US supreme court

Subterms

    More stories

    • 225 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Don’t believe those who say ending Roe v Wade will leave society largely intact | Laurence H Tribe

      by

      Don’t believe those who say ending Roe v Wade will leave society largely intactLaurence H TribeIf the high court adopts Alito’s draft opinion, it will be a legal tidal wave that sweeps away a swath of rights unlike anything America has ever seen Now that the dust has begun to settle after the initial explosive news that the US supreme court is poised to overrule the right to abortion and that Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization represents what a majority of the court initially voted to do, among the most revealing ways to understand the devastation the court appears ready to wreak on America’s long march toward “liberty and justice for all” is to examine the kinds of arguments being made in the opinion’s defense.The argument that such a ruling would simply return a divisive issue to the people had long since been widely dismantled. It certainly wouldn’t be returned to the people most profoundly affected once women were told they may have to remain pregnant despite whatever urgent reasons they might have for seeking a safe and legal abortion. It couldn’t be described as returning the abortion issue to the states, now that the possibility of a nationwide ban that the supreme court might uphold is on the horizon. And to the extent the issue is returned to the states, it would be returned to state legislatures so gerrymandered that they often represent the views of a distinct minority of the people anyway.Ending Roe v Wade is just the beginning | Thomas ZimmerRead moreThe argument that “only” abortion is involved because Alito’s draft assures readers that the supreme court’s opinion won’t be treated as precedent for anything that doesn’t involve killing an unborn human is both profoundly insulting and manifestly misleading. It insults every sentient person by minimizing the significance of commandeering the bodies and lives of half the population – and re-inserting government power into every family. And it misleads every reader of Alito’s words by suggesting that a court has the power to shape how future lawmakers and judges will build on its decisions and the reasoning underlying them. Alito’s hollow promise brings to mind similar assurances in notorious cases like Bush v Gore, is inconsistent with how the judicial process works, and wouldn’t offer any solace to anyone who might become pregnant or whose miscarriage might be treated as a crime scene for police to investigate.The foolishness of the argument that there’s nothing to see here other than the future of abortion law is underscored by some of what is said in its support. We’re told not to worry about the future of decisions like Loving v Virginia, ensuring the right to marry someone of a different race than your own because, after all, Justice Clarence Thomas is in an interracial marriage. We’re told not to worry about the right to same-sex marriage because, after all, Justice Brett Kavanaugh would never vote to overturn Obergefell v Hodges, the most iconic opinion written by his proud mentor, Anthony Kennedy – the man who left the court only after he had hand-picked Kavanaugh as his successor. We’re told not to worry about contraception (despite the way quite a few people view Plan B or IUDs as forms of abortion) because even supreme court nominees like Amy Coney Barrett, who were cagey about just how “settled” a precedent they deemed Roe v Wade, said they couldn’t imagine anybody today challenging Griswold v Connecticut. All that prognostication is cold comfort to the millions of people whose lives are profoundly affected by these shaky predictions.The most substantial argument is one that is equally fallacious but more sophisticated and in some ways more devious and dangerous: it is the argument that supreme court reversals of precedent, like the reversal of Plessy v Ferguson by Brown v Board of Education, are often to be welcomed as needed course corrections, and that this “course correction” wouldn’t be the first time the supreme court has rolled back decades-old constitutional rights. The many commentators who persisted in describing Alito’s draft in those terms – as an unprecedented retreat in the arc of ever-expanding rights – have recently been denounced as either inexcusably ignorant or deliberately duplicitous by distinguished scholars like Yale’s Akhil Amar, who says that every first-year law student learns that the very same thing happened during FDR’s second term as president, when the supreme court in 1937 in West Coast Hotel v Parrish overturned a long line of decisions that had blocked minimum wage and maximum hours and other worker-protection laws in the name of employers’ rights of “private property” and the “liberty of contract”. To be sure, Amar’s argument echoes that of the Alito draft, which cites Parrish and says, in effect, “nothing to see here, we did the same thing before” when we rolled back the liberty of contract line of decisions in 1937.Justice Alito and Professor Amar are simply wrong: profoundly so. That so-called (and quite misleadingly labeled) “switch in time that saved the nine” was nothing like the switch that Dobbs would represent. The 1937 “switch” was no sudden politically driven turnabout but was in fact the culmination of long-simmering movements in legal and economic thought – movements that were reflected both in scholarship and in judicial opinions from the earliest days of the 20th century in places like Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ dissent in Lochner v New York insisting that “the 14th amendment does not enact Mr Herbert Spencer’s social statics,” movements that represented the growing conviction that the “freedom” to work at low wages and in miserable conditions was an illusion lacking both moral and legal foundations and one that simply helped perpetuate economic inequality and the exploitation of relatively powerless, not-yet-unionized workers by wealthy and powerful corporations.Indeed, it is noteworthy that West Coast Hotel v Parrish – the 29 March 1937 decision that is usually marked as the pivot point in the great constitutional upheaval – was handed down by precisely the same set of nine justices as the nine who had rendered a decision pointing in the opposite direction less than a year earlier, on 1 June 1936, in Morehead v New York ex rel Tipaldo. One justice of the nine, a moderate Republican named Owen J Roberts, who had been rethinking his position on the underlying legal theories, had foreshadowed his shifting views by writing a landmark opinion upholding milk price regulation, Nebbia v New York, by a 5-4 vote in 1934 – less than two months after the court had upheld a state mortgage moratorium law by a 5-4 vote in Home Building & Loan Ass’n v Blaisdell, a decision clearly foreshadowing the 1937 repudiation of Lochner’s legacy by reconceiving the meaning of the constitution’s clause forbidding all state impairments of the obligation of contracts.That history is important to keep in mind if one is to understand the depth of the error made by those who seek to compare the 2022 tsunami that Dobbs would represent with the gradual shift in current represented by the 1937 movement away from liberty of contract to protection of workers and consumers. The head-spinning and altogether untimely switch in the supreme court’s abortion jurisprudence that Dobbs would represent – if the decision the court announces late this June or early July is in substance what the leaked Alito draft indicated it would be – will reflect not the steady maturation of a long-developing jurisprudential movement but the crude payoff to a partisan political program to take over the federal judiciary, one beginning with Ronald Reagan’s presidency and the rise of the Federalist Society, and advancing with supreme court appointments made by Republican presidents all of whom lost the popular vote (George W Bush, appointing Justice Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts; Donald J Trump, appointing Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett), and made in circumstances of dubious legitimacy.Professor Amar treats as laughably naïve the observation by ACLU national legal director and Georgetown law professor David Cole that, although “Parrish took away some rights of business owners … its real effect was to expand rights protections for millions of Americans subject to exploitation by powerful corporations.” Amar’s rebuttal? He says, and I’m serious here, that it’d be equally legitimate to say that “Dobbs’ real effect would be to expand rights protection for millions of innocent, unborn Americans … unborn humans, subject to extermination by society.”It’s hard to know where to begin in unraveling that alleged parallel. Suffice it to note that the status as rights-bearing persons of embryos and fetuses remains a matter of profound sectarian controversy in America and throughout the world while no such controversy attends the status as rights-bearing persons of the array of workers whose rights, at least under laws designed to limit economic exploitation if not directly under the constitution itself, were indisputably expanded by virtue of the Parrish decision and the overturning of the Lochner line of cases.Perhaps no less important is the indisputable fact that, although there remain a few commentators who continue to think that Lochner was rightly decided and Parrish was wrong, there is a nearly universal consensus, certainly covering the ideological spectrum on the current supreme court, that the “rights” protected by Lochner and the other decisions that Parrish tossed into the dustbin of history were not constitutionally sacrosanct, and that inequalities of bargaining power prevented the common-law baseline that Lochner treated as immune to legislative modification from having any special constitutional status. At the same time, the notions of personal autonomy and bodily integrity that provide the constitutional foundation for the substantive “liberty” at stake in cases like Roe and Casey are almost universally accepted as real, although deep disagreements remain about whether, to what degree, and from what point in fetal development the protection of the unborn fetus can properly trump that liberty.The upshot is that the radical change in law and society that Dobbs would represent truly has no parallel in the history of the supreme court or in the history of the United States. As David Cole writes, the “proper analogy is not Brown overruling Plessy, but a decision reviving Plessy, reversing Brown, and relegating Black people to enforced segregation after nearly 70 years of equal protection.” For, as Jamelle Bouie rightly observed, “equal standing is undermined and eroded when the state can effectively seize your person for its own ends – that is, when it can force you to give birth.” Whether or not one compares that compulsion and forced labor to literal enslavement, as I did in my 1973 article on Roe v Wade, attempts to minimize the huge retrogression this would represent must be dismissed as little more than shameful efforts to camouflage the carnage the supreme court of the United States is about to unleash both on its own legitimacy and, even more important, on the people in whose name it wields the power of judicial review.
      Laurence H Tribe is the Carl M Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard University, the author of numerous books and articles, a distinguished supreme court advocate, and holder of 11 honorary degrees
      TopicsAbortionOpinionUS politicsRoe v WadeUS supreme courtLaw (US)commentReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Arkansas Republican admits abortion trigger law would cause ‘heartbreak’ if Roe is reversed

