Roe v Wade (Supreme Court Decision)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Republicans Are Finding Out That ‘Pro-Life’ Means a Lot of Things to a Lot of People

      by

      Electoral results since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision should tell a lot of people in the Republican Party something they absolutely do not want to hear: Even rank-and-file G.O.P. voters are not as pro-life as we might have thought when Roe v. Wade was the law of the land.That trend was confirmed last month in Ohio — the latest sign that the Republican Party needs to figure out a new way of addressing abortion.Many conservatives may call themselves pro-life, but in practice, that may be a more aspirational statement than an accurate reflection of hard policy views. Perhaps by figuring out what it now means to be pro-life — and recognizing that pro-life policy is easiest to sell only when it amounts to a ban on abortions later in pregnancy — Republicans can come up with a new approach to the politics of the issue.Before Roe was overturned, the term “pro-life” covered a lot of ground — which was useful over decades in galvanizing a broad coalition willing to use abortion as a political cudgel. As Republicans are finding out today, “pro-life” means many things to many people.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Sandra Day O’Connor’s Legacy Was Undermined by Court’s Rightward Shift

      by

      Since her retirement in 2006, the court has dismantled her key rulings on abortion, affirmative action and campaign finance.Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who died Friday at 93, was the sort of figure once familiar in American political and judicial life: a moderate Republican ready to look for compromise and common ground.That led her to vote to uphold abortion rights, affirmative action and campaign finance regulations. Since she retired in 2006, replaced by the far more conservative Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the Supreme Court has dismantled large parts of her legacy.That is nowhere more apparent than in abortion rights.Justice O’Connor joined the controlling opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that, to the surprise of many, reaffirmed the core of the constitutional right to abortion established in 1973 in Roe v. Wade.To overrule Roe “under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to re-examine a watershed decision,” she wrote in a joint opinion with Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and David H. Souter, “would subvert the court’s legitimacy beyond any serious question.”Last year, the court did overrule Roe, casting aside Justice O’Connor’s concern for precedent and the court’s public standing. In his majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Alito wrote that Roe and Casey had “enflamed debate and deepened division.”Justice O’Connor also wrote the majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 decision upholding race-conscious admissions decisions at public universities, suggesting that they would not longer be needed in a quarter-century. In striking down affirmative action programs in higher education in June, the Supreme Court beat her deadline by five years.Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said the timetable was unrealistic and unprincipled.“The 25-year mark articulated in Grutter, however, reflected only that court’s view that race-based preferences would, by 2028, be unnecessary to ensure a requisite level of racial diversity on college campuses,” he wrote. “That expectation was oversold.”Justice O’Connor was also an author of a key campaign finance opinion, McConnell v. Federal Election Commission in 2003. A few years after Justice Alito replaced her, the Supreme Court, by a 5-to-4 vote in 2010, overruled a central portion of that decision in the Citizens United case.A few days later, at a law school conference, Justice O’Connor reflected on the development.“Gosh,” she said, “I step away for a couple of years and there’s no telling what’s going to happen.”President Ronald Reagan nominated Justice O’Connor in 1981, making good on his campaign trail promise to name the first female Supreme Court justice. At the time she was a judge on a state appeals court, not a typical launchpad to the Supreme Court in the modern era, when it has been dominated by former federal appeals court judges.But her origin story was a reflection of her strengths, drawing on a range of experience largely missing among the current justices. Raised and educated in the West, she served in all three branches of Arizona’s government, including as a government lawyer, majority leader of the State Senate, and a trial judge.Her background informed her decisions, which were sensitive to states’ rights and often deferred to the judgments of the other branches of the federal government. Her rulings could be pragmatic and narrow, and her critics said she engaged in split-the-difference jurisprudence.But some of her commitments were unyielding, said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court. “As often as Justice O’Connor and I have disagreed, because she is truly a Republican from Arizona, we were together in all the gender discrimination cases,” Justice Ginsburg, who died in 2020, told USA Today in 2009.What is beyond question is that she was exceptionally powerful. She held the crucial vote in many of the court’s most polarizing cases, and her vision shaped American life for her quarter century on the court. Political scientists stood in awe at the power she wielded.“On virtually all conceptual and empirical definitions, O’Connor is the court’s center — the median, the key, the critical and the swing justice,” Andrew D. Martin, Kevin M. Quinn and Lee Epstein and two colleagues wrote in a study published in 2005 in The North Carolina Law Review shortly before Justice O’Connor’s retirement.In 2018, in a letter announcing her retreat from public life as she battled dementia, Justice O’Connor called for a renewed commitment to nonpartisan values, one that would require “putting country and the common good above party and self-interest, and holding our key governmental institutions accountable.”At the time, Chief Justice Roberts, who had joined the court just months before Justice O’Connor left it, described her place in history.“She broke down barriers for women in the legal profession to the betterment of that profession and the country as a whole,” he wrote. “She serves as a role model not only for girls and women, but for all those committed to equal justice under law.”On Friday, the chief justice added: “We at the Supreme Court mourn the loss of a beloved colleague, a fiercely independent defender of the rule of law, and an eloquent advocate for civics education. And we celebrate her enduring legacy as a true public servant and patriot.”That legacy is striking and real. But in the less than two decades since Justice O’Connor’s retirement, a central aspect of that legacy — her jurisprudence — has proved vulnerable. More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Why Trump Seems Less Vulnerable on Abortion Than Other Republicans

      by

      He appointed judges who overturned Roe, but his vague statements on the issue may give him some leeway with voters.Donald J. Trump is showing surprising resilience on the abortion issue, appearing less vulnerable than fellow Republicans despite his key role in shaping the Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade.An Ohio referendum last Tuesday guaranteeing abortion access and similar election results have bolstered Democrats’ hopes that they could repeat those successes in 2024.But Mr. Trump has held steady in recent surveys even among voters who favor keeping abortion mostly legal. President Biden, who holds a big lead among those who want abortion always legal, led the “mostly legal” group by only one percentage point against Mr. Trump in the recent New York Times/Siena College surveys of battleground states.Mr. Trump seems to have effectively neutralized abortion as an issue during the Republican primary. He appears to be attending to general election voters by employing vagueness and trying to occupy a middle ground of sorts, perhaps allowing voters to see what they want to see. And traditionally in presidential elections, a relatively small share of people will vote based on any one social issue, even if that issue is abortion.Voters who want abortion to be “mostly legal” are about twice as likely to say they are making voting decisions based on economic issues over social issues like abortion. The only group of voters across the six swing states for whom societal issues are even close to as important as economic issues are white college-educated voters, and those voters are expected to be a smaller share of the electorate in a presidential year than in a low-turnout off-year election like the Ohio abortion referendum.The share of voters who prioritize economic issues over social issues has increased by more than 12 percentage points in favor of the economy since the 2022 election, according to Times polling in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada and Arizona.Joel Graham, 49, of Grant County, Wis., said he would like abortion access to remain widespread: “In my mind, it’s not a politician’s choice, it’s a woman and a family’s choice.”“If Trump is elected, I have some concerns that there’s a chance he would put more hard-core conservatives on the Supreme Court and they might crack down more on abortion,” he said. Still, he says he plans to vote for Mr. Trump again because of his economic policies and concerns about the Biden administration’s foreign policy.Mr. Trump has been on many sides of the abortion issue over the years. In 1999, as a member of the Reform Party, he said he was “very pro-choice.” When he ran for office in 2016, he said women should be punished for having an abortion, then later took it back. Recently, he took full credit on his social media platform for being the one who ended the constitutional right to abortion in America: “I was able to kill Roe v. Wade.”When pressed in September whether he would sign a federal abortion ban at 15 weeks, he declined to give a definitive answer. “I’m not going to say I would or I wouldn’t,” he said.Conservative Republicans such as evangelicals have urged Mr. Trump to come out more forcefully against abortions, but they been among his biggest backers, and he is unlikely to lose them. And for many Republicans who want some abortion access, his lack of a defined stance — combined with his seeming long-term indifference on the issue — has not been a problem.“I haven’t seen Trump say something either way on abortion; he doesn’t seem to care either way and that’s fine with me,” said one of the respondents, a 38-year-old woman from Schuylkill County, Pa., who spoke on condition of anonymity. She wanted abortion to be mostly legal, she said, and planned to vote for Mr. Trump again.With the possible exception of Nikki Haley, Mr. Trump’s opponents for the Republican nomination have seemed to struggle to address shifting views on abortion. Gov. Ron DeSantis largely avoided the topic on the campaign trail, having signed a six-week abortion ban in Florida, a law that has been called extreme by some members of his own party. Mr. Trump called it “a terrible mistake.”Mr. DeSantis quietly came out in support of a federal 15-week abortion ban earlier this year, after months of dodging questions, and criticized Mr. Trump: “Pro-lifers should know he is preparing to sell you out.”But Mr. Trump has distanced himself from more restrictive abortion laws, favored by some in his party, seeming to recognize their unpopularity. Half of swing state voters oppose a federal 15-week abortion ban, while 42 percent are in favor. Voters who want abortion to be mostly legal are fairly divided on a 15-week ban, with a slim majority opposed.For those who want abortion to be mostly legal, Mr. Trump’s role in overturning Roe doesn’t appear to be a big concern.“I don’t think Trump was responsible for the Supreme Court’s decision,” said Michael Yott, a 37-year-old police officer from the Detroit area. “I honestly think that Trump is just for less government and states’ rights, and I’m fine with that. Now with Roe being gone, it’s up to each state to create their own rules and that’s fine.”Mr. Yott said he hoped some access to abortion would be maintained, particularly in early stages of pregnancy, but added, “My answer contradicts the stance of Republican candidates, but it’s just not that high on my list of issues.” More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Issue 1: Why Ohio’s Abortion Ballot Question Is Confusing Voters

      by

      Ballot questions have been a winning strategy for abortion rights, even in red states. But complicated ballot language and misinformation have some abortion rights supporters worried.Volunteers canvassing in favor of a ballot initiative to establish a constitutional right to abortion stopped Alex Woodward at a market hall in Ohio to ask if they could expect her vote in November.Ms. Woodward said she favors abortion rights and affirmed her support. But as the canvassers moved on through the hall, she realized she was not sure how to actually mark her ballot. “I think it’s a yes,” she said. “Maybe it’s a no?”Anyone in Ohio could be forgiven some confusion — the result of an avalanche of messaging and counter-messaging, misinformation and complicated language around what the amendment would do, and even an entirely separate ballot measure with the same name just three months ago. All this has abortion rights supporters worried in an off-year election race that has become the country’s most watched.Across the country, abortion rights groups have been on an unexpected winning streak with ballot measures that put the question of abortion straight to voters. They have prevailed in six out of six since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, even in red states like Kansas.Abortion rights volunteers gathered at the Van Aken Market Hall in Shaker Heights, Ohio, to encourage people to vote “yes” on Issue 1 next week. Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesBut the measure in Ohio is their toughest fight yet. It is the first time that voters in a red state are being asked to affirmatively vote “yes” to a constitutional amendment establishing a right to abortion, rather than “no” to preserve the status quo established by courts. Ohio voters have historically tended to reject ballot amendments.Republicans who control the levers of state power have used their positions to try to influence the vote, first by calling a special election in August to try to raise the threshold for passing ballot amendments, then when that failed, by using language favored by anti-abortion groups to describe the amendment on the ballot and in official state communications.Anti-abortion groups, which were caught flat-footed against the wave of voter anger that immediately followed the court overturning Roe, have had more time to sharpen their message. They have stoked fears about loss of parental rights and allowing children to get transition surgeries, even though the proposed amendment mentions neither.Democrats nationally are watching to see if the outrage that brought new voters to the party last year maintains enough momentum to help them win even in red states in the presidential and congressional races in 2024. And with abortion rights groups pushing similar measures on ballots in red and purple states next year, anti-abortion groups are hoping they have found a winning strategy to stop them.“Certainly, we know that all eyes are on Ohio right now,” said Amy Natoce, the spokeswoman for Protect Women Ohio, a group founded by national anti-abortion groups including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America to oppose the amendment.Simone Davis, left, and her mother, Ruth Hartman, canvassed for Planned Parenthood on the Saturday after the start of early voting.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesWith early voting underway since mid-October, the state is a frenzy of television and social media ads, multiple rallies a day and doorknobs laden with campaign literature, with each side accusing the other of being too extreme for Ohio.A “yes” on Issue 1, a citizen-sponsored ballot initiative pushed largely by doctors, would amend the state’s constitution to establish a right to “carry out one’s own reproductive decisions,” including on abortion.The amendment explicitly allows the state to ban abortion after viability, or around 23 weeks, when the fetus can survive outside the uterus, unless the pregnant woman’s doctor finds the procedure “is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.”But that language does not appear on the ballot. Instead, voters see a summary from the Secretary of State, Frank LaRose, a Republican who opposes abortion and pushed the August ballot measure to try to thwart the abortion rights amendment. That summary turns the provision on viability on its head, saying the amendment “would always allow an unborn child to be aborted at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of viability.”Other Republicans have helped spread misinformation about the amendment. The state attorney general, who opposes abortion, issued a 13-page analysis that said, among other claims, that the amendment would invalidate law requiring parental consent for minors seeking abortion. (Constitutional scholars have said these claims are untrue. And the amendment would allow some restrictions on abortion.)The ballot measure Republicans put forward in August trying to make this one harder to pass was also called Issue 1. Across the state, some lawns still have signs up from abortion rights groups urging “No on Issue 1.”Members of the anti-abortion group Students for Life handed out information and talked to students at Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio, to encourage them to vote “no” on Issue 1.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesAbortion rights groups have reminded voters of the consequences of Ohio’s six-week abortion ban that was in effect for 82 days last year — and could go into effect again any day, pending a ruling from the state’s Supreme Court. They repeatedly mention the 10-year-old rape victim who traveled to Indiana for an abortion after doctors in Ohio refused to provide one because of the ban.In a television ad, a couple tells of their anguish when doctors told them at 18 weeks that a long-desired pregnancy would not survive, but that they could not get an abortion in Ohio, forcing them, too, to leave the state for care: “What happened to us could happen to anyone.”The “yes” side has also appealed to Ohioans’ innate conservatism about government overreach, going beyond traditional messages casting abortion as critical to women’s rights. John Legend, the singer-songwriter and Ohio native whose wife, Chrissy Teigen, has spoken publicly about an abortion that saved her life, urged in a video message, “Issue 1 will get politicians out of personal decisions about abortion.”The “no” side makes little mention of the six-week ban, or abortion. Yard signs and billboards instead argue that a “no” vote protects parents’ rights. Protect Women Ohio has spread messages on social media and in campaign literature claiming that because the amendment gives “individuals” rather than “adults” the right to make their own reproductive decisions, it could lead to children getting gender transition surgery without parental permission — which constitutional scholars have also said is untrue. The anti-abortion side is trying to reach beyond the conservative base, and it will have to in order to win.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesThe anti-abortion side is trying to reach beyond the conservative base, and it will have to in order to win. In polls in July and October, 58 percent of Ohio residents said they would vote in favor of the amendment to secure abortion rights, and that included a majority of independents.Kristi Hamrick, the vice president of media and policy for Students for Life, which opposes abortion and has been “dorm knocking” on college campuses in Ohio, said the anti-abortion side had relied too much on “vague talking points” to try to win earlier ballot measures. “It wasn’t direct in what was at stake and how people would be hurt,” she said. “What is at stake is whether or not there can be limits on abortion, whether we can have unfettered abortion.”A box containing literature from the group Students for Life. Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesIn Ohio, the anti-abortion side has leaned into arguments that the amendment would encourage “abortion up until the moment of birth.” An ad aired during the Ohio State-Notre Dame football game featured Donald Trump warning, “In the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother.”Data shows late-term abortions are rare and usually performed in cases where doctors say the fetus will not survive. In Ohio, there were roughly 100 abortions after 21 weeks of pregnancy in 2020.National groups have poured in money, making this an unusually expensive off-year race. Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights, the coalition of abortion rights groups supporting the amendment, has spent $26 million since Labor Day, nearly three times as much as Protect Women Ohio, and most of that money has come from outside the state.At the market hall, the group of pediatricians leading the canvass for the “yes” side landed mostly on people who had heard about the amendment and supported it.Marsha Chenin, left, and Dr. Lauren Beene, executive director for Ohio Physicians for Reproductive Rights, talking with people about Issue 1.Maddie McGarvey for The New York TimesOne voter, Ashley Gowens, introduced herself to one of the doctors as “Stephanie’s mom,” thanking him for “standing up for my daughter’s rights.” Ms. Gowens worried that abortion rights supporters would be misled by the language on the ballot, or not realize they had to vote again — and differently — after the August election called by Republicans. “I know that it was done purposefully,” she said. “The only way they could knock this down was to confuse people.”David Pepper, a former state Democratic Party chair, said he too feared the August election had sapped some energy, and that the anti-abortion messages against extremism will appeal to Ohioans’ reluctance to change their Constitution.“You kind of have to run the table on your arguments, and they all have to be pretty persuasive for people to vote yes,” he said. “All you have to do to convince someone to vote “no” is give them one reason.” More

    • 63 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Donald Trump’s Abortion Shell Game

      by

      As a candidate for president in 2016, Donald Trump promised to put “pro-life justices” on the Supreme Court. He even issued a list of potential nominees that featured some of the most conservative judges in the country.As president, Trump made good on his promise, appointing three of the six justices who voted last year to overturn the Supreme Court’s precedent in Roe v. Wade and end, after years of erosion, the constitutional right to an abortion.Each of these appointments — Neil Gorsuch in 2017, Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 and Amy Coney Barrett in 2020 — was a landmark occasion for the Trump administration and a major victory for the conservative movement. Trump used his court picks to energize Republican voters ahead of the 2020 presidential election and, later, took credit for the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that made Roe obsolete.The Dobbs decision, Trump said in a statement, was “the biggest WIN for LIFE in a generation” and was “only made possible because I delivered everything as promised, including nominating and getting three highly respected and strong Constitutionalists confirmed to the United States Supreme Court.” It was, he continued, “my great honor to do so!”As recently as last week, in remarks to the Concerned Women of America Summit, Trump bragged about the anti-abortion record of his administration. “I’m also proud to be the most pro-life president in American history,” he said. “I was the first sitting president ever to attend the March for Life rally right here in Washington, D.C.” The biggest thing, he emphasized, was his appointment of three Supreme Court justices who “ruled to end the moral and constitutional atrocity known as Roe v. Wade.”“Nobody thought that could be done,” Trump said.Whether or not Trump is personally opposed to abortion is immaterial. The truth, established by his record as president, is that he is as committed to outlawing abortion in the United States as any other conservative Republican.There is no reason, then, to take seriously his remarks on Sunday, in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” where he criticized strict abortion bans and tried to distance himself from the anti-abortion policies of his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination. “I think what he did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake,” Trump said, taking aim at Gov. Ron DeSantis’s decision to sign a six-week ban into law in Florida in April. Trump also rejected the 15-week federal ban pushed by his former vice president, Mike Pence, and promised to negotiate a compromise with Democrats on abortion. “Both sides are going to like me,” he said. “I’m going to come together with all groups, and we’re going to have something that’s acceptable.”Trump is triangulating. He sees, correctly, that the Republican Party is now on the wrong side of the public on abortion. By rejecting a blanket ban and making a call for compromise with Democrats, Trump is trying to fashion himself as an abortion moderate, a strategy that also rests on his pre-political persona as a liberal New Yorker with a live-and-let-live attitude toward personal behavior.There is a real chance this could work. In 2016, voters did not see Trump as a conservative figure on either abortion or gay rights, despite the fact that he was the standard-bearer for the party that wanted restrictions on both. It would be a version of the trick he pulled on Social Security and Medicare, where he posed as a defender of programs that have been in the cross-hairs of conservative Republicans since they were created.But there’s an even greater chance that this gambit falls flat. There are the Democrats, who will have his record to highlight when they go on the offensive next year, assuming he’s on the ballot as the Republican nominee. There is the political press, which should highlight the fact that Trump is directly responsible for the end of Roe (so far, it mostly has). And there are his rivals, like DeSantis, who are already pressing Trump to commit to further anti-abortion policies in a second term.It’s probably no accident then that Trump went to Iowa — where the Florida governor is investing the full resources of his campaign — to remind voters of his role in ending Roe. “They couldn’t get the job done. I got the job done,” Trump said. “I got it done. With the three Supreme Court justices that I appointed, this issue has been returned to the states, where all legal scholars on both sides said it should be. Of course, now the pro-life community has tremendous negotiating power.”Trump is no longer the singular figure of 2016. He is enmeshed within the Republican Party. He has real commitments to allies and coalition partners within the conservative movement. He is the undisputed leader of the Republican Party, yes, but he can’t simply jettison the abortion issue, which remains a central concern for much of the Republican base.“We’re at a moment where we need a human rights advocate, someone who is dedicated to saving the lives of children and serving mothers in need. Every single candidate should be clear on how they plan to do that,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement issued in response to Trump’s comments on “Meet the Press.”Trump will have to talk about abortion again and again, in a context that does him no political favors.There is a larger point to make here. Because we are almost certain to see a rematch between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, it is easy to think that the next election will be a replay of the previous one in much the same way that the 1956 contest between Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson was virtually identical to the one in 1952.But conditions will be very different in 2024 from what they were in 2020. Trump will not be an incumbent and, according to my colleague Nate Cohn, he may not have the same scale of Electoral College advantage he enjoyed in his previous races. He’ll be under intense legal scrutiny and, most important, he’ll be a known quantity.The public won’t have to imagine a Trump presidency. It will already know what to expect. And judging from Trump’s attempt to get away from his own legacy, he probably knows that a majority of the voting public isn’t eager to experience another four years with him at the helm.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      The Surprising Places Where Abortion Rights Are on the Ballot, and Winning

      by

      IdahoN.D.S.D.TexasOkla.Mo.Ark.La.Miss.Ala.Tenn.Ky.Ind.Wis.W.Va.S.C.Ga.Ky.Kan.Mont.Mich.OhioMo.S.D.Fla.Ariz. Before Dobbs, abortion was legal in all 50 states. In the 14 months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, 15 states have enacted near-total bans () on abortion, and two states have imposed six-week limits (). But in the same time frame, the results of a series of ballot measures have revealed […] More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Biden Warns That Republicans Are Not Finished on Abortion

      by

      A year after the end of Roe v. Wade, Biden administration officials are working with a limited set of tools, including executive orders and the bully pulpit, to galvanize supporters on abortion rights.Minutes after the Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade last summer, a group of West Wing aides raced to the Oval Office to brief President Biden on the decision. As they drafted a speech, Mr. Biden was the first person in the room to say what has been his administration’s rallying cry ever since.Passing federal legislation, he told the group, was “the only thing that will actually restore the rights that were just taken away,” recalled Jen Klein, the director of the White House Gender Policy Council.But if the prospect of codifying Roe’s protections in Congress seemed like a long shot a year ago, it is all but impossible to imagine now, with an ascendant far-right bloc in the House and a slim Democratic majority in the Senate.Instead, with the battle over abortion rights turning to individual states, officials in the Biden administration are working with a limited set of tools, including executive orders and the galvanizing power of the presidency, to argue that Republicans running in next year’s elections would impose even further restrictions on abortion.“Make no mistake, this election is about freedom on the ballot,” Mr. Biden said Friday at a Democratic National Committee event, where he collected the endorsements of several abortion rights groups.On Saturday, Vice President Kamala Harris was set to deliver a speech in North Carolina marking the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision to eliminate the constitutional right to an abortion after almost 50 years. Ms. Klein, who recalled refreshing news websites on the day the decision came down last June, said that she was “shocked but not surprised” by the court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.She added that “efforts to really take extreme action do not represent the majority of opinion of where people are on this.”The White House has argued that Mr. Biden is reaching the legal limits of his powers through executive actions. On Friday, his latest executive action in response to the Dobbs decision ordered federal agencies to look for ways to ensure and expand access to birth control.Mr. Biden previously has issued a memorandum to protect access to abortion medication at pharmacies and taken action to protect patients who cross state lines to seek care. The Justice Department has taken legal action against some states restricting abortion. And the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the abortion-pill drug mifepristone was quickly challenged in the courts. (In April, the Supreme Court issued an order to preserve access to the pill as litigation continues.)The Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee will make abortion a primary focus of the president’s re-election effort.Haiyun Jiang/The New York TimesAs the White House has clarified its message around abortion rights, framing the fight as one in support of privacy, safety and civil rights, so has the president. Mr. Biden, a Catholic who attends mass almost every week, has struggled throughout his career with defending abortion rights. Since Roe was overturned, he has grown more outspoken.“I think that he is somebody who really has his own personal views, and has also been quite clear that Roe v. Wade was rightly decided,” Ms. Klein said.Recent polling shows that a majority of Americans may feel similarly. A USA Today/Suffolk University poll conducted earlier this month found that one in four Americans said that restrictive abortion bans enacted at the state level have made them more supportive of abortion rights. Another poll, conducted by PBS NewsHour, NPR and Marist, said that 61 percent of American adults support abortion rights.Some activists suspect that some Republican presidential candidates are paying attention to the polling. Mike Pence, the former vice president and presidential candidate, said on Friday that he would support a 15-week national ban on the procedure. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina has also backed such a ban.Other candidates have avoided a definitive stance. Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida signed a six-week abortion ban into law in his state, though he has not said whether he would support a national ban.“It was the right thing to do,” Mr. DeSantis said Friday of signing the law.The G.O.P. primary front-runner, former President Donald J. Trump, takes credit for appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, but he has so far also resisted embracing a federal ban.As the G.O.P. field assembles, the Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee will make abortion a primary focus of the president’s re-election effort. Earlier this month, the Biden campaign launched an advertisement campaign focused on battleground states, including the funding of billboards in Times Square that will highlight Republican efforts to restrict abortion access.The Democratic National Committee is also encouraging local Democrats to press Republicans to specify what their position is on national bans, believing it will help contrast Mr. Biden’s approach with extremist positions, according to a D.N.C. official.Inside the White House, Ms. Klein said officials are tracking court cases in individual states and bringing abortion-rights activists together to compare notes on which policies have succeeded.Still, activists are wary that court victories can be short-lived and do not take away the threat of a wider abortion ban the way legislation would.In recent months, administration officials have regularly highlighted the stories of women who have been denied emergency medical care when suffering pregnancy loss.Ms. Harris, who has made several trips and delivered speeches in defense of abortion rights, has frequently introduced medical care providers at her events to bolster the argument that the decision to end a pregnancy is a private one and not to be toyed with by local politicians.Vice President Kamala Harris, displaying a map showing abortion access, has emerged as a strong voice in the administration on abortion rights.Oliver Contreras for The New York TimesJill Biden, the first lady, has also been enlisted in the effort. On Tuesday, she hosted a group of women in the Blue Room of the White House and asked them to share their stories. One of the women, Dr. Austin Dennard, a physician in Texas, said she was forced to travel out of state for an abortion when her fetus was diagnosed with anencephaly, a condition that causes a baby to be born without parts of the brain and skull.Another, a Houston-based Democratic campaign worker named Elizabeth Weller, had gone into labor at 18 weeks and was directed to go home until she developed an infection so severe that a hospital ethics panel allowed a doctor to end the pregnancy.“Joe is doing everything he can do,” the first lady told the group.Mini Timmaraju, the president of the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America, agreed that the Biden administration is “doing everything they can,” but she said the limitations are real.“We have to give them a pro-choice majority Congress,” she said. “That’s it. They’ve done everything they can up until that point, but without the support of Congress, they are limited and we are limited in what we can do.” More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How a Year Without Roe Shifted American Views on Abortion

      by

      New and extensive polling shows public opinion increasingly supports legal abortion, with potential political consequences for 2024.For decades, Americans had settled around an uneasy truce on abortion. Even if most people weren’t happy with the status quo, public opinion about the legality and morality of abortion remained relatively static. But the Supreme Court’s decision last summer overturning Roe v. Wade set off a seismic change, in one swoop striking down a federal right to abortion that had existed for 50 years, long enough that women of reproductive age had never lived in a world without it. As the decision triggered state bans and animated voters in the midterms, it shook complacency and forced many people to reconsider their positions.In the year since, polling shows that what had been considered stable ground has begun to shift: For the first time, a majority of Americans say abortion is “morally acceptable.” A majority now believes abortion laws are too strict. They are significantly more likely to identify, in the language of polls, as “pro-choice” over “pro-life,” for the first time in two decades.And more voters than ever say they will vote only for a candidate who shares their views on abortion, with a twist: While Republicans and those identifying as “pro-life” have historically been most likely to see abortion as a litmus test, now they are less motivated by it, while Democrats and those identifying as “pro-choice” are far more so.For More Democrats, Abortion Is a Litmus TestThose who say they will vote only for a candidate who shares their view on abortion

      Source: GallupBy Molly Cook EscobarOne survey in the weeks after the court’s decision last June found that 92 percent of people had heard news coverage of abortion and 73 percent had one or more conversations about it. As people talked — at work, over family Zoom calls, even with strangers in grocery store aisles — they were forced to confront new medical realities and a disconnect between the status of women now and in 1973, when Roe was decided.Many found their views on abortion more complex and more nuanced than they realized. Polls and interviews with Americans show them thinking and behaving differently as a result, especially when it comes to politics.“This is a paradigm shift,” said Lydia Saad, director of United States social research for Gallup, the polling firm. “There’s still a lot of ambivalence, there aren’t a lot of all-or-nothing people. But there is much more support for abortion rights than there was, and that seems to be here to stay.”Gallup happened to start its annual survey of American values just as the court’s decision in the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, leaked last May. That was when the balance began to tilt toward voters identifying as “pro-choice.” And when the question was divided into whether abortion should be legal in the first, second or third trimester, the share of Americans who say it should be legal in each was the highest it has been since Gallup first asked in 1996.The New York Times reviewed polls from groups that have been asking Americans about abortion for decades, including Gallup, Public Religion Research Institute, Pew Research, Ipsos, KFF and other nonpartisan polling organizations. All pointed to the same general trends: growing public support for legalized abortion and dissatisfaction with new laws that restrict it.Polls show that a majority of Americans now believe abortion laws are too strict.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesPollsters say the biggest change was in political action around abortion, not necessarily in people’s core views. Polls regarding whether abortion should be legal or illegal in most or all cases — long the most widely-used metric — have remained relatively stable, with the percentage of voters saying abortion should be legal in all or most cases slowly ticking up over the past five years to somewhere between 60 percent and 70 percent.And generally, most Americans believe abortion should be limited, especially in the second and third trimesters — not unlike the framework established by Roe.But there were sudden and significant jumps in support for legalized abortion post-Dobbs among some groups, including Republican men and Black Protestants. Polling by the Public Religion Research Institute found that the percentage of Hispanic Catholics saying abortion should be legal in all cases doubled between March and December of last year, from 16 percent to 31 percent. And the share of voters saying abortion should be illegal in all cases dropped significantly in several polls.That largely reflected the dramatic change in abortion access. Fourteen states enacted near-total bans on abortion as a result of the court’s decision. News stories recounted devastating consequences: Women denied abortions despite carrying fetuses with no skull; a 10-year-old pregnant by rape forced to cross state lines for an abortion; women carrying nonviable pregnancies who could not have an abortion until they were on the brink of death.“While Roe was settled law, you kind of didn’t have to worry about the consequences,” said Mollie Wilson O’Reilly, a writer for Commonweal, the Catholic lay publication, and a mother of four. “You could say, ‘I think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances,’ if you didn’t really have to think about what it would mean for that to happen.”Raised in the church and still active in her parish, Ms. O’Reilly, 42, embraced its teachings that abortion was equivalent to murder, as part of a broader church doctrine on the protection of life that also opposes capital punishment and mistreatment of migrants.Her evolution to supporting abortion rights started two years ago when she had a miscarriage that required emergency dilation and curettage; only when she saw her chart later did she realize the term was the technical name for abortion. “When people have the idea that abortion equals killing babies, it’s very easy to say, ‘Of course I’m against that,’” she said. “If you start seeing how reproductive health care is necessary to women, you start to see that if you’re supporting these policies that ban abortion, you’re going to end up killing women.”“While Roe was settled law, you kind of didn’t have to worry about the consequences,” said Mollie Wilson O’Reilly, a writer for Commonweal, the Catholic lay publication, and a mother of four.Amir Hamja/The New York TimesShe wrote about her experience and joined other Catholic women, largely writers and professors, in publicizing an open letter to the Catholic church, declaring that “pro-life” policies centered on opposition to abortion “often hurt women.” They called on the church and elected officials to embrace “reproductive justice” that would include better health care and wages for pregnant women and mothers.Ms. Wilson O’Reilly now believes decisions on abortion should be up to women and their doctors, not governments. It’s impossible to draw a “bright line” around what exceptions to the bans should be allowed, she said.Still, she doesn’t call herself a “pro-choice Catholic”: “I think you can hold the view that a developing life is sacred and still not feel that it is appropriate or necessary to outlaw abortion.” In a poll by KFF, the health policy research firm, a plurality of Americans — four in ten — and more among Democrats and women, said they were “very concerned” that bans have made it difficult for doctors to care for pregnant women with complications. Gallup found Americans more dissatisfied with abortion laws than at any point in 22 years of measuring the trend, with new highs among women, Catholics and Protestants saying the laws are “too strict.”A Pew poll in April concluded that views on abortion law increasingly depend on where people live: The percentage of those saying abortion should be “easier to get” rose sharply last year in states where bans have been enacted or are on hold because of court disputes.In South Carolina, which recently banned abortion at six weeks of pregnancy, Jill Hartle, a 36-year-old hairdresser, had only ever voted Republican. She called herself “pro-choice,” she said, but did not think about how that collided with the party’s opposition to abortion, even though she considered herself an informed voter, and her family talked politics regularly.She became pregnant shortly before the court’s decision to overturn Roe. At 18 weeks, anatomy scans determined that the fetus had a heart defect that kills most infants within the first two weeks of life, one that Ms. Hartle knew well because it had killed her best friend’s child.At the time, her state’s legislature was debating a ban. “The first words the doctor said were, ‘There are things I can discuss with you today that I may not be able to discuss with you tomorrow or in a week because our laws are changing so rapidly in South Carolina,’” she said.Ms. Hartle and her husband ended up traveling to Washington for an abortion.Jill Hartle, center, hugs a Republican lawmaker after describing her experience having an abortion during a legislative committee hearing in South Carolina.Joshua Boucher/The State, via Associated PressPeople, she said, told her she could not be a Christian and have an abortion; others said what she had was “not an abortion” because her pregnancy was not unwanted. After she recovered, she started a foundation to fight against what it calls the “catastrophic turnover” of Roe and to help other women find abortions. She began testifying against proposed bans and campaigning for Democratic candidates.“I want to tell people it’s OK to vote against party lines,” she said. South Carolina legislators passed the state’s ban in May, over the opposition of a small group of female legislators, both Republican and Democrat. Polls show that the state’s voters oppose the ban, but as in many states, legislative districts are gerrymandered and seats often go uncontested, so Republican lawmakers are often more concerned about a primary challenge from the right than a general election fight. Groups that oppose abortion rights emphasize that most Americans want restrictions on abortion — and indeed, just 22 percent of Americans in Gallup’s poll said abortion should be legal in the third trimester.“People will react to a once-in-a-generation event. That’s true, and it should be a wake-up call for Republicans,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, which was founded to help elect lawmakers who oppose abortion rights. Republicans, she said, have to paint Democratic candidates as the extremists on abortion: “If they don’t, they may very well lose.”A coalition of Republicans and evangelicals has waged a four-decade campaign to end abortion, but the number of Americans identifying as evangelical has declined sharply. And polls on abortion suggest political dynamics may be shifting.High proportions of women ages 18 to 49, and especially Democrats, say they will vote only for candidates who support their views on abortion. On the flip side, Republicans are less enthusiastic. The Public Religion Research Institute found that the share of Republicans who think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases and who said they would vote only for a candidate whose view matched their own had dropped significantly, to 30 percent last December from 42 percent in December 2020.“That’s a direct effect of Dobbs,” said Melissa Deckman, the chief executive of PRRI and a political scientist. “Does it mean that suddenly Republicans will change their minds about abortion? No, partisans vote for partisans,” she said. “But this is an issue of salience and turnout.”John Richard, a 73-year-old disabled Vietnam veteran who lives in the swing district of Bucks County, Pa., said he had always voted Republican until he became a “Never Trumper.” The court’s decision in Dobbs made him go so far as to switch his voter registration to Democrat.“If my daughters came to me and said they want an abortion, I’d try and talk them out of it,” Mr. Richard, a retired supermarket manager, said. “But I don’t think anyone has the right to tell you how to control your own body. I fought in a war for that. I didn’t do that for no reason.”“It’s not enough anymore to ask what people think about abortion, because to them abortion is part of a larger set of concerns about the country,” said Tresa Undem, who conducts polls for businesses as well as Democratic-leaning groups.Jenn Ackerman for The New York TimesAsked in polls to name their biggest concern, most people still don’t say abortion. But in polls and in interviews, many relate abortion rights to other top concerns: about dysfunctional government, gun violence, civil rights and income inequality.“It’s not enough anymore to ask what people think about abortion, because to them abortion is part of a larger set of concerns about the country,” said Tresa Undem, whose firm conducts polls for businesses as well as for Democratic-leaning groups.Starting with the leak and ending after the midterm elections last year, Ms. Undem conducted three surveys that tracked engagement with the issue by how many ads people saw, conversations they had and what concerns they raised about abortion.Increasingly, people mentioned concerns about losing rights and freedoms, the influence of religion in government, threats to democracy, as well as maternal mortality and whether they want to have more children. The biggest change in polls has been the swing in who votes on abortion. In the most recent example, Gallup found that in 2020 roughly 25 percent of Democrats and Republicans alike had said they would vote only for a candidate who shared their view on abortion. The share of Democrats saying this has jumped since the leak of the Dobbs decision, to 41 percent. Among Republicans the percentage was down slightly.In San Antonio, Sergio Mata, a 31-year-old artist, said he was shocked when Texas passed a ban on abortion in 2021, and by how much anti-abortion sentiment he suddenly heard around him. As a gay man and the American-born son of Mexican immigrants, he fears that gay rights will be reversed and birthright citizenship will be taken away: “I kind of feel what will happen if my existence gets illegal.”He considers himself a Democrat, but the overturning of Roe, he said, “pushed me to be more extreme,” he said. That meant paying more attention to the news and voting in the midterm elections for the first time.Sergio Mata, a 31-year-old artist, said he was shocked when Texas passed a ban on abortion in 2021, and by how much anti-abortion sentiment he suddenly heard around him.Ilana Panich-Linsman for The New York TimesIn Portland, Ore., Ruby Hill, who is Black, said she had been alarmed at the flourishing of the Proud Boys and other white supremacist groups around her. She lives not far from where two members of an extremist gang ran over a 19-year-old Black man with a Jeep in 2016. Ms. Hill, also a Democrat, said she was then redistricted into a largely white congressional district represented by a Republican.The Dobbs decision, she said, made her start recruiting supporters of abortion rights among her friends, her grandchildren and their friends, and family members in Tennessee and California and Virginia over a weekly Zoom, “so they can convince people they know to stand up for more rights before more get taken from us,” she said. “If they got away with this and they feel that nobody cares, it’s more rights they are going to proceed to take away — civil rights, voting rights, abortion, birth control, it’s all part of that one big package. If you sit on the sideline, it says that you think it’s OK.” More