Monday, June 27, 2022

Pakistan and Israel: 'Normalisation' a hard sell but a narrative is building

By Sal Ahmed

 

Pakistani opinion remains staunchly pro-Palestine, but economic dependence on Saudi Arabia could force world's second largest Muslim nation to follow Riyadh's lead.

An emerging media narrative in Pakistan is raising questions about its longstanding policy of recognition of Israel conditional on Palestinian statehood.

Opinion pieces in major newspapers, alongside guests on television talk shows and social media influencers, have opened a discussion about the prospect of unconditional recognition of Israel - something hitherto unimaginable in Pakistan, where rallies in support of Palestine can draw tens of thousands onto the streets.

The main trigger for the current round of commentary on the issue was a visit to Israel last month by a group of mostly US-Pakistani dual nationals who met Israeli President Isaac Herzog.

'Embracing a fascism-inclined nation would neither be a surprise nor a travesty. Many would say just do it'

Mahir Ali, Dawn newspaper

The visit was organised by an Israeli NGO called Sharaka, founded in the wake of the Abraham Accords that normalised relations between Israel and the Gulf states of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Sharaka describes itself as aiming to further improve relations between Israel and Muslim countries.

But the visit caused outrage in Pakistan when it emerged the delegation included a Pakistani television journalist, Ahmed Quraishi, who was not a dual national and for whom it was therefore prohibited under Pakistani law to travel to Israel.

Quraishi was fired from his job with the state broadcaster PTV. He says he and his family have been subjected to violent threats.

He has denied he was on a narrative-building mission but said he is happy the trip has opened a discussion about the prospects for a normalisation of relations between Israel and Pakistan.

“Pakistan's fledgling economic situation, and the geopolitical shift in the Middle East and other Muslim countries recognising Israel, will soon push Pakistan to decide where it stands,” he said. Quraishi also took aim at Imran Khan, accusing the former prime minister of “targeted harassment” after Khan criticised Quraishi at rallies in which he also said the current government led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had been “tasked with recognising Israel”. Khan, who was ousted from office in April, has accused the US of plotting against him with Israel and India. Senior Pakistani officials accuse him of promoting a conspiracy theory.

'Just do it'
Meanwhile, other Pakistani journalists have used the furore surrounding Quraishi to share their own views about the prospects for normalisation.
Writing in Israel’s Haartez newspaper, Kunwar Khuldune Shahid said Pakistan’s recognition of Israel was now “inevitable” because of Islamabad’s economic dependence on Saudi Arabia and the kingdom’s own direction of travel towards normalisation under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. Writing in response to Shahid’s piece in Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper, Mahir Ali noted historic similarities between Israel and Pakistan as “states carved out by colonial powers on a confessional basis”, which had decided to “attach themselves to Uncle Sam”. Ali continued: “It’s perhaps worth noting that the fondness for Israel among the Arab Gulf despots has come to the surface in the wake of the Zionist state’s drift to the far right, with no illusions about a path back to the days when the illusion of an ideological divide was kept alive. “It could be argued that Pakistan is at a similar stage of discarding the illusion of a military-civilian divide. Embracing a fascism-inclined nation would neither be a surprise nor a travesty. Many would say just do it.”
Such a radical shift in policy would not be readily accepted by most Pakistanis, nor would it be consistent with Pakistan’s longstanding support for Palestinian statehood, according to Kamal Alam, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council think tank.

Alam told Middle East Eye: “It would be difficult for Pakistan to unilaterally take this decision. The ultra-conservative element in the country is very powerful, and there is a risk of them taking to the streets, while the country is already suffering from serious economic and financial problems.”

Palestine and Kashmir

Another complication, Alam said, is that public sentiment and government policy in Pakistan equates Palestine's quest for statehood with that of Kashmir, which has been partly under Indian control and a flashpoint for Indian-Pakistani tensions since partition in 1947.

“An unconditional nod of approval towards Israel would send a message that Pakistan as a state has given up on the Kashmiri cause too,” said Alam.

But while Pakistani public opinion remains largely opposed to normalisation, Alam said Pakistan’s military leadership was in favour of establishing diplomatic ties.

“The military and security services are more keen on the relationship but political parties are hesitant,” he said.

