Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Ending Roe v Wade could badly backfire on Republicans during elections this year | Lloyd Green

      by

      Ending Roe v Wade could badly backfire on Republicans during elections this yearLloyd GreenThe Democrats now have a fighting chance to maintain control of the Senate. Their odds of retaining and flipping seats have improved overnight On Monday night, Politico reported that a majority of the US supreme court is poised to overturn Roe v Wade, eviscerate a half-century of precedent, and leave the issue of abortion to the states. Five of the court’s nine justices are prepared to give the Republican base exactly what it demanded. The remaining question for the Republican party is whether answered prayers are the most dangerous.Through the Trumpian looking glass, forcing women to die from illegal abortions is ‘pro-life’ | Marina HydeRead moreIf the leaked draft of the majority opinion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization is close to the final cut, the court stands to energize otherwise dejected Democrats and put Republican members of Congress in Democratic-leaning states at risk. Expect the anticipated Republican House majority in the midterms to be smaller than currently projected.Indeed, the Democrats also now have a real shot to maintain their control of the Senate. Overnight, their odds of retaining seats in Arizona, Nevada, Georgia and New Hampshire, while flipping Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, improved.Beyond federal offices, fights will now be waged this fall over governorships and legislatures in Michigan and Pennsylvania, where Joe Biden narrowly won in 2020, but where the incumbent governor is a Democrat, and the legislature is in the hands of the Republican party. In a post-Dobbs world, look to the states to emerge as roiling battlegrounds.Make no mistake, the draft opinion is sweeping. “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Samuel Alito writes for himself and four of his colleagues. “It is time to heed the constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” Along the way, the ruling also offers implicit criticism of the court’s prior decisions on personal autonomy.Prior precedents on contraception, interracial marriage, consensual sex and gay marriage are now at risk. At a February debate among Michigan’s prospective Republican candidates for attorney general, all three men, including Matthew DePerno, Donald Trump’s choice, criticized Griswold v Connecticut. In that case, the US supreme court struck down a state law that barred the sale of contraceptives to married couples.DePerno, an advocate of election conspiracy theories, framed his understanding of this this way: “The supreme court … has to decide, mark my words, that the privacy issue currently is unworkable. It’s going to be a states’ rights issue on all these things, as it should be.” DePerno is also the state Republican party’s officially preferred candidate.Elissa Slotkin, a moderate Michigan Democrat, tweeted on Monday night: “If tonight’s news is true, Michigan’s 1931 state law banning abortion would snap back into effect, making any abortion illegal in our state – even if the mom will die, or if she was raped by a family member. No exceptions.”A former member of the US intelligence community and the wife of a retired army helicopter pilot, Slotkin added: “My poor mother is turning over in her grave. The House has already voted to codify Roe – let all Senators be on record on this one in an up or down vote.”In the same neo-Confederate spirit as Michigan’s DePerno, the Indiana senator Mike Braun offered up his benighted take on interracial marriage. Braun argued that like abortion, interracial marriage should be left to the states to decide – not the federal judiciary. Said differently, he was arguing that the supreme court got it wrong in Loving v Virginia.“When you want that diversity to shine within our federal system, there are going to be rules and proceedings, they’re going to be out of sync with maybe what other states would do,” Braun announced.“It’s the beauty of the system, and that’s where the differences among points of view in our 50 states ought to express themselves.”After the ensuing uproar, Braun walked his words back. But in light of Politico’s reporting, the Democrats now have names, faces and an issue. Think ready-made campaign ad.To be sure, clearer Republican heads viewed the wholesale gutting of Roe as a threat to the Republican party’s elected officials. In the summer of 2021, they attempted to guide the court’s hand; they failed.Last July, 228 Republican members of Congress, 44 senators and 184 House members, filed an amicus brief in support of the Mississippi abortion law in question. Nowhere did the Republican submission refer to contraception, interracial marriage, or individual autonomy. Likewise, the word “privacy” only appeared as a part of a title of a footnoted law review article. Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert couched their arguments in pastels. Words like “previability” filled the page, as did polling data.Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, however, were having none of that. For them, it is time to return to what they consider the original constitution.More than seven in 10 Americans oppose overturning Roe even as the public is split over where to draw a line. In Texas, 77% support legal abortions in case of rape and incest. Not all restrictions are the same. America’s cold civil war just got really hot.
      Lloyd Green is an attorney in New York. He was opposition research counsel to George HW Bush’s 1988 campaign and served in the Department of Justice from 1990 to 1992
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionAbortionHealthUS supreme courtLaw (US)Roe v WadecommentReuse this content More

