Abortion

Subterms

    More stories

    • 213 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s White House counsel Pat Cipollone agrees to testify to January 6 panel – as it happened

      by

      President Joe Biden pitched his economic agenda to union workers in Ohio today, while there were further developments in the January 6 committee’s investigation as well as jostling within states ahead of November’s midterm elections.Here are the highlights:
      Donald Trump’s White House counsel Pat Cipollone has agreed to speak to the January 6 committee, which announced its next hearing for Tuesday 12 July.
      South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham said he will fight a subpoena from a Georgia grand jury looking into Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election result in the state.
      Senate Democrats have agreed on a proposal to lower prescription drug costs via a reconciliation bill. However Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is trying to stop Democrats from passing the legislation.
      Mississippi’s only abortion clinic will close after the supreme court overturned Roe v. Wade and the state banned the procedure.
      A group of Republicans in Pennsylvania have endorsed the Democrat running for governor against a 2020 election denier.
      Democrats in Kentucky are unhappy with president Joe Biden’s apparent plan to nominate an anti-abortion judge to a federal court position, in what appears to be a bid to get Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell to stop blocking the president’s nominees.
      The president finished up his speech in Cleveland by drawing a contrast between his administration and the Republicans who are waiting in the wings, hoping to take over the House of Representatives and Senate following the November midterm elections.Remarking on Republicans’ previous efforts to overturn the Affordable Care Act and accusing them of wanting to privatize social security, Biden told unionized workers, “Folks, this is a different world where they live.”Biden said he was “fighting like hell” to try to lower costs for Americans, and accused Republicans of obstructing his efforts, including his proposal to lower taxes on gasoline – though several Democrats are also lukewarm towards that idea.“I’m asking Congress to eliminate the federal gas tax for… however long this crisis goes on, lower food prices lower health care costs, hopefully soon, lower your prescription drug costs,” he said, eluding to a recent proposal from Democratic senators.Biden is telling union workers about his efforts to get the Butch Lewis Act passed, which allowed the Treasury to assist unions’ pension plans that were financially struggling, and was included in the America Rescue Plan Biden enacted in March 2021.He’s also attacking former president Trump, saying the economy was in shambles when he left office.“Y’all remember what the economy was like when I was elected? A country in a pandemic, with no real plans how to get out of it. Millions of people out of their jobs. Families and cars, remember, backed up for literally miles, to wait for a box of food to be put in their trunk,” Biden said.“The previous administration lost more jobs in his watch than any administration since Herbert Hoover. That’s a fact. All based on failed trickle-down economics that benefit the wealthiest Americans,” Biden said. “We came in with a fundamentally different economic vision, an economy that grows from the bottom up in the middle out. It’s good for everyone because when the middle class does well the poor have a ladder up in the wealthy still do very well.”Biden has started his speech to union workers in Cleveland, and while the address is mostly about the economy, he began with brief remarks about the police shooting of Jayland Walker in nearby Akron.“The justice department’s civil rights division, the FBI and the local US attorney’s office are closely viewing what happened,” the president said. “If the evidence reveals potential violations of federal criminal statutes, the justice department will take the appropriate action.”Walker, who is Black, sustained more than 60 wounds after multiple officers opened fire at him following a car chase.Outrage after video of police fatally shooting Jayland Walker releasedRead moreBiden has arrived in Cleveland and is expected to shortly begin giving remarks on the economy, focused on the American Rescue Plan spending bill he won passage of near the beginning of his term last year.Also speaking at the event are Ohio’s Democratic senator Sherrod Brown, and two of the state’s Democratic House representatives, Marcy Kaptur and Shontel Brown. However, two notable Democrats won’t be in attendance: Tim Ryan, the party’s nomination for US Senate, and Nan Whaley, its nominee in the governor’s race.Plenty of mounting questions from fellow Dems on Biden’s ability to lead after abortion ruling, mass shootings and inflation. Today he’s in Cleveland to talk “Jobs, unions, retirement security.” Notably, the two Democrats running for statewide office in the state aren’t there. pic.twitter.com/02098n1SK5— Kevin Liptak (@Kevinliptakcnn) July 6, 2022
      With Joe Biden so unpopular, and Donald Trump ensnarled in investigations centering on the January 6 insurrection and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, the question must be asked: is it possible that neither man will be on the ballot in 2024?There would be many contenders to fill the vacuum created if neither man stands in the next presidential election, and Politico has a look at one possible matchup: California’s Democratic governor Gavin Newsom against Florida’s Republican governor Ron DeSantis:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The governors for California and Florida have hurled insults about each other’s leadership and policies during most of the Covid-19 pandemic. But now Newsom has ratcheted up the conflict by taking almost daily pot-shots at his Republican foils such as DeSantis and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Most recently, Newsom dropped more than $100,000 on a new ad airing on Fox News that tweaked DeSantis in his home state. On Tuesday, he started fundraising off the ad and conflict with DeSantis.
