US Politics

With the end of Roe, the US edges closer and closer to civil warStephen MarcheThe question is no longer whether there will be a civil conflict in America. The question is how the sides will divide, and who will prevail The cracks in the foundations of the United States are widening, rapidly and on several fronts. The overturning of Roe v Wade has provoked a legitimacy crisis no matter what your politics.For the right, the leaking of the draft memo last month revealed the breakdown of bipartisanship and common purpose within the institution. For the left, it demonstrated the will of dubiously selected Republican justices to overturn established rights that have somewhere near 70% to 80% political support.Accelerating political violence, like the attack in Buffalo, increasingly blurs the line between the mainstream political conservative movement and outright murderous insanity. The question is no longer whether there will be a civil conflict in the United States. The question is how the sides will divide, what their strengths and weaknesses are, and how those strengths and weaknesses will determine the outcome.The right wing has been imagining a civil war, publicly, since at least the Obama administration. Back in 2016, when it looked like Hillary Clinton would win the election, then Kentucky governor Matt Bevin described the possibility in apocalyptic terms: “The roots of the tree of liberty are watered by what? The blood. Of who? The tyrants, to be sure. But who else? The patriots. Whose blood will be shed? It may be that of those in this room. It might be that of our children and grandchildren,” he told supporters at the Values Voter Summit.The possibility of civil war has long been a mainstay of rightwing talk radio. Needless to say, when the right conjures these fantasies of cleansing violence, they tend to fantasize their own victory. Steve King, while still a congressman from Iowa, tweeted an image of red and blue America at war, with the line: “Folks keep talking about another civil war. One side has about 8tn bullets, while the other side doesn’t know which bathroom to use.”Any time anyone acts on their violent rhetoric, the rightwing politicians and media elites are appalled that anyone would connect what they say to what others do. “We need to understand we’re under attack, and we need to understand this is 21st-century warfare and get on a war footing,” Alex Jones said in the lead-up to the Capitol riot.According to a New York Times series, Tucker Carlson has articulated the theory of white replacement more than 400 times on his show. Calls to violence are normal in rightwing media. Calls to resist white replacement are normal in rightwing media. The inevitable result is the violent promotion of resistance to white replacement. Republican politicians like Arizona state senator Wendy Rogers and New York congresswoman Elise Stefanik are outraged when their one plus one turns out to equal two, but their outrage is increasingly unbelievable, even to themselves. America is witnessing a technique used in political struggles all over the world. Movements devoted to the overthrow of elected governments tend to divide into armed and political wings, which gives multiple avenues to approach their goals as well as the cover of plausible deniability for their violence.The leftwing American political class, incredibly, continues to cling to its defunct institutional ideals. Democrats under Biden have wasted the past two years on fictions of bipartisanship and forlorn hopes of some kind of restoration of American trust. When violence like Buffalo hits, they can do little more than plead with the other side to reconsider the horror they’re unleashing, and offer obvious lectures about the poison of white supremacy. Since January 6 didn’t wake them up to exactly what they’re facing, it’s unclear what might ever wake them up. The left has not made the psychological adjustment to a conflict situation yet. But it won’t be able to maintain the fantasy of normalcy for much longer.The conflict, which on the surface seems so unequal, with an emboldened and violent right against a demoralized and disorganized left, is not as one-sided as it looks at first. It is unequal but it is also highly asymmetrical. The right has the weaponry and an electoral system weighted overwhelmingly in its favor. The left has money and tech.Steve King was, in a sense, absolutely correct about the armed status of the two sides. Half of Republicans own a gun, compared with 21% of Democrats. But that gap, though wide, is closing. In 2020, 40% of gun buyers were new buyers. There was a 58% rise in gun sales to African Americans in 2020 over 2019. In 2021, women were nearly half of new gun buyers, an astonishing statistic. The real structural advantage the right possesses is not military but electoral. By 2040, 30% of the country will control 70% of the Senate. The institutions of the US government distinctly favor those who want to destroy it. Every Democrat who fights to end the filibuster is fighting for their own future irrelevance, or rather for the acceleration of their own irrelevance.Two essential facts of the 2020 election should give leftwing partisans hope, however. Biden-voting counties amounted to 70% of GDP, while 60% of college-educated voters chose Biden. That is to say, the left-democratic wing of America is the productive and educated part of the country. One way of looking at the American political condition of the moment is that the leftwing part of the US has built the networks that have left behind the rightwing part. The networks are the left’s strength.The struggle over abortion has already revealed how the divide plays out. Anti-abortion factions control the pseudo-legitimate court system and the poorer states in the Union. Pro-choice factions have responded, first of all, with their superior financial resources. Oregon started the Oregon Reproductive Equity Fund with $15m. New York is establishing a fund to make the state a “safe haven”. California