The Supreme Court of the United States Blog wrote Monday: “Adding further to the historic rank of the Supreme Court’s current Term, the Justices on Monday took on the searing constitutional — and political — controversy over state power to strictly limit the way undocumented immigrants live their lives in the U.S.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) “welcomes the decision by the United States Supreme Court to review Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, SB 1070.” The group not only welcomed S.B. 1070 but also helped draft the law through its affiliate — the Immigration Reform Law Institute.

FAIR, according to Open Secrets, spent more than $3.4 million from 1998 through 2011 to lobby Congress on immigration-related legislation, like a proposed House GOP sponsored resolution that “would have prohibited the U.S. Department of Justice from using any funds to sue Arizona in an effort to strike down its new immigration enforcement law, SB 1070.”

“We believe that SB 1070 is a legitimate effort by a state to partner with the federal government in assisting in the enforcement of our immigration laws,” said FAIR President Dan Stein.

The National Immigration Forum wrote Monday: “We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will clarify once and for all that only the federal government has the authority to create and enforce immigration law. We believe Arizona’s SB1070 is misguided and unconstitutional and expect the Supreme Court to use this opportunity to slam the brakes on other state-based immigration laws that are in conflict with our Constitution and core American values.”

According to Open Secrets, the Forum has spent more than $1.5 million since 1998 to lobby Congress on issues related to comprehensive immigration reform.

The American Spectator, a publication that “serves as a resource and an outlet for a host of both young and established conservative writers and thinkers” writes today: “Health care reform isn’t the only major policy battle the Obama administration will fight before the Supreme Court. The justices will also hear a case in which the Obama Justice Department asks them to overturn Arizona’s SB 1070, a controversial law empowering state and local police to detain suspected illegal immigrants in the course of their normal work.”

The Spectator, adds:

“We won 5 to 3 on the E-Verify case,” [former Arizona Sen. Russell Pearce, one of the architects of S.B. 1070,] says. “The same issues and constitutional principles are at stake here. I expect we’ll win 5 to 3 again.” (Justice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, recused herself in the last case and will do so again in the forthcoming one.) Indeed, the Supreme Court found that Arizona immigration law fell “well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the States.”

The National Council of La Raza ”hopes that by intervening in this case, the Supreme Court will affirm that the federal government is responsible for immigration enforcement and that states do not have the right to usurp that authority by establishing their own immigration laws.”

La Raza is a Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization that according to Open Secrets spent more than $5.6 million to lobby Congress from 1998 through 2011 on immigration, as well as other issues: the federal budget, economic development, education, health issues, housing and law enforcement and crime.

The Supreme Court of the United States Blog added: “The Arizona measure, and one in Alabama that goes even further, were passed by state legislatures with the specific intent of making life so difficult for undocumented aliens that they would choose to leave the state. Other states are also passing similar measures.”

In a statement announcing her decision, Sebelius said that although “the science has confirmed the drug to be safe and effective with appropriate use, the switch from prescription to over the counter for this product requires that we have enough evidence to show that those who use this medicine can understand the label and use the product appropriately. ”

“I do not believe that Teva’s application met that standard. The label comprehension and actual use studies did not contain data for all ages for which this product would be available for use,” she said.

Reproductive rights advocates immediately denounced the decision. Numerous groups have already released statements and written letters to Sebelius and the White House expressing disagreement with the decision.

The Washington Post reports that now a group of U.S. senators have written a letter to Sebelius requesting an explanation.

According to the letter:

We feel strongly that FDA regulations should be based on science. We write to you today to ask that you provide us with the rationale for this decision.

As numerous medical societies and patient advocates have argued, improved access to birth control, including emergency contraception, has been proven to reduce unintended pregnancies. Nearly half of all pregnancies that occur in the United States each year are unintended. Keeping Plan B behind the counter makes it harder for all women to obtain a safe and effective product they may need to prevent an unintended pregnancy.

We ask that you share with us your specific rationale and the scientific data you relied on for the decision to overrule the FDA recommendation. On behalf of the millions of women we represent, we want to be assured that this and future decisions affecting women’s health will be based on medical and scientific evidence.

President Obama has publicly supported Sebelius’ decision.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (Photo: Flickr/ryanjreilly)

During a speech given in Texas last night, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder criticized legal challenges launched by states — including Florida — against the section of the Voting Rights Act that requires approval of election laws in certain areas. Holder also affirmed the need for vigilance against laws aimed at rolling back voting rights.

