Connect with us

Published

on

The next front is rapidly emerging in the struggle between supporters and opponents of legal abortion, and that escalating conflict is increasing the chances that the issue will shape the 2024 election as it did last Novembers midterm contest.

President Joe Biden triggered the new confrontation with a flurry of recent moves to expand access to the drugs used in medication abortions, which now account for more than half of all abortions performed in the United States. Medication abortion involves two drugs: mifepristone followed by misoprostol (which is also used to prevent stomach ulcers). Although abortion opponents question the drugs safety, multiple scientific studies have found few serious adverse effects beyond headache or cramping.

Federal regulation of the use and distribution of these drugs by agencies including the FDA and the United States Postal Service has long been overshadowed in the abortion debate by the battles over Supreme Court nominations and federal legislation to ban or authorize abortion nationwide. But with a conservative majority now entrenched in the Court, and little chance that Congress will pass national legislation in either direction any time soon, abortion supporters and opponents are focusing more attention on executive-branch actions that influence the availability of the pills.

Read: The abortion backup plan no one is talking about

The reality of abortion care has been changing very, very rapidly, and now the politics are catching up with it, Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who served as one of Bidens advisers in 2020, told me.

Tens of thousands of anti-abortion activists will descend on Washington today for their annual March for Lifethe first since the Supreme Court last summer overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a nationwide right to abortion. The activists will cheer the swift moves by some two dozen Republican-controlled states to ban or severely restrict abortion since the Court struck down Roe.

But even as abortion opponents celebrate, they are growing more frustrated about the increased reliance on the drugs, which are now used in 54 percent of U.S. abortionsup dramatically from less than one-third less than a decade ago, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. With the overturning of Roe, [with] COVID, and with President Bidens loosening of the restrictions on these [drugs] there is a new frontier that everyone is pivoting to, Rebecca Parma, the legislative director for Texas Right to Life, a prominent anti-abortion group, told me.

George W. Bush and Donald Trump, the two Republicans who have held the presidency since the drugs were first approved under Democratic President Bill Clinton, in 2000, took virtually no steps to limit their availability. But conservative activists are already signaling that they will press the Republican presidential candidates in 2024 for more forceful action.

Our job is to make sure this becomes an issue that any GOP candidate will have to answer and address, Kristan Hawkins, the president of the anti-abortion group Students for Life of America, told me. No one can be ambivalent again; it will simply not be an option.

The challenge for Republicans is that the 2022 midterm elections sent an unmistakable signal of resistance to further abortion restrictions in almost all of the key swing states that tipped the 2020 presidential election and are likely to decide the 2024 contest. Would you really want to be Ron DeSantis or Donald Trump running in a close election saying, Im going to ban all abortion pills in Michigan or Pennsylvania right now? says Mary Ziegler, a law professor at UC Davis, who has written extensively on the history of the abortion debate.

Sunday is the 50th anniversary of the original Roe decision, and the Biden administration will mark the occasion with a defiant pro-abortion-rights speech from Vice President Kamala Harris in Florida, where GOP Governor DeSantis, a likely 2024 presidential contender, signed a 15-week abortion ban last April.

White House officials see access to abortion medication as the next battlefront in the larger struggle over the procedure, Jennifer Klein, the director of the White House Gender Policy Council, told me. She said she expects Republicans to mount more sweeping efforts to restrict access to the drugs than they did during the Bush or Trump presidencies. The reason youve seen both Democratic and Republican administrations ensure access to medication abortions is because this is the FDA following their evidence-based scientific judgment, she said. So what I think is different now is you are seeing some pretty extreme actions as the next way to double down on taking away reproductive health and reproductive rights.

Federal regulation of the abortion drugs has followed a consistent pattern, with Democratic presidents moving to expand access and Republican presidents mostly accepting those actions.

Read: The other abortion pill

During the 2000 presidential campaign, for instance, George W. Bush called the Clinton administrations initial approval of mifepristone wrong and said he worried it would lead to more abortions. But over Bushs two terms, his three FDA commissioners ignored a citizen petition from conservative groups to revoke approval for the drug. Under Barack Obama, the FDA formalized relatively onerous rules for the use of mifepristone. Physicians had to obtain a special certification to prescribe the drug, women had to meet with their doctor once before receiving it and twice after, and it could be used only within the first seven weeks of pregnancy.

