Roe v Wade

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

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

      by

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

    • 188 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘A matter of life and death’: maternal mortality rate will rise without Roe, experts warn

      by

      ‘A matter of life and death’: maternal mortality rate will rise without Roe, experts warn Pregnancy in the US is already dangerous, disproportionately so for people of color – and without abortion access for those who need it, there will likely be more deathsAfter the revocation of the constitutional right to abortion in the United States, pregnancy-related deaths will almost certainly increase – especially among people of color, experts say. They called for urgent action to protect reproductive rights and the health of patients around the country.“There are going to be more people who are forced to carry a pregnancy to term, which means that there’s going to be a greater number of people who are at risk,” said Rachel Hardeman, a reproductive health equity professor and researcher at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health. “More pregnancy means more likelihood of deaths.”Existing state bans could lead to an additional 75,000 births a year for those who can’t access abortions, according to one estimate. The bans will disproportionately affect younger, poorer people of color and those who already have children.But America is an incredibly difficult place to be pregnant, with the highest maternal mortality rate by far of any developed country – and it’s rising sharply. For every 100,000 births, 23.8 people died from pregnancy or childbirth-related causes in 2020 – a total of 861 women – according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).As Roe fell, states immediately moved to ban abortion, with more than half of US states expected to ultimately do so. But some, like former Vice-President Mike Pence, want lawmakers to go even further, calling for a nationwide ban on abortion.A nationwide ban would result in a 21% increase in pregnancy-related mortality across the country, but it would be even worse for people of color, with a 33% rise in deaths, according to a study by Amanda Jean Stevenson, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Colorado Boulder.“Pregnancy is really quite dangerous,” Stevenson said.And it’s disproportionately more dangerous for people of color, including Black, Indigenous and Latino people.Country comparison“The truth of the matter is, it’s already hitting people [of color] harder than others – that’s been the reality,” said Monica McLemore, an associate professor of family healthcare nursing at University of California, San Francisco.Black people in the US were already 3.5 times more likely than white peers to die because of pregnancy and childbirth, according to one study looking at data from 2016-2017, and 2.9 times more likely according to a CDC analysis in 2020. They are also more likely to need abortion services.“Because Black, Indigenous, and Latinx communities are going to be disproportionately impacted by lack of access to abortion services, it’s going to exacerbate the maternal mortality racial gap that we’ve already seen in the United States,” Hardeman said.Pregnant people of color have long been marginalized and neglected in the medical system, frequently experiencing racism and discrimination at all points of care.“It’s translating into not getting the care they need, which can be a matter of life and death,” Hardeman said. And racism also takes an immense physical toll, so “by the time that person becomes pregnant, they are at less optimal health than their white counterparts who haven’t experienced racism across the life course”.The cumulative and chronic effects of living in America as a person of color increases stress, which can also affect reproductive health. “We know that the stress pathway is what leads to infant mortality, preterm birth, and other outcomes,” Hardeman said.Even living in a community or neighborhood with disproportionate levels of police surveillance and police contact, for instance, is associated with a greater risk of preterm birth – which can be dangerous for both the birthing person and the infant.“We have to be thinking about the Scotus decision and abortion bans generally as a racist policy, because the burden will fall the hardest on Black pregnant people, it’s going to fall hard on Indigenous people and other people of color, people living in rural areas as well and people of lower socioeconomic status,” Hardeman said.The supreme court decision on Friday and bans on abortion instituted at the state level “disproportionately harm people of color and reinforce a system of inequity and, frankly, of white supremacy”, Hardeman said.The states that have now banned or restricted abortion also have some of the highest mortality rates around pregnancy and childbirth, as well as the highest child mortality rates. Mississippi, for instance, where the supreme case that overturned Roe originated, has one of the highest maternal mortality rates – almost twice as high as the rest of the country – and the highest infant mortality rate in the country.US ethnicitySome people seek abortions because they are at high risk of dying from a pregnancy – because of a health condition, an unsafe home environment, harassment because of their identity, or another reason.“If you think about why people get abortions, it’s often because it’s not safe for them to stay pregnant,” Stevenson said. “The people who are currently having abortions are very likely to actually have higher rates of pregnancy-related deaths and maternal mortality than the people who are currently giving birth.”Having an abortion is “much, much, much safer than staying pregnant”, Stevenson said. Researchers estimate that childbirth is 14 times more deadly than having an abortion.But childbirth is just one risk of pregnancy. “It’s way, way more than 14 times more deadly to stay pregnant – that’s a massive underestimate,” Stevenson said.While roughly half of the country is poised to ban abortion, other states and cities have worked to expand access – including to out-of-state patients.But significant limitations on getting to those sanctuaries remain.“The question is, who is going to be able to access it?” Hardeman asked. Many people of color who face systemic barriers to healthcare may not have the tools, resources, money, time off work and childcare to travel to a sanctuary state or city to receive care, she said.“We have to be thinking about the fact that because we live in a society where access to resources is based on racism and race, there are people who are not going to be able to access the services that are available.”For many reproductive rights researchers, the court’s decision came as no surprise. “This has been coming for a long time,” McLemore said. “I get very grumpy when people just want me to regurgitate statistics about how Black people are going to be dying – we know that. What are we doing?”First, she said, “Congress could act right now and render Scotus’s decision irrelevant” by enshrining reproductive rights into national law. If this Congress doesn’t, she said, the six in 10 Americans who support abortion rights should vote for a new Congress that will.Members of the Black Maternal Health Caucus in Congress have been advocating for laws that would protect the well-being of birthing people, including the Momnibus Act of 2021.Lawmakers could also expand the social safety net, including paid family leave and health insurance for lower-income and postpartum patients, for the swelling number of people giving birth.All of these strategies wouldn’t just ensure that reproductive health continues to be offered to those who need it – they will also keep patients from dying, McLemore said.“We need an all-hands-on-deck approach here – with brilliance, not fear.”TopicsRoe v WadeUS supreme courtLaw (US)US politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