According to a draft of his speech released to the press, Holder also said that he was taking a “thorough” look into Florida’s controversial new elections law.

“We’re also examining a number of changes that Florida has made to its electoral process,” he said, “including changes to the procedures governing third-party voter registration organizations, as well as changes to early voting procedures, including the number of days in the early voting period.”

“Although I cannot go into detail about the ongoing review of these and other state-law changes,” he continued, “I can assure you that it will be thorough — and fair. We will examine the facts, and we will apply the law. If a state passes a new voting law and meets its burden of showing that the law is not discriminatory, we will follow the law and approve the change. And where a state can’t meet this burden, we will object as part of our obligation under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.”

Florida has not been the only state facing scrutiny from the federal government. Holder also mentioned interest in other states such as Texas and South Carolina. Both states were among several that enacted new photo ID requirements to vote.

Holder said during his speech (according to the prepared remarks):

Despite this history, and despite our nation’s long tradition of extending voting rights – to non-property owners and women, to people of color and Native Americans, and to younger Americans – today, a growing number of our fellow citizens are worried about the same disparities, divisions, and problems that – nearly five decades ago – LBJ devoted his Presidency to addressing. In my travels across this country, I’ve heard a consistent drumbeat of concern from many Americans, who – often for the first time in their lives – now have reason to believe that we are failing to live up to one of our nation’s most noble, and essential, ideals.

As Congressman John Lewis described it, in a speech on the House floor this summer, the voting rights that he worked throughout his life – and nearly gave his life – to ensure are, “under attack… [by] a deliberate and systematic attempt to prevent millions of elderly voters, young voters, students, [and] minority and low-income voters from exercising their constitutional right to engage in the democratic process.” Not only was he referring to the all-too-common deceptive practices we’ve been fighting for years. He was echoing more recent concerns about some of the state-level voting law changes we’ve seen this legislative season.

Since January, more than a dozen states have advanced new voting measures. Some of these new laws are currently under review by the Justice Department, based on our obligations under the Voting Rights Act.

Holder also spoke about recent challenges to the Voting Rights Act, specifically the section of the law that requires federal “preclearance” of election laws in certain areas. In October, Florida Secretary of State Kurt Browning launched a legal complaint against that requirement.

In his filing, Browing argued that federal preclearance requirements for state election laws are “unconstitutional” and that “subjecting Florida counties and other jurisdictions covered exclusively under the language minority provisions of the [Voting Rights Act] to pre-clearance is not a rational, congruent, or proportional means of enforcing the Fourteenth and/or Fifteenth Amendments and violates the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the U.S. Constitution.”

Last night, Holder said:

Despite the long history of support for Section 5, this keystone of our voting rights laws is now being challenged five years after its reauthorization as unconstitutional in no fewer than five lawsuits. Each of these lawsuits claims that we’ve attained a new era of electoral equality, that America in 2011 has moved beyond the challenges of 1965, and that Section 5 is no longer necessary.

I wish this were the case. The reality is that – in jurisdictions across the country – both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common. And we don’t have to look far to see recent proof.

Holder described recent problems with Texas and Louisiana’s redistricting efforts, which he said “failed to show the absence of discrimination.” Holder said, “To those who argue that Section 5 is no longer necessary — these and other examples are proof that we still need this critical tool to combat discrimination and safeguard the right to vote.”

The attorney general also announced that the issue of protecting voting rights in the country was a moral imperative that required public support.

“As concerns about the protection of this right and the integrity of our election systems become an increasingly prominent part of our national dialogue, we must consider some important questions,” he said. “It is time to ask: What kind of nation — and what kind of people — do we want to be? Are we willing to allow this era — our era — to be remembered as the age when our nation’s proud tradition of expanding the franchise ended? Are we willing to allow this time — our time — to be recorded in history as the age when the long-held belief that, in this country, every citizen has the chance — and the right — to help shape their government, became a relic of our past, instead of a guidepost for our future?”

Holder said new legislation that was formerly introduced in the Senate by then-Sen. Barack Obama, would be reintroduced by Sens. Charles Schumer and Ben Cardin. The law “would establish tough criminal penalties for those who engage in fraudulent voting practices — and would help to ensure that citizens have complete and accurate information about where and when to vote,” he said.

