Abortion

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Kansas votes to protect abortion rights in state constitution

      by

      Kansas votes to protect abortion rights in state constitutionKansas is the first state to put abortion rights to a vote since the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade Kansans secured a huge win for abortion rights in the US on Tuesday night when they voted to continue to protect abortion in the state constitution.The race was called by a host of US groups like NBC News, the New York Times and Decision Desk HQ.The move will be seen as huge a loss for the anti-abortion movement and a major win for abortion rights advocates across America, who will see the result as a bellwether for popular opinion.Kansas – a deeply conservative and usually reliably Republican state – is the first US state to put abortion rights to a vote since the US supreme court ruled to overturn constitutional protections for abortion in late June.The state will remain a safe haven for abortion in the midwest, as one of the few states in the region where it remains legal to perform the procedure. Many other states have undertaken moves to make abortion largely illegal since June.Joe Biden issued a statement welcoming the result. “This vote makes clear what we know: the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion and should have the right to make their own health care decisions,” the US president said.The Kansas state senator Dinah Sikes, a Democrat, cried as the vote came in, and turned to her friends and colleagues, showing them goosebumps on her arm.“It’s just amazing. It’s breathtaking that women’s voices were heard and we care about women’s health,” she told the Guardian, after admitting she had thought the vote would be close. “But we were close in a lot of rural areas and that really made the difference – I’m just so grateful,” she said.‘I’m not a radical’: Kansas split ahead of critical post-Roe abortion voteRead moreThe “No” campaign – which was protecting abortion rights – was strongly ahead in the referendum with 62% of the vote with the majority of ballots counted. That means millions of dollars lost for the Catholic church who contributed more than $3m trying to eradicate abortion rights in Kansas, according to campaign finance records.Kansans turned out to vote in heavy numbers on Tuesday, in a referendum brought by the Kansas Republican legislature that was criticized for being misleading, fraught with misinformation and voter suppression tactics.After failing to get a more directly named referendum, “Kansas No State Constitutional Right to Abortion”, on the ballot in 2020, Republicans switched tactics, naming this amendment “Value Them Both”.The vote was scheduled for August, when voter turnout is historically low, particularly among independents and Democrats, and the wording on the ballot paper was criticized for being unclear.Why the language on the Kansas abortion ballot is so confusingRead more“The ballot mentions a state constitutional right to abortion funding in Kansas, but that funding has never really been on the table,” Mary Ziegler, a US abortion law expert from the University of California, Davis told the Guardian on Monday.Kansans for Life, one of the main backers for a “yes” vote, told church congregants on 27 July that removing protections for abortion in Kansas would prevent late-term abortions, lack of parental consent and tax payer funding for abortion, despite none of these being the law in Kansas. Abortions in Kansas are limited to 22 weeks in the cases of life threatening or severely compromised physical complications.It was a tense and bitterly fought campaign that saw churches vandalized and yard signs stolen, in a state where the abortion doctor George Tiller was murdered by anti-abortion activists in 2009.But on Tuesday night scenes of jubilation broke out at a watch party for the victorious No campaign in Kansas City. “We’re free!” shouted Mafutari Oneal, 56, who was working at the bar after the vote was called and a rush of drinks orders came in.“I don’t want no government telling me what to do. I’m so happy,” she said.In a speech just after victory was sealed, Rachel Sweet, the campaign manager for Kansans for Constitutional Freedom, said the win had come against all the odds.“We knew it was stacked against us from the moment we started but we did not despair – we did it, and these numbers speak for themselves,” Sweet said.“We knocked tens of thousands of doors and had hundreds of thousands of phone calls … We countered millions of dollars in misinformation,” she said. “We will not tolerate extreme bans on abortion in our state.”Ashley All, the spokesperson for KCF, who led the “No” campaign alongside Planned Parenthood and the ACLU, told the Guardian that the key to driving voter turnout was not seeing abortion as a partisan issue in Kansas.“We demonstrated Kansas’ free state roots,” she said. “It will be interesting for other states to watch this and see this is not a partisan issue. Everyone from Republicans, to unaffiliated voters to hardcore libertarians came out to say: ‘No, we don’t want the government involved in what we do with our bodies’.”TopicsUS newsKansasAbortionUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Justice department sues Idaho over state’s near-total abortion ban

      by

      Justice department sues Idaho over state’s near-total abortion banLawsuit is DoJ’s first piece of litigation aimed at protecting abortion access since the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade The Biden administration’s Department of Justice is suing Idaho over the state’s near-total abortion ban, set to take effect on 25 August.The lawsuit is the justice department’s first piece of litigation aimed at protecting abortion access since the US supreme court in June overturned the landmark Roe v Wade decision that established federal abortion rights nearly 50 years earlier.During a press conference on Tuesday, the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, announced the lawsuit alongside representatives from the justice department’s reproductive rights taskforce.Garland said Idaho’s abortion ban violates federal law which mandates that medical providers offer emergency care in the face of serious health consequences – not just in life-saving circumstances. The law makes no exceptions for abortions, regardless of what any state law says.Under Idaho’s law, abortions are only legal for victims of rape or incest as well as to save the life of a pregnant person. Doctors who do not provide sufficient evidence that an abortion was provided under those circumstances could face two to five years in prison and the forfeiture of their medical licenses.“The justice department is going to use every tool we have to ensure reproductive freedom,” Garland told reporters on Tuesday.More than half of US states have either banned or are expected to ban abortion after the supreme court’s decision earlier this summer returned regulation of abortion to the state level.Bans like the one Idaho has imposed are forcing patients seeking abortions to travel hundreds of miles from home, among other consequences.TopicsIdahoAbortionUS politicsHealthWomennewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      We Are Living in Richard Nixon’s America. Escaping It Won’t Be Easy.

