Abortion

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      California to vote on adding abortion rights protection to state constitution

      by

      California to vote on adding abortion rights protection to state constitutionThe amendment added to this year’s ballot is part of Democrats’ aggressive strategy to expand access to abortion California voters will decide in November whether to guarantee the right to an abortion in their state constitution, a question sure to boost turnout on both sides of the debate during a pivotal midterm election year as Democrats try to keep control of Congress after the US supreme court overturned Roe v Wade.The court’s ruling on Friday gives states the authority to decide whether to allow abortion. California is controlled by Democrats who support abortion rights, so access to the procedure won’t be threatened anytime soon.But the legal right to an abortion in California is based upon the “right to privacy” in the state constitution. The supreme court’s ruling declared that a right to privacy does not guarantee the right to an abortion. California Democrats fear this ruling could leave the state’s abortion laws vulnerable to challenge in state courts.California abortion clinics braced for out-of-state surge as bans kick inRead moreTo fix that, California lawmakers on Monday agreed to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot this year that would leave no doubt about the status of abortion in California.The amendment would declare that the state “shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives”.California joins Vermont in trying to protect abortion in its state constitution. The Vermont proposal, also on the ballot this November, does not include the word “abortion” but would protect “personal reproductive autonomy” – although there is an exception “justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means”.Meanwhile, four conservative states – Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee and West Virginia – have constitutions that say a right to an abortion is not protected, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion rights group.The amendment in California is part of Democrats’ aggressive strategy to expand access to abortion in response to the US supreme court’s ruling. Last week, Gavin Newsom signed a law aimed at shielding California abortion providers and volunteers from lawsuits in other states – a law aimed at blunting a Texas law that allows private citizens to sue people who help women in that state get an abortion.California’s massive budget includes more than $200m to expand access to abortion in the state. The money would help pay for abortions for women who can’t afford them, scholarships for abortion providers and a new website listing all of the state’s abortion services in one place.The budget also includes $20m to help women pay for the logistics of an abortion, including travel, lodging and child care. But the Newsom administration says the money can’t be used to help women from other states where abortion is illegal or severely restricted come to California to get the procedure.A dozen other bills are pending that would support those seeking and providing abortions such as allowing some nurse practitioners perform abortions without the supervision of a doctor and block disclosure of abortion-related medical records to out-of-state entities.TopicsCaliforniaAbortionRoe v WadeHealthUS politicsLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Louisiana judge blocks abortion ban amid uproar after Roe v Wade ruling

