Connect with us

Published

on

Today marks 50 years since Roe v Wade, America’s landmark Supreme Court decision that enshrined abortion as a constitutional right. 

Roe v Wade was overturned last June, giving the power to decide on abortion rights to 50 states to determine individually.

It triggered a wave of change. Abortion bans were brought in, court cases mounted, clinics closed. Here is what has happened in the seven months since US abortion rights were overturned.

First off, what is Roe v Wade?

Roe v Wade refers to the 1973 Supreme Court case that said the government could not prohibit abortions because the constitutional right to liberty includes the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy.

Roe refers to Texan woman Norma McCorvey – known by the pseudonym Jane Roe – who challenged the state’s abortion laws after she couldn’t get a termination in 1969 because her life was not in danger. Wade is district attorney Henry Wade, who defended the anti-abortion laws.

The court decision meant every woman in the US had the right to an abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Another ruling – Planned Parenthood v Casey in 1982 – built on that by saying states could not have laws that create a “substantial obstacle” to a woman seeking an abortion up to 24 weeks.

More on Abortion

States ban abortion

In 12 states, there are now near-total bans on abortion. In five of these states, the ban is being challenged in court but remains in effect.

The 12 states are: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia.

Two further states – North Dakota and Wisconsin – do not have bans in place but abortions are unavailable because clinics have closed.

Georgia has banned abortions past six weeks of pregnancy, severely limiting access to terminations because so many women do not find out they are pregnant – and have time to organise the procedure – before the six-week mark.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, which specialises in reproductive health, these 15 states are home to almost 22 million women aged 15 to 49. That means almost a third of America’s women of reproductive age are living in states where abortion is either unavailable or severely restricted.

More states could follow

A further nine states have introduced restrictions to abortion that would have been unconstitutional under Roe v Wade, have bans currently blocked by the court or are likely to introduce bans in the near future.

Arizona and Florida do not allow abortions past 15 weeks, while Utah has an 18-week ban.

In three states – Indiana, Wyoming and Ohio – near-total or early-gestation bans have been blocked by state courts for now, but lawmakers have indicated they intend to fight them.

In Iowa, Montana and Nebraska, anti-abortion policymakers have indicated that they want to ban abortion soon, but abortion care remains available for now.

What’s happened to abortion clinics?

At least 66 abortion clinics have stopped offering abortion care in the 15 states where abortion is banned or severely restricted.

The loss of these clinics is felt nationwide, according to the Guttmacher Institute, as clinics in states where abortion remains legal are inundated with people travelling interstate.

As the institute explains: “These dramatic increases in caseloads mean clinic capacity and staff are stretched to their limits, resulting in longer wait times for appointments even for residents of states where abortion remains legal.”

A study from the Society of Family Planning estimated legal abortions nationwide fell by more than 10,000 in the two months following the overturning of Roe v Wade, although some women may have sought abortion pills privately.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Abortion revolution in the US

Exacerbating inequality

Many of the states that have banned or restricted abortion have high proportions of black, Latina and indigenous women.

Research by the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed how overturning Roe v Wade disproportionately impacts women of colour, as they are more likely to get abortions, have more limited access to health care, and face barriers to travelling out of state for an abortion.

The Guttmacher Institute notes in addition that “people living with low incomes… transmen and nonbinary people, immigrants, adolescents and people living with disabilities are all particularly likely to encounter compounding obstacles to abortion care and be harmed as a result”.

Some states have introduced protections

While the US has seen significant rolling back of abortion rights, there are pockets of good news for pro-choice activists.

Voters in Kansas protected abortion rights in the state’s constitution by rejecting an amendment that would have allowed lawmakers to restrict access to abortions.

New York will provide free abortion pills at four public clinics, making its health department the first in the nation to offer free medication abortion.

In the midterms, voters in five states chose to protect reproductive rights. Vermont, Michigan and California added protections to their state constitutions while voters in Kentucky rejected an amendment that would have removed any protection for abortion rights from the constitution.

