Lazy Caturday Reads

Good Day!!

Girl holding a cat, by Albert Anker, 1881

There was  a lot of discouraging news yesterday, as is usually the case under Trump’s presidency. An appeals court in Louisiana temporarily limited access to abortion pills; we’re still adjusting to the Supreme Court’s voting rights decision; Trump and Hegseth are pulling 5,000 troops out of Germany for no good reason; the Iran war continues, but Trump is pretending it’s over; Trump is insane and getting worse. Here’s the latest:

Tierney Sneed at CNN: Appeals court blocks FDA rule that allows women to obtain abortion drugs by mail.

A federal appeals court temporarily reinstated a nationwide requirement that abortion pills be obtained in person, undermining access to the method of abortion that has only grown more widespread since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Friday’s ruling from the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals is a major victory in the anti-abortion movement’s war against medication abortion, which now accounts for roughly two-thirds of all abortions in the United States.

The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Louisiana last year against the US Food and Drug Administration, after President Donald Trump’s administration refused to act on calls to reinstate the in-person dispensing requirement for abortion pills through the regulatory process.

The opinion was written by Trump-appointed Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan, joined by Circuit Judges Leslie Southwick and Kurt Engelhardt, who were appointed by Presidents George W. Bush and Trump, respectively.

Referring to Louisiana abortion prohibitions, they wrote that the current federal regulations create “an effective way for an out-of-state prescriber to place the drug in the hands of Louisianans in defiance of Louisiana law.”

Mifepristone manufacturer Danco Laboratories has asked the 5th Circuit to put its ruling on hold for seven days so it can appeal.

Since the Covid-19 pandemic, abortion-seekers have been able to obtain mifepristone – one of the two drugs in the medication abortion regimen – through telehealth appointments. President Joe Biden’s administration finalized rules that ended the requirement that the pills be obtained through an in-person doctor’s visit in 2023, after the US Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe precedent protecting abortion rights nationwide with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Louisiana alleged that that regulatory maneuver was aimed at undermining the abortion ban that went into effect in the state with the reversal of Roe and says that now, hundreds of abortions are occurring every year within its borders because women are able to obtain pills via mail after telehealth visits with providers.

Read more at CNN.

Gabrielle Cannon at The Guardian: US appeals court blocks mail-order access to abortion drugs.

Access to mifepristone, the FDA-approved medication used to end pregnancy, could become severely limited following a ruling from US appeals court on Friday, which temporarily blocked the drug from being dispensed through the mail.

The decision is for now the most sweeping threat to abortion access since the supreme court rolled back abortion rights in 2022, said Kelly Baden, vice-president at the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights advocacy group.

“If allowed to stand, it would severely restrict access to mifepristone in every state, including those where abortion is broadly legal and where voters have acted to protect abortion rights,” she said.

The so-called “abortion pill” is part of a two-drug regimen backed by decades of evidence for its efficacy and safety, and is used in the majority of abortions in the US.

Usage has risen in recent years, especially in the aftermath of the 2022 ruling from the supreme court that overturned federal protections for a right to an abortion. In the year after that decision, the FDA formally modified its regulations to allow the drug to be prescribed online, expanding its use even in states where abortion care was being constricted.

The drug has become a key target for the anti-abortion movement, and a series of lawsuits have challenged the drug’s initial approval in 2000 and the subsequent rules making it easier to obtain.

And Trump controls the FDA.

Meanwhile, with the FDA now under Trump, the agency has opened a review of the medication. Once this analysis is completed, officials at the agency said, they will determine if changes to its regulations are warranted.

The Girl with the Cats, by Christian Kroag, 1909

Reproductive rights advocates have voiced concerns that the review could further limit mifepristone’s use, despite the evidence supporting its safety.

Developed in France in the 1980s, mifepristone is used around the world and is authorized in 96 countries. Its use is backed by roughly four decades of peer-reviewed research, according to a 2025 brief written by public health experts at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

“Anti-abortion politicians have just made it much harder for people everywhere in the country to get a medication that abortion and miscarriage patients have been safely using for more than 25 years,” Julia Kaye, a senior staff attorney for the Reproductive Freedom Project of the ACLU, said in a statement.

Some relevant commentary from Jessica Valenti at Abortion Everyday: My Favorite Abortion.

This week, U.S. Rep. Brandon Gill asked an understandably confused American University scholar to name her “favorite type of abortion.” Law professor Jessica Waters went before a House Judiciary subcommittee to talk about the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act; instead, she was questioned by a visibly pleased with himself Texas lawmaker who clearly crafted his question to be a viral social media moment.

When you see Rep. Gill’s shit-eating grin, you’ll know exactly who he is.

Since Rep. Gill is so interested in our favorite types of abortions, I thought I’d share a few of mine.