      by

      It seems so naïve now, that moment in 2020 when Democratic insiders started to talk of Joe Biden as a transformational figure. But there were reasons to believe. To hold off a pandemic-induced collapse, the federal government had injected $2.2 trillion into the economy, much of it in New Deal-style relief. The summer’s protests altered the public’s perception of race’s role in the criminal justice system. And analyses were pointing to Republican losses large enough to clear the way for the biggest burst of progressive legislation since the 1960s.Two years on, the truth is easier to see. We aren’t living in Franklin Roosevelt’s America, or Lyndon Johnson’s, or Donald Trump’s, or even Joe Biden’s. We’re living in Richard Nixon’s.Not the America of Nixon’s last years, though there are dim echoes of it in the Jan. 6 hearings, but the nation he built before Watergate brought him down, where progressive possibilities would be choked off by law and order’s toxic politics and a Supreme Court he’d helped to shape.He already had his core message set in the early days of his 1968 campaign. In a February speech in New Hampshire, he said: “When a nation with the greatest tradition of the rule of law is torn apart by lawlessness,” he said, “when a nation which has been the symbol of equality of opportunity is torn apart by racial strife … then I say it’s time for new leadership in the United States of America.”There it is — the fusion of crime, race and fear that Nixon believed would carry him to the presidency.Over the course of that year, he gave his pitch a populist twist by saying that he was running to defend all those hard-working, law-abiding Americans who occupied “the silent center.”A month later, after a major Supreme Court ruling on school integration, he quietly told key supporters that if he were elected, he would nominate only justices who would oppose the court’s progressivism. And on the August night he accepted the Republican nomination, he gave it all a colorblind sheen. “To those who say that law and order is the code word for racism, there and here is a reply,” he said. “Our goal is justice for every American.”In practice it didn’t work that way. Within two years of his election, Nixon had passed two major crime bills laced with provisions targeting poor Black communities. One laid the groundwork for a racialized war on drugs. The other turned the criminal code of Washington, D.C., into a model for states to follow by authorizing the district’s judges to issue no-knock warrants, allowing them to detain suspects they deemed dangerous and requiring them to impose mandatory minimum sentences on those convicted of violent crimes.And the nation’s police would have all the help they needed to restore law and order. Lyndon Johnson had sent about $20 million in aid to police departments and prison systems in his last two years in office. Nixon sent $3 billion. Up went departments’ purchases of military-grade weapons, their use of heavily armed tactical patrols, the number of officers they put on the streets. And up went the nation’s prison population, by 16 percent, while the Black share of the newly incarcerated reached its highest level in 50 years.Nixon’s new order reached into the Supreme Court, too, just as he said it would. His predecessors had made their first nominations to the court by the fluid standards presidents tended to apply to the process: Dwight Eisenhower wanted a moderate Republican who seemed like a statesman, John Kennedy someone with the vigor of a New Frontiersman, Johnson an old Washington hand who understood where his loyalties lay. For his first appointment, in May 1969, Nixon chose a little-known federal judge, Warren Burger, with an extensive record supporting prosecutorial and police power over the rights of the accused.When a second seat opened a few months later, he followed the same pattern, twice nominating judges who had at one point either expressed opposition to the integration of the races or whose rulings were regarded as favoring segregation. Only when the Senate rejected both of them did Nixon fall back on Harry Blackmun, the sort of centrist Ike would have loved.Two more justices stepped down in September 1971. Again Nixon picked nominees who he knew would be tough on crime and soft on civil rights — and by then, he had a more expansive agenda in mind. It included an aversion to government regulation of the private sector — and so one pick was the courtly corporate lawyer Lewis Powell, who had written an influential memo that year to the director of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce advocating a robust corporate defense of the free enterprise system. Another item on Nixon’s agenda was to devolve federal power down to the states. William Rehnquist, an assistant attorney general committed to that view, was his other pick. The two foundational principles of an increasingly energized conservatism were set into the court by Nixon’s determination to select his nominees through a precisely defined litmus test previous presidents hadn’t imagined applying.Our view of the Burger court may be skewed in part because Nixon’s test didn’t include abortion. By 1971, abortion politics had become furiously contested, but the divisions followed demography as well as political affiliation: In polling then (which wasn’t as representative as it is today), among whites, men were slightly more likely than women to support the right to choose, the non-Catholic college-educated more likely than those without college degrees, non-Catholics far more likely than Catholics, who anchored the opposition. So it wasn’t surprising that after oral arguments, three of the four white Protestant men Nixon had put on the court voted for Roe, and that one of them wrote the majority opinion.Justice Blackmun was still drafting the court’s decision in May 1972 when Nixon sent a letter to New York’s Catholic cardinal, offering his “admiration, sympathy and support” for the church stepping in as “defenders of the right to life of the unborn.” The Republican assemblywoman who had led New York’s decriminalization of abortion denounced his intervention as “a patent pitch for the Catholic vote.” That it was. In November, Nixon carried the Catholic vote, thanks to a move that gave the abortion wars a partisan alignment they hadn’t had before.Nixon’s version of law and order has endured, through Ronald Reagan’s war on drugs, George H. W. Bush’s Crime Control Act of 1990 and Bill Clinton’s crime bill to broken windows, stop-and-frisk and the inexorable rise in mass incarceration. The ideological vetting of justices has increased in intensity and in precision.Mr. Trump’s term entrenched a party beholden to the configurations of politics and power that Nixon had shaped half a century ago. The possibility of progressive change that seemed to open in 2020 has now been shut down. The court’s supermajority handed down the first of what could be at least a decade of rulings eviscerating liberal precedents.Crime and gun violence now outstrip race as one of the electorates’ major concerns.Mr. Trump, in a speech on Tuesday, made it clear that he would continue to hammer the theme as he considers a 2024 run: “If we don’t have safety, we don’t have freedom,” he said, adding that “America First must mean safety first” and “we need an all-out effort to defeat violent crime in America and strongly defeat it. And be tough. And be nasty and be mean if we have to.”An order so firmly entrenched won’t easily be undone. It’s tempting to talk about expanding the court or imposing age limits. But court reform has no plausible path through the Senate. Even if it did, the results might not be progressive: Republicans are as likely as Democrats to pack a court once they control Congress, and age limits wouldn’t affect some of the most conservative justices for at least another 13 years. The truth is the court will be remade as it always has been, a justice at a time.The court will undoubtedly limit progressive policies, too, as it has already done on corporate regulation and gun control. But it’s also opened up the possibility of undoing some of the partisan alignments that Nixon put into place, on abortion most of all. Now that Roe is gone, the Democrats have the chance to reclaim that portion of anti-abortion voters who support the government interventions — like prenatal and early child care — that a post-Roe nation desperately needs and the Republican Party almost certainly won’t provide.Nothing matters more, though, than shattering Nixon’s fusion of race, crime and fear. To do that, liberals must take up violent crime as a defining issue, something they have been reluctant to do, and then to relentlessly rework it, to try to break the power of its racial dynamic by telling the public an all-too-obvious truth: The United States is harassed by violent crime because it’s awash in guns, because it has no effective approach to treating mental illness and the epidemic of drug addiction, because it accepts an appalling degree of inequality and allows entire sections of the country to tumble into despair.Making that case is a long-term undertaking, too, as is to be expected of a project trying to topple half a century of political thinking. But until Nixon’s version of law and order is purged from American public life, we’re going to remain locked into the nation he built on its appeal, its future shaped, as so much of its past has been, by its racism and its fear.Kevin Boyle, a history professor at Northwestern University, is the author of, most recently, “The Shattering: America in the 1960s.”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