In Montana, a bill that could have criminalised doctors for providing abortions was defeated.

Read more:
How a secret network provided thousands of abortions in the US
Clinics in US state offer free vasectomies after surge in demand

Allie Utley, left, and Jae Moyer, center, of Overland Park, react during a primary watch party Tuesday, Aug. 2, 2022, at the Overland Park (Kan.) Convention Center. Kansas voters on Tuesday protected the right to get an abortion in their state, rejecting a measure that would have allowed their Republican-controlled Legislature to tighten abortion restrictions or ban it outright. (Tammy Ljungblad/The Kansas City Star via AP)
Image:
Voters in Kansas react with joy after abortion rights vote

Medical abortions

Medical abortions account for the majority of abortions in the US – in 2020, the most recent year for which data is available, abortion pills were used in 53% of cases.

Early evidence suggests they have become even more popular since Roe v Wade was overturned – one study suggested the number of people seeking medical abortions has increased threefold.

At the beginning of January, the Food and Drug Administration changed its rules to allow retail pharmacies in the US to dispense abortion pills for the first time.

However, abortion pills are now seen as the next frontier in the fight by anti-abortion activists and they are pushing hard to curtail access.

Continue Reading

US

US has seized oil tanker off coast of Venezuela, Donald Trump says

Published

on

By

US has seized oil tanker off coast of Venezuela, Donald Trump says

The US has intercepted and seized a sanctioned oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela, Donald Trump has said.

President Trump confirmed the operation at a meeting with business leaders at the White House on Wednesday.

“We’ve just seized a tanker on the coast of Venezuela, a large tanker, very large, largest one ever seized, actually,” he said at the start of the meeting.

It marks the latest escalation from the Trump administration, which has in recent months ramped up pressure on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

The US accuses Mr Maduro of presiding over a narcotrafficking operation in Venezuela, which he denies

Pics: X/@AGPamBondi
Image:
Pics: X/@AGPamBondi

Tanker ‘used to transport sanctioned’ oil, US claims

Later, Attorney General Pam Bondi shared a video of the operation, confirming that the FBI, Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, and Department of Defence were involved.

More on Donald Trump

She said on X that the US forces “executed a seizure warrant for a crude oil tanker used to transport sanctioned oil from Venezuela and Iran”.

“For multiple years, the oil tanker has been sanctioned by the United States due to its involvement in an illicit oil shipping network supporting foreign terrorist organisations,” she added.

“This seizure, completed off the coast of Venezuela, was conducted safely and securely-and our investigation alongside the Department of Homeland Security to prevent the transport of sanctioned oil continues.”

She did not name the vessel, what flag the vessel sailed under, or exactly where the incident took place.

UK maritime risk management group Vanguard said that the tanker Skipper – which the US sanctioned for alleged involvement in Iranian oil trading under the name Adisa – was believed to have been seized.

US interception of oil tanker raises more questions about international law

The seizing of an oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela is a significant escalation in US tactics.

By targeting an oil shipment, rather than a suspected drug boat, Washington has signalled its willingness to disrupt exports.

President Trump seems determined to shut down one of the last major sources of funding for Nicholas Maduro’s embattled government.

Nine months ago, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on all goods imported into the US from any country buying oil or gas from Venezuela.

This is even more aggressive and will be viewed in Caracas as a direct threat to the country’s economy and sovereignty.

The interception of the tanker raises more questions about international maritime law and the reach of US enforcement powers.

In the space of four months, the US has bombed 23 boats, killing 87 people, accusing the occupants of being “narco-terrorists”.

It will also fuel speculation that airstrikes are imminent, President Trump having posted two weeks ago that he had closed the airspace.

Trump on seized oil: ‘We keep it’

Without giving additional information on the operation, Mr Trump added during the White House meeting with business leaders that “other things are happening”.

Later, Mr Trump said that the tanker was “seized for a very good reason,” and when asked what will happen to the oil on board the vessel, he added: “Well, we keep it, I suppose”.

