A genetic arms race is now underway after the birth of the world’s first genetically modified CRISPR babies, Lulu and Nana, last year.

The experiment shocked both the world and the medical community when Chinese researcher, He Jiankui, announced it a day before the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing on 19 November 2018.

Using CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing, He had disabled the CCR5 gene to mimic a naturally occurring gene deletion that appears to confer immunity against HIV. Although their father was HIV-positive, Lulu and Nana were born HIV-resistant.

In February, this year, new research revealed that the twins may have mental ‘superpowers‘, information which Jiankui had not previously communicated. The research revealed that deleting the CCR5 gene significantly improves cognition, learning and memory in mice and men.

“The answer is likely yes, it did affect their brains,” University of California at Los Angeles neurobiologist Alcino Silva told MIT Technology Review.

“My reaction [to the birth of CCR5-deactivated Lulu and Nana] was visceral repulsion and sadness. Those mutations will probably have an impact on cognitive function in the twins,” Silva, who published a paper about the beneficial effects of CCR5 deactivation in post-stroke recovery, continued.

Silva claimed that making genetically-modified babies “should not be done”, because the effect is unpredictable. The neurobiologist also pronounced that his research on CCR5 and cognition attracted people with links to Silicon Valley, hungry to create super-intelligent designer babies. He insisted that the genetic arms race is now underway.

Many other scientists have harshly criticised Jiankui’s work. Stanford bio-ethicist, Hank Greely, condemned the experiment and termed it, “criminally reckless”.

He Jiankui, however, claimed that he was “against using genome editing for enhancement”, but others have argued that there are other medical options to birthing healthy babies apart from gene editing.

Tina Rulli, Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Davis, penned an article last month, published by the Center for Genetics and Society. Titled, ‘Using CRISPR to edit eggs, sperm or embryos does not save lives,’ the article argues that the claim for genetic manipulation to make healthy babies is “mistaken and misleading”.

For Rulli, it is ethically wrong to genetically manipulate a healthy human being into creation when adoption and re-implantation genetic diagnosis are available options. In re-implantation genetic diagnosis, the healthiest embryo out of many is chosen for implantation.

Many countries have put in place regulations to prevent scientists from partaking in genetically modifying humans. In Jiankui’s native China, draft regulations were written earlier in the year to restrict the use of gene editing in humans. Under these new regulations, those who manipulate genes in adults or embryos are responsible for any adverse effects.

Gene editing is underdeveloped and not very controllable. In June 2019, a new study reported that Lulu and Nana may face a higher risk of premature death, because of the experiment.

“This is a cautionary tale,” said Rasmus Nielsen, a Professor of Integrative Biology, who led the study at the University of California, Berkeley.

“We know it has many different effects. The question is: Is it overall beneficial or detrimental to have this mutation? That was not known,” Nielsen continued.

Indeed, the ethical apprehensions over genetic manipulation are similar to those of abortion in many cases. Rulli, for example, argues that:

“A clinician first creates an embryo with genetic defects, and then “rescues” it using CRISPR. Calling this a cure or a therapy is a nonstandard use of those concepts, one that warrants a distinction from standard cures that save lives and prevent otherwise probable harms.”

Simplistically, Rulli argues, do not create a baby if it is unwanted in its unmodified genetic state. Yet, despite government regulations and the risk of adverse effects, the lure of designer babies with biological advantages for thriving in an ultra-competitive world is a siren call for those who can afford it.

Historically, creating babies whose appearance upholds societal, political and genetic standards of superiority is a human ideal that reached mass popularity in Nazi Germany, when Aryan women were encouraged to breed to create more Aryan soldiers.

“From the face speaks the soul of the race”, Alfred Vogel wrote in his 1938 text, Inheritance and Racial Hygiene, where he compared photographs of Jewish and German children to prove the racial superiority of Aryan children. Based on the pseudoscience of phrenology, the Nazis upheld the ideal of full genetic whiteness as the racial ideal.