      by

      Louisiana judge blocks abortion ban amid uproar after Roe v Wade rulingState temporarily blocked from enforcing ban as other US states pass ‘trigger laws’ designed to severely curtail access to abortion A Louisiana judge on Monday temporarily stopped the state from enforcing Republican-backed laws banning abortion, set to take effect after the US supreme court ended the constitutional right to the procedure last week.Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls for supreme court justices to be impeachedRead moreLouisiana is one of 13 states which passed “trigger laws”, to ban or severely restrict abortions once the supreme court overturned the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that recognized a right to the procedure. It did so on Friday, stoking uproar among progressives and protests and counter-protests on the streets of major cities.In New Orleans on Monday, an Orleans Parish civil district court judge, Robin Giarrusso, issued a temporary restraining order, blocking the state ban.The case before Judge Giarruso, a Democrat, was brought by Hope Medical Group for Women in Shreveport, one of three abortion clinics in Louisiana.“We’re going to do what we can,” Kathaleen Pittman, administrator of Hope Medical Group, told the Associated Press. “It could all come to a screeching halt.”The Louisiana lawsuit is one of several challenging Republican-backed abortion laws under state constitutions.In Utah, a branch of Planned Parenthood sued on Saturday over a trigger ban. In Ohio, abortion rights advocates plan to challenge a ban on abortions after six weeks that took effect on Friday. A Florida ban on abortions after 15 weeks is also the subject of a request for a temporary block.In Arizona, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and an abortion-rights group filed an emergency motion on Saturday, seeking to block a 2021 law they worry can be used to halt all abortions.On the national stage on Monday, a group of 22 attorneys general issued a statement promising to “leverage our collective resources” to help women in states where abortions are banned.A statement said: “Abortion care is healthcare. Period.”The statement was signed by the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.They said: “We stand together, as our states’ chief law officers, to proudly say that we will not back down in the fight to protect the rights of pregnant people in our states and across the country.“While the US supreme court’s decision reverses nearly half a century of legal precedent and undermines the rights of people across the United States, we’re joining together to reaffirm our commitment to supporting and expanding access to abortion care nationwide.”The statement added: “Ultimately, what harms people in some states harms us all. The future and wellbeing of our nation is intrinsically tied to the ability of our residents to exercise their fundamental rights.“… If you seek access to abortion and reproductive healthcare, we’re committed to using the full force of the law to … fight for your rights and stand up for our laws.“We will support our partners and service providers. We will take on those who seek to control your bodies and leverage our collective resources – thousands of lawyers and dedicated public servants across our states. Together, we will persist.”02:03As of Saturday, abortion services had stopped in at least 11 states. Speaking to the Associated Press, Brigitte Amiri, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said the group was looking at “all options” to protect access.But lawsuits may only buy time. Even if courts block restrictions, lawmakers could address any cited flaws.That is likely to be the case in Louisiana. The plaintiffs in the suit there do not deny that the state can ban abortion. Instead, they contend Louisiana has multiple and conflicting trigger mechanisms in law.The suit says the trigger laws, the first of which was passed in 2006, make it impossible to tell when they are in effect, if one or all are in force and what conduct is prohibited. The lawsuit contends that such vagueness has resulted in state and local officials issuing conflicting statements about whether the trigger bans are in effect.Judge Giarruso wrote: “Each of the three trigger bans excepts different conduct, making it impossible to know what abortion care is illegal and what is allowed, including what care can be provided to save a woman’s life or end a medically futile pregnancy.”Giarruso scheduled an 8 July hearing to decide whether to further block enforcement of the ban. The Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the suit on behalf of the clinic, said abortion care was resuming in Louisiana.The Republican state attorney general, Jeff Landry, did not immediately comment. On Friday, he said those who challenged state bans would be “in for a rough fight”.Prosecutors in some Democratic-led cities in Republican-led states have indicated they will not enforce abortion bans.The New Orleans district attorney, Jason Williams, said he would not criminalize abortions and that the overturning of Roe v Wade “is a cruel and irresponsible stripping of a woman’s agency”.‘A matter of life and death’: maternal mortality rate will rise without Roe, experts warnRead moreCondemning leaders for not focusing on issues such as lifting children out of poverty, he added: “It would not be wise or prudent to shift our priority from tackling senseless violence happening in our city to investigating the choices women make with regard to their own body.”On Monday, in light of moves by Cincinnati city leaders to support abortion access, Joseph Deters, the Republican county prosecutor, said: “I have repeatedly stated it is dangerous when prosecutors pick and choose what laws they want to enforce. When prosecutors do not follow their oath, it will promote lawlessness and challenge the basic structures of separation of powers.”Regarding the Louisiana case, Nancy Northup, chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said: “A public health emergency is about to engulf the nation. We will be fighting to restore access in Louisiana and other states for as long as we can.“Every day that a clinic is open and providing abortion services can make a difference in a person’s life.”TopicsRoe v WadeLouisianaAbortionWomenHealthUS politicsUS supreme courtnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls for supreme court justices to be impeached

