Summary
➡ The text discusses two main issues. First, it criticizes the acceptance of transgender individuals in sports, arguing that it’s unfair to women and abusive to children. The author is particularly upset about a male-to-female transgender person winning a women’s weightlifting competition. Second, it discusses a recent court decision in Pennsylvania that upheld a law requiring mail-in ballots to have a date on the envelope. The author believes this is a victory for election integrity and criticizes those who wanted to count undated ballots.
➡ The article discusses concerns about election integrity, focusing on the practice of counting ballots that arrive after Election Day in states like Illinois and Mississippi. It argues that this practice invites fraud, undermines confidence in elections, and is illegal. The article also mentions a case brought by Judicial Watch against the state of Illinois to prevent the extension of Election Day for 14 days beyond the federal law. The case was dismissed at lower levels, but is now being heard by a federal appellate court.
➡ This text discusses the recent trend of extending the deadline for counting votes after Election Day, which has become more common due to the increase in absentee ballots. The author argues that this practice can lead to unfair elections, as it allows for potential manipulation of results after Election Day. The text also mentions ongoing legal cases related to election laws and emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of the voting process. Lastly, it touches on the controversial topic of abortion, focusing on the politicization of the abortion pill and its approval process.
➡ The FDA made changes to the rules around a certain drug, making it easier for women to access it for abortions up to 70 days into pregnancy. These changes included lowering the dosage, removing the need for a follow-up doctor’s visit, and no longer requiring the drug to be taken in a doctor’s office. However, this has raised concerns about the health risks for women, as only deaths caused by the drug need to be reported, not other serious side effects. Critics argue that these changes were made without sufficient scientific evidence and are calling for the Supreme Court to review the situation.
Transcript
That’s super important to talk about because it really goes to the heart of whether or not people can trust election outcomes in this country, in my view. We had a big brief we filed with the Supreme Court on Biden’s fanatical abortion agenda. So much is going on, so let’s get right to it. First, I want to give you some interesting news. What I think is good news is the judicial watch is going to be pushing a book out later this year.
There’s a big book by me and Judicial Watch, obviously, that’s coming out. I think the publication date is in the fall. We’ll give you the details there. I spent most of the day doing a photo shoot for the book on Capitol Hill there. And our photographer and our team there and his team were quite patient, spent a good deal of time trying to get a good shot. But what I found interesting about it is the Capitol Hill police told us we had to leave after a period of time because evidently we didn’t have all the necessary paperwork to take photos in front of the Capitol, which is, I guess the police were just doing their job.
I’m not saying we were targeted because we were judicial watch, but I encourage you to kind of keep track of the, of book and the publication date because, and I’ll give you the details as time goes on or as I get the details or able to confirm them because this book is going to be important. And the more of you who buy the book, the more support judicial watch is able to gain.
And of course, it will be a great educational tool for you, not only as you educate yourselves, but share it with your family and your kids and your grandkids and such. So a lot to look forward to there. First up, though, is, in terms of topics for the week, is the big victory for President Trump. He was facing potential financial ruin and seizure of his assets initially over this bond issue that he had to pony.
He had to pony up a certain amount of money upwards, reportedly of a billion dollars, just to appeal the monstrous, illicit, political, arbitrary, capricious, anti constitutional judgment against him by Judge Ann Goren at the behest of Letitia Janes up in New York, two New York Democrat politicians, one elected to attorney general, the other to a judgeship. And so finally, on Monday, the appellate court, one of the appellate courts in New York, pared back the bond requirement from $464 million, which, as I say, would have probably required him, according to reports, to pony up a billion dollars just to get the bond so he could appeal it to 175 million dollars, which is basically a made up number, but much better and something that President Trump could do.
Commented initially on it the other day, everyone, breaking news. An appellate court just slashed that requirement that Trump come up with $464 million in order to appeal that absurd judgment by Judge Angoran, which was done at the behest of fellow Democrat politician Letitia James. Now Trump has to come up with $175 million, according to the court, while he appeals this absurd ruling. Now, there’s still much more to be done up in New York.
