Abortion

Abortion terrorism intrigue

The Nuremberg Files' Neal Horsley says fugitive abortion foe Clayton Waagner took him hostage, claimed credit for anthrax hoax -- and promised to kill 42 clinic workers if they don't resign. Skeptics say they're in cahoots.

  • more
    • All Share Services

Topics:

Abortion terrorism intrigue

Fugitive antiabortion militant Clayton Waagner says he’s responsible for sending letters and Federal Express packages purporting to be laced with anthrax to some 700 abortion providers and abortion rights groups last month. He also claims he has a hit list of 42 clinic workers he will murder if they don’t quit their jobs.

At least that’s the story being put forward by fellow abortion foe Neal Horsley, proprietor of the notorious Nuremberg Files Web site. In one of the more far-fetched tales to emerge from the extreme anti-abortion movement, Horsley claims Waagner took him hostage on the day after Thanksgiving and used him as his mouthpiece to claim responsibility for the anthrax letters and to announce his threat of new violence against abortion providers.

Clinic security experts say they doubt that Horsley was actually taken hostage by Waagner. But they believe his message from the violent fugitive is authentic.

Waagner escaped from federal custody in February while awaiting sentencing on federal firearms and stolen vehicle charges. Since then, authorities say, he has been driving back and forth across the country, stealing cars, robbing banks and stalking abortion clinics. He says he’s assembling a cache of weapons and compiling dossiers on clinic staff in order “to kill as many of them as I can,” or so he claimed in a communiqui posted on the Army of God Web site, run by the Rev. Donald Spitz, earlier this year. The FBI put him on its 10 Most Wanted List in September.

“We take it very seriously,” said FBI spokesman Bill Crowley of the bureau’s Pittsburgh field office. “Every law enforcement officer in the country is on the lookout for this guy. And we will continue to go after him until we locate and apprehend him.” The feds want Waagner so badly, Crowley says, they’ve established a multi-agency task force that includes the FBI, the U.S. Marshals Service and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.

Meanwhile, clinic officials are also taking the latest round of threats from Waagner seriously. Ann Glazier, director of clinic security for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, says the organization has strong security measures already in place. “Both the U.S. Marshals Service and the FBI have been extremely serious about catching Waagner,” Glazier says. “I just hope they will be as aggressive as they have been in the past.”

But the bizarre circumstances of Waagner’s supposed announcement are raising questions about both the message and the messenger. Glazier, for one, believes Horsley and Waagner are in cahoots. “Waagner and Horsley seem to think of this as a joke. A terrorist joke,” she says.

Horsley is the man behind the Nuremberg Files, a warren of antiabortion Web sites listing the names of abortion providers and staff as well as those he perceives as supporters of abortion rights — from former President Clinton to President Bush, as well as six of the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. A federal court found that publishing the names, addresses and photos of abortion providers on the site as well as in the form of Old West wanted posters amounted to an unlawful threat to abortion providers. But the decision was reversed by a three-judge panel, whose reversal was in turn reversed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which will rehear the case in November.

Now, in a special section of his Web site, Horsley tells a wild tale of being visited by Clayton Waagner the day after Thanksgiving at his Carrollton, Ga., home. The desperado had a gun, he says, but Horsley claims he nevertheless “managed” to get Waagner to agree to an hour-long taped interview.

“I knew a lot about Clayton Waagner,” Horsley writes. “I knew he had been on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted List for months; I knew he had been spotlighted on America’s Most Wanted on numerous occasions; and I knew that at this time when America is taking terrorists Dead or Alive all over the world, Clay Waagner was touted as the most hunted man in America because he was a bona fide Terrorist.”

Waagner told Horsley that he was behind the mailed anthrax threats to abortion providers, a claim Horsley said he greeted with “skepticism” at first. “I certainly did not want to call the man with a pistol in his lap a liar,” Horsley wrote. The mailings, first by U.S. mail and then via Federal Express, contained powder and a letter. The ones that came via U.S. mail were signed “Army of God, Virginia Dare chapter,” while the second batch was claimed by the “Virginia Dare cell.” The letters claimed that the recipient had been exposed to anthrax, though none ultimately tested positive.

