Abortion

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden backs exception to Senate filibuster to protect abortion access

      by

      Biden backs exception to Senate filibuster to protect abortion accessPresident in Madrid says he supports ‘exception to the filibuster for this action to deal with the supreme court decision’01:39Joe Biden said on Thursday he would support an exception to the Senate filibuster to protect access to abortion, after the supreme court overturned the right in a historic ruling this month.The Roe ruling is not about states’ rights. It’s about power and control | Derecka PurnellRead more“If the filibuster gets in the way, it’s like voting rights,“ Biden said during a press conference at the Nato summit in Madrid, adding that there should be an “exception to the filibuster for this action to deal with the supreme court decision”.The term filibuster refers to the 60-seat super-majority needed for most legislation to pass the Senate without being blocked by any single senator.The rule is meant to help the Senate act as a less volatile chamber than the House, which works on simple majority votes, and to protect the rights of the minority.But many on the left charge Republicans and some centrist Democrats with using the rule more in the archaic, Spanish-derived sense of the word “filibuster” – as pirates or raiders, ransacking the political process to their own advantage.Biden was a senator from 1973 until 2009. An institutionalist to the core, he has been reluctant to support changes to the filibuster – even “carve-outs” for key legislation.Earlier this year, Biden endorsed a carve-out on the issue of voting rights. The move was meant to answer Republican attacks on those likely to vote Democratic, prominently African Americans, but two Democrats, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, stood in the way of their party.Biden’s latest comments made clear he is willing to support a carve-out to protect abortion rights. Manchin and Sinema would in all likelihood block the move once again.With the Senate split 50-50 and controlled by the vote of the vice-president, Kamala Harris, Democrats’ legislative options are limited.Biden is therefore under pressure to take executive action to protect abortion rights. Although his options are few, in Madrid he said he would meet governors on Friday to talk about the issue and would “have announcements to make then”.Biden also repeated harsh criticism of the decision to overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling which guaranteed the right to abortion, and reiterated his warning that other constitutional protections could be at risk from a supreme court tilted right by three justices appointed by Donald Trump.01:29Biden said: “One thing that has been destabilising is the outrageous behavior of the supreme court of the United States in overruling not only Roe v Wade but essentially challenging the right to privacy.”Clarence Thomas, the senior conservative on the court, has written that other privacy-based rights, to contraception, gay sex and same sex marriage, should be examined.Thomas did not say another such right, to interracial marriage, was in question. He is Black. His wife, the far-right activist Ginni Thomas, is white.As a devout Catholic, Biden has long seen many US left question his bona fides as a supporter of abortion rights. In such quarters, the president’s remarks in Spain met with rather weary responses.Elie Mystal, justice correspondent of the Nation, wrote: “Oh look, Biden said he wasn’t open to changing the filibuster to pass a federal abortion law, people loudly complained, and now he’s changed his mind. FUNNY HOW THAT WORKS!“It’s almost like telling elected officials what we want them to DO makes them more likely to DO IT.”TopicsJoe BidenAbortionUS SenateUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      How Zeldin’s Anti-Abortion Stance May Affect the N.Y. Governor’s Race

