Trump reveals what's at stake if Supreme Court rules against his tariffs: 'Devastating'



The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday regarding President Donald Trump's authority to impose reciprocal and fentanyl-related tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Given the skepticism expressed by liberal and conservative justices alike, there is cause to suspect that things may not go in the president's favor.

Trump has since underscored in a series of posts on Truth Social that a loss for his administration in this case would prove to be a "catastrophe" for the economy and national security.

Skepticism on the high court

One day prior to the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments in the consolidated cases Trump v. V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the president noted that the outcome of the case could mean "LIFE OR DEATH for our Country. With a Victory, we have tremendous, but fair, Financial and National Security. Without it, we are virtually defenseless against other Countries who have, for years, taken advantage of us."

'The US Supreme Court was given the wrong numbers.'

While Justice Samuel Alito appeared sympathetic to some of the government's arguments, his conservative colleagues didn't come across as entirely convinced.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, for instance, joined his liberal colleagues last week in trying to poke holes in U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer's defense of Trump's tariffs, suggesting that the danger of too liberal a reading of the IEEPA in the president's favor risks creating "a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives."

RELATED: Trump's SHOCKING 25% truck tariff: A matter of national security?

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Chief Justice John Roberts, like some of the other justices on the high court, took issue with the absence of the word "tariffs" in the IEEPA, which empowers the president to regulate imports of "property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest" during a declared national emergency.

"You have a claimed source in IEEPA that had never before been used to justify tariffs. No one has argued that it does until this — this particular case," said Robert.

Roberts, whose note on the unprecedented nature of the interpretation was also raised by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, added that tariffs amount to an "imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress."

Concern in the White House

Trump, no doubt aware of how the oral arguments went, has emphasized in the days since what is at risk.

Hours after indicating that any money left over from his proposed $2,000 tariff dividend for American citizens "will be used to SUBSTANTIALLY PAY DOWN NATIONAL DEBT," Trump suggested on Monday that the cost of the Supreme Court's invalidation of his tariffs — which Barrett said would likely be "a mess" — could be far higher than previously suggested.

Trump noted in a Truth Social post on Monday, "The 'Pay Back' Numbers being quoted by the Radical Left Lunatics, who would love to see us lose on Tariffs because of how bad it would be for our Country, are much higher than those being stated by our Fake Opposition — Opposition mainly from Foreign Countries that would do anything to be allowed to charge us Tariffs without retribution."

'Possibly non-sustainable!'

"The actual Number we would have to pay back in Tariff Revenue and Investments would be in excess of $2 Trillion Dollars, and that, in itself, would be a National Security catastrophe," added the president.

In a subsequent post, Trump wrote, "The U.S. Supreme Court was given the wrong numbers. The 'unwind' in the event of a negative decision on Tariffs, would be, including investments made, to be made, and return of funds, in excess of 3 Trillion Dollars."

As all revenues from tariffs, including new and pre-existing ones, through September of this year had raised between $174 and $195 billion, Trump's allusion to a figure over $3 trillion appears to refer to the potential tariff revenue lost over the next decade.

According to a recent Tax Foundation report, Trump's tariffs "will raise $2.4 trillion in revenue over the next decade on a conventional basis and reduce US GDP by 0.6 percent, all before foreign retaliation." Other estimates put potential revenue as high as $3 trillion.

The Congressional Budget Office released an estimate in August indicating that "increases in tariffs implemented during the period from January 6, 2025, to August 19 will decrease primary deficits (which exclude net outlays for interest) by $3.3 trillion if the higher tariffs persist for the 2025-2035 period."

Trump suggested further that the loss of tariff revenue and return of funds "would truly become an insurmountable National Security Event, and devastating to the future of our Country — Possibly non-sustainable!"

U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer told "Mornings with Maria" last week that the reciprocal tariffs at issue have netted over $100 billion but less than $200 billion and noted further that if they are invalidated, specific plaintiffs might receive a refund, but it remains unclear what will happen to the remainder.

