Abortion

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US shaken to its core by supreme court draft that would overturn Roe v Wade

      by

      US shaken to its core by supreme court draft that would overturn Roe v Wade Biden condemns abortion opinion that, if handed down, would mean ‘fundamental shift’ in law and imperil many other rights
      US politics – live coverageJoe Biden has warned that a leaked draft supreme court ruling overturning Roe v Wade, the 1973 case which guaranteed the right to abortion, would represent a huge change in America law and could imperil a wide range of other civil rights.As the US supreme court moves to end abortion, is America still a free country? | Moira DoneganRead moreIn a historic moment that shook the US to the core and highlighted jagged social and political divisions, the court confirmed the draft was authentic but said it did not “represent a decision by the court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case”.Biden said the ruling, if handed down, would represent a “fundamental shift in American jurisprudence” and could imperil rights including same-sex marriage and access to contraception.Politico published the draft by justice Samuel Alito on Monday night. The website said the draft was supported by four other rightwingers on a panel conservatives control 6-3.On Tuesday the chief justice, John Roberts, called its leak a “betrayal of the confidences of the court” which could “undermine the integrity of our operations” and promised an investigation.Speaking to reporters, Biden said the draft ruling had ramifications for “all the decisions you make in your private life, who you marry, whether or not you decide to conceive a child, whether or not you can have an abortion and a range of other decisions [including] how you raise your child”.02:52The draft ruling would allow states to declare abortion illegal.Biden asked: “Does this mean that in Florida they can decide to pass a law saying that same-sex marriage is not permissible, [that] it’s against the law in Florida? It’s a fundamental shift in American jurisprudence.”Protesters gathered outside the court and planned demonstrations around the country – both in support of and against abortion rights.At the court, some chanted “Abortion is healthcare” and carried signs reading “Justices get out of my vagina”, “Legal abortion once and for all” and “We won’t go back”. A smaller group chanted “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Roe v Wade has got to go”. Amid tense exchanges, barriers were erected.In a statement, Biden outlined how Democrats might fight back.First, the president said, his administration would argue Roe was based on precedent and “‘the 14th amendment’s concept of personal liberty’… against government interference with intensely personal decisions”.“I believe that a woman’s right to choose is fundamental,” Biden said. “Roe has been the law of the land for almost 50 years, and basic fairness and the stability of our law demand that it not be overturned.”Biden said he had directed advisers to prepare responses “to the continued attack on abortion and reproductive rights, under a variety of possible outcomes”.“We will be ready when any ruling is issued,” he said.Politico said it received a copy of the draft, which also dealt with Planned Parenthood v Casey, a 1992 case, from a person familiar with proceedings in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a Mississippi case due to be decided this summer.The draft ran to 98 pages including a 31-page appendix of state abortion laws and included 118 footnotes.0Alito wrote: “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”He added: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. It is time to heed the constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”As many as 26 states are expected to enact partial or total abortion bans if Roe falls. Some Republican-run states are expected to attempt to make traveling for an abortion illegal. Democratic-run states have indicated moves to protect and help women who seek an abortion.Polling shows clear majority support for abortion access. Christian and conservative groups campaign to end it regardless.If the court overturns Roe, Biden said, “it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose. And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November.”Biden promised to sign legislation codifying Roe into law. On Tuesday, the Democratic Senate leader, Chuck Schumer, said: “This is as urgent and real as it gets. We will vote to protect a woman’s right to choose and every American is going to see which side every senator stands.”But legislative success would require reform to the filibuster, a Senate rule which requires 60 votes for most legislation. Moderate Democrats have blocked such moves on issues including voting rights. Biden himself has expressed opposition.Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia, told the Guardian: “This might not be the final ruling. The justices usually confer after arguments and suggest how they would resolve a case and then the senior justices in the majority and minority work on drafts and circulate them to all members of the court.”He said: “In some cases, especially high-profile and controversial ones … justices do change their positions, as Chief Justice Roberts allegedly did” in a 2012 case in which the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, was upheld.Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor, pointed to possible wider implications.“If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the opinion of the court,” Tribe wrote, “it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: it will enable a [Republican] Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.”Other rights that may be at risk if Roe falls include the right to same-sex marriage, determined in Obergefell v Hodges in 2015.Charles Kaiser, a historian of gay life in the US and a Guardian contributor, said Alito’s opinion “blithely disregards past precedents”.“One passage in particular sets off alarm bells for activists who think its reasoning could jeopardize the court’s decisions legalising sodomy and the right of members of the same sex to marry.”In a sharply divided Washington, the supreme court is subject to fierce partisan warfare – particularly since Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, ripped up precedent to deny Barack Obama a third pick in 2016.Republicans confirmed three justices under Donald Trump, including Amy Coney Barrett, a hardline Catholic conservative, just weeks before the 2020 election – a move which ignored McConnell’s own posturing four years before.Biden has overseen the confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black female justice, but she has not yet replaced the retiring Stephen Breyer, another liberal, in a move that will not change the ideological imbalance.In the aftermath of the Politico story, Democrats pointed to the wider threat posed by the court.Adam Schiff, a California congressman and chair of the House intelligence committee, told the Guardian: “In abandoning decades of precedent, the draft opinion exposes the supreme court as no longer conservative, but now merely a partisan institution bent on imposing its anti-choice views on the rest of the country.“This decision, if made final, will be devastating for the healthcare of millions of women, even as it is destroys any semblance of devotion by the court to the law.”Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the New York progressive, said: “[The court] isn’t just coming for abortion – they’re coming for the right to privacy Roe rests on, which includes gay marriage and civil rights.”Abortion to become key fight in US midterms after stunning court leakRead moreRepublicans welcomed the draft ruling and condemned the leak – which the top legal reporter Nina Totenberg called a “bomb at the court”.Josh Hawley, a hardline Missouri senator, called Alito’s draft “tightly argued, and morally powerful” and said of the leak: “The justices mustn’t give in to this attempt to corrupt the process. Stay strong.”Among Republican moderates, Susan Collins of Maine – who under Trump supported the appointments of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh but voted against Barrett – pointed to a possible betrayal.“If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision,” she said, “it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.”Among women’s rights campaigners, condemnation of the Alito draft was strong.Laphonza Butler, president of the advocacy group Emily’s List, said: “It’s past time to vote out every official who stands against the pro-choice majority.”TopicsUS newsAbortionUS supreme courtLaw (US)GenderUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Abortion to become key fight in US midterms after stunning court leak

