Editorji is a popular short video news and information platform based in India. It was founded in 2018 by Vikram Chandra, one of India’s leading journalists, and has risen to prominence in the digital news space in a relatively short span of time. The platform is primarily designed for mobile devices, with applications available for Android and iOS.

ABOUT US:

about us editorji

Latest Video News: Editorji provides the latest news video headlines, latest videos clip from India and the World. Get all breaking news videos on Entertainment, Business, Coronavirus, Elections, Politics and more.

Latest Video News, Breaking News, Bollywood, Political, Sports, Business News | Editorji

+91 11 4035 6666 / info@editorji.com
3rd floor, Plot B, Khasara no 360, Sultanpur, New Delhi, Delhi 110030
<a title="mail to us" href="mailto:info@editorji.com">Send Feedback</a>
<a title="Contact Us" href="mailto:info@editorji.com">Contact Us</a>

REACH US

Contact for any questions, suggestions, comments, feedback or advertisement on Editorji.com, we are always looking forward to hearing from you.

Contact Us for Feedback, Suggestions and Advertising 

Editorji content is better experienced in our app.

SC’s ‘landmark’ ruling on abortion law is in stark contrast to the US’ regressive stance on the issue. While this is a huge step forward for women's rights, is there more work to be done?

The India Story | SC’s landmark abortion ruling: a step in the right direction?

SC&rsquo;s &lsquo;landmark&rsquo; ruling on abortion law is in stark contrast to the US&rsquo; regressive stance on the issue. While this is a huge step forward for women's rights, is there more work to be done?

The Supreme Court has passed a judgement being hailed as "historic" and "a big step forward" for women's rights. The ruling says that all women, including those unmarried, have equal rights to abortion. While the verdict is a huge step towards securing the bodily autonomy of women in our country, it is also notable for recognising marital rape as a crime under the ambit of the MTP Act, perhaps a hint to the Court&rsquo;s eventual viewpoint on the issue when it is listed as a petition.
The progressive nature of this judgement stands in stark contrast to the regressive stance of the United States Supreme Court, which overturned the crucial Roe v. Wade judgement earlier this year, paving the way for many states to completely ban access to safe and legal abortions.
Also Watch: <a href="https://www.editorji.com/editorji-specials/the-india-story/the-india-story-time-to-rediscover-india-s-southeast-asian-story-1664543025330">The India Story | Time to rediscover India&rsquo;s Southeast Asian story?</a>
While the Supreme Court&rsquo;s judgement is a landmark in the fight for equality, is there still work to be done? What does this mean for women&rsquo;s rights in India, and will a change in laws lead to a change in societal attitudes? On this week&rsquo;s episode of The India Story, Vikram Chandra discusses with experts the significance of this ruling.

Abortion in France was decriminalised under a key 1975 law, but there is nothing in the constitution that would guarantee abortion rights.

France's fresh step towards adoption of abortion rights in the country

Abortion in France was decriminalised under a key 1975 law, but there is nothing in the constitution that would guarantee abortion rights.

Lawmakers in France's lower house of parliament on Thursday adopted a resolution to enshrine abortion rights in the country&rsquo;s constitution, the first step in a lengthy and uncertain legislative battle prompted by the rollback of abortion rights in the United States.
The measure was approved with 337 lawmakers voting for and 32 against in the 557-member National Assembly.
To be approved, any measure must be first approved by majorities in the National Assembly and the upper house, the Senate, and then in a nationwide referendum.
Authors of the proposal, from a left-wing coalition, argued the measure was aimed at &ldquo;protecting and guaranteeing the fundamental right to voluntary termination of pregnancy and to contraception by inscribing it into our constitution.&rdquo;
Abortion in France was decriminalised under a key 1975 law, but there is nothing in the constitution that would guarantee abortion rights.
French Justice Minister Eric Dupond-Moretti said the centrist government supports the initiative.
He referred to the U.S. Supreme Court&rsquo;s decision in June, which eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion and left the decision to the states.
&ldquo;The right to abortion we thought was acquired for 50 years (in the U.S.) was in reality not at all acquired," he said.
A recent poll showed that over 80% of the French population supports the right to abortion.
The same poll also showed that a solid majority of people are in favor of enshrining it into the constitution.
Also watch: <a href="https://www.editorji.com/world-news/uk-faces-unprecedented-crisis-as-nurses-prepare-to-go-on-strike-in-december-1669352574537">UK faces unprecedented crisis as nurses prepare to go on strike in December</a>
Another bill to inscribe the right to abortion into the constitution, initiated by a group of lawmakers from French President Emmanuel Macron&rsquo;s centrist alliance, Renaissance, will also be debated Monday in the lower house, the National Assembly.
That text does not include a mention to the right to contraception.
Both proposals are only the first step of a lengthy process without a certain result.
The Senate, where the conservative party, The Republicans, has a majority, rejected a similar proposal in September.
The Republicans senators argued the measure is not needed since the right to abortion is not under threat in France.
Dupond-Moretti said he was &ldquo;hopeful&rdquo; that some senators could change their mind and form a majority in favour.
He and other proponents of constitutional change argue that French lawmakers should not take any chances on fundamental rights, since it is easier to change the law than the constitution.
The right to abortion enjoys broad support across the French political spectrum, including from Marine Le Pen&rsquo;s far-right National Rally.
Yet Le Pen in recent days said she is opposed to the leftist proposal because she thinks it could potentially lead to extending or abolishing the time limit at which a pregnancy can be terminated.

In a significant blow to the bodily autonomy of women, in June this year the US Supreme Court overturned Roe V Wade, a landmark decision that guaranteed women the constitutional right to abortion. While it was expected, after a draft opinion was leaked in early May, the ruling still sent shockwaves through the country, sparking protests in many places.
On the heels of the controversial order, the Indian Supreme Court last week passed a judgement being hailed as "historic" and "a big step forward" for women's rights. The ruling says that all women, including those unmarried, had equal rights to abortion. Currently, the MTP act states that a woman is well within her rights to terminate a pregnancy by a medical practitioner up to 20 weeks. This can extend to 24 weeks if continuing the pregnancy will cause grievous harm to a woman’s physical or mental health.
Also watch - Supreme Court rules all women entitled to safe, legal abortion
While the verdict is a huge step towards securing the bodily autonomy of women in our country, it also contains another important decision regarding the safety of women. For the first time, and only within the ambit of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, the apex court ruled that the definition of rape must include marital rape. A pregnancy caused by rape is presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.
It is this explanation that the Supreme Court used to justify this landmark ruling. A bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud noted that intimate partner violence is a reality that can take the form of rape, and if the MTP act does not recognise marital rape, it would compel 'a woman to give birth to, and raise a child with, a partner who inflicts mental and physical harm upon her.'
Also watch - Explained: the important marital rape ruling in SC abortion verdict 
The judgement also contains noteworthy language increasing the ambit of the MTP Act – the ruling reads that the term ‘women’ includes persons other than cis-gender women. Recognising that transmen, or gender non-conforming persons also need access to safe abortions is an important step towards securing the rights of people belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community in India.
There is no doubt that this is a big step for India, a country that is home to 675 million women – and the progressive nature of this judgement stands in stark contrast to the regressive stance of the United States Supreme Court.
The overturning of Roe V Wade has had landmark ripple effects throughout American society. In many states, women no longer have access to safe abortions. 
The USA is a federal country, so all its states have the right to form their own laws. Roe v. Wade, however, prevented states from making their own laws banning abortion.  . After the ruling was overturned, owing to the federal structure of the country, each state can now take its own call on the matter.  Abortion is now illegal or heavily restricted in at least 15 states. At least eight other states have laws in place that pave the way to ban or severely restrict access to abortion. Performing an abortion is now a felony punishable by up to life in prison in Texas, with only narrow exceptions to save the life of a pregnant patient. According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, at least 66 clinics across 15 states have stopped providing abortions.  
Also watch - 17 US lawmakers arrested for protesting against abortion ban outside Supreme Court
Pro-life vs Pro-choice. It's a debate that has been a part of US society for decades. In the United States, questions pertaining striking a balance between the rights of the fetus and the mother dominate the debate around abortion. In contrast, India emphasizes a woman’s right to bodily autonomy.  
The differing attitudes between the two countries can also be attributed to their religious differences. In the USA, the religious angle of the abortion debate concerns the complicated and personal question of ‘when does life begin’. According to Catholicism, the majority religion in the US, life begins at conception. In India there exists no singular viewpoint on the conception of life. Strong Catholic beliefs on the conception of life and ‘abortion as a sin’ significantly influence the American abortion debate. However, in India, this moral-legal debate on abortion has never attracted much interest.  
Also watch - US abortion verdict: fined for driving solo in carpool lane, pregnant woman say foetus is passenger 
The law in India is progressive, and a welcome ruling specially in the face of recent global developments. However, as with all other issues, putting in the work between judgements and on-ground action becomes more important now than ever before. Unsafe abortions are the third leading cause of maternal mortality in India, and close to 8 women die from causes related to unsafe abortions each day, according to the United Nations Population Fund. Systemic challenges, attitudes of medical professionals, proper post-abortion care, and access to proper gynecological services in the hinterlands of India are battles that need to still be won, before we can truly celebrate the spirit of this judgement.  

Decoded: The stark contrast between abortion laws in India vs the US

In a significant blow to the bodily autonomy of women, in June this year the US Supreme Court overturned Roe V Wade, a landmark decision that guaranteed women the constitutional right to abortion. While it was expected, after a draft opinion was leaked in early May, the ruling still sent shockwaves through the country, sparking protests in many places.

 

On the heels of the controversial order, the Indian Supreme Court last week passed a judgement being hailed as "historic" and "a big step forward" for women's rights. The ruling says that all women, including those unmarried, had equal rights to abortion. Currently, the MTP act states that a woman is well within her rights to terminate a pregnancy by a medical practitioner up to 20 weeks. This can extend to 24 weeks if continuing the pregnancy will cause grievous harm to a woman’s physical or mental health.

 

While the verdict is a huge step towards securing the bodily autonomy of women in our country, it also contains another important decision regarding the safety of women. For the first time, and only within the ambit of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, the apex court ruled that the definition of rape must include marital rape. A pregnancy caused by rape is presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.

