A Texas judge hearing a case that could throw into jeopardy access to the nation’s most common method of abortion is a former attorney for a Christian legal group who critics say is being sought out by conservative litigants because they believe he’ll be sympathetic to their causes.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who’s considering a lawsuit aimed at putting a nationwide halt to use of the drug mifepristone, was appointed by President Donald Trump and confirmed in 2019 over fierce opposition by Democrats over his history opposing LGBTQ rights. Mifepristone blocks the hormone progesterone in the body and is used with the drug misoprostol to end pregnancy within the first 10 weeks.

Kacsmaryk heard arguments in the case on Wednesday, days after he took the unusual step of telling attorneys during a status conference not to publicize the hearing because the case has prompted death threats and protests and he believed ‘ less advertisement of this hearing is better.’ Kacsmaryk said he would rule ‘as soon as possible.’

A former federal prosecutor and lawyer for the conservative First Liberty Institute, the judge has ruled against the Biden administration on other issues, including immigration. He was among more than 230 judges installed to the federal bench under Trump as part of a movement by the Republican president and Senate conservatives to shift the American judiciary to the right.

Interest groups have long attempted to file lawsuits before judges they see as friendly to their points of view. But the number of conservative lawsuits filed in Kacsmaryk’s Amarillo courthouse — where he is assigned all new cases as the sole district court judge — has spawned accusations that right-wing plaintiffs are seeking him out because they know he’s likely to side with them.

‘Why are all these cases being brought in Amarillo if the litigants who are bringing them are so confident in the strength of their claims? It’s not because Amarillo is convenient to get to,’ said University of Texas law professor Stephen Vladeck. ‘I think it ought to alarm the judges themselves, that litigants are so transparently and shamelessly funneling cases to their courtroom.’

If Kacsmaryk rules against the drug, the Food and Drug Administration — which has approved using mifepristone — is expected to quickly appeal the ruling. Clinics have said they could carry on with using one other drug alone to terminate pregnancies if necessary but that approach is slightly less effective.

During his confirmation hearings, Kacsmaryk told lawmakers it would be ‘inappropriate’ for a judge to allow their religious beliefs to impact a matter of law. He pledged to ‘faithfully apply all Supreme Court precedent.’

‘As a judicial nominee, I don’t serve as a legislator. I don’t serve as an advocate for counsel. I follow the law as it is written, not as I would have written it,’ Kacsmaryk said at the time.

Before the abortion pill case, Kacsmaryk was at the center of a legal fight over Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy, which required tens of thousands of migrants seeking asylum to wait in Mexico for hearings in U.S. immigration court.

In 2021, he ordered that the policy be reinstated in response to a lawsuit filed by the states of Texas and Missouri. The U.S. Supreme Court overruled him and said that the Biden administration could end the policy, which it did last August. But in December Kacsmaryk ruled that the administration failed to follow federal rulemaking guidelines when terminating the practice, an issue that the Supreme Court didn’t address.

He has also ruled that allowing minors to obtain free birth control without parental consent at federally funded clinics violated parental rights and Texas law.

In other cases, he has ruled that the Biden administration wrongly interpreted part of the Affordable Care Act as prohibiting health care providers from discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. And he sided with Texas in ruling against Biden administration guidance that said employers can’t block workers from using a bathroom consistent with their gender identity.

In another case — brought by states challenging a Department of Labor rule — the Justice Department wrote in a recent court filing that ‘there is no apparent reason—other than judge shopping’ that explains why the lawsuit was filed in Amarillo.

Kacsmaryk’s decisions have been ‘consistent with what a lot of conservatives were hoping for, and a lot of progressives were fearful of,’ said Daniel Bennett, an associate professor at John Brown University in Arkansas, who wrote a book on the conservative Christian legal movement. ‘This is not a judge who’s necessarily going to be riding the fence.’

Kacsmaryk’s detractors said his past writings and legal work revealed extremist views and animus toward gay and transgender people. In articles before being nominated, he wrote critically of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision that established a nationwide right to an abortion and the Obergefell decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationally.

In 2015, he slammed an effort to pass federal gender identity and sexual orientation protections, writing that doing so would ‘give no quarter to Americans who continue to believe and seek to exercise their millennia-old religious belief that marriage and sexual relations are reserved to the union of one man and one woman.’

