Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Why it matters that conservatives are claiming victory over Costco

Published

on

Why it matters that conservatives are claiming victory over Costco

On Thursday, Costco said it would not begin stocking the abortion medication mifepristone at its more than 500 pharmacies, and conservative groups declared victory following a yearlong pressure campaign. Whether the groups are actually responsible for the wholesale chain’s decision is unclear, but they are framing it as a success and pledging to target retailers that already dispense the drug, which would be a blow to abortion access.

In August 2024, a coalition including far-right law firm Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and Inspire Investing — which bills itself as “empowering Christian investors through biblically responsible investing” — sent letters to Costco, Walmart, Kroger, Albertsons and McKesson urging them not to start dispensing mifepristone. The letter to Costco in particular claimed that 6,000 members signed a petition for it not to stock the drug, implying that they might take their business elsewhere.

A coalition including far-right law firm Alliance Defending Freedom and Inspire Investing — which bills itself as “empowering Christian investors through biblically responsible investing” — sent letters to Costco, Walmart, Kroger, Albertsons and McKesson urging them not to start dispensing mifepristone.

In a statement shared with BLN, Costco said, “Our position at this time not to sell mifepristone, which has not changed, is based on the lack of demand from our members and other patients, who we understand generally have the drug dispensed by their medical providers.”

The company did not respond to a follow-up question about how it assessed demand for a medication it doesn’t dispense. The potential interest wouldn’t be limited to the chain’s paid members, as nonmembers can fill prescriptions at its pharmacies. It also wouldn’t be cabined to abortions, since mifepristone is used off label to manage miscarriages.

The Washington Post reports that Costco had deliberated for more than a year about whether to offer mifepristone and decided this month not to do so; the paper cites anonymous sources familiar with the conversations.

Still, ADF is taking credit for Costco maintaining the status quo. As the organization’s corporate engagement legal counsel Michael Ross told Bloomberg News“It’s a very significant win and it’s one we hope to build on this coming year.” Ross added that ADF will turn its focus to CVS and Walgreens, which have been dispensing the drug in states where abortion is legal since early 2024.

It’s a relatively recent development that pharmacies could even stock this drug, which is typically used alongside misoprostol to end an early pregnancy, and conservatives are trying everything they can to shove the genie back in the bottle.

Mifepristone has long been overregulated in the U.S., and for two decades after its approval, the medication had to be dispensed in person by the health care provider who prescribed it. The Covid pandemic led to prescriptions via telemedicine that could be fulfilled by mail-order pharmacies, a change made permanent in late 2021. Then, in January 2023, the Food and Drug Administration said for the first time that brick-and-mortar pharmacies could dispense the drug. CVS and Walgreens swiftly announced plans to stock the medication in states where it was legal.

A month later, 20 Republican attorneys general wrote to CVS and Walgreens and claimed that they might be in violation of a federal law known as the Comstock Act, an anti-obscenity statute passed in 1873. Conservatives have argued that the long-dormant law prohibits sending abortion-causing drugs and devices through the mail or carriers like UPS and FedEx. But the same day as the pharmacy change, the Biden administration’s Department of Justice released legal guidance saying that the Comstock Act can’t be enforced against the shipment of abortion drugs as long as the sender doesn’t know the pills will be used illegally.

ADF’s letters to Costco and others cited the AGs’ claims on Comstock, and lobbed a threat that a change in administration could result in federal prosecutions should the retailers begin stocking mifepristone. “Last year, 20 attorneys general wrote letters advising pharmacies that receiving and dispensing the drug by mail is expressly prohibited by the Comstock Act and many state laws. Violating the Comstock Act alone carries a prison sentence of up to ten years,” the letters read. “The statute of limitations is five years, so the current political leadership at the U.S. Department of Justice cannot provide you cover if the administration changes parties.”

The bigger picture here is that groups like ADF are not satisfied with only conservative-led states passing abortion bans. Their long-term goal is to ban nearly all abortions nationwide under the 14th Amendmentand they’re hoping that courts will aid them along the way to realizing that project by ruling that the Comstock Act is enforceable, or that the FDA was wrong to allow telemedicine prescriptions, or both.