      by

      Arkansas Republican admits abortion trigger law would cause ‘heartbreak’ if Roe is reversedGovernor Asa Hutchinson signed near-total abortion ban bill, even though he disagreed with the lack of exceptions for incest and rape The Republican governor of Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson, has admitted that an anti-abortion trigger law that he signed on to the books would lead to “heartbreaking circumstances” if Roe v Wade is overturned, in which girls as young as 11 who became pregnant through rape or incest would be forced to give birth.Hutchinson’s remarks give a revealing insight into the twisted human and political quandaries that are certain to arise should the US supreme court, as expected, destroy the constitutional right to an abortion enshrined in Roe v Wade when it issues its ruling next month. The governor told CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday that in 2019 he had signed the Arkansas trigger law, Senate Bill 6, which would ban almost all abortions the instant Roe were reversed, even though he disagreed with its lack of exceptions for incest and rape.Asked why he had put his signature on the law, despite the fact that it would prohibit all abortions other than in cases where a pregnant woman’s life were in imminent danger, he said: “I support the exceptions of rape and incest … I believe that should have been added; it did not have the support of the assembly.”Under intense questioning from the CNN host Dana Bash, the governor was asked why an “11- or 12-year-old girl who is impregnated by her father, or uncle or another family member be forced to carry that child to term?”He replied: “I agree with you. I’ve had to deal with that particular circumstance even as governor. While it’s still life in the womb, life of the unborn, the conception was in criminal circumstances – either incest or rape – and so those are two exceptions I think are very appropriate.”He added that if the supreme court does throw out the constitutional right to an abortion, then “these are going to become very real circumstances. The debate and discussion will continue, and that could very well be revisited.”But Bash pressed Hutchinson on what would happen if the absence of rape and incest exceptions can’t be revisited in the law that he had personally approved, pointing out that his term as governor comes to an end in January. “If you can’t change [the trigger law], that means girls who are still children, 11- and 12-year-olds, might be in that situation in a very real way in just a couple of months,” Bash said.“Those are heartbreaking circumstances,” Hutchinson replied. “When we passed these trigger laws we were trying … to reduce abortions, but whenever you see that real-life circumstances like that the debate is going to continue and the will of the people may or may not change.”A report by the Guardian this month found that at least 11 US states have passed laws that ban abortions without any exceptions for rape or incest. Such trigger laws are legally written in such a way that they would come into effect the second that the constitutional right to an abortion embodied in Roe were overturned.Earlier this month, a draft majority opinion of the supreme court written by Justice Samuel Alito was leaked to Politico. With the apparent backing of five of the six conservative justices on the nine-member court, it would eradicate federal abortion rights in the most aggressive terms.The court has insisted that the draft is not final and that changes to its wording or outcome are still possible. But the country on both sides of the abortion divide are bracing now for Roe to be undone and power over women’s reproductive choices to be handed to individual states like Arkansas.TopicsArkansasRoe v WadeAbortionUS politicsHealthRepublicansUS supreme courtnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Ending Roe v Wade is just the beginning | Thomas Zimmer

