5 Abortion Rights News Articles
from 2018 2nd Half
Click on the links below to get the full story from its source
7-12-18 Nearly Two-Thirds of Americans Want Roe v. Wade to Stand
As the U.S. Senate prepares to hold confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the public is strongly opposed to any attempts to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that made abortion legal nationwide. Currently, 64% of Americans believe Roe v. Wade should stand, while 28% would like to see it overturned.
- 28%, including 51% Republicans and 13% Democrats, want Roe v. Wade overturned
- 49% say Supreme Court nominee's views are a reason to reject
- 46% think rejection based on nominee's views is unjustified
7-7-18 If Roe v Wade is overturned, will abortion become illegal in the US?
Could abortion in the US become illegal? That's the question being typed into search engines across the world, as people wait to see who President Donald Trump announces as his nomination for the US Supreme Court. He's previously promised to appoint a "pro-life" judge. Since Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement, questions have been raised over whether his replacement will overturn Roe v Wade. That landmark Supreme Court ruling legalised abortion across the US in 1973. There's no guarantee, regardless of who is appointed, that Roe v Wade will be overturned, but there has still been an explosion of search interest on Google as to what will happen to abortion access if it does. In the absence of Roe v Wade, a woman's access to abortion would be affected by the state she lives in. Ultimately, in most - but not all - states, a ban is unlikely come into immediate effect. However, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, 23 states would have the potential to ban abortion outright if Roe v Wade is overturned. "In nine states (including the District of Columbia), the right to abortion is at risk of loss, and in 19 states, the right to abortion appears secure," it says. (Webmaster's comment: Many men think a women is male property and the right to have his spawn bear fruit regardless of the circumstances must be preserved even if she's gang raped! Even if she must die it's the unborn fetus that's important to him! She is just a breed cow.)
6-29-18 Pharmacy dispute
Walgreens faced angry calls for a boycott this week after an Arizona pharmacist refused to fill a prescription for medication that would induce a miscarriage for a woman with an unviable pregnancy. Nicole Arteaga had been saddened to learn from her doctor that her 9-week-old fetus’ heart had stopped beating. She opted to take misoprostol, a medication used to end a failed pregnancy. But the pharmacist at the local Walgreens refused to fill the order on ethical grounds, ignoring Arteaga’s tearful and careful pleas while her 7-year-old son was in earshot. “What [the pharmacist] failed to understand is this is something I have zero control over,” said Arteaga, 35, in a Facebook post; she later obtained the medication at another Walgreens. Refusing to fill prescriptions is expressly permitted under Arizona law and Walgreens policy.
6-29-18 The risk of a radically pro-life American future
The pending retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy from the Supreme Court has provoked alarm among defenders of women's reproductive rights. They worry that his successor may well be willing, as Kennedy himself was not, to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. This concern is fully justified. If Roe were overturned, abortion would immediately revert to being an issue decided at the state level, and as many as 20 states may be poised to ban the procedure outright. But this isn't even the worst-case scenario for abortion rights on a post-Kennedy Supreme Court. What if a conservative majority of the Court rules not that abortion should be decided by state legislatures, but that the procedure should be banned outright at the federal level as an assault on the personhood (and hence constitutionally protected, inviolable rights) of the fetus? Far-fetched? Perhaps. But we simply don't know how sympathetic the Court's current crop of conservatives might be to such arguments, just as we're unlikely to receive much illumination about the question during confirmation hearings for President Trump's nominee to succeed Kennedy. (Nominees have long eschewed answering detailed, specific questions about their views on the most controversial issues likely to come before the court, for fear of sinking their prospects of receiving an affirmative confirmation vote.) The reality is that such arguments about the personhood of fetuses are in wide circulation among conservatives and anti-abortion activists — and that they have gained considerable traction over the past two decades, eclipsing the originalist arguments on which Robert Bork would have drawn in seeking to overturn Roe had he been confirmed back in 1987, and which Antonin Scalia regularly made in justifying his own contempt for the 1973 decision. That's why everyone who cares about the reproductive freedom of American women needs to be aware of the present danger — as should Republicans, who may end up inadvertently reaping the political whirlwind with their votes to confirm a justice who could conceivably declare unconstitutional a procedure that fewer than one-fifth of Americans want to see banned outright.
6-29-18 Legal bid to throw out US sex trafficking law
Digital rights campaigners are starting a legal challenge to a US law that seeks to fight online sex trafficking. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) says the "poorly written" law can hinder attempts to help victims and prosecute traffickers. The Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (Fosta) also trespasses on free speech laws, claims the lawsuit. The EFF wants the law declared unconstitutional to stop it being enforced. In a blog announcing its legal action, the EFF said the law needed to be halted because, in its current form, it was harming many people working on behalf of sex workers and victims. In particular, said the EFF, the vague language in Fosta puts those who call for decriminalisation of sex work, or who try to establish greater recognition for prostitutes and others in the trade, at the risk of prosecution. In addition, it said, the law undermines established protections enjoyed by websites that host content posted by their users. Fosta "vastly magnifies" the risk these net firms bear if they choose to run ads or forums dedicated to these sexual professions, it said. Already net firms including Craigslist, Reddit and others have shut down forums and chat rooms dedicated to the buying and selling of sex for fear of prosecution. The law has also limited the work of organisations trying to help people who offer sexual services, said the EFF. One such was VerifyHim, which logged descriptions of abusive clients to help workers avoid them. The EFF's legal challenge is also being aided by the Internet Archive, Human Rights Watch and Woodhull Freedom Foundation. In addition, two individuals are backing it - one a spokesperson for sex workers and another a masseur who now finds it hard to advertise his non-sexual service.
Total Page Views
5 Abortion Rights News Articles
from 2018 2nd Half
Abortion Rights News Articles from 2018 1st Half