Abortion is a top topic in the most expensive judicial race in history
Comment on this story
Comment
Good morning! March is officially over and your Health 202 host didn’t do so hot in her brackets this year. Send consolation prizes and news tips to rachel.roubein@washpost.com. Was this forwarded to you? Sign up here.
Today’s edition: Federal regulators have decided to authorize a second omicron-specific booster for those with weak immune systems or 65 and older. The Biden administration is phasing in divisive changes to private Medicare plans. But first …
Abortion is one of the main topics in ads supporting the liberal candidate for the Wisconsin Supreme Court
Wisconsin voters will head to the polls today to decide a state Supreme Court race with massive implications for the future of the state’s 19th-century abortion ban.
It’s the most expensive judicial race in history, and abortion has been one of the top themes in broadcast TV ads supporting the liberal candidate, according to data provided by AdImpact and a Health 202 review of ads in the general election cycle.
Milwaukee County Judge Janet Protasiewicz has been open about her personal views supporting abortion rights. Her opponent, former state Supreme Court justice Daniel Kelly, has questioned whether she can remain impartial on hot-button issues, but he indicated his own political views in a 2012 blog post critical of abortion, our colleague Patrick Marley writes in a deep dive on the race.
This morning, we’re taking a look at how abortion is playing in the high-stakes contest. AdImpact, a firm tracking political ads, provided The Health 202 with spending data on abortion-related advertisements running on broadcast television as of yesterday afternoon. (Bear in mind: Ads can mention multiple topics. And this isn’t all of what was spent, since money also poured in for radio, digital ads and more.)
- On the liberal side, AdImpact has identified more than $8.3 million spent on broadcast television ads in the general election. That’s compared with nearly $5.7 million from the conservative side.
- Over $3 million in broadcast ads supporting Protasiewicz mention abortion, amounting to nearly 37 percent of the ad dollars spent by the campaign and outside groups. The other top issues were crime (included in 64 percent of ads) and references to her character (47 percent).
- At least $243,000 in broadcast ads supporting Kelly mention abortion, amounting to over 4 percent of the ad dollars spent. Roughly 95 percent of ads from the campaign and outside groups included a mention of crime, 44 percent referenced law enforcement and 26 percent included a message on his character.
Conservatives have controlled the court since 2008 in a state with a Democratic governor and a GOP-controlled legislature.
But with a reliably conservative justice retiring, abortion rights groups are seeking to flip the court just as a lawsuit against the state’s near-total abortion ban is expected to land in front of the justices in the coming years. Clinics stopped performing abortions after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court races are technically nonpartisan. But Protasiewicz has been working closely with the state Democratic Party and Kelly with the state Republican Party. The contest is drawing major attention from national groups on both sides of the abortion debate.
- For instance: Emily’s List is backing Protasiewicz, the first endorsement in a state Supreme Court race for the political action committee backing Democratic women who support abortion rights. Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin officially endorsed her the day after the primary election.
- On the other side: Women Speak Out PAC — a partner of prominent antiabortion group SBA Pro-Life America — has committed $2 million to support Kelly in the general election, the largest investment the PAC has made in a state Supreme Court race. Kelly has also won the endorsements of Wisconsin antiabortion groups.
In multiple ads supporting Protasiewicz, her opponent, Kelly, is framed as an extremist on abortion who would uphold the state’s 1849 ban. At least a few ads from her campaign specifically mention Protasiewicz’s belief that “women should have the freedom to make their own decisions on abortion.”
On the other side, at least one ad supporting Kelly mentions abortion. It’s one of two ads from Women Speak Out PAC, and claims Protasiewicz is aligned with groups supporting abortion later in pregnancy. The other ad from the antiabortion group isn’t focused on abortion, but rather allegations over a specific case that Protasiewicz oversaw.
It may seem unusual in a judge’s race for a candidate to be so open about their views supporting abortion.
This dynamic came up in the debate last month between the two candidates. Despite her personal beliefs, Protasiewicz said she has been “very clear that any decision that I render will be made based solely on the law and the Constitution. I have told everyone, ‘I am making no promises to you.’” Meanwhile, Kelly contended endorsements from antiabortion groups are being misinterpreted by Protasiewicz as a pledge.
But as Patrick Marley wrote this weekend, races for the Wisconsin Supreme Court “lost their apolitical sheen long ago and the candidates this year are campaigning more like members of Congress than jurists,” particularly Protasiewicz.