Source backed prosecutor Alvin Bragg is still pursuing that sham prosecution against Trump. So there’s so much to do to defend the rule of law and free and fair elections against this interference by the democratic machine in New York, which, of course, is working, in my view, with the Biden regime here in DC. Judicial watch, of course, will continue to pursue these issues in court. FOIA requests, FOIA lawsuits to get the truth about this abuse of Trump.
Well, as I note there, there’s more in terms of abuse of Trump. Up in New York. Alvin Bragg got another Democrat oriented judge to rush through this, the next show trial. This won a criminal trial, and it begins, of all days on April 15. So the abuse isnt ending. And as I said earlier, $175 million is abusive as well. It should be $0 for him in order to appeal this outrageous, unprecedented decision.
What frustrates me, and ive said it once, and its worth reminding you because Congress will be back, I think, next. Well, maybe they wont be back next week. Well, anyway, you can still call your members of Congress. They have fully funded all of this. You know, Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, Fannie Willis, Jack Smith, all have gotten full funding from the republican controlled Congress, at least the House, with a lot of Republicans in the Senate.
And its just inexcusable to me. And I think they, you should, well, I would encourage you to share any views you have with your members of Congress about their failure to use the power of the purse and other authorities under the Constitution to rein in this lawless attempt to jail, harass, intimidate, violate the civil rights, the human rights of President Trump and other innocents. You can call Congress at 202-25-3121 that’s 202-25-3121 on top of the, the Trump abuses, of course, youve got Joe Biden getting away with virtually every crime under the sun in terms of political corruption, hiding records, mishandling classified records in a brazen way.
Admittedly, the Justice Department thought he had committed a crime but refused to convict him or prosecute him because his, because his memory was failing. But hes still president. How does that work? You cant have one without the other, right? You cant be president with a failing memory. Memory thats so bad that it makes you immune to prosecution. Thankfully, the impeachment proceedings against Trump are continuing. JAMes COmeY, or, excuse me, James Comer, the head of the Republican Oversight Committee, the republican chairman of the oversight committee in Congress, also part of the impeachment effort, issued an invitation to Joe Biden to come in and talk about his RICO activities.
Youll see thats the invitation there. I dont know if they can technically subpoena him under the constitution. I think if I were president, I would probably argue no. But I dont know. But either way, hes been invited to testify, as I call, about his RIcoh investigation and all the money that was transferred from, as you can see there, suspicious activity reports. Right. Where was all this money coming from and for whom? And how did Joe Biden benefit or people close to him benefit? And all of that ought to be subject of, in my view, a criminal investigation.
And, of course, they all throw it back in our face. I mean, theyre abusing Trump. And while Biden skates, Barack Obama skates. Yes, he should be subject. And Bill Clinton skates. So, of course, they all get together for a big fundraiser for Joe Biden. I want to show you this video because I dont show it to you to make a political point or a campaign point, but to highlight kind of the brazenness in which they think that they are above the law.
Yeah. As I note, all three should have been prosecuted and still should be under the new rules used to abuse Donald Trump. Now, you know, what do I mean by the new rules? The Justice Department says that a president isn’t immune for prosecution for official acts after he leaves office. And the theory of that would mean that they’re prosecutable under the law even while they’re in office. So let’s go through all their official acts.
I mean, I know Obama spied on Trump illegally. He could be subject to investigation for killing american citizens using drones. And Biden, you know, we’ve talked extensively about his personal criminal activities and then him, for instance, enabling the invasion. Is he breaking the law there in a criminal way to help human trafficking, the trafficking of children through his agencies? Those are the questions we should keep on asking because the left thinks the rules, as I say, theyre consistent.
Its not a double standard. Its a single standard. And thats the Obama way. This is the Obama standard. Remember that infamous phrase? And im paraphrasing, reward your friends, protect your friends, and punish your enemies. And thats no way to run a railroad if youre trying to run an honest justice system. And so if the new rule is, and well see what the Supreme Court says, that Trump can be prosecuted for official acts, then I tell you, there’s a long list of official acts and acts as president that I think former president should be prosecuted for or at least criminally investigated over.
You know, there was some other news this week, and I guess I want to play this other video because it really stuck in my craw. You know, we’ve got this contagion. It’s this transgender extremism that’s been kind of embraced by the Biden administration. We were walking back from the Capitol the other day or today, and I don’t know if I’m surprising my colleagues in the back, but that’s what we saw in front of HHS.
