Society

Subterms

    More stories

    • 213 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Feminism taught me all I need to know about men like Trump and Putin | Rebecca Solnit

      by

      Feminism taught me all I need to know about men like Trump and PutinRebecca SolnitLike all abusive men, dictators seek to control who can speak and which narratives are believed. The only difference is scaleAs the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfolded, I was reminded over and over again of the behaviour of abusive ex-husbands and boyfriends. At first he thinks that he can simply bully her into returning. When it turns out she has no desire to return, he shifts to vengeance.Putin insisted that Ukraine was rightfully part of Russia and didn’t have a separate existence. He expected his army to grab and subjugate with ease, even be welcomed. Now his regime seems bent on punitive destruction – of energy infrastructure, dwellings, historic sites, whole cities – and rape, torture and mass murder. This too is typical of abusers: domestic-violence homicides are often punishment for daring to leave.Everything I needed to know about authoritarianism I learned from feminism, or rather from feminism’s sharp eye when it comes to coercive control and male abusers. Sociologist and gender violence expert Evan Stark, in his book Coercive Control, defined the title term as one that subsumes domestic violence in a larger pattern of isolation, intimidation and control. (The book has been so influential that in the UK, coercive control is now recognised as a crime.) The violence matters, Stark writes, “but the primary harm abusive men inflict is political, not physical, and reflects the deprivation of rights and resources that are critical to personhood and citizenship”. This connects it directly to what dictators and totalitarian regimes do to the people under their rule – it’s only a matter of scale. And the agenda at all scales is to control not just practical matters, but fact, truth, history; who can speak and what can be said.The antithesis of this is, of course, democracy, which is likewise a principle that works at all scales. A marriage can be called democratic if both parties exercise power equally and are unconstrained and unintimidated by the other. Equally, a marriage can be a little tyranny in which one gains and the other surrenders rights and powers through the union, which was until recently how marriage was defined legally and socially. Likewise we call democratic those nations in which national decisions are (however imperfectly) made by representatives elected by, and accountable to, the public.At the very root of tyranny, no matter whether it’s personal or public life, lies the belief that the agency and agenda of others is illegitimate, that only the would-be tyrant should control the household or the nation. You can see this in authoritarian politicians’ rejection of the outcome of elections – Donald Trump, or in the Maga candidate Kari Lake’s unsuccessful run for Arizona governor, or the 8 January riot in Brasília to reject Lula’s victory.One term formerly used to describe relationships between an abusive man and a manipulated woman, gaslighting, became an indispensable word in public life when Trump became president. The gaslighting, the bullying, the fury to crush dissent, the assumption that he should be in charge of everything including facts, the rage, the insistence that every other power and voice is illegitimate: these are all hallmarks of dictators in the domestic and the political sphere. He began his presidency in the shade of a recording in which he infamously advocated grabbing women “by the pussy”; he ended it in the shadow of an insurrection that was a refusal to accept the verdict rendered by more than 80 million voters and the rules laid