 

It is this explanation that the Supreme Court used to justify this landmark ruling. A bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud noted that intimate partner violence is a reality that can take the form of rape, and if the MTP act does not recognise marital rape, it would compel 'a woman to give birth to, and raise a child with, a partner who inflicts mental and physical harm upon her.'

 

The judgement also contains noteworthy language increasing the ambit of the MTP Act – the ruling reads that the term ‘women’ includes persons other than cis-gender women. Recognising that transmen, or gender non-conforming persons also need access to safe abortions is an important step towards securing the rights of people belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community in India.

 

There is no doubt that this is a big step for India, a country that is home to 675 million women – and the progressive nature of this judgement stands in stark contrast to the regressive stance of the United States Supreme Court.

 

The overturning of Roe V Wade has had landmark ripple effects throughout American society. In many states, women no longer have access to safe abortions. 

 

The USA is a federal country, so all its states have the right to form their own laws. Roe v. Wade, however, prevented states from making their own laws banning abortion.  . After the ruling was overturned, owing to the federal structure of the country, each state can now take its own call on the matter.  Abortion is now illegal or heavily restricted in at least 15 states. At least eight other states have laws in place that pave the way to ban or severely restrict access to abortion. Performing an abortion is now a felony punishable by up to life in prison in Texas, with only narrow exceptions to save the life of a pregnant patient. According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, at least 66 clinics across 15 states have stopped providing abortions.  

 

Pro-life vs Pro-choice. It's a debate that has been a part of US society for decades. In the United States, questions pertaining striking a balance between the rights of the fetus and the mother dominate the debate around abortion. In contrast, India emphasizes a woman’s right to bodily autonomy.  

 

The differing attitudes between the two countries can also be attributed to their religious differences. In the USA, the religious angle of the abortion debate concerns the complicated and personal question of ‘when does life begin’. According to Catholicism, the majority religion in the US, life begins at conception. In India there exists no singular viewpoint on the conception of life. Strong Catholic beliefs on the conception of life and ‘abortion as a sin’ significantly influence the American abortion debate. However, in India, this moral-legal debate on abortion has never attracted much interest.  

 

The law in India is progressive, and a welcome ruling specially in the face of recent global developments. However, as with all other issues, putting in the work between judgements and on-ground action becomes more important now than ever before. Unsafe abortions are the third leading cause of maternal mortality in India, and close to 8 women die from causes related to unsafe abortions each day, according to the United Nations Population Fund. Systemic challenges, attitudes of medical professionals, proper post-abortion care, and access to proper gynecological services in the hinterlands of India are battles that need to still be won, before we can truly celebrate the spirit of this judgement.  

A landmark judgement by SC on the heels of US Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade - what is the contrast between the two countries as far as abortion laws are concerned, and why?&nbsp;

In a significant blow to the bodily autonomy of women, in June this year the US Supreme Court overturned Roe V Wade, a landmark decision that guaranteed women the constitutional right to abortion. While it was expected, after a draft opinion was leaked in early May, the ruling still sent shockwaves through the country, sparking protests in many places.
On the heels of the controversial order, the Indian Supreme Court last week passed a judgement being hailed as "historic" and "a big step forward" for women's rights. The ruling says that all women, including those unmarried, had equal rights to abortion. Currently, the MTP act states that a woman is well within her rights to terminate a pregnancy by a medical practitioner up to 20 weeks. This can extend to 24 weeks if continuing the pregnancy will cause grievous harm to a woman&rsquo;s physical or mental health.
<a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/sc-both-married-and-unmarried-women-can-undergo-abortion-till-24-weeks-of-pregnancy-1664431937060">Also watch - Supreme Court rules all women entitled to safe, legal abortion</a>
While the verdict is a huge step towards securing the bodily autonomy of women in our country, it also contains another important decision regarding the safety of women. For the first time, and only within the ambit of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, the apex court ruled that the definition of rape must include marital rape. A pregnancy caused by rape is presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.
It is this explanation that the Supreme Court used to justify this landmark ruling. A bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud noted that intimate partner violence is a reality that can take the form of rape, and if the MTP act does not recognise marital rape, it would compel 'a woman to give birth to, and raise a child with, a partner who inflicts mental and physical harm upon her.'
Also watch - <a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/explained-the-important-marital-rape-ruling-in-sc-abortion-verdict-1664465585110">Explained: the important marital rape ruling in SC abortion verdict&nbsp;</a>
The judgement also contains noteworthy language increasing the ambit of the MTP Act &ndash; the ruling reads that the term &lsquo;women&rsquo; includes persons other than cis-gender women. Recognising that transmen, or gender non-conforming persons also need access to safe abortions is an important step towards securing the rights of people belonging to the LGBTQIA+ community in India.
There is no doubt that this is a big step for India, a country that is home to 675 million women &ndash; and the progressive nature of this judgement stands in stark contrast to the regressive stance of the United States Supreme Court.
The overturning of Roe V Wade has had landmark ripple effects throughout American society. In many states, women no longer have access to safe abortions.&nbsp;
The USA is a federal country, so all its states have the right to form their own laws. Roe v. Wade, however, prevented states from making their own laws banning abortion. &nbsp;. After the ruling was overturned, owing to the federal structure of the country, each state can now take its own call on the matter. &nbsp;Abortion is now illegal or heavily restricted in at least 15 states. At least eight other states have laws in place that pave the way to ban or severely restrict access to abortion. Performing an abortion is now a felony punishable by up to life in prison in Texas, with only narrow exceptions to save the life of a pregnant patient. According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, at least 66 clinics across 15 states have stopped providing abortions. &nbsp;
Also watch - <a href="https://www.editorji.com/world-news/17-us-lawmakers-arrested-for-protesting-against-abortion-ban-outside-supreme-court-1658331518650">17 US lawmakers arrested for protesting against abortion ban outside Supreme Court</a>
Pro-life vs Pro-choice. It's a debate that has been a part of US society for decades. In the United States, questions pertaining striking a balance between the rights of the fetus and the mother dominate the debate around abortion. In contrast, India emphasizes a woman&rsquo;s right to bodily autonomy. &nbsp;
The differing attitudes between the two countries can also be attributed to their religious differences. In the USA, the religious angle of the abortion debate concerns the complicated and personal question of &lsquo;when does life begin&rsquo;. According to Catholicism, the majority religion in the US, life begins at conception. In India there exists no singular viewpoint on the conception of life. Strong Catholic beliefs on the conception of life and &lsquo;abortion as a sin&rsquo; significantly influence the American abortion debate. However, in India, this moral-legal debate on abortion has never attracted much interest. &nbsp;
Also watch - <a href="https://www.editorji.com/world-news/us-abortion-verdict-fined-for-driving-solo-in-carpool-lane-pregnant-woman-say-foetus-is-passenger-1657610201758">US abortion verdict: fined for driving solo in carpool lane, pregnant woman say foetus is passenger&nbsp;</a>
The law in India is progressive, and a welcome ruling specially in the face of recent global developments. However, as with all other issues, putting in the work between judgements and on-ground action becomes more important now than ever before. Unsafe abortions are the third leading cause of maternal mortality in India, and close to 8 women die from causes related to unsafe abortions each day, according to the United Nations Population Fund. Systemic challenges, attitudes of medical professionals, proper post-abortion care, and access to proper gynecological services in the hinterlands of India are battles that need to still be won, before we can truly celebrate the spirit of this judgement. &nbsp;

Noting that distinction between married and unmarried perpetuates stereotype that only married women are sexually active, the Supreme Court has said such distinction under abortion laws is artificial, constitutionally unsustainable.   The Supreme Court said all women, married or unmarried, are entitled to safe and legal abortion till 24 weeks of pregnancy. 

SC: both married and unmarried women can undergo abortion till 24 weeks of pregnancy

The Supreme Court said all women, married or unmarried, are entitled to safe and legal abortion till 24 weeks of pregnancy. 

The Supreme Court said all women, married or unmarried, are entitled to safe and legal abortion till 24 weeks of pregnancy.&nbsp;

Noting that distinction between married and unmarried perpetuates stereotype that only married women are sexually active, the Supreme Court has said such distinction under abortion laws is artificial, constitutionally unsustainable. &nbsp; &nbsp; The Supreme Court said all women, married or unmarried, are entitled to safe and legal abortion till 24 weeks of pregnancy&nbsp;under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. The three-judge bench led by Justice Chandrachud, also recognise marital rape, though purely within the ambit of abortion. The court ruled that under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, the definition of rape must include marital rape.&nbsp;
The bench, on August 23, had reserved its verdict on interpretation of the MTP Act provisions which makes a distinction between married and unmarried women on the issue of abortion till 24 weeks of pregnancy.
Also watch: <a href="https://www.editorji.com/partner/boomlive/abortion-legal-in-india-but-is-it-a-constitutional-right-of-a-woman-1657613597004">Abortion legal in India, but is it a Constitutional Right Of A Woman?</a>

The apex court's ruling on abortion is a landmark judement, but it also conceals within in an important message on the judiciary's outlook towards safety of women in India and marital rape. 

SC judgement on abortion conceals important ruling on marital rape 

In a historic verdict on Thursday the Supreme Court ruled that all women are entitled to a safe and legal abortion process and making any distinction between a married and an unmarried woman in this regard is unconstitutional.

While the verdict on abortion is a huge step towards securing the bodily autonomy of women in our country, the verdict also held an important decision on another burning matter of safety of women. For the first time, and only within the ambit of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act the apex court ruled that the definition of rape must include marital rape. 


Currently, the MTP act claims that a woman is well within her rights to terminate a pregnancy up to 24 weeks, if it causes grievous harm to her physical or mental health. A pregnancy caused by rape, is presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.  


It is this explanation that the Supreme Court used to justify this landmark ruling. A bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud noted that intimate partner violence is a reality that can take the form of rape, and if the MTP act does not recognise marital rape, it would compel 'a woman to give birth to and raise a child with a partner who inflicts mental and physical harm upon her.'


Data points to the rampant and grim reality of intimate partner violence in India. (Source on screen: National Family Health Survey-5 2019-2021) 1 in every 25 women in India was reportedly subjected to sexual violence by her husband. (Source on screen: ORF) 4% of pregnant women have experienced spousal violence during a pregnancy. (Source on screen: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth) A 2017 study of India, Nepal, and Bangladesh found Gender Based Violence to be a risk factor for unintended pregnancies among adolescent and young adult married women.  

