U.S. Politics

[Rick Plant]

Gianforte asks courts to help keep the public out of his business



“Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. … Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different.” -F. Scott Fitzgerald

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte doesn’t just think he’s better than we are.

He insists upon it.

In a recent court filing defending his decision not to release a single piece of paper, Montana’s governor asserts not only that he is different and better than us common folk, but that he alone is different among mortals in Montana. And maybe most insultingly, he tries to co-opt the state’s constitution into conferring that power upon him.

When business leaders enter politics, as Gianforte did, they often paint a pretty word picture as they talk about running government more like a business. It’s a popular trope, and it would seem to make a certain degree of sense unless you think about it too deeply. And yet that overly simplistic approach to governance demonstrates how little most of them understand the business of government – that profit-and-loss statements don’t translate easily when it comes to educating a child or helping to find services for struggling families, both of which maybe inefficient, uncertain and cash-intensive.

However, business leaders like Gianforte often struggle mightily, and think differently when it comes to the level of scrutiny they should have to endure from the likes of a curious or even adversarial public. They recoil at the idea that the public should be able to see what they’re doing and how they’re doing it, features that don’t often exist in private business.

Transparency, compromise and accountability – hallmarks of good government and the very checks put in place by our founding fathers and mothers – are to rich, successful businessman like Gianforte, burdensome, meddlesome and insulting. After all, what right should we, the public, who have tasted such little entrepreneurial success when compared to him, have to question someone as accomplished as him?

And that’s where the constitution comes in.

The state’s constitution says that the public has two fundamental rights of observation and participation – including the right to see public documents and the right to participate or observe in the decision-making process.

Apparently, Gianforte doesn’t think much of those because he’s trying to block both.

When he took office, he created a tracking form that monitored bills as they wound their way through the legislative process. This form, apparently, included comments from administration and department officials that Gianforte used to help decide whether to sign the measures into law.

We can’t say much more beyond that because we don’t know. A public documents request, filed shortly after the conclusion of the 2021 Legislative session, was denied. Gianforte’s office said every single one of those forms – and we’re not sure how many there are – are, quite frankly, none of the public’s damn business.

Realizing that Montana’s right-to-know provisions are among the strongest in the nation and that they have also been well established by courts for decades, Gianforte does exactly what he and other Republicans so often repudiate: He invites the court to recognize new laws that don’t exist, namely recognizing “executive privilege” – a concept that even his own attorneys admit doesn’t exist in current state law.

“Because the executive communications privilege and deliberative process privilege also have existed under Montana’s common law – and are necessary for integral governmental and public purposes – the court can (and should) recognize and apply those privileges now,” Gianforte’s lawyer said in court briefings.

In other words, he invites the judges to be activists.

Yet, those statements are a twisted version of half truths. The notion of executive privilege is not recognized as such exactly because of the strong public right to know. And what executive privilege did exist in common law is a vestige of the state’s weak laws that were replaced by the 1972 Constitution, not an extension of it.

Any court should be given pause when an executive like the governor asks so clearly to be given additional privileges that rob the public of transparency or accountability. Our constitution specifically allows the public the express right to see how decisions are made; it requires our leaders to provide the documentation and access to see how and why decisions were made.

This right to know that Gianforte wants the courts to eliminate by finding words in law that are simply not there is even more essential today because Gianforte remains walled off and inaccessible to the press and most of the public, seeming to only appear at events where the lines are carefully scripted and the people appropriately adoring.

Gianforte has continued to refuse routine press conferences where the hard questions can be asked. He has refused interviews and his staff almost reflexively decline to comment. This isn’t the press whining about access, it’s instead a real-life example of the near impossibility of trying wrangle answers about how his administration works and what he thinks. One of the few ways the public knows what Gianforte is thinking is by the very documents his office is producing.

But now, Gianforte wants courts to close that trickle of information, too, because he needs a means where he can gather “frank” opinions “in confidence.”

Seems to me, Gianforte’s problem isn’t with too much information, it’s that not enough gets to the public. Funny how a man who has poured so much of his own fortune into running for public office would seem to want to cut the public out of it. Maybe even most shockingly: Gianforte throws himself upon the court’s mercy to allow him the privilege of silence while he deliberates about policy that will become the law for the rest of us.

F. Scott Fitzgerald was right: The rich aren’t like you and I.

Montana Constitution, Article II:

Section 9. Right to know. No person shall be deprived of the right to examine documents or to observe the deliberations of all public bodies or agencies of state government and its subdivisions, except in cases in which the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure.

