The Supreme Court of the US state of Iowa said on Friday (June 28) that the state's strict abortion law was legal. According to American media, the Supreme Court told a lower court to dissolve a temporary block on the law and allow Iowa to ban most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy.

The Supreme Court of the US state of Iowa said on Friday (June 28) that the state's strict abortion law was legal. According to American media, the Supreme Court told a lower court to dissolve a temporary block on the law and allow Iowa to ban most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. The 4-3 ruling is a win for Republican lawmakers. With this ruling, Iowa joins more than a dozen other states with restrictive abortion laws following the US Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, a report by the news agency Associated Press said. A reiteration by the Iowa SC Until the lower court follows through on the high court’s instruction, abortion remains legal in Iowa up to 20 weeks of pregnancy. It was unclear when the lower court would take action, the report said. Also read | US Supreme Court allows emergency abortion access in Idaho for now It added that currently, 14 states have near-total bans at all stages of pregnancy, and three ban abortions at about six weeks. On Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court reiterated that there was no constitutional right to abortion. Celebrating the top court's decision, Iowa's Governor Kim Reynolds said, "I’m glad that the Iowa Supreme Court has upheld the will of the people of Iowa." However, the court's Chief Justice Susan Christensen criticised the decision. “Today, our court’s majority strips Iowa women of their bodily autonomy by holding that there is no fundamental right to terminate a pregnancy under our state constitution. I cannot stand by this decision,” Chief Justice Christensen said in a statement. Are there any exemptions to the law? There are limited circumstances under the Iowa law that would allow for abortion after six weeks of pregnancy: These are: 1) Rape, if reported to law enforcement or a health provider within 45 days. 2) Incest, if reported within 145 days. 3) If the fetus has a fetal abnormality “incompatible with life”; or if the pregnancy is endangering the life of the patient. 'Ruling will force women...' Candace Gibson, director of state policy at the Guttmacher Institute, an organisation that advocates for abortion access, said the ruling will force women seeking abortions to either leave Iowa, “navigate a self-managed abortion,” or carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. In a statement, Gibson said, "Upholding this six-week ban in Iowa is a shocking blow to Iowans’ reproductive autonomy." (With inputs from agencies)

Iowa abortion ruling: State Supreme Court lets strict law go into effect

In a gut-wrenching reality, a couple in Florida are waiting to bid farewell to their unborn child in a few weeks after the baby is delivered in the wake of the elimination of abortion rights in the country by the US Supreme Court last year.&nbsp;The heartbreaking situation has been created due to the new Florida law which bans abortion after a period of 15 weeks except under special circumstances. Deborah Dorbert has now joined the league of several women who are facing difficulty in getting the necessary abortion procedures after the Supreme Court overturned the rights which were earlier granted by the landmark 1973 Roe vs Wade decision.

According to a report published by The Washington Post, Dorbert and her husband Lee Dorbert, who are expecting their second child, were informed by the doctors that the baby is suffering from fatal fetal abnormality, which is also known as Potter syndrome.

ALSO READ | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/religious-leaders-sue-to-block-missouris-abortion-ban-554790">Religious leaders' group files lawsuit to block abortion ban in Missouri</a>

However, the couple said that an abortion cannot be performed by the doctors because of their interpretation of a Florida law which was brought into effect after Roe vs Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court.

Potter syndrome is a rare health condition that occurs during the development of the fetus in the uterus. In this case, the fetus has abnormal kidney growth and function, which affects the amount of amniotic fluid which is present around it during pregnancy.

Doctors consider it as a “doubly lethal diagnosis” because babies with malfunctioning kidneys fail to remove deadly toxins from their bodies, which in turn can result in renal failure. Also, the lack of amniotic fluid in a womb results in the birth of a baby without the ability to breathe.

According to the Reducing Fetal and Infant Mortality law in Florida, which the authorities implemented last July, people are prohibited from undergoing abortion after 15 weeks of gestation. As per the new law, few cases will be dealt with an exception and would permit a later abortion “if two physicians certify in writing that the fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality and has not reached viability”.

When the unborn baby of the couple was diagnosed with the syndrome in November, Dorberts was told by a maternal-fetal medicine specialist that parents going through this situation often choose to terminate the pregnancy through preterm labour or surgery.