“Waagner showed me evidence,” Horsley says, that proved to his satisfaction that not only had the fugitive sent the anthrax threats, but “he had also staked out 42 abortion workers so that it was only a matter of time until he would assassinate them all.” According to Horsley, the 42 workers on Waagner’s list include “people representing the entire spectrum of abortion employees from abortionists to the person who cleans the building at night.”

When Waagner finished, Horsley says, “he tied me up with duct tape so that it took many long minutes before I could untie myself.”

Then, Horsley says, he called the police. He has since been interviewed by the FBI. He claims the police took the tape of the interview.

He insists that his agreement to function as the intermediary for Waagner’s threat does not constitute “aiding and abetting terrorism.” “By publishing this information,” he claims, “I am actually giving the 42 abortion employees who are slated to die by Clayton Waagner an opportunity to live.”

But apparently Waagner told no one — not even Horsley — the names of the supposed Waagner 42. “The Holy Spirit will tell them,” Waagner said.

“Based on everything I learned about Clay Waagner,” Horsley wrote, “he is likely looking down his sights at an abortion employee right now.”

This was not the first communication between Waagner and Horsley. The men had corresponded while Waagner was in prison. Other antiabortion militants have also corresponded with Waagner, including Army of God spokesman Don Spitz.

Some advocates who monitor groups like the Army of God and other violent right-wing organizations say the federal government hasn’t done enough to make sure they’re not behind the deadly anthrax mailings, which have so far killed five people and infected more than a dozen others, as well as the hundreds of letters to abortion providers that proved to be a hoax. But Waagner has certainly come in for federal scrutiny: His family home in Pennsylvania was searched last week by agents from several federal law enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, giving rise to speculation that he could be a suspect in the mailed anthrax threats.

Horsley, a longtime front man for the Army of God, is now offering to receive resignations from the 42 abortion workers Waagner claims he will assassinate. “Abortion Employees who think they might be one of the 42 targeted for death by Clayton Lee Waagner,” Horsley writes, are to post the information on a bulletin board Horsley will establish on his Web site, so that Waagner can access it and know whom not to kill.

Abortion providers and their advocates hope Horsley is coming in for some federal scrutiny as well for his role in helping Waagner publicize his threat against providers.

“I imagine that Horsley is enjoying this immensely,” complains Ann Glazier. “The problem with the anthrax threat letters from the beginning,” she says, “is that it’s been played like some kind of psychotic joke. There is an element to the letters and the mailings that’s like a kids game. Like ‘Ha ha, you can’t catch me!’”

Continue Reading Close

Frederick Clarkson has reported on the religious right for 15 years. He is the author of "Eternal Hostility: The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy" (Common Courage Press, 1997).

The sex-selective abortion sham

Updated: The GOP is seeking a new line of attack on reproductive rights, requiring doctors to police women's motive

  • more
    • All Share Services

Topics:

The sex-selective abortion shamTrent Franks (Credit: AP/Matt York)

[UPDATED BELOW]

Today, the House of Representatives will vote on a bill banning sex-selective abortions, despite the fact that the GOP leadership has insisted that it’s focused on the economy — and not that pesky “war on women” stuff they keep getting tarred with. It’s okay, because its sponsor, Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., has an easy explanation for what an abortion ban to combat a phenomenon that barely exists in the U.S. has to do with the economy: “The reason we have an economy,” he said, according to Politico, “[is] because … we in America believe that life is a gift from God.”

A more direct – and less theocratic – answer would be that this one got through because of the nature of the ban, which allows Republicans in an election year to once again accuse Democrats of waging the real war on women. Or, as the National Right to Life Committee put it, “Members who recently have embraced contrived political rhetoric asserting they are resisting a ‘war on women’ must reflect on whether they wish to be recorded as being defenders of the escalating war on baby girls.” In other words, this is about making Democrats squirm – not unlike what’s happening in reverse in the Senate.

Franks previously tried to attach his bill to the Violence Against Women Act, which has turned into another political cudgel. He made another concession when he dropped the “racial discrimination” provisions of the bill, which the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank aptly described as “the latest attempt to protect racial minorities from themselves.” Under the rules through which it was introduced, Franks’s Prenatal Non-Discriminational Act (PRENDA) needs two-thirds of the House to pass, meaning it needs roughly 50 votes from Democrats.