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      A New Yorker’s Opposition to Abortion Clouds Her House Re-Election Bid

      by

      Representative Nicole Malliotakis, the city’s lone Republican House member, has tried to maintain some distance from the Supreme Court ruling on abortion.As the lone Republican in the New York City congressional delegation, Representative Nicole Malliotakis has adopted certain stances that would make her an understandable outlier in a deeply Democratic city.Just days after taking office in early 2021, she voted to discard the legitimate 2020 election results, voting for a debunked conspiracy theory that claimed President Donald J. Trump actually won the election. She followed up by voting against Mr. Trump’s second impeachment as a result of the deadly Capitol riots of Jan. 6, 2021.But as she seeks re-election in November, Ms. Malliotakis has tried to tread a finer line around guns and abortion, two polarizing social issues that have taken on added prominence in light of recent Supreme Court decisions. (In June, the court overturned the federal right to abortion, as well as a New York law governing concealed weapons.)On guns, for example, Ms. Malliotakis has voiced some support for new regulations, even voting for several Democratic gun control bills proffered in the wake of the massacres in Buffalo and Uvalde, Texas. She later, however, voted against the omnibus bill package, contending that it was “constitutionally suspect” and “represented a partisan overreach.”Ms. Malliotakis opposes abortion rights, favoring restrictions on using taxpayer funding for the procedure and on late-term abortions. But she has said that she believes that abortion should be allowed under certain circumstances, such as when the life of the mother is at risk.But Ms. Malliotakis has also tried to maintain some distance from the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, saying in a recent interview that she “didn’t weigh in on it.” Yet earlier this month, the congresswoman voted against a pair of bills that would have banned states from restricting abortions and prohibited them from blocking access to out-of-state abortion services.Republicans, who are expected to fare well in November’s midterm elections, have long fought to overturn Roe. Yet some of the party’s candidates have not rushed to embrace the Dobbs ruling, wary of alienating voters who, according to polls, may be swayed by social issues in ways that help Democrats.Ms. Malliotakis is a prime example. Her district encompasses Staten Island and a swath of southwest Brooklyn, some of the city’s most conservative areas. Yet New York remains an overwhelmingly Democratic city, and the recent Supreme Court rulings were profoundly unpopular here.So, like many of her Republican colleagues, Ms. Malliotakis, a first-term congresswoman, is instead trying to steer the conversation toward bottom-line issues like inflation and high gas prices.“People are struggling putting gas in their tanks, putting food on their tables, paying their bills,” Ms. Malliotakis said in a recent interview.New York’s 2022 ElectionsAs prominent Democratic officials seek to defend their records, Republicans see opportunities to make inroads in general election races.N.Y. Governor’s Race: This year, for the first time in over 75 years, the state ballot appears destined to offer only two choices: Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, and Representative Lee Zeldin, a Republican. Here is why.10th Congressional District: Half a century after she became one of the youngest women ever to serve in Congress, Elizabeth Holtzman is running once again for a seat in the House of Representatives.12th Congressional District: As Representatives Jerrold Nadler and Carolyn Maloney, two titans of New York politics, battle it out, Suraj Patel is trying to eke out his own path to victory.“For some people who are single-issue individuals, it could potentially have an impact,” she added, of her statements on guns and abortion. “But I know that crime and pocketbook issues are the most important issues to the people I represent.”Ms. Malliotakis is expected to easily win her Republican primary next month against John Matland, a badly underfunded rival, setting her up for a likely rematch against Max Rose, the former Democratic congressman whom she unseated in 2020.Mr. Rose, a combat veteran who was wounded in Afghanistan and awarded the Bronze Star, has sought to tie Ms. Malliotakis to the extreme elements of the Republican Party, including Mr. Trump, and to the Capitol riot by the president’s supporters, saying he is running to protect “the soul of America.”“Everything that our country was built upon wasn’t just spit at: They tried to destroy it,” he said during a campaign walkabout on July 11 in Bay Ridge. “And even after — even after — Nicole, and everyone else in Congress who were almost killed, they still voted to decertify.”He is also openly derisive of Ms. Malliotakis’s seeming duality on some hot-button issues, mocking her limited embrace of gun control, for example, as nothing more than “a few ceremonial votes.”“When it came time for the package to be voted on, as she always does, she played both sides,” he said, referring to the omnibus bill. “Voted for it before she voted against it. Who knows what’s going on here?”Max Rose, right, has tried to highlight Ms. Malliotakis’s position on abortion, portraying her as being on “the wrong side of history.”Amir Hamja for The New York TimesMr. Rose has also held a handful of public events after the Supreme Court ruling on abortion — including one at Ms. Malliotakis’s Brooklyn district office in Bay Ridge — to portray her as out of touch with her district, even on Staten Island, saying the congresswoman is “on the wrong side of history.”