      by

      Abortion to become key fight in US midterms after stunning court leakDemocrats condemn supreme court’s draft opinion and urge voters to support them in November to protect reproductive rights The stunning revelation that the US supreme court has privately voted to overturn Roe v Wade immediately thrust one of the most polarizing issues in American life to the forefront of the national political debate, and now abortion rights promises to reshape the dynamics of the coming midterm elections.Biden responds to supreme court abortion leak: ‘Government must protect women’s right to choose’ – liveRead moreThe draft opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito and obtained by Politico in a highly unusual and possibly unprecedented leak from the nation’s highest court, would strike down Roe, the landmark supreme court decision that has guaranteed access to abortion for nearly half a century, and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v Casey – that largely upheld that right.“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito wrote in the draft opinion labeled “first draft”, which was not expected to be finalized for at least several more weeks and could change in its final form. The question of whether abortion should be legal, Alito argues, is best answered by individual states.In a statement on Tuesday, the supreme court confirmed the authenticity of the draft report but cautioned that it “does not represent a decision by the court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case”.Nevertheless, as the revelation reverberated across Washington, protesters gathered in front of the supreme court on Tuesday morning, shouting loudly enough to be heard by the members of Congress arriving for work at the Capitol. From the White House, Joe Biden urged voters to elect political leaders who would act to protect abortion access and reproductive rights, irrespective of the supreme court’s final decision.“If the court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose,” Biden said in a statement. “And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November. At the federal level, we will need more pro-choice senators and a pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe, which I will work to pass and sign into law.”Strategists were preparing for a decision that either weakened or reversed Roe, but the leak upended the expected timetable and, potentially, the legislative agenda.The Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, said he would bring legislation to the floor that would codify abortion access in federal law. But the measure is unlikely to garner the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate. A similar measure passed by the Democratic-controlled House last year does not even have the support of all 50 Democratic senators.“A vote on this legislation is not an abstract exercise. This is as urgent and real as it gets,” Schumer said on the Senate floor on Tuesday. “We will vote to protect a woman’s right to choose and every American is going to see which side every senator stands.”In anticipation of such a ruling by the supreme court, Republican-led states have proposed, and in many cases already passed, a cascade of restrictive anti-abortion laws. Conservative activists are pushing a nationwide ban on abortion if Republicans recapture control of Congress in November, as they are favored to do.In a flurry of statements and fundraising emails, Democrats argued that the erosion of reproductive rights was a reason to support them in the November midterms.“Republicans just gutted Roe v Wade, the Constitution’s guarantee of reproductive freedom, and will ban abortion in all 50 states, if they take over Congress,” the New York congressman Sean Patrick Maloney, the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, wrote on Twitter. “Only Democrats will protect our freedoms. That is now the central choice in the 2022 election.”Democratic lawmakers and candidates condemned the expected decision, and vowed to protect access to abortion.“As a pro-choice pastor, I’ve always believed that a patient’s room is way too small for a woman, her doctor, and the United States government,” wrote the Georgia senator Raphael Warnock, one of the most vulnerable Democrats up for re-election this cycle. “I’ll always fight to protect a woman’s right to choose. And that will never change.”The Minnesota senator Tina Smith put it more bluntly: “This is bullshit.”Polls have consistently found that most Americans want Roe to remain the law of the land, and the vast majority want abortion to remain legal in at least some cases.A decision overturning Roe would be the culmination of a 50-year project by anti-abortion activists to remake the federal courts by using their political clout to pressure Republicans to appoint and confirm reliably conservative majorities.In 2016, Donald Trump sealed his support among conservative voters by vowing to nominate supreme court justices who opposed abortion. His presidency yielded three conservative justices, all of whom are reportedly in the majority voting to strike down Roe. They also refused to block a novel Texas law that has effectively outlawed abortion in the nation’s second-largest state.But instead of celebrating the draft ruling, Republican lawmakers on Tuesday were almost singularly focused on the leak, expressing outrage over the disclosure that was likely to further undermine faith in the judiciary as an independent branch of government.“Last night’s stunning breach was an attack on the independence of the supreme court,” the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, wrote in a statement. “By every indication, this was yet another escalation in the radical left’s ongoing campaign to bully and intimidate federal judges and substitute mob rule for the rule of law.”Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement that he had ordered the marshal of the court to open an investigation into the source of the leak. “This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the court and the community of public servants who work here,” he said.While the nation awaits a final opinion, pro-choice activists are urging supporters to keep making their voices heard.“Let’s be clear: this is a draft opinion. It’s outrageous, it’s unprecedented, but it is not final,” Planned Parenthood wrote on Twitter. “Abortion is your right – and it is STILL LEGAL.”TopicsUS midterm elections 2022US politicsAbortionGendernewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘An abomination’: Pelosi leads outcry on supreme court draft abortion ruling

      by

      ‘An abomination’: Pelosi leads outcry on supreme court draft abortion rulingSpeaker warns scrapping Roe v Wade would be ‘greatest restriction of rights in the past 50 years’ as AOC calls for Senate reform

