Last night Chris Hayes mused a bit on the earnest Trump staffers who testified to the J6 Committee about the moment they acknowledged Trump was not behaving well.

The two staffers who testified Thursday, for example, both decided to resign on January 6. And I’m glad they did, and I am grateful they chose to testify, but damn. What took them so long? And even now I’m not sure they’ve fully faced the truth about the pile of avarice and ignorance that Trump really is, and how much damage he did to the nation.

It may be significant that today, the editorial boards of both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post — both Murdoch media — are calling Trump’s failure to act on January 6 shameful. The WSJ editorial board cannot resist throwing some shade at the committee hearings, of course, but they slammed Trump hard, at long last. “His only focus was to find any means — damn the consequences — to block the peaceful transfer of power,” the Post writes. “There is no other explanation, just as there is no defense, for his refusal to stop the violence.”

Well, yeah. But will that stop the Post from endorsing Trump’s presumed 2024 bid to go back to the White House? Or, if not Trump, some other authoritarian pile of bigotry?

At the New York Times, Michelle Goldberg writes about the myth of the good Trump official. She writes that the parade of Republican witnesses to the committee, all of whom had stood by Trump when he did other underhanded, damaging things, were all fulsomely praised by co-chair Liz Cheney for their integrity and courage. And, of course, that integrity and courage showed up a tad late to the party.

It is a sign of the committee Democrats’ love of country that they have allowed the hearings to proceed this way. They are crafting a story about Jan. 6 as a battle between Republican heroism and Republican villainy. It seems intended to create a permission structure for Trump supporters to move on without having to disavow everything they loved about his presidency, or to admit that Jan. 6 was the logical culmination of his sadistic politics.

If you believe, as I do, that Trump’s sociopathy makes him a unique threat to this country’s future, it makes sense to try to lure Republicans away from him rather than damn them for their complicity. There is a difference, however, between a smart narrative and an accurate one. In truth, you can’t cleave Trump and his most shameless antidemocratic enablers off from the rest of the Republican Party, because the party has been remade in his image. Plenty of ex-Trump officials have come off well in the hearings, including the former deputy national security adviser Matthew Pottinger, the former acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen and, in video testimony, the former White House counsel Pat Cipollone. That shouldn’t erase the ignominy of having served Trump in the first place.

Consider Rusty Bowers, the Arizona speaker of the state house whose testimony in the fourth hearing underscored the Trump campaign’s lack of evidence for its election fraud claims. Even after his clear and forthright testimony that was devastating to Trump, he declared he would still vote for Trump in 2024. Say what? Since then, he has had some second thoughts. I don’t see how any rational person could know what Bowers knows and still even fleetingly entertain the idea of voting for Trump again. I have little forgiveness for anyone who voted for him the first time, never mind twice.

And it’s not just Trump. Now that Trump has paved the road to fascism, there are plenty of other politicians eager to take that road. Ron DeSantis, for example, is currently more popular among the base than Trump himself. He’s Trump without the baggage, they are saying. At Vox, Zack Beauchamp writes that DeSantis isn’t patterning himself after Trump but after Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Even worse. And at New York Magazine, Jonathan Chait wrote that Ron DeSantis Would Kill Democracy Slowly and Methodically.

So, yeah, just “moving on” from Trump isn’t good enough. Republicans need to step back from the brink of right-wing authoritarianism, period. And they are no where close to doing that.

Jonathan Swan at Axios has been writing about a Schedule F executive order that was launched 13 days before the 2020 election. Basically, this was a plan to fire key career  career civil service employees whose work impacts policies and replace them with Trump loyalists. Do read this; it’s terrifying. See also “Trump’s Revenge,” also by Swan. This plan would have gone into full effect in Trump’s second term, which he mercifully never got. But another authoritarian right-wing administration could revive it.

At this point, it’s possible the powers with the money, like the Murdochs, might have decided Trump is done and they are ready to move on to another tool. Hence, the editorials in the Wall Street Journal and New York Post.

In other news — there are reports this afternoon that the missing Secret Service texts have been found.

Today’s knee slapper — from this Kansas City Star editorial about Josh Hawley and what a waste he is, I learned that he has a new book coming out next year from Regnery Press. The title? Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs.

