Roe v. Wade: The US Supreme Court is on the verge of nullifying the right to abortion | the society

upper United States Determined to abolish the right to abortion Consecrated in 1973 by that same court in the landmark ruling of the case Roe vs. Wade. This comes on the heels of an initial draft published by the newspaper on Monday evening Politician, An unprecedented leak of information. It was signed by Justice Samuel Alito and reflects the prevailing opinion of five of the nine justices who make up the court.

The text leaves no room for doubt: According to this special vote, released in February, a conservative majority in the Supreme Court holds that the precedent he set Ruling 1973 (Confirmed in the case Planned Parenthood vs Casey, 1992). “[La sentencia de] biting I was terribly wrong from the start, Alito wrote. His motivations were exceptionally weak and this decision had dire consequences. Far from achieving a national consensus on the topic of abortion, biting s Casey They have fueled controversy and deepened the division.”

The 98-page document known today It is a ‘first draft’. A final ruling is not expected until late June or early July. It is unlikely, but it is possible that the balances in court will have changed or will change between February and now or in the time remaining until the end of the judicial year. The court has an unprecedented conservative landslide for six to three decades.

“The Constitution does not refer to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,” can be read in Alito’s argument, supported by Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Connie Barrett, and Neil Gorsuch (missing). , between Governor Payroll, John Roberts). “It is time to heed the ground rule and return the case to the representatives elected by the people,” the draft always states Politician.

The exclusive made an immediate impact in Washington, in terms of its content — abortion is the issue most persecuted this year by specialist reporters on the Supreme Court — and above all, because there is no evidence that a draft of these characteristics was filtered out during the case study. Who Serves This leak is an issue that immediately ignited controversy over the institution’s increasing politicization.

Dozens of people had concentrated in the minutes after the publication Politician To protest outside the Washington Supreme Court building. According to a recent Pew Research Center report, nearly seven out of ten Americans oppose abolition Roe vs. Wade.

In practice, this could mean states are free to decide on the reproductive rights of 166 million women. And some didn’t waste time: When the final verdict is issued, laws enacted by Republican conservatives across the country in recent months will go into effect immediately.

More than 20 countries are waiting for this decision. The last person to sign up was from Oklahoma. Last Thursday, her House of Representatives approved a strict rule that forbids interference after the sixth week of pregnancy, before most women even know they are pregnant. It’s a carbon copy of the Texas Initiative, Released in September and better known as heart rate law In reference to the vital signs of the fetus. Only exceptions are considered for cases where the mother’s life is in danger.

It also allows (and encourages) private citizens to sue abortion providers for $10,000 or anyone who helps a woman have an abortion (this, the law explains, could include, for example, the taxi driver who takes her to the clinic). For such collaborators, the rule provides for prison sentences of up to 10 years. In recent months, Oklahoma has become a destination for many Texan women, given the impossibility of terminating a pregnancy in their state. Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt announced his intention to become “the friendliest of life in America.”

original discount Raw vs. Wade It was Norma McCorvey, a Dallas waitress who sued Henry Wade in 1970, The attorney general of the city of Texas, to claim the right to have an abortion in that state. The case reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in January 1973, by a vote of seven to two, in favor of McCorvey, relying on the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing privacy (one of its weaknesses). Planned Parenthood vs Casey It ended with 5 votes to 4. On this second review, which comes nearly half a century later, at the moment it appears that five votes against biting.

McCorvey was unable to benefit from the fruits of her struggle: she gave birth to the girl in June 1970 and gave her up for adoption. Under the pseudonym he denounced, Jane rode, She became a symbol of the struggle for women’s reproductive rights in the United States, although she later changed her mind and became a convinced anti-abortion. This decision constitutionally guaranteed the right to interrupt the pregnancy until the twenty-third week, when the safety of the fetus is established. The case that brought the debate to the Supreme Court comes from a challenge to a Mississippi law that intends to push those limits up to 15 weeks.

“On many other occasions, this Court has overturned important constitutional decisions…” says Alito’s well-known text on Monday. “Without these resolutions, it would not be possible to recognize American constitutional law as we know it, and this would be a different country.” What seems clear is that if the sentence cooked up at the top finally confirms what the draft has to offer, the United States will change again, in a profound way, half a century later.

Subscribe here To the “Newsletter” of EL PAÍS America and receive all the keys of information for the current situation in the region.