The doctor had said that he would discuss the case with the health system administrators and consult them regarding the new law, reported the Washington Post.

Eventually, the couple decided to terminate the pregnancy as early as possible because babies born with such syndrome often die before their birth or die because of suffocation within hours or minutes after their delivery.

WATCH | Abortion opponents call for stricter bans at first post-Roe Washington march

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/abortion-opponents-call-for-stricter-bans-at-first-post-roe-washington-march-english-news-554649/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Deborah Dorbert said the specialist had informed her that the termination of pregnancy might be possible but not before 28 and 32 weeks. However, after consultation with the health system administrators, the specialist said that the couple will have to wait till the 37th week of gestation or almost a full term to terminate the pregnancy.

Speaking about the specialist's suggestion to the couple about travelling to other states where they have fewer restrictions on abortion, Dorberts said that they can't bear such travel costs and have left their state very few times.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

You can&nbsp;now write for wionews.com&nbsp;and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

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>

In a gut-wrenching reality, a couple in Florida are waiting to bid farewell to their unborn child in a few weeks after the baby is delivered in the wake of the elimination of abortion rights in the country by the US Supreme Court last year.

In a gut-wrenching reality, a couple in Florida are waiting to bid farewell to their unborn child in a few weeks after the baby is delivered in the wake of the elimination of abortion rights in the country by the US Supreme Court last year. The heartbreaking situation has been created due to the new Florida law which bans abortion after a period of 15 weeks except under special circumstances. Deborah Dorbert has now joined the league of several women who are facing difficulty in getting the necessary abortion procedures after the Supreme Court overturned the rights which were earlier granted by the landmark 1973 Roe vs Wade decision. According to a report published by The Washington Post, Dorbert and her husband Lee Dorbert, who are expecting their second child, were informed by the doctors that the baby is suffering from fatal fetal abnormality, which is also known as Potter syndrome. ALSO READ | Religious leaders' group files lawsuit to block abortion ban in Missouri However, the couple said that an abortion cannot be performed by the doctors because of their interpretation of a Florida law which was brought into effect after Roe vs Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court. Potter syndrome is a rare health condition that occurs during the development of the fetus in the uterus. In this case, the fetus has abnormal kidney growth and function, which affects the amount of amniotic fluid which is present around it during pregnancy. Doctors consider it as a “doubly lethal diagnosis” because babies with malfunctioning kidneys fail to remove deadly toxins from their bodies, which in turn can result in renal failure. Also, the lack of amniotic fluid in a womb results in the birth of a baby without the ability to breathe. According to the Reducing Fetal and Infant Mortality law in Florida, which the authorities implemented last July, people are prohibited from undergoing abortion after 15 weeks of gestation. As per the new law, few cases will be dealt with an exception and would permit a later abortion “if two physicians certify in writing that the fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality and has not reached viability”. When the unborn baby of the couple was diagnosed with the syndrome in November, Dorberts was told by a maternal-fetal medicine specialist that parents going through this situation often choose to terminate the pregnancy through preterm labour or surgery. The doctor had said that he would discuss the case with the health system administrators and consult them regarding the new law, reported the Washington Post. Eventually, the couple decided to terminate the pregnancy as early as possible because babies born with such syndrome often die before their birth or die because of suffocation within hours or minutes after their delivery. WATCH | Abortion opponents call for stricter bans at first post-Roe Washington march Deborah Dorbert said the specialist had informed her that the termination of pregnancy might be possible but not before 28 and 32 weeks. However, after consultation with the health system administrators, the specialist said that the couple will have to wait till the 37th week of gestation or almost a full term to terminate the pregnancy. Speaking about the specialist's suggestion to the couple about travelling to other states where they have fewer restrictions on abortion, Dorberts said that they can't bear such travel costs and have left their state very few times. (With inputs from agencies) 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

No abortion rights! Hapless Florida couple to await baby's death after delivery

Nancy Davis, 36, a pregnant Louisiana woman, is faced with the decision of carrying a skull-less child to term or travelling to another state for an abortion. Davis has retained an attorney as she becomes the most recent personification of the agonising choices some women are facing in the wake of the US Supreme Court's decision to abolish universal access to abortion in June. With very few exceptions, most states have prohibited abortion, including Davis’s native state.