Heh.

My recent fundraiser has surpassed the goal, and I thank everyone who contributed. The Go Fund Me link will stay active for a while. At the moment PayPal has suspended my account for “unusual activity,” and I have no idea why, but I trust it will be active again some day. I’d transfered donatons (as of yesterday) out of it already, anyway.

First off — Bannon found guilty on both counts! Really fast! The jury took about long enough to eat lunch and vote. He could get up to a year on each count!

I’m still digesting the J6 finale. But here’s one of the lighter moments:

Immediate reaction to the vid: pic.twitter.com/XAv4jc2tjr

— Dan Przygoda (@dprzygoda) July 22, 2022

It’s probably too soon to say that Hawley’s political career is over, but whoever runs against him in 2024 can just run that YouTube video as their television ads. Here you can watch the run with different soundtracks. We can say Josh was Hawl-ing ass. See also Philip Bump, WaPo, Hawley’s effort to reap political rewards from Jan. 6 scampers off.

It’s especially amusing to recall how last year Hawley was making speeches about the virtues of manliness that liberals allegedly oppose. These virtues include courage, as I recall.

But on to the main point, which is Trump.

After the committee documented (once again) that Trump took absolutely no steps to stop the violence until he finally told the mob to “go home” in a video released at 4:17 p.m. — and he only did that because everyone else in the White House pressured him to do it — Trump is still not taking responsibility. All along he has blamed Nancy Pelosi for turning down some alleged offer of 20,000 troops to protect the Capitol. I understand he repeated that claim on Truth Social after last night’s hearing. But there is no evidence this offer was ever made, and in any case the Speaker of the House has no authority whatsoever over troop movements. Pelosi can neither green light sending troops to the Capitol nor turn them away. That’s the Commander in Chief’s job, and he wasn’t doing it.

Last night’s hearing emphasized that Trump really wanted to march to the Capitol with the mob. Really, truly. After the encounter with the driver of his car he got back to the White House and sulked in his overcoat for a bit. What did he imagine he would do? Did he envision leading the mob into the House chamber to stop the counting? That really would have been a coup attempt, plain and simple.

Liz Cheney and the crew made the point that no responsible human being would support Trump for another term in the White House. That’s going to be lost on many of them, of course.

It’s almost time for the season finale of the J6 hearings. They start at 8 pm EST. I can’t wait! I understand they may be showing outtakes of the video Trump eventually made to address the violence at the Capitol. Please feel free to comment before, during, and after the hearing.

In related news, CNN is reporting that the Homeland Security inspector general has told the Secret Service to stop its own investigation into the missing text messages because of an “ongoing criminal investigation.”

Greg Sargent writes that Kevin McCarthy said the quiet part out loud —

On Sean Hannity’s Fox News show Wednesday night, the California Republican essentially came right out and said it: We Republicans refused participation in the committee’s investigation for the express purpose of enabling us to cast it as a partisan exercise and therefore illegitimate.

A Tennessee man on trial for storming the Capitol is not doing well with his testimony. For example,

When prosecutors confronted him with a text he sent to his wife, saying it was “good” that someone planted bombs near the Capitol, Bledsoe said he really didn’t mean “good.” He also claimed he didn’t really mean it when he wrote that he “stormed the Capitol.”

In an attempt to explain why he climbed a wall to get to the Capitol, Bledsoe said his home in Tennessee was “quite a bit different” than D.C., and that he climbed walls back home regularly.

Yeah, they haven’t introduced “stairs” or “doors” into Tennessee yet. They’re still working on paved roads and plumbing, I take it.

You no doubt recall that Steve Bannon’s refusal to comply with a subpoena from the House January 6 committee earned him two two misdemeanor counts of contempt of Congress. His trial is underway this week, and today the jury is supposed to hear his defense. We don’t yet know if Bannon will take the stand himself. (Update: Nope. Aw, shucks.)

Bannon’s primary defense was that he had executive privilege to not testify. This defense was struck down by the judge some time back. Then last week he and Trump enacted some absurd bit of theater when Trump announced he was waiving Bannon’s executive privilege — which Bannon never had, and even if he did it’s no longer Trump’s privilege to waive — so that Bannon could testify to the committee after all. Nope, said the judge; he unlawfully ignored a subpoena. He doesn’t get a do-over.