      US politics – live coverage
      Supporters of abortion rights reacted with outrage to the leak on Monday night of a supreme court decision overturning Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling which has safeguarded the right till now.According to Politico, the draft ruling, written by Samuel Alito, is supported by Clarence Thomas and the three conservative justices appointed by Donald Trump: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.It would also overturn Planned Parenthood v Casey, a 1992 decision which upheld Roe.Supreme court voted to overturn Roe v Wade abortion law, leaked draft opinion reportedly showsRead moreNancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the House, said: “If the report is accurate, the supreme court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past 50 years – not just on women but on all Americans.“The Republican-appointed justices’ reported votes to overturn Roe v Wade would go down as an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history,” Pelosi said.“Several of these conservative justices, who are in no way accountable to the American people, have lied to the US Senate, ripped up the constitution and defiled both precedent and the supreme court’s reputation.”Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts senator and former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, said an “extremist supreme court” was poised to “impose its far-right, unpopular views on the entire country.“It’s time for the millions who support the constitution and abortion rights to stand up and make their voices heard,” she said. “We’re not going back – not ever.”If confirmed, the ruling would make abortion rights a state matter. As many as 26 Republican-run states are poised to end or restrict access.Congress could codify Roe into law but it would require scrapping the filibuster, the Senate rule that requires a 60-vote majority for most legislation. That seems unlikely, given the 50-50 split in the chamber and opposition from moderate Democrats such as Joe Manchin of West Virginia.Republican senators including Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who have expressed concern over abortion rights, were slower to react to the Politico report than their Democratic counterparts. Their support would be needed for filibuster reform.Among progressives, outrage was fierce.Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the New York congresswoman, tied her outrage to calls for Senate reform and to impeach Thomas, the senior conservative on the court, over the political activities of his wife around the January 6 insurrection.Tell us: have you had to travel to another US state for an abortion? Read moreOcasio-Cortez also warned of possible court moves on other hitherto protected rights.“[The court] isn’t just coming for abortion – they’re coming for the right to privacy Roe rests on, which includes gay marriage and civil rights.“Manchin is blocking Congress codifying Roe. House has seemingly forgotten about Clarence Thomas. These two points must change.”Ocasio-Cortez also took aim at Joe Biden, calling for the use of executive actions.“People elected Democrats precisely so we could lead in perilous moments like these – to codify Roe, hold corruption accountable and have a president who uses his legal authority to break through congressional gridlock on items from student debt to climate. It’s high time we do it.“If we don’t, what message does that send? We can’t sit around, finger-point and hand-wring as people’s futures and equality are on the line. It’s time to be decisive, lead with confidence, fight for a prosperous future for all and protect the vulnerable. Leave it all on the field.”Campaigners were equally vocal.The National Women’s Law Center called the “language in the draft opinion … outrageous, irresponsible and shocking”. Alexis McGill Johnson, president of the women’s health provider Planned Parenthood, called the draft ruling “horrifying and unprecedented”.Laphonza Butler, president of the advocacy group Emily’s List, pointed to the effect the draft ruling could have on Democratic campaigning and turnout in the November midterm elections.Supreme court abortion law leak: what happened and why does it matter?Read more“For years, anti-choice politicians have worked overtime to strip away our fundamental rights and give government control of critical healthcare decisions. They are working to ban abortion, full stop. This was the plan all along.“It’s past time to vote out every official who stands against the pro-choice majority.“We will fight harder than ever to make them pay, by electing more Democratic pro-choice women at all levels of government who will protect our rights and ensure that our abortion rights do not depend on our zip code or our financial situation. And we will work to vote every one of them out.”Cecile Richards, formerly president of Planned Parenthood, pointed to polling which shows clear support for abortion rights.“This is not what the American people want,” she said. “This is Republican politicians putting government in charge of your pregnancy. Full stop.”TopicsAbortionUS supreme courtUS politicsNancy PelosiAlexandria Ocasio-CortezDemocratsLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘An abomination’: how campaigners reacted to report on US supreme court’s draft decision on Roe v Wade