There’s the american flag. That’s the HHS flag, that blue flag. And underneath is what I understand to be the transgender flag. So this is the HHS headquarters, health and human services. It’s right on Capitol Hill. It’s right at the bottom of Capitol Hill. So it’s a very prominent location. And that’s what they’re celebrating over HHS. And in many ways, transgender extremism is abusive of children, and it’s really particularly abusive of women.
And I saw this online, and I posted this instagram quick hit the other night and I wanted to share it with you. There you see a male competing at a woman’s weightlifting meat, dominating. It’s really outrageous. Frankly. Any, any adult male with modest training could compete and do very well in any woman’s weightlifting competition. So the idea that this man comes in, identifies himself as a woman and then ruins the competition for all the women there who have worked so hard to get there is just so outrageous.
And it highlights how the transgender extremist movement is so abusive and anti women and misogynistic. And that it’s allowed to go on, to me, is such an indictment of the rule of law. And frankly, it signals a civilizational collapse with this coordinated assault on women. Yeah, I think that that person who is a male identifying as a female set a record. And I feel so badly. And, you know, I would recommend the women not compete at all.
But imagine you’re training and training and training as a female athlete, especially in a kind of a difficult technical sport like that. I think that’s Olympic powerlifting. And you have this male come up with all of the extra characteristics that benefit men in strength sports. Basically wipe aside all other competitors. Its really outrageous, especially in a sport like that, which, you know, where the male female comparison is so much different in terms of biological strength differences.
I mean, under their logic, I should be able to walk in and compete in a weightlifting event against women. Does that sound right or fair to you? And where are the men objecting to this? I mean, this transgender extremism wants to, it is so anti women because when you think about it, it’s replacing women. Right. Men presenting themselves as women and then kind of replacing them and invading spaces that civilization forever has protected women with privacy and their own space in that regard, whether it be bathrooms or locker rooms and such.
And then the women who transition and present themselves as males, they’re kind of encouraged to leave women behind and become men. So there’s that side of it as well. Now, what’s judicial watch’s approach on this? Well, we investigate the abuses. We have litigation, for instance, against HHS that was, theyve had material pushing chest feeding by men. Chest feeding. Right. They think that men should be able to somehow imitate women and try to breastfeed or chest feed infants.
I mean, thats how crazed this is, abusing children and advocating for the abuse of newborns. So this transgender extremism, it’s not fun to talk about, but it’s something the left is embraced and is kind of crazed about. I mean, you’re seeing their flag on the building of a federal agency here under the Biden administration. So just complete craziness in that regard. What else happened this week? Lots of good things, believe it or not, a big decision up in Pennsylvania.
The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, of which Pennsylvania is a part of, issued a two to one decision upholding a Pennsylvania statute that required ballots that are mailed in to be in an envelope that includes a date. And I kind of explained it in this tweet the other day. Let me talk about, let me go see. Bring the tweet up so I can read it.
A huge victory for election integrity up in Pennsylvania yesterday, where the US Court of Appeals. So this was earlier this week for the Third Circuit upheld a Pennsylvania law that requires voters using mail in ballots to fill out date and sign the declaration printed on the envelope before returning a completed ballot. The left objects to any ballot being invalidated as a result of failing to include a proper date on the envelope.
The majority decision upheld this voter integrity measure and rejected the left’s misuse of the race card in concluding it does not violate federal civil rights law. And then I go on to quote the opinion. Casting a vote, whether by following the directions of using a voting machine or completing a paper ballot, requires compliance with certain rules. States have legitimate interests in regulating the voting process and imposing, and in imposing restrictions on voters to preserve the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.
We know no authority that the right to vote encompasses the right to have a ballot counted as defective under state law. Interestingly, the court’s decision indirectly demonstrates that the counting of date defective mail in ballots in the 2020 election was unlawful. Mass mail in voting, in my view, as I’ve said repeatedly, should be eliminated completely. Either way, that decision is a big blow to the less efforts to make it easier to steal elections by making it easier to commit voter fraud.