governor Gavin Newsom plans to add $57m to the state budget to deal with out-of-state patients.At the same time, pro-choice organizers are turning to technology. The Atlantic recently reported on networks using “encrypted, open-source Zoom alternatives” to provide women with support for their procedures. Already, anonymous web access to self-managed abortions is available, just as it has been for many years in some restrictive jurisdictions.This divide isn’t just American. As the forces of the world split between a liberal-democratic elite and authoritarian populists, the same asymmetry can be seen in the struggle everywhere. In Canada, the convoy that held the city of Ottawa hostage was defeated, in the end, not by force, but by money and technology. Other countries responded to similar convoys with direct assaults – the French teargassed their convoy immediately and the United States called in the national guard before they had even left for Washington. But in Canada, the government, not wanting to have the blood of children on its hands, weakened the convoy’s financial networks by simply turning off their fundraising accounts. A small band of anonymous hackers also tormented the convoy organizers by disrupting their communication lines. They infiltrated their Zello channels, blaring the hardcore gay pornography country anthem Ram Ranch. The “Ram Ranch Resistance” almost single-handedly undid the protests at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor. This same divide has played out on an international level, in the struggle between Russia and Ukraine. Russia, overwhelmed by resentment because it cannot meaningfully compete in an integrated 21st-century economy, has devolved into a conservative authoritarianism with no other outlet than violence. But Ukraine had better access to the global financial and media networks. The reaction, from the forces of the democratic west, has been to cut Russia off from financial systems and to provide Ukraine with superior technology. Technology and financial networks have proven the match, at the very least, of brute force.Incipient civil conflict in the United States won’t be formal armies struggling for territory. The techniques of both sides are clarifying. Republican officials will use the supreme court, or whatever other political institutions they control, to push their agenda no matter how unpopular with the American people. Meanwhile, their calls for violence, while never direct, create a climate of rage that solidifies into regular physical assaults on their enemies. The technical term for this process is stochastic terrorism; the attack in Buffalo is a textbook example.The leftwing resistance is more nascent but is also taking shape: if you’re rich and you want to stay living in a democracy, the time has come to pony up. If you’re an engineer, the time has come to organize. The conclusion is not at all determined. Neither side has an absolute advantage. Neither side can win easily. But one fact is clear. The battle has been joined, and it will be fought everywhere.
Stephen Marche is the author, most recently, of The Next Civil War: Dispatches from the American Future
TopicsUS politicsOpinionThe far rightUS supreme courtRoe v WadeAbortioncommentReuse this content More

Why did they wait? Uvalde anger grows over bungled police response Searing public testimony illustrates extreme reluctance of police chief to let his officers put a stop to the carnageRuben Ruiz, a school district police officer in Uvalde, Texas, was standing in a hallway outside the classroom where his wife taught fourth-graders a couple of days before summer break. His wife, Eva Mireles, had just called his cellphone, begging for help after an intruder had shot her and her students.Ruiz was among 18 officers who had rushed over to his wife’s school, Robb elementary, in response to reports of an active shooter. He was ready to charge in with a few of his fellow law enforcement officers, battle the 18-year-old rifleman who had invaded the campus, and hopefully save his wife and her students.But Ruiz’s fellow officers didn’t back him up when he began advancing toward Mireles’s classroom door. They stopped him, stripped him of his service gun and made him leave the campus.Uvalde shootings: police response an ‘abject failure’, Texas safety chief saysRead more“She had been shot and was dying,” Texas’s public safety chief, Steve McCraw, said of Mireles while speaking earlier this week to a panel of state lawmakers investigating the attack at Robb elementary on 24 May. “And what happened to [Ruiz] is he … was detained and they took his gun away from him and escorted him off the scene.”Ultimately, Mireles, a co-worker and 19 of their students – 10- and 11-year-olds – were murdered by the intruder at Robb elementary. Another 17 people at the campus were wounded before, 77 minutes after the first call to emergency operators reported the intrusion, police stormed Mireles’s classroom and killed the murderer.McCraw’s public testimony to Texas state senators about Ruiz and Mireles was only the latest in a growing mound of evidence illustrating the extreme reluctance the Uvalde school district police force’s chief showed before letting officers put a stop to the carnage at Robb elementary.News about the 21 children and teachers killed at the elementary school in a small town of 16,000 mostly Latino residents near the Mexican border was traumatic enough for a nation where deadly mass shootings occur with alarming regularity.Yet revelations in recent days about the exact number of well-equipped officers who essentially stood in place for more than an hour while an intruder murdered his victims have made the tragedy ever tougher to comprehend.Hopes for accountability that feels somewhat satisfying – let alone like justice – are waning. It took a month before the school district put its police force chief, Pedro “Pete” Arredondo, on administrative leave, keeping him on the payroll but without him really working his position.Residents who had