The military sees the India-Israel relationship as a threat. During the Arab-Israeli wars Pakistan was on the Arab side, but now that the Arabs are normalising the relationship, Pakistan's military and security services are thinking: why shouldn't we?”

He adds that the Pakistani intelligence agencies have on a few occasions passed on intelligence to Israel to prevent an attack on its interests in India.

In October 2009, according to a US diplomatic cable published by Wikileaks, Pakistan's spy chief contacted Israeli officials to warn them of an attack on Israeli targets in India.

But Pakistan's political leadership would have serious reservations about pursuing formal relations, said Umar Karim, a fellow at the University of Lancaster studying issues around sectarianism in the Muslim world.

'Political suicide'

Karim told MEE: “It would be political suicide for any political party to unilaterally suggest acceptance of Israel. In the recent past, Pakistani politicians have normalised antisemitic language in describing the actions of, not only Israel, but also other political opponents within Pakistan.”

During Israel's bombardment of Gaza in May last year, Pakistan loudly opposed Israeli human rights violations, and Pakistan's then-foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi garnered support for the Palestinian cause by travelling with the Palestinian and Turkish foreign ministers to New York for a special UN session on the crisis.

During the same trip Qureshi was accused of repeating an antisemitic slur during a CNN interview in which he said Israel controlled the media through its connections and "deep pockets". Qureshi denied that the remark was antisemitic.

'The day the Saudis recognise Israel, Pakistan will follow soon after'

Kamal Alam, Atlantic Council

For decades, Karim said, Pakistan's politicians have diverted the blame for their economic, political and security failures on external elements, including Israel as well as India. 

“Before the age of social media, it would have been much easier [to recognise Israel],” he said.

“But now words and images travel much faster, Pakistanis are well aware of every atrocity committed by the Israelis against the Palestinians, [and] public opinion of Israel borders on hatred in Pakistan.”

In August 2020, tens of thousands of people took to the streets of cities across Pakistan to protest against the normalisation of relations between Israel and the UAE.

Should Pakistan’s own leaders choose to follow the Emiratis, Karim said they faced a real risk of provoking dangerous unrest.

“There could be violent protests, for days and months, a definite spike in incidences of terrorism," he said. "It would definitely attract the anger of banned extremist groups, which would likely target government officials, politicians, international NGOs, religious minorities, perhaps even western diplomats in Pakistan.”

But all analysts spoken to by MEE pointed to other factors beyond domestic opposition, which they said could have a greater impact on the future direction of Pakistan's relationship with Israel.

In November 2020, Imran Khan revealed that Pakistan had come under pressure from the US and other countries to recognise Israel. Asked whether he meant Muslim countries, Khan said: "There are things we cannot say. We have good relations with them.”

Rumours within Pakistani foreign policy circles suggest Saudi Arabia was one of those friendly countries pressuring Khan's government.
“Pakistan is the second most populous Muslim country [after Indonesia] and having them on the Saudi side would also take care of the conservative elements within Saudi society,” said Alam.
While Khan has been removed from office, his successor, Shehbaz Sharif, remains dependent on Saudi Arabian loans to keep Pakistan’s ailing economy - the country’s longtime strategic weakness - afloat. And with US President Joe Biden due to visit Saudi Arabia next month with “the national security of Israel” on the agenda, Alam believes that where Riyadh leads Islamabad will follow.
“Biden's got a three-point agenda for the trip: Iran, Israel and oil. Saudi recognition of Israel is definitely on that list,” said Alam.
“The day the Saudis recognise Israel, Pakistan will follow soon after. Pakistan doesn't have an independent Middle East policy; they follow Saudi and US guidelines.”
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/pakistan-israel-normalisation-hard-sell-narrative-building

#Pakistan #PPP - Bilawal congratulates PPP candidates on ‘outstanding performance’ in Sindh LG polls

Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari has congratulated his party candidates and supporters on “outstanding performance” in the first phase of local bodies elections in Sindh.
In a tweet from his official handle on Monday, the foreign minister said people chose a peaceful, prosperous and progressive Sindh by rejecting politics of hate and division.

“[People] rejected politics based on religion or ethnicity. They chose Jinnah’s,” he wrote on the social networking website.