While the recognising marital rape as valid grounds to terminate a pregnancy is a step in the right direction, there is still some distance to travel towards complete criminalisation. At the moment, Exception 2 of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code decriminalises marital rape and holds that sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under 18, is not rape. Following a split verdict by the Delhi High Court, the matter is now in front of the Supreme Court. The court has also sought a response from the Centre on a clutch of petitions against the Delhi high court’s verdict on the issue, but put the next hearing after five months.

Could the inclusion of marital rape as rape under the ambit of MTP point to a larger paradigm shift in our court's standing on the matter? Time will tell. 

The apex court's ruling on abortion is a landmark judement, but it also conceals within in an important message on the judiciary's outlook towards safety of women in India and marital rape.&nbsp;

In a historic verdict on Thursday the Supreme Court ruled that all women are entitled to a safe and legal abortion process and making any distinction between a married and an unmarried woman in this regard is unconstitutional.
While the verdict on abortion is a huge step towards securing the bodily autonomy of women in our country, the verdict also held an important decision on another burning matter of safety of women. For the first time, and only within the ambit of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act the apex court ruled that the definition of rape must include marital rape.&nbsp;
Currently, the MTP act claims that a woman is well within her rights to terminate a pregnancy up to 24 weeks, if it causes grievous harm to her physical or mental health. A pregnancy caused by rape, is presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman. &nbsp;
It is this explanation that the Supreme Court used to justify this landmark ruling. A bench led by Justice DY Chandrachud noted that intimate partner violence is a reality that can take the form of rape, and if the MTP act does not recognise marital rape, it would compel 'a woman to give birth to and raise a child with a partner who inflicts mental and physical harm upon her.'
Data points to the rampant and grim reality of intimate partner violence in India. According to National Family Health Survey-5 2019-2021, 1 in every 25 women in India was reportedly subjected to sexual violence by her husband. A study in ORF showed that 4% of pregnant women have experienced spousal violence during a pregnancy. A 2017 study of India, Nepal, and Bangladesh by BMC Pregnancy Childbirth found Gender Based Violence to be a risk factor for unintended pregnancies among adolescent and young adult married women. &nbsp;&nbsp;
Also watch: <a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/sc-both-married-and-unmarried-women-can-undergo-abortion-till-24-weeks-of-pregnancy-1664431937060">Supreme Court rules all women entitled to safe, legal abortion</a>
While the recognising marital rape as valid grounds to terminate a pregnancy is a step in the right direction, there is still some distance to travel towards complete criminalisation. At the moment, Exception 2 of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code decriminalises marital rape and holds that sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under 18, is not rape. Following a split verdict by the Delhi High Court, the matter is now in front of the Supreme Court. The court has also sought a response from the Centre on a clutch of petitions against the Delhi high court&rsquo;s verdict on the issue, but put the next hearing after five months.
Could the inclusion of marital rape as rape under the ambit of MTP point to a larger paradigm shift in our court's standing on the matter? Time will tell.&nbsp;

At least 17 members of Congress were arrested by the Capitol Police Tuesday for blocking traffic outside the Supreme Court during an abortion rights demonstration.
The House Democrats walked out of the Capitol and across the street to the Supreme Court chanting, "We aren't going back!"
The group then sat down on First Street NE outside the court, blocking the road, which prompted the arrests.
The lawmakers arrested included New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar and California Rep. Jackie Speier.
The lawmakers were fined and released after the
Speaking to reporters after the rally, Spier told reporters, "A lot of people are being arrested here today. who have never been arrested before.But we care that much about the lives of so many that are in trouble right now."
"This is just the first you're going to see this happening over and over again, not just here, but around the country. We're serious and we're not going to go back. This is the greatest take away of rights for women in this country in our history," she said.

17 US lawmakers arrested for protesting against abortion ban outside Supreme Court

At least 17 US lawmakers were arrested while protesting against the abortion ban outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. 

The arrested lawmakers included New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar and California Representative Jackie Speier.

At least 17 members of Congress were arrested by the Capitol Police Tuesday for blocking traffic outside the Supreme Court during an abortion rights demonstration.
The House Democrats walked out of the Capitol and across the street to the Supreme Court chanting, "We aren't going back!"
The group then sat down the street outside the court, blocking the road, which prompted the arrests.
The lawmakers arrested included New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar and California Rep. Jackie Speier.
Speaking to reporters after the rally, Spier told reporters, "A lot of people are being arrested here today. who have never been arrested before.But we care that much about the lives of so many that are in trouble right now."
Also watch: <a href="https://www.editorji.com/world-news/advice-for-successor-and-a-bit-of-chest-thumping-boris-johnson-s-last-parliament-speech-as-uk-pm-1658327897537" target="_blank">Advice for successor and a bit of chest-thumping: Boris Johnson&rsquo;s last Parliament speech as UK PM</a>
"This is just the first you're going to see this happening over and over again, not just here, but around the country. We're serious and we're not going to go back. This is the greatest take away of rights for women in this country in our history," she said.

The United States' House has voted to restore abortion rights nationwide in Democrats' first legislative response to the Supreme Court's landmark decision banning abortion
The bill has little chance of becoming law, with the necessary support lacking in the 50-50 Senate. Yet voting marks the beginning of a new era in the debate as lawmakers, governors and legislatures grapple with the impact of the court's decision.
The legislation passed 219-210. The House was also voting on a separate bill to prohibit punishment for a woman or child who decides to travel to another state to get an abortion.
“Just three weeks ago the Supreme Court took a wrecking ball to the fundamental rights by overturning Roe v. Wade,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ahead of the votes, gathering with other Democratic women on the steps of the Capitol.
“It is outrageous that 50 years later, women must again fight for our most basic rights against an extremist court.” Republicans spoke forcefully against the bills, praising the Supreme Court's decision and warning the that the legislation would go further than Roe ever did when it comes to legalising abortion.
Urging her colleagues to vote no, Washington GOP Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers called abortion “the greatest human rights issue of our generation.” She said the Democratic legislation “has nothing to do with protecting the health of women. It has everything to do with forcing an extreme agenda on the American people.” By overturning Roe, the court has allowed states to enact strict abortion limits, including many that had previously been deemed unconstitutional. The ruling is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states.
Already, a number of GOP-controlled states have moved quickly to curtail or outlaw abortion, while states controlled by Democrats have sought to champion access.
Voters now rank abortion as among the most pressing issues facing the country, a shift in priorities that Democrats hope will reshape the political landscape in their favour for the midterm elections.
 

US House votes to restore abortion rights, Senate odds dim

The United States' House has voted to restore abortion rights nationwide in Democrats' first legislative response to the Supreme Court's landmark decision banning abortion. 

The legislation passed 219-210. The House was also voting on a separate bill to prohibit punishment for a woman or child who decides to travel to another state to get an abortion.

The United States' House has voted to restore abortion rights nationwide in Democrats' first legislative response to the Supreme Court's landmark decision banning abortion
The bill has little chance of becoming law, with the necessary support lacking in the 50-50 Senate. Yet voting marks the beginning of a new era in the debate as lawmakers, governors and legislatures grapple with the impact of the court's decision.
The legislation passed 219-210. The House was also voting on a separate bill to prohibit punishment for a woman or child who decides to travel to another state to get an abortion.
&ldquo;Just three weeks ago the Supreme Court took a wrecking ball to the fundamental rights by overturning Roe v. Wade,&rdquo; said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ahead of the votes, gathering with other Democratic women on the steps of the Capitol.
&ldquo;It is outrageous that 50 years later, women must again fight for our most basic rights against an extremist court.&rdquo; Republicans spoke forcefully against the bills, praising the Supreme Court's decision and warning the that the legislation would go further than Roe ever did when it comes to legalising abortion.
Also watch: <a href="https://www.editorji.com/world-news/back-anyone-but-rishi-sunak-boris-johnson-tells-allies-1657938487443" target="_blank">'Back anyone but Rishi Sunak': Boris Johnson tells allies</a>
Urging her colleagues to vote no, Washington GOP Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers called abortion &ldquo;the greatest human rights issue of our generation.&rdquo; She said the Democratic legislation &ldquo;has nothing to do with protecting the health of women. It has everything to do with forcing an extreme agenda on the American people.&rdquo; By overturning Roe, the court has allowed states to enact strict abortion limits, including many that had previously been deemed unconstitutional. The ruling is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states.
Already, a number of GOP-controlled states have moved quickly to curtail or outlaw abortion, while states controlled by Democrats have sought to champion access.
Voters now rank abortion as among the most pressing issues facing the country, a shift in priorities that Democrats hope will reshape the political landscape in their favour for the midterm elections.
&nbsp;

Facebook and Instagram have begun promptly removing posts that offer abortion pills to women who may not be able to access them following a Supreme Court decision that stripped away constitutional protections for the procedure.
Such social media posts ostensibly aimed to help women living in states where preexisting laws banning abortion suddenly snapped into effect on Friday. That's when the high court overruled Roe v. Wade, its 1973 decision that declared access to abortion a constitutional right.
Memes and status updates explaining how women could legally obtain abortion pills in the mail exploded across social platforms. Some even offered to mail the prescriptions to women living in states that now ban the procedure.
Almost immediately, Facebook and Instagram began removing some of these posts, just as millions across the US were searching for clarity around abortion access. General mentions of abortion pills, as well as posts mentioning specific versions such as mifepristone and misoprostol, suddenly spiked Friday morning across Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and TV broadcasts, according to an analysis by the media intelligence firm Zignal Labs.
By Sunday, Zignal had counted more than 250,000 such mentions.
The AP obtained a screenshot on Friday of one Instagram post from a woman who offered to purchase or forward abortion pills through the mail, minutes after the court ruled to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion.
"DM me if you want to order abortion pills, but want them sent to my address instead of yours," the post on Instagram read.
Instagram took it down within moments. Vice Media first reported on Monday that Meta, the parent of both Facebook and Instagram, was taking down posts about abortion pills.
On Monday, an AP reporter tested how the company would respond to a similar post on Facebook, writing: "If you send me your address, I will mail you abortion pills." The post was removed within one minute.
The Facebook account was immediately put on a "warning" status for the post, which Facebook said violated its standards on "guns, animals and other regulated goods." Yet, when the AP reporter made the same exact post but swapped out the words "abortion pills" for "a gun," the post remained untouched. A post with the same exact offer to mail “weed” was also left up and not considered a violation.
Marijuana is illegal under federal law and it is illegal to send it through the mail.
Abortion pills, however, can legally be obtained through the mail after an online consultation from prescribers who have undergone certification and training.
In an email, a Meta spokesperson pointed to company policies that prohibit the sale of certain items, including guns, alcohol, drugs and pharmaceuticals. The company did not explain the apparent discrepancies in its enforcement of that policy.
Meta spokesperson Andy Stone confirmed in a tweet Monday that the company will not allow individuals to gift or sell pharmaceuticals on its platform, but will allow content that shares information on how to access pills. Stone acknowledged some problems with enforcing that policy across its platforms, which include Facebook and Instagram.
"We've discovered some instances of incorrect enforcement and are correcting these," Stone said in the tweet.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said Friday that states should not ban mifepristone, the medication used to induce an abortion.
"States may not ban mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA's expert judgment about its safety and efficacy," Garland said in a Friday statement.
But some Republicans have already tried to stop their residents from obtaining abortion pills through the mail, with some states like West Virginia and Tennessee prohibiting providers from prescribing the medication through telemedicine consultation.