Today, the idea of full racial whiteness as superior is continued among ultra-right-wing Western leaders like Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump. This idea of racial superiority finds a battleground in abortion, where abortions rights are being repealed in the USA in order to increase the number of ‘pure’ white babies being born in multiracial America – an idea taken from the policy books of Nazi Germany, where abortions were illegal for Aryan women. Indeed, the Congenitally Defective Births law, passed six months after the Nazis came into power, would set up a Big Brother system that would decide, using individuals’ genetic history, who would be allowed to give birth, to prevent the birth of ‘undesirable’, hence inferior, Aryan children.

Like abortion, the future of genetic manipulation will only become a battleground for our deeply-historical and deeply-wounded understanding of race, as each race potentially uses this science to create super-babies to prove its racial superiority.

Since, globally, on average, wealth and resource distribution is still largely dependent upon race, genetic editing would only increase racial wealth inequality. The battle for eugenics will simply continue with genetic editing.

L'articolo Genome Editing Will Worsen Racial Division in the Future proviene da InsideOver.

The first Monday in October is the single most important day in American jurisprudence. It’s the day the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) convenes to begin hearing legal arguments that will go on to shape every facet of American life.

As each court is known by the Chief Justice’s name, 7 October began the 15th year of the Roberts Court marking the first time in 50 years that the court has had a “reliable” conservative majority.

After the tumultuous appointment of President Trump’s nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the court has come under close scrutiny. It’s been thought that many of the cases from 2018 weren’t too controversial, presumably to help Justice Kavanaugh get his footing.

For the cases on the 2019 docket, the training wheels are off. The court will be hearing and deciding upon a number of critical cases this year.

The Roberts Court wasted no time in flexing its conservative muscle by vacating the decision of a lower court in Michigan who had ruled that “34 of the state’s voting districts were specifically designed to disadvantage Democratic voters, deliberately diluting the power of their vote to ensure a particular partisan outcome.” This is legalese for what is known as gerrymandering. The Michigan lower court also stated that gerrymandering was a “pernicious practice that undermines our democracy.”

The 5-4 decision cut right along ideological lines, and saw Chief Justice John Roberts invoke the “Political Question Doctrine” – which states that political questions are beyond the reach of the federal courts.

The conservative majority court determined that it was “constitutionally permissible for voting districts to be drawn with the specific intent to disadvantage voters of a particular political ideology.” At the same time, Chief Justice Roberts acknowledged that the “ruling may enable increasingly inequitable political representation.”

In a case that clearly indicates Justice Kavanaugh’s “honeymoon” period is over the court is set to review Louisiana abortion laws. Since abortion providers were still appealing the initial decision which said that providers of abortion in Louisiana must have admitting privileges to a nearby hospital, SCOTUS voted 5-4 in February to delay the law from taking effect until the appeals have been exhausted.

This Louisiana law is remarkably similar to the Texas law the Supreme Court struck down in 2016. At the time, the court found the driving distance between the abortion clinic and any nearby hospital posed an undue burden on a woman’s constitutional right to access an abortion.

Aside from the courts’ conservative majority today, the difference between the Louisiana law and Texas law is driving distance. Since Lousiana is a smaller state, the driving distances between the clinic and hospital wouldn’t be as burdensome as it was in Texas.

The court is expected to hear arguments for this early next year with their decision being rendered in July 2020. If that timing gives you pause, it should. This will be a hot button decision, delivered at the peak of what promises to be a fiery election cycle; all but ensuring it will become even more combustible.

While Roe v. Wade may still be the law of the land, this Louisiana case is opening the door for other states to sidestep around overturning Roe v. Wade. If SCOTUS votes along ideological lines, it would blast open the door for other states to follow suit and therefore making the procedure extremely arduous, if not impossible, state-by-state.

More succinctly, this decision alone will re-shape women’s reproductive rights for decades.

SCOTUS also faces its biggest Second Amendment case in ten years. At stake is whether or not New York City’s ban on transporting a “licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment.”