      by

      Representative Lee Zeldin, the Republican candidate for governor, said the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was a victory for family, life and the Constitution.The confetti was still falling at her Democratic primary victory party Tuesday night when Gov. Kathy Hochul rolled out a general election warning: If her Republican opponent wins in November, he could follow the Supreme Court’s lead and curtail New Yorkers’ abortion rights.Yet in his own victory speech, that Republican opponent, Representative Lee Zeldin, had not a single word to say about the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Just days after he had lauded the ruling, Mr. Zeldin instead stuck to criticizing Ms. Hochul’s handling of crime, inflation and the pandemic.As New York enters what may be the most competitive general election the Empire State has seen in two decades, their divergent approaches were no accident.To win in New York, a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans two to one, Mr. Zeldin needs to reach well beyond his conservative base and present himself as a common-sense alternative in an effort to appeal to political independents and Democrats worried about public safety and spiking living costs.To stop him, Ms. Hochul is determined to convince those same voters that Mr. Zeldin’s views are far more extreme than he lets on — above all, when it comes to a woman’s right to an abortion.“This is not an ordinary Republican,” Ms. Hochul, the state’s first female governor, said Wednesday morning on NY1 shortly before rolling out a new website labeling Mr. Zeldin a figure from the “extreme fringes.”“He also supports taking away women’s right to choose,” she said. “This is New York.”Indeed, the issue has the potential to be an unusually potent one in a state like New York, which in 1970 became just the second in the nation to broadly legalize abortion. Since then, New Yorkers have never elected a governor who opposes legalized abortion, and they remain overwhelmingly supportive of abortion rights.An average of recent polls calculated by The New York Times before the Dobbs decision showed that roughly 63 percent of adult New Yorkers believe abortion should be legal, compared with 32 percent who do not. Only seven states, and the District of Columbia, were more supportive.Mr. Zeldin, a conservative four-term congressman from Long Island, has been a reliable vote to limit abortion access and to bar federal funds from going to Planned Parenthood. He co-sponsored legislation that would, with few exceptions, federally ban abortions after 20 weeks and criminally penalize doctors who violate it. Those positions have won him top marks from anti-abortion groups.Just days before a draft of the Dobbs decision leaked this spring, Mr. Zeldin told New York Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, that he supported appointing a state health commissioner who “respects life as opposed to what we’re used to,” according to a recording of the event obtained by NY1.Key Results in New York’s 2022 Primary ElectionsOn June 28, New York held several primaries for statewide office, including for governor and lieutenant governor. Some State Assembly districts also had primaries.Kathy Hochul: With her win in the Democratic, the governor of New York took a crucial step toward winning a full term, fending off a pair of spirited challengers.Antonio Delgado: Ms. Hochul’s second in command and running mate also scored a convincing victory over his nearest Democratic challenger, Ana María Archila.Lee Zeldin: The congressman from Long Island won the Republican primary for governor, advancing to what it’s expected to be a grueling general election.N.Y. State Assembly: Long-tenured incumbents were largely successful in fending off a slate of left-leaning insurgents in the Democratic primary.“For a Republican to win in New York, you need to run the straight flush, a perfect campaign,” said Thomas Doherty, a top aide to the former Gov. George E. Pataki, a Republican, who suggested Mr. Zeldin may have made costly missteps by talking up his anti-abortion views.