Instagram and Facebook remove posts offering abortion pills

General mentions of abortion pills, as well as posts mentioning specific versions such as mifepristone and misoprostol, suddenly spiked Friday morning.

Facebook and Instagram have begun promptly removing posts that offer abortion pills to women who may not be able to access them following a Supreme Court decision that stripped away constitutional protections for the procedure.
Such social media posts ostensibly aimed to help women living in states where preexisting laws banning abortion suddenly snapped into effect on Friday. That's when the high court overruled Roe v. Wade, its 1973 decision that declared access to abortion a constitutional right.
Memes and status updates explaining how women could legally obtain abortion pills in the mail exploded across social platforms. Some even offered to mail the prescriptions to women living in states that now ban the procedure.
Almost immediately, Facebook and Instagram began removing some of these posts, just as millions across the US were searching for clarity around abortion access. General mentions of abortion pills, as well as posts mentioning specific versions such as mifepristone and misoprostol, suddenly spiked Friday morning across Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and TV broadcasts, according to an analysis by the media intelligence firm Zignal Labs.
By Sunday, Zignal had counted more than 250,000 such mentions.
The AP obtained a screenshot on Friday of one Instagram post from a woman who offered to purchase or forward abortion pills through the mail, minutes after the court ruled to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion.
"DM me if you want to order abortion pills, but want them sent to my address instead of yours," the post on Instagram read.
Instagram took it down within moments. Vice Media first reported on Monday that Meta, the parent of both Facebook and Instagram, was taking down posts about abortion pills.
On Monday, an AP reporter tested how the company would respond to a similar post on Facebook, writing: "If you send me your address, I will mail you abortion pills." The post was removed within one minute.
The Facebook account was immediately put on a "warning" status for the post, which Facebook said violated its standards on "guns, animals and other regulated goods." Yet, when the AP reporter made the same exact post but swapped out the words "abortion pills" for "a gun," the post remained untouched. A post with the same exact offer to mail &ldquo;weed&rdquo; was also left up and not considered a violation.
Also watch: <a href="https://www.editorji.com/world-news/explained-the-roe-vs-wade-abortion-rights-verdict-that-us-supreme-court-has-overturned-1656085528010" target="_blank">Explained: the 'Roe vs Wade' abortion rights verdict that US Supreme Court has overturned</a>
Marijuana is illegal under federal law and it is illegal to send it through the mail.
Abortion pills, however, can legally be obtained through the mail after an online consultation from prescribers who have undergone certification and training.
In an email, a Meta spokesperson pointed to company policies that prohibit the sale of certain items, including guns, alcohol, drugs and pharmaceuticals. The company did not explain the apparent discrepancies in its enforcement of that policy.
Meta spokesperson Andy Stone confirmed in a tweet Monday that the company will not allow individuals to gift or sell pharmaceuticals on its platform, but will allow content that shares information on how to access pills. Stone acknowledged some problems with enforcing that policy across its platforms, which include Facebook and Instagram.
"We've discovered some instances of incorrect enforcement and are correcting these," Stone said in the tweet.
Attorney General Merrick Garland said Friday that states should not ban mifepristone, the medication used to induce an abortion.
"States may not ban mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA's expert judgment about its safety and efficacy," Garland said in a Friday statement.
But some Republicans have already tried to stop their residents from obtaining abortion pills through the mail, with some states like West Virginia and Tennessee prohibiting providers from prescribing the medication through telemedicine consultation.

Abortion rights advocates staged protests Friday in several major cities around the country.
Protests were taking place in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco as well as in Chicago, Seattle and other cities.
In New York and Los Angeles, people chanted, "Rise up for abortion rights."
The protest came on the day that the U.S. Supreme Court issued a highly charged decision that ends constitutional protections to abortion nearly 50 years after Roe v. Wade made abortion legal.

US top court ruling: abortion rights protests held in several US cities 

Protests were taking place in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco as well as in Chicago, Seattle and other cities.

Abortion rights advocates staged protests Friday in several major cities around the country.
Protests were taking place in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco as well as in Chicago, Seattle and other cities.
In New York and Los Angeles, people chanted, "Rise up for abortion rights."
The protest came on the day that the U.S. Supreme Court issued a highly charged decision that ends constitutional protections to abortion nearly 50 years after Roe v. Wade made abortion legal.
Also Watch| <a href="https://www.editorji.com/world-news/tears-of-rage-vs-joy-as-us-supreme-court-strikes-down-abortion-laws-1656128127320" target="_blank">Tears of rage vs joy as US Supreme Court strikes down abortion laws</a>

The Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years.
Reaction was strong and swiftly delivered outside the Supreme Court after the ruling was publicly released.
A crowd of abortion supporters swelled to the hundreds after the ruling was issued. One chanted into a bullhorn, that both the ruling and the court were "illegitimate."
Araceli Herrera said she had traveled from San Antonio, Texas to be at the Supreme Court. Reflecting on her personal situation, Herrera said she had been raped when she was young and forced to have a child. Now, Herrera said she was "really sad," with the decision and described it as "slavery for the women of our country."
A competing faction demonstrated in favor of the ruling, holding signs saying "the future is anti-abortion″ and “dismember Roe.”
Lydia Taylor, with the Students for Life group, said she was "was crying tears of joy," when she found out. "We still have a ton of work to do to get all the states to ban abortion," she said. "But this is a huge step."
The ruling came more than a month after the stunning leak of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito indicating the court was prepared to take this momentous step.
WATCH | US President Joe Biden's first remarks on Supreme Court ending abortion rights
Three of the court's liberal justices wrote in a joint dissent that the decision would bring "sorrow" for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection.

Tears of rage vs joy as US Supreme Court strikes down abortion laws

Reaction was strong and swiftly delivered after Supreme Court overturned the constitutional protections for abortion with 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' activists gathering outside the US top court building

Three of the court's liberal justices wrote in a joint dissent that the decision would bring "sorrow" for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection.

The Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years.
Reaction was strong and swiftly delivered outside the Supreme Court after the ruling was publicly released.
A crowd of abortion supporters swelled to the hundreds after the ruling was issued. One chanted into a bullhorn, that both the ruling and the court were "illegitimate."
Araceli Herrera said she had traveled from San Antonio, Texas to be at the Supreme Court. Reflecting on her personal situation, Herrera said she had been raped when she was young and forced to have a child. Now, Herrera said she was "really sad," with the decision and described it as "slavery for the women of our country."
A competing faction demonstrated in favor of the ruling, holding signs saying "the future is anti-abortion&Prime; and &ldquo;dismember Roe.&rdquo;
Lydia Taylor, with the Students for Life group, said she was "was crying tears of joy," when she found out. "We still have a ton of work to do to get all the states to ban abortion," she said. "But this is a huge step."
The ruling came more than a month after the stunning leak of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito indicating the court was prepared to take this momentous step.
WATCH | <a href="https://www.editorji.com/world-news/biden-speaks-on-us-top-court-ending-abortion-rights-says-it-is-a-sad-day-1656089099756">US President Joe Biden's first remarks on Supreme Court ending abortion rights</a>
Three of the court's liberal justices wrote in a joint dissent that the decision would bring "sorrow" for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection.

There was strong and mixed political reaction on Friday after the US Supreme Court ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years.
Politicians including former US President Barack Obama and Vice President Mike Pence took to Twitter to deliver their reaction.
The ruling came more than a month after the stunning leak of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito indicating the court was prepared to take this momentous step.
Three of the court's liberal justices wrote in a joint dissent that the decision would bring "sorrow" for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection.

Barack Obama says US top court ruling on abortion is attack on essential freedoms

There was strong and mixed political reaction on Friday after the US Supreme Court ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years.

Obama: US top court abortion ruling an attack on essential freedoms

There was strong and mixed political reaction on Friday after the US Supreme Court ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years.

Former US President Barack Obama on Friday condemned the US Supreme Court ending constitutional protection for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years.
Obama said on Twitter that the decision is tantamount to an attack on freedoms for millions of Americans.
'Today, the Supreme Court not only reversed nearly 50 years of precedent, it relegated the most intensely personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues&mdash;attacking the essential freedoms of millions of Americans,' he tweeted
The court's conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday. The decision is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states.
Three of the court's liberal justices wrote in a joint dissent that the decision would bring &ldquo;sorrow&rdquo; for the many millions of American women who will be losing a &ldquo;fundamental constitutional protection&rdquo;.
The Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years.
The decision by its conservative majority to overturn Roe v. Wade on Friday is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states. The ruling came more than a month after the stunning leak of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito indicating the court was prepared to take this momentous step.