Davis, after a 10-week scan, revealed that the foetus was missing the top of its skull, acrania, a condition which generally kills within minutes or hours of delivery. Davis admitted publicly aborting her child. The hospital treating Davis refused to end her pregnancy as acrania was not listed on Louisiana’s list of ailments requiring an exception for abortion.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-judge-blocks-prosecutors-attempt-to-enforce-michigans-abortion-ban-508512">US: Judge blocks prosecutors from enforcing Michigan’s abortion ban</a>

The law’s exclusions for foetuses that are not viable outside of a mother’s womb, said Katrina Jackson, the state senator who wrote Louisiana’s abortion ban, argued that the hospital should have been entitled to end Davis’s pregnancy.

Davis’s lawyer, Ben Crump, claimed that Louisiana’s abortion prohibition was difficult to understand and had unfavourable effects. He also claimed that it caused emotional and physical damage to his client and other women in Davis’s position. Davis will be travelling to Florida, where she'll be exempt from the state’s ban to give birth to her second child, who’ll eventually die.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/american-mother-and-teen-daughter-charged-after-illegal-abortion-505590">American mother and teen daughter charged after illegal abortion</a>

In conversation with WAFB, Davis said, "It’s hard knowing that … I’m carrying it to bury it," the Guardian reported. Davis further stated that lawmakers should account more medical situations like acrania into account.

Crump said, "Ms. Nancy Davis was put in a horrifically cruel position," with unimaginable mental suffering and increasing body peril having been endured by Davis.

(With inputs from agencies)

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>

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>.

Nancy Davis, 36, a pregnant Louisiana woman, is faced with the decision of carrying a skull-less child to term or travelling to another state for an abortion. Davis has retained an attorney as she becomes the most recent personification of the agonising choices some women are facing in the wake of the US Supreme Court's decision to abolish universal access to abortion in June.

Nancy Davis, 36, a pregnant Louisiana woman, is faced with the decision of carrying a skull-less child to term or travelling to another state for an abortion. Davis has retained an attorney as she becomes the most recent personification of the agonising choices some women are facing in the wake of the US Supreme Court's decision to abolish universal access to abortion in June. With very few exceptions, most states have prohibited abortion, including Davis’s native state. Davis, after a 10-week scan, revealed that the foetus was missing the top of its skull, acrania, a condition which generally kills within minutes or hours of delivery. Davis admitted publicly aborting her child. The hospital treating Davis refused to end her pregnancy as acrania was not listed on Louisiana’s list of ailments requiring an exception for abortion. Also read | US: Judge blocks prosecutors from enforcing Michigan’s abortion ban The law’s exclusions for foetuses that are not viable outside of a mother’s womb, said Katrina Jackson, the state senator who wrote Louisiana’s abortion ban, argued that the hospital should have been entitled to end Davis’s pregnancy. Davis’s lawyer, Ben Crump, claimed that Louisiana’s abortion prohibition was difficult to understand and had unfavourable effects. He also claimed that it caused emotional and physical damage to his client and other women in Davis’s position. Davis will be travelling to Florida, where she'll be exempt from the state’s ban to give birth to her second child, who’ll eventually die. Also read | American mother and teen daughter charged after illegal abortion In conversation with WAFB, Davis said, "It’s hard knowing that … I’m carrying it to bury it," the Guardian reported. Davis further stated that lawmakers should account more medical situations like acrania into account. Crump said, "Ms. Nancy Davis was put in a horrifically cruel position," with unimaginable mental suffering and increasing body peril having been endured by Davis. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

‘I’m carrying it to bury it': Louisiana woman to make tough decision over her skull-less foetus abortion

Hundreds of&nbsp;abortion&nbsp;rights protesters waved banners and chanted Saturday outside the White House to demand the president take stronger action to protect access to the procedure recently revoked by the Supreme Court.

The estimated 1,000-strong crowd of mainly women shouted slogans like "My body, my choice" and some sat down on the sidewalk in pouring rain, with police standing by.

