Roe v Wade

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      How soon could US states outlaw abortions if Roe v Wade is overturned?

      by

      How soon could US states outlaw abortions if Roe v Wade is overturned?If the draft supreme court decision is not substantially altered it would result in 26 states banning the procedure An unprecedented leak of a draft supreme court decision shows a majority of justices support ending federal protections for abortions in arguably the most controversial court case in generations.‘It will be chaos’: 26 states in US will ban abortion if supreme court ruling standsRead moreWhile the draft could still change, if it is not substantially altered it would result in 26 states immediately or as soon as practicable banning abortion, a sea change in the American legal and political landscape.Why would half of the US outlaw abortion?If the draft decision remains substantially unchanged, it would return the issue of abortion to the states, 26 states stand poised to ban or greatly restrict it. Until the court issues a final decision, the right to abortion is protected under federal law.That right was established in the landmark 1973 case Roe v Wade. Roe found pregnant people have a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy up to the point a fetus can survive outside the womb, roughly considered 24 weeks gestation, and a legal principle called “viability”.graphicThe court’s finding in Roe invalidated dozens of state abortion bans, and made it illegal for states to outlaw abortion before viability. The case that was the subject of the leak on Monday, called Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, considered a Mississippi law that banned abortion at 15 weeks. Even though this is not a total ban, it strikes at the heart of the holding that established a federal right to abortion.Do Americans support abortion?A recent poll found 70% of Americans think abortion is a choice that should be left to a woman and her doctor, and polling over time has shown support for legal abortion has changed little since Roe v Wade was decided. Only a small minority think abortion should be completely illegal.If most Americans support the right to abortion, can Congress intervene?The federal right to abortion hangs on a supreme court decision because, in the nearly 50 years since Roe v Wade was decided, congressional leaders failed to protect the right in statute.While there are Democrat-led efforts to protect abortion, they are stalled in the Senate. That’s because any new statute would need 60 votes to pass, and the 100-member Senate is evenly split. Democrats broadly support abortion rights, while Republicans almost universally oppose efforts to protect abortion rights.Some Democrats have proposed ending the 60-vote rule, called the filibuster, to move legislation on abortion and other key items on Joe Biden agenda’s forward. The president has endorsed such a change.However, two key Democratic senators, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, oppose such a change. It is unclear how the leaked opinion may change their position. Sinema has said she supports abortion rights, while Manchin has issued conflicting messages.Biden has called on Americans to elect more members of Congress who support reproductive rights in the upcoming midterm elections in November.How soon would abortion become illegal?If the issue of abortion were to return to the states, 26 would immediately or as soon as practicable ban abortion.States would do so through a mix of abortion bans that were invalidated by Roe v Wade but remained on the books, abortion bans “triggered” if Roe is overturned, and laws that limit the gestational age at which a person can terminate a pregnancy. All will probably be the subject of court challenges.For