President Joe Biden made his first public comments from the White House on Friday about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
Biden called the Supreme Court abortion ruling a "sad day for the court and for the country." He also said the Supreme Court "took" the right away.
The remarks outlined his approach to this new phase of the fight over abortion access.
The White House has been preparing for this moment since a draft of the decision leaked in May. Officials have been huddling with state leaders, advocates, health care professionals and others to prepare for a future without Roe v. Wade.
Now Biden's plans will be tested in terms of politics and policy.
Biden and other Democrats hope to use outrage over the court decision to rally voters in November's midterm elections. Although nationwide legislation ensuring access to abortion appears out of reach, more Democratic victories at the state level could limit Republican efforts to ban the practice.
Many Republican-controlled states are poised to severely restrict abortion, or even ban it outright.
The White House has been exploring options for Biden to take executive action to safeguard abortion rights, but his options are limited.

WATCH | US President Joe Biden's first remarks on Supreme Court ending abortion rights

US President Joe Biden called the Supreme Court abortion ruling a "sad day for the court and for the country." He also said the Supreme Court "took" the right away.

Biden speaks on US top court ending abortion rights, says it is a sad day

President Joe Biden made his first public comments from the White House on Friday about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that legalised abortion nationwide.

President Joe Biden made his first public comments from the White House on Friday about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
Biden called the Supreme Court abortion ruling a "sad day for the court and for the country." He also said the Supreme Court "took" the right away.
The remarks outlined his approach to this new phase of the fight over abortion access.
The White House has been preparing for this moment since a draft of the decision leaked in May. Officials have been huddling with state leaders, advocates, health care professionals and others to prepare for a future without Roe v. Wade.
Now Biden's plans will be tested in terms of politics and policy.
Biden and other Democrats hope to use outrage over the court decision to rally voters in November's midterm elections. Although nationwide legislation ensuring access to abortion appears out of reach, more Democratic victories at the state level could limit Republican efforts to ban the practice.
Many Republican-controlled states are poised to severely restrict abortion, or even ban it outright.
Also watch: <a href="https://www.editorji.com/world-news/explained-the-roe-vs-wade-abortion-rights-verdict-that-us-supreme-court-has-overturned-1656085528010">Explained: the 'Roe vs Wade' abortion rights verdict that US Supreme Court has overturned</a>
The White House has been exploring options for Biden to take executive action to safeguard abortion rights, but his options are limited.

Pro-life vs Pro-choice. It's a debate that has been a part of US society for decades. It's features prominently in all presidential polls. A candidate's stand on whether abortion is a right or it is immoral could swing a lot of votes.   
US is a federal country, so all its states have the right to form their own laws but in January 1973, the country's Supreme Court ruled on the woman's right to abortion in the 'Roe vs Wade' case that had huge ramification on federal laws.   
In 1970, Jane Roe, a false identity for single mother Norma McCorvey, sued Dallas district attorney Henry Wade over Texas' abortion laws. Roe was pregnant for the third time and wanted to terminate the pregnancy but Texas laws made abortion criminal except in cases of rape, incest or when mother's life was in danger.   
In January 1972, The Supreme Court of the United States overturned the Texas laws and ruled that 'the right of privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.'  
 It ruled that to exempt only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother from criminality with regard to pregnancy stage or without recognises other interests violates the 14th amendment or the civil rights granted by the country's Constitution.   
However, the US top court put in a rider. It said that the right to privacy with regard to pregancy 'is not abolsute and is subject to some limitations.' It added that 'at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards and prenatal life become dominant'.   
The Supreme Court effectively allowed abortions before a foetus would be viable outside the womb, that is between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy.   
The Roe vs Wade judgment has faced several challenges since. The latest one being from the state of Missisipi. In 2018, the state banned most abortion after 15 weeks, much before foetal viability and sooner then allowed by the Roe judgement. A year later, the state went ahead and banned abortions once foetal heartbeat could be heard, which is 6 weeks.   
The US Supreme Court has now ended the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy provided by the Roe vs Wade verdict allowing states to ban abortion.  

Explained: the 'Roe vs Wade' abortion rights verdict that US Supreme Court has overturned

The US Supreme Court has now ended the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy provided by the Roe vs Wade verdict allowing states to ban abortion.  

Pro-life vs Pro-choice. It's a debate that has been a part of US society for decades. It's features prominently in all presidential polls.

Pro-life vs Pro-choice. It's a debate that has been a part of US society for decades. It's features prominently in all presidential polls. A candidate's stand on whether abortion is a right or it is immoral could swing a lot of votes. &nbsp;&nbsp;
US is a federal country, so all its states have the right to form their own laws but in January 1973, the country's Supreme Court ruled on the woman's right to abortion in the 'Roe vs Wade' case that had huge ramification on federal laws. &nbsp;&nbsp;
In 1970, Jane Roe, a false identity for single mother Norma McCorvey, sued Dallas district attorney Henry Wade over Texas' abortion laws. Roe was pregnant for the third time and wanted to terminate the pregnancy but Texas laws made abortion criminal except in cases of rape, incest or when mother's life was in danger. &nbsp;&nbsp;
In January 1972, The Supreme Court of the United States overturned the Texas laws and ruled that 'the right of privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.' &nbsp;
&nbsp;It ruled that to exempt only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother from criminality with regard to pregnancy stage or without recognises other interests violates the 14th amendment or the civil rights granted by the country's Constitution. &nbsp;&nbsp;
However, the US top court put in a rider. It said that the right to privacy with regard to pregancy 'is not abolsute and is subject to some limitations.' It added that 'at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards and prenatal life become dominant'. &nbsp;&nbsp;
The Supreme Court effectively allowed abortions before a foetus would be viable outside the womb, that is between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy. &nbsp;&nbsp;
The Roe vs Wade judgment has faced several challenges since. The latest one being from the state of Missisipi. In 2018, the state banned most abortion after 15 weeks, much before foetal viability and sooner then allowed by the Roe judgement. A year later, the state went ahead and banned abortions once foetal heartbeat could be heard, which is 6 weeks. &nbsp;&nbsp;
The US Supreme Court has now ended the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy provided by the Roe vs Wade verdict allowing states to ban abortion.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Also Watch| <a href="https://www.editorji.com/world-news/us-supreme-court-strikes-down-abortion-rights-1656081471131" target="_blank">US Supreme Court strikes down abortion rights</a>

The Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years in a decision by its conservative majority to overturn Roe v. Wade. Friday's outcome is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states.
The decision, unthinkable just a few years ago, was the culmination of decades of efforts by abortion opponents, made possible by an emboldened right side of the court that has been fortified by three appointees of former President Donald Trump.
The ruling came more than a month after the stunning leak of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito indicating the court was prepared to take this momentous step.
It puts the court at odds with a majority of Americans who favored preserving Roe, according to opinion polls.

US Supreme Court strikes down abortion rights

The US Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years in a decision by its conservative majority. 

It puts the court at odds with a majority of Americans who favored preserving abortion rights, according to opinion polls.

The US Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years in a decision by its conservative majority to overturn Roe v. Wade. Friday's outcome is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states.
The decision, unthinkable just a few years ago, was the culmination of decades of efforts by abortion opponents, made possible by an emboldened right side of the court that has been fortified by three appointees of former President Donald Trump.
The ruling came more than a month after the stunning leak of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito indicating the court was prepared to take this momentous step.
It puts the court at odds with a majority of Americans who favored preserving Roe, according to opinion polls.
Alito, in the final opinion issued Friday, wrote that Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed the right to abortion, were wrong the day they were decided and must be overturned.
&ldquo;We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,&rdquo; Alito wrote.
Authority to regulate abortion rests with the political branches, not the courts, Alito wrote.
Joining Alito were Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The latter three justices are Trump appointees. Thomas first voted to overrule Roe 30 years ago.
Chief Justice John Roberts would have stopped short of ending the abortion right, noting that he would have upheld the Mississippi law at the heart of the case, a ban on abortion after 15 weeks, and said no more.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan &mdash; the diminished liberal wing of the court &mdash; were in dissent.
&ldquo;With sorrow&mdash;for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection&mdash;we dissent,&rdquo; they wrote.
The ruling is expected to disproportionately affect minority women who already face limited access to health care, according to statistics analysed by The Associated Press.
Thirteen states, mainly in the South and Midwest, already have laws on the books that ban abortion in the event Roe is overturned. Another half-dozen states have near-total bans or prohibitions after 6 weeks of pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant.
In roughly a half-dozen other states, the fight will be over dormant abortion bans that were enacted before Roe was decided in 1973 or new proposals to sharply limit when abortions can be performed, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights.
More than 90% of abortions take place in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy, and more than half are now done with pills, not surgery, according to data compiled by Guttmacher.
The decision came against a backdrop of public opinion surveys that find a majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe and handing the question of whether to permit abortion entirely to the states. Polls conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and others also have consistently shown about 1 in 10 Americans want abortion to be illegal in all cases. A majority are in favour of abortion being legal in all or most circumstances, but polls indicate many also support restrictions especially later in pregnancy.
The Biden administration and other defenders of abortion rights have warned that a decision overturning Roe also would threaten other high court decisions in favor of gay rights and even potentially, contraception.
The liberal justices made the same point in their joint dissent: The majority &ldquo;eliminates a 50-year-old constitutional right that safeguards women's freedom and equal station. It breaches a core rule-of-law principle, designed to promote constancy in the law. In doing all of that, it places in jeopardy other rights, from contraception to same-sex intimacy and marriage. And finally, it undermines the Court's legitimacy.&rdquo; But Alito contended that his analysis addresses abortion only. &ldquo;Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,&rdquo; he wrote.
Whatever the intentions of the person who leaked Alito's draft opinion, the conservatives held firm in overturning Roe and Casey.
In his draft, Alito dismissed the arguments in favor of retaining the two decisions, including that multiple generations of American women have partly relied on the right to abortion to gain economic and political power.
Changing the composition of the court has been central to the anti-abortion side's strategy. Mississippi and its allies made increasingly aggressive arguments as the case developed, and two high-court defenders of abortion rights retired or died. The state initially argued that its law could be upheld without overruling the court's abortion precedents.
Then-Gov. Phil Bryant signed the 15-week measure into law in March 2018, when Justices Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were still members of a five-justice majority that was mainly protective of abortion rights.
By early summer, Kennedy had retired and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh a few months later. The Mississippi law was blocked in lower federal courts.
But the state always was headed to the nation's highest court. It did not even ask for a hearing before a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ultimately held the law invalid in December 2019.
By early September 2020, the Supreme Court was ready to consider the state's appeal.
The court scheduled the case for consideration at the justices' private conference on Sept. 29. But in the intervening weeks, Ginsburg died and Barrett was quickly nominated and confirmed without a single Democratic vote.
The stage now was set, although it took the court another half year to agree to hear the case.
By the time Mississippi filed its main written argument with the court in the summer, the thrust of its argument had changed and it was now calling for the wholesale overruling of Roe and Casey.
The first sign that the court might be receptive to wiping away the constitutional right to abortion came in late summer, when the justices divided 5-4 in allowing Texas to enforce a ban on the procedure at roughly six weeks, before some women even know they are pregnant. That dispute turned on the unique structure of the law, including its enforcement by private citizens rather than by state officials, and how it can be challenged in court.
But Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in a searing dissent for the three liberal justices that their conservative colleagues refused to block &ldquo;a flagrantly unconstitutional law&rdquo; that &ldquo;flouts nearly 50 years of federal precedents.&rdquo; Roberts was also among the dissenters.
Then in December, after hearing additional arguments over whether to block the Texas law known as S.B. 8, the court again declined to do so, also by a 5-4 vote. &ldquo;The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court's rulings,&rdquo; Roberts wrote, in a partial dissent.
In their Senate hearings, Trump's three high-court picks carefully skirted questions about how they would vote in any cases, including about abortion.
But even as Democrats and abortion rights supporters predicted Kavanaugh and Gorsuch would vote to upend abortion rights if confirmed, the two left at least one Republican senator with a different impression. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine predicted Gorsuch and Kavanaugh wouldn't support overturning the abortion cases, based on private conversations she had with them when they were nominees to the Supreme Court.
Barrett was perhaps the most vocal opponent of abortion in her time as a law professor, before becoming a federal judge in 2017. She was a member of anti-abortion groups at Notre Dame University, where she taught law, and she signed a newspaper ad opposing &ldquo;abortion on demand&rdquo; and defending &ldquo;the right to life from fertilisation to natural death.&rdquo; She promised to set aside her personal views when judging cases.
Trump, meanwhile, had predicted as a candidate that whoever he named to the court would &ldquo;automatically&rdquo; vote to overrule Roe.&nbsp;
Also Watch| <a href="https://www.editorji.com/world-news/explained-the-roe-vs-wade-abortion-rights-verdict-that-us-supreme-court-has-overturned-1656085528010" target="_blank">Explained: the 'Roe vs Wade' abortion rights verdict that US Supreme Court has overturned</a>