“I don’t know what Zeldin’s thinking was, other than maybe he had a problem in the primary,” Mr. Doherty said.Mr. Zeldin’s allies argue that Democrats are vastly overestimating how much everyday voters will care about the abortion issue come November, particularly at a time when many New Yorkers are fearful about public safety and struggling to make ends meet amid rising costs for rent, gas and groceries.Those issues have helped drive Republicans to victory in Democrat-friendly turf in Virginia, New Jersey and parts of New York over the last year. In New York, polls consistently show voters believe the state — and the country — are headed in the wrong direction, views that Mr. Zeldin, a lawyer and Army veteran, hopes could help propel him to victory.“The Democrats are pushing this abortion debate because they’ve failed so miserably in the other areas that they don’t want to talk about those things,” said Bruce Blakeman, the Republican Nassau County executive who upset a Democratic incumbent last November. Besides, he contended that many voters agree with Mr. Zeldin’s abortion stance.“The fact that he may be more restrictive than others with respect to abortion is his personal choice,” Mr. Blakeman added. Mr. Zeldin himself has repeatedly tried to stress that the governor has limited power to change abortion laws in New York, particularly given Democrats’ tight hold on the Legislature in Albany and a 2019 law codifying federal protections in case Roe was ever overturned.“New York has already codified far more than what Roe provided, so the law in New York State is exactly the same the day after the Supreme Court decision gets released,” Mr. Zeldin said in a recent interview with The New York Times. (His spokeswoman did not return a request for comment for this story.)But, as Ms. Hochul has shown by initiating an advertising campaign to clarify New Yorkers’ abortion rights and dedicating $35 million in state funds to promote abortion access, the governor does have broad discretion to interpret, enforce and reinforce the state’s status as an abortion safe haven.If Mr. Zeldin may now be trying to sidestep the abortion issue as he heads into a general election fight, he has made no secret of his views in recent months.When the Supreme Court handed down its decision last week, reversing nearly 50 years of precedent, the congressman celebrated it as “a victory for life, for family, for the Constitution, and for federalism” and shared his own experience as a parent of twin daughters born more than 14 weeks prematurely.“In a state that has legalized late-term partial birth abortion and non-doctors performing abortion, in a state that refuses to advance informed consent and parental consent, and where not enough is being done to promote adoption and support mothers, today is yet another reminder that New York clearly needs to do a much better job to promote, respect and defend life,” he said in a statement.The issue is unquestionably a difficult one for Republicans to navigate in New York, where primary voters tend to prefer more socially conservative candidates, but the general electorate tilts more leftward. Still, Mr. Zeldin’s views depart from other members of his own party who have successfully won statewide office in New York in recent decades, like Mr. Pataki, who was last elected in 2002.When Mr. Pataki was still in office, his political staff conducted a poll asking voters to identify his views on abortion. The results showed that about a third of voters believed Mr. Pataki was for abortion rights, about a third thought he was opposed and the rest said they had no idea.The governor and his aides were pleased.Mr. Pataki was, in fact, a supporter of a woman’s right to choose. But the poll suggested he had managed to thread a sticky needle for a Republican in a state where his primary voters opposed abortion but the vast majority of residents believe women have a right to end a pregnancy. The model helped Mr. Pataki win three terms.Flush with millions of dollars to spend on campaign ads, Ms. Hochul and her Democratic allies are not trying to hide their strategy. They are prepared to go after Mr. Zeldin not just on abortion, but his views on gun restrictions and support for former President Donald J. Trump, including a vote to overturn 2020 election results in key states.“You’ve got an extremist view held by Lee Zeldin, and we’re not going to keep that a secret,” said Jay Jacobs, the state Democratic Party chairman. “The voters need to know what they are buying.”Dana Rubinstein More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Why were Democrats caught flat-footed by the end of Roe v Wade? | Jill Filipovic

