Showing posts with label abortions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortions. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 10, 2021
Thursday, November 04, 2021
Poland's Battle for Abortion Rights
Nov 4, 2021 • When Poland introduced a near-total ban on abortion it divided the nation, sparking mass protests. Dateline explores how church and state are impacting women's rights.
Poland has some of the strictest abortion laws in Europe, and in January those laws became even tougher. Doctors now face three years in prison for ending a pregnancy in the case of foetal abnormalities.
Poland has some of the strictest abortion laws in Europe, and in January those laws became even tougher. Doctors now face three years in prison for ending a pregnancy in the case of foetal abnormalities.
Monday, October 25, 2021
The Guardian View on US Abortion Laws: Freedoms Hanging by a Thread
THE GUARDIAN – EDITORIAL: By allowing the Texas law banning abortions after six weeks to stand, the supreme court has joined the attack
Protesters march in Austin, Texas, against the state’s abortion laws. Photograph: AFP/Getty
The announcement by the US supreme court that Texas’s new law banning abortions after six weeks would be allowed to stand, until it hears the federal government’s case against it on 1 November, was a blow to anyone hoping that the court might block attempts to remove women’s constitutional right to abortion. The 1973 decision that established this right, Roe v Wade, is a landmark in the history of the court.
The challenge brought by the Biden administration aims to overturn the Texas law on grounds that the state has violated the court’s authority. By outsourcing enforcement of its abortion ban to private citizens, who since September have been allowed to sue anyone who helps a woman obtain an abortion, Texas legislators have sought “to evade the traditional mechanisms for judicial review”, the suit states. The justice department argues that this is a dangerous precedent with the potential to undermine other supreme court decisions. While some employers are ffering to relocate staff to other states, the women most likely to be harmed by the ban are the poorest and least mobile, who in Texas are disproportionately women of colour. » | Editorial | Monday, October 25, 2021
Keep politics out of medical matters! The criminalisation of abortions does not affect the rich and privileged – they can afford to travel out of state, or even abroad, to get their abortions. This draconian law affects only the poor and under-privileged, who might well be forced to revert to the Victorian solution: knitting needles and bottles of gin! – © Mark
The announcement by the US supreme court that Texas’s new law banning abortions after six weeks would be allowed to stand, until it hears the federal government’s case against it on 1 November, was a blow to anyone hoping that the court might block attempts to remove women’s constitutional right to abortion. The 1973 decision that established this right, Roe v Wade, is a landmark in the history of the court.
The challenge brought by the Biden administration aims to overturn the Texas law on grounds that the state has violated the court’s authority. By outsourcing enforcement of its abortion ban to private citizens, who since September have been allowed to sue anyone who helps a woman obtain an abortion, Texas legislators have sought “to evade the traditional mechanisms for judicial review”, the suit states. The justice department argues that this is a dangerous precedent with the potential to undermine other supreme court decisions. While some employers are ffering to relocate staff to other states, the women most likely to be harmed by the ban are the poorest and least mobile, who in Texas are disproportionately women of colour. » | Editorial | Monday, October 25, 2021
Keep politics out of medical matters! The criminalisation of abortions does not affect the rich and privileged – they can afford to travel out of state, or even abroad, to get their abortions. This draconian law affects only the poor and under-privileged, who might well be forced to revert to the Victorian solution: knitting needles and bottles of gin! – © Mark
Thursday, September 02, 2021
Supreme Court, Breaking Silence, Won’t Block Texas Abortion Law
THE NEW YORK TIMES: The law, which prohibits most abortions after six weeks and went into effect on Wednesday, was drafted by Texas lawmakers with the goal of frustrating efforts to challenge it in federal court.
A “Bans Off Our Bodies” protest at the Texas State Capitol in Austin on Wednesday. Montinique Monroe for The New York Times
The Supreme Court refused just before midnight on Wednesday to block a Texas law prohibiting most abortions, less than a day after it took effect and became the most restrictive abortion measure in the nation.
The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s three liberal members in dissent.
The majority opinion was unsigned and consisted of a single long paragraph. It said the abortion providers who had challenged the law in an emergency application to the court had not made their case in the face of “complex and novel” procedural questions. The majority stressed that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of the Texas law and did not mean to limit “procedurally proper challenges” to it.