Shortly after New York City learned SCOTUS would hear the case, they reversed the ban and the state legislature immediately wrote a new law prohibiting New York City from reinstating the ban. Even though the city has asked the Court to dismiss the case, the fact that they decided against all the dismissal submissions is setting off alarms among gun-control advocates.

All of this prompted Justice Sonia Sotomayer to opine that the court is “bending rules in order to achieve conservative outcomes.”

Also at stake is the future of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. This Obama-era program has helped over 700,000 immigrants avoid deportation and get them permits for work. It’s also been a thorn in President Trump’s side since he was sworn in.

Overturning this would fall right in line with his anti-immigration position and his delight at wiping out anything President Obama accomplished.

One of the first cases they heard this session was Ramos V. Louisiana, which questioned whether “the Fourteenth Amendment fully incorporates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a unanimous verdict.” In other words, can juries convict criminals without a unanimous verdict.

The Fourteenth Amendment also appears in Kahler v. Kansas, which is asking whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments permit a state to abolish the insanity defense.

The court is also dipping its toe into the issue of LGBTQ rights. Since President Trump reversed President Obama’s protection of transgendered individuals its raised the issue of whether their protection falls under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court must decide whether this 1964 act protects people from discrimination in the workplace if they are gay or transgender.

However, of the 44 cases the court will hear this session, perhaps none may be more important than the potential case facing Chief Justice John Roberts. Should the House of Representatives vote to impeach President Trump, it would then move to a trial in the senate. As Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roberts would be responsible for presiding over the trial in the Senate.

If the Supreme Court of the United States continues to vote along ideological lines, as is expected, the conservative majority will have a profound impact on America. Not only will American progressives be in for a reckoning but so will all American citizens.

Regardless of what one may think of the way President Donald Trump governs, or doesn’t govern, his legacy will be how he and the Republicans have shaped The Supreme Court and the lower courts in the United States.

Without question, these appointments and their respective decisions will impact the way American’s live for decades.

L'articolo The Supreme Court and the Sculpting of America proviene da InsideOver.

Evelyn Hernandez was 18-years-old when she was raped. She became pregnant as a result – always maintaining that she was unaware of her pregnancy. In April 2016, Hernandez gave birth to a stillborn in the latrine of her home in rural El Salvador. Leaving the baby’s body behind in the outhouse, Hernandez’s mother bundled her daughter up and swiftly took the girl to the hospital. The teenager was promptly arrested under suspicion of having an abortion – a charge that was later changed to aggravated homicide. While abortions are illegal in the Central American country, women also face imprisonment for miscarriages or stillbirths, which are considered to be possible homicides.

Hernandez served a 33-month prison sentence and was later released. Less than 2 years later, she was again brought to trial with an attempt to sentence her for 40 years. She was eventually acquitted, yet rumours are that the General Prosecutor is going to insist on retrying her again. Despite this, Hernandez represents a beacon of hope for many in a country where women remain heavily oppressed by religious and androcentric values. Countless women are still currently serving decades-long jail time for having miscarriages or stillbirths.

One such story emerged of Maricela Albizuri, who was instantly handcuffed to her hospital bed after having stillbirth in 2018. She was charged with aggravated homicide, and then forced to endure gynaecological exams in the presence of local police officers.  Four days later, she was detained in prison and remanded from November 2018 to May 2019.

The American Bar stated, “Ms. Albizuri was charged with aggravated homicide after seeking urgent medical care in the wake of a home delivery and stillbirth. Although the San Salvador court ultimately dismissed the charges against her for lack of evidence, the investigation and prosecution of Ms. Albizuri is deeply troubling.”

The report also highlighted that the immediate detention and interrogation of a woman seeking urgent medical care in the wake of a traumatic incident – while in the presence of police investigators during private examinations – underscored the need for basic rights to health and dignity.