ADF took a case to the Supreme Court in 2024 from physicians seeking to end telemedicine prescriptions, and while the justices said those plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue, that litigation continues thanks to three state AGs who joined the case. Missouri AG Andrew Bailey, who organized the letter to CVS and Walgreens, is leading that case. Most of the other AGs who signed the pharmacy letter have also signed an amicus brief supporting the lawsuit.

Abortion pills were used in nearly two-thirds of all documented terminations in the U.S. in 2023, and by the end of 2024, about 1 in 4 abortions were provided via telemedicine. Pharmacies stocking abortion pills would make them more accessible than they already are, which is a threat to conservatives’ current ban-by-a-thousand-cuts strategy.

Abortion pills were used in nearly two-thirds of all documented terminations in the U.S. in 2023.

The Costco pressure campaign underscores that GOP lawmakers and groups like ADF know an abortion ban cannot pass Congress, so they are trying to limit access in other ways, namely by targeting pills and working to shutter clinics. Their goal is to make it so people can only get abortion medication by physically traveling to a shrinking number of clinics, with more set to shutter amid fallout from the GOP budget bill that “defunds” large abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood has said that as many as 200 of its clinics could close as a result of the bill, including 75% of its abortion-providing clinics across 12 states. That’s why the organization calls the law a backdoor abortion ban. Making abortion less accessible functions as an effective ban for some women — all before a possible nationwide ban is in place.

This context is why it’s so disappointing that Costco will not dispense mifepristone, a necessary medication for people who need abortions and people experiencing miscarriages — and one that is set to become increasingly difficult to access. ADF added in a press release after the Bloomberg story that it “applaud[s] Costco for doing the right thing by its shareholders and resisting activist calls to sell abortion drugs.” This isn’t about “selling” abortion pills. It’s about pharmacies being willing to dispense medications that people’s doctors have prescribed them.

The Costco statement said it believed that people “generally” have mifepristone dispensed by their medical providers, not pharmacies. While many people do still receive the pill directly from their doctor either in person or by mailtelemedicine prescriptions are increasingly filled by mail-order pharmacies like Honeybee Healthand of course other pharmacies do dispense the drug. Just not Costco.

Later in the ADF release, the group claimed that dispensing abortion pills is a bad business decision. “Retailers like Costco keep their doors open by selling a lifetime of purchases to families, both large and small,” Ross said. “They have nothing to gain and much to lose by becoming abortion dispensaries. Retail pharmacies exist to serve the health and wellness of their customers, but abortion drugs like mifepristone undermine that mission by putting women’s health at risk.”

Data shows that abortion restrictions are not only bad for people’s healthbut also bad for the economy. The landmark Turnaway Study found that women denied abortions are four times as likely to live below the federal poverty level than women who got care. And in June, the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) estimated that the Dobbs decision has led to $64 billion in economic losses each year in the 16 states that ban or heavily restrict abortion. Nationwide, IWPR estimates that bans and other restrictions keep about 550,000 women out of the labor force annually, which is enough to impact GDP, they say.

Corporations may not care about trying to prevent a nationwide abortion access crisis, but they should care about protecting their profits and shareholder value.

SUSPAN goals

Susan Rinkunas is an independent journalist and co-founder of Autonomy News. Her work has appeared in Jezebel, The New Republic, The Guardian, Slate, The Nation and more.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

‘I don’t care about that’: Trump moves the goal posts on Iran’s uranium stockpile

Published

on

‘I don’t care about that’: Trump moves the goal posts on Iran’s uranium stockpile

More than a month into the war in Iran, there’s still great uncertainty about why the United States launched this military offensive in the first place. There’s reason to believe, however, that the conflict has something to do with Iran’s nuclear program.

At an unrelated White House event on Tuesday, for example, Donald Trump said“I had one goal: They will have no nuclear weapon, and that goal has been attained.”

It was a curious comment, in part because by the president’s own assessmentIran didn’t have a nuclear weapon before he decided to launch the war, and in part because Secretary of State Marco Rubio this week presented the administration’s four major objectives in the conflict, none of which had anything to do with Iran’s nuclear program.

