# data[].attributes.body
- Different types of courts
- Election process
- Government's responsibility
- Propositions
- Constitution
- Preamble
- What each branch consists of
- Laws
- Everything that should be known!!

# data[].attributes.body
- The government is a group of citizens who are elected to represent our country throughout the three distinct branches
- The government is not something to mess around with especially when dealing with national affairs
- 3 BRANCHES
- President's powers are limited
- The Congress is the only government body that can declare war

# data[].attributes.headline
Senate Confirms Barrett, Delivering for Trump and Reshaping the Court

# data[].attributes.subject
Senate Confirms Barrett, Delivering for Trump and Reshaping the Court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The vote capped a brazen feat for Republicans, who pushed through a Supreme Court nominee in little more than five weeks with the election looming.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett will be the 115th justice of the Supreme Court and the fifth woman ever to sit on its bench. Credit... Erin Schaff/The New York Times

WASHINGTON - Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative appeals court judge and protégée of former Justice Antonin Scalia, was confirmed on Monday to the Supreme Court, capping a lightning-fast Senate approval that handed President Trump a victory ahead of the election and promised to tip the court to the right for years to come.

Inside a Capitol mostly emptied by the resurgent coronavirus pandemic and an election looming in eight days, Republicans overcame unanimous opposition by Democrats to make Judge Barrett the 115th justice of the Supreme Court and the fifth woman ever to sit on its bench. In a 52-to-48 vote, all but one Republican, Susan Collins of Maine, who herself is battling for re-election, supported her.

It was the first time in 151 years that a justice was confirmed without a single vote from the minority party, a sign of how bitter Washington's decades-old war over judicial nominations has become. The vote concluded a brazen drive by Republicans, who moved to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just six weeks before the election. They shredded their own past pronouncements and bypassed rules in the process, even as they stared down the potential loss of the White House and the Senate.

Democrats called it a hypocritical power grab by Republicans who should have waited for voters to have their say on Election Day. They warned of a disastrous precedent that would draw retaliation should they win power, and in a last-ditch act of protest, they unsuccessfully tried to force the Senate to adjourn.

Republicans said it was their right as the majority party and exulted in their win. With Judge Barrett's elevation in place of Justice Ginsburg, a liberal icon, the court is expected to tilt decisively to the right. It is gaining a conservative who could sway cases in every area of American life, including abortion rights, gay rights, business regulation and the environment.

Her impact could be felt right away. There are major election disputes awaiting immediate action by the Supreme Court from the battleground states of North Carolina and Pennsylvania. Both concern the date by which absentee ballots may be accepted.

Soon after, Judge Barrett will quickly confront a docket studded with major cases on Mr. Trump's programs and policies, not to mention a potential challenge to the election results that the president had cited as a reason he needed a full complement of justices before Nov. 3. Coming up quickly are challenges related to the Affordable Care Act, signature Trump administration immigration plans, the rights of same-sex couples and the census.

The court is also slated to act soon on a last-ditch attempt from Mr. Trump's personal lawyers to block the release of his financial records to a grand jury in Manhattan.

Image

Signs at a Trump rally last month in Minnesota in support of Judge Barrett's confirmation. Credit... Erin Schaff/The New York Times

No Supreme Court justice is a certain vote, and Judge Barrett pledged during her confirmation hearings to be an independent mind. But she is widely viewed by both parties as a judge in the mold of Justice Scalia, her mentor, who would rule consistently in favor of conservative positions.

Neither her academic writing nor her relatively brief three-year stint on a federal appeals court provides strong evidence of how she would approach the wide array of cases that will come before her. She gave little hint during her hearings of how she regards any major issue, but she did earlier criticize Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. for voting to uphold the Affordable Care Act, and she once signed onto an ad calling for overturning Roe v. Wade and its "barbaric legacy." It is a good bet that she will be among the court's most conservative justices, probably to the right of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

A jubilant White House planned to hold a swearing-in event shortly after the vote on Monday night to try to bolster to the president's flagging re-election campaign. Justice Clarence Thomas was expected to administer the oath of office. To hold the event at all was a remarkable choice after a similar one announcing the nominee one month ago to the day turned into a coronavirus superspreader event.

It was a confirmation saga that might never have materialized had Justice Ginsburg, 87, who had been determined to stay on the court rather than be replaced with a justice of Mr. Trump's choosing, not died. Before she did, she had told her granddaughter she wanted a new president to install her successor - a deathbed wish that Republicans made clear they had no intention of honoring.

On Monday, Republicans had profound reasons to celebrate. Judge Barrett, 48, was Mr. Trump's third nominee to the Supreme Court, but arrayed beneath her were 162 new district court judges and 53 appeals court judges who have been installed by Republicans over the past four years, roughly a third of the entire federal appellate bench. Together, they could hold broad sway over American law and policy long after Mr. Trump leaves office.

"The reason this outcome came about is because we had a series of successful elections," said Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, who was the architect of the strategy. "What this administration and this Republican Senate has done is exercise the power that was given to us by the American people in a manner that is entirely within the rules of the Senate and the Constitution of the United States."