down by the US constitution.What’s striking about gaslighting is that it’s an attempt to push a lie or a distortion by using advantages of power, including credibility and social status, to overwhelm the gaslit person or people – or populace. It’s another kind of violence, not against bodies, but facts and truth. In stories of abusive households, the Trump administration and histories of authoritarianism, the men in charge regarded fact, truth, history and science as rival systems of power to be crushed or overwhelmed. And they are rival systems: a democracy of information means what prevails is what’s demonstrably true and substantiated, whether or not it’s convenient to whoever’s in power.That gaslighting was a staple of the Soviet Union is well known through the work of George Orwell and later historians (when I wrote about Orwell, I found a striking example cited by Adam Hochschild: that when Stalin’s demographers showed that the Soviet population was declining, he had them killed, causing the next round of demographers to offer more pleasing numbers). It’s also true in brutal households, where the first rule is that one must not say that it’s brutal, lest more violence transpire.Another way that studies of domestic abuse inform our political understanding is “Darvo”, an acronym that the domestic violence expert Jennifer Freyd coined in 1997 for how abusers respond in court or when otherwise challenged. It stands for deny, attack, reverse victim and offender. You insist that anyone mentioning what you’ve done is insulting you, is a liar, then insist that your accuser is the abuser and you are the victim, and keep shouting it until you believe it and maybe convince others. Freyd herself, with another psychologist, recently noted “a growing trend in the world of civil litigation: alleged perpetrators of interpersonal violence are filing defamation lawsuits against the individuals who have named them as abusers … For abusers, these lawsuits are an opportunity to enforce Darvo through civil litigation.”Trump is trying to make a comeback. It’s not working | Lloyd GreenRead moreDarvo happens all the time in political life. In the US, the Republicans have a pattern of claiming to defend what they’re attacking and to be the victims of what they’re perpetrating. Or as the New York Times columnist Charles M Blow put it in January, describing the agenda of the new Republican majority in the lower house of Congress: “Understanding that they can’t throw federal investigators off the trail of multiple conservatives – including, and perhaps principally, Donald Trump – they have decided to complicate those investigations by kicking up so much dust that the public has a hard time discerning fact from fiction.” The very mention of those crimes is treated as an insult and an outrage, with those complicit the offended parties, and so they shout down the evidence. Prolonged loud noise is an effective tactic.Blow mentions that the Republicans in the house are creating the select subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government, which will label the pursuit of Republican crimes, notably Trump’s around January 6, as baseless political vendettas. It’s, of course, a cover-up masquerading as a crusade. He continues: “The Republicans are using a fundamentally Trumpian tactic, accusing others of that which one is guilty of. It was Donald Trump, not the Democrats, who attempted to weaponize the federal government against his enemies.” That’s Darvo at its purest.Individuals can be bullied into silence and obedience. So can whole populations. And so can facts and truth. Democracy matters at all scales.
      Rebecca Solnit is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsDonald TrumpOpinionRepublicansVladimir PutinFeminismDomestic violenceUS politicscommentReuse this content More