My favorite type of abortion is the one that prevents a raped ten-year-old from breaking her pelvis in childbirth.

I also like abortions that keep women from carrying dead fetuses for weeks on end, which is what happened to Marlena Stell in Rep. Gill’s home state of Texas.

My favorite abortions are the kind that stop women from going septic, or prevent 28-year-olds from losing both of their fallopian tubes.

Another favorite? The abortion that means a Texas 21-year-old won’t be forced to carry a fetus developing without a head.

I like the abortion that means a pregnant mother of five with cervical cancer doesn’t have to beg a hospital panel for chemotherapy.

I like the abortion that doesn’t force a woman to travel far from home when faced with a fatal fetal abnormality.

I really like the abortion that stops patients from having to plead for help in videos made in hospital parking lots.

My favorite types of abortions are the ones that allow women to live. Maybe if Candi Miller, or Amber Nicole Thurman, or Tierra Walker had access to abortion, they would still be here.

My favorite types of abortions are the ones that allow women to go to college.

My favorite types of abortions are the ones that let women leave abusive relationships.

My favorite kinds of abortions are the ones that mean women get to choose their own life path, to decide what is best for them, and to figure out if and when they want to start a family.

I suppose this case will ultimately end up in the Supreme Court. Who knows what they will do with it?

And of course we’re still dealing with the aftermath of the Roberts Court’s decision gutting the Voting Rights Act.

An opinion piece by Nikolas Bowie and Daphna Renan at The New York Times (gift link): Ruling by Ruling, the Supreme Court Is Undoing the Civil Rights Movement.

With its decision this week in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court gutted a core part of the Voting Rights Act, Congress’s landmark prohibition on voting rules that have the effect of excluding people of color from the political process. In doing so, the court has, not for the first time, claimed an authority to reject laws passed by Congress in service of equal justice and a free society.

By Susanne Clements

And it has effectively killed the Second Reconstruction, the mid-20th-century civil rights revolution. In the face of this decision, Congress must once again defend democracy from a hostile court. A plan of action already exists.

When the Supreme Court challenged the first Reconstruction 150 years ago, abolitionists and Republicans in Congress debated measures ranging from declaring certain federal laws beyond judicial reach to changing the number of justices. The partial measures they enacted saved Reconstruction — for a time. But more relevant for us today are the comprehensive reforms they proposed but never fully enacted. These reforms offer us and our representatives in Congress the tools we need now.

In the era surrounding the Civil War, opponents of slavery confronted a Supreme Court that was threatening their life’s work. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, in 1857, the court declared unconstitutional the Missouri Compromise — a congressional statute banning the spread of slavery in federal territory. A decade later, the court similarly menaced the Reconstruction laws that Congress was enacting to begin the project of multiracial democracy amid the wreckage of the former Confederacy.

But Congress did not submit to this judicial rule. Members of an ascendant Republican Party decried a court “inflated with supremacy” and declared that whenever a decision is, “in the judgment of Congress, subversive of the rights and liberties of the people,” it is the “solemn duty of Congress” to override it. In 1862, Congress and President Abraham Lincoln enacted legislation that banned slavery in places the Dred Scott decision had protected it. Congress also drafted the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, all of which advanced Congress’s goals of freedom and political equality while empowering Congress to enforce its terms by “appropriate legislation.”

By Nelly Tsenova, Bulgarian artist

NBC News: Trump administration is pulling 5,000 troops from Germany.

The U.S. is withdrawing approximately 5,000 troops from Germany, Pentagon officials said Friday, after President Donald Trump was angered by criticism from the German chancellor over the war with Iran.

The move would include one brigade combat team as well as other forces inside Germany, the officials said. The decision does not appear to affect the U.S. military’s massive medical support bases, like Landstuhl, where thousands of troops, including those who have been injured during the war, have been taken for medical treatment.

The decision was a direct response to comments made by Chancellor Friedrich Merz, but also reflected Trump’s frustration that U.S. allies aren’t doing enough, according to a senior Pentagon official. Trump has been threatening Germany and other NATO allies over their refusal to engage in the U.S. and Israel-led war on Iran. He suggested earlier this week he might pull troops from Germany.

“The Europeans have not stepped up when America needed them,” the official said. “This cannot be a one-way street.”

Chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell confirmed the withdrawal figure in a statement Friday and said it would be completed over the next six months to a year.

“This decision follows a thorough review of the Department’s force posture in Europe and is in recognition of theater requirements and conditions on the ground,” he said.

I’m pretty sure that last claim is a lie.

Mark Hertling at The Bulwark: The Last Time We Reduced Troops in Europe, a War Broke Out.

