More stories

  • in

    Conservative attacks on abortion and trans healthcare come from the same place | Moira Donegan

    On Monday, Jim Pillen, the Republican governor of Nebraska, signed a law that bans abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy and restricts gender-affirming care for anyone under 19. The ban on trans medical care takes effect in October and the abortion ban goes into effect immediately. And so Nebraska has become the latest state to determine through law what might have once been determined by the more pliable tools of custom or imagination: the way that the sexed body a person is born with shapes the kind of life they can live.Be it through forced pregnancy or prohibited transition, the state of Nebraska now claims the right to determine what its citizens will do with their sexed bodies – what those bodies will look like, how they will function and what they will mean. It is a part of the right’s ongoing project to roll back the victories of the feminist and gay rights movements, to re-establish the dominance of men in public life, to narrow possibilities for difference and expression and to inscribe in law a firm definition and hierarchy of gender: that people are either men or women and that men are better.They’re not alone. Abortion bans have been proliferating wildly in the year since the US supreme court eliminated the right in their Dobbs decision, declaring that any state can compel women to remain pregnant, and creating different, lesser entitlements to bodily freedom and self-determination based on sex. But as the abortion bans have spread like an infection across the American south, midwest, and mountain west, they have been accompanied by a related political disease: laws seeking to prohibit minors and sometimes adults, from accessing medical treatments that facilitate gender transitions.Twenty-five states have enacted pre-viability abortion bans since Roe was overturned last summer, although in some states, like Iowa and Montana, abortion has remained legal pending judicial stays. Meanwhile, 20 states now ban gender-affirming care for minors, with a rush of bills being introduced over the past months. In addition to Nebraska, a slew of states have passed transition-care bans in 2023, including Utah, Mississippi, South Dakota, Iowa, Tennessee and Florida. Texas is soon to join them.It is not a coincidence that the states which have the most punitive and draconian bans on abortion have also adopted the most aggressive targeting of transgender people and medical care. The bills are part of the same project by conservatives, who have been emboldened in their campaign of gender revanchism in the wake of Dobbs. Both abortion bans and transition care bans further the same goal: to transform the social category of gender into an enforceable legal status, linked to the sexed body at birth and to prescribe a narrow and claustrophobic view of what that gender status must mean.It is no accident that the states that would forbid a teenager from transitioning are the same that would compel that teenager to give birth; it is no accident that the states with the greatest control over what women do with their reproductive organs are the ones where women’s restrooms have become sites of surveillance and control, with patrons, cis and trans alike, subjected to invasive and degrading inquisitions as to whether they are conforming sufficiently to the demands of femininity. That Nebraska combined these two projects into one bill, then, is less inventive than it is a dropping of pretense: the anti-feminist movement is anti-trans, and the anti-trans panic is at its core anti-feminist.The attacks on gender freedom from the right are not only united in their ideology, but increasingly in their rhetoric. Abortion and trans rights activists have long insisted that both abortion and transition are healthcare. It’s an apt and worthy argument, considering that both involve the interventions of medical professionals, both facilitate the wellbeing and happiness of those who receive them, and both result in horrific health complications when denied, from the high rates of mental distress and horrific, needless pregnancy complications that have been ushered in by Dobbs, to the dramatic rates of suicidal ideation and mental health problems in trans people who are denied the ability to transition. But increasingly, the right has begun to attack the notion of abortion and trans rights as healthcare, arguing that neither pregnancy nor non-transition constitute “illness”.At a recent oral argument over the fate of the abortion drug mifepristone, Judge James Ho, a Trump appointee on the fifth circuit court of appeals whose rabidly conservative opinions and trollish affect suggest supreme court ambitions, argued that the drug should be removed from the market in part because “pregnancy is not a serious illness”. “When we celebrate Mother’s Day,” Ho asked, his voice dripping with contempt, “are we celebrating a serious illness?” In that moment, Ho sounded uncannily like anti-trans activists seeking to ban care for young people, who argue, ad nauseam, that “puberty is not a disorder”.The rhetoric suggests a narrow and myopic view of “health”, the notion that bodies have destinies and should be made to fulfill them regardless of the desires of the people involved. A healthy body, we’re told, is one that conforms to socially imposed gender hierarchies, regardless of how miserable that conformity and imposition makes the people who inhabit those bodies.But while these practices of abortion and transition care constitute medicine and while their outcomes encourage health, it would be a mistake to fight the political battle for these services only on the ground of what counts as “healthcare”. Because the truth is that conservatives do not care about health – they don’t care about the integrity of the medical profession, or about patient outcomes, or about bodies, not really. They care about people, and about making sure that those people stay in line. In the grand tradition of feminists and queers alike, we should refuse to.
    Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