“I generally do believe that when it comes down to it, people are on the side of women having the opportunity to make those decisions for themselves,” he said. In recent weeks, Mr. Rose continued that line of attack, saying the congresswoman had “tweeted over 180 times and issued 13 press releases” since the Dobbs decision, but “has said nothing about millions of women losing control over their bodies.”When asked specifically about the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe, Ms. Malliotakis demurred.“My constituents, they know that nothing is going to change in New York,” she said. “The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, so we have to accept the Supreme Court’s decision regardless.”Ms. Malliotakis’s comments have also given fodder to her opponents on the right, including Mr. Matland, a health care worker who lost his job for refusing to be vaccinated, and who is seeking to oust Ms. Malliotakis in the Aug. 23 primary with a low-budget, anti-establishment campaign.Mr. Matland, who is making his first run for public office, said that Ms. Malliotakis has “often alienated the Republican base,” and that she has only been voted into office because of her name recognition — she served five terms in the State Assembly and ran unsuccessfully in 2017 for mayor of New York City — and her district’s aversion to Democratic candidates.“People say ‘I only voted for her’ — and I’m guilty of this myself — ‘because I thought she was a much better option than Max Rose,’” Mr. Matland said, adding, “And that’s the exact reason we have primaries: so we can get a better option.”John Matland is challenging Ms. Malliotakis in the Republican primary on Aug. 23.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesConsidering the likelihood of a tough year for Democrats nationally, most observers think that Mr. Rose will have an uphill battle in November, assuming he wins his primary in August against two challengers: Brittany Ramos DeBarros, a progressive community activist, and Komi Agoda-Koussema, an educator.Mr. Rose’s campaign was also dealt a setback earlier this year when a state judge threw out new Democrat-drawn congressional lines that could have tilted the district heavily in his favor. The refashioned lines, drawn by a redistricting expert in May, left the district looking largely the same, though its section of Brooklyn — about half as populous as the Staten Island portion — did favor President Biden over Mr. Trump by about 12 points in the 2020 election.Ms. Malliotakis accused Mr. Rose of entering the race only “because he thought they were going to change the lines in his favor.” “The good news about reruns is we know how they end,” Ms. Malliotakis said of her rematch against Mr. Rose.Vito Fossella, the Republican who serves as the Staten Island borough president, echoed that sentiment, saying he didn’t “see how the dynamics” of the race have changed much since 2020, and suggesting that abortion and guns would not be major issues for Staten Island voters.“On balance, what people care about is ‘Are we safe? Are we comfortable economically? Do we have a brighter future?’” said Mr. Fossella, who is a supporter of Ms. Malliotakis.A path to re-election for Ms. Malliotakis, 41, will likely include a big win on the island’s South Shore, a Republican stronghold, to offset the more liberal neighborhoods in the north. And for South Shore residents like Edward Carey, a retired banking executive who winters in Florida but has a house in the Eltingville neighborhood, Ms. Malliotakis is already a sure thing. He noted the backing of Mr. Fossella, as well as other factors.“She’s a Republican, she’s a woman, she’s young,” said Mr. Carey, 83, a registered Republican who said the last Democrat he voted for was John F. Kennedy. “That’s good enough for me.”Ms. Malliotakis may be headed for a November rematch with Mr. Rose, whom she unseated in 2020.Amir Hamja for The New York TimesStill, State Senator Diane J. Savino, a moderate Democrat who has represented the north part of Staten Island for nearly two decades, said “you cannot pinpoint Staten Island voters.”“It’s not that they’re Republican or Democrat, left-leaning or right-leaning: It’s whether or not that candidate speaks to what touches Staten Islanders,” she said, noting the island’s recent history of vacillating between parties. “Anybody who thinks that they can put their finger on the pulse of Staten Island voters doesn’t know what they’re talking about.”She also criticized Ms. Malliotakis for being wishy-washy on critical issues, but noted that voters don’t seem to care.“Up until now, Nicole has skirted on this,” Ms. Savino said, referring to Ms. Malliotakis’s anti-abortion votes in Washington and Albany. “No one ever holds her accountable. So I don’t think that’s going to drive voters here. What’s going to drive voters is whether or not they think they’re going to have someone who is going to fight for them in Washington.”Vin DeRosa, a patron at Jody’s Club Forest, a popular bar near the North Shore where Mr. Rose has been known to drink, is a registered Democrat but said he considers himself an independent who “votes for the person” rather than the party line.Mr. DeRosa, a retired telecommunications professional, said that he had voted for Mr. Rose in 2020, and that he likely would again, if only because of Ms. Malliotakis’s association with Mr. Trump.“I’m not sure I want a congressperson who has to call Mar-a-Lago,” Mr. DeRosa said, “to find out what to do.” More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Kansas Abortion Vote Tests Political Energy in Post-Roe America