    • 275 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      There’s rage at this Roe v Wade mess – and those on the left who didn’t see it coming | Emma Brockes

      by

      There’s rage at this Roe v Wade mess – and those on the left who didn’t see it comingEmma BrockesFrom anti-Hillary Democrats to Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who clung on at Supreme Court, unlikely targets are being identified for blame After the initial shock, the blame. On Monday, when news broke of the leaked US supreme court draft opinion overturning Roe v Wade, millions of horrified Americans sought emotional release. “I am angry,” said Elizabeth Warren, voice shaking, leading a pack of reporters straight over a flowerbed outside the supreme court. Her face ignited with rage as she reminded them that 69% of Americans are against overturning the abortion legislation. “The Republicans have been working towards this day for decades,” she said. In the background, a man shouted, “You want to dismember children in the womb!”For many of us, that man – the you-want-to-kill-babies guy – and his ilk were not the first target for righteous abuse. It’s hard, in moments of duress, to get much satisfaction from reiterating an existing and long-held revulsion, particularly when its subject is beyond reasonable reach. When considering the rightwing architects of this moment, there was no “what if” in attendance; all the what ifs belonged to the left. Political purists who in 2016 urged Democrats to avoid voting for Hillary Clinton (hi, Susan Sarandon) were the first in line, and social media echoed to the sound of, “We told you this would happen.”Biden condemns efforts of extremist ‘Maga crowd’ to overturn Roe v Wade abortion protections – as it happenedRead moreSacrificing the good in pursuit of the better and winding up with the absolute worst – a dynamic as familiar to British as to American leftwing politics – was, in this moment of horror, a more enraging consideration than flat hatred of the right. From revived outrage at the Bernie bros, it was a quick descent into rage against various champions of the left. “You know who I blame for this?” said a friend. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg.” The late supreme court justice’s vanity in hanging on to her seat, her overconfidence that Clinton would win, her refusal to listen to warnings from the Obama White House that, should the unthinkable happen and the Republicans regain the presidency, the first casualty would be Roe v Wade – her fundamental enjoyment, one assumed, of being RBG when she could have ceded her seat to an Obama appointee – twisted us up into pretzels. I love Ginsburg, so all this had about it the extra and extremely female zing of self-harm.Oh, and Clinton wasn’t off the hook either. “If she’d bothered to campaign in Michigan,” said another friend sourly, “none of this would’ve happened.” All the terrible, bad-tempered fights of that election flew back up into the air, like a water column after a bomb. The only Republican who came in for similar ire was that idiot Susan Collins, senator from Maine, a supporter of abortion rights who had nonetheless voted in line with her party to confirm both Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court. Both had assured her, she said at the time, that they wouldn’t go after Roe v Wade. Shocked! Shocked, she was, this week to discover these were not men of their word.Of course, all this fury was mere displacement for the fundamental truth that rightwing forces were smarter, more organised, disciplined and talented in prosecuting a digestible narrative – “don’t kill babies” – than the fractured and dissembling left. Progressives tried to rally towards concrete solutions. There were things to be done – in the first instance, register to vote. (After less than a year of citizenship, I hadn’t. This weekend, I will). There was the call for fundraising. Celebrities started throwing around $10,000 matching donations to anyone giving to local abortion funds.And both Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders, as well as senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, hyped the necessity of codifying Roe v Wade in Congress, a move backed by President Biden that would enshrine the right to abortion in federal law irrespective of actions taken by the supreme court. It sounds good, and has the advantage of generating political action. But it is also a long shot, a case of last-resort measures, and too little too late. Earlier this year, Democrats tried to codify Roe, and while it passed the House it failed in the Senate, overcome by a filibuster. (Then “we must end the filibuster”, tweeted Sanders. None of this can happen quickly, if at all.)The fact is that if, as Warren said, the Republicans had been planning this moment for decades, rigging composition of the supreme court with precisely this endgame in mind, there was, irrespective of the scale of public outrage, no immediate way to turn back. In this first week of shock, before anger might become effectively organised, there was only the tiny compensation of the blame spiral.
      Emma Brockes is a Guardian columnist
      TopicsRoe v WadeOpinionAbortionElizabeth WarrenUS politicsUS supreme courtLaw (US)WomencommentReuse this content More

