�������ýҕ�l

In his first public address since the explosive leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion he wrote that would overturn Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. breezed through a detailed examination of statutory textualism, and renewed a disagreement over the court’s decision saying federal discrimination law protects gay and transgender workers. But he was a little stumped by the final audience question from a crowd at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University: Are he and the other justices at a place where they could get a nice meal together? (Barnes and Lumpkin, 5/12)

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito briefly addressed the status of the court amid pro-choice protests after Politico published Alito's leaked draft opinion reversing Roe v. Wade (1973). Alito spoke remotely from the court building, addressing a crowd at the Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University Thursday night. Both the court and the justices have received ramped-up security amid protests following the draft's release. (O'Neil, 5/13)

For the protesters chanting loudly outside Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s home, incivility was the point.They said they wanted to impinge on his privacy with picket signs and chants of “We will not go back!” to condemn the Supreme Court justice’s apparent support for ending the constitutional right to privacy that has guaranteed access to abortion since Roe v. Wade was decided nearly 50 years ago. ... But the protests outside the homes of several justices, which erupted after the leak of a draft opinion indicating the court’s conservative majority is ready to overturn Roe, have sparked another searing debate about appropriate forms of protest at a moment of enormous upheaval in a deeply polarized country. (Kanno-Youngs, 5/12)

Democrats are facing up to their grim reality: After Roe v. Wade likely falls next month, they’ll need a comeback November win to save it. Constrained by narrow majorities, Democrats have virtually no legislative power to prevent the Supreme Court from striking down five decades of abortion rights precedent. So outraged lawmakers are instead taking the fight to voters — many of whom are pleading for a more immediate solution as the high court prepares to rule in June. (Ferris and Levine, 5/12)

Around the country — from South Texas to Chicago, Pittsburgh to New York — the looming loss of abortion rights has re-energized the Democratic Party’s left flank, which had absorbed a series of legislative and political blows and appeared to be divided and flagging. It has also dramatized the generational and ideological divide in the Democratic Party, between a nearly extinct older wing that opposes abortion rights and younger progressives who support them. (Weisman, 5/12)

Many Capitol Hill Republicans who have supported federal abortion restrictions were eager this week to leave adopting such measures to the states. A majority of the justices are poised to overturn landmark abortion rights established in Roe vs. Wade and the follow-on Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, based on a draft opinion recently leaked to Politico. “If the Supreme Court ultimately - which we don’t know - ultimately were to overrule Roe and Casey, then the states would be the ones that would be making those determinations,” Sen. John Cornyn said this week when asked whether he would push for a national ban on the procedure. “To me that’s the best outcome.” Reversal of Roe and Casey would represent the culmination of decades of work by abortion rights opponents and open the door for tighter restrictions at all levels of government. (Morton, 5/12)

With three words last week, Vice President Kamala Harris inserted herself forcefully into the roiling debate over abortion rights — and may have finally seized on an issue that is popular among key Democratic voters, plays to her strengths and is central to the future of her party. “How dare they?” she demanded. (Shear and Gupta, 5/12)

KHN: KHN’s ‘What The Health?’: The Invisible Pandemic

Covid-19 cases are on the rise again, but you couldn’t tell from the behavior of the public (rushing back to normal), as well as public health and elected officials who fear backlash from even suggesting the reimplementation of precautions. Meanwhile, the Senate (again) failed to muster even a simple majority of votes for a bill to write abortion protections into federal law, as the fallout continues from the leaked majority draft opinion from the Supreme Court suggesting it is about to overturn the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade. (5/12)

A group of eight Senators is urging Pentagon officials to ensure that service members can get access to an abortion even if the medical procedure becomes illegal in states where they are based.  The lawmakers, led by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), are pressing the Department of Defense (DOD) to act quickly on the matter following the leaked draft ruling from the Supreme Court made public last week. The draft document indicates the court is set to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in the United States. (Mitchell, 5/12)

Austin Carrigg wanted more children, but it wasn’t easy to grow her family, especially since her husband was an active-duty soldier in the Army. The family frequently moved from one base to another, and access to health care was in constant flux. Carigg and her husband wanted to avoid passing on a life-threatening genetic condition that their second son was born with, so they paid for intrauterine insemination procedures — which is not covered by TRICARE, the Defense Department’s health care system   — and used a sperm donor. The attempts didn’t work, and the couple couldn’t afford in vitro fertilization procedures. Carrigg noted that there are some Army and Navy programs that offer infertility care — but those are accessible to only those fortunate enough to be assigned to certain bases. (Padilla, 5/12)