      Fox-watching Floridians won’t likely switch their voter registration or move to California after seeing a TV spot in which Newsom warned them “freedom is under attack in your state.” But the ad is producing a frenzy of national coverage that boosts Newsom’s profile while allowing DeSantis to sharpen his attacks on Democrats ahead of a possible 2024 White House bid.
      The fight highlights how two young governors have captured the attention of their respective parties: On one side is Newsom, a progressive and telegenic leader who survived an attempted recall. On the other is DeSantis, who is often heralded as a more disciplined Donald Trump but who also has a penchant for populism and a refusal to back down from a fight.
      “Most politicians operate best when they have somebody or something to contrast against, and there’s no bigger contrast to Gavin Newsom and California right now than Florida and Ron DeSantis,” said Jim Ross, a Democratic consultant who ran Newsom’s first mayoral campaign.Newsom has in fact just put out a statement to supporters explaining why he purchased ads in Florida:New: @GavinNewsom emails supporters to explain why he spent $100,000 to run a TV spot in Florida: to reclaim the word “Freedom,” declaring that “The DeSantis vision of freedom is a fraud.” Here’s what Newsom says freedom should really mean: pic.twitter.com/Vf7s5pLcJS— Doug Sovern (@SovernNation) July 6, 2022
      Newsom airs Florida ad urging people to fight for freedom – or move to CaliforniaRead moreArizona was one of the states where Trump attempted unsuccessfully to convince officials to work with him to overturn the results of the 2020 elections. As Sam Levine reports, its elections are under scrutiny again, this time by Biden’s justice department:The Department of Justice is challenging a new Arizona law that requires voters to provide proof of citizenship for presidential elections, among other new restrictions, saying the measure was a “textbook violation” of a federal law meant to protect voters.The challenged Arizona measure, HB 2492, was signed into law by the Republican governor, Doug Ducey, in March, requires anyone who wants to vote in a presidential election, or vote by mail in any election, to provide proof of citizenship.The law was among several pushed by the Arizona legislature following the 2020 election in a state where Donald Trump and his allies have spread baseless claims of fraud. Voting by mail is widely used in Arizona, a key battleground state, and Republicans in the state have made numerous attempts to make it harder to cast a ballot that way.DoJ sues Arizona over voting law that requires proof of citizenshipRead moreThe Guardian’s Hugo Lowell has more details about what to expect from Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone’s testimony to the January 6 committee:The former Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone is expected to testify to the House January 6 select committee on Friday after reaching an agreement over the scope of his cooperation with a subpoena compelling his testimony, according to a source familiar with the matter.The testimony from Cipollone is expected to be a transcribed interview and recorded on camera, the source said, and the former top White House lawyer is expected to only answer questions on a narrow subset of topics and conversations with the former president.Among the topics Cipollone could discuss include how he told Donald Trump that pressuring Mike Pence, the vice-president, to refuse to certify Joe Biden’s election win was unlawful, and Trump’s plot to coerce the justice department into falsely saying the 2020 election was corrupt.Trump White House counsel to cooperate with January 6 committeeRead moreThe dispute over USICA and the Democrats’ potential reconciliation bill has now spilled on to Twitter.It began when John Cornyn, a Republican senator from Texas, criticized Democrats’ move to pass a spending package unilaterally via the reconciliation procedure, accusing them of giving up on the USICA technological competitiveness bill:Looks like Schumer giving up on USICA, including shoring up the vulnerable supply chain for high end semiconductors. Major chip makers will likely abandon their plans to build manufacturing facilities in the US. Body blow to US national security, economy, and well paying jobs. https://t.co/KwV7mUR4iF— Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) July 6, 2022
      White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre did not take kindly to his accusation:Cornyn is joining McConnell to hold hostage a bipartisan bill that would make more in America, in order to protect pharmaceutical companies’ profits.We need to do BOTH: increase American manufacturing and strengthen our competitive edge against China, AND lower Rx drug costs. https://t.co/VewJih7c59— Karine Jean-Pierre (@PressSec) July 6, 2022