With President Joe Biden spending the weekend at his vacation home in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware a few hours away, demonstrators called on him to do more to combat the June 24 Supreme Court ruling overturning the Roe v Wade decision of 1973, which enshrined the right to&nbsp;abortion&nbsp;in the United States.

"Stand up, Joe Biden," said Becca, 37, who traveled more than two hours to Washington from Virginia. She carried a banner reading, "Abortion&nbsp;on demand without apology."

She said an executive order Biden signed on Friday aiming to help women access&nbsp;abortion&nbsp;pills and travel to states where they can still get an&nbsp;abortion&nbsp;was insufficient.

"Fix this! This executive order that he put out wasn't enough," said Becca, who declined to give her last name.

"I want a world that wasn't the world that my grandmother had to live in. My mom already fought for this in the streets. We shouldn't have to be here," she added.

Another woman, Christine, came to the rally with her three daughters, one in her 20s and the other two in their teens.

"We really feel that he needs to explore the fullest extent of his power of the executive branch to ensure that women retain their rights, their reproductive rights," Christine, 50, said.

"And I am here to ensure that my daughters don't have to go back 50 years in time to the days where abortions were happening in back alleys," added Christine, who also declined to give her last name.

Biden, whose room for maneuver on the issue is limited, has come under fire for perceived inaction since the court ruling.

As he signed the executive order Friday, he called on Americans to vote en masse and elect pro-choice lawmakers in November and give him firm control of Congress, so he can codify&nbsp;abortion&nbsp;rights into federal law and bypass the Supreme Court ruling.

Hundreds of abortion rights protesters waved banners and chanted Saturday outside the White House to demand the president take stronger action to protect access to the procedure recently revoked by the Supreme Court.

Hundreds of abortion rights protesters waved banners and chanted Saturday outside the White House to demand the president take stronger action to protect access to the procedure recently revoked by the Supreme Court. The estimated 1,000-strong crowd of mainly women shouted slogans like "My body, my choice" and some sat down on the sidewalk in pouring rain, with police standing by. With President Joe Biden spending the weekend at his vacation home in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware a few hours away, demonstrators called on him to do more to combat the June 24 Supreme Court ruling overturning the Roe v Wade decision of 1973, which enshrined the right to abortion in the United States. "Stand up, Joe Biden," said Becca, 37, who traveled more than two hours to Washington from Virginia. She carried a banner reading, "Abortion on demand without apology." She said an executive order Biden signed on Friday aiming to help women access abortion pills and travel to states where they can still get an abortion was insufficient. "Fix this! This executive order that he put out wasn't enough," said Becca, who declined to give her last name. "I want a world that wasn't the world that my grandmother had to live in. My mom already fought for this in the streets. We shouldn't have to be here," she added. Another woman, Christine, came to the rally with her three daughters, one in her 20s and the other two in their teens. "We really feel that he needs to explore the fullest extent of his power of the executive branch to ensure that women retain their rights, their reproductive rights," Christine, 50, said. "And I am here to ensure that my daughters don't have to go back 50 years in time to the days where abortions were happening in back alleys," added Christine, who also declined to give her last name. Biden, whose room for maneuver on the issue is limited, has come under fire for perceived inaction since the court ruling. As he signed the executive order Friday, he called on Americans to vote en masse and elect pro-choice lawmakers in November and give him firm control of Congress, so he can codify abortion rights into federal law and bypass the Supreme Court ruling.

White House protesters demand Joe Biden do more to defend US abortion rights

Activists in the United States have expressed concern that rolling back abortion rights can act as a threat to gay marriage.

They believe that if America's Supreme Court overturns the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade decision, it can have implications beyond abortion.

With the Republican Party already targetting the participation of transgender athletes in sports, activists fear conservatives will set their sights on other constitutional freedoms, starting with same-sex unions.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/abortion-debate-what-made-us-president-joe-biden-support-abortion-rights-477184/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

According to Katherine Franke, professor at Columbia University's Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, "The results of this case, if this opinion is actually the final opinion, will unravel constitutional rights that generations of Americans have taken for granted."

"Its limits are hard to anticipate," she added.