      by

      On Tuesday, Kansans will decide whether to pass a constitutional amendment that could lead to far-reaching abortion restrictions or an outright ban on the procedure.OLATHE, Kan. — In the final days before Kansans decide whether to remove abortion rights protections from their State Constitution, the politically competitive Kansas City suburbs have become hotbeds of activism.In neighborhoods where yard signs often tout high school sports teams, dueling abortion-related messages now also dot front lawns. A cafe known for its chocolates and cheese pie has become a haven for abortion rights advocates and a source of ire for opponents. Signs have been stolen, a Catholic church was vandalized earlier this month and tension is palpable on the cusp of the first major vote on the abortion issue since Roe v. Wade was overturned in June.“I’m really sad that that happened,” said Leslie Schmitz, 54, of Olathe, speaking of the abortion access landscape. “And mad. Sad and mad.”There may be no greater motivator in modern American politics than anger. And for months, Republican voters enraged by the Biden administration have been explosively energized about this year’s elections. Democrats, meanwhile, have confronted erosion with their base and significant challenges with independent voters.But interviews with more than 40 voters in populous Johnson County, Kan., this week show that after the fall of Roe, Republicans no longer have a monopoly on fury — especially in states where abortion rights are clearly on the ballot and particularly in the battleground suburbs.“I feel pretty strongly about this,” said Chris Price, 46, a political independent who said he voted for Mitt Romney for president in 2012 before backing Democrats when Donald J. Trump was on the ballot. “The candidates that would support an abortion ban, I would not be supporting at all. Period.”Chris Price outside a Johnson County early-voting location in Overland Park, Kan.Chase Castor for The New York TimesNatalie Roberts-Wilner, an early voter, outside her home in Merriam, Kan.Chase Castor for The New York TimesAsked if threats to abortion rights had affected how motivated she felt about engaging in the midterm elections this fall, Natalie Roberts-Wilner, a Democrat from Merriam, Kan., added, “Yes. Yes. Yes. Definitely.”On Tuesday, Kansans will vote on a constitutional amendment that, if it passes, could give the Republican-dominated Legislature the ability to push new abortion restrictions or to outlaw the procedure entirely. Nearby states including Missouri — which is separated from some competitive Kansas suburbs by State Line Road, a thoroughfare dotted with abortion-related yard signs — have already enacted near-total bans.The vote is open to unaffiliated Kansans as well as partisans. And whatever the outcome, activists on both sides caution against drawing sweeping national conclusions from an August ballot question, given complex crosscurrents at play.Read More on Abortion Issues in AmericaA National Pattern: A Times analysis shows that states with abortion bans have among the nation’s weakest social services for women and children.A Doctor Speaks Out: Dr. Caitlin Bernard, who was catapulted into the national spotlight for providing an abortion to a 10-year-old, spoke of the challenges doctors face in post-Roe America.Rifts Among Conservatives: An effort in Indiana to pass an abortion ban has exposed clashing views among Republicans on how to legislate in a post-Roe world.The First Post-Roe Vote: In Kansas, voters will soon decide whether to remove protections of abortion rights from their State Constitution, providing the first electoral test since the end of Roe.The amendment language itself has been criticized as confusing, and in an overwhelmingly Republican state, Democrats and unaffiliated voters are less accustomed to voting on Primary Day. On the other hand, a few voters said they would vote no on the amendment but could back Republicans in November — a sign that some who support abortion rights still weigh other political issues more heavily in elections. And nationally, a Washington Post-Schar School poll released on Friday found that Republicans and abortion opponents were more likely to vote in November.But there is no question that the abortion debate in the state’s most populous county — located in the Third District of Kansas, one of the nation’s most competitive congressional seats — offers the first significant national test of how the issue is resonating in suburban swing territory.Like other highly educated, moderate areas — from suburban Philadelphia to Orange County, Calif. — the Third District is home to a substantial number of center-right voters who, like Mr. Price, were comfortable with Mr. Romney in 2012. But they embraced Democrats in the 2018 midterms, including Gov. Laura Kelly and Representative Sharice Davids, and many have recoiled from Mr. Trump. Whether those voters remain in the Democratic fold this year, with Mr. Trump out of office, has been an open question in American politics. Democrats are betting that outrage over far-reaching abortion restrictions will help the party hang onto at least some of those moderates, despite the extraordinary political headwinds they face. Republicans insist that anger around inflation — and fear of a recession — will crowd out other concerns for a broad swath of voters. (In polls, far more Americans cite inflation or the economy as the biggest problem facing the country than they do abortion.)Silvana Botero, a patron at André’s, in Overland Park, Kan.Chase Castor for The New York TimesMelissa Moore at a voting location in Olathe, Kan.Chase Castor for The New York TimesThe Tuesday vote will offer an early snapshot of attitudes and energy around abortion, if not a definitive predictor of how those voters will behave in the fall.