In April, Florida enacted a law that sharply restricted abortion access in the state and banned most abortions after 15 weeks. That law, known as HB 5, is now encountering some exciting and innovative legal opposition, not only from groups that fight for civil liberties and reproductive freedoms, but from religious groups as well. The challenges in Florida — and somewhat similar ones in Kentucky and Indiana — may signal subtle but significant shifts in how activists across the country are contesting a recent string of conservative Christian legislative triumphs.

Even if these cases don’t immediately succeed, the plaintiffs are helping to transform the debate on the meaning of secularism in America by exposing a false division between “religious” and “secular” citizens. Ideally, these interventions will foster a much more sophisticated political dialogue about the promise of secular governance. For at some point these cases are going to force a district or circuit court judge, or maybe even a gaggle of United States Supreme Court justices, to confront some of the neon-light-blinking religious inequalities that HB 5 and similar laws create.

The reality is that abortion restrictions don’t just infringe on the rights of secular people — they also suppress the rights of many religious people outside the Christian right.....

The Rev. Tom Capo of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Miami, whose motion now rests with Florida’s 11th Judicial Circuit, has skillfully pointed out that HB 5 fails “to account for the diverse religious views of many Floridians. . . whose faith leads them to take a very different view of when life begins and to counsel abortion.” Capo’s motion argues that the state’s legislation favors a particular Christian theology, and that this act of non-neutrality violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from establishing a religion. (As if to prove how little he cared about the optics of neutrality, Gov. Ron DeSantis owned the libs yet again by signing the bill into law at a conservative, Spanish-language church.) Second, it contends that HB 5 trespasses upon the religious free exercise of those citizens who don’t abide by conservative Christian worldviews......

Equal protection is what the Florida plaintiffs are seeking; the right to make personal decisions according to their, not someone else’s, religious scruples. Their intervention will ultimately force the courts to confront the reality, and constitutional implications, of religious diversity. Their intervention pierces through the untenable us-vs.-them logic of the Christian right by demonstrating that when it comes to abortion, there is no unified “us.” Instead, there are lots of religious people who, like nonreligious people, find shelter and solace in secular policies

In April, Florida enacted a law that sharply restricted abortion access in the state and banned most abortions after 15 weeks. That law, known as HB 5, is now encountering some exciting and innovative legal opposition, not only from groups that fight for civil liberties and reproductive freedoms, but from religious groups as well. The challenges in Florida — and somewhat similar ones in Kentucky and Indiana — may signal subtle but significant shifts in how activists across the country are contesting a recent string of conservative Christian legislative triumphs.

Even if these cases don’t immediately succeed, the plaintiffs are helping to transform the debate on the meaning of secularism in America by exposing a false division between “religious” and “secular” citizens. Ideally, these interventions will foster a much more sophisticated political dialogue about the promise of secular governance. For at some point these cases are going to force a district or circuit court judge, or maybe even a gaggle of United States Supreme Court justices, to confront some of the neon-light-blinking religious inequalities that HB 5 and similar laws create.

The reality is that abortion restrictions don’t just infringe on the rights of secular people — they also suppress the rights of many religious people outside the Christian right.....

The Rev. Tom Capo of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Miami, whose motion now rests with Florida’s 11th Judicial Circuit, has skillfully pointed out that HB 5 fails “to account for the diverse religious views of many Floridians. . . whose faith leads them to take a very different view of when life begins and to counsel abortion.” Capo’s motion argues that the state’s legislation favors a particular Christian theology, and that this act of non-neutrality violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits Congress from establishing a religion. (As if to prove how little he cared about the optics of neutrality, Gov. Ron DeSantis owned the libs yet again by signing the bill into law at a conservative, Spanish-language church.) Second, it contends that HB 5 trespasses upon the religious free exercise of those citizens who don’t abide by conservative Christian worldviews......

