[ad_1]
reOnald Trump must not give in now: For those who oppose abortion in the United States, it is clear that his historic moment has arrived. With the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Republicans have a chance to fill another Supreme Court seat with a conservative. Evangelicals and supporters of abortion hope that the court will approve the preceding decision “Roe v. Wade ”of 1973: Since then, the state has been unable to force anyone to carry a pregnancy to term, the decision on this is largely a private matter.
Kristan Hawkins, president of the organization “Students for Life of America,” told radio station NPR that she saw the decision of a new judge as an opportunity to finally achieve her goal, which says: “An America without abortion, in that abortion is illegal and unthinkable. ”Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the powerful lobbying organization“ Susan B. Anthony List, ”said judges should now give the“ Roe v. Wade ”to be withdrawn as soon as possible. So, individual states could ban abortions.
Until now, the Conservatives had a majority of five to four among the justices. Now Republicans could move the court even more clearly to the right, because appeals are for life, the decision will shape the judiciary for a long time.
Record donations for Democrats
The amount of fear or motivation this triggers in democratically minded people can be guessed from the figures. Democrats and related groups released donation records after Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death last Friday. They raised more than $ 90 million in the first 28 hours after that. Most of the money went to Senate candidates, but groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL (National Action League for Reproductive Rights and Abortion) also saw significant increases. They are currently focused on lobbying Republican senators whose re-election is uncertain. The goal is to postpone the appointment of a new judge until after the elections. Both organizations declared that the death of Bader Ginsburg and the possible appointment of one or the other conservative to the bench would put the rights, health and freedom of Americans at risk.
However, the decisions of the higher judges do not always turn out as expected, not even on the issue of abortion. Four of the nine justices must give their consent before the Supreme Court can accept a new case. Most of the time, a federal appeals court or a state supreme court tried this beforehand. That summer, “Pro-Choice” advocates won despite a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Presiding Judge John Roberts voted with the Liberals against a law that would have closed most abortion practices in Louisiana. Doctors terminating pregnancies should have had referral rights or even beds at a local hospital. The corresponding complications are very rare, and for this reason alone, the laws were viewed as pure harassment from the point of view of many experts. In 2016, the court reversed a similar ruling in Texas. At the time, Roberts was on the opposite side, but this time he wanted to respect the precedent.
Both laws were primarily examples of republican strategy. With disputes over such regulations, they ultimately want to force the Supreme Court to deal with “Roe v. Wade ”. An Alabama bill banning abortion altogether could soon be heard in a much more conservative Supreme Court. Gov. Kay Ivey signed a “Human Life Protection Act” last year, which aims to ban virtually all abortions and provides no exemptions for survivors of rape and incest. There are so-called “trigger laws” in five states, including Mississippi and North Dakota. These are laws that would come into force once the Supreme Court “Roe v. Veal tips. They would only allow abortions in exceptional cases. In ten other states there are resolutions that state that such laws must be passed immediately.
