Mediaboss Marketing

Furiously watching the Supreme Court dismantle what for almost 50 years was a constitutional right, Democratic operatives and activists have been begging the White House to do everything in its power to ensure people still have access to abortion.

They view President Bidens announcement last week that he supports a carveout to ending the Senate filibuster to codify abortion rights at the federal level was a step in the right direction, but it hardly quieted their anger.

Youd genuinely think this decision hadnt even leaked because it seems very clear there has been no real planning from the White House, said Max Burns, a progressive strategist working on down ballot races ahead of the midterms, referring to the leak earlier this summer of a draft of the decision overturning Roe v. Wade. I dont know how you get caught by surprise on a pre-announced decision!

Every senior official who speaks about our post-Roe nightmare seems to have a different narrative, he went on, which is a sign there is no narrative at all.

Sorry, Burns concluded, this is a point of immense fury.

Burns is not alone. The sense of frustration that the Biden administration hasnt done enough to protect women during this crucial, precedent-unraveling the court overturned the landmark abortion rights decision.

Hours after the decision, Biden gave an impassioned speech about the ruling, in which he lambasted it as a tragic error.

This decision must not be the final word. My administration will use all of its appropriate, lawful powers, but Congress must act, Biden said.

But the speech didnt mollify many. And the progressive reaction has been particularly loud.

Lawmakers and activists on the left have urged Biden and his entire White House to present a clear message of urgency to Americans about the significance of the ruling and provide a unified roadmap of practical options to help people maintain access to the full range of reproductive health care.

On Thursday, the president seemed to pivot in a new direction.

During a global news conference, Biden called for the narrowly-controlled Democratic majority in the Senate to amend its longstanding filibuster rule in order to protect Roes status. That would allow Democrats to pass a bill without any Republican votes.

I believe we have to codify Roe v. Wade in the law, and the way to do that is to make sure the Congress votes to do that, he said from a NATO conference in Madrid, Spain. If the filibuster gets in the way, its like voting rights, it should be we provide an exception for this.

Finally, outspoken liberals declared, a step in the right direction. Some acknowledged that the president and his administration appeared to be getting the message.

Now were talking! Ocascio-Cortez tweeted after Bidens statement. Time for people to see a real, forceful push for it. Use the bully pulpit. We need more.

The administration also received praise after the Department of Health and Human Services launched a website devoted to helping people find contraceptives and abortion services.

I think we are starting to see some more concrete steps and we definitely more of that, said Bethany Van Kampen Saravia, a senior legal and policy adviser at the global reproductive justice organization Ipas.

I definitely wouldnt necessarily say they are flat footed, she added, referring to the administration.

But the anger isnt likely to go away. Progressives have warned that the decision could cause Democrats to lose the House and Senate if they dont mobilize accordingly, and many believe more steps need to be taken in the short-term to speak to voters. In recent days, theyve raised concerns about everything from privacy on health data-sharing apps to abortion centers closing down in critical states.

Absent an urgent enough national response from the White House, in the eyes of some on the left, progressives have been bringing new attention to polling and advertisements to amplify the issue.

In a poll conducted by MoveOn, obtained exclusively by The Hill, likely voters in four battleground states Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin overwhelmingly support access to abortion and disapprove of the decision to overturn Roe, a proof point that Democrats are circulating to show how the ruling can work to their advantage at the ballot box.

In Arizona, one of Democrats biggest targets in the midterms and one that Biden won in 2020, 60 percent of likely voters surveyed said they think abortion should be allowed legally.

In another sign of the rulings potential significance on the campaign trail, a number of liberal pro-choice organizations launched large-scale ad buys in major swing Senate states including Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.

That work on the outside is meant to supplement areas where the administration could come up short, some say.

The president cant make anyone do anything, Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright said.

The executive branch plays a role. The legislative branch, and the judicial [branch] plays a role. The judicial [branch] is clear about their role. Its to disrupt, he said.

Now we have to do the clean up at the legislative branch, in particular in the United States Senate.

Still, some Democrats say the impulse to blame the Senate from inside the White House on down has become something of a crutch in the debate. While its true that two moderates, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) have complicated much of Bidens agenda by failing to budge on the filibuster, some say Bidenworld needs to be more forceful in its planning and response.