“Despite so many decades of struggle, sacrifice, and achievement — we must remain ever vigilant in safeguarding our most basic and important right,” he concluded. “Too many recent actions have the potential to reverse the progress that defines us — and has made this nation exceptional, as well as an example for all the world. We must be true to the arc of America’s history, which compels us to be more inclusive with regard to the franchise. And we must never forget the purpose that — more than two centuries ago — inspired our nation’s founding, and now must guide us forward.”

It was previously estimated that about 1 million young adults under the age of 26 were affected by President Obama’s health care reform law, but new reports suggest it was more than twice that number.

The Associated Press reports:

Under the health overhaul, children can remain on their parents’ health insurance plans until they turn 26, and families have flocked to sign up young adults making the transition to work in a challenging economic environment. But the fate of President Barack Obama’s signature domestic accomplishment remains uncertain, with the Supreme Court scheduled to hear a constitutional challenge next year, and Republican presidential candidates vowing to repeal it.

“The increase in coverage among 19- to 25-year-olds can be directly attributed to the Affordable Care Act’s new dependent coverage provision,” said a draft report from the Health and Human Services Department. “Initial gains from this policy have continued to grow as … students graduate from high school and college.” A copy of the report was obtained by The Associated Press.

…

Using unpublished quarterly statistics from the government’s ongoing National Health Interview Survey, analysts in Sebelius’ policy office determined that nearly 36 percent of those age 19-25 were uninsured in the third calendar quarter of 2010, before the law’s provision took effect.

That translates to more than 10.5 million people.

By the second calendar quarter of 2011, the proportion of uninsured young adults had dropped to a little over 27 percent, or about 8 million people.

The difference — nearly 2.5 million getting coverage — can only be the result of the health care law, administration officials said, because the number covered by public programs like Medicaid went down slightly.

While most of the health care reform law does not go into effect until 2014, the provision in question went into effect last fall and most employer health insurance plans started following through with this change on Jan. 1, the AP reports.

Ad for The Awakening 2012 (Photo: Tea Party Manatee)

The Freedom Federation, a network of conservative faith-based organizations, will host its “Awakening 2012″ event in Orlando next year, featuring a long list of big conservative names as “invited speakers.”

Presidential hopefuls Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry have all been invited to Awakening, which will take place April 19-21 at Calvary Assembly in Winter Park. According to the group’s website, Republicans Sen. Marco Rubio, Rep. Allen West and Gov. Rick Scott have also been invited to speak, but have not yet been confirmed.

Other invited speakers include: Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; Live Action founder Lila Rose, and James “Jim Bob” Duggar, subject of the TLC reality series 19 Kids and Counting.

John Stemberger, president of the Florida Family Policy Council, is a confirmed speaker, along with Frank Gaffney, who penned a controversial op-ed insinuating that President Obama was “America’s first Muslim president.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also been confirmed to address the rally via video feed.

Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich made an appearance at the 2011 Awakening event, telling more than 100 faith-based leaders that House Republicans should not compromise on fundamentals because the budget is a “moral battle.”

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (Photo: Flickr/World Economic Forum)

The tea party has added another item to its list of reasons to fear the United Nations: Some in the movement say the U.N. is planning to intervene in the United States’ upcoming elections.

This week, when Attorney General Eric Holder announced his speech on voting rights, the Texas group True the Vote called for a protest of the event because “Holder is for NAACP Plans to involve the United Nations in US Elections.” [Their emphasis.]

True the Vote, a voter integrity initiative launched by the Houston tea party group King Street Patriots, held a national summit this year featuring some of the right’s most incendiary speakers, such as Andrew Breitbart, The Texas Independent reported. According to the Independent, “representatives from more than 25 states attended the two-day national summit in Houston to receive training and information about the conservative organization’s efforts to combat voter fraud.”

The Independent reported back in March that the group was a 501(c)4 nonprofit and had applied for 501(c)3 nonprofit status.

Catherine Engelbrecht, the president of King Street Patriots, said during the group’s summit that she was hoping to mobilize teams of three people to oversee each voting precinct in the country. That would add up to roughly 1 million right-wing tea party volunteers nationwide by the 2012 general election, the Independent reported.

Tea Party Manatee, based in Southwest Florida, sent out an email newsletter this week, echoing the King Street Patriots’ latest fight and warning that the U.N. is “trying to Intervene in 2012 Elections.”