“How much of a motivator is it really?” said Dan Sena, a Democratic strategist who guided the House takeover in 2018, of abortion rights, adding that there had recently been signs of improvement for Democrats in some suburban districts. “How does it actually, when it’s by itself, move women, move portions of the electorate? And this will really give us insight and the opportunity to get an answer to that.”Limited public polling has shown a fairly close if unpredictable race.“It appears that the ‘Yes’ vote still has the lead, but that has narrowed,” said Mike Kuckelman, the chairman of the Kansas Republican Party. Citing the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that handed control over abortion rights to the states, he continued, “A lot of that is because, I think, the Dobbs decision has incited the pro-choice forces to come out.”The Kansas City Star reported on Thursday that there had been an increase, so far, of about 246 percent in early in-person votes compared with during the 2018 midterm primary elections. Several voting stations in both moderate and more conservative parts of Johnson County this week were bustling all day, including in a rainstorm and in the baking heat. And on Friday, Scott Schwab, the Republican secretary of state, predicted that around 36 percent of Kansas voters would participate in the 2022 primary election, slightly up from the primary in 2020. His office said that the constitutional amendment “has increased voter interest in the election.”“I’ve talked to many people that said, ‘I’ve not previously been involved but going to vote,’” Mr. Kuckelman said.Other Republicans said that the abortion amendment and overturning of Roe did not affect their commitment to voting in other races this year — that they have long been highly engaged.“No more energized,” said John Morrill, 58, of Overland Park, who supports the amendment. “I was already very energized.”At the Olathe site, which drew more conservative voters on Thursday, Melissa Moore said she was voting for the amendment because of her deeply held beliefs opposing abortion. “I understand women saying, ‘I need to control my own body,’ but once you have another body in there, that’s their body,” Ms. Moore said. But asked how the intense national focus on abortion affected how she thought about voting, she replied, “I tend to always be energized.”A few others at the early-voting site in Olathe indicated that they were voting against the amendment and were inclined to back Democrats this fall. But they spoke in hushed tones and declined to give full names, citing concerns about professional backlash, in an illustration of how fraught the environment has become.Andre’s Rivaz, a Swiss cafe in Overland Park, Kan., has encouraged patrons to vote.Chase Castor for The New York TimesCloser to the Missouri border, patrons at André’s, an upscale Swiss cafe, felt freer to openly express their opposition to the amendment. The restaurant and shop stoked controversy earlier this summer when employees wore “Vote No” stickers or buttons and encouraged patrons to vote, but several lunchtime visitors made clear that they shared those views.“We just want to make sure people have rights to make choices,” said Silvana Botero, 45, who said that she and a group of about 20 friends were all voting no and that she felt more enthusiastic about voting in November, too.At a voting site nearby, Shelly Schneider, a 66-year-old Republican, was more politically conflicted. Ms. Schneider opposed the amendment but planned to back some Republicans in November. Still, she was open to Ms. Kelly, the Democratic governor, especially if the amendment succeeded. Approval of the amendment, she acknowledged, could open the way for potentially far-reaching action from the Legislature.“I think Laura Kelly is kind of a hedge against anything that might pass,” she said. “She might provide some common sense there.”Mitch Smith contributed reporting. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Yes, Republicans really did try to make abortion punishable by death | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      Yes, Republicans really did try to make abortion punishable by deathArwa MahdawiA bill introduced in the North Carolina legislature last year was largely performative but was part of the right’s strategy to make the unthinkable mainstream Sign up for the Week in Patriarchy, a newsletter​ on feminism and sexism sent every Saturday.Anti-abortion zealots want to legalize murderIs it legal to kill someone who is about to have an abortion? I know that sounds like a ridiculous question, but some people on the far right would like it to be. Social media was recently awash with outrage over a bill introduced by North Carolina state legislators that would legalize violence against anyone undergoing or performing an abortion. North Carolina House Bill (HB) 158, sponsored by a Republican state representative, Larry Pittman, proposed that abortion be considered first-degree murder and would allowed civilians to use deadly force to prevent someone from ending a pregnancy.While this is clearly terrifying, it should be noted that a lot of discussion circulating about the bill online wasn’t accurate: the outrage was sparked by a somewhat misleading post that made it look like the bill was actively being considered. In fact, however, HB 158 was introduced in February 2021 and didn’t advance out of committee. An AFP fact check also notes that it received little support from legislators.Still, even though the bill was largely performative, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be taken seriously. The far right constantly introduce extreme bills like this into state legislatures with the full knowledge that there is zero chance they will pass. It’s part of a broader strategy to further their agenda that can