With some of the harshest legislation on abortion in the world, the law in El Salvador states that any abortion would be subject to penal inquiry and doctors are forced to break their confidentiality if they suspect a woman has obtained an abortion. Once she is accused, prosecutors can change the charges to aggravated homicide, which can result in 30 years in prison. The same goes for those who suffered miscarriages or stillbirths.

Catalina Martínez Coral, Regional Director for Latin America and the Caribbean for the Center for Reproductive Rights, has worked alongside Agrupación Ciudadana for women who have been sentenced through this procedure and to promote litigation, advocacy and communication actions to get them free. She has worked in El Salvador for almost 5 years ­– an experience she describes as sad, shocking, and rewarding.

“The first thing needed is a change in the legal code: we need the decriminalisation of abortion,” Coral said. “But that won’t be sufficient. There is a strong need for implementation once the law change is in place. That is why our work is not only concentrated in countries with total bans on abortion like El Salvador or Honduras but all over Latin America. It is also important to establish clear guidelines to access reproductive rights services in the country, as well as clear guidelines on professional secrecy. That way, doctors can do their job – to provide health services –and remain protected by the principle of confidentiality.”

As with the majority of Latin American countries, El Salvador is deeply entrenched in Christian ideologies. Both Evangelical and Catholic leaders consider abortion to be a sin, which has led to the creation of unique situations in which six countries of the continent have a total ban on abortion.

“It is important to say that the public opinion has changed in the last couple of years and media coverage of obstetric emergencies and abortion has changed dramatically,” Coral added. “For example, 12 years ago when Teodora, our client, was accused by the doctors of having an abortion, the media showed up to the hospital and depicted her as a baby murderer. As Evelyn faces a third trial, media has been sympathetic to her cause and the coverage has shown outrage against the prosecutors who won’t let her process to be finished.”

Worryingly, it is not just the women who could find themselves in precarious predicaments. Anyone – medical professional included – found to be assisting these women could also face prosecution.

The bleak reality remains that too many women are still being transferred directly from the hospital into prison cells. Often, like Hernandez, a lot of women find themselves in these circumstances after being victims of rape. Out of fear, many avoid seeking out medical attention, which can then cause major issues for their health and well-being.

L'articolo Women Being Imprisoned for Miscarriages And Stillbirths In El Salvador proviene da InsideOver.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The second paragraph of the United States Declaration of Independence laid out the reasoning for forming a new government. In the eyes of the colonists, the British government had impeded up on these sacred rights and attempts to petition the British Parliament and King had failed, thereby justifying the US Revolutionary War. In the nearly 250 years that have followed, these unalienable rights – including but not limited to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – have evolved to include freedom for African Americans, the right to vote for women and minorities, and LGBTQ freedoms. The history of the US can be viewed a never-ending struggle to secure these rights. When looking back on historical issues such as segregation, some of them may seem patently obvious to us now, but at the time, these were very real and often bloody affairs.

Now, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has taken it upon himself to create a commission to examine the role of human rights in government. The Commission on Unalienable Rights, announced Monday, will be spearheaded by Mary Ann Glendon, professor at Harvard Law School. Other notable members of the panel include Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, president of Zaytuna College, F. Cartwright Weiland, attorney, Christopher Olaf Tollefesen, philosopher, and Jacqueline Rivers, Harvard lecturer. Many of the members of the 12-person commission have backgrounds as religious scholars in Christianity and Islam.

When considering Pompeo’s statements about the goals of the commission, you’l find a clear sense. Glendon served as an ambassador for the Vatican on a number of occasions and praised Pope John Paul II’s opposition to abortion and contraception. She refused an honor from the University of Notre Dame in 2009 because President Barack Obama gave the commencement address. Her refusal was a protest of his actions on abortion and women’s reproductive rights.

Yusuf, Cartwright, and Tollefsen have all spoken out against issues related to women’s rights, even including stem-cell research. The entire panel actually seems in agreement on the issue of abortion, at least when considering their previous statements on the subject.