example, an abortion ban enacted in 1931 could go back into effect in Michigan. There, the Republican-led legislature supports the ban, but the state’s Democratic governor is challenging it in state court.In Arkansas, the state legislature has enacted a “trigger” ban. There, the state attorney general would need to certify the central holding of Roe was indeed struck down. The attorney general, a Republican, would likely seek to do so quickly.Trigger bans vary from state to state. While Arkansas requires an attorney general certification, Wyoming requires the governor to certify Roe has been overturned before the law goes into effect five days later.Other bans, once blocked by the courts because of Roe, could also go into effect. Enforcement of a six-week abortion ban in Iowa could go into effect. Because that is just two weeks after a pregnant person might miss a period, and before most people know they are pregnant, it is effectively a near-total ban.In all cases, laws will probably be challenged by reproductive rights groups, and it will take time for cases to move through state and perhaps federal courts. Some experts have estimated it could take between six months to two years for most cases to be settled.What is certain is in that time, Republican-led states would probably seek to push the envelope in terms of criminalizing abortion, and seek to enforce the bans they already have on the books.How will people terminate pregnancies in states where it is banned?Making abortion illegal will not stop abortions. People who live in states where abortion is outlawed but want to terminate a pregnancy may seek to travel to states where it remains legal, or obtain medication to end a pregnancy.Medication abortion can safely end pregnancies up to 10 weeks gestation using a two-pill protocol. However, in states where abortion is illegal, those pills would need to be obtained illicitly, perhaps through through the mail.Patients who want to go to clinics, or whose pregnancy is too far along to be self-managed with medication, would need to travel potentially hundreds of miles to states where abortion is legal. That may be an impossible hurdle for women whose finances are strained or who cannot find childcare.People who live in states where abortion remains legal would also be impacted, because they would face longer wait times for appointments as patients flood into clinics from out-of-state. This could create a secondary wave of travel.Even more broadly, outlawing abortion would substantially undermine care for basic obstetric procedures, such as miscarriage and ectopic pregnancies, in a country which already has among the highest maternal mortality rates in the developed world.Nearly half (44%) of all future obstetricians and gynecologists are trained in states that would outlaw abortion, making it impossible to train all new doctors in the skills needed to manage induced or spontaneous abortion. Even more doctors may be frightened to provide evidence-based care to women who face life-threatening complications, if their condition is not imminently emergent – but may become so.How are liberal states responding?Some Democrat-led states, such as Oregon, are working to protect abortion by providing funds for people who travel to their states to obtain abortions. Others, such as California, are working to build capacity for the thousands of woman who could suddenly find the nearest abortion clinic there.But in all cases, these efforts will be incomplete. Not all people will be able to travel or obtain medication abortions, and may forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.TopicsRoe v WadeAbortionUS politicsHealthexplainersReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden ‘not prepared’ to support ending Senate filibuster to pass abortion rights law – live