      Prompting this retort from Cornyn:You people in the Biden administration are very confused https://t.co/yXaIT7K4JY— Senator John Cornyn (@JohnCornyn) July 6, 2022
      Whether on Twitter or in Congress, expect the broader dispute to play out in the months to come.Meanwhile, the Senate’s top Republican Mitch McConnell has given Democrats an ultimatum: if they proceed with their reconciliation package, his lawmakers won’t support a bill to enhance US industries’ technological competitiveness.Let me be perfectly clear: there will be no bipartisan USICA as long as Democrats are pursuing a partisan reconciliation bill.— Leader McConnell (@LeaderMcConnell) June 30, 2022
      The United States Innovation and Competition Act, known as USICA, has been bargained over in Congress for months. According to Punchbowl, the prospects for the Senate’s democratic majority pulling off both the reconciliation package and USICA are not good:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} There are 1,015 outstanding items in the USICA package and GOP sources tell us that party leaders have only come to agreement or agreed to drop 127 of them. That means nearly nine-tenths of the bill is open and unresolved.
      Democrats take issue with this characterization. They say the two sides have actually closed out many more issues, but Republicans have withheld final confirmation on several hundred items until bigger-picture topics have been resolved.
      In negotiations like this, it’s often difficult to totally discern where talks stand because both sides have incentive to show that the other is slow walking the talks or otherwise acting in a capricious manner.
      But let’s put it this way: Any way you slice it, the two sides can’t even agree on which phase of the negotiation they’re in.Politico has details of Senate Democrats’ efforts to find agreement on a major piece of legislation that they can pass, likely without Republican support.The negotiations come after the collapse of Biden’s Build Back Better proposal last year, which was meant to spend potentially trillions of dollars on fighting climate change, expanding social services and other Democratic priorities, but collapsed amid infighting in the party, particularly with senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.Democrats have been quietly trying to come up with a new proposal that could make it through the chamber using its reconciliation procedure, and Politico reports that they’ve reached an agreement on a measure to lower prescription drug costs:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) will submit text today to the Senate parliamentarian on a 50-Democrat agreement (yes, that includes Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.)) to allow the federal government to negotiate prescription drug costs for Medicare, according to two sources familiar. That will kick off the so-called “Byrd Bath” where the parliamentarian reviews the proposed text to make sure it abides by the Senate’s reconciliation rules. The bath is supposed to purge extraneous provisions that don’t align with the reconciliation instructions.
      But drug price negotiation is just one piece of the puzzle. The rest of the party-line package is still in flux and isn’t ready for its Byrd Bath. Schumer and Manchin have been meeting regularly about what might make it into the bill, talking about tax reform and climate provisions.Biden holds call with the wife of Brittney GrinerJoe Biden, joined by Kamala Harris, spoke today with Cherelle Griner, the wife of Brittney Griner, the US basket ball star detained in Russia. Griner was detained by Russian Federal Customs Service in February after they said they found vape cartridges that contained hashish oil in her luggage at an airport near Moscow.In a readout of the call, the White House said: “The President called Cherelle to reassure her that he is working to secure Brittney’s release as soon as possible.”It added: “The President directed his national security team to remain in regular contact with Cherelle and Brittney’s family, and with other families of Americans held hostage or wrongfully detained abroad, to keep them updated on efforts to secure the release of their loved ones as quickly as possible.”Brittney Griner recently wrote a letter to Biden appealing for his assistance in getting her released from prison. Congress may be in recess but there’s been plenty of political news this morning, from the ongoing work of the January 6 committee to jostling within states ahead of November’s midterm elections.Here’s what has happened so far:
      Donald Trump’s White House counsel Pat Cipollone has agreed to speak to the January 6 committee, which announced its next hearing for Tuesday 12 July.