He also suggested that Colombian President Gustavo Petro, who angered the Trump administration by speaking at a pro-Palestinian demonstration outside the UN in September, could “be next” if his country doesn’t “wise up” on alleged drug trafficking.

The US has escalated military deployments against the Latin American country over the last few months, with Mr Trump suggesting that American forces could launch a land attack on Venezuela.

On 2 September, the White House posted on X that it had conducted a strike against so-called “narcoterrorists” shipping fentanyl to the US, without providing direct evidence of the alleged crime.

Sky’s Data & Forensics unit has verified that in the past four months since strikes began, 23 boats have been targeted in 22 strikes, killing 87 people.

Read more: Is this what the beginning of a war looks like?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Are US strikes on Venezuela about drugs or oil?

Geoffrey Corn, director of the Centre for Military Law at Texas Tech University, told Sky News’s Mark Austin on The World that Mr Trump’s remarks on land strikes “ostensibly” refer to drug cartel members.

Formerly a senior adviser to the US army on warfare law, Mr Corn added: “That could very easily provide the pretext for some confrontation between Venezuelan armed forces and US armed forces.

“And then that would open the door to a broader campaign to basically negate the power of the Venezuelan military.”

Read more on Venezuela:
Hegseth cites ‘fog of war’ in defence of second US strike
Most advanced US aircraft carrier close to Venezuela

Venezuela ‘prepared to break the teeth’ of US

Speaking to Politico on Tuesday, Mr Trump declined to comment on whether US troops would enter Venezuela, but said that Mr Maduro’s “days are numbered”.

According to Bloomberg, the Maduro government describes US actions as a grab for Venezuela’s oil reserves – among the biggest in the world.

Meanwhile, at a rally before a ruling-party-organised demonstration in Caracas, Mr Maduro did not address the seizure, but told supporters that Venezuela is “prepared to break the teeth of the North American empire if necessary”.

Flanked by senior officials, he said that only the ruling party can “guarantee peace, stability, and the harmonious development of Venezuela, South America and the Caribbean”.

Continue Reading

US

US plans to start checking all tourists’ social media

Published

on

By

US plans to start checking all tourists' social media

All tourists – including those from Britain – will have to undergo a social media screening before being allowed entry into the US under new plans being considered by the country’s border force.

At the moment, Britons are among those who can visit for up to 90 days without a visa. They just have to obtain an electronic travel authorisation, known as an ESTA, for $40 (£30).

The potential social media mandate being proposed by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would apply to anyone visiting, whether they require a visa or not.

According to a notice published in America’s federal register on Tuesday, foreign tourists would need to provide their social media from the last five years.

Pic: iStock
Image:
Pic: iStock

It will be “mandatory” to hand over the information, and other details – including email addresses and telephone numbers used in the last five years, as well as the names, addresses, numbers, and birthdays of family members – will also be required.

Currently, as part of the ESTA application process, a tourist from Britain would have to provide an email address, home address, phone number, and emergency contact details. If approved, the ESTA lasts for two years.

CBP is proposing that moving forward, ESTA applications would require a selfie.

It further wants to collect biometrics – face, fingerprints DNA and iris – as part of the ESTA application. It currently only records face and fingerprints upon arrival at the US border.

The proposed changes are open for public consultation for 60 days.

An ESTA application form. Pic: iStock
Image:
An ESTA application form. Pic: iStock

So much for free speech?

There have been several reports of travellers already having been denied entry into the US over social media posts and messages found on their personal devices after President Donald Trump took office in January.

This includes a French scientist who was turned away at the US border in March after messages “that reflect hatred toward Trump and can be described as terrorism” were found on his phone.

Despite Mr Trump vowing to “restore freedom of speech” on online platforms and end “federal censorship” when he took office, he has found himself at the centre of various free speech rows since.

In September, talk show host Jimmy Kimmel was taken off-air by Disney-owned ABC over comments he made about the assassination of the right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk.

Mr Kimmel accused the Trump administration and its allies of “working very hard to capitalise on the murder of Charlie Kirk”, with the president among those to pin it on left-wing extremism.