      by

      Why were Democrats caught flat-footed by the end of Roe v Wade?Jill FilipovicDemocrats can’t fix the past. But the least they can do is learn from it – and change course accordingly With Roe v Wade overturned by the US supreme court and American women now living in a nation where our most fundamental rights are dependent on the state in which we reside, a lot of us are looking around and asking, “how did we get here?”There is much blame to go around, and the bulk of it rests on the shoulders of the right-wing anti-abortion movement that sprung out of the white supremacist movement that fought to maintain Jim Crow and school segregation. The racist, misogynist Religious Right gained tremendous power within the Republican party; the Republican party proved itself willing to lie, cheat, and steal to get their way; and as a result, Americans are now living in an undemocratic nation of reactionary minority rule.But the Democratic party hasn’t done enough to help itself, its supporters, and women more broadly.There are a great many points where Democrats could have kept the country on the rails. Chief among them is in the aftermath of the 2000 election, when Al Gore won the popular vote, but the supreme court, along partisan lines, installed George W Bush as president. If the reverse had happened – if our arcane Electoral College system had put a Democratic loser in office over a Republican who won more votes – rest assured that the Republican party would have gotten rid of that undemocratic institution as soon as it had the chance.Democrats, though, did nothing – even though “one person, one vote” is likely how most Americans believe our system works, and is an easy advocacy line. When Obama took office, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. In the states, Democrats controlled more legislatures than Republicans did; more states had a Democratic trifecta (Democratic governors plus both state legislative bodies) than a Republican one. There was a brief moment here to get a lot done in the name of both democracy and women’s rights: get rid of the undemocratic Electoral College; codify Roe; rescind the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal Medicaid dollars from funding abortions for poor women, and the Helms Amendment, which bars US funding from paying for abortions for women overseas. Advocates asked the Obama administration to do all of that; they did none.If there is one moment that portended all of what we’re seeing today, it was Bush v. Gore in 2001. Democrats had a chance to correct it. They had a base that was livid about what had happened, and a country primed to accept a “one person, one vote” rule for elections. And despite a huge win in 2008, they did absolutely nothing to prevent such an undemocratic result from happening again.Two years after Obama’s big win, Republicans swept the midterms in what remains one of the most significant shifts in American political power in the last century. It wasn’t just standard Republican candidates who won – it was Tea Party enthusiasts, right-wing extremists, conspiracy nuts, hardcore misogynists and unrepentant racists, all of whom set the state for Trump’s rise and his eventual party takeover. Once in power, they focused on restricting abortion rights, passing hundreds of laws and imposing a smorgasbord of new restrictions.They have controlled both chambers of the legislature in more than half of US states ever since.Once in power, Republicans focused on keeping themselves there, democracy be damned. They scaled up efforts to restrict voting rights, carefully calibrating their laws to decrease Democratic turnout – that is, to make it harder for people of color to vote. They used whatever power they had to deliver for their constituents – not stuff like healthcare or poverty alleviation that people might actually need, but the culture war stuff that satisfied a punitive desire to screw over perceived enemies.Democrats, on the other hand, made endless compromises.When supreme court justice Antonin Scalia died in 2016, Barack Obama was still the president, and he had the right to appoint a judge to fill Scalia’s seat. The Republican Party, though, had control of the Senate and blocked him, claiming that, because it was an election year, the American people had the right to pick the president who would pick the next Supreme Court judge. They did not apply this same rule to themselves just four years later, when Trump was in the same position – he appointed Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And while some Democrats complained, they certainly did not play hardball; Sen. Dianne Feinstein even applauded Barrett’s speedy and illegitimate confirmation hearings.And Donald Trump, of course, lost the popular vote; millions more American voted for Hillary Clinton. But, thanks to an Electoral College system kept in place despite its long-apparent flaws, the majority lost in 2016. We all know what happened next.In early May, a draft of the supreme court opinion to overturn Roe leaked to the press. It was a shock, but not a total surprise – supreme court watchers and reproductive rights advocates had been warning that this particular court was ready and willing to overturn Roe, and that they might use the Dobbs case to do it.But even with that heads up, the day the Dobbs opinion was published, Democrats seemed to be caught flat-footed. Democrats offered poems and made fundraising pleas. They asked us to vote – even though we did, in huge numbers, in 2016 and 2018 and 2020; even though three million more Americans voted for the Democratic nominee in 2016 than the Republican one.Only a small handful of Democrats, led most notably by Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, suggested anything even remotely resembling an innovative response. And even they seemed to be coming up with it on the fly.The unfortunate reality is that there is no immediate perfect solution for the problem at hand. The supreme court has struck down basic rights for women, giving conservative states enormous control over women’s bodies. Even a federal law codifying Roe is vulnerable to Republican takeover, and tricky to pass given the current make-up of Congress and the fact that the slim Democratic majority in the senate includes conservative Democrats Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema.But that doesn’t mean there is nothing Democrats can do. Joe Biden, for example, could make securing abortion rights for as many women as possible his number-one priority; he could rescind federal amendments that limit abortion access; he could give permission for clinics to open on federal lands; he could go to the mat for medication abortion availability; he could be clear that he will expand the court and end the filibuster.Instead, he’s setting off on a national tour to remind Americans that they think he’s to blame for inflation.Voting for Democrats matters. One problem that Democrats are currently facing is that they simply don’t have enough of a majority to get done what their base wants, and they have two feckless narcissists with Ds next their names who are hampering the party’s agenda. The midterms matter; more Democrats in office means more opportunities to pass laws that protect women and human rights more generally.But that doesn’t mean Democrats powerless now, or that they have any right to pin the blame on voters. At the very least, Democrats should take a look at what has happened since 2001, and recognize the situation for the emergency that it is. Most of the conservative judges on the court – most of the judges who just overturned Roe v. Wade – were appointed by presidents who initially lost the popular vote but took office anyway. This has happened twice in just 20 years.Abortion rights and democracy go hand in a hand. A nation is not democratic if half of its population do not have basic rights, let alone equal rights. As the US faces a series of crises of democracy, from an attempted coup to a hostile takeover by a reactionary minority to an unprecedented rollback of civil rights, there is a straight line that runs from Bush v Gore to Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health.Democrats can’t fix the past. But the least they can do is learn from it – and change course accordingly.
      Jill Filipovic is the author of the The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionAbortionDemocratsRoe v WadecommentReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Republican Yesli Vega Falsely Suggests Rape Victims Are Unlikely to Get Pregnant