      by

      US politics liveRoe v WadeBiden ‘not prepared’ to support ending Senate filibuster to pass abortion rights law – live
      Full story: US shaken to its core by supreme court draft
      Chief justice orders inquiry into leak of draft ruling
      ’It will be chaos’: 26 states will ban abortion if ruling stands
      Abortion to become key fight in US midterm elections
      LIVE Updated 25m agoKari Paul (now), Richard Luscombe and Alexandra Topping (earlier)Tue 3 May 2022 17.28 EDTFirst published on Tue 3 May 2022 06.14 EDT0Show key events onlyLive feedShow key events onlyFrom More

    • 200 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      'A radical decision': Biden condemns leaked US supreme court opinion on Roe v Wade – video

      by

      President Joe Biden on Tuesday blasted the ‘radical’ draft opinion suggesting the supreme court may be be poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade case that legalised abortion nationwide, saying it would threaten ‘a whole range of rights’ if it holds. Speaking to reporters before boarding Air Force One, Biden said he hoped the draft would not be finalised by justices, contending it reflects a ‘fundamental shift in American jurisprudence’ that threatens other rights such as privacy and marriage

      US politics – live updates More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on overturning Roe v Wade: a human rights catastrophe | Editorial

      by

      The Guardian view on overturning Roe v Wade: a human rights catastropheEditorialAccess to safe abortion is vanishing fast. The US supreme court appears poised to deal it the worst blow yet If the supreme court overturns Roe v Wade, as a leaked draft opinion indicates, it will be a crushing blow to the fundamental right of women in the United States to control their own bodies. It is the grim culmination of a crusade by zealots, against the will of the majority, to risk the health, happiness and lives of women. An accelerating erosion of rights and services has already slashed access to abortions, and many feared that Donald Trump’s judicial legacy would be the curtailment or reversal of the 1973 ruling, which effectively legalised abortion nationally. But this text, obtained by Politico and written by Justice Samuel Alito, looks worse than expected. Excoriating Roe v Wade as “egregiously wrong from the start”, it abandons the issue to states – nearly half of which have, or will soon have, laws banning abortion.Such a decision will force women to give birth in a country with high maternal mortality rates and no national paid maternity leave; it will risk lives as they access illegal abortions; it will threaten to criminalise vulnerable women and those who help them (and even those who have miscarriages); it will push yet more children into poverty. Experts warn that states are likely to pass further restrictions targeting those who travel to obtain abortions, or order medication to manage their abortions at home. These days there are new ways for women to obtain abortions, but also new ways to track them, and those supporting them. Overturning the five-decades-old decision could also help to pave the way for a nationwide abortion ban.Moreover, it throws into doubt other established rights, such as gay marriage, which are similarly rooted in the right to privacy. Though it states that it does not do so – arguing that abortion is a unique issue because it involves the right to life or potential life – that is little reassurance. After all, two of the justices backing this decision were confirmed after describing Roe v Wade as “settled law”.This catastrophic decision, assuming it proceeds, both highlights and solidifies the gulf between different Americas. First, the geographical division between states that ban abortion – home to the majority of women – and those that do not. Second, the socioeconomic and racial divide between those whose wealth and connections will allow them to access abortion, and the rest. Finally, it captures the gulf between American public opinion and the institutions that have been captured by the right because the electoral college, the Senate and supreme court are all skewed in favour of Republicans. A poll in January found that only 30% of voters wanted to see Roe v Wade overturned; 69% were opposed.The move is also strikingly out of step with the rest of the world. With a few exceptions – notably Poland – the trend has been overwhelmingly towards the liberalisation of abortion laws, including in countries such as Chile and Ireland. The UN special rapporteur on the right to health, Dr Tlaleng Mofokeng, has warned that overturning abortion rights would set a dangerous precedent, as well as violate international human rights treaties, including the convention against torture.But this decision, of course, can only be fixed at home. Democrats demand the codification of Roe v Wade, knowing that it would require overturning the filibuster, a Senate procedural rule. Calls for supreme court reform will gain ground, with the introduction of term limits a more straightforward move than expanding the court. Beyond the immediate crisis is the greater challenge of fixing a political system now tilted decisively towards Republicans through the systematic pursuit of power, from gerrymandering to voter suppression to control of elections themselves. The right’s victory is the fruit of an orchestrated campaign over decades; the fightback will demand equal ferocity and commitment. This blow could yet help to create some of the momentum required. November’s midterms will be the first test.TopicsRoe v WadeOpinionAbortionUS supreme courtHealthUS politicsWomeneditorialsReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘An abomination’: how campaigners reacted to report on US supreme court’s draft decision on Roe v Wade