      by

      Ending Roe v Wade is just the beginningThomas ZimmerConservatives are animated by a vision of 1950s-style white Christian patriarchal dominance – it is the only order they will accept for America The supreme court is set to overturn Roe v Wade, this much has been clear since a draft opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito was leaked earlier this month. An attempt to safeguard abortion rights via national legislation was blocked by a united front of Republicans plus Democrat Joe Manchin in the Senate last week. As a result, we must expect abortion to be banned in roughly half the country soon.It is very hard to overstate how significant this moment is. The US is about to join the very short list of countries that have restricted existing abortion rights since the 1990s – the overall trend internationally certainly has been towards a liberalization of abortion laws. And it’s also a basically unique development in US history: while the supreme court has often upheld and codified a discriminatory status quo, it has never actively and officially abolished what had previously been recognized as a constitutionally guaranteed right.The overturning of Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey constitutes the culmination of half a century of conservative legal activism, and rejecting Roe has been a key element of conservative political identity for decades. But the impending end of Roe will still not magically appease the right. Attempts to institute a national ban are likely to follow. The people behind this anti-abortion rights crusade consider abortion murder and the epitome of everything that’s wrong and perverted about liberalism – they will tolerate the right to bodily autonomy in “blue” America for only as long as they absolutely have to.And the conservative vision for the country goes well beyond outlawing abortion. In his opinion, Justice Samuel Alito rejects the legal underpinnings of many of the post-1960s civil rights extensions that were predicated on a specific interpretation of the 14th amendment. He targets the very idea of a right to privacy, employs an extremely narrow view of “substantive due process” and claims that the 14th amendment protects only those rights not explicitly listed in the constitution that are “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition”. Alito applies an arbitrary standard – one that birth control, marriage equality and even desegregation clearly don’t meet. The fact that he adds a throwaway paragraph claiming that these rights, all based on the very understanding of the 14th amendment Alito so explicitly rejects, are not in danger, shouldn’t put anyone at ease.Alito’s opinion precisely captures the essence of the supreme court’s role through most of history, and certainly today: an institution siding with tradition over change, with existing power structures over attempts to level hierarchies, with the old over the new. That’s the spirit the “deeply rooted in history and tradition” standard seeks to enshrine as dogma: established hierarchies are to be revered and protected, anything that threatens them is illegitimate. It’s a dogma that is utterly incompatible with the idea of a fully functioning multiracial, pluralistic democracy in which the individual’s political, social and economic status is not significantly determined by race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. For conservatives, that’s exactly the point, and it is how Alito’s opinion fits into the broader assault on the post-1960s civil rights order: it’s all part of a multi-level reactionary counter-mobilization against multiracial pluralism.It is only in this context that the whole weight of what this supreme court is doing is revealed. The conservative majority on the court operates as an integral part of a reactionary political project. Alito’s opinion should be a stark reminder of what that project is all about – and why the end of Roe is very likely to be just the beginning of a large-scale reversal that seeks to turn the clock back significantly. Conservatives could not be clearer about what their goal is: their animating vision for America is 1950s-style white Christian patriarchal dominance.The evidence is in what Republicans have been pursuing on the state level. We are seeing a wave of red-state legislation rolling back basic rights and fundamental liberties, intended to eviscerate the civil rights regime that has been established since the 1960s – and banish, outlaw and censor anything that threatens white Christian male dominance. The reactionary counter-mobilization is happening on so many fronts simultaneously that it’s easy to lose sight of how things are connected. Ban abortion and contraception, criminalize LGBTQ+ people; install strict guidelines for education that are in line with a white nationalist understanding of the past and the present, censor dissent; restrict voting rights, purge election commissions. These are not disparate actions. The overriding concern behind all of them is to maintain traditional political, social, cultural and economic hierarchies. It’s a vision that serves, first and foremost, a wealthy white elite – and all those who cling to white Christian patriarchal dominance. It’s a political project that goes well beyond Congress and state legislatures: this is about restoring and entrenching traditional authority in the local community, in the public square, in the workplace, in the family.In all these areas, the assault on democracy and the civil rights order is escalating. Longstanding anti-democratic tendencies notwithstanding, the right has been radicalizing significantly in recent years. Why now? The more structural answer is that America has changed, and the conservative political project has come under enormous pressure as a result. The Republican hold on power has become tenuous, certainly on the federal level, and even in some states that had previously been solidly “red”. The right is reacting to something real: the political, cultural and most importantly demographic changes that have made the country less white, less conservative, less Christian are not just figments of the reactionary imagination.And recent political and societal events have