recently elected Arredondo to a city council seat were hoping to subject him to a recall election because it would have required fewer than 50 signatures. Yet laws prevent them from taking such a step until February next year.And legal precedent affords little hope that parents could sue authorities in Texas to collect civil damages for their failure to limit the carnage at Robb elementary despite a prime opportunity to do so, according to experts. It all made for a week that seemed to prove that, even with the unthinkable, it can always get worse.Arredondo’s continued leadership of the Uvalde school district police force seemed to become untenable after a Texas senate committee investigating the massacre at Robb heard McCraw’s testimony and published evidence to support it.A timeline that the committee pieced together in part by officers’ body-worn camera footage and radio transmissions showed that there were 11 officers positioned outside two classrooms under attack within seven minutes of the first 911 call about the intrusion. At least two of the officers had rifles, providing a force that was adequate to mount an assault against the intruder in an attempt to rescue those he was terrorizing, McCraw said.Police who respond first to so-called active shooters have been trained for at least two decades to confront the attackers as immediately as practical rather than wait for reinforcements, a painful lesson learned through countless mass killings across America over the years.But at that point, Arredondo had officers wait while he called the municipal police force for reinforcements.“We don’t have enough firepower right now – it’s all pistol, and he has an AR-15,” Arredondo said, according to a committee transcript of that call.Since then, in one of the few media interviews he has granted, Arredondo told the Texas Tribune website that a factor costing him time was that the door to the classroom where the intruder was had potentially been locked, and he couldn’t immediately find its key.But, within a minute of his call for reinforcements, emergency dispatchers had asked officers by radio whether the door was locked. An officer accompanying Arredondo said he wasn’t sure, but those at the scene had with them a so-called hooligan tool that can pry locked doors open. On Tuesday, McCraw said the door had not in fact been locked.Seven minutes after that exchange, Ruiz – the husband of the teacher in charge of the classroom under attack – told fellow officers that his wife “says she is shot” inside. But, instead of going in, officers removed him from the scene and stayed put, with one suggesting that they needed the incoming backup to help with crowd control outside the building.Cellphone videos from the parking lot around that time showed officers holding back onlookers urging the cops to charge into the school, other parts of which were being evacuated.Soon, a member of the state public safety department who went to the scene began asking whether there were children still in the classroom. Another officer replied, “It is unknown at this time.”The public safety department officer then twice said, “If there’s kids in there, we need to go in there.” The timeline notes a radio transmission reminding officers at the scene that “it is critical” to let the local police take the lead on the situation.That transmission seems to contradict a prior statement in Arredondo’s limited media remarks that he was unsure who was in charge and assumed someone else was.In any event, 50 minutes after the transmission about letting the local police lead, Arredondo told officers to storm the classroom where the intruder was when ready. Officers did and killed the intruder.McCraw dismissed Arredondo’s handling of the response as “abject failure and antithetical to everything we’ve learned” about mass shootings.A little more than a day after McCraw made that statement, the school district’s superintendent placed Arredondo on administrative leave.Police chief who led response to school shooting sworn in to Uvalde councilRead moreNeither Arredondo nor his attorney have responded to repeated requests for comment. Arredondo testified behind closed doors for a separate state house of representatives committee investigating the killings at Robb, but he hasn’t made any public statements about what he told that body.It’s clear that the loved ones of the killed children and teachers want more.Yet the prospects for a resounding civil lawsuit over the police failure to protect the victims seem unlikely. Ominously for the potential plaintiffs, in late 2020, a federal court of appeals left in place a lower court ruling that found police officers were not liable for various failures to protect students during the 2018 shooting that killed 17 at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland, Florida.“It’s very difficult to recover on those,” said Gary Bizal, a Louisiana-based attorney who often represents people accusing police of failing to uphold their duty. “You almost have to prove that you knew something would happen if you didn’t react, didn’t do anything – not that it was a possibility, but it was guaranteed.”So some of those in Uvalde still deep in their grief went to a Tuesday night meeting of the city council, the second in a row which Arredondo had missed.The council was considering a leave of absence for Arredondo, which would protect him from being possibly dismissed from the panel if he missed a third consecutive meeting. But residents spoke out against cutting Arredondo any sort of break, and the council voted the measure down.One of the speakers, Kim Hammond, said there was palpable momentum for a petition to make Arredondo face a recall election for the seat he won on 7 May. Because his election had quite a low turnout, such a petition would only need 45 signatures, or 25% of the total votes cast for the contest.But the law protects him from such a petition for the first eight months in office, and Hammond implored the council to make Arredondo either start attending meetings or risk losing his seat.