A year later, he signed a letter that quoted another article as describing the ‘belief that one is trapped in the body of the wrong sex’ as a ‘fixed, irrational belief’ that is ‘appropriately described as a delusion.’

Republican U.S. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was among those who opposed Kacsmaryk’s nomination, citing what she described as an ‘alarming bias against the rights of LGBTQ Americans and disregard for Supreme Court precedents.’

Kacsmaryk’s defenders say he has been unfairly maligned.

Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, a conservative judicial advocacy group, said Kacsmaryk has shown no evidence of bias on the bench. He noted that Kacsmaryk was deemed ‘qualified,’ by the American Bar Association, which means he satisfied what the group describes as ‘very high standards with respect to integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament.’

‘These allegations that he’s biased are completely unfounded and they unfairly conflate his legal advocacy with bigotry,’ Davis said. ‘These Democrat politicians are sending a message to Christians and other people of faith that they are not allowed in the public square.’

Before joining the bench, Kacsmaryk worked as an assistant U.S. attorney in Texas and was involved in such cases as the prosecution of Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, the former Texas Tech University student from Saudi Arabia convicted in a failed bomb plot.

In 2014, Kacsmaryk joined the First Liberty Institute, which calls itself the ‘largest legal organization in the nation dedicated exclusively to defending religious liberty for all Americans.’ Kacsmaryk noted during his confirmation process that the group has represented all faiths.

Among the litigants he defended as the institute’s deputy general counsel was an Oregon bakery that refused to provide a cake for a same sex-couple’s wedding.

‘Obviously, his decisions have been really disappointing to progressives and left-leaning folks and been very pleasing to those on the right,’ Bennett said. ‘But that’s kind of the nature of our judicial branch right now, especially with these hot-button issues.’

Parents in Ohio are fighting a state constitutional amendment that they say would strip the rights of parents to give consent on abortion or gender-altering surgeries.

Protect Women Ohio (PWO), which describes itself as a ‘pro-woman, pro-parent coalition,’ launched a multi-million-dollar television and digital ad campaign statewide today aimed at defeating the ‘extreme amendment’ to the Ohio Constitution.

That amendment supported by Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom and Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights could be added to the November 2023 ballot. It was approved by the Ohio Ballot Board on Monday, meaning that proponents of the group now have to earn enough signatures to make it a ballot measure.

The amendment states that ‘every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one’s own pregnancy, miscarriage care and abortion.’

‘While Republican politicians in Columbus and Washington are working overtime to implement extreme laws that would make abortion illegal, we’re committed to the work of getting commonsense abortion rights on the ballot and passed by a majority of Ohioans,’ said Ohio Democratic Party Chairwoman Elizabeth Walters, who supports the amendment.

Opponents of the bill like Judicial Crisis Network’s Carrie Severino and Frank Scaturo say the amendment would ‘effectively obliterate most limits to abortion or sex-change surgery, among its other far-reaching consequences.’

‘Headlines have largely framed the proposed amendment as a means of adding a right to abortion to the state constitution,’ the duo said in an op-ed Monday published in National Review.

‘The proposed amendment would outlaw virtually any restrictions on abortion and all other procedures, including sex-change surgeries, that touch on reproduction, for both adults and minors,’ they said.

‘It would cancel out not only parental-consent laws but also mere parental notification for minors’ abortions or sex-change surgeries; strike down health protections for people of all ages who undergo these procedures, including requirements that a qualified physician perform them; and erase any meaningful limits on late-term abortions.’

‘Moms and dads will be cut out of the most important and life-altering decisions of their child’s life, if this passes,’ said Molly Smith, PWO board member said Wednesday.

‘This extreme amendment eliminates any current or future protections for minors requiring parents be notified and consent before their child undergoes a procedure like an abortion or sex change surgery.’

PWO says it will spend $5 million on advertising in the state over the next four weeks for this first phase of its effort to defeat the amendment.

Migrant encounters at the southern border in February dropped to their lowest level since January last year, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced Wednesday – with the Biden administration crediting border measures that it rolled out.

There were 154,998 migrant encounters at the southern border in February, down from the 166,010 encountered in February 2022 and down slightly from the 156,770 encountered in January 2023. In February 2021, there were 101,099 encounters and 36,687 encounters in February 2020.

While still relatively high for February, the latest numbers mark the lowest encounters since January 2022, something that the Biden administration is hailing as a turning point for the crisis at the southern border, which has seen record levels of migrants under its watch.