Equal protection is what the Florida plaintiffs are seeking; the right to make personal decisions according to their, not someone else’s, religious scruples. Their intervention will ultimately force the courts to confront the reality, and constitutional implications, of religious diversity. Their intervention pierces through the untenable us-vs.-them logic of the Christian right by demonstrating that when it comes to abortion, there is no unified “us.” Instead, there are lots of religious people who, like nonreligious people, find shelter and solace in secular policies

The problem, however, is with the defense that Graham has concocted. The Hill reported:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday blamed the media for circulating recent allegations that Georgia Senate candidate Herschel Walker paid a former girlfriend to get an abortion, comparing the claims to the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“If you’re waiting on the media to tell you about what’s going on in Georgia ... you’re going wait a hell of a long time,” Graham said on Fox News. “Remember Kavanaugh?”

As a matter of fact, I do remember Kavanaugh. I remember the future justice assuring senators he had no intention of overturning Roe v. Wade. I remember in early September 2018, when Democratic Sen. Pat Leahy of Vermont stated unequivocally that he believed Kavanaugh had given “untruthful testimony, under oath and on the record.”

I remember Kavanaugh being credibly accused of sexual misconduct. I remember public opinion polls showing broad opposition to his nomination. I remember the controversy being so serious that one GOP senator — Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski — had the courage to oppose his nomination when it reached the floor for a confirmation vote......

If Graham wants to make the case for Walker’s candidacy anyway, fine. He’s welcome to give it a try. But to argue that voters should disregard claims from people close to Walker, because of unrelated accusations against a Supreme Court justice four years ago, is evidence of a party that can’t quite figure out what to say about its Senate candidate in Georgia.

The problem, however, is with the defense that Graham has concocted. The Hill reported:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday blamed the media for circulating recent allegations that Georgia Senate candidate Herschel Walker paid a former girlfriend to get an abortion, comparing the claims to the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“If you’re waiting on the media to tell you about what’s going on in Georgia ... you’re going wait a hell of a long time,” Graham said on Fox News. “Remember Kavanaugh?”

As a matter of fact, I do remember Kavanaugh. I remember the future justice assuring senators he had no intention of overturning Roe v. Wade. I remember in early September 2018, when Democratic Sen. Pat Leahy of Vermont stated unequivocally that he believed Kavanaugh had given “untruthful testimony, under oath and on the record.”

I remember Kavanaugh being credibly accused of sexual misconduct. I remember public opinion polls showing broad opposition to his nomination. I remember the controversy being so serious that one GOP senator — Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski — had the courage to oppose his nomination when it reached the floor for a confirmation vote......

If Graham wants to make the case for Walker’s candidacy anyway, fine. He’s welcome to give it a try. But to argue that voters should disregard claims from people close to Walker, because of unrelated accusations against a Supreme Court justice four years ago, is evidence of a party that can’t quite figure out what to say about its Senate candidate in Georgia.

Despite a rash of unsubstantiated claims lobbed against his company, the CEO of Dominion Voting Systems, John Poulos, has remained largely silent. That changed Sunday night on 60 Minutes when Poulos sat down with Anderson Cooper, saying irreparable damage has been done to his company and his employees.

"People have been put into danger. Their families have been put into danger. Their lives have been upended and all because of lies," Poulos said. "It was a very clear calculation that they knew they were lies. And they were repeating them and endorsing them."

"It's important to you people admit what they said was wrong?" Cooper asked......

Dominion has filed eight lawsuits seeking more than $10 billion in damages against Fox News, and other networks, corporations and individuals.

Here’s how she described the choice voters have in an interview with MSNBC on Tuesday: “We want to support and strengthen Medicare, Social Security, et cetera. [Republicans] want to use the debt ceiling to cut that.” She also noted that Republicans are willing to use the same tactic to reverse the Inflation Reduction Act’s provisions to lower prescription drug costs.

That’s a real threat: House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has threatened to use the looming deadline to raise the debt limit next year as a means to cut off aid to Ukraine and to roll back Biden’s economic agenda. House Republicans are also eyeing the debt limit deadline as a way to make cuts to hugely popular programs, such as Social Security and Medicare. At the same time, they are seeking to extend President Donald Trump’s tax cuts.