- “What’s happening with Protasiewicz is part of a longer-term trend, at least in this state, of candidates for judicial positions being more open about their preferences on the issues, their values,” Barry Burden, a political science professor at University of Wisconsin at Madison, told The Health 202. “They’ve all been careful not to state how they would rule on any particular case, but they have really been conveying pretty openly what side they come down on on some major issues coming before the court.”
FDA to authorize for some a second booster targeting omicron variant, officials say
Federal regulators have decided to authorize a second omicron-targeting coronavirus booster shot for people who are 65 and older or have weak immune systems, The Post’s Laurie McGinley and Lena H. Sun report, citing several officials familiar with the plan.
The details: Eligible individuals will be able to receive a second dose four months after their first shot of the bivalent booster, which targets omicron subvariants BA.4 and BA.5, as well as the original strain of the virus. The Food and Drug Administration is expected to announce the step in the next few weeks, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is expected to move quickly to endorse it.
- The FDA’s policy change will be “permissive” — meaning that people may get the shot but will not be told they should get it, the officials said. The expectation is that consumers will consult with their health-care providers about whether to get the extra booster.
- The decision to greenlight a second booster for high-risk groups will not affect the agency’s plan to shift to a once-a-year coronavirus shot for most Americans.
Doctors and other experts are split on whether a second bivalent booster is necessary. Some say there is little data to justify it, while others argue it would benefit high-risk individuals who received their first omicron-targeting shot last fall and probably have reduced protection as the effects fade, Laurie and Lena write.
We’re watching two key developments in Florida and Utah that could have major implications for abortion.
In Utah: Abortion rights advocates filed a lawsuit yesterday challenging a new law that would essentially strip abortion clinics of their licenses by the end of the year, arguing that it would significantly limit access to the procedure even though it remains legal in Utah up until 18 weeks of pregnancy, Sam Metz reports for the Associated Press.
In Florida: The Republican-led state Senate passed a ban on most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy yesterday. The GOP-controlled House is slated to consider the measure by the end of the week, and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has indicated he would sign it. But its fate hinges on whether the state’s current 15-week ban is upheld in a legal challenge pending before the Florida Supreme Court, Jeffrey Schweers reports for the Sun Sentinel.
ICYMI: A Friday afternoon Medicare Advantage news dump
The Biden administration announced its phasing in controversial changes to Medicare Advantage plans after fierce lobbying from the industry.
The decision was met with mixed reactions. There were concerns from the industry that the underlying policy meant to crack down on overbilling was unchanged despite the administration deciding to phase it in over three years.
But some health policy advocates were itching for the administration to go even further, while some experts said a slower rollout of the new changes made sense.
- “CMS commonly phases in major payment changes, so I find their partial accommodation to the industry responsive and reasonable,” Robert Berenson, an Institute fellow at the Urban Institute who was in charge of Medicare payment policy in the federal government from 1998 to 2000, wrote in an email. However, he called the proposals “modest to begin with.”
The details: Private Medicare plans get higher payments when they have sicker enrollees. In February, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposed switching to a more updated coding system which included eliminating approximately 2,000 codes. Insurers claimed they would see substantial pay cuts — a notion the administration fiercely disputed, although it did wind up phasing in the change over three years.
- “When we’re implementing policy, we consider stakeholders and want to give folks an opportunity to make the changes that they need to make,” CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure told The Health 202. “And we’re really comfortable with where we are landing.”
In other Medicare news …
The annual financial outlook for two massive entitlement programs was released Friday. The trustees’ report projected that a key Medicare fund will be unable to pay full benefits starting in 2031, three years later than estimated last year. The date for Social Security was moved up one year earlier to 2033, The Post’s Jeff Stein and Amy Goldstein report.
A decade ago, the United States was on the brink of eliminating congenital syphilis, a disease that occurs when a mother passes the bacterial infection on to her baby during pregnancy. Now, cases are on the rise, our colleagues Fenit Nirappil and Jenna Portnoy report.
By the numbers: In 2012, about eight out of every 100,000 live births in the United States were infected with syphilis. In 2021, that number climbed to 74, according to data from the CDC.
Fighting for costly drugs: ‘I never know when it’s going to end’ (By Carolyn Y. Johnson | The Washington Post)
After decades under a virus’s shadow, he now lives free of HIV (By Mark Johnson | The Washington Post)
Federal officials fear U.S. won’t pursue some unpaid covid aid loans (By Tony Romm | The Washington Post)
Thanks for reading! See y’all tomorrow.
No Byline Policy
Editorial Guidelines
Corrections Policy
Source