Where is the “Pro-Life” Lobby? The Sequel

Ian

Today is Election Day 2006, the day that political pundits and average Americans alike have been wondering about for months, because the faces of government are likely to look a lot different tomorrow than they do today. There has been a lot going on in light of this election, and conservative interest groups have a lot of election issues on their plates. But considering the significance of abortion to so many of these "pro-lifers," does it surprise anyone else that so few of these groups are talking about the abortion-related Supreme Court cases that begin tomorrow?

Today is Election Day 2006, the day that political pundits and average Americans alike have been wondering about for months, because the faces of government are likely to look a lot different tomorrow than they do today. There has been a lot going on in light of this election, and conservative interest groups have a lot of election issues on their plates. But considering the significance of abortion to so many of these "pro-lifers," does it surprise anyone else that so few of these groups are talking about the abortion-related Supreme Court cases that begin tomorrow?

I feel like I've written this post before. (I did, sort of: "Where is the Pro-Family Lobby Now?") Conservatives have developed a reputation for sticking to talking points – they're on about gay marriage, abortion in South Dakota, and the "looming threat" of a second President Clinton – but it is still surprising that such significant Supreme Court cases would apparently escape their attention.

Family Research Council. Priests for Life. Focus on the Family. Even the Pro-Life Action League. None of them have said anything about these cases that is featured anywhere prominent on their websites (as of the time of this writing). Concerned Women for America released a long brief on the cases a couple weeks ago, but they have buried it on their website too. It appears that only smaller or fringe groups are making this a major issue for them, groups like "Operation Outcry" that gathered 180 women who have had abortions to file an amicus curiae brief ("friend of the court") against what they call "partial birth abortion."

If you want to learn about the case, major media outlets are talking about it. Check out NPR or the New York Times to start. These sources seem to think it's newsworthy. You can look at other posts in Rewire's special series on these cases.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

But why are the most dedicated "pro-life" groups not talking about it? Is it hauteur considering the makeup of the new Roberts/Alito Supreme Court? They may have decided they don't even have to put up a fight.

Or could it be that they are banking on gruesome descriptions of these procedures to suffice for inciting public outcry, and would rather keep quiet and avoid the conversations about personal liberty, federalism, and the doctor/patient relationship that follow such descriptions? Conversations like those usually leave Americans either siding against extreme social conservatives, or else thinking that conservatives are incredibly inconsistent. Pursuing a virulent federalism in some cases, and a federal abortion ban in this case? Individual liberty and freedom of religion on one hand, and federal judges making decisions about personal healthcare on the other? It's hard to reason those out in the public sphere.

The cases have yet to begin, and I'm sure we'll be hearing from all of these groups in the days ahead. But it is worth noting at the outset that these landmark cases just haven't quite made it into the "pro-life" talking points. Perhaps they are just dazed and confused after an election cycle that, if anything, is a referendum on the fact that government should pay attention to what governments are supposed to, like war, terrorism, natural disasters – and leave private family decisions to the beliefs and values of each American.

News Human Rights

Feds Prep for Second Mass Deportation of Asylum Seekers in Three Months

Tina Vasquez

Those asylum seekers include Mahbubur Rahman, the leader of #FreedomGiving, the nationwide hunger strike that spanned nine detention centers last year and ended when an Alabama judge ordered one of the hunger strikers to be force fed.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for the second time in three months, will conduct a mass deportation of at least four dozen South Asian asylum seekers.

Those asylum seekers include Mahbubur Rahman, the leader of #FreedomGiving, the nationwide hunger strike that spanned nine detention centers last year and ended when an Alabama judge ordered one of the hunger strikers to be force-fed.

Rahman’s case is moving quickly. The asylum seeker had an emergency stay pending with the immigration appeals court, but on Monday morning, Fahd Ahmed, executive director of Desis Rising Up and Moving (DRUM), a New York-based organization of youth and low-wage South Asian immigrant workers, told Rewire that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer called Rahman’s attorney saying Rahman would be deported within 48 hours. As of 4 p.m. Monday, Rahman’s attorney told Ahmed that Rahman was on a plane to be deported.

As of Monday afternoon, Rahman’s emergency stay was granted while his appeal was still pending, which meant he wouldn’t be deported until the appeal decision. Ahmed told Rewire earlier Monday that an appeal decision could come at any moment, and concerns about the process, and Rahman’s case, remain.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

An online petition was created in hopes of saving Rahman from deportation.