The FDA loosened these restrictions during Obamas final year in office. It reduced the number of physician visits required to obtain the drugs from three to one and increased to 10 the number of weeks into a pregnancy the drugs could be used. The revisions also permitted other medical professionals, such as nurses, to prescribe the drugs if they received certification, and eliminated a requirement for providers to report adverse effects other than death. Trump didnt reverse any of the Obama decisions. He did side with conservatives by fighting a lawsuit from abortion-rights advocates to lift the requirement for an in-person doctors visit to obtain the drugs during the COVID pandemic. But by the time the Supreme Court ruled for the Trump administration in January 2021, Biden was days away from taking office. Within months, women seeking an abortion could consult with a doctor via telehealth and then receive the pills via mail.

On January 3 of this year, the FDA took another major step by allowing pharmacies to dispense the drugs. In late December, the Justice Department issued a legal opinion that the Postal Service could deliver the drugs without violating the 19th-century Comstock Act, which bars use of the mail to corrupt the public morals.

The paradox is that the impact of these rules, for now, will be felt almost entirely in the states where abortion remains legal. Obtaining abortion pills there will be much more comparable to filling any other prescription. But 19 red states have passed laws that still require medical professionals to be present when the drugs are administered, which prevents pharmacies from offering them despite the FDA authorization. And although the FDA has approved use of mifepristone for the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, medical professionals cannot prescribe the drugs in violation of state time limits (or absolute bans) on abortion. In terms of anti-abortion states, the Biden administrations actions have had basically no impact, Greer Donley, a University of Pittsburgh law professor who studies abortion law, told me in an email.

Although the red states have largely walled themselves off from Bidens efforts on medication abortion, conservatives have launched a multifront attempt to roll back access to the pills nationwide. Students for Life has filed another citizen petition with the FDA, arguing that doctors who prescribe the drugs must dispose of any fetal remains as meical waste. In a joint letter released last week, 22 Republican attorneys general hinted that they may sue to overturn the new FDA rules permitting pharmacies to dispense the drugs. In November, another coalition of conservative groups filed a lawsuit before a Trump-appointed judge in Texas seeking to overturn the original certification and ban mifepristone. Jenny Ma, the senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, says that decision could ultimately have a broader effect than even the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe: This case, she told me, could effectively ban medication abortion nationwide. It means people in every state may not be able to get abortion pills.

Republicans will also ramp up legislative action against the pills, although their proposals have no chance of becoming law while Democrats control the Senate and Biden holds the veto pen. Republican Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi is planning to reintroduce her SAVE Moms and Babies Act, which would restore the prohibition against dispensing abortion drugs through the mail or at pharmacies.

From the May 2022 issue: The future of abortion in a post-Roe America

However these legal and legislative challenges are resolved, its already apparent that the 2024 GOP presidential field will face more pressure than before to propose executive-branch actions against the drugs. Thats going to be our clarion call in 2024, says Kristi Hamrick, a long-term social-conservative activist, who now serves as the chief strategist for media and policy at Students for Life.

Katie Glenn, the state-policy director at Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told me that, at the least, the group wants 2024 Republican presidential candidates to press for restoring the requirement to report adverse consequences from the drugs. Former Vice President Mike Pence, a likely candidate, has already suggested that he will support a ban on dispensing the pills through the mail. But the anti-abortion movements long-term goal remains the same: ban mifepristone altogether. Hawkins shows the growing fervor GOP candidates will face when she says, This pill is a cancer that has now metastasized throughout our country.

Simultaneously, abortion-rights advocates are pushing the Biden administration to loosen restrictions even further. Medication abortion has been overregulated for far too long, Ma told me. Many advocates want the FDA to extend permitted use of mifepristone from 10 to 12 weeks, eliminate the requirement that the professionals prescribing the drugs receive a special certification, and begin the process toward eventually making the drug available over the counter.