Section 8. Right of participation. The public has the right to expect governmental agencies to afford such reasonable opportunity for citizen participation in the operation of the agencies prior to the final decision as may be provided by law.

https://dailymontanan.com/2022/09/08/gianforte-asks-courts-to-help-keep-the-public-out-of-his-business/



Dems on top Michigan court block GOP ‘game of gotcha’ attempt to remove abortion measure from Nov. ballot

Like many state courts, judges on the Michigan State Supreme Court are elected. In 2018 and 2020 Democrats were able to win more seats on the state's highest court, giving them a 4-3 majority.

On Thursday those efforts paid off.

Democratic Supreme Court justices blocked efforts by Republicans to remove two important measures from the November ballot: abortion and voting rights after Republicans tried to turn a technicality into the disenfranchisement of more than 750,000 Michiganders who signed petitions to get abortion on the ballot.

"Last week, the [abortion] question was sent to the state Supreme Court after Republican canvassers argued the amendment's spacing and formatting would be confusing to voters," NPR reports.

The Supreme Court ordered the Board of Canvassers to include the questions on the November ballot, allowing voters in The Great Lake State to have the opportunity to expand voting rights and enshrine the right to choose into the state's constitution.

Chief Justice Bridget Mary McCormack called GOP efforts to derail the abortion measure from getting on the ballot "a game of gotcha gone very bad."

"Seven hundred fifty three thousand and seven hundred fifty nine Michiganders signed this proposal-more than have ever signed any proposal in Michigan's history," the Chief Justice wrote. "The challengers have not produced a single signer who claims to have been confused by the limited-spacing sections in the full text portion of the proposal. Yet two members of the Board of State Canvassers would prevent the people of Michigan from voting on the proposal because they believe that the decreased spacing makes the text no longer '[t]he full text,'" she charged, as University of Michigan law professor of Law Leah Litman noted.

"That is, even though there is no dispute that every word appears and appears legibly and in the correct order, and there is no evidence that anyone was confused about the text, two members of the Board of State Canvassers with the power to do so would keep the petition from the voters for what they purport to be a technical violation of the statute. They would disenfranchise millions of Michiganders not because they believe the many thousands of Michiganders who signed the proposal were confused by it, but because they think they have identified a technicality that allows them to do so, a game of gotcha gone very bad."

University of Michigan Regent Jordan Acker called the Chief Justice's opinion "a pretty big judicial smackdown."

https://www.rawstory.com/dems-on-top-michigan-court-block-gop-game-of-gotcha-attempt-to-remove-abortion-measure-from-nov-ballot/

[Rick Plant]

Josh Riley @JoshuaUE99

New poll in #NY19

Voters are ready for change. I’m offering a bold and optimistic vision for Upstate New York that rejects the status quo and professional politicians like Marc Molinaro and puts working people first.

https://twitter.com/JoshuaUE99/status/1568335240925708289


New polling gives Dems the edge in NY-19

An internal poll from the Josh Riley campaign places him ahead of Republican Marc Molinaro in the Upstate district



The first public polling in the closely watched race for the 19th Congressional District has Democrat Josh Riley leading Republican Marc Molinaro. According to an internal poll from the Riley campaign obtained exclusively by City & State, 47% of likely voters polled would vote for Riley, while 44% backed Molinaro. What’s more, the margin grows slightly wider when it gives likely voters similarly long positive descriptions of both candidates, with Riley’s support getting up to 51% and Molinaro’s hitting 46%.

Purple State Media

[Rick Plant]

Florida newspaper blasts Ron DeSantis



Ex-Republican turned Democrat Charlie Crist, Florida’s Democratic 2022 gubernatorial nominee and a former Florida governor, is anxious to debate incumbent Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis — and he is hoping for a debate that will be broadcast statewide. But the South Florida Sun-Sentinel’s editorial board, in a biting editorial published on September 7, lambasts DeSantis for shying away from Crist’s debate challenge.

“The tough guy in the flight helmet is afraid of Charlie Crist,” the Sun Sentinel’s editorial board argues. “‘Never, ever back down from a fight,’ Gov. Ron DeSantis insists in a campaign ad. Then, he runs away from an invitation to debate Crist on statewide television. Considering DeSantis’ obvious vulnerabilities in a format he can’t control — especially on the subjects of abortion and guns — his debate avoidance strategy may be politically savvy. But it cheats Florida voters. It shows how he loathes transparency. It’s bad for democracy.”