Granting constitutional rights to "all unborn children from the moment of fertilisation," Republican lawmakers in Louisiana have advanced a bill that would abolish abortion in the state.

Meanwhile, Democrats are asking voters in California and Vermont to enshrine abortion rights in their constitutions to expand and protect abortion access in more liberal states.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
I believe that a woman’s right to choose is fundamental. Roe has been the law of the land for almost fifty years, and basic fairness and the stability of our law demand that it not be overturned. 
 
We will be ready when any ruling is issued.
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1521551422931845123?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 3, 2022</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>

Politico had leaked a draft ruling of the US Supreme Court that said it could roll back half a century of abortion rights.

Justice Samuel Alito's argued in his draft majority opinion that the right to abortion was not protected by the constitution as it is not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition."

Although the 14th amendment of the US Constitution does not mention specific rights but has been widely referenced by courts over the years in granting certain fundamental rights.

From allowing the use of contraception in the 1960s to legalising same-sex marriage, it has been used for ensuring equality and better healthcare when the court had a liberal majority.&nbsp;

Also see |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/pro-choice-protesters-gathers-in-front-of-us-supreme-court-against-the-leaked-abortion-draft-475988">Pro-choice protesters gather in front of US Supreme Court against the leaked abortion draft</a>

Arthur Leonard, an expert on equality law at New York Law School, told AFP "If anything like Alito's opinion turns out to be the final opinion of the court, it does open the door for people who want to attack same-sex marriage or gay sex in new cases."

But after the appointment of three members by ex-president Donald Trump, conservative justices have a 6-3 majority in the Supreme Court.

Leonard believes they will be tempted to undo rights that conservatives believe have long vexed the religious right in America.

"Marriage is a status that's recognized in society and entitles you to rights, benefits, etc," he added.

Trevon Mayers, senior director at New York City-based LGBTQ advocacy group The Center, told AFP "We're definitely worried."&nbsp;

"The leaked draft of the court's opinion suggests that conservative members are emboldened by their majority, and may also be prepared to roll back other hard-fought fundamental rights.&nbsp;

"Systems of power, including our courts and elected officials, need to focus on ensuring all people have access to the health care that they need, rather than the opposite," he added.

(With inputs from agencies)

Watch WION's live TV 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.

Activists in the United States have expressed concern that rolling back abortion rights can act as a threat to gay marriage. They believe that if America's Supreme Court overturns the 1973 landmark Roe v.

Activists in the United States have expressed concern that rolling back abortion rights can act as a threat to gay marriage. They believe that if America's Supreme Court overturns the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade decision, it can have implications beyond abortion. With the Republican Party already targetting the participation of transgender athletes in sports, activists fear conservatives will set their sights on other constitutional freedoms, starting with same-sex unions. According to Katherine Franke, professor at Columbia University's Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, "The results of this case, if this opinion is actually the final opinion, will unravel constitutional rights that generations of Americans have taken for granted." "Its limits are hard to anticipate," she added. Granting constitutional rights to "all unborn children from the moment of fertilisation," Republican lawmakers in Louisiana have advanced a bill that would abolish abortion in the state. Meanwhile, Democrats are asking voters in California and Vermont to enshrine abortion rights in their constitutions to expand and protect abortion access in more liberal states. I believe that a woman’s right to choose is fundamental. Roe has been the law of the land for almost fifty years, and basic fairness and the stability of our law demand that it not be overturned. We will be ready when any ruling is issued. — Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) May 3, 2022 × Politico had leaked a draft ruling of the US Supreme Court that said it could roll back half a century of abortion rights. Justice Samuel Alito's argued in his draft majority opinion that the right to abortion was not protected by the constitution as it is not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." Although the 14th amendment of the US Constitution does not mention specific rights but has been widely referenced by courts over the years in granting certain fundamental rights. From allowing the use of contraception in the 1960s to legalising same-sex marriage, it has been used for ensuring equality and better healthcare when the court had a liberal majority. Also see | Pro-choice protesters gather in front of US Supreme Court against the leaked abortion draft Arthur Leonard, an expert on equality law at New York Law School, told AFP "If anything like Alito's opinion turns out to be the final opinion of the court, it does open the door for people who want to attack same-sex marriage or gay sex in new cases." But after the appointment of three members by ex-president Donald Trump, conservative justices have a 6-3 majority in the Supreme Court. Leonard believes they will be tempted to undo rights that conservatives believe have long vexed the religious right in America. "Marriage is a status that's recognized in society and entitles you to rights, benefits, etc," he added. Trevon Mayers, senior director at New York City-based LGBTQ advocacy group The Center, told AFP "We're definitely worried." "The leaked draft of the court's opinion suggests that conservative members are emboldened by their majority, and may also be prepared to roll back other hard-fought fundamental rights. "Systems of power, including our courts and elected officials, need to focus on ensuring all people have access to the health care that they need, rather than the opposite," he added. (With inputs from agencies) Watch WION's live TV 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 activists fear rolling back abortion rights can act as threat to gay marriage