The candidates of the PPP trailed ahead of their opponents in the violence-plagued first phase of local bodies elections in Sindh, unconfirmed and unofficial election results indicated on Sunday.

The people in the province went to the by-polls in 14 districts of four divisions with more than 11 million voters choosing their representatives for the municipal system of their towns and villages after more than six years.

As many as 21,298 candidates landed in the electoral fray for 6,277 seats of 101 town committees, 23 municipal committees, 14 district councils, four municipal corporations, 11 town municipal corporations and 887 union councils and union committees.

The complaints of missing ballot papers, change of the election symbols and belated start of the polling were reported from many districts.

Voting which began at 9am concluded at 5pm while as many as 946 candidates were elected unopposed. However, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) extended the timing at polling stations where the voting process was suspended during the originally designated hours.The polling, as had been anticipated earlier, remained marred by disorder as Sukkur, Sanghar and Tharpakar emerged as the flashpoints of violence, leaving two persons killed and more than a hundred injured.
The unofficial results put the PPP in winning positions in the municipal committees Mithi, Kandhkot, Shikarpur, Jacobabad and Ghotki. The candidates of the ruling party in Sindh also secured majority seats in the town committees Kashmore, Khairpur, Khipro, Daur, Madeji and Thull.
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2363541/bilawal-congratulates-ppp-candidates-on-outstanding-performance-in-sindh-lg-polls

Sunday, June 26, 2022

Music Video - Phil Collins - Another Day In Paradise

Video Report - #Colbert #Comedy #Monologue A Chilling Portrait Of T****'s Attempt To Steal The Election By Weaponizing The DOJ

Jun 23, 2022

Video Report - #G7Summit2022 #UkraineWar #Russia Live: G7 leaders joint press conference

Video Report - #RoeVsWade #AbortionRightsAreHumanRights - Abortion protests in France after Row v Wade

Video Report - With Roe Gone, Are LGBTQ+ Rights Next?

#RoeVsWade #AbortionRightsAreHumanRights - Bob Marley - Get Up, Stand Up

#RoeVsWade #AbortionRightsAreHumanRights - ‘Without Roe, parts of US will look like Central America’ say activists in nations where abortion is entirely illegal

Andrew Buncombe
Once a beacon for a region where abortion was banned, US now out of step with nations such as Argentina and Columbia, writes Andrew Buncombe The United States — long a beacon to reproductive rights activists in Latin America — will now start to resemble those countries without Roe’s guarantee of a right to legally access abortion, say campaigners.

For activists in places such as El Salvador, where abortion is entirely banned, and Venezuela, where there exists on the statute an exception to save the life of a woman though in practice is equally criminal, the decades-long success of campaigners in the US was often an inspiration.
For women in Argentina, where “Green Wave” activists succeeded in their own landmark victory to secure legal abortion in late 2020, there was support from counterparts in the US, whose own victory dated back all the way to 1973.
But some of those activists now say parts of the US will come to resemble Central American nations when it comes to abortion laws. Women in the US, even in those states where it is now banned, will likely have greater access to help that their counterparts in countries such as Honduras.Nevertheless, the activists say women in the US may now suffer injury and even death if they resort to trying to perform abortions at home, or else turn to clandestine and unsafe procedures.“What is happening today with Roe v Wade, is worrying because what is going to happen in the United States, unfortunately, is that it will become Central America,” says Sara García Gross, an activist in El Salvador.
“The absolute criminalisation of abortion that we live with in our Central American countries is serious — it generates great obstacles to access reproductive justice.”
Speaking from San Salvador, García, of coordinator of political advocacy for the Citizen Group for the Decriminalisation of Therapeutic, Ethical, and Eugenic Abortion (CFDA), says the experience of women in her country suggests women in those parts of the United States where abortion is illegal will be very challenging.

“Those who face the worst consequences are young women,” she adds.

“They are women who live in poverty. They are rural women….What is going to happen in the United States is going to affect the bodies of women who are already vulnerable.”

El Salvador is among a handful of countries where abortion is entirely illegal, with no exceptions for even rape, intent or even the health of the mother.

Yet, it is perhaps singular in the aggressive way the state seeks to enforce the law. It is estimated that between 1998 and 2013, more than 600 women were jailed after being accused of having had an abortion.

