly rejected the Biden-Harris Administration’s open-border policy, that you would finally understand American citizens’ mandate. And yet, you continue to completely disregard the will of the majority of voters, by unilaterally deciding to allow nearly 1 million noncitizens who entered our country without original authorization to remain in the United States.”
DHS announced on Friday it is extending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for El Salvador, Venezuela, Sudan and Ukraine for an additional 18 months beyond their current expirations.
RED STATE AGS WELCOME TRUMP CRACKDOWN ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AFTER FOUR YEARS BATTLING BIDEN
TPS grants protection from deportation and work permits for nationals living in the U.S. from countries deemed unsafe for them to be returned. DHS cited environmental disasters in El Salvador, including storms and heavy rainfall, that it said resulted in a “substantial, but temporary” disruption of living conditions. It also cited the political and economic crises in Venezuela, political instability in Sudan and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine with Russia.
In his letter to Secretary Mayorkas, Moreno criticized the government’s rationale for the move.
“I am also deeply disgusted by your attempts to justify these decisions,” Moreno wrote. “For example, according to your Department, the extension of the TPS status of 234,000 noncitizens is due to “geological and weather events” in El Salvador. However, a quick review of the current weather in San Salvador, El Salvador currently shows that it is “mostly sunny” and 81 degrees Fahrenheit.”
NEW REPORT REVEALS MASSIVE NUMBER OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS BENEFITING FROM BIDEN-HARRIS ADMIN’S ‘QUIET AMNESTY’
The moves do not redesignate countries for the status, meaning only those currently protected by TPS are eligible for an extension and no new applications can be received. Venezuela’s extension will apply to approximately 600,000 nationals; El Salvador’s will apply to 232,000; Ukraine’s will apply to approximately 103,000; and Sudan will affect about 1,900 nationals. Venezuela’s extension will run until October 2026, and El Salvador’s will run until September 2026, with both having been scheduled to end in the spring of 2025.
The moves, particularly for El Salvador and Venezuela, could complicate efforts by the Trump administration to deport illegal immigrants from those countries. Venezuelan nationals have been a particular focus, given the rise of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, while El Salvador is where the MS-13 gang originated.
Moreno’s letter asked Mayorkas to provide answers to a series of questions, some of them related to the concerns about MS-13.
“What is the current number of MS-13 members known to be in the United States?” Moreno asked. ” What is the current number of TdA members known to be in the United States? How many of the noncitizens suspected of being associated with MS-13 and/or TdA have remained in this country through a TPS designation?”
The letter also asks for sourcing and data related to the “geological and weather events” cited by the government as well as information about the vetting process for these individuals and answers about how the government is ensuring that these migrants will not commit crimes in the United States.
Fox News Digital reached out to DHS and the White House but did not receive an immediate response.
The first Trump administration moved to cut down on the number of countries designated for TPS, but the Biden administration has used it broadly, designating or redesignating a number of countries, including Venezuela, Afghanistan and Haiti. There are currently 17 countries designated for TPS.
Both President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance have indicated they want to cut back on TPS once in office, specifically for Haiti.
Fox News Digital’s Adam Shaw contributed to this report
Politics
Supreme Court casts doubt on TikTok's free-speech defense as shutdown law is set to take effect
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded highly skeptical Friday of TikTok’s free-speech defense, signaling they are not likely to strike down the law that could shut down the popular video site the day before President-elect Donald Trump takes the oath of office.
The justices, both conservative and liberal, said Congress was concerned with the Chinese ownership of TikTok and the threat to national security. They also said the law in question was not an effort to restrict the freedom of speech.
“Congress doesn’t care about what’s on TikTok,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. “Congress is not fine with a foreign adversary gathering all this data on 170 million Americans. … Are we supposed to ignore the fact that its parent company is subject to doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?”
He said he knew of no court precedent that would call for striking down such a law on 1st Amendment grounds.
In their comments and questions, all the justices appeared to agree.
“This law is targeted at a foreign corporation that doesn’t have 1st Amendment rights,” said Justice Elena Kagan.
“There is a long tradition of preventing foreign ownership or control of media in the United States,” added Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.
Lawyers for TikTok and many of its creators described the law as an unprecedented attack on the 1st Amendment.
“Shuttering the platform will silence the speech of 170 million monthly American users,” they said.
But Congress and the Biden administration said the Chinese-owned platform gives the government in Beijing access to “vast swaths of data about tens of millions of Americans,” which it “could use for espionage or blackmail.”
The justices agreed to decide TikTok’s 1st Amendment appeal on a fast-track schedule, and they are likely to issue a ruling within a few days.
None of them sounded ready to declare the law unconstitutional.
In recent years, the justices have often struck down federal regulations, usually on the grounds that Congress had not authorized such a far-reaching rule.
But they are wary of striking down an act of Congress, particularly one based on a claim of national security.
The shutdown law is due to take effect on Jan. 19.
“We go dark. The platform shuts down,” TikTok attorney Noel Francisco told the court, if it did not act.
Even if the justices were not ready to strike down the law as unconstitutional, he said they should issue an order that temporarily delays the law from taking effect.
“A short reprieve would make all the sense in the world,” he said, because it would give Trump time to try to work out a deal that could keep TikTok in operation.
In 2020, Trump, in his first term, issued an executive order requiring TikTok to separate itself from Chinese ownership, but it was blocked by courts.
President Biden and Congress took up the issue after receiving classified briefings about the potential threat from ByteDance, the Chinese-controlled company that operates TikTok.
The administration tried and failed to work out a deal that would separate TikTok from Chinese control.
The shutdown law had the support of large bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate, and Biden signed it in April. By its terms the law was due to take effect in 270 days, on Jan. 19.
If the law goes into effect, it would be illegal for service providers such as Google or Apple to “distribute or maintain … a foreign advisory controlled application” in the United States. Violations could result in huge civil fines.
TikTok’s last and best hope may now rest with Trump. He changed his view last year about TikTok, which he said helped him reach young voters.
Two weeks ago, he filed a brief urging the court to stand aside and allow him to make a deal with TikTok’s owners.
None of the justices asked about Trump’s intervention.
The law allows for a one-time extension of up to 90 days if the new president determined there has been “significant progress” toward arranging a “qualified divestiture.”
It is not clear whether Trump could invoke that provision to delay the law from taking effect.
On Wednesday, an investor group spearheaded by former Dodgers owner Frank McCourt submitted an offer to ByteDance for TikTok’s U.S. business. Terms of the deal were not disclosed, and a representative for the group, known as the People’s Bid for TikTok, declined to discuss the state of negotiations with the Chinese company on Friday.
“Our assumption is the Supreme Court will uphold the law, and at that point the only way to preserve TikTok under law will be a divestiture,” said Tomicah Tillemann, president of Project Liberty, a New York-based organization that assembled the bid.
Tillemann said the investment group would rebuild the platform in a way that prioritizes the privacy of TikTok users.
“What we are focused on is providing a clear path forward that will allow for the preservation of the dynamic, vibrant community that is TikTok under American ownership,” Tillemann said.
-
Business1 week ago
These are the top 7 issues facing the struggling restaurant industry in 2025
-
Culture1 week ago
The 25 worst losses in college football history, including Baylor’s 2024 entry at Colorado
-
Sports1 week ago
The top out-of-contract players available as free transfers: Kimmich, De Bruyne, Van Dijk…
-
Politics1 week ago
New Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics1 week ago
Carter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics6 days ago
Who Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
-
Health5 days ago
Ozempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
World1 week ago
Ivory Coast says French troops to leave country after decades