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Dining across the divide US special: ‘She tried to educate me on why AR-15s aren’t really military-style weapons’

      by

      Dining across the divide US special: ‘She tried to educate me on why AR-15s aren’t really military-style weapons’ One is anti-abortion and pro-guns. The other is pro-choice and thinks ‘war tools’ shouldn’t be in the hands of the public. Could they agree to disagree?Heidi, 62, Price, UtahOccupation Retired school teacherVoting record Usually DemocratAmuse bouche Heidi is an enthusiastic archaeologist and anthropologist. “We can learn a lot about how to use the land and protect it,” she saysJanalee, 59, South Jordan, UtahOccupation Campaigner for God, guns and urban green spaceVoting record Has previously voted Democrat or Independent. Now straight-ticket RepublicanAmuse bouche Janalee’s grandfather, Jesse, had five wives and 44 children. She has 80,000 cousins, she says, “like a multilevel marketing scheme”For startersJanalee We shared an appetizer of loaded rock chips, then I had an omelet with vegetables, bacon and sausage. I was worried we were going to fight. I told Heidi I lost my best friend over Donald Trump, but she wasn’t mean to me about supporting him. It never felt confrontational. We weren’t representing corporations; we were there as grandmothers who care.Heidi I had a Reuben sandwich and fries. Janalee told me she’s a Trump person. I said that’s OK. She said something about a stolen election. I thought, “Oh good grief.” I don’t think the election was stolen. A lot of people like Trump because of his personality, but that’s the reason I don’t like him.The big beefHeidi Janalee tried to educate me on why AR-15s aren’t really military-style weapons. I don’t have a problem with handguns, shotguns and rifles, but these new fancy guns – the ARs, the Uzis that became a problem in 90s – should not be in the hands of the public. It’s a war tool and we just don’t need it. I said no to guns in the classroom, absolutely not.Janalee I prefer to talk about people violence not gun violence. A gun doesn’t do anything – it can just sit on a table fully loaded for 1,000 years. An AR-15 isn’t a military weapon. We have a constitutional right to own them. We did agree that schools should have some kind of sign, maybe like: “Warning to criminals: we protect our children”. We agreed that the news media is irresponsible in the way they report stories about guns.Heidi I agree that some news channels only focus on the group that watches them. That’s true on the left and right. They fearmonger and rile people up.Sharing plateskip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionJanalee Abortion was the subject that scared us both the most. She said women should be able to get an abortion. So I said: “What’s your understanding of the supreme court ruling?” She said: “To turn it back to the states.” I said: “Yes, it did.” Heidi asked if I could bend on abortion. She said: “Maybe we could agree on 10 weeks?” I said: “OK, maybe we can agree on 10 weeks, but the methods used to kill babies are still barbaric.”Heidi Janalee is totally against abortion. I think every women should have the right to make that decision, and there should be a federal right to abortion up to 10 weeks to ensure the safety of the woman. Most women know they’re pregnant by eight weeks. If you go beyond that, then you have to decide to keep the baby or give it up for adoption. There needs to be more support for women to make that decision privately.For aftersJanalee Heidi is a teacher so I listened and learned a lot from her about how slavery is taught in schools. We learned about it in elementary school. Heidi said high school students probably need a refresher course. I remembered that in school we created a slave cell as a classroom exercise. Someone would be the enslaver and someone the slave. It was really powerful. I said: “Why don’t we do role play about the civil war? One side fights to keep slavery, and the other to end it.” Because America ended slavery. It’s not the evil empire. But I’m sure slavery still exists, like in