dramatically heightened the sense of threat on the right. The first one was the election and re-election of the first Black president to the White House. Regardless of his moderately liberal politics, Obama’s “radicalism” consisted of being Black, a symbol of the imminent threat to the “natural” order of white dominance. The right’s radicalization must also be conceptualized as a white reactionary counter-mobilization specifically to the anti-racist mobilization of civil society after the murder of George Floyd. In the Black Lives Matter-led protests of 2020 that – at least temporarily – were supported by most white liberals, the right saw irrefutable proof that radically “un-American” forces of “woke”, leftist extremism were on the rise, hellbent on destroying “real” America.The American right is fully committed to this anti-democratic, anti-pluralistic vision – which they understand is a minoritarian project. Abortion bans, for instance, are not popular at all. About two-thirds of the population want to keep Roe and believe abortion should be legal at least in some cases; a clear majority supports a law legalizing abortion nationally. Meanwhile, a complete ban – a position many Republican-led states are taking – is favored by less than 10% of Americans.Conservatives are acutely aware that they don’t have numerical majorities for their project. But they don’t care about democratic legitimacy. And the Republican party has a comprehensive strategy to put this reactionary vision into practice anyway. In Washington, Republican lawmakers are mainly focused on obstructing efforts to safeguard democracy. It’s at the state level where the rightwing assault is accelerating the most.It all starts with not letting too many of the “wrong” people vote. That’s why Republican lawmakers are introducing hundreds of bills intended to make voting more difficult, and have enacted such laws almost everywhere they are in charge. All of these voter suppression laws are ostensibly race-neutral and non-partisan. But they are designed to have a disproportionate effect on voters of color, or on young people – on groups that tend to vote Democratic. If too many of the “wrong” people are still voting, Republicans want to make their electoral choices count less. Gerrymandering is one way they are trying to achieve that goal, and it has been radicalizing basically wherever the GOP is in charge.As that might still not be enough to keep the “wrong” people from winning, Republicans are trying to put themselves in a position to nullify their future wins: we are seeing election subversion efforts up and down the country – an all-out assault on state election systems. Republican-led state legislatures are re-writing the rules so that they will have more influence on future elections, election commissions are being purged, local officials are being harassed, people who are a threat to Republican rule are replaced by Trumpist loyalists. In many key states, Trumpists who aggressively subscribe to the big lie that the 2020 was stolen are currently running for high office.Republicans understand that such blatant undermining of democracy might lead to a mobilization of civil society. That’s why they are criminalizing protests, by defining them as “riots”, and by legally sanctioning physical attacks on “rioters”. The right also encourages white militants to use whatever force they please to suppress these “leftwing” protests by celebrating and glorifying those who have engaged in such violent fantasies – call it the Kyle Rittenhouse approach. Finally, Republicans are flanking all this by a broad-scale offensive against everything and everyone criticizing the legitimacy of white nationalist rule – past, present and future – by censoring and banning critical dissent inside and outside the education sector.Ideally, the supreme court would step in and put a stop to the escalating attempts to undermine democracy and roll back civil rights. But the conservative majority on the court is actually doing the opposite, providing robust cover for the reactionary counter-mobilization. This has established an enormously effective mechanism of how to turn the clock back to the pre-civil rights era: Republican-led states will abolish established protections and count on the supreme court to let them do as they please, even if it means overthrowing precedent. That puts the onus on Congress to enact nationwide legislation that would guarantee civil rights and protect democracy – legislation that has little chance to overcome Republican (plus Sinema/Manchin) obstruction. And so we keep spiraling further and further back, with the next round of state-level reactionary legislation always guaranteed to be right around the corner. The exact same dynamic has undermined voting rights across “red” states. This is how civil rights perish and democracy dies.Even now that the conservatives on the supreme court are about to end the right to abortion, I know such a statement strikes many people as extreme, or at the very least as alarmist. They won’t go that far, will they? But by portraying their opponent as a fundamentally illegitimate faction that seeks to destroy the country, conservatives have been giving themselves permission to embrace whatever radical measures they deem necessary to defeat this “un-American” enemy. We are in deeply dangerous territory precisely because so many on the right have convinced themselves they are fighting a noble war against unpatriotic, godless forces that are in league with pedophiles – and therefore see no lines they are not justified to cross. The white reactionary counter-mobilization against multiracial, pluralistic democracy won’t stop because the people behind it have some sort of epiphany that they shouldn’t go that far. It will either be stopped or succeed in entrenching white Christian patriarchal rule.
      Thomas Zimmer is a visiting professor at Georgetown University, focused on the history of democracy and its discontents in the United States, and a Guardian US contributing opinion writer
      TopicsRoe v WadeOpinionAbortionUS politicsRepublicansUS supreme courtcommentReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Nancy Pelosi: supreme court ‘dangerous to families and to freedoms’