One of them was Maria Teresa Rivera, who was jailed for 40 years in 2011 after she says she suffered a miscarriage, and found herself handcuffed to a hospital bed. She was eventually released after seeing four-and-a-half years in jail and now lives in Sweden.

In an interview with The Independent in 2016 she said she was delighted to be reunited with her son, Oscar.

“But I am fearful because not all of society agrees with what happened.”

Many of the states in the US — among them Arkansas and South Dakota, which will only now permit abortions to save a woman’s life — have made clear they intend to prosecute women, doctors and even providers of medication abortion drugs.

“The impact of criminalisation is very hard,” Garcia says of the experience in El Salvador. “It is very painful because women face stigmatisation. Women face violence. The presumption of innocence is denied. They are denied access to justice. And this stigatisation is also transferred to their communities, to their families.”

Prior to 1998, El Salvador permitted exceptions in which abortions were allowed in cases of rape, incest, or in which the health of the woman was threatened. Laws were changed under pressure from conservatives in the government and with the support of the powerful Catholic church.

Garcia says that abortions have not stopped, but rather been driven underground, where they are needlessly dangerous. Women with means, or education, can still obtain such procedures, or else get drugs to end abortions in their homes,

“Abortions are going to happen because it is part of women’s lives. It is an obstetric event that women face throughout history, and not just this generation,” she adds.

“What is going to happen is that it is going to happen in more insecure contexts, probably in contexts where women have to resort to methods where they do not have enough information. Women will probably have to travel to other states. There are probably women who have to continue their pregnancies, though the United Nations Committee Against Torture has already said that a forced pregnancy constitutes a form of torture.”

Giselle Carino, is an Argentinian political scientist who took part in the campaign for legal abortion in her country, now serves as the New York-based CEO of Fos Feminista, a feminist alliance of more than 170 organizations around the world.

She was part of the Marea Verde, or “green wave”, that helped secure the right to legal abortion in a similarly heavily Catholic nation in December 2020. She said it took several decades, and required a broad coalition.

She also says some women in the US will now likely be forced to risk their lives to obtain abortion. She says she is disappointed that the ruling by the Supreme Court puts the United States out of step with other parts of the Americas on reproductive rights — not only Argentina, but Mexico and Colombia have also made it legal for women to get abortions.

“We tend to see regression of rights, particularly of sexual and reproductive rights, as an indication of weakening of democratic institutions and processes,” the tells The Independent.

“So one cannot think of this regression in the US outside of that context. And one needs to wonder the impact the Trump administration had, not just on the years that he was ruling, but in this case for the many years to come for the next 20 years, for women and girls and others who have babies in the United States”.

Luisa Kislinger, an activist originally from Venezuela where abortion is in practice entirely illegal but where women resort to clandestine means, says women in those parts of the US are likely to still be able to access some help.

“In Venezuela, there is no discussion about this topic. No politician will come out and speak in support of it,” says, the former diplomat.

And she says the actions by the US Supreme Court will embolden those in Latin America seeking to further suppress women’s rights.

Garcia says she believes women in El Salvador will somehow want to offer their support to their sisters in the United States, however limited or symbolic it may be.

“We are alert, we are vigilant,” she says.” And we are also in solidarity with human rights organisations in the United States.”

https://ca.movies.yahoo.com/movies/without-roe-parts-us-look-154130093.html

Video Report - Supreme Court Strikes Down NY Gun Restrictions & Chicago Police Ban Foot Chases | The Daily Show

Video - #RoeVsWade #AbortionRightsAreHumanRights - Abortion rights protests fill streets across the U.S.