ONE OF THE BIGGEST MISTAKES of my career wasn’t something I did. It was something I failed to prevent.

I was commander of U.S. Army Europe in the early 2010s when U.S. forces were being drawn down in the European theater. I argued—forcefully, with member of Congress, the administration and the Department of Defense, and even my military commanders—that we shouldn’t do it.

In the final throes of the discussion, I pleaded to keep just one more tank brigade combat team on the continent. Those tanks, armored vehicles, and supporting forces would have signaled not to our allies but to our foe, Putin, presence and commitment. I believed then, as I do now, that removing that force created an opportunity for Russia to test the NATO alliance and to pursue its longstanding objective of expanding its influence.

I wasn’t persuasive enough. My arguments fell on deaf ears, and the brigade’s soldiers were ordered to return to the United States. Not long after, Russia seized Crimea and invaded Ukraine’s Donbas region. I won’t claim that the decisions of those who were my superiors caused that aggression—but I believe it contributed to it. I remember a warning from the then-president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, who told me plainly that if we pulled that kind of capability out of Europe, Moscow would act.

By Sylvia Anita, 1968

He was right. I still question myself as to how I could have been more persuasive.

On Friday night, when I heard that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced a reduction of 5,000 U.S. troops in Europe based on what he called a “thorough review”—but more likely because of the desire of President Donald Trump’s retribution against German Chancellor Friedrich Merz for his recent comments about the war in Iran—I hear an echo of the argument from more than a decade ago. And I worry we are about to make an even bigger mistake.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE the Department of Defense’s “thorough review.” Because I was part of a similar one conducted over a decade ago. I helped plan and later execute the last major transformation of U.S. Army forces in Europe—one that took that force from 90,000 troops to about 34,000 between 2004 and 2012.That wasn’t a decision made quickly or casually. It took years of analysis, coordination, and constant negotiation across governments, services, and commands. It required aligning troop movements with deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan to avoid tearing apart families and units. It involved extensive consultation with host nations such as Germany and Italy, where political, legal, and economic considerations were as important as military considerations. It required detailed planning for base closures, infrastructure consolidation, and a plan for a strategic long-term presence on the continent. It also took unique action to ensure families of those forces were treated well as we hurried their return to the United States in massive waves of base and housing closures. The planning and the execution were phased deliberately, executed carefully, and constantly reassessed. Those are the kinds of procedures and actions that constitute a real, “thorough review.” I don’t believe for a second that there was anything like that kind of process before the withdrawal announcement made yesterday evening.

This decision does not bear the hallmarks of a plan that resulted from careful thought, deliberation, consultation, and diplomacy. It reflects a misunderstanding of what U.S. forces in Europe are and what they do to contribute to the security of both the United States and our European allies.

Read the rest at the Bulwark link.

The Iran war isn’t over, but Trump is trying to pretend it is. He claims he has already won it. He’s created mess and doesn’t know how to clean it up. He is truly insane and he controls our nuclear arsenal.

The Washington Post: Trump says Iran conflict is ‘terminated’ as he hits congressional deadline.

  —  A senior Iranian military official has said renewed conflict with the US is “possible” after President Donald Trump rejected the latest peace proposal from Tehran. The nations are currently observing a ceasefire.

On Friday, Trump said the US may be “better off” if no deal is reached.

Meanwhile, official Iranian outlets restated an uncompromising position on navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

I’m going to end with some recent examples of Trump’s insanity.

Josh Marcus at The Independent: Trump is calling himself ‘the most powerful person to ever live’ in private conversations, allies say.

President Donald Trump, a former reality TV star known for his taste in all-gold everything, has never been one for modesty, but the Republican has in recent days begun speaking about himself as a figure of all-time historical power, according to allies.

“He’s been talking recently about how he is the most powerful person to ever live,” a Trump confidant told The Atlantic. “He wants to be remembered as the one who did things that other people couldn’t do, because of his sheer power and force of will.”

“He is unburdened by political concerns and is able to do what is truly right rather than what is in his best political interests,” an administration official added in an interview with the magazine. “Hence the decision to strike Iran.”

Unlike any U.S. leader in recent history, President Trump has pushed the boundaries of what is legal within the U.S., while making massive unilateral gambles on the world stage: threatening a U.S. takeover of allied Greenland, kidnapping the leader of Venezuela, and launching a war with Iran.

Country Girl and her Kitten, Charles Lansdelle

Unreal. The man is a megalomaniac. He’s also demonstrating that by trying to put his name on everything from the Kennedy Center to airports, National Park passes, passports, and even dollar bills.

Trump has begun holding campaign rallies again. Yesterday he gave an unhinged speech at the Villages in Florida. Dan Diamond at The Washington Post: Trump returns to public events, delivering profane speech.