The White House can rightfully blame Manchin and Sinema (and 50 GOP senators) for the logjam in the Senate, Burns said, but that doesnt go an inch to explaining why the White House doesnt seem to have any clear narrative or action plan of its own.

They keep sending Kamala Harris out to be embarrassed in front of national audiences with messaging the White House then seems to abandon entirely, he said.

Earlier this week, Harris, who has struggled to gain solid footing during her time as vice president, said not right now when asked on CNN if administration officials are contemplating the option of providing access to abortion services on federal lands, a line that put her at odds with progressives like Ocasio-Cortez who called it one of several baby steps that could be taken, including in Republican-controlled states.

Others defending the administration, however, described much of the discontent among progressives as online noise that doesnt necessarily ring true for many Democratic voters.

Those voices take solace in knowing that voters indeed chose Biden out of other contenders to lead the country away from Trump, and believe that the president deserves some breathing room during his first term.

They find themselves lining up or dancing to the tune of the activists, Seawright said about progressives. And yes thats important, but thats not always most important because governing and campaigning can be two different things.

To be sure, the anger is not confined to the left-wing.

Even some Republicans have wondered aloud why the opposing party hadnt already taken steps to codify the ruling over the past five decades.

Democrats, what were you doing all these years, not codifying Roe? said Rina Shah, a GOP operative who started Republican Women for Biden during the last election.

While some far-right GOP candidates and lawmakers on Capitol Hill cheered the SCOTUS move, others have expressed private shock that Democrats are finding themselves in this position now.

I have no respect for these justices because they didnt have to do this, she said.

Read the original here:
Biden moves on abortion havent quieted progressive anger - The Hill

As U.S. companies and executives balance publicly addressing hot-button political topics, Palantir CEO Alex Karp said many still struggle with figuring out when they must speak out and when they shouldn't.

"Companies have a problem that it's very hard for them to tether what they're producing to a higher mission, and therefore they cannot exactly adjudicate where they have to speak out and where maybe they don't have to speak out," Karp told CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin at the Aspen Ideas Festival this week. "Then there's just general issues of, if you're going to use our product for things we don't support, we feel like we have to speak out."

The call for companies to take a stand on social issues has only increased in recent years, most recently around abortion following theU.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade last week.

Karp, who noted he is pro-choice, said that Palantir has always" provided for people to leave states or go to places where their rights are protected, and we pay for people and their families to move if they need access to medical treatment or abortions."

Karp also addressed how differing views have played out in his own company with Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel, one of the largest donors to Republican candidates in recent years. Thiel was also on the executive committee of the transition team for President Donald Trump, who Karp has both publicly and privately criticized.

"One of the problems in this country is that there are not enough people like Peter and me; we've been fighting about things for 30 years," Karp said. "You have to take the political dialogue, and then the business dialogue we tend to have similar assumptions but not always the same interpretation. I really enjoy my discourse with Peter on areas where I think he's the best in the world, and we don't agree politically."

Alex Karp, CEO of Palantir arrives ahead of a "Tech For Good" meetup at Hotel Marigny in Paris on May 15, 2019, held to discuss good conduct for technology giants.

Bertrand Guay | AFP | Getty Images

Karp acknowledged that while he "got in trouble" for some of the things he said about Trump publicly, it was also insights gained from speaking with people like Thiel that made him believe Trump was going to win in 2016.

"I think that's a huge problem in our society; I'd like to hear what someone else thinks, and by the way I kind of think I'm right so if you have your argument we can argue about it," he said. "I think a lot of my progressive friends have a little bit of an inferiority complex if you're right, why do you care that you're having a dialogue with someone that's wrong? I like that."

"I have pretty strong opinions; prove me wrong, I'd love to hear it," he said.

As companies come under fire from politicians for sharing views they don't agree with, such as in the case of Disney and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a company like Palantir that has much of its business with the public sector and governments could potentially face similar blowback.

While holding government contracts has not stopped SpaceX CEO Elon Musk from being critical of a standing president, Karp said that part of the issue has stemmed from companies who speak out on issues that aren't in their general focus.