Democrats sought to churn up a storm of outrage that they hoped would help sweep Republicans out of power and could set the stage for their own majority should it come to be.

Citing Judge Barrett's academic writings and decisions from the appeals court bench, they argued that she would pose an immediate threat to the Affordable Care Act in the middle of a national health crisis, and that she would upend abortion rights and other popular freedoms enjoyed by Americans.

Taking aim directly at Republican senators, they warned that the decision to rush ahead with the election-season confirmation four years after denying a vote to Judge Merrick B. Garland, President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, under similar circumstances would come to haunt them.

"You may win this vote, and Amy Coney Barrett may become the next associate justice of the Supreme Court," said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader. "But you will never, never get your credibility back. And the next time the American people give Democrats a majority in this chamber, you will have forfeited the right to tell us how to run that majority."

Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, has made confirming federal judges a priority throughout the Trump administration. Credit... Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times

Republicans claimed the circumstances were different this time because they control both the White House and the Senate. But if Democrats did reclaim power, the right-tilting courts could prove a powerful and frustrating check on their legislative agenda. That prospect, and Democrats' fury over Republicans' hardball tactics since 2016, were fueling a drive by the party's left flank to seriously consider eliminating the last remaining vestige of minority rights in the Senate, the legislative filibuster. They could then proceed to expand the size of the Supreme Court to install liberal justices.

Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the Democratic presidential nominee, and leaders in the Senate have declined to discuss plans that could amount to a significant and potentially destabilizing escalation in the fight over the judicial branch. But on Monday, even some more moderate senators hinted that the path was open before them if they needed to take it.

"They expect that they're going to be able to break the rules with impunity, and when the shoe maybe is on the other foot, nothing's going to happen," Senator Angus King, independent of Maine, who votes with Democrats, said of the Republicans. "One of the things that's amazed me since I've come here is how people feel they can do things to one another and never have it have any consequences, never have it come back on them."

The battle to replace Justice Ginsburg, a champion of women's rights and an heroine of the progressive left, always promised to be combustible in a Senate worn raw by earlier fights. But the timing turned up the heat considerably: Never before in American history had a justice been confirmed so soon before a presidential election.

The contest loomed over - and at times eclipsed - the nomination, as both sides sought to eke out an advantage from the struggle over the court seat. A handful of Republicans, led by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, were hoping their roles in achieving a major conservative victory would be enough to pull them across the finish line of competitive races.

But for all of the partisan fighting, the confirmation process played out with remarkably little drama. Republicans quickly coalesced around filling the seat, regardless of whom Mr. Trump nominated, and that left Democrats with very little to do but turn to dilatory tactics and make their case to voters. So rich was the prize that Republicans quickly reversed statements from 2016 and 2020 pledging not to fill an election-year seat until the voters had a say.

Supporters of Judge Barrett and people protesting against her outside of the Supreme Court this month. Credit... Hilary Swift for The New York Times

Judge Barrett's qualifications were really never in question, though she had less experience than some of her recent predecessors. But in three days of confirmation hearings, she managed to reveal vanishingly little about how she might look at or rule on matters of public interest before the court.

"Judge Barrett may have established herself as the Babe Ruth of saying pretty much nothing," Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, said on Monday.

Like five other justices, Judge Barrett is Catholic. She has said her faith is central to her identity, and before she joined the appeals court bench, she signed onto statements advocating the repeal of Roe v. Wade and its "barbaric legacy." But in other ways, she breaks the court's mold. A Notre Dame alumna, she will be the only justice who did not graduate from Harvard or Yale. She also has seven children, two of whom were adopted.

After playing down its implications during the hearings, some Republicans openly celebrated her anti-abortion rights stance on Monday.

"The nomination of Amy Coney Barrett is truly historic," said Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of Missouri. "This is the most openly pro-life judicial nominee to the Supreme Court in my lifetime. This is an individual who has been open in her criticism of that illegitimate decision, Roe v. Wade."

By the time senators gathered on Monday night for the final vote, many were exhausted from a debate that had lasted through Sunday night into Monday and from jetting back and forth between Washington and the campaign trail.

Vice President Mike Pence had planned to preside over the vote, but after five of his close aides tested positive for the coronavirus, senators pleaded with him to steer clear of the chamber, which he did.

Ms. Collins framed her decision this time as a matter of principle. Republicans set a standard in 2016 by not confirming a nominee in an election year and should do the same now, she argued. She is trailing in a race in a liberal-leaning state in part because of her constituents' fury at her vote for Justice Kavanaugh, Mr. Trump's last nominee.

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, another Republican swing vote, made a similar argument, but ultimately voted to confirm Judge Barrett.

Adam Liptak contributed reporting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Senate Confirms Barrett, Delivering for Trump and Reshaping the Court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The vote capped a brazen feat for Republicans, who pushed through a Supreme Court nominee in little more than five weeks with the election looming.