  • in

    Quirky, kooky, a joke … but why is Marianne Williamson so popular with the young?

    Marianne Williamson is taking over TikTokMarianne Williamson, the self-help author who is making her second bid for the presidency, has a history of saying things that can be characterized as either “deranged” or “quirky” depending on how charitable you’re feeling. Some of her greatest hits include: Tweeting that the “power of the mind” might have changed the course of Hurricane Dorian and stopped it from hitting the US in 2019. (She later deleted the tweet.) Publishing a book in 1992 called A Return to Love where she said that “cancer and Aids and other physical illnesses are physical manifestations of a psychic scream … sickness is an illusion and does not actually exist.” (She’s since said that she’s pro-medicine and pro-science.) Saying that she would “harness love” to defeat Donald Trump during her closing statement at the Democratic presidential debate in 2019. We all know how that one worked out.Unsurprisingly, Williamson’s presidential campaign isn’t being taken remotely seriously by the media or the White House. The Biden administration has laughed off any idea that she’s a proper contender – when the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, was asked about Williamson’s political aspirations in March she joked about not having “a crystal ball”.It’s certainly easy to make fun of Williamson but, while she’s said a lot of questionable things, it’s wrong to dismiss the author as a joke. When she’s not talking about the “power of the mind” Williamson has a lot to say about institutional inequality, the need for universal healthcare, the problems with capitalism, the importance of cancelling student debt, and the complacency of the Democratic establishment. And guess what? An awful lot of young people are listening. Williamson’s very left-leaning videos draw millions of views on TikTok and her speeches often go viral.“If engagement on TikTok is any indication, a Democratic presidential primary held today among people under 50 would result in a landslide for the bestselling author now making her second bid for the nomination,” the Intercept recently noted. And it’s not just TikTok where Williamson is popular: the Intercept further notes that “a recent poll found Williamson hovering above 20% with voters under 30”. Which is a lot better than she was doing in 2020 and is pretty impressive when you consider what a political outsider she is.Then again, of course, it’s the very fact that Williamson is a political outsider that makes her so popular among young people. Williamson has an energy and urgency that is severely lacking in the Democratic party. And she’s not shy about calling the Democrats out for their complacency.Even without a crystal ball, I think we all know that Williamson has zero chance of being in the White House – and I’m certainly not advocating that she should be. But wouldn’t it be nice if the White House adopted some of her energy and a few of her ideas about structural reform? Williamson’s popularity on TikTok isn’t some insignificant online phenomenon – it’s a sign of how disillusioned young people feel with the current system. Establishment Democrats have long preached incrementalism as the only way to move forwards but, when it comes to things like women’s rights, we only seem to be moving backwards. Marianne Williamson isn’t the answer to America’s woes but her TikTok popularity should have the Democrats asking a lot of questions.Half of women have dense breast tissue that doesn’t show up on mammograms“Dense breast tissue is simply tissue that is thicker and glandular, hasn’t turned into fat over time, and it puts women at an automatic four times higher risk of cancer,” Elizabeth L Silver writes. If you have dense breast tissue then a mammogram alone will have a hard time detecting cancer – you need additional screenings such as an ultrasound or MRI. “Yet the decision to supplement a mammogram with this additional screening is, shockingly, one of the largest controversies in women’s health,” Silver explains. “[T]he question has essentially been left to the patient, who knows little about it.”Trump lawyer asks E Jean Carroll why she didn’t scream for help during assault“Women who come forward, one of the reasons they don’t come forward is because they’re always asked, ‘why didn’t you scream?’” Carroll retorted. “He raped me whether I screamed or not.” As Amanda Marcotte writes, Trump’s entire defense in the E Jean Carroll rape trial seems to rest on shameless misogyny.Ghosted is not romantic – it’s a walking red flagChris Evans and Ana de Armas star in a new action-romance called Ghosted with some dire reviews and misogynistic tropes. “What’s sold as a love story, based on following your heart, presents us instead an entitled man who won’t take no for an answer,” Jess Bacon writes in the Guardian. “Sadly, this is nothing new.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionNude landlord no excuse for holding back rent, rules German courtA Frankfurt court found “the usability of the rented property was not impaired by the plaintiff sunning himself naked in the courtyard”.At the CEO level, women finally outnumber men named JohnHowever, there are 60 James/Robert/John CEOs compared with 41 women, according to Bloomberg.Thai conservatives vow to legalise sex toys in bid to shake up electionIt is currently illegal to sell sex toys in Thailand although that obviously doesn’t stop it happening. Now the country’s Democratic party wants to change that, arguing that they’re missing out on lots of taxes. They also came up with some social benefits for legalization: “Sex toys are useful because they could lead to a decrease in prostitution as well as divorce due to a mismatch of sexual libido, and sex-related crimes.” Not sure that vibrators are going to stop sex-related crime, but it’s certainly a creative argument.Voluptuous mermaid statue causes outrage in southern Italy“It looks like a mermaid with two silicone breasts and, above all, a huge arse never seen before on a mermaid,” one critic complained. “At least not any I know.”The week in parrotarchyVideo phone calls are for the birds. Or, to be more specific: the parrots. A new study has found that parrots that are allowed to make video calls to other birds seem to become less lonely. Now we just need to get them on Twitter. More

