Abortion

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Onslaught of new abortion restrictions looms in reddest of states

      by

      Onslaught of new abortion restrictions looms in reddest of statesNew state legislative sessions likely to bring fresh efforts to restrict, penalize or altogether ban the procedure In Nebraska, a total abortion ban could be on the horizon. In Florida, the gestational limit for abortions could drop from 15 weeks to 12. Elsewhere, lawmakers have abortion pills in their sights.When Roe v Wade fell, most states were no longer in legislative session, meaning the term during which they usually write and pass bills had ended. In January, state legislatures will reconvene in an entirely new reality, one where conservative lawmakers are no longer constrained by the constitutional right to abortion once assured by Roe.Googling abortion? Your details aren’t as private as you thinkRead moreThe midterm elections brought victories for abortion rights in a number of states. But in others, politics are on the side of anti-abortion advocates. In those reddest of states, the new state legislative sessions are likely to bring a fresh onslaught of efforts to restrict, penalize or altogether ban abortion.Katie Glenn, the state policy director at Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America, confirms the group’s top priority in 2023 will be reducing the gestational age for legal abortion, alongside bringing new outright bans. Abortion is currently banned in 13 states.Exactly how restrictive those bans will be remains to be seen, with conservatives across the country embroiled in conflicts over which exceptions – if any – should be allowed for abortion. “Exceptions in the case of rape and incest, we realise, are sometimes a necessary political reality. And we would not block a bill or oppose a bill that would prevent 95% of abortions,” explains Glenn.In some states, anti-abortion advocates previously stymied by Democrats now have room to maneuver since the midterms, which brought some conservative wins. In 2022, progressive members of Nebraska’s legislature filibustered a ban proposed by Republicans, effectively killing it. But lawmakers say that the party no longer has the votes to block an abortion ban. Meanwhile, in states where abortion bans have been mired in lengthy court proceedings, Republican majorities could pass more stringent laws when the session starts.In Iowa, for example, a six-week ban has been held up in court since 2019. With the legislature reconvening on 9 January, it could choose to pass a new ban rather than waiting for the courts. That would be helped by the fact that, just before Roe fell, Iowa’s state supreme court ruled there is no constitutionalright to abortion in the state. With the midterms solidifying conservative majorities in both chambers, that clears the path toward a tougher ban (though Republicans in the state have said they will discuss next steps only after the court resolves the lawsuit over the six-week ban). Similarly, a six-week ban in Georgia that was recently reinstated by the state supreme court could pave the way for new restrictions when the legislature convenes, considering that Georgia’s governor, state house and state senate are all under Republican control. And in Florida, where the GOP clinched supermajorities in both chambers, legislators have indicated an interest in further limiting abortion, lowering the gestational limit from 15 to 12 weeks.Any legislation in Florida ultimately depends on its Republican governor, Ron DeSantis. DeSantis has grown quiet on the issue as bans have increasingly proven unpopular, and since he is weighing up a 2024 presidential bid, he may hold off.Nor does Republican control over state governments elsewhere necessarily guarantee new restrictions. In some states, consensus has been hard to come by in a GOP increasingly mired by internal divisions.In South Carolina, for example, several attempts to pass an abortion ban in special session in 2022 failed despite a strong Republican majority.Lawmakers were at odds over how far a ban should go, with some supporting an exception for young rape victims, or in cases where there would be no chance of the fetus surviving outside the womb. Ultimately, those differences proved insurmountable: neither side budged, and none of the proposed bans moved forward. A separate six-week ban is making its way through state courts, and abortion in the state remains legal up until 22 weeks.Targeting medication abortionSince