Even before the trial began, Bannon appeared to be in trouble.

U.S. district court judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, issued a pretrial ruling last Monday asserting that Bannon’s lawyers could not argue executive privilege, while also shooting down a number of other stalling tactics unfurled by the defense.

These pretrial rulings were clearly a source of frustration for David Schoen, Bannon’s lawyer. “What’s the point of going to trial here if there are no defenses?” Schoen asked during last week’s open court session, to which Nichols replied, “Agreed.” Prosecutors believe that the case will be open-and-shut, writing in a December filing that they anticipated needing just “one day of testimony.”

The prosecutors had their day yesterday. There were two witnesses. One was a senior staff member on the House select J6 committee named Kirstin Amerling, who testified that there was a subpoena, and Banon was lawfully required to testify, and the dude didn’t show up, nor did he supply subpoenaed documents. He didn’t even contact the committee with an excuse.

The other witness was FBI Special Agent Stephen Hart, who testified about Bannon’s public and social media statements that demonstrated Bannon knew he was supposed to respond to the subpoena and just didn’t do it.

The defense seems to be attempting to throw shade on the prosecution by claiming the J6 committee is just engaged in political witch hunting. A lot of the defense attorney’s cross examination of Amerling focused on the fact that she’s in a book club with Assistant U.S. Attorney Molly Gaston, one of the prosecution lawyers. Apparently the book club formed while they were all working on the staff of former Rep. Henry Waxman more than a decade ago. Clearly, this is the stuff of nefarious Deep State shenanigans. (/snark)

Bannon and his lawyers have also been demanding that J6 committee chair Bennie Thompson testify. Apparently they think the Congressman should come running at Bannon’s beck and call, but Bannon can’t be bothered to reply to House subpoenas. Hm. Congressman Thompson has recently been diagnosed with covid and isn’t going anywhere, however, including to tonight’s prime time season finale of the Hearings. I assume co-chair Liz Cheney will be running the show in his place.

Okay, the news is in — the defense will not be presenting a defense. Bannon will not testify. The defense doesn’t have to present a defense, since the burdon of proof falls on prosecutions.

Going back to Bannon’s offer to testify before the committee now that the guy who still thinks he’s the President has waived executive privilege, which Bannon didn’t have — C. Ryan Barber writes at Insider that this could backfire. The judge allowed Bannon’s lawyers to tell the jury about the recent offer, implying that Bannon didn’t understand that the date of his testimony wasn’t flexible. The defense made much of the fact that Bennie Thompson had said they would consider setting another testimony date after Bannon has turned over the documents they want.

Bannon’s defense lawyers raised the offer to argue that the longtime Trump ally viewed his deadline to respond to the House committee as not fixed but “malleable.” But for prosecutors, the questioning created an opening to underscore their view that Bannon’s defiance cost the House committee precious time.

Calling Bannon’s recent offer to testify “sudden,” prosecutor Amanda Vaughn asked Amerling how much time the committee would have had to review information Bannon turned over and follow up on leads if he had complied with the subpoena.

“At least eight to nine months of additional time,” Amerling said, adding that the House committee is presently authorized to last for an additional five months, through the current Congress.

“And so, as opposed to 14 [months] in total, the committee now only has five,” Vaughn said.

Vaughn then asked whether Bannon’s offer to testify included an offer to turn over documents the House committee sought last year.

“It did not,” Amerling said.

“Has the defendant provided any documents since his sudden offer to comply on July 9?” Vaughn then asked.

“Not unless he’s provided some since I’ve been sitting here today,” Amerling said.

Anyway, seems to me this one comes down to how stupid or partisan the members of the jury might be.

I’ll be back later today to blog about the J6 series finale.

In other news, President Biden has tested positive for covid. His symptoms are mild. He’ll get every treatment possible and will probably be fine.

I feel like I’ve spent the whole day righting with Technology. I’m not sure who won. Maybe we’ve just called a truce. And right now I’m so frazzled I can’t even think up nasty things to say about Joe Manchin. Well, mañana. Things are working now, anyway.

