The Supreme Court is taking away a fundamental bodily right — and condemning pregnant people to financial suffering and possible death.
The post More People Will Die appeared first on The Intercept.
Mexico decriminalized abortion in September – nine months before the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade. Now Mexican activists, who for years looked to the US as a beacon of abortion rights, are helping their northern neighbours in a stark turnaround of fortunes, writes Sheila Flynn
Pro-choice protesters at the US Supreme Court tell Rachel Sharp that they feel the Supreme Court justices lied to the American people and they now fear abortion rights are just the first domino to fall
Ruling expands religious rights of government employees in latest of decisions taking a broad view of religious liberty
The US supreme court’s conservative majority on Monday sided with a former public high-school football coach who lost his job for praying with players at the 50-yard line after games.
The 6-3 ruling, with the court’s liberals in dissent, represented a victory for Christian conservative activists seeking to expand the role of prayer and religion in public schools. In its decision, the court ruled that the school district had violated the constitutional rights of the coach, Joseph Kennedy, when it suspended his employment after he refused to stop praying on the field. Continue reading...
Obergefell v Hodges affirmed the right to same-sex marriage and capped a string of court victories for LGBTQ+ people – seven years later the mood has darkened
“Euphoria.” That’s how Jim Obergefell describes his reaction on 26 June 2015, when, “after a lifetime of feeling less than, of feeling outside of society”, the supreme court affirmed the right to same-sex marriage in Obergefell v Hodges.
The landmark civil rights case for which Obergefell served as lead plaintiff capped a string of court victories for LGBTQ+ people in the US, including a ban on criminalizing gay sex and the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. It appeared to signal a new era of tolerance and civil rights in the US. Continue reading...
The greatest shock of all would be to wake up and find that while we were driving the kids to soccer practice and enjoying cocktails, autocracy took hold
By now the US supreme court’s overturning of Roe v Wade hardly comes as a surprise. We’ve known this was imminent since the leak, a month or so ago, of Justice Alito’s memo. And yet it still delivers a profound shock – in fact, a series of shocks. Stunned, we ask, how could this happen? as if we hadn’t known, for weeks, that it was a more or less done deal.
What’s shocking is the actualization of the scary Handmaid’s Tale scenario: our growing suspicion that Margaret Atwood’s fictional dystopia – a society in which women are forced to bear children and brutally punished for disobedience – is nearer to becoming a reality than we might have imagined. What’s shocking is this proof of the court’s desire and ability to control and punish women, to deprive us of our constitutional rights. What’s shocking is the justices’ reckless disregard for the additional suffering that this ruling will cause poor women, women of color and those living in rural areas. What’s shocking is the memory of three of the current justices swearing, under oath, to preserve the precedent established by Roe v Wade. Continue reading...
If Amy Coney Barrett serves to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s age, she will be a justice until 2059. We must reform the court now, or risk it losing its legitimacy forever
When the US supreme court this week radically expanded the second amendment and declared most any restrictions on guns to be presumptively unconstitutional, then overturned five decades of reproductive rights and created a likely desert for abortion access all the way from Idaho to Florida, America’s grim new reality became painfully clear.
An extreme conservative majority holds absolute control over the court. They will likely hold this power for multiple generations. They intend to use it to impose a far-right vision that most Americans oppose, twisting the rule of law into whatever they say it is, depending on the ideological outcome they hope to achieve. Continue reading...
The challenge now – for women everywhere – is to fight through our fear, and make our courage count
The US supreme court has overturned Roe v Wade and, with it, nearly 50 years of women’s abortion rights in America.
The activism of the six ultraconservative justices – three of whom were appointed by former US president Donald Trump – shreds precedent in more ways than one. It is the first time in their history that Americans have woken up in the “land of the free” with fewer rights than they had the night before. Continue reading...
Jessica Glenza reports on the supreme court ruling and the profound consequences it will have for women facing unwanted pregnancies across the United States
On Friday the US supreme court overturned Roe vs Wade, the legal precedent that had protected the right to an abortion since 1973.
After the decision, 26 state legislatures moved to ban abortion immediately or as soon as practically possible. This will leave millions of women without access to a legal termination in their home state. Many will have to travel hundreds of miles to access a safe abortion in another state or try to terminate their pregnancy themselves. Continue reading...