This is more trickle-down economics designed to make the rich richer, which would balloon the national debt and worsen inflation. As such, Democrats should describe the election for what it is: a faceoff between supply-side economics and Biden’s promise to build the economy from “the bottom up and middle out.” This would contrast the two parties as one for the little guy and one for billionaires, which has worked in the past to elect Biden and before him, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton......

So yes, while protecting democracy is an essential issue for those who rightfully fear the GOP’s assault on democratic institutions and values, Democrats must win over late-deciding voters, too. And there is nothing like a reminder that the economy could get a lot worse as Republicans revert to cutting taxes for the rich and starving government to motivate Americans to vote Democratic. Biden needs to keep that drumbeat going through Election Day.

Republicans like to label just about anything that doesn’t benefit the rich as “socialism.” That’s plutocratic economics, not populism. Highlighting the GOP’s core philosophy just might help Democrats retain support among Republican voters who crossed over in 2020 and low-information voters who are suspicious of Big Oil, Big Pharma and Big Business generally.

Here’s how she described the choice voters have in an interview with MSNBC on Tuesday: “We want to support and strengthen Medicare, Social Security, et cetera. [Republicans] want to use the debt ceiling to cut that.” She also noted that Republicans are willing to use the same tactic to reverse the Inflation Reduction Act’s provisions to lower prescription drug costs.

That’s a real threat: House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has threatened to use the looming deadline to raise the debt limit next year as a means to cut off aid to Ukraine and to roll back Biden’s economic agenda. House Republicans are also eyeing the debt limit deadline as a way to make cuts to hugely popular programs, such as Social Security and Medicare. At the same time, they are seeking to extend President Donald Trump’s tax cuts.

This is more trickle-down economics designed to make the rich richer, which would balloon the national debt and worsen inflation. As such, Democrats should describe the election for what it is: a faceoff between supply-side economics and Biden’s promise to build the economy from “the bottom up and middle out.” This would contrast the two parties as one for the little guy and one for billionaires, which has worked in the past to elect Biden and before him, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton......

So yes, while protecting democracy is an essential issue for those who rightfully fear the GOP’s assault on democratic institutions and values, Democrats must win over late-deciding voters, too. And there is nothing like a reminder that the economy could get a lot worse as Republicans revert to cutting taxes for the rich and starving government to motivate Americans to vote Democratic. Biden needs to keep that drumbeat going through Election Day.

Republicans like to label just about anything that doesn’t benefit the rich as “socialism.” That’s plutocratic economics, not populism. Highlighting the GOP’s core philosophy just might help Democrats retain support among Republican voters who crossed over in 2020 and low-information voters who are suspicious of Big Oil, Big Pharma and Big Business generally.

Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola almost missed her opportunity to represent Alaska: A few days before the deadline to declare her candidacy in the special election to fill the late Rep. Don Young's seat, she was undecided whether she'd run.

The night before making her decision, her father called. "He said, 'I know that this is your decision. I just want to say one thing. You are as well positioned as anyone in Alaska to run for this and win this seat,'" she told Insider.

Her dad's words were imperative, she said, because there were people who didn't take her candidacy seriously. "There are so many reasons not to do something and oftentimes there's more reason not to do something than to do something. So to have that kind of encouragement was really critical for me," she said.

Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola almost missed her opportunity to represent Alaska: A few days before the deadline to declare her candidacy in the special election to fill the late Rep. Don Young's seat, she was undecided whether she'd run.

The night before making her decision, her father called. "He said, 'I know that this is your decision. I just want to say one thing. You are as well positioned as anyone in Alaska to run for this and win this seat,'" she told Insider.

Her dad's words were imperative, she said, because there were people who didn't take her candidacy seriously. "There are so many reasons not to do something and oftentimes there's more reason not to do something than to do something. So to have that kind of encouragement was really critical for me," she said.