      by

      Nancy Pelosi: supreme court ‘dangerous to families and to freedoms’House speaker rails against conservative judges appointed by Trump as justices prepare to finalize draft abortion ruling The supreme court is “dangerous to families and to freedoms in our country”, Nancy Pelosi said on Sunday, as justices prepare to finalize a draft ruling stripping almost have a century of abortion rights in the US.The House speaker railed against conservative judges appointed by former president Donald Trump in an interview Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, in which she urged Democrats to keep their “eye on the ball” to protect other freedoms she sees under threat.“Beware in terms of marriage equality, beware in terms of other aspects,” she said.“Understand this. This is not just about terminating a pregnancy. This is about contraception, family planning.“This is a place where freedom and the kitchen table, issues of America’s families, come together. What are the decisions that a family makes? What about contraception for young people? It’s beyond just a particular situation. It’s massive in terms of contraception, in vitro fertilization, a woman’s right to decide.”Speaking the day after hundreds of protest events took place nationwide, Pelosi insisted Democrats had done what they could in terms of protecting abortion rights through legislation. She pointed out the House had passed a bill before the women’s health protection act failed in the Senate on Wednesday, and she said she was still optimistic of a resolution with the support of pro-choice Republicans.But she said the 60-vote requirement in the Senate was “an obstacle to many good things”, and that Democrats needed to rally ahead of November’s midterm elections to “get rid of the damage” caused by conservative justices, including Trump’s three appointments, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.“Whoever suspected a creature like Donald Trump would become president, waving a list of judges he would appoint, therefore getting the support of the far right and appointing those anti-freedom justices to the court?” she said.“This is not about a long game. We played a long game, we won Roe v Wade a long time ago, we voted to protect it over time. Let’s not take our eye off the ball. The ball is this court, which is dangerous to families, to freedoms in our country.“The genius of our founders was to have a constitution that enabled freedom to expand. This is the first time the court has taken back a freedom that was defined by precedent and respect for privacy.”Independent Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, on NBC’s Meet the Press, said he remained hopeful that abortion rights legislation could be resurrected before the midterms.“Nobody should think this process is dead. We should bring those bills up again, and again and again,” he said.“People cannot believe you have a supreme court and Republicans who are prepared to overturn 50 years of precedent. What we should do is on this bill end the filibuster, do everything that we can to get 50 votes on the strongest possible bill to protect a woman’s right to control her own body.”An NBC News poll conducted after the leak of a draft opinion and reported by the network Sunday showed six out of 10 voters were in favor of abortion rights, and that 52% of voters were “less likely” to support a candidate who backed the supreme court’s draft ruling.But the poll found that inflation and the economy remained the biggest concerns for voters as the midterms approach.TopicsUS supreme courtNancy PelosiHouse of RepresentativesAbortionUS politicsLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Supreme court overturning Roe allows 'open season' on American freedoms, warns Schumer – video

      by

      The supreme court overturning the landmark Roe v Wade decision that protects women’s rights to abortion in the US would create an open season on Americans’ freedoms, majority leader Chuck Schumer has said.
      Schumer was speaking before a vote in which the US Senate rejected legislation enshrining abortion rights into federal law 51-49.
      On 2 May, a draft decision by the United States supreme court to overturn Roe was published by Politico, which has been verified as genuine by the justices but it ‘does not represent a decision by the court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.’

