Connect with us


Exclusive: Bans Off Our Bodies Highlights: Over a Million Rally!



#Bans #Bodies #Highlights #Million #Rally

This weekend, over a million people joined Bans Off Our Bodies marches across the nation. And we should feel hope. Hope for a world where everyone has bodily autonomy. A world where everyone is respected, valued, and has fully protected civil and human rights. After countless attacks on abortion and reproductive rights, people came together to declare that abortion is healthcare and to demand that our elected officials take action before it’s too late.

Gif with pictures of Bans Off Our Bodies marches from across the nation

Coast to coast, we declared “Bans off our bodies!” Watch and share this video from marches and news coverage across the nation.

Preview image of a video showing news coverage of events.

These incredible rallies were powered by MoveOn members like you, alongside Planned Parenthood, UltraViolet, Women’s March, state and local reproductive justice leaders, and abortion providers in hundreds of communities around the country. In spite of endless attacks on our rights, we came together to show that we won’t give up in this fight—and that we can’t afford to until there are bans off our bodies, as well as affordable, quality, and comprehensive health care for all.

Online and in the streets, MoveOn members across the country came together passionately to support abortion access and demand that abortion be safe, legal, and accessible in all communities.

Together, in the last two weeks since the Supreme Court opinion leak, MoveOn members …

  • Raised over $150,000 for abortion providers
  • Gathered over 300,000 signatures for abortion-related petitions
  • Joined over a million people at a total of 450 Bans Off Our Bodies events across the nation.

We urgently need to keep the pressure up—because as politicians continue to restrict our bodily autonomy and access to vital healthcare, we have to continue to come together and show that we won’t back down.

We’ll be taking to the streets again through the weeks ahead and when the final decision comes down from SCOTUS. Sign up here to make sure you’re among the first to know when and where to show up.

You can also keep the momentum going by taking these steps:

MoveOn will continue to fight for a country where everyone can thrive. We will push back against the right-wing-packed Supreme Court, and we’ll continue demanding those in power expand and protect our rights. Together, we can build a movement that can’t be ignored.



Exclusive: Trump’s Social Media Company Subpoenaed by Federal Grand Jury –




Trump’s Social Media Company Subpoenaed by Federal Grand Jury

#Trumps #Social #Media #Company #Subpoenaed #Federal #Grand #Jury

A federal grand jury and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) subpoenaed President Trump’s social media company on Friday.

According to CNBC, Trump Media and Technology Group said it would comply with the subpoenas.

Although some employees received subpoenas, none were issued to Trump or TMTG CEO Devin Nunes.

“The Justice Department and the SEC, which regulates the stock market, are investigating the deal between DWAC and Trump Media. By merging with DWAC, which is a kind of shell company called a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, Trump’s firm would gain access to potentially billions of dollars on public equities markets.” CNBC reported.

TRENDING: White Failed CNN Host Says Clarence Thomas Isn’t Truly Black Because He Doesn’t Go to NBA Games

The subpoena issued to TMTG by the SEC is regarding a civil investigation.

CNBC reported:

Donald Trump’s media company was subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in connection with a criminal probe, according to the company with which the former president’s firm plans to merge.

Digital World Acquisition Corp. said in a filing Friday that Trump Media and Technology Group received a subpoena from the grand jury in Manhattan on Thursday. The Trump company also received a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding a civil probe on Monday, DWAC said.


DWAC also said some current and former TMTG employees have also recently received grand jury subpoenas. Later Friday, TMTG said it would comply with the subpoenas, and that none of them were directed at its chairman, Trump, or CEO, former U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes.

The filing came days after DWAC said the government investigations could delay or even prevent its merger with Trump’s newly formed company, which includes Truth Social, a social media app intended to be an alternative to Twitter.

Early criticism of the Trump-DWAC deal came from Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. In calling for an investigation, she wrote to SEC Chair Gary Gensler in November, telling him that DWAC “may have committed securities violations by holding private and undisclosed discussions about the merger as early as May 2021, while omitting this information in [SEC] filing and other public statements.” The lawmaker’s request came shortly after The New York Times published a report that said the deal might have violated securities laws and regulations.

Continue Reading


Exclusive: Residential Picketing and Abortion –




No Pseudonymity in Challenge to Federal Vaccination Mandate

#Residential #Picketing #Abortion

I’ve seen some people argue that the Supreme Court’s objection to the picketing of Justices’ homes about abortion is inconsistent with the Court’s upholding the right to picket outside abortion clinics, or stressing the right to protest more broadly.

It’s worth noting, though, that bans on residential picketing have been particularly useful to, among other people, abortion providers. Frisby v. Schultz (1988), upheld a content-neutral ban on targeted picketing that was prompted by picketing “outside the … residence of a doctor who apparently performs abortions.” That opinion was written by Justice O’Connor, and joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Blackmun, Kennedy, and Scalia; Justice White concurred as to the principle. Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens dissented.

Then in Madsen v. Women’s Health Center (1994), the Court considered an injunction banning picketing within 300 feet of abortion clinic employees’ homes. The Court struck that down, because

[T]he 300-foot zone around the residences in this case is much larger than the zone provided for in the ordinance which we approved in Frisby…. [That] prohibition was limited to “focused picketing taking place solely in front of a particular residence.” By contrast, the 300-foot zone would ban “[g]eneral marching through residential neighborhoods, or even walking a route in front of an entire block of houses.”

But the majority (here, Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Blackmun, O’Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, and Stevens) reaffirmed Frisby, as to “targeted residential picketing.” (Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas viewed such injunctions as unconstitutional prior restraints, but didn’t cast doubt on the correctness of Frisby as to content-neutral ordinances.)

So the rule seems clear: Content-neutral bans on residential picketing are constitutionally permissible. And that would apply whether the residence is that of an abortion provider or that of a Justice who ruled that the Constitution doesn’t secure abortion rights. Perhaps Justices Brennan and Marshall (and possibly Stevens, though his position in Frisby was more complex) were right to reject this, and to conclude that people should be free to picket outside the homes of everyone (again, abortion providers or others). But the current rule upholding residential picketing bans has been useful to abortion providers as well as others.

UPDATE: For more on whether the bans being discussed in this situation are indeed content-neutral and therefore valid, see this post as to Maryland and this post as to Virginia. (Summary: Maryland law very likely invalid, Virginia law likely invalid, Montgomery County ordinance likely valid.)

Continue Reading


Exclusive: Many GOP Primary Losers Refuse to Admit Defeat –




Compelling Television

#GOP #Primary #Losers #Refuse #Admit #Defeat

NPR: “While Trump has most notably spent the last 18 months denying his 2020 election defeat, despite clear evidence he lost, he’s not the only one. During this election cycle, candidates across the country have refused to concede – even in races that are not remotely close.”

“In all of these cases, there is no evidence to back up claims of fraud that could reverse defeats, and most of these elections were not remotely close.”

LoadingSave to Favorites

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2022 Talk Of News.