Today happens to be the third anniversary of the murder of Dr. George Tiller, who provided abortions in the most difficult cases amid actual violence, the daily threat of such violence, and politicized law enforcement tactics. PRENDA would ask the already besieged physicians still alive to police their patients’ decisions – especially their Asian-American patients, who would be singled out for disparate care – and to subject doctors to a fine or a up to a year in prison, or both. It’s utterly unconstitutional of course. Unless you’re in a state where later abortions are limited to special circumstances like threat to life, the United States doesn’t interfere, and rightly so, with a woman’s reason for having an abortion.

In the U.S., this is a “solution” in search of a problem. Even in immigrant communities that show very limited evidence of more boys being born than girls later in the birth order, abortion is far from the only mechanism available to sort for sex. Half of American fertility clinics offer some possibility of sorting by sex before a pregnancy. But if you ask people who actually work on this issue in Asia, where skewed sex ratios – whether achieved through IVF, abortion or even infanticide — can be socially destabilizing, they’ll tell you that limiting reproductive freedom isn’t the answer. The only mechanism that has changed anything (the go-to example is South Korea, where abortion is technically illegal but widely tolerated) is moving toward a more gender-equitable society where life as a woman is less of a burden. Part of that equitable society includes women making the decision when and if to be mothers. Seeking to chip away at that right is the true hypocrisy.

UPDATE: While a majority of the House voted in favor of PRENDA Thursday, 247-168, it did not pass since Republicans called it up under rules requiring a two-thirds majority.

Continue Reading Close
Irin Carmon

Irin Carmon is a staff writer for Salon. Follow her on Twitter at @irincarmon or email her at icarmon@salon.com.

An overdue abortion access expansion

Will Congress let the military cover abortions in the cases of female soldiers who suffer rape or incest?

  • more
    • All Share Services

Topics:

An overdue abortion access expansionJeanne Shaheen, Dianne Feinstein and Patty Murray (Credit: AP/J. Scott Applewhite)

As political dares go, this one could hardly have been more blatant. “[Republicans] say they didn’t launch a war on women,” Sen. Barbara Boxer said Wednesday, “so we’re giving them a chance to walk this back.” She added, “Personally I say it’s a war on women, and the more they protest it the more I say it.” And Sen. Barbara Mikulski channeled ”Network” (or maybe old-school feminist rage): “We’re mad as hell and we’re not gonna take it anymore.” Even Harry Reid got in on the action, saying on the floor yesterday, “Republicans deny they’re waging a war on women, yet they’ve launched a series of attacks on women’s access to healthcare and contraception this year. Now they have an opportunity to back up their excuses with action.”

What spurred such rage? Nothing so incendiary as transvaginal ultrasounds or birth control — just the Paycheck Fairness Act, which passed the Democratic House in 2009 but fell to a filibuster by two votes in the Senate in 2010. It modifies the 1963 Equal Pay Act, strengthening enforcement and creating better mechanisms for wage transparency, and authorizes new research on the pay gap and a grant program to teach negotiation skills to women and girls. And while it probably doesn’t have a prayer in the House — if it can even pass this Senate — it manages to bring feminist-friendly legislation back on the table while doubling as a political tool to force Republicans into an uncomfortable corner.

Better yet, it gets to the subject Republicans have intermittently accused Democrats of obfuscating: the economy. As Sen. Patty Murray taunted in a press conference, “To those Republicans who claim to be so concerned about the economy, now is your chance to sign on, When women are not paid what they deserve, middle-class families and communities pay the price.”

Whatever happens with the Paycheck Fairness Act (likely nothing) or the dueling versions of the Violence Against Women Act, this week also saw a bill move that, if it makes it into law, would represent a rare, if tiny, expansion of abortion access on the federal level. That would be the Shaheen Amendment, named for another female Democratic senator, which allows female servicemembers — who suffer disproportionate levels of sexual assault — insurance coverage for abortion in cases of rape and incest. (Currently, the Department of Defense offers coverage only if the woman’s life is in danger, a much more limited policy than that of other federal employees.)

The amendment passed in the Senate Armed Services Committee’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act, with three Republican votes — Sens. John McCain, Scott Brown and Susan Collins. (Democrat Ben Nelson voted against it). Of course, if it manages to get through the full Senate, it has the anti-choice House to contend with. That it would be incredibly narrow says a lot about the state of reproductive rights in this country — after all, rape and abortion exceptions are a compromise that, while reflecting American public opinion, truly jibe with neither side’s actual worldview. But you have to start somewhere, and a time of heated political rhetoric about women’s rights is as good as any other.