  • in

    Clinging to power does not make Dianne Feinstein a feminist hero | Arwa Mahdawi

    Feinstein’s feminist farceHere’s a controversial opinion: when you’re no longer capable of doing your extremely important job you should gracefully step away from your extremely important job. I know that may not sound controversial on the surface, but it appears to be quite the topic of debate in Washington DC. It certainly seems to be a contentious issue for Nancy Pelosi, the former speaker, who recently hit back at calls for the 89-year-old Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein to resign over her health.Feinstein is the oldest sitting US senator (narrowly beating out spring chicken Chuck Grassley who is a few months younger) and there have been concerns about her cognitive health for a while now. Her physical health has also become an issue: Feinstein has been absent from the Senate since February, when she was diagnosed with shingles. She’s missed 60 of the Senate’s 82 votes so far this session. Her absence from the judiciary committee, on which the Democrats hold a one-seat majority, has stopped the Democrats from advancing federal judges for confirmation. Which is a big deal because these judges get lifetime appointments.On Wednesday, multiple Democrats, led by Representative Ro Khanna, called for Feinstein to resign, saying she could no longer fulfil her duties. Not everyone agrees. “I don’t know what political agendas are at work that are going after Senator Feinstein in that way,” Pelosi told reporters on Wednesday. “I’ve never seen them go after a man who was sick in the Senate in that way.”Norma Torres, another California Democrat, also argued that calls for Feinstein to quit were sexist. “When women age or get sick, the men are quick to push them aside,” she tweeted. “When men age or get sick, they get a promotion.”Do female politicians face unfair double standards and increased scrutiny? Of course they do! But cynically weaponizing the very real sexism that women in politics face to defend Feinstein’s stubborn decision to cling to power is appalling. Feminism isn’t about individual women climbing up the corporate ladder, it’s about working for equal rights. Feinstein represents 40 million Americans and her decisions affect millions more: there is nothing remotely feminist about Feinstein putting her ego above the greater good, particularly at such a critical moment for women’s rights in the US. It’s just selfish.I can understand why Feinstein doesn’t want to resign, don’t get me wrong. Being in government seems to have been very lucrative for her. She’s worth at least $58m. How did she get so rich in public service? Well, Feinstein’s husband was an investment banker and the pair have been incredibly lucky in the stock market. It’s almost like they’ve got access to inside information. Feinstein, for example, sold off a huge amount of shares just before the stock market collapsed at the beginning of the pandemic. The pair faced scrutiny over their stock trades but have denied doing anything wrong. Pelosi and her husband have faced similar scrutiny.Feinstein, to be fair, has now responded to criticism about her long absence from work. On Wednesday, following calls for her resignation Feinstein said that she’d asked the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, to allow another Democratic senator to take her place on the judiciary committee until she’s fit to return to work. That’s a good solution for now but Feinstein, who is due to step down in 2025, should think about resigning altogether: she can certainly afford retirement. Real leadership, as Jacinda Ardern has demonstrated, isn’t about staying in power as long as possible, but knowing when it’s time to step aside. It’s way past time for Feinstein to cede some space and make way for fresh leadership.Women are earning more money, but still doing the bulk of the houseworkMen still tend to be the primary breadwinner in heterosexual marriages, but the number of women who earn as much as or significantly more than their husband has roughly tripled over the past 50 years. In 29% of US marriages, spouses earn the same amount. And in 16% of heterosexual marriages women earn more. But despite growing equality in the workplace, women are still doing more of the housework and caregiving while men spend more time relaxing, a new report by Pew Research Center has found.Rupert Murdoch reportedly divorced Jerry Hall by emailHall, the billionaire’s fourth wife, was waiting to meet her husband at their home when she received a curt message saying: “we have certainly had some good times, but I have much to do.”Spanish woman emerges after spending 500 days living alone in caveShe has now broken the world record for the longest time a person has spent alone in a cave. Quite the achievement.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThere’s still a lot we don’t know about menstruationA review of scientific papers has found there are about 400 studies on menstrual effluent compared with more than 15,000 for semen or sperm. The New Yorker looks at two fascinating new books around menstruation and how “the stigma surrounding menstruation may have had severe consequences for research into reproductive health.”83% of US journalists who cover sport are menPew Research has some interesting (and depressing) statistics on the way in which US journalists’ beats vary according to demographics. Men are more likely to cover sports (83%), political news (60%) and news about science and technology (58%). Women are more likely to cover health, education and families. Meanwhile 76% of all reporting journalists surveyed said that they are white, while 8% are Hispanic, 6% are Black and 3% are Asian. Just 5% of US journalists who cover politics are Black.The week in pawtriarchyShe’s reportedly a “bit of a diva” and “small like a ball”: meet Pearl, the world’s shortest chihuahua. She’s just a bit bigger than a dollar bill and has earned a spot in the Guinness World Records after a vet used a special dog-measuring wicket to verify her size. What a gem.
    This article was amended on 15 April 2023. An earlier version wrote about Feinstein’s husband in the present tense. He died in 2022. More