The Mahablog fundraiser is still going —

Donate to GoFundMe here.

Donate via PayPal here. PayPal temporarily out of order.

Remember, the season finale of the January 6 show is tomorrow night. I am hoping there will be more episodes to come, sometime.

This is from “Pro-Life Idaho Republicans Declare Women Should Be Left to Die to Save Fetuses” by Bess Levin at Vanity Fair.

If someone tries to claim to you that the Court’s decision wasn’t that big a deal and/or doesn’t change much, you are legally obligated to inform them they have shit where their brain should be. If you can stand to breathe the same air as them for a moment longer, you should also inform them of the many ways the various states in question have proceeded to use the opportunity afforded to them by the Supreme Court to advocate for not only forced births, but the state-sanctioned murder of pregnant people.

Over the weekend, the Idaho Republican Party voted against adopting an amendment that would have added an exception to its official policy on abortion for cases to save the life of the mother. Scott Herndon, a Republican running unopposed for a state Senate seat, argued to delegates that “for the last 49 years we have essentially lost the argument in the culture because we have focused on abortion as the termination of a pregnancy and not the termination of a living human being.” He added: “We will never win this human rights issue, the greatest of our time, if we make allowances for the intentional killing of another human being.” Obviously, he did not note that withholding life-saving care from a pregnant person, knowing they could die, is also an intentional killing, because that would apparently require too much reflection on his part. The decision not to add an abortion exception to save the life of the mother was decided 412-164; as The Independent notes, the party platform “is used to direct policy within the state’s GOP-controlled legislature.”

In just the 3 1/2 weeks since the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade was handed down, there have been reports from all over the country about compromises in women’s health care.

For example, it used to be standard medical practice for women having difficult miscarriages to have the remains of the failed pregnancy removed through a dilation and evacuation procedure. which is quick and done under anesthesia. Now in many states this is no longer available, because this same procedure is used to perform abortions, and doctors are terrified they will be prosecuted. So women are sent home to bleed and suffer, sometimes for hours or days.”Delays in expelling tissue from a pregnancy that is no longer viable can lead to hemorrhaging, infections, and sometimes life-threatening sepsis, obstetricians say,” it says here.

Amanda Marcotte writes in Salon,

John Seago of Texas Right to Life blamed “a breakdown in communication of the law, not the law itself” for doctors who are afraid to terminate miscarrying pregnancies. But the doctors understand the legal risks perfectly well. The Texas abortion ban only makes an exception if “the mother’s life is in danger.” The patient described in the New York Times piece was told she could get her miscarrying pregnancy terminated “only if she was bleeding so excessively that her blood filled a diaper more than once an hour.” The doctors seemed quite aware they need patients on the verge of death to justify abortions. As journalist Irin Carmon pointed out on Twitter, in the very same article, Seago admits that the Texas abortion law does require doctors to refuse treatment to miscarrying patients. His other claims otherwise are just noise he spews to distract from the horrific realities he’s deliberately creating.

Texas abortion law requires doctors to refuse treatment to miscarrying patients? What is the bleeping point of that?

But this shouldn’t be a surprise, because this has happened in other countries where abortion is illegal. Indeed, where women can face jail time for getting abortions, many refuse to go to hospitals for miscarriages but suffer alone at home. See The Women Jailed for Suffering Miscarriages at the BBC.

I understand some states are putting blocks or alerts on filling prescriptions for any drug used to induce abortions, even if the prescription is for an entirely different purpose. So a guy who needs ulcer medication refilled may find himself out of luck. See Methotrexate, used on autoimmune diseases, can induce abortion. Some patients can’t get it. I guess lupus patients are out of luck, too.

The problem is that there is a small but powerful cult of people who are fixated on abortion as an absolute evil. The “moral clarity” that insists abortion is always an absolute evil depends on being able to deny the humanity of women. Once you start genuinely caring about the lives of women, an absolute anti-abortion position becomes unsustainable. And when you start making exceptions, all of your so-called “pro life” arguments fall apart. Abortion must not be absolutely evil if it’s okay in some circumstances.

