Roe v Wade

Subterms

    More stories

    • 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

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Sarah Weddington, attorney who won Roe v Wade abortion case, dies aged 76

      by

      Sarah Weddington, attorney who won Roe v Wade abortion case, dies aged 76Texan lawyer and Linda Coffee won landmark 1973 case, safeguarding right now under threat from US supreme court

      How dismantling Roe v Wade would threaten other rights
      Sarah Weddington, an attorney who argued and won the Roe v Wade supreme court case which established the right to abortion in the US, has died aged 76.Susan Hays, a Democratic candidate for Texas agriculture commissioner, announced the news on Twitter on Sunday and the Dallas Morning News confirmed it.“Sarah Weddington died this morning after a series of health issues,” Hays wrote. “With Linda Coffee, she filed the first case of her legal career, Roe v Wade, fresh out of law school. She was my professor … the best writing instructor I ever had, and a great mentor.“At 27 she argued Roe to [the supreme court] (a fact that always made me feel like a gross underachiever). Ironically, she worked on the case because law firms would not hire women in the early 70s, leaving her with lots of time for good trouble.”The court ruled on Roe v Wade in 1973. Nearly 50 years later the right it established is under threat from a supreme court packed with hardline conservatives, in part thanks to a Texas law that drastically restricts access and offers incentives for reporting women to authorities.In 2017, speaking to the Guardian, Weddington predicted such a turn of events. “If [Neil] Gorsuch’s nomination is approved, will abortion be illegal the next day? No. One new judge won’t necessarily make much difference. But two or three might.”After steering Gorsuch on to the court – and a seat held open by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell when Barack Obama was president – Donald Trump installed Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett replaced the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a champion of women’s rights.Weddington found her way to Roe v Wade soon after graduating from law school at the University of Texas. Represented by Weddington and Coffee, Norma McCorvey became the plaintiff known as “Jane Roe” in Roe v Wade. McCorvey became an evangelical Christian and opponent of abortion. She died in 2017.In her Guardian interview, Weddington discussed arguing the case in federal court. “I was very nervous,” she said. “It was like going down a street with no street lights. But there was no other way to go and I didn’t have any preconceived notions that I would not win.”She won, but the case continued.“Henry Wade, the district attorney, unwittingly helped us,” she said. “At a press conference, he said, ‘I don’t care what any court says; I am going to continue to prosecute doctors who carry out abortion.’ There was a procedural rule that said if local elected officials continue to prosecute after a federal court had declared a law unconstitutional, there would be a right to appeal to the supreme court.”‘Historical accident’: how abortion came to focus white, evangelical angerRead moreBefore the court in Washington, Weddington said: “It was impossible to read the justices’ faces. The attorney on the other side started by saying something inappropriate about arguing a case against a beautiful woman. He thought the judges would snicker. But their faces didn’t change a bit.“I had to argue it twice in the supreme court: in 1971 and again in 1972. On 22 January 1973 I was at the Texas legislature when the phone rang. It was a reporter from the New York Times. ‘Does Miss Weddington have a comment today about Roe v Wade?’ my assistant was asked. ‘Why?’ she said. ‘Should she?’“It was beginning to be very exciting. Then we got a telegram from the supreme court saying that I had won 7-2 and that they were going to air-mail a copy of the ruling. Nowadays, of course, you’d just go online.“I was ecstatic, and more than 44 years later we’re still talking about it.”Weddington later revealed that she had an abortion herself, in 1967. “Just before the anaesthesia hit,” she said, “I thought: ‘I hope no one ever knows about this.’ For a lot of years, that was exactly the way I felt. Now there’s a major push to encourage women to tell their stories so people will realise that it is not a shameful thing. One out of every five women will have an abortion.”Weddington predicted: “Whatever else I do in my life, the headline on my obituary is always going to be ‘Roe v Wade attorney dies’.”In fact she achieved much more, as Hays detailed in her tweets on Sunday. “Those career doors shut to her led her to run for office, getting elected as the first woman from Travis county in the [Texas legislature] in 1972 (along with four other women elected to the House: Kay Bailey, Chris Miller, Betty Andujar and Senfronia Thompson).“She was general counsel of the United States Department of Agriculture under [Jimmy] Carter and enjoyed her stint in DC. Federal judicial nominations for Texas were run by her as a high-ranking Texan in the administration.“A Dallas lawyer she knew sought a bench. She had interviewed with him while at UT law. He’d asked her, ‘What will we tell our wives if we hire you?’ She told him he was wasting their time and hers and walked out of the interview. He did not get the judgeship.“Ever the proper preacher’s daughter, she would never tell me who the lawyer was. People don’t know that about Sarah. She was such a proper Methodist minister’s daughter. One of the few people I couldn’t cuss in front of.”Hays also paid tribute to Weddington as a teacher and a member of a “Great Austin Matriarchy” that also included the former Texas governor Ann Richards and the columnist Molly Ivins.In her Guardian interview, Weddington indicated she was at peace with being remembered for Roe v Wade. “I think most women of my generation can recall our feelings about the fight,” she said. “It’s like young love. You may not feel exactly the same, but you remember it.”TopicsRoe v WadeAbortionUS politicsUS healthcareUS supreme courtUS constitution and civil libertiesLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The supreme court’s abortion ruling is even more unsettling than it may seem | Moira Donegan