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

      by

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

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

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

      by

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

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘They set a torch to it’: Warren says court lost legitimacy with Roe reversal

      by

      ‘They set a torch to it’: Warren says court lost legitimacy with Roe reversalTop Democrats again call for appointing additional justices to blunt conservative super-majority which made ruling possible Leading Democrats on Sunday continued calling the supreme court’s legitimacy into question after it took away the nationwide right to abortion last week, and some again called for appointing additional justices to the panel so as to blunt the conservative super-majority which made the controversial ruling possible.Abortion banned in multiple US states just hours after Roe v Wade overturnedRead moreThe Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren suggested to ABC’s This Week that there was urgency to do that because supreme court justice Clarence Thomas indicated within Friday’s decision to overturn the landmark Roe v Wade ruling that he’s open to reconsidering precedents guaranteeing contraception, same-sex marriage rights and consensual gay sex.“They have burned whatever legitimacy they may still have had,” Warren said of the supreme court. “They just took the last of it and set a torch to it.”Warren joined Georgia gubernatorial candidate and Democratic organizer Stacey Abrams in again lobbying to expand the supreme court in a way that balances the current makeup of six conservatives and three liberals.Joe Biden has rejected the strategy. But Abrams – who’s also previously served in Georgia’s house of representatives – said the president doesn’t have the final word on the matter, with legislators also having a potential say.“There’s nothing sacrosanct about nine members of the United States supreme court,” Abrams said on CNN’s State of the Union.Warren didn’t just once again mention the idea of abolishing the filibuster, a delaying tactic that both parties use to prevent legislative decisions, which Biden and centrist Democrats have also rejected.She also urged Biden to issue orders shielding medication abortions and authorizing the terminations of pregnancies on federal land.Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, the New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocascio-Cortez argued that drastic measures were justified.Trying to avoid burn-out: a Colorado abortion clinic braces for even more patientsRead more“I believe that the president and the Democratic party needs to come to terms with is that this is not just a crisis of Roe – this is a crisis of our democracy,” Ocascio-Cortez said.The congresswoman also said the supreme court was undergoing “a crisis of legitimacy”, making it a point to allude to how Thomas’s wife, Ginni, emailed 29 Republican lawmakers in Arizona as she tried to help overturn Biden’s victory over Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election.“The supreme court has dramatically overreached its authority,” Ocascio-Cortez said. “This is a crisis of legitimacy.”Speaking from a Republican point of view on another program, South Dakota governor Kristi Noem fawningly said it was “incredible” that reproductive laws had been returned to the states. South Dakota is one of 13 states where trigger laws banning most abortions came into effect after Friday’s decision.“The supreme court did its job: it fixed a wrong decision it made many years ago and returned this power back to the states, which is how the constitution and our founders intended it,” Noem told CBS’ Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan”.World leaders condemn US abortion ruling as ‘backwards step’Read moreSouth Dakota, she said, would ensure that “babies are recognized and that every single life is precious”.The governor said the state would move to block Democratic efforts to allow access to out-of-state telemedicine and the ability of health practitioners in legal abortion states to provide pills in the mail that would allow them to end a pregnancy.Noem voiced that abortion pills were “very dangerous medical procedures”, though Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan correctly pointed out that the pills were approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration.Nonetheless, Noem insisted, saying, “A woman is five times more likely to end up in an emergency room if they’re utilizing this kind of method for an abortion.“It’s something that should be under the supervision of a medical doctor and it is something in South Dakota that we’ve made sure happens that way.”The governor, a rising star in Republican circles, said that mothers would not be prosecuted for receiving abortions, rather the state planned to target illegal abortion providers.“We will make sure that mothers have the resources, protection and medical care that they need and we’re being aggressive on that. And we’ll also make sure that the federal government only does its job,” Noem added.TopicsUS politicsElizabeth WarrenAlexandria Ocasio-CortezRoe v WadeUS supreme courtnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Protests continue across US to voice anger over supreme court ruling