“Don’t give him an out” with the leave of absence, Hammond said. “We don’t want him – we want him out.”The grandmother of 10-year-old Amerie Jo Garza, one of the students killed at Robb, implored the council to dismiss Arredondo if he missed the necessary number of meetings.“Make it right for everyone in here,” Berlinda Arreola said. “We deserve better. Our children deserve better. And those teachers deserve better. Please! Please! We’re begging – get this man out of our lives.”TopicsUS newsTexas school shootingUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Record number of LGBTQ+ candidates run for US Congress in wake of attacksAt least 101 members stood for elections in 2022 as threats of violence and suspension of rights loom for the community The supreme court’s landmark abortion ruling immediately wiped away abortion rights for millions of Americans, but tucked away in Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion on the case was another threat: to the rights of LGBTQ+ people across the US.In his opinion, written to accompany the Roe v Wade decision, Thomas, part of the controlling cabal of rightwing justices, suggested that the court should “reconsider” the right to same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage, which was legalized nationwide in 2015.Republican-run US states move to immediately ban abortion after court overturns Roe v WadeRead moreBut in the face of fears that the court will now lead a charge against LGBTQ+ rights – and growing far-right violence against LGBTQ+ targets – a record number of LGBTQ+ candidates are running for US Congress in 2022.At least 101 LGBTQ+ people ran for US Congress in 2022, according to LGBTQ Victory Fund, a national organization dedicated to electing openly LGBTQ+ people to all levels of government.Some 57 candidates are still in their races, with advocates hoping greater representation could bring tangible change in Washington, after a year when gay and trans people have been increasingly persecuted by rightwing politicians in the US.Jamie McLeod-Skinner is one of the LGBTQ+ candidates hoping to make a difference in the US House of Representatives. A former mayor, McLeod-Skinner defeated Kurt Schrader, a moderate Democrat who has spent 12 years in the House as congressman, in Oregon’s primary and will face Republican Lori Chavez-DeRemer in the November midterm elections.If she can win, McLeod-Skinner would be the first out LGBTQ+ person ever elected to Congress from Oregon.Becca Balint is seeking to break two barriers in Vermont. If she wins the Democratic primary in August, then defeats her opponent in November, she would be the first woman and the first LGBTQ+ person ever elected to Congress from Vermont – which is the only US state to have never sent a woman to Congress.“When I first was sworn in as state senator [in 2015] I served alongside people who voted against my right to marry my spouse,” Balint told the Valley Reporter this week.“I still had to sit down and do budgeting with them, and pass laws because that’s what my constituents sent me there to do. I didn’t let that get in the way of doing the work. I will honestly work with anyone.”Balint, a former leader of the Vermont senate, supports universal healthcare and says she would push for the passage of the Equality Act, which would place a federal ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity in public spaces and federal programs.Robert Garcia, who is running in California, would also break new ground: as the first openly gay immigrant elected to Congress. Garcia, who was born in Peru, won the Democratic primary in June, and has a strong chance of being elected in November.The wave of LGBTQ+ candidates comes as Republicans have pushed, and passed, bills targeting gay and transgender people.Those who support equal rights for LGBTQ+ people will have their work cut out if Republicans do aim their fire at same-sex marriage.Despite 71% of Americans supporting same-sex marriage, it is clear that plenty of Republicans do not think the same. This week Texas Republicans unveiled their 2022 party platform, which defines homosexuality as an “abnormal lifestyle choice” and says the party would “oppose all efforts to validate transgender identity”.It’s a Republican campaign that has amounted to an alarming rise in anti-trans and anti-gay speech over the past year, with three hate-filled incidents occurring just over the past weekend.In March Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor who is considered a frontrunner for the Republican party’s presidential nomination in 2024, signed a controversial “don’t say gay” bill that prevents teachers from discussing sexual orientation or gender identity in public schools. This month DeSantis moved to ban transition care for transgender youth, and this week suggested he may order Florida’s child protective services to investigate parents who take their children to drag shows.Other politicians and rightwing media figures have spread lies and misinformation about gay and trans people attempting to groom schoolchildren.In this climate, the supreme court’s suggestion that the Obergefell case, which enshrined the right to same-sex marriage, be revisited, has advocates for equal rights on edge.“Forcing people to carry pregnancies against their will is just the beginning,” the ACLU said in a statement on Friday.“The same politicians seeking to control the bodies of women and pregnant people will stop at nothing to challenge our right to use birth control, the right to marry whom you love, and even the right to vote. No right or liberty is secure in the face of a supreme court that would reverse Roe.”By electing more LGBTQ+ candidates, Victory Fund hopes to thwart those efforts.Jasmine Beach-Ferrara, won the Democratic primary for North Carolina’s 11th district earlier this year, and would be the first out LGBTQ+ person elected to any federal position from the state.