    • 238 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      After victory in the US, now the far right is coming for abortion laws in Europe | Sian Norris

      by

      After victory in the US, now the far right is coming for abortion laws in EuropeSian NorrisThe attack on Roe v Wade has roots in well-funded organisations whose tentacles have spread across the Atlantic For those of us who have been watching the assault against abortion in the US for years, this week’s leaked supreme court draft opinion – which could pave the way for an overturning of Roe v Wade – came as no surprise.Roe v Wade protects the right to an abortion in the US up to the point a foetus can survive outside the womb, and the religious and far-right have been gunning for it since it was introduced in 1973. Evangelical ideologues, far-right actors and radical-right billionaires have organised to undermine women’s right to safe, legal abortions through a combination of violence against clinics and doctors, dark money and political influence.‘Unnecessary suffering and death’: doctors fear for patients’ lives in a post-Roe worldRead moreSo, how did the US get here?After years of legal assaults that restricted abortion access and targeted clinics in Republican states; years of disinformation spread by “crisis pregnancy centres”, where women are persuaded to not have abortions; and years of burdensome demands on women to endure ultrasounds, gain parental consent and put up with counselling in order to have a termination, Trump’s election opened the door for abortion rights to end in the US.Ultimately, it required courts, not politicians, to end abortion. That’s where the Federalist Society comes in. Headed by Leonard Leo, the legal organisation supported anti-abortion lawmakers across the US into positions of influence where they could draft laws to ban abortion after 15 weeks … 12 weeks … six weeks … and completely. The end goal was for anti-abortion states to try to implement one of these laws, where it would be challenged again and again until it reached the supreme court.To do that, the anti-abortion movement needed supreme court justices who would enact its agenda. They got their way with the help of the leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, who blocked President Obama from nominating a supreme court judge, leaving the field open for Trump to promote the anti-abortion Neil Gorsuch. After that came two more Trump-appointed justices: Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.That was the judicial assault on abortion rights. But that assault could only happen with the help of money … and lots of it. Luckily for the anti-abortion movement, there are plenty of wealthy foundations keen to fund the cause. They include the DeVos, Prince, and the Templeton Foundation, which have helped to support organisations such as the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the Heritage Foundation and Focus on the Family.Backed by billionaire funding, organisations such as the ADF took the fight against abortion rights to the courts – helping to secure a ban on buffer zones and so-called “partial birth abortion”, and supporting the notorious Hobby Lobby case, which stated that employers should not have to cover birth control on employees’ healthcare plans if it was against the owner’s religious beliefs.These organisations and their billionaire backers have transatlantic reach. Take the DeVos and Koch Foundation-supported Heritage Foundation, which has welcomed a range of Conservative MPs to discuss free speech – including Oliver Dowden, Priti Patel and Liam Fox. It was announced on the day of the supreme court leak that Lord David Frost would soon be addressing the organisation.Then there’s the ADF, which spent $23.3m in Europe between 2008 and 2019, when its European arm’s youth conference played host to the Conservative MP Fiona Bruce.ADF International intervened in Belfast’s notorious “gay cake” case and is allied with organisations that lobbied to further restrict abortion in Poland. The US anti-abortion legal organisation, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a second religious freedom organisation that takes on legal cases to challenge abortion and LGBTQ+ rights, has also operated in Europe. Set up by the Republican Pat Robertson, who famously accused feminism of turning women into lesbians, ACLJ’s chief counsel is a former Trump defence attorney, Jay Sekulow. ACLJ spent $15.7m in Europe from 2008-2019.So far you can see how big money, the judiciary and religious freedom movements have come together in the US and Europe. But there’s another active force that has pushed us towards the end of Roe: the far right.Across the far-right infosphere, men discuss the need to ban abortion in order to reverse what they term the “great replacement” – a conspiracy theory that posits white people are being “replaced” by migration from the global south, and that, in the US in particular, this replacement is aided by feminists repressing the white birthrate via abortion.Conspiracy theories such as the “great replacement” sound extreme. But when it comes to the US abortion row, such views are mainstream. Take this quote from the former Republican congressman Steve King, who represented Iowa between 2003-2021. He claimed “the US subtracts from its population a million of our babies in the form of abortion. We add to our population approximately 1.8 million of ‘somebody else’s babies’ who are raised in another culture before they get to us.” Far-right theories circulate globally – that’s why people outside the US shouldn’t just act in solidarity with American women at this time, but prepare to stand up against the possible erosion of their own hard-won rights.
      Sian Norris is the chief social and European affairs reporter at Byline Times. She is writing a book about the far-right attack on productive rights called Bodies Under Siege
      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 300 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at guardian.letters@theguardian.comTopicsRoe v WadeOpinionAbortionUS supreme courtWomenHealthUS politicsLaw (US)commentReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump justices accused of going back on their word on Roe – but did they?