Now, I’m sure you largely agree I issued a video on it the other day that summed it up pretty quickly as well. Why don’t we play that video? Hey, everyone, huge victory. The Pennsylvania appellate court, the third Circuit that oversees Pennsylvania, the federal court upheld a Pennsylvania state law that requires ballots mailed in to be in an envelope with a date on it, and the left wanted to be able to count ballots that didn’t have a date on the envelope, contrary to state law.
And the appellate court said, no, you can’t do that. It’s perfectly legitimate to require that rule. And certainly election integrity is advanced through this basic measure. Of course, the left doesn’t like election integrity because they want to be able to steal elections. So this is a major victory for those of us who want fairer and cleaner elections. Certainly in the state of Pennsylvania, which is also interesting about the case, is that the decision suggests that counties that counted ballots without a date on the envelope in 2020 did so unlawfully up there in Pennsylvania.
So it raises more questions about the 2020 election election. So no matter how you slice it, though, a big defeat for the left that wants to be able to steal elections and a big victory for the rest of us who want fair and clean elections. And you can be sure that judicial watch will continue to do the heavy lifting in Pennsylvania and elsewhere to ensure that our elections are fair, free, and clean.
Yeah, that was a great victory. And that video, thats what I love about posting videos. It just drives the left crazy because theyre not used to seeing the truth online. They think, especially in election matters, that folks like me should have no voice. And a video like that, they go crazy over. I mean, they hate the truth, of course. As you might imagine, they focus on my physical appearance.
Evidently, they dont like like the way I look. But they, in many ways, it just masks that. They have just contempt and fear for the truth I speak. Right. And so Pennsylvania, theres going to be cleaner elections now, I think, as I said, mail in voting should be significantly restricted because theres no, and I think ive talked about this, maybe I just talked about this last week again.
But, you know, mail in balloting that occurs, mass mail in balloting is at odds with the kind of, the very notion of secure elections because theres really no good way of securing mail in balloting in a significant way. I mean, for instance, how is it you check to see if theres been voter intimidation? You go to everyones house and ask them, you know, and obviously, its easier to collect ballots or, or engage in fraud even with the security measures in place, if the voting is taking place in a non governmental location, outside a polling place, unsupervised voting is something that is anathema, as I say, to free and fair elections.
And it’s something we should frown upon. But if we’re going to do it, it needs to be done with some basic security measures in place. So, sure enough, the left wanted to count ballots that didn’t have dates on the envelopes. Now, that requirement is under state law. And there’s election integrity. It’s an election integrity measure there. And, of course, they oppose it for the reasons I suggest. And what the Pennsylvania court noted that in 2020, and the dispute was essentially mooted out by the Supreme Court that, frankly, didn’t want to deal with any of this.
Outrageously, there were counties in Pennsylvania that were on their own deciding to count ballots that didnt comply with state law at the time. And I guess, you know, everyones pretending its water under the bridge. But as I highlight in my comments to you, I mean, in the tweet and in the video I just played, it just raises additional questions about 2020. I mean, the left doesnt want us to ask questions about 2020.
They want to jail Trump right, for 2020, but we’re not allowed to talk about it, and I’m not going to be intimidated. And we’re going to keep on talking or telling the truth about what happened in 2020, about the way elections should be run, because in my view, if the left gets their way, we won’t have elections anymore. I mean, in effect, they’re trying to remove, they had been trying to remove Trump from the ballot.
They still are trying to remove Trump from the ballot. See an option there? They’re trying to jail Trump before the election, convict him, basically ending elections as we know it, if they get their way. So it was a great little, great little victory, a nice surprise during holy week for election integrity in the United States. And while thats happening, Judicial Watch had a direct case on election integrity in Illinois that was heard before a federal appellate court because our initial lawsuit was dismissed at the lower levels, we think improperly or in a way that requires that the appellate court reinstate our case.
And it was a case we brought against the state of Illinois on behalf of Congressman Michael Bost. Bost and two other registered Illinois voters to prevent state election officials from extending election Day for 14 days beyond the date established by federal law. And I’ve talked about these issues in some of these quick videos that I do for social media. Let’s play the one I recorded this week, you know, talking about what’s happening in Illinois, everybody.