      by

      Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls for supreme court justices to be impeachedThe congresswoman says Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch lied under oath to Congress about their views on Roe Political pressure is mounting on Joe Biden to take more action to protect abortion rights across the US as firebrand New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called for supreme court justices to be impeached for misleading statements about their views on Roe v Wade.Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks took aim at justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. Both were appointed by former president Donald Trump and had signaled that they would not reverse the supreme court’s landmark 1973 decision in Roe v Wade during confirmation hearings as well as in meetings with senators.On Friday, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch formed part of the conservative majority which in effect ended legal access to abortion in most states, and Ocasio-Cortez said “there must be consequences” for that.‘They set a torch to it’: Warren says court lost legitimacy with Roe reversalRead more“They lied,” the leftwing, second-term representative said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “I believe lying under oath is an impeachable offense … and I believe that this is something that should be very seriously considered.”Ocasio-Cortez added that standing idly by “sends a blaring signal to all future nominees that they can now lie to duly elected members of the United States Senate in order to secure … confirmations and seats on the supreme court”.She also mentioned impeaching Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife Ginni emailed 29 Republican lawmakers in Arizona as she tried to help undermine Biden’s victory over Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Thomas has not recused himself from election-related cases, drawing criticism.“I believe that not recusing from cases that one clearly has family members involved in with very deep violations of conflict of interest are also impeachable offenses,” Ocasio-Cortez said.House members can impeach a judge with a simple majority vote. But to be removed from office a justice would need to be convicted by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.Biden’s Democratic party controls the House with a clear majority, but its standing in the Senate is much more tenuous. The Senate is split 50-50, though Biden’s vice-president, Kamala Harris, can serve as a tiebreaker for votes that can be carried by a simple majority.The president dismissed the overturning of Roe v Wade as “cruel” but stopped well short of calling for the impeachment of any justices. He has also rejected the strategy proposed in some quarters to expand the supreme court in a way that would allow for the addition of more liberals and blunt the bench’s current conservative majority.Joining Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Thomas as conservatives on the supreme court are justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts. The liberals are Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.Breyer is retiring and due to be replaced by Ketanji Brown Jackson, another liberal.Nonetheless, on Sunday, Ocasio-Cortez urged Biden to personally take steps to address what she called the supreme court’s “crisis of legitimacy”.“President Biden must address that,” she said.Ocasio-Cortez suggested Biden could order the opening up of abortion clinics on federal lands in states where terminating pregnancies has been outlawed “to help people access the healthcare services they need”, echoing an idea from the Democratic senator Elizabeth Warren.In states where abortion is no longer allowed because of Friday’s ruling, residents who need to terminate pregnancies must now travel hundreds of miles – if not more – to get access to the procedure.Many US corporate giants have taken steps to provide support and financial assistance to employees seeking abortions in states where that is outlawed in most cases. But such measures won’t help millions of people who need abortions but are not employed by a large international or national company.That’s where an order from Biden to allow abortion on federal lands in anti-abortion rights states would come in and help.Ocasio-Cortez also discussed possibly expanding access to abortion pills that could be mailed to those in need, though Republican politicians are gearing up to limit access to those as well.For instance, South Dakota’s governor, Kristi Noem, said her state would move to block medical providers in states where abortion is legal from mailing to South Dakotans pills that could end a pregnancy.The pressure on Biden follows Ocasio-Cortez’s remark earlier this month that she could not yet commit to endorsing him for another run at the White House in the 2024 election.Roe v Wade: senators say Trump supreme court nominees misled themRead moreHer comments on Sunday also came after senators such as Susan Collins of Maine and Joe Manchin of West Virginia said they felt deceived by Friday’s controversial supreme court decision to end nearly 50 years of protections granted by Roe v Wade.Collins, a Republican, said she felt “misled” after Kavanaugh and Gorsuch had said they would leave in place “longstanding precedents that the country has relied upon” during their confirmation hearings and in meetings with her.Meanwhile, Manchin said he had trusted both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch when they “testified under oath that they … believed Roe v Wade was settled legal precedent”.Manchin was the lone Democrat to support Kavanaugh’s appointment.TopicsRoe v WadeAlexandria Ocasio-CortezUS supreme courtAbortionUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      We Americans are dancing on the Titanic. Our iceberg is not far away | Francine Prose

