A few observations about Kentucky politicians making national news lately:
Cameron, the follower
Abortion-rights advocates are right to question whether gubernatorial candidate Daniel Cameron is seeking the power to prosecute — or just intimidate — women who seek abortions in states where the procedure is legal.
If not, why sign onto a letter with 18 other GOP attorneys general objecting to a proposed federal privacy rule protecting these women from legal jeopardy?
“Kentucky is not going to be a state of which we prosecute women,” Cameron told LEX18 during a recent LaGrange campaign stop. “We want pregnant mothers to understand that this is going to be a commonwealth in which we support a culture of life.”
But how would this “culture of life” be protected if Cameron becomes governor? Kentucky’s abortion bans currently penalize doctors, not women. Yet lawmakers from GOP states he likes to follow are proposing bills to prosecute women for both surgical and medication abortions.
Cameron said he is simply protecting states’ rights after last year’s Supreme Court decision ending federal abortion rights. The Biden administration’s proposed rule, he said, would limit the ability “to obtain evidence of potential violations of state laws.”
Does that mean Kentuckians are restricted by state laws, no matter where they travel? Such “Big Brother” power is contrary to both the conservative principle of limited government and the right of citizens to mind their own personal business.
That’s why Kentucky voters in 2022 rejected a ballot measure that denied abortion rights. Yet lawmakers ignored voters, and the state now has two abortion bans: one allowing the procedure to save a pregnant person’s life; the other prohibiting the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy.
What will happen when Cameron and others jump on the next right-wing anti-abortion bandwagon?
McConnell, the gaslighter
Kentucky’s senior senator is the ruthless strategist who fathered the current super-conservative U.S. Supreme Court.
While Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell stalled hearings of President Barack Obama’s nominee for almost a year until the election of President Trump and his late choice of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Then after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg less than a month before President Biden’s election, he rushed the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Yet he tried arguing in a July 10 op-ed in The Washington Post that this court is impartial. It reinforced Chief Justice John Roberts’ whining about criticisms from the three liberal justices.
“Evidence from this past term indicates that the court’s defining characteristic isn’t polarization. It is, instead, a politically unpredictable center,” he wrote, adding some statistics and selective comparisons.
There is no doubt that the high court made progress toward engraining the most conservative thinking into public policy.
Consider the welcome decision that ordered Alabama to draw a second congressional district with a large Black population. It came only after this court earlier undermined provisions of the long-bipartisan Voting Rights Act. The court had even allowed Alabama and Louisiana to hold 2022 elections with congressional maps the lower courts had declared unconstitutional.
Is it any wonder Alabama lawmakers refused to follow the court’s order when it redrew its map last week?
The court also killed what had been limited consideration of race in college admissions. And it was done in a way that has emboldened conservatives to now meddle in how businesses address diversity.
And the ruling in a case — brought by the group that pushed for the end to abortion rights — concluded that businesses open to the public have a right to discriminate against LGBTQ persons.
So, McConnell can’t soothe away this court’s polarizing role. Too many people will feel the consequences.
Comer, the muddled
U.S. Rep. James Comer’s House Oversight and Accountability Committee, which aimed to take down “the Biden crime family,” is still clouded by unverified information, conspiracy theories, questionable witnesses, and embarrassing tactics.
Some Biden family members used their connections to arrange foreign business deals — which is not illegal. There is still no proof that President Joe Biden financially benefitted from them or altered U.S. policy to aid them. And unlike President Trump’s daughter and son-in-law — who gained billion-dollar deals from China and Saudi Arabia — Biden family members were not top White House advisers.
The investigation is rooted in a 2017 debunked claim of Biden corruption in Ukraine offered by Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani. It is based on information discovered in a laptop the president’s son, Hunter, left at a repair shop in 2019. Some recent developments:
- Comer’s “credible” but “missing” informant on Biden wrongdoing turned out to have skipped bail on federal charges of being an unregistered agent for China, trying to broker secret arms deals, violating U.S. sanctions against Iran and lying to federal agents.
- At a recent hearing, two IRS whistleblowers investigating the son’s business activities complained about being hampered by both the Trump and Biden Justice Departments.
- The Delaware U.S. attorney, appointed by Attorney General Bill Barr, insisted he had full authority to investigate Hunter Biden, who is expected this week to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges and a felony gun charge.
- The New York Post just reported that Hunter’s former business partner will testify that, while working for a Ukrainian energy company, the son often called his father to speak with business associates. Biden only offered pleasantries and platitudes, according to the report. But, if true, it raises questions about how much he knew about the business.
- Comer allowed Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green last week to unveil posters of sexually explicit Hunter Biden photos from the old laptop. She also accused him of promoting prostitution. Biden’s attorney has filed an ethics complaint against her. Meanwhile, Comer promoted Greene’s actions on the committee’s social media.
The investigation will persist, in part because Comer has already gleefully credited the committee’s work for boosting Trump’s poll numbers for reelection. Meanwhile, it’s getting more confusing to determine what is factual, what is illegal and what is simple desperation politics.
--30--
Written by Vanessa Gallman. Cross-posted from the Kentucky Lantern.