The state has pledged to be a ‘sanctuary’, with people seeking reproductive care potentially rising from 46,000 to 1.4m
How many people to expect?
It’s the question anguished reproductive care providers in California are grappling with after the US supreme court voted to overturn the federal right to abortion. Continue reading...
The removal of women’s constitutional right to abortion will deepen hardship and division in the US
The decision, when it came on Friday, was not a surprise. Even before the dramatic leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion last month, it was widely predicted that the US supreme court would grab the opportunity presented by the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization case to rescind the decision made in 1973 in Roe v Wade. This, after all, was the purpose of President Trump’s three supreme court selections – and the culmination of a decades-long campaign by anti-abortionists to return to states the authority to ban the procedure. But the announcement still came as a shock. The US’s global influence means that the decision to remove a woman’s constitutional right to abortion there reverberates far beyond its shores.
The speed with which multiple US states reacted is disturbing; already, abortion has been outlawed in 10, with 11 more expected to follow shortly. While all women should be entitled to control their own lives and bodies, there are instances when denying this is particularly cruel. Americans who oppose forced pregnancy and birth now face the horror of rape and incest victims, including children, being compelled to become mothers. The US is exceptional in its lack of federal maternity provisions; children as well as parents will suffer the consequences of unwanted additions to their families, with poor and black people the worst affected. Continue reading...
In abruptly scrapping the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy the court went against the popular will – only 25% of Americans now have confidence in the institution
Striding from the US supreme court to the nearby US Capitol, holding aloft a sign that said “My body my choice” and “Women’s right to choose”, Taylor Treacy was struggling to fathom how she had fewer constitutional rights now than when she awoke that morning.
“It’s heartbreaking,” said the 28-year-old, who works in sports marketing. “The people who have legally gotten abortions in the United States are mostly Black and brown women, yet the five justices able to have the final word were four powerful men and one white woman. We’re allowing more access to guns yet we’re taking away the rights of women. It just seems like we’re going backwards.” Continue reading...
US women's national team forward Megan Rapinoe described the supreme court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade as "sad and cruel". The Supreme Court has ruled there is no constitutional right to abortion in the United States, upending the landmark Roe v Wade case from nearly 50 years ago.
'It will completely exacerbate so many of the existing inequalities that we have in our country. It doesn't keep not one single person safer,' she said Continue reading...
The post-Roe US will be a nightmare of digital authoritarianism where even Googling ‘abortion pill’ could be used against you
Well, it finally happened. The fact that we all expected it, that we have spent the last few weeks waiting for this to happen, didn’t blunt the shock of it. On Friday the supreme court issued a decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization that overturned Roe v Wade. Six unelected supreme court justices stripped bodily autonomy away from tens of millions of women and ended nearly 50 years of legal abortion rights in the US. Continue reading...
With its decision on Roe v Wade, the court has signaled its illegitimacy – and thrown the American project into question
As of 24 June 2022, the US supreme court should officially be understood as an illegitimate institution – a tool of minority rule over the majority, and as part of a far-right ideological and authoritarian takeover that must be snuffed out if we want American democracy to survive.
On Friday, in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health, the supreme court overruled its nearly 50-year precedent of Roe v Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion nationwide. It is difficult to overstate just how devastating this is for pregnant people, for women as a class and for anyone with even a passing interest in individual freedom and equality. Continue reading...
The supreme court has overturned Roe v Wade – here is the dissenting opinion by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan
After today, young women will come of age with fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers had. The majority accomplishes that result without so much as considering how women have relied on the right to choose or what it means to take that right away. The majority’s refusal even to consider the life-altering consequences of reversing Roe and Casey is a stunning indictment of its decision.
One last consideration counsels against the majority’s ruling: the very controversy surrounding Roe and Casey. The majority accuses Casey of acting outside the bounds of the law to quell the conflict over abortion – of imposing an unprincipled “settlement” of the issue in an effort to end “national division”. But that is not what Casey did. As shown above, Casey applied traditional principles of stare decisis – which the majority today ignores – in reaffirming Roe. Casey carefully assessed changed circumstances (none) and reliance interests (profound). It considered every aspect of how Roe’s framework operated. It adhered to the law in its analysis, and it reached the conclusion that the law required. True enough that Casey took notice of the “national controversy” about abortion: the court knew in 1992, as it did in 1973, that abortion was a “divisive issue”. But Casey’s reason for acknowledging public conflict was the exact opposite of what the majority insinuates. Casey addressed the national controversy in order to emphasize how important it was, in that case of all cases, for the Court to stick to the law. Would that today’s majority had done likewise.
“The American people’s belief in the rule of law would be shaken if they lost respect for this Court as an institution that decides important cases based on principle, not ‘social and political pressures.’ There is a special danger that the public will perceive a decision as having been made for unprincipled reasons when the court overrules a controversial ‘watershed’ decision, such as Roe. A decision overruling Roe would be perceived as having been made ‘under fire’ and as a ‘surrender to political pressure.’”
This has been excerpted from the US supreme court’s minority opinion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization. It has been edited to remove some legal citations Continue reading...
Millions of women are now less free than men, in the functioning of their own bodies and in the paths of their own lives
The story is not about the supreme court. Today, the sword that has long been hanging over American women’s heads finally fell: the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, ending the nationwide right to an abortion. This has long been expected, and long dreaded, by those in the reproductive rights movement, and it has long been denied by those who wished to downplay the court’s extremist lurch. The coming hours will be consumed with finger pointing and recriminations. But the story is not about who was right and who was wrong.
Nor is the story about the US judiciary’s crumbling legitimacy, or the supreme court’s fractious internal politics. In the coming days, our attention will be called to the justices themselves – to their feelings, to their careers, to their safety. We will be distracted by the stench of partisanship and scandal that emanates from the shadowy halls of One First Street; by the justices’ grievance-airing and petty backbiting in public; or by their vengeful paranoid investigation into the leak of a draft of Samuel Alito’s opinion some weeks ago. We will be scolded not to protest outside their houses, and we will be prevented, by high fences and heavy gates and the presence of armed cops, from protesting outside the court itself. But the story is not about the supreme court. Continue reading...
The supreme court think that restrictions on handguns are grotesquely exceeding their powers. But outlawing abortion? Totally fine
The US supreme court on Thursday voted 6-3 in favor of more people getting shot. More formally, they voted to strike down a New York law that restricted the ability of people to carry guns outside of their homes. Experts say it is the most consequential second amendment ruling in more than a decade, and it will make it much harder for states and cities to prevent their citizens from roaming around town armed and ready for shootouts like so many cowboys in Deadwood. One thing that is safe to say is that, as a result of this decision, more Americans will die violent deaths – with freedom!
To dissect this ruling as a matter of legal theory is a waste of time. It’s all pretext. All you need to know about the legal theories at work in the current supreme court is that if states want to restrict your ability to carry a handgun, they are grotesquely exceeding their powers, but if states want to outlaw abortion, well, it is only fair that states have that power.
Hamilton Nolan is a writer based in New York Continue reading...
Private information collected and retained by companies could be weaponized to prosecute abortion seekers and providers
After the US supreme court overturned Roe v Wade on Friday, calls increased for tech companies to take a stand about the use of online data to incriminate individuals seeking or providing abortion services.
Abortion and civil rights advocates have warned that there are few federal regulations on what information is collected and retained by tech firms, making it easy for law enforcement officials to access incriminating data on location, internet searches and communication history. Continue reading...
Saudi Arabia’s Supreme Court has called on all Muslims in the Kingdom to sight the Dhu al-Hijjah crescent moon on Wednesday evening, the official Saudi Press Agency reported on Monday.For the latest
The marches come 2 days after a conservative justice said the Supreme Court should reconsider the right to same-sex marriage and laws criminalising gay sex.
The former president’s judiciary nominations have led the Christian right to its holy grail – the Supreme Court ending the nationwide right to abortion.
Justice Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court should ‘reconsider’ other landmark rulings, including same-sex marriage and contraception.
Some on the right have highlighted her criticisms of Roe to support what the Supreme Court did. The reality isn't nearly so neat and tidy.
The case of Joseph Kennedy, an assistant football coach at Bremerton High School in Washington, pitted red states against blue ones, some professional football players against others, divided constitutional experts and drew more friend-of-the-court briefs than any case at the Supreme Court this term, except for the controversies over abortion and gun control.
In the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, the story of new parents Brooke and Billy offers a preview of what life could look like for people facing a wave of abortion bans around the country.
The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday, ending the constitutional right to an abortion. Follow along for the latest news on the fallout and demonstrations.
The Supreme Court voted 6 to 3 to uphold a restrictive Mississippi law and overturn the constitutional right to abortion established nearly 50 years ago in Roe v. Wade.
After the Supreme Court on Friday overturned the fundamental right to abortion established nearly 50 years ago in Roe v. Wade, abortion clinics in states like Michigan where the procedure could soon face further restrictions are even more on edge.
The Supreme Court ruled that abortion is not protected by the U.S. Constitution, opening the door for states to ban the practice. The court’s vote to overturn Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which came in a 6-3 decision, ends 50 years of abortion as a constitutional right. Former President Donald Trump’s three appointees joined the majority.
With a decision returning prayer to public schools, the Supreme Court Monday gave another win to the free exercise clause of the Constitution.
As protests continue across the country in response to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, speak with two leading legal scholars. Kathryn “Kitty” Kolbert is co-founder of the Center for Reproductive Rights and argued the landmark case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992, which upheld Roe v. Wade. She is the co-author of “Controlling Women: What We Must Do Now to Save Reproductive Freedom.” Michele Goodwin is chancellor’s professor at University of California, Irvine School of Law and author of “Policing The Womb: Invisible Women and the Criminalization of Motherhood.” Her new piece for The New York Times is headlined “No, Justice Alito, Reproductive Justice Is in the Constitution.”
The conservative-led Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 on Friday to uphold a Republican-backed Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, while voting 5 to 4 to overturn Roe v. Wade. Chief Justice John Roberts supported upholding the Mississippi law but not overturning Roe. Nine states have already banned abortion since Friday, and 17 more states are expected to do so soon. We speak with Michele Goodwin, chancellor’s professor at University of California, Irvine School of Law, whose new piece for The New York Times is headlined “No, Justice Alito, Reproductive Justice Is in the Constitution.”
Supreme Court Strikes Down Roe v. Wade, Ending Constitutional Right to Abortion, Battle over Abortion Rights Will Shape 2022 Midterm Elections, Biden Signs Bipartisan Gun Safety Bill into Law, Russian Forces Complete Takeover of Ukraine’s Severodonetsk, G7 Discusses Ways to Counter Russia and China; Russia Defaults on Foreign Debt, At Least 23 Asylum Seekers Killed Attempting to Cross from Morocco to Spanish Enclave, Thousands Protest in Madrid Ahead of NATO Summit, U.S. Releases Asadullah Haroon Gul, Tortured and Jailed at Guantánamo for 15 Years Without Trial, Indian Human Rights Defender Teesta Setalvad Arrested, Funerals Held for Dom Phillips and Bruno Pereira After Their Murder in Brazil, Pride Celebrations Overshadowed by SCOTUS Ruling Ending Abortion Rights, Oslo, Norway, Pride Events Canceled After Gunman Opens Fire on Gay Bar, Killing 2, Trump-Appointed Judge Blocks Biden Administration Deportation Guidance
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a century-old New York state law that limited who can carry concealed weapons in public, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the 6-3 majority that the statute violated the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. The ruling vastly expands gun rights in the U.S. just weeks after mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, and represents “a revolution in Second Amendment law,” says Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern. “It declares that any restriction on the right to self-defense is presumptively unconstitutional.” In light of the Supreme Court decision, a bipartisan gun violence bill passed by the Senate is “one step forward, two steps back.” Stern also discusses a separate ruling in which the court’s conservative majority said a person who is arrested and not told of their right to remain silent cannot subsequently sue police for violating their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination — even if statements they give are ultimately used against them at trial. The decision could be setting the stage for the court to overturn the 1966 Miranda v. Arizona precedent altogether, Stern warns.