“A moral foreign policy should be grounded in this conception of human rights,” Pompeo wrote in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece. “Yet after the Cold War ended, many human-rights advocates turned their energy to new categories of rights. These rights often sound noble and just… they blur the distinction between unalienable rights and ad hoc rights.”

That was only the beginning of Pompeo’s rumination on the state of human rights, both in the US and abroad. A compelling argument could be made that those sentences alone translate to an intention to repeal rights. Pompeo’s task of rolling back protections which were earned over the course of decades, and even some of which are not solidified across all states, is the realization of US President Donald Trump’s grand plan of imprinting the federal government with religious-based moral rights. While Pompeo insisted that the panel is designed with the intention of examining principles rather than creating policy, the truth is that the Trump administration has pushed for language in UN resolutions that called for an end to reproductive and sexual protections. It made a strong effort during the Commission on the Status of Women meeting in March, although it failed.

Pompeo’s predecessor, Rex Tillerson, also had some choice words regarding human rights and US support for regimes that blatantly violate them.

“If we condition too heavily that others must adopt this value that we’ve come to over a long history of our own, it really creates obstacles to our ability to advance our national-security interests, our economic interests,” Tillerson said.

Reading between the lines, it’s clear that the administration would like to force anti-abortion measures on the international level while simultaneously preventing reproductive measures and contraception, such as that provided by Planned Parenthood. So long as that is clear, other rights really do not matter. In fact, if the US critiques nations such as the United Arab Emirates, Israel, or Saudi Arabia, they might become angry and not partake in business.

That did not stop Pompeo from selecting other regimes to criticize.

“Oppressive regimes like Iran and Cuba have taken advantage of this cacophonous call for ‘rights’, even pretending to be avatars of freedom,” Pompeo wrote.

Alarmingly, members of the newly-inaugurated commission have spoken favorably of countries who are known abusers of human rights. Russell Berman, a Stanford University professor of comparative literature and German studies, gushed with admiration for the Saudi Arabian government when comparing it to that of Iran. Even the Khashoggi issue was not a big deal for Berman, but rather something Trump’s opponents had cooked up to use as midterm elections issue.

Yusuf remarked on how the UAE is a “country committed to tolerance” and “one of the safest countries on earth”, which sounds wild, as even princesses are abused, abducted, or have to flee for their lives.

The commission immediately encountered opposition, both from human rights advocacy groups and Democrats in Congress. “President Trump’s personal affection for gross human rights violators has stained America’s moral fabric,” said Senator Bob Menendez, top ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. The Commission on Unalienable Rights would in fact only weaken protections.

Joanne Lin, National Director of Advocacy and Government Affairs for Amnesty International, criticized the use of a new commission instead of pre-existing institutions. “If this administration truly wanted to support people’s rights, it would use the global framework that’s already in place. Instead, it wants to undermine rights for individuals, as well as the responsibilities of governments,” Lin said.

The truth of the matter, as evidenced by past statements and actions of panel members, seems to be that the Trump administration is not so much concerned with human rights, at least in the sense that most people would think of them. It appears that the administration believes that unalienable rights do not include abortion or reproductive health services, and these matters can be forced across the global. However, regimes that systematically oppress their people are fine, apparently, because they allow the US government to carry out its policies abroad. Unless those regimes are Iran or Cuba, in which case they are total human rights abusers.

L'articolo Pompeo’s New Human Rights Commission proviene da InsideOver.

In a move described as “a real plus for women”, on 7th June, the French Senate voted to extend abortion rights in France. The new law proposed legalising abortion on request up to 14 weeks into pregnancy, rather than 12, to support women living in France’s “medical deserts” with limited access to health care.

Around 40% of France’s maternity wards have closed in the past 25 years, which means a 2-hour car ride in some rural areas to access basic medical care. And once a woman does access a maternity clinic, there’s no guarantee she’ll be granted an abortion. A “conscience clause” in French law allows doctors to refuse to perform the procedure on moral grounds. This contributes to 3000 – 5000 French women having to travel abroad for late-stage abortions every year, according to a 2013 government study.