"We have all these people that tell me I shouldn't speak publicly on lots of issues, and I speak pretty freely on all sorts of things that could get me into trouble and I think our clients are very tolerant of that," Karp said. "But they also know that I'm in the business the most important issues of the time right now are issues I have some modicum of expertise."

Karp said those issues are: "What will the world look like if our adversaries win, or if we win? Under what conditions will software be implemented? Will that software rob us of our civil liberties? How can that software protect our civil liberties?"

"On those issues, I speak out all the time," he said.

Disclosure: NBCUniversal News Group is the media partner of the Aspen Ideas Festival.

Link:
Palantir CEO Alex Karp on the difference between fighting with Peter Thiel and progressives - CNBC

John B. Hymes| Special to The Record

The last few weeks of June were bad for the socialist/progressives in America. On June 23, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that normal New Yorkers could carry weapons to protect themselves from the mayhem New York lawmakers unleashed in that state. The next day, the Court struck down Roe v. Wade, the most notorious, shoddily argued, and unconstitutional law since the Dred Scott decision in 1857.

Then on June 27, the Court agreed that football coach Joe Kennedy could pray with his players on the field. These three decisions are important moves for regaining personal rights lost, but Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization upending Roe, is the most notable for advancing the personal rights of a cohort ignored and unrecognized for 50 years…the unborn.

Unfortunately, the perfectly sound reasoning of the Dobbs case will be met with hysteria. Democrat elected officials are inciting the people with fears about the end of democracy and the failure of the Supreme Court. However, in deciding against Jackson Health, the Court found that the1973 Roe decision ignored three important themes: the obvious humanity of unborn children, leading to the extraordinary violation of the XIV Amendments equal protection clauseand the shameless usurpation of states rights against the principle of federalism.

Taking the last theme first, Democrat elected officials and media are doing the people a disservice by continually describing our form of government a democracy, America is a republic. The founders could have established a democracy, but, as John Adams wrote, …democracies never last long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. Democracies rule by how the majority feels about things; a republic is rule by law. The SCOTUS justices recognized that the Roe decision silenced Americans on the issue of abortion, so Dobbs returned their voice. This is a victory for federalism. The question can now be considered by the voters in the fifty states and they will decide just how much protection they are willing to accord the child in the womb.

In respect to that child, as poetically observed by the late Paul Ramsey, there is nothing we have genetically now that we didnt have when we were no larger than the period at the end of this sentence. Nearly everyone intuitively knows this, anti-abortion and abortion-rights people alike. The science is perfectly clear, but we humans are amazingly adept in concocting language to support erroneous notions. It wasnt that long ago the unborn were described as blobs of flesh, clumps of cells, and nonpersons.

Recently, an educated man advised me that sentience, or the ability to feel something, determined human worth, and that the unborn child was only a potential person. The dialogue was instructive if the only thing I learned was that philosophy and ideology often trump medical science and common sense.

If the Dobbs Court had considered the humanity and individuality of the unborn child, they might have ruled that the 14th Amendment rightly grants them equal protection and then ban abortion nationwide. However, they did not: the Dobbs Court considered only the question of viability, or when a child can survive outside the womb.

Justice Alitos opinion points out that in 1973, none of the parties in the Roe case suggested viability, nor did they brief it, nor argue it; Justice Blackmun just made it up and it eventually became the heart of Roe. So, when todays justices considered the question of viability, there was no constitutional, logical, or scientifically based foundation, therefore, no federal constitutional right to abortion possible.

This Dobbs decision will hopefully cause American society to reflect and reexamine the effects of the hook-up culture, marriage, family life, morality, and ultimately the value of children. As to the undermining of democracy, we should be more concerned with urban terrorists masquerading as protestors, and politicians masquerading as representatives. Theres no warrant in our unique civil society for the President, Senate majority leader, and Speaker of the House to threaten justices, misrepresent their decisions, and stoke insurrection. This seditious behavior is the real threat to our republic and those people should be turned out of office ASAP.

John B. Hymes is a retired Stockton fire battalion chief and past Civil Service commissioner.