      South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham said he will fight a subpoena from a Georgia grand jury looking into Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election result in the state.
      Mississippi’s only abortion clinic will close after the supreme court overturned Roe v. Wade and the state banned the procedure.
      A group of Republicans in Pennsylvania have endorsed the Democrat running for governor against a 2020 election denier.
      Democrats in Kentucky are unhappy with president Joe Biden’s apparent plan to nominate an anti-abortion judge to a federal court position, in what appears to be a bid to get Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell to stop blocking the president’s nominees.
      Speaking together in Britain, the heads of the FBI and MI5 have issued a joint warning about China’s behavior, saying Beijing is stealing western technology and studying from the war in Ukraine, particularly when it comes to evading sanctions.BREAKING: The heads of MI5 and the @FBI have used an unprecedented joint speech to warn that China is their biggest “game-changing challenge”, with the UK doubling efforts to combat Chinese “activity of concern”. 1/— Deborah Haynes (@haynesdeborah) July 6, 2022
      Christopher Wray, the FBI director, said Beijing is drawing lessons from Russia’s war in Ukraine.Talking about the Chinese threat against Taiwan, he said the Chinese government was looking for ways to protect its economy against any potential, future sanctions. 2/— Deborah Haynes (@haynesdeborah) July 6, 2022
      “In our world, we call that kind of behaviour a clue,” Mr Wray said, sharing a platform with Ken McCallum on a visit to MI5’s headquarters in London. Western allies used sweeping sanctions to punish Russian President Vladimir Putin over his invasion of Ukraine. 3/— Deborah Haynes (@haynesdeborah) July 6, 2022
      The 2 chiefs focused on the Chinese Communist Party & its covert operations.They accused Beijing of a vast, enduring effort to steal western advances in technology, research & other sectors as well as use the West’s democratic, media & legal systems to their own advantage. 4/— Deborah Haynes (@haynesdeborah) July 6, 2022
      “The most game-changing challenge we face comes from the Chinese Communist Party,” Mr McCallum said.“It’s covertly applying pressure across the globe. This might feel abstract. But it’s real and it’s pressing. We need to talk about it. We need to act.” 5/— Deborah Haynes (@haynesdeborah) July 6, 2022
      The shooter at an Independence Day parade in a Chicago suburb has admitted to the attack and told police he contemplated opening fire at a second Fourth of July gathering, the Associated Press reports:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} The man charged with killing seven people at an Independence Day parade confessed to police that he unleashed a hail of bullets from a rooftop in suburban Chicago and then fled to the Madison, Wisconsin, area, where he contemplated shooting up an event there, authorities said Wednesday.
      Robert Crimo III turned back to Illinois, where he was later arrested after deciding he was not prepared to pull off a shooting in Wisconsin, Lake County Major Crime Task Force spokesman Christopher Covelli said.
      An Illinois judge ordered Crimo to be held without bail. Police found the shells of 83 bullets and three ammunition magazines on the rooftop that he fired from, Lake County Assistant State’s Attorney Ben Dillon said in court.The Georgia Senate race is another closely watched election this year, where the Democratic incumbent Raphael Warnock will face off against Republican challenger Herschel Walker.Walker has had multiple complaints leveled against him of breaking rules governing electioneering, but Politico is reporting that Warnock also may have violated campaign finance laws:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) used campaign money to cover legal expenses for a lawsuit relating to his time as a church minister — transactions that raise questions about whether the spending runs afoul of federal rules governing personal use of campaign funds.
      The case, first filed in 2019 by Atlanta resident Melvin Robertson, involved baffling and seemingly baseless allegations against Warnock that date back to 2005 when he was a pastor. It was dismissed by a federal district court judge in Georgia without any of the defendants being served.