In January, the administration rolled out a number of measures, including a humanitarian parole program for Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua, which allows up to 30,000 migrants a month to fly in. It also expanded Title 42 expulsions to include those nationalities. The administration tied those measures to the recent drop in border numbers.

‘The new border enforcement measures kept February’s overall encounter numbers nearly even with January,’ CBP Acting Commissioner Troy Miller said in a statement.

He also said the agency was encouraged by the expansion of the CBP One mobile app, which allows for migrants to schedule hearings at ports of entry but has been plagued with tech issues.

‘The app cuts out the smugglers and decreases migrant exploitation. CBP continues to make improvements to the app to address feedback we have received from stakeholders,’ he said.

In its release, CBP said that 71.4% of encounters at the southern border in February were single adults. Of those encountered, 46.8% were expelled under the Title 42 order, which allows for the rapid expulsion of migrants due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

That order is scheduled to end on May 11, along with the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency, and has raised concerns about a possible fresh spike in migration ahead of the typically busier summer months.

The administration has said it has a plan in place to deal with the surge, with more resources, greater cooperation with Mexico and use of additional removal authorities. The administration recently announced a new proposed rule that would presume ineligibility for asylum if migrants cross illegally and have failed to claim asylum in another country through which they passed.

The move drew criticism from left-wing activist groups who have declared it similar to a Trump-era transit ban. But DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has stressed that the presumption is rebuttable and noted that there are significant exemptions.

Meanwhile, DHS and the White House have sought to blame Republicans for not providing additional border funding as requested as well as inaction on passing a sweeping immigration reform bill. Republicans have said that it is the policies of the administration, not a lack of funding, that caused the crisis.

The Georgia Supreme Court on Wednesday said it cannot decide yet whether to remove a state Court of Appeals judge accused of ethical misconduct and asked a judicial discipline panel to review the case further.

The three-member panel of the Judicial Qualifications Commission in January recommended that the state high court permanently remove suspended Court of Appeals Judge Christian Coomer. The panel’s report said he violated ethics rules on how a lawyer should treat a client and improperly used campaign funds for personal expenses.

The Supreme Court found that the panel made ‘at least two critical legal errors that prevent us from resolving the matter on this record.’ For that reason, it decided to send the case back to the panel ‘to make new findings in the light of the law as it actually exists, and to do so quickly.’

The Supreme Court said the panel made ‘two critical legal errors.’

First, it was wrong in its determination that the Judicial Qualifications Commission could pursue discipline for conduct occurring before a person becomes a judge or a judicial candidate, the opinion says.

Second, the high court justices wrote, the panel ‘failed to understand the circumstances in which the Constitution and our case law permits judicial discipline.’ The opinion says that actions taken outside of a judicial capacity ‘warrant discipline only when taken in bad faith.’ None of the counts against Coomer have to do with actions taken in a judicial capacity, and the panel’s report ‘was ambiguous as to whether it found the Judge Coomer acted with bad faith,’ the opinion says.

‘Intent was a matter of enormous dispute in this matter, and this Court is not well positioned to resolve the factual questions of intent that are crucial to determining whether discipline is constitutionally permitted,’ the opinion says.

For that reason, the high court wrote, it is sending the case back to the panel to resolve several questions. The justices instructed the panel to file a new report with the Supreme Court within 60 days.

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves said Wednesday that he has vetoed two bills dealing with insurance because he thinks they would increase the cost of health care.

‘One is a bad idea, and I can’t see myself supporting it. One is a good idea that just includes some correctable mistakes,’ the Republican governor said in a statement.

Reeves said the ‘bad idea’ was in Senate Bill 2224, which would have given the state insurance commissioner the ability to set rates for all health insurance.

He said Senate Bill 2262 would have made changes to the prior authorization process that insurance companies use to tell providers whether a procedure or drug is covered. Reeves said he liked that the proposal would have required insurance companies to give quicker answers, but the bill would have had ‘unintended consequences.’

‘The bill has a number of technical components,’ Reeves said. ‘These include administrative hearings that are in an incorrect place, increased costs for Medicaid and other issues that cause me not to be comfortable signing it.’

Overriding a governor’s veto would take two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate.

Presidential candidate Nikki Haley split with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and former President Donald Trump Tuesday by claiming that aiding Ukraine is vital to U.S. interests. 

