[Skybird]

Neue Zürcher Zeitung correctly analyzes:


If the leaked draft corresponds to the final ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court on the abortion issue, it would mean a political earthquake. After decades of bitter dispute, it would make history of "Roe v. Wade," a nearly fifty-year-old landmark decision whose fame is probably surpassed only by the rulings on equality for African Americans.

Not surprisingly, it restricts abortion rights. After the Supreme Court received a clear conservative majority a year and a half ago with the third vacancy to be filled by Donald Trump, this was to be expected. What is more astonishing is the radicalism with which the justices overturned "Roe v. Wade." The draft speaks of a ruling that was "egregiously wrong from the outset," "extraordinarily weak reasoning," and damaging consequences.

Indeed, the decision at the time, with its very broad liberalization, has weaknesses that fueled rather than resolved the conflict over abortion. Nevertheless, the choice of words is remarkable for a precedent that has been confirmed several times and is of great importance in the Anglo-Saxon system in terms of legal certainty.
Abortions remain legal in only half of the states

The judges are thus likely to refrain from a compromise that the case to be judged would basically allow. It concerns a Mississippi law that allows abortions up to 15 weeks. To declare that provision permissible would be to curtail "Roe," but would still mean a liberal provision by international standards. In the U.S., 93 percent of abortions are performed before that time.

Chief Justice John Roberts is likely to favor this solution, experts say. But it would not end the wrangling over what is perhaps the most important issue in the American culture war. To that extent, an outright repeal of Roe v. Wade is the more consistent step.

The consequences, however, would probably be more serious in theory than in practice. Abortion would no longer be regulated at the national level, but fifty different state laws would come into force. This is not unusual in the distinctly federal United States. In anticipation of a change in jurisdiction, thirteen conservative states have already enacted so-called trigger laws that will ban abortions with the end of "Roe."

According to the non-governmental organization Guttmacher Institute, thirteen more states are certain or likely to ban the procedure in the future. Only in just under half of the states would abortions remain permitted, according to the report. In a country of this size, this is undoubtedly a problem and an anachronistic step backward for women's right to self-determination.

However, the possibilities for abortion in conservative regions have already been narrowly limited by constant tightening of the law. In six states, for example, there is only one abortion clinic, which forced women to travel long distances. In progressive states such as Illinois, gynecological practices have sprung up in close proximity to states with practical bans.

Organizations that advocate for women's freedom of choice pay for the travel expenses of needy pregnant women and can now count on a flood of donations. Even various companies have announced that they will cover the corresponding expenses of their female employees. Finally, more than half of all abortions are now induced by medication, with the possibility of procuring the necessary tablets legally or illegally from another member state or from abroad. Nevertheless, there are likely to be hardship cases with occasionally even fatal consequences. They will primarily affect poor women and thus disproportionately often members of ethnic minorities.

None of this changes the outcry that the draft ruling has triggered among advocates of liberal abortion rights in the United States. The fact that it was made public prematurely is unprecedented and is likely to shake the court permanently. It has been careful to maintain secrecy and cooperation based on trust - also to counter the accusation of politicization that has been raised with increasing frequency in recent years.

Only a small and exclusive circle of judges and their closest associates could have access to the draft. Who had an interest in the leak, presumably in order to steer the verdict in another direction, is an open question. What is certain, however, is that this drags the Supreme Court into the maelstrom of partisan politics. This is enormously damaging to the court's reputation - and thus to the acceptance of its decisions.

This will already be noticeable in June, when the judges will pass their final verdict on the abortion issue. Whatever the outcome: For part of the country, it will be a purely political decision, which will be compromised accordingly. For the Supreme Court, it will be a debacle. It will only fuel the controversy that the draft says it is trying to settle with the end of Roe v. Wade.


Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)


Rumors say that the Disunited States of America intend to deepen their gaps and trenches considerably in the near future by boosting the digging activities. The NRA will be happy - too much harmony spoils the business, and in the end people die of boredom: then they don't buy anything anymore.