Two years ago, an Idaho woman named Jennie Linn McCormack became pregnant. McCormack lives off of no more than $250 a month in child support payments, the nearest abortion clinic to her home is nearly 140 miles away in Salt Lake City, Utah, and it would charge up to $2000 to perform an abortion. So when she decided to terminate her pregnancy, she obtained an abortion-inducing medication online. After she took the drug, McCormack found herself being prosecuted for violating an Idaho law making it a felony for a woman to “terminate[] her own pregnancy otherwise than by a live birth.”

In a unanimous decision joined by Reagan-appointed Judge Donald Walter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit blocked Idaho from resuming this prosecution, which had previously been dismissed by a court order that also gave prosecutors the option of refiling against McCormack. Significantly, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion strongly suggests that any attempt to prosecute a woman who obtains an abortion — as opposed to the provider who authorizes or proscribes the procedure — is unconstitutional:

Most modern state criminal statutes continue to apply criminal liability to third parties who perform abortion in a manner not proscribed by the statute. These statutes, known as physician-only statutes, impose criminal liability on anyone other than a licensed physician from performing abortions. But many of these same criminal statutes expressly exempt women from criminal liability for obtaining an abortion and do not hold them liable for actions or inactions that affect their pregnancy outcomes. When state statutes do not expressly exempt pregnant women, state courts interpreting them have concluded that pregnant women are exempt from criminal prosecution . . . . Consistent with this history, there is no Supreme Court precedent that recognizes or suggests that third party criminal liability may extend to pregnant women who obtain an abortion in a manner inconsistent with state abortion statutes. . . .

While the Supreme Court has permitted many restrictions that make obtaining an abortion more difficult, particularly for low-income women, it has not authorized the criminal prosecution of women seeking abortion care. Imposing criminal liability upon women for their providers’ purported failure to comply with state abortion regulations places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking an abortion. Accordingly, McCormack is likely to succeed on her claim that Chapter 6 constitutes an undue burden on a woman’s constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy before viability.

Because this case is still at an early stage in the litigation, the court refrained from saying that Idaho can never prosecute a woman under this statute again — yesterday’s order applies only to McCormack. Barring intervention by a higher court, however, it is likely that the Idaho law authorizing women to be targeted will eventually be struck down completely.

Almost one month after young undocumented immigrants began applying for deferred action, federal immigration officials announced that about 72,000 DREAM Act-eligible young adults have applied so far. The new policy, which President Obama announced in June, gives undocumented immigrants who qualify two-year deportation deferrals and permits to legally work in the U.S.

Officials in the Department of Homeland Security have worked quickly to process applications as they have poured in, with California leading in the number of applications from undocumented immigrants in that state. The largest portion of deferred action applicants were born in Mexico, but immigration officials said a large number also came from South Koreans, who make up a much smaller population of immigrants in the U.S.

Republicans, however, are renewing their attacks against the program. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) questioned “the speed at which the deferrals are being granted” in a letter to John Morton, director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, on Tuesday and back in August, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, an informal immigration adviser to Mitt Romney, filed a lawsuit challenging the policy. Kobach is representing 10 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees who disagree with the directive. “It places ICE agents in an untenable position where their political superiors are ordering them to violate federal law,” Kobach said.

Mitt Romney has not explained if he would continue the deferred action policy as president — although one of his advisers said Romney would end it — but at this rate, the New York Times estimates that at least 200,000 people potentially could have applied for deferred action by the presidential election in November.

On its website, Freedom PAC says its top priority is electing Rep. Connie Mack IV (R-FL) to the U.S. Senate this November. And with billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson bankrolling the effort, it has just launched a major new ad buy, lauding Mack as a tax-cutter.

Though Adelson said in April that he would make his future contributions through secretive 501(c)(4) to avoid having his multi-million dollar donations publicly disclosed, in June he donated $1 million to Freedom PAC. That contribution represents the lion’s share of the roughly $1.1 million the super PAC has reported raising to date. With his largess, the group reported a $997,500 ad buy Tuesday in support of Mack.

The ad — titled “Proud” — says Mack would be a “conservative senator for change” and would back “less taxes [sic], less spending, and more jobs.” Indeed Mack has signed Grover Norquist’s pledge to never raise taxes for any reason, ever. Mack has also endorsed Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan — who have promised more tax cuts for the rich — as “America’s comeback team.”

Thanks to Citizens United and subsequent court rulings, billionaires like Adelson can now spend as much as they have to fund “independent expenditures” through super PACs — allowing them to completely circumvent the $2,500-per-election individual contribution limit for donations to federal candidates. Adelson’s now-legal attempts to buy the presidency and buy congressional seats like this one have so far cost him and his wife more than $42 million already this cycle.

But if the controversial billionaire gets his way, he stands to get back that and much more. By electing Mitt Romney and a supportive Senate majority with anti-tax Republicans like Mack, Adelson could save $2.3 billion in taxes.

Watch the spot:

In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity this week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) compared the federal government’s decision to reclaim some of its own property to Nazi Germany’s confiscations of Jewish-owned art.

Paul’s comments concerned a recent court decision holding that the United States is permitted to repossess ten rare coins that were illegally taken from the U.S. Mint decades ago. In 1933, the mint produced hundreds of thousands of gold coins that were never circulated due to the United States’ decision to go off the gold standard. Ten of these coins were illegally removed from the mint, allegedly by a mint employee who passed them to a coin dealer. When the coins, which are estimated to be worth over $7 million each, later turned up in the hands of that coin dealer’s daughter, the federal government confiscated them. Last month, a federal judge agreed that the government acted properly, writing “[t]he disputed double eagles were not lawfully removed from the United States Mint and . . . remain the property of the United States.”