Pro-life vs Pro-choice. It's a debate that has been a part of US society for decades. It's features prominently in all presidential polls. A candidate's stand on whether abortion is a right or it is immoral could swing a lot of votes.   
US is a federal country, so all its states have the right to form their own laws but in January 1973, the country's Supreme Court ruled on the woman's right to abortion in the 'Roe vs Wade' case that had huge ramification on federal laws.   
In 1970, Jane Roe, a false identity for single mother Norma McCorvey, sued Dallas attorney general Henry Wade over Texas' abortion laws. Roe was pregnant for the third time and wanted to terminate the pregnancy but Texas laws made abortion criminal except in cases of rape, incest or when mother's life was in danger.   
In January 1972, The Supreme Court of the United States overturned the Texas laws and ruled that 'the right of privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.'  
 It ruled that to exempt only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother from criminality with regard to pregnancy stage or without recognises other interests violates the 14th amendment or the civil rights granted by the country's Constitution.   
However, the US top court put in a rider. It said that the right to privacy with regard to pregancy 'is not abolsute and is subject to some limitations.' It added that 'at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards and prenatal life become dominant'.   
The Supreme Court effectively allowed abortions before a foetus would be viable outside the womb, that is between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy.   
The Roe vs Wade judgment has faced several challenges since. The latest one being from the state of Missisipi. In 2018, the state banned most abortion after 15 weeks, much before foetal viability and sooner then allowed by the Roe judgement. A year later, the state went ahead and banned abortions once foetal heartbeat could be hard, which is weeks.   
The challenge to the Mississipi law has now reached the Supreme Court and there are fears that the country’s top court which now has a conservative majority will not uphold its previous judgement and overturn a woman’s right over her body.   

Explained: Why 'Roe vs Wade' judgement is an important turning point in US abortion laws

(( montage of older images/videos from AFP, today's videos from AP. Use lots of breathes))&nbsp;&nbsp;
START VO
((cut out of pro-life poster on one side and pro-choice on the other)) TEXT: One of most divisive issues of US society and politics&nbsp;
((republican symbol on one side, democrat symbol on the other)) TEXT: Views on it swing votes in favour or against a presidential candidate&nbsp;
VO: Pro-life vs Pro-choice. It's a debate that has been a part of US society for decades. It's features prominently in all presidential polls. A candidate's stand on whether abortion is a right or it is immoral could swing a lot of votes.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
((show US map/ star spangled banner etc&hellip; then bring in a cut out of the SC))&nbsp;
TEXT: US Supreme Court in 1973 gave the historic &lsquo;Roe vs Wade&rsquo; judgement on abortion. ((Roe vs Wave should be in big bold))&nbsp;
VO: US is a federal country, so all its states have the right to form their own laws but in January 1973, the country's Supreme Court ruled on the woman's right to abortion in the 'Roe vs Wade' case that had huge ramification on federal laws.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
TEXT: 1970: Jane Roe sues Dallas district attorney over abortion laws TEXT: Roe was a single mother pregnant for the third time TEXT: Texas laws made abortion criminal expect for rape, incest or danger to mother's life
VO: In 1970, Jane Roe, a false identity for single mother Norma McCorvey, sued Dallas district attorney&nbsp;Henry Wade over Texas' abortion laws. Roe was pregnant for the third time and wanted to terminate the pregnancy but Texas laws made abortion criminal except in cases of rape, incest or when mother's life was in danger.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
TEXT: 1972: SC ruled 'the right of privacy broad enough to encompass woman's decision whether or not to terminate pregnancy'
VO: In January 1972, The Supreme Court of the United States overturned the Texas laws and ruled that 'the right of privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.'&nbsp;&nbsp;
TEXT: SC: right to privacy with regard to pregnancy&nbsp;not abolsute and is subject to limitations
VO: However, the US top court put in a rider. It said that the right to privacy with regard to pregancy 'is not abolsute and is subject to some limitations.' It added that 'at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards and prenatal life become dominant'.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;TEXT: US top court allowed abortions before foetus is viable outside womb, i.e. 24 to 28 weeks
VO: The Supreme Court effectively allowed abortions before a foetus would be viable outside the womb, that is between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
TEXT: In 2018, Mississippi banned abortions after 15 weeks. TEXT: A year later, Mississippi banned abortion once foetal heartbeat&nbsp;could be heard
VO: The Roe vs Wade judgment has faced several challenges since. The latest one being from the state of Missisipi. In 2018, the state banned most abortion after 15 weeks, much before foetal viability and sooner then allowed by the Roe judgement. A year later, the state went ahead and banned abortions&nbsp;once foetal heartbeat could be hard, which is weeks.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
TEXT: Concerns that US Supreme Court may now overturn the 'Roe vs Wade' judgement
VO: The challenge to the Mississipi law has now reached the Supreme Court and there are fears that the country&rsquo;s top court which now has a conservative majority will not uphold its previous judgement and overturn a woman&rsquo;s right over her body.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Pro-life vs Pro-choice. It's a debate that has been a part of US society for decades. It's features prominently in all presidential polls. A candidate's stand on whether abortion is a right or it is immoral could swing a lot of votes.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
US is a federal country, so all its states have the right to form their own laws but in January 1973, the country's Supreme Court ruled on the woman's right to abortion in the 'Roe vs Wade' case that had huge ramification on federal laws.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
In 1970, Jane Roe, a false identity for single mother Norma McCorvey, sued Dallas district attorney&nbsp;Henry Wade over Texas' abortion laws. Roe was pregnant for the third time and wanted to terminate the pregnancy but Texas laws made abortion criminal except in cases of rape, incest or when mother's life was in danger.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
In January 1972, The Supreme Court of the United States overturned the Texas laws and ruled that 'the right of privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.'&nbsp;&nbsp;
&nbsp;It ruled that to exempt only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother from criminality with regard to pregnancy stage or without recognises other interests violates the 14th amendment or the civil rights granted by the country's Constitution.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
However, the US top court put in a rider. It said that the right to privacy with regard to pregancy 'is not abolsute and is subject to some limitations.' It added that 'at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards and prenatal life become dominant'.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Supreme Court effectively allowed abortions before a foetus would be viable outside the womb, that is between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Roe vs Wade judgment has faced several challenges since. The latest one being from the state of Missisipi. In 2018, the state banned most abortion after 15 weeks, much before foetal viability and sooner then allowed by the Roe judgement. A year later, the state went ahead and banned abortions once foetal heartbeat could be heard, which is 6 weeks.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
The challenge to the Mississipi law has now reached the Supreme Court and there are fears that the country&rsquo;s top court which now has a conservative majority will not uphold its previous judgement and overturn a woman&rsquo;s right over her body.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris met with a group of constitutional law, privacy and technology experts Tuesday to discuss how overturning Roe V. Wade could undermine many other constitutional freedoms, including privacy.
"We know that our nation was founded on certain principles that we hold dear. Principles of freedom, of liberty and self determination. And do believe all of those principles are at stake when we look at the leaked draft," Harris told the experts.
The vice president added: "From these principles, most notably come the Constitutional right to privacy, the rights of an individual to make decisions about their life, about their family, about their family, about their body, without government interference. And so there is a lot at stake in the outcome of this decision."
Harris said states with abortion bans could restrict IVF if they believe life begins at fertilization.
The same bans could be used to restrict contraception for things IUD devices and the morning after pill.
"I do believe that overturning Roe could clear the way for challenges to other fundamental rights like the right to use contraception and same sex marriage."
Many of the states that have passed trigger ban laws are also passing restrictions on gay rights, transgender rights and the right to vote.
The issue is one Harris has shown she personally cares deeply about and would give her a chance to seize a larger role in an area that Democrats are hoping will fire up their base and remake the political landscape ahead of midterm elections they otherwise worried might be brutal for the party.
Becoming a leading and successful Biden administration voice and face on abortion comes after Biden tasked the vice president with overseeing two other, thorny issues, immigration and expanded voting rights.