"As for the rest of it ... I'll hand that file to the secretary of the treasury," said Greer.

"You'll have all these importers and importing interests who are going to want that money back, and so, you know, we'll have to figure out — probably with the court — what kind of a schedule might look like and what the rights are of these parties and what rights the government has to that money."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

SCOTUS likely to side with parents who object to LGBT propaganda in elementary classrooms



The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in the case Mahmoud v. Taylor, concerning Maryland parents' right to shield their children from LGBT propaganda in elementary school classrooms.

Unlike liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, the high court's conservative-leaning justices appeared receptive to the argument that Montgomery County Public Schools, the state's largest school district, violated the Constitution when it found a way around Maryland law to prevent parents from opting their children out of mandatory readings of LGBT propaganda.

The court's ruling in the case is expected by June.

Background

MCPS approved over 20 works of LGBT propaganda for inclusion as instructional materials in its English language arts curriculum in late 2022.

There was no mistaking the propagandistic nature of these works, which included at the outset:

  • "Pride Puppy," a book approved for pre-K students that tasks 3- and 4-year-old students with searching for items they might find at a non-straight parade — including transvestite activists, underwear, leather, "intersex flag," and feathers;
  • activist and former chair of the Human Rights Campaign Foundation Board Jodie Patterson's "Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope," a work of propaganda that seeks to normalize child sex transitions that the district approved for K-5 students;
  • "My Rainbow," a story about a mother's efforts to groom her transvestic son;
  • "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," about a little girl's peripheral involvement in her uncle's gay "wedding"; and
  • "Intersection Allies: We Make Room for All," touted as "a smooth, gleeful entry into intersectional feminism."

The district was initially willing to let parents opt their children out of lessons incorporating the LGBT propaganda and to provide notice when such works were read, as required by state law. However, MCPS ultimately decided to deny parents the option in March 2023.

It appears the district figured it could get away with mandating the propaganda on account of a sleight of hand. State law requires opt-outs for sex education units of health classes. Since the books were instead introduced as part of the English curriculum, they are apparently not subject to the opt-out provision.

'They're not asking you to change that at all.'

Christian and Muslim parents who wanted the option not to have their kids subjected to content that stood in direct conflict with their religious beliefs took the district to court on May 24, 2023. Represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, they argued that the district's policy violated their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.

After lesser courts refused to order MCPS to let kids opt out, the case made its way to the Supreme Court.

A sympathetic court

The conservative justices on the high court appeared to think the parents' position reasonable, the district's reasoning questionable, and the LGBT propaganda inappropriate for young children.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh told Alan Schoenfeld, who represented the school board, that the parents are not asking the district "to change what's taught in the classroom. They're not asking you to change that at all."

Kavanaugh clarified that "they're only seeking to be able to walk out so that they don't have — so the parents don't have their children exposed to these things that are contrary to their own beliefs."

Justice Samuel Alito appeared to be of a similar mind, saying, "The plaintiffs here are not asking the school to change its curriculum. They're just saying, 'Look, we want out.' Why isn't that feasible? What is the big deal about allowing them to opt out of this?"

'It's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with.'

Justice Clarence Thomas was keen to know whether the consumption of the LGBT propaganda was voluntary or compelled, asking "why the record shows that the children are more than merely exposed to these sorts of things in the storybooks."

Eric Baxter, who argued on behalf of the parents and serves as vice president at Becket, emphasized to Justice Thomas that "teachers are required to use the books"; that the school board made clear "that every student would be taught from the inclusivity storybooks"; and that plaintiffs' alternatives to sending their kids to these mandatory readings were "criminal fines or penalties or the expense of private school."

Justice Alito acknowledged that the books were ideological in nature and in conflict with the parents' views, noting that in the case of "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," the "book has a clear message, and a lot of people think it's a good message, and maybe it is a good message, but it's a message that a lot of people who hold on to traditional religious beliefs don't agree with."

Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested that certain statements from board members hint at a hostility toward parents' sincerely held religious beliefs.

