As per reports, the US saw a spike in demand of pregnancy control pills after the leak. As per experts, currently, over 50% of abortions in the United States are via pills.

Abortion debate: Demand for Abortion pills soar in United States

After US Supreme Court’s ‘leaked’ draft on Roe v Wade, anti and pro-abortion activists come face-to-face in Washington DC outside the court.

Roe v Wade: Pro & anti-abortion activists come face-to-face in US

Roe v Wade and abortion rights have become hot topics of discussion in the US ever since leak of a draft opinion from US Supreme Court hinted that supreme court judges were leaning towards overturning the historic judgment.

In case federal guarantee of abortion rights disappears it is understood to be likely that the debate will shift to abortion pills.

In US, a specific two-drug combination for abortion is authorised to be taken in first 10 weeks of pregnancy. The drug can be administered at home or anywhere. This method reportedly accounts for more than half abortions in the US.&nbsp;

“Given that most abortions are early and medication abortion is harder to trace and already kind of becoming the majority or preferred method, it’s going to be a big deal,” said Mary Ziegler, a legal scholar.

“It’s going to generate a lot of forthcoming legal conflicts because it’s just going to be a way that state borders are going to become less relevant.”

Ziegler was quoted by The New York Times.

The issue of abortion pills is likely to draw new battle-lines. Conservative states in the US are reportedly already banning medication abortion, even passing laws.&nbsp;

The issue of Roe v Wade has already started a debate in the US with assertive arguments on both sides. If the historic ruling is overturned, the frontier for new battle is likely to shift to abortion pills.

Decode the geostrategy, diplomacy, and ideologies of the world’s unending wars. Catch our special series ‘World at War’ every Saturday at 8:30 PM IST and Sunday at 10:30 PM IST only on WION.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

Roe v Wade and abortion rights have become hot topics of discussion in the US ever since leak of a draft opinion from US Supreme Court hinted that supreme court judges were leaning towards overturning the historic judgment.

Roe v Wade and abortion rights have become hot topics of discussion in the US ever since leak of a draft opinion from US Supreme Court hinted that supreme court judges were leaning towards overturning the historic judgment. In case federal guarantee of abortion rights disappears it is understood to be likely that the debate will shift to abortion pills. In US, a specific two-drug combination for abortion is authorised to be taken in first 10 weeks of pregnancy. The drug can be administered at home or anywhere. This method reportedly accounts for more than half abortions in the US. “Given that most abortions are early and medication abortion is harder to trace and already kind of becoming the majority or preferred method, it’s going to be a big deal,” said Mary Ziegler, a legal scholar. “It’s going to generate a lot of forthcoming legal conflicts because it’s just going to be a way that state borders are going to become less relevant.” Ziegler was quoted by The New York Times. The issue of abortion pills is likely to draw new battle-lines. Conservative states in the US are reportedly already banning medication abortion, even passing laws. The issue of Roe v Wade has already started a debate in the US with assertive arguments on both sides. If the historic ruling is overturned, the frontier for new battle is likely to shift to abortion pills. Decode the geostrategy, diplomacy, and ideologies of the world’s unending wars. Catch our special series ‘World at War’ every Saturday at 8:30 PM IST and Sunday at 10:30 PM IST only on WION. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

If Roe vs Wade is overturned, abortion pills may become the new debate

The debate over Roe v Wade has engulfed the United States once again and with reports hinting at a possible overturn of the historic Supreme Court judgement in the coming days, Republicans lawmakers in Louisiana have come up with a bill that seeks to make abortion a ‘crime of murder’.

In the Roe v Wade judgement of 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that the access to abortion is a women’s constitutional right. Later, in 1992, the Planned Parenthood v Casey case guaranteed the right to abortion for any woman till the fetus is ‘viable outside the womb’ of the woman.

However, according to a leaked report accessed by Politico, the Supreme Court is likely to strike down the right to abortion in the United States by overturning the Roe v Wade judgement.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-wanted-to-secretly-launch-missiles-on-mexico-drug-lords-labs-ex-defence-secretary-476730" hreflang="en">Trump wanted to launch missiles on Mexico drug lords, labs: Ex-defence secy</a>

Following the report, Republicans in a number of states have floored bills that launch a clear attack on abortion laws but until the official overturn, none of them can be officially implemented.

The bill, which was brought forward by Danny McCormick in Louisiana, was cleared in the House Appropriations Committee on a 7-2 vote. But McCormick believes that the bill should move forward irrespective of when the Supreme Court decides to overturn the Roe v Wade judgement.

"We can't wait on the Supreme Court," said McCormick according to The Guardian.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-white-house-gets-first-black-lgbtq-woman-press-secretary-476699">US: White House gets first Black, LGBTQ woman press secretary</a>

The state of Louisiana already has a “trigger law” in place if Roe v Wade is overturned which will mean that doctors who perform abortions can face up to 10 years in prison. However, the new law also includes mothers and anyone helping them to be prosecuted and charged with murder.

The new bill also does not have any exemptions or special cases when it comes to prosecution.

WATCH |&nbsp;United States: Abortion pill access to be restricted?

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/united-states-abortion-pill-access-to-be-restricted-476725/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The debate over Roe v Wade has engulfed the United States once again and with reports hinting at a possible overturn of the historic Supreme Court judgement in the coming days, Republicans lawmakers in Louisiana have come up with a bill that seeks to make abortion a ‘crime of murder’.

The debate over Roe v Wade has engulfed the United States once again and with reports hinting at a possible overturn of the historic Supreme Court judgement in the coming days, Republicans lawmakers in Louisiana have come up with a bill that seeks to make abortion a ‘crime of murder’. In the Roe v Wade judgement of 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that the access to abortion is a women’s constitutional right. Later, in 1992, the Planned Parenthood v Casey case guaranteed the right to abortion for any woman till the fetus is ‘viable outside the womb’ of the woman. However, according to a leaked report accessed by Politico, the Supreme Court is likely to strike down the right to abortion in the United States by overturning the Roe v Wade judgement. Also read | Trump wanted to launch missiles on Mexico drug lords, labs: Ex-defence secy Following the report, Republicans in a number of states have floored bills that launch a clear attack on abortion laws but until the official overturn, none of them can be officially implemented. The bill, which was brought forward by Danny McCormick in Louisiana, was cleared in the House Appropriations Committee on a 7-2 vote. But McCormick believes that the bill should move forward irrespective of when the Supreme Court decides to overturn the Roe v Wade judgement. "We can't wait on the Supreme Court," said McCormick according to The Guardian. Also read | US: White House gets first Black, LGBTQ woman press secretary The state of Louisiana already has a “trigger law” in place if Roe v Wade is overturned which will mean that doctors who perform abortions can face up to 10 years in prison. However, the new law also includes mothers and anyone helping them to be prosecuted and charged with murder. The new bill also does not have any exemptions or special cases when it comes to prosecution. WATCH | United States: Abortion pill access to be restricted?

Louisiana lawmakers advance bill classifying abortion as 'crime of murder'

The US Supreme Court leak has once again sparked the choice debate across America. Court's conservative majority voted to outlaw abortion and for more on this, we're joined by Lenka White, a journalist from New York.

United States: Will America overturn abortion rights?

US President Joe Biden was once against abortion. He had said women should not have 'sole right to say what should happen to her body'. In the race to the White House, Biden campaigned for reproductive rights, Will he now do what's right? Listen in to Palki Sharma.

Gravitas: Will Biden fight for abortion rights in the US?

The US Supreme Court rekindled America's decades-long struggle over abortion rights on Tuesday, confirming that a leaked draft opinion indicating that a majority of the nine justices would soon repeal the right was genuine.

The 1973 decision was regarded as "egregiously erroneous from the outset" in the document made by Justice Samuel Alito.

As Democrats in Washington and statehouses hurried to devise a response to safeguard a privilege that women in the United States have held for nearly half a century, President Joe Biden slammed the expected move as "extreme."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-abortion-ruling-leak-row-what-really-is-the-issue-476216">Also read | US Supreme Court abortion ruling leak row: What really is the issue?</a>

Protesters rallied in places across the United States under the banner "off our bodies."

Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/leaked-draft-shows-us-court-set-to-strike-down-abortion-rights-politico-475914">Leaked draft shows US Supreme Court set to strike down abortion rights: Politico</a>&nbsp;

Thousands of people turned out in New York City for an abortion-rights march, one of the largest in the country as Americans awoke to political and social turmoil months before the legislative midterm elections.

Watch | Gravitas: US top court is set to overturn abortion rights, reveals leaked document

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-us-top-court-is-set-to-overturn-abortion-rights-reveals-leaked-document-476191/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Protests were held or planned in cities across the United States, including Atlanta, Denver, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles, as the national Women's March urged supporters to bring their families and signs to "courthouses and federal buildings everywhere," using the hashtag #BansOffOurBodies on social media.

Meanwhile, anti-abortion demonstrators dominated the early-morning protests, beating drums and yelling over megaphones, "Pro-choice is a lie, babies never choose to die," and "Abortion is violence, abortion is tyranny."

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The US Supreme Court rekindled America's decades-long struggle over abortion rights on Tuesday, confirming that a leaked draft opinion indicating that a majority of the nine justices would soon repeal the right was genuine.

The US Supreme Court rekindled America's decades-long struggle over abortion rights on Tuesday, confirming that a leaked draft opinion indicating that a majority of the nine justices would soon repeal the right was genuine. The 1973 decision was regarded as "egregiously erroneous from the outset" in the document made by Justice Samuel Alito. As Democrats in Washington and statehouses hurried to devise a response to safeguard a privilege that women in the United States have held for nearly half a century, President Joe Biden slammed the expected move as "extreme." Also read | US Supreme Court abortion ruling leak row: What really is the issue? Protesters rallied in places across the United States under the banner "off our bodies." Read | Leaked draft shows US Supreme Court set to strike down abortion rights: Politico Thousands of people turned out in New York City for an abortion-rights march, one of the largest in the country as Americans awoke to political and social turmoil months before the legislative midterm elections. Watch | Gravitas: US top court is set to overturn abortion rights, reveals leaked document Protests were held or planned in cities across the United States, including Atlanta, Denver, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles, as the national Women's March urged supporters to bring their families and signs to "courthouses and federal buildings everywhere," using the hashtag #BansOffOurBodies on social media. Meanwhile, anti-abortion demonstrators dominated the early-morning protests, beating drums and yelling over megaphones, "Pro-choice is a lie, babies never choose to die," and "Abortion is violence, abortion is tyranny." WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

'Off our bodies': Abortion-rights protesters rally in US, spurred by draft Supreme Court opinion

The US Supreme Court confirmed that the leaked draft opinion obtained by Politico that suggests the high court is poised to overturn Roe vs Wade is authentic. But it urged that the decision is not yet final.

US top court confirms authenticity of leaked draft opinion overturning Roe Vs Wade ruling

The right to abortion in America is on the line a day after draft opinion surfaced online. The US Supreme Court has confirmed the legitimacy of the document, the leaked majority opinion suggested that the top US court is poised to strike down the right to abortion in the United States.

Will America overturn Abortion rights?

An anti-abortion activist calling himself 'pro-life Sprider-Man' was detained by San Francisco police after he climbed a 60-storey tower in the city.

His Instagram account identifies him as Maison Deschamps. The self-proclaimed 'pro-life Spider-Man' even posted an Instagra story mid-climb on the tower, said Fox Business.&nbsp;

"I am here at the Salesforce tower... It`s going alright," the man could be heard saying in the Instagram story posted.

"It`s all going good, just wish I had a little water," he said in another story posted on Instagram, adding, "I just got to troop it out, everything is going good though."

"It`s not like that hard," the man said in a subsequent post, commenting on his climb.

San Francisco fire department responded to the incident by deploying its personnel for the rescue of the climber and said that the person was putting the lives of firefighters and the public safety at risk.

"San Francisco Fire is on scene with other Public Safety Agencies at 415 Mission, Sales Force Tower for a reported climber climbing the 60 floor tower. This person is placing firefighters lives and the publics safety at risk. AVOID THE AREA and join us in condemning this action," the fire department said in a tweet.

About an hour later, the fire department issued an update saying that the issue has been resolved and the concerned person is in the custody of the San Francisco police.