There’s a wonderful quote about moral absolutes by the late Zen teacher Robert Aitken Roshi — “The absolute position, when isolated, omits human details completely. Doctrines, including Buddhism, are meant to be used. Beware of them taking life of their own, for then they use us.”

Anti-abortion fanaticism has definitely taken on a life of its own, and it has become a tyrant and a monster.

See especially “Pro Life”? Women’s Suffering Is Forced-Birth Zealots’ Doing by Jennifer Rubin at WaPo. So far I don’t know that any woman has lost her life because of compromised health care, but it’s only a matter of time. In many states doctors are delaying life-saving care, waiting to get go-aheads from lawyers. This applies even to ectopic pregnancies sometimes. This is ridiculous.

And this doesn’t even begin to address the risky things women will do to themselves to self-abort.

Justifying the cruelties being imposed in some circumstances requires monumental intellectual dishonesty. For example:

Swalwell: It would not be an abortion if a 10 year old with her parents made the decision not to have a baby that was the result of rape?
Republican Witness: That’s not an abortion
Swalwell: Are you familiar with disinformation? pic.twitter.com/6zyO3Bq2Uv

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 14, 2022

The dimwit insisting that when a ten-year-old terminates a pregnancy it’s not an abortion is Catherine Glenn Foster of Americans United for Life, who once claimed D.C. powers it street lamps by burning fetuses.

Again, all of this confusion was very predictable, because it’s all been going on for years in other countries. Way back in 2006 I wrote about abortion in El Salvadore, where a woman convicted of getting an abortion could face 50 years in prision.

Courts can order vaginal inspections of women under suspicion. If a woman needs a hysterectomy after a suspected back-alley abortion, the uterus is sent to the Forensic Institute for examination. If the case goes to trial, the organ may be used as evidence against the woman.

El Salvadore’s laws are so insane physicians cannot even terminate an ectopic pregnancy before it becomes critical.

And here we are. This situation is beginning to be replicated in the U.S.

The system in El Salvadore hasn’t changed. Nina Lakhani reported for The Guardian this year,

The Salvadorian anti-abortion law, which was subsequently written into the constitution, has led to at least 182 women who suffered an obstetric emergency being prosecuted for abortion or aggravated homicide.

Poor, young women from rural areas with limited access to healthcare have been disproportionately persecuted, with most reported to the police by hospital workers. In many cases, prosecutors and judges have argued that the woman’s failure to save the pregnancy amounted to murder.

Women in the U.S. were already being prosecuted for miscarriages before the Dobbs decision. See this BBC report from November 2021. Women who miscarried and were found to have illegal drugs in their systems have been prosecuted for manslaughter. The next step in places like Texas and Missouri will be to start jailing women for smoking or drinking beer while pregnant, or for failing to take prenatal vitamins.

More from the Washington Post:

In other words, in that last instance the woman had given birth and was bleeding too much. This is a common cause of maternal mortality.

Let’s go back to Bess Levin at Vanity Fair:

Currently, Idaho’s “trigger” law, passed in 2020, outlaws abortions with exceptions for rape and incest, though only if the crimes are reported to law enforcement. (The Idaho GOP platform has no exceptions for rape or incest; a regional Planned Parenthood organization and an Idaho abortion provider have sued to block the law and a hearing is scheduled for August 3.) According to Newsweek, in a Facebook video after the Supreme Court struck down Roe, Herndon declared, “you don’t put to death the innocent child for the crime of its father, but that’s what this [trigger] law would allow.” He also claimed that such exceptions give women “a free pass,” and said that “if a mother really wants to kill her child, she could lie, say she was raped, file a police report, and go get her child killed in the state of Idaho and nobody would be prosecuted.” Because Herndon apparently wanted to make it abundantly clear that not only is he anti-abortion, he’s also a colossal asshole too. (On his website, Herndon says he “believes in preserving and protecting human life” and “has followed this in word and deed as an active Abortion Abolitionist and Pro-Gun advocate.” We’re going to guess that no, he doesn’t see the irony.)