      by

      ‘An abomination’: how campaigners reacted to report on US supreme court’s draft decision on Roe v WadeLeaked initial draft majority opinion suggests court is poised to overturn ruling that legalised abortion across US0A leaked initial draft majority opinion suggests the US supreme court is poised to overturn the Roe v Wade decision that legalised abortion nationwide, Politico has reported.The unprecedented leak stunned Washington. It holds the potential to reshape the political landscape ahead of US midterm elections in November. Here is some reaction to the report.Alexis McGill Johnson, Planned Parenthood president “This leaked opinion is horrifying and unprecedented, and it confirms our worst fears … While we have seen the writing on the wall for decades, it is no less devastating, and comes just as anti-abortion rights groups unveil their ultimate plan to ban abortion nationwide… [W]e will continue to fight like hell to protect the right to access safe, legal abortion.”National Women’s Law Center“The language in the draft opinion leaked from the supreme court is outrageous, irresponsible and shocking. Any justice who signs on to this opinion is fuelling the harm and violence that will happen to people who become pregnant in this country.”American Civil Liberties Union“If the supreme court does indeed issue a majority opinion along the lines of the leaked draft authored by Justice Alito, the shift in the tectonic plates of abortion rights will be as significant as any opinion the court has ever issued.”Hillary Clinton, former US secretary of state “This decision is a direct assault on the dignity, rights, and lives of women, not to mention decades of settled law. It will kill and subjugate women even as a vast majority of Americans think abortion should be legal. What an utter disgrace.”Elizabeth Warren, Democratic senator“An extremist supreme court is poised to overturn #RoeVWade and impose its far-right, unpopular views on the entire country. It’s time for the millions who support the constitution and abortion rights to stand up and make their voices heard. We’re not going back, not ever.”Chuck Schumer, Senate majority leader, and Nancy Pelosi, House speaker “If the report is accurate, the supreme court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past 50 years – not just on women but on all Americans. The Republican-appointed justices’ reported votes to overturn Roe v Wade would go down as an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.”Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democratic representative “As we’ve warned, Scotus [supreme court of the United States] isn’t just coming for abortion – they’re coming for the right to privacy Roe rests on, which includes gay marriage and civil rights. [Joe] Manchin is blocking Congress codifying Roe. House has seemingly forgotten about Clarence Thomas. These two points must change.”Amy Klobuchar, Democratic senator “If nothing can get done in Washington because of Republican obstructionism, then the American people and women are going to have to vote and people who believe in choice are going to have to vote like they never voted before, because that’s the only way we can change this.”Kathy Hochul, Democratic New York governor “This is an absolutely disgraceful attack on our fundamental right to choose, and we will fight it with everything we’ve got. Let me be loud and clear: New York will always guarantee your right to abortion. You have our word.”Bernie Sanders, independent US senator “Congress must pass legislation that codifies Roe v Wade as the law of the land in this country now. And if there aren’t 60 votes in the Senate to do it, and there are not, we must end the filibuster to pass it with 50 votes.”Ken Paxton, Republican Texas attorney general “I hope that Scotus returns the question of abortion where it belongs: the states. This is why I led a 24-state coalition in support of MS’s law banning them after 15 wks. I’ll [continue] to ensure that TX protects the unborn and pray for the end of abortion across our nation.”Tom Cotton, Republican senator “The supreme court and the DoJ must get to the bottom of this leak immediately using every investigative tool necessary. In the meantime, Roe was egregiously wrong from the beginning and I pray the court follows the constitution and allows the states to once again protect unborn life.”Josh Hawley, Republican senator “The left continues its assault on the supreme court with an unprecedented breach of confidentiality, clearly meant to intimidate. The justices mustn’t give in to this attempt to corrupt the process. Stay strong. I will say, if this is the court’s opinion, it’s a heck of an opinion. Voluminously researched, tightly argued, and morally powerful.”Rick Scott, Republican senator “The supreme court’s confidential deliberation process is sacred and protects it from political interference. This breach shows that radical Democrats are working even harder to intimidate and undermine the court. It was always their plan. The justices cannot be swayed by this attack.“TopicsRoe v WadeWomenAbortionHealthUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Tuesday briefing: Bombshell leak that could indicate the end of Roe v Wade

      by

      Tuesday briefing: Bombshell leak that could indicate the end of Roe v WadeIn today’s newsletter: seismic news from the US which could mean 50 years of the right to an abortion are at an end