ICE has yet to confirm that a mass deportation of South Asian asylum seekers is set to take place this week. Katherine Weathers, a visitor volunteer with the Etowah Visitation Project, an organization that enables community members to visit with men in detention at the Etowah County Detention Center in Gadsden, Alabama, told Rewire that last week eight South Asian men were moved from Etowah to Louisiana, the same transfer route made in April when 85 mostly Muslim South Asian asylum seekers were deported.

One of the men in detention told Weathers that an ICE officer said to him a “mass deportation was being arranged.” The South Asian asylum seeker who contacted Weathers lived in the United States for more than 20 years before being detained. He said he would call her Monday morning if he wasn’t transferred out of Etowah for deportation. He never called.

In the weeks following the mass deportation in April, it was alleged by the deported South Asian migrants that ICE forcefully placed them in “body bags” and that officers shocked them with Tasers. DRUM has been in touch with some of the Bangladeshis who were deported. Ahmed said many returned to Bangladesh, but there were others who remain in hiding.

“There are a few of them [who were deported] who despite being in Bangladesh for three months, have not returned to their homes because their homes keep getting visited by police or intelligence,” Ahmed said.

The Bangladeshi men escaped to the United States because of their affiliations and activities with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), the opposition party in Bangladesh, as Rewire reported in April. Being affiliated with this party, advocates said, has made them targets of the Bangladesh Awami League, the country’s governing party.

DHS last year adopted the position that BNP, the second largest political party in Bangladesh, is an “undesignated ‘Tier III’ terrorist organization” and that members of the BNP are ineligible for asylum or withholding of removal due to alleged engagement in terrorist activities. It is unclear how many of the estimated four dozen men who will be deported this week are from Bangladesh.

Ahmed said that mass deportations of a particular group are not unusual. When there are many migrants from the same country who are going to be deported, DHS arranges large charter flights. However, South Asian asylum seekers appear to be targeted in a different way. After two years in detention, the four dozen men set to be deported have been denied due process for their asylum requests, according to Ahmed.

“South Asians are coming here and being locked in detention for indefinite periods and the ability for anybody, but especially smaller communities, to win their asylum cases while inside detention is nearly impossible,” Ahmed told Rewire. “South Asians also continue to get the highest bond amounts, from $20,000 to $50,000. All of this prevents them from being able to properly present their asylum cases. The fact that those who have been deported back to Bangladesh are still afraid to go back to their homes proves that they were in the United States because they feared for their safety. They don’t get a chance to properly file their cases while in detention.”

Winning an asylum claim while in detention is rare. Access to legal counsel is limited inside detention centers, which are often in remote, rural areas.

As the Tahirih Justice Center reported, attorneys face “enormous hurdles in representing their clients, such as difficulty communicating regularly, prohibitions on meeting with and accompanying clients to appointments with immigration officials, restrictions on the use of office equipment in client meetings, and other difficulties would not exist if refugees were free to attend meetings in attorneys’ offices.”

“I worry about the situation they’re returning to and how they fear for their lives,” Ahmed said. “They’ve been identified by the government they were trying to escape and because of their participation in the hunger strike, they are believed to have dishonored their country. These men fear for their lives.”

Roundups Law and Policy

Gavel Drop: Republicans Can’t Help But Play Politics With the Judiciary

Jessica Mason Pieklo & Imani Gandy

Republicans have a good grip on the courts and are fighting hard to keep it that way.

Welcome to Gavel Drop, our roundup of legal news, headlines, and head-shaking moments in the courts.

Linda Greenhouse has another don’t-miss column in the New York Times on how the GOP outsourced the judicial nomination process to the National Rifle Association.

Meanwhile, Dahlia Lithwick has this smart piece on how we know the U.S. Supreme Court is the biggest election issue this year: The Republicans refuse to talk about it.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is urging doctors to fill in the blanks left by “abstinence-centric” sex education and talk to their young patients about issues including sexual consent and gender identity.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Good news from Alaska, where the state’s supreme court struck down its parental notification law.

Bad news from Virginia, though, where the supreme court struck down Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s executive order restoring voting rights to more than 200,000 felons.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) will leave behind one of the most politicized state supreme courts in modern history.

Turns out all those health gadgets and apps leave their users vulnerable to inadvertently disclosing private health data.

Julie Rovner breaks down the strategies anti-choice advocates are considering after their Supreme Court loss in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.   

Finally, Becca Andrews at Mother Jones writes that Texas intends to keep passing abortion restrictions based on junk science, despite its loss in Whole Woman’s Health.