Abortion

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Worried about abortion and demonic possession? You’d make a great Republican politician | Arwa Mahdawi

      by

      Worried about abortion and demonic possession? You’d make a great Republican politicianArwa MahdawiJust when you think you’ve plumbed the depths of delusion and bigotry, another stalwart of the GOP proves you wrong. Astounding work, Kristina Karamo, Scott Neely and Karianne Lisonbee Have you mislaid a few brain cells? Do you have increasingly bizarre delusions? Are you completely befuddled about how the female body works? Well, congratulations! You have what it takes to forge a successful career as a Republican politician. Anyone watching recent events unfold would be forgiven for thinking the main skills required for a job in Republican politics appear to be extreme bigotry combined with a knack for saying whatever outlandish thing comes into your head first.Even so, there are still times when Republican politicians can surprise you with the depths of their inanity. Let me introduce you, for example, to Scott Neely, who is running for the Republican nomination for governor of Arizona. During a televised debate last week Neely discussed an Arizona abortion ban by invoking aliens. “If we found life on Mars, wouldn’t we do everything in our power to protect that life?” Neely asked. “Why can’t we treat human life the same way we would treat alien life?”Neely would probably have quite a lot to talk about with Kristina Karamo, who is vying to become Michigan’s next secretary of state, and has the endorsement of Donald Trump. Karamo has publicly said (in a 2020 podcast that was publicised this week) that she thinks “demonic possession is real” and can be sexually transmitted. Unfortunately for those of us not wanting to catch a bad case of demonic possession, she didn’t go into the details of how this works. Do contraceptives stop sexually transmitted demons? Inquiring minds want to know.Karamo isn’t the only Republican to have made headlines in recent weeks for her unorthodox views on biology. Utah Republican Karianne Lisonbee recently apologised for saying she trusts women to “control [their] intake of semen” in order to avoid unwanted pregnancies. And, last month, Yesli Vega, who just won a Republican primary in Virginia, told an interviewer that she had heard it was “harder for a woman to get pregnant if she’s been raped … maybe because there’s so much going on in the body”. Clearly, there’s not much going on in the brain, or she might have realised what she had just said.
      Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist
      TopicsRepublicansOpinionAbortionUS politicscommentReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in World Politics

      With Roe v Wade Overturned, A Strange Inconsistency Remains

      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

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Will the Abortion Debate Keep Moderate Women in the Democrats’ Camp?

