Showing posts with label Roe v Wade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roe v Wade. Show all posts
Monday, June 27, 2022
Warren on Ending of Roe: ‘Supreme Court Doesn’t Get the Last Word’—We Do
Sen. Klobuchar: If We Can Take Back 2 Senate Seats, We Can Codify Roe v. Wade into Law
Sunday, June 26, 2022
La Cour suprême aggrave l’affaissement démocratique des Etats-Unis
LE MONDE – ÉDITORIAL: Les deux arrêts, l’un sur les armes, l’autre sur le droit à l’avortement, rendus le 23 et le 24 juin par la plus haute instance judiciaire du pays, contrôlée par des juges proches de la droite religieuse, accentuent les fractures de la société américaine.
Le grillage de protection qui enserre aujourd’hui à Washington le siège immaculé de la plus haute instance judiciaire des Etats-Unis d’Amérique dit bien le péril qui la menace : celui de se couper du pays par pure dérive idéologique. En deux arrêts rendus le 23 et le 24 juin, les juges conservateurs de la Cour suprême, qui compte neuf membres, ont en effet sacrifié à deux totems de la droite religieuse : la défense intraitable des armes à feu au nom d’une liberté qui ne doit souffrir aucune limite ; et la lutte inlassable contre le droit des femmes à disposer de leur propre corps.
Ces deux obsessions ont beau n’être partagées que par une minorité de leurs concitoyens, ces juges ont passé outre au sage conseil du constitutionnaliste John Freund selon lequel ils devraient ne jamais être influencés « par la météo du jour », mais tenir compte en revanche « du climat de l’époque ». Ils sont en effet revenus à la fois sur une loi restreignant le port d’arme en vigueur dans l’Etat de New York depuis plus d’un siècle, et sur le célèbre arrêt Roe v. Wade, réaffirmé en 1992, qui sanctuarisait le droit à l’avortement depuis 1973. » | Éditorial « du Monde » | samedi 25 juin 2022
LIRE AUSSI :
Aux Etats-Unis, l’avortement n’est plus un droit fédéral : La Cour suprême, dominée par les juges conservateurs, a remis en cause, vendredi, l’arrêt Roe v. Wade de 1973 et renvoyé aux Etats le soin de légiférer sur cette question. »
Le grillage de protection qui enserre aujourd’hui à Washington le siège immaculé de la plus haute instance judiciaire des Etats-Unis d’Amérique dit bien le péril qui la menace : celui de se couper du pays par pure dérive idéologique. En deux arrêts rendus le 23 et le 24 juin, les juges conservateurs de la Cour suprême, qui compte neuf membres, ont en effet sacrifié à deux totems de la droite religieuse : la défense intraitable des armes à feu au nom d’une liberté qui ne doit souffrir aucune limite ; et la lutte inlassable contre le droit des femmes à disposer de leur propre corps.
Ces deux obsessions ont beau n’être partagées que par une minorité de leurs concitoyens, ces juges ont passé outre au sage conseil du constitutionnaliste John Freund selon lequel ils devraient ne jamais être influencés « par la météo du jour », mais tenir compte en revanche « du climat de l’époque ». Ils sont en effet revenus à la fois sur une loi restreignant le port d’arme en vigueur dans l’Etat de New York depuis plus d’un siècle, et sur le célèbre arrêt Roe v. Wade, réaffirmé en 1992, qui sanctuarisait le droit à l’avortement depuis 1973. » | Éditorial « du Monde » | samedi 25 juin 2022
LIRE AUSSI :
Aux Etats-Unis, l’avortement n’est plus un droit fédéral : La Cour suprême, dominée par les juges conservateurs, a remis en cause, vendredi, l’arrêt Roe v. Wade de 1973 et renvoyé aux Etats le soin de légiférer sur cette question. »
Saturday, June 25, 2022
What the Abortion Ruling Means for the US Supreme Court's Legitimacy | DW News
Republican 40-year Political Project Achieves Goal with Supreme Court Ending Roe v Wade
Friday, June 24, 2022
Officials React to Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade
Jun 24, 2022 • The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a landmark ruling on abortion rights, removing the constitutional right in the U.S. to terminate a pregnancy.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research group, 26 of America’s 50 states are expected to move immediately to crack down on clinics providing abortions.
I cannot write here what I really think of this Supreme Court ruling or the people that have made these judgments. Backward is too mild a word for this. This is truly ante-Diluvian. This will take America back decades – totally into darkness.
It will not stop abortions, it will merely push women, especially poor women, to go to backstreet operators, or even revert to the age-old ‘cure’ of hot baths, lots of gin, and knitting needles.
This ruling won’t save lives; rather, it will cause misery, depression, hardship, grief and, dare I say it, many deaths and/or suicides. Stupid is as stupid does. – © Mark Alexander
According to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research group, 26 of America’s 50 states are expected to move immediately to crack down on clinics providing abortions.
I cannot write here what I really think of this Supreme Court ruling or the people that have made these judgments. Backward is too mild a word for this. This is truly ante-Diluvian. This will take America back decades – totally into darkness.
It will not stop abortions, it will merely push women, especially poor women, to go to backstreet operators, or even revert to the age-old ‘cure’ of hot baths, lots of gin, and knitting needles.
This ruling won’t save lives; rather, it will cause misery, depression, hardship, grief and, dare I say it, many deaths and/or suicides. Stupid is as stupid does. – © Mark Alexander
Contraception, Gay Marriage: Clarence Thomas Signals New Targets for Supreme Court
THE GUARDIAN: Rightwing justice appears to offer preview of the court’s potential future rulings after decision to remove US abortion rights
Donald Trump with Clarence Thomas as Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to the supreme court in October 2020. Photograph: Alex Brandon/AP
Many Americans reacted to the supreme court’s decision to reverse Roe v Wade and remove federal abortion rights in the US with shock, but many also asked a terrified question: what might be next?
The conservative justice Clarence Thomas appeared to offer a preview of the court’s potential future rulings, suggesting the rightwing-controlled court may return to the issues of contraception access and marriage equality, threatening LGBTQ rights.
“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion to the ruling on Roe.
Griswold v Connecticut established a married couple’s right to use contraception without government interference in 1965. The court ruled in the 2003 case of Lawrence v Texas that states could not criminalize sodomy, and Obergefell v Hodges established the right for same-sex couples to marry in 2015.
Thomas’s words confirmed what many progressive lawmakers and reproductive rights advocates have feared for years. The end of Roe marks the beginning, not the end, of judicial overreach by the court’s conservative majority, they say.
“It is important that Americans understand that this supreme court and Republicans in Congress will not stop here,” said Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “It is clear [Thomas] and the court’s majority have no respect for other precedents that have been won in recent decades.” » | Joan E Greve in Washington | Friday, June 24, 2022
Clarence Thomas Ready to Strike Down Marriage Equality Following Dobbs: The reasoning in today's decision overruling Roe v. Wade shows that rulings on marriage equality, consensual sex, and contraception were erroneous, he says. »
Related video
Many Americans reacted to the supreme court’s decision to reverse Roe v Wade and remove federal abortion rights in the US with shock, but many also asked a terrified question: what might be next?
The conservative justice Clarence Thomas appeared to offer a preview of the court’s potential future rulings, suggesting the rightwing-controlled court may return to the issues of contraception access and marriage equality, threatening LGBTQ rights.
“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion to the ruling on Roe.
Griswold v Connecticut established a married couple’s right to use contraception without government interference in 1965. The court ruled in the 2003 case of Lawrence v Texas that states could not criminalize sodomy, and Obergefell v Hodges established the right for same-sex couples to marry in 2015.
Thomas’s words confirmed what many progressive lawmakers and reproductive rights advocates have feared for years. The end of Roe marks the beginning, not the end, of judicial overreach by the court’s conservative majority, they say.
“It is important that Americans understand that this supreme court and Republicans in Congress will not stop here,” said Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “It is clear [Thomas] and the court’s majority have no respect for other precedents that have been won in recent decades.” » | Joan E Greve in Washington | Friday, June 24, 2022
Clarence Thomas Ready to Strike Down Marriage Equality Following Dobbs: The reasoning in today's decision overruling Roe v. Wade shows that rulings on marriage equality, consensual sex, and contraception were erroneous, he says. »
Related video
Droit à l’avortement : « En supprimant Roe vs Wade, la droite religieuse américaine triomphe, et sans doute pour longtemps »
LE MONDE : La Cour suprême est revenue, vendredi, sur l’arrêt Roe vs Wade reconnaissant le droit à l’avortement aux Etats-Unis. Gilles Paris, ancien correspondant du « Monde » à Washington, a répondu à vos questions.
La Cour suprême des Etats-Unis a décidé, vendredi 24 juin, de revenir sur l’arrêt historique Roe vs Wade, qui reconnaît depuis près d’un demi-siècle le droit à l’avortement aux Etats-Unis. Un retour à la situation d’avant 1973, quand chaque Etat était libre d’interdire ou d’autoriser l’avortement.
Le ministre de la justice du Missouri a annoncé, dès vendredi, que son Etat devenait le premier à interdire la pratique de l’interruption volontaire de grossesse sur son territoire. Une douzaine d’Etats ont déjà adopté des législations de cette nature, qui n’attendaient qu’une décision finale de la Cour suprême en ce sens. Gilles Paris, éditorialiste et ancien correspondant du Monde à Washington, a répondu à vos questions lors d’un tchat en direct. » | Le Monde | vendredi 24 juin 2022
LIRE AUSSI :
En remettant en cause le droit à l’avortement, les Etats-Unis cessent d’incarner la liberté : La menace qui pèse outre-atlantique sur le droit d’avorter est le fruit d’une longue croisade réactionnaire engagée depuis les années 1970 et pourrait marquer la fin d’une période historique. »
Related.
La Cour suprême des Etats-Unis a décidé, vendredi 24 juin, de revenir sur l’arrêt historique Roe vs Wade, qui reconnaît depuis près d’un demi-siècle le droit à l’avortement aux Etats-Unis. Un retour à la situation d’avant 1973, quand chaque Etat était libre d’interdire ou d’autoriser l’avortement.
Le ministre de la justice du Missouri a annoncé, dès vendredi, que son Etat devenait le premier à interdire la pratique de l’interruption volontaire de grossesse sur son territoire. Une douzaine d’Etats ont déjà adopté des législations de cette nature, qui n’attendaient qu’une décision finale de la Cour suprême en ce sens. Gilles Paris, éditorialiste et ancien correspondant du Monde à Washington, a répondu à vos questions lors d’un tchat en direct. » | Le Monde | vendredi 24 juin 2022
LIRE AUSSI :
En remettant en cause le droit à l’avortement, les Etats-Unis cessent d’incarner la liberté : La menace qui pèse outre-atlantique sur le droit d’avorter est le fruit d’une longue croisade réactionnaire engagée depuis les années 1970 et pourrait marquer la fin d’une période historique. »
Related.
US Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade in Blow to Abortion Rights | DW News
Jun 24, 2022 • In a highly-anticipated move, the US Supreme Court moved to overturn protections on abortion rights in the US.
The ruling comes after a draft opinion of the court was leaked to US media in early May. The report showed the US Supreme Court was ready to reverse Roe v. Wade, a landmark decision in 1973 that established a federal right to terminate a pregnancy.
Tens of millions of women across the US are expected to lose their right to abortion as mainly southern and midwestern states introduce bans.
Related here, here, here and here.
The ruling comes after a draft opinion of the court was leaked to US media in early May. The report showed the US Supreme Court was ready to reverse Roe v. Wade, a landmark decision in 1973 that established a federal right to terminate a pregnancy.
Tens of millions of women across the US are expected to lose their right to abortion as mainly southern and midwestern states introduce bans.
Related here, here, here and here.
Live Updates: Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade
THE NEW YORK TIMES: The decision, eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion after almost 50 years, will lead to all but total bans on the procedure in about half of the states.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday overruled Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion after almost 50 years in a decision that will transform American life, reshape the nation’s politics and lead to all but total bans on the procedure in about half of the states.
The ruling will test the legitimacy of the court and vindicate a decades-long Republican project of installing conservative justices prepared to reject the precedent, which had been repeatedly reaffirmed by earlier courts. It will also be one of the signal legacies of President Donald J. Trump, who vowed to name justices who would overrule Roe. All three of his appointees were in the majority in the 6-to-3 ruling.
The decision, which echoed a leaked draft opinion published by Politico in early May, will result in a starkly divided country in which abortion is severely restricted or forbidden in many red states but remains freely available in most blue ones.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voted with the majority but said he would have taken “a more measured course,” stopping short of overruling Roe outright. The court’s three liberal members dissented. After a leak, the Supreme Court details its final decision on abortion. » | Alan Liptak | Friday, June 24, 2022
America's apparent inexorable fall into darkness and backwardness. A mother may not 'kill' a foetus, but a child may be killed in school by a dangerous gunslinger! It's guns that need to be banned, not abortions! – © Mark Alexander
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday overruled Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion after almost 50 years in a decision that will transform American life, reshape the nation’s politics and lead to all but total bans on the procedure in about half of the states.
The ruling will test the legitimacy of the court and vindicate a decades-long Republican project of installing conservative justices prepared to reject the precedent, which had been repeatedly reaffirmed by earlier courts. It will also be one of the signal legacies of President Donald J. Trump, who vowed to name justices who would overrule Roe. All three of his appointees were in the majority in the 6-to-3 ruling.
The decision, which echoed a leaked draft opinion published by Politico in early May, will result in a starkly divided country in which abortion is severely restricted or forbidden in many red states but remains freely available in most blue ones.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voted with the majority but said he would have taken “a more measured course,” stopping short of overruling Roe outright. The court’s three liberal members dissented. After a leak, the Supreme Court details its final decision on abortion. » | Alan Liptak | Friday, June 24, 2022
America's apparent inexorable fall into darkness and backwardness. A mother may not 'kill' a foetus, but a child may be killed in school by a dangerous gunslinger! It's guns that need to be banned, not abortions! – © Mark Alexander
Monday, May 30, 2022
"Policing the Womb": Law Professor Michele Goodwin on SCOTUS, Anti-Abortion Laws & the New Jane Crow
I Was Raped by My Father. An Abortion Saved My Life. »
Friday, May 20, 2022
Podcast: How the Clash of Sex and Religion Spawned America’s Abortion Saga
Friday, May 13, 2022
Bernie Sanders: We Must Codify Roe v. Wade
Sunday, May 08, 2022
If Roe Falls, Is Same-Sex Marriage Next?
THE NEW YORK TIMES: The leaked draft opinion that would eliminate the constitutional right to abortion sent mixed signals about what other precedents might be at risk.
Celebrations outside the Supreme Court in 2015 after it ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. Supporters of gay rights worry the final opinion in the Mississippi case could imperil hard-won victories, like same-sex marriage. | Doug Mills/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — When the Supreme Court heard arguments in December over the fate of the constitutional right to abortion, it was already clear that other rights, notably including same-sex marriage, could be at risk if the court overruled Roe v. Wade.
The logic of that legal earthquake, Justice Sonia Sotomayor predicted, would produce a jurisprudential tsunami that could sweep away other precedents, too.
The justices’ questions on the broader consequences of a decision eliminating the right to abortion were probing but abstract and conditional.The disclosure last Monday of a draft opinion that would overturn Roe, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion, has made those questions urgent and concrete.
The opinion, by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., provided conflicting signals about its sweep and consequences. On the one hand, he asserted, in a sort of disclaimer that struck a defensive tone, that other rights would remain secure.
“To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” he wrote. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”
On the other hand, the logic of the opinion left plenty of room for debate. » | Adam Liptak | Sunday, May 8, 2022
WASHINGTON — When the Supreme Court heard arguments in December over the fate of the constitutional right to abortion, it was already clear that other rights, notably including same-sex marriage, could be at risk if the court overruled Roe v. Wade.
The logic of that legal earthquake, Justice Sonia Sotomayor predicted, would produce a jurisprudential tsunami that could sweep away other precedents, too.
The justices’ questions on the broader consequences of a decision eliminating the right to abortion were probing but abstract and conditional.The disclosure last Monday of a draft opinion that would overturn Roe, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion, has made those questions urgent and concrete.
The opinion, by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., provided conflicting signals about its sweep and consequences. On the one hand, he asserted, in a sort of disclaimer that struck a defensive tone, that other rights would remain secure.
“To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” he wrote. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”
On the other hand, the logic of the opinion left plenty of room for debate. » | Adam Liptak | Sunday, May 8, 2022
British Scientist Says US Anti-abortion Lawyers Misused His Work to Attack Roe v Wade
THE OBSERVER: Giandomenico Iannetti, a pain expert at UCL, angrily denies that his research suggests foetuses can feel pain before 24 weeks
Giandomenico Iannetti, a professor of neuroscience, says his work was used in ‘a very clever way to prove a point’. Photograph: Giulio Origlia/Getty Images
A University College London scientist has accused lawyers in the US of misusing his groundbreaking work on the brain to justify the dismantling of Roe v Wade, the landmark ruling that legalised abortion nationally in America.
Giandomenico Iannetti said his research, which used imaging to understand the adult brain’s response to pain, had been wrongly interpreted to make an anti-abortion argument.
Last week an unprecedented leak of a draft legal opinion showed a majority of supreme court judges support overturning Roe v Wade and ending federal protections for abortions, in a move that could result in 26 states banning it. The court is considering a case, Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organisation, which challenges Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks gestation.
Anti-abortion lawyers in that case argued that scientific understanding has moved on since the court’s 1973 ruling that enshrined the constitutional right to abortion, and it was no longer accurate to say foetuses cannot feel pain before 24 weeks.
Their argument relied heavily on a controversial discussion paper on foetal pain published in the Journal of Medical Ethics in 2020 by Dr Stuart Derbyshire, a British associate professor of psychology at the National University of Singapore. » | Anna Fazackerley | Sunday, May 8, 2022
Women who fought for US abortion rights in the 70s call for mass global protests: Veteran activists say the overthrow of Roe v Wade would equate to murder, and should send warning signals around the world »
Le patron de l'OMS lance un appel en faveur du droit à l'avortement : Le directeur général de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS) a lancé mercredi 4 mai un appel en faveur du droit à l'avortement, au moment où la juridiction suprême des États-Unis semble prête à le remettre en cause. »
Abortion in Jewish Law: The traditional Jewish view does not fit conveniently into the major "camps" in the current debate. »
A University College London scientist has accused lawyers in the US of misusing his groundbreaking work on the brain to justify the dismantling of Roe v Wade, the landmark ruling that legalised abortion nationally in America.
Giandomenico Iannetti said his research, which used imaging to understand the adult brain’s response to pain, had been wrongly interpreted to make an anti-abortion argument.
Last week an unprecedented leak of a draft legal opinion showed a majority of supreme court judges support overturning Roe v Wade and ending federal protections for abortions, in a move that could result in 26 states banning it. The court is considering a case, Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organisation, which challenges Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks gestation.
Anti-abortion lawyers in that case argued that scientific understanding has moved on since the court’s 1973 ruling that enshrined the constitutional right to abortion, and it was no longer accurate to say foetuses cannot feel pain before 24 weeks.
Their argument relied heavily on a controversial discussion paper on foetal pain published in the Journal of Medical Ethics in 2020 by Dr Stuart Derbyshire, a British associate professor of psychology at the National University of Singapore. » | Anna Fazackerley | Sunday, May 8, 2022
Women who fought for US abortion rights in the 70s call for mass global protests: Veteran activists say the overthrow of Roe v Wade would equate to murder, and should send warning signals around the world »
Le patron de l'OMS lance un appel en faveur du droit à l'avortement : Le directeur général de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS) a lancé mercredi 4 mai un appel en faveur du droit à l'avortement, au moment où la juridiction suprême des États-Unis semble prête à le remettre en cause. »
Abortion in Jewish Law: The traditional Jewish view does not fit conveniently into the major "camps" in the current debate. »
Saturday, May 07, 2022
Where Does the Anti-Abortion Movement Go after Roe?
THE NEW YORK TIMES: The Supreme Court draft opinion signals a new era for the 50-year effort to end the constitutional right to abortion. Next goals include a national ban and, in some cases, classifying abortion as homicide.
Anti-abortion activists at the 49th annual March for Life in January. The movement to restrict or banish abortion is entering a new era. | Kenny Holston for The New York Times
For nearly half a century, the anti-abortion movement has propelled itself toward a goal that at times seemed impossible, even to true believers: overturning Roe v. Wade.
That single-minded mission meant coming to Washington every January for the March for Life to mark Roe’s anniversary. It required electing anti-abortion lawmakers and keeping the pressure on to pass state restrictions. It involved funding anti-abortion lobbying groups, praying and protesting outside clinics, and opening facilities to persuade women to keep their pregnancies. Then this week, the leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion that would overturn the constitutional right to abortion revealed that anti-abortion activists’ dream of a post-Roe America appeared poised to come to pass.
The court’s opinion is not final, but the draft immediately shifted the horizon by raising a new question: If Roe is struck down, where does the anti-abortion movement go next? » | Elizabeth Dias and Ruth Graham | Saturday, May 7, 2022
If this draconian ban on abortions is passed in the USA, we will have to look to Saudi Arabia for some enlightenment on the question of abortions! Abortion in Saudi Arabia. Whoever would have ‘thunk’? – Mark
For nearly half a century, the anti-abortion movement has propelled itself toward a goal that at times seemed impossible, even to true believers: overturning Roe v. Wade.
That single-minded mission meant coming to Washington every January for the March for Life to mark Roe’s anniversary. It required electing anti-abortion lawmakers and keeping the pressure on to pass state restrictions. It involved funding anti-abortion lobbying groups, praying and protesting outside clinics, and opening facilities to persuade women to keep their pregnancies. Then this week, the leaked draft of the Supreme Court opinion that would overturn the constitutional right to abortion revealed that anti-abortion activists’ dream of a post-Roe America appeared poised to come to pass.
The court’s opinion is not final, but the draft immediately shifted the horizon by raising a new question: If Roe is struck down, where does the anti-abortion movement go next? » | Elizabeth Dias and Ruth Graham | Saturday, May 7, 2022
If this draconian ban on abortions is passed in the USA, we will have to look to Saudi Arabia for some enlightenment on the question of abortions! Abortion in Saudi Arabia. Whoever would have ‘thunk’? – Mark
Friday, May 06, 2022
Abortion and the Supreme Court: What’s at Stake? | The Economist
This is one of the most ridiculous, retrograde steps I have ever heard of in a so-called first-world country. If this is passed, if abortions are made illegal, women will have to return to less scientific methods such as the use of hot baths, bottles of gin and knitting needles, or else go to some back street joint to get fixed up! America is truly falling into darkness. Sad! – © Mark Alexander
Wednesday, May 04, 2022
Overturning Right to Abortion in US an Attack on Freedoms, Says VP Kamala Harris - BBC News
Robert Reich : The End of Roe v Wade?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)