  • in

    ‘We will not cave’: governors stockpile abortion drugs as access is threatened

    Several Democratic governors have moved swiftly to protect access to medication abortion in their states after a ruling by a Texas judge late last week threatened access to the widely used abortion drug mifepristone.In an announcement on Monday, Governor Maura Healey of Massachusetts said her state had ordered about 15,000 doses of mifepristone, the first of two drugs in a medication abortion regimen that has been approved for use up to the 10th week of pregnancy.Healey also issued an executive order that she said would help protect access to medication abortions and shield providers who perform them.In California, Governor Gavin Newsom, also a Democrat, said his state had secured an emergency stockpile of up to 2m pills of misoprostol, the second drug in the regimen that can be used safely on its own, though is slightly less effective as a single medication. That drug, which is used to treat other medical conditions, is also being targeted by anti-abortion groups seeking to remove it from the market.“In response to this extremist ban on a medication abortion drug, our state has secured a stockpile of an alternative medication abortion drug to ensure that Californians continue to have access to safe reproductive health treatments,” Newsom said in a statement. “We will not cave to extremists who are trying to outlaw these critical abortion services. Medication abortion remains legal in California.”Their actions come after US district judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of Donald Trump known for his anti-abortion views, issued a ruling late on Friday that invalidated the 23-year-old approval of mifepristone by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). On the same night, a federal judge in Washington state issued a contradictory ruling that ordered the FDA to maintain the drug’s approval in at least 17 states where Democrats had sued.On Monday, the US justice department appealed the Texas ruling, asking a federal appeals court to place a hold on the “extraordinary and unprecedented order”. Underscoring the legal uncertainty surrounding the dueling orders, the administration separately asked the federal court in Washington state for clarity.With access to the drug imperiled, and Democrats stymied in Washington by the Republican majority in the House of Representatives, a handful of liberal state governors said they were taking matters into their own hands.“A judge has made a politically motivated decision to override doctors, patients and medical experts and block access to critical medications,” Healey said on Monday, unveiling the plan at a press conference outside the Massachusetts statehouse in Boston. “Today, we collectively are saying loud and clear: not on our watch.”In anticipation of the Texas ruling, the Democratic governor of Washington, Jay Inslee, announced last week that his state would stockpile a three-year supply of mifepristone in the event the drug became more difficult to access. Days later, Kacsmaryk issued his ruling.Several other Democratic governors and state attorneys general have condemned the ruling while seeking to make clear that, at least for now, the drug remains available. Some went further, promising to keep medication abortion legal and accessible in their states, although without providing further details.More than half of abortions in the US rely on