      by

      Worried about inflation and dissatisfied with President Biden, many moderate women have been drifting away from Democrats. Now the party hopes the fight for abortion rights will drive them back.GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — As Gov. Gretchen Whitmer prepared to kick off a round-table discussion about abortion rights at a brewery recently, Alisha Meneely sat at one corner of the table, feeling politically abandoned.Ms. Meneely voted for Donald Trump in 2016 before supporting President Biden in 2020, she said. Now, she is struggling with both parties, gravely disappointed in Mr. Biden’s leadership but anguished by what she sees as a Republican lurch toward extremism, with little room for disagreement — especially on abortion rights.“This scares me a lot,” said Ms. Meneely, 43, who described herself as a “pro-choice Republican” in an interview shortly before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.A few days later, as many Republican officials embraced the far-reaching implications of the decision, she was unequivocal. “This,” Ms. Meneely said, “is not my party.”After struggling for months against daunting political challenges, Democrats have a new opening to engage moderate women like Ms. Meneely, who have been critical to the party’s recent victories but are often seen as swing voters this year, according to interviews with more than two dozen voters, elected officials and party strategists across the country.From the suburbs of Philadelphia and Grand Rapids to more conservative territory in Nebraska, there are early signs that some voters who disapprove of Mr. Biden also increasingly believe that Republicans have gone too far to the right on a range of issues, particularly abortion.Democrats see a new opportunity to engage dissatisfied voters in the fight over abortion rights. Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesIt’s a dynamic with the potential to shape statewide races and some House contests, and one that crystallizes a central tension of the midterm elections as Democrats test whether efforts to define today’s Republicans as extremist can mitigate the political headwinds they confront.High inflation remains the overriding concern for many voters, and Republicans are betting that most Americans will vent about pocketbook frustrations above all else. Mr. Biden has long struggled with anemic approval ratings. Americans also overwhelmingly believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, another troubling sign for the party in power. And some Democrats doubt that even something as significant as the overturning of Roe will dramatically alter the political environment.For many Americans, economic struggles outweigh abortion rights as the top issue.Sarah Silbiger for The New York Times“Does it have an effect? Absolutely,” said Chuck Rocha, a Democratic strategist. “Does it fundamentally change the landscape? No. Not in an off-year election, when your president’s approval rating is below 40 percent and gas is $5 a gallon.”Those crosscurrents all converged last week at a few shopping centers in Warrington, Pa., in Bucks County outside Philadelphia. It’s a swing township within a swing county in the nation’s ultimate swing state. The next governor and a Republican-controlled legislature will most likely determine access to abortion, after the Supreme Court’s recent decision handed control over abortion rights back to the states.Sophia Carroll, 22, said that growing up, some of her friends were engaged in anti-abortion activism. Citing her Catholic upbringing, Ms. Carroll, a registered Republican, said she felt mixed emotions when Roe was overturned. But she intended to vote for Democrats this fall, “just because of this issue” of protecting abortion rights.From Opinion: The End of Roe v. WadeCommentary by Times Opinion writers and columnists on the Supreme Court’s decision to end ​​the constitutional right to abortion.David N. Hackney, maternal-fetal medicine specialist: The end of Roe “is a tragedy for our patients, many of whom will suffer and some of whom could very well die.”Mara Gay: “Sex is fun. For the puritanical tyrants seeking to control our bodies, that’s a problem.”Elizabeth Spiers: “The notion that rich women will be fine, regardless of what the law says, is probably comforting to some. But it is simply not true.”Katherine Stewart, writer: “​​Breaking American democracy isn’t an unintended side effect of Christian nationalism. It is the point of the project.”“As someone who knows other women who have had to make the decision to choose, it’s a very personal and very intimate decision,” she said in an interview at an outdoor shopping center.Ms. Carroll pointed out Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion, which suggested that the court should revisit its cases establishing rights to same-sex marriage, same-sex consensual relations and contraception.“Are they going to ban birth control next?” she said.There is limited polling that captures attitudes after the Supreme Court decision, and none of it predicts how voters will feel in November. A recent survey from NPR, PBS NewsHour and Marist found that 56 percent of adults surveyed opposed the decision and 40 percent supported it. Among people in suburbs, which in recent years have been home to many moderates and swing voters, 57 percent said they mostly support abortion rights; only a third said they mostly oppose abortion rights. Among women in the suburbs and small cities, support for abortion rights jumped to 61 percent.Another survey from Morning Consult and Politico found that among suburban voters, around 60 percent said it was very or somewhat important to support a candidate in the midterm elections who backs abortion access; roughly 40 percent said it was very or somewhat important to support a candidate who opposes that access.But polls have also consistently shown that the economy and inflation remain top issues for many Americans. And many voters are inclined to take their frustration about cost-of-living concerns out on the Democrats.