Do you think they should be counting ballots for up to two weeks after election Day? Well, of course, you don’t. In Illinois, though, they count ballots that arrive for up to 14 days after election Day, including ballots that don’t have a postal mark on them. We’re in federal court now trying to stop that because federal law requires an election day, not an election week, not an election month.
We got a federal appellate court hearing this week. Hopefully, that court allows our case to proceed. In the meantime, we’re doing heavy lifting down there in Mississippi where they count ballots for up to five days after election day. And in many other states, they also count ballots after election day or ballots that arrive after election Day, which is anathema to the very notion of fair and clean elections.
It creates a mess, it invites voter fraud, it undermines voter confidence, and it’s downright illegal. Yeah. And as I note, we also have a case in Mississippi, and I talk about, you know, the Mississippi and Illinois case in this quick video as well. Hey, everyone, judicial watch. President Tom Fitton here with some big news. We have a civil rights lawsuit for Mississippi voters who object to that state’s counting ballots for up to five days that arrive, absentee ballots after an election.
Federal law allows for an election day, not an election week. We also have a lawsuit in Illinois where they count ballots that arrive for up to 14 days after an election, even without a valid postmark. I tell you, counting ballots after election day is a great way to invite fraud. It undermines confidence in the elections. Plus, it’s downright illegal. Yeah, I’m glad we played that video, that older, that second video again, because it reminds me that these are civil rights lawsuits.
Right. When we’re trying to vindicate the election laws that protect our right to vote and that protect our right to have a secure election, that’s a civil rights lawsuit. And when a court says that a congressman in this case, for instance, the one we’re pursuing in Illinois, doesn’t have standing, to me, you know, that’s depriving him or ignoring his civil rights interest in not having his campaign messed with by this unlawful approach to counting ballots.
As I say, from 14 days after election in Illinois. Now, what had happened was the Democrats had tried to come in and the court had initially kept the Democrats out. The Democratic Party of Illinois in October 2022 suffered a defeat when the court rejected their efforts to intervene as a defendant. So thats how much of an interest they have in extending voting past election day. You had the democratic party try to join the case officially with the state to defend this unlawful practice.
But last year, the judge in the case dismissed our case based on a lack of standing, which just doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m not a lawyer, but I know enough about how some of these cases go. Of course, we had standing, or our clients did. And so we took it up to the court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which is the case the court out in that handles the state of Illinois, of which Illinois is a part.
So we had the argument in Chicago, and just to clarify, federal law makes it clear Election Day is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of every even numbered year. That’s when there’s a federal election day. Despite Congress’s clear statement regarding a single national election day, Illinois has expanded Election Day by extending by 14 days the date for receipt and counting of vote by mail ballots.
Even vote by mail ballots without postmarks shall be counted if received up to 14 calendar days after election day. And this is what we alleged in the brief, and we note, and I think this is a way, important way to think about it, plaintiffs alleged that all ballots received after Election Day pursuant to the Illinois receipt deadline, which is that 14 day rule, are illegal and invalid. These ballots are as invalid as if they were received one year after election day because they violate the federal election Day statutes.
Plaintiffs alleged three claims. First, they claim defendants receipt and counting of late illegal ballots dilutes the value of plaintiffs lawfully cast votes, thereby infringing on their right to vote under the first and 14th Amendment. Second, plaintiffs claim that the receipt deadline injures them as federal candidates infringing on their right to stand for office under the first and 14th amendments. Third, plaintiffs claim the 14 day extension violates their federal statutory rights.
The board advised that the number of ballots received after election day through November 7, this is the board of elections in Illinois, could materially through December. Excuse me. The board advised that the number of ballots received after election day through December, November 17, 2020, could materially affect the unofficial election results. So these votes matter. They changed outcomes. Potentially. They received as many as 266,000 ballots during the period between November 3 and November 17.
Of 2024. 4% of the total ballots cast in the 2020 election, at least under our theory of the law, are invalid. They were. I mean, the whole point is, if it’s two weeks, why not four weeks? Why not a year? Well, you say a year is unreasonable. Well, why is it unreasonable if states can set whatever deadline they want and there’s no way of challenging it or checking it? By counting on timely and illegal ballots received after election day and diluting plaintiff’s timely cast and receive ballots, defendants are depriving plaintiff of rights protected under the first amendment, the 14th Amendment, and 42 USC 1983 federal civil rights law.