Fox News’ Tucker Carlson sent a list of questions to a pool of potential 2024 Republican contenders including the former South Carolina governor, Trump, DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. 

Haley did not respond in time for Carlson’s evening show but released her thoughts in a statement the next day.

‘The Russian government is a powerful dictatorship that makes no secret of its hatred of America. Unlike other anti-American regimes, it is attempting to brutally expand by force into a neighboring pro-American country. It also regularly threatens other American allies.’

Haley continued, ‘America is far better off with a Ukrainian victory than a Russian victory, including avoiding a wider war.’

‘If Russia wins, there is no reason to believe it will stop at Ukraine. And if Russia wins, then its closest allies, China and Iran, will become more aggressive.’ 

Despite her support for Ukraine, Haley did criticize the ‘blank checks’ and drew a line at sending U.S. forces to Ukraine, ‘We should not send American troops. We should not send cash or blank checks. Along with our allies in Europe and elsewhere, we should provide conventional weapons that enable Ukraine to effectively stop the Russian invasion and occupation of its land.’

Haley’s take breaks from Trump and DeSantis, who have both come out in favor of reducing aid to Ukraine. 

‘While the U.S. has many vital national interests — securing our borders, addressing the crisis of readiness with our military, achieving energy security and independence, and checking the economic, cultural and military power of the Chinese Communist Party — becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them,’ DeSantis said.

‘[The war] is a vital concern for Europe. But not for the United States. That is why Europe should be paying far more than we are, or equal.’ Trump said, responding to Carlson’s questionnaire. ‘The President must meet with each side, then both sides together, and quickly work out a deal. This can be easily done if conducted by the right President.’

Trump took shots at DeSantis for his Ukraine comments, claiming that the governor is ‘following what I am saying. It is a flip-flop. He was totally different. Whatever I want, he wants.’

Haley agreed with the comparison in a statement: ‘President Trump is right when he says Governor DeSantis is copying him—first in his style, then on entitlement reform, and now on Ukraine. I have a different style than President Trump, and while I agree with him on most policies, I do not on those. Republicans deserve a choice, not an echo.’

Governor DeSantis has not formally entered the presidential race but is widely expected to. Currently, Republicans seeking the presidential nomination include former President Donald Trump, former South Carolina Governor and Ambassador to the United Nations Haley, and tech executive Vivek Ramaswamy.

A conservative legal group and a former Republican candidate for D.C. mayor on Tuesday filed a lawsuit to challenge a controversial new law that would allow noncitizens – including illegal immigrants and foreign embassy staff members – to vote in municipal elections.

The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) and Stacia Hall – the GOP candidate for mayor in 2022 – along with a number of other U.S. citizen voters filed the complaint alleging that the new law is unconstitutional and contravenes the right for citizens to self-government.

The Local Resident Voting Rights Act, passed in October and says that if a noncitizen is otherwise qualified to vote, they can do so in local elections so long as they have resided in Washington, D.C., for at least 30 days.

The bill has sparked considerable controversy, including an effort in Congress to overturn it. The lawsuit filed Tuesday claims that the law ‘dilutes the vote of every U.S. citizen voter in the District.’ 

‘Because it does so, the D.C. Noncitizen Voting Act is subject to review under both the equal protection and the substantive due process components of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,’ it argues.

The lawsuit argues that the act ‘violates the constitutional right of citizens to govern, and be governed by, themselves, and should be struck down on that basis.’

‘This law—and others like it that are popping up around the country—is a direct attack on American self-government,’ Christopher Hajec, IRLI’s director of litigation, said in a statement. ‘The proponents of this law claim it gives citizens of foreign nations a ‘voice’ in the affairs of the city they reside in. But they already have a voice, protected by the First Amendment. They are free to speak, write, attend council meetings, and so on. This law doesn’t just give foreign citizens a voice in our country’s affairs, it gives them voting power that politicians inevitably will have to respond to. That transfer of power flies in the face of the clear right of the American people to govern themselves.’

The D.C. Council has defended the legislation, and recently called on congressional leaders not to intervene in overturning two controversial laws – including the voting bill.

The councilmembers claimed the acts are ‘responsible enactments’ and the ‘bills were approved after public hearings, extensive discussion, and thorough consideration by the Council of the District of Columbia.’

‘The District of Columbia has the right to self-govern as granted to us under the Home Rule Act,’ the letter reads. ‘Any changes or amendments to the District’s local laws should be done by the elected representatives of the District of Columbia.’