“I can’t stop thinking about how so many of us have relied on the courts to protect our constitutional rights, and how those rights are under threat,” she said after the supreme court decision on Friday.“We cannot go backwards. Every race on the ballot matters more than ever now.”Heather Mizeur, who faces a Democratic primary in July, would become the first out LGBTQ+ member of Congress from Maryland if she is elected to the House.These candidates, if successful, would join nine openly LGBTQ+ members of the House and two senators, all of whom are Democrats, and could bolster gay and trans rights at a time when they are under severe threat.“The 11 LGBTQ+ members of Congress currently serving punch way above their weight and have delivered meaningful results for our community time and time again, despite being woefully outnumbered,” said Albert Fujii, a spokesperson for the LGBTQ Victory Fund.“But with a supreme court hellbent on choosing politics over precedent, our congressional champions desperately need backup to ensure our fundamental human rights are not rolled back to a time when bigotry was the law of the land.“Gaining equitable representation in Congress would not only increase our political power and increase the odds our rights are finally codified into federal law, it would send a crystal-clear message that anti-LGBTQ vitriol will not prevail.”TopicsRoe v WadeUS supreme courtClarence ThomasLGBT rightsUS politicsDemocratsRepublicansfeaturesReuse this content More

The Observer view on Donald Trump’s influence on Roe v Wade rulingObserver editorialThe US abortion ban is the ex-president’s legacy and he must face prosecution for abuse of power The baleful influence of Donald Trump continues to be felt in American life despite his decisive election defeat in 2020 and subsequent disgraceful behaviour. The supreme court’s regressive, dangerous and insulting decision to abolish a woman’s constitutional right to abortion was made possible by Trump’s appointment of three highly conservative justices who all voted for the change.This disaster is not all Trump’s doing. A noisy anti-abortion lobby of rightwing Republicans and evangelical Christians has fought for decades to scrap the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling giving women the right to choose. But they represent, at most, one-third of Americans. Trump adopted their minority view for the same reason he champions the gun lobby – for electoral advantage.Although the court’s decision was anticipated, it is still a tremendous shock – as ensuing nationwide protests suggest. The speed with which some Republican-controlled states are moving to outlaw or restrict abortion is also dismaying. The fear is that the other hard-won privacy rights and freedoms, such as the right to contraception and same-sex marriage, may be threatened.Seeking to limit divisions, the chief justice, John Roberts, had hoped to limit Roe v Wade rather than abolish it outright. The Trump justices’ willingness to take the most extreme option will further undermine public confidence in the court, damaged like other US institutions by the political partisanship of the “culture wars” era.President Joe Biden described the ruling as a “sad day”, while outraged Democrats say they will try to enshrine abortion rights in federal law. To do so, they need to win big in November’s congressional midterm elections. Abortion rights are thus certain to be a central issue in the autumn campaign and the 2024 presidential election.Trump will relish that. As is his wont, he claimed personal credit for the court’s decision, saying it was his “great honour” to have made it possible. Yet it has long been evident he lacks strong religious or moral convictions about abortion or anything else. As always, his motives are self-serving. Even erstwhile diehard supporters tire of such cynicism. There is evidence that Trump fatigue is setting in.Proof of that contention has been on display in recent days on Capitol Hill, where an investigation into the 6 January 2021 insurrection is providing jaw-dropping testimony about Trump’s undeniable criminal culpability. From the moment he realised Biden was winning on election night in November 2020, Trump began a concerted, deliberate and illegal effort to reverse the result.Abusing the power of his office, Trump intimidated officials in Georgia and other swing states in a move to fiddle the vote, knowingly disseminated false claims of fraud and conspiracy theories, and dangled promises of presidential pardons for those who supported his coup attempt. “Just say the election is corrupt and leave the rest to me,” senior justice department officials said Trump told them.When none of that worked, he openly incited white supremacist groups such as the Proud Boys to attack Congress to prevent certification of Biden’s victory. When they threatened to hang his vice-president, Mike Pence, for refusing to invalidate the election outcome, he applauded. “Maybe our supporters have the right idea,” he reportedly told aides. Pence “deserves it”.Like the abortion debate, this is not over. Clinging to his “big lie”, Trump claims everything else is a hoax. As ever, he subverts American democracy. But he has been weakened and now is not the time to let him off the hook. Trump plainly broke numerous laws. Most Americans agree: he must face criminal prosecution.Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 250 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at [email protected] v WadeOpinionAbortionDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackWomenUS politicseditorialsReuse this content More