      Sign up here for our new daily newsletter, First Edition
      Good morning. A truly seismic story has broken in the US overnight: the leak of a draft majority opinion which appears to show that the supreme court has privately voted to overturn half a century of protection for abortion rights.The leak, to the Politico website, was immediately the subject of intense textual and legal analysis by US journalists and experts trying to corroborate its authenticity. It would be the worst security breach in the court’s history.Sign up to First Edition, our free daily newsletter – every weekday morning at 7am.But while caution is obviously the right approach on such a momentous story, there was every sign – from the document’s formatting and footnotes to the distinctive tone of conservative author Justice Samuel Alito – that it is legitimate. There was no comment from the supreme court itself.The court could still vote the other way. But if the end of Roe v Wade, the 1973 ruling which enshrined the constitutional right to an abortion, does happen, it would be news of generational significance for American women and a huge blow for supporters of reproductive rights around the world.With protesters immediately descending on the supreme court building to voice their fury over the news, today’s newsletter explains what’s at stake, and what happens next. That’s right after the headlines.Five big stories
      Asylum | Priti Patel may face a class action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of Ukrainians stuck in a “chaotic” visa backlog as they seek to come to the UK. Only 15% of the 74,700 Ukrainians to apply under the sponsorship route have made it to Britain.
      Politics | Councillors in the UK face abuse, threats and intimidation as part of a “truly toxic” atmosphere that discourages new candidates, local government bodies have warned.
      Housing | The government could revive Margaret Thatcher’s right-to-buy scheme to make up to 2.5m households eligible to buy their homes at a 70% discount. Housing experts said the proposals risked reducing the stock of affordable homes.
      Suisse Secrets | Swiss politicians are to debate the country’s controversial banking secrecy law amid ongoing pressure to scrap rules allowing the prosecution of whistleblowers. The debate follows a leak of data on potentially criminal Credit Suisse clients to a consortium of outlets including the Guardian.
      Theatre | The curtain will come down on Andrew Lloyd Webber’s West End musical Cinderella less than a year after its opening, causing dismay among some cast members who had no notice of the closure. The show has suffered heavy losses during its lockdown-affected run.
      In depth: the end of the US right to an abortion?What happened?A draft supreme court opinion, apparently by conservative justice Samuel Alito, was leaked to Politico in a story published late Monday night. It appears to show that the court is preparing to rule in favour of Mississippi in a case over whether the state can outlaw nearly all abortions at and after 15 weeks gestation – a direct challenge to the guarantee of abortion rights enshrined in Roe v Wade.The 98-page document, which includes 118 footnotes and a 31-page appendix on historical state abortion laws, was published in full. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” it says. “Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.”It says Roe v Wade “must be overruled” and goes on: “It is time to heed the constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”What is Roe v Wade?Roe v Wade is the court decision which protects the right to an abortion in the US up to the point a foetus can survive outside the womb, widely regarded as 24 weeks gestation. A full term pregnancy is 39 weeks gestation. The 1973 ruling is among the most controversial in American history and has been subjected to many legal challenges over the year – but survived until now.For more details on the challenge to the law currently under consideration, take a look at Jessica Glenza’s explainer from December.What does the leak tell us about the court’s decision?While the opinion is purportedly a draft, it would have been written following a vote on the question at hand by the court – and indicates that a majority of justices reached the same view as Alito. Politico reported that four other Republican-appointed justices supported the decision, meaning a total of at least five votes on the 9-member court.After such a vote, a justice is assigned the majority opinion and then writes a draft, which is then circulated and subject to edits. It is possible for changes to be made to the opinion, or even for votes to change, before the court’s final ruling, which is expected in the next couple of months.How significant is a leak of a draft supreme court ruling?The Guardian’s Washington correspondent David Smith called the leak “stunning and unprecedented” and said it would be “the worst security breach” in the court’s history. Theories abounded over the likely source of the leak, from a clerk for a liberal justice hoping to raise public pressure on the court before it publishes its decision to a conservative who wants to soften the impact of the decision when it comes – in other words, nobody knows.A tweet from Scotusblog, a respected news and analysis site, said that it was “impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the Court, in terms of the destruction of trust among the Justices and staff. This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.”How did reproductive-rights advocates react to the news?With