View original post here:
A few bad weeks for progressives, good weeks for the Republic - Stockton Record

This week brought some very welcome news for progressives in Illinois, while left candidates in New York saw more of amixed bag.

In Tuesday nights Democratic primary, state Rep. Delia Ramirez, co-chair of the elected officials chapter of United Working Families (UWF), defeated Gilbert Villegas in the newly redrawn 3rd Congressional District by capturing nearly 66 percent of the vote, capping off anight of victories for left-wing groups including UWF, the Illinois partner of the national progressive organization Working Families Party (WFP).

Ramirez, who was endorsed by Sens. Bernie Sanders (DVA) and Elizabeth Warren (DMA) along with national progressive groups including WFP, the House Progressive Caucus and Peoples Action, will face Republican Justin Burau, who ran unopposed in his partys primary, in the November general election. She would be the first Latina congresswoman elected from the Midwest, and is almost certain to win in the deep-blue district, which stretchesfrom Chicagos West Side deep into the citysuburbs.

We just broke athick-ass glass ceiling, Ramirez said at avictory party Tuesday night, continuing, the entire state of Illinois has made it loud and clear: its time for progressive, authentic goodgovernment.

Villegas, her opponent, benefitedfrom major outside spending from anow-familiar player: Democratic Majority for Israel, which has used its financial heft against progressives in races across the country and spent $157,000 against Ramirez. Villegas also was supported by acharter school committee, the National Association of Realtors, and Mainstream Democratsa Super PAC foundedby venture capitalist and LinkedIn co-founder ReidHoffman.

At aJune 18 rally, Sen. Sanders saidRamirez, has been achampion of working families in Illinois. As astate legislator, she has expanded Medicaid for all seniors regardless of legal status, has secured millions of dollars for affordable housing, and defended reproductive rights by codifying Roe v. Wade in Illinois. Ramirez had previously co-sponsored the Reproductive Health Act, which guarantees abortion rights to Illinois residents, and ran on aplatform of Medicare for All, cancelling student loan debt, union rights and other progressivepriorities.

Ramirez rejected all corporate donations, and was heavily outraised by her opponent. But outside groups like WFP spent big in herfavor.

This was unquestionably agood night for United Working Families, Emma Tai, UWFs executive director, told In These Times. With only one exception, all of our contested candidates triumphed and beat their primarychallengers.

Further down the ballot, Anthony Joel Quezada, aUWF-endorsed member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), won his race for the Cook County Board of Commissioners, and will jointwo other UWF-affiliated commissioners, Brandon Johnson and Alma Anaya. The board, composed of 17 commissioners serving four-year terms, approves the countys budget and controls laws governing issues ranging from parks to public health andsafety.

For too long weve had absent leadership in the 8th district, Quezada said Tuesday night. Right now, in the midst of Covid, ahousing crisis, growing wealth inequality, and the threat of climate change, we said that we need to elect leadership that actually reflects our progressive values and is ready to fight for us. Quezada will be the first open democratic socialist to serve on the Cook CountyBoard.

Lilian Jimenez, who ran for Ramirezs statehouse seat, won the Democratic nomination for the 4th House District with nearly 80 percent of the vote in athree-person primary. Jimenez was endorsed by Ramirez, unions including the Chicago Teachers Union and Illinois SEIU, as well as the Chicago Tribunes editorial board, and she previously worked as alabor and immigration lawyer, directing the legislative fight to pass county-wide minimum wage and sick leavelaws.

Were in amuch more serious and rigorous phase of what it means to contest political power electorally, Tai noted. The upside of not having the element of surprise is that we have amuch deeper bench of people who know what it takes to contest seriously forpower.

It wasnt all good news for Illinois progressives, however. Kina Collins, the Justice Democrats-endorsed progressive who challenged longtime Rep. Danny K. Davis (DIll.), lost her race in Illinois 7th district. Davis received last-minute support from powerful establishment Democrats, including President Joe Biden and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who endorsedDavis last Sunday. Yet, despite the loss, Collins came far closer this round, claiming 45 percent of the vote as compared to the 14 percent she won in2020.