The immediate question is whether the Biden administration will challenge the red-state laws that have stymied its efforts to expand access. Advocates have argued that a legal case can be made for national FDA regulations to trump state restrictions, such as the requirement for physicians to dispense the drugs. But Biden is likely to proceed cautiously.

We dont have a lot of answers because, frankly, states have not tried to do this stuff in hundreds of years, Ziegler, the author of the upcoming book Roe: The History of a National Obsession, told me. Even so, she added, its a reasonable assumption that this conservative-dominated Supreme Court would resist allowing the federal government to preempt state rules on how the drugs are dispensed.

These mirror-image pressures in each party increase the odds of a clear distinction between Biden (or another Democrat) and the 2024 GOP nominee over access to the drugs. Democrats are generally confident they will benefit from almost any contrast that keeps abortion prominent in the 2024 race. Some, like Lake, see access to the pills as a powerful lever to do that. The issue, she argues, is relevant to younger voters, who are much more familiar than older people with the growing use of medication abortion and are especially dubious that pharmacies can offer certain drugs in some states but not in others.

The impact of abortion on the 2022 election was more complex than is often discussed. As Ive written, in the red states that have banned or restricted the practice, such as Florida, Ohio, and Texas, there was no discernible backlash against the Republican governors or state legislators who passed those laws. But the story was different in the blue and purple states where abortion remains legal. In pivotal states including Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, a clear majority of voters said they supported abortion rights, and, according to media exit polls, crushing majorities of them voted against Republican gubernatorial candidates who pledged to restrict abortion. Those Democratic victories in the states likely to prove decisive again in 2024 have left many Republican strategists leery of pursuing any further constraints on abortion.

Whats clear now is that even as abortion opponents gather to celebrate their long-sought toppling of Roe, many of them wont be satisfied until they have banned the procedure nationwide. It is totally unacceptable for a presidential candidate to say, Its just up to the states now, Marilyn Musgrave, the vice president for government affairs at the Susan B. Anthony group, told me. We need a federal role clearly laid out by these presidential candidates. Equally clear is that abortion opponents now view federal regulatory actions to restrict, and eventually ban, abortion drugs as a crucial interim step on that path. The U.S. may seem in some ways to be settling into an uneasy new equilibrium, with abortion banned in some states and permitted in others. But, as the escalating battle over abortion medication makes clear, access to abortion in every state will remain on the ballot in 2024.

Continue Reading

Politics

Nigel Farage has a new ‘leave’ campaign – here’s how it could work and how it might impact you

Published

on

By

Nigel Farage has a new 'leave' campaign - here's how it could work and how it might impact you

Nigel Farage has said he would take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if Reform win the next election.

The party’s leader also reaffirmed his pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act and disapply three other international treaties acting as “roadblocks” to deporting anyone entering the UK illegally.

In a speech about tackling illegal migration, he said a Reform government would detain and deport any migrants arriving illegally, including women and children, and they would “never, ever be allowed to stay”.

Sky News looks at what the ECHR is, how the UK could leave, and what could happen to human rights protections if it does.

What is the ECHR?

On 4 November 1950, the 12 member states of the newly formed Council of Europe (different to the EU) signed the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – otherwise known as the ECHR.

It came into force on 3 September 1953 and has since been signed by an additional 34 Council of Europe members who have joined, bringing the total to 46 signatories.

The treaty was drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust to protect people from the most serious human rights violations. It was also in response to the growth of Stalinism in central and Eastern Europe to protect members from communist subversion.

The treaty was the first time fundamental human rights were guaranteed in law.

Sir Winston Churchill helped establish the Council of Europe and was a driving force behind the ECHR, which came from the Charter of Human Rights that he championed and was drafted by British lawyers.

Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR
Image:
Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR

To be a signatory of the ECHR, a state has to be a member of the Council of Europe – and they must “respect pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights”.

There are 18 sections, including the most well-known: Article 1 (the right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).

The ECHR has been used to halt the deportation of migrants in 13 out of 29 UK cases since 1980.