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

As it reaches out to allies rattled by four years of erratic U.S. diplomacy, the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/joe-biden">Biden administration </a>wants to enlist Congress in advancing foreign policies that will withstand the whims of any single president.

An early test lies in the fate of what is known as the Mexico City policy.

Watch |&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-the-modi-biden-phone-call-362523/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Enacted in 1984 by Ronald Reagan, the policy bans U.S. taxpayer funds for health providers overseas that, as part of their medical care for women, offer abortion services. It has been rescinded by every Democratic president since, only to be put back into place by every Republican.

Even when the ban is rescinded — as President Joe Biden did Jan. 28 — the money cannot be used to pay for abortions.

Instead, and by law, it is used to pay for other health care for women and girls in some of the world’s poorest nations, allowing providers to cover abortion costs with other resources. But whenever the ban is restored, humanitarian groups that are backed by the United Nations and the U.S. Agency for International Development must scramble for other support to cover health care costs.

The constant churn has thrown medical budgets into disarray and forced the shuttering of some clinics.

Crucially, it also has reinforced the notion among some foreign allies of America as an unreliable partner on global needs.

Charles Michel, the European Council president, said Wednesday that he hoped the Biden administration will work more closely with international partners on a range of issues, in contrast with what he described as a “difference with the last years.”

“We want more fairness, more predictability; we want more stability,” Michel told an Atlantic Council forum.

Under President Donald Trump, the Mexico City policy was not only enforced but expanded, denying aid to additional groups that also provide HIV medicine and tuberculosis treatment. That served as further injury to the insult of American retrenchment from global alliances under Trump’s watch, on everything from military conflicts to diplomatic accords, which the Biden administration now wants to reverse.

Last month, on his first full day in office, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said the Biden administration would turn to Congress to help cement a host of major foreign policy decisions to provide continuity from president to president.

“It is hard to have a sustainable foreign policy absent the informed consent of the American people,” Blinken told reporters Jan. 27. “The place that, in our system, that informed consent is vitally important, is with Congress.”

Biden lifted the Mexico City policy a day later, releasing access to hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to health clinics that had been denied the funding, and pleasing diplomats around the world.

“Norway is looking forward to work closely with the USA again in the global effort” to protect the reproductive health of women and girls, Foreign Minister Ine Eriksen Soreide said on Twitter.

“Looking forward to strengthening ties with Biden/Harris administration on sexual and reproductive health and rights,” echoed Flemming Moller Mortensen, Denmark’s minister for development cooperation.

Experts said members of Congress who oppose the Mexico City policy — mostly Democrats and abortion rights activists — have a narrow but rare opportunity to abolish it.

The Democratic House previously approved a measure to block the policy, also known by critics as the global gag rule, but it was stalled under Republicans in the Senate.

This month, Democrats reclaimed control of the Senate for the first time since 2015 by the slimmest of margins, with a 50-50 split and Vice President Kamala Harris able to break tie votes.

However, at least two Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, also support legislation to permanently end the Mexico City policy, meaning “there might be a newer window to make something happen,” said Jen Kates, the director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

“I think everyone will agree, whatever side they’re on, on the issue, is that the ping ponging is a very challenging way to have this policy operate,” Kates said, discussing the work of non-governmental organizations. “It provides no stability or predictability for NGOs, and it’s disruptive.”