be summed up as exhaust and inure. Exhaust: the more they overwhelm legislatures with extreme legislation, the harder it becomes for liberals to fight them. It becomes a game of “Whac-a-Mole”. Inure: proposing extreme ideas like this via legislation helps gradually desensitize people and shifts the Overton window to the right; step by step the unthinkable becomes mainstream.All this isn’t just my personal opinion, by the way: it’s extracted from a playbook written by Christian nationalists. A few years ago a researcher called Frederick Clarkson uncovered an initiative from a coalition of far-right Christian groups called Project Blitz that gave their supporters detailed instructions on how to codify their views into law and gradually destroy the division between church and state. I highly recommend reading Clarkson’s writings on Project Blitz: they are essential for understanding the current moment. As Clarkson said when he first found the playbook: “It’s very rare that you come across a major primary source document that changes the way you view everything, and this is one of those times. This is a 116-page strategy manual hidden away on a website explaining at least what a section of the religious right are doing in the United States.”Bills like the one in North Carolina, it can’t be stressed enough, are not just frivolous one-offs by extremists. They’re part of a coordinated – and highly effective – strategy to consolidate power by the right. Democrats should really be paying more attention to these tactics and learning from them. So many centrists are afraid that suggesting things like free healthcare will make them look like radicals hellbent on bringing communism to America. You think the right care about looking “radical”? Of course not. They care about power. And they’re very good at doing whatever it takes to get it.South Carolina bill outlaws websites explaining how to get an abortionWant another example of that “Whac-a-Mole” strategy in action? South Carolina state senators recently introduced legislation that would make it illegal to host a website or “[provide] an internet service” with information that is “reasonably likely to be used for an abortion”. This is incredibly far-reaching language that means even news stories related to reproductive rights could be censored. This bill is unconstitutional and it’s not clear that it will be law anytime soon. But, again, that doesn’t make it any less worrying. As one expert told the Washington Post: “These are not going to be one-offs. These are going to be laws that spread like wildfire through states that have shown hostility to abortion.”A 99-year-old’s dying wish was for a giant penis statue over her graveI would describe this as a snippet of much-needed light news, but there is nothing light about the penis and testicles that now sit on top of Catarina Orduña Pérez’s grave: they weigh nearly 600 pounds. The statue is also five-a-half-foot tall. “She told me that [the statue] was her desire so that no one would forget her and that everything we loved about her would be remembered more easily,” Pérez’s grandson told Vice. A legend.Shireen Abu Akleh’s family demand US actionIt has been over two months now since the Palestinian American journalist was killed while covering a military raid in the occupied West Bank. A UN rights body investigation found that the shot that killed Abu Akleh came from Israeli security forces, echoing eyewitness accounts of the shooting and analysis by other rights groups. Still, the US seems to have no desire to ensure there is accountability for her death; the journalist’s family travelled to Washington to beg the secretary of state, Antony Blinken, to do something this week and he fobbed them off. If Abu Akleh had been murdered in Ukraine by Russian forces, I think the US response would be rather different. When journalists are killed by US allies (Jamal Khashoggi comes to mind), the US seems to rather relax its concerns about things like human rights and accountability.‘I will never regret the time I spent with my children, but society is punishing me for it in my 60s’“Precarity can happen so easily to anyone,” writes Louise Ihlein in a powerful piece in the Guardian. “[B]ut it happens a lot to women who have spent their lives caring for others.”Being a woman in Afghanistan has become ‘death in slow motion’A chilling new report released by Amnesty International documents how the rights of women and girls in Afghanistan have been “decimated by the Taliban” in less than a year. Child marriage has surged and safeguards protecting women have collapsed.Lebanese politician says used condoms were left in her office by male colleaguesAmnesty International has condemned the sexist harassment of a newly elected female MP in Lebanon, Cynthia Zarazir. The legislator spoke out on Twitter about being catcalled and bullied, saying her colleagues gave her a filthy office full of pornographic magazines and condoms. “If this is how they treat an elected fellow MP, how will they deal with those who are voiceless?” she tweeted.The week in pawtriarchyA group of roaming macaque monkeys have been terrorizing a southern Japanese city in recent weeks, attacking more than 50 individuals. Most of the victims have been children and women (who knew macaques could be so misogynistic?!) but it seems attacks on men are on the rise. “I have never seen anything like this my entire life,” one city official said. Like many other things unfolding right now, the wild monkey attacks are unprecedented. What I would give to live in precedented times.Arwa Mahdawi’s new book, Strong Female Lead, is available for orderTopicsAbortionThe Week in PatriarchyUS politicsRoe v WadecommentReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘What about my life?’ West Virginia girl, 12, speaks out against anti-abortion bill