"We have some statements from board members suggesting the students were ... parroting their parents' dogma, suggesting that some parents might be promoting hate, and suggesting that it was unfortunate that they were taking a view endorsed by white supremacists and xenophobes," said Gorsuch.

Schoenfeld claimed that the statements in which officials suggested parents were bigots "have been taken out of context" and that the record did not indicate they motivated the board to "adopt a policy that discriminates against people on the basis of religion."

'The Supreme Court, I predict, will stand with parents.'

When discussing whether it constitutes a burden to be exposed to this sort of instruction, Justice John Roberts suggested that unlike older students, younger children subjected to the LGBT propaganda are likely to naturally affirm what's being taught or presented in the books.

Judging from their questions to Baxter and Schoenfeld, the conservative justices appear to think that the district should simply accommodate religious parents.

Reactions

After going before the high court, Baxter said in a statement, "In this country, we've always trusted families to decide when their kids are ready for sensitive topics. Children shouldn’t be forced into conversations about drag queens, Pride parades, and gender transitions without their parents' permission. Today, we fought for common sense and parents' right to guide the upbringing of their children."

Billy Moges, director of the Kids First parental advocacy group that sued over the books, said, "Schools should be working with parents, not against us. We are our children’s primary teachers, not obstacles to be avoided. Today, we asked the court to remind Montgomery County — and the entire nation — of this fundamental truth."

"The Mahmoud case argued in the Supreme Court today is quite simple. Montgomery County school officials want to expose young children to progressive sexual ideology against their parents' wishes," said legal scholar Robert George, director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University. "The parents want to be able to opt their kids out of this propagandizing. The Supreme Court, I predict, will stand with parents — probably 6-3 (maybe even 7-2). It will be another victory for Becket, the public interest religious liberty law firm representing the parents."

Some activists are upset over the prospect of the high court once again upholding parental rights.

PEN America, a left-leaning organization that filed an amicus brief in support of the district, for instance, claimed in a statement that granting opt-outs for parents would "stigmatize LGBTQ students and families, who would watch their peers leave classrooms when books that include LGBTQ characters or themes are used."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

ActBlue donor arrested for allegedly threatening to torture and slaughter 6 Supreme Court justices



An ActBlue donor shot President Donald Trump on July 13. Another ActBlue donor allegedly attempted to assassinate him on Sunday.

It turns out the Alaska man who was arrested Wednesday for allegedly threatening to torture and slaughter six U.S. Supreme Court justices and some of their family members was also an ActBlue donor with over 80 contributions to the Democratic fundraising outfit to his name.

The Department of Justice announced Thursday that Panos Anastasiou, 76, has been charged with nine counts of making threats against a federal judge and 13 counts of making threats in interstate commerce.

The DOJ refrained from indicating which six justices on the high court — which has a 6-3 conservative majority — were targeted.

"We allege that the defendant made repeated, heinous threats to murder and torture Supreme Court Justices and their families to retaliate against them for decisions he disagreed with," Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement. "Our justice system depends on the ability of judges to make their decisions based on the law, and not on fear."

According to the indictment filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, Anastasiou sent over 465 messages to the Supreme Court through a public website between March 10, 2023, and July 16.

These messages allegedly "contained violent, racist, and homophobic rhetoric coupled with threats of assassination by torture, hanging, and firearms, and encouraged others to participate in the acts of violence."

Six justices on the court certainly angered a great many radicals with their June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

The indictment noted that some of the threats were intended to intimidate the six unnamed justices and retaliate against them for actions they had taken in their official capacity as federal justices.

Anastasiou allegedly threatened to hang a specific justice from an oak tree, to lynch another, and to kill a third by "putting a bullet in his ... head." He is also accused of threatening to behead, strangle, and/or drown all six, as well as gun down their family members.

Although it's unclear what six justices may have done to draw the ire of the Democratic donor, six justices on the court certainly angered a great many radicals with their June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Numerous pro-abortion extremists engaged in hate crimes and terror attacks after the ruling, targeting pro-life pregnancy centers, churches, and individuals.