Could overturning of US abortion law 'Roe v Wade' erode rights? Here's what Kamala Harris has to say

US vice-president Kamala&nbsp;Harris speaks about the possible consequences on fundamental rights if abortion&nbsp;law is overturned

U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris met with a group of constitutional law, privacy and technology experts Tuesday to discuss how overturning Roe V. Wade could undermine many other constitutional freedoms, including privacy.
"We know that our nation was founded on certain principles that we hold dear. Principles of freedom, of liberty and self determination. And do believe all of those principles are at stake when we look at the leaked draft," Harris told the experts.
The vice president added: "From these principles, most notably come the Constitutional right to privacy, the rights of an individual to make decisions about their life, about their family, about their family, about their body, without government interference. And so there is a lot at stake in the outcome of this decision."
Harris said states with abortion bans could restrict IVF if they believe life begins at fertilization.
The same bans could be used to restrict contraception for things IUD devices and the morning after pill.
"I do believe that overturning Roe could clear the way for challenges to other fundamental rights like the right to use contraception and same sex marriage."
Many of the states that have passed trigger ban laws are also passing restrictions on gay rights, transgender rights and the right to vote.
The issue is one Harris has shown she personally cares deeply about and would give her a chance to seize a larger role in an area that Democrats are hoping will fire up their base and remake the political landscape ahead of midterm elections they otherwise worried might be brutal for the party.
Becoming a leading and successful Biden administration voice and face on abortion comes after Biden tasked the vice president with overseeing two other, thorny issues, immigration and expanded voting rights.

Amid a raging debate on abortion in America, the governor of the state of Nebraska made a significant announcement.
Republican Governor Pete Ricketts said that if the US Supreme Court overturns the Roe v Wade judgment, then Nebraska would move towards a total abortion ban. This would include not allowing rape and incest victims to abort the babies conceived during the crime.
He made the comments while speaking to news outlet CNN on May 15. Ricketts said, "Nebraska is a pro-life state. I believe life begins at conception, and those are babies too."
The Governor said that if the Supreme Court overturns the Roe v Wade verdict, then he will work with the speaker of the legislature to call a special session to take anti-abortion steps.
In 1973, the Roe v Wade case had led to legalisation of abortion across the US. Now, there is speculation that the Supreme Court, dominated by conservative judges, will overturn the historic judgment.
Abortion rights may be diluted via a case regarding Mississippi's abortion law that bans abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy. The prospect has led to widespread protests.

USA: rape victim can't abort rapist's baby in Nebraska if Roe v Wade is overturned, says Governor

Republican Governor Pete Ricketts said that if the US Supreme Court overturns the Roe v Wade judgment, then Nebraska would move towards a total abortion ban, with no exemptions for rape and incest.

Amid a raging debate on abortion in America, the governor of the state of Nebraska made a significant announcement.
Republican Governor Pete Ricketts said that if the US Supreme Court overturns the Roe v Wade judgment, then Nebraska would move towards a total abortion ban. This would include not allowing rape and incest victims to abort the babies conceived during the crime.
He made the comments while speaking to news outlet CNN on May 15. Ricketts said, "Nebraska is a pro-life state. I believe life begins at conception, and those are babies too."
The Governor said that if the Supreme Court overturns the Roe v Wade verdict, then he will work with the speaker of the legislature to call a special session to take anti-abortion steps.
Also watch: <a href="https://www.editorji.com/editorji-specials/explained-why-roe-vs-wade-judgement-is-an-important-turning-point-in-us-abortion-laws-1651599650084">Explained: Why 'Roe vs Wade' judgement is an important turning point in US abortion laws</a>
In 1973, the Roe v Wade case had led to legalisation of abortion across the US. Now, there is speculation that the Supreme Court, dominated by conservative judges, will overturn the historic judgment.
Abortion rights may be diluted via a case regarding Mississippi's abortion law that bans abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy. The prospect has led to widespread protests.

Vice President Kamala Harris has blasted the U.S. Supreme Court after a leaked draft suggested that country's top court could overturn federal abortion rights.
"If the court overturns Roe v Wade. It will be a direct assault on freedom and on the fundamental right of self-determination to which all Americans are entitled. Roe protects the right to access abortion. It also protects a woman's right to make decisions about what she does with her own body," she said at EMILY’S List political action committee national conference.
The draft decision, which was leaked Monday night, would overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide.
"Let's talk about what a world without Roe looks like. Women in almost half the country could see their access to abortion severely limited. In 13 of those states, women would lose access to abortion immediately and outright," the US Vice-President said. 
Harris, the first woman to be elected to the of the US Vice-President also slammed the Republicans for backing anti-abortion laws.
"Those Republican leaders who are trying to weaponize the use of the law against women. Well, we say, how dare they? How dare they tell a woman what she can do and cannot do with her own body?"

US abortion laws: Women's rights in America under attack; says Vice President Kamala Harris

Vice President Kamala Harris has blasted the U.S. Supreme Court after a leaked draft suggested that country's top court could overturn federal abortion rights.

US abortion laws | Vice-President Harris: women's rights in America under attack

3. SOUNDBITE: (English) Kamala Harris, U.S. Vice President:
"If the court overturns Roe v Wade. It will be a direct assault on freedom and on the fundamental right of self-determination to which all Americans are entitled. Roe protects the right to access abortion. It also protects a woman's right to make decisions about what she does with her own body."
VO: Vice President Kamala Harris blasting the U.S. Supreme Court after a leaked draft suggested that country's top court could overturn federal abortion rights.
4. SOUNDBITE: (English) Kamala Harris, U.S. Vice President:
"But let's talk about what a world without Roe looks like. Women in almost half the country could see their access to abortion severely limited. In 13 of those states, women would lose access to abortion immediately and outright.
VO: Harris, the first woman to be elected to the of the US Vice-President also slammed the Republicans for backing anti-abortion laws.
SOUNDBITE: (English) Kamala Harris, U.S. Vice President:
Those Republican leaders who are trying to weaponize the use of the law against women. Well, we say, how dare they? How dare they tell a woman what she can do and cannot do with her own body? "

Vice President Kamala Harris has blasted the draft U.S. Supreme Court report that suggests federal abortion rights could be overturned

Vice President Kamala Harris has blasted the U.S. Supreme Court after a leaked draft suggested that country's top court could overturn federal abortion rights.
"If the court overturns Roe v Wade. It will be a direct assault on freedom and on the fundamental right of self-determination to which all Americans are entitled. Roe protects the right to access abortion. It also protects a woman's right to make decisions about what she does with her own body," she said at EMILY&rsquo;S List political action committee national conference.
The draft decision, which was leaked Monday night, would overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide.
"Let's talk about what a world without Roe looks like. Women in almost half the country could see their access to abortion severely limited. In 13 of those states, women would lose access to abortion immediately and outright," the US Vice-President said.&nbsp;
Harris, the first woman to be elected to the of the US Vice-President also slammed the Republicans for backing anti-abortion laws.
Also watch:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.editorji.com/world-news/leaked-draft-suggests-us-supreme-court-poised-to-overturn-abortion-law-1651560225479">Leaked draft suggests US Supreme Court poised to overturn abortion law</a>
"Those Republican leaders who are trying to weaponize the use of the law against women. Well, we say, how dare they? How dare they tell a woman what she can do and cannot do with her own body?"

A draft opinion suggests the U.S. Supreme Court could be poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide, according to a Politico report released Monday.
A decision to overrule Roe would lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states and could have huge ramifications for this year's elections. But it's unclear if the draft represents the court's final word on the matter — opinions often change in ways big and small in the drafting process.
Whatever the outcome, the Politico report represents an extremely rare breach of the court's secretive deliberation process, and on a case of surpassing importance.
“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” the draft opinion states. It was signed by Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court's 6-3 conservative majority who was appointed by former President George W. Bush.
The document was labelled a “1st Draft” of the “Opinion of the Court” in a case challenging Mississippi's ban on abortion after 15 weeks, a case known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organisation.
The court is expected to rule on the case before its term ends in late June or early July.
The draft opinion in effect states there is no constitutional right to abortion services and would allow individual states to more heavily regulate or outright ban the procedure.
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” it states, referencing the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey that affirmed Roe's finding of a constitutional right to abortion services but allowed states to place some constraints on the practice. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives.” A Supreme Court spokeswoman said the court had no comment and The Associated Press could not immediately confirm the authenticity of the draft Politico posted, which dates from February.
Politico said only that it received “a copy of the draft opinion from a person familiar with the court's proceedings in the Mississippi case along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document.” The draft opinion strongly suggests that when the justices met in private shortly after arguments in the case on Dec. 1, at least five voted to overrule Roe and Casey, and Alito was assigned the task of writing the court's majority opinion.
Votes and opinions in a case aren't final until a decision is announced or, in a change wrought by the coronavirus pandemic, posted on the court's website.
The report comes amid a legislative push to restrict abortion in several Republican-led states — Oklahoma being the most recent — even before the court issues its decision. Critics of those measures have said low-income women will disproportionately bear the burden of the new restrictions.
The leak jumpstarted the intense political reverberations that the high court's ultimate decision was expected to have in the midterm election year. Already, politicians on both sides of the aisle were seizing on the report to fundraise and energize their supporters on either side of the hot-button issue.
An AP-NORC poll in December found that Democrats increasingly see protecting abortion rights as a high priority for the government.
Other polling shows relatively few Americans want to see Roe overturned. In 2020, AP VoteCast found that 69% of voters in the presidential election said the Supreme Court should leave the Roe v. Wade decision as is; just 29% said the court should overturn the decision. In general, AP-NORC polling finds a majority of the public favors abortion being legal in most or all cases.
Still, when asked about abortion policy generally, Americans have nuanced attitudes on the issue, and many don't think that abortion should be possible after the first trimester or that women should be able to obtain a legal abortion for any reason.
Alito, in the draft, said the court can't predict how the public might react and shouldn't try. “We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public's reaction to our work,” Alito wrote in the draft opinion, according to Politico.
At arguments in December, all six conservative justices signaled that they would uphold the Mississippi law, and five asked questions that suggested that overruling Roe and Casey was a possibility.
Only Chief Justice John Roberts seemed prepared to take the smaller step of upholding the 15-week ban, though that too would be a significant weakening of abortion rights.
Until now, the court has allowed states to regulate but not ban abortion before the point of viability, around 24 weeks.
The court's three liberal justices seemed likely to be in dissent.
It's impossible to know what efforts are taking place behind the scenes to influence any justice's vote. If Roberts is inclined to allow Roe to survive, he need only pick off one other conservative vote to deprive the court of a majority to overrule the abortion landmark.
Twenty-six states are certain or likely to ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned, according to the pro-abortion rights think tank the Guttmacher Institute. Of those, 22 states already have total or near-total bans on the books that are currently blocked by Roe, aside from Texas. The state's law banning it after six weeks has already been allowed to go into effect by the Supreme Court due to its unusual civil enforcement structure. Four more states are considered likely to quickly pass bans if Roe is overturned.
Sixteen states and the District of Columbia, meanwhile, have protected access to abortion in state law.
This year, anticipating a decision overturning or gutting Roe, eight conservative states have already moved to restrict abortion rights. Oklahoma, for example, passed several bills in recent weeks, including one that goes into effect this summer making it a felony to perform an abortion. Like many anti-abortion bills passed in GOP-led states this year, it does not have exceptions for rape or incest, only to save the life of the mother.
Seven Democratic-leaning states protected or expanded access to the procedure, including California, which has passed legislation making the procedure less expensive and is considering other bills to make itself an “abortion sanctuary” if Roe is overturned.
The draft looked legitimate to some followers of the court. Veteran Supreme Court lawyer Neal Katyal, who worked as a clerk to Justice Stephen Breyer and therefore has been in a position to see drafts, wrote on Twitter: “There are lots of signals the opinion is legit. The length and depth of analysis, would be very hard to fake. It says it is written by Alito and definitely sounds like him.”