And incumbent progressive Rep. Marie Newman (DIll.) similarly lost her race to Sean Casten, after redistricting forced her into acontest with afellow sitting member of Congress. Newman also faced aflood of outside money which funded attacks on her campaign, as did Ramirez and other left-wingcandidates.

In New York, meanwhile, progressives saw both setbacks and victories in Tuesdays primaries. Aslate of seven insurgent challengers backed by the Working Families Party of New York and the New York Chapter of the DSA who ran against establishment incumbents in the New York State Assembly were mostly defeated, but no progressive incumbent lost their reelectioncampaign.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (DNY) endorsed the challengers, while New York Mayor Eric Adams lent his support to the incumbents. Sarahana Shrestha was the one candidate on the WFPs slate who won their race. The first-time candidate beat13-term incumbent Assembly-member Kevin Cahill, who represented the Hudson Valley town of Kingston. Shrestha, afirst-generation Nepalese-American graphic designer, ran on aplatform that prioritized climatejustice.

When Iannounced my run for the State Assembly last year, Iasked the people of District 103 to choose hope over fear, to put our collective imagination into what we stand to gain, and not just what we stand to lose, Shrestha said in astatement. This is just the beginning. Next, we must build on our common ground and bring people into the right direction we need not just for the Hudson Valley, and not just for New York, but for the wholecountry.

Outside spending from corporate interests was, as has become typical in the Democratic Partys fight between progressives and moderates, amajor factor. Shrestha alone facedat least $80,000in attack ads funded in part by real estate interests channeled through apair of Super PACs, Common Sense New Yorkers and Voters of New York. In total, the two PACs raisedat least $1 million from corporate donors, and spent heavily on mailers attacking the WFP slate over their alleged support for defunding the police. One mailer described Jonathan Soto, who once worked for Ocasio-Cortez and ran against 10-term incumbent Michael Benedetto in the Bronx, as a dangerous, reckless, socialist who was too extreme for theBronx.

A mailer targeting Samy Nemir Olivares, who challenged incumbent Erik Dilanthe son of state Sen. Martin Dilan, who DSA member and State Sen. Julia Salazar ousted in her tumultuousinsurgent 2018 campaignaccused Olivares of threatening publicsafety.

And Jeff Coltin, apolitical reporter for City &State NY, noted on Twitter that areal estate investment firm appeared to be pouring money into targeted Instagram ads supporting the incumbents against their progressive challengers. Committee for aFair New York, funded by Arel Capital, spent at least $50,000 shoring up moderatesa sizable sum in local races where candidates rarely raise more than one or two hundred thousanddollars.

The reason theyre pouring money into these races is because theyre afraid, because they know that we can win. We can seize the reins of these institutions and direct them to more just and redistributive ends, and they are very scared of that happening, Tai said. Thats the story behind the money pouring into ouropposition.

The outcome of Tuesdays races show both the challenges faced by the progressive electoral movement, with corporate money flowing into the coffers of centrist Democratic incumbents, as well as the potential of amultiracial working-class politics to triumph in aturbulent politicalenvironment.

Thats how the aphorism goes, right? First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win, said Tai. I think were definitely at the then they fight you phaseand we are, increasingly, in the then you winphase.

More:
"We Just Broke a Thick-Ass Glass Ceiling": Progressive Candidates Rack Up Some Big Wins - In These Times

Breadcrumb Trail Links

The struggle to get Canadian women a good non-surgical option for abortion received little attention for years

Publishing date:

Before 2017, nearly all Canadian women seeking abortions had to undergo surgery, while women elsewhere could choose medication to induce a miscarriage.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

For decades, Canada didnt have the gold standard abortion pill, mifepristone (also known as RU-486, or Mifegymiso). After being used in France for 30 years and the United States for 15, the abortion pill was finally approved in Canada in 2015 under Stephen Harpers Conservatives, becoming available to the public in 2017. Among progressive politicians, only Thomas Mulcairs New Democratic Party had pressed the issue. The Liberals did nothing. On the last major front for Canadian abortion rights, progressive politicians were largely silent.