Illinois Republican tells Trump rally that Roe verdict a ‘victory for white life’ Mary Miller’s remarks are greeted with cheers by crowd, though spokesman claims she meant to say ‘right to life’ Illinois Republican Mary Miller told a crowd at a rally held alongside former president Donald Trump that the supreme court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade was a “victory for white life”.“President Trump, on behalf of all the Maga patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the supreme court yesterday,” she said, drawing cheers from the crowd in Illinois.Miller is running for reelection in the state’s newly redrawn 15th congressional district against GOP Republican Rodney Davis with the former president’s blessing. She had been invited on stage to speak by Trump, who held the rally in Mendon, Illinois, to turn out the vote ahead of the state’s primary on Tuesday.Roe v Wade: senators say Trump supreme court nominees misled themRead moreMiller’s spokesperson said the Illinois Republican had intended to say the decision was a victory for a “right to life”. The line as delivered was out of step with the disproportionate impact the repeal of abortion rights will have on women of color.Miller spokesperson Isaiah Wartman told the Associated Press that it was “a mix-up of words”.“You can clearly see in the video … she’s looking at her papers and looking at her speech,” Wartman said.Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) thanks former President Donald Trump for the “historic victory for white life,” referencing Friday’s Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson. pic.twitter.com/vu4tOx71V2— Heartland Signal (@HeartlandSignal) June 26, 2022
Her campaign noted that she is the grandmother of several non-white grandchildren, including one with Down syndrome.The freshman congresswoman, who was among those who voted to overturn the results of the 2020 election, has previously come under criticism for quoting Adolf Hitler.“Hitler was right on one thing. He said, ‘Whoever has the youth has the future,’” Miller said in a speech last year, according to video posted by WCIA-TV. She later apologized after Democrats in Illinois called for her resignation.Saturday’s rally came as some elements of the far right have pushed the “great replacement theory”, a racist ideology that alleges white people and their influence are being “replaced” by people of color. Proponents blame both immigration as well as demographic changes, such as birthrates.During the rally, Trump claimed credit for his role in the supreme court’s ruling on Friday ending the constitutional right to abortion. He noted that in 2016, he promised to appoint judges who opposed abortion rights. The three conservative justices he appointed all voted in favor over overturning Roe v Wade.“Yesterday the court handed down a victory for the constitution, a victory for the rule of law, and above all, a victory for life,” he told the crowd, which broke into a chant of “Thank you Trump”.After Friday’s ruling, several senators who recently approved justices responsible for this decision said they felt deceived. These politicians pointed to prior statements from Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch; both male judges had claimed they would not overturn Roe v Wade.TopicsRoe v WadeDonald TrumpRepublicansUS politicsAbortionnewsReuse this content More

US women’s national team forward Megan Rapinoe described the supreme court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade as “sad and cruel”. The Supreme Court has ruled there is no constitutional right to abortion in the United States, upending the landmark Roe v Wade case from nearly 50 years ago. 
‘It will completely exacerbate so many of the existing inequalities that we have in our country. It doesn’t keep not one single person safer,’ she said

US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe v Wade
‘It’s important to fight’: US cities erupt in protest as Roe v Wade falls
The supreme court just overturned Roe v Wade – what happens next? More

How the Christian right took over the judiciary and changed America Leaders of the movement understood very well that if you can capture the courts, you can change societyThe supreme court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which reverses the constitutional abortion rights that American women have enjoyed over the past 50 years, has come as a surprise to many voters. A majority, after all, support reproductive rights and regard their abolition as regressive and barbaric.Understood in the context of the movement that created the supreme court in its current incarnation, however, there is nothing surprising about it. In fact, it marks the beginning rather than the endpoint of the agenda this movement has in mind.At the core of the Dobbs decision lies the conviction that the power of government can and should be used to impose a certain moral and religious vision – a supposedly biblical and regressive understanding of the Christian religion – on the population at large.How did this conviction come to have such influence in the courts, given America’s longstanding principle of church-state separation? To understand why this is happening now, it’s important to know something about the Christian nationalist movement’s history, how its leaders chose the issue of abortion as a means of creating single-issue voters, and how they united conservatives across denominational barriers by, in effect, inventing a new form of intensely political religion.Christian nationalists often claim their movement got its start as a grassroots reaction to Roe v Wade in 1973. But the movement actually gelled several years later with a crucial assist from a group calling itself the “New Right”.Paul Weyrich, Howard Phillips, Phyllis Schlafly and other leaders of this movement were dissatisfied with the direction of the Republican party and the culture at large. “We are radicals who want to change the existing power structure. We are not conservatives in the sense that conservative means accepting the status quo,” Paul Weyrich said. “We want change – we are the forces of change.”They were angry at liberals, who they believed threatened to undermine national security with their softness on communism. They were angry at establishment conservatives – the “Rockefeller Republicans” – for siding with the liberals; they were angry about the rising tide of feminism, which they saw as a menace to the social order, and about the