Although the far-right DeSantis has been a very polarizing figure in Florida politics, he is a rock star in the MAGA movement. Recent polls have been showing DeSantis with single-digit leads over Crist, and one of more encouraging polls was released on Wednesday, September 7. That one showed Crist trailing DeSantis by only 3 percent, which the Sun-Sentinel describes as a “statistical tie.” And an election that close, the editorial board stresses, merits a statewide debate .

“Debates are not perfect,” the Sun Sentinel’s editorial board explains. “The format is often too rigid, and candidates can’t be forced to give straight answers. Their greater value is in raising money after the event itself, especially if one candidate draws blood or commits a serious gaffe. Still, these unscripted long-form appearances with real journalists are needed more than ever in an era of disinformation, misinformation and an endless stream of 30-second ads filled with inaccuracies and distortions. Voters deserve to see DeSantis defending his record, including his signing of an abortion law with no exceptions for rape or incest.”''

Read More Here:

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/editorials/fl-op-edit-desantis-refusal-debate-crist-20220907-v7lelc7dyzdzfpbtvtgkxf4msa-story.html



Our ancestors created Social Security. Ron Johnson's idea would destroy it, and Medicare along with it.



What a tragic irony that a U.S. senator from Wisconsin, Ron Johnson, now seeks to wreck Social Security and Medicare. Wisconsin played a key role in giving birth to both programs and ensuring their success.

We know. Our grandparents created Social Security.

When President Franklin Roosevelt worked with his New Deal team to design Social Security, our forebears — Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins, Secretary of Agriculture Henry Wallace and Emergency Relief Administrator Harry Hopkins — looked especially to Wisconsin for help. Their top aides included University of Wisconsin professor Edwin Witte and UW graduate Arthur Altmeyer. 

When a second generation of New Dealers in Congress created Medicare in 1964, Wisconsin also played a decisive role. Milwaukee-born Wilbur Cohen, another UW graduate, was among Medicare’s lead architects.

Yet now U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson holds a dagger to the throat of both Social Security and Medicare.

His plan will blow up the legal — and the moral — foundation on which both programs rest. Johnson wants to decimate one of Wisconsin’s greatest contributions to America’s progress.

For generations, both Medicare and Social Security have guaranteed and delivered earned benefits. Both programs operate similar to life insurance — that’s why they’re called social insurance — in which covered individuals pay regular premiums, and then qualify for legally protected defined benefits.

In both Medicare and Social Security, workers contribute part of their earnings to insurance trust funds. What workers pay, their employers match. The joint payments are equivalent to insurance premiums.

In return for these payments, workers at age 65 qualify for Medicare’s health care benefits. At age 62, they qualify for Social Security’s retirement benefits. For everyone who enrolls in Medicare, the benefits are the same. Under Social Security, a formula based on the enrollee’s age and contributions sets the benefit amount.

It’s been this way from the start. Congress has no “discretion” to mess with the benefits that workers have paid into and earned over their entire working life.

But Ron Johnson hates it. He proposes to give total “discretion” to Congress to decide whether any worker or retiree would receive a benefit … who would get a benefit … and what the benefit would be. No longer would workers, seniors looking toward retirement and current retirees be able to count on a hard-earned, reliable, old-age health care program. Nor would they have a hard-earned, predictable pension to count on as they age and retire.

“Discretion” has its place. But Johnson’s scheme will destroy workers’ and retirees’ legal right to guaranteed, predictable health care and retirement income.

It would turn Medicare and Social Security into a type of welfare, utterly dependent on Congress’ will. The programs could even be wiped out entirely. Their fundamental insurance structure — if you pay your premium, you legally qualify for guaranteed benefits — would vanish like smoke.

FDR himself explained the reasoning behind creating Social Security as an insurance program that workers pay into through payroll taxes — “to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower was more blunt. Though there may be “a tiny splinter group” of politicians who want to mess with Social Security, he wrote, “their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

Johnson’s opponent in the Nov. 8 election, Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, is pretty blunt, too, objecting that “self-serving multi-millionaire senator Ron Johnson wants to strip working people of the Social Security and Medicare they’ve earned.”

FDR and our ancestors who labored to create Social Security would join in condemning Johnson’s plan. It is a frontal attack on programs that American workers and seniors love, have dutifully paid for with every paycheck, and depend on for a healthy and secure retirement.