Opponents of abortion rights also want to see the matter become settled law, but in a way that enshrines the Mexico City policy to immediately prevent Biden and future presidents from supporting abortion providers abroad.

Last month, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, revived a plan he had introduced in previous congressional terms to make the funding ban permanent. In a Feb. 3 speech on the Senate floor, he said it was necessary to prevent the policy from being “rescinded and reinstated again and again between changing administrations.”

“The lives of babies and the dignity of women are not political footballs,” Lee said. “Women and unborn children everywhere have immeasurable dignity and worth, regardless of where they are from. And they ought to be entitled to the right to life and protection from harm — regardless of who is in office.”

His remarks drew an exasperated response from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., who reminded officials that overseas health providers can use U.S. funds only for other medical needs — not to pay for abortion services, including counseling.

So far, she said, 47 senators have committed to a proposal that would rescind the funding ban for good. Other Democrats are expected to join the effort.

“We need a renewed commitment to comprehensive family planning,” Shaheen said, one that “would ensure that care is not limited, based on the president in the White House.”

Kates noted that whatever Congress approves as law when it is controlled by Democrats could, in theory, be reversed when Republicans again take over.

“This is contested space,” she said.

But she also predicted that Shaheen’s legislation, if enacted, would have “more of a protective frame around it” because it would change a 60-year-old law that governs how the United States provides foreign assistance, as opposed to amending a spending bill that is debated every year.

No other country in the world withholds health care support from U.N. programs over opposition to abortions.

In 2016, before Trump cut the funds, the United States provided $69 million to the U.N. Population Fund, the world body’s leading provider of family-planning services. With the money restored, the agency projects it could provide family planning and health care to 4.2 million women and girls within one year, potentially preventing 1.4 million unintended pregnancies and 640,000 transmissions of sexually transmitted diseases.

Natalia Kanem, the U.N. agency’s executive director, described a mix of joy and relief among member nations upon hearing this month that the United States would restore funding to foreign providers. In an interview, she was careful not to discuss the internal political debate over whether Congress should put the seesawing U.S. policy to rest.

But she said the coronavirus pandemic and poverty and strife in some of the world’s most unstable countries underscored that “we don’t just need to get back to where we were four years ago, or 20 years ago.”

Given the unpredictability of international support that has led to dwindling health services for women and girls, American officials should pursue “something with ambition, rather than just tinkering around the edges,” Kanem said.

“Funding stable partnerships saves lives,” she said.

 
&nbsp;

As it reaches out to allies rattled by four years of erratic U.S. diplomacy, the Biden administration wants to enlist Congress in advancing foreign policies that will withstand the whims of any single president.

