He needs to both nod to anti-abortion groups, while not turning off the moderate religious voters and Republicans who support legal abortion.
By MERIDITH MCGRAW and NANCY COOK
In 2016, President Donald Trump vowed to appoint Supreme Court justices who would “automatically” overturn Roe v. Wade. Now, the White House is insisting there is no such abortion litmus test for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement. The change in tone reflects the tightrope Trump is currently walking on abortion with conservatives — and especially religious conservatives — ahead of the November election. Trump needs to both nod to concerns of powerful religious groups that have spent years trying to overturn Roe, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that cemented legal abortion, while not turning off the sizable faction of more moderate religious voters and Republicans who support legal abortion.
by John Kruzel
President Trump has a chance to transform the Supreme Court into a conservative supermajority if he wins another four-year term, underscoring the potential stakes of this year's election for future court decisions on everything from the Second Amendment to abortion.
If reelected, Trump would likely get the
opportunity to replace ailing liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 87, and
possibly fellow liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, 82, which would give
conservatives a commanding 6-3 or 7-2 majority. It would also move the court’s
fulcrum to the right of its current ideological center, Chief Justice John
Roberts, whose stewardship of the court is seen by some conservatives with
Anti-abortion groups hope to keep Americans voting Republican despite anger at leaders’ handling of the coronavirus, race and the economy. Abortion-rights groups say the issues are all linked.
By Maggie Astor
Aug. 18, 2020
It would be difficult to overstate the significance of this year’s elections for the future of abortion in America. The results could eventually determine whether Roe v. Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court or codified by Congress.
Normally, stakes that high would make abortion a primary focus of the 2020 campaign. But normally, the country wouldn’t be experiencing a pandemic, a recession and a civil rights movement all at once. On Night 1 of the Democratic National Convention, the sum total of the attention abortion received was the second it took Kamala Harris to say “reproductive justice” in a video montage.
If almost no restrictions count as an “undue burden,” there’s not much to overrule.
By Mary Ziegler
August 17, 2020
Since President Trump nominated Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, everyone has placed bets about how long it would be before Roe v. Wade was overturned. What everyone forgot is that the Supreme Court can functionally eliminate access to abortion without saying a word about Roe itself.
This week’s abortion decision out of Arkansas should certainly refresh everyone’s memories. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, which just handed down a decision in Hopkins v. Jegley, had the first crack at interpreting the Supreme Court’s recent decision in June Medical Services v. Russo. In that earlier case, the high court struck down a Louisiana law requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. At the time, progressives celebrated what seemed to be a big victory for abortion rights. Legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin proclaimed that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in joining his more liberal colleagues, had turned over a new leaf.
By Robert Barnes
August 13, 2020
The Supreme Court’s rulings from a momentous just-completed term already are altering the nation’s legal landscape, almost ensuring that issues such as abortion and transgender rights will be returning to the high court.
In the past week, lower courts have resurrected controversial abortion restrictions in Arkansas, stopped a Vermont program that disfavored students at religious high schools and ordered a Florida school district to change its policy banning transgender students from the restrooms of their choice.
As activists move closer to their goal of making abortion illegal, they have started planning for the infrastructure needed for a world with more babies—and recruiting major CEOs to bankroll their cause.
Emma Green, The Atlantic
Aug 7, 2020
In most circles, abortion does not make for polite dinner-table conversation, especially if you happen to be running a billion-dollar global franchise. So for years, Cheryl Bachelder kept quiet. She stood out professionally as the rare female CEO of a major corporation, overseeing Popeyes while chasing after three daughters and, eventually, four grandsons. As a Christian, she watched with distaste as her fellow business leaders indulged the decadence and money-fueled antics of the 1980s and ’90s, posing on magazine covers with jets and girls. She and her husband donated to candidates for political office whom they knew and personally trusted. But because she oversaw a large, publicly traded company, Bachelder mostly kept her views on one particularly controversial issue secret. “If I go to lunch with a good friend, and they find out I’m pro-life, I can tell you the look on their face,” she told me. “‘You’re kidding me. You are an educated, CEO woman and you’re pro-life. What’s wrong with you?’”
By Joan Biskupic, CNN legal analyst & Supreme Court biographer
Wed July 29, 2020
(CNN)Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh urged his colleagues in a series of private memos this spring to consider avoiding decisions in major disputes over abortion and Democratic subpoenas for President Donald Trump's financial records, according to multiple sources familiar with the inner workings of the court.
In the abortion controversy, Kavanaugh wanted the justices to sidestep any ruling on the merits of a Louisiana law that could have closed abortion clinics in the state, CNN has learned. The case marked the first time in four years the justices were taking up the heated subject. Kavanaugh's plan would have ensured the law -- a credentialing mandate for doctors who perform abortions -- would not go into immediate effect but also ensured that the justices would not have to put their own views on the line.
July 01, 2020
Abortion rights advocates have reason to be relieved with the Supreme Court’s opinion Monday.
In a move that surprised many -- including me -- Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four liberal justices and struck down a Louisiana law that would have greatly limited the number of abortions in the state, forcing many of the state's most vulnerable women to travel long distances, face delays or forgo care altogether. The court’s ruling in June Medical Services v. Russo will allow the state's remaining clinics to continue serving the 10,000 women who seek abortions annually.
Supreme Court hands down major decision reaffirming
The case, June Medical Services v. Russo, has major
By Alexandra Svokos, ABC News Daily
29 June 2020
The Supreme Court announced a major ruling on abortion, deciding that the
Louisiana law is unconstitutional and should not stand.
The opinion was written by Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts
also filed an opinion concurring for the majority.
All eyes on Roberts ahead of Supreme Court's abortion ruling
By John Kruzel, The Hill
Chief Justice John Roberts is under the microscope as the Supreme Court prepares to issue its first major ruling on abortion rights in the Trump era, which will give the clearest indication yet of the court’s willingness to revisit protections that were first granted in Roe v. Wade.
The tie-breaking vote may rest with Roberts, and the case stands to test his role as the court’s new ideological center as well as his allegiance to past rulings.