According to group’s email:

• In November 2012 Foreign bureaucrats will appear at your polling station to ensure you adhere to their vision of a ‘fair’ election.
• Local polling officials who dare to enforce state clean election laws will be subject to lawsuits and arrest.
• Conservative political speech will be deemed hateful and be suppressed.
• Just enough voter fraud will be allowed to ensure a second term for Barack Hussein Obama.

This is not a fantasy – next week it will start to become reality when a delegation of leftist Obama supporters will meet with the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights in Geneva, Switzerland. And there they will lay the groundwork to ensure the United Nations takes action in time to save Barack Obama.

You see, the Democratic Left is terrified of the new clean election laws being passed across America. These laws have cleared our voter lists of the dead and the ineligible, require voter identification for everyone and insist that our military be allowed to vote.

And clean elections are the single greatest weapon we have to ensure an honest vote in 2012 and a single term for Barack Obama. And the Left can’t allow that to happen.

So they will make their case for action to the UN Human Rights Council – an international government origination so biased that even Hillary Clinton has denounced it.

Council members like Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Mexico and China will review your election laws and judge if you measure up to their idea of democracy. How can we accomplish any of our goals, like repealing health care rationing, securing the borders and balancing our budget if we can’t even control our own elections?

That’s why we need to send a clear message to the UN – stay out of America’s elections and abandon Barack Obama to the judgment of the American people. I need you to tell the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to send that very message to the United Nations – by any means necessary.

It’s difficult to trace the exact origin of this particular hysteria, but one of the earliest mentions of the NAACP’s plan to involve the U.N. came in a report by Fox News.

According to Fox:

The NAACP is calling on the United Nations to intervene as it claims state governments are colluding to “block the vote” for minority communities ahead of the 2012 election — a charge those governments vehemently deny.

The nation’s biggest civil rights organization this week released a report that claimed a raft of new voting laws at the state level would disenfranchise minority voters. The report said 14 states passed 25 measures “designed to restrict or limit the ballot access of voters of color.”

…

Supporters of the laws describe them as common-sense measures meant to ensure the integrity of elections. In Tennessee, which is implementing a new photo ID law, elections coordinator Mark Goins dismissed the criticism and questioned why the NAACP would flag the United Nations over its concerns, calling that effort “a bit extreme.”

“I don’t know what the benefit of going to the U.N. would be,” he said. “I can’t imagine any authority whatsoever that they would have here in Tennessee.”

But the NAACP described the new measures as part of a “concerted” effort to drive down minority turnout and is planning a multi-stage campaign to attract international attention.

To start, the group is planning a “Stand 4 Freedom” rally this Saturday across from the U.N. headquarters. Supporters are being asked to sign an online pledge which, among other demands, calls on the United Nations to “investigate and condemn voter suppression tactics in the United States.”

Copies of the latest report are being sent to the United Nations, as well as attorneys general across the country and the Department of Justice. According to one newspaper report, the NAACP will follow up in March when it sends a delegation to Geneva, Switzerland, to present its case before the U.N. Human Rights Council — a group known more for its sustained criticism of Israel than its attention to voting rights.

An NAACP spokesman says the organization is just doing its duty as one of the 3,500 groups that “has consulting status” with the U.N. The group simply works with the international organization to make sure the United States is “living up to its commitment” to an initiative to eliminate discrimination, the spokesperson says.

He also says that the U.N. does not have the power to actually intervene in state matters, and can only interview people and create reports through the Human Rights Council.

“We are just working to make sure the U.S. remains a beacon of democracy,” the NAACP spokesperson says.

The NAACP will be giving a presentation in Geneva to the Human Rights Council in March 2012 as part of its consulting status.

Since Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced her decision, reproductive health advocates and policy-makers have expressed disappointment with the decision and claim it was based on political calculations, and not on scientific research.

According to the group’s press release:

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, today sent a letter signed by 35,194 Americans to President Obama opposing the administration’s recent decision to overrule a recommendation from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to follow medical experts’ recommendations to remove a restriction on the Plan B® emergency contraceptive.

“We had a major opportunity to improve young women’s access to contraception, which is the best way to reduce unintended abortions and thus the need for abortion, and the Obama administration missed the mark,” Keenan said. “We will continue to call on the administration to follow sound science and recommendations from health experts.”