      by

      We Americans are dancing on the Titanic. Our iceberg is not far awayFrancine ProseThe greatest shock of all would be to wake up and find that while we were driving the kids to soccer practice and enjoying cocktails, autocracy took hold By now the US supreme court’s overturning of Roe v Wade hardly comes as a surprise. We’ve known this was imminent since the leak, a month or so ago, of Justice Alito’s memo. And yet it still delivers a profound shock – in fact, a series of shocks. Stunned, we ask, how could this happen? as if we hadn’t known, for weeks, that it was a more or less done deal.What’s shocking is the actualization of the scary Handmaid’s Tale scenario: our growing suspicion that Margaret Atwood’s fictional dystopia – a society in which women are forced to bear children and brutally punished for disobedience – is nearer to becoming a reality than we might have imagined. What’s shocking is this proof of the court’s desire and ability to control and punish women, to deprive us of our constitutional rights. What’s shocking is the justices’ reckless disregard for the additional suffering that this ruling will cause poor women, women of color and those living in rural areas. What’s shocking is the memory of three of the current justices swearing, under oath, to preserve the precedent established by Roe v Wade.It’s time to say it: the US supreme court has become an illegitimate institution | Jill FilipovicRead moreWhat’s shocking is the realization that we are living in a country that now boasts some of the world’s most misogynist and repressive laws. What’s shocking is the knowledge that the institution I grew up seeing as committed to the most precious guarantees of the constitution and to the highest and most sensibly bipartisan ideals of justice is now in the hands of a powerful faction of extremists.But what shocks me most is the fact that, according to surveys that keep surfacing and being reported, a substantial majority of Americans support abortion rights and oppose the outright ban. According to the latest Gallup poll, 85% of the population believes that abortion should be legal under some circumstances. What’s noteworthy is not that high number so much as the discrepancy between that figure and the substance of supreme court ruling. What’s shocking is yet another fact that we have known or suspected for some time: that we are living under minority rule, that, in some of the most essential ways, the wishes of the majority no longer determine government policy, and that it has become a kind of joke to suggest that our government, at the highest level, is responding to “the will of the people”.Meanwhile these shocks are intensified and amplified by how little we seem willing or able to do about the slow-motion stealth with which the seeds of autocracy are being planted. “We’re living under minority rule,” we say, and then go on to plan the kids’ birthday parties, to try to find a job and pay the bills, to complain at the gas pump, see our friends, celebrate the good weather and the new freedom occasioned by the latest downturn in the pandemic. Social media is abuzz with valuable – and necessary – suggestions for circumventing the new measures: how to obtain abortion pills from abroad, how to help women travel to states where abortion is still permitted. But I have yet to see a truly viable and broad-based plan for influencing the legislators of the so-called “trigger states” that have outlawed abortion in the immediate wake of the supreme court ruling.It’s hard not to notice that our passivity is being encouraged by the mainstream media’s commitment to “fair and balanced” reporting. In the coverage I watched on the night of the ruling – not only on the primetime channels but on PBS – equal time was given to the exultation of the “pro-life” (that regrettable term suggesting that its opponents are anti-life) faction and to the anger and disappointment of women who wish only to maintain control over our own bodies. How can it not add to our sense that the country is equally divided, deeply and hopeless factionalized, and therefore that nothing can be done? In fact the two sides are not equal, but one side is grievously underrepresented in the places where it matters most.It’s never been more important to insist on our rights – not only as women, not only as Americans, but as human beings. We need to talk to our friends, make plans, apply unceasing pressure on our state and local governments, hold every political candidate accountable. We may need to forget our pressing worries over inflation and gasoline prices just long enough to take to the streets, with unceasing frequency and in greater numbers, in order to make our beliefs and our voices heard.Because the greatest shock of all would be to wake up one morning and find that while we were driving the kids to soccer practice and enjoying that welcome after-work cocktail, more and more of our rights had been stripped away, as has happened in so many countries in which democracy vanished, overnight and in darkness –when, as it were, no one was looking. The overturning of Roe v Wade should shock us even more than it already does – shock us into looking beyond the dance floor of the Titanic and spotting that iceberg, looming in our path, not so very far away.
      Francine Prose is the author, most recently, of The Vixen. She was also the president of Pen America
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionAbortioncommentReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Monday briefing: How the end of Roe v Wade has already transformed America