“The economy is always going to be the biggest thing for me,” Diane Jacobs, 57, said in an interview outside a Wegmans grocery store in Warrington. Ms. Jacobs, who said that she typically votes for Republicans, identifies as “pro-life” but does not believe abortion should be illegal. She also voted for Mr. Biden in 2020, she said, as an antidote to divisiveness. But Ms. Jacobs said she would not do so again and planned on supporting Republicans this year.“Just look at inflation,” she said.Some voters are not yet aware of the implications of overturning Roe, which are unfolding day-by-day and state-by-state. Democrats may have room to expand their support on the issue as voters learn more. Republicans, however, may ultimately benefit if many voters who disagree with the decision don’t dive in on the details. Ms. Jacobs said she had not heard of Republicans in the area who wanted to outlaw the procedure.“If there was a presidential candidate who said they wanted to outlaw it in every single case, I don’t know that I’d vote for that person,” she said. “That’s pretty extreme.”Josh Shapiro, the Democratic nominee for governor of Pennsylvania, has promised to veto “any bill that would restrict abortion rights.”Hannah Beier/ReutersAbortion is now banned in at least eight states, with few exceptions allowed. Some legal challenges are underway, and more bans are expected to take effect soon. Doug Mastriano, the far-right Republican nominee for governor in Pennsylvania, has sponsored a roughly six-week abortion ban and has indicated interest in further restrictions, saying life begins at conception. Asked whether he believes in exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother, he replied at a debate, “I don’t give a way for exceptions.”Josh Shapiro, the Democratic nominee, has promised to veto “any bill that would restrict abortion rights.”The Pennsylvania governor’s race is one of several, including governor’s contests in Michigan and Wisconsin, that could directly affect abortion rights in battleground states.Barrie Holstein, 58, said she felt a new sense of political urgency. Ms. Holstein, who lives in Dresher, Pa., declined to say how she voted in 2020. She said she does not always vote in midterm elections and was often open to candidates of both parties. But this year, she said, she intended to vote for candidates who backed abortion rights and gun control.“I’m not political,” she said. “But it’s enough. I’m pissed. I’m pissed about gun control and I’m pissed about abortion. I really am.”Strategists in both parties are still trying to quantify how many voters like Ms. Holstein are out there.In a small private focus group of suburban swing voters last week sponsored by progressive organizations, a clear majority of participants said the Roe decision would hold either a lot or a medium amount of weight when considering how to vote in upcoming elections.But in one warning sign for Democrats, at least one participant said she felt it was “too late” — the party in power had already failed to protect abortion rights, so she would be weighing a broader set of issues.While some Republicans see openings to paint Democrats as radical on the issue of abortion rights late into pregnancy, many officials have largely sought to keep their focus on cost-of-living matters and on Mr. Biden.“I would be surprised if an energized Democratic electorate overcame the dead-weight anchor of a 40 percent job approval for a Democratic president,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican strategist. “But it might make some races closer than they would otherwise have been.”That may have been the case in a recent Nebraska special election, when a Democratic candidate did better than expected in a heavily Republican-leaning district. Turnout was just under 30 percent of registered voters.Jane Kleeb, Nebraska Democratic Party chairwoman, conducting party business remotely at the Lancaster County Democrats headquarters in Lincoln, Neb., in 2020.Walker Pickering for The New York Times“This is real and resonating and you feel it on the ground,” said Jane Kleeb, the chairwoman of the Nebraska Democratic Party. “Folks, I think, in the Midwest, really respect people’s privacy. Ranchers always say, ‘If it doesn’t bother the cattle, it doesn’t bother me.’ That mentality is very much alive, I think, in voters’ minds.”Last week, Ms. Meneely of Michigan — who has a background in government work and engages in efforts to combat human trafficking and online exploitation of children — said that she had decided to vote for Ms. Whitmer, the Democratic governor.She also said she would support Representative Peter Meijer, a Republican who applauded the Roe decision, in his primary. Ms. Meneely noted his willingness to challenge Mr. Trump. (He was one of 10 House Republicans to vote for impeachment after the Capitol riot.)But she sounded open to persuasion in general election contests.“Right now,” she said, “I am so ticked at the Republican Party.” More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      After Roe, are Republicans willing to expand the social safety net?