      by

      ‘What about my life?’ West Virginia girl, 12, speaks out against anti-abortion bill Plea by Addison Gardner during public hearing against bill that would prohibit procedure in nearly all cases goes viral00:56An impassioned plea from a 12-year-old girl has gone viral after she spoke to West Virginia Republican lawmakers during a public hearing for an abortion bill that would prohibit the procedure in nearly all cases.On Wednesday, Addison Gardner of Buffalo middle school in Kenova, West Virginia, was among several people who spoke out against a bill that would not only ban abortions in most cases but also allow for physicians who perform abortions to be prosecuted.Addressing the West Virginia house of delegates, Gardner, among about 90 other speakers, was given 45 seconds to plead her case.“My education is very important to me and I plan on doing great things in life. If a man decides that I’m an object and does unspeakable and tragic things to me, am I, a child, supposed to carry and birth another child?” Gardner said.She went on to add, “Am I to put my body through the physical trauma of pregnancy? Am I to suffer the mental implications, a child, who had no say in what was being done with my body? Some here say they are pro-life. What about my life? Does my life not matter to you?”As Gardner – a volleyball and track athlete at her middle school, spoke, she was looked on by Rita Ray, an 80-year-old woman who had an abortion in 1959, 14 years before terminations were deemed a constitutional right.In a photo captured by Kyle Vass, a journalist from the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia, Ray can be seen smiling in the background as Gardner issued her impassioned plea.One user who tweeted the photo wrote, “Rita Ray, 80, who risked her life pre-Roe by getting an abortion from someone who wasn’t a healthcare provider, watches on as Addison Gardner, 12, contemplates her own future without access to legal abortion in WV.”Despite speeches from Gardner and other abortion rights activists, the house passed the bill by an overwhelming vote of 69 to 23. Shortly after Gardner delivered her address, house members adopted an amendment that would allow abortions in cases of rape or incest.However, the amendment, which passed narrowly with 46 to 43 votes, only allows for the procedure to be performed up to 14 weeks of pregnancy and only if the rape or incest is reported to the police.Unlike some other states which have “trigger bans” that would ban abortions within 30 days of Roe being overturned, West Virginia has a 150-year-old pre-Roe abortion ban that would come back into effect in the absence of Roe.Last week, Kanawha county circuit judge Tera Salango blocked the enforcement of the abortion ban and granted the Women’s Health Center of West Virginia, the state’s only abortion clinic, the ability to continue performing the procedure.Salango said its patients, “especially those who are impregnated as a result of a rape or incest, are suffering irreparable harm”, the Associated Press reports.West Virginia’s attorney general, Patrick Morrisey, described the ruling as “a dark day for West Virginia”.The abortion bill moved to the West Virginia senate on Thursday and may be passed by the end of the week.TopicsWest VirginiaAbortionUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Indiana investigates abortion doctor who treated 10-year-old rape victim

      by

      Indiana investigates abortion doctor who treated 10-year-old rape victim State attorney general notifies Dr Caitlin Bernard and claims ‘she used a 10-year-old girl to push her political ideology’ The Indiana state attorney general has launched an investigation into the doctor who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old rape victim.According to Kathleen DeLaney, a lawyer acting for the doctor, Caitlin Bernard, a notice from the Indiana attorney general, Todd Rokita, regarding his investigation arrived on Tuesday.Daughter of doctor who gave 10-year-old an abortion faced kidnapping threatRead more“We are in the process of reviewing this information. It’s unclear to us what is the nature of the investigation and what authority he has to investigate Dr Bernard,” DeLaney told CNN. The Guardian has contacted DeLaney for additional comments.On 2 July, Bernard reported a 30 June medication abortion for her 10-year-old patient, who had been obliged to travel to the state from Ohio, after that state followed the US supreme court’s overturning a few days earlier of the federal right to an abortion and banned the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy.According to reports reviewed by the Indianapolis Star and WXIN-TV of Indianapolis, Bernard’s reporting of her treatment to the health authorities came within the three-day requirement set by state law for individuals aged below 16 who undergo an abortion. The reports added that the patient who sought the abortion had become pregnant as the result of sexual abuse.A 27-year-old man has since been charged in Columbus, Ohio, in connection with abuse of the girl.Since the abortion, Bernard became the center of a political firestorm from rightwing media outlets and Republican politicians after Joe Biden expressed sympathy for the girl when he signed an executive order earlier this month aimed at safeguarding abortion access after the supreme court’s action in upending the historic 1973 abortion case Roe v Wade.According to DeLaney, Bernard is considering taking legal action against “those who have smeared my client”, including Rokita, who previously said that he would investigate whether she violated abortion reporting or child abuse notification laws.In a statement to the Guardian on Wednesday, Rokita said: “The baseless defamation claim and other accusations are really just attempts to distract, intimidate and obstruct my office’s monumental progress to save lives. It will take a lot more than that to intimidate us.“The doctor alone brought this case to the press. She used a 10-year-old girl – a child rape victim’s personal trauma – to push her political ideology. She was aided and abetted by a fake news media who conveniently misquoted my words to try to give abortionists and their readership numbers an extra boost.”Rokita added: “My heart breaks for this little girl.”According to Indiana University Health, where Bernard practices as an obstetrician-gynecologist, “IU Health conducted an investigation with the full cooperation of Dr Bernard and other IU Health team members. IU Health’s investigation found Dr Bernard in compliance with privacy laws.”Pregnancy termination forms that Bernard filed with the Indiana department of health, which Indy Star obtained and reviewed, showed that Bernard indicated the girl was six weeks pregnant at the time of her abortion and that Bernard did not know the age of the person who impregnated her.Bernard’s attorney said that she “took every appropriate and proper action in accordance with the law and both her medical and ethical training as a physician”.Meanwhile, a Wyoming judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked that state’s abortion ban on the day it took effect, siding with a firebombed women’s health clinic and others who argued the ban would violate the state constitution and harm healthcare workers and their patients.And lawmakers in West Virginia debated an abortion ban, drawing an at times raucous crowd of hundreds to the state capitol, where dozens spoke against the bill on the house floor.Wyoming’s court action puts it among several states including Kentucky, Louisiana and Utah where judges have temporarily blocked implementation of “trigger laws” while lawsuits play out.Such trigger laws are designed to automatically implement pre-prepared abortion ban laws after Roe was felled and the power over the right to abortion was returned from the federal government to the states.Later on Wednesday, a North Dakota judge blocked a trigger law there that was set to outlaw abortion in the state starting on Thursday.The Associated Press contributed reportingTopicsIndianaUS politicsAbortionRepublicansnewsReuse this content More