      But Robertson refiled a similar lawsuit in April 2021, outlining the same allegations against Warnock while also suing Ebenezer Baptist Church, where he has long served as senior pastor, and other public figures.
      This time, Warnock was serving in the Senate. And he enlisted his campaign attorneys from Elias Law Group to represent him in the case, along with an Atlanta firm, Krevolin & Horst, which assisted ELG.
      The issue for Warnock is whether this was a proper use of campaign funds.
      Federal Election Commission guidance states that campaign money can be used on “litigation expenses where the candidate/officeholder was the defendant and the litigation arose directly from campaign activity or the candidate’s status as a candidate.”Warnock was one of two Democrats elected to represent Georgia in the Senate last year, giving the party control of the chamber by a one-vote margin. Walker, meanwhile, is a rare Black Republican politician, and looking to reclaim a seat held by the GOP for the past 15 years.Herschel Walker: the ex-football star running for Senate in Trump’s shadowRead more More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Next Front Line in the Abortion Wars: State Supreme Courts

      by

      Court challenges to sweeping rollbacks of abortion rights must go through state supreme courts, many of which have been shaped by years of conservative activism.WASHINGTON — Fresh from the political thicket of the United States Supreme Court, the struggle over abortion is now moving to venues that are poised to become the next front line in the country’s partisan warfare: state supreme courts.In Florida, seven justices appointed by Republican governors will decide whether the State Constitution’s explicit right to privacy, which protected abortion rights in past rulings, remains a precedent. In Michigan, a court with a 4-3 majority of Democratic nominees has been asked to conclude whether a 91-year-old law banning abortions is constitutional. In Kentucky, a decision on a ban on almost all abortions appears bound to a Supreme Court composed largely of nonpartisan elected justices.In those states and others, the federal reversal of Roe v. Wade tosses one of the nation’s most politically explosive issues into courtrooms that, until recently, had operated mostly beneath the radar of national politics.The increasing political pressure on justices — and the rightward drift of some courts — suggests that options for abortion rights advocates to soften the impact of the federal abortion ruling may be limited. It also reflects how partisan politics is emerging as a driving force in how some justices rule.Abortion rights protesters gathered at the Florida Supreme Court in May.Kenny Hill/USA TODAY NETWORKOver the past decade or so, the national Republican Party and other conservative groups have spent heavily to move both state legislatures and courts rightward. The party’s Judicial Fairness Initiative says it has spent more than $21 million since its formation in 2014 to elect conservatives to state courts, and will spend more than $5 million this year. The Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative advocacy group that has been a principal backer of recent Republican nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court, also has invested money in state supreme court races.The Democratic Party has also poured growing sums of money into court elections, as have allies like labor unions — but not as much, and not for as long, as have Republicans. But the rightward lurch of federal courts increasingly is leading progressives to see state courts as potential bulwarks against more conservative gains, said Joshua A. Douglas, an elections and voting rights scholar at the University of Kentucky.The right’s focus on the courts could pay off handsomely in legal battles over abortion, according to Douglas Keith, an expert on state judicial issues at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.Consider Iowa, whose Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that the due process clause in the State Constitution guaranteed a right to abortion. Aided by an advertising campaign financed by the Judicial Crisis Network, the General Assembly then revised the judicial nominee process, handing more control to the governor, Kim Reynolds.Gov. Kim Reynolds has turned the Iowa Supreme Court into a conservative bastion.Nick Rohlman/The Gazette, via Associated PressMs. Reynolds, a Republican, turned the court into a conservative bastion. Last month, a week before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned its ruling in Roe v. Wade, the Iowa justices reversed their own 2018 ruling on abortion.Montana also recognizes a constitutional right to abortion. In the nonpartisan primary election last month for one of its Supreme Court’s seven seats, both the Judicial Fairness Initiative and the state Republican Party spent money to ensure that a candidate endorsed by abortion opponents, James Brown, would oppose an incumbent judge, Ingrid Gustafson, in November. Ms. Gustafson was nominated to the bench in 2017 by the governor at the time, Steve Bullock, a Democrat.The reversal of abortion rights in Iowa “is not the last one we might see,” Mr. Keith said. “The lack of attention that these courts have gotten from the left, comparatively, is going to come home to roost.”