      by

      Protests continue across US to voice anger over supreme court ruling In New York, thousands gathered downtown to celebrate Pride and give voice to anger after decision that overturned abortion rightsProtests over a US supreme court decision that overturned abortion rights continued across the country this weekend. In New York, thousands marched to voice their anger at the ruling that came at the end of a dizzying week around not just reproductive rights but also gun carry laws and the US Capitol attack.US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe v WadeRead more“Not your uterus, not your choice,” many shouted as the demonstrations progressed in Washington DC., New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, Atlanta and Austin.In Providence, Rhode Island, tempers flared so much that an off-duty police officer was accused of punching a woman at an abortion protest. Jennifer Rourke, a state senate candidate, told the Providence Journal she was punched in the face by Jeann Lugo, who had been running for the GOP nomination for a Rhode Island state senate seat but dropped out the race.Lugo said he was “not going to deny” the punching allegation but added that “everything happened very fast”. For the most part, protests across the US have been peaceful.In New York, they fell across Pride weekend honoring the achievements of the LGBTQ community, with thousands gathering downtown to simultaneously celebrate and give voice to anger. Marchers said in some cases they were both shell-shocked by the supreme court decision and happy to be celebrating, gender identities and sexual orientations that some like the court’s conservative justices might find contrary.“It’s a similar feeling to when Trump got elected,” said film editor Oriana Soddu. Soddu said she knew the stripping of nationwide abortion rights was coming after the 2 May leak of a draft ruling saying so, but “for it to actually happen is still a shock”.The anger, Soddu said, was toward the political system itself. “The Republicans clearly have a very strong agenda and we’ve let this happen,” she said. “My fear is they’re going to go after gay marriage” next.The crowds that gathered in New York’s Washington Square on Saturday were, for the most part, there to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the New York City Dyke March. Organizers billed the march as a “celebration of our beautiful and diverse dyke lives” that also doubled as a protest of discrimination, harassment, and violence against lesbians, but it also energized a pro-abortion rights demonstration.“It’s been different to realize that in the eyes of the constitution and the court you’re not really a person and you don’t have autonomy over yourself,” said longtime American activist and socialist organizer Leslie Cagan. “A lot of good things have come for virtually every community that has struggled for a modicum of rights, and now it’s all hanging by a thread.”“I hope that those people and those communities are beginning to get it that if we don’t work together and get beyond the rhetoric of solidarity in which everybody does their own thing, none of our people are going to win,” Cagan added. “We haven’t been collectively tuned in to how big and dangerous the power against us is.”Cindy Greenberg, also marching Saturday, said she thought those forces were really not committed to the notion of a democracy.“It feels like when Trump was elected,” Greenberg said. “This whole period of time has shown that they’re not. This week has been extraordinary – it shown us that they’re willing to sell all of us down the river.”Abortion banned in multiple US states just hours after Roe v Wade overturnedRead moreLisa Ann Markuson said she came with her typewriter to write poems for protesters gathered in the park in part because having a normal Pride party day felt strange. “It’s not, ‘Yay, we’re cool, we’re queer!’ It felt farcical to come out here and party like it’s 2008 because it isn’t. People want to set something on fire, but there’s also a sense of apathy and alienation.“America is supposed to be about freedom but [what] is this? Corporations have freedom and people are supposed to think they have freedom because they have a lot of consumer choices.”Mel Melendes said that being proud and protesting were one and the same. “I’m proud to be here because the louder we express ourselves the more you shine light on what’s wrong.” Added Elisa Buttafuoco: “If we weren’t fighting we wouldn’t be ourselves, we wouldn’t be the queer community. Queer rights is abortion rights is trans rights. It’s all interwoven.”Some on the march wondered if the protest would go the same way if the decision to lift abortion protections primarily affected the queer community.“As a minority community it feels like we’re protesting for everything,” said Afrah Boateng. “It feels like there is something to protest every year around Pride. Today it’s for straight families and straight women. But I guess Pride started as protest, so it’s built in.”According to a CBS poll published Sunday, most disapprove of overturning the nationwide abortion rights established by the landmark Roe v Wade case, including two-thirds of women. By more than a 20-point margin, Americans call it a step backward for the US.Younger people are especially likely to disapprove; most moderates disapprove along with nine in 10 liberals; two-thirds of Hispanic Americans disapprove, three-fourths of Black Americans and just over half of White Americans disapprove.The three-fourths of conservatives who do support the ruling said they felt hopeful and happy.TopicsRoe v WadeAbortionUS politicsHealthNew YorknewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on overturning Roe v Wade: anti-abortionists reign supreme | Editorial

