2023-06-22 13:00:00
For some a historic success in protecting life, for others a “serious risk” for millions of women and girls: The new landmark judgment on the abortion issue, which the Supreme Court of the USA, the “Supreme Court”, issued a year ago, polarized still. This was exemplified by the different statements published by supporters and opponents of the verdict in the run-up to the anniversary, June 24th. Experts from the United Nations noted an “alarming deterioration in access to sexual and reproductive health care” and spoke of a “step backwards” that also resulted in violations of international human rights standards. The chairman of the US Catholic bishops’ life protection committee, Michael Burbidge, expressed his “joy and gratitude”. At the same time, he stated that the protection of life continues to face “many challenges”.
Whether abortion advocates or opponents: everyone agrees that nothing has been the same since June 24, 2022. With her verdict in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, America’s Supreme Court overturned the controversial Roe v. Wade” in 1973. And they put the power to decide abortion laws back in the hands of the states. Contrary to what is sometimes wrongly claimed, it was not the Supreme Court that tightened the law—if it did, it was through old or new laws enacted or enacted at the state level.
Confusing legal situation
A year after the new verdict, the legal situation is more confusing than ever. The trend is that states with rather loose abortion laws and those with rather strict ones are balanced. Beyond that, it gets more complicated. In 14 states, abortion is currently banned in principle and regardless of a specific period. These include, for example, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi and Oklahoma. A look at the map of the USA shows that the majority of the states with the strictest laws are concentrated in the south of the country. However, there are minor differences in the legal situation: some states only allow exceptions if the life or health of the mother is in danger, some extend this to cases of rape, others also to cases of incest.
The laws now in effect in these 14 states are often so-called “trigger laws” that had already been enacted when Roe v. Wade” still existed. They then came into force immediately after the fundamental judgment that had been in force for almost 50 years had been overturned. This was the case in Kentucky, for example. In other states, however, there were also laws from the time before “Roe”, which automatically regained validity with the judgment in the “Dobbs” case.
Different law in the states
In all other states, abortions are theoretically possible, usually up to a precisely defined point in the pregnancy. But there are serious differences: The shortest deadline is currently in Georgia. Abortion is banned there after the sixth week of pregnancy. At the other end of the spectrum are seven states that have no statutory time limit, meaning prenatal killing is legal until just before birth. Alaska, Washington, DC, New Jersey or Oregon fall into this category.
In between, there are states like Nebraska or North Carolina, where deadlines are up to the twelfth week. By US standards, one can still speak of rather restrictive legislation. In other states, abortion bans take effect after 15, 18 or even 22 weeks. In a total of 16 states, the legal situation continues to prevail as it was under “Roe v. Wade” existed: Abortions are possible there up to the point at which the fetus is viable, which medicine today estimates to be between the 23rd and 25th week of pregnancy. They include New York, Michigan, California and Virginia, among others. However, one must bear in mind that the situation is extremely volatile at the moment. There are numerous states in which the parliaments have already passed stricter abortion laws. However, they were blocked by courts until further notice. This is what happened in Nebraska, Florida and South Carolina, for example.
The consequences of the new laws in practice are also shown by the fact that just three months after the new landmark ruling, 66 clinics in 15 states no longer offer abortions or were even closed entirely. In 14 of those states, there are now no clinics performing abortions at all. It is also illegal to travel to another state to have an abortion. Many women chose this practice to circumvent abortion bans in their home country.
Abortion through the back door
The abortion pill “Mifepristone” was a way that was often used to carry out an abortion despite the prohibitions. The preparation became a veritable bone of contention between abortion advocates and opponents. The latter wanted to have the approval of the pill, which is sold in Germany under the trade name “Mifegyne”, revoked by a court. This in turn prevented the “Supreme Court” – albeit only after a lengthy legal tug of war. So mifepristone can still be taken legally up to the tenth week of pregnancy. In addition, the abortion pill can still be prescribed after telemedicine consultation and sent by post. A personal examination by a doctor is not necessary.
It must be taken into account here that the Supreme Court did not justify its decision in terms of content. Observers assume that the supreme judges did not want to make a hasty decision on the matter, but rather wanted to maintain the current legal situation in order to then be able to familiarize themselves comprehensively with the matter. A final substantive verdict is not expected until next year at the earliest.
The controversy over the abortion pill proves quite fundamentally: although the opponents of abortion seem to have the better cards, the protection of life will not become a sure-fire success in the years to come.
Economic and social conditions
This is supported, for example, by the extremely poor performance of numerous Republican candidates in the midterm elections for the US Congress last November. In addition, abortion advocates emerged stronger from referendums in several states, such as California, Michigan and Vermont. And the moods repeatedly collected in opinion polls also show that there is no social majority for the radical demands of the abortion lobby and some left-wing democrats. However, a majority of citizens are in favor of women having the option of having an abortion up to a certain point in their pregnancy. There is still a lot of persuasion work to be done here.
But anyone who really cares about the well-being of women in the pregnancy conflict should start at another level: It is not enough just to tighten abortion laws – the economic and social conditions must also be created so that women can decide to have a child, without getting into existential distress. Because unlike in this country, there is hardly any financial and labor law support for pregnant women in the USA. No statutory maternity protection, working until shortly before the birth, hardly any entitlement to parental leave: This is the reality for those affected. The fact that most women who consider having an abortion come from a vulnerable economic background adds to the problem. In the efforts to tackle this, the Catholic Church is playing a pioneering role. There are initiatives such as “Walking with moms in need”, which advise and support women in pregnancy conflicts. If the legislators were able to start here in the protection of life, many a restrictive law, which is now being fought over so hard, would often not even be necessary.
Republicans urgently need to find their line
But at the political level, the fronts have hardened since the new landmark ruling. While the determination on the part of the Democrats to push through a nationwide “right” to abortion has only increased, the Republicans are looking for a unified strategy. There is a tension within the party: It has to master the balancing act of taking into account the demands of grassroots activists for very strict laws on the one hand, while at the same time not alienating too many citizens who may potentially belong to the Republican electorate, but in the prefer a more moderate approach to the abortion issue. We are talking in particular about the female electorate.
With a view to the presidential elections next year in particular, the Republicans urgently need to find their line. Their two most promising candidates, Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis, have already fallen out on the abortion issue: DeSantis recently failed in the state he leads in Florida with a ban on abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy, which in turn led ex-President Trump to malicious criticism: DeSantis will lose voters “like crazy” with his politics. Trump himself, whom many conservatives consider to be the pioneer of the new landmark ruling thanks to his judge appointments, has not yet taken a concrete position. But at some point he has to. Because in 2024, too, the abortion issue will play a decisive role for a significant proportion of Americans in their elections.
The print edition of the Tagespost completes current news on die-tagespost.de with background information and analyses.
1687460234
#surefire #success #Daily #Mail