      by

      ‘An abomination’: how campaigners reacted to report on US supreme court’s draft decision on Roe v WadeLeaked initial draft majority opinion suggests court is poised to overturn ruling that legalised abortion across US0A leaked initial draft majority opinion suggests the US supreme court is poised to overturn the Roe v Wade decision that legalised abortion nationwide, Politico has reported.The unprecedented leak stunned Washington. It holds the potential to reshape the political landscape ahead of US midterm elections in November. Here is some reaction to the report.Alexis McGill Johnson, Planned Parenthood president “This leaked opinion is horrifying and unprecedented, and it confirms our worst fears … While we have seen the writing on the wall for decades, it is no less devastating, and comes just as anti-abortion rights groups unveil their ultimate plan to ban abortion nationwide… [W]e will continue to fight like hell to protect the right to access safe, legal abortion.”National Women’s Law Center“The language in the draft opinion leaked from the supreme court is outrageous, irresponsible and shocking. Any justice who signs on to this opinion is fuelling the harm and violence that will happen to people who become pregnant in this country.”American Civil Liberties Union“If the supreme court does indeed issue a majority opinion along the lines of the leaked draft authored by Justice Alito, the shift in the tectonic plates of abortion rights will be as significant as any opinion the court has ever issued.”Hillary Clinton, former US secretary of state “This decision is a direct assault on the dignity, rights, and lives of women, not to mention decades of settled law. It will kill and subjugate women even as a vast majority of Americans think abortion should be legal. What an utter disgrace.”Elizabeth Warren, Democratic senator“An extremist supreme court is poised to overturn #RoeVWade and impose its far-right, unpopular views on the entire country. It’s time for the millions who support the constitution and abortion rights to stand up and make their voices heard. We’re not going back, not ever.”Chuck Schumer, Senate majority leader, and Nancy Pelosi, House speaker “If the report is accurate, the supreme court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past 50 years – not just on women but on all Americans. The Republican-appointed justices’ reported votes to overturn Roe v Wade would go down as an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.”Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democratic representative “As we’ve warned, Scotus [supreme court of the United States] isn’t just coming for abortion – they’re coming for the right to privacy Roe rests on, which includes gay marriage and civil rights. [Joe] Manchin is blocking Congress codifying Roe. House has seemingly forgotten about Clarence Thomas. These two points must change.”Amy Klobuchar, Democratic senator “If nothing can get done in Washington because of Republican obstructionism, then the American people and women are going to have to vote and people who believe in choice are going to have to vote like they never voted before, because that’s the only way we can change this.”Kathy Hochul, Democratic New York governor “This is an absolutely disgraceful attack on our fundamental right to choose, and we will fight it with everything we’ve got. Let me be loud and clear: New York will always guarantee your right to abortion. You have our word.”Bernie Sanders, independent US senator “Congress must pass legislation that codifies Roe v Wade as the law of the land in this country now. And if there aren’t 60 votes in the Senate to do it, and there are not, we must end the filibuster to pass it with 50 votes.”Ken Paxton, Republican Texas attorney general “I hope that Scotus returns the question of abortion where it belongs: the states. This is why I led a 24-state coalition in support of MS’s law banning them after 15 wks. I’ll [continue] to ensure that TX protects the unborn and pray for the end of abortion across our nation.”Tom Cotton, Republican senator “The supreme court and the DoJ must get to the bottom of this leak immediately using every investigative tool necessary. In the meantime, Roe was egregiously wrong from the beginning and I pray the court follows the constitution and allows the states to once again protect unborn life.”Josh Hawley, Republican senator “The left continues its assault on the supreme court with an unprecedented breach of confidentiality, clearly meant to intimidate. The justices mustn’t give in to this attempt to corrupt the process. Stay strong. I will say, if this is the court’s opinion, it’s a heck of an opinion. Voluminously researched, tightly argued, and morally powerful.”Rick Scott, Republican senator “The supreme court’s confidential deliberation process is sacred and protects it from political interference. This breach shows that radical Democrats are working even harder to intimidate and undermine the court. It was always their plan. The justices cannot be swayed by this attack.“TopicsRoe v WadeWomenAbortionHealthUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Tuesday briefing: Bombshell leak that could indicate the end of Roe v Wade

      by

      Tuesday briefing: Bombshell leak that could indicate the end of Roe v WadeIn today’s newsletter: seismic news from the US which could mean 50 years of the right to an abortion are at an end