On behalf of our New Deal ancestors, we recommend that all Wisconsinites who cherish these long-standing programs of financial security should exercise their “discretion” to remove Ron Johnson from the U.S. Senate when they vote in November.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/opinion/2022/08/11/ron-johnsons-plan-would-destroy-social-security-and-medicare/10281371002/

[Rick Plant]

Brian Deese @BrianDeeseNEC

A thread on today’s Economic Blueprint, beginning with the strong labor market recovery.

It’s important to remember that historic labor market progress was not pre-ordained. The President’s economic plan and COVID response made a real difference in getting people back to work.




That recovery – in addition to fiscal support – has made a real difference for families’ economic security and has helped our economy remain resilient through a period of unanticipated economic shocks.




Compared to pre-pandemic and based on the latest available data:

Household net worth is up more than 25%
Mortgage delinquencies are down more than 10%
Credit card delinquencies are down more than 35%
Bankruptcy filings are down more than 50%.


But we didn't stop there. We've launched generational public investments in our infrastructure, clean energy transition, & innovation economy. We're reversing the course on decades of declining public investment, an important catalyst for private investment & productivity growth.




We are also taking important actions to address affordability challenges and boost economic opportunity.

Here’s just one example:

The share of Americans without health insurance has now reached a record low. Health security is a critical component of basic economic security.




Less appreciated, but by modernizing SNAP’s Thrifty Food Plan for the first time since its introduction in 1975:
 
915,000 children were lifted out of poverty – especially benefiting Black children.




We’re also working to make industry more competitive and more resilient, including leveling the playing field for small business.

We saw a record number of small business applications in 2021, and we're putting in place pro-innovation policies going forward as well.




And we are reforming our tax code so that it can raise sufficient revenue from the largest corporations and wealthiest Americans in order to fund critical national priorities.

That’s necessary to build a dynamic and resilient economy.




There’s more work to do to transition our economy from historic recovery to stable, steady growth with lower inflation – and to build a strong, resilient economy for the long-haul. But we’ve made critical progress.

More charts here: https://whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Biden-Economic-Blueprint-Chartpack-MASTER-7pm.pdf

https://twitter.com/BrianDeeseNEC/status/1568215787243962368

[Rick Plant]

President Biden @POTUS

Folks, we need to make microchips here in America to bring down everyday costs and to create jobs.

That's what the CHIPS and Science Act does.

China, Japan, and South Korea are all investing billions of dollars to attract microchip makers to their countries. 

But industry leaders are choosing us. They see an America that's back and leading the way.

The CHIPS and Science Act is about jobs.

Jobs now. 
Jobs for the future. 
Jobs in every part of the country. 
Good-paying, decent jobs you can raise a family on.

In my State of the Union Address, I shared a story of a field of dreams in Ohio where our future will be built. Then I signed the CHIPS and Science Act into law.

And now, I'm in Ohio breaking ground on a microchip factory.

All in nine months. That's America.



https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1568343500298797057

[Rick Plant]

"The number of manufacturing jobs in the United States has increased by 680,000 since the president took office, the fastest pace in the last 50 years..."

In Ohio, Biden Says Democrats Have Started a Manufacturing Revival



https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/09/us/politics/ohio-biden-democrats-manufacturing-revival.html


Rep. Ro Khanna @RepRoKhanna

I was honored to be recognized by @POTUS and Intel CEO @PGelsinger at today's groundbreaking ceremony for Intel's new complex in Ohio for my work on the CHIPS & Science Act.

This bill will help spread Silicon Valley's innovation across America and bring manufacturing back.

Watch: https://twitter.com/i/status/1568324642141777920


Herbie Ziskend @HerbieZiskend46

@POTUS: "The industrial Midwest is back. The. Industrial. Midwest. Is Back.”

Watch: https://twitter.com/i/status/1568287526124720128

[Rick Plant]

70 Pennsylvania school board members have signed letter against gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano’s public education plan



PHILADELPHIA — Dozens of public school board members across the commonwealth have signed an open letter addressed to Pennsylvania voters and families cautioning against the threat they say Republican gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano poses to public education funding.

The letter — which as of Friday morning had amassed 70 signatures from both Democrat and Republican elected public school board members in 26 districts — calls Mastriano’s financial plan “dangerously out of touch with the majority of Pennsylvania families” and asserts that the state senator, if elected, has pledged to cut more than 50% of state funding for schools.

