The legislation just signed by Joe Biden will also force ByteDance, the Chinese company that owns TikTok, to sell the popular social media app within a year or face a ban in the United States. Here’s more on what happens next, from the Guardian’s Dan Milmo:
Joe Biden has signed into law a bill that requires TikTok’s Chinese owner to sell the social media app’s US operations or face a ban, after the Senate passed the legislation.
As Joe Biden signed the foreign aid bill this morning, the defense department announced that it would ship $1b of new weapons and ammunition to Ukraine amid fears Russia’s military will soon overrun more territory.
Some of what the defense department says it sent:
RIM-7 and AIM-9M missiles for air defense;
Stinger anti-aircraft missiles;
Small arms and additional rounds of small arms ammunition, including .50 caliber rounds to counter Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS);
Additional ammunition for High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS);
155mm artillery rounds, including High Explosive and Dual Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions rounds;
105mm artillery rounds;
60mm mortar rounds;
Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles;
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAPs);
High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs);
In response, Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskiy said his country was “gaining the support we need to continue protecting lives from Russian attacks”:
President Biden signed into law today the support package approved by Congress, which includes Ukraine aid. We completed this half-year path. Regardless of what anyone says, we are gaining the support we need to continue protecting lives from Russian attacks.
Over the past few…
— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) April 24, 2024
Biden signs $95b bill that aids Ukraine, Israel, threatens TikTok ban
Joe Biden this morning signed the $95b bill Congress passed yesterday that authorized further military aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, and will see social media app TikTok banned nationwide in a year unless its owner ByteDance divests.
The White House released a video showing the moment Biden transformed the bill into a law:
Today, we answered history’s call at this critical inflection point.
With the signing of our national security package, we tell the world that America stands resolutely for democracy and freedom, and against tyranny and oppression. pic.twitter.com/APhOSWWJLN
The Senate’s overwhelming passage of the legislation yesterday capped months of congressional wrangling that at one point saw Democrats ready to swallow strict immigration regulations demanded by the GOP, until Donald Trumpemerged to torpedo the deal. Here’s a recap of how we got here, and what the bill may mean for Washington’s allies:
Beyond the supreme court, state legislatures have become important arenas for determining where abortion can be accessed, and where it cannot. Today in Arizona, Democrats will once again try to repeal the state’s near-total abortion ban, after Republicans narrowly blocked previous efforts:
Democrats at the Arizona legislature are attempting to repeal the state’s near-total ban on abortions for a third straight week, again spotlighting an issue that has put Republicans on the defensive in a battleground state for the presidential election.
The Arizona supreme court earlier this month concluded the state can enforce a long-dormant law that permits abortions only to save the pregnant patient’s life. The ruling suggested doctors could be prosecuted under the law first approved in 1864, and anyone who assists in an abortion could face two to five years in prison.
The ruling put enormous pressure on Republicans in the state, who on the one hand are under intense pressure from some conservatives in their base who firmly support the abortion ban, and from swing voters who strongly oppose the measure and will decide crucial races including the presidency, the US Senate and the GOP’s control of the legislature.
Some prominent Republicans, including the GOP candidate for Senate, Kari Lake, have come out against the ban. But Republicans in the statehouse so far have blocked efforts by Democratic lawmakers to repeal the law.
The supreme court has wrapped up hearing the arguments in the case pitting Idaho against the Biden administration over whether states with strict abortion bans must allow the procedures in emergencies under the federal law Emtala.
But before arguments concluded, Idaho’s deputy solicitor Josh Turner rose to rebut arguments made by Elizabeth Prelogar, the US solicitor general.
He warned that the conflict between state and federal law at issue in this case will return to the court because other states have strict abortion laws like Idaho, and their definitions of emergency situations where abortions can be performed are narrower than Emtala:
The administration’s position ultimately is untethered from any limiting principle. There’s just no way to limit this to abortion, and there’s no way to limit it to Idaho. There are 22 states with abortion laws on the books. This isn’t going to end with Idaho, it’s not going to end with the six states that general Prelogar mentioned because all of the states that have abortion regulations define the health and the emergency exception narrower than Emtala does. So this question is going to come up in state after state after state.
US solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar pushed back against Idaho’s claim that their abortion ban does not conflict with the requirements of Emtala.
Under Emtala, hospitals are required to stabilize the health of patients who show up in the midst of medical emergencies. But under Idaho’s ban, abortions are only permitted if a woman’s life is at risk – a much higher threshold.
Prelogar called the argument that Idaho’s abortion ban and Emtala can coexist “gravely mistaken”.
“It’s inconsistent with the actual text of the Idaho law, it’s inconsistent with medical reality and it’s inconsistent with what’s happening on the ground,” Prelogar said.
Under Idaho’s ban, she continued, “Doctors have to shut their eyes to everything except death. But under Emtala, you’re supposed to be thinking about: is she about to lose her fertility?’”
Moreover, she said, doctors and pregnant patients in Idaho – whose full abortion ban is currently in effect – are in reality not getting the care they are entitled to under Emtala.
“Women in Idaho today are not getting treatment,” Prelogar said. “They are getting airlifted out of the state.”