Roe fell, requests for medication that can induce a miscarriage have shot up, and medication abortion now accounts for more than half of all abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute.Conservatives are increasingly concerned with how to enforce abortion bans in a climate where people can access pills online and manage their own abortions. Medication abortion is approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and considered very safe in the first trimester. In Oklahoma, lawmakers have asked the state attorney general to clarify whether self-managed abortion through pills violates the law. Introducing in-person screening requirements is another way to make abortion medication harder to access, especially in states without bans. For example, a Kansas law tried to ban providers from prescribing for medication abortion throughtelehealth. That law was shot down by a judge last month.Restricting telemedicine is one route anti-abortion advocates will take to target medication abortion this year, says Glenn, of SBA Pro-Life America.Students for Life America, another anti-abortion group, intends to go after medication abortion through environmental laws, through bills that would require fetal tissue to be treated as medical waste, curtailing the ability for people to manage their abortions at home. A petition to that effect has already been filed at the federal level with the Food and Drug Administration. Criminalizing abortionStates that ban abortion typically impose criminal penalties on providers who violate bans, but exempt – at least formally – the person actually seeking the abortion. Far-right groups have advocated for an end to that exemption, but their efforts have so far proved politically untenable: in Louisiana, a bill looking to bring murder charges against people who end their own pregnancies failed to pass over the summer, with most Republicans finding it too extreme.Abortion rights advocates are bracing themselves for further such efforts, including bills to criminalize out-of-state travel for abortion – an effort attempted in 2022 by Missouri, without success. “Over a dozen states that put abortion bans in effect in 2022 are states with trifectas that are hostile to abortion rights. In those states that have been the most rabidly anti-abortion, we expect to see a next generation of measures that either remove the exemptions in the current law, or increase the penalties or the enforcement mechanisms” to ban abortions, says Jessica Arons, senior policy counsel for the ACLU.They are also watching efforts to widen the net to penalize those providing assistance to people seeking abortions, including employers. Other legislation already filed in Texas ahead of the new legislative sessionincludes a bill that would count a fetus as a person in the HOV lane; another that would limit tax subsidies for businesses providing support for employees seeking abortions; and legislation that would make it harder for prosecutors to refuse to enforce abortion bans. Bolstered protections in blue statesAmid the barrage of restrictions, other states have made moves to bolster protections for abortion rights. In the midterms, Michigan, Vermont and California protected abortion in their state constitutions. And throughout the country, there are moves to pass and strengthen so-called “shield laws” to protect providers caring for patients from states with bans. “People are looking at those shield laws to see if there are any protections for abortion funds, for example,” explains the Guttmacher Institutes’ policy expert Elizabeth Nash. “If you’re an abortion fund in California, and you give money to somebody from Texas to come to California for an abortion, what kind of protections do we need [to make sure they’re not legally liable]?”Since Roe fell, states like California, Maryland and Delaware have expanded access, including to those from out of state, by passing laws enabling nurses to perform abortions. Meanwhile, in New York, the governor, Kathy Hochul, has allocated millions of dollars to abortion providers and the state is also pursuing efforts to enshrine abortion rights in the state’s constitution. These types of efforts are what states hoping to bolster protections will be looking to. “People are seeing where there are gaps are in these laws, and trying to fill them basically,” Nash says.TopicsAbortionRoe v WadeReproductive rightsUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Gretchen Whitmer Rejected False Choices. All Democrats Should.