New York City had passed a similar bill that also had a 30-day requirement in December 2021. That bill quickly faced a legal challenge, and in June a New York judge ruled that it was illegal, violating the state’s constitution.

Fox News’ Ronn Blitzer and Houston Keene contributed to this report.
 

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper announced on Tuesday his administration would create an office aimed at helping local law enforcement and public health officials reduce violence in their communities through trainings, model programs and assistance to access funding from the federal government and elsewhere.

During the Executive Mansion event, which was attended by gun-violence prevention advocates, lawmakers and others, Cooper signed an executive order creating the Office of Violence Prevention within the Department of Public Safety.

The new office will coordinate efforts across state and local departments to reverse infamous trends of violence. Cooper said gunfire has surpassed car accidents as the leading cause of injury deaths among children, while in 2021 children in North Carolina were 51% more likely to die from gun violence than children nationwide.

‘Too many families and communities are enduring the tragic injuries and deaths from homicide, from carelessness, from suicide,’ Cooper said at the event. ‘And whether a gun is used or not, violence is a tragedy that has to be stopped. It requires an all-hands-on-deck approach.’

One approach could originate from activities conducted by the One Step Further Gate City Coalition community violence prevention program in Greensboro. The program includes volunteers who go into high-crime areas and work to diffuse conflicts by speaking with crime victims and those who wish to do others harm.

It’s resulted in a 30% reduction in aggravated assaults in the program’s target areas since 2019, said program manager Ingram Haizlip, herself a shooting victim in 2011.

‘Violence prevention programs include community members who understand our community, look like our community, talk like our community, empathize with our community and love our community one block at a time,’ Haizlip said.

An executive director will be hired for the office in the coming months, Cooper said. The Department of Public Safety is already making plans for a statewide public awareness campaign launching in June about the safe storage of firearms.

Cooper, a Democrat, supports additional gun restrictions in state law, but the Republican-controlled legislature has largely ignored such proposals from him and his allies. The new office doesn’t need legislation to be created.

‘Unfortunately, the General Assembly has not yet wanted to take these steps,’ the governor said. ‘So we must tackle these challenges with the tools that we have.’

Republican lawmakers this year are again advancing measures that would ease gun rules.

Later Tuesday, a House judiciary committee advanced a package of proposals approved by the Senate that would eliminate the pistol purchase permit requirement from a local sheriff to purchase a handgun. It also includes a measure already passed by the House as a standalone bill that would allow people with concealed weapons permits to carry openly or under clothing while attending religious services at locations where private or charter schools also meet.

Cooper successfully vetoed similar bills in 2021, but Republican seat gains in November increased the possibility that similar vetoes this year could be overridden.

The release of President Biden’s budget proposal really didn’t give us a sense of where this summer’s debt ceiling brawl is going. 

Presidential budgets are important for establishing policy goals of an administration. But they aren’t binding. The presentation of a budget by the president – to say nothing of various budget proposals pending in the next two months from Congressional Republicans – offer both sides gobs of fodder to cast aspersions on their adversaries for political gain. 

Budgets are required by law. And most importantly, they are political documents. That’s why each side seizes on whatever the other propounds. 

However, the contemporary federal budget process –  as crafted by the Budget Act of 1974 – doesn’t amount to much compared to the upcoming fight over the debt ceiling. 

The debt ceiling is the law. How to address it is also a political exercise – albeit one with profound, real-world consequences. 

President Biden’s budget proposal would slash about $2.8 trillion from the debt over a decade. The Biden Administration whittles away at the debt by raising taxes on the super-wealthy. The billionaire’s minimum tax is a big ‘want’ by liberal Democrats, requiring they pay at least 25 percent on their income. Overall, the administration would impose $5 trillion in new taxes over ten years.

The package also prunes the Trump tax cuts adopted in 2017. 

However, addressing the necessity of raising or suspending the debt ceiling is not the focus of the budget proposal. That’s a distinct animal.

House Republicans are Mr. Biden’s sparring partner in the debt ceiling ring. There’s little consensus among Congressional GOPers as to how to address the debt ceiling. The conservative House Freedom Caucus is proposing a clawback of all unspent COVID funds, slashing money from the Internal Revenue Service, going after the administration’s student debt relief package and imposing a cap on all congressional appropriations for the next decade. The Freedom Caucus believes that would save about $3 trillion.

