"This is a clarifying political vote that will put every Republican on record as to whether or not they believe in a constitutional right to contraception...."

"They can try to rationalize a vote, but that will not be how it is interpreted by women who want a right to contraception. If the bill doesn’t pass into law, it will be because Republicans oppose protecting American’s right to contraception."

Said Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, quoted in "Schumer Plans Vote on Contraception Access, Teeing Up a Campaign Issue/Democrats are planning to spotlight Republicans’ opposition to legislation protecting birth control access nationwide, as part of an election-year push" (NYT).

Trump responded to a question about this bill: "We’re looking at that. Things really do have a lot to do with the states, and some states are going to have different policies than others." So: leave it to the states. The benefits of federalism. But that's a little hard to understand, and Democrats are pushing Republicans to speak in these mystifying terms that cause anxiety about what's really going on.

After Trump got a chance to see the reaction in the media, he stepped away from the federalism talk and said that he would "never advocate imposing restrictions on birth control" or a "ban on birth control."

Senator Markey's thuggish tweet.

I can’t stand Elon Musk but that is not relevant to your thuggish tweet. The only thing Congress “must” do when it comes to speech by private citizens is leave us the fuck alone. https://t.co/7XuDLCb5mm

— Patterico (@Patterico) November 27, 2022

The embedded tweet invites us to click "Read the full conversation on Twitter." But in case you're old fashioned and enjoy the reading here on a real blog, I'll tell you that Patterico amplifies his insight with this: 

"The only thing Twitter “must” do in response to your thuggish tweet is whatever Twitter feels like doing. The thing Twitter *should* do is to tell you, Senator Edward Markey, to go fuck yourself."

What a dipshit tyrant Ed Markey is! He set a deadline and he wanted a letter and, failing that, he's threatening to use government power to retaliate.

And note that word "safety."  That's the newfangled alternative to freedom.

I'm considering following/monitoring Ed "Safety" Markey just to be... safe:

"Congressional Democrats will introduce legislation Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices..."

NBC News reports.

The Democratic bill is led by Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee. It is co-sponsored by Reps. Hank Johnson of Georgia and Mondaire Jones of New York. The Supreme Court can be expanded by an act of Congress, but the legislation is highly unlikely to become law in the near future given Democrats' slim majorities, which include scores of lawmakers who are not on board with the idea. President Joe Biden has said he is 'not a fan' of packing the court....

Last week, Biden announced the formation of a commission of liberals and conservatives to study the structure of the Supreme Court, including the number of justices and the length of their service.

"To study the structure" ≈ to quietly kill the idea. So Markey and Nadler are stepping on their President's subtle manipulation. Another way of putting that is they could see what Biden was doing, so now is precisely the time to get out in front of him.

ADDED: I'm strongly opposed to enlarging the Court. I'm just saying I can see Markey and Nadler's motivation.

FROM THE EMAIL: Rob writes:

Based on the flood of Republican emails in my inbox today, I wouldn’t discount fundraising as a significant motivation for the Markey/Nadler Court-packing bill. (I assume a mirror image of that deluge has hit every D or progressive inbox today.) As with abortion, both sides can raise prodigious amounts of money off the threat of Court-packing. The fact that decisive action is always “just another election cycle away” is a feature, not a bug.

"U.S. Sen. Edward Markey is opposing a quick Senate vote on his own 'Green New Deal' resolution... but political observers say he’s been played by the GOP, stumbling into a trap...."

"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced Tuesday night that he wants to 'give everybody an opportunity to go on record' — including the various 2020 presidential hopefuls among Senate Democrats — about the hard-left climate proposals outlined in the non-binding resolution. Markey tweeted, 'By rushing a vote on the #GreenNewDeal resolution, Republicans want to avoid a true national debate & kill our efforts to organize. We’re having the first national conversation on climate change in a decade. We can’t let Republicans sabotage it.'... The plan calls for massive public spending and regulation to sharply curtail the use of fossil fuels and production of carbon dioxide by 2030. Republicans have panned it as a move toward socialism that could grind the economy to a halt — claiming it would mean the ban of air travel and cattle herds. McConnell’s call for a vote would pressure 2020 candidates such as Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris to publicly commit to the plan. 'Everyone should have seen this coming. They kind of walked into it,' Democratic strategist Matt Bennett said. 'It’s a game that McConnell’s playing. This is what you do to your political opponents — you make them live with the ideological edge of the party.'"

From The Boston Herald.

I agree "It’s a game," but who started the game? Wasn't it a game when Democrats introduced the Green New Deal? It's pathetic to say "It's a game" when what you mean is the other side is beating us at our game.

"The Senate was headed into another all-nighter Monday evening as 26 Democrats who call themselves the 'climate caucus'..."

"... planned to speak nonstop about climate change from about 6:30 p.m. until 9 a.m. Tuesday."

“It’s aimed towards the day when something more concrete can be legislated,” said Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, a veteran of climate and clean-energy policy battles....

Climate change legislation — which would most likely place a price on carbon pollution — could raise gasoline and electricity costs, which would be deeply unpopular with voters. 

That last sentence is the second-to-the-last sentence in the linked article, which is in The New York Times. The last sentence contains the phrases "fossil fuel industry" and "libertarian billionaires Charles and David Koch" and "spend heavily to block."