      by

      For years, the so-called Blue Wall states — Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — have been not just politically but also emotionally important for Democrats. With the party poised to enact a new primary lineup that includes Michigan in an early slot, the state has grown even more important for Democrats.In many ways, Michigan offers a microcosm of American politics. It includes a diverse population of over 10 million people and a mix of big, medium and smaller urban areas, along with diverse suburbs and rural areas.For Democrats, much of the debate about running in and winning big northern industrial states is that we have to choose a style of campaign. Either we talk to blue-collar voters about issues like economics and manufacturing, or we talk to suburban women about abortion. Either we use progressive issues to turn out our base, or we take moderate positions on issues to persuade people in the middle.There is a model for running an effective campaign in Michigan and states like it — and it involves rejecting many of these false choices.Gretchen Whitmer illustrated that model in Michigan this year. With her midterm victory, she has now had two decisive general-election wins in a critical Blue Wall state. Last month, she won by 10.6 points (a margin bested by only two Democratic presidential candidates in the last 50 years, Barack Obama in 2008 and Bill Clinton in 1996).She ran on economics and abortion, increased Democratic turnout and persuaded swing voters, all while connecting with the party’s largest base: Black voters. She embodied the way smart campaigns in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and around the country operated this cycle, and she gave a blueprint for Democrats in 2024.The first lesson of Ms. Whitmer’s campaign is that economic good news and development — especially building things — really make a difference. Democrats should run on American manufacturing: Whether it was a new semiconductor plant (to help ease the chip shortage facing the auto industry) or generational-level investments from G.M. in electric-vehicle battery plants (to make sure the critical supply chains for electric cars will be based in Michigan, not China, where many E.V. batteries are currently built), Ms. Whitmer fought to bring them to Michigan.In in multiple TV ads, she told voters, “I can’t solve the inflation problem, but we’re doing things — right now — to help.” She listed tangible benefits that she proposed or got done, like more affordable community college, insurance refunds and tax cuts for seniors. She passed four balanced, bipartisan budgets with no tax increases, and she let voters know about that.A lot of Democrats talked about economics across the country, but few did so as consistently and effectively as Ms. Whitmer. And it wasn’t just talk: When businesses opened, she was often there to celebrate them.This was paired with a pocketbook attack. Her opponent, Tudor Dixon, took millions of dollars from the wildly unpopular (in Michigan) billionaire Betsy DeVos and her family. For months her campaign highlighted Ms. Dixon’s connections to Ms. DeVos and how Ms. Dixon’s tax plan would benefit Ms. DeVos and hurt the middle class — working-class tax hikes, cuts to schools and the like. Ms. Whitmer also highlighted abortion rights as a vote-deciding issue for swing voters. Again, this was not just talk. Through a ballot initiative, Michigan voters faced the decision on whether to place abortion protections in the state Constitution. Voters approved changing the state Constitution with strong support (57 percent).Months before the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade and could have effectively banned abortion in Michigan (because of a dormant law from the 1930s), Ms. Whitmer sued and got courts to block enforcement of that law. No doubt the issue helped Michigan Democrats and progressives to catalyze turnout. Estimates from the U.S. Elections Project show overall turnout in 2022 was down about 6 percent from the 2018 midterm, but in Michigan, turnout was up nearly 5 percent.Ms. Whitmer also developed a deep connection with Black voters well before she picked as her running mate and governing partner the state’s first Black lieutenant governor, Garlin Gilchrist. After winning Black voters decisively with high turnout in 2018, she deepened that connection. The “Big Gretch” song (“We ain’t even about to stress/we got Big Gretch”) and memes that came out of Black Michigan spoke to a deep appreciation Black voters had for her decisiveness in the pandemic to keep people safe.This was on top of a lot of other work to help Black voters, things like bringing the first new auto plant to Detroit in 30 years and making sure Detroiters had a first crack at the plant’s jobs.This did not come at the expense of talking to white voters: She won Macomb County, ground zero for voters who cast ballots for Barack Obama, then switched to Donald Trump, by about 60 percent more in 2022 from 2018.What Ms. Whitmer has done in Michigan can be done by Democrats across the country. We can talk about economics and abortion, we can invest in turnout and persuasion, and we can strengthen our appeal to voters of color while winning over white voters.Brian Stryker (@BrianStryker) is a partner at Impact Research and a strategist for Gretchen Whitmer, Tim Ryan and Mandela Barnes, among others.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in World Politics

      Is Supreme Court’s Dobbs Ruling an Unintended Win for Abortion?

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 63 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump and the Anti-Abortion Movement