      by

      After Roe, are Republicans willing to expand the social safety net?The party has shown little enthusiasm to help those affected by unplanned pregnancies – is anything likely to change? Republicans across the United States cast the supreme court’s decision last month that allowed states to ban abortion as a victory for “life”. Left unsaid was the quality of life that families and mothers set to be left dealing with unplanned pregnancies might have.For years, the Republican party has pushed to ban a procedure that is mostly sought out by people who are poor, while showing much less enthusiasm for efforts to permanently expand the country’s social safety net. Critics have labeled the party’s stance as caring a lot politically about unborn fetuses, but losing interest in them when they are born as American citizens.I read the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling to see what we lost. Everyone should | Francine ProseRead moreTwenty-six states are now expected to ban abortion entirely following the supreme court’s ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and following November’s midterm elections, Republicans could gain control of one or both houses of Congress, and make gains in state legislatures.That dynamic could now give many more Americans a close-up look at what the party’s policies mean for women and families dealing with any wave of unplanned pregnancies, and there are signs Republicans are worried about what they will see.“Over the years, we have written on federal policies that we consider ‘pro-life’ that support pregnant women, not just policies that restrict abortion. This line of thinking is no longer a luxury of thought for pro-lifers like us. It is an obligation of pro-life advocacy in the future as we enter what will be a dynamic, uncertain, and uneven state landscape for years to come,” Republican operatives Mark Rodgers and Kiki Bradley wrote in the National Review last month, in an essay calling for the party to get behind policies like paid family leave and tax credits for families with children.“A number of leaders understand that our expressions of concern for life would ring hollow without our movement’s advocacy of a support system for pregnant women and their babies.”Already, there are signs of some Republican lawmakers moving to address these concerns. Republicans senators have proposed two bills expanding aspects of the government social safety net, and lawmakers may end up considering them before the year is out and the new Congress convenes in 2023.“There’s certainly, I think, at least at the intellectual level, a recognition that we need to be approaching these issues in a fresh way,” said Brad Wilcox, a University of Virginia professor affiliated with the Institute for Family Studies and the American Enterprise Institute, both right-leaning thinktanks.Yet opponents of the supreme court’s decision in Dobbs can’t help but contrast the fervency within the party for outlawing abortion with their relative historic coolness towards programs that could help people affected by the bans.“Republicans claim to be for small government – but where it comes to abortion they are for big government. Traditional views about women – and disrespect for poor women – may blind Republicans to these contradictions,” said Reva Siegel, a Yale Law School professor who wrote a brief unsuccessfully urging the supreme court to overturn the Mississippi law at issue in the Dobbs case.“The Republican party now has its chance to show the nation what pro-life means. In many states now banning abortion, its policies are more concerned with control than care. I hope the party can change course, but I have yet to see a Republican jurisdiction that has developed a philosophy of social services even remotely appropriate to accompany laws requiring pregnant women to give birth.”The downfall of national abortion rights in America comes as the US remains an outlier among its wealthy peers in terms of social services. It famously has no national health insurance program, and is the only wealthy country not to offer paid family leave, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Data shows that women who seek abortions tend to be the ones who could stand to benefit the most from social services. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 75 percent of American abortion patients are poor and 60 percent already have a child.State bans already on the books could lead to an additional 75,000 birth per-year, Caitlin Knowles Myers, an economics professor at Middlebury College, predicted, and the costs of an unplanned pregnancy have been shown to be substantial. A University of California, San Francisco study found that women who wanted an abortion but could not get one saw their household poverty rates increase for at least four years as compared to women who were able to access the procedure, and also struggled to pay for necessities like food and transportation for years after.America is also a uniquely deadly place to give birth. The Commonwealth Fund found that in 2018, the United States’s ratio of deaths for live birth was more than twice that of most other wealthy countries.Meanwhile, 12 states still have not expanded Medicaid health insurance coverage for poor people offered under the Affordable Care Act, and of these, only Kansas and North Carolina are among those not immediately banning abortion.At the state level, there have been moves by lawmakers to address these disparities. The Republican-led legislatures in Georgia, Tennessee and Texas, for instance, have pushed to expand Medicaid coverage to women after they gave birth, even as they’ve declined to take part in the program’s expansion. South Carolina and Georgia recently enacted legislation giving state employees paid parental leave.But much of the most powerful social welfare legislation comes from Congress, where progress has been uneven. In 2021, Democrats pushed through a massive spending package that included a provision sending monthly checks to almost all families with children, which was credited with slashing child poverty.President Joe Biden proposed continuing it in his massive Build Back Better proposal to revamp social services and fight climate change, but the package won no Republican support and died amid infighting with Democrats.Samuel Hammond, director of social policy at the Niskanen Center, said Republicans will now be under pressure to pass legislation to aid families and children by the same groups that wanted them to overturn the 49-year old Roe v Wade ruling that allowed abortion nationwide: social conservatives.“The kind of bargain they had was we will pass our tax cuts and deregulations and you will get conservative court justices,” Hammond said. “And now that Roe has been repealed, you can’t put Amy Coney Barrett on the court twice.”In the past weeks, Senate Republicans have announced legislation to expand aid to families, casting their proposals as “pro-life” responses to the end of Roe. Florida’s Marco Rubio has published a plan that would allow families to pull from their social security benefits to fund paid family leave, expand a tax credit meant to help families with children, while also allowing religious groups to play a greater role in federal social service programs.In a press release filled with endorsements from anti-abortion groups, three senators announced a bill that would give families $350 each month for a young child and $250 for a child attending school. The proposal is similar to the child tax credit that Biden unsuccessfully tried to extend, but requires families to earn a certain amount to be eligible and, Hammond said, would be less effective at slashing poverty.“You want to make sure you’re supporting families that are making some effort to support themselves,” Wilcox said.“You don’t want to be promoting policies that lock in support for a model of family life that is detached from work and from marriage, which are of course two of the key avenues for economic progress even in the 21st century.”While the Democratic-led Congress has been deadlocked over social policy for months, Hammond predicted the proposal from the three Republican lawmakers could be worked into a larger tax bill that has to be passed by the year end, giving Republicans an opportunity to show that they want to help families.“Where they’ve always pulled their punches is on these more proactive social policies,” Hammond said. “I think this is now the window for the Republicans to put their stamp on a major extension to the child credit in a way that’s more generous to parents and make good on this outreach to parents and this Christian conservative minority.”TopicsRoe v WadeAbortionUS politicsRepublicansfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in World Politics