The new law would address this lack of access by extending abortion times and formalising a list of doctors who had refused to perform abortions in the past.

But, on June 11th, four days after the bill had passed through the Senate, Republican politicians demanded a re-vote and the new law was overturned. “Even if we know that the majority of abortions happen before 10 weeks, thousands of women have difficulty accessing abortion services,” Véronique Séhier co-president of Planning Familial in France told France 24. Asked about the overturned law she said, “we’re not particularly surprised, but we are very disappointed.”

In the current global context, fighting to expand abortion laws may seem like a privilege. Attitudes towards abortion provision in the western world seem to be in flux with many women now fighting to preserve the rights they have. In Norway in 2018 politicians from leading parties debated tightening the country’s abortion laws, resulting in mass street protests. In Germany, two gynaecologists were recently fined for “promoting abortion” by providing a description of the medical procedure on their website. It’s a story echoed across the Atlantic, in America.

While abortion is a constitutional right throughout the US under Roe v. Wade, regulators in some states are working to restrict women’s access to the procedure.

Heartbeat bills which cap the legal limit for abortions at six weeks, the moment a foetal heartbeat can be detected, are coming into effect in many states. As many women do not realise they are pregnant at this stage, these laws are widely considered unconstitutional, which for anti-abortion politicians, is part of their appeal. Whether or not they pass, proponents hope a cumulation of heartbeat bills will be the tinder that sparks legal debate in the US Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority and the authority to change federal laws.

Restrictions on abortion laws have so far been passed in nine US states, with the most extreme being in Alabama where it’s been made illegal in all but the most extreme cases where health or life is at risk.

As he signed the bill into law on May 15, Alabaman politician Kay Ivey stated “Many Americans, myself included, disagreed when Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973. The sponsors of this bill believe that it is time, once again, for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit this important matter, and they believe this act may bring about the best opportunity for this to occur.”

One of the only places in the western world that has stricter abortion laws than Alabama is Northern Ireland. Although it’s part of the UK, where abortion on request has been legal since the ’60s, not only is abortion illegal in Northern Ireland, but women who terminate their pregnancies face lifetime imprisonment.

There are, however, calls for this to change. In 2015, the High Court in Belfast ruled that Northern Ireland’s law on abortion was so severe that it was not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. A 2018 poll found that 75% of people in Northern Ireland want the abortion law to change, and 65% agree that abortion should not be a crime.

Hopes for change are bolstered by a successful campaign to change abortion laws south of the Irish border. On 25th May 2018, Ireland voted to overturn its own severe abortion law, the 8th Amendment, which made abortion illegal even in cases of rape, risk to women’s health or fatal foetal abnormality. One of the catalysts for the referendum in Ireland was the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar, in 2012. She was refused an abortion while miscarrying at Galway University hospital on the grounds that there was no risk to her life, only her health. She later died of complications caused by a related infection.

As the referendum results were announced revealing vast majority in favour of relaxing Ireland’s abortion laws, crowds in Dublin were overcome with emotion and chanted Savita’s name.

Influential campaigner Orla O’Connor told the press, “this is about women taking their rightful place in Irish society, finally. After the trauma that the 8th has caused, the horror of the 8th, this vote is about a rejection of an Ireland that treated women as second class citizens. This is about women’s equality.”

L'articolo In Europe and in the US, the Debate on Abortion Explodes Again proviene da InsideOver.

The reckoning for woman’s reproductive rights has arrived in the United States.

Since January 22, 1973, Republican’s, conservative and religious groups across America have been turning over every rock in an effort to overturn the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade that allowed abortion to become legal in the U.S.

In the past five months, more than a dozen states have passed, or attempted to pass, stricter abortion legislation. In the past week alone, both Alabama and Missouri have followed Georgia and voted in favor of laws that have all but eliminated the procedure.