So the case was argued the other day in Illinois before a three judge panel of the appellate court by Russ Nobeal, one of Judicial Watch’s senior attorneys, election law expert. He had worked in the Justice Department for years on election cases. And Russ is a great lawyer. And nowadays, now you can hear some of these arguments, virtual, I should say, online, I guess, they are broadcast on the Internet.
So weve clipped out a few of Russ points that he made to the three judge panel the other day. Lets play a little bit of what Russ had to say on judicial watchs behalf. Obviously, were the attorneys there? Our team represented Congressman Boston, the two voters in Illinois. But I always think of it, its my long way of saying Russ is representing you in many ways who are concerned about this effort to undermine election integrity by extending Election Day in 2020.
The state issued press releases saying, don’t trust, and I’m paraphrasing, of course, but don’t trust the election night results. Electoral victories on election night may change after late arriving ballots come in. He has no idea of knowing that will happen until well after they find out how many votes come in. I understand the court’s hypothetical. They’re saying 99%. Respectfully, that hasn’t happened here. I don’t know the exact numbers of whether or not it’s fatal on the front end, but he was warned by them.
He’s alleged that in the complaint, he has no, he and the other plaintiffs have no idea what will happen after election night, especially given that the state officials have warned them that it may change. If I may, 1 try to summarize the merits of the case here. Your honor, we should have made this a little bit more clear in our brief, and so I’ll take an opportunity to do that.
Now, our Illinois cannot extend receipt day for the same reason that Arizona can’t add informational requirements to the federal form. Most of these post election receipt deadlines were enacted after 2004 and really after 2010, Illinois is the exception. But most of these statutes, this trend is a new trend, and that’s why the court’s facing it now. Also, the number of absentee ballots have gone up dramatically, 46% in 2020 versus 0.
5% in 1933. It wasn’t material then. Nobody cared. It didn’t change the outcome of elections. We have state officials in Illinois saying it’s going to change the outcome of the election. Now, these are material questions, and so that’s why this court is faced with that question at this point. Now, this sort of, this concept of congressional long tolerance or the long tolerance. I went back and looked at Foster v.
Love in prepping for this, and I note that Louisiana statute had been in place longer than Illinois statute question here. So if there is a long tolerance, Congress, excuse me, the Supreme Court and Congress didn’t care about it when it issued in Foster. So this statute is actually younger, a younger version of a statute in question. And I would also note that Congress and the Supreme Court tolerated malapportionment for 90 years before it finally introduced the one person, one vote concept.
And so we acknowledge there’s been some tolerance, but it’s not as meaningful as it seems, especially when you realize that the trend is a recent trend, largely predicated on the advent of Hava. And Hava drove home the point that in section 302 of Hava that when a voter shows up in the poll and there’s some dispute about whether or not that individual can vote, they don’t go home.
They cast their vote, it’s received, it’s secured, and then a week or two later, they get to figure out whatever the problems are. And that’s an elegant way to solve a controversial problem in 2020 so that voters aren’t disenfranchised because there’s some quirk in the registration record or people got in line too late, get their votes in. We’ll sort that out on the back end. But Congress emphasized receipt at that point.
Well, that was just a sample of Russ argument before the three judge panel, and I encourage you to go and listen to. Maybe we’ll put a link to the full audio of the argument below. But it highlights how important this issue is because as Russ notes, this is kind of a relatively new issue in the sense that the law is extending election counting past election day and its about in 19 states, including the District of Columbia.
I think the latest numbers are like in California, they count ballots until at least seven days after the election. Mail in ballots. Its completely at odds with any common sense way of approaching fair and honest elections. Just think of the temptation an election official or bad actors or politicians, whoever would have if they had, if on election day, they knew what the difference was in votes and they had an opportunity to try to get ballots in or to get counts in to achieve a certain result.
Because typically election day counting, you don’t know what the outcome is going to be at the end of the counting or what outcome you need to challenge. Right? But that’s not the case with post election day counting. That’s why it’s so frowned upon. And as we highlight, it’s technically it is in violation of the law. This isnt a technical issue. Federal election law is that there is one election day, and I would submit the 2020 election is controversial and in my view compromised by post election day counting because Trump had the votes that were counted on election day to win.