President Donald Trump has been at the centre of several free speech rows. Pic: AP
Image:
President Donald Trump has been at the centre of several free speech rows. Pic: AP

At the time, Mr Trump suggested certain networks should have their licenses revoked over a lack of support for him.

Mr Kimmel’s show was reinstated less than a week after his suspension following widespread backlash from celebrities and viewers.

Read more from Sky News:
This is the reality of Trump’s trade war
Trump’s verdict on America’s traditional allies

And in April, Harvard University sued the Trump administration for seeking “unprecedented and improper” control of the school, after it froze $2.6bn (£1.9bn) of its federal funding.

Harvard’s lawsuit accused the government of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a list of 10 demands from a federal antisemitism task force, which included sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions.

A judge ruled in September that the Trump administration’s freeze of billions in research funding to Harvard was unconstitutional and retaliatory, a decision the US government vowed to appeal.

An agreement has not yet been reached, so the fight between the Ivy League university and Mr Trump rages on.

Continue Reading

US

Egypt and Iran complain to FIFA after World Cup match scheduled to coincide with Seattle Pride event

Published

on

By

Egypt and Iran complain to FIFA after World Cup match scheduled to coincide with Seattle Pride event

Iran and Egypt have complained after FIFA scheduled a World Cup match between the two nations in Seattle to coincide with the city’s LGBTQ+ Pride festival.

Seattle’s PrideFest 2026, which organisers say regularly sees more than 200,000 participants, takes place on 27 and 28 June – immediately following the match.

Local organisers have said the 26 June game at the Seattle Stadium will include a “once-in-a-lifetime moment to showcase and celebrate LGBTQIA+ communities in Washington”.

Iran players pose for a team group photo before a match against North Korea in June 2025. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Iran players pose for a team group photo before a match against North Korea in June 2025. Pic: Reuters

In Iran, where gay couples can face the death penalty, the president of Iran’s Football Federation, Mehdi Taj, condemned the decision to use Seattle as a venue and the timing of the match.

Mr Taj told Iranian state TV: “Both Egypt and we have objected, because this is an unreasonable and illogical move that essentially signals support for a particular group, and we must definitely address this point.”

He said Iran would bring up the issue at a FIFA Council meeting in Qatar next week.

The Egypt players line up during the national anthems before the match against Jordan. Pic: Reuters
Image:
The Egypt players line up during the national anthems before the match against Jordan. Pic: Reuters

The football federation in Egypt, where Human Rights Watch says people from LGBTQ+ communities face persecution, said in a statement that it had written to FIFA “categorically rejecting any activities related to supporting homosexuality during the match between the Egyptian national team and Iran.”

More from World

The letter also stated: “Information had circulated indicating the local organising committee’s decision and plans to hold some activities related to supporting homosexuality during that match” and the federation “completely rejects such activities, which directly contradict the cultural, religious and social values in the region, especially in Arab and Islamic societies”.

The Seattle Pride festival takes place in late June, attracting hundreds of thousands of people every year, like in 2023. File pic: AP
Image:
The Seattle Pride festival takes place in late June, attracting hundreds of thousands of people every year, like in 2023. File pic: AP

In Seattle, the local organising committee said it was “moving forward as planned with our community programming outside the stadium during Pride weekend and throughout the tournament,” having already promoted an art contest ahead of the match.

Read more:
Man charged with racially abusing Antoine Semenyo

Steven Hutton: Three men and one woman jailed over ‘frenzied’ Dundee murder

It added: “We get to show the world that in Seattle, everyone is welcome.”

Seattle PrideFest has been organised in the city since 2007 by a nonprofit group which designated the 26 June match for celebration before FIFA carried out the World Cup draw on Friday.

On Saturday, FIFA announced the Egypt-Iran game had been allocated to Seattle instead of Vancouver, where the teams’ group rivals Belgium and New Zealand will play at the same time.

FIFA has been asked for a comment.

Continue Reading

Trending