      The Abortion of American Democracy Has Been Bloody and Messy

      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

    • 213 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Women’s rights have suffered a grim setback. But history is still on our side | Rebecca Solnit

      by

      Women’s rights have suffered a grim setback. But history is still on our sideRebecca SolnitYou can take away a right through legal means, but it is harder to take away the belief in that right. The uproar over the court’s hideous abortion decision is a reminder of how unpopular it is As it happened, I was in Edinburgh the day Roe v Wade was overturned, and the next day I caught a train back to London and did what I usually do when I get anywhere near King’s Cross station. I took the short walk to the old St Pancras churchyard to visit the tombstone of the great feminist ancestor Mary Wollstonecraft, author of that first great feminist manifesto A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. To be there that day was to remember that feminism did not start recently – Wollstonecraft died in 1797 – and it did not stop on 24 June.The Roe ruling is not about states’ rights. It’s about power and control | Derecka PurnellRead moreWomen in the US gained this right less than half a century ago – a short time when the view is from Wollstonecraft’s memorial. I have regularly heard the opinions in recent decades that feminism failed or achieved nothing or is over, which seems ignorant of how utterly different the world (or most of it) is now for women than it was that half century ago and more. I say world, because it’s important to remember that feminism is a global movement and Roe v Wade and its reversal were only national decisions.Ireland in 2018, Argentina in 2020, Mexico in 2021 and Colombia in 2022 have all legalized abortion. So many things have changed in the last half century for women in so many countries that it would be hard to itemize them all; suffice to say that the status of women has been radically altered for the better, overall, in this span of time. Feminism is a human rights movement that endeavors to change things that are not just centuries, but in many cases millennia old, and that it is far from done and faces setbacks and resistance is neither shocking nor reason to stop.Wollstonecraft did not even dream of votes for women – most men in the Britain of her time didn’t have voting rights either – or of many other rights we now consider ordinary, but you don’t have to go back to the eighteenth century to encounter radical inequality on the basis of gender. It was everywhere in large and small ways into recent decades – and culturally still persists in the widespread attempts to control and contain women and the prejudices women still encounter about their intellectual competence, sexuality, and equality.Half a century ago it was legal in the US to fire women because they were pregnant – it happened to Elizabeth Warren, then a young schoolteacher. The right to access birth control – for married couples – was only guaranteed by the 1965 Griswold decision this rogue supreme court may also be gunning for. The right of equal access to birth control for the unmarried was only settled in the supreme court in 1972. The 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act rendered illegal the discrimination by which unmarried women had trouble getting credit and loans while married women routinely required their husbands to cosign for them.Marriage in most parts of the world including North America and Europe was, until very recently, a relationship in which the husband gained control by law and custom over his wife’s body and nearly everything she did, said, and owned. Marital rape was hardly a concept until feminism made it one in the 1970s, and the UK and US only made it illegal in the early 1990s. The 17th-century English jurist Matthew Hale argued “the husband of a woman cannot himself be guilty of an actual rape upon his wife, on account of the matrimonial consent which she has given, and which she cannot retract”. That is, a woman having once consented could never thereafter say no, because she had consented to be owned. Incidentally, the current supreme court decision revoking reproductive rights repeatedly cites Hale, who is also well-known for sentencing two elderly widows to death for witchcraft in 1662.Wollstonecraft, who had participated in the French Revolution, wrote: “The divine right of husbands, like the divine right of kings, may, it is hoped, in this enlightened age, be contested without danger.” Contested, but hardly overcome for almost two more centuries. As coercive control and domestic violence, men still impose their expectation of dominance and punish independence, while rightwing Republicans seek to return women to inferior status under the law and in the culture, citing that ancient text the Bible as their authority.Their supreme court may go after marriage equality next. I have long thought that the marriage equality that means equal access to same-sex couples would be impossible, had marriage as an institution not been made over, thanks to feminism, as a freely negotiated relationship between equals. Equality between partners is threatening to the inequality inherent in traditional patriarchal marriage, which is why – along with homophobia, of course – they’re so hostile to it. And, of course, it too is new; a very different supreme court recognized this right in June of 2015, only seven years ago (and Switzerland and Chile only did so in 2021).The last decade has been a rollercoaster of gains and losses, and there is no neat way to add them up. The gains have been profound, but many of them have been subtle. Since about 2012, a new era of feminism opened up conversations – on social media, in traditional media, in politics and private – about violence against women and the many forms of inequality and oppression, legal and cultural, obvious and subtle. Recognition of the impact of violence against women expanded profoundly and brought on real results. The Me Too movement has been much derided as a celebrity circus but it was only one manifestation of a feminist surge begun five years earlier, and it helped lead to changes in US state and federal laws governing sexual harrassment and abuse, including a bill that passed the senate this February and the president signed into law in early March.This week’s sentencing of R Kelly to 30 years in prison and Ghislaine Maxwell to 20 are the consequence of a shift in who would be listened to and believed, which is to say who would be valued and whose rights would be defended. Of people being included in the conversations in the courts of law who had not before been heard there. Perpetrators who had gotten away with crimes for decades – Larry Nassar, Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein among them – lost their impunity, and belated consequences came crashing down on them. But the fate of a handful of high-profile men is not what matters most, and punishment is not how we remake the world.The conversations are about violence and inequality, about the intersectionalities of race and gender, about the rethinking of gender beyond the simplest binaries, about what freedom could look like, what desire could be, what equality would mean. Just to have those conversations is liberatory. To see younger women reach beyond what my generation perceived and claimed is exhilarating. These conversations change us in ways the law cannot, make us understand ourselves and each other in new ways, reconceive race, gender, sexuality, and possibility.You can take away a right through legal means, but you cannot take away the belief in that right so easily. The supreme court’s Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson decisions in the 19th century did not convince Black people that they did not deserve to live as free and equal citizens; it merely prevented them from doing so in practical terms. Women in many US states have lost their access to abortion, but not their belief in their right to it. The uproar in response to the court’s decision is a reminder of how unpopular it is, and how hideously it will impact the ability of women to be free and equal under the law.It is a huge loss. It does not exactly return us to the world before Roe v Wade, because in both imaginative and practical terms US society is profoundly different. Women have far more equality under the law, in access to education, employment, and institutions of power, and to political representation. We have far more belief in those rights and a stronger vision of what equality looks like. That the status of women is so radically changed from where it was in, say, 1962, let alone 1797, is evidence that feminism is working. And the supreme court’s hideous decision confirms that there is still a lot of work to do.
      Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionRoe v WadeAbortioncommentReuse this content More