      by

      Monday briefing: How the end of Roe v Wade has already transformed AmericaIn today’s newsletter: in just three days, the US supreme court’s monumental anti-abortion ruling has torn up old certainties about reproductive rights
      Sign up here for our daily newsletter, First Edition Good morning. It took almost half a century to overturn Roe v Wade, the US supreme court decision that enshrined abortion as a constitutional right. But in the three days since the court’s new ruling was published, a settlement which Americans once assumed was permanent has been immediately shattered.The conservative-majority court’s decision allows individual states to ban abortion for the first time since 1973. (For a summary of what it means, see this explainer by Jessica Glenza.) Like any supreme court ruling, the document published on Friday was long and complicated – but the consequences which flow from it are sweeping, and have proceeded at a pace which belies the court’s claimed solemnity.Today’s newsletter takes you through how much has already changed in this sudden new American era. First, here are the headlines.Five big stories
      Ukraine | Boris Johnson implored world leaders at the G7 summit to stand firm in their support of Ukraine, after reports that some countries could be persuaded by calls for Ukraine to relinquish control over some territory for peace.
      Monarchy | Prince Charles faced fresh controversy over the funding of his charities on Sunday, with calls for the government and the Charity Commission to investigate claims he accepted €3m in cash from a billionaire Qatari sheikh.
      Labour | Shadow foreign secretary David Lammy has said that the Labour party should refuse to back airline workers who are demanding a 10% pay rise. Unite, Labour’s biggest union donor, accused Lammy and Labour of launching a “direct attack” on workers.
      Conservatives | Boris Johnson claimed on Sunday that the record of his government was “remarkable” as he continued to brush aside internal criticism. But he sought to defuse a row triggered by his declaration that he intended to stay in office until the 2030s by saying he simply meant he was focused on his reform agenda.
      Brazil | The British journalist Dom Phillips has been laid to rest in Brazil, exactly three weeks after he was gunned down with the Indigenous expert Bruno Pereira while they journeyed through the Amazon together.
      In depth: What’s happened since Roe was struck down?In some states, abortion was banned the moment the court ruledThe picture in the immediate aftermath of the court’s decision was chaotic. But according to the pro-abortion rights research group the Guttmacher institute, 26 states were certain or likely to ban abortion as quickly as possible after the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade. In 10 of those states, “trigger laws” have already been enforced to outlaw abortion automatically or by rapid certification by officials, with three more expected within 30 days. Eight of those 13 only exclude cases where the mother’s life is in danger – with no exception for rape or incest.Wisconsin and Michigan, two states with Democratic governors and public majorities in favour of abortion access, have antiquated laws on the books which could now come back into force – and Republican legislatures unwilling to repeal them. The laws – instituted in 1931 in Michigan and 1859 in Wisconsin – again make no exception for rape or incest.Some states have promised to protect the right to an abortion. Lawmakers in California are expected to enact a new constitutional amendment protecting reproductive rights today. But anti-abortion activists are already turning towards a larger goal: a national, constitutional amendment banning abortion completely.Abortion providers in many states have suspended services or closed completelyThe New Yorker’s Stephania Taladrid was in an abortion clinic in Houston, Texas, at the moment the supreme court ruling was published. Staff wept, hugged, and broke the news to patients in the waiting room. “Mi amor, the supreme court just ruled that abortion is banned in Texas,” Ivy, a supervisor, told one woman. “We cannot assist you.” By the end of the day, the clinic had closed.Chabeli Carrazana reported for the 19th and the Guardian on another clinic in Fort Worth, Texas, where people cried, screamed, and begged for help when they heard the news. In Arizona, where there is confusion over the standing of a 1901 ban, Planned Parenthood halted procedures at all seven of its clinics. Clinics also closed in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wisconsin. (This piece sets out some ways to support abortion access in the new climate, including donating to help keep such clinics open.)One study produced in advance of the decision estimated that at least 100,000 women would be unable to secure an abortion within the first year of a ban, and 75,000 would give birth as a result. The closest abortion provider to New Orleans is now in Illinois, more than 800 miles away.Providers are trying to minimise this gap by bringing abortion as close to abortion ban states as possible. Planned Parenthood is renting office space in an Oregon town on the border with Idaho. Another organisation, Just The Pill, is organising mobile clinics to come to state borders.Demand for abortion pills has spikedOne significant change in the half-century since Roe v Wade is the rise of “medication abortion” through pills. They accounted for more than 50% of US abortions in 2020, according to the Guttmacher Institute. President Joe Biden said he would protect access to those drugs in the aftermath of Friday’s ruling.Just The Pill said that orders quadrupled on Friday alone, the New York Times reported. Abortion rights advocacy group Plan C meanwhile told the Daily Beast that it had fielded 100 inquiries from clinicians interested in prescribing abortion pills.The delivery of drugs by post is likely to be difficult for anti-abortion states to completely stop, but legitimate providers will be subject to strict regulation, and their use will be limited by fears of the ramifications of a hospital visit for those