As for whether Trump’s newly manufactured “goal” has actually been “attained,” The New York Times reported“Unless something changes over the next two weeks — the target Mr. Trump set to begin withdrawing from the conflict — he will have left the Iranians with 970 pounds of highly enriched uranium, enough for 10 to a dozen bombs. The country will retain control over an even larger inventory of medium-enriched uranium that, with further enrichment, could be turned into bomb fuel, if the Iranians can rebuild that capacity after a month of steady bombing.”

The American president has acknowledged that these details are true, though he apparently no longer cares. Ahead of an Oval Office address to the nation about the war in Iran, the Republican spoke to Reuters about his perspective:

Of the enriched uranium, Trump said: ‘That’s so far ⁠underground, I ​don’t care about that.’

‘We’ll always be watching it by satellite,’ he added. He said Iran was ‘incapable’ of developing a weapon ​now.

The president’s comments definitely have a practical element: It’s been an open question for weeks as to whether Trump intends to try to seize Iran’s uranium stockpile, which would require ground troops and be profoundly dangerous for U.S. military service members.

If Trump told Reuters the truth and is prepared to let Iran keep the uranium it already has because he no longer “cares about that,” it would drastically reduce the likelihood of a ground invasion — one that would almost certainly cost lives.

But there’s another element to this worth keeping in mind as the process moves forward: Ever since the Obama administration struck the original nuclear agreement with Iran in 2015, Trump has insisted that it was wrong to allow the country to hold onto nuclear materials that might someday be used in a nuclear weapon.

A decade later, he’s suddenly indifferent to Iran’s uranium stockpile — which has only grown larger since Trump abandoned the Obama-era policy.

Trump’s goalposts, in other words, are on the move.

Indeed, if the American president’s comments reflect his true perspective (and with this guy, one never really knows), we’re due for a serious public conversation about the motives and objectives for the war. Because as things stand, before the war, Iran had a regime run by radical religious clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard; the country had a significant uranium stockpile; and the Strait of Hormuz was open.

And now, Trump’s apparent vision for a successful offensive will include Iran with a regime run by radical religious clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard; the country still holding a significant uranium stockpile; and the Strait of Hormuz will be open.

Mission accomplished, I guess?

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Mike Johnson caves to the Senate, paving the way for likely DHS shutdown deal

Published

on

Just days after labeling the Senate deal to end the record-breaking shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security a “crap sandwich,” Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., now appears ready to swallow it whole.

Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., announced Wednesday they will move forward with the two-track approach senators unanimously backed last Friday. They will pass a bill to fund most of DHS — with the exception of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and parts of Customs and Border Patrol — and then look to approve money for ICE and CBP in a separate reconciliation package.

“In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited,” Johnson and Thune said in a joint statement.

The announcement amounts to a stunning reversal for Johnson, who was facing pressure from conservatives to oppose the Senate deal. Their objections centered on the lack of money for ICE, as well as the Senate’s failure to include new voter ID restrictions, championed by President Donald Trump, with the so-called SAVE America Act.

Instead, Johnson on Friday forced a House vote on an alternative measure to fund all of DHS for eight weeks. While it passed almost entirely along party linesthe stopgap measure stood no chance in the Senate, where Democrats have repeatedly rejected a similar proposal in recent weeks.

Lawmakers were back to square one.

But it turns out, all they needed was a little push from Trump.

Less than three hours before Johnson and Thune’s announcement, Trump urged Republicans — in a lengthy statement on Truth Social — to pass funding for ICE and border patrol through budget reconciliation. While that approach allows GOP lawmakers to bypass Democratic opposition, it requires near-unanimous GOP support.

Trump said he wants the legislation on his desk by June 1 — an ambitious timeline that dramatically increased pressure on Republicans.

“We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won’t be able to stop us,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We will not allow them to hurt the families of these Great Patriots by defunding them. I am asking that the Bill be on my desk NO LATER than June 1st.”