As I said, an absolute anti-abortion position requires complete disregard for women as human beings. In the presence of even a little compassion or empathy for women, abortion as absolute evil becomes unsustainable. If you start making exceptions, such as for rape or incest or physical risk to the mother, then you’re admitting it’s not an absolute evil. And that must not be admitted

These wackjobs are going to get women killed. They may not have done it yet, but it’s just a matter of time.

Note also: I’m having the annual Mahablog fundraiser earlier this year. I put it off as long as I could, but there were too many unanticipated medical bills.

I am holding the annual Keep Mahablog Online fundraiser early this year. I had some unexpected medical bills — Medicare doesn’t cover everything — from the TIA/mini-stroke I had in March, and I find myself running on empty at the moment. So now’s the time.

As I wrote last year, it costs $900 a year to keep Mahablog online, which is way too much but that’s now it is. So any amount you can donate will help make it possible for me and the blog to keep going.

Donate to GoFundMe here.

Donate via PayPal here. PayPal temporarily out of order.

I want to tell you about a young girl who became pregnant by rape. No, not the ten-year-old in Ohio. This girl was an eleven-year-old in Argentina.

She was called Lucía in news stories, although that is not her name. Courts had removed Lucía and two older sister from her mother’s home, because her mother’s boyfriend was abusing the older girls. So Lucía was living with her grandmother when her grandmother’s boyfriend raped her. She doesn’t appear to have understood what he was doing to her.

I infer from news stories that no one realized Lucía was pregnant until the early second trimester. She was about 19 weeks along when she went to a public hospital in her province to ask for an abortion. Abortions were illegal in Argentina, but two exceptions were allowed: In cases of rape, and in cases in which the mother’s life is at risk. Lucía qualified on both counts. She was small for her age, and her body hadn’t matured enough to have carried a pregnancy to term without risk.

Lucía knew she didn’t want to be pregnant. She made two suicide attempts. She demanded that doctors remove “what the old man put inside me.”

However, the government of Tucumán province, where Lucía lived, deliberately delayed the abortion to which she was entitled. Instead, the officials issued instructions to doctors to “save both lives.” One official lied to the public about how small she was and claimed that carrying the pregnancy to term posed no risk to her. But a doctor told a family court that Lucia faced “high obstetric risk” should her pregnancy continue.

The archbishop of Tucumán, Carlos Sánchez, recorded an audio address that went viral. He carelessly revealed Lucía’s real name and called on his listeners to become “custodians” of the fetus. Anti-abortion groups got involved and set up a noisy vigil around the hospital where Lucía was gestating under observation, and probably also under suicide watch.

The battle over Lucía’s pregnancy raged in courts and in media, until finally doctors were cleared to terminate the pregnancy. Lucía had reached 23 weeks’ gestation — considered the earliest threshold of viability — and the infant was delivered by caesarian section. In spite of many efforts the infant did not survive.

So Lucía was put through all that anguish and pain, both physical and psychological, for nothing.

But the case, which was not that unusual — “In 2017 (according to the latest available data from the Health Statistics and Information Office), 2,493 babies were born to girls under the age of 15″ in Argentina, it says here — re-ignited the debate over legal abortion in Argentina. The callous disregard for Lucía shocked much of the public. People took to the streets demanding there be no more Lucías in Argentina.

Lucía was delivered of her doomed infant in 2019. In December 2020, Argentina passed a bill that legalized abortion through the 14th week of pregnancy. This might not have helped Lucía, but it was a huge victory for women and girls in Argentina.

And this is why abortion criminalizers in the U.S. don’t want to hear about ten-year-olds who are pregnant by rape. They’d like to pretend it doesn’t happen. But it does happen. In 2020, 1,765 girls aged 15 and less gave birth in the U.S. How many other girls in the same age category received abortions, I do not know. But now that abortion is illegal in huge parts of the U.S., that number of underage mothers will no doubt go up. A lot.

There was a time that abortion was illegal everywhere in Latin America, except Cuba. After Argentina, Mexico decriminalized abortion in 2021. Colombia made elective abortion legal through the 24th week of gestation in February 2022.

The legislation in these countries came about because of many sad stories, such as the story of  Lorena Gelis, a 37-year-old woman in the northern Colombian city of Barranquilla, who died from severe bleeding after a botched back-alley abortion. She died just a few weeks before the new law was passed.