The issue of right of abortion has come to the fore in the US as a leak of US Supreme Court draft suggested that the judges were in favour of overturning the historic Roe vs Wade judgment. If the judgment is overturned it will be up to states to decide about access to abortion. People in many conservative states in the US are opposed to liberal access to abortion.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

An anti-abortion activist calling himself 'pro-life Sprider-Man' was detained by San Francisco police after he climbed a 60-storey tower in the city. His Instagram account identifies him as Maison Deschamps.

An anti-abortion activist calling himself 'pro-life Sprider-Man' was detained by San Francisco police after he climbed a 60-storey tower in the city. His Instagram account identifies him as Maison Deschamps. The self-proclaimed 'pro-life Spider-Man' even posted an Instagra story mid-climb on the tower, said Fox Business. "I am here at the Salesforce tower... It`s going alright," the man could be heard saying in the Instagram story posted. "It`s all going good, just wish I had a little water," he said in another story posted on Instagram, adding, "I just got to troop it out, everything is going good though." "It`s not like that hard," the man said in a subsequent post, commenting on his climb. San Francisco fire department responded to the incident by deploying its personnel for the rescue of the climber and said that the person was putting the lives of firefighters and the public safety at risk. "San Francisco Fire is on scene with other Public Safety Agencies at 415 Mission, Sales Force Tower for a reported climber climbing the 60 floor tower. This person is placing firefighters lives and the publics safety at risk. AVOID THE AREA and join us in condemning this action," the fire department said in a tweet. About an hour later, the fire department issued an update saying that the issue has been resolved and the concerned person is in the custody of the San Francisco police. The issue of right of abortion has come to the fore in the US as a leak of US Supreme Court draft suggested that the judges were in favour of overturning the historic Roe vs Wade judgment. If the judgment is overturned it will be up to states to decide about access to abortion. People in many conservative states in the US are opposed to liberal access to abortion. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

Anti-abortion, 'Pro-life Spider-Man', climbs 60-Storey tower in San Francisco

US repeatedly lectures the world and India on human rights, minority rights. This 'champion' of rights is all set to overturn the right to abortion at home. America will deny basic reproductive rights to women. Palki Sharma tells you more.

Gravitas: US top court is set to overturn abortion rights, reveals leaked document

The leak is out, and according to it, the US Supreme Court has voted to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion decision from 1973, which preserves women's rights to abortion in the United States.

The leaked draft of a majority judgement, which Politico published on Monday and the Supreme Court certified as legitimate on Tuesday morning, is not the final decision.&nbsp;

It's possible that this will change in the future months.

However, five of the Supreme Court's nine justices agree with Mississippi, which brought the matter before the court, and favour overturning the landmark decision. If that happens, abortion may be made illegal in at least 13 states, and possibly as many as 26.

As a result, hundreds of thousands of people in 26 states opposed to abortion would be forced to seek abortion elsewhere, either by driving hundreds of miles to an abortion clinic or by self-medicating with drugs obtained from grassroots or illegal groups.

The leaked view has re-ignited debate on a topic that has shaped US politics for decades. Let's take a look at what it's all about:

What is the case of Roe v Wade?

The Supreme Court decided in Roe v Wade in 1973 that the right to an abortion is guaranteed under the US constitution.

While abortion is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, the justices ruled that it is protected under the rights to privacy guaranteed by the constitution's guarantees of liberty, particularly the ninth and 14th amendments, the latter of which prohibits a state from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Is it possible to overturn it?

With a fresh ruling, a Supreme Court decision can be overturned.

However, such verdicts are uncommon, as most justices are hesitant to depart from the principle of stare decisis, or following precedent.

According to a Quartz analysis, it happened only 161 times in over 9,000 judgements between 1946 and 2020.

Senator Susan Collins testified at Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing that conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh informed her in a closed-door meeting that Roe v Wade was "established law." Kavanaugh was one of the justices who voted in favour of the draft opinion overturning the decision.

How did Roe v Wade come about?

Jane Roe, later identified as Norma McCorvey, was a Texas mother who sought an abortion after becoming pregnant with her third child.

At the time, Texas state law prohibited the procedure unless the woman's life was in danger.

She filed a lawsuit against the government. Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Henry Wade fought Roe for the state, earning the case the name "Roe v Wade."

McCorvey's lawsuit was one of many brought by pro-abortion rights groups around the country, and it went through multiple hearings and appeals before reaching the Supreme Court.

The court ruled with a 7-2 majority that the Texas law was unconstitutional.

By that time, Roe had already given birth to her third child, but the Supreme Court decided to proceed with the case, ruling her challenge was “capable of repetition” and therefore overcame the “mootness doctrine”.

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

Decode the geostrategy, diplomacy, and ideologies of the world’s unending wars. Catch our special series ‘World at War’ every Saturday at 8:30 PM IST and Sunday at 10:30 PM IST only on WION.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The leak is out, and according to it, the US Supreme Court has voted to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion decision from 1973, which preserves women's rights to abortion in the United States.

The leak is out, and according to it, the US Supreme Court has voted to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion decision from 1973, which preserves women's rights to abortion in the United States. The leaked draft of a majority judgement, which Politico published on Monday and the Supreme Court certified as legitimate on Tuesday morning, is not the final decision. It's possible that this will change in the future months. However, five of the Supreme Court's nine justices agree with Mississippi, which brought the matter before the court, and favour overturning the landmark decision. If that happens, abortion may be made illegal in at least 13 states, and possibly as many as 26. As a result, hundreds of thousands of people in 26 states opposed to abortion would be forced to seek abortion elsewhere, either by driving hundreds of miles to an abortion clinic or by self-medicating with drugs obtained from grassroots or illegal groups. The leaked view has re-ignited debate on a topic that has shaped US politics for decades. Let's take a look at what it's all about: What is the case of Roe v Wade? The Supreme Court decided in Roe v Wade in 1973 that the right to an abortion is guaranteed under the US constitution. While abortion is not specifically mentioned in the constitution, the justices ruled that it is protected under the rights to privacy guaranteed by the constitution's guarantees of liberty, particularly the ninth and 14th amendments, the latter of which prohibits a state from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Is it possible to overturn it? With a fresh ruling, a Supreme Court decision can be overturned. However, such verdicts are uncommon, as most justices are hesitant to depart from the principle of stare decisis, or following precedent. According to a Quartz analysis, it happened only 161 times in over 9,000 judgements between 1946 and 2020. Senator Susan Collins testified at Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing that conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh informed her in a closed-door meeting that Roe v Wade was "established law." Kavanaugh was one of the justices who voted in favour of the draft opinion overturning the decision. How did Roe v Wade come about? Jane Roe, later identified as Norma McCorvey, was a Texas mother who sought an abortion after becoming pregnant with her third child. At the time, Texas state law prohibited the procedure unless the woman's life was in danger. She filed a lawsuit against the government. Meanwhile, Texas Attorney General Henry Wade fought Roe for the state, earning the case the name "Roe v Wade." McCorvey's lawsuit was one of many brought by pro-abortion rights groups around the country, and it went through multiple hearings and appeals before reaching the Supreme Court. The court ruled with a 7-2 majority that the Texas law was unconstitutional. By that time, Roe had already given birth to her third child, but the Supreme Court decided to proceed with the case, ruling her challenge was “capable of repetition” and therefore overcame the “mootness doctrine”. WATCH WION LIVE HERE Decode the geostrategy, diplomacy, and ideologies of the world’s unending wars. Catch our special series ‘World at War’ every Saturday at 8:30 PM IST and Sunday at 10:30 PM IST only on WION.

US Supreme Court abortion ruling leak row: What really is the issue?

US President Joe Biden on Tuesday urged Americans to defend access to abortion. His appeal came after a leaked draft opinion of the US Supreme Court showed that majority of the conservative-dominated court was of the opinion to end nationwide right and access to abortion.&nbsp;

Biden warned that if such a verdict was delivered it may lead to widespread changes in American law as "every other decision relating to the notion of privacy is thrown into question."

Watch | US: Draft leak suggests court to overturn abortion rights

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-draft-leak-suggests-court-to-overturn-abortion-rights-476162/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

If the ruling is finalized, abortion laws will depend on individual states and "it will fall on voters to elect" officials who back the right to the procedure, Biden said after the ruling was leaked.

"If this decision holds, it's really quite a radical decision," Biden told reporters in Washington as he departed on a trip to Alabama. "It's a fundamental shift in American jurisprudence."

"I believe that a woman's right to choose is fundamental," Biden said, referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v Wade that declared abortion a constitutionally protected right.

Biden also called on Congress to enshrine legal abortion in US law. It is the only way of overcoming any Supreme Court ruling that the document apparently shows is set to be issued.

It is clear by now that the leaked Supreme Court draft is authentic. This has been confirmed US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/leaked-draft-shows-us-court-set-to-strike-down-abortion-rights-politico-475914">Leaked draft shows US Supreme Court set to strike down abortion rights: Politico</a>&nbsp; 
 
On Tuesday, Roberts said that draft was authentic, but not the final decision on the matter. He termed draft leak an "egregious breach" of trust.

News outlet Politico late on Monday published a draft opinion that suggested the conservative-dominated high court was poised to shred nearly 50 years of constitutional protections by striking down the nationwide right to abortion in the United States.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

US President Joe Biden on Tuesday urged Americans to defend access to abortion. His appeal came after a leaked draft opinion of the US Supreme Court showed that majority of the conservative-dominated court was of the opinion to end nationwide right and access to abortion.

US President Joe Biden on Tuesday urged Americans to defend access to abortion. His appeal came after a leaked draft opinion of the US Supreme Court showed that majority of the conservative-dominated court was of the opinion to end nationwide right and access to abortion. Biden warned that if such a verdict was delivered it may lead to widespread changes in American law as "every other decision relating to the notion of privacy is thrown into question." Watch | US: Draft leak suggests court to overturn abortion rights × If the ruling is finalized, abortion laws will depend on individual states and "it will fall on voters to elect" officials who back the right to the procedure, Biden said after the ruling was leaked. "If this decision holds, it's really quite a radical decision," Biden told reporters in Washington as he departed on a trip to Alabama. "It's a fundamental shift in American jurisprudence." "I believe that a woman's right to choose is fundamental," Biden said, referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v Wade that declared abortion a constitutionally protected right. Biden also called on Congress to enshrine legal abortion in US law. It is the only way of overcoming any Supreme Court ruling that the document apparently shows is set to be issued. It is clear by now that the leaked Supreme Court draft is authentic. This has been confirmed US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. Read | Leaked draft shows US Supreme Court set to strike down abortion rights: Politico On Tuesday, Roberts said that draft was authentic, but not the final decision on the matter. He termed draft leak an "egregious breach" of trust. News outlet Politico late on Monday published a draft opinion that suggested the conservative-dominated high court was poised to shred nearly 50 years of constitutional protections by striking down the nationwide right to abortion in the United States. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

US President Joe Biden urges Americans to oppose possible anti-abortion ruling

According to a leaked initial draft majority opinion published by Politico, the US Supreme Court is on the verge of overturning Roe v. Wade decision that legalised abortion in the country.

US: Draft leak suggests court to overturn abortion rights

According to a leaked initial draft majority opinion published by Politico, the US Supreme Court looks set to vote to overturn the Roe vs Wade decision that legalised abortion nationwide.

US Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v Wade abortion rights decision, says report

The Supreme Court of the United States is likely to strike down the right to abortion in the country, citing a leaked draft of a majority opinion that would represent a staggering blow to women’s rights.

US top court set to overturn law legalizing abortion, leaked draft opinion shows

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt on Tuesday signed a bill that makes it illegal to perform an abortion in the state except in medical emergencies, penalising those who do with up to $100,000 in fines and 10 years in prison.

The legislation, which is one of several anti-abortion measures advanced by the state's Republican-controlled legislature this year, will take effect this summer unless it is blocked in court.

"The fact that the governor of Oklahoma passed a criminal ban on all abortion care that would take effect this summer is not surprising, but that doesn't mean we're not shocked and aghast. I mean, the implications for people in Oklahoma are devastating,” said Talcott Camp, Chief Legal and Strategy Officer of the National Abortion Federation (NAF), the professional association of abortion providers.