using them illegally.The haziness of the legal picture over abortion pills is likely to create one of the major flashpoints in the post-Roe era. “We haven’t been in a situation where the FDA has approved a drug as safe and effective and you can use it legally in one state without any problem and then in another state it’s banned,” Alina Salganicoff, of the Kaiser Family Foundation, told NBC.The legitimacy of the supreme court is more threatened than everIt was one thing to hear progressives argue, as senator and former presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren did, that the supreme court has “burned whatever legitimacy they may still have had”, or, as representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez tweeted, that the court now “has a legitimacy crisis” with “7 of the 9 justices appointed by a party that hasn’t won a popular vote more than once in 30 years”.More alarming for defenders of the court were the interventions of pro-choice Republican Susan Collins and conservative pro-choice Democrat Joe Manchin, who said that they were misled by Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch claimed they would not overturn Roe in public and (according to notes produced by Collins) private statements before Senate votes on their appointment to the court.Meanwhile, a snap poll conducted by CBS found that Americans disapprove of the decision by a near-20 point margin. And as David Smith notes in this piece, those saying they have faith in the court has dropped to a historic low of 25%.Whatever the status of the court, though, many progressives said that they viewed its future as – for now – a secondary concern. “There’s nothing sacrosanct about nine members of the United States supreme court, but that is a long term question,” Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams told CNN yesterday. “What we have to focus on right now is the danger that this decision presents to women … across the country.”What else we’ve been reading
      Tabitha Lasley’s memoir of cocaine use in the chicken shop where she used to work is a corrective to the idea the drug is a solely middle-class indulgence. “Everyone takes drugs, all the time,” she writes. “They’re part of the civic culture.” Archie
      Hope is not some naive luxury in the face of the supreme court ruling on Roe v Wade, writes Rebecca Traister, in this clarion piece for The Cut: it is a “tactical necessity”. “While it is incumbent on us to digest the scope and breadth of the badness,” she writes, “it is equally our responsibility not to despair.” Archie
      The rail strikes have disrupted many people’s lives, but Kenan Malik argues that most people understand why unions have decided to strike, adding that, despite significant decline in the last few decades, unions still play a significant role in making the UK a fairer place to live and work. Nimo
      In his parenting column, Séamas O’Reilly writes about the conversations he’s been having with his highly inquisitive four-year-old. Nimo
      Charlotte Higgins, the Guardian’s chief culture writer, had never been to Glastonbury: she likes the Proms, Glyndebourne, and functioning sewers. Her first-time dispatch is a joy: Glasto, she concludes, is “either a highly advanced form of civilisation, or the opposite”. Archie
      SportCricket | England are on the verge of a 3-0 series win against New Zealand after Ollie Pope and Joe Root led their side to 183-2 in pursuit of 296 after Jack Leach took five wickets. Meanwhile, England’s one-day captain Eoin Morgan is understood to be considering retirement.Tennis | Emma Raducanu will make her centre court debut as Wimbledon gets underway on Monday, playing against grass court veteran Alison Van Uytvanck. Andy Murray will also play on centre court.Football | Gabriel Jesus is poised to join Arsenal from Manchester City after agreeing personal terms on a five-year deal. The striker will move for a fee of £45m following an agreement between the two clubs.The front pagesThe Guardian’s lead story is “Do not give ground on Ukraine, PM tells leaders” and the FT also goes with the latest from the summit in Germany: “G7 aims to hurt Russian war chest with price cap on crude exports”. The Telegraph has “Biden to block PM’s answer to food crisis” while “Leaders seek united front away from turmoil at home” is the splash in the i paper. The housing market is the lead in the Express – “Rush to cash in on homes before ‘crash’” – and the Mail focuses on scammers: “Britain is £3bn fraud capital of the world”. The Mirror’s lead is “True horror of NHS dentist crisis” while the Sun picks up the latest royal travails: “Charles ‘cash in bag’ probe”.Today in FocusCan Colombia’s first leftwing president deliver change?Gustavo Petro has been elected as the Latin American country’s first leftist leader. But he faces a huge challenge if he is to deliver on his promises, says Joe Parkin DanielsCartoon of the day | Nicola JenningsThe UpsideA bit of good news to remind you that the world’s not all badDr Laura Marshall-Andrews (above) loves her job as a general practitioner, but she is acutely aware of the crisis gripping GP clinics across the country. To try and make a difference in one clinic, Marshall-Andrews decided to include different methods for her patients, offering dance classes, art and foraging, for holistic treatments that try to improve people’s quality of life more generally.Marshall-Andrew argues that social prescribing reduces pressure on the NHS, citing a study that showed that every £1 spent on arts in health saves the NHS £11. “People, I realised, are not textbooks.” Marshall-Andrew says, “they are far more complicated than that, and far more interesting.”Sign up here for a weekly roundup of The Upside, sent to you every SundayBored at work?And finally, the Guardian’s crosswords to keep you entertained throughout the day – with plenty more on the Guardian’s Puzzles app for iOS and Android. Until tomorrow.
      Quick crossword
      Cryptic crossword
      TopicsRoe v WadeFirst EditionAbortionUS politicsnewslettersReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Under Court’s Shadow, N.Y. Governor Candidates Lob Final Pitches