In the Hannity interview, Paul (R-KY) claimed the federal government acted just like Nazi Germany when it repossessed its own property:

HANNITY: Did you hear about the case today? It was a couple and they found these gold double eagle coins from 1939, I think, is the year. And they’re worth like $80 million. Now a court case it was in, because they had, I guess, confiscated them or asked people to turn them in . . . but [the government] had the ten coins or whatever it was. And they said “no, we’re taking them, and you don’t get a penny.”

PAUL: It’s sort of like the Nazis taking paintings from Jewish families during the war and saying you don’t get them back. Well they’re yours, they’re still yours even if you find it 60 years later.

For reasons that should be obvious, the federal government actions here are nothing like Nazi Germany. Nazis stole artwork that did not belong to them from Jewish families. The U.S. government, by contrast, reclaimed property that always belonged to it.

Since launching its 2012 Election Integrity Project in February, the right-wing Judicial Watch has been a leading player in the push for more voting restrictions. The group — best known for its Clinton-era lawsuits — has demanded more voting roll purges like Gov. Rick Scott’s (R) failed efforts in Florida. But a ThinkProgress examination of tax filings reveals that the group has received millions of dollars from foundations tied to conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife since the start of 2001.

Though other rich right-wing funders like Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess have gotten more attention in this campaign, Scaife has bankrolled the conservative movement for decades. A 1998 Washington Post story dubbed him the “funding father of the right.” Since the 1960s, the Pittsburgh media baron and heir to the Mellon banking and oil fortune has distributed hundreds of millions of dollars to conservative causes including the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, and the Hoover Institution. He controls the Scaife Foundations — a group of conservative and philanthropic tax-exempt organizations. Between 2001 and 2010, the Allegheny Foundation, Carthage Foundation, and Sarah Scaife Foundation — all part of the Sciafe empire — gave at least $5.8 million to Judicial Watch.

The Carthage and Sarah Scaife Foundations focus on “public policy programs that address major domestic and international issues.” Each has given millions to Judicial Watch. The Allegheny Foundation claims it “concentrates its giving in the Western Pennsylvania area and confines most of its grant awards to programs for historic preservation, civic development and education,” yet it too gave $67,000 annually to Judicial Watch in 2009 and 2010.

Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity Project has pushed states to purge what it believes to be ineligible voters from the voter rolls, criticized voter registration efforts, and fought for voter ID laws. While the group claims “election fraud was a significant concern during the 2008 and 2010 election season,” studies show that you a more likely to be struck by lightning than to commit voter fraud. And while these tactics to combat the alleged problem are likely to suppress voter turnout and registration, especially among minority groups, they would do little to stop actual voter fraud even if someone did want to commit it.

Shortly before the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court upheld the state’s contentious voter ID law, State Senator Vincent Hughes (D-PA) predicted chaos, saying it was “unequivocally clear that the state cannot pull this off by Election Day.” Now, as the state Supreme Court prepares to hear the case on Thursday, Hughes’ warning has born out. ABC News reports that Pennsylvania’s DMVs are swamped by residents trying to get the appropriate government-issued ID before November 6.

The state has issued 72,000 IDs specifically obtained for voting purposes since the law was enacted in March. To get a non-driver ID, a resident must provide their birth certificate, a Social Security card, and two documents proving residency. Even to obtain an voting only ID card, which was introduced in late August as an effort to accommodate the thousands of Pennsylvanians without ID, the state requires a Social Security number, proof of residence and a signed affidavit pledging the voter cannot get another kind of ID. These requirements are translating into hours-long lines at the DMV and Social Security office, multiple trips to obtain birth certificates and affidavits, and many miles of driving for many rural Pennsylvanians.

ABC News interviewed one man who was struggling to navigate his 87-year-old mother through the burdensome process:

Voters who have the six types of documents necessary to apply for the state ID card have limited time to apply. For residents of 13 counties, there is only one day per week that the DMV is open to apply for an ID. And in 10 more counties it’s only open two days per week.

For Klincewicz and his 87-year-old mother that limited schedule meant two days of trying in order to get her the ID required to vote, after she mistakenly surrendered her state ID because of a Department of Transportation error. Klincewicz’s wife had to make two trips to the DMV where she and her mother-in-law, Jisele, waited upwards of four hours to get the ID. All told, he and his wife spent more than 20 hours making phone calls, writing emails, driving to the DMV and waiting in lines to get his mother’s ID reinstated so she could vote in November, Klincewicz said.

Another ID-less elderly voter in Pennsylvania attracted attention on Twitter yesterday after his son, Jim Cramer of CNBC’s Mad Money, tweeted about their problems getting access to the right documents. The state is also feeling the burden, as the State Department estimates they have spent about $100,000 issuing free IDs to low-income residents.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hold a hearing addressing the constitutionality of the law on Thursday at 9:30 am after a lower court upheld the law based on a flimsy precedent from 1868 which warned against letting “rogues and strumpets” and “wandering Arabs” vote. Courts have already blocked similar laws in Texas and Wisconsin, while South Carolina’s ID requirement is currently under review.