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.”A major test looms in Florida, where the State Constitution’s Bill of Rights declares that “every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life.”The Florida Supreme Court previously cited that explicit guarantee of privacy in striking down laws that restricted access to abortion. That precedent now appears endangered.In 2019, the last three justices who had been nominated by a Democratic governor retired. Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican who has made opposition to abortion a centerpiece of a possible presidential campaign, replaced them with conservatives.From voting rights to redistricting, the State Supreme Court has ruled reliably in support of conservatives in recent years. Daniel A. Smith, a University of Florida political scientist who watches the court, said he believed that was unlikely to change.“I think the U.S. Supreme Court is sending a signal to justices in state high courts that precedent no longer matters,” he said. Dr. Smith predicted that the constitutional guarantee of privacy “will be whittled away” when the state court makes its abortion ruling.Attorney General Daniel Cameron of Kentucky, a Republican, on Sunday asked the State Supreme Court to issue an emergency order suspending a lower court decision allowing the state’s only abortion provider to remain open. The court denied the request on Tuesday.In elections to the State Supreme Court this fall, State Representative Joseph Fischer, perhaps the Legislature’s leading opponent of abortion, is running to unseat Michelle M. Keller, who was appointed to the court in 2013 by Steve Beshear, a Democrat who was then the governor.State Representative Randy Bridges gave a thumbs down as protesters chanted “bans off our bodies” at the Kentucky State Capitol in April.Ryan C. Hermens/Lexington Herald-Leader, via Associated PressNational political parties and interest groups will focus their money and attention this fall on state supreme courts in four states — Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio — where elections could flip the courts’ majority from Democratic to Republican or vice versa. But other states could be in play.Six of seven justices on the Democratic-led Supreme Court in Kansas must stand for retention elections, and some are likely to become targets of Republicans infuriated by the court’s ruling in 2019 that abortion is a constitutional right. Arkansas Republicans are backing a former chairman of the state party against a Democratic incumbent justice in an effort to scrub remaining moderates from the already conservative court.Even more than abortion, the focus on state courts has reflected the politics of redistricting, particularly after a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that left oversight of partisan gerrymanders to state legislatures and courts. National Republicans say changing state supreme courts is the only way to stop Democrats from gaining power by successfully suing to overturn gerrymandered Republican political maps, a strategy they mockingly call “sue till it’s blue.”“If Republicans and conservatives want to control the redistricting process, then winning control of state legislatures is not enough. You also need to control the supreme courts,” said Andrew Romeo, a spokesman for the Republican State Leadership Committee.Kelly Burton, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, which has backed many of those suits, said the battle was more about stopping a creeping autocracy than about changing political boundaries.“It’s about voting rights cases,” she said. “It’s about fights over access to abortion. And fundamentally, we’re trying to protect these courts as neutral arbiters, while Republicans want to make them less independent and more partisan.”Some justices say they feel caught in the middle as partisan pressures surge.Maureen O’Connor, a Republican who is chief justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, was threatened with impeachment by some in her party this spring after she voted with Democratic justices to strike down political maps gerrymandered by Republicans.To some people, she said, her vote on redistricting “shows integrity and independence and respect for the rule of law and the Constitution. To others, I am a traitor.”Chief Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court has campaigned for years to scrap the state’s system of partisan elections for judicial positions.Robert Daemmrich Photography Inc/Corbis via Getty ImagesNathan Hecht, the chief justice of the all-Republican Texas Supreme Court, has campaigned for years to scrap the state’s system of partisan elections for judicial positions. “Texas has one of the stupidest systems in the world,” he said, and he worries that growing partisanship will make it even worse.Still, he said he thought there was a good chance that as divisive issues like abortion “devolve down to the states, the states will find ways to reach a middle ground that federal lawmakers have not been able to find.” But he added, “I’m not going to bet on that.”On Friday, the Texas court lifted a lower-court freeze on a 1925 law that bans abortions and holds out the prospect of imprisonment for those who provide them. A full hearing on the law will be held later.Sheelagh McNeill More

    • 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