Continue Reading Close
Irin Carmon

Irin Carmon is a staff writer for Salon. Follow her on Twitter at @irincarmon or email her at icarmon@salon.com.

“Not allowed to speak”: GOP silences D.C. rep

Rep. Eleanor Norton tells Salon how Republicans wouldn't let her talk at a hearing to ban abortions in her district

  • more
    • All Share Services

Topics:

House Republicans seem to have learned this much in the past few months: It looks bad to turn away a woman from a hearing on women’s health. So when D.C. congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton was denied the courtesy of testifying at a subcommittee hearing yesterday in her district on banning abortions after 20 weeks, Chairman Trent Franks, R-Ariz., suggested a compromise of sorts.

“He said that the congresswoman could, if she desired, sit on the dais of the hearing, but she would not be allowed to speak,” Norton told Salon after the hearing. She declined an offer she said “no self-respecting member” would accept.

“I certainly didn’t give them that optic,” she said drily.

Franks was technically within his rights – per the rules, the Democratic minority was granted one witness, D.C. resident Christy Zinks, who had an abortion at almost 22 weeks after the detection of a severe fetal abnormality. Still, as Norton pointed out, “there is a long tradition that goes back more than a century of allowing members to testify on a bill that may touch upon the district.” Nancy Pelosi also condemned the move.

In the testimony she wasn’t allowed to give, Norton says the so-called Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act “is the first bill ever introduced in Congress that would deny constitutional rights to the citizens of only one jurisdiction in the United States, and it is the first bill ever introduced in Congress that would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.” Last year, House Republicans managed to strike a budget deal that would deny the District of Columbia the right to use its own Medicaid funds to pay for abortions — another byproduct of the fact that D.C. is ultimately under congressional oversight and has only partial self-governance.

Seven states have followed Nebraska in passing manifestly unconstitutional bans on later abortions without health exceptions, on the scientifically suspect notion that a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks. So far, pro-choice organizations have declined to mount a legal challenge, for complicated reasons.

Norton called it a “stalking horse” for the overturning of Roe. “We understand we’re the vehicle, we know we’re not the object of affection,” she said. “What they want from the Congress is a federal imprimatur to continue their march in the states, to say, even the Congress has voted for a bill to limit abortion to 20 weeks.”

The National Right to Life Committee has called the bill its “top congressional priority for 2012,” and will score members based on their votes, even though it likely has no chance of getting past the Senate – or the president. “They are serious about this bill,” Norton told Salon. “They’re not playing.”

That said, she thinks that despite Franks’ zeal, other House Republicans have lost their zeal for fighting what’s still being called the war on women. An earlier Franks bill, seeking to limit race- and sex-selective abortions, didn’t make it to the floor. And on the House version of the Violence Against Women Act, fiercely opposed by the White House and women’s groups, “They keep saying that they’re working on a way to reach an accommodation, and for them, that is unusual to say,” Norton said.

“They didn’t anticipate the way the war on women, as it is called, has boiled up to the surface,” Norton said. “And they’re trying to quell it somewhat.”

Continue Reading Close
Irin Carmon

Irin Carmon is a staff writer for Salon. Follow her on Twitter at @irincarmon or email her at icarmon@salon.com.

Abortions made public

States want more data on abortion patients. Zealots want their hands on it. Shame is the new anti-choice strategy

  • more
    • All Share Services

Topics: , , ,

Abortions made public (Credit: Cannaregio via Shutterstock/Salon/Benjamin Wheelock)

It was an “anonymous informant,” Operation Rescue claimed last week, after someone slipped them the April records of 86 women who were treated at Central Family Medical. The clinic’s lawyer was blunter. “It certainly appears to me that a crime was committed,” Cheryl Pilate told the Kansas City Star. Though the clinic (which performs abortions) had already reported a break-in to a locked dumpster, Pilate said it wouldn’t have contained patient records, which are shredded. The “informant” must have gotten the documents – containing names, addresses and details of procedures – another way.

“Our concern is for the privacy of these women and for their health and safety, for which Central Family Planning has shown very little regard,” said Operation Rescue’s Troy Newman – while posting photographs of the documents, partially redacted in black marker, online.