China.Heidi We have to learn about slavery and other bad things that happened in this country, so we don’t repeat them. Janalee said: “Well, what about other countries?” I said that can be done in a world history class. I just stressed: teach the facts. I want students to think on their own. But we shouldn’t be doing slavery role play.TakeawaysHeidi We live in a conservative state, but we’re pretty mellow about it. People have different opinions, but we’re not going to get in your face about it. We respected each other’s opinions and considered each other’s proposals. Sometimes you have to give a little to get what you want.Janalee Heidi was delightful. We agreed that we need to come together as Americans and stop being divided. We felt like some kind of power is trying to separate us and keep us fighting. We wondered, why is this happening? Additional reporting: Kitty Drake Heidi and Janalee ate at Balance Rock Eatery & Pub in Helper, Utah.Want to meet someone from across the divide? Find out how to take partTopicsLife and styleDining across the divide US specialSocial trendsUS politicsAbortionWomenSlaveryfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Anti-abortion US priest Frank Pavone defrocked by Vatican

      by

      Anti-abortion US priest Frank Pavone defrocked by VaticanPavone had been investigated for placing an aborted foetus on an altar and posting a video of it online The Vatican has defrocked the anti-abortion US priest Frank Pavone for what it said were “blasphemous communications on social media” as well as “persistent disobedience” of his bishop.A letter to US bishops from the Vatican ambassador to the US, Archbishop Christophe Pierre, said the decision against Pavone, who heads the anti-abortion group Priests for Life, had been taken and that there was no chance for an appeal.Pavone had been investigated by his then diocese of Amarillo, Texas, for having placed an aborted foetus on an altar and posting a video of it on two social media sites in 2016. The video was accompanied by a post saying that Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party would allow abortion to continue, and that Donald Trump and the Republicans wanted to protect unborn children.Pavone remains a firm supporter of Trump. His Twitter handle features him wearing a Maga hat with a background photo featuring the former US president, whom many conservatives praise for his supreme court nominees who overturned the landmark decision guaranteeing a constitutional right to abortion in the US.Pavone was defiant in a tweet on Sunday, comparing his fate to that of unborn children. “So in every profession, including the priesthood, if you defend the unborn, you will be treated like them! The only difference is that when we are ‘aborted’ we continue to speak, loud and clear.”His supporters immediately denounced the measure, including the bishop of Tyler, Texas, Joseph Strickland, who referred to Joe Biden’s support for abortion rights as “evil”. Pavone had appealed to the Vatican over restrictions placed on his ministry in 2011 by the Amarillo bishop, succeeded in getting the restrictions eased and relocated away from Texas while remaining active with Priests for Life.In his letter, Pierre cited information from the Congregation for Clergy that Pavone had been found guilty in a canonical proceeding “of blasphemous communications on social media and of persistent disobedience of the lawful instructions of his diocesan bishop”. The letter was first reported by Catholic News Agency.The statement said Pavone was given “ample opportunity to defend himself” as well as to submit to his bishop. The statement concluded that since Priests for Life is not a Catholic organisation, it would be up to the group to determine whether he could continue his role “as a layperson”.Laicisation, or being reduced to the lay state, is one of the harshest sanctions in the church’s canon law. TopicsVaticanAbortionHealthWomenTrump administrationCatholicismReligionnewsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      How Gen Z agencies wooed Democratic voters: ‘Young people are nervous to trust politicians’