With Johnson suddenly on board, lawmakers appear poised to end the DHS shutdown just as soon as the House can reconvene. It’s unclear exactly when that might happen. The House isn’t due back until April 14. But Johnson could always call lawmakers back sooner — or look to pass the Senate bill while both chambers are out on recess through a special process.

Because the House never technically sent its 60-day continuing resolution to the Senate, the House could just recede from its amendment of the Senate-passed bill and immediately send the legislation to the president.

Either way, barring another sudden shift from Trump or House leadership, the longest government shutdown in U.S. history may soon be over — and Democrats are already taking a victory lap.

“Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. “We were clear from the start: fund critical security, protect Americans, and no blank check for reckless ICE and Border Patrol enforcement.”

“We were united, held the line, and refused to let Republican chaos win,” Schumer added.

Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.

Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Former White House official: Trump’s Supreme Court attendance could be ‘perceived as intimidation’

Published

on

Former White House official: Trump’s Supreme Court attendance could be ‘perceived as intimidation’

President Donald Trump became the first sitting American president to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning when he sat in the audience to hear his administration argue to limit birthright citizenship guarantees for the children of undocumented immigrants and temporary U.S. residents.

Before arguments began, Trump entered the courtroom wearing his usual red tie and sat in the front row of the public seating area. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Attorney General Pam Bondi were also in the room.

None of the justices acknowledged Trump’s presence while he was in the courtroom.

As the justices began to question U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, who was arguing on behalf of the administration, Trump remained focused and wore a blank expression.

After Sauer finished his arguments, Trump remained in the courtroom for a few minutes. He got up and quietly left, flanked by Secret Service agents, shortly after Cecillia Wang began her arguments for the ACLU.

Chart: Carson Elm-Picard / MS NOW; Photos courtesy the Supreme Court of the United States

Trump’s presence at the court is significant. A sitting president of the United States has never attended oral arguments at the high court before, which is widely considered a sign of respect for the balance of power between the federal government and the judiciary.

Two senior White House officials who requested anonymity to speak about the president’s internal strategy told MS NOW that Trump wanted to listen to the oral argument because “it’s an important case.” The outcome of the case will have sweeping legal implications for Trump’s sprawling immigration enforcement agenda.

“Behind closed doors there’s a realization of the tremendous legal wall this is to climb,” a former White House official familiar with Trump’s thinking who spoke on the condition of anonymity told MS NOW.

“I’m not sure of the calculation from him to go today. It will be perceived as intimidation, and some justices won’t like that,” the former official said.

Trump has shown scorn for the justices for their ruling on his aggressive tariff policy. Earlier this year, Trump said the justices who ruled against the policy were an “an embarrassment to their families.” The president has railed against the justices, including the ones he appointed in his first term, for striking down his sprawling trade agenda.

Trump has pivoted between slamming the justices on social media for the February tariff ruling and calling on them to uphold his birthright citizenship order.

Domicile, the legal term for the place where an individual maintains a permanent home, was at the heart of Sauer’s argument Wednesday. Sauer argued that parents of children born in the U.S. must be domiciled in the United States and demonstrate allegiance to the country in order for their children to be granted citizenship.

Trump left the court after his administration’s argument faced pushback from the court’s key conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch, as well as the rest of the justices on the bench.

As Trump’s motorcade rolled back to the White House, droves of tourists watched and responded with positive and negative gestures. National Guard members were in the crowds, as well.

The case, Trump v. Barbara, centers on the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to confer citizenship to almost all individuals born on U.S. soil: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Shortly after returning to the White House last year, Trump signed an executive order seeking to end that guarantee. The justices will weigh whether the executive order complies with the federal statute that codified that clause.

Trump did not stay to hear more than the first few minutes of the dissenting arguments. But after returning to the White House, he posted a response on his Truth Social platform. “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow “Birthright” Citizenship!”

Sydney Carruth is a breaking news reporter covering national politics and policy for MS NOW. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at SydneyCarruth.46 or follow her work on X and Bluesky.

Jake Traylor is a White House correspondent for MS NOW.

Fallon Gallagher is a legal affairs reporter for MS NOW.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending