Roe v Wade

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Kamala Harris urges voters to elect a ‘pro-choice Congress’ in midterms

      by

      Kamala Harris urges voters to elect a ‘pro-choice Congress’ in midtermsVice-president highlights that down-ballot contests at local level would also be central to restoring abortion rights Vice-President Kamala Harris renewed pleas to voters ahead of the midterm congressional races to elect pro-choice candidates, as the Biden administration continues to face criticism from progressives over a perceived lackluster response to the recent landmark supreme court decision striking down federal abortion rights in the US.In an interview with CBS News on Sunday, Harris urged voters to elect a “pro-choice Congress” in November and highlighted that down-ballot contests at the local level would also be central to restoring abortion rights in certain parts of the country.“You don’t have to advocate or believe that this is right for you or your family, but don’t let the government make the decision for her family, whoever she may be,” Harris said in a pre-recorded interview. “It means state offices, governors, secretaries of state, attorneys general. It means local races, who’s going to be your DA, who’s going to be your sheriff, enforcing laws that are being passed to criminalize medical health providers, and maybe even the women who seek the service.”On Friday, Joe Biden signed a limited executive order designed to protect access to reproductive health services by expanding access to emergency contraception and bolstering legal services to support people who cross state lines to seek an abortion.But for many abortion advocates and progressive Democrats, the president’s measures do not go far enough. The administration has, for example, resisted calls to use federal land in anti-abortion states to facilitate terminating pregnancies, or subsidizing travel to people forced to travel in order to access services.At least nine US states have banned abortion in the wake of 6-3 supreme court ruling that overturned the Roe v Wade decision that had enshrined the procedure as a constitutional right since 1973. The ruling makes it likely that around half the country – 26 states – will eventually outlaw abortion in some way.The decision followed Donald Trump’s installation of three rightwing justices to the supreme court, paving the way for a conservative super majority on the court.Harris, then a US senator, voted against the former president’s appointments of Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. And she said on Sunday she had never believed assurances made in private and public by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh that they respected the precedence of the Roe decision.“I start from the point of experience of having served in the Senate,” Harris said. “I never believed them. I didn’t believe them. So I voted against.”Asked if the Democrats should have done more to enshrine the right to abortion into federal law when the party controlled both chambers of Congress, Harris responded: “We certainly believe that certain issues are just settled. Certain issues are just settled. And that’s why I do believe that we are living, sadly, in real unsettled times.”Democrats have faced criticism for fundraising drives off the back of the supreme court decision and recent polling indicates their party still faces a tough day at the ballot box in November, with Biden’s approval ratings plummeting and the party looking set to lose its majority in the House of Representatives.On Sunday, Harris sought to quell calls for Biden to serve just one term as president before allowing a new Democratic nominee to contest the 2024 election.“Listen to President Biden,” Harris said. “He intends to run. And if he does, I intend to run with him.”TopicsKamala HarrisUS midterm elections 2022US politicsRoe v WadeAbortionUS supreme courtLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden’s executive order on abortion is better than nothing. But not much better | Moira Donegan

      by

      Biden’s executive order on abortion is better than nothing. But not much betterMoira DoneganThe president boasted his administration would use ‘every tool available’ to secure abortion access. So why is his order so lacking? Probably the most enthusiastic assessment that an abortion rights advocate can make for President Biden’s executive order that aims to “protect access to reproductive health services” is that it’s better than nothing. That’s because the order, signed by Biden in a brief ceremony at the White House on Friday as vice-president Harris and secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra looked on, has been spoken of by the White House in only the vaguest terms. The order consists of a series of directives aimed at HHS and the justice department, but these directives are imprecisely worded. They create few obligations for these agencies; they appear designed not to ruffle any feathers. It’s unclear what, precisely, the order will mean for abortion access, and specifically what actions those agencies will now be required to take.Joe Biden signs executive order protecting access to abortionRead moreThe executive order calls for expanded access to abortion medication in states where abortion has not been outlawed; it doesn’t say whether this will include eliminating the current, medically unnecessary restrictions on the drugs or making them available over the counter, as abortion rights advocates have called for. It asks HHS to make “updates to current guidelines”, for emergency medical care, in an effort to reduce deaths in pregnant women whose doctors refuse to intervene in medical crises for fear of harming a fetus and incurring liability; it does not call for HHS to solidify these guidelines into a rule that would more forcefully protect women’s lives.It asks the Department of Justice to convene volunteer lawyers to represent people trying to get or provide legal abortions and gestures vaguely at providing women defense for things like crossing state lines or obtaining care in one state that is illegal in the one where they live. But it doesn’t say whether the administration will work to support the attorneys already doing this work, like those at the Texas-based Jane’s Due Process or the legal non-profit If/When/How, and it does not say how it will make sure that this supply of volunteer, pro bono legal assistance doesn’t dry up. The order talks about protecting privacy and combatting disinformation, but it makes no mention of crisis pregnancy centers, the fake clinics that deceive patients, disseminate false information about abortions, and suck up large amount of information about the women they lure through their doors. The order calls for HHS to expand access to contraception, but doesn’t say how.The short version seems to be, that the Biden administration will make no effort to reverse the sadistic and draconian attacks on women’s rights in red states. But it will make some kind of vague, still-undefined effort to stop them from spreading to blue ones.It’s not much of a payoff, considering the massive amount of pressure from abortion rights advocates that it took to elicit this response from the Biden administration. Despite having a six-week heads-up on the coming overturn of Roe after a draft of the majority opinion was leaked in early May, and in spite of having more than a year since the case, whose outcome was never in doubt, was granted cert by the US supreme court, the Biden administration seemed flat-footed and caught off guard by the end of national abortion rights.Reporting from CNN claims that the White House was unique among court watchers in being surprised when the Dobbs decision was released on 24 June. In a sign of how seriously the administration is taking women’s rights, an aide assigned to respond to the Dobbs decision was out getting coffee when she heard about the opinion’s release from a push notification on her phone. For his part, Biden himself is so enthusiastic about abortion rights that he was planning to nominate an anti-choice Republican judge to a lifetime appointment on a federal district court in Kentucky that very same day.Overall, the administration has seemed unwilling to move towards a more robust defense of women’s freedoms, and unwilling to treat the reversal of Roe as the disaster for equal rights and civil liberties that their base sees it as. They issue capacious statements – and, now, a capacious executive order – that are light on specifics, and tend to conspicuously avoid the word “abortion.” When Joe Biden began his signing ceremony for his executive order, he did not immediately turn to the reason why he was there – the rollback of a fundamental civil and human right for half of his constituents. Instead, he took a moment to boast about some promising jobs numbers. When the signing ceremony concluded, the first question the president took was from a male reporter, who asked about the assassination of former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe.Perhaps what’s most noticeable about Biden’s executive order is what it doesn’t say. It does not say that the administration will make federal lands in red states available for abortion services, as some legal experts have urged. It does not say that the DoJ will bring lawsuits against states that ban abortion medication, on the theory that such bans violate the FDA’s supremacy. It does not pledge a repeal of the Hyde amendment.The somewhat lukewarm reception of Biden’s EO from the reproductive rights community may have been tempered by reporting from Bloomberg on Friday that the administration had dismissed the idea of declaring a national health emergency in response to the supreme court ruling, a move that would have empowered the administration to respond proportionately to the massive and ongoing threat to women’s safety and liberty. According to Bloomberg, Biden and his advisers ditched the idea because they didn’t want to get sued over it. In his statements before signing the executive order, Biden said that his administration would “use every tool available” to secure abortion access. Well, apparently not every tool.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsRoe v WadeOpinionUS politicsAbortionJoe BidenDemocratscommentReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Texas woman given traffic ticket says unborn child counts as second passenger

      by

      Texas woman given traffic ticket says unborn child counts as second passengerBrandy Bottone, who is 34 weeks pregnant, pulled over by police for driving in high-occupancy vehicle lane for two or more people A pregnant woman in Texas told police that her unborn child counted as an additional passenger after being cited for driving alone in a high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane, offering up a potentially clever defense for motorists navigating the legal landscape following the supreme court’s striking down of nationwide abortion rights last month.Joe Biden signs executive order protecting access to abortionRead moreBrandy Bottone of Plano, Texas, tried to fight a ticket for driving with only one passenger in an HOV lane – which requires at least two people in the car – by arguing that her unborn baby should count as her second passenger.“[The officer] starts peeking around. He’s like, ‘Is it just you?’ And I said, ‘No there’s two of us?’” Bottone recounted to NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth. “And he said, ‘Well where’s the other person?’ And I went, ‘Right here,’” pointing to her stomach.On 29 June, Bottone, who is 34 weeks pregnant, was driving on US Highway 75 to go pick up her son.To avoid being late to get him, Bottone took an HOV lane, but a patrol officer pulled her over while trying to exit the expressway, the Dallas Morning News first reported.An officer approached Bottone’s car, asking where her second required passenger was. When Bottone tried to argue that her unborn baby should count as the additional rider given Texas’s abortion ban after the overturning of federal abortion protections, officers did not agree.“One officer kind of brushed me off when I mentioned this is a living child, according to everything that’s going on with the overturning of Roe v Wade,” Bottone told the officer, referring to the landmark 1973 supreme court case that granted federal abortion rights. “‘So I don’t know why you’re not seeing that,’ I said.”The officer told Bottone that to drive in the HOV lane, she needed her additional passenger to be outside her body.The officer ultimately gave Bottone a $275 ticket, telling her that if she fought the citation in court, it would probably be dropped.“This has my blood boiling. How could this be fair? According to the new law, this is a life,” Bottone said to the Morning News. “I know this may fall on deaf ears, but as a woman, this was shocking.”Bottone was pulled over by a deputy with the Dallas county sheriff’s department, who is employed by the Texas department of transportation to enforce HOV rules on the US 75, the Morning News reported.While the Texas penal code recognizes an unborn baby as a person, current transportation law in the state does not.Legal experts have argued that Bottone’s argument brings up a unique, legal gray area that the courts are getting acquainted with following the rollback of Roe v wade.“Different judges might treat this differently,” Dallas appellate lawyer Chad Ruback told the local NBC affiliate. “This is uncharted territory we’re in now.“There is no Texas statute that says what to do in this situation. The Texas transportation code has not been amended recently to address this particular situation. Who knows? Maybe the legislature will in the next session.”But Bottone said that the state should not be able to have it both ways.“I really don’t think it’s right because one law is saying it one way but another law is saying it another way,” Bottone said to the NBC station.TopicsTexasUS politicsRoe v WadeAbortionnewsReuse this content More

    • 250 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden signs executive order to protect US abortion access and urges Americans to ‘vote, vote, vote’ – as it happened

      by

      Biden is currently speaking on the rollback of federal abortion protections, two weeks after the supreme court voted to overturn Roe v Wade, the landmark case that protected abortion rights nationwide. “This was not a decision driven by the constitution. This was not a decision driven by history,” said Biden of the supreme court overturning Roe v Wade. Discussing the conservative majority in the court, Biden said: “Today’s supreme court majority is playing fast and loose with the facts.” Later on in his remarks, Biden called on Americans to use their electoral power to elect senators who would help codify Roe v Wade, saying that it was the “fastest route” to solidifying federal abortion rights. “Your votes can make that a reality,” said Biden, acknowledging the frustration his administration has received amid urging people to vote. “You, the women of America, can determine the outcome of this issue,” adding the courts do not have a “clue about the power of American women.” “For God’s sakes, there’s an election in November. Vote, vote, vote,” said Biden. Biden’s remarks come on the same day that he is signing an executive order protecting access to abortion and other reproductive healthcare nationwide. That’s it from me today! Here’s a wrap up of everything that happened, US politics-wise:
      Joe Biden to signed an executive order to protect access to abortion and reproductive healthcare services after the rollback of Roe v wade, urging Americans to elect pro-choice senators during the midterm elections this November.
      Biden spoke critically of the conservative-leaning Supreme court, accusing the justices who voted to overturn Roe v wade of “playing fast and loose with the facts”.
      Democrats generally applauded Biden’s order, but urged him to do more amid nationwide rollbacks of abortion rights.
      US politicians published statements of condolences after the assassination of former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, including Biden, Kamala Harris, and Barack Obama.
      The US job market added over 300,000 jobs in June, a sign of economic resilience amid slowed growth.
      Thank you for reading!In other news, the US economy added 372,000 jobs in June, an sign of economic resilience despite signs of slowed economic growth.Here’re more information from the Guardian’s Edward Helmore: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The US economy added 372,000 jobs in June, an indicator of resilience despite signs of slowing economic growth.
      The jobs reports is seen as a key indicator on whether high inflation – and central bank efforts to tame it with interest rates rises – is beginning to bite down on the wider American economy.
      The US unemployment rate held steady at 3.6%, the same as month earlier, the labor department said on Friday. Job growth far exceeded the projections of economists, who expected the US to add roughly 278,000 jobs last month, according to consensus estimates.
      The figures may ease some fears of a looming recession, but also show that the Federal Reserve has more room to raise interest rates, cooling consumer demand, in its fight against historically high inflation.Read the full article here. US adds 372,000 jobs in June as growth exceeds expectationsRead moreSeveral Democrats have responded to Biden’s executive order, calling the order a good first step but urging Biden to do more to protect abortion rights federally, reports Politico. From Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren:.@POTUS’ executive order will help Americans receive the reproductive health care they need. I urged the Biden administration to expand access to medication abortion, protect patient privacy, and safeguard interstate travel for care. Today’s actions are important first steps.— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) July 8, 2022
      The Administration should continue to explore every available option to protect access to abortion care. The overwhelming majority of Americans oppose this extremist Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, and we must use every tool possible to address this emergency.— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) July 8, 2022
      From US representative Adam Smith of Washington: Today @POTUS announced actions he’s taking to protect access to reproductive health care in the wake of the Supreme Court’s dangerous decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.— Rep. Adam Smith (@RepAdamSmith) July 8, 2022
      The Executive Order will also protect consumer privacy, personal data, and sensitive health information and importantly will advance the safety of providers and clinics who are courageously providing essential reproductive health care services in the face of heightened risk.— Rep. Adam Smith (@RepAdamSmith) July 8, 2022
      These actions are a step in the right direction, but they are not enough on their own. We must codify Roe v. Wade into law, and to do so, we must be willing to scrap the filibuster – our freedoms are so much more important than Senate procedure.— Rep. Adam Smith (@RepAdamSmith) July 8, 2022
      On the same day that Biden signed an executive order safeguarding access to abortions, Louisiana is now able to enforce a near-total ban of abortions in the state under a judge’s order issued on Friday. Here’s a piece from the Guardian’s health reporter Jessica Glenza on the issue: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} Louisiana is fighting to become a leader in the race to criminalize doctors who allegedly provide abortions, since the US supreme court ended federal abortion protections.
      In doing so, the state may also become an example of how abortion bans could worsen maternal health in America, as criminal penalties across the US redefine where and how doctors are willing to practice.
      In turn, that is likely to worsen a leading reason some states are more dangerous places to give birth – lack of hospitals, birthing centers and obstetricians.
      “It should be no surprise that in a lot of the states where there’s a [trigger ban], there’s a strong correlation [with maternity care deserts],” said Stacey Stewart, president and chief executive of the March of Dimes, an organization that advocates for maternal and infant health and is strictly neutral on abortion.Read the rest of the piece here. Pregnant women face increasingly dangerous risks as doctors flee punitive US statesRead moreWith abortion access threatened across the country, those seeking out abortion services and other reproductive healthcare options will be forced to travel if their states do not provide it. The Guardian’s Alvin Chang, Andrew Witherspoon and Jessica Glenza have explored how the creation of abortion “deserts” throughout the country will change who can access care – and how far they will be forced to travel. Abortion deserts: America’s new geography of access to care – mappedRead moreDuring the briefing, White house press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre got into a back and forth discussion with a reporter on whether or not people can peacefully protest against Supreme court justices, even in settings like restaurants. The question was prompted after Justice Brett Kavanaugh reportedly had to leave a steakhouse when protestors confronted him for voting to overturn Roe v wade. Jean-Pierre replied to a question on if protestors could confront justices at a restaurant they’re eating at, saying that the Biden administration is against the intimidation of Supreme court justices and using violence against them. Jean-Pierre also cited recent legislation passed to protect the safety of justices. Later on in her response, Jean-Pierre clarified, saying the Biden administration supports the right to peaceful protest, even outside of a restaurant. Here is more information on the bill expanding security for Supreme court justices that passed:US House passes bill to expand supreme court security to justices’ familiesRead moreThe White house press briefing is happening right now, with questions largely focused on Biden’s executive order meant to safeguard access to abortions and other reproductive healthcare services. Questions were answered by White House Gender Policy Council director Jen Klein, who clarified actions that will be taken under the executive order. A link to watch the briefings is available below: White House Press Briefing with @PressSec Karine Jean-Pierre and @JKlein46 – LIVE online here: https://t.co/a3vT0sqXcw pic.twitter.com/YxLsmvhHhQ— CSPAN (@cspan) July 8, 2022
      Here’s additional context on Biden’s remarks from the Guardian’s health reporter Jessica Glenza:In a speech to mark an executive order to on reproductive rights, President Joe Biden emphatically called on the American people to “vote, vote, vote, vote,” in the upcoming election, describing it as the fastest way to regain abortion rights in the US. Both the speech and executive order, which directs federal agencies to enhance coordination and regulation, “just like in the Civil Rights era,” comes amid mounting criticism of the administration’s response to the end of federal abortion rights. Federal abortion rights ended nearly two weeks ago when the supreme court, controlled by a conservative supermajority, overturned Roe v Wade. The landmark 1973 case had prevented states hostile to the procedure from banning abortion. However, the president’s emphasis on voting also underscores the limitations on the federal government. While the executive order calls on agencies to protect access to the abortion pill, patient privacy, abortion clinics in states where it remains legal and interstate travel, intervention from Congress is necessary to restore the rights of people who can become pregnant in state that have already banned the procedure. “The choice is clear: if you want to change the circumstances for women and even little girls in this country please go out and vote,” said Biden. He also emphasized the stakes of abortion bans, citing the case of a 10-year-old sexual abuse victim from Ohio who was allegedly forced to travel to Indiana to obtain an abortion. “10 years old, 10 years old!” said Biden. “Raped, six weeks pregnant, already traumatized, was forced to travel to another state… Does anyone believe that it is Ohio’s majority view that should not be able to be dealt with? A 10-year-old girl should be forced to give birth to a rapist’s child?”Tracking where abortion laws stand in every stateRead moreDuring his remarks, Biden also pledged to veto any further abortion restrictions that could come across his desk if Republicans gain control of Congress during the midterm elections in November. “As long as I’m president it won’t happen, because I’ll veto it,” said Biden during his speech today, shortly before he signed an executive order safeguarding access to abortions and other reproductive healthcare services. From the Guardian’s Lauren Gambino: Biden warns that Republicans would seek a national ban on abortion if they take control of Congress in November. As long as I’m president, he said, “I’ll veto it.”— Lauren Gambino (@laurenegambino) July 8, 2022
      cc @amandalitman who told me last week that voters so far hadn’t heard Biden say clearly that he would veto any new abortion restrictions sent to him by a potential Republican-controlled Congress. https://t.co/Z8ngEYyZVm— Lauren Gambino (@laurenegambino) July 8, 2022
      It’s official; Biden has formally signed an executive order protecting access to abortion and other reproductive healthcare services. Here is a previous post detailing what is in the executive order. Biden also brought up the story of a 10-year-old girl in Ohio who was raped and forced to travel to Indiana to receive an abortion. “A 10-year-old girl should be forced to given birth to rapist’s child?” said Biden of the Ohio case, calling it an example of Republican extremism.Biden added: “Does anyone believe it’s Ohio’s majority view that that should not be able to be dealt with?”Read the Guardian’s coverage of the case by Ed Helmore here: 10-year-old rape victim forced to travel from Ohio to Indiana for abortionRead moreBiden is currently speaking on the rollback of federal abortion protections, two weeks after the supreme court voted to overturn Roe v Wade, the landmark case that protected abortion rights nationwide. “This was not a decision driven by the constitution. This was not a decision driven by history,” said Biden of the supreme court overturning Roe v Wade. Discussing the conservative majority in the court, Biden said: “Today’s supreme court majority is playing fast and loose with the facts.” Later on in his remarks, Biden called on Americans to use their electoral power to elect senators who would help codify Roe v Wade, saying that it was the “fastest route” to solidifying federal abortion rights. “Your votes can make that a reality,” said Biden, acknowledging the frustration his administration has received amid urging people to vote. “You, the women of America, can determine the outcome of this issue,” adding the courts do not have a “clue about the power of American women.” “For God’s sakes, there’s an election in November. Vote, vote, vote,” said Biden. Biden’s remarks come on the same day that he is signing an executive order protecting access to abortion and other reproductive healthcare nationwide. Ahead of Biden’s speech, US politicians are sharing reproductive rights resources that are currently available, modest steps the Biden administration have taken prior to the executive order expected today. From US House representative Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat from California: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} ICYMI: in response to the Supreme Court’s assault on reproductive health care, @HHSGov created a guide for women about their reproductive rights. Abortion & other reproductive care remains safe & legal in California.ICYMI: in response to the Supreme Court’s assault on reproductive health care, @HHSGov created a guide for women about their reproductive rights.Abortion & other reproductive care remains safe & legal in California.https://t.co/b9UaitzI74— Rep. Zoe Lofgren (@RepZoeLofgren) July 8, 2022
      At 11.30am, Joe Biden will give remarks from the White House on protecting abortion access nationwide. Biden will likely speak on an executive order he is expected to sign today that would safeguard access to abortions and other reproductive healthcare services. Stay tuned to hear highlights from his remarks and watch the live speech here. Other US politicians have shared statements of condolence following the assassination of Shinzo Abe.Vice-president Kamala Harris called Abe “a close friend of the United States,” writing that the country stands “with our Japanese friends in honoring him and condemning this horrific act of violence”. Doug and I send our deepest condolences to the family of former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo and the Japanese people. He was a close friend of the United States and on this tragic day, we stand with our Japanese friends in honoring him and condemning this horrific act of violence.— Vice President Kamala Harris (@VP) July 8, 2022
      Former US president George W Bush released a statement today on Abe’s death, writing: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}I am deeply saddened to learn of the senseless assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. I had the privilege of getting to know him during his first time as Prime Minister in 2006 and found him to be a decent and caring man. Shinzo Abe was a patriot of his country who wanted to continue serving it. Laura and I send our heartfelt condolences to Akie Abe, their family, and the people of Japan during this difficult time.In a series of tweets published today, Barack Obama wrote: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} I am shocked and saddened by the assassination of my friend and longtime partner Shinzo Abe in Japan. Former Prime Minister Abe was devoted to both the country he served and the extraordinary alliance between the United States and Japan.I am shocked and saddened by the assassination of my friend and longtime partner Shinzo Abe in Japan. Former Prime Minister Abe was devoted to both the country he served and the extraordinary alliance between the United States and Japan.— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) July 8, 2022
      In other news, Joe Biden has publicized a statement following the shooting death of former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe. Abe was assassinated yesterday while giving a campaign speech in the south-central Japanese city of Nara. In a statement shared on Twitter, Biden said: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} I am stunned, outraged, and deeply saddened by the news that my friend Abe Shinzo, former Prime Minister of Japan, was shot and killed.
      He was a champion of the friendship between our people. The United States stands with Japan in this moment of grief.Today, with the addition of 372,000 new jobs in June, our private sector has recovered all of the jobs lost during the pandemic – and added jobs on top of that. We have more work to do. But no country is better positioned than America to face global economic challenges.— President Biden (@POTUS) July 8, 2022
      Here are more specifics on what Biden’s executive order protecting access to abortion will entail.According to a fact sheet from the White house, the executive order will direct the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to take steps in a number of areas concerning abortion access and report back in 30 days. The HHS secretary will take steps to:
      Protect access to medication abortion, also known as abortion pills
      Ensure emergency medical care for pregnant people and anyone experiencing pregnancy loss
      Launch education and public outreach efforts
      Convene volunteer lawyers to represent patients who seek out care
      The executive order will also seek to protect patient privacy and ensure the safety of patients, providers, and clinics who provide reproductive healthcare services. Biden’s executive order comes at a time when frustration is mounting against his administration for not doing enough to protect federal abortion rights. Progressive politicians and abortion rights advocates have been public about their disappointment with the Biden administration, asking Biden and other Democrats to do more to protect reproductive rights following the overturning of Roe v Wade two weeks ago. US House representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat of New York, urged Democrats to push back harder against the rollback of abortion protections, tweeting last week: “Use the bully pulpit. We need more.”Now we’re talking! Time for people to see a real, forceful push for it. Use the bully pulpit. We need more. https://t.co/dZ1qhdu8iM— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) June 30, 2022
      A group of more than 20 Black Democratic congresswomen signed a letter last week, urging Biden to declare a public health emergency following the rollback of Roe v Wade. “In this unprecedented moment, we must act urgently as if lives depend on it because they do,” the legislators wrote.Biden urged to do more to defend abortion rights: ‘This is a five-alarm fire’Read moreGood morning! It’s Gloria from the New York office. Here’s what is happening today:Joe Biden is signing an executive order to protect abortion access for millions, two weeks after the US supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, a landmark ruling that ensured federal abortion protections for the past 50 years.According to a fact sheet, the executive order will protect access to several reproductive healthcare services, including abortion and contraception. The order also safeguards access to medication abortions, also known as abortion pills, approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).The executive order comes as many have been critical of the Biden administration for failing to do more to protect abortion rights, including codifying abortion access amid ongoing attacks on reproductive rights nationwide. Biden is expected to speak on the executive order and abortion rights generally at 11:30am eastern time. Joe Biden to sign executive order protecting access to abortionRead more More

    • 100 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Americans lose faith in the US supreme court

      by

      More ways to listen

      Apple Podcasts

      Google Podcasts

      Spotify

      RSS Feed

      Download

      The US supreme court has struck down the constitutional right to an abortion, one of several landmark decisions that will affect the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come.
      Jonathan Freedland and Jill Filipovic discuss whether it’s still possible for a deeply divided court of nine judges, a group that now has a 6-3 conservative majority, to keep the promise to the American people of ‘equal protection’, and what happens if it can’t

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      This episode was originally played on Politics weekly America You can subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts and Spotify Archive: CNN, CBS, C-Span More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Colorado governor issues executive order to protect abortion access

      by

      Colorado governor issues executive order to protect abortion accessJared Polis pledges that his state will not assist other states in criminal or civil investigations into abortions The Democratic governor of Colorado has mandated that his state will not cooperate with any investigations into abortions led by other states.Jared Polis signed an executive order on Wednesday pledging that the western US state will not assist other states in criminal or civil investigations used to prevent people from accessing abortions.The executive order adds protections for individuals and organizations that provide abortions, as well as for individuals obtaining an abortion, including people who have traveled from other states.“We are taking needed action to protect and defend individual freedom and protect the privacy of Coloradans,” said Polis in a statement obtained by the Colorado Sun.“This important step will ensure that Colorado’s thriving economy and workforce are not impacted based on personal health decisions that are wrongly being criminalized in other states.”Nearly two weeks after the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, dissolving a nearly 50-year precedent of federal abortion protections, states have taken measures to protect reproductive rights for those living in the state or those traveling for reproductive healthcare services.In North Carolina, the Democratic governor, Roy Cooper, signed an executive order on Wednesday protecting abortion rights within the state. The order protects those who receive an abortion or medical providers who perform them from any penalties for providing, seeking or inquiring about reproductive healthcare, reported ABC News.Meanwhile, other states have taken steps to further criminalize and limit abortion access following the supreme court decision.In Mississippi, a state law taking effect on Thursday will ban most abortions throughout the state after a judge rejected an emergency request to block the anti-abortion trigger law.The state’s only abortion clinic, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, closed on Wednesday following the ruling.Similarly, a six-week abortion ban in Ohio will remain in place after the state’s supreme court refused to halt the ban while the court reviews lawsuit to overturn it, reported the Cincinnati Enquirer.“Ohioans are suffering in real time, and we have not yet seen the worst of this healthcare crisis,” said a group of Ohio’s abortion clinics in a statement. “All people deserve autonomy over their bodies and the power to make their own healthcare decisions.”TopicsColoradoAbortionRoe v WadeHealthUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      After Roe, are Republicans willing to expand the social safety net?

      by

      After Roe, are Republicans willing to expand the social safety net?The party has shown little enthusiasm to help those affected by unplanned pregnancies – is anything likely to change? Republicans across the United States cast the supreme court’s decision last month that allowed states to ban abortion as a victory for “life”. Left unsaid was the quality of life that families and mothers set to be left dealing with unplanned pregnancies might have.For years, the Republican party has pushed to ban a procedure that is mostly sought out by people who are poor, while showing much less enthusiasm for efforts to permanently expand the country’s social safety net. Critics have labeled the party’s stance as caring a lot politically about unborn fetuses, but losing interest in them when they are born as American citizens.I read the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling to see what we lost. Everyone should | Francine ProseRead moreTwenty-six states are now expected to ban abortion entirely following the supreme court’s ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and following November’s midterm elections, Republicans could gain control of one or both houses of Congress, and make gains in state legislatures.That dynamic could now give many more Americans a close-up look at what the party’s policies mean for women and families dealing with any wave of unplanned pregnancies, and there are signs Republicans are worried about what they will see.“Over the years, we have written on federal policies that we consider ‘pro-life’ that support pregnant women, not just policies that restrict abortion. This line of thinking is no longer a luxury of thought for pro-lifers like us. It is an obligation of pro-life advocacy in the future as we enter what will be a dynamic, uncertain, and uneven state landscape for years to come,” Republican operatives Mark Rodgers and Kiki Bradley wrote in the National Review last month, in an essay calling for the party to get behind policies like paid family leave and tax credits for families with children.“A number of leaders understand that our expressions of concern for life would ring hollow without our movement’s advocacy of a support system for pregnant women and their babies.”Already, there are signs of some Republican lawmakers moving to address these concerns. Republicans senators have proposed two bills expanding aspects of the government social safety net, and lawmakers may end up considering them before the year is out and the new Congress convenes in 2023.“There’s certainly, I think, at least at the intellectual level, a recognition that we need to be approaching these issues in a fresh way,” said Brad Wilcox, a University of Virginia professor affiliated with the Institute for Family Studies and the American Enterprise Institute, both right-leaning thinktanks.Yet opponents of the supreme court’s decision in Dobbs can’t help but contrast the fervency within the party for outlawing abortion with their relative historic coolness towards programs that could help people affected by the bans.“Republicans claim to be for small government – but where it comes to abortion they are for big government. Traditional views about women – and disrespect for poor women – may blind Republicans to these contradictions,” said Reva Siegel, a Yale Law School professor who wrote a brief unsuccessfully urging the supreme court to overturn the Mississippi law at issue in the Dobbs case.“The Republican party now has its chance to show the nation what pro-life means. In many states now banning abortion, its policies are more concerned with control than care. I hope the party can change course, but I have yet to see a Republican jurisdiction that has developed a philosophy of social services even remotely appropriate to accompany laws requiring pregnant women to give birth.”The downfall of national abortion rights in America comes as the US remains an outlier among its wealthy peers in terms of social services. It famously has no national health insurance program, and is the only wealthy country not to offer paid family leave, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Data shows that women who seek abortions tend to be the ones who could stand to benefit the most from social services. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 75 percent of American abortion patients are poor and 60 percent already have a child.State bans already on the books could lead to an additional 75,000 birth per-year, Caitlin Knowles Myers, an economics professor at Middlebury College, predicted, and the costs of an unplanned pregnancy have been shown to be substantial. A University of California, San Francisco study found that women who wanted an abortion but could not get one saw their household poverty rates increase for at least four years as compared to women who were able to access the procedure, and also struggled to pay for necessities like food and transportation for years after.America is also a uniquely deadly place to give birth. The Commonwealth Fund found that in 2018, the United States’s ratio of deaths for live birth was more than twice that of most other wealthy countries.Meanwhile, 12 states still have not expanded Medicaid health insurance coverage for poor people offered under the Affordable Care Act, and of these, only Kansas and North Carolina are among those not immediately banning abortion.At the state level, there have been moves by lawmakers to address these disparities. The Republican-led legislatures in Georgia, Tennessee and Texas, for instance, have pushed to expand Medicaid coverage to women after they gave birth, even as they’ve declined to take part in the program’s expansion. South Carolina and Georgia recently enacted legislation giving state employees paid parental leave.But much of the most powerful social welfare legislation comes from Congress, where progress has been uneven. In 2021, Democrats pushed through a massive spending package that included a provision sending monthly checks to almost all families with children, which was credited with slashing child poverty.President Joe Biden proposed continuing it in his massive Build Back Better proposal to revamp social services and fight climate change, but the package won no Republican support and died amid infighting with Democrats.Samuel Hammond, director of social policy at the Niskanen Center, said Republicans will now be under pressure to pass legislation to aid families and children by the same groups that wanted them to overturn the 49-year old Roe v Wade ruling that allowed abortion nationwide: social conservatives.“The kind of bargain they had was we will pass our tax cuts and deregulations and you will get conservative court justices,” Hammond said. “And now that Roe has been repealed, you can’t put Amy Coney Barrett on the court twice.”In the past weeks, Senate Republicans have announced legislation to expand aid to families, casting their proposals as “pro-life” responses to the end of Roe. Florida’s Marco Rubio has published a plan that would allow families to pull from their social security benefits to fund paid family leave, expand a tax credit meant to help families with children, while also allowing religious groups to play a greater role in federal social service programs.In a press release filled with endorsements from anti-abortion groups, three senators announced a bill that would give families $350 each month for a young child and $250 for a child attending school. The proposal is similar to the child tax credit that Biden unsuccessfully tried to extend, but requires families to earn a certain amount to be eligible and, Hammond said, would be less effective at slashing poverty.“You want to make sure you’re supporting families that are making some effort to support themselves,” Wilcox said.“You don’t want to be promoting policies that lock in support for a model of family life that is detached from work and from marriage, which are of course two of the key avenues for economic progress even in the 21st century.”While the Democratic-led Congress has been deadlocked over social policy for months, Hammond predicted the proposal from the three Republican lawmakers could be worked into a larger tax bill that has to be passed by the year end, giving Republicans an opportunity to show that they want to help families.“Where they’ve always pulled their punches is on these more proactive social policies,” Hammond said. “I think this is now the window for the Republicans to put their stamp on a major extension to the child credit in a way that’s more generous to parents and make good on this outreach to parents and this Christian conservative minority.”TopicsRoe v WadeAbortionUS politicsRepublicansfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Women’s rights have suffered a grim setback. But history is still on our side | Rebecca Solnit