      by

      How Gen Z agencies wooed Democratic voters: ‘Young people are nervous to trust politicians’ Gen Z voters have faced crisis after crisis. In the midterms, peers helped candidates connect with themDemocrats avoided a predicted “red wave”, and they have Gen Z to thank. Tuesday night’s big wins can largely be attributed to young voters, who showed up en masse and overwhelmingly voted blue.Exit voting polls found that one in eight midterm voters were under 30, and 61% of those between the ages of 18 and 34 voted for Democrats. The results pushed the Fox News pundits Jesse Watters and Laura Ingram to suggest that the legal voting age should be increased to 21.Partly responsible for high youth turnout was a new generation of political consultants who had been stumping behind the scenes for months, challenging the generalization that Gen Z is too lazy or disillusioned to bother casting ballots.First Gen Z member elected as midterms could usher in a more diverse CongressRead moreSome of these strategists are essentially hipper and more digitally savvy startup versions of their more entrenched Beltway counterparts. Like traditional consultants, Gen Z research firms are hired by campaigns to target voters. But they are specifically tasked to reach young voters where they are. And, often, that’s TikTok.“Gen Z is ageing into the electorate every single day. It can be a daunting new audience for traditional candidates to face and figure out,” said Ashley Aylward, who leads research at Hit Strategies, whose website boasts of “competency with communities of color, women, LGBTQ+, and younger audiences”.The Democratic gubernatorial contenders Mandela Barnes and Chris Jones tapped Hit Strategies to work on their campaigns. The Washington-based group has also worked with movements such as Black Lives Matter and various ACLU chapters.Aylward said Gen Z cared more about the issues than aligning themselves to a particular candidate. “Young people are a little nervous to trust politicians on delivering their promises,” she said. If you want to speak to jaded youth, Aylward recommends sticking to the script that details their unique challenges: school shootings, the climate crisis, debt and the reversal of Roe v Wade. “One thing that really helped [Democratic candidates] was having abortion on the ballot, even if those measures were in other states,” she said. “We advised our clients to really make sure that they talked about it.”But candidates also have to change the way they speak to young voters. One candidate who did this particularly well, according to Aylward, was John Fetterman, Pennsylvania’s next senator.Fetterman, who spent spent $12m on communications consultants, posted lighthearted content online throughout his campaign. He jumped on TikTok’s Teenage Dirtbag trends and invited Jersey Shore’s Snooki (AKA Nicole Polizzi) to make fun of his opponent Mehmet Oz’s Garden state roots. “There were memes and humor, and that really penetrated the social media market for young people who feel overwhelmed about the amount of political problems they’re facing,” Aylward said. “He was able to use the language of young voters while still having a plan and being serious.”Young voters hailed as key to Democratic successes in midtermsRead moreGen Z strategists aren’t just working directly with candidates but also alongside political action groups and non-profits. Antonio Arellano is the vice-president of communications for Next Gen America, an advocacy group founded in 2013. Before the midterms, the 32-year-old Texan recruited 164 influencers to talk to their followers about issues that would bring them to the polls: climate, gun control, reproductive rights. The effort reached an audience of 65 million. The influencers were paid and had to declare so, but, crucially, Arellano still gave them a lot of latitude on what they said.“We gave the influencers high-level talking points about issues and why they’re important, and then said, ‘Incorporate this into your content in whatever way you want,’” said Arellano. “If you’re a comedian, make a joke about it. If you’re an actor, do a skit. We didn’t tell them what to say. We really leaned into their voice and genuine lived experience to drive the message home.“If an influencer is angry, frustrated, upset, we want them to use their voice and express it that way.”Rage works, but Arellano suggests reminding Gen Z at every opportunity just how much their actions can shape elections. “What we saw overwhelmingly when we were out on the campaign is that young people weren’t aware of how much their contributions to 2020 delivered substantial wins,” he said. “We have the Inflation Reduction Act, investment in climate change, student debt relief and conversations about marijuana reform. Let’s own and claim these victories for Gen Z. It’s about bragging better about our accomplishments, not just after the midterms but in the lead-up to elections, too.”Aylward conducts focus groups and surveys where she’s found that reminding young people of times their bloc helped sway the results of an election  “helps remind them as an individual that they’re part of a larger group that can make change”.“It helps get through the high level of anxiety young people feel, because they’re so overwhelmed at the high amount of issues they have to tackle,” she said.Not everyone in the field is certain these strategies are effective. Ziad Ahmed, CEO of the Gen Z-staffed firm JUV Consulting, still believes Gen Z needs to focus on more traditional get-out-the-vote tactics on the ground.He says Beto O’Rourke and Val Demings were the two candidates who showed up most in his TikTok #ForYouPage. But both lost their races. “I’m not necessarily convinced that content always translates into results. A lot of content on TikTok from people is from people who are not in the states where I lived. I loved those candidates, but they were thousands of miles away. Social media is not often localized enough to impact voters.”The States of Change project predicts that Gen Z and millennials will be the largest voting bloc by age in 2024, responsible for 45% of all ballots cast. Baby Boomers will account for 25%. Aylward expects to consult with more candidates on how to target the youth. She admits that some of her advice, like getting on TikTok, seems a little bit “obvious”.“The reason why is because we don’t have people who are interested in reaching out to young voters,” she said. “Sometimes the obvious answers are the right answers; people just aren’t using them. I hope people will try to engage more in the future.”TopicsUS midterm elections 2022US politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The US made women second-class citizens. Now we must give a stinging rebuke | Moira Donegan