      by

      Trump justices accused of going back on their word on Roe – but did they? Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett face accusations of having misled politicians and the public but experts say people may have read into their statements what they wished to hear Chief Justice John Roberts has condemned the leak of a draft supreme court opinion overturning Roe v Wade as a “betrayal”. But for the majority of Americans who support the right to abortion access, the true betrayal was committed by the five justices who have initially voted to overturn the landmark case.That is especially true of the three conservative supreme court justices who were nominated by Donald Trump: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. During their Senate confirmation hearings, each of those three justices was asked about Roe and Planned Parenthood v Casey, the 1992 case that upheld the right to abortion access and could now be overturned as well.US supreme court justices on abortion – what they’ve said and how they’ve votedRead moreThe comments that the three justices made during those hearings are now coming under renewed scrutiny, as they face accusations of having misled politicians and the public about their willingness to overturn Roe.Republican Senator Susan Collins, who supported Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and repeatedly reassured the public that they would not vote to overturn Roe, has expressed alarm over the draft opinion and a sense that the justices told her something they later reversed.“If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office,” Collins said, while noting that the draft opinion is not final.Republican Senator Lisa Murkowksi, who also supports abortion rights and voted in favor of Gorsuch’s and Barrett’s nominations, said the draft opinion “rocks my confidence in the court right now”.Murkowski told reporters on Tuesday: “If the decision is going the way that the draft that has been revealed is actually the case, it was not the direction that I believed that the court would take based on statements that have been made about Roe being settled and being precedent.”During his 2017 confirmation hearings, Gorsuch said: “Casey is settled law in the sense that it is a decision of the US supreme court.” When Kavanaugh appeared before the Senate judiciary committee in 2018, he similarly described Roe as “important precedent of the supreme court that has been reaffirmed many times”, and he defined Casy as “precedent on precedent” because it upheld Roe.But legal excerpts say Gorsuch and Kavanaugh’s comments about Roe and Casey did not clearly indicate how they might vote in a case like Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, raising the prospect that some people may have read into their statements only what they wished to hear.“When people are nominated to the supreme court and they testify in Senate confirmation hearings, they are very careful about their language,” said Professor Katherine Franke of Columbia Law School. “Something like ‘settled law’ actually has no concrete legal meaning. What it means is that that’s a decision from the supreme court, and I acknowledge that it exists. But it doesn’t carry any kind of significance beyond that.”During her Senate confirmation hearings, Barrett was arguably even more careful than Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in her language about Roe. She refused to identify Roe as a “superprecedent”, meaning a widely accepted case that is unlikely to be overturned by the court. Instead she promised that, if confirmed, she would abide by “stare decisis”, the legal principle of deciding cases based off precedent.However, Barrett’s writings before joining the supreme court gave a clear indication of her thoughts on Roe. In one 1998 paper, Barrett and her co-author defined abortion as “always immoral” in the view of the Catholic church. She also signed off on a 2006 advertisement that described Roe as “barbaric”.“I’m sure that both Senators Collins and Murkowski asked pointed questions of all of these nominees, trying to get them to clearly say that they would not overrule Roe v Wade,” Franke said. “Murkowski and Collins maybe heard what they wanted to hear in order to feel better about voting to confirm these nominees, when the rest of the world knew quite clearly that they were ideologically and legally opposed to abortion.”For that reason, many progressives expressed little sympathy for Collins and Murkowski as they reacted with bafflement to the draft opinion.“Murkowski voted for Amy Coney Barrett when Trump himself proclaimed that he was appointing justices specifically to overturn Roe,” progressive congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Tuesday. “She and Collins betrayed the nation’s reproductive rights when they were singularly capable of stopping the slide. They don’t get to play victim now.”Murkowski voted for Amy Coney Barrett when Trump himself proclaimed that he was appointing justices specifically to overturn Roe.She and Collins betrayed the nation’s reproductive rights when they were singularly capable of stopping the slide. They don’t get to play victim now https://t.co/6i7b3g08lN— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 3, 2022
      Rather than showing remorse, progressives are demanding that Collins and Murkowski take action to protect abortion rights.Both Collins and Murkowski have said they support codifying Roe into law, but that proposal does not have the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Senate filibuster. Progressives are now calling on Collins and Murkowski to support a filibuster carveout to enshrine the protections of Roe into law.“To salvage their legacy, Collins and Murkowski must join with Democratic senators to do whatever is necessary to protect Roe in federal law,” said Stephanie Taylor, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. “No meaningful action will happen without a filibuster carveout now.”But Collins and Murkowski have so far given no indication that they would support such a carveout. Unless they do, the court stands ready to overturn nearly 50 years of precedent and erase the national right to abortion access, even though a clear majority of the country would oppose that decision. A CNN poll released earlier this year found that 69% of Americans are against overturning Roe, while just 30% support a reversal.If the court follows through with the draft decision, 26 states are certain or likely to ban abortion. Those bans could force people to travel far from home to reach states where abortion is legal, seek medication illicitly or attempt to terminate a pregnancy through dangerous means. Many pregnant people will also be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.And Collins and Murkowski may have nothing to offer Americans but regret.The Guardian’s Jessica Glenza contributed to this reportTopicsUS supreme courtAbortionLaw (US)US politicsDonald TrumpfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 225 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden condemns efforts of extremist ‘Maga crowd’ to overturn Roe v Wade abortion protections – as it happened

      by

      US politics liveUS politicsBiden condemns efforts of extremist ‘Maga crowd’ to overturn Roe v Wade abortion protections – as it happened
      Biden: ‘This Maga crowd is really the most extreme political organization that exists in American history’
      How soon could states outlaw abortions if Roe v Wade is overturned?
      Protesters swarm outside US supreme court
      Contraception could come under fire next
      California pledges to protect abortion rights
      What the justices have said and how they’ve voted on abortion
       Updated 1h agoRichard LuscombeWed 4 May 2022 16.09 EDTFirst published on Wed 4 May 2022 09.34 EDT Show key events onlyLive feedShow key events onlyFrom More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Here’s how Americans can fight back to protect abortion rights | Rebecca Solnit

      by

      Here’s how Americans can fight back to protect abortion rightsRebecca SolnitA Democratic majority in both houses of Congress could make abortion a right by law, and it’s worth remembering Mexico, Ireland and Argentina are among the countries that recently did so How do you strip away cherished rights? The best strategy is incrementally and undramatically, a death of a thousand cuts. That’s how Republicans were hacking at voting rights until recently, when the rest of us woke up and began to pay attention to the cumulative impact of voter ID laws, the shuttering of polling places, restrictions on voting by mail, and all the rest. Reproductive rights have been under attack for more than 30 years – by rightwing terrorism against abortion providers all through the 1990s and as recently as 2015 in Colorado Springs, but also by a sort of attrition, narrowing down access by shutting clinics, limiting how many weeks pregnant you can be, and other such measures. Overturning Roe v Wade upends all this stealth and incrementalism. Judging by the reaction, it may be exactly the kind of overstep that leads to a backlash. After all, the great majority of Americans support the right to choose.There are many kinds of actions to take in response to this likely overturning of a fundamental right to bodily self-determination and privacy. (And it’s bitterly amusing that a court that wants to set policies reaching into the uteruses of people across the country apparently feels violated by having its own internal workings exposed with this leaked draft opinion.) Direct support for the poor and unfree people who will be the most affected is already under way – and by unfree I mean those who are under the domination of a hostile partner, family, church or community. People have organized to offer travel to clinics for those far from them, access to abortion pills, and other forms of support. But by backlash I mean and am hoping for the kind of backlash Trump’s election and subsequent outrages provoked, the 2018 election that swept the Squad and many other progressives into office and took back the House of Representatives. A Democratic majority in both houses could make abortion a right by law, and it’s worth remembering that Mexico, Ireland and Argentina are among the countries that recently did so.What is striking this time around in the US both about the rightwing agenda and the response is that it is broad enough to build powerful coalitions. The human rights activism of the 1990s was siloed: though the same voters and politicians might support LGBTQ rights and reproductive rights and racial justice, largely separate campaigns were built around each of them, and the common denominators were seldom articulated.This time around – well, as I wrote when the news broke: “First they came for the reproductive rights (Roe v Wade, 1973) and it doesn’t matter if you don’t have a uterus in its ovulatory years, because then they want to come for the marriage rights of same-sex couples (Obergefell v Hodges, 2015), and then the rights of consenting adults of the same gender to have sex with each other (Lawrence v Texas, 2003), and then for the right to birth control (Griswold v Connecticut, 1965). It doesn’t really matter if they’re coming for you, because they’re coming for us.”“Us” these days means pretty much everyone who’s not a straight white Christian man with rightwing politics. They’re building a broad constituency of opposition, and it is up to us to make that their fatal mistake.It’s all connected. If Texas wasn’t suppressing voting rights so effectively, rightwing politicians might not be running the state. If non-Republican turnout can overcome the restrictions, Texas itself – now leading the attacks on abortion rights and trans rights – could elect Beto O’Rourke governor in November and turn Texas Democratic. O’Rourke tweeted today: “If they want states to decide, then we must elect a governor who will protect a woman’s right to abortion.”The right knows that it represents a minority and a shrinking minority as Americans as a whole become more progressive and as the country becomes increasingly non-white. They have made a desperate gamble – to rule via minority power, for the benefit of the few, which is why voter suppression is so crucial a part of their agenda. It cannot be a winning strategy in the long run. But in the short run it can perpetrate immense damage to too many lives and to the climate itself. The revelations should strengthen our resolve to resist by remembering our power and strengthening our alliances, winning elections, and keeping eyes on the prize.
      Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist. Her most recent books are Recollections of My Nonexistence and Orwell’s Roses
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionAbortionUS supreme courtLaw (US)Roe v WadeGendercommentReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘It will be chaos’: 26 states in US will ban abortion if supreme court ruling stands