And it isn’t just Latin America. Earlier this year I wrote about Savita Halappanavar, whose death in 2012 was one of the catalysts that led to legalizing abortion in Ireland. Irish law was ambiguously worded, and physicians were unsure when they could terminate Halappanavar’s disasterous pregnancy without putting themselves in legal jeopardy. It was clear the pregnancy was going wrong all kinds of ways and that Halappanavar’s life was in jeopardy. The fetus was at only 17 weeks’ gestation and had no chance of survival. Even so, the doctors felt they could not operate until the fetal heartbeat could no longer be detected, even though Halappanavar was in great pain and becoming septic. They waited three days, and the delay cost Savita Halappanavar her life.

Abortion was legalized in Ireland in 2018.

Already the many new state laws banning abortion are leaving physicians confused. Here in Missouri, the law that went into effect within hours of the Dobbs decision prohibits most abortions except in cases of medical emergency. Um, exactly what constitutes a “medical emergency”? Medical professionals have been petitioning the state government to clarify what they mean by “emergency” so as to avoid being dragged off to jail if their medical judgments clash with the courts.

A few days ago, Democratic minority leaders in the state’s Republian majority legislature asked for a special session to provide some guidelines about how a physician is supposed to know what a kosher “medical emergency” is supposed to be. How close does a woman have to be to gasping her last breath before the doctors step in to save her? Must internal bleeding have begun? What about sepsis? If an abortion is performed in an emergency but there was a 10 percent chance mother and fetus might have survived, would the physicians be charged with a crime? It’s this very ambiguity that killed Savita Halappanavar.

Our cognitively challenged governor, of course, shot down the special session proposal. “You’re talking about a complicated issues that’s going to take time to figure out how to do this,” Gov. Mike Parson brilliantly noted. He said that physicians ought to have a “seat at the table,” which seems reasonable, but he is clearly in no hurry to clarify anything to anybody.

I guess we’ll know what’s legal and what isn’t when they start prosecuting doctors.

Parson also said the Missouri health department would provide clarity and review current regulations to ensure they line up with the new law.

Summer Ballentine reported for the Associated Press —

The Department of Health and Senior Service’s guidance for the most part directs questioners to read Missouri laws on abortion and otherwise leaves it up to prosecutors to interpret.

“Enforcement of the criminal provisions of state statute are left to local law enforcement agencies, local prosecuting attorneys, and the Missouri Attorney General’s Office for enforcement,” the document states.

A frequently asked question listed on the health department document is whether the agency can “provide legal advice so that medical professionals and patients can know what is and is not legal.”

“No,” the factsheet states. “DHSS is not authorized to provide legal advice to third parties.”

Prosecutors had been relying on the health department to issue guidance.

So now it’s up to local prosecutors to decide what a “medical emergency” is. These are not people I’d trust to keep flies off a sandwich, never mind make rational decisions about life or death medical issues.

The post I wrote about Savita Halappanavar is titled Republicans Will Overreach on Abortion. They are overreaching now. It’s obvious some of them aren’t going to stop until no abortion can be performed for any reason. If women die, so be it. And at least some of them realize that stories about ten-year-old rape victims doesn’t help their cause. So they will deny, deny, deny.

The story about the ten-year-old rape victim in Ohio was first published on July 1 in the Indianapolis Star. The only name named in the article was that of Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist. Right-wing media promptly cited the lack of corroboration and called the story a hoax. Some Fox News bobbleheads spent considerable on air time claiming they had “researched” it and didn’t believe the ten-year-old girl even existed. And if so, why wasn’t the rape reported to police (it had been, in late June)? And how could Dr. Bernard get away with not filing the proper paperwork about the abortion (she had filed it).

And then, after nearly two weeks of the usual right-wing spin machine noise persuading people that this was fake news, the Columbus Dispatch reported a suspect in the rape had been arrested. And the suspect has confessed. Oops!

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita had been all over Fox News badmouthing Dr. Bernard. Bernard’s attorney sent a cease-and-desist letter to the AG yesterday, demanding he stop making “false or misleading statements” about Dr. Bernard.