Such a proposal may struggle to get anywhere near enough votes to pass the House. That’s to say nothing of the Senate. But the plan reflects the politics of the Freedom Caucus and what their voters expect – whether it passes or not.

This is why the budget exercise is mostly a hollow shell when it comes to actually addressing the debt ceiling sometime this summer – or pitching the U.S. into default and potentially triggering a nationwide financial meltdown. 

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., is coy on what course of action lies ahead on the debt limit. He’s only said ‘you’ve got to have everybody’ involved to avert an economic catastrophe. That includes the House, Senate and President. 

The potential rendezvous with a debt ceiling crisis is now in a period of meandering, continental political drift. Everyone knows the fiscal continents are going to crash into one another. But no one has a clue about how to avert it or what to do about it. Of course, everyone knows that little unfolds in Washington unless the sides tiptoe right to the precipice of a crisis. So no one truly expects anyone to conjure up a remedy until they absolutely must. The deadline could focus the political minds on the task at hand. 

The other event which could focus minds on the debt ceiling? A stock market crash. 

The markets have largely ignored this early shadowboxing in Washington. But it would not take much to spook the market over the debt ceiling in this environment. Wall Street has become inured to the various manufactured crises in Washington and histrionics with government shutdowns and the debt limit over the years. But this may be the most significant quandary for the markets since the debt ceiling debacle of 2011. Congress ultimately lifted the debt ceiling and developed a two-tiered track of prospective spending cuts back then. But the 2011 melodrama was enough to rattle Wall Street. Standard & Poor’s thought so little of Washington’s effort to actually address the problem that it downgraded the credit worthiness of the federal government for the first time in history. 

It’s possible the markets and the credit ratings agencies could take a dim view of how earnest policymakers are for this round. And since no one knows precisely when the U.S. will collide with the debt ceiling, no one is exactly sure what episode out of Washington could spark jitters on Wall Street. It could happen at any time.

It hasn’t gotten serious yet.

But it will.

Policy won’t matter until then. But politics will. That’s why we’re likely in for a few more months of posturing from both sides. 

The Dow cratered in the fall of 2008 during the nation’s financial crisis. What jolted the market reaction was a real-time failure on the House floor of the fiscal rescue package known as TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program). The Dow lost 777 points – then a record for a single-day decline. $1 trillion in market capitalization evaporated. The stunner was that the market slid in synchronicity with the vote failing on the House floor. 

The failed TARP vote spooked investors. In turn, the market spooked lawmakers to get serious about TARP and pass it to salvage the American economy. The Senate approved the plan a few days later with both 2008 presidential nominees – future President Obama – then a senator, and the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., peeling off the trail to vote yes. 

The House followed suit after the Senate and finally approved the plan to avert a calamity. 

If lawmakers are wise, you can bet that no one will want to hold a vote on any plan to address the debt ceiling when the markets are open. 

So expect no true ‘policy’ on the debt ceiling until an external force compels them to do so. Settle in for months of political Kabuki dances. The next big exercise will come in May when the House decides to tangle with a budget – and maybe even force a vote on Mr. Biden’s budget on the floor.

But that’s just the politics.

Things are far from getting serious. 

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said that Republicans don’t seem to give a ‘crap’ about children when it comes to gun violence.

Murphy made the comments on Salon’s ‘Salon Talks’ podcast published Tuesday.

‘So to me, we can’t catalog the epidemic of gun violence merely by how many shootings we’ve had or even how many homicides we’ve had. You have to talk about a generation of kids, specifically in these violence-prone neighborhoods, that we are literally losing because their brains change when they’re exposed to war-like levels of trauma,’ Murphy said. 

‘It is beyond me why Republicans who claim to care about the health of our kids don’t seem to give a crap about our children who are being exposed to these epidemic, cataclysmic rates of gun violence,’ Murphy said.

His comments come after a series of mass shootings across America, including one at Michigan State University where three students were killed and five others were injured on Feb. 13, as well as a shooting in Monterey Park, California, that left 12 dead and several others wounded.

Murphy has long held gun control as a top issue he focuses on in the Senate, being from Connecticut where a gunman killed 20 students and six educators on Dec. 14, 2012.

In June 2016, Murphy held a 14 hour and 50 minute filibuster with a goal of bringing a vote on expanded background checks and a measure that would prevent terrorists from buying weapons.