medication abortion, and most of those involve the two-drug protocol. If the appeals court doesn’t intervene, the Texas ruling would take effect on Friday with far-reaching implications for access.The FDA approved mifepristone to terminate pregnancy in 2000, when used with misoprostol. Despite claims made in the Texas lawsuit, there is decades’ worth of scientific research concluding that mifepristone is safe.States have become the epicenter of the fight over abortion rights since the supreme court’s landmark decision last June to overturn Roe v Wade. Since then, more than a dozen Republican-led states have enacted abortion bans or severely restricted access to the procedure.​Anti-abortion groups have long targeted medication abortion, the most common method for terminating a pregnancy in the US. But it became the focus of efforts after the supreme court’s landmark decision last June to overturn Roe v Wade, allowing states to regulate abortion.Although more than a dozen Republican-led states moved quickly to ban or severely restrict abortions​, with scores of new limits pending before state legislatures this session, Democratic-led states have pushed in the opposite direction. Yet if the Texas ruling stands, experts say it would upend access nationwide, limiting the drug even in states where abortion is legal.Abortion opponents in blue states denounced the efforts by Democratic governors to preserve access to medication abortion.“It is appalling that Gavin Newsom is so obsessed with ending the lives of children in the womb that he is attempting to stockpile dangerous and potentially illegal drugs,” California Family Council president Jonathan Keller wrote on Twitter. “California again proves the only ‘choice’ they care about is abortion.”Newsom said the judge’s ruling “ignores facts, science and the law” in a way that puts “the health of millions of women and girls at risk”.“Abortion is still legal and accessible here in California and we won’t stand by as fundamental freedoms are stripped away,” he said.Other supporters of abortion rights similarly denounced the conservative judge’s decision on abortion as “unprincipled” and out of step with the American public. In states where the issue has been put on the ballot, from right-leaning Kansas to battleground Michigan and liberal Vermont, voters have opted to preserve or expand access.“I’ve fought like hell to protect abortion access and I’m not backing down,” Michigan’s governor, Gretchen Whitmer, said on Friday. “I will keep taking steps to expand access to reproductive healthcare and fight against anyone threatening our rights.”Whitmer recently signed legislation repealing the state’s nearly century-old abortion ban, after Michigan voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative in November to enshrine abortion protections into the state constitution.Democrats and reproductive rights advocates believe the issue will continue to motivate voters in the coming election cycles after lifting them to victories across the country in the 2022 midterms. Last week’s election of a liberal judge to serve on the Wisconsin supreme court brought fresh evidence of the enduring potency of abortion politics.“This decision will only enrage Americans further and move them to more action,” Mini Timmaraju, president of the Naral Pro-Choice America advocacy group, said on a call with reporters on Monday. “Our eyes are on 2023 and 2024 – 2022 was just the beginning.” More