Again, federal law at the time, and I think it’s been reaffirmed even though Congress is pretending to reform it, said you got to count your electors on, you got to decide. Choose your electors on election day. Isn’t choosing meaning figuring out who won, and not for the first time in american history, changing the outcome of the election day counts by counting ballots for days and weeks after an election.
That’s how Biden won, was unprecedented. Now, many people say that’s perfectly valid and that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. And I don’t buy it. I don’t buy it. It’s not what the law says and I’m never going to buy it. So there you have it. Great argument by Russ and of course, judicial watch is doing all sorts of other heavy lifting on election issues. We have another case, for instance, in Illinois.
We’re also suing Illinois to get them to clean up the rolls. They haven’t been cleaning up the rolls recently. The numbers are just awful in that regard. So we have a new federal lawsuit there now. I talked about the Mississippi lawsuit where they’re counting ballots after, for five days after elections. And there are other election law cases that are percolating at judicial watch that will likely be filing soon.
So we just never stop at judicial Watch. One of the reasons I love us or I love our work is because our legal team, our lawyers, you know, they recognize these issues really never go away. And we have to be constantly vigilant in, especially in the area of election law, in protecting the integrity of the process, ensuring that the laws are followed, protecting the people’s right to have their votes counted in an honest and ethical way, in a secure process.
And it’s a core civil rights issue. It is a core civil rights issue, protecting your right to vote from being dissipated and negated by fraud and the appearance that fraud’s happened. Because, you know, if you don’t think an election is honest with good reason, boy, that undermines democracy as much as anything else, doesn’t it? So there were supreme, so moving on to another hot topic, which is abortion.
Now, the left suffered a major catastrophic defeat from their perspective, with the Supreme Court finally following the Constitution and overturning Roe versus Wade, which overrode the laws of most states in mandating abortion on demand, meaning throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy for any reason, as long as you get a doctor to do it, you could get an abortion. And even after Roe was overturned, the left has continued to promote that extreme point of view, because most Americans, I want abortion eliminated as best as the law is able to do that.
But even Americans who don’t share my views, that aren’t, don’t have that most broad view of the right to life for the unborn. They think there has to be some restrictions on abortion, right? But thats not what the left believes. They want abortion up until the nine months, up until birth with taxpayer funding. My understanding is virtually no Americans support that, or very few Americans support it. And one of the ways they want to bypass states that have tried to extend the right to life to the unborn is by pushing this, an abortion pill, which is notoriously political in its approval process, which has been notoriously politicized by the left wing controlled FDA.
It first was legalized, so to speak, under the Biden administration, excuse me, the Clinton administration, Hillary was a big pusher of it. Judicial watch uncovered all of this. And despite the risk of it, back then, it was called RU 486. Today it’s popularly known as Mifeprex or mifeprestone, mifepristone. And then Obama came in, kind of overwrote and changed the rules to expand its use in a way that put women, pregnant mothers at risk.
And then Biden doubled down on it. And so there have been challenges, a, to the initial approval way back when under Clinton, but then to the changes that expanded it to have an abortion pill looks like everywhere, even in violation, potentially federal law under Obama and Biden. And so thats what the Supreme Court was considering this week. And we filed a Damicus brief on the case because we’ve been investigating RU 486 since the Clinton administration, and we highlighted how the FDA violated its own unambiguous regulations.
The judiciary’s default position of bestowing undue deference on federal agencies has led to the rise of an unelected fourth branch of government that touches every aspect of our lives. These federal agencies wield budgets in the hundreds of billions of dollars with little to no oversight. In 2000, the FDA harnessed the executive power from a political administration with a personal agenda bent on approving the drug mifepristone, mifeprix, which I guess is the commercial name which intentionally ends the life of a prenatal human.
In approving the drug, the FDA violated its own unambiguous regulation and relied on pretext. The FDA’s actions, as I say, under Obama in 2016 and then Biden in 2021, were arbitrary and capricious and violated the Administrative Procedures act. And so, you know, I’m not a lawyer, so I’m on thinner ice here than I am. I’m already during most of these updates. I laughingly say it’s the law that governs administrative procedures and how regulations are issued and the public’s interactions with the agencies before they issue regulations.