civil rights movement and the danger it posed to segregation. One thing that they were not particularly angry about, at least initially, was the matter of abortion rights.New Right leaders formed common cause with a handful of conservative Catholics, including George Weigel and Richard John Neuhaus, who shared their concerns, and drew in powerful conservative preachers such as Jerry Falwell and Bob Jones Sr. They were determined to ignite a hyper-conservative counter-revolution. All they needed now was an issue that could be used to unify its disparate elements and draw in the rank and file.Among their core concerns was the fear that the supreme court might end tax exemptions for segregated Christian schools. Jerry Falwell and many of his fellow southern, white, conservative pastors were closely involved with segregated schools and universities – Jones went so far as to call segregation “God’s established order” and referred to desegregationists as “Satanic propagandists” who were “leading colored Christians astray”. As far as these pastors were concerned, they had the right not just to separate people on the basis of race but to also receive federal money for the purpose.They knew, however, that “Stop the tax on segregation!” wasn’t going to be an effective rallying cry for their new movement. As the historian and author Randall Balmer wrote, “It wasn’t until 1979 – a full six years after Roe – that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools.”In many respects abortion was an unlikely choice, because when the Roe v Wade decision was issued, most Protestant Republicans supported it. The Southern Baptist Convention passed resolutions in 1971 and 1974 expressing support for the liberalization of abortion law, and an editorial in their wire service hailed the passage of Roe v Wade, declaring that “religious liberty, human equality and justice are advanced by the Supreme Court abortion decision.” As governor of California, Ronald Reagan passed the most liberal abortion law in the country in 1967. Conservative icon Barry Goldwater supported abortion law liberalization too, at least early in his career, and his wife Peggy was a cofounder of Planned Parenthood in Arizona.Yet abortion turned out to be the critical unifying issue for two fundamentally political reasons. First, it brought together conservative Catholics who supplied much of the intellectual leadership of the movement with conservative Protestants and evangelicals. Second, by tying abortion to the perceived social ills of the age – the sexual revolution, the civil rights movement, and women’s liberation – the issue became a focal point for the anxieties about social change welling up from the base.Over time, pro-choice voices were purged from the Republican party. In her 2016 book, How the Republican Party Became Pro-Life, Phyllis Schlafly details the considerable effort it took, over several decades, to force the Republican party to change its views on the issue. What her book and the history shows is that the “pro-life religion” that we see today, which cuts across denominational boundaries on the political right, is a modern creation.In recent decades, the religious right has invested many hundreds of millions of dollars developing a complex and coordinated infrastructure, whose features include rightwing policy groups, networking organizations, data initiatives and media. A critical component of this infrastructure is its sophisticated legal sphere.Movement leaders understood very well that if you can capture the courts, you can change society. Leading organizations include the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is involved in many of the recent cases intended to degrade the principle of church-state separation; First Liberty; Becket, formerly known as the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; and the Federalist Society, a networking and support organization for rightwing jurists and their allies whose leader, Leonard Leo, has directed hundreds of millions of dollars to a network of affiliated organizations. This infrastructure has created a pipeline to funnel ideologues to important judicial positions at the national and federal level. Nearly 90% of Trump’s appellate court nominees were or are Federalist Society members, according to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, and all six conservative justices on the supreme court are current or former members.The rightwing legal movement has spent several decades establishing a new regime in which “religious liberty” is reframed as an exemption from the law, one enjoyed by a certain preferred category of religion. LGBT advocacy groups are concerned that the supreme court’s willingness, in the next session, to hear the case of a Colorado website designer who wishes to refuse services to same-sex couples is a critical step to overturning a broad range of anti-discrimination laws that protect LGBT Americans along with women, members of religious minority groups and others.The legal powerhouses of the Christian right have also recognized that their efforts can be turned into a gravy train of public money. That is one of the reasons a recent supreme court decision, which ruled Maine must fund religious schools as part of a state tuition program, was predicted by observers of this movement. This decision forces the state to fund religious schools no matter how discriminatory their practices and sectarian their teachings. “This court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.This supreme court has already made clear how swiftly our Christian nationalist judiciary will change the law to suit this vision of a society ruled by a reactionary elite, a society with a preferred religion and a prescribed code of sexual behavior, all backed by the coercive power of the state. The idea that they will stop with overturning Roe v Wade is a delusion.TopicsAbortionRoe v WadeUS supreme courtLaw (US)US politicsReligionChristianityfeaturesReuse this content More