#SCOTUS #MyBodyMyChoice #AbortionBan ‘My body, my choice’: Anger over US Supreme Court abortion ruling

Saturday, June 25, 2022

Video - #RoeVsWade #AbortionRightsAreHumanRights - Thousands protest the Supreme Court striking down Roe v. Wade

Video Report - Protesters at US Supreme Court denounce abortion ruling overturning Roe v. Wade

#RoeVsWade #AbortionRightsAreHumanRights - Hillary Clinton says Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v Wade will 'live in infamy' and is a 'step backward' for women's rights

 Jake Epstein


Hillary Clinton slammed the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The opinion "will live in infamy as a step backward for women's rights and human rights," she said.
The Court overturned the landmark ruling that established the constitutional right to an abortion.
Hillary Clinton said the Supreme Court's decision on Friday to overturn the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade ruling is a "step backward" for women's rights."Most Americans believe the decision to have a child is one of the most sacred decisions there is, and that such decisions should remain between patients and their doctors," she tweeted after the decision.
She continued: "Today's Supreme Court opinion will live in infamy as a step backward for women's rights and human rights."
The Supreme Court's decision to overrule Roe on Friday was part of an opinion in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
"The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives," the Friday ruling said.
The ruling now leaves the legality of abortion up to state legislatures.
https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-says-supreme-court-151208243.html

Barack and Michelle Obama Call Supreme Court Ruling ‘Devastating’

 By Troy McCullough

#RoeVsWade #AbortionRightsAreHumanRights - World leaders condemn US abortion ruling as ‘backwards step’


 Martin Farrer

 Leaders of UK, Canada, France and New Zealand denounce the overruling of Roe v Wade as WHO chief calls its ‘disappointing’.

The end of constitutional protections for abortions in the United States has been described as a “backwards” move by world leaders and health organisations, while handing a huge boost to pro-life groups around the world.

The Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, and the British prime minister, Boris Johnson, all condemned the supreme court’s overruling of the landmark Roe v Wade decision, while New Zealand’s prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, said the decision was “incredibly upsetting”.

“Watching the removal of a woman’s fundamental right to make decisions over their own body is incredibly upsetting,” she said.

“Here in New Zealand we recently legislated to decriminalise abortion and treat it as a health rather than criminal issue.

“That change was grounded in the fundamental belief that it’s a woman’s right to choose. People are absolutely entitled to have deeply held convictions on this issue. But those personal beliefs should never rob another from making their own decisions.

“To see that principle now lost in the United States feels like a loss for women everywhere. When there are so many issues to tackle, so many challenges that face women and girls, we need progress, not to fight the same fights and move backwards.”

Johnson described the court ruling as a “big step backwards”, and hundreds took to the streets of London and Edinburgh to demonstrate against the decision.

Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish Nationalist party, the third biggest party in the UK parliament, said it was “one of the darkest days for women’s rights in my lifetime ... this will embolden anti-abortion and anti-women forces in other countries too”.

Trudeau said that “no government, politician or man should tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body”, adding that he “can’t imagine the fear and anger” women in the US must be experiencing in the wake of the ruling.

The French foreign ministry urged US federal authorities “to do everything possible” to ensure American women have continued access to abortions, calling it a “health and survival issue”. France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, added in a tweet that “abortion is a fundamental right of all women”.

The former Australian prime minister Julia Gillard called on women to keep fighting for their rights and retweeted Michelle Obama’s statement in which the former US first lady said she was “heartbroken” about the decision.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, head of the World Health Organization, said on Twitter that he was “concerned and disappointed” by the ruling, and that it reduced both “women’s rights and access to health care”.

The UN agency dealing with sexual and reproductive health said that whether or not abortion was legal, “it happens all too often” and global data showed that restricting access made abortion more deadly.

The United Nations population fund issued a statement following the supreme court’s decision noting that its 2022 report said that nearly half of all pregnancies worldwide were unintended and over 60% of those pregnancies might end in abortion.

“A staggering 45% of all abortions around the world are unsafe, making this a leading cause of maternal death,” the agency said.

It said almost all unsafe abortions occured in developing countries, and it feared that “more unsafe abortions will occur around the world if access to abortion becomes more restricted”.

The court’s overturning of the landmark Roe v Wade decision “shows that these types of rights are always at risk of being steamrolled”, said Ruth Zurbriggen, an Argentinian activist and member of the Companion Network of Latin America and the Caribbean, a group favouring abortion rights.

However, anti-abortion activists cheered the ruling, with legislator Amalia Granata tweeting: “There is justice again in the world. We are going to achieve this in Argentina too!!”

In El Salvador, anti-abortion campaigner Sara Larín expressed hope the ruling would bolster campaigns against the procedure around the globe.