      US politics: latest updates More

    • 150 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Gillibrand calls abortion rights ‘fight of generation’ after ‘bone-chilling’ court draft opinion

      by

      Gillibrand calls abortion rights ‘fight of generation’ after ‘bone-chilling’ court draft opinionNew York Democrat urges her party to stand up to concerted efforts from Republicans seeking to abolish constitutional right Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on Sunday called the battle over abortion rights in the US the “biggest fight of a generation”.The New York Democrat urged her party to stand up to Republicans seeking to abolish the constitutional right, and called the draft US supreme court opinion leaked last week, revealing a conservative-leaning super-majority supports overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade decision, “bone-chilling”.She told CNN’s State of the Union Sunday politics talk show: “This is the biggest fight of a generation … and if America’s women and the men who love them do not fight right now, we will lose the basic right to make decisions, to have bodily autonomy and to decide what our futures look like.”Mississippi Republican governor Tate Reeves praised the draft ruling, which emerged last Monday evening and immediately sparked protests outside the supreme court in Washington DC, with more the next day and huge demonstrations planned across the US.His state has the pivotal case currently before the court that includes the option not just to severely restrict the procedure further but specifically to overturn the Roe v Wade opinion that made abortion a federal right, which was reaffirmed by the supreme court in 1992.“While this is a great victory for the pro-life movement, it is not the end. In fact, it’s just the beginning,” Reeves said of the draft opinion. Mississippi hopes to ban almost all abortion in a state that normally carries out around 3,500 such procedures a year.He talked of providing more education for women, to help them get better jobs to support children.Gillibrand called Reeves “paternalistic” and his and the court’s stance outrageous.“It’s taking away women’s right for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, our right to be a full citizen,” she said, adding that women are “half citizens under this ruling and if this is put into law, it changes the foundation of America”.Reeves said Mississippi plans to improve adoption processes and foster care systems and provide more resources for those expecting. However the state has a poor record on healthcare for low-wealth women, particularly women of color, in a nation frequently called out for high infant mortality rates and poor antenatal health.CNN show host Jake Tapper noted that Mississippi has the highest rate of child mortality in the United States, the highest rate of child poverty, no guaranteed paid maternity leave and that the legislature in Mississippi “just rejected extending postpartum Medicaid coverage”, referring to government health insurance for low-income populations. Tapper also pointed out that Mississippi’s foster care system is the subject of a long-running federal lawsuit over its failure to protect children from abuse.Reeves said: “I was elected not to try to hide our problems but to try to fix our problems.”Jake Tapper to Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves: You say you want to do more to support mothers and children, but you’ve been in state government since 2004… Based on the track record of the state of Mississippi, why should any of these girls or moms believe you?” pic.twitter.com/VLuA6gcS1F— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) May 8, 2022
      Gillibrand said she was offended by Reeves’s remarks, adding: “I thought he was quite paternalistic towards women. He doesn’t look at women as full citizens.”Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, a fellow New York Democrat, said on Sunday that a piece of legislation that has been stalled in Congress would be put to the vote by the Senate again, on Wednesday.The Women’s Health Protection Act, which enshrines the rights afforded by Roe into federal legislation, rather than relying on court decisions, has passed the House of Representatives but was struck down in the senate in March, with one Democrat joining Republicans in opposing it.Abortion deserts: America’s new geography of access to care – mappedRead moreThe final supreme court decision on Roe is due in June. Overturning Roe and instead letting each state set its own law on abortion would leave entire regions of the country without an abortion clinic within a day’s drive, reshaping the geography of abortion access in America in a single seismic shift.Minnesota Democratic senator Amy Klobuchar told ABC’s This Week host Martha Raddatz that there were Democrats in Congress and Democratic candidates who do not support abortion rights.But she said: “You have people who are personally pro-life but believe that that decision should be a woman’s personal choice, even if they might not agree with them. We have people in our party who vote to uphold Roe v Wade who might have different personal opinions, that’s a really important distinction.”“In the wake of the leaked draft, activists on both sides of the debate immediately began mobilizing for a drastic shift in America’s abortion laws.” @MarthaRaddatz sits down with the leaders of two advocacy groups: https://t.co/ECy1oebCRT pic.twitter.com/fU8IVPgdlf— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) May 8, 2022
      She accused the supreme court, which achieved a right-leaning controlling majority after Donald Trump nominated three justices – now having six conservatives and only three liberal-leaning judges on the nine-member bench, of wanting to take America back into ancient history.The draft opinion was written by conservative justice Samuel Alito.“The court is looking at reversing 50 years of women’s rights, and the fall will be swift. Over 20 states have laws [to ban] in place already. Who should make this decision, should it be a woman and her doctor, or a politician? Should it be [conservative Republican Senator] Ted Cruz…or a woman and her family? Justice Alito is literally not just taking us back to the 1950s, he’s taking us back to the 1850s,” Klobuchar said.Pro-abortion rights groups NARAL pro-choice America, Planned Parenthood and Emily’s List plan between the three of them to put more than $150m into campaigns to support abortion rights advocates as political candidates in elections this year.Mini Timmaraju, president of NARAL, told ABC: “As a movement, this has been probably the most devastating year since pre-1973.”TopicsDemocratsKirsten GillibrandUS politicsAbortionUS supreme courtMississippiRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Women know how choice and freedom feel – and we will never give that up | V