That number comes from a March radio interview with WRTA in Blair County, where Mastriano proposed cutting per-pupil funding in the state from $19,000 to around $9,000 per student, telling the host the money would also be diverted: “Instead of funding a school system, the money should go to students.”

Students and parents, Mastriano said in the interview, could then decide whether they attend public, private, charter or home school.

Mastriano, a staunch school-choice advocate, has since slammed critics of that suggestion, with his campaign saying “that’s not his plan.” He now vows to “fully fund schools and teachers, protect students and empower parents.”

His campaign site lays out a few specifics around his school funding proposals — including establishing controversial Education Opportunity Accounts for parents, and expanding Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) programs that give tax breaks to businesses that provide scholarships to private schools, but doesn’t include parameters on per-pupil dollar amounts or plans for public schools.

Scott Overland, vice president of the Phoenixville Area School Board in Chester County, said he spearheaded the open letter effort last week, reaching out to local public school board members across the state, out of “an obligation to do something.”

Overland said he received an overwhelming response, with school board members still being asked to be added as signatories. The letter includes signatures from a handful of board members from the greater Philadelphia area, including Upper Darby, Pottstown, Norristown, Upper Dublin, West Chester, North Penn and Downingtown schools.

“This is something that will impact all of our communities across Pennsylvania in such a serious way that we need to do whatever we can, as the stewards of the public education system, as school board directors, to make sure people are aware that this is a real threat,” said Overland, whose daughter is in first grade in the district. He was elected to the Phoenixville Area board on both the Democrat and Republican tickets last year.

The letter endorses Democratic candidate Josh Shapiro, calling him “a candidate who believes education is central to a bright future.”

“It’s not political, it’s about real impact in our communities,” Overland said.

Damien Christopher Warsavage, a member of the Upper Darby School District school board since 2019, said that he signed the letter not only as a board member, but as a former student in the district who saw the effects of funding cuts to public school art programs firsthand.

Warsavage, who was elected on a nonpartisan ticket, said he worries funding cuts to public schools will make “the educational experience a commodity that the private sector ... should be making money off of.”

“That’s not why any of us is in this business,” Warsavage said. “Our kids will remember this.”

The school board members’ letter comes on the heels of additional criticism by the Pennsylvania State Education Association, the commonwealth’s largest teacher’s union, which in August called Mastriano’s plan “completely irresponsible.”

ThePSEA released an analysis — filling in some details based on the limited information provided by Mastriano’s campaign about his education funding plans — predicting a $12.75 billion funding cut that would lead to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs across the state.

The analysis also noted that Mastriano has repeatedly called to eliminate schools’ ability to levy property tax, which raises a crucial amount of money for many public school districts.

Mastriano’s campaign later released a one-minute video calling the union’s analysis “a coordinated attack” and deceptive.

Other objectives listed in his campaign plan for Pennsylvania include “an immediate ban” on so-called critical race theory and gender studies in schools, and a “thorough review” of districts’ diversity, equity and inclusion plans.

Mastriano’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment Friday, but the candidate did briefly address his stance on school funding at acampaign stop in Gatsby’s Bar & Grill in Delaware County last month, pointing out that he voted for the state budget in July, which saw a historic school funding increase.

“The fact is, you know, we just passed legislation out of the Senate and the House, and I voted ‘yes’ on increasing education funding by $850 million,” Mastriano told the crowd in Aston.

“Are you kidding me? And I’m going to cut education? I mean, facts are stubborn things. So really, just shut up.”

© The Philadelphia Inquirer

[Rick Plant]

Dr. Oz Says Abortion Is ‘Still Murder’ at Any Stage of Pregnancy

Exclusive audio reveals that Dr. Oz said during a tele-town hall earlier this year that abortion is “still murder” at any point after conception.



TV doctor turned Republican senatorial candidate Mehmet Oz has been tough to pin down on abortion.

He claims to be “100% pro-life,” but he also has some exceptions. And as recently as 2019, Oz defended Roe v. Wade.

But now, The Daily Beast has obtained audio from a campaign event this May where Oz staked out his most extreme position yet, telling voters he believes abortion at any stage of development is “still murder,” including from the moment of conception.

“I do believe life starts at conception, and I’ve said that multiple times,” Oz said during the event, a tele-town hall held a week before the Republican primary.

“If life starts at conception,” Oz added, “why do you care what age the heart starts beating at? It’s, you know, it’s still murder, if you were to terminate a child whether their heart’s beating or not.”