      by

      More from our inbox:Detained in AmericaHelping People in JailTreating Vote Counting as Live Sports Damon Winter/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “The Pro-Life Camp Paid for Its Trump Bargain,” by David French (Opinion guest essay, Nov. 22):I appreciate the discomfort that Mr. French discusses. Electing Donald Trump president allowed him to appoint the conservative justices who overturned Roe v. Wade. But, he writes: “Trumpism is centered on animosity. The pro-life movement has to be centered on love, including love for its most bitter political opponents.”I wish that the pro-life movement, including Mr. French, would focus more broadly on what it claims to be about: pro-life. Most people I have known or spoken with who call themselves pro-life have told me that they favor capital punishment and expansive gun rights and oppose guaranteed access to physical and mental health care and aggressive efforts to control pollution and global warming, positions that threaten far more lives than does abortion.All lives are precious, not just fetal ones.Gordon F. BoalsSag Harbor, N.Y.To the Editor:David French’s essay was an interesting argument about the toxic influences of Donald Trump on the pro-life movement. It was also somewhat of an advertisement for a fantasied pro-life movement.Well before Mr. Trump was in office, some pro-life supporters bombed clinics offering abortion services and others murdered doctors and nurses. Many more severely harassed doctors and women walking into clinics.I do not believe that the hate and violence coming from the pro-life movement are because Mr. Trump hijacked it. It has been there all along. The recent election results have shown to me that the majority of Americans support abortion as a health care issue for women.Paul M. CamicLondonThe writer is a professor of health psychology at University College London.To the Editor:Thank you for publishing David French’s essay. As a pro-life Never Trumper, I felt my point of view was represented, and I think this stance might bring some hope for those who fear all pro-lifers. I appreciate The Times’s willingness to publish a point of view that balances two extremes.Kathie HarrisFayetteville, N.C.To the Editor:The problem with David French’s essay is that he ascribes humanistic motives to the pro-life forces and the politicians who want to ban abortion. Of course, there are true believers, both religious and secular, who think abortion is completely unacceptable.But most voters understand that this is a political battle for votes. And the prime example is the one Mr. French cited — Donald Trump. His conversion to the right-to-life side is a political convenience. It’s essentially no different from Herschel Walker’s abortion beliefs — good as a campaign issue, but, hey, keep out of my personal life.John VasiSanta Barbara, Calif.To the Editor:David French writes: “Walk into a crisis pregnancy center and you’ll often meet some of the best people you’ll ever know. These are the folks who walk with young, frightened women through some of the most difficult days of their lives.”On the contrary, crisis pregnancy centers are intentionally dishonest, using deception to trick women who actively seek abortions into making appointments there instead of abortion clinics. Once inside, they ply these women, who we all agree are often young and frightened and in some of the most difficult days of their lives, with outright lies about biology and her options, and then attempt to guilt her into making a choice she doesn’t want to make.Is tricking women and teenage girls into having unwanted babies really “pro-life”? What about the life these women want to live, a life that may not include parenthood then, or ever? Or is it just another tool in the tool kit of the forced birth movement?Alexandra EichenbaumSan FranciscoTo the Editor:I appreciate the compassionate tone of David French’s guest essay. I find it true that there’s an inherent spirit of unkindness in most pro-life messaging, demonizing the woman and the health care provider. In addition, red states are notorious for having strict and minimalist social services and income support programs for people who need them.If we seriously want young girls and women to carry unplanned pregnancies through to birth, many will need social services, mental health and income supports, as well as health care and job protection. And those who keep or adopt the children may need additional publicly funded support.So, if pro-life states say every embryo must be carried and delivered because every child is important, they must provide systems of care for these children and the families that raise them. Otherwise, it’s hypocrisy pure and simple, Trump or no Trump.Dale FlemingSan DiegoDetained in AmericaTwo Russian antiwar dissidents, Mariia Shemiatina and Boris Shevchuk, reuniting outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Pine Prairie, La.Emily Kask for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Russian Dissidents Fleeing to U.S. Find Detention, Not Freedom” (front page, Nov. 29):The outrageous and inhumane treatment experienced by two Russian political refugee doctors, Mariia Shemiatina and her husband, Boris Shevchuk, at the hands of ICE and in private for-profit prisons illustrates the need for drastic immigration reform.Since the same system has treated nonwhite refugees this way for years, we need to ask ourselves why these injustices have been allowed to fester.At the very least the Democratic lame-duck House must pass legislation that will provide proper oversight and enable early hearings so that those with legitimate claims can participate in the freedoms they risked so much to attain.Tom MillerOakland, Calif.The writer is a human rights lawyer.Helping People in JailDallas Garcia, the mother of an inmate killed in Harris County Jail, holding her son’s ashes.Brandon Thibodeaux for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “For a Growing Number of Americans, Jail Has Become a Death Sentence” (news article, Nov. 24):The reporting on Harris County, Texas, emphasizes the dire need for more programs supporting incarcerated individuals with a serious mental illness, substance abuse problems, intellectual and developmental disabilities or a brain injury — cycling through the system in the county and nationally. The percentage of such people in jails has grown over the last few years.The support services must include accessible and affordable housing options — safe shelters, rapid rehousing, permanent supportive housing and community-based behavioral health services.With better staffing and oversight of jails, these programs have the ability to prevent many tragic outcomes and needless deaths, disproportionately affecting those who are Black, Indigenous and people of color.Laurie GarduqueChicagoThe writer is director of criminal justice at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.Treating Vote Counting as Live SportsTo the Editor:Why is it that the media has to treat vote counting as if it were the fourth quarter of a football game and maybe there will be a miraculous surge by the losing team?The votes have already been cast. The results have happened already; we just haven’t opened all the boxes yet. Yes, the vote tallies will change, but that’s not due to anything any candidate or other partisan does or does not do after the polls have closed. The votes are in, or in the mail.Jay GoldmanWaltham, Mass. More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Here are some crucial issues we’re covering in 2023 – with your help | Betsy Reed