The grassroots letter, which comes almost a week later, is leading a grassroots public-education and advocacy campaign to mobilize grassroots supporters to take action in response to the administration’s decision reject the FDA’s recommendation. NARAL Pro-Choice America leveraged its activist network to launch a public-education effort immediately after the administration’s decision was announced. The group’s efforts also came as senators, led by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and members, led by Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), sent letters to the administration expressing their disapproval of this action.

Florida is leading the legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act, a suit that includes 25 other states. State officials have argued that the alleged unconstitutionality of the individual mandate is grounds for striking the bill in its entirety. That argument has not been upheld in lower court decisions.

Both parties have worked actively to make sure that the Supreme Court is able to reach its decision before the 2012 presidential election.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the “main part” of the hearing “will take place on Tuesday, March 27, with a two-hour argument over the minimum-coverage provision, which starting in 2014 will require most Americans to carry health insurance.”

A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that about 20 percent of 17-year-olds who called in to a pharmacy to ask for emergency contraception that day were unable to receive it. Seventeen-year-old women legally have access to the morning after pill, also known as Plan B, without a prescription. The decision would have removed a prescription requirement for any woman seeking emergency contraception.

According to the study:

The availability of emergency contraception did not differ based on neighborhood income. However, in 19 percent (n = 138) of calls, the adolescent was told she could not obtain emergency contraception under any circumstance. This misinformation occurred more often (23.7 percent vs 14.6 percent) among pharmacies in low-income neighborhoods. When callers queried the age threshold for over-the-counter access, they were given the correct age less often by pharmacies in low-income neighborhoods (50.0 percent vs 62.8 percent. In all but 11 calls, the incorrect age was stated as erroneously too high, potentially restricting access.

The researchers concluded that “although we found approximately 80 percent same-day availability of emergency contraception in US metropolitan areas, misinformation regarding access was common—particularly in low-income neighborhoods.”

Immediate access to emergency contraception is vital to its effectiveness. Prolonged wait times or other types of barriers to same-day access can lead to an unplanned pregnancy, which is why many women’s health advocates have criticized the federal government for intervening in the FDA’s request.

Since Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced her decision, reproductive health advocates and policy-makers have expressed disappointment with the decision and claim it was based on political calculations, and not on scientific research. Last week, more than 35,000 signatures were sent to President Obama denouncing the decision.

The Center for Reproductive Rights has already sought legal action challenging the federal agency’s decision and a judge is considering hearing it.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano (Photo: Flickr/The National Guard)

Former members of a task force on Secure Communities sent a letter this week to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano calling on her to suspend the immigration enforcement program.

The letter also expressed their concern that an Arizona law enforcement agency that has committed a “wide range of civil rights violations” still has access to Secure Communities.

Brittney Nystrom of the National Immigration Forum and Andrea Zuniga DiBitetto of the AFL-CIO write in the letter:

As former members of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, Task Force on Secure Communities, we note with concern the multiple findings of racial profiling of Latinos and other civil rights violations by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on December 15.

The findings of a pattern and practice of racial profiling of Latinos in Maricopa County, Arizona, demonstrate that abuse can occur while the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is actively collaborating with enforcement agencies through both the 287(g) program and the Secure Communities program and through informal collaboration between DHS and law enforcement agencies.

“My understanding is that [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] is continuing to operate Secure Communities in Maricopa County despite the findings of discriminatory policing by that sheriffs department,” Nystrom tells The Florida Independent.

Secure Communities allows local law enforcement agencies to check the fingerprints of people they detain and match them up with federal immigration and criminal databases, with the stated goal of deporting undocumented immigrant criminals. All 67 Florida jurisdictions participate in Secure Communities.

Napolitano said in October that the termination of Secure Communities “would only weaken public safety, and move the immigration enforcement system back towards the ad hoc approach where non-criminal aliens are more likely to be removed than criminals.”

Opponents of Secure Communities have repeatedly called on the Obama administration to end the fingerprint-sharing program because immigrants who have committed no crime are being detained and deported, leaving behind U.S.-born children and families that, in many cases, will struggle to make ends meet.

Nystrom says that Homeland Security officials said they were “limiting” the Maricopa sheriff’s office’s “access to Secure Communities, but that in [her] thinking and Andrea’s thinking doesn’t go far enough to prevent someone who was picked up in a biased manner from being put into the deportation machine.”

The letter adds that the Secure Communities termination should also include Alabama, “where immigration enforcement laws that have been challenged as unconstitutional by the Department of Justice are in effect.”