So that’s what the Administrative Procedures act is. It’s a very important law in terms of allowing challenges under law to federal regulations and changes in, for instance, the FDA’s case, the expansion of the availability of the drug in a way that place women, women’s lives at risk and health at risk. The FDA significantly revised the labeling and risk evaluation and mitigation strategy in 2016 and reduced the safety requirements that was under Obama.
These changes included significantly altering dosage, removal of the follow up medical visit requirement, removal of the requirement to take the drug in a doctor’s office and expansion of the use through 70 days gestation. 70 days gestation. I mean, the left had no problem with giving pregnant mothers this drug and they’d suffer through the resulting chemical abortion at home. Think of the nightmare around that. In addition to the obvious health risks, just think of it.
Also of significance and concern, the FDA modified, as I say, the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy to require reporting of only deaths attributable to the drug. No longer would hospitalizations, transfusions or other serious adverse events need to be reported. Boy, it sounds a lot like their approaches on vaccines, or at least the vaccine for COVID. It’s the same crowd, same contempt for health, same contempt for science. So they wanted to mask the adverse events associated with the abortion pill, saying anything short of death, they don’t want to hear about.
I mean, that’s how crazed they are. The FDA’s asserted rationalization for these significant changes was that it was following the science. And as we note, they haven’t provided the science it followed that could reasonably explain the changes through Freedom of Information act lawsuit. Judicial Watch recently uncovered that at least six abortion pill related deaths between 2000 and 2002 were detailed in health and human services records. Make no mistake, as I say in the release, this is a dangerous drug.
We’ve known since its assumption that the abortion drug is potentially dangerous to the mothers as well as the intended victims. Obviously, the poor unborn babies. Extremist abortion politics in the Clinton, Obama, and now Biden administration are putting pregnant mothers at risk. Let’s hope the Supreme Court recognizes that an extremist abortion agenda has overcome the rule of law at the FDA. So I don’t know how the Supreme Court’s going to rule.
Obviously, we still have a lot of mifeprestone questions out there under FOIA and such. And we’ve gone through, we have extensive records about how that drug has been handled. And I encourage you to look at the records because they’re going to shock you and you’re going to wonder why it is they’re so desperate to have women kill their unborn babies at home using this kill pill, as I call it.
And is the Supreme Court going to let them change all the health rules that the FDA requires for other drugs to advance an abortion agenda? Now, I don’t know how the Supreme Court’s going to rule. There’s a big issue about the standing of the plaintiffs, whether they have sufficient harm. So that may be kind of one way for the court to avoid the underlying issue. And but either way, we have to kind of stand against this.
By the way, federal law prohibits mailing abortifaciency. That’s another inconvenient truth that the government is avoiding the Biden administration specifically. So you may be pro choice on abortion, but I suspect you, you might be suspicious of, even if you are pro choice, of the Biden administrations extremism of promoting this pill that just take five minutes and look up how the pill operates and how chemical abortions are done through this method.
And youd be thinking what this is? This is something that’s not good, not right and dangerous. So a lot of weighty moral and basic civilizational concerns this week on the Judicial Watch update. So we’ve got much more work to do, as you can see. And with your support, we’ll be able to do it. So I encourage you to kind of get the information that I’m talking about here, share it with others, and of course, support our work to obtain it, and advocate for the rule of law.
Before I go, I want to acknowledge, as is God’s due in my view, that we are celebrating Easter this weekend. I am excited about Easter, and I hope you are, too. As a Christian, I wish you all the joy of Easter. It’s a wonderful holiday. And one of my favorite quotes about Easter is from Pope John Paul II. And I think it applies to not just Catholics, I’m a Catholic, but to all Christians, we are an Easter people, and hallelujah is our song.
So it’s a joyful time. And even if you’re not christian, I wish you all the joy of Easter. And so with that, I wish you again a happy Easter. And I’ll see you here next week on the Judicial watch weekly update. Thanks for watching. Don’t forget to hit that subscribe button and like our video down below. .
See more of Judicial Watch on their Public Channel and the MPN Judicial Watch channel.
Author