fury. A BuzzFeed reporter posted a video of about 200 protesters outside the court chanting slogans like “abortion is healthcare” and “my body, my choice”. Another video showed somebody urging attendees: “If you feel like fucking screaming, then just scream”.What about politicians?Democrats said that overturning Roe v Wade would be a catastrophe. They were led by House speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, who issued a joint statement saying such a move would be “an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history”.They also immediately sought to make Roe v Wade an issue for crucial upcoming midterm elections: Christie Roberts, Democratic senatorial campaign executive director, said that “At this critical moment, we must protect and expand Democrats’ Senate majority with the power to confirm or reject supreme court justices”. Republicans by turns praised the apparent vote and condemned the leak itself.Now what?It is worth reiterating that it is still possible that votes could change and mean that the apparent draft opinion remains just that – a draft. But if the supreme court does rule along the lines suggested by the leaked document, the consequences will be rapid and hugely consequential.Because the US congress has never enshrined the right to terminate a pregnancy, the overturning of Roe v Wade would mean individual states can immediately make their own decisions over the way forward. Twenty-six of them would be expected to move quickly to do so, with many having “trigger” laws on the books which would automatically come into effect in those circumstances. That means that women in those states would immediately face severe restrictions on their ability to have an abortion, and the US would become one of only four countries to curtail that right in nearly 30 years.What else we’ve been reading
      If you’re working your way through Netflix’s final dump of Ozark episodes, you’ll enjoy Stuart Jeffries’ farewell to “some of the most rewarding TV around”. And if you didn’t spend half the weekend gorging the lot of it, rest assured: it sticks the landing.
      As the question of how the war in Ukraine will end becomes more pressing, Orysia Lutseyvych of Chatham House argues that “a long-term simmering conflict that locks Ukraine in a grey zone of instability” is no better than defeat.
      Simon Hattenstone spoke to Graham Nash – as in, Crosby, Stills and … – about sex, drugs, rock’n’roll, and why he’d kill Vladimir Putin given half a chance. Too many amazing quotes to list, so click here instead.
      Tens of thousands of people have faced deportation from the US over convictions which were later overturned. Sam Levin’s piece on Sandra Castaneda, who spent 19 years in prison for a murder she didn’t commit and is still facing deportation, justifies the term ‘Kafkaesque’.
      Why is it so hard to give up sugar? This long read by Raj Telhan, a doctor, is both absorbing personal history and examination of the roots of our obsession.
      Sport
      Snooker | Ronnie O’Sullivan beat Judd Trump 18-13 to win the snooker world championship. O’Sullivan overcame a spirited comeback from Trump to go level with Stephen Hendry’s record of seven world titles.
      Football | Russia’s bid to host the men’s European Championship has been rejected and their team will be replaced by Portugal in the women’s tournament this summer, Uefa said.
      Athletics | Sir Mo Farah said his career as an elite athlete is “for sure” over after a shock defeat by a club runner in a 10,000 metre race on Monday. The amateur who won, Ellis Cross, had been turned down for an elite spot in the race.
      The front pagesThe Guardian leads with “Patel faces mass legal action from Ukrainians stuck in visa backlog”. The Telegraph also focuses on the war in Ukraine with “Johnson: Ukraine is ready for its finest hour”. The Mail has “Where have our GPs gone?”, while the Times goes with “Rising inflation to blow £7,000 hole in pensions”. The i newspaper has “Tories hit by infighting on eve of election” and the Daily Express leads with “Boris’ right to buy plan is a vote winner”. The Mirror reports on the Madeline McCann disappearance with “Maddie prime suspect ‘a danger to society’”. The Financial Times has “Johnson enlisted for last-ditch bid to wrestle Arm into listing”. And the Sun says “Queen’s guards let fake priest stay night”.Today in FocusThe Wagatha Christie case – part twoAs the so-called ‘Wagatha Christie’ trial approaches, neither side is backing down from a case that has legal fees running into the millions, says media editor Jim Waterson.Cartoon of the day | Martin RowsonThe UpsideA bit of good news to remind you that the world’s not all badGood news has been thin on the ground in Ukraine these past few months – but one bright spot has been the generosity of those horrified by the actions of Russia and what it has meant for the citizens of the country. Take this story about a nursing home in Donbas that the Guardian first wrote about in April – that story inspired a Ukrainian expat in New Orleans to raise the funds necessary to rehome the elderly residents in a disused school. “The biggest chunk of the money will go towards making the accommodation suitable for the old people,” said the nursing home’s director, Ievhen Tkachov.Sign up here for a weekly roundup of The Upside, sent to you every SundayTopicsAbortionFirst EditionRoe v WadeUS politicsUS supreme courtHealthLaw (US)newslettersReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The supreme court’s coming abortion ruling may spark a new era of US unrest | Stephen Marche