      by

      The US made women second-class citizens. Now we must give a stinging rebukeMoira DoneganThe supreme court edict overturning Roe v Wade said women are ‘not without electoral and political power’. That feels almost like a dare Organized feminism has been on the decline in the US since the 1980s, with the radicalism of the second wave giving way to a more diffuse, less focused feminist movement consisting of NGOs, campus activists, online discourse and HR inclusion initiatives. In a way, this is normal. Students of the movement have long spoken of feast and fallow years for feminism, eruptions of activism that are followed by long and virulent backlashes.But feminism has perhaps never received such a dramatic and immediate setback as it did this June. The supreme court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization undid the major legal achievement of the second wave era, reversing Roe v Wade and ending the constitutional right to an abortion.The result has been chaos, with so-called “trigger bans” blasting into enforcement in some states, long-dormant laws from before the era of women’s suffrage being revived in others and still other states left in limbo, as abortion flickers in and out of legality, depending on the proclivities of whichever judge is determining whichever injunction. Children and teens who are pregnant as a result of incest, rape or exploitation are now forced to travel across state lines for abortions, because they live in states where a fetus or embryo is valued more highly than their own health and potential. Women whose pregnancies are doomed are forced to wait, carrying fetuses they know will not live, or to slowly bleed out their miscarriages until either the fetus dies or they go septic.There’s an incalculable amount of cruelty now being forced on pregnant women, and there’s also an insidious kind of debasement being imposed on all women, pregnant or not. Millions of American women and trans people are now living in states where their lives are not their own, where an unplanned pregnancy can derail their educations, careers or plans, where they must live under the indignity of the knowledge that the state can compel them to give birth. That injury is not the kind of acute horror story that we see coming out of states where bans are now in effect. But it is an injury that has been done to each and every woman in America.This indignity is political. For the past five decades, during the Roe era, American women were endowed with a basic level of respect by the right to abortion. They could not be forced to carry a pregnancy to term; their bodies, at least on paper, were their own. This principle lent women a sense of worth and equality under the law, the sense that the freedoms and responsibilities of self-determination and self-respect – of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – so revered in the American tradition were theirs, too. The idea was that women were made, by Roe, into full citizens – not members of some lesser class needing monitoring or protection, but equal participants in the American project.This idea was so powerful and potent to American women’s identity that it did not matter what the reality of Roe was. It did not matter that the decision itself was built on legal reasoning about a right to privacy, instead of a more secure, more honest reasoning about equality; it did not matter that the supreme court had never recognized American women as having their own individual right to reject pregnancy. Over the 49 years of its existence, Roe became more than just the 1973 court decision and its logic. It became a symbol, a shorthand for the baseline preconditions of women’s full citizenship.Dobbs erased both the law and the symbol. Women no longer have a constitutional right to an abortion, and we no longer have the dignity that that right gave us. We are now, in many states, subject to laws that criminalize and surveil us, that assess our needs for medical care based on whether we are suffering enough to deserve it, that in many cases treat blobs of tissue, laughably far from anything human, as having rights and interests that trump our own. In one of the most intimate and life-defining aspects of our existence, we find ourselves not quite treated as adults, not allowed to make our own choices, not trusted to know our own interests and not valued in our own right. In pregnancy, women are now less citizens than they are subjects.In his majority opinion ending the constitutional right to abortion, Samuel Alito asserts that he’s not hurting women on the basis of their sex at all, that he is merely handing the issue “back to the states”, as if any state law banning or restricting abortion did not inherently make women less equal. But Alito asserted that women who did not like the Dobbs decision could simply vote to reverse its effects in their own states, and hope that a majority of other voters agreed with them that they should be full citizens with self-determination. “Women are not without electoral or political power,” Alito said, perhaps somewhat regretfully. If they didn’t like the status of second-class citizenship to which his ruling had consigned them, why didn’t they simply vote themselves out of it? Maybe we will. During the midterm elections, American women can vote en masse to restore reproductive freedom.Of course, voting will not be sufficient to restore abortion rights and women’s full citizenship in America. For that, we will need a revival of an organized and radical feminist movement, committed to local engagement, long-term relationship – and institution-building and direct action. The seeds of that movement are already beginning to germinate in the local abortion funds, clandestine mutual-aid efforts and grassroots mobilizations that have helped fill the well of need in the wake of Dobbs. And of course, voting is not easy for everyone – it has been made less easy, and less meaningful, by the actions of the same supreme court.But the midterm elections represent an immediate opportunity for American women to exercise that political power of which Alito spoke. The elections can preserve Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, which can stave off Republican ambitions to ban abortion nationwide; if the majorities are large enough, they may even be able to fulfill Joe Biden’s promise to reinstate Roe by statute. Voting for Democratic governors, attorneys general and state legislators can blunt or reverse the impact of state abortion bans and misogynist laws: a local election, for many women voters, means a choice between a district attorney who will prosecute patients and providers of abortions, and one who will not.Alito’s whole opinion drips with contempt, but the line about American women – that we are “not without electoral and political power” – felt like a dare. American women do have power, perhaps more than Samuel Alito realizes. It’s time to call his bluff.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionAbortionWomenRoe v WadeUS supreme courtLaw (US)HealthcommentReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘My gut-felt, heartbreaking decision’ – Tracey Emin on her ‘A-Z of abortion’ blanket