      by

      Women’s rights have suffered a grim setback. But history is still on our sideRebecca SolnitYou can take away a right through legal means, but it is harder to take away the belief in that right. The uproar over the court’s hideous abortion decision is a reminder of how unpopular it is As it happened, I was in Edinburgh the day Roe v Wade was overturned, and the next day I caught a train back to London and did what I usually do when I get anywhere near King’s Cross station. I took the short walk to the old St Pancras churchyard to visit the tombstone of the great feminist ancestor Mary Wollstonecraft, author of that first great feminist manifesto A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. To be there that day was to remember that feminism did not start recently – Wollstonecraft died in 1797 – and it did not stop on 24 June.The Roe ruling is not about states’ rights. It’s about power and control | Derecka PurnellRead moreWomen in the US gained this right less than half a century ago – a short time when the view is from Wollstonecraft’s memorial. I have regularly heard the opinions in recent decades that feminism failed or achieved nothing or is over, which seems ignorant of how utterly different the world (or most of it) is now for women than it was that half century ago and more. I say world, because it’s important to remember that feminism is a global movement and Roe v Wade and its reversal were only national decisions.Ireland in 2018, Argentina in 2020, Mexico in 2021 and Colombia in 2022 have all legalized abortion. So many things have changed in the last half century for women in so many countries that it would be hard to itemize them all; suffice to say that the status of women has been radically altered for the better, overall, in this span of time. Feminism is a human rights movement that endeavors to change things that are not just centuries, but in many cases millennia old, and that it is far from done and faces setbacks and resistance is neither shocking nor reason to stop.Wollstonecraft did not even dream of votes for women – most men in the Britain of her time didn’t have voting rights either – or of many other rights we now consider ordinary, but you don’t have to go back to the eighteenth century to encounter radical inequality on the basis of gender. It was everywhere in large and small ways into recent decades – and culturally still persists in the widespread attempts to control and contain women and the prejudices women still encounter about their intellectual competence, sexuality, and equality.Half a century ago it was legal in the US to fire women because they were pregnant – it happened to Elizabeth Warren, then a young schoolteacher. The right to access birth control – for married couples – was only guaranteed by the 1965 Griswold decision this rogue supreme court may also be gunning for. The right of equal access to birth control for the unmarried was only settled in the supreme court in 1972. The 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act rendered illegal the discrimination by which unmarried women had trouble getting credit and loans while married women routinely required their husbands to cosign for them.Marriage in most parts of the world including North America and Europe was, until very recently, a relationship in which the husband gained control by law and custom over his wife’s body and nearly everything she did, said, and owned. Marital rape was hardly a concept until feminism made it one in the 1970s, and the UK and US only made it illegal in the early 1990s. The 17th-century English jurist Matthew Hale argued “the husband of a woman cannot himself be guilty of an actual rape upon his wife, on account of the matrimonial consent which she has given, and which she cannot retract”. That is, a woman having once consented could never thereafter say no, because she had consented to be owned. Incidentally, the current supreme court decision revoking reproductive rights repeatedly cites Hale, who is also well-known for sentencing two elderly widows to death for witchcraft in 1662.Wollstonecraft, who had participated in the French Revolution, wrote: “The divine right of husbands, like the divine right of kings, may, it is hoped, in this enlightened age, be contested without danger.” Contested, but hardly overcome for almost two more centuries. As coercive control and domestic violence, men still impose their expectation of dominance and punish independence, while rightwing Republicans seek to return women to inferior status under the law and in the culture, citing that ancient text the Bible as their authority.Their supreme court may go after marriage equality next. I have long thought that the marriage equality that means equal access to same-sex couples would be impossible, had marriage as an institution not been made over, thanks to feminism, as a freely negotiated relationship between equals. Equality between partners is threatening to the inequality inherent in traditional patriarchal marriage, which is why – along with homophobia, of course – they’re so hostile to it. And, of course, it too is new; a very different supreme court recognized this right in June of 2015, only seven years ago (and Switzerland and Chile only did so in 2021).The last decade has been a rollercoaster of gains and losses, and there is no neat way to add them up. The gains have been profound, but many of them have been subtle. Since about 2012, a new era of feminism opened up conversations – on social media, in traditional media, in politics and private – about violence against women and the many forms of inequality and oppression, legal and cultural, obvious and subtle. Recognition of the impact of violence against women expanded profoundly and brought on real results. The Me Too movement has been much derided as a celebrity circus but it was only one manifestation of a feminist surge begun five years earlier, and it helped lead to changes in US state and federal laws governing sexual harrassment and abuse, including a bill that passed the senate this February and the president signed into law in early March.This week’s sentencing of R Kelly to 30 years in prison and Ghislaine Maxwell to 20 are the consequence of a shift in who would be listened to and believed, which is to say who would be valued and whose rights would be defended. Of people being included in the conversations in the courts of law who had not before been heard there. Perpetrators who had gotten away with crimes for decades – Larry Nassar, Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein among them – lost their impunity, and belated consequences came crashing down on them. But the fate of a handful of high-profile men is not what matters most, and punishment is not how we remake the world.The conversations are about violence and inequality, about the intersectionalities of race and gender, about the rethinking of gender beyond the simplest binaries, about what freedom could look like, what desire could be, what equality would mean. Just to have those conversations is liberatory. To see younger women reach beyond what my generation perceived and claimed is exhilarating. These conversations change us in ways the law cannot, make us understand ourselves and each other in new ways, reconceive race, gender, sexuality, and possibility.You can take away a right through legal means, but you cannot take away the belief in that right so easily. The supreme court’s Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson decisions in the 19th century did not convince Black people that they did not deserve to live as free and equal citizens; it merely prevented them from doing so in practical terms. Women in many US states have lost their access to abortion, but not their belief in their right to it. The uproar in response to the court’s decision is a reminder of how unpopular it is, and how hideously it will impact the ability of women to be free and equal under the law.It is a huge loss. It does not exactly return us to the world before Roe v Wade, because in both imaginative and practical terms US society is profoundly different. Women have far more equality under the law, in access to education, employment, and institutions of power, and to political representation. We have far more belief in those rights and a stronger vision of what equality looks like. That the status of women is so radically changed from where it was in, say, 1962, let alone 1797, is evidence that feminism is working. And the supreme court’s hideous decision confirms that there is still a lot of work to do.
      Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionRoe v WadeAbortioncommentReuse this content More