      by

      The supreme court’s abortion ruling is even more unsettling than it may seemMoira DoneganIn allowing Texas’s outrageous abortion ban to stay in place, the court signaled that it is willing to sacrifice its own legitimacy and power in order to destroy Roe Don’t be fooled by the supreme court’s nominal hedging on its endorsement of SB8, the Texas abortion ban that deputizes private citizens to sue anyone who assists in an abortion after six weeks’ gestation. In a ruling on Friday, the court held that a lawsuit by Texas abortion providers could go forward – but only on narrow grounds. Only those state officials responsible for licensing medical providers may be sued, the court ordered – no one else involved in the state’s practical maintenance of SB8 is liable. The ruling said, for instance, that the providers could not sue court clerks, those bureaucrats tasked with actually docketing the lawsuits that would enforce SB8.For providers, it seems that the best possible outcome for the suit now is that they may be able to secure an injunction preventing medical providers from being delicensed. These perplexing limits placed by the court on which parties can be sued to challenge SB8 ensures that though the suit against the law will be at least partly allowed to go forward, it will be largely toothless.In the meantime, SB8 will remain law. Women in Texas are effectively banned from securing a legal abortion in the state, even though the still-standing Roe v Wade decision says that they have a right to one. It’s likely that SB8 will remain in effect at least for the duration of Roe’s lifetime – meaning that Texas women will not be able to obtain legal abortions after six weeks for the foreseeable future. Many of the initial media responses to the court’s opinion emphasized that since the suit was allowed to go forward, on technical grounds, the ruling was a narrow win for the abortion providers. But in reality Friday was a massive win for the rightwing Texas government, and for anti-choice forces nationwide.That SB8 has been allowed to take effect – now for the second time – by the supreme court reflects the justices’ eagerness to gut abortion rights. The fact of the matter is that the court is already set to overturn Roe and allow states to ban abortion outright. That much was clear to anyone who listened to last week’s oral arguments in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health, a case surrounding the constitutionality of a 15-week ban in Mississippi, which devolved into grim misogynist spectacle as the Republican appointees held court on the supposed ease of giving infants up for adoption and their own robust comfort with overturning long-settled precedent.That ruling is scheduled to come down in late May or early June. When it does, a slim majority of states are expected to ban abortion, either immediately or very soon thereafter. That means that soon SB8 – and the copycat bills that it has inspired in states like Florida and Arkansas – won’t be necessary for the anti-choice lobby to achieve their aims. Instead of concocting an elaborate enforcement process in which rogue anti-woman vigilantes enforce their abortion bans, the states will be able to enforce their bans themselves.SB8, then, and the supreme court’s embrace of it, can be understood not only as a harbinger of the justices’ deep contempt for the abortion right, but also of their childish impatience to exert this contempt upon American women. They can’t even wait six months. They want to ban abortion right now. In pursuit of this goal, the supreme court has proven itself willing to undermine its own capacity to oversee state laws, to enforce federal supremacy, and to protect constitutional rights.The anti-choice substance of the court’s decision in SB8 was not surprising; its embrace of Texas’s tactics perhaps was. Aside from its direct attempt to undermine women’s rights, SB8 also took aim at judicial authority. By banning abortion long before viability, the law flouted the supreme court’s precedents in Roe and Planned Parenthood v Casey. But that much a slew of vehemently anti-choice justices would probably forgive: all six of the Republican appointees clearly believe that Roe was wrongly decided, and at least five of them (all but Roberts, who seems more trepidatious) appear eager to overturn it. But in its novel enforcement mechanism, SB8 sought specifically to evade judicial review – not just to give the court an opportunity to overturn its own precedent, but to make it so that within Texas borders supreme court precedent didn’t matter.In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor compared SB8 to the views of John C Calhoun – a nineteenth-century pro-slavery campaigner who argued that states have the right to nullify federal laws that they do not like. America fought its civil war in no small part over this question. By first allowing the SB8 to go into effect, in September, and then by gutting the lawsuit against it this Friday, the supreme court has, shockingly, endorsed a scheme to undermine its own power, and granted a state the ability to evade federal precedent. Nullification, it seems, is back in style.For years, court watchers have wondered whether the justices’ institutionalist instincts would overcome their misogynist ones: if the Court had to choose between maintaining its own power and legitimacy, and overturning Roe, which would it choose? Now, it seems, we have our answer.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionRoe v WadeUS supreme courtLaw (US)AbortioncommentReuse this content More