      by

      ‘My gut-felt, heartbreaking decision’ – Tracey Emin on her ‘A-Z of abortion’ blanketThe artist made The Last of the Gold to help women considering a termination. With the issue dominating tomorrow’s US midterms, the work seems more potent than ever “I felt pretty vulnerable. I was so broke, homeless, in debt … I had worked so hard at my education and coming from my background … I knew I wanted to be an artist and I knew that if I had a baby on my own, I felt that I had zero chance of that happening. It seemed ironic that now after all my education and fighting … that I was going to end up being a single mother … And I just thought, I can’t bring a baby into the world with all this …”These are the words of Tracey Emin reflecting on her two abortions from the early 1990s. They highlight the reality endured by so many women around the world. Emin has been making highly political work for decades. Through painting, textiles, films and more, she unveils the rawness and truths of life. Abortion is an issue she has constantly explored, yet its importance in her work has too often been dismissed.TopicsArt and designThe great women’s art bulletinTracey EminAbortionUS politicsWomenfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 88 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Nearly all abortions become illegal in Arizona

      by

      Nearly all abortions become illegal in ArizonaSeveral clinics halt procedure as dual measures, including 19th-century ban with no exception for rape or incest, take effect Almost all abortions became illegal in Arizona on Saturday, after a new law banning abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy took effect and a judge lifted an almost 50-year-old injunction that blocked a near-total ban on abortions from being enforced in the state.Judge Kellie Johnson of Pima county’s superior court released a ruling on Friday that allowed the enforcement of the decades-old ban, a day before a new law that would ban most procedures after 15 weeks was scheduled to take effect, reported the Washington Post.The law Johnson reinstated dates from 1864 and bans all abortions with no exception for rape or incest. The only exception involves a recipient whose life is in danger.The law was later updated and codified in 1901, before the 1973 US supreme court decision known as Roe v Wade that established nationwide abortion rights. Many states failed to update their laws after the provision of those federal abortion protections, which the US supreme court’s current conservative majority eliminated in June.Immediately after Johnson’s ruling, several Arizona clinics that provided abortions stopped carrying out the procedure to avoid criminal charges for their medical professionals, forcing almost all patients in need of an abortion to travel out of state.Those who have already stopped offering abortions included Planned Parenthood along with two other abortion providers, the Associated Press reported.Under Arizona’s new anti-abortion law, doctors or other healthcare professionals who terminate pregnancies could face between two and five years in prison.Abortion rights advocates and Democratic legislators condemned the new law in Arizona as well as Johnson’s ruling.The president and CEO of the Arizona branch of Planned Parenthood, Brittany Fonteno, called the ban “archaic” and said it was “sending Arizonians back nearly 150 years”, referring to when the law was first written, according to the Arizona Republic.The Arizona senator Krysten Sinema called out Johnson’s ruling on Twitter, writing in part: “A woman’s healthcare decisions should be between her, her family, and her doctor. Today’s decision removes basic rights Arizona women have relied upon for over a century and endangers their health, safety, and wellbeing.”Arizona’s other US senator, Mark Kellyposted on Twitter: “Repealing Roe v Wade set Arizona women’s rights back decades. This decision sets them back 158 years, to before Arizona was even a state. I won’t stop until we restore abortion rights so my granddaughter can have the same freedoms my grandmother did.”What’s the difference between miscarriage and abortion? For some women, it’s hard to tellRead moreJohnson’s ruling has also caused confusion statewide, with some calling for the enforcement of the harsher ban codified in 1901 and others wanting only the 15-week ban to be enforced, reported the Post.The Arizona attorney general, Mark Brnovich, who filed to have the injunction blocking the older ban lifted, has argued that the harsher of the two laws will take precedent, reports the New York Times.Meanwhile, Arizona’s governor, Doug Ducey, has stated the 15-week ban will be followed, with a representative of his office telling the Times that the governor is proud to have signed the ban. However, Ducey has not clarified whether the more restrictive law will be enforced.Johnson, for her part, has indicated that the more restrictive law should be followed versus the 15-week ban.“Most recently in 2022, the legislature enacted a 15-week gestational age limitation on abortion,” the judge wrote. “The legislature expressly included in the session law that the 15-week gestational age limitation” would not “repeal” the previous ban.Legal experts have also warned that the previously approved 15-week ban may no longer be tenable, with Loyola Marymount University family law professor Kaiponanea Matsumura telling the Post that Brnovich’s position as attorney general “opens the door to prosecutions under that law”.Arizona is now among at least 14 states which have outlawed most abortions. Several more have similar bans that are temporarily blocked amid legal wrangling over whether or not they can be enforced.TopicsArizonaAbortionUS politicsWomenHealthnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘We’re in a moral crisis’: US faith leaders urge lawmakers to combat poverty