Antiabortion activists want to create the impression that one way or another, a woman’s decision to have an abortion will be discovered and exposed. The Central Family Medical incident is only the latest skirmish in a decades-long effort to undermine the privacy of abortion patients and harass doctors. In the early ’90s, for example, at least one group of clinic protesters printed on their signs the names of women seeking abortions that day, alongside “don’t kill your baby.” Such actions, while failing to make abortion illegal, have nevertheless managed to cloak it in a stigma that belies the fact that one in three women will have an abortion before the age of 45. Now, activists are seeking new ways to shame women who seek abortions, from requiring them to hand over personal information to actually hacking into their medical records.

Kansas has been ground zero for this: Last year, the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys recommended that former Attorney General Phill Kline, a hero to Operation Rescue, have his legal license suspended indefinitely for mishandling the records from murdered abortion provider George Tiller’s clinic. (The Kansas Supreme Court will make the final call.) But the zeal to keep, and sometimes steal, abortion records casts a wide net.

In Texas, the state Department of Health is trying to implement a failed legislative measure that would require abortion clinics to report far more information about their patients to the state. In Florida, voters will weigh in on a ballot measure that would exempt abortion from the privacy clause in the state constitution, with the short-term aim being to strip minors of a right to privacy that would preclude parental consent. The U.K. recently jailed a hacker who stole and intended to publish the records of 10,000 women who visited the country’s largest abortion provider.

“It promotes the idea that abortion – or your privacy, if you have any – is not safe,” says Katie Stack, a graduate student and activist who spoke out about her abortion on an MTV special, “No Easy Decision.” That put her in close contact with the “online ministry” – the name antiabortion activists have given their efforts to reach women considering abortions through the Internet.

This has been the unstated goal of many activists in the antiabortion movement — and, sometimes, the stated one. “This might sound a little strange,” said antiabortion activist Lila Rose at the Value Voters Summit in 2009, but “if I could insist, as long as they are legal in our nation, abortions would be done in the public square, until we were so sick and tired of seeing them that we would do away with the injustice altogether … maybe then we might hear angels singing when we ponder the glory of conception.”

Rose won’t get her wish any time soon, but antiabortion activists are trying to use the Internet to have a similar effect. Rose was recently on a panel at the International Pro-Life Youth Conference about social media and pro-life activism, where topics included targeting women who are seeking information about abortion online, whether through Yahoo Answers or YouTube commenters – including figuring out where they live and recommending a crisis pregnancy center nearby.

“Privacy is very important to women who have abortions,” says Kate Cockrill, program director of the Social and Emotional Aspects of Abortion project, at the University of California, San Francisco. She points out that abortion is traditionally underreported even in confidential surveys, “which is a good indication that women don’t want to be associated with abortion experience in the eyes of someone who’s gathering data, even if it’s anonymous.”

Cockrill recently conducted a survey, as yet unpublished, that seeks to measure the impact of social stigma on women who’ve had abortions. It asked 641 women who had had abortions about 61 items, including questions about the fear people would gossip about you, judge you or hurt you, or the fear that you would lose an important relationship.

So far, she’s found that the women who experienced the most stigma were worried about being judged more than they were about being hurt or harmed, that they feared loss of social status and the ruining of their public identity, that they felt isolated and guilty, and that they feared community condemnation.

But as with other abortion restrictions, which create extra burdens in the supposed service of changing women’s minds, it’s not clear that anyone’s mind is being changed.

“Lots of women who feel a lot of stigma about abortions have abortion anyway,” Cockrill says. “If it’s not doing what antiabortion people want it to do, which is reducing the number of abortions, is it doing something on the other end, [after the fact]?”

Cockrill and her team are going to be using their scale in a study next year to look at the relationship between stigma and poor coping after abortion. Given that antiabortion activists have added to their obsessions the alleged harm abortion causes to women, there’s reason to believe that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Women who have abortions, Cockrill says, “have a huge range of political views.” In fact, in her survey, only 62 percent of the women identified as pro-choice. (Seven percent identified as prolife, and 18 percent described their position as “mixed or neither.”)

“A lot of women don’t experience their abortions as a political act,” Cockrill says, partly an extension of the fact that they don’t see it as constitutive of their identity.