      by

      A Republican nominee in a closely watched House race in Virginia made bizarre and false comments about rape victims, saying in leaked audio recordings that she wouldn’t be surprised if a woman’s body prevents pregnancies from rape because “it’s not something that’s happening organically,” and that the rapist is doing it “quickly.”The nominee, Yesli Vega, a supervisor and sheriff’s deputy in Prince William County, made the remarks at a campaign stop last month in Stafford County, according to Axios, which published the audio recordings on Monday.The person Ms. Vega is speaking with in the two clips, which together run about a minute long, is not identified and Axios did not reveal the source of the audio.In a statement, Ms. Vega did not dispute the authenticity of the recordings, but said: “As a mother of two children, yes I’m fully aware of how women get pregnant.”The first clip indicates Ms. Vega was speaking in the context of the debate about abortion, as she can be heard saying: “The left will say, ‘What about in cases of rape or incest?’”Ms. Vega cited her experience as a police officer, saying that she had “worked one case” since 2011 “where as a result of rape the young woman became pregnant.”In the second clip, after the unidentified woman said she heard that it is “harder for a woman to get pregnant if she’s been raped,” Ms. Vega replied: “Well maybe, because there’s so much going on in the body, I don’t know. I haven’t, haven’t, you know, seen any studies but if I’m processing what you’re saying it wouldn’t surprise me, because it’s not something that’s happening organically, right? It’s forcing it.”After the unidentified woman said the body “shuts down,” Ms. Vega replied: “Yeah, yeah, and then the individual, the male, is doing it as quickly, it’s not like, you know, and so I can see why maybe there’s truth to that.”Ms. Vega’s statement did not say directly whether she stood by her comments. “Liberals are desperate to distract from their failed agenda,” the statement reads. She also said her political opponents “would rather lie and twist the truth” than explain their stance on abortion.Her campaign did not explain what “lie” her comment was referring to.Ms. Vega won a June 21 Republican primary to take on the Democratic incumbent Abigail Spanberger in Virginia’s Seventh Congressional District, a newly drawn, Democratic-leaning district. Ms. Spanberger supports abortion rights.On Twitter, Ms. Spanberger called Ms. Vega’s comments “extreme and ignorant” and “devoid of truth.”Ms. Vega’s recorded comments are similar to remarks made in August 2012 by Representative Todd Akin, who, as the Republican Senate nominee in Missouri, said pregnancy from rape is “really rare” because, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”Leading Republicans called on Mr. Akin to drop out of the race, which he rebuffed. He went on to lose the race to the Democratic incumbent, Senator Claire McCaskill, by nearly 16 percentage points. More

    • 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