But the ruling was certain to fuel the hopes of abortion opponents and fears of abortion rights advocates as the court takes up a separate case in its new term this fall to decide whether Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision establishing a constitutional right to the procedure, should be overruled. It also left Texas abortion providers turning away patients as they scrambled to comply with the law, which prohibits abortions after roughly six weeks.
All four dissenting justices filed opinions. » | Adam Liptak, J. David Goodman and Sabrina Tavernise | Wednesday, September 1, 2021
I find the extreme right-wing positions taken in American politics very disturbing. As my followers know by now, I do not like extreme politics, either on the left or right. I believe in the golden middle way wherever and whenever possible. I certainly do not think that politicians should be meddling in medical matters relating to a woman's body. This should be left to the medical doctors and specialists who know far better than judges, law-makers or politicians what course of action is correct for their patients.
One gets the feeling that these legislarors are in serious competition with the Taliban!
We've just had to live through four years of that awful man, Trump, in power; now this draconian law! This law puts medical doctors in an invidious and extremely difficult position. Whilst I do believe that abortions should be avoided whenever possible, there are times when a mother's life is at risk of death if she continues to carry the baby full-term. And what if the mother's death will leave her other children without a mother? Have these lawmakers really thought this through? Also, if a young girl gets raped and ends up pregnant as a result of the rape, she will now have to carry the rapist's child for the full nine-month term and be its mother for the rest of her life. What a burden to bear! Who'd want to be a doctor in Texas? Or a mother in Texas, for that matter!
So what do they want to ban next? Alcohol? Gay weddings? Tobacco?
The Prohibition didn't stop the drinking of alcohol in America in the Twenties and early Thirties. It just drove drinking underground. Until the stupid law had to be repealed. This law is equally stupid. Just as the Prohibition didn't stop drinking; this law will not stop abortions. All it will do is drive the aborting of unwanted babies underground: to the backstreets! We'll be back to primitive ways of aborting babies next, like hot baths, bottles of gin, and knitting needles! I believe that this is how many an unwanted baby was aborted in years gone by. Further, this is a regressive measure because it will hit the poorest in society the most. Rich women will be able to travel out of state for their abortions, or even travel abroad to get them. Such a solution will probably not be affordable for the poorest women in society. In short: The Prohibition didn't stop the drinking of alcohol; and this law will not stop abortions either! It will stop some, but it will cause unspeakable misery for those who will be unable to circumvent the law. "I rest my case."
I feel very sorry to have to say this, but I fear that the USA has seen its finest days. It used to be the wellspring of forward thinking and fresh ideas. Now it seems to have taken on the röle of being the wellspring of oppression and suppression. – © Mark
Related articles here.
The Supreme Court refused just before midnight on Wednesday to block a Texas law prohibiting most abortions, less than a day after it took effect and became the most restrictive abortion measure in the nation.
The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s three liberal members in dissent.
The majority opinion was unsigned and consisted of a single long paragraph. It said the abortion providers who had challenged the law in an emergency application to the court had not made their case in the face of “complex and novel” procedural questions. The majority stressed that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of the Texas law and did not mean to limit “procedurally proper challenges” to it.
But the ruling was certain to fuel the hopes of abortion opponents and fears of abortion rights advocates as the court takes up a separate case in its new term this fall to decide whether Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision establishing a constitutional right to the procedure, should be overruled. It also left Texas abortion providers turning away patients as they scrambled to comply with the law, which prohibits abortions after roughly six weeks.
All four dissenting justices filed opinions. » | Adam Liptak, J. David Goodman and Sabrina Tavernise | Wednesday, September 1, 2021
I find the extreme right-wing positions taken in American politics very disturbing. As my followers know by now, I do not like extreme politics, either on the left or right. I believe in the golden middle way wherever and whenever possible. I certainly do not think that politicians should be meddling in medical matters relating to a woman's body. This should be left to the medical doctors and specialists who know far better than judges, law-makers or politicians what course of action is correct for their patients.
One gets the feeling that these legislarors are in serious competition with the Taliban!
We've just had to live through four years of that awful man, Trump, in power; now this draconian law! This law puts medical doctors in an invidious and extremely difficult position. Whilst I do believe that abortions should be avoided whenever possible, there are times when a mother's life is at risk of death if she continues to carry the baby full-term. And what if the mother's death will leave her other children without a mother? Have these lawmakers really thought this through? Also, if a young girl gets raped and ends up pregnant as a result of the rape, she will now have to carry the rapist's child for the full nine-month term and be its mother for the rest of her life. What a burden to bear! Who'd want to be a doctor in Texas? Or a mother in Texas, for that matter!
So what do they want to ban next? Alcohol? Gay weddings? Tobacco?
The Prohibition didn't stop the drinking of alcohol in America in the Twenties and early Thirties. It just drove drinking underground. Until the stupid law had to be repealed. This law is equally stupid. Just as the Prohibition didn't stop drinking; this law will not stop abortions. All it will do is drive the aborting of unwanted babies underground: to the backstreets! We'll be back to primitive ways of aborting babies next, like hot baths, bottles of gin, and knitting needles! I believe that this is how many an unwanted baby was aborted in years gone by. Further, this is a regressive measure because it will hit the poorest in society the most. Rich women will be able to travel out of state for their abortions, or even travel abroad to get them. Such a solution will probably not be affordable for the poorest women in society. In short: The Prohibition didn't stop the drinking of alcohol; and this law will not stop abortions either! It will stop some, but it will cause unspeakable misery for those who will be unable to circumvent the law. "I rest my case."
I feel very sorry to have to say this, but I fear that the USA has seen its finest days. It used to be the wellspring of forward thinking and fresh ideas. Now it seems to have taken on the röle of being the wellspring of oppression and suppression. – © Mark
Related articles here.
Saturday, July 10, 2021
Citizens, Not the State, Will Enforce New Abortion Law in Texas
People across the country may soon be able to sue abortion clinics, doctors and anyone helping a woman get an abortion in Texas, under a new state law that contains a legal innovation with broad implications for the American court system.
The provision passed the State Legislature this spring as part of a bill that bans abortion after a doctor detects a fetal heartbeat, usually at about six weeks of pregnancy. Many states have passed such bans, but the law in Texas is different.
Ordinarily, enforcement would be up to government officials, and if clinics wanted to challenge the law’s constitutionality, they would sue those officials in making their case. But the law in Texas prohibits officials from enforcing it. Instead, it takes the opposite approach, effectively deputizing ordinary citizens — including from outside Texas — to sue clinics and others who violate the law. It awards them at least $10,000 per illegal abortion if they are successful.
“It’s completely inverting the legal system,” said Stephen Vladeck, a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “It says the state is not going to be the one to enforce this law. Your neighbors are.” » | Sabrina Tavernise | Friday, July 9, 2021
Friday, June 18, 2021
Targeting Biden, Catholic Bishops Advance Controversial Communion Plan
THE NEW YORK TIMES: The decision was aimed at the nation’s second Catholic president and exposed bitter divisions in American Catholicism.
The Roman Catholic bishops of the United States, flouting a warning from the Vatican, have overwhelmingly voted to draft a statement on the sacrament of the Eucharist, advancing a political push by conservative bishops to deny President Biden communion because of his support of abortion rights.
The decision, made public on Friday afternoon, is aimed at the nation’s second Catholic president, the most religiously observant commander in chief since Jimmy Carter, and exposes bitter divisions in American Catholicism. It capped three days of contentious debate at a virtual June meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The measure was approved by a vote of 73 percent in favor and 24 percent opposed.
The Eucharist, also called holy communion, is one of the most sacred rituals in Christianity, and bishops have grown worried in recent years about declining Mass attendance and misunderstanding of the importance of the sacrament to Catholic life.
But the move to target a president, who has regularly attended Mass throughout his life, is striking coming from leaders of the president’s own faith, particularly after many conservative Catholics turned a blind eye to the sexual improprieties of former President Donald J. Trump because they supported his political agenda. It reveals a uniquely American Catholicism increasingly at odds with Rome. » | Elizabeth Dias | Friday, June 18, 2021
The Roman Catholic bishops of the United States, flouting a warning from the Vatican, have overwhelmingly voted to draft a statement on the sacrament of the Eucharist, advancing a political push by conservative bishops to deny President Biden communion because of his support of abortion rights.
The decision, made public on Friday afternoon, is aimed at the nation’s second Catholic president, the most religiously observant commander in chief since Jimmy Carter, and exposes bitter divisions in American Catholicism. It capped three days of contentious debate at a virtual June meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The measure was approved by a vote of 73 percent in favor and 24 percent opposed.
The Eucharist, also called holy communion, is one of the most sacred rituals in Christianity, and bishops have grown worried in recent years about declining Mass attendance and misunderstanding of the importance of the sacrament to Catholic life.
But the move to target a president, who has regularly attended Mass throughout his life, is striking coming from leaders of the president’s own faith, particularly after many conservative Catholics turned a blind eye to the sexual improprieties of former President Donald J. Trump because they supported his political agenda. It reveals a uniquely American Catholicism increasingly at odds with Rome. » | Elizabeth Dias | Friday, June 18, 2021
Wednesday, January 27, 2021
Poland to Implement Near-total Ban on Abortion Imminently
THE GUARDIAN: Move comes three months after original ruling prompted country’s biggest protests in recent history
A controversial ruling that imposes a near total-ban on abortion in Poland will come into effect imminently, the government has announced, three months after the original ruling prompted the biggest protests in the country’s recent history.
The announcement led protesters to gather again in Warsaw and other cities on Wednesday evening. “We are inviting everyone, please, go out, be motivated, so we can walk together, make a mark,” said protest group leader Marta Lempart.
The ruling, handed down by the constitutional tribunal in October, found that terminating pregnancies due to severe foetal abnormalities is unconstitutional. Poland already has some of the strictest abortion laws in Europe, and most of the small number of legal abortions that take place in the country are cases of foetal defects.
Once the ruling goes into effect, abortion will only be permitted in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger. » | Shaun Walker, Central and eastern Europe correspondent | Wednesday, January 27, 2021
A controversial ruling that imposes a near total-ban on abortion in Poland will come into effect imminently, the government has announced, three months after the original ruling prompted the biggest protests in the country’s recent history.
The announcement led protesters to gather again in Warsaw and other cities on Wednesday evening. “We are inviting everyone, please, go out, be motivated, so we can walk together, make a mark,” said protest group leader Marta Lempart.
The ruling, handed down by the constitutional tribunal in October, found that terminating pregnancies due to severe foetal abnormalities is unconstitutional. Poland already has some of the strictest abortion laws in Europe, and most of the small number of legal abortions that take place in the country are cases of foetal defects.
Once the ruling goes into effect, abortion will only be permitted in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is in danger. » | Shaun Walker, Central and eastern Europe correspondent | Wednesday, January 27, 2021
Sunday, November 01, 2020
Thursday, October 22, 2020
Poland Rules Abortion Due to Foetal Defects Unconstitutional
THE GUARDIAN: Constitutional court’s ruling could pave way for governing PiS party to move ahead with legislative ban
Poland’s constitutional tribunal has ruled that abortion due to foetal defects is unconstitutional, rejecting the most common of the few legal grounds for pregnancy termination in the predominantly Catholic country.
The chief justice, Julia Przyłębska, said in a ruling that existing legislation – one of Europe’s most restrictive – that allows for the abortion of malformed foetuses was “incompatible” with the constitution.
After the ruling goes into effect, abortion will only be permissible in Poland in the case of rape, incest or a threat to the mother’s health and life, which make up only about 2% of legal terminations conducted in recent years.
The verdict drew immediate condemnation from the Council of Europe, whose commissioner for human rights, Dunja Mijatović, called it “a sad day for women’s rights”.
“Removing the basis for almost all legal abortions in Poland amounts to a ban and violates human rights,” Mijatović tweeted.
“Today’s ruling ... means underground/abroad abortions for those who can afford and even greater ordeal for all others.” » | Staff and agencies in Warsaw | Thursday, October 22, 2020
US signs anti-abortion declaration with group of largely authoritarian governments »
The Christian fundamentalists are plunging the West into darkness! Does Poland really belong in the European Union? Further, should we be looking to America for leadership anymore? – Mark
Poland’s constitutional tribunal has ruled that abortion due to foetal defects is unconstitutional, rejecting the most common of the few legal grounds for pregnancy termination in the predominantly Catholic country.
The chief justice, Julia Przyłębska, said in a ruling that existing legislation – one of Europe’s most restrictive – that allows for the abortion of malformed foetuses was “incompatible” with the constitution.
After the ruling goes into effect, abortion will only be permissible in Poland in the case of rape, incest or a threat to the mother’s health and life, which make up only about 2% of legal terminations conducted in recent years.
The verdict drew immediate condemnation from the Council of Europe, whose commissioner for human rights, Dunja Mijatović, called it “a sad day for women’s rights”.
“Removing the basis for almost all legal abortions in Poland amounts to a ban and violates human rights,” Mijatović tweeted.
“Today’s ruling ... means underground/abroad abortions for those who can afford and even greater ordeal for all others.” » | Staff and agencies in Warsaw | Thursday, October 22, 2020
US signs anti-abortion declaration with group of largely authoritarian governments »
The Christian fundamentalists are plunging the West into darkness! Does Poland really belong in the European Union? Further, should we be looking to America for leadership anymore? – Mark
Saturday, January 25, 2020
„March For Life“: Gegen Abtreibungen, für Trump
„Hört auf, Babies zu töten“, „Wir sind für das Leben“ und „Stoppt den Baby-Holocaust“: Das war auf den Schildern der Tausenden Menschen zu lesen, die am Freitag zur National Mall in Washington gekommen waren, um Donald Trump auf dem „March for Life“ sprechen zu hören. Jedes Jahr treffen sich hier Gegner von Schwangerschaftsabbrüchen. Und während Trump vergangenen Jahr hier schon eine Rede per Videoschalte gehalten hatte, war er nun als erster Präsident persönlich gekommen. „Ungeborene Kinder hatten noch nie einen großartigeren Verteidiger im Weißen Haus“, sagte Trump, während viele Zuhörer jubelten. » | Von Frauke Steffens, New York | Samstag, 25. Januar 2020
THE NEW YORK TIMES: Trump Tells Anti-Abortion Marchers, ‘Unborn Children Have Never Had a Stronger Defender in the White House’ » | Elizabeth Dias, Annie Karni and Sabrina Tavernise | Friday, January 24, 2020
Monday, May 20, 2019
Republicans Terrified That Their Anti-Abortion Crusade Will Cost Them 2020
Sunday, May 19, 2019
Trump Backs Abortion in Cases of Rape or Incest, Contradicting Alabama Law
Donald Trump, in a series of late night posts on Twitter, has outlined a less restrictive view of abortion than that just passed by Alabama’s Republican state government.
Alabama now bans abortion except if there is a “serious health risk” to the mother, with no exceptions for rape and incest, but the president says he favours making an exception of cases of rape and incest.
“As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly pro-life, with the three exceptions – rape, incest and protecting the life of the mother – the same position taken by Ronald Reagan,” Trump tweeted. » | Pádraig Collins | Sunday, May 19, 2019
Trump is pro-life? Really? So why all this war-mongering? Such hypocrisy! – Mark
Friday, May 17, 2019
Post-Poe America Won’t Be Like Pre-Roe America. It Will Be Worse
This week, Alabama’s governor signed legislation banning most abortions without exceptions for rape or incest, with sentences of up to 99 years in prison for abortion providers. It follows a measure that Georgia’s governor signed last week effectively banning most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy and that is worded in a way that could lead to prosecutions of women who terminate their pregnancies after that point. Missouri’s Senate approved an eight-week abortion ban on Thursday, also without exceptions for rape or incest. It contains a trigger that will ban abortion outright if Roe v. Wade falls. A Louisiana six-week abortion ban is likely to be next.
You can see, in the anti-abortion movement, a mood of triumphant anticipation. Decades of right-wing politics have all led up to this moment, when an anti-abortion majority on the Supreme Court could end women’s constitutional protection against being forced to carry a pregnancy and give birth against their will. » | Michelle Goldberg, Opinion Columnist | Thursday, May 16, 2019
Meet the Alabama Doctor Who Could Face 99 Years in Prison for Providing Abortions under New Law
Missouri Passes Anti-Abortion Law
Donald Trump's Anti-Abortion Executive Order
Monday, May 13, 2019
The Guardian View on Abortion: Protecting a Human Right
No law can end abortions, however severe its restrictions and however harsh its penalties. Each day almost 70,000 unsafe abortions are carried out around the world, and they are vastly more likely to happen in countries with strict laws. What such legislation does do is force some women to continue pregnancies against their wishes, while risking the lives and wellbeing of others. Women in the US have seen their ability to terminate pregnancies dismantled piece by piece. Now states are racing to outlaw or dramatically curb abortions with extreme and unconstitutional bills. The aim is to directly challenge Roe v Wade, the US supreme court ruling that established that abortion is legal before the foetus is viable outside the womb, at around 24 weeks. Last Tuesday, the governor of Georgia signed a bill essentially banning abortions after six weeks from 2020. Some described it as a sign that men who wish to control women’s bodies have no idea of how they actually work. More likely, those who pushed hardest for the change understand all too well that many women will not know they are pregnant until it is too late. » | Editorial | Sunday, May 12, 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)