Democrats hope to tap anger over Roe in November midterms – will it work?Analysts say more voters should turn out in the wake of the supreme court ruling – but that could help Republicans too “This fall, Roe is on the ballot,” Joe Biden told American voters in the wake of the US supreme court’s decision to scrap abortion rights.The US president was merely echoing a chorus of Democrats urging voters to elect pro abortion-rights lawmakers in November’s midterm elections in a bid to wrest greater control of Congress and perhaps allow abortion rights to be enshrined in legislation.Contraception, gay marriage: Clarence Thomas signals new targets for supreme courtRead moreBut it is also a tactic to try and inject Democratic voters with a sense of urgency and activism as the midterms approach, as currently the political establishment expect Biden and the Democrats to face a defeat at the hands of a resurgent Republican party.Until Roe fell – triggering a slew of Republican-led states to immediately move to ban abortion – Biden and his party have appeared moribund, and down in many polls. Buffeted by immense trouble passing a domestic agenda and hit by soaring inflation, Biden’s popularity has plummeted.But will the fall of Roe help Democrats reverse course on what looks like their current path to defeat? Or could the decision also help motivate the Republican base as the supreme court’s decision revealed the benefits to them of using power?Hank Sheinkopf, a veteran Democrat strategist, said it was too soon to know how far the court’s momentous decision to return the abortion issue to individual US states would go toward shaping voter’s priorities in November.“In states that Democrats do well generally, this will motivate turnout. In states where they do not do well, it will also motivate turnout – but not for the Democrats,” he says. “The issue is purple states, like Michigan, Georgia and Nevada, where you have equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans.”Four months out from November, voters are signaling that their priorities are rising crime, and inflation that has seen basic living costs shoot up for money, especially when it comes to gas prices.“If the question is will abortion help swing the election, the answer is probably not, though it could help in states where there’s a reasonable balance between Democrats and Republicans,” Sheinkopf says.“The presumption is that more women will turn out – but that depends on what’s going in those states at the time. People will make their decisions based on what’s most personal to them,” he adds. “Six or seven dollars a gallon of gasoline, a sense that things are out of control as the Democrats run the country, an increase in homicides nationally, may be better motivators for a majority of voters than Roe v Wade.”Sonia Ossorio, the president of Now [National Organization for Women] New York, said: “I don’t see how this cannot energize voters. Women are fed up. Formula shortages, childcare shortages, gas prices, losing their jobs in unprecedented numbers during the pandemic, and now having our reproductive freedom gutted by the supreme court.“The response we’re getting is unprecedented in my two decades in the women’s rights movement.”The court’s decision establishes political battlegrounds for abortion across the 50 states. Already, many with conservative-leaning legislatures are banning or poised to ban many or most abortions. Nearly 400 abortion-related laws have been passed across US states since 2009, with 85% designed to restrict, regulate or oppose access, according to a Bloomberg News analysis.Kelsy Kretschmer, professor of sociology at the University of California, Irvine, and co-author of a study examining women’s voting patterns, says it’s not clear that the decision will be help Democrats in a measurable way.“A significant proportion of white women are conservative and form the backbone of the pro-life movement and this is the thing they often care the most about. For Democrats, if you lose half of white women, you don’t have a winning majority of women,” she said.There are splits, too, over abortion rights even within Democrat-aligned voters, where conservative Democrats may oppose federal funding for abortion.At the same time, Kretschmer says, abortion rights have always been part of the Democratic platform. “It’s a core tenet of the Democratic party and most understand that outlawing abortion completely is a non-starter.”But predicting how Friday’s ruling will affect November’s vote is outside the scope of prior experience. When Roe v Wade was decided in 1971, abortion did not play the public role in plays now.“The research is quite clear that people don’t make voting decisions about abortion rights. People tend to have strong opinions one way or the other, but it doesn’t tend to affect their vote choice,” Kretschmer says.But she points out that this was prior to this moment in which Roe vs Wade may only be among the first of the women’s rights dominos to fall or could open the way to repealing rights around contraception and marriage equality. “The hope is among Democrats and the feminist movement in general, this time will be different and enough to shake people out of complacency about it,” she said.She added: “We’ve never really had a moment like this, where something so woven into basic political and civic life was ripped out all at once. That moment for abortion is now and we’ve just never seen it before. So the hope is just that – that this is a watershed moment.”Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the House, certainly sees it that way. Voting for Democrats in November, she said, is the only way to try and reverse the fall of Roe – or prevent even worse things happening.“Be aware of this: The Republicans are plotting a nationwide abortion ban. They cannot be allowed to have a majority in the Congress to do that,” Pelosi said. “A woman’s right to choose, reproductive freedom, is on the ballot in November.”TopicsUS newsUS politicsDemocratsUS midterm elections 2022newsReuse this content More