  • in

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

    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

  • in

    Roe v Wade: US women win abortion rights – archive, January 1973

    Roe v Wade: US women win abortion rights – archive, 197323 January 1973: The supreme court rules that a woman has a near-absolute right to an abortion, but only in the first three months of her pregnancy Washington, 22 JanuaryIn a long awaited decision the United States supreme court ruled today that a woman has a near-absolute right to an abortion, but only in the first three months of her pregnancy. During the later stages the State has an increasing power of intervention, the court ruled by a seven to two majority; and during the last trimester can refuse to allow the operation.The decision, which came today as part of a lengthy ruling which declared the Texas and Georgia anti-abortion laws unconstitutional, has been generally welcomed by liberal groups here. Mrs Lee Giddings, of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws, said today she was “absolutely thrilled.”US supreme court overturns abortion rights, upending Roe v WadeRead moreBut one of the two dissenting supreme court justices, the Nixon appointee Justice Byron White (the other dissenting justice was also a Nixon appointee, Mr William Rehnquist), later criticised the verdict as “improvident, extravagant, and an exercise of raw judicial power.”In his ruling, Justice Harry Blackmun said that during the first three months of a pregnancy “the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the woman’s doctor.” After that, the State “In promoting its interest in the mother’s health” may regulate the abortion procedure by among other things, making laws, regulating the doctor’s terms of reference.Only in the third three-month period, when a foetus could presumably live, if there was a premature birth, can the State “regulate or even forbid abortion.” The justices ruled the State could intervene thus “where it was necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of life or the health of the mother.”The one dissenting voice raised today at the supreme court ruling came from the Women’s National Abortion Action Committee, which condemned the “artificial and arbitrary” time limits imposed by judges. A spokesperson, as they say here, says that “a woman should always have an absolute right to determine what happens to her own body.” Harsh reaction is also expected, of course, from the Roman Catholic church and other anti-abortion lobby groups.This is an edited extract. Read the article in full.TopicsAbortionFrom the Guardian archiveRoe v WadeUS supreme courtReproductive rightsLaw (US)WomenUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    She led two historic victories for abortion rights – by persuading Republicans