If it takes effect, the ban will widen a swath of the country where there is little to no legal abortion access. Oklahoma has become a frequent destination for Texas women seeking abortions since the larger neighboring state in September banned abortions for pregnancies from about six weeks, before many women even know they are pregnant.

Planned Parenthood abortion providers in Oklahoma saw a nearly 2,500 per cent&nbsp;increase in Texas patients in the months after the Texas law took effect compared to the same period in 2020, the organization said.

Camp said the increase in demand and shortage of available appointments meant women were waiting longer to have an abortion.

“There is one thing that increases the risks associated with abortion, and that's pushing it later,” she said. “So one thing politicians are doing here, one of the implications for folks in Oklahoma and Texas and the region is that they're getting pushed later into pregnancy, which is a terrible idea."

In the past few months, Republican-led states like Oklahoma have been quickly passing ever-stricter abortion bans with the anticipation that an impending US&nbsp;Supreme Court decision could help the bans withstand legal challenges.

The Supreme Court is due to rule by the end of June on a case involving a Republican-backed Mississippi law that gives its conservative majority a chance to undermine or even repeal the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalised abortion nationwide.

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt on Tuesday signed a bill that makes it illegal to perform an abortion in the state except in medical emergencies, penalising those who do with up to $100,000 in fines and 10 years in prison.

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt on Tuesday signed a bill that makes it illegal to perform an abortion in the state except in medical emergencies, penalising those who do with up to $100,000 in fines and 10 years in prison. The legislation, which is one of several anti-abortion measures advanced by the state's Republican-controlled legislature this year, will take effect this summer unless it is blocked in court. "The fact that the governor of Oklahoma passed a criminal ban on all abortion care that would take effect this summer is not surprising, but that doesn't mean we're not shocked and aghast. I mean, the implications for people in Oklahoma are devastating,” said Talcott Camp, Chief Legal and Strategy Officer of the National Abortion Federation (NAF), the professional association of abortion providers. If it takes effect, the ban will widen a swath of the country where there is little to no legal abortion access. Oklahoma has become a frequent destination for Texas women seeking abortions since the larger neighboring state in September banned abortions for pregnancies from about six weeks, before many women even know they are pregnant. Planned Parenthood abortion providers in Oklahoma saw a nearly 2,500 per cent increase in Texas patients in the months after the Texas law took effect compared to the same period in 2020, the organization said. Camp said the increase in demand and shortage of available appointments meant women were waiting longer to have an abortion. “There is one thing that increases the risks associated with abortion, and that's pushing it later,” she said. “So one thing politicians are doing here, one of the implications for folks in Oklahoma and Texas and the region is that they're getting pushed later into pregnancy, which is a terrible idea." In the past few months, Republican-led states like Oklahoma have been quickly passing ever-stricter abortion bans with the anticipation that an impending US Supreme Court decision could help the bans withstand legal challenges. The Supreme Court is due to rule by the end of June on a case involving a Republican-backed Mississippi law that gives its conservative majority a chance to undermine or even repeal the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalised abortion nationwide.

Oklahoma governor signs abortion ban

A Texas local prosecutor will drop criminal charges against Lizelle Herrera, a 26-year-old woman who was detained for conducting a self-induced abortion, in a case that drew national interest and also prompted abortion rights supporters to take to the streets in her support, US News reported.

Lizelle Herrera was arrested on Thursday by the Starr County Sheriff’s Office after a grand jury indictment on March 30, according to Valley central.com and her bond was set at $500,000.

Also read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/five-foetuses-found-at-the-home-of-an-anti-abortion-activist-467382">&nbsp;Five foetuses found at the home of an anti-abortion activist</a>

Gocha Allen Ramirez, the Starr County District Attorney, on Sunday announced his office would file a motion to dismiss charges against her.&nbsp;

Sheriff’s deputies were right to arrest her, said Ramirez, since to overlook the situation would have been a failure of their duty. He also said that the district attorney has prosecution discretion and that his job is to “do justice.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/oklahoma-house-passes-near-total-abortion-ban-with-threat-of-prison-for-providers-468826">Oklahoma House passes near-total abortion ban with threat of prison for providers</a>

The prosecutor said, "Following that oath, the only correct outcome to this matter is to immediately dismiss the indictment against Ms Herrera.” However, the prosecutor did not specify which legal criteria he used instead indicated. Rather, he pointed out how the indictment has ‘taken a toll’ on Lizelle and her family.

This decision once again sparked the debate over Texas abortion legislation which the US Supreme Court has also affirmed. It&nbsp;prohibits abortion beyond six weeks of pregnancy and does not even exempt women who are pregnant as a result of rape.

(With inputs from agencies)

A Texas local prosecutor will drop criminal charges against Lizelle Herrera, a 26-year-old woman who was detained for conducting a self-induced abortion, in a case that drew national interest and also prompted abortion rights supporters to take to the streets in her support, US News reported.

A Texas local prosecutor will drop criminal charges against Lizelle Herrera, a 26-year-old woman who was detained for conducting a self-induced abortion, in a case that drew national interest and also prompted abortion rights supporters to take to the streets in her support, US News reported. Lizelle Herrera was arrested on Thursday by the Starr County Sheriff’s Office after a grand jury indictment on March 30, according to Valley central.com and her bond was set at $500,000. Also read | Five foetuses found at the home of an anti-abortion activist Gocha Allen Ramirez, the Starr County District Attorney, on Sunday announced his office would file a motion to dismiss charges against her. Sheriff’s deputies were right to arrest her, said Ramirez, since to overlook the situation would have been a failure of their duty. He also said that the district attorney has prosecution discretion and that his job is to “do justice.” Also read | Oklahoma House passes near-total abortion ban with threat of prison for providers The prosecutor said, "Following that oath, the only correct outcome to this matter is to immediately dismiss the indictment against Ms Herrera.” However, the prosecutor did not specify which legal criteria he used instead indicated. Rather, he pointed out how the indictment has ‘taken a toll’ on Lizelle and her family. This decision once again sparked the debate over Texas abortion legislation which the US Supreme Court has also affirmed. It prohibits abortion beyond six weeks of pregnancy and does not even exempt women who are pregnant as a result of rape. (With inputs from agencies)

Prosecutor to drop charges against woman charged with murder for 'self-induced abortion’

A protest was organised by La Frontera Fund, a Rio Grande Valley abortion aid organisation outside the Starr County Jail in Southwestern Texas on Saturday&nbsp;where a 26-year-old woman Lizelle Herrera was allegedly charged with murder for conducting a "self-induced abortion",&nbsp;as per the protesters, reports said.

As per the&nbsp;sheriff’s office, the woman&nbsp;was arrested on Thursday after it was discovered that she deliberately and knowingly caused death of an individual via- self-induced abortion and her bond was set at $500,000. The sheriff’s office however did not confirm the report.

Also read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-authorises-voluntary-departure-of-non-essential-personnel-from-shanghai-469507">&nbsp;US authorises 'voluntary departure' of non-essential personnel from Shanghai</a>

The group’s founder, Rickie Gonzale on Saturday said, “She miscarried at a hospital and allegedly confided to hospital staff that she had attempted to induce her own abortion and she was reported to the authorities by hospital administration or staff.”

She also reportedly said that the group hasn’t been able to confirm the specifics but thinks this might be the first arrest since a new state legislation came into effect which states that abortion beyond six weeks is prohibited&nbsp;with no exception for pregnancies caused by rape or incest.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/five-foetuses-found-at-the-home-of-an-anti-abortion-activist-467382">Five foetuses found at the home of an anti-abortion activist</a>

The US Supreme Court left the restriction in midway, but the legal challenges are still pending.

Texas law allows a private person to sue anyone who assisted or supports a woman in abortion and can receive a minimum of $10,000 if their lawsuits are successful.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agenices)

A protest was organised by La Frontera Fund, a Rio Grande Valley abortion aid organisation outside the Starr County Jail in Southwestern Texas on Saturday where a 26-year-old woman Lizelle Herrera was allegedly charged with murder for conducting a "self-induced abortion", as per the protesters, reports said.

A protest was organised by La Frontera Fund, a Rio Grande Valley abortion aid organisation outside the Starr County Jail in Southwestern Texas on Saturday where a 26-year-old woman Lizelle Herrera was allegedly charged with murder for conducting a "self-induced abortion", as per the protesters, reports said. As per the sheriff’s office, the woman was arrested on Thursday after it was discovered that she deliberately and knowingly caused death of an individual via- self-induced abortion and her bond was set at $500,000. The sheriff’s office however did not confirm the report. Also read | US authorises 'voluntary departure' of non-essential personnel from Shanghai The group’s founder, Rickie Gonzale on Saturday said, “She miscarried at a hospital and allegedly confided to hospital staff that she had attempted to induce her own abortion and she was reported to the authorities by hospital administration or staff.” She also reportedly said that the group hasn’t been able to confirm the specifics but thinks this might be the first arrest since a new state legislation came into effect which states that abortion beyond six weeks is prohibited with no exception for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Also read | Five foetuses found at the home of an anti-abortion activist The US Supreme Court left the restriction in midway, but the legal challenges are still pending. Texas law allows a private person to sue anyone who assisted or supports a woman in abortion and can receive a minimum of $10,000 if their lawsuits are successful. (With inputs from agenices)

Protest in Texas after woman allegedly charged with murder for 'self-induced abortion'

Guatemala's Congress approved on Tuesday a law that punishes abortion with up to 25 years in prison and prohibits same-sex marriage and teaching about sexual diversity in schools.

Proposed by the conservative Viva Party, the law for the protection of life and the family was unexpectedly approved by a large majority of lawmakers including allies of President Alejandro Giammattei.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/guatemala-volcano-erupts-but-no-evacuations-yet-415407">Also read |&nbsp;Guatemala volcano erupts but no evacuations yet</a>

The legislation had been on ice since 2018 and still has to be published in the official gazette to come into force.

The penalty for an abortion was increased from between five to 10 years to 25 years - except when the life of the mother is in danger.

The law also prohibits teaching children and young adults about sexual diversity and gender ideology and stipulates that no orientations other than heterosexuality are "normal", the draft text shows.

Also see |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/on-womens-day-hundreds-march-against-gender-based-violence-femicide-in-mexico-460455" hreflang="en">On women's day, hundreds march against gender-based violence, femicide in Mexico</a>

Activists and some politicians have criticized the law, which was passed on International Woman's Day.

Guatemala's human rights ombudsman, Jordan Rodas, said he would challenge it on human rights grounds.

"It violates human rights, it violates the international agreements ratified by&nbsp;Guatemala, it is a setback to freedoms," Rodas told reporters outside Congress.

Some lawmakers argued that the law promotes hatred, homophobia and unfairly criminalises women.

Guatemala's Congress approved on Tuesday a law that punishes abortion with up to 25 years in prison and prohibits same-sex marriage and teaching about sexual diversity in schools.

Guatemala's Congress approved on Tuesday a law that punishes abortion with up to 25 years in prison and prohibits same-sex marriage and teaching about sexual diversity in schools. Proposed by the conservative Viva Party, the law for the protection of life and the family was unexpectedly approved by a large majority of lawmakers including allies of President Alejandro Giammattei. Also read | Guatemala volcano erupts but no evacuations yet The legislation had been on ice since 2018 and still has to be published in the official gazette to come into force. The penalty for an abortion was increased from between five to 10 years to 25 years - except when the life of the mother is in danger. The law also prohibits teaching children and young adults about sexual diversity and gender ideology and stipulates that no orientations other than heterosexuality are "normal", the draft text shows. Also see | On women's day, hundreds march against gender-based violence, femicide in Mexico Activists and some politicians have criticized the law, which was passed on International Woman's Day. Guatemala's human rights ombudsman, Jordan Rodas, said he would challenge it on human rights grounds. "It violates human rights, it violates the international agreements ratified by Guatemala, it is a setback to freedoms," Rodas told reporters outside Congress. Some lawmakers argued that the law promotes hatred, homophobia and unfairly criminalises women.

Guatemala law punishes abortion with prison for up to 25 years

The French parliament has adopted a new bill that extends the abortion deadline from 12 to 14 weeks.

Despite a dearth of doctors and the continuous closure of recognised abortion centres, the measure offers citizens additional time to freely end their pregnancy.

3,000 French women are forced to travel overseas for abortions each year, according to campaigners, since they have beyond the legal time limit.

France has now joined Spain and Austria in making abortion lawful up to 14 weeks of pregnancy, whilst the UK has a 24-week limit.

Midwives are now allowed to perform instrumental medical treatments under the new law.&nbsp;

President Emmanuel Macron's En Marche! party has backed the proposed bill, which was first introduced by opposition MP Albane Gaillot.

In a final vote in the National Assembly on Wednesday, 135 members backed the bill.

47 MPs voted against the extension, and 9 abstentions were recorded.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The French parliament has adopted a new bill that extends the abortion deadline from 12 to 14 weeks. Despite a dearth of doctors and the continuous closure of recognised abortion centres, the measure offers citizens additional time to freely end their pregnancy.

The French parliament has adopted a new bill that extends the abortion deadline from 12 to 14 weeks. Despite a dearth of doctors and the continuous closure of recognised abortion centres, the measure offers citizens additional time to freely end their pregnancy. 3,000 French women are forced to travel overseas for abortions each year, according to campaigners, since they have beyond the legal time limit. France has now joined Spain and Austria in making abortion lawful up to 14 weeks of pregnancy, whilst the UK has a 24-week limit. Midwives are now allowed to perform instrumental medical treatments under the new law. President Emmanuel Macron's En Marche! party has backed the proposed bill, which was first introduced by opposition MP Albane Gaillot. In a final vote in the National Assembly on Wednesday, 135 members backed the bill. 47 MPs voted against the extension, and 9 abstentions were recorded. (With inputs from agencies)

France extends the deadline for abortion from 12 to 14 weeks

For the first time in US history, abortion through medication accounted for the majority of all such procedures in 2020, a new study has said. &nbsp;

The analysis was made by the Guttmacher Institute. It is&nbsp;a leading reproductive rights group.&nbsp;

The medication abortion, which is also called the “abortion pill”, is a two-drug treatment. It has been approved to terminate a pregnancy up to 10 weeks' gestation or less. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/vegetarians-found-to-have-lower-cancer-risk-than-meat-eaters-456139" hreflang="en">Vegetarians found to have lower cancer risk than meat-eaters</a>

Sold under the brand name ‘Mifeprex’, the drugs have been accounted for a huge share of all abortions done in the US. It was introduced in 2000. &nbsp;

The rise seems to have been driven by the Covid pandemic and updation of FDA regulations. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Elizabeth Nash, interim associate director of state issues, Guttmacher Institute, said, “We are seeing more people using medication abortion and some of that may have to do with the pandemic and being able to protect themselves from Covid.” &nbsp;&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/in-a-new-israeli-study-hyperbaric-oxygen-therapy-relieves-ptsd-symptoms-455715" hreflang="en">In a new Israeli study, hyperbaric oxygen therapy relieves PTSD symptoms</a>

“Accessing medication abortion means [people] don’t have to travel long distances, take time off of work and arrange for childcare. That’s important too,” added Nash. &nbsp;

From 39% in 2017, the number of all pregnancies terminated with medication in the US has jumped to 54% in 2020.&nbsp;&nbsp;

“Because so many abortion patients are low-income, are Black and brown individuals, are young people, are LGBTQ individuals – people who have been systematically oppressed and faced barriers to accessing healthcare – being able to get access to abortion through telehealth is incredibly important,” added Nash. &nbsp;&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

For the first time in US history, abortion through medication accounted for the majority of all such procedures in 2020, a new study has said. The analysis was made by the Guttmacher Institute.

For the first time in US history, abortion through medication accounted for the majority of all such procedures in 2020, a new study has said. The analysis was made by the Guttmacher Institute. It is a leading reproductive rights group. The medication abortion, which is also called the “abortion pill”, is a two-drug treatment. It has been approved to terminate a pregnancy up to 10 weeks' gestation or less. Also Read: Vegetarians found to have lower cancer risk than meat-eaters Sold under the brand name ‘Mifeprex’, the drugs have been accounted for a huge share of all abortions done in the US. It was introduced in 2000. The rise seems to have been driven by the Covid pandemic and updation of FDA regulations. Elizabeth Nash, interim associate director of state issues, Guttmacher Institute, said, “We are seeing more people using medication abortion and some of that may have to do with the pandemic and being able to protect themselves from Covid.” Also Read: In a new Israeli study, hyperbaric oxygen therapy relieves PTSD symptoms “Accessing medication abortion means [people] don’t have to travel long distances, take time off of work and arrange for childcare. That’s important too,” added Nash. From 39% in 2017, the number of all pregnancies terminated with medication in the US has jumped to 54% in 2020. “Because so many abortion patients are low-income, are Black and brown individuals, are young people, are LGBTQ individuals – people who have been systematically oppressed and faced barriers to accessing healthcare – being able to get access to abortion through telehealth is incredibly important,” added Nash. (With inputs from agencies)

For the first time, abortion through medication takes majority share in US in 2020, finds study

Judges on&nbsp;Colombia's constitutional court voted on Monday to decriminalize abortion until 24 weeks of gestation, the court said in a statement, in a victory for abortion rights groups that sued to have the procedure removed from the penal code.&nbsp;

The decision adds&nbsp;Colombia&nbsp;to a list of Latin American countries which have recently liberalized abortion access, including Mexico and Ecuador.&nbsp;

Abortion was partially legalized in&nbsp;Colombia&nbsp;under a 2006 court decision which allowed it only in cases of rape, fatal fetal deformity and health of the woman, without any time limits.&nbsp;

Under Monday's ruling, backed by five of nine judges, women will not be prosecuted for seeking abortions up to 24 weeks of gestation, after which the procedure will only be allowed under the original three conditions.&nbsp;

"The practice of abortion will only be punishable when it is conducted after the twenty-fourth week of gestation and, in all cases, this time limit will not apply to the three conditions laid out in Ruling C-355 of 2006," the court said in a statement.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/end-of-the-road-in-colombia-for-escobars-cocaine-hippos-451184">End of the road in Colombia for Escobar's 'cocaine' hippos?</a>

Congress and the national government must urgently implement policies to protect the rights of pregnant women, the court's statement added, including family planning services, eliminating obstacles to abortion care and help with adoptions.&nbsp;

The Causa Justa coalition, which sued for decriminalization in September 2020, estimates around 90% of abortions in the country take place clandestinely, putting women's lives at risk as they seek dangerous alternatives to seeing a doctor. "We did it!" the coalition, which is made up of more than 90 feminist organizations, said on its Twitter account.&nbsp;

Its supporters, many sporting green to represent the abortion rights movement and some crying, celebrated outside the court.&nbsp;

CHANGE ACROSS THE REGION

Mexico's Supreme Court decriminalized abortion last year, while Ecuador's National Assembly last week approved regulations to allow access to abortion in cases of rape.&nbsp;

Incoming Chilean President Gabriel Boric has vowed to make the procedure freely available, as it is in Argentina and Uruguay under certain time limits.&nbsp;

Abortion rights advocates said the decision was not the end of their fight for full legalization.&nbsp;

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/amazon-fires-colombia-issues-environmental-alert-over-bad-air-quality-451004">Amazon fires: Colombia issues environmental alert over bad air quality</a>

"We hope that the next step for&nbsp;Colombia&nbsp;will be the total decriminalization of abortion, in order to protect women's reproductive autonomy at all times," Nancy Northup, president of the New York City-based Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement.&nbsp;

The coalition argued in its suit that prosecutions of women and girls who sought or obtained abortions have worsened stigma and scared doctors and patients, even in cases when one of the three legal conditions has applied.&nbsp;

Some 350 women were convicted or sanctioned for abortions between the original 2006 ruling and mid-2019, including at least 80 girls under the age of 18, according to Causa Justa.&nbsp;

Watch |&nbsp;Farmers in Colombia expect flower exports to surge this year

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/farmers-in-colombia-expect-flower-exports-to-surge-this-year-452799/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Decriminalization will reduce deaths from clandestine procedures, save the under-funded health system money, end expensive prosecutions and guarantee women's bodily autonomy, the group said.&nbsp;

A ruling had originally been expected late last year, but the decision has been repeatedly delayed amid a recusal request from a judge and other procedural debates.&nbsp;

Dozens of protesters opposed to abortion were also outside the court on Monday.&nbsp;

"We don't want either legal or clandestine abortion," said Daniela Clavijo, who was protesting before the ruling. "We are asking the court to totally penalize abortion, so there's never any condition for abortion."&nbsp;

Judges on Colombia's constitutional court voted on Monday to decriminalize abortion until 24 weeks of gestation, the court said in a statement, in a victory for abortion rights groups that sued to have the procedure removed from the penal code.

Judges on Colombia's constitutional court voted on Monday to decriminalize abortion until 24 weeks of gestation, the court said in a statement, in a victory for abortion rights groups that sued to have the procedure removed from the penal code. The decision adds Colombia to a list of Latin American countries which have recently liberalized abortion access, including Mexico and Ecuador. Abortion was partially legalized in Colombia under a 2006 court decision which allowed it only in cases of rape, fatal fetal deformity and health of the woman, without any time limits. Under Monday's ruling, backed by five of nine judges, women will not be prosecuted for seeking abortions up to 24 weeks of gestation, after which the procedure will only be allowed under the original three conditions. "The practice of abortion will only be punishable when it is conducted after the twenty-fourth week of gestation and, in all cases, this time limit will not apply to the three conditions laid out in Ruling C-355 of 2006," the court said in a statement. Also read | End of the road in Colombia for Escobar's 'cocaine' hippos? Congress and the national government must urgently implement policies to protect the rights of pregnant women, the court's statement added, including family planning services, eliminating obstacles to abortion care and help with adoptions. The Causa Justa coalition, which sued for decriminalization in September 2020, estimates around 90% of abortions in the country take place clandestinely, putting women's lives at risk as they seek dangerous alternatives to seeing a doctor. "We did it!" the coalition, which is made up of more than 90 feminist organizations, said on its Twitter account. Its supporters, many sporting green to represent the abortion rights movement and some crying, celebrated outside the court. CHANGE ACROSS THE REGION Mexico's Supreme Court decriminalized abortion last year, while Ecuador's National Assembly last week approved regulations to allow access to abortion in cases of rape. Incoming Chilean President Gabriel Boric has vowed to make the procedure freely available, as it is in Argentina and Uruguay under certain time limits. Abortion rights advocates said the decision was not the end of their fight for full legalization. Also read | Amazon fires: Colombia issues environmental alert over bad air quality "We hope that the next step for Colombia will be the total decriminalization of abortion, in order to protect women's reproductive autonomy at all times," Nancy Northup, president of the New York City-based Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement. The coalition argued in its suit that prosecutions of women and girls who sought or obtained abortions have worsened stigma and scared doctors and patients, even in cases when one of the three legal conditions has applied. Some 350 women were convicted or sanctioned for abortions between the original 2006 ruling and mid-2019, including at least 80 girls under the age of 18, according to Causa Justa. Watch | Farmers in Colombia expect flower exports to surge this year Decriminalization will reduce deaths from clandestine procedures, save the under-funded health system money, end expensive prosecutions and guarantee women's bodily autonomy, the group said. A ruling had originally been expected late last year, but the decision has been repeatedly delayed amid a recusal request from a judge and other procedural debates. Dozens of protesters opposed to abortion were also outside the court on Monday. "We don't want either legal or clandestine abortion," said Daniela Clavijo, who was protesting before the ruling. "We are asking the court to totally penalize abortion, so there's never any condition for abortion."

Colombian court decriminalises abortion up to 24 weeks of gestation

Colombia's highest court has decriminalised abortion during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy. Before the ruling, Colombia allowed abortions only when a woman's life was in danger, a fetus had malformations or a pregnancy resulted from rape.

Colombia's highest court legalises abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy

In a bit of a historic moment, Ecuador's national assembly has now approved regulations that will allow women and girls to get easier access to abortion in cases of rape.

Legislators in Ecuador ease abortion rules

Three women from El Salvador who were sentenced to 30 years in prison have now been freed. The women were sentenced under the nation’s strict anti-abortion laws. This comes a few days after Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in a statement said that he spent part of his two-day trip meeting with women imprisoned for the crime of "aggravated homicide."&nbsp;

Also, celebrities including actors América Ferrera, Milla Jovovich and Kathryn Hahn asked President Nayib Bukele’s government to let the women return home for Christmas.

Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein said, "I am appalled that as a result of El Salvador's absolute prohibition on abortion, women are being punished for apparent miscarriages and other obstetric emergencies, accused and convicted of having induced termination of pregnancy."

With this, he called on the authorities to review all cases of women detained for abortion.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/un-calls-on-el-salvador-to-stop-jailing-women-for-abortion-24499">Also read |&nbsp;UN calls on El Salvador to stop jailing women for abortion</a>

Morena Herrera of the Citizen’s group for the depenalisation of abortion said that the group was initially told that one woman would be freed at presidential order. However, when they went to prison, a total of three women were released.

In a report by the Associated Press, Herrera said, "We presented ourselves at the prison in Zacatecoluca and Karen, Kathy and Evelyn left. They are free and in their homes."

El Salvador has one of the world's strictest bans on abortion. It does not permit exceptions. Even for rape or if the mother's life is at risk, there is no right to abortion. Also, the prison sentences can stretch up to 40 years.

In recent years, some rulings have been reversed, with several women released from jail after serving parts of their long sentences.

Still, women are often prosecuted for stillbirths and abortions induced because of medical emergencies.

(With inputs from agencies)

Three women from El Salvador who were sentenced to 30 years in prison have now been freed. The women were sentenced under the nation’s strict anti-abortion laws.

Three women from El Salvador who were sentenced to 30 years in prison have now been freed. The women were sentenced under the nation’s strict anti-abortion laws. This comes a few days after Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, in a statement said that he spent part of his two-day trip meeting with women imprisoned for the crime of "aggravated homicide." Also, celebrities including actors América Ferrera, Milla Jovovich and Kathryn Hahn asked President Nayib Bukele’s government to let the women return home for Christmas. Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein said, "I am appalled that as a result of El Salvador's absolute prohibition on abortion, women are being punished for apparent miscarriages and other obstetric emergencies, accused and convicted of having induced termination of pregnancy." With this, he called on the authorities to review all cases of women detained for abortion. Also read | UN calls on El Salvador to stop jailing women for abortion Morena Herrera of the Citizen’s group for the depenalisation of abortion said that the group was initially told that one woman would be freed at presidential order. However, when they went to prison, a total of three women were released. In a report by the Associated Press, Herrera said, "We presented ourselves at the prison in Zacatecoluca and Karen, Kathy and Evelyn left. They are free and in their homes." El Salvador has one of the world's strictest bans on abortion. It does not permit exceptions. Even for rape or if the mother's life is at risk, there is no right to abortion. Also, the prison sentences can stretch up to 40 years. In recent years, some rulings have been reversed, with several women released from jail after serving parts of their long sentences. Still, women are often prosecuted for stillbirths and abortions induced because of medical emergencies. (With inputs from agencies)

Three women convicted of abortion finally freed in El Salvador

Democrats have less than a month left controlling Virginia before Republicans take over the House of Delegates and the governor’s mansion. With the clock ticking, many in the party want to seize what they see as a fleeting opportunity: protecting abortion rights by codifying them into state law.

But Democratic leaders in the state Senate have dismissed the idea — and not on policy grounds or over concerns about political messaging. Several of the chamber’s members don’t want to change their vacation plans.

One senator is traveling in Africa. Others are in Europe. And the majority leader is headed to Hawaii.

“They’re not going to be able to get back; flights are booked this time of year,” the majority leader, Richard L. Saslaw, said from California, where he was en route to the Aloha State. The state’s General Assembly does not allow proxy or remote voting, and Democrats’ paper-thin majority in the state Senate requires all members to be present to pass contentious legislation.

“We discussed it,” Saslaw said. “There are too many people out of town.”

As abortion rights stand on a national precipice, with the Supreme Court likely to roll back or overturn Roe v. Wade next year, Democrats have issued dire warnings about the potential consequences, which could include at least 22 states moving swiftly to ban or severely restrict abortion access. The party’s options are limited at the federal and state levels, but many of its lawmakers have vowed to do whatever they can to protect the right to an abortion.

Yet as the intraparty dispute in Virginia shows, the party’s leaders are often wary about confronting the issue head-on. Congressional Democrats have been unable to pass legislative proposals to protect abortion federally, and President Joe Biden has yet to utter the word “abortion” publicly.

Many lawmakers in the party, as they continue to grapple with the pandemic and economic uncertainty, seem unwilling to prioritize abortion rights to the degree that some Democrats believe is necessary given the threats from the Supreme Court and conservative state legislatures.

In Virginia, where Gov. Ralph Northam has long been a champion of abortion rights, Democrats’ 21-19 majority in the state Senate includes moderates and one member who opposes abortion rights.

But beyond abortion politics, there is a split in Richmond between younger and more activist Democrats in the state House, and Senate Democrats who adhere more to the old “Virginia way” of doing state business. They are less willing to embrace extraordinary measures that go beyond the state’s regular legislative sessions, which are held only at the beginning of each year and are finished for 2021.

Sally Hudson, a Democratic delegate from Charlottesville, said she worried that the administration of Gov.-elect Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, would roll back expansions of reproductive health care access, like the abortion pills that became available by mail in the state in October.

“We’ve got two years to do our job each term, and I don’t know why we wouldn’t use all the time to do our jobs during that term,” Hudson said. “If not for Roe, for what?”

Abortion rights activists say the situations in Virginia and Washington underscore a lack of true commitment from Democrats, who have spent years campaigning on preserving the constitutional right to an abortion.

“The Democratic Party is clueless right now about the abortion access crisis, and it’s really dispiriting to see them trumpeting the same old rallying cries,” said Erin Matson, a founder of Reproaction, an abortion rights advocacy group.

Democrats in the Virginia Senate argue that it would be impossible to call the chamber back to Richmond in the next month, and that even if they did, there was no guarantee that the party would have enough votes.

“You’re in the holiday season — some people are making plans of being away,” said Creigh Deeds, a Democratic state senator from Bath County. “What’s your reality of getting people to Richmond, and what’s realistic to pass that we haven’t already passed?”

It is an echo of Democrats’ rationale in Congress, where their proposals stand little chance of becoming law under the Senate’s current legislative rules, which require 60 votes to proceed. A liberal group of senators trying to change those procedures to enact voting rights legislation has been thwarted by a few centrist Democrats.

In Virginia, Democrats considered taking action in November as they reeled from their electoral losses but decided against it. Then a series of Supreme Court rulings and hearings on abortion rights heightened the urgency for Democrats, with Republicans set to take the House majority Jan. 12. Youngkin will be inaugurated as governor three days later.

Tarina Keene, the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, an abortion rights group, said she had first proposed a postelection legislative session to address abortion rights in the two days immediately after the November election, when Democrats were stunned by Republicans’ victories in the state.

Keene said part of her argument to Virginia Democrats was that Republicans in other states, facing the imminent loss of statehouse control, had used lame-duck sessions to cement an advantage for themselves before Democrats took office.

“We definitely mentioned to folks that they would do that to us,” Keene said. “We’ve seen in it North Carolina and in Wisconsin,” she said. “Those are two very recent examples of what they’re willing to do to undermine the other side.”

Katherine White, who runs Network NoVA, a collective of dozens of liberal organizations in the Washington suburbs, has begun a campaign to pressure Virginia’s Democratic senators to return to Richmond.

She said Democrats’ overconfidence that their candidate for governor, Terry McAuliffe, would win had left them unprepared for the question of protecting abortion rights.

“There was no plan to go big and go bold, because they didn’t plan on losing,” she said.

Since Virginia Democrats took control of Richmond in early 2020, they have fulfilled their promises to roll back Republican-enacted abortion restrictions. But they have left the door open for Youngkin to place administrative roadblocks in the way of abortion access.

Youngkin downplayed his opposition to abortion rights in his general-election campaign. But in June, he was caught on an undercover video taken by a Democratic activist, saying he would go “on offense” if he won and Republicans took control of the House of Delegates.

A Youngkin spokesperson said the governor-elect’s previous remarks on abortion spoke for themselves. Youngkin has said that changing abortion law is not on his “Day 1” agenda, but he also reiterated last month that he would support a ban on most abortions after 20 weeks.

Still, despite the potential for changes to the state’s abortion laws, Saslaw dismissed the prospect of convening his chamber before the incoming governor’s inauguration. He said the possibility had been discarded in November by Democratic state senators — many of whom, including him, have campaigned on pledges to protect abortion rights.

“They didn’t want to do it,” he said Wednesday.

Even before the current Supreme Court cases from Mississippi and Texas that could weaken or overturn Roe v. Wade, many abortion rights supporters believed their movement faced an existential crisis.

This year, states have enacted 106 abortion restrictions, the most passed since Roe was decided in 1973, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a liberal research group.

Of the 15 states where Democrats control both state legislative chambers and the governor’s office, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico and New Jersey are the only ones that have not enshrined a woman’s right to an abortion into law. Other states, like California and New York, have gone even further, positioning themselves as refuges for women barred from seeking abortions elsewhere.

In Virginia, Saslaw’s position has angered Democratic state delegates, who during a Sunday night conference call pressed Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn to push to bring both chambers back into session.

Filler-Corn told them that she would happily bring them back to Richmond but that Saslaw was strident in his opposition, according to several delegates who participated in the call. Filler-Corn, in a statement issued by her spokesperson, said there was “no consensus” among House Democrats about convening before Youngkin’s inauguration.

Kathleen Murphy, a Democratic delegate from McLean, predicted that women would become outraged next year if Youngkin moved to restrict abortion access.

“This can be taken away from all of us, from all women, just because the Senate has made it clear that they will not come back to deal with the issue in a timely way,” she said.

Democrats have less than a month left controlling Virginia before Republicans take over the House of Delegates and the governor’s mansion. With the clock ticking, many in the party want to seize what they see as a fleeting opportunity: protecting abortion rights by codifying them into state law.

Democrats have less than a month left controlling Virginia before Republicans take over the House of Delegates and the governor’s mansion. With the clock ticking, many in the party want to seize what they see as a fleeting opportunity: protecting abortion rights by codifying them into state law. But Democratic leaders in the state Senate have dismissed the idea — and not on policy grounds or over concerns about political messaging. Several of the chamber’s members don’t want to change their vacation plans. One senator is traveling in Africa. Others are in Europe. And the majority leader is headed to Hawaii. “They’re not going to be able to get back; flights are booked this time of year,” the majority leader, Richard L. Saslaw, said from California, where he was en route to the Aloha State. The state’s General Assembly does not allow proxy or remote voting, and Democrats’ paper-thin majority in the state Senate requires all members to be present to pass contentious legislation. “We discussed it,” Saslaw said. “There are too many people out of town.” As abortion rights stand on a national precipice, with the Supreme Court likely to roll back or overturn Roe v. Wade next year, Democrats have issued dire warnings about the potential consequences, which could include at least 22 states moving swiftly to ban or severely restrict abortion access. The party’s options are limited at the federal and state levels, but many of its lawmakers have vowed to do whatever they can to protect the right to an abortion. Yet as the intraparty dispute in Virginia shows, the party’s leaders are often wary about confronting the issue head-on. Congressional Democrats have been unable to pass legislative proposals to protect abortion federally, and President Joe Biden has yet to utter the word “abortion” publicly. Many lawmakers in the party, as they continue to grapple with the pandemic and economic uncertainty, seem unwilling to prioritize abortion rights to the degree that some Democrats believe is necessary given the threats from the Supreme Court and conservative state legislatures. In Virginia, where Gov. Ralph Northam has long been a champion of abortion rights, Democrats’ 21-19 majority in the state Senate includes moderates and one member who opposes abortion rights. But beyond abortion politics, there is a split in Richmond between younger and more activist Democrats in the state House, and Senate Democrats who adhere more to the old “Virginia way” of doing state business. They are less willing to embrace extraordinary measures that go beyond the state’s regular legislative sessions, which are held only at the beginning of each year and are finished for 2021. Sally Hudson, a Democratic delegate from Charlottesville, said she worried that the administration of Gov.-elect Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, would roll back expansions of reproductive health care access, like the abortion pills that became available by mail in the state in October. “We’ve got two years to do our job each term, and I don’t know why we wouldn’t use all the time to do our jobs during that term,” Hudson said. “If not for Roe, for what?” Abortion rights activists say the situations in Virginia and Washington underscore a lack of true commitment from Democrats, who have spent years campaigning on preserving the constitutional right to an abortion. “The Democratic Party is clueless right now about the abortion access crisis, and it’s really dispiriting to see them trumpeting the same old rallying cries,” said Erin Matson, a founder of Reproaction, an abortion rights advocacy group. Democrats in the Virginia Senate argue that it would be impossible to call the chamber back to Richmond in the next month, and that even if they did, there was no guarantee that the party would have enough votes. “You’re in the holiday season — some people are making plans of being away,” said Creigh Deeds, a Democratic state senator from Bath County. “What’s your reality of getting people to Richmond, and what’s realistic to pass that we haven’t already passed?” It is an echo of Democrats’ rationale in Congress, where their proposals stand little chance of becoming law under the Senate’s current legislative rules, which require 60 votes to proceed. A liberal group of senators trying to change those procedures to enact voting rights legislation has been thwarted by a few centrist Democrats. In Virginia, Democrats considered taking action in November as they reeled from their electoral losses but decided against it. Then a series of Supreme Court rulings and hearings on abortion rights heightened the urgency for Democrats, with Republicans set to take the House majority Jan. 12. Youngkin will be inaugurated as governor three days later. Tarina Keene, the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, an abortion rights group, said she had first proposed a postelection legislative session to address abortion rights in the two days immediately after the November election, when Democrats were stunned by Republicans’ victories in the state. Keene said part of her argument to Virginia Democrats was that Republicans in other states, facing the imminent loss of statehouse control, had used lame-duck sessions to cement an advantage for themselves before Democrats took office. “We definitely mentioned to folks that they would do that to us,” Keene said. “We’ve seen in it North Carolina and in Wisconsin,” she said. “Those are two very recent examples of what they’re willing to do to undermine the other side.” Katherine White, who runs Network NoVA, a collective of dozens of liberal organizations in the Washington suburbs, has begun a campaign to pressure Virginia’s Democratic senators to return to Richmond. She said Democrats’ overconfidence that their candidate for governor, Terry McAuliffe, would win had left them unprepared for the question of protecting abortion rights. “There was no plan to go big and go bold, because they didn’t plan on losing,” she said. Since Virginia Democrats took control of Richmond in early 2020, they have fulfilled their promises to roll back Republican-enacted abortion restrictions. But they have left the door open for Youngkin to place administrative roadblocks in the way of abortion access. Youngkin downplayed his opposition to abortion rights in his general-election campaign. But in June, he was caught on an undercover video taken by a Democratic activist, saying he would go “on offense” if he won and Republicans took control of the House of Delegates. A Youngkin spokesperson said the governor-elect’s previous remarks on abortion spoke for themselves. Youngkin has said that changing abortion law is not on his “Day 1” agenda, but he also reiterated last month that he would support a ban on most abortions after 20 weeks. Still, despite the potential for changes to the state’s abortion laws, Saslaw dismissed the prospect of convening his chamber before the incoming governor’s inauguration. He said the possibility had been discarded in November by Democratic state senators — many of whom, including him, have campaigned on pledges to protect abortion rights. “They didn’t want to do it,” he said Wednesday. Even before the current Supreme Court cases from Mississippi and Texas that could weaken or overturn Roe v. Wade, many abortion rights supporters believed their movement faced an existential crisis. This year, states have enacted 106 abortion restrictions, the most passed since Roe was decided in 1973, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a liberal research group. Of the 15 states where Democrats control both state legislative chambers and the governor’s office, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico and New Jersey are the only ones that have not enshrined a woman’s right to an abortion into law. Other states, like California and New York, have gone even further, positioning themselves as refuges for women barred from seeking abortions elsewhere. In Virginia, Saslaw’s position has angered Democratic state delegates, who during a Sunday night conference call pressed Speaker Eileen Filler-Corn to push to bring both chambers back into session. Filler-Corn told them that she would happily bring them back to Richmond but that Saslaw was strident in his opposition, according to several delegates who participated in the call. Filler-Corn, in a statement issued by her spokesperson, said there was “no consensus” among House Democrats about convening before Youngkin’s inauguration. Kathleen Murphy, a Democratic delegate from McLean, predicted that women would become outraged next year if Youngkin moved to restrict abortion access. “This can be taken away from all of us, from all women, just because the Senate has made it clear that they will not come back to deal with the issue in a timely way,” she said.

Protect abortion rights? Virginia Democrats’ vacation plans get in the way.

Roe v. Wade has had a rough two weeks at the Supreme Court.

On Dec. 1, at arguments over its fate in a case from Mississippi, the five most conservative justices showed no interest in doing anything short of overruling it.

Then, on Friday, those same five justices allowed a Texas law that bans most abortions after six weeks to remain in place and seemed to shut down any effective way to challenge it in federal court. That law, which has been in place since Sept. 1, is flatly at odds with Roe, which established a constitutional right to abortion and prohibited states from banning the procedure before fetal viability, or around 23 weeks of pregnancy.

A decision in the Mississippi case is not expected until late June. If the court overrules Roe, an increasingly real possibility, it will have to explain why it is departing from the principle of stare decisis, which is legal Latin for “to stand by things decided.”

At his 2005 confirmation hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts said the Supreme Court should be wary of overturning precedents, in part because doing so threatens the court’s legitimacy.

“It is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent,” he said, listing various factors the court must consider before it takes the momentous step of discarding a precedent. They include, the court has said, “the quality of the decision’s reasoning.”

At the argument in the Mississippi case, concerning a state law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks, the chief justice refined that factor in an apparent attempt to dampen the jolt to the system.

He suggested that the fetal-viability line established in Roe was not a crucial part of the decision’s reasoning. “Was viability an issue in the case?” he asked. “I know it wasn’t briefed or argued.”

In shifting the focus from what the court had done to what the parties in the case had asked it to do, the chief justice was trying to justify upholding a 15-week line while stopping short of overruling Roe entirely, which would allow states to make all abortions illegal.

Whatever his goal, though, shifting the analysis from the words of the opinion to the advocacy that gave rise to it is a recent development and yet another way to undermine precedents.

Richard J. Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard, explored this mode of argument in a recent article in The Supreme Court Review called “Advocacy History in the Supreme Court.”

The article makes the sensible point that a full understanding of a Supreme Court decision requires consideration of how the parties had framed the case.

In preparing for a Supreme Court argument in which an earlier decision plays a central role, sophisticated lawyers scour the briefs and the argument transcript in the earlier case.

“It’s a tool in the advocacy toolbox,” said Jeffrey L. Fisher, a law professor at Stanford and a director of its Supreme Court clinic. “Often the opinion is going to be the second- or third-most relevant and helpful source.”

Roberts’ question seemed to go further, suggesting that the meaning and weight of a decision may turn on the arguments that had been presented to the court.

In 2007, in an opinion limiting the use of race in assigning students to public schools to achieve integration, Roberts made a similar move. A key precedent in that case was Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision banning racial segregation in public schools. The chief justice wrote that his 2007 opinion was “faithful to the heritage” of Brown.

He made his case by quoting from the original briefs in the case and from the oral argument in 1952. (Lawyers who had worked on the Brown litigation called the chief justice’s analysis “preposterous” and “100% wrong.”)

In 2008, in Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized an individual right to own guns under the Second Amendment, he discounted the leading precedent by focusing on its litigation history.

The defendants “made no appearance in the case, neither filing a brief nor appearing at oral argument; the court heard from no one but the government (reason enough, one would think, not to make that case the beginning and the end of this court’s consideration of the Second Amendment),” wrote Scalia, who died in 2016.

Lazarus said that it was one thing to look at the litigation history of a Supreme Court decision to understand it better and another to give it more or less precedential weight depending on what the lawyers had or had not argued.

Roberts’ question about Roe was in a sense irrelevant, as the significance of fetal viability had been thoroughly argued in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed Roe’s core holding.

That made Roe a “super-duper precedent,” Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania said at Roberts’ confirmation hearings. The chief justice did not adopt Specter’s terminology, but he did not quarrel with the senator’s larger point.

“The Casey decision itself, which applied the principles of stare decisis to Roe v. Wade, is itself a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis,” Roberts said, adding: “That is itself a precedent. It’s a precedent on whether or not to revisit the Roe v. Wade precedent.”

Lazarus said the court’s recent approach to precedent pointed in a different direction.

“Stare decisis, even for a case that has been referred to as super-precedent, is on the wane at the court,” he said. “And advocacy history plays a role.”

Roe v. Wade has had a rough two weeks at the Supreme Court. On Dec. 1, at arguments over its fate in a case from Mississippi, the five most conservative justices showed no interest in doing anything short of overruling it.

Roe v. Wade has had a rough two weeks at the Supreme Court. On Dec. 1, at arguments over its fate in a case from Mississippi, the five most conservative justices showed no interest in doing anything short of overruling it. Then, on Friday, those same five justices allowed a Texas law that bans most abortions after six weeks to remain in place and seemed to shut down any effective way to challenge it in federal court. That law, which has been in place since Sept. 1, is flatly at odds with Roe, which established a constitutional right to abortion and prohibited states from banning the procedure before fetal viability, or around 23 weeks of pregnancy. A decision in the Mississippi case is not expected until late June. If the court overrules Roe, an increasingly real possibility, it will have to explain why it is departing from the principle of stare decisis, which is legal Latin for “to stand by things decided.” At his 2005 confirmation hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts said the Supreme Court should be wary of overturning precedents, in part because doing so threatens the court’s legitimacy. “It is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent,” he said, listing various factors the court must consider before it takes the momentous step of discarding a precedent. They include, the court has said, “the quality of the decision’s reasoning.” At the argument in the Mississippi case, concerning a state law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks, the chief justice refined that factor in an apparent attempt to dampen the jolt to the system. He suggested that the fetal-viability line established in Roe was not a crucial part of the decision’s reasoning. “Was viability an issue in the case?” he asked. “I know it wasn’t briefed or argued.” In shifting the focus from what the court had done to what the parties in the case had asked it to do, the chief justice was trying to justify upholding a 15-week line while stopping short of overruling Roe entirely, which would allow states to make all abortions illegal. Whatever his goal, though, shifting the analysis from the words of the opinion to the advocacy that gave rise to it is a recent development and yet another way to undermine precedents. Richard J. Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard, explored this mode of argument in a recent article in The Supreme Court Review called “Advocacy History in the Supreme Court.” The article makes the sensible point that a full understanding of a Supreme Court decision requires consideration of how the parties had framed the case. In preparing for a Supreme Court argument in which an earlier decision plays a central role, sophisticated lawyers scour the briefs and the argument transcript in the earlier case. “It’s a tool in the advocacy toolbox,” said Jeffrey L. Fisher, a law professor at Stanford and a director of its Supreme Court clinic. “Often the opinion is going to be the second- or third-most relevant and helpful source.” Roberts’ question seemed to go further, suggesting that the meaning and weight of a decision may turn on the arguments that had been presented to the court. In 2007, in an opinion limiting the use of race in assigning students to public schools to achieve integration, Roberts made a similar move. A key precedent in that case was Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision banning racial segregation in public schools. The chief justice wrote that his 2007 opinion was “faithful to the heritage” of Brown. He made his case by quoting from the original briefs in the case and from the oral argument in 1952. (Lawyers who had worked on the Brown litigation called the chief justice’s analysis “preposterous” and “100% wrong.”) In 2008, in Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized an individual right to own guns under the Second Amendment, he discounted the leading precedent by focusing on its litigation history. The defendants “made no appearance in the case, neither filing a brief nor appearing at oral argument; the court heard from no one but the government (reason enough, one would think, not to make that case the beginning and the end of this court’s consideration of the Second Amendment),” wrote Scalia, who died in 2016. Lazarus said that it was one thing to look at the litigation history of a Supreme Court decision to understand it better and another to give it more or less precedential weight depending on what the lawyers had or had not argued. Roberts’ question about Roe was in a sense irrelevant, as the significance of fetal viability had been thoroughly argued in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed Roe’s core holding. That made Roe a “super-duper precedent,” Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania said at Roberts’ confirmation hearings. The chief justice did not adopt Specter’s terminology, but he did not quarrel with the senator’s larger point. “The Casey decision itself, which applied the principles of stare decisis to Roe v. Wade, is itself a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis,” Roberts said, adding: “That is itself a precedent. It’s a precedent on whether or not to revisit the Roe v. Wade precedent.” Lazarus said the court’s recent approach to precedent pointed in a different direction. “Stare decisis, even for a case that has been referred to as super-precedent, is on the wane at the court,” he said. “And advocacy history plays a role.”

With Roe at risk, justices explore a new way to question precedents

The United States Supreme Court on Friday (December 10) has ruled on the Texas abortion law, now allowing the abortion providers to challenge the ban in federal court.

The United States Supreme Court on Friday (December 10) has ruled on the Texas abortion law, now allowing the abortion providers to challenge the ban in federal court. However, it let the controversial law remain in effect for now. The controversial law, known as SB8, prohibits the procedure after around six weeks of pregnancy - a phase before most women even know they are pregnant. An exception can be made if there is any medical emergency, however, not in the case of rape or incest. ALSO READ | US blacklists Chinese firm, sanctions political leaders over human rights violations in Uyghur The controversial law remained one of the highly-debated topics in US politics this year as this emerged as a restrictive law in the country, passed since abortion was made a constitutional right five decades ago. Today's ruling gives a window that the law might get suspended as the case will return to a district court for further proceedings, CNN reported. The law came into effect on September 1 and was heavily criticised by women's rights groups, especially by the Biden administration. Eight out of nine justices agreed that lawsuits filed by abortion providers against the Texas law may proceed, but they divided 5-4 on whether other officials could be sued. ALSO READ | United States wins appeal over extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange Here's what the court said: Chief Justice John Roberts, in his opinion, said that "given the ongoing chilling effect of the state law, the District Court should resolve this litigation and enter appropriate relief without delay." "The Court concludes that the petitioners may pursue a pre-enforcement challenge against certain of the named defendants but not others," the court, led by Justice Neil Gorsuch, said as quoted by FOX News. "The petitioners then filed a request for injunctive relief with the Court, seeking emergency resolution of their application ahead of [the law's] approaching effective date," the court said. "In the abbreviated time available for review, the Court concluded that the petitioners’ filings failed to identify a basis in existing law that could justify disturbing the Fifth Circuit’s decision to deny injunctive relief," it added. ×

US Supreme Court allows abortion providers to challenge Texas law in federal court

If you want to know why our politics are so awful, check out our recent public debates about abortion.

Everybody is sensing where the Supreme Court seems to be heading on Roe v. Wade. But as our politics have grown coarser and more combative, a lot of conservatives aren’t even acknowledging the problems that have always made this issue so hard. For example: How do we show proper respect and deference to women who become pregnant in terrible circumstances? How do we respect women who say: “This is not abstract. This is my body and my private concern?” What would it look like to ban abortion in places where vast majorities do not believe that life begins at conception? Many conservatives focus on the fetus to the exclusion of all else.

A lot of the progressive commentary, on the other hand, won’t recognize the fetus at all. Over the past day or two I’ve seen progressives refer to abortion as just health care for women, or an entirely private decision about what a woman does with her body. A lot of progressives talk about abortion as if it couldn’t possibly be a termination of a human life.

Especially now, in the post-Trump degradation of public life, politicos, propagandists and activists on this issue elide the hard and complex issues in order to powerfully advocate their side. And that’s what we see on issue after issue. The armies of certitude march forth and dominate debate and politics. The rest of us, hampered by ambivalence, hang back. We live in a democracy in which the majority often does not rule.

For a professional pundit, I’ve written remarkably little on abortion because I am so torn. For most of my life I’ve considered myself pro-choice because I didn’t have any confidence that I knew when life began and didn’t want to impose my views on others. But like many people, my life has intersected with the issue.

When I was about 19 a friend came home from college and realized she was pregnant, she asked me to accompany her through the abortion process, which I did. My progressive milieu did not prepare me for the moral and emotional anguish she endured before and especially after the abortion. I realized how grave an issue this was, and with what humility it must be addressed.

Then, there came the science. Like a lot of people, I’ve been influenced by the sonograms, and the way they show a human form at the early fetal stages.

I’ve read my share of books about human development, and my takeaway is that things are happening a lot earlier in the womb than we used to think. By 20 or 21 weeks, before what has been considered viability, the fetus is possibly moving, sucking its thumb, moving its eyes, hearing sounds. A female fetus has eggs of her own. These are sobering realities.

Then there are miscarriages. I have watched so many grieve over miscarriages. I’ve grieved myself. It doesn’t feel like the loss of some cells, but of life.

Experience and the moral sentiments that derive from it have moved me many notches over toward the anti-abortion position. Does that mean I know when life begins? That no longer seems like the right question. I’ve come to believe that all human beings have some piece of themselves that has no size, shape, color or weight but gives them infinite value and dignity, and it is their soul. To me the crucial question is when does a living organism become a human soul. My intuition is that it’s not a moment, but a process — a process shrouded in divine mystery.

This leaves me in a humdrum political position, I’m afraid — with the roughly half of Americans who want to restrict abortion in some circumstances, but — perhaps because they feel it would be unworkable or wrong — don’t want to ban it totally. Third- and some second-trimester abortions seem increasingly wrong to me, except in extraordinary circumstances. But the first trimester? I don’t know, and therefore I’d defer to each woman’s conscience.

Given where the Supreme Court seems to be heading, I’d sign onto the compromise position that Claremont McKenna professor Jon A. Shields sketched out in these pages in October, which could involve tightening restrictions on abortion after the first trimester.

I guess that means I’m rooting for John Roberts in the current deliberations over Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. He has signaled that he’s open to exploring whether the court could uphold Mississippi’s law banning abortion after 15 weeks, but not overturn Roe and allow states to enact total or near-total bans. But he may be in a minority of one.

I used to support overturning Roe because I thought it would be healthy to get the abortion issue out of the courts and back to state legislatures. I used to think that most states would wind up where the nation’s center of gravity is — with restrictions but not bans.

But we’re now trying to deal with a miserably complex issue in a brutalized political culture. Majorities don’t rule in this country; polarized minorities do. The evidence this week is that the post-Roe politics would make even our current politics seem tame. I’m not sure our democracy is strong enough for that.

If you want to know why our politics are so awful, check out our recent public debates about abortion. Everybody is sensing where the Supreme Court seems to be heading on Roe v.

If you want to know why our politics are so awful, check out our recent public debates about abortion. Everybody is sensing where the Supreme Court seems to be heading on Roe v. Wade. But as our politics have grown coarser and more combative, a lot of conservatives aren’t even acknowledging the problems that have always made this issue so hard. For example: How do we show proper respect and deference to women who become pregnant in terrible circumstances? How do we respect women who say: “This is not abstract. This is my body and my private concern?” What would it look like to ban abortion in places where vast majorities do not believe that life begins at conception? Many conservatives focus on the fetus to the exclusion of all else. A lot of the progressive commentary, on the other hand, won’t recognize the fetus at all. Over the past day or two I’ve seen progressives refer to abortion as just health care for women, or an entirely private decision about what a woman does with her body. A lot of progressives talk about abortion as if it couldn’t possibly be a termination of a human life. Especially now, in the post-Trump degradation of public life, politicos, propagandists and activists on this issue elide the hard and complex issues in order to powerfully advocate their side. And that’s what we see on issue after issue. The armies of certitude march forth and dominate debate and politics. The rest of us, hampered by ambivalence, hang back. We live in a democracy in which the majority often does not rule. For a professional pundit, I’ve written remarkably little on abortion because I am so torn. For most of my life I’ve considered myself pro-choice because I didn’t have any confidence that I knew when life began and didn’t want to impose my views on others. But like many people, my life has intersected with the issue. When I was about 19 a friend came home from college and realized she was pregnant, she asked me to accompany her through the abortion process, which I did. My progressive milieu did not prepare me for the moral and emotional anguish she endured before and especially after the abortion. I realized how grave an issue this was, and with what humility it must be addressed. Then, there came the science. Like a lot of people, I’ve been influenced by the sonograms, and the way they show a human form at the early fetal stages. I’ve read my share of books about human development, and my takeaway is that things are happening a lot earlier in the womb than we used to think. By 20 or 21 weeks, before what has been considered viability, the fetus is possibly moving, sucking its thumb, moving its eyes, hearing sounds. A female fetus has eggs of her own. These are sobering realities. Then there are miscarriages. I have watched so many grieve over miscarriages. I’ve grieved myself. It doesn’t feel like the loss of some cells, but of life. Experience and the moral sentiments that derive from it have moved me many notches over toward the anti-abortion position. Does that mean I know when life begins? That no longer seems like the right question. I’ve come to believe that all human beings have some piece of themselves that has no size, shape, color or weight but gives them infinite value and dignity, and it is their soul. To me the crucial question is when does a living organism become a human soul. My intuition is that it’s not a moment, but a process — a process shrouded in divine mystery. This leaves me in a humdrum political position, I’m afraid — with the roughly half of Americans who want to restrict abortion in some circumstances, but — perhaps because they feel it would be unworkable or wrong — don’t want to ban it totally. Third- and some second-trimester abortions seem increasingly wrong to me, except in extraordinary circumstances. But the first trimester? I don’t know, and therefore I’d defer to each woman’s conscience. Given where the Supreme Court seems to be heading, I’d sign onto the compromise position that Claremont McKenna professor Jon A. Shields sketched out in these pages in October, which could involve tightening restrictions on abortion after the first trimester. I guess that means I’m rooting for John Roberts in the current deliberations over Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. He has signaled that he’s open to exploring whether the court could uphold Mississippi’s law banning abortion after 15 weeks, but not overturn Roe and allow states to enact total or near-total bans. But he may be in a minority of one. I used to support overturning Roe because I thought it would be healthy to get the abortion issue out of the courts and back to state legislatures. I used to think that most states would wind up where the nation’s center of gravity is — with restrictions but not bans. But we’re now trying to deal with a miserably complex issue in a brutalized political culture. Majorities don’t rule in this country; polarized minorities do. The evidence this week is that the post-Roe politics would make even our current politics seem tame. I’m not sure our democracy is strong enough for that.

Abortion: The voice of the ambivalent majority

Last week’s Supreme Court arguments on a Mississippi abortion law raised the prospect of a return to a time half a century ago — when the procedure was illegal across most of the United States, and women, perilously, tried to end pregnancies on their own or sought back-alley abortions.

If the court decides to reverse or weaken the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, it will usher in a somewhat different era. Abortion would remain legal in more than half of the states, but not in a wide swath of the Midwest and the South.

Legislatures in 22 states would almost certainly move to ban or substantially restrict access to abortion. Some women would be able to travel out of state for the procedure. Others would have access to pills, in some cases illicit, which now offer a relatively safe and difficult-to-police home alternative to clinics.

Many women, disproportionately those who are poor, would unwillingly carry their babies to term and rely on a social safety net that is thinner than in most other rich nations and thinner in some states than in others.

In effect, the United States without Roe would look very different for different people. For women in Democratic states and women elsewhere who have the means to travel to a clinic, abortion would still be accessible. For poor women in many Republican states, travelling to other states for in-clinic abortions could be prohibitively challenging.

Without Roe, the number of legal abortions in the country would fall by at least 14 per cent, according to research by a team from Middlebury College; the University of California, San Francisco; and the Guttmacher Institute, based on the effects of clinic closures in Texas between 2013 and 2016.

That result would be the culmination of a decades-long effort by the anti-abortion movement. “That would create a culture where we would be able to enact policies and legislation to support the women and children in our state,” said Laura Knight, president of Pro-Life Mississippi.

Roughly half of women who are unable to access a legal abortion would probably instead bear children, other research from Texas suggests. The rest would find another way to end their pregnancy, like crossing state borders.

In some ways, a post-Roe America would mirror the pre-Roe one. Then, abortion was generally legal in four states, and 13 more allowed abortion for health reasons. Women who could afford it, would travel out of state to seek the procedure. But many women turned to coat hangers, chemicals, unskilled abortion providers and other dangerous methods. In the early 1960s, Cook County Hospital in Chicago was treating more than 4,000 women a year for life-threatening effects of botched illegal abortions.

Now, there are safer options. In contrast with the 1960s, the internet has made it easier for women to learn where they can find a legal abortion or order black-market pills that can safely and effectively end pregnancy up to 10 weeks. Already, many American women order such pills online or cross the border to Mexico, where they are sold over the counter as ulcer medicine. Aid Access, a group that connects women with European doctors and pills from India, will work with women in all 50 states.

It is technically illegal to sell prescription medicine to American patients from another country without a prescription from a doctor licensed in the United States, but enforcement is difficult. Some states are already adding restrictions: On Thursday, a law went into effect in Texas banning medication abortion after seven weeks; it makes it illegal to provide the pills, not to take them.

“We are going to see some women will still do dangerous things like having the boyfriend hit them in the belly or throwing themselves down stairs or taking dangerous herbs,” said Carole Joffe, a professor at the UCSF Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, who has studied the history of abortion in the United States. “But there is now a very safe extralegal option.”

Currently, there is at least one abortion clinic in every state, and most women live within an hour’s drive of one. But without Roe’s protections, clinics in 22 states would shut down as abortion would be banned immediately or in relatively short order, according to an analysis of state laws from the Center for Reproductive Rights, which litigates abortion cases. The 22 states represent 42 per cent of American women of childbearing age.

Leaving abortion law to state legislatures has been a goal of the anti-abortion movement, though some would prefer to go further, establishing a national policy that would end abortion throughout the United States. Such a goal cannot be achieved simply by overturning Roe. It would require federal action — or a different Supreme Court ruling that grants constitutional rights to fetuses.

The Supreme Court, which is expected to rule in June, may refrain from overturning Roe or may craft a compromise in which abortions early in pregnancy remain protected. But many legal experts who watched the oral arguments say it is likely that Roe will be substantially weakened.

<img alt="With Story: BC-US-WITHOUT-ROE-NYT -- If the Supreme Court decides to reverse or weaken the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, legal abortions would fall, particularly among poor women in the South and Midwest, researchers say." data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="79377ad4-4f97-4c90-a7ec-a76ae4d57596" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/stories.png" />

If the Supreme Court decides to reverse or weaken the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, legal abortions would fall, particularly among poor women in the South and Midwest, researchers say.

The women most affected in states with bans would be those who can’t easily travel. They are disproportionately poor, Black, Latina, teenagers, uninsured and immigrants in the country illegally.

“Those most vulnerable will be left behind and be forced to carry pregnancies that they were not prepared for,” said Tammi Kromenaker, director of the Red River Women’s Clinic, the only abortion provider in North Dakota, which has a trigger law that would make abortion illegal without Roe.

As some states have tightened abortion restrictions in recent years, more organizations have helped women book and pay for flights or gas, hotels and child care. But their leaders say they do not have the capacity, in money or staff, to help the number of women who would need it in the South and Midwest if Roe fell.

One of these groups, Fund Texas Choice, received about 35 calls a month before Texas banned most abortions in September and was able to help nearly everyone who called. Since then, it has had up to 300 callers a month and has had to turn away half, said Anna Rupani, the group’s executive director. Seventy per cent of its clients are people of colour, and 60 per cent are parents.

“It will be absolutely unsustainable if Roe is overturned,” she said.

Many of the states that would ban abortion also have the least social support for women and children, like robust access to family planning services or paid family leave, and have high levels of child poverty. Studies have found that being denied an abortion has economic effects that last years.

Some who oppose abortion say the next step is to create more of a safety net for poor mothers. “There has never been enough alternative help for women,” said Chuck Donovan, who has worked in the anti-abortion movement for decades, now as president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute. “It’s something pro-lifers could agree to, even if it frustrates spending conservatives.”

He mentioned pregnancy centres; assistance for mothers to find employment and afford things like diapers and car seats; an expansion of Medicaid to cover women for a longer period postpartum; and efforts to collect child support from fathers.

Legislation under consideration by Democrats in the Senate would help expand support for mothers and children, including extending child tax credits, expanding Medicaid and establishing federal funding for child care and pre-K.

Over the last three decades, roughly six in 10 Americans on average have opposed the overturning of Roe, and around eight in 10 have said abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances, according to Gallup. But most Republican voters would support overturning Roe.

In some parts of the country, a post-Roe world is easier to envision because it has, in many ways, already arrived. In four states — Missouri, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota — there is only one clinic.

In Texas, a law that went into effect in September prohibits abortion after the fetal cardiac activity is detected, which is around six weeks of pregnancy. In September, legal abortions in the state plummeted by half, according to research from the Texas Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Texas at Austin. With the aid of groups offering grants and travel assistance, some women were able to seek care in neighbouring states. But others could not make the trip. And nearby clinics became overburdened by the surge in patients, pushing some women too far into their pregnancies to seek care there.

Over time, some clinics will adjust, by either locating near state borders or expanding their capacity to accommodate new patients. Already, the Hill Top Women’s Reproductive Clinic, which was the only abortion clinic in El Paso, closed this year. It reopened just over the border from El Paso, in Santa Teresa, New Mexico.

Last week’s Supreme Court arguments on a Mississippi abortion law raised the prospect of a return to a time half a century ago — when the procedure was illegal across most of the United States, and women, perilously, tried to end pregnancies on their own or sought back-alley abortions.

Last week’s Supreme Court arguments on a Mississippi abortion law raised the prospect of a return to a time half a century ago — when the procedure was illegal across most of the United States, and women, perilously, tried to end pregnancies on their own or sought back-alley abortions. If the court decides to reverse or weaken the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, it will usher in a somewhat different era. Abortion would remain legal in more than half of the states, but not in a wide swath of the Midwest and the South. Legislatures in 22 states would almost certainly move to ban or substantially restrict access to abortion. Some women would be able to travel out of state for the procedure. Others would have access to pills, in some cases illicit, which now offer a relatively safe and difficult-to-police home alternative to clinics. Many women, disproportionately those who are poor, would unwillingly carry their babies to term and rely on a social safety net that is thinner than in most other rich nations and thinner in some states than in others. In effect, the United States without Roe would look very different for different people. For women in Democratic states and women elsewhere who have the means to travel to a clinic, abortion would still be accessible. For poor women in many Republican states, travelling to other states for in-clinic abortions could be prohibitively challenging. Without Roe, the number of legal abortions in the country would fall by at least 14 per cent, according to research by a team from Middlebury College; the University of California, San Francisco; and the Guttmacher Institute, based on the effects of clinic closures in Texas between 2013 and 2016. That result would be the culmination of a decades-long effort by the anti-abortion movement. “That would create a culture where we would be able to enact policies and legislation to support the women and children in our state,” said Laura Knight, president of Pro-Life Mississippi. Roughly half of women who are unable to access a legal abortion would probably instead bear children, other research from Texas suggests. The rest would find another way to end their pregnancy, like crossing state borders. In some ways, a post-Roe America would mirror the pre-Roe one. Then, abortion was generally legal in four states, and 13 more allowed abortion for health reasons. Women who could afford it, would travel out of state to seek the procedure. But many women turned to coat hangers, chemicals, unskilled abortion providers and other dangerous methods. In the early 1960s, Cook County Hospital in Chicago was treating more than 4,000 women a year for life-threatening effects of botched illegal abortions. Now, there are safer options. In contrast with the 1960s, the internet has made it easier for women to learn where they can find a legal abortion or order black-market pills that can safely and effectively end pregnancy up to 10 weeks. Already, many American women order such pills online or cross the border to Mexico, where they are sold over the counter as ulcer medicine. Aid Access, a group that connects women with European doctors and pills from India, will work with women in all 50 states. It is technically illegal to sell prescription medicine to American patients from another country without a prescription from a doctor licensed in the United States, but enforcement is difficult. Some states are already adding restrictions: On Thursday, a law went into effect in Texas banning medication abortion after seven weeks; it makes it illegal to provide the pills, not to take them. “We are going to see some women will still do dangerous things like having the boyfriend hit them in the belly or throwing themselves down stairs or taking dangerous herbs,” said Carole Joffe, a professor at the UCSF Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, who has studied the history of abortion in the United States. “But there is now a very safe extralegal option.” Currently, there is at least one abortion clinic in every state, and most women live within an hour’s drive of one. But without Roe’s protections, clinics in 22 states would shut down as abortion would be banned immediately or in relatively short order, according to an analysis of state laws from the Center for Reproductive Rights, which litigates abortion cases. The 22 states represent 42 per cent of American women of childbearing age. Leaving abortion law to state legislatures has been a goal of the anti-abortion movement, though some would prefer to go further, establishing a national policy that would end abortion throughout the United States. Such a goal cannot be achieved simply by overturning Roe. It would require federal action — or a different Supreme Court ruling that grants constitutional rights to fetuses. The Supreme Court, which is expected to rule in June, may refrain from overturning Roe or may craft a compromise in which abortions early in pregnancy remain protected. But many legal experts who watched the oral arguments say it is likely that Roe will be substantially weakened. If the Supreme Court decides to reverse or weaken the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, legal abortions would fall, particularly among poor women in the South and Midwest, researchers say. The women most affected in states with bans would be those who can’t easily travel. They are disproportionately poor, Black, Latina, teenagers, uninsured and immigrants in the country illegally. “Those most vulnerable will be left behind and be forced to carry pregnancies that they were not prepared for,” said Tammi Kromenaker, director of the Red River Women’s Clinic, the only abortion provider in North Dakota, which has a trigger law that would make abortion illegal without Roe. As some states have tightened abortion restrictions in recent years, more organizations have helped women book and pay for flights or gas, hotels and child care. But their leaders say they do not have the capacity, in money or staff, to help the number of women who would need it in the South and Midwest if Roe fell. One of these groups, Fund Texas Choice, received about 35 calls a month before Texas banned most abortions in September and was able to help nearly everyone who called. Since then, it has had up to 300 callers a month and has had to turn away half, said Anna Rupani, the group’s executive director. Seventy per cent of its clients are people of colour, and 60 per cent are parents. “It will be absolutely unsustainable if Roe is overturned,” she said. Many of the states that would ban abortion also have the least social support for women and children, like robust access to family planning services or paid family leave, and have high levels of child poverty. Studies have found that being denied an abortion has economic effects that last years. Some who oppose abortion say the next step is to create more of a safety net for poor mothers. “There has never been enough alternative help for women,” said Chuck Donovan, who has worked in the anti-abortion movement for decades, now as president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute. “It’s something pro-lifers could agree to, even if it frustrates spending conservatives.” He mentioned pregnancy centres; assistance for mothers to find employment and afford things like diapers and car seats; an expansion of Medicaid to cover women for a longer period postpartum; and efforts to collect child support from fathers. Legislation under consideration by Democrats in the Senate would help expand support for mothers and children, including extending child tax credits, expanding Medicaid and establishing federal funding for child care and pre-K. Over the last three decades, roughly six in 10 Americans on average have opposed the overturning of Roe, and around eight in 10 have said abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances, according to Gallup. But most Republican voters would support overturning Roe. In some parts of the country, a post-Roe world is easier to envision because it has, in many ways, already arrived. In four states — Missouri, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota — there is only one clinic. In Texas, a law that went into effect in September prohibits abortion after the fetal cardiac activity is detected, which is around six weeks of pregnancy. In September, legal abortions in the state plummeted by half, according to research from the Texas Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Texas at Austin. With the aid of groups offering grants and travel assistance, some women were able to seek care in neighbouring states. But others could not make the trip. And nearby clinics became overburdened by the surge in patients, pushing some women too far into their pregnancies to seek care there. Over time, some clinics will adjust, by either locating near state borders or expanding their capacity to accommodate new patients. Already, the Hill Top Women’s Reproductive Clinic, which was the only abortion clinic in El Paso, closed this year. It reopened just over the border from El Paso, in Santa Teresa, New Mexico.

What an America without Roe would look like

abortion

Abortion, News on Abortion, stories on Abortion, articles on Abortion, Abortion stories at Wion, Abortion news, Abortion latest news