As it reaches out to allies rattled by four years of erratic U.S. diplomacy, the Biden administration wants to enlist Congress in advancing foreign policies that will withstand the whims of any single president. An early test lies in the fate of what is known as the Mexico City policy. Watch | Enacted in 1984 by Ronald Reagan, the policy bans U.S. taxpayer funds for health providers overseas that, as part of their medical care for women, offer abortion services. It has been rescinded by every Democratic president since, only to be put back into place by every Republican. Even when the ban is rescinded — as President Joe Biden did Jan. 28 — the money cannot be used to pay for abortions. Instead, and by law, it is used to pay for other health care for women and girls in some of the world’s poorest nations, allowing providers to cover abortion costs with other resources. But whenever the ban is restored, humanitarian groups that are backed by the United Nations and the U.S. Agency for International Development must scramble for other support to cover health care costs. The constant churn has thrown medical budgets into disarray and forced the shuttering of some clinics. Crucially, it also has reinforced the notion among some foreign allies of America as an unreliable partner on global needs. Charles Michel, the European Council president, said Wednesday that he hoped the Biden administration will work more closely with international partners on a range of issues, in contrast with what he described as a “difference with the last years.” “We want more fairness, more predictability; we want more stability,” Michel told an Atlantic Council forum. Under President Donald Trump, the Mexico City policy was not only enforced but expanded, denying aid to additional groups that also provide HIV medicine and tuberculosis treatment. That served as further injury to the insult of American retrenchment from global alliances under Trump’s watch, on everything from military conflicts to diplomatic accords, which the Biden administration now wants to reverse. Last month, on his first full day in office, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said the Biden administration would turn to Congress to help cement a host of major foreign policy decisions to provide continuity from president to president. “It is hard to have a sustainable foreign policy absent the informed consent of the American people,” Blinken told reporters Jan. 27. “The place that, in our system, that informed consent is vitally important, is with Congress.” Biden lifted the Mexico City policy a day later, releasing access to hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to health clinics that had been denied the funding, and pleasing diplomats around the world. “Norway is looking forward to work closely with the USA again in the global effort” to protect the reproductive health of women and girls, Foreign Minister Ine Eriksen Soreide said on Twitter. “Looking forward to strengthening ties with Biden/Harris administration on sexual and reproductive health and rights,” echoed Flemming Moller Mortensen, Denmark’s minister for development cooperation. Experts said members of Congress who oppose the Mexico City policy — mostly Democrats and abortion rights activists — have a narrow but rare opportunity to abolish it. The Democratic House previously approved a measure to block the policy, also known by critics as the global gag rule, but it was stalled under Republicans in the Senate. This month, Democrats reclaimed control of the Senate for the first time since 2015 by the slimmest of margins, with a 50-50 split and Vice President Kamala Harris able to break tie votes. However, at least two Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, also support legislation to permanently end the Mexico City policy, meaning “there might be a newer window to make something happen,” said Jen Kates, the director of global health and HIV policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “I think everyone will agree, whatever side they’re on, on the issue, is that the ping ponging is a very challenging way to have this policy operate,” Kates said, discussing the work of non-governmental organizations. “It provides no stability or predictability for NGOs, and it’s disruptive.” Opponents of abortion rights also want to see the matter become settled law, but in a way that enshrines the Mexico City policy to immediately prevent Biden and future presidents from supporting abortion providers abroad. Last month, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, revived a plan he had introduced in previous congressional terms to make the funding ban permanent. In a Feb. 3 speech on the Senate floor, he said it was necessary to prevent the policy from being “rescinded and reinstated again and again between changing administrations.” “The lives of babies and the dignity of women are not political footballs,” Lee said. “Women and unborn children everywhere have immeasurable dignity and worth, regardless of where they are from. And they ought to be entitled to the right to life and protection from harm — regardless of who is in office.” His remarks drew an exasperated response from Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., who reminded officials that overseas health providers can use U.S. funds only for other medical needs — not to pay for abortion services, including counseling. So far, she said, 47 senators have committed to a proposal that would rescind the funding ban for good. Other Democrats are expected to join the effort. “We need a renewed commitment to comprehensive family planning,” Shaheen said, one that “would ensure that care is not limited, based on the president in the White House.” Kates noted that whatever Congress approves as law when it is controlled by Democrats could, in theory, be reversed when Republicans again take over. “This is contested space,” she said. But she also predicted that Shaheen’s legislation, if enacted, would have “more of a protective frame around it” because it would change a 60-year-old law that governs how the United States provides foreign assistance, as opposed to amending a spending bill that is debated every year. No other country in the world withholds health care support from U.N. programs over opposition to abortions. In 2016, before Trump cut the funds, the United States provided $69 million to the U.N. Population Fund, the world body’s leading provider of family-planning services. With the money restored, the agency projects it could provide family planning and health care to 4.2 million women and girls within one year, potentially preventing 1.4 million unintended pregnancies and 640,000 transmissions of sexually transmitted diseases. Natalia Kanem, the U.N. agency’s executive director, described a mix of joy and relief among member nations upon hearing this month that the United States would restore funding to foreign providers. In an interview, she was careful not to discuss the internal political debate over whether Congress should put the seesawing U.S. policy to rest. But she said the coronavirus pandemic and poverty and strife in some of the world’s most unstable countries underscored that “we don’t just need to get back to where we were four years ago, or 20 years ago.” Given the unpredictability of international support that has led to dwindling health services for women and girls, American officials should pursue “something with ambition, rather than just tinkering around the edges,” Kanem said. “Funding stable partnerships saves lives,” she said.

Biden wants more stable diplomacy. An abortion fight is a test.

us-abortion-laws

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

us abortion-laws