      by

      ‘It will be chaos’: 26 states in US will ban abortion if supreme court ruling standsRegulation would be returned to states where lawmakers in south and midwest have enacted bans in anticipation of court’s decision More than half of US states will outlaw abortion immediately or as soon as practicable, if a leaked draft decision from five supreme court justices remains substantially unchanged.US states could ban people from traveling for abortions, experts warnRead moreThe result would send hundreds of thousands of people in 26 states hostile to abortion elsewhere to terminate a pregnancy – either by traveling hundreds of miles to an abortion clinic or seeking to self-manage abortion through medication from grassroots or illicit groups.Many would also be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.“Abortion is an essential part of reproductive healthcare, and this is going to affect people, even people who think, ‘I will never have an abortion,’” said Dr Nisha Verma, a Darney-Landy fellow with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.On Monday, a draft supreme court decision in arguably the most contentious case in generations was leaked. The case considered whether Mississippi could ban abortion at 15 weeks gestation.The ban is highly significant because it strikes at the heart of US constitutional protections for abortion. The landmark 1973 decision Roe v Wade established the right for pregnant people to terminate a pregnancy up to the point a fetus can survive outside the womb, roughly considered 24 weeks gestation, and a legal principle called “viability”.Two maps, one showing the distance under current law of each US county to the nearest abortion provider. The second map shows the increased distances if Roe is overruled and clinics close.The decision invalidated dozens of state bans, and until the court issues a final decision, prevents states from outlawing abortion before viability. A final decision is expected from the court in late June.The leaked decision in the Mississippi case, called Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, shows five conservative justices are willing to reverse constitutional protections for abortion on the grounds Roe v Wade was wrongly decided.If the decision is not substantially changed by the time a final opinion is issued, abortion regulation would be returned to the states where lawmakers across the south and midwest of the US have enacted bans in anticipation of the court’s decision.“There’s six months to two years before the dust settles,” said Elizabeth Nash, interim associate director of state issues in the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights research organization. “It will be chaos.”In that time, “there will be a lot of fluctuation as states are trying to implement their bans”, some of which are designed to go into effect immediately after a court decision is issued.Such state bans would probably close abortion clinics for nearly half of US women of reproductive age (41%) and increase the average driving distance to an abortion provider from 35 miles to 279, according to predictions from Professor Caitlin Knowles Mayers, an economist at Middlebury College in Vermont who has studied how the reversal of Roe would affect accessibility of abortion. This would probably reduce the rate of abortions by 20% in states that ban the procedure and increase births by 4% (birth estimates are less certain).“As was the case in the pre-Roe era, many women seeking abortions will find a way to get to the states where abortion is legal,” said Myers. “Current empirical evidence suggests that about three-quarters of women in the states that go dark will manage to make such a trip, reaching providers in soon-to-be “border” states like Florida, Illinois, New Mexico and Virginia.” Myer also works as a consultant to the Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood Federation of America, one of the nation’s largest networks of abortion providers.Roughly 860,000 induced abortions are performed each year in the US. However, a disproportionate share of the people who seek abortions are low-income or people of color who already have children, making it more difficult to obtain an abortion.“Current evidence on the causal effects of travel distances indicates that about one-quarter of women seeking abortions will not be able to travel to obtain them and that most of these women end up giving birth as a result,” said Myers. More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US shaken to its core by supreme court draft that would overturn Roe v Wade