ECHR protections are enforced in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates most ECHR rights into domestic law. This means individuals can bring cases to UK courts to argue their ECHR rights have been violated, instead of having to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Article 8 is the main section that has been used to stop illegal migrant deportations, but Article 3 has also been successfully used.

Read more:
Why Farage’s small boats plan is not actually about policy
Legal expert explains if Farage deportation plan would work

The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP
Image:
The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP

How is it actually used?

The ECHR is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – you’ll have to bear with us on the confusingly similar acronyms.

The convention is interpreted under the “living instrument doctrine”, meaning it must be considered in the light of present-day conditions.

The number of full-time judges corresponds to the number of ECHR signatories, so there are currently 46 – each nominated by their state for a non-renewable nine-year term. But they are prohibited from having any institutional ties with the state they come from.

An individual, group of individuals, or one or more of the signatory states can lodge an application alleging one of the signatory states has breached their human rights. Anyone who have exhausted their human rights case in UK courts can apply to the ECtHR to have their case heard in Strasbourg.

All ECtHR hearings must be heard in public, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be heard in private, which happens most of the time following written pleadings.

The court may award damages, typically no more than £1,000 plus legal costs, but it lacks enforcement powers, so some states have ignored verdicts and continued practices judged to be human rights violations.

Read more: Asylum seekers in charts and numbers

Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP
Image:
Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP

How could the UK leave?

A country can leave the convention by formally denouncing it, but it would likely have to also leave the Council of Europe as the two are dependent on each other.

At the international level, a state must formally notify the Council of Europe of its intention to withdraw with six months’ notice, when the UK would still have to implement any ECtHR rulings and abide by ECHR laws.

The UK government would have to seek parliament’s approval before notifying the ECtHR, and would have to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 – which would also require parliamentary approval.

Would the UK leaving breach any other agreements?

Leaving the ECHR would breach the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a deal between the British and Irish governments on how Northern Ireland should be governed, which could threaten the peace settlement.

It would also put the UK’s relationship with the EU under pressure as the Brexit deal commits both to the ECHR.

The EU has said if the UK leaves the ECHR it would terminate part of the agreement, halting the extradition of criminal suspects from the EU to face trial in the UK.

Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR
Image:
Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR

How would the UK’s human rights protections change?

Certain rights under the ECHR are also recognised in British common law, but the ECHR has a more extensive protection of human rights.

For example, it was the ECHR that offered redress to victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the victims of “black cab rapist” John Worboys after state investigations failed.

Before cases were taken to the ECtHR and the Human Rights Act came into force, the common law did not prevent teachers from hitting children or protect gay people from being banned from serving in the armed forces.

Repealing the ECHR would also mean people in the UK would no longer be able to take their case to the ECtHR if the UK courts do not remedy a violation of their rights.

The UK’s human rights record would then not be subject to the same scrutiny as it is under the ECHR, where states review each other’s actions.

Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA
Image:
Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA

How human rights in the UK would be impacted depends partly on what would replace the Human Rights Act.

Mr Farage has said he would introduce a British Bill of Rights, which would apply only to UK citizens and lawful British citizens.

He has said it would not mention “human rights” but would include “the freedom to do everything, unless there’s a law that says you can’t” – which is how common law works.

Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said this would simply confirm the rights to which people are already entitled, but would also remove rights enjoyed by people visiting the UK.

Continue Reading

Politics

1 in 4 UK adults open to investing in crypto for retirement: Survey

Published

on

By

1 in 4 UK adults open to investing in crypto for retirement: Survey

1 in 4 UK adults open to investing in crypto for retirement: Survey

Over a quarter of Brits said they’d add crypto to their retirement portfolios, while 23% would even withdraw existing pension funds to invest in the space.

Continue Reading

Politics

CFTC’s Johnson confirms she will depart regulator next week

Published

on

By

CFTC’s Johnson confirms she will depart regulator next week

CFTC’s Johnson confirms she will depart regulator next week

Kristin Johnson, the CFTC’s last remaining Democratic commissioner, confirmed she will leave the regulator on Sept. 3.

Continue Reading

Trending