Whether it’s political rhetoric or individual ambivalence, these women are highly sensitive about whom they tell they had abortions. Sixty-four percent of the women in the study said they’d “withheld information about my abortion to someone I’m close to,” and 45 percent said they’d “lied to someone I’m close to about my abortion.”

They may not see it as political, but that silence functions as a vicious circle that antiabortion activists happily seize upon and promote. Cockrill says, “Some people say, ‘We need to have more people come out about their abortions.’ But it’s impossible to get more women to talk about their abortions if they don’t feel supported. And it needs to be on women’s own terms.”

Continue Reading Close
Irin Carmon

Irin Carmon is a staff writer for Salon. Follow her on Twitter at @irincarmon or email her at icarmon@salon.com.

Texas’ abortion enforcer

Fifth Circuit Court Judge Jerry Smith makes sure that the state's antiabortion legislation gets upheld

  • more
    • All Share Services

Topics: ,

Texas' abortion enforcerJerry Smith

Here is what the state of Texas considers “irreparable harm”: Continuing to provide Planned Parenthood with federal funds for the Texas Women’s Health program, which it has done for several years. Here is what it does not find harmful: immediately denying healthcare access to tens of thousands of women who have been going to Planned Parenthood affiliates for basic health services that aren’t abortions.

On Monday, a U.S. District Court judge didn’t buy the state’s legislation defunding Planned Parenthood, putting a temporary stay on the enforcement of the law. But within a day, there was another judge who found the argument persuasive: Fifth Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, last seen obnoxiously demanding that a female Justice Department lawyer ”submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power.” (Kevin Drum memorably compared it to “a middle school teacher handing out punishment to a student because of something her father said at a city council meeting the night before,” and you wouldn’t have to look hard to find the sexist condescension.)

The District Court judge had written 24 pages on the constitutional merits, focusing on Planned Parenthood’s First Amendment rights of association. Smith issued two sentences two hours after the state’s petition, undoing that, and apparently buying the state of Texas’ argument that Planned Parenthood’s alleged “abortion promoting” mission justified discriminating against a qualified provider of healthcare.  (The clinics receiving WHP funding don’t even provide abortions, but other Planned Parenthood clinics do.)

In an election year, these posturings take on new meaning; by today, Planned Parenthood was proclaiming in a news release, “What would Mitt Romney’s America look like for women’s health care?  We need look no further than Texas,” and highlighting the policy similarities of Romney and Perry on women’s health. Romney, of course, has pledged to defund Planned Parenthood, which during the primaries became a consensus Republican issue. The last federal attempt to do so, last year’s Pence Amendment, nearly shut down the entire government, though Obama held the line — as he pointed out in a recent campaign video supporting the organization.

The presidential policies matter, but as we can see from Texas, the judiciary, prompted by state legislatures that are coming off a wave of abortion restrictions, is currently wielding the most power when it comes to women’s everyday lives, and the 5th Circuit in particular has been unrepentantly hostile to reproductive rights. When they failed with Pence, right-to-lifers turned to the states, primed by the 2010 election of even more anti-choice legislators and governors. In Texas, the conservative 5th Circuit has become a brick wall, previously allowing enforcement of the most extreme ultrasound law in the country, one that requires a woman to listen to the results.

Smith is a Reagan appointee, as is his fellow 5th Circuit conservative gadfly Edith Jones, who wrote the opinion in the ultrasound case, though if they’re feeling particularly emboldened lately, you can’t really blame them. After all, the Obama administration has shown little interest in prioritizing the judiciary, even after Bush’s ambitious effort to fill federal appellate courts with movement conservatives. A January Brookings Institution report showed that Obama has nominated fewer federal trial judges than his predecessors, even as a wave of judges retires. (Unprecedented Senate intransigence is a major factor in confirmations, but doesn’t explain the nominations.)  And Dahlia Lithwick has argued that “Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, has selected lower court judges more notable for their racial and gender diversity than their hard-left judicial orientation.”

All of this is to say that as long as states like Texas keep passing laws that punish women and stretch the boundaries of constitutional interpretation, to put it mildly, the buck is likelier than ever to stop at a judge like Jerry Smith.

Continue Reading Close
Irin Carmon

Irin Carmon is a staff writer for Salon. Follow her on Twitter at @irincarmon or email her at icarmon@salon.com.

Page 1 of 128 in Abortion