      Sign up here for our new daily newsletter, First Edition
      Good morning. A truly seismic story has broken in the US overnight: the leak of a draft majority opinion which appears to show that the supreme court has privately voted to overturn half a century of protection for abortion rights.The leak, to the Politico website, was immediately the subject of intense textual and legal analysis by US journalists and experts trying to corroborate its authenticity. It would be the worst security breach in the court’s history.Sign up to First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every weekday morning at 7am.But while caution is obviously the right approach on such a momentous story, there was every sign – from the document’s formatting and footnotes to the distinctive tone of conservative author Justice Samuel Alito – that it is legitimate. There was no comment from the supreme court itself.The court could still vote the other way. But if the end of Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling which enshrined the constitutional right to an abortion, does happen, it would be news of generational significance for American women and a huge blow for supporters of reproductive rights around the world.With protesters immediately descending on the supreme court building to voice their fury over the news, today’s newsletter explains what’s at stake, and what happens next. That’s right after the headlines.Five big stories
      Asylum | Priti Patel may face a class action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of Ukrainians stuck in a “chaotic” visa backlog as they seek to come to the UK. Only 15% of the 74,700 Ukrainians to apply under the sponsorship route have made it to Britain.
      Politics | Councillors in the UK face abuse, threats and intimidation as part of a “truly toxic” atmosphere that discourages new candidates, local government bodies have warned.
      Housing | The government could revive Margaret Thatcher’s right-to-buy scheme to make up to 2.5m households eligible to buy their homes at a 70% discount. Housing experts said the proposals risked reducing the stock of affordable homes.
      Suisse Secrets | Swiss politicians are to debate the country’s controversial banking secrecy law amid ongoing pressure to scrap rules allowing the prosecution of whistleblowers. The debate follows a leak of data on potentially criminal Credit Suisse clients to a consortium of outlets including the Guardian.
      Theatre | The curtain will come down on Andrew Lloyd Webber’s West End musical Cinderella less than a year after its opening, causing dismay among some cast members who had no notice of the closure. The show has suffered heavy losses during its lockdown-affected run.
      In depth: the end of the US right to an abortion?What happened?A draft supreme court opinion, apparently by conservative justice Samuel Alito, was leaked to Politico in a story published late Monday night. It appears to show that the court is preparing to rule in favour of Mississippi in a case over whether the state can outlaw nearly all abortions at and after 15 weeks gestation – a direct challenge to the guarantee of abortion rights enshrined in Roe v Wade.The 98-page document, which includes 118 footnotes and a 31-page appendix on historical state abortion laws, was published in full. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” it says. “Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.”It says Roe v Wade “must be overruled” and goes on: “It is time to heed the constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”What is Roe v Wade?Roe v Wade is the court decision which protects the right to an abortion in the US up to the point a foetus can survive outside the womb, widely regarded as 24 weeks gestation. A full term pregnancy is 39 weeks gestation. The 1973 ruling is among the most controversial in American history and has been subjected to many legal challenges over the year – but survived until now.For more details on the challenge to the law currently under consideration, take a look at Jessica Glenza’s explainer from December.What does the leak tell us about the court’s decision?While the opinion is purportedly a draft, it would have been written following a vote on the question at hand by the court – and indicates that a majority of justices reached the same view as Alito. Politico reported that four other Republican-appointed justices supported the decision, meaning a total of at least five votes on the 9-member court.After such a vote, a justice is assigned the majority opinion and then writes a draft, which is then circulated and subject to edits. It is possible for changes to be made to the opinion, or even for votes to change, before the court’s final ruling, which is expected in the next couple of months.How significant is a leak of a draft supreme court ruling?The Guardian’s Washington correspondent David Smith called the leak “stunning and unprecedented” and said it would be “the worst security breach” in the court’s history. Theories abounded over the likely source of the leak, from a clerk for a liberal justice hoping to raise public pressure on the court before it publishes its decision to a conservative who wants to soften the impact of the decision when it comes – in other words, nobody knows.A tweet from Scotusblog, a respected news and analysis site, said that it was “impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the Court, in terms of the destruction of trust among the Justices and staff. This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.”How did reproductive-rights advocates react to the news?With fury. A BuzzFeed reporter posted a video of about 200 protesters outside the court chanting slogans like “abortion is healthcare” and “my body, my choice”. Another video showed somebody urging attendees: “If you feel like fucking screaming, then just scream”.What about politicians?Democrats said that overturning Roe v Wade would be a catastrophe. They were led by House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, who issued a joint statement saying such a move would be “an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history”.They also immediately sought to make Roe v Wade an issue for crucial upcoming midterm elections: Christie Roberts, Democratic senatorial campaign executive director, said that “At this critical moment, we must protect and expand Democrats’ Senate majority with the power to confirm or reject supreme court justices”. Republicans by turns praised the apparent vote and condemned the leak itself.Now what?It is worth reiterating that it is still possible that votes could change and mean that the apparent draft opinion remains just that – a draft. But if the supreme court does rule along the lines suggested by the leaked document, the consequences will be rapid and hugely consequential.Because the US congress has never enshrined the right to terminate a pregnancy, the overturning of Roe v Wade would mean individual states can immediately make their own decisions over the way forward. Twenty-six of them would be expected to move quickly to do so, with many having “trigger” laws on the books which would automatically come into effect in those circumstances. That means that women in those states would immediately face severe restrictions on their ability to have an abortion, and the US would become one of only four countries to curtail that right in nearly 30 years.What else we’ve been reading
      If you’re working your way through Netflix’s final dump of Ozark episodes, you’ll enjoy Stuart Jeffries’ farewell to “some of the most rewarding TV around”. And if you didn’t spend half the weekend gorging the lot of it, rest assured: it sticks the landing.
      As the question of how the war in Ukraine will end becomes more pressing, Orysia Lutseyvych of Chatham House argues that “a long-term simmering conflict that locks Ukraine in a grey zone of instability” is no better than defeat.
      Simon Hattenstone spoke to Graham Nash – as in, Crosby, Stills and … – about sex, drugs, rock’n’roll, and why he’d kill Vladimir Putin given half a chance. Too many amazing quotes to list, so click here instead.
      Tens of thousands of people have faced deportation from the US over convictions which were later overturned. Sam Levin’s piece on Sandra Castaneda, who spent 19 years in prison for a murder she didn’t commit and is still facing deportation, justifies the term ‘Kafkaesque’.
      Why is it so hard to give up sugar? This long read by Raj Telhan, a doctor, is both absorbing personal history and examination of the roots of our obsession.
      Sport
      Snooker | Ronnie O’Sullivan beat Judd Trump 18-13 to win the snooker world championship. O’Sullivan overcame a spirited comeback from Trump to go level with Stephen Hendry’s record of seven world titles.
      Football | Russia’s bid to host the men’s European Championship has been rejected and their team will be replaced by Portugal in the women’s tournament this summer, Uefa said.
      Athletics | Sir Mo Farah said his career as an elite athlete is “for sure” over after a shock defeat by a club runner in a 10,000 metre race on Monday. The amateur who won, Ellis Cross, had been turned down for an elite spot in the race.
      The front pagesThe Guardian leads with “Patel faces mass legal action from Ukrainians stuck in visa backlog”. The Telegraph also focuses on the war in Ukraine with “Johnson: Ukraine is ready for its finest hour”. The Mail has “Where have our GPs gone?”, while the Times goes with “Rising inflation to blow £7,000 hole in pensions”. The i newspaper has “Tories hit by infighting on eve of election” and the Daily Express leads with “Boris’ right to buy plan is a vote winner”. The Mirror reports on the Madeline McCann disappearance with “Maddie prime suspect ‘a danger to society’”. The Financial Times has “Johnson enlisted for last-ditch bid to wrestle Arm into listing”. And the Sun says “Queen’s guards let fake priest stay night”.Today in FocusThe Wagatha Christie case – part twoAs the so-called ‘Wagatha Christie’ trial approaches, neither side is backing down from a case that has legal fees running into the millions, says media editor Jim Waterson.Cartoon of the day | Martin RowsonThe UpsideA bit of good news to remind you that the world’s not all badGood news has been thin on the ground in Ukraine these past few months – but one bright spot has been the generosity of those horrified by the actions of Russia and what it has meant for the citizens of the country. Take this story about a nursing home in Donbas that the Guardian first wrote about in April – that story inspired a Ukrainian expat in New Orleans to raise the funds necessary to rehome the elderly residents in a disused school. “The biggest chunk of the money will go towards making the accommodation suitable for the old people,” said the nursing home’s director, Ievhen Tkachov.Sign up here for a weekly roundup of The Upside, sent to you every SundayTopicsAbortionFirst EditionRoe v WadeUS politicsUS supreme courtHealthLaw (US)newslettersReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The supreme court’s coming abortion ruling may spark a new era of US unrest | Stephen Marche