Three liberal justices express skepticism toward Idaho's arguments for strict abortion ban
The three liberal justices have all expressed skepticism towards Idaho’s argument against Emtala, the federal law that the Biden administration believes preempts strict state abortion bans.
Idaho was also in for some skeptical questions from Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative who was among the justices that overturned Roe v Wade in 2022. Oral arguments only provide a hint of how the justices may ultimately rule, and in order for Idaho to lose, it would need five votes against it. Should Barrett band together with the liberals, who might be the fifth?
A candidate for that place could be John Roberts, the chief justice and a conservative, but one who has occasionally acted as the court’s swing vote in recent years. In an exchange with US solicitor general Elizabeth Pelogar, he asked her to address the scenario of how Emtala would handle a hospital where all the doctors cited conscience objections to abstain from performing an emergency abortion.
“If the question is, could you force an individual doctor to step in, then, over a conscience objection, the answer is no … the question is whether or not they must have available someone who can comply with the procedures required by Emtala and what would be the consequence if they didn’t? Would it be eventual termination of their participation in Medicare?” asked Roberts, referring to the federal health insurance program that many hospitals participate in.
“That’s right,” replied Prelogar. “If a hospital was continually disobeying the requirement to have in place sufficient personnel to run their emergency room, then I imagine that (the US department of health and human services) enforcement action would work with that hospital to try to bring it into compliance, and if the hospital ultimately is just leaving itself in a position where it can never provide care, then it would terminate the Medicare funding agreement.”
When the court rules, we may find out if that answer was enough to assuage Roberts’s concerns.
Solicitor general pushes back against Idaho claim linking mental health emergencies and abortions
Carter Sherman
US solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar pushed back against Idaho’s claim that a mental health emergency could necessitate an abortion under Emtala, a federal law that requires hospitals to stabilize patients in medical emergencies.
“There can be grave mental health emergencies, but Emtala could never require pregnancy termination as the stabilizing care,” Prelogar said.
“Why?” justice Samuel Alito, a conservative, interrupted.
“Here’s why,” Prelogar responded. “It’s because that wouldn’t do anything to address the underlying brain chemistry issue that’s causing the mental health emergency in the first place. This is not about mental health. Generally, this is about treatment by ER doctors in the emergency room. And when a woman comes in with some great mental health emergency, if she happens to be pregnant, it would be incredibly unethical to terminate her pregnancy – she might not be in a position to give any informed consent. Instead, the way you treat mental health emergency is to address what’s happening in the brain. If you’re having a psychotic episode, you administer antipsychotics.”
Prelogar later emphasized that in the Biden administration’s view, Emtala’s protections would never extend to abortions for people in mental health crises.
Earlier in the arguments, some of the conservative justices expressed confusion over whether Idaho’s ban conflicts with the federal law Emtala, which requires hospitals to stabilize patients facing medical emergencies.
“Is there any condition you’re aware of where the solicitor general says Emtala requires an abortion be available under an emergency circumstance where Idaho law says there is not?” asked justice Brett Kavanaugh, a conservative.
Yes, if someone wanted an abortion because of a mental health condition, replied Idaho deputy solicitor Josh Turner.
Kavanaugh seemed to move past Turner’s claim, indicating that the justices had not been briefed enough on that particular topic. But it struck his fellow conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett. If that’s the only daylight between Idaho’s ban and Emtala, she asked Turner: “Why are you here?”
Although Turner seemed to waver during oral arguments, Idaho has argued in court papers that its abortion ban does align with Emtala. Anti-abortion activists across the country have been making a similar argument: abortion bans do not preclude people from getting medically necessary abortions, and so they don’t need to be amended to further protect people in emergencies.
Doctors and patients say that, in reality, the exceptions written into abortion bans are so vague that they are unworkable. Dozens of women have launched lawsuits, including in a separate case in Idaho, saying that they were denied medically necessary abortions. Roughly 50 Idaho doctors have also left the state rather than try to navigate an abortion ban that carries a hefty criminal penalty for violations.
Biden administration argues Idaho law puts doctors, pregnant women in 'impossible position'
The supreme court is now hearing from US solicitor general Elizabeth Prelogar, who is asking the justices to allow federal law Emtala to require Idaho and other states with strict abortion restrictions to perform the procedure in cases of emergencies.
“Today, doctors in Idaho and the woman in Idaho are in an impossible position. If a woman comes to an emergency room facing a grave threat to her health, but she isn’t yet facing death, doctors either have to delay treatment and allow her condition to materially deteriorate, or they’re airlifting her out of the state so she can get the emergency care that she needs,” said Prelogar, who represents the Biden administration.
She continued:
One hospital system in Idaho says that right now, it’s having to transfer pregnant women in medical crisis out of the state about once every other week. That’s untenable, and Emtala does not countenance it. None of petitioners’ interpretations fit with the text, and so they try to make this case be about the broader debate for access to abortion in cases of unwanted pregnancy. But that’s not what this case is about at all. Idaho’s ban on abortion is enforceable in virtually all of its applications. But in the narrow circumstances involving grave medical emergencies, Idaho cannot criminalize the essential care that Emtala requires.