After a draft of the Dobbs opinion was leaked, Nicholas John Roske of California — who goes on trial next year — was apparently caught near Justice Brett Kavanaugh's house with a gun and a knife and charged with attempted murder.

Roske allegedly claimed he was going to give his life a purpose by killing the justice, reported the Washington Post.

During part of the period that Anastasiou was allegedly making the threats, Democrats in Washington, D.C., were actively attacking those conservative Supreme Court justices who appeared unwilling to give them their desired results in cases related to the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 protests as well as regarding the question of former President Donald Trump's immunity in U.S. v. Donald Trump.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren said in June, "[Justice Samuel] Alito is an extremist who is out of touch with mainstream America. His rising power on the Supreme Court is a threat to our democracy," reported The Hill.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) tweeted, "Alito answered like a movement activist. Movement activists have their role but it's not on the Supreme Court."

Blaze News previously reported that on the basis of a misleading New York Times story, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) accused Justice Samuel Alito in May of "sympathizing with right-wing violent insurrectionists."

House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) was among the Democrats happy to demonize Alito.

Clark — whose adult son was arrested and charged in January 2023 with assault and battery on a Boston police officer — said in May 23 statement, "Justice Alito has displayed flags at his homes that support insurrection against our government, promote religious nationalism, and attack free and fair elections."

"This is not just another example of extremism that has overtaken conservatism. This is a threat to the rule of law and a serious breach of ethics, integrity, and Justice Alito's oath of office," continued Clark.

This would not be the first time in recent memory that heated Democratic rhetoric resonated with an extremist.

Blaze News previously highlighted that the suspected would-be Trump assassin arrested Sunday directly quoted Democratic rhetoric. Prior to his arrest, Ryan Routh posted about how "DEMOCRACY is on the ballot" this election. This is one of Kamala Harris' go-to lines.

If convicted, then Anastasiou faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for each of the nine counts of threatening the justices and a maximum penalty of five years in prison for each of the latter 13 counts.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Supreme Court Rulings TRIGGER Liberals | New SCOTUS Decisions Explained
play icon

Supreme Court Rulings TRIGGER Liberals | New SCOTUS Decisions Explained

Jeffrey Toobin exposes himself to criticism after calling Justice Thomas a 'disgrace'



Jeffrey Toobin, a former CNN analyst who continues to make appearances on the liberal network, lashed out at U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Tuesday for daring to question the Biden Department of Justice's uneven application of the law.

By calling the highly esteemed constitutionalist a "disgrace," Toobin exposed himself once again to criticism over his less than sterling public record.

The case

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in Fischer v. United States, which concerns the application of a federal obstruction statute against Jan. 6 protesters.

The controversial law in question, Section 1512(c)(2), makes it a felony to obstruct or impede an official proceeding and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years. The law has been weaponized by the Biden Department of Justice for use against more than 350 Jan. 6 protesters.

CBS News highlighted that the felony charge is among those former President Donald Trump faces in the case brought in Washington, D.C., by special counsel Jack Smith in 2023.

America's Future and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund noted in their amicus brief on the behalf of the petitioners that the DOJ has "indicted hundreds, including [former police officer Joseph W. Fischer], for a crime that carries a sentence twice what Congress provided for insurrections," on the basis of a "strained reading" of an obscure provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and a "fabricated January 6 narrative."

"Allowing this strained reading to stand can be expected to lead to further weaponization of the Justice Department," said the brief.

Oral arguments

During oral arguments Tuesday, Jeffrey Green, who represented Fischer, noted that the law was created with the intention of addressing acts that impact the "integrity or availability of evidence," not acts that serve as inconveniences without affecting evidence, reported The Hill.

Conservative justices appeared interested in the selective and potential expansive application of the law, which the DOJ conceded serves as a "classic catchall."

Justice Neil Gorsuch asked, "Would a sit-in that disrupts a trial or access to a federal courthouse qualify? Would a heckler in today's audience qualify or at the State of the Union Address? Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify? And for 20 years in federal prison?"