      by

      The supreme court’s coming abortion ruling may spark a new era of US unrestStephen MarcheThere’s a strong risk that the case will spark anger and violence – whether the court overturns Roe v Wade or not Civil wars don’t always begin with gunfire. Sometimes civil wars begin with learned arguments. In April 1861, Confederate forces shot on Fort Sumter, but at the time even Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president, had doubts about whether the event mattered all that much. It was, he claimed, “either the beginning of a fearful war, or the end of a political contest”; he could not say which. During the decades that preceded the assault on Fort Sumter, complex legal and political fissures had been working their way through the United States, slowly rendering the country ungovernable and opening the path to mass violence.The US is the middle of another such legal crackup, this time over the question of abortion. The courts today face the crisis American courts faced in the 1850s: is there any way to make laws for a country with furious and widening differences in fundamental values?Tell us: have you had to travel to another US state for an abortion? Read moreThis summer, when the US supreme court makes its long-expected decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, it will inevitably alienate half the country. In anticipation of the overturning of Roe v Wade, several states have passed draconian anti-abortion laws, in the expectation that they won’t be challenged. Idaho has already imitated the Texas law which allows private citizens to sue anyone who helps a woman procure an abortion, a law that the supreme court has refused to overturn.Two American blocs are emerging. In the south and parts of the west and midwest, abortion laws are about to return to where they were in the 1950s. The rest of the country has already set itself in opposition to these laws. The division will not stay considerate and respectful, particularly in areas where liberal and conservative states neighbour one another. In anticipation of a post-Roe world and a flood of out-of-state patients, abortion providers have established a series of abortion clinics in Illinois, across the river from more conservative Missouri. Oregon recently invested in a $15m fund for medical refugees traveling from Idaho for abortions.There are, right from the beginning, two reactions to the new division. The first is the use of force, as in the case of a 26-year-old Texan woman, Lizelle Herrera, who was recently arrested for murder for allegedly self-inducing an abortion. The local district attorney’s office ultimately released her without charge, explaining that “in reviewing applicable Texas law, it is clear that Ms Herrera cannot and should not be prosecuted for the allegation against her”. To be clear, current applicable Texas law doesn’t apply to Herrera’s case. When it does, they will charge people like her with murder. How far will the forces opposing abortion take a custodial approach? Do they want to set up a DEA-style birth police? Any enforcement mechanism will also probably be highly ineffective. After billions of dollars spent on the war on drugs, the average price of a hit of heroin on the street is between $5 and $20. Women with means who want abortions are going to get them.Texas advocates file new legal challenge to near-total abortion ban Read moreThe second reaction to an America divided along abortion lines will be interstate conflict. Missouri is leading the way here. A recent bill proposed a travel abortion ban, explicitly focused on clinics in Illinois. This looks, on the face of it, like a straight violation of the 14th amendment, but the supreme court is a partisan institution and interpretation of the constitution now follows the partisan affiliation of the justices. They’ll come up with something.No matter what decision the supreme court makes, civil unrest will follow. Anti-abortion activists will feel that their political system has failed them no matter what the court does. They have sacrificed everything – the dignity and integrity of their party, the value of their national institutions – in the name of getting enough justices on the court to enact this one legal change. If the court upholds Roe v Wade, they will quite naturally feel betrayed. If the court overturns Roe v Wade, they will discover a fact the new Texas law has inadvertently revealed: that the criminalization of abortion doesn’t work. Their basic assumption, that the government can outlaw abortion, is simply untrue. At first, the Texas law appeared to cause abortions to decline by half. But quickly the numbers reasserted themselves. The decline is less that ten percent. Women went out of state or bought chemical abortions. The overturning of Roe v Wade will makes women’s medical treatment more difficult and impersonal and humiliating. It won’t change the abortion rate significantly.Meanwhile, from the other side, an overturning of Roe v Wade will be experienced as oppression pure and simple, especially given the number of justices appointed by presidents who did not receive the popular vote. In November 1860, five months before Fort Sumter, in the immediate aftermath of Lincoln’s election, a judge in South Carolina announced that the state would no longer register indictments in federal court. Andrew Magrath, in a deliberate act of rejection, removed his judicial robe and folded it over his chair. He would now serve as a justice of his state, not his country. The audience recognized the gravity of the act. As one commentator at the time noted: “Here was a great political movement precipitated, not by bloody encounters in the street or upon the field, but by a deliberate and reasoned act in the most unexpected and conservatives of all places – the United State courtroom.” From that moment on, there were two legal systems. All that remained was the war. A similar breakdown in the legal system of the United States is already apparent.Needless to say, this entire conflict is futile and stupid. Abortion in the United States is in rapid decline without the negligible effects of criminalization. The number of procedures dipped 19% between 2011 and 2017. If activists want fewer abortions, there are plenty of strategies that are vastly more effective than making them illegal. Canada, which has no federal laws of any kind on abortion, has a fraction of the abortion rate of the US.But that’s not really the point. Abortion is only a stand in for a fundamental conflict in political vision: morality against policy, community values against personal agency. There are two countries, at least, in the United States. The legal system is only catching up.
      Stephen Marche is the author, most recently, of The Next Civil War: Dispatches from the American Future
      TopicsRoe v WadeOpinionAbortionUS politicsUS supreme courtLaw (US)commentReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans are dusting off a tried and true election strategy: hatemongering | Moira Donegan