      by

      Women know how choice and freedom feel – and we will never give that upV (formerly Eve Ensler)The supreme court draft ruling on abortion shows how desperate some are to control our bodies. But we are never going back To All Those Who Dare Rob Us of Our Bodily Choice, I ask you:What is it about our bodies that makes you so afraid, so insecure, so cruel and punishing?Is it their singular autonomy or mere existence?Is it their capacity for immense and unending pleasure – orgasms that can multiply orgasms inside orgasms? Is it our skin? Is it our desire?Is it our openness that rattles you and reminds you of where you are closed?Is it the pure strength of our bodies that allows us to bleed and birth and bend and carry and continue on in spite of all the ways you have reduced us and objectified us, humiliated us and disrespected us and tried to shape us into baby-making machines? Our strength that is inherent and doesn’t need to prove itself or show off or rely on weapons or violence to control and terrorise? Doesn’t need to abolish laws, or lie to become supreme court judges or president or rig the decks when they get there.Do you know this power? Can you imagine it? A power that comes from respecting life, caring for others before oneself, holding communities together?Do you think we are naive enough to believe that you are motivated by your care for life when you have shown so little respect for it and us? Instead you spend your days unravelling and resisting all that makes life possible for those mothers and people with babies you claim to protect – fighting against free universal healthcare, parental paid leave and child allowance. Where’s your outrage that the US has the highest maternal mortality rates in the developed world?Do you think we have forgotten that some of those (Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas) who are making the most crucial decisions about millions of our bodies and the one (Donald Trump) who chose three of the people on the court currently making these decisions, are men who have been accused of violating other women’s bodies, harassing women’s bodies, humiliating and proudly bragging about grabbing the genitals of women’s bodies?What is it about our bodies that make you think you have the right to invade them, determine them, control and legislate them, violate and force them to do anything against their will?Perhaps you mistake our generosity for weakness, our patience for passivity, our vulnerability for fragility.This might be why you are unable to see that there is no chance in hell that we are ever going back. This is not a law yet and we will never accept this ruling.Perhaps because you have never known what it is like to have your body controlled by the vindictive anonymous state, to be raped and forced to keep your baby, to be so desperate that you destroy your uterus with a hanger or bleed to death in a back alley, you do not understand that once you have tasted the sweetness of freedom, of choice, once you have come to know your body as your own, once you have freed yourself and felt the expanse of your body, the aliveness in every pore that rises from autonomy, there is no way you will ever give that up. Ever.And because you do not know this, you do not know how dangerous we are, how organised we are, how willing we are to go any lengths to preserve our freedom.It’s been 50 years. We have summoned our due. We actually have bank accounts now. We have credit cards and we can buy a house. We can serve on juries. We hold offices and are lawyers. We write for newspapers and we run them. We host TV shows and direct movies. We run hospitals and universities and non-profits and write plays about vaginas and books about fascists and fascism. We can’t be tossed aside.This is our world now. And these are our bodies. We know what you are up to – this is just the beginning of your diabolical plan to rob us of contraception and marriage equality and civil rights and on and on. This is all part of your desperation to prevent the future that is on the verge of being born – a future where we know our past and begin to reckon with it, a future where we teach critical race theory and the truth about white supremacy and sexism and transphobia.A future where we care for our Earth and devote our lives to protecting air and water and forests and animals and all living things, a future where people have autonomy over their bodies and wombs and gender and marry who they want to, and don’t get married if they don’t want to, and have babies if they want to, and don’t have babies if they don’t want to. Despite all your lies, strategies and devious ways you are simply never going to stop us.You have unleashed our fury, our solidarity, our unity.We know that our future and everything we have fought for is at stake. I am willing to lay my body down for this freedom, for every freedom and I know there are multitudes who will do the same.
      V (formerly Eve Ensler) is a playwright and activist and the founder of V-Day, a global movement to end violence against women and girls
      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a letter of up to 300 words to be considered for publication, email it to us at guardian.letters@theguardian.comTopicsRoe v WadeOpinionWomenAbortionUS politicsUS supreme courtLaw (US)commentReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Ending Roe v Wade could badly backfire on Republicans during elections this year | Lloyd Green