Larín, president of Fundación Vida SV, said: “I trust that with this ruling it will be possible to abolish abortion in the United States and throughout the world.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/25/world-leaders-condemn-us-abortion-ruling-as-backwards-step

    Video - #RoeVsWade #AbortionRightsAreHumanRights - VP Kamala Harris speaks about Roe v. Wade abortion ruling in Chicago area

    Video Report - #RoeVsWade #AbortionRightsAreHumanRights - 'Spitting mad': See Warren's furious response after Roe v. Wade ruling

    Video Report - President Joe Biden delivers remarks on Supreme Court abortion decision

    Trudeau: #AbortionRightsAreHumanRights #AbortionIsHealthcare - US abortion ruling could mean loss of other rights

     By ROB GILLIES

    Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau warned Saturday that the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn a constitutional right to abortion could lead to the loss of other rights and indicated his country would continue to allow Americans to get abortions in Canada.

    Trudeau called the court’s decision “horrific” and voiced concern that the ruling could someday allow a rollback of legal protections for gay relationships, including the right for same-sex couples to marry.
    “We know that this is an extremely, not just scary, but disheartening time for so many women,” Trudeau said at a news conference in Kigali, Rwanda, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.“Women for generations have fought for more rights in the United States, (only) to see this setback, to worry as well about how this can be expanded to more rights be taken away in the United States,” he said.
    “This is a reminder of how we need to be unequivocal in our defense of people’s rights, in not taking anything for granted, in staying vigilant, and always standing up for woman’s rights, for LBGT rights, for the rights of people who are disenfranchised and marginalized,” he added.
    Asked if his government would help American women seeking abortions in Canada, Trudeau did not directly respond, but said: “Everyday Americans who find themselves in Canada access our health care system in Canada and that’s certainly something that will continue,”.
    However the cost, the need to travel and to have a passport make that prohibitive for some Americans.
    The ruling is likely to lead to abortion bans in roughly half of American states.
    Thirteen states, mainly in the South and Midwest, already had laws to ban abortion in the event Roe was overturned. Another half-dozen states have near-total bans or prohibitions after six weeks, before many women know they are pregnant.
    Trudeau vowed to continue to stand up for woman’s rights in the U.S. and elsewhere.
    “We have a commitment in Canada to ensure, first of all, that every women has full, safe legal access to the full suite of sexual health and reproductive services, including safe and legal abortions and we’ve been working hard to increase access to women across the country,” Trudeau said.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/trudeau-us-abortion-ruling-could-mean-loss-of-other-rights/ar-AAYRR4c?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=961ad125ee19426fb4ddf3a06776fc0f

    EDITORIAL: The Ruling Overturning Roe Is an Insult to Women and the Judicial System

    Even if we knew it was coming, the shock reverberates. 


    For the first time in history, the Supreme Court has eliminated an established constitutional right involving the most fundamental of human concerns: the dignity and autonomy to decide what happens to your body. As of June 24, 2022, about 64 million American women of childbearing age have less power to decide what happens in their own bodies than they did the day before, less power than their mothers and even some of their grandmothers did. That is the first and most important consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday morning to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
    The right-wing majority in Friday’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — which involved a Mississippi law that banned most abortions after 15 weeks, well before the line of viability established in Roe and Casey — stated, “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