      by

      Republicans are dusting off a tried and true election strategy: hatemongeringMoira DoneganMale voters have been drifting right in record numbers – and Republicans are taking a viciously homophobic and sexist tack to appeal to them The 2022 midterm elections are shaping up to be among the most deeply gender-divided elections in American history. A new poll by NBC News, measuring voters’ preferences ahead of the November elections, shows that the gap in women and men’s voting patterns has deepened considerably over the past 12 years, with Republicans holding an 18-point advantage among men, and Democrats holding a 15-point advantage among women. That 33-point gender gap is up from a 16-point divide in the 2010 midterms.Despite the large degree of analytical attention that has focused on the voting habits of suburban white women, it seems that it’s men who are changing their voting habits most dramatically. The NBC News polling shows that men with college degrees have moved dramatically to the right, lurching towards Republicans by 26 points since just 2018. Men on the whole have moved towards Republicans by 20 points.The Republican party’s exploding support among men comes as the organs of rightwing media and many Republican politicians have embraced a vitriolic language of gender grievance. For months now, the conservative media has been hammering a message of gender and sexual disorder, seeking to stoke the fears, bigotry and resentment of its audience against the social and legal gains that have been made by women and LGBT groups over the past decades. This message has been enthusiastically taken up by Republican politicians, and issues of sexual anxiety have come to preoccupy every level of American government, from local school board meetings to the recent confirmation hearings of a new supreme court justice.It is hard to define the exact moment when men’s gender grievance came to preoccupy the Republican party. With Republicans’ long commitment to anti-choice and anti-trans bills over the past few years, the issue has had longstanding resonance among the base. But a shift seemed to occur last September, when Pete Buttigieg, the secretary of transportation, announced that he would be taking parental leave after he and his husband adopted a pair of newborn twins. Tucker Carlson, the Fox News broadcaster who serves as a weathervane for so much conservative grievance politics, attacked Buttigieg on his show. “Paternity leave, they call it. Trying to figure out how to breastfeed. No word on how that went.”Carlson’s comments were layered with bigotry – against gay men, against mothers, against trans people. But the message was clear: caring for children was feminine and unbecoming of someone who aspired to the masculine authority of a cabinet position. Buttigieg had failed the conservative gender test not once, but twice: first, he was too feminine by virtue of being a gay man. Then, he was too feminine by virtue of being an involved, caregiving parent. The dig was homophobic but also sexist: the only way Carlson could say that Buttigieg was too womanly for power is if women aren’t appropriate holders of power in the first place.Carlson’s attack marked a return to open, avowed homophobic hatred on the Republican right, a stance that had gone dramatically out of fashion, and implicitly out of social acceptability, since the supreme court’s 2015 decision in Obergefell v Hodges, the case that recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry nationwide. Republicans had made a strategic retreat from open homophobia, reasoning that the cultural and generational tides were turning toward acceptance of gay couples. With the success of Carlson’s attack – the homophobic mockery of Buttigieg was enthusiastically embraced by Carlson’s viewers – it seems the tide had turned again. In the months since, homophobia has been unleashed as a reliable way for rightwing figures to rally their base. Gay bashing is back.Merging with the elaborate fictions of the QAnon conspiracy theory, which claims that the United States is run by a group of elite, secretive and possibly cannibalistic pedophiles, the renewed homophobic enthusiasm on the right has now manifested in a mass hysteria over so-called “groomers”. This all-purpose smear is now applied to any liberal (or insufficiently conservative) adult, from politicians to school principals, and alleges that any tolerance for gay rights, or indeed any belief in gender equality, is evidence of a pedophilic interest in children.The alarm over so-called “groomers” has led to restrictive, homophobic interventions in public schooling, from a slew of new book bans around the country, to Florida’s “don’t say gay” bill banning classroom discussion of homosexuality, to a Texas school district’s firing of an out lesbian teacher and banning of a high school Gay-Straight Alliance club.That there is no evidence for this hateful lie that liberals are pedophiles has not stopped ordinary conservatives from embracing it. In Connecticut, a rightwing online group posted the name and home address of a public school superintendent whom they labeled a “groomer” due to the alleged presence of a transgender student in one of the schools she oversaw. The forum called for the school official’s execution.Nor is there any level of ambition or pretended dignity that seems able to deter elected Republicans from indulging in the smear. At the recent supreme court confirmation hearings of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, Republican senators Josh Hawley, Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz all pressed Jackson on her sentencing history as a federal judge, suggesting she was soft on men convicted of possessing child abuse images. All four of the men are believed to have presidential ambitions. Apparently, they feel that stoking the sexual and gender anxieties of the American electorate is a smart move for their careers.The Republican party’s emphasis on gender grievance, and its attendant surge in male support, comes on the eve of the biggest setback for gender equality in half a century: the probable end of Roe v Wade. The supreme court is almost universally expected to overturn the abortion rights precedent this summer; many states, considering the decision already effectively nullified, have rushed to outlaw and criminalize abortion within their borders even before the verdict comes down. The bans that are swiftly moving through Republican-controlled state legislatures typically carry no exemption for rape and incest, and their cruelty is justified in viciously misogynistic terms. When Democrats in the Florida state senate tried to add an exception for rape victims to the 15-week ban that Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law on Thursday, their Republican colleagues shut them down.“I fear for the men who are going to be accused of a rape so that the woman could have an abortion,” Kelli Stargel, one of the bill’s sponsors, argued during floor debate. “A woman is going to say she was raped so she could have the abortion.”Her remark was a lie grounded in misogynist myths and, like the “groomer” smear, has no basis in reality. But it seems that Republicans, and their growing base of male voters, are ready to believe it.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionDemocratsRepublicansLGBT rightsAbortioncommentReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Kentucky and Idaho measures severely restricting abortions are halted