      by

      Rulings on abortion and guns shape the final weekend of campaigning before Tuesday’s primary.A pair of seismic rulings by the Supreme Court jolted the race for governor of New York on Sunday, as Democrats and Republicans made final pitches to an electorate that found itself at the center of renewed national debates over guns and abortion rights.All three Democratic candidates for governor fanned out Sunday morning to Black churches in Harlem and Queens, Manhattan’s Pride March and street corners across the city to denounce the rulings and promise an aggressive response.“We’re going to pass a law that’s going to say, you can’t bring a weapon into this church on a Sunday,” Gov. Kathy Hochul, the Democratic front-runner, assured congregants at Greater Allen African Methodist Episcopal Cathedral of New York in Jamaica, Queens.“I don’t want those guns on subways, either,” she added. “I don’t want them in playgrounds. I don’t want them near schools.”The Republican candidates, who mostly lauded both rulings, generally stuck to other messages with broad appeal to a state where both abortion rights and gun control are popular — attacking Ms. Hochul for New York’s rising inflation and elevated crime rates.But in at least one episode, the abortion issue was hard to avoid. Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, said that he was slapped in the back by a grocery store employee referencing abortion on Sunday afternoon while he was campaigning for his son, Andrew, on Staten Island.“The one thing he said that was political was ‘you’re going to kill women, you’re going to kill women,’” said Mr. Giuliani, who said he understood the remark to be a reference to the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade on Friday.The police, who did not confirm the abortion remark, said a suspect was in custody but had not been charged. The younger Mr. Giuliani was not on hand.Equal parts exuberance and frustration, the final pitches roughly hewed the battle lines that were drawn months ago in races that have been punctuated by violent tragedies — like the racist attack at a Buffalo supermarket in May — and buffeted by quality-of-life concerns.Wendy Dominski of Youngstown, N.Y., left, exchanged a blown kiss with Andrew Giuliani as he arrived at Lebanon Valley Speedway in New Lebanon, N.Y.Cindy Schultz for The New York TimesOnly this time, the fights played out in the shadow of the Supreme Court decisions issued in recent days on abortion rights and New York’s ability to regulate firearms. The rulings have injected a fresh dynamic into the races and appear to have given Democrats a new sense of urgency.Ms. Hochul, the state’s first female governor, put both rulings at the center of her weekend hopscotch across the city, highlighting her decisions to spend $35 million to aid abortion access and call lawmakers back to Albany next week for a special legislative session to address the justices’ decision to overturn a 100-year-old New York law limiting the ability to carry concealed weapons.Hours after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday, the governor raced to a protest in Manhattan’s Union Square, promising thousands of New Yorkers that New York would be a “safe harbor” for abortion under her leadership.In a show of her standing with the state’s Democratic establishment, Ms. Hochul and her running mate, Lt. Gov. Antonio Delgado, also trotted out powerful Democratic surrogates. Mayor Eric Adams campaigned with them in Brooklyn on Saturday, and Representative Gregory W. Meeks, the chairman of the Queens Democratic Party who has prodded her to put together a more diverse campaign, accompanied her to church on Sunday.“I’m not telling you who to vote for,” Ms. Hochul teased in Jamaica. “You’re not supposed to do that in church.”Some voters said they were already impressed.“Thus far, I’ve been happy with what she’s done,” said Shirley Gist, a 74-year-old retired speech pathologist who voted early for Ms. Hochul on Saturday. “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.”Governor Hochul campaigned at the Greater Allen A.M.E. Cathedral of New York in Queens on Sunday.Brittainy Newman for The New York TimesJumaane D. Williams, New York City’s left-leaning public advocate, and Representative Thomas R. Suozzi, who is running to Ms. Hochul’s right, did their best at a Sunday appearance at Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem to convince the uncommitted of just the opposite.“I’m a common-sense Democrat. I’m tired of far left, and I’m tired of crazy right,” Mr. Suozzi said in remarks where he tied himself to Mr. Adams’s crime-fighting plans and pledged to cut taxes and improve public education. He knocked Ms. Hochul for accepting support from the National Rifle Association in past campaigns — an affiliation she has since disavowed.Mr. Williams did not explicitly address the Supreme Court decisions but laid blame nonetheless at the feet of Democratic power structure.“I have to be clear, Democratic leadership has failed this time,” he said. “They failed to act.”Still, it was far from clear that the attacks would be enough to turn the tide against Ms. Hochul, who is spending millions of dollars more in advertising than either primary opponent and holds a large lead in public polls. In fact, some Democrats predicted that backlash to the Supreme Court rulings would only help Ms. Hochul, a moderate from Buffalo who only took office last summer.“What can the two Democratic challengers do?” said former Gov. David A. Paterson. “They can’t be against it, so they have to kind of sit and watch.”He predicted a comfortable win for Ms. Hochul: “When people are embattled, they tend to vote more pragmatically,” he said.Democrats will also decide on a candidate for lieutenant governor on Tuesday. Mr. Delgado has ample institutional support, but he faces a pair of spirited challenges from Ana María Archila, a progressive activist aligned with Mr. Williams, and Diana Reyna, a more moderate Democrat running with Mr. Suozzi.Jumaane Williams, the New York City public advocate, said Democratic leadership has failed.Craig Ruttle/Associated PressThe winner will face Alison Esposito, a Republican and longtime New York City police officer.The Republican race for governor has been considerably more lively — full of name-calling, increasing disdain and sharper policy differences between the candidates. But with scant public polling available and most of the candidates still struggling to establish name recognition with primary voters, even the state’s most-connected Republicans were scratching their heads.“I have no idea how this turns out,” said John J. Faso, a former Republican congressman and the party’s 2006 nominee for governor.With Mr. Giuliani and Harry Wilson nipping at his heels, Representative Lee Zeldin, the presumptive front-runner backed by the State Republican Party, spent the weekend touring upstate New York in a campaign bus trying to shore up support in regions that typically sway his party’s primary.“Everybody’s hitting their breaking point right now,” Mr. Zeldin told a small crowd of about three dozen who gathered in an industrial park outside of Albany. He promised to rehire people who had been fired for refusing to be vaccinated, and to fire the Manhattan district attorney, who has become a punching bag for Republicans.Another candidate, Rob Astorino, spent Sunday shaking hands with potential voters on the boardwalk in Long Beach on Long Island.Mr. Wilson, a moderate who favors abortion rights and has positioned himself as a centrist outsider, has done relatively little in person campaigning. But he has blanketed the airwaves with more than $10 million worth of advertisements filleting Mr. Zeldin as a flip-flopping political insider.Near Albany, an entirely different message was being delivered by Andrew Giuliani, who spent Saturday night spinning laps around the Lebanon Valley Speedway in a Ram pickup emblazoned with his face. He gleefully tied himself to his former boss, Donald J. Trump: “You like that guy, right?”Though Mr. Giuliani, 36, is an outspoken critic of abortion and proponent of firearms, he spent much of his three hours at the speedway Saturday night reminding voters of his MAGA credentials.The cheers that rose from the crowd suggested he was among friends.Wearing an American flag wrap over a tank top, Wendy Dominski, 52, a retired nurse who drove five hours from Youngstown, N.Y., to volunteer for the event, said the other Republicans in the race are either RINOs — Republicans in Name Only — or “flat-out flip-flop liars.”She had little doubt who the former president supports, even if he hasn’t said so. “Giuliani stands for everything that Trump stands for, and that we stand for,” she said.Reporting was contributed by More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Many US companies move to pay travel costs for employees seeking abortions