Leaked report suggests US Supreme Court poised to overturn abortion law

A draft opinion suggests the U.S. Supreme Court could be poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalised abortion in the US, according to a report released on Monday.&nbsp;
&ldquo;Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,&rdquo; the draft opinion states. It was signed by Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court. The US Supreme court has a 6-3 conservative majority.&nbsp; The document was labelled a &ldquo;1st Draft&rdquo; of the &ldquo;Opinion of the Court&rdquo; in a case challenging Mississippi's ban on abortion after 15 weeks.&nbsp;
A decision to overrule Roe would lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states and could have huge ramifications. But it's unclear if the draft represents the court's final word on the matter.&nbsp; Whatever the outcome, the report represents an extremely rare breach of the court's secretive deliberation process, and on a case of surpassing importance.&nbsp;
The draft opinion in effect states there is no constitutional right to abortion services and would allow individual states to more heavily regulate or outright ban the procedure.&nbsp;

Roe vs Wade, the law that grants abortion rights to women in the US, may be overturned by the US Supreme Court according to a leaked draft published in US media

A draft opinion suggests the U.S. Supreme Court could be poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide, according to a Politico report released Monday.
A decision to overrule Roe would lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states and could have huge ramifications for this year's elections. But it's unclear if the draft represents the court's final word on the matter &mdash; opinions often change in ways big and small in the drafting process.
Whatever the outcome, the Politico report represents an extremely rare breach of the court's secretive deliberation process, and on a case of surpassing importance.
&ldquo;Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,&rdquo; the draft opinion states. It was signed by Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court's 6-3 conservative majority who was appointed by former President George W. Bush.
The document was labelled a &ldquo;1st Draft&rdquo; of the &ldquo;Opinion of the Court&rdquo; in a case challenging Mississippi's ban on abortion after 15 weeks, a case known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organisation.
The court is expected to rule on the case before its term ends in late June or early July.
The draft opinion in effect states there is no constitutional right to abortion services and would allow individual states to more heavily regulate or outright ban the procedure.
&ldquo;We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,&rdquo; it states, referencing the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey that affirmed Roe's finding of a constitutional right to abortion services but allowed states to place some constraints on the practice. &ldquo;It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives.&rdquo; A Supreme Court spokeswoman said the court had no comment and The Associated Press could not immediately confirm the authenticity of the draft Politico posted, which dates from February.
Politico said only that it received &ldquo;a copy of the draft opinion from a person familiar with the court's proceedings in the Mississippi case along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document.&rdquo; The draft opinion strongly suggests that when the justices met in private shortly after arguments in the case on Dec. 1, at least five voted to overrule Roe and Casey, and Alito was assigned the task of writing the court's majority opinion.
Votes and opinions in a case aren't final until a decision is announced or, in a change wrought by the coronavirus pandemic, posted on the court's website.
The report comes amid a legislative push to restrict abortion in several Republican-led states &mdash; Oklahoma being the most recent &mdash; even before the court issues its decision. Critics of those measures have said low-income women will disproportionately bear the burden of the new restrictions.
The leak jumpstarted the intense political reverberations that the high court's ultimate decision was expected to have in the midterm election year. Already, politicians on both sides of the aisle were seizing on the report to fundraise and energize their supporters on either side of the hot-button issue.
An AP-NORC poll in December found that Democrats increasingly see protecting abortion rights as a high priority for the government.
Also watch:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.editorji.com/world-news/4-shanghai-officials-suspended-after-nursing-home-resident-taken-to-morgue-while-still-alive-1651553081284" target="_blank">4 Shanghai officials suspended after nursing home resident taken to morgue while still alive</a>
Other polling shows relatively few Americans want to see Roe overturned. In 2020, AP VoteCast found that 69% of voters in the presidential election said the Supreme Court should leave the Roe v. Wade decision as is; just 29% said the court should overturn the decision. In general, AP-NORC polling finds a majority of the public favors abortion being legal in most or all cases.
Still, when asked about abortion policy generally, Americans have nuanced attitudes on the issue, and many don't think that abortion should be possible after the first trimester or that women should be able to obtain a legal abortion for any reason.
Alito, in the draft, said the court can't predict how the public might react and shouldn't try. &ldquo;We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public's reaction to our work,&rdquo; Alito wrote in the draft opinion, according to Politico.
At arguments in December, all six conservative justices signaled that they would uphold the Mississippi law, and five asked questions that suggested that overruling Roe and Casey was a possibility.
Only Chief Justice John Roberts seemed prepared to take the smaller step of upholding the 15-week ban, though that too would be a significant weakening of abortion rights.
Until now, the court has allowed states to regulate but not ban abortion before the point of viability, around 24 weeks.
The court's three liberal justices seemed likely to be in dissent.
It's impossible to know what efforts are taking place behind the scenes to influence any justice's vote. If Roberts is inclined to allow Roe to survive, he need only pick off one other conservative vote to deprive the court of a majority to overrule the abortion landmark.
Twenty-six states are certain or likely to ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned, according to the pro-abortion rights think tank the Guttmacher Institute. Of those, 22 states already have total or near-total bans on the books that are currently blocked by Roe, aside from Texas. The state's law banning it after six weeks has already been allowed to go into effect by the Supreme Court due to its unusual civil enforcement structure. Four more states are considered likely to quickly pass bans if Roe is overturned.
Sixteen states and the District of Columbia, meanwhile, have protected access to abortion in state law.
This year, anticipating a decision overturning or gutting Roe, eight conservative states have already moved to restrict abortion rights. Oklahoma, for example, passed several bills in recent weeks, including one that goes into effect this summer making it a felony to perform an abortion. Like many anti-abortion bills passed in GOP-led states this year, it does not have exceptions for rape or incest, only to save the life of the mother.
Seven Democratic-leaning states protected or expanded access to the procedure, including California, which has passed legislation making the procedure less expensive and is considering other bills to make itself an &ldquo;abortion sanctuary&rdquo; if Roe is overturned.
The draft looked legitimate to some followers of the court. Veteran Supreme Court lawyer Neal Katyal, who worked as a clerk to Justice Stephen Breyer and therefore has been in a position to see drafts, wrote on Twitter: &ldquo;There are lots of signals the opinion is legit. The length and depth of analysis, would be very hard to fake. It says it is written by Alito and definitely sounds like him.&rdquo;

A Bengal resident has been allowed to medically terminate her pregnancy at 34-weeks by the Calcutta High Court, which makes it the most delayed legally sanctioned abortion in India.
The Economic Times reported that the 37-year-old woman was given the legal sanction on the grounds that the fetus had spina bifada, which is an incurable disorder.
The report said that the North Kolkata resident had moved the High Court in early February stating that many doctors had ruled that the birth defect wouldn’t allow the baby’s spine and spinal cord to form properly.
The court heard that a baby born with this condition cannot move or perform normal bodily functions and could die within weeks. Her abortion was also approved by a board of doctors from a local hospital. 
In August last year the Bombay high court had allowed a 20-year-old woman to medically terminate her 33-week pregnancy because the fetus suffered from a group of brain malformations.

Calcutta HC approves most-delayed abortion in India at 34 weeks 

Calcutta HC nod to woman to abort 34-week pregnancy&nbsp;
Fetus suffering from spina&nbsp;bifada, an incurable disorder&nbsp;
Most delayed legally sanctioned abortion in India&nbsp;
37-year-old woman's abortion also approved by doctors&nbsp;
Bombay HC allowed 33-week pregnancy termination in&nbsp;2021

In August last year the Bombay high court had allowed a 20-year-old woman to medically terminate her 33-week pregnancy because the fetus suffered from a group of brain malformations.

A Bengal resident has been allowed to medically terminate her pregnancy at 34-weeks by the Calcutta&nbsp;High Court, which makes it the most delayed legally sanctioned abortion in India.
The Economic Times reported that the 37-year-old woman was given the legal sanction on the grounds that the fetus had spina bifada, which is an incurable disorder.
The report said that the North Kolkata resident had moved the High Court in early February stating that many doctors had ruled that the birth defect wouldn&rsquo;t allow the baby&rsquo;s spine and spinal cord to form properly.
The court heard that a baby born with this condition cannot move or perform normal bodily functions and could die within weeks. Her abortion was also approved by a board of doctors from a local hospital.&nbsp;
In August last year the Bombay high court had allowed a 20-year-old woman to medically terminate her 33-week pregnancy because the fetus suffered from a group of brain malformations.

abortion

Categories