He was answering an attendee who wondered how Oz could square his current anti-abortion stance with his statements from 2019, specifically that “the heart’s not beating” six weeks into a pregnancy.

The one-time surgeon explained that, at the time of the 2019 interview, he had been “concerned” about making sure anti-abortion laws could be enforced.

“My mother-in-law wrote a lot of the original pro-life literature in Montgomery County,” Oz told the conservative audience. “My argument in that radio interview was as a doctor, a heart starts beating at around nine weeks. So I was concerned that if legislators picked a timeframe that’s not medically accurate, it would invalidate the law.”

Oz did in fact say something to that effect in the 2019 Breakfast Club interview. “If you’re going to define life by a beating heart,” he said, “then make it a beating heart, not little electrical exchanges in the cell that no one would hear or think about as a heart.”

The context in that 2019 interview, however, was that Oz was politically pro-choice.

He was “really worried,” Oz said during that interview, about the harmful consequences for women’s health if Roe were overturned.

He even took a shot at people who believe life begins at conception—as Oz now says he does.

“Just being logical about it,” Oz said then, “if you think that the moment of conception you’ve got a life, then why would you even wait six weeks? Right, then an in vitro fertilized egg is still a life.”

It’s not clear where Oz stands on abortion laws that might effectively also ban in vitro fertilization. According to his most recent financial disclosure, Oz and his wife hold between $1.5 million and $6 million of shares in Prelude Fertility, part of the largest in vitro fertility network in the United States—which is currently looking for a buyer.

Abortion rights are on the ballot this year, and Democrats see the issue playing to their favor. They’re betting big, as polls in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision suggest an energized pro-choice electorate could make the difference in key midterm races. That includes Pennsylvania, which The New York Times has called the “biggest abortion battleground” of the midterms, and where support for abortion access is at an all-time high.

None of that is great news for Oz.

The former daytime TV star’s squishiness on the issue has been a weak spot throughout his campaign—including during the Republican primary, where he scrambled to sell the MAGA base on his conservative bona fides. And his remarks equating early-stage abortion to “murder,” made weeks ahead of that primary, could complicate his ongoing efforts to appeal to the swing state’s critical suburban voting bloc.

A former senior staffer in the Pennsylvania governor’s office told The Daily Beast that while hardline anti-abortion rhetoric carried Oz through the primary, it’s “outside of where most Pennsylvania voters are,” and could be a strategic mistake in the general election.

“In the current environment, that is such a massive gaffe, because it speaks directly to people’s biggest concerns about voting for an anti-abortion Republican like Dr. Oz,” the former staffer said. “A lot of voters are very concerned—even if they are uncomfortable with abortion themselves—that there are gonna be these hardline bans that prevent their own family and friends from getting the care they need.”

This person added to characterize a woman getting an abortion in the early stages of a pregnancy as murder is “so outside of where most Pennsylvania voters are.”

“Especially the voters Oz absolutely has to win,” this former staffer continued, “like moderates and independents, suburban voters, voters in the middle of the ideology bracket in Pennsylvania.”

Oz’s Democratic opponent, Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, counts endorsements from the country’s top abortion-rights groups, and has tried to capitalize on the issue.

“Dr. Oz is wildly out of touch with the people of Pennsylvania who support abortion rights by 9-10. Dr. Oz wants to let extremists ban abortion with no exceptions in cases of rape or incest—in PA and across the country,” Emilia Rowland, a Fetterman campaign spokesperson, told The Daily Beast. “If he’s elected, he will be a rubber stamp to criminalize abortion, appoint justices even more radical than today’s, and send doctors, nurses, and patients to jail.”

Fetterman had also said Oz wants to ban abortions “even in the cases of rape or incest” last week, a claim Fetterman did not cite and which appears to be false. While Oz did applaud the repeal of Roe, a move that opened the door to the kinds of blanket bans Fetterman is referencing, Oz has maintained support for what he calls the three “usual” exceptions: rape, incest, and the health of the mother.

It might not be so surprising that Oz finds himself in a hall of mirrors on this particular issue. At one point in the 2019 Breakfast Club interview, he offered a cynical critique on the politics of abortion rights.

“There’s so much we gotta do already to take care of each other. To start picking fights on this—I always wonder about it,” he said. “It happens periodically. There are these moral issues that almost on purpose are inflamed.”

The Oz campaign did not reply to a request for comment.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/dr-oz-says-abortion-is-still-murder-at-any-stage-of-pregnancy