      by

      Many US companies move to pay travel costs for employees seeking abortionsTech firms and banks, including Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, add ‘critical healthcare’ package Many US corporate giants have moved swiftly to provide support and financial assistance to employees seeking abortions in states that outlawed the procedure following the US supreme court’s decision on Friday to overturn its landmark Roe v Wade ruling.With potentially millions of women soon looking to cross state lines for the procedure, many employers have added “critical healthcare” packages to employees benefit packages.The measures reflect, in some cases, elevated responsibility that businesses now feel to respond to pressure from investors, customers and employees at a time when corporate values do not conform with the legislatures of states in which they or their employees are based.Many banks and tech firms have announced they will cover travel expenses for US workers in need of abortions as part of their medical benefits. After the reversal was announced Friday, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs joined Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase in offering travel benefits.“We will continue to provide benefits that support our colleagues’ family planning choices wherever we are legally permitted to do so,” Citi’s head of human resources, Sara Wechter, wrote in a memo to employees on Friday.Tech firms, also, have moved to accommodate employees needs. Microsoft extended its financial support for “critical healthcare” after the draft version of the supreme court opinion overturning Roe was first leaked.Apple has said the existing benefits package allows employees to travel out of state for medical care, and Facebook parent Meta has said it will offer travel expense reimbursement “to the extent permitted by law”.In entertainment, Disney, Condé Nast, Warner Bros Discovery and Netflix are among those who have said they will offer travel reimbursements.While large companies can mitigate the supreme court ruling, the measures may not address the concerns of employees at firms that have in recent years located to low-tax states that have either enacted restrictions or essentially banned access to abortion.Texas, for instance, has been aggressively selling itself as a tax- and regulation-lite home to giants such as Oracle, Hewlett-Packard, and Tesla. Facebook, Amazon and Apple all have all grown their presence there.But the commitment of Texas, like Missouri, to a near-total ban on abortion could now clash with those companies’ stated values and harm the state’s ability to attract new business, employees and investment.Earlier this year, Texas state representative Briscoe Cain sent a cease-and-desist letter to Citigroup, saying he would propose legislation barring localities in the state from doing business with any company that provides travel benefits for employees seeking abortions.The St Louis mayor, Tishaura Jones, said in a post to Twitter that she believes abortion bans at the state level are going to make it harder to attract businesses. Kansas City mayor Quinton Lucas said one business has already backed out of setting up in the city.But many large companies have stayed silent, including McDonald’s, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, General Motors, and Arkansas-based Walmart – the largest employer in the US with dozens of stores in states that have enacted abortion bans.The Business Roundtable, an organization that represents some of the nation’s most powerful companies, has said it “does not have a position on the merits of the case”.Perhaps a more pressing concern is that for millions of people not employed by a large international or national company, abortion restrictions present a more onerous challenge.According to the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, abortion bans and restrictions don’t reduce unintended pregnancy or demand for abortion. Rather, they impose significant hurdles to obtaining care, causing stress for people in need of abortion and leading some to experience forced pregnancy and all its troubling consequences. “Evidence also shows the disproportionate and unequal impact abortion restrictions have on people who are already marginalized and oppressed – including Black and Brown communities, other people of color, people with low incomes, young people, LGBTQ communities, immigrants and people with disabilities,” institute president said in a statement Dr Herminia Palacio.In response, regional governments and community organizations have started outreach efforts to help anyone in need of the procedure. Baltimore’s mayor, Brandon Scott, has announced that the city will provide $300,000 in grants to organizations that offer abortion and family planning.Some left-leaning states have seen abortion procedures increase as surrounding states tightened access even before Roe fell. In Illinois, abortion increased by a quarter between 2017 and 2020. Guttmacher said in response “local and national abortion funds increased their capacity and helped even more people pay for their abortions”.But with an increasingly fragmented and increasingly polarized abortion landscape, many companies are likely to find themselves forced to respond to both pro-choice and abortion activists while pledging to promote women’s equality and workplace advancement.The issue of freedom to travel to other states for an abortion procedure issue has one notable, anti-Roe supporter. In his concurring opinion released Friday, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said it would be unconstitutional for a state to impose travel restrictions. “In my view, the answer is no, based on the constitutional right to interstate travel,” Kavanaugh wrote.TopicsUS politicsAbortionRoe v WadeHealthCitigroupBank of AmericaGoldman SachsnewsReuse this content More