    The implications of this reversal will be devastating, throwing America into a new era of struggle over abortion laws — an era that will be marked by chaos, confusion and human suffering. About half the states in the United States are expected to enact laws that restrict or make abortion illegal in all or most cases. Many women may be forced by law to carry pregnancies to term, even, in some cases, those caused by rape or incest. Some will likely die, especially those with pregnancy complications that must be treated with abortion or those who resort to unsafe means of abortion because they can’t afford to travel to states where the procedure remains legal. Even those who are able to travel to other states could face the risk of criminal prosecution. Some could go to prison, as could the doctors who care for them. Miscarriages could be investigated as murders, which has already happened in several states, and may become only more common. Without full control over their bodies, women will lose their ability to function as equal members of American society.
    The insult of Friday’s ruling is not only in its blithe dismissal of women’s dignity and equality. It lies, as well, in the overt rejection of a well-established legal standard that had managed for decades to balance and reflect Americans’ views on a fraught topic. A majority of the American public believes that women, not state or federal lawmakers, should have the legal right to decide whether to end a pregnancy in all or most cases. At the same time, Americans are weary of the decades-long fight over abortion, a fight that may feel far removed from their complex and deeply personal views about this issue.
    The court’s ruling in Dobbs invites years of even more fractious and protracted legal conflict. By giving state legislatures the power to impose virtually whatever abortion restrictions they please, some will now enact outright bans on abortion. Dozens of cases challenging those laws could soon start making their way through the courts and, almost certainly, to the Supreme Court.
    The justices in the majority claim to be playing an impartial role in this decision. “Because the Constitution is neutral on the issue of abortion, this court also must be scrupulously neutral,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring opinion. And yet, as the three dissenting justices pointed out, “when it comes to rights, the court does not act ‘neutrally’ when it leaves everything up to the states. Rather, the court acts neutrally when it protects the right against all comers.”
    Friday’s ruling was written by Justice Samuel Alito. It was joined by all the other Republican-appointed justices, although Chief Justice John Roberts tried to have it both ways, joining with the majority to uphold the Mississippi law in Dobbs even as he wrote separately to say he would not have overturned Roe and Casey altogether out of a respect for precedent.
    The dissent, signed jointly by the three justices appointed by Democrats, took apart the majority’s attempts to justify its rejection of established precedent and even questioned the Republican-appointed justices’ claims to neutrality. The right to abortion, the dissenters noted, was established by one ruling a half century ago, reaffirmed by another 30 years ago, and “no recent developments, in either law or fact, have eroded or cast doubt on those precedents. Nothing, in short, has changed.”
    Nothing, that is, other than the makeup of the court. This is the sole reason for Friday’s ruling. As the dissenters rightly put it, “Today, the proclivities of individuals rule.”
    The presence of these individuals on the court is the culmination of a decades-long effort by anti-abortion and other right-wing forces to remake the court into a regressive bulwark. This has never been a secret; and with the help of the Senate under Mitch McConnell, former president Donald Trump and allies in the conservative legal movement, they have succeeded.
    The central logic of the Dobbs ruling is superficially straightforward, and the opinion is substantially the same as the draft Justice Alito distributed to the other justices in February, which was leaked to the press last month. Roe and Casey must be overruled, the ruling says, because “the Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,” including the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of due process. While that provision has been held to guarantee certain rights that are not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, any such right must be “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.”
    By the majority’s reasoning, the right to terminate a pregnancy is not “deeply rooted” in the history and tradition of the United States — a country whose Constitution was written by a small band of wealthy white men, many of whom owned slaves and most, if not all, of whom considered women to be second-class citizens without any say in politics. The three dissenters in the Dobbs case — Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — called out the majority’s dishonesty, noting that its exceedingly narrow definition of “deeply rooted” rights poses a threat to far more than reproductive freedom. The majority’s denial of this is impossible to believe, the dissenters wrote, saying: “Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure.” In other words, the court is not going to stop at abortion. If you think that’s hyperbole, consider Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurring opinion in Dobbs, in which he called for the court to reconsider other constitutional rights that Americans have enjoyed, in some cases, for decades — including the right to use birth control, the right to marry the person of their choosing and the right of consenting adults to do as they please in the privacy of their bedrooms without being arrested and charged with crimes. These rights share a similar constitutional grounding to the now-former right to abortion, and Justice Thomas rejects that grounding, calling on the court to “eliminate it … at the earliest opportunity.”
    This position may not command a majority of justices today, but six years ago, few people thought Roe v. Wade would be overturned. Brett Kavanaugh, during his confirmation hearing in 2018, said Roe v. Wade “is important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times.” He added: “Casey specifically reconsidered it, applied the stare decisis factors, and decided to reaffirm it. That makes Casey a precedent on precedent.”
    Yet he voted to overturn two rulings that have led to more equality, more dignity and more freedom for millions of Americans. To dismantle these and other advances, the majority on this Supreme Court has demonstrated its disregard for precedent, public opinion and the court’s own legitimacy in the eyes of the American people. We will be paying the price for decades to come.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/opinion/dobbs-ruling-roe-v-wade.html