But the larger issue here is that this sort of thing is going to keep happening. There will be more cases that will become public and shed a bright light on the casual cruelties and injustices caused by abortion bans. This will happen over and over. It will shape public opinion. And the Fetus People don’t want you to hear about them.

Pro-choice demonstrators in Argentina, 2019.

Several news stories have been, shall we say, concerning. Let’s start with the Secret Service.

The Secret Service erased text messages from January 5 and 6, 2021. “Joseph V. Cuffari, head of the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General, wrote to the leaders of the House and Senate Homeland Security committees indicating that the text messages have vanished and that efforts to investigate the Jan. 6, 2021, attack were being hindered.”

The Secret Service says that the erasures were accidental and happened because of a planned upgrade or migration or some such. Not deliberate! Sure.

Cuffari emphasized that the erasures came “after” the Office of Inspector General requested copies of the text messages for its own investigation, and signaled that they were part of a pattern of DHS resistance to his inquiries. Staff members are required by law to surrender records so that he can audit the sprawling national security agency, but he said they have “repeatedly” refused to provide them until an attorney reviews them.

Someone on MSNBC compared the erasure to motel staff finding a body in a room but going ahead with “scheduled” housekeeping, destroying evidence. It does look suspicious.

Meanwhile, CNN is reporting that a Washington D.C. police officer who was with Trump’s motorcade on January 6 has corroborated the story Cassidy Hutchison told about Trump’s throwing a tantrum and fighting with Secret Service agents in his car when he was told they would not take him to the Capitol. This was part of evidence given to investigators for the House January 6 committee. But then CNN also said this:

Neither of the agents named in the testimony have commented publicly on Hutchinson’s testimony. But soon after it, a Secret Service official who would only speak on background, said Engel would deny parts of the story regarding Trump grabbing at the steering wheel and lunging toward an agent on his detail. The agency has said the agents involved would testify to that effect, though they have not yet gone back to the committee to testify.

“Engel” is Robert Engel, who was Trump’s Secret Service lead agent. Hutchinson testified that Tony Ornato, then-White House deputy chief of staff, told her the story in front of Engel and he did not dispute the account. But it sounds as if the Secret Service is trying to cover up Trump’s bad behavior, doesn’t it?

And let us not forget that Mike Pence didn’t trust the Secret Service.

And I’m not saying one thing had anything to do with the other thing, but  … Ivana Trump, wife #1, died yesterday from a fall down the stairs in her New York home. She was only 73, which seems young to me, so that’s a shame. She seemed to be enjoying her life. And today New York Attorney General Letitia James had expected to be hearing sworn depositions from Trump and two of Ivana’s children with Trump, Ivana and Junior. The Trumps had tried to get out of the deposition through the courts but failed. Because of Ivana’s death, the depositions were postponed.

Ivana had not qualified for Secret Service protection, I don’t believe. Just wife #3 and the kids.

Elsewhere: There’s a lot that’s been going on with legislation that I haven’t been writing about, but Whatever Might Have Been has been destroyed by Joe Manchin, who declared today that he would not support any new taxes or any new environmental spending.

First, I want to drop Manchin into Yosemite National National Park with a couple of buckets of water and tell him to save the sequoias. It does appear that the sequoias are safe, for now, though. Maybe we could lock him up in a trailer in Texas with one creaky window air conditioner and wish him good luck if the power fails.

Greg Sargent:

The West Virginia Democrat reportedly told party leaders late Thursday that he won’t support any new incentives to combat climate change or any new tax hikes on corporations or the wealthy. The Post reports that in private talks, Manchin appeared close to a deal, only to renege at the last minute.

Yet as ludicrous as this turnaround is on its face, there are still more hidden absurdities behind the situation that show what a farce it has truly become. They turn on the specifics of what Manchin appeared to reject, and his inflation-related excuse for doing so, which amount to a display of towering bad faith. …

… The deal would have raised around $1 trillion in revenue from rolling back some of the 2017 GOP tax cuts. Half of that revenue would have gone to deficit reduction, and the other half would have gone mostly to funding the transition to green energy.

Manchin’s excuse for this is that he’s concerned about inflation. And we all know better.

He’s still open to a deal on prescription drug prices, at least until he decides he isn’t.