Many are now professing commitments to abortion rights now that the U.S. Supreme Court has overruled Roe v. Wade and with it, federally protected abortion rights. The Dobbs v. Jacksondecision means individual states can now decide whether to permit or ban abortions.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Beware the fairweather activism. The struggle to get Canadian women a good non-surgical option for abortion received less news coverage and parliamentary attention in 20 years than Roe v. Wade did in the past two months.

Beware the fairweather activism

While surgery was used for nearly all abortions in Canada before mifepristone was easily available, thats now down to about two-thirds as a result of usage of the medication. About 100,000 abortions are performed per year in Canada. If the abortion pill had been approved at the same time as it was in the U.S., it would have prevented roughly 510,000 surgeries (30,000 per year for 17 years). Notably, access to abortion medication doesnt increase the overall abortion rate it simply reduces the proportion of surgeries.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

In France, women could use the abortion pill starting in the late 1980s. When the United States approved mifepristone in 2000, there was hope it might soon come to Canada the manufacturer said it wouldnt try until approval was secured in the U.S. to prevent any black markets. A 2001 article in the Canadian Medical Journal of Health said Health Canada would fast-track approval when a submission was made. Physicians were urged in 2006 to ask Health Canada to consider the drug.

Nearly a decade went by and nothing happened. The NDP began to publicly push for mifepristone in November 2013, when then-MP Libby Davies asked the deputy minister of health, George Da Pont, why the drug wasnt available in Canada. He said he hadnt received an application. This was wrong an application was first submitted to Health Canada in December 2011, and was resubmitted in 2012.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

In early 2014, the Canadian Medical Journal of Health published a scathing editorial outlining literally, with a map how Canada was an outlier in the developed world. Delays in mifepristones approval were reported by CBC, which cited longtime activists and the NDPs health critic Davies. Nicki Ashton, another NDP MP, questioned the government once more about the delays. A Conservative MP in mid-2014 presented a petition asking the then minister of health, Rona Ambrose, to reject mifepristone. The next day, the NDP pressed Ambrose about whether political intervention was holding up the drugs approval. She said it was all in Health Canadas hands. Mulcair, leading the NDP, warned against political interference; Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau simply said he trusted the scientists to go through the proper procedures.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Ambrose, in fact, had statutory powers under the Food and Drugs Act that could have expedited or added hurdles to the process. Both the NDP and the Liberals could have asked more about this they just didnt. In December 2014, Health Canada said it would decide whether to approve the drug by mid-January 2015; when that rolled around, it was delayed without explanation. Approval was finally stamped in July 2015 permitting use starting in July 2016. Conservative cabinet ministers and even big-tent progressives like Michelle Rempel Garner declined to comment; a pro-life MP voiced disappointment. The drugs market debut was pushed back to January 2017. Rollout at the provincial level was slow.

Heavy restrictions limited use to the first seven weeks of pregnancy following an ultrasound, and required a doctor to dispense it (not a pharmacist, which doctors thought was pointless). By mid-2017, regulatory bodies for physicians and pharmacists advised members to ignore certain strict requirements. Facing a mutiny, in late 2017 Health Canada bumped the use cap to nine weeks and permitted pharmacists to dispense it. Mandatory ultrasounds were dropped in 2019.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Mifepristone took years to approve

A column by the Globe and Mails Andr Picard called the medications long road to approval shameful. It was a fair assessment. Mifepristone took years to approve, while the norm was 300 days.

Libertarian, socially-progressive Conservatives had little to say about this the least they could have done was ask for a progress report. Liberals were equally silent in the House of Commons. Only the NDP can say they pressed for access to abortion medication on the public record, and they only did this 13 years after the U.S. approval.

Its hard to tell if the problem was a lack of answers, because there was a profound lack of questions in the first place. Regardless, the cone of political silence on mifepristone imposed 510,000 unnecessary surgeries on women who would have chosen otherwise.

Keep those women in mind when opportunistic politicians ride the media wave of Roe v. Wade.

National Post

Email: sarkonakj@protonmail.com | Twitter: Twitter.com/sarkonakj

Jamie Sarkonak is an Edmonton writer.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

See more here:
Jamie Sarkonak: Progressives failed Canadian women on the abortion pill - National Post