In Alabama, the bill is considered to be the most restrictive in the country. It allows an abortion only when a woman’s health is at “serious risk”, excluding rape and incest. While the bill doesn’t outwardly punish women, it does doctors. Any doctor performing the procedure outside the purview of the bill could face up to 99 years in prison.

Just a few days later, Missouri followed Kentucky, Ohio, Mississippi and Georgia by enacting what’s called the “heartbeat bill”, which forbids the procedure “once fetal cardiac activity is detected”: around eight weeks.

In the states that have passed stricter abortion laws, those laws have yet to go into effect. This leaves room for pro-choice legal organizations to file their appeals. In the cases of North Dakota and Iowa, their “heartbeat bills” were reversed after court challenges: in Kentucky, a judge suspended the bill.

Conspicuously absent in many of these bills is the “rape and incest” clause. This is deliberate. The states want the legal battle. In other words, by excluding that clause, they anticipate a more hurried response by pro-choice legal advocates. The belief by pro-life advocates is that this will expedite it through the U.S. legal system.

The purpose of these restrictive bills has little to do with the safety of women or of the fetus. It’s about overturning what many consider an unjust law according to God’s will. The hope is that by making the law so restrictive it will then get to the Supreme Court of the United States faster. The Supreme Court’s current make-up is five conservative justices and four liberal (although all are supposed to be unbiased to the law).

This does not bode well for Roe v. Wade should it be challenged and make it to the Supreme Court.

Much more importantly, it’s the goal to have at least one of these contested laws find itself before the Supreme Court for the term that begins in October 2019. This would insure that the courts ruling would come down right in the middle of the 2020 presidential election.

Important to note is that in these states passing this type of restrictive women’s legislation, women are egregiously under represented in their respective states legislature. In Alabama, the state ranks 47th in terms of female legislative representation. In Mississippi, women make up 13.8% of the legislature.

In fact, it’s only Georgia that ranks in the top half of gender representation in their state legislature.

In short, men are shaping and making decisions about a woman’s reproductive rights.

It’s challenging to compare how the U.S. rates to other countries around the world. The views on abortion vary. And other things like social norms and religion play such a role that it makes any straight comparison much too complicated. For example, the United Kingdom has liberal abortion laws, except for Northern Ireland. In which case, a woman would need to go to the U.K. or cross the border into Ireland (which legalized abortion in 2018).

In countries like Brunei, Guatemala, Libya and Syria, abortion laws do not make exceptions for cases of incest or rape, but do allow terminations to save the woman’s life.

With that being said, it’s safe to say that the state laws in the U.S. that dictate the laws of the procedure vary as widely as the laws governing abortion do from country to country. For example, in Indiana, there is a mandatory waiting period, required counseling and at least one parent must consent in the case of a minor.

Meanwhile, next-door in Illinois, there is no mandatory waiting period, no mandatory counseling and only parental notification for minors. Additionally, Illinois has 20% more providers.

So, one could drive from Indiana to Illinois the same way one could cross the border from Northern Ireland to Ireland.

However, there is one alarming commonality in all countries where restrictive abortion laws exist. According to Amnesty International, doctors don’t want to treat pregnant women for fear of doing harm to the fetus. And that is simply because the laws are so punitive to doctors.

Over the past 45 years, the Supreme Court of the United States has moved methodically to build more and more restrictions into Roe v. Wade. To deny that they were on course to reverse the decision would be foolish. Despite that, the pro-life legislators saw the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation as the perfect opportunity to reverse their states abortion laws: they began showing as much restraint as a seven year old does on Christmas Eve.

In time, it’s likely in the current political climate Roe v. Wade will be overturned. But, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts doesn’t like to move quickly or be pushed. As a result of these states shifting their anti-abortion movement into overdrive, the odds are looking like he will be.

However, asking too much too soon from Chief Justice Roberts, and the court, may backfire. It has in the past.

L'articolo The Year of Reckoning for Reproductive Rights proviene da InsideOver.