      by

      Kentucky and Idaho measures severely restricting abortions are haltedMeasures’ constitutionality brought into question amid flurry of abortion restrictions passed in US states

      Opinion: these are the final days of US reproductive freedom
      Two measures that severely restrict abortions were halted on Friday, one by Kentucky’s governor and a second by Idaho’s supreme court.In Kentucky, Democratic governor Andy Beshear vetoed a Republican-priority bill on Friday that would ban abortions in the state after 15 weeks of pregnancy and regulate the dispensing of abortion pills.Mail-order abortion pills become next US reproductive rights battlegroundRead moreThe governor raised doubts about the constitutionality of the proposed legislation and criticized it for not including exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Kentucky law currently bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.Idaho’s supreme court delivered a late decision Friday afternoon halting a law – modeled after a similar abortion ban in Texas – that would allow family members of an aborted fetus to sue doctors who perform a procedure after six weeks of pregnancy for a minimum of $20,000.Chief justice Richard Bevan said in court documents that the court stayed the law, which was scheduled to go into effect on 22 April, to give state attorneys more time to address a legal challenge from Planned Parenthood. State attorneys have until 28 April to address the lawsuit.In a statement, Rebecca Gibron, interim chief executive of Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana and Kentucky, said: “Patients across Idaho can breathe a sigh of relief tonight”. Gibron said abortions can continue in Idaho’s three Planned Parenthood locations.While Idaho’s governor Brad Little signed the ban into law 23 March, he said he had reservations about the civilian enforcement measures of the ban, saying that it could prove itself to be “unconstitutional and unwise”. If deemed constitutional, Little said that states “hostile” to the first and second amendments could use similar methods against religious freedom and gun rights.The block on Idaho’s law could be temporary. If the court allows it to pass, it would be just the latest of a slate of Republican-led states that have passed abortion restrictions over the last three years. Abortion bans have been seen across several states, including Arkansas, Arizona, Montana, Texas and Alabama. Most recently, Oklahoma lawmakers passed a bill this week that makes performing an abortion a felony punishable by 10 years in prison and with a $100,000 fine.Meanwhile, state lawmakers in Kentucky will have a chance to override the governor’s veto when they reconvene next week for the final two days of this year’s 60-day legislative session. The abortion measure won overwhelming support in the Republica-dominated legislature.Kentucky’s proposed 15-week ban is modeled after a Mississippi law under review by the US supreme court in a case that could dramatically limit abortion rights. By taking the pre-emptive action, the bill’s supporters say that Kentucky’s stricter ban would be in place if the Mississippi law is upheld.Republicans have already sharply criticized Beshear’s veto on the legislature’s abortion ban, with state GOP spokesperson Sean Southard saying on Friday that the governor’s veto was “the latest action in his ideological war on the conservative values held by Kentuckians”. The bill will probably surface as an issue again next year when Beshear runs for a second term in Republican-trending Kentucky.Beshear condemned the bill for failing to exclude pregnancies caused by rape or incest.“Rape and incest are violent crimes,” the governor said in his veto message on Friday. “Victims of these crimes should have options, not be further scarred through a process that exposes them to more harm from their rapists or that treats them like offenders themselves.”The governor said the bill would make it harder for girls under 18 to end a pregnancy without notifying both parents. As an example, he said that a girl impregnated by her father would have to notify him of her intent to get an abortion.Beshear, a former state attorney general, also said the bill was “likely unconstitutional”, noting that the US supreme court struck down similar laws elsewhere. He pointed to provisions in the Kentucky bill requiring doctors performing nonsurgical procedures to maintain hospital admitting privileges in “geographical proximity” to where the procedures are performed.“The supreme court has ruled such requirements unconstitutional as it makes it impossible for women, including a child who is a victim of rape or incest, to obtain a procedure in certain areas of the state,” the governor said.TopicsAbortionKentuckyUS politicsDemocratsRepublicansUS healthcareUS domestic policynewsReuse this content More