      by

      The supreme court’s coming abortion ruling may spark a new era of US unrestStephen MarcheThere’s a strong risk that the case will spark anger and violence – whether the court overturns Roe v Wade or not Civil wars don’t always begin with gunfire. Sometimes civil wars begin with learned arguments. In April 1861, Confederate forces shot on Fort Sumter, but at the time even Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president, had doubts about whether the event mattered all that much. It was, he claimed, “either the beginning of a fearful war, or the end of a political contest”; he could not say which. During the decades that preceded the assault on Fort Sumter, complex legal and political fissures had been working their way through the United States, slowly rendering the country ungovernable and opening the path to mass violence.The US is the middle of another such legal crackup, this time over the question of abortion. The courts today face the crisis American courts faced in the 1850s: is there any way to make laws for a country with furious and widening differences in fundamental values?Tell us: have you had to travel to another US state for an abortion? Read moreThis summer, when the US supreme court makes its long-expected decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, it will inevitably alienate half the country. In anticipation of the overturning of Roe v Wade, several states have passed draconian anti-abortion laws, in the expectation that they won’t be challenged. Idaho has already imitated the Texas law which allows private citizens to sue anyone who helps a woman procure an abortion, a law that the supreme court has refused to overturn.Two American blocs are emerging. In the south and parts of the west and midwest, abortion laws are about to return to where they were in the 1950s. The rest of the country has already set itself in opposition to these laws. The division will not stay considerate and respectful, particularly in areas where liberal and conservative states neighbour one another. In anticipation of a post-Roe world and a flood of out-of-state patients, abortion providers have established a series of abortion clinics in Illinois, across the river from more conservative Missouri. Oregon recently invested in a $15m fund for medical refugees traveling from Idaho for abortions.There are, right from the beginning, two reactions to the new division. The first is the use of force, as in the case of a 26-year-old Texan woman, Lizelle Herrera, who was recently arrested for murder for allegedly self-inducing an abortion. The local district attorney’s office ultimately released her without charge, explaining that “in reviewing applicable Texas law, it is clear that Ms Herrera cannot and should not be prosecuted for the allegation against her”. To be clear, current applicable Texas law doesn’t apply to Herrera’s case. When it does, they will charge people like her with murder. How far will the forces opposing abortion take a custodial approach? Do they want to set up a DEA-style birth police? Any enforcement mechanism will also probably be highly ineffective. After billions of dollars spent on the war on drugs, the average price of a hit of heroin on the street is between $5 and $20. Women with means who want abortions are going to get them.Texas advocates file new legal challenge to near-total abortion ban Read moreThe second reaction to an America divided along abortion lines will be interstate conflict. Missouri is leading the way here. A recent bill proposed a travel abortion ban, explicitly focused on clinics in Illinois. This looks, on the face of it, like a straight violation of the 14th amendment, but the supreme court is a partisan institution and interpretation of the constitution now follows the partisan affiliation of the justices. They’ll come up with something.No matter what decision the supreme court makes, civil unrest will follow. Anti-abortion activists will feel that their political system has failed them no matter what the court does. They have sacrificed everything – the dignity and integrity of their party, the value of their national institutions – in the name of getting enough justices on the court to enact this one legal change. If the court upholds Roe v Wade, they will quite naturally feel betrayed. If the court overturns Roe v Wade, they will discover a fact the new Texas law has inadvertently revealed: that the criminalization of abortion doesn’t work. Their basic assumption, that the government can outlaw abortion, is simply untrue. At first, the Texas law appeared to cause abortions to decline by half. But quickly the numbers reasserted themselves. The decline is less that ten percent. Women went out of state or bought chemical abortions. The overturning of Roe v Wade will makes women’s medical treatment more difficult and impersonal and humiliating. It won’t change the abortion rate significantly.Meanwhile, from the other side, an overturning of Roe v Wade will be experienced as oppression pure and simple, especially given the number of justices appointed by presidents who did not receive the popular vote. In November 1860, five months before Fort Sumter, in the immediate aftermath of Lincoln’s election, a judge in South Carolina announced that the state would no longer register indictments in federal court. Andrew Magrath, in a deliberate act of rejection, removed his judicial robe and folded it over his chair. He would now serve as a justice of his state, not his country. The audience recognized the gravity of the act. As one commentator at the time noted: “Here was a great political movement precipitated, not by bloody encounters in the street or upon the field, but by a deliberate and reasoned act in the most unexpected and conservatives of all places – the United State courtroom.” From that moment on, there were two legal systems. All that remained was the war. A similar breakdown in the legal system of the United States is already apparent.Needless to say, this entire conflict is futile and stupid. Abortion in the United States is in rapid decline without the negligible effects of criminalization. The number of procedures dipped 19% between 2011 and 2017. If activists want fewer abortions, there are plenty of strategies that are vastly more effective than making them illegal. Canada, which has no federal laws of any kind on abortion, has a fraction of the abortion rate of the US.But that’s not really the point. Abortion is only a stand in for a fundamental conflict in political vision: morality against policy, community values against personal agency. There are two countries, at least, in the United States. The legal system is only catching up.
      Stephen Marche is the author, most recently, of The Next Civil War: Dispatches from the American Future
      TopicsRoe v WadeOpinionAbortionUS politicsUS supreme courtLaw (US)commentReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Ketanji Brown Jackson says Roe v Wade ‘the settled law of the supreme court’ – live