    InterviewShe led two historic victories for abortion rights – by persuading RepublicansPoppy NoorRachel Sweet on the ‘uphill battle’ to protect reproductive rights in red states Kansas and Kentucky If there were two votes that sent shockwaves through the US this year, they were in Kansas and Kentucky, and they were both about abortion. The former, the first direct vote on abortion to be brought to the public since the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, by anti-abortion Republicans in a deeply red state, was defeated by considerably more than half the electorate (59% of the vote).The latter, in Kentucky, seemed an even harder bet: Kentucky is one of the 16 US states that, before the November vote, seemed to have more support for banning abortion than protecting it, according to analysis by the New York Times from May. It also already had an outright ban in place. But the ballot initiative, also brought by anti-abortion campaigners, failed to pass, with 52% of voters rejecting an amendment to say there was no explicit protection for abortion rights in the state constitution. More bans and creative clinics: the future of abortion access in a post-Roe USRead moreOne woman was at the center of these two campaigns: Rachel Sweet. The straight-talking 31-year-old from Kansas City, Missouri, previously managed Planned Parenthood’s public policy for the Great Plains area, before leading the campaign to defeat the Kansas initiative, and then the Kentucky one.The way she sums up both wins is simple: if you want to protect abortion in red states, you have to target Republicans. “Democrats are not most of the voters [in Kentucky],” she says. “So you always go with a message that is the most broadly persuasive, so that you can get to your 50% plus one vote.” She explains that the key to winning is to understand that no two electorates are the same, and to research, poll test and work on the messages that resonate with voters in each state.In Kansas, Republicans and independents were most swayed by messages focusing on how abortion bans are an attack on personal liberty and represent government overreach.But in Kentucky, which already has a total ban on abortion that has been in place since Roe fell, there was more room to focus on the reality as well as on ideology – and that turned out to be effective.“There were voters who were far more likely to understand the long-term ramifications of these extreme anti-choice policies, because they were already seeing how banning abortion impacts not only access to abortion care, but [also] treatment for miscarriages and other areas of health care in a way that is particularly concerning,” says Sweet.She gives the example of a Kentuckian named Meredith, who signed up to tell her personal story for a campaign ad for Protect Kentucky Access, the group leading the No campaign, which the group ended up not airing.“She was suffering a miscarriage. And her pharmacist tried to deny her prescription for the medication she needed to manage her miscarriage because it’s part of the medication abortion regimen. He literally said: ‘I need you to prove that you’re actively miscarrying.’“The cruelty of that situation is just really powerful,” says Sweet, adding: “There is no need to sell people on some dystopian future. That future is already here.”Kentucky proved a harder race to win than Kansas, with less institutional buy-in: While campaign donations for Kansas’s No campaign totalled $11.48m, in Kentucky, they reached just $6.59m.“We were always ahead of our opposition. But it did feel it was an uphill battle at a lot of times,” says Sweet, over the phone from her apartment in Kansas City.The Kentucky abortion ban is still in place. But the ballot win could impact deliberations by Kentucky’s supreme court, which is considering whether to uphold the ban.Sweet has learned to focus on meeting Republicans where they are, explaining why abortion bans don’t chime with their core values – rather than trying to change hearts and minds on abortion itself.“Abortion is a very a complex issue that people have very complex and entrenched feelings about. People form their opinions on abortion over time, for a lot of reasons, and it is not something that any campaign, no matter how message-disciplined or well-funded, can change in the span of three months,” she says.Onslaught of new abortion restrictions looms in reddest of statesRead moreAfter the two campaigns, which saw Sweet working long days for months on end, she is taking some time to rest before she works out her next move. But it’s clear she will have plenty of options should she want to build on her wins through another ballot initiative.Seventeen states currently allow citizen-led referenda. Abortion is under threat in at least ten of them. Advocates in states like Ohio, Idaho and potentially Missouri have already discussed bringing such ballots in the coming years.Sweet acknowledges the battles to come will be hard, and different in each case. In Ohio, Republicans are trying to change the threshold for citizen-led ballots to pass, from a simple majority to a 60% threshold, and Republicans in Missouri have suggested doing the same.“When red-state voters adopt or reject policies contrary to conservative politicians’ points of view, this is always the immediate response: ‘How do we restrict access to the ballot box?’” says Sweet, adding: “They want to take away people’s right to direct democracy.”Of the more conservatives states that took abortion restrictions directly to voters in 2022 – Kentucky, Kansas and Michigan – none secured 60% of the vote in favor of abortion rights.She points to the Michigan win, where advocates succeeded in enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution with 55% of the vote.How Republicans are trying to block voters from having a say on abortionRead more“That’s huge. You don’t usually see candidates in Michigan win with 55% of the vote. So 60% would be a very daunting obstacle to have to work around.”But she points out that the successes for the pro-choice campaign in recent months are indicative of broad, sweeping support for abortion rights across the US, regardless of geography.“We saw all across the country, in really progressive states, purple states and red states, that people wanted to protect abortion. We saw that in really tiny states like Vermont and in huge states like California,” she says. “It’s very clear that abortion rights is an issue that can win everywhere. And I’m sure that scares the anti-choice politicians that are in office in places like Ohio.”TopicsAbortionReproductive rightsUS politicsWomeninterviewsReuse this content More