      by

      Here are some crucial issues we’re covering in 2023 – with your helpBetsy ReedThe new Guardian US editor sets out some of our key priorities for 2023, including abortion rights, the climate crisis and investigations into the powers shaping American life

      This Giving Tuesday, please consider a year-end gift to the Guardian to support our journalism in the coming year
      On election night this November, the Guardian’s reporters fanned out across the country, keeping close watch on key races targeted by the election-denial movement instigated by Donald Trump. Candidates who embraced Trump’s “big lie” about the 2020 election sought control over pivotal offices that would allow them to tip the balance toward Trump when he tries to reclaim the presidency in 2024.To the relief of our readers, as well as millions of Americans, their efforts failed spectacularly.Across the country, many Americans rejected campaigns based on lies and racist demagoguery. Voters flocked to the polls to protest the supreme court’s attack on abortion rights in its reversal of Roe v Wade earlier this year. Reproductive freedom and democracy proved more resilient than many dour pundits had predicted.But if we pause to celebrate this outcome, we should also reflect on how we arrived at such a dangerous moment – and how much danger remains. Authoritarian forces, emboldened by Trump but long predating him, still possess cultural influence and institutional power. As the legendary activist and scholar Frances Fox Piven recently told the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington, the fight over elemental democracy is far from over. “The fascist mob doesn’t have to be the majority to set in motion the kinds of policies that crush democracy,” she said.As the new editor of Guardian US, I’m determined to dedicate our journalistic resources to the scrutiny of those dangerous forces in 2023 – with your help. This Giving Tuesday, please consider a year-end gift to the Guardian to support our journalism in the coming year.Here are three of my priorities for the Guardian US newsroom in 2023:
      Abortion rights. There are few areas where Trump’s damaging legacy is more evident than reproductive rights. His appointments to the supreme court, made with the intention of ending the constitutional right to abortion, will profoundly affect the health and freedom of people in this country for years to come. We’ll be reporting on the human impact of abortion bans – and the inspiring movement that is fighting back.
      The climate crisis. Despite the Biden administration’s landmark law to decarbonize the US economy, fossil fuel emissions continue to rise, and Republican control of the House of Representatives will bring with it aggressive attempts to roll back progress. We’ll be closely tracking the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, including efforts by the fossil fuel industry and the right wing to stymie change. We will also double down on our groundbreaking environmental justice coverage, exposing how communities that lack racial and economic privilege bear the brunt of government and corporate negligence.
      Investigations. In 2023, we’ll be digging deeper into the powers secretly shaping the contours of American life. We know a lot, for example, about the toxins tainting our food and water – but it takes a different kind of reporting to pin down the corporate actors responsible for spreading them, and the government regulators who have failed to protect the public. From police unions to gun manufacturers to crypto titans to rightwing pressure groups, we will reveal the influential networks whose machinations lie at the root of the crises we report on every day, whether it’s racism in the criminal justice system or soaring economic inequality.
      I’m thrilled to work at the Guardian because I know it’s a special place with a unique role in the global media ecosystem. At this moment of jeopardy for democratic values, we don’t settle for milquetoast, down-the-middle journalism that engages in false equivalence in the name of neutrality. We know there is a right and a wrong side in the fight against racism and climate destruction and for democracy and reproductive justice. Our newsroom is passionately dedicated to delivering timely, fair, accurate reporting to readers who care about the issues we cover as much as we do.Our business model reflects our values, too. Rather than relying on billionaire owners or pursuing profits to appease shareholders, we depend on support from readers. Your donations are the reason we are able to carry on with our work. If you can, please consider a gift to fund our reporting in 2023. We are very grateful.TopicsUS newsAbortionClimate crisisInvestigative journalismUS politicsThe GuardiancommentReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Rights group calls for Samuel Alito to be investigated after claims of leaked 2014 ruling