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing on behalf of the government, suggested the statute would apply in cases of "meaningful interference" and that "minor disruption[s]," determined by partisan prosecutors, would be safe.

Gorsuch responded with a thinly veiled intimation that New York Democratic Rep. Jamaal Bowman's fire alarm pull and Portland radicals' sit-in would qualify as federal felonies.

Prelogar insinuated that perceived interference or obstruction regarded by partisan prosecutors as "mostly peaceful protests" are exempt.

Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch nukes Joe Biden's DOJ over January 6th sentences:\n\nGorsuch lists multiple cases of folks who "obstructed a Congressional proceeding" without receiving a 20 year sentence.\n\n1. Sit-ins at a trial (Kavanaugh protests)\n2. Pulling a fire alarm (Rep.\u2026
— (@)

Justice Thomas also risked the ire of statists and other champions of government overreach, highlighting the DOJ's uneven application of the law.

"There have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings," said Justice Thomas. "Has the government applied this provision to other protests in the past, and has this been the government's position throughout the lifespan of this statute?"

Prelogar refrained from answering the question directly, prompting Thomas to ask again, "Have you enforced it in that manner?"

"I can't give you an example of enforcing it in a situation where people have violently stormed a building in order to prevent an official proceeding, a specified one," answered the solicitor general.

A stone thrown from a glass house

Prickled by Justice Thomas putting questions of substance to the state, Toobin denounced the Supreme Court justice online.

The frequent CNN guest, who once had a job at the network, wrote in an X post, "In oral argument today, Justice Thomas is minimizing the severity of the 1/6 insurrection at the Capitol. Perhaps that's because his wife was part of the conspiracy. What a disgrace that he's sitting on this case."

Toobin quickly learned he was not the only critic on the platform.

Megyn Kelly responded, "Hi Toobin - fyi you waived your right to use the term 'disgraced' about other lawyers when you took your dick out of your pants and jerked off in front of your colleagues."

Hi Toobin - fyi you waived your right to use the term \u201cdisgraced\u201d about other lawyers when you took your dick out of your pants and jerked off in front of your collleagues
— (@)

Mike Davis of the Article III Project, among the many who clearly appreciated Kelly's response, said, "Has anyone reported this murder yet?"

Sean Davis, CEO of the Federalist, similarly noted, "It always amuses me when a man who got caught beating his meat on a Zoom call thinks he's in a position to call other people disgraceful."

Toobin worked as a writer at the New Yorker and CNN's chief legal analyst until he exposed himself to colleagues on an October 2020 zoom call. People familiar with the matter told CNN that in a disgraceful display, Toobin began masturbating during the call.

Toobin acknowledged the incident occurred and claimed, "I thought no one on the Zoom call could see me. I thought I had muted the Zoom video."

CNN, which initially sidelined the flasher, apparently waited until August 2022 to confirm Toobin's departure from the network.

While various critics referenced Toobin's 2020 incidents, others went for deeper cuts, referencing his sordid extramarital affair.

The New York Post reported that the father of two had an affair with his former CNN colleague's daughter, 14 years his junior. After getting her pregnant, Toobin allegedly offered Casey Greenfield "money if she'd have an abortion."

Toobin reportedly denied paternity of the baby but was later confirmed by tests to be the father, prompting Greenfield to take Toobin to court over custody and financial support issues.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Could SEC v. Jarkesy Be The SCOTUS Case That Brings Down The Administrative State?

Does the SEC have the constitutional authority to regulate and target small business owners, up to the tune of a half-a-million-dollar fine?

ProPublica’s Smearing Of Conservative Justices Is Part Of The Left’s Ploy To Destroy The Court

ProPublica's 'reporter' and 'ethics officials' are all funded by the same left-wing organizations with an agenda to radically reshape the court.
SCOTUS End-of-Term SPECIAL! With Jeremy Dys and Stu Burguiere | The News & Why It Matters | 7/1/22
play icon

SCOTUS End-of-Term SPECIAL! With Jeremy Dys and Stu Burguiere | The News & Why It Matters | 7/1/22

Pro-abortion protesters pledge 'summer of rage' during nationwide Saturday protests



Thousands of pro-abortion advocates rallied across the country on Saturday to express their anger over the U.S. Supreme Court’s potential repeal of Roe v. Wade.