      by

      Key events

      Show

      2.06pm EDT

      14:06

      Psaki tests positive for Covid-19

      11.33am EDT

      11:33

      Jackson: Roe v Wade is ‘settled law’

      8.58am EDT

      08:58

      Ketanji Brown Jackson hearings continue

      Live feed

      Show

      Show key events only

      5.42pm EDT

      17:42

      In response to Hawley’s insinuations that she was not tough enough on defendants in child sexual abuse cases, Jackson has explained in detail how sentencing works, saying, “What a judge has to do is determine how to sentence defendants proportionately consistent with the elements that the statutes include, with the requirements Congress has set forward … Judges are doing the work of assessing in each case a number of factors that are set forward by Congress, all against the backdrop of heinous criminal behavior … and Congress has given judges factors to consider.”
      Jackson said she has to consider the facts and the recommendations of government and the probation department in sentencing, adding, “You’re questioning whether or not I take them seriously or if I have some reason to handle them in a different way than my peers or in a different way than other cases, but I assure you I do not.”
      Hawley said: “I am questioning your discretion and judgment.” He asked her why she was not tougher on an 18-year-old in a case involving child sexual abuse images.
      Jackson explained that she was following guidelines and responding to specific facts in the case, and sentenced him to three months in federal prison.

      5.31pm EDT

      17:31

      Josh Hawley, Republican senator from Missouri, started his questions with detailed descriptions of child sexual abuse cases and accusing Jackson of not being tough enough on offenders. Here’s the response from a White House spokesperson, saying Halwey’s remarks are “embarrassing” and a signal to QAnon conspiracy theorists:

      Andrew Bates
      (@AndrewJBates46)
      Hawley’s embarrassing, QAnon-signaling smear has been fact checked by: @washingtonpost, @nytimes, @AP, @CNN, @ABC, and @NRO:https://t.co/JDHAWH7l3dhttps://t.co/JbPnmE7lbIhttps://t.co/8DuoUg80hGhttps://t.co/fA4hUmeqGyhttps://t.co/fA4hUmeqGyhttps://t.co/UVCtmAImJ2

      March 22, 2022

      5.17pm EDT

      17:17

      Martin Pengelly

      Josh Hawley, a Republican senator from Missouri, is now questioning Jackson. There was an interesting nugget from Punchbowl News this morning, on Hawley and why he is pressing his attack on the judge over her past sentencing of offenders convicted over child sexual abuse images. More