      by

      The Guardian view on overturning Roe v Wade: anti-abortionists reign supremeEditorialThe removal of women’s constitutional right to abortion will deepen hardship and division in the US The decision, when it came on Friday, was not a surprise. Even before the dramatic leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion last month, it was widely predicted that the US supreme court would grab the opportunity presented by the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization case to rescind the decision made in 1973 in Roe v Wade. This, after all, was the purpose of President Trump’s three supreme court selections – and the culmination of a decades-long campaign by anti-abortionists to return to states the authority to ban the procedure. But the announcement still came as a shock. The US’s global influence means that the decision to remove a woman’s constitutional right to abortion there reverberates far beyond its shores.The speed with which multiple US states reacted is disturbing; already, abortion has been outlawed in 10, with 11 more expected to follow shortly. While all women should be entitled to control their own lives and bodies, there are instances when denying this is particularly cruel. Americans who oppose forced pregnancy and birth now face the horror of rape and incest victims, including children, being compelled to become mothers. The US is exceptional in its lack of federal maternity provisions; children as well as parents will suffer the consequences of unwanted additions to their families, with poor and black people the worst affected.Early signs are that the most extreme Republican legislatures could try to block girls and women from travelling out of state for treatment, and impose further restrictions on care delivered remotely including medication sent by mail. The potential for personal data stored online, including on menstrual apps, to be used against women is causing justified alarm. Having relied on Roe v Wade to protect access to abortion for half a century, politicians can no longer do so. Abortion is now set to become a key issue in this autumn’s midterms.How this pans out will depend on public opinion; polling data suggest that 85% of Americans support legal abortion in some circumstances, and Democrats hope that this could work to their advantage. But the anti-abortion right is a formidable force. With hindsight, President Obama’s decision not to codify Roe v Wade into federal law, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s choice not to retire when he could have nominated a replacement, look like disastrous errors.The three liberal justices who dissented said they did so with sorrow for “many millions of American women” and also for the court itself. With this decision, it has chosen to reopen deep wounds. The 14th amendment on which Roe v Wade rested granted rights to former slaves, and is the basis for other crucial decisions including on same-sex marriage. By dismissing Roe v Wade in the way that they did, and against the wishes of Chief Justice John Roberts (who argued to retain it, while allowing Mississippi’s 15-week rule to stand), the court’s hard-right wing has seized control.Unprecedented division, and greatly increased hardship and risk for those denied safe healthcare, will be the outcome. While there is reassurance in noting moves elsewhere towards liberalisation, US anti-abortionists are far from unique, as tightened restrictions in Poland and the situation in Northern Ireland show. It is too soon to say whether Trump’s justices and their backers have overreached from an electoral perspective. If there is an early lesson to be drawn, it is that once gained, women’s rights must be constantly defended.TopicsRoe v WadeOpinionUS supreme courtAbortionLaw (US)WomenHealthRepublicanseditorialsReuse this content More