      by

      Ending Roe v Wade could badly backfire on Republicans during elections this yearLloyd GreenThe Democrats now have a fighting chance to maintain control of the Senate. Their odds of retaining and flipping seats have improved overnight On Monday night, Politico reported that a majority of the US supreme court is poised to overturn Roe v Wade, eviscerate a half-century of precedent, and leave the issue of abortion to the states. Five of the court’s nine justices are prepared to give the Republican base exactly what it demanded. The remaining question for the Republican party is whether answered prayers are the most dangerous.Through the Trumpian looking glass, forcing women to die from illegal abortions is ‘pro-life’ | Marina HydeRead moreIf the leaked draft of the majority opinion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization is close to the final cut, the court stands to energize otherwise dejected Democrats and put Republican members of Congress in Democratic-leaning states at risk. Expect the anticipated Republican House majority in the midterms to be smaller than currently projected.Indeed, the Democrats also now have a real shot to maintain their control of the Senate. Overnight, their odds of retaining seats in Arizona, Nevada, Georgia and New Hampshire, while flipping Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, improved.Beyond federal offices, fights will now be waged this fall over governorships and legislatures in Michigan and Pennsylvania, where Joe Biden narrowly won in 2020, but where the incumbent governor is a Democrat, and the legislature is in the hands of the Republican party. In a post-Dobbs world, look to the states to emerge as roiling battlegrounds.Make no mistake, the draft opinion is sweeping. “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Samuel Alito writes for himself and four of his colleagues. “It is time to heed the constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” Along the way, the ruling also offers implicit criticism of the court’s prior decisions on personal autonomy.Prior precedents on contraception, interracial marriage, consensual sex and gay marriage are now at risk. At a February debate among Michigan’s prospective Republican candidates for attorney general, all three men, including Matthew DePerno, Donald Trump’s choice, criticized Griswold v Connecticut. In that case, the US supreme court struck down a state law that barred the sale of contraceptives to married couples.DePerno, an advocate of election conspiracy theories, framed his understanding of this this way: “The supreme court … has to decide, mark my words, that the privacy issue currently is unworkable. It’s going to be a states’ rights issue on all these things, as it should be.” DePerno is also the state Republican party’s officially preferred candidate.Elissa Slotkin, a moderate Michigan Democrat, tweeted on Monday night: “If tonight’s news is true, Michigan’s 1931 state law banning abortion would snap back into effect, making any abortion illegal in our state – even if the mom will die, or if she was raped by a family member. No exceptions.”A former member of the US intelligence community and the wife of a retired army helicopter pilot, Slotkin added: “My poor mother is turning over in her grave. The House has already voted to codify Roe – let all Senators be on record on this one in an up or down vote.”In the same neo-Confederate spirit as Michigan’s DePerno, the Indiana senator Mike Braun offered up his benighted take on interracial marriage. Braun argued that like abortion, interracial marriage should be left to the states to decide – not the federal judiciary. Said differently, he was arguing that the supreme court got it wrong in Loving v Virginia.“When you want that diversity to shine within our federal system, there are going to be rules and proceedings, they’re going to be out of sync with maybe what other states would do,” Braun announced.“It’s the beauty of the system, and that’s where the differences among points of view in our 50 states ought to express themselves.”After the ensuing uproar, Braun walked his words back. But in light of Politico’s reporting, the Democrats now have names, faces and an issue. Think ready-made campaign ad.To be sure, clearer Republican heads viewed the wholesale gutting of Roe as a threat to the Republican party’s elected officials. In the summer of 2021, they attempted to guide the court’s hand; they failed.Last July, 228 Republican members of Congress, 44 senators and 184 House members, filed an amicus brief in support of the Mississippi abortion law in question. Nowhere did the Republican submission refer to contraception, interracial marriage, or individual autonomy. Likewise, the word “privacy” only appeared as a part of a title of a footnoted law review article. Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert couched their arguments in pastels. Words like “previability” filled the page, as did polling data.Justices Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, however, were having none of that. For them, it is time to return to what they consider the original constitution.More than seven in 10 Americans oppose overturning Roe even as the public is split over where to draw a line. In Texas, 77% support legal abortions in case of rape and incest. Not all restrictions are the same. America’s cold civil war just got really hot.
      Lloyd Green is an attorney in New York. He was opposition research counsel to George HW Bush’s 1988 campaign and served in the Department of Justice from 1990 to 1992
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionAbortionHealthUS supreme courtLaw (US)Roe v WadecommentReuse this content More