      by

      Rights group calls for Samuel Alito to be investigated after claims of leaked 2014 rulingAnti-abortion activist said supreme court justice revealed the landmark ruling on contraception and religious rights weeks earlier A civil rights group issued a call Saturday for US supreme court justice Samuel Alito to be investigated over allegations that the judge leaked a 2014 landmark ruling involving contraception and religious rights at a private dinner with wealthy political donors.The claim was contained in a New York Times article in which minister Rob Schenck, an anti-abortion activist, said he was told of the decision weeks before it was announced and had used the information to prepare a public relations push.Samuel Alito assured Ted Kennedy in 2005 of respect for Roe, diary revealsRead moreSchenck also claimed he tipped off Hobby Lobby, the craft store chain owned by Christian evangelicals that brought and won the case allowing privately-held, for-profit businesses to be exempt from regulations to which its owners religiously object, in this case requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees.“The Senate judiciary committee should immediately move to investigate the apparent leak by Justice Alito,” said Brian Fallon, the executive director of Demand Justice.“This bombshell report is the latest proof that the Republican justices on the court are little more than politicians in robes. It’s no wonder trust in the court has hit a record low. Structural reform of the court, including strict new ethics rules, is needed now more than ever.”Fallon added that Schenck “should be called to testify about both the leak and the years-long lobbying effort he once led to cultivate Alito and other Republican justices”.Claims of the judicial leak, potentially for political purposes, comes six months after a draft opinion of the Dobbs decision overturning the nationwide abortion rights established by the 1972 case Roe v Wade was leaked ahead of its June publication.In a letter to supreme court chief justice John G Roberts Jr dated 7 June, Schenck wrote that he was reaching out to the judge “to inform you of a series of events that may impinge on the investigation you and your delegates are undertaking in connection with the leak of a draft opinion”.He described a dinner at which an unnamed political donor invited to dine at the home of Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann, had offered to try to glean information about the pending decision in the Hobby Lobby case.The next day, the Times reported, the dining guest called Schenck and told him Alito had written the majority opinion in the case and that Hobby Lobby would win. That exact decision was publicly announced less than a month later.Schenck concluded the letter to Roberts by saying he “thought this previous incident might bear some consideration by you and others involved in the process”.How that directly reflects on the current investigation into the leak of the Dobbs decision is not clear, but it arrives at a time of concern for the court’s legitimacy as it works under the sway of a conservative supermajority. Polls show that a majority of Americans are losing confidence in the supreme court.After the leak in May of the Dobbs decision draft, Alito called the unauthorized disclosure “a grave betrayal” and ordered an investigation by the supreme court’s marshal.The Times noted that Schenck’s account has “gaps”. But the newspaper’s examination of the claim uncovered emails and conversations that “strongly suggested” that Schenck knew of the decision before it was made public.TopicsUS supreme courtAbortionRoe v WadeContraception and family planningReligionUS politicsnewsReuse this content More