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Long Path to Reclaim Abortion Rights

      by

      The Supreme Court decision to reverse Roe, far from settling the matter, instead has launched court and political battles across the states likely to go on for years.Attempting to recover from their staggering loss in the Supreme Court, abortion rights groups have mounted a multilevel legal and political attack aimed at blocking and reversing abortion bans in courts and at ballot boxes across the country.In the week since the court overturned Roe v. Wade, litigators for abortion rights groups have rolled out a wave of lawsuits in nearly a dozen states to hold off bans triggered by the court’s decision, with the promise of more suits to come. They are aiming to prove that provisions in state constitutions establish a right to abortion that the Supreme Court’s decision said did not exist in the U.S. Constitution.Advocates of abortion rights are also working to defeat ballot initiatives that would strip away a constitutional right to abortion, and to pass those that would establish one, in states where abortion access is contingent on who controls the governor’s mansion or the state house.And after years of complaints that Democrats neglected state and local elections, Democratic-aligned groups are campaigning to reverse slim Republican majorities in some state legislatures, and to elect abortion rights supporters to positions from county commissioner to state supreme court justices that can have influence over the enforcement of abortion restrictions.“You want all the belt and suspenders that you can have,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which litigated Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case the Supreme Court used to overturn Roe. While the Supreme Court said it wanted to end five decades of bitter debate on abortion, its decision has set up a new fight, one that promises to be long and equally bitter.Although abortion rights supporters say their strategy is promising, the path ahead is slow and not at all certain. Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly say that the decision to have an abortion should be made by women and their doctors rather than state legislatures. But Republican-controlled state legislatures have passed hundreds of restrictions on abortion over the last decade, and legislative districts are heavily gerrymandered to protect Republican incumbents. Litigation in state courts will be decided by judges who in many cases have been appointed by anti-abortion governors.Although abortion rights supporters say their strategy is promising, the path ahead is not at all certain.Anna Rose Layden for The New York TimesAbortion rights groups say their cases relying on state constitutions offer a viable path forward to establish Roe-like protections in states. Even in conservative states such as Oklahoma and Mississippi, they see an opportunity to overturn abortion bans and establish a constitutional backstop against further restriction.But in other places, the goal of the litigation is to at least temporarily restore or preserve abortion access, now that the court’s decision stands to make it illegal or effectively so in more than half the states, which include 33.5 million women of childbearing age.In Louisiana, for example, though the state constitution expressly says there is no right to abortion, the legal challenge has allowed three clinics to continue serving women whose plans to end their pregnancies were thrown into disarray by the court’s decision.From Opinion: The End of Roe v. WadeCommentary by Times Opinion writers and columnists on the Supreme Court’s decision to end ​​the constitutional right to abortion.Michelle Goldberg: “The end of Roe v. Wade was foreseen, but in wide swaths of the country, it has still created wrenching and potentially tragic uncertainties.”Spencer Bokat-Lindell: “What exactly does it mean for the Supreme Court to experience a crisis of legitimacy, and is it really in one?”Bonnie Kristian, journalist: “For many backers of former President Donald Trump, Friday’s Supreme Court decision was a long-awaited vindication.” It might also mark the end of his political career.Erika Bachiochi, legal scholar: “It is precisely the unborn child’s state of existential dependence upon its mother, not its autonomy, that makes it especially entitled to care, nurture and legal protection.”“We have to take these things in steps,” said Joanna Wright, a partner at Boies Schiller Flexner who, with the Center for Reproductive Rights, is leading the Louisiana case. “A lot can change in a day, a month and six months. Time will tell the rest, but this is the fight right now.”The Supreme Court’s decision has flipped the dynamic of abortion strategy that has prevailed for the half-century since Roe, when anti-abortion groups chipped away at legal access by electing like-minded state legislators and passing increasingly strict laws, and abortion rights groups could rely on Roe to prevent the most severe bans from taking effect.Now, anti-abortion groups and congressional Republicans discuss federal legislation that would ban abortion across the country after 15 weeks of pregnancy, and abortion rights groups have begun climbing the steeper and narrower path state by state. “Democracy is a collective action,” said Ms. Wright, “and what we’ve seen from the anti-abortion movement is an ability to mobilize all the pieces of that,” which culminated, she added, with the overturning of Roe.By Friday, the groups had temporarily blocked bans from taking effect in Utah, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Florida; judges have set hearings over the next several weeks to consider permanent injunctions. But they lost bids to hold off bans in Ohio and Texas.Anti-abortion groups had argued for decades that the question of abortion should be left up to states, not to unelected judges in Washington. Within hours of the court’s decision, Republican politicians and law enforcement officials announced that bans, once held up in court, were now in effect, and would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.They decried their opponents’ strategy in the courts.