# data[].attributes.body
Absentee polling will be so high that there will be an immense administrative burden on the operation. The stresses this brings on a mechanism that is trying to turn into voting by mail, practically overnight. Whether early or on election day, voting in person will ease the pressure on the absentee process, absentee ballots are more difficult to handle and will be easier to refuse at much higher rates than those cast in person. Officials must decide whether the signature on the ballot's envelope corresponds to the registration file of the elector and whether the ballot complies with other procedural requirements, which make the counting of votes longer. It's better to make an error in your mail.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Voter engagement in the presidential election remains quite high. And interest and motivation to vote is equally strong among registered voters who support Donald Trump and those who favor Joe Biden.

On three measures of interest in the campaign and voting, there are no significant differences between Trump and Biden supporters.

Roughly seven-in-ten Trump supporters (71%) say they have given "a lot" of thought to the candidates, identical to the share of Biden supporters (71%) who say this.

Similarly, 80% of Trump supporters and 81% of Biden supporters say it really matters who wins.

A large majority of all registered voters (69%) say they are extremely motivated to vote in the presidential election; another 18% say they are very motivated to vote while 8% say they are somewhat motivated. Just 5% of registered voters say they are not too motivated or not at all motivated to vote in the presidential election.

The shares of Trump and Biden supporters who say they are extremely motivated to vote also are strikingly similar: 71% of Trump supporters and 72% of Biden supporters say they are extremely motivated to cast ballots.

However, as in past elections, there are demographic differences in the shares expressing strong interest in voting. To some extent, these differences are seen in both electoral coalitions.

Young voters overall are less likely than older voters to say they are extremely motivated to vote in the presidential election. Only about half of registered voters ages 18 to 34 (52%) say they are extremely motivated to vote, compared with much larger shares of voters in older age categories.

Nearly equal shares of Trump (54%) and Biden supporters (56%) ages 18 to 34 say they are extremely motivated to vote. The shares expressing this view increase with age among both candidates' supporters; roughly eight-in-ten Biden (83%) and Trump supporters (79%) ages 65 and older say they are extremely motivated.

About three-quarters of White voters (73%) say they are extremely motivated to vote, compared with 63% of Black voters and 54% of both Hispanic voters and Asian American voters (54%).

These racial and ethnic differences are seen among Biden supporters: While 79% of White Biden supporters say they are extremely motivated to vote, smaller majorities of Black (67%) and Hispanic (57%) voters who back Biden say the same.

Among voters overall, those with higher levels of formal education are more likely than those with less education to say they have a strong desire to vote. But these differences are much more pronounced among Biden than Trump supporters. For example, there is a 23 percentage point gap in the shares of Biden supporters with postgraduate degrees (84%) and those with no more than a high school education (61%) who say they are extremely motivated to vote. Among Trump supporters, there is just a 5-point difference between postgraduates and those with more than a high school degree.

Overall, registered voters report slightly higher levels of motivation to vote in battleground states (71% extremely motivated) than in either red or blue states (68% extremely motivated). In the battleground states, there is little difference in voter enthusiasm between the two camps, with 75% of Biden supporters and 71% of Trump supporters saying they are extremely motivated to vote.

Trump and Biden supporters differ on how they plan to vote

The vast majority of voters (90%) say they plan to vote in the coming month, while 7% say they have already cast their ballot for president. About four-in-ten registered voters (39%) say they plan to cast their vote by absentee or mail-in ballot this year (or already have done so), compared with 33% who say they plan to vote in person on Nov. 3, and 21% who have voted in person or plan to vote in person at an early voting location before Election Day.

Trump supporters are more than twice as likely as Biden supporters to say they plan to vote in person on Election Day (50% vs. 20%). By contrast, 51% of Biden supporters say they plan to vote by mail or absentee (or have already voted this way). A quarter of Trump supporters (25%) say they plan to vote by mail or absentee.

In August, before general election voting had begun in any state, 60% of Trump supporters said they would prefer to vote in person on Election Day, compared with 17% who preferred to vote by mail. Among Biden supporters, 23% said they preferred to vote in person on Election Day and 58% said they preferred to vote by absentee or mail-in ballot.

Among all registered voters, 6% say that this year is the first election year in which they are voting.

Despite ongoing concerns about the U.S. Postal Service's ability to deliver ballots in a timely manner this fall, nearly half of those voting by mail or casting an absentee ballot (49%) say they intend to return their ballots by mail or have already returned their ballot by mailing it in.

About three-in-ten (31%) of those voting by absentee or mail-in ballot have returned or plan to return their ballot to a designated drop box, and 13% have returned their ballot to an election official or poll worker or plan to return their ballot this way.

The shares of Trump supporters and Biden supporters who plan to return an absentee or mail-in ballot by mail are nearly identical, though Biden supporters are slightly more likely to say they plan to return their ballot to a drop box than Trump supporters.

The methods by which voters have cast their votes or plan to cast their votes vary by age and race and ethnicity in addition to candidate preference.

Voters age 65 and older are more likely than those in other age groups to say they have or will cast their vote by absentee or mail-in ballot, with 47% of those 65 and older saying this. That compares with 41% of younger voters (those ages 18 to 34) and about a third of those ages 35 to 64.

Across all age categories, Biden supporters are more likely than Trump supporters to say they have voted or will vote by absentee or mail-in ballot.

Among Biden supