The Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, holding that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion. For more on this, we're joined by VOA's Jessica Stone and Nicole Brener-Schmitz; Democratic Strategist.

Abortion to become illegal in 22 US states

The Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, holding that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion. For more on this, we're joined by WION's correspondent Susan Tehrani and VOA's correspondent Jessica Stone.

US abortion rights now in danger | Landmark ruling overturned after 50 years

Roe v Wade: From the ruling in 1973 to it being overturned today, here's a timeline

Roe v Wade overturned: Here's what the ruling means for millions of American women

US Supreme Court has reversed the landmark Roe vs Wade ruling ending the constitutional right to abortion for millions of women across the country. Roe vs Wade ruling (1973) enshrined women's right to abortion. US Supreme Court has now said that individual states can now permit or restrict procedure themselves. The ruling is likely to open a Pandora's Box and draw strong political reactions welcoming and condemning the latest decision of the US Supreme Court. It is anticipated that the ruling would be followed by flood of state legislations. It is expected that half of 50 US states would make new laws severely restricting or even criminalising abortions.

"The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives," the court said. Currently, the US Supreme Court is dominated by judges with a conservative view.

In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito said "abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views.

"The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion," he said.&nbsp;

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/obama-pence-planned-parenthood-react-to-overturn-of-us-top-courts-1973-roe-vs-wade-judgement-491452">Obama, Pence, Planned Parenthood react to overturn of US top court’s 1973 Roe vs Wade judgment</a>

Dissenting were the three liberals on the court.

Soon after the decision, former US vice president Mike Pence said that Roe vs Wade was consigned to 'ash heap of history'.

What does Roe vs Wade overturn mean?

Overturning Roe vs Wade means that access to abortion no longer has constitutional backing in the US. Individual states are now free to decide whether access to abortion should be free or should there be restrictions on it. States now have sanction to form new laws which may even criminalise abortion.

What do backers of abortion rights say?

They say that abortion right is a matter of personal freedom. The activists have been saying that banning or restricting abortions was against the rights of women who have right over their own bodies and should have free choice to decide whether they want to continue with the pregnancy or not

What do those in opposition say?

There are strong backers of the assertion that abortion amounts to 'killing' the unborn child. Abortion for them is hence an act against nature. There are also religious overtones to this assertion and those opposing abortion are often seen to have conservative views.&nbsp;

Many of 'pro-life' advocates are however silent when asked whether they are opposed to abortions even when pregnancy is cause due to crimes such as rape.

Watch | Who was the real Jane Roe in Roe vs Wade case, which changed US abortion law?

<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/who-was-the-real-jane-roe-in-roe-vs-wade-case-which-changed-us-abortion-law-476337/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

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 Supreme Court has reversed the landmark Roe vs Wade ruling ending the constitutional right to abortion for millions of women across the country. Roe vs Wade ruling (1973) enshrined women's right to abortion.

US Supreme Court has reversed the landmark Roe vs Wade ruling ending the constitutional right to abortion for millions of women across the country. Roe vs Wade ruling (1973) enshrined women's right to abortion. US Supreme Court has now said that individual states can now permit or restrict procedure themselves. The ruling is likely to open a Pandora's Box and draw strong political reactions welcoming and condemning the latest decision of the US Supreme Court. It is anticipated that the ruling would be followed by flood of state legislations. It is expected that half of 50 US states would make new laws severely restricting or even criminalising abortions. "The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives," the court said. Currently, the US Supreme Court is dominated by judges with a conservative view. In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito said "abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views. "The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion," he said. Also Read | Obama, Pence, Planned Parenthood react to overturn of US top court’s 1973 Roe vs Wade judgment Dissenting were the three liberals on the court. Soon after the decision, former US vice president Mike Pence said that Roe vs Wade was consigned to 'ash heap of history'. What does Roe vs Wade overturn mean? Overturning Roe vs Wade means that access to abortion no longer has constitutional backing in the US. Individual states are now free to decide whether access to abortion should be free or should there be restrictions on it. States now have sanction to form new laws which may even criminalise abortion. What do backers of abortion rights say? They say that abortion right is a matter of personal freedom. The activists have been saying that banning or restricting abortions was against the rights of women who have right over their own bodies and should have free choice to decide whether they want to continue with the pregnancy or not What do those in opposition say? There are strong backers of the assertion that abortion amounts to 'killing' the unborn child. Abortion for them is hence an act against nature. There are also religious overtones to this assertion and those opposing abortion are often seen to have conservative views. Many of 'pro-life' advocates are however silent when asked whether they are opposed to abortions even when pregnancy is cause due to crimes such as rape. Watch | Who was the real Jane Roe in Roe vs Wade case, which changed US abortion law? × You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here. WATCH WION LIVE HERE ×

Roe vs Wade reversed, US Supreme Court ends constitutional right to abortion

In the United States, Anti-abortion and abortion-rights protesters have gathered in front of the Supreme Court as the court is set to to deliver its verdict on abortion laws.

Roe v Wade verdict under threat: Ramifications of overturning Abortion laws manifold

Abortion: How things stand in US as court prepares to rule

The controversy regarding the Roe v Wade judgement has been brewing in the United States for quite some time. Since the release of a leaked draft saying that the landmark judgement regarding the women’s reproductive rights will be overturned, people have been protesting against it. Now, a study shows that the decision can led to the closure of almost a quarter of abortion clinics all over the US. The study, conducted by Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, said that more than a quarter of the 790 abortion clinics in the country – 202 clinics to be exact - will shut down in case Roe v Wade, which provides legal protection for abortion, is overturned in the near future.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/rodrigo-dutertes-daughter-sara-takes-oath-as-philippine-vice-president-489722">Rodrigo Duterte's daughter Sara takes oath as Philippines vice president</a>

The study found that in the last two years, more clinics opened up in different states across the United States and although there were closures, the number was not alarming in comparison.

However, in case Roe v Wade is overturned, it will result in around twelve states coming up with their own laws making abortion less accessible to the general public. According to the proposed laws, the restrictions will range from decreasing access to necessary healthcare required for the abortion process to facing homicide charges for abortion (as proposed by Kentucky lawmakers).

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/sri-lankan-military-opens-fire-to-contain-unrest-over-fuel-crisis-489724">Sri Lankan military open fire to contain unrest over fuel crisis</a>

This will be a huge blow to the progress made by the United States in making abortion safe for the people as the clinics will die down and abortion pills will be difficult to access for the public.

Right now, there is one clinic for every 158,000 women of reproductive age, according to the report.

(With inputs from agencies)

The controversy regarding the Roe v Wade judgement has been brewing in the United States for quite some time. Since the release of a leaked draft saying that the landmark judgement regarding the women’s reproductive rights will be overturned, people have been protesting against it.

The controversy regarding the Roe v Wade judgement has been brewing in the United States for quite some time. Since the release of a leaked draft saying that the landmark judgement regarding the women’s reproductive rights will be overturned, people have been protesting against it. Now, a study shows that the decision can led to the closure of almost a quarter of abortion clinics all over the US. The study, conducted by Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, said that more than a quarter of the 790 abortion clinics in the country – 202 clinics to be exact - will shut down in case Roe v Wade, which provides legal protection for abortion, is overturned in the near future. Also read | Rodrigo Duterte's daughter Sara takes oath as Philippines vice president The study found that in the last two years, more clinics opened up in different states across the United States and although there were closures, the number was not alarming in comparison. However, in case Roe v Wade is overturned, it will result in around twelve states coming up with their own laws making abortion less accessible to the general public. According to the proposed laws, the restrictions will range from decreasing access to necessary healthcare required for the abortion process to facing homicide charges for abortion (as proposed by Kentucky lawmakers). Also read | Sri Lankan military open fire to contain unrest over fuel crisis This will be a huge blow to the progress made by the United States in making abortion safe for the people as the clinics will die down and abortion pills will be difficult to access for the public. Right now, there is one clinic for every 158,000 women of reproductive age, according to the report. (With inputs from agencies)

One quarter of abortion clinics will close in the US if Roe v Wade is overturned: Report

Abortion rights are back in discussion partly due to the debate they have started in the US. A leaked draft of the US Supreme Court has suggested that majority of the judges are of the opinion that the historic Roe v Wade judgment be overtured. If this happens, laws on access to abortion to women in US will may potentially be re-written. Overturning Roe vs Wade thus has opponents in the US.

With all this debate going on in the US. What about India? Is abortion legal in India?

Short answer is yes, it is legal. Women can seek abortion before 24 weeks of pregnancy are complete

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (1971) makes abortion legal. The law defines conditions, period and rule surrounding abortion. The act makes abortion legal in specific conditions

According to India's Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (1971) was passed to “provide for the termination of certain pregnancies by registered Medical Practitioners and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”

The conditions under which abortion is allowed are enlisted in the MTP act.

Pregnancy can be terminated upon opinion of 1 doctor before 20 weeks are complete. If pregnancy is to be aborted before 24 weeks, it needs opinion of two doctors

A woman can abort the pregnancy if there is major threat to her life due to childbirth. A woman can also abort the pregnancy if it is found the child will be born with significance physical or mental disabilities.

Under the MTP act, identity of the woman undergoing abortion procedure must be kept confidential.&nbsp;

The gestation period of 20 weeks can be extended to 24 weeks under these conditions:

<ul>
	<li>Survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest</li>
	<li>Minors</li>
	<li>Change of marital status during the pregnancy (widowhood and divorce)</li>
	<li>Women with physical disabilities</li>
	<li>Mentally ill women</li>
	<li>Women pregnant with a child that has fetal abnormalities that can have a substantial risk of being incompatible with life</li>
	<li>Women with pregnancy in humanitarian settings or disaster or emergency</li>
</ul>

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;

Abortion rights are back in discussion partly due to the debate they have started in the US. A leaked draft of the US Supreme Court has suggested that majority of the judges are of the opinion that the historic Roe v Wade judgment be overtured.

Abortion rights are back in discussion partly due to the debate they have started in the US. A leaked draft of the US Supreme Court has suggested that majority of the judges are of the opinion that the historic Roe v Wade judgment be overtured. If this happens, laws on access to abortion to women in US will may potentially be re-written. Overturning Roe vs Wade thus has opponents in the US. With all this debate going on in the US. What about India? Is abortion legal in India? Short answer is yes, it is legal. Women can seek abortion before 24 weeks of pregnancy are complete Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (1971) makes abortion legal. The law defines conditions, period and rule surrounding abortion. The act makes abortion legal in specific conditions According to India's Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (1971) was passed to “provide for the termination of certain pregnancies by registered Medical Practitioners and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto” The conditions under which abortion is allowed are enlisted in the MTP act. Pregnancy can be terminated upon opinion of 1 doctor before 20 weeks are complete. If pregnancy is to be aborted before 24 weeks, it needs opinion of two doctors A woman can abort the pregnancy if there is major threat to her life due to childbirth. A woman can also abort the pregnancy if it is found the child will be born with significance physical or mental disabilities. Under the MTP act, identity of the woman undergoing abortion procedure must be kept confidential. The gestation period of 20 weeks can be extended to 24 weeks under these conditions: Survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest Minors Change of marital status during the pregnancy (widowhood and divorce) Women with physical disabilities Mentally ill women Women pregnant with a child that has fetal abnormalities that can have a substantial risk of being incompatible with life Women with pregnancy in humanitarian settings or disaster or emergency 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 ×

Is abortion legal in India? What does the law say?

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 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

Amid abortion rights causing a flutter in the United States, World Health Organization (WHO) chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has warned that restricting access to abortion will lead to unhealthy and unsafe procedures.

Without mentioning the US case, Tedros in a tweet said, “Women should always have the right to choose when it comes to their bodies and their health. Restricting access to #abortion does not reduce the number of procedures — it drives women and girls towards unsafe ones.”

“Access to safe abortion saves lives.”

The comments come in the backdrop of a US Supreme Court ruling draft that got leaked a few days ago.

According to the draft, the majority of the conservative-controlled Supreme Court bench are in favour of banning abortions.

In the draft opinion document&nbsp;leaked to the media, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the 1973 Roe vs Wade ruling was “egregiously wrong from the start” and that the US Constitution “does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion”.

Watch |&nbsp;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>

Meanwhile, furious women gathered on the court premises to protest in Washington just minutes after the news broke late on Monday night, and more were there on Tuesday, with larger protests planned.

According to the Guardian, anti-abortion demonstrators prayed and celebrated but pro-choice protesters lit candles, chanted in support of reproductive rights and shouted expletives about Samuel Alito.

Barriers were erected in front of the court shortly after the leaked report was made public.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/after-abortion-us-supreme-court-may-go-after-contraception-same-sex-marriage-say-experts-476339">After abortion, US Supreme Court may go after contraception, same-sex marriage, say experts</a>

Abortion has long been a contentious issue in the US, even though polling finds that a clear majority of the public believes it should be legal.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-president-joe-biden-urges-americans-to-oppose-possible-anti-abortion-ruling-476167">US President Joe Biden urges Americans to oppose possible anti-abortion ruling</a>

The supreme court has a 6-3 majority of deeply conservative justices.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE

<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;

Amid abortion rights causing a flutter in the United States, World Health Organization (WHO) chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has warned that restricting access to abortion will lead to unhealthy and unsafe procedures.

Amid abortion rights causing a flutter in the United States, World Health Organization (WHO) chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has warned that restricting access to abortion will lead to unhealthy and unsafe procedures. Without mentioning the US case, Tedros in a tweet said, “Women should always have the right to choose when it comes to their bodies and their health. Restricting access to #abortion does not reduce the number of procedures — it drives women and girls towards unsafe ones.” “Access to safe abortion saves lives.” The comments come in the backdrop of a US Supreme Court ruling draft that got leaked a few days ago. According to the draft, the majority of the conservative-controlled Supreme Court bench are in favour of banning abortions. In the draft opinion document leaked to the media, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the 1973 Roe vs Wade ruling was “egregiously wrong from the start” and that the US Constitution “does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion”. Watch | Gravitas: US top court is set to overturn abortion rights, reveals leaked document Meanwhile, furious women gathered on the court premises to protest in Washington just minutes after the news broke late on Monday night, and more were there on Tuesday, with larger protests planned. According to the Guardian, anti-abortion demonstrators prayed and celebrated but pro-choice protesters lit candles, chanted in support of reproductive rights and shouted expletives about Samuel Alito. Barriers were erected in front of the court shortly after the leaked report was made public. Also read | After abortion, US Supreme Court may go after contraception, same-sex marriage, say experts Abortion has long been a contentious issue in the US, even though polling finds that a clear majority of the public believes it should be legal. Also read | US President Joe Biden urges Americans to oppose possible anti-abortion ruling The supreme court has a 6-3 majority of deeply conservative justices. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE 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.

‘Access to safe abortion saves lives’: WHO chief comments amid row

With speculations rife that the US Supreme Court may reverse the Roe v&nbsp;Wade verdict after a draft of the order went viral, legal experts now opine that other laws related to marriage, sexuality and family life, including access to contraception, might see an overhaul.

According to the draft ruling, which was disclosed in a leak, the majority of the court seemed to be veering towards upholding a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

The experts believe that if the court adopts the draft's legal reasoning when it issues its eventual ruling by the end of June, it could imperil the right to access contraception, Griswold v Connecticut.

“If this [draft] opinion becomes the opinion of the court, Griswold is imperilled – no question,” Wendy Parmet, faculty co-director for the Center for Health Policy and Law at Northeastern University told The Guardian.

Justice Samuel Alito, in his draft decision, argues that Roe is a faulty law.

Roe is based on the 14th amendment, as are decisions like Obergefell v Hodges on same-sex marriage, Loving v Virginia on interracial marriage, and Lawrence v Texas on consensual sex, the UK-based newspaper reported.

Watch |&nbsp;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>

"Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences," Alito wrote in the draft, adding that Roe and a 1992 decision that reaffirmed it have only "deepened division" in society.

On Tuesday, the court acknowledged the authenticity of the leaked draft, but sought a preliminary probe into the leak.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-supreme-court-abortion-ruling-leak-row-what-really-is-the-issue-476216">US Supreme Court abortion ruling leak row: What really is the issue?</a>

Some commentators indicated that Alito, through his leaked draft, has provided a road map for future attempts to eliminate other guaranteed liberties.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-president-joe-biden-urges-americans-to-oppose-possible-anti-abortion-ruling-476167">US President Joe Biden urges Americans to oppose possible anti-abortion ruling</a>

"On interracial marriage, contraception and same-sex marriage, for one reason or another there is no likelihood the court is going to revisit those decisions," Northwestern University law professor John McGinnis told Reuters.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE

<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;

With speculations rife that the US Supreme Court may reverse the Roe v Wade verdict after a draft of the order went viral, legal experts now opine that other laws related to marriage, sexuality and family life, including access to contraception, might see an overhaul.

With speculations rife that the US Supreme Court may reverse the Roe v Wade verdict after a draft of the order went viral, legal experts now opine that other laws related to marriage, sexuality and family life, including access to contraception, might see an overhaul. According to the draft ruling, which was disclosed in a leak, the majority of the court seemed to be veering towards upholding a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The experts believe that if the court adopts the draft's legal reasoning when it issues its eventual ruling by the end of June, it could imperil the right to access contraception, Griswold v Connecticut. “If this [draft] opinion becomes the opinion of the court, Griswold is imperilled – no question,” Wendy Parmet, faculty co-director for the Center for Health Policy and Law at Northeastern University told The Guardian. Justice Samuel Alito, in his draft decision, argues that Roe is a faulty law. Roe is based on the 14th amendment, as are decisions like Obergefell v Hodges on same-sex marriage, Loving v Virginia on interracial marriage, and Lawrence v Texas on consensual sex, the UK-based newspaper reported. Watch | Gravitas: US top court is set to overturn abortion rights, reveals leaked document "Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences," Alito wrote in the draft, adding that Roe and a 1992 decision that reaffirmed it have only "deepened division" in society. On Tuesday, the court acknowledged the authenticity of the leaked draft, but sought a preliminary probe into the leak. Also read | US Supreme Court abortion ruling leak row: What really is the issue? Some commentators indicated that Alito, through his leaked draft, has provided a road map for future attempts to eliminate other guaranteed liberties. Also read | US President Joe Biden urges Americans to oppose possible anti-abortion ruling "On interracial marriage, contraception and same-sex marriage, for one reason or another there is no likelihood the court is going to revisit those decisions," Northwestern University law professor John McGinnis told Reuters. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE 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.

After abortion, US Supreme Court may go after contraception, same-sex marriage, say experts

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

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

Paedophilia doesn't kill anyone, says a priest from Rhode Island who has been criticising US lawmakers for their attempt&nbsp;to pass the Reproductive Privacy Act.&nbsp;

Reverend Richard Bucci told a US local network that&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/popes-vow-to-battle-child-sex-abuse-fails-to-appease-victims-199463">Paedophilia doesn't kill anyone</a> and abortion does. The controversial priest had posted a list of 44 US lawmakers, saying that they will be barred from communion because of their support for "reproductive rights".

In a&nbsp;community bulletin of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/top-cardinal-says-catholic-church-files-on-paedophile-priests-were-destroyed-199312">Sacred Heart Church</a>, a note included the names of lawmakers who voted for the state’s Reproductive Privacy Act. The&nbsp;piece of legislation formally adopts a Supreme Court ruling from 1973 which legalises abortion into State law, a case known as the American public as Roe v Wade.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/sports/us-diocese-bishop-sued-over-employing-known-pedophiles-204501">US diocese, bishop sued over employing known pedophiles</a>

Reverend Dick Bucci has reportedly barred officials from witnessing marriages, reading funerals and serving as godparents after citing “2,000 years” of Catholic teachings.

A Democratic Senator Adam Satchell stated that he had learned of his inclusion on the list and expressed concern.

Carol Hagan McEntee, Democratic State&nbsp;Representative was allegedly asked to leave a relative's funeral and was banned from delivering the eulogy by Bucci.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Here’s a photo of the notice received by lawmakers including <a href="https://twitter.com/repmcentee33?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@repmcentee33</a> <a href="https://t.co/diBYuAVod9">pic.twitter.com/diBYuAVod9</a>
— Ian Donnis (@IanDon) <a href="https://twitter.com/IanDon/status/1223351359463919616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 31, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The passage of state law was led by McEntee which extended the statute of limitations for sexual abuse on children.

The State Representative's older sister had previously testified about <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/sexual-revolution-of-1960s-led-to-church-abuse-crisis-ex-pope-says-209656">sexual abuse</a> and had accused a priest who was with the Sacred Heart church.

The State Representative said that the Reverend should come to the Statehouse and listen to testimonies of individuals who survive paedophiles, for the ones who can share their stories are but a fraction of the multitudes of young souls who committed suicide or took to drugs to escape their agonizing past.

Another State representative who was also included in the Church's hate list was Julie Casimiro, who recommended that the Catholic Church review their policies carefully.&nbsp;

Carolyn Cronin, a spokeswoman for the Catholic Diocese of Providence issued a statement recently. She said that though the Catholic Church provides detailed instructions for sacraments, the paster must apply them within his parish under Church law.

“Because the church entrusts to each pastor the duty of teaching, sanctifying and governing his parish, the daily pastoral and administrative decisions are made at the local parish level.”

Paedophilia doesn't kill anyone, says a priest from Rhode Island who has been criticising US lawmakers for their attempt to pass the Reproductive Privacy Act. Reverend Richard Bucci told a US local network that Paedophilia doesn't kill anyone and abortion does.

Paedophilia doesn't kill anyone, says a priest from Rhode Island who has been criticising US lawmakers for their attempt to pass the Reproductive Privacy Act. Reverend Richard Bucci told a US local network that Paedophilia doesn't kill anyone and abortion does. The controversial priest had posted a list of 44 US lawmakers, saying that they will be barred from communion because of their support for "reproductive rights". In a community bulletin of the Sacred Heart Church, a note included the names of lawmakers who voted for the state’s Reproductive Privacy Act. The piece of legislation formally adopts a Supreme Court ruling from 1973 which legalises abortion into State law, a case known as the American public as Roe v Wade. Also Read: US diocese, bishop sued over employing known pedophiles Reverend Dick Bucci has reportedly barred officials from witnessing marriages, reading funerals and serving as godparents after citing “2,000 years” of Catholic teachings. A Democratic Senator Adam Satchell stated that he had learned of his inclusion on the list and expressed concern. Carol Hagan McEntee, Democratic State Representative was allegedly asked to leave a relative's funeral and was banned from delivering the eulogy by Bucci. Here’s a photo of the notice received by lawmakers including @repmcentee33 pic.twitter.com/diBYuAVod9 — Ian Donnis (@IanDon) January 31, 2020 × The passage of state law was led by McEntee which extended the statute of limitations for sexual abuse on children. The State Representative's older sister had previously testified about sexual abuse and had accused a priest who was with the Sacred Heart church. The State Representative said that the Reverend should come to the Statehouse and listen to testimonies of individuals who survive paedophiles, for the ones who can share their stories are but a fraction of the multitudes of young souls who committed suicide or took to drugs to escape their agonizing past. Another State representative who was also included in the Church's hate list was Julie Casimiro, who recommended that the Catholic Church review their policies carefully. Carolyn Cronin, a spokeswoman for the Catholic Diocese of Providence issued a statement recently. She said that though the Catholic Church provides detailed instructions for sacraments, the paster must apply them within his parish under Church law. “Because the church entrusts to each pastor the duty of teaching, sanctifying and governing his parish, the daily pastoral and administrative decisions are made at the local parish level.”

Controversial US priest takes on lawmakers over Reproductive Privacy Act

American evangelicals have high hopes that the US Supreme Court, with its newfound conservative majority, will be tempted to chip away at its historic decision to legalize abortion.

Forty-six years after its landmark Roe v Wade decision, the high court is at the heart of a heated offensive led by states with conservative majorities who oppose the voluntary termination of pregnancy.

This week alone, Alabama passed a law banning women from having an abortion even in cases of incest or rape and the Missouri legislature made illegal abortions from eight weeks of pregnancy. Both states have vowed to prosecute doctors who perform the procedure.

Georgia, Ohio, Mississippi, Kentucky, Iowa and North Dakota have enacted laws banning abortion from the moment a fetal heartbeat is detected, around six weeks of gestation, before most women know they are pregnant.

All of these laws flagrantly go against Roe v Wade, which guarantees women's rights to abortion as long as the fetus is not viable -- around 24 weeks of pregnancy.

The new pieces of legislation are therefore widely expected to soon be blocked in court. But their backers seek to go beyond that step, planning to appeal such decisions until they reach the Supreme Court in hopes this will lead to the long-sought conservative goal of overturning the abortion ruling.

"All the conservative states across the US are testing the limits, they see it's a sympathetic court to the conservatives," Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown Law told AFP.

"(President Donald) Trump has changed the balance of the Supreme Court so that he now has a Supreme Court that is decisively conservative and unfriendly to women's reproductive rights, that's unquestionably true."

During the 2016 campaign, Trump secured the evangelical vote that had been initially hesitant to cast ballots for the bombastic, twice-divorced billionaire by promising to appoint anti-abortion justices at the highest court in the land.

Pivot

Since his election, the president has brought two appointees to the high court -- Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh -- and the progressives are now a minority of four on the nine-person bench.

"We know who put them in the court and why, we know that Trump and (president George W.) Bush are expecting them to vote to overturn Roe. But in the past, presidents have been wrong in their selection," said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University.

"There are a lot of uncertainties, so we don't know where the conservative justices stand exactly."

She noted that during his confirmation hearings, Brett Kavanaugh insisted he supported upholding past rulings.

"Chief Justice John Roberts is very aware of how the public perceives the Supreme Court. He likes the idea that people have respect for the court," said Sherry Colb of Cornell Law School.

In February, Roberts joined liberal justices in freezing the Louisiana law that critics say imposed such drastic conditions on doctors who perform abortion procedures that only one of them was left able to provide the service in the entire state.

Two years earlier, however, Roberts had backed a similar law in Texas.

Observers say the shift shows the chief justice places more emphasis on his central role on the bench over his own personal convictions.

'Patchwork'

In another sign of a tempered stance from the court, it has yet to decide whether to take up an appeal from Indiana seeking to uphold a law that treats a fetus as an individual.

Since December, the justices have put the case on their agenda a dozen times without making a decision either way -- a highly unusual process, Ziegler noted.

"They are continuing to kick the can down the road. I don't know what the point of waiting is, sooner or later, if they do want to take it, it starts to push it to 2020," when the next US presidential vote will take place, Ziegler added.

"If the idea is not to have a lot of controversies, stalling a decision to an election year is not a smart move."

A.E. Dick Howard of the University of Virginia School of Law said such moves make it seem "unlikely" that the court will overturn its 1973 decision.

"But it is ready to chip away at it," he added.

"You will see a (conservative) majority that will increasingly relax the limits they place on the states."

Abortion rules vary greatly from state to state, in what Howard describes as a "patchwork" of legislation.

Some states discourage women from seeking the procedure by requiring two separate medical opinions and parental authorization for minors.&nbsp;

Others impose such strict conditions on clinics that most have closed.

Gostin pointed to the problem of unequal access for women in different states.

"A woman of means will always be able to get an abortion in the United States, she will be able to travel to California, New York, (Washington) DC," he said.

"The poor women in rural areas... they are the ones that are going to suffer."

American evangelicals have high hopes that the US Supreme Court, with its newfound conservative majority, will be tempted to chip away at its historic decision to legalize abortion.

American evangelicals have high hopes that the US Supreme Court, with its newfound conservative majority, will be tempted to chip away at its historic decision to legalize abortion. Forty-six years after its landmark Roe v Wade decision, the high court is at the heart of a heated offensive led by states with conservative majorities who oppose the voluntary termination of pregnancy. This week alone, Alabama passed a law banning women from having an abortion even in cases of incest or rape and the Missouri legislature made illegal abortions from eight weeks of pregnancy. Both states have vowed to prosecute doctors who perform the procedure. Georgia, Ohio, Mississippi, Kentucky, Iowa and North Dakota have enacted laws banning abortion from the moment a fetal heartbeat is detected, around six weeks of gestation, before most women know they are pregnant. All of these laws flagrantly go against Roe v Wade, which guarantees women's rights to abortion as long as the fetus is not viable -- around 24 weeks of pregnancy. The new pieces of legislation are therefore widely expected to soon be blocked in court. But their backers seek to go beyond that step, planning to appeal such decisions until they reach the Supreme Court in hopes this will lead to the long-sought conservative goal of overturning the abortion ruling. "All the conservative states across the US are testing the limits, they see it's a sympathetic court to the conservatives," Lawrence Gostin of Georgetown Law told AFP. "(President Donald) Trump has changed the balance of the Supreme Court so that he now has a Supreme Court that is decisively conservative and unfriendly to women's reproductive rights, that's unquestionably true." During the 2016 campaign, Trump secured the evangelical vote that had been initially hesitant to cast ballots for the bombastic, twice-divorced billionaire by promising to appoint anti-abortion justices at the highest court in the land. Pivot Since his election, the president has brought two appointees to the high court -- Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh -- and the progressives are now a minority of four on the nine-person bench. "We know who put them in the court and why, we know that Trump and (president George W.) Bush are expecting them to vote to overturn Roe. But in the past, presidents have been wrong in their selection," said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University. "There are a lot of uncertainties, so we don't know where the conservative justices stand exactly." She noted that during his confirmation hearings, Brett Kavanaugh insisted he supported upholding past rulings. "Chief Justice John Roberts is very aware of how the public perceives the Supreme Court. He likes the idea that people have respect for the court," said Sherry Colb of Cornell Law School. In February, Roberts joined liberal justices in freezing the Louisiana law that critics say imposed such drastic conditions on doctors who perform abortion procedures that only one of them was left able to provide the service in the entire state. Two years earlier, however, Roberts had backed a similar law in Texas. Observers say the shift shows the chief justice places more emphasis on his central role on the bench over his own personal convictions. 'Patchwork' In another sign of a tempered stance from the court, it has yet to decide whether to take up an appeal from Indiana seeking to uphold a law that treats a fetus as an individual. Since December, the justices have put the case on their agenda a dozen times without making a decision either way -- a highly unusual process, Ziegler noted. "They are continuing to kick the can down the road. I don't know what the point of waiting is, sooner or later, if they do want to take it, it starts to push it to 2020," when the next US presidential vote will take place, Ziegler added. "If the idea is not to have a lot of controversies, stalling a decision to an election year is not a smart move." A.E. Dick Howard of the University of Virginia School of Law said such moves make it seem "unlikely" that the court will overturn its 1973 decision. "But it is ready to chip away at it," he added. "You will see a (conservative) majority that will increasingly relax the limits they place on the states." Abortion rules vary greatly from state to state, in what Howard describes as a "patchwork" of legislation. Some states discourage women from seeking the procedure by requiring two separate medical opinions and parental authorization for minors. Others impose such strict conditions on clinics that most have closed. Gostin pointed to the problem of unequal access for women in different states. "A woman of means will always be able to get an abortion in the United States, she will be able to travel to California, New York, (Washington) DC," he said. "The poor women in rural areas... they are the ones that are going to suffer."

Will the US Supreme Court reconsider abortion rights?

roe-v-wade-0

Roe V Wade, News on Roe V Wade, stories on Roe V Wade, articles on Roe V Wade, Roe V Wade stories at Wion, Roe V Wade news, Roe V Wade latest news

roe v-wade-0