The demonstrations come in response to the leak of a draft majority opinion, which has since been authenticated by Chief Justice John Roberts, indicating that the Supreme Court is prepared to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Reuters reported that the mass demonstration’s organizers are saying these gatherings mark the start of a potential “summer of rage” if the Supreme Court moves forward with repealing Roe.

The “Bans Off Our Bodies” gatherings were planned by Planned Parenthood, Women’s March, and other pro-abortion organizations. The groups organized more than 400 protests for Saturday.

If Roe is repealed, several states are expected to implement additional restrictions on abortion while others are expected to vastly expand abortion access. A repeal of Roe would not result in a federal ban on abortion. It would, however, allow each state to establish its own legislative approach to the matter.

On Saturday, there were large gatherings in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, D.C., and more. There were also accompanying counterprotests led by pro-life groups.

At the protests in Washington, D.C., protestors gathered around the Washington Monument at the National Mall where they waved placards with messages condemning the Supreme Court and expressing solidarity with the pro-abortion movement.

In downtown Brooklyn, thousands of pro-abortion advocates crossed the Brooklyn Bridge into Manhattan.

Elizabeth Holtzman, an 80-year-old attendee of the protest who represented New York in Congress from 1973 to 1981, said that the leaked majority opinion “treats women as objects, as less than full human beings.”

In Los Angeles, outside of Los Angeles City Hall, Malcolm DeCesare, a 34-year-old intensive care unit nurse, said that making abortion illegal could put the lives of women who seek alternatives at risk.

At a pro-abortion protest in Atlanta, Georgia, more than 400 people assembled in a small park in front of the state’s capitol while a much smaller group of counter protestors peacefully demonstrated on a nearby sidewalk.

One 23-year-old counter protestor held a sign that read “Stop Child Sacrifice.”

This counter protestor said, “Jesus had just a small group, but his message was more powerful. I’m hoping to plant some seeds in their hearts to change minds.”

Despite the sizable protests, recent polling suggests that overturning Roe stands to benefit Republicans in the upcoming 2022 midterm elections.

Amazon will reimburse employees $4,000 if they cross state lines to get an abortion



Amazon is committing to financing the abortions of its employees.

On Monday, the second-largest private employer in the U.S. told its staff that it will pay up to $4,000 annually in travel expenses for “non-life-threatening medical treatments including abortions.”

Reuters reported that Amazon’s decision to subsidize its employees' abortions places the online mega-retailer on a growing list of large corporations with similar policies on the books. Citigroup Inc. and Yelp Inc. both announced that they would subsidize the abortion process for their employees in response to Republican-backed state laws limiting abortion access.

In a similar vein, the popular ride-sharing companies Uber and Lyft previously vowed to cover the legal fees for drivers in Texas who encounter legal difficulties for driving women to abortion clinics, Fortune reported.

The company’s new benefit will have retroactive coverage and is available to both its U.S. employees and their covered dependents who are enrolled in either the Premera or Aetna health plans. The reimbursement benefits are available to employees at all levels of the company. Warehouse workers and executives alike can be reimbursed for expenses incurred in their pursuit of an abortion.

However, in order to qualify for the reimbursement, the individuals seeking to receive an abortion must travel more than 100 miles.

Amazon announced that it would start financing abortions the same day that it stopped offering U.S.-based employees paid time off when they get diagnosed with COVID-19.

On Monday, a draft decision indicating that the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked to the media.

The draft is of the court’s majority opinion and is written by Associate Justice Samuel Alito. It is believed that the opinion had already circulated inside the court prior to it being leaked.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito wrote.

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division,” Alito continued.

The draft decision is related to an outstanding challenge against a piece of pro-life legislation out of Mississippi.

“The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions,” Alito concludes. “On the contrary, an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of common law until 1973.”