      by

      ‘We’re in a moral crisis’: US faith leaders urge lawmakers to combat povertyCoalition gathers on Capitol Hill to deliver impassioned demand to improve life for low-income Americans A coalition of faith leaders gathered on Capitol Hill on Thursday to deliver an impassioned demand for more congressional action to combat poverty, telling lawmakers they have a moral obligation to improve life for low-income Americans.Indiana judge blocks enforcement of abortion ban passed by RepublicansRead moreThe faith leaders called on the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate to take at least three votes on major progressive issues before midterm elections in November.They emphasized the importance of putting lawmakers “on the record” about strengthening voting rights, raising wages and reinstating pandemic-era policies aimed at lifting families out of poverty.“We’re in a moral crisis,” said the Rev William J Barber II, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign (PPC). “The very soul of this democracy will implode if we don’t deal with these issues.”The press conference, organized by the group Repairers of the Breach, came one week after US census data indicated that the US child poverty rate fell by nearly half last year.Faith leaders warned that such progress made since the start of the coronavirus pandemic could be reversed if Congress does not act to extend policies like the expanded child tax credit, which provided monthly checks to millions of families. That program expired at the end of last year, when Democrats failed to pass the Build Back Better Act.“It’s important to note that these numbers are down based on an antiquated and inadequate poverty measure but also because of temporary relief from the child tax credit,” said Rev Dr Liz Theoharis, co-chair of the PPC.“The fact that that has not been extended, that it has not been expanded, that we haven’t seen the minimum wage raised, that we are still fighting for our voting rights means that millions upon millions of people’s lives are being cut short.”Dozens of faith leaders spoke, applauding the recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, Democrats’ healthcare and climate package, while lamenting that poverty-fighting policies were left out. They insisted Democrats must do more to help low-income families.“Our country is broken. People are suffering, and we must do better,” said Sheila Katz, chief executive officer of National Council of Jewish Women. “Let me be clear: it is a policy decision that millions of children are living in poverty. It is a policy decision that millions of families are living paycheck to paycheck.”With less than 50 days until the midterm elections, Democrats show few signs of progress on new anti-poverty legislation, as many incumbents turn their attention to re-election campaigns.Republicans are favored to take the House in November. If Republicans do so, any hope of extending the expanded child tax credit or restoring critical voting protections will vanish.“This is why we’re saying there has to be a vote before November,” Barber said. “We’re not afraid of losing. We’re afraid of the American people not knowing who stands where … And if you do it, you will see a massive turnout of low-income voters like you’ve never seen before.”Several progressive House members attended the press conference, reaffirming their commitment to helping those in poverty.But they acknowledged Democrats have had trouble advancing progressive policies in the evenly divided Senate, where Republicans have been able to filibuster proposals embraced by Barber and his allies.Two Democratic senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have objected to proposals to amend the filibuster to help overcome Republican obstruction.“The political will oftentimes in the Senate, I have to say quite frankly, has not been there,” said Barbara Lee, a California congresswoman. “This is a numbers game here.”Lee pledged to keep working with allies like Barber to help lift Americans out of poverty and ensure a more equitable future.“We’re going to keep fighting until justice is done,” Lee told the faith leaders. “Have hope. You give us hope. You inspire us. And united we stand, divided we fall, but we’re going to keep standing and moving forward.”TopicsPovertyUS CongressUS politicsnewsReuse this content More