      by

      US shaken to its core by supreme court draft that would overturn Roe v Wade Biden condemns abortion opinion that, if handed down, would mean ‘fundamental shift’ in law and imperil many other rights
      US politics – live coverageJoe Biden has warned that a leaked draft supreme court ruling overturning Roe v Wade, the 1973 case which guaranteed the right to abortion, would represent a huge change in America law and could imperil a wide range of other civil rights.As the US supreme court moves to end abortion, is America still a free country? | Moira DoneganRead moreIn a historic moment that shook the US to the core and highlighted jagged social and political divisions, the court confirmed the draft was authentic but said it did not “represent a decision by the court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case”.Biden said the ruling, if handed down, would represent a “fundamental shift in American jurisprudence” and could imperil rights including same-sex marriage and access to contraception.Politico published the draft by justice Samuel Alito on Monday night. The website said the draft was supported by four other rightwingers on a panel conservatives control 6-3.On Tuesday the chief justice, John Roberts, called its leak a “betrayal of the confidences of the court” which could “undermine the integrity of our operations” and promised an investigation.Speaking to reporters, Biden said the draft ruling had ramifications for “all the decisions you make in your private life, who you marry, whether or not you decide to conceive a child, whether or not you can have an abortion and a range of other decisions [including] how you raise your child”.02:52The draft ruling would allow states to declare abortion illegal.Biden asked: “Does this mean that in Florida they can decide to pass a law saying that same-sex marriage is not permissible, [that] it’s against the law in Florida? It’s a fundamental shift in American jurisprudence.”Protesters gathered outside the court and planned demonstrations around the country – both in support of and against abortion rights.At the court, some chanted “Abortion is healthcare” and carried signs reading “Justices get out of my vagina”, “Legal abortion once and for all” and “We won’t go back”. A smaller group chanted “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Roe v Wade has got to go”. Amid tense exchanges, barriers were erected.In a statement, Biden outlined how Democrats might fight back.First, the president said, his administration would argue Roe was based on precedent and “‘the 14th amendment’s concept of personal liberty’… against government interference with intensely personal decisions”.“I believe that a woman’s right to choose is fundamental,” Biden said. “Roe has been the law of the land for almost 50 years, and basic fairness and the stability of our law demand that it not be overturned.”Biden said he had directed advisers to prepare responses “to the continued attack on abortion and reproductive rights, under a variety of possible outcomes”.“We will be ready when any ruling is issued,” he said.Politico said it received a copy of the draft, which also dealt with Planned Parenthood v Casey, a 1992 case, from a person familiar with proceedings in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a Mississippi case due to be decided this summer.The draft ran to 98 pages including a 31-page appendix of state abortion laws and included 118 footnotes.0Alito wrote: “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”He added: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. It is time to heed the constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”As many as 26 states are expected to enact partial or total abortion bans if Roe falls. Some Republican-run states are expected to attempt to make traveling for an abortion illegal. Democratic-run states have indicated moves to protect and help women who seek an abortion.Polling shows clear majority support for abortion access. Christian and conservative groups campaign to end it regardless.If the court overturns Roe, Biden said, “it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose. And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November.”Biden promised to sign legislation codifying Roe into law. On Tuesday, the Democratic Senate leader, Chuck Schumer, said: “This is as urgent and real as it gets. We will vote to protect a woman’s right to choose and every American is going to see which side every senator stands.”But legislative success would require reform to the filibuster, a Senate rule which requires 60 votes for most legislation. Moderate Democrats have blocked such moves on issues including voting rights. Biden himself has expressed opposition.Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia, told the Guardian: “This might not be the final ruling. The justices usually confer after arguments and suggest how they would resolve a case and then the senior justices in the majority and minority work on drafts and circulate them to all members of the court.”He said: “In some cases, especially high-profile and controversial ones … justices do change their positions, as Chief Justice Roberts allegedly did” in a 2012 case in which the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, was upheld.Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor, pointed to possible wider implications.“If the Alito opinion savaging Roe and Casey ends up being the opinion of the court,” Tribe wrote, “it will unravel many basic rights beyond abortion and will go further than returning the issue to the states: it will enable a [Republican] Congress to enact a nationwide ban on abortion and contraception.”Other rights that may be at risk if Roe falls include the right to same-sex marriage, determined in Obergefell v Hodges in 2015.Charles Kaiser, a historian of gay life in the US and a Guardian contributor, said Alito’s opinion “blithely disregards past precedents”.“One passage in particular sets off alarm bells for activists who think its reasoning could jeopardize the court’s decisions legalising sodomy and the right of members of the same sex to marry.”In a sharply divided Washington, the supreme court is subject to fierce partisan warfare – particularly since Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, ripped up precedent to deny Barack Obama a third pick in 2016.Republicans confirmed three justices under Donald Trump, including Amy Coney Barrett, a hardline Catholic conservative, just weeks before the 2020 election – a move which ignored McConnell’s own posturing four years before.Biden has overseen the confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black female justice, but she has not yet replaced the retiring Stephen Breyer, another liberal, in a move that will not change the ideological imbalance.In the aftermath of the Politico story, Democrats pointed to the wider threat posed by the court.Adam Schiff, a California congressman and chair of the House intelligence committee, told the Guardian: “In abandoning decades of precedent, the draft opinion exposes the supreme court as no longer conservative, but now merely a partisan institution bent on imposing its anti-choice views on the rest of the country.“This decision, if made final, will be devastating for the healthcare of millions of women, even as it is destroys any semblance of devotion by the court to the law.”Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the New York progressive, said: “[The court] isn’t just coming for abortion – they’re coming for the right to privacy Roe rests on, which includes gay marriage and civil rights.”Abortion to become key fight in US midterms after stunning court leakRead moreRepublicans welcomed the draft ruling and condemned the leak – which the top legal reporter Nina Totenberg called a “bomb at the court”.Josh Hawley, a hardline Missouri senator, called Alito’s draft “tightly argued, and morally powerful” and said of the leak: “The justices mustn’t give in to this attempt to corrupt the process. Stay strong.”Among Republican moderates, Susan Collins of Maine – who under Trump supported the appointments of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh but voted against Barrett – pointed to a possible betrayal.“If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision,” she said, “it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.”Among women’s rights campaigners, condemnation of the Alito draft was strong.Laphonza Butler, president of the advocacy group Emily’s List, said: “It’s past time to vote out every official who stands against the pro-choice majority.”TopicsUS newsAbortionUS supreme courtLaw (US)GenderUS politicsnewsReuse this content More