“To say that the State Constitution mandates things like dismemberment abortions, I just don’t think that’s the proper interpretation,” Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, said after Florida’s ruling temporarily blocking a law prohibiting abortion after 15 weeks.The legal challenges argue that the Supreme Court’s decision has thrown abortion providers and patients into chaos, subjecting them to state laws that are often unclear, contradictory or confusing. Women have shown up for appointments only to be told that their pregnancies have now progressed too far to be eligible for abortion under new laws banning abortion after six weeks. In Montana, Planned Parenthood clinics said recently that they would require proof of residency for women seeking abortion pills, because of fears that prosecutors in other states might prosecute anyone who helped their residents get abortions.Abortion rights groups have not given up on hopes of federal action to protect abortion: They are pushing President Biden to use a declaration of a public health emergency to allow the Department of Health and Human Services to authorize out-of-state providers to prescribe and provide abortion pills to women in states where abortion bans have made them illegal.They are also pushing the Senate to suspend its filibuster and pass the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would establish a right to abortion before viability, as was provided in Roe. Mr. Biden reversed himself on Thursday to say that he supported lifting the filibuster, though he also told a group of Democratic governors that there were not enough votes in the Senate to do so.Abortion rights groups have not given up on hopes of federal action to protect abortion, but they have begun pursuing legal and legislative action state by state. Anna Rose Layden for The New York TimesBut by necessity, the groups are focused first on state action.While the Supreme Court’s opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, declared that it was returning the regulation of abortion regulation “to the people and their elected representatives,” its decision has delivered the issue to other courts, those in the states.“If the Supreme Court and Justice Alito and the anti-abortion advocates thought this was going to settle the question, they are going to see just how wrong they are,” Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a news conference Friday alongside lawyers and leaders from the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood. “The proliferation of litigation that will embroil the states in our country for years to come is going to underscore that this is not settled in the public’s mind.”The lawsuits argue that state constitutions offer more protection for abortion than the federal constitution, either by quirk of state tradition or history. Some, such as Florida’s, include an explicit right to privacy. In Kentucky, lawyers argue their constitution provides a right to “bodily autonomy” as well as privacy. The Roe decision in 1973 declared that the U.S. Constitution afforded a right to privacy that included a woman’s right to abortion; while the Supreme Court overturned that decision, it generally cannot overturn what states say in their own constitutions.The suit in Utah, one of the most conservative states in the country, seeks to protect abortion under a provision of the state constitution — adopted in 1896 — that provides that “both males and female citizens of this state shall enjoy equally all civil, political and religious rights and privileges.”Largely because of the influence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the constitution also ensures that state residents have the right to plan their own families; the lawsuit argues this includes the right to choose abortion.Even in states where lawsuits have been successful, abortion rights groups say they are playing Whack-a-Mole. In Utah, as soon as the court put a temporary injunction on the state’s trigger law banning abortion, a legislator declared that the state’s law against abortion after 18 weeks, which courts had upheld while Roe was in effect, was now the operative law.“We’re in a chess game and we haven’t gotten checkmate,” said Karrie Galloway, the chief executive of Planned Parenthood in Utah. “We’re doing check, check, check, check. Unfortunately, we’re doing check, check, check with pregnant people and their families’ lives.”In Kansas, a state Supreme Court decision in 2019 found a right to abortion under the constitutional provisions for “equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But anti-abortion groups put an initiative on the primary ballot this August that seeks to amend the constitution to explicitly say that it does not include a right to abortion, and that the Legislature has the authority to pass further restrictions.That vote will be the first indication of how much the outrage seen in response to the Supreme Court’s decision translates into support for abortion rights in elections.Historically, voters who oppose abortion have been more driven to vote on the issue than those who support a right to abortion. But polls taken since the leak of a draft of the Supreme Court’s decision in May and the final decision in late June show that those who support abortion rights — largely Democrats — now cite it as one of their top concerns, and that the court’s decision has motivated them more to vote in elections this fall.Vote Pro Choice is attempting to turn out women, especially Black and Latina women, to vote in races including county commissioners, judges and sheriffs, particularly in states such as Texas and Georgia with restrictive abortion laws — positions responsible for enforcing anti-harassment laws outside abortion clinics, and deciding whether to give government money to crisis pregnancy centers, which anti-abortion groups have used to steer women away from abortions.Democrats need to learn from the successes of the anti-abortion groups and Republicans, said Sara Tabatabaie, the group’s chief political officer.“We have been out-raised, out-organized and out-funded for 50 years, and that is across the board,” she said. But she is encouraged by the number of people who say abortion will guide their votes in November: “In moments of tragedy, I am hopeful that there comes solidarity and increased clarity.” More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden urged to do more to defend abortion rights: ‘This is a five-alarm fire’

      by

      Biden urged to do more to defend abortion rights: ‘This is a five-alarm fire’ Furious Americans have taken to the streets, but many Democrats believe Biden has failed to capture the urgency and angerHigh above America’s capital, pro-choice activists scaled a construction crane, inching across its latticed steel arm, to affix a banner with a message for the president to see. It read: “BIDEN PROTECT ABORTION.”In the days since the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion, legions of furious Americans have taken to the streets to protest a decision that was once unimaginable. But as a new reality takes shape, many are demanding the president and Democratic leaders do more to defend reproductive rights.Biden backs exception to Senate filibuster to protect abortion accessRead more“Is it that they can’t, or they won’t, go as far as they need to to stem the tide of the radical Republican agenda?” said Aimee Allison, founder of She the People, a progressive advocacy group that works to mobilize women of color.For many Democrats, the president has failed to capture the urgency and fear they feel as conservative states and courts rush to ban abortion. “Is this a five-alarm fire? Yes, absolutely,” Allison said, adding that Democrats must show voters they are prepared to “fight like hell”.In the week since the ruling was issued, Biden stepped up his rhetoric. During a meeting with Democratic governors, Biden said he “share[d] public outrage of this extremist court that’s committed to moving America backward.” He also endorsed a change to the Senate’s filibuster rule that would create an exception for abortion and other privacy rights potentially under threat by the conservative court.“Now we’re talking!” tweeted Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat of New York, who has pushed Democrats to deliver a more aggressive response. “Use the bully pulpit. We need more.”With narrow majorities in Congress, Biden is under pressure to use the full force of his executive authority to protect reproductive rights.More than 20 Black Democratic congresswomen sent a letter to Biden asking him to immediately declare a public health emergency. “In this unprecedented moment, we must act urgently as if lives depend on it because they do,” the lawmakers wrote.Other proposals include expanding access to abortion medication, covering expenses for federal employees who have to travel out of state, ensuring women serving in the military can receive care regardless of where they are stationed and using federal lands to perform abortions in states where it is banned.Advertisement: What would the end of abortion rights in America mean for the world? Join our live discussion on Wednesday, 6 July, 3pm-4pm ET. Button says ‘book tickets here’Warning of potentially “dangerous ramifications,” the White House has so far resisted calls to open federal lands for abortion, led by Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and echoed on Friday by the governors of New York and New Mexico.“Do it anyway,” said Amanda Litman, co-founder of Run for Something, a progressive organisation that helps young people run for local and state office. “Show me you are willing to put some skin in the game.Democrats need to give voters concrete plans, she said. When Biden warns voters Republicans would ban abortion nationwide if they win control of Congress, they also need to hear him say he will not sign any restrictions they send to his desk, she added.In recent days, the justice department has said it would seek to protect any woman who travels out of state for an abortion while the health department said it is working to expand access to medication abortion.Biden has promised additional actions but has repeatedly said the only way to “truly” protect abortion access is to elect enough Democrats to codify Roe v Wade into federal law. “Vote, vote, vote. That’s how we’ll change it,” Biden said during a press conference in Madrid.But Democrats face a historically difficult election environment in the midterms this November, with inflation at a four-decade high and fears of a recession weighing down Biden’s approval rating. Yet there are early signs that the court’s ruling on abortion and the potential threat it poses to other rights such as same-sex marriage and contraception, is energizing Democrats’ demoralized base.The number of Americans who identified abortion as top concern more than doubled since December, particularly among Democrats, a new poll by the Associated Press-Norc Center for Public Affairs Research found. Meanwhile, public opinion polls show a shift toward Democrats in the wake of the court’s decision, which drew thousands of people to the streets. To successfully galvanize voters around the issue, Democrats must “connect the dots” by showing them that Republicans’ end goal is a total ban on abortion, said Molly Murphy, a Democratic pollster who has surveyed voters’ views on the issue.“Being against abortion is potentially for some voters not an indictment,” she said. “But wanting to make it illegal and trying to make it illegal is – and that’s where the debate needs to go.”This week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to Democrats outlining potential votes the caucus could take. They include protecting personal data stored on reproductive health apps from “sinister” prosecutors who might use it to target women who have abortions; ensuring the right to travel between states; and enshrining the right to an abortion into federal law, a version of which has already passed the House but has no path forward in the Senate.Much of the fight has now shifted to the state and local level, where Democrats are vowing to use their power to expand access or, where they can, block new restrictions.Across the country, Democratic governors and attorneys generals are vowing to protect abortion access. Governors in states like California and Illinois want to become havens for women seeking abortions in states where it’s banned.Progressive local prosecutors and officials in conservative states say they will not enforce strict abortion laws against patients or providers. Some liberal-run cities are considering plans to set up funds for women who have to go out of state for an abortion.Meanwhile, activists have declared a “summer of rage”, vowing to keep marching and resisting until a national right to abortion is restored.But cracks are also in display in the party.Many progressives remain furious with party leaders for backing Texas congressman Henry Cuellar, the lone House Democrat to oppose abortion, over his progressive, pro-choice challenger, Jessica Cisneros. Cuellar won the primary by fewer than 300 votes.They are also mobilizing to stop Biden from nominating an anti-abortion Republican attorney for federal judgeship in Kentucky, which was reported by the Courier Journal.Democrats increasingly believe the problem is the supreme court itself. A number of Democratic lawmakers have backed efforts to expand the number of justices on the court or impose term limits. Some lawmakers are calling for Congress to investigate – or even impeach– justices who signaled during their Senate confirmation hearings they would respect precedent but then voted to overturn Roe.Biden has mostly resisted those calls. But as long as there remains a 6-3 conservative majority of justices on the court, little else will change, said Christopher Kang, cofounder and general counsel of Demand Justice, a liberal group that advocates for expanding the supreme court.“Having spent 50 years wresting a supermajority of power on the court, they’re not likely to give that away,” he said. “Unless you have a balanced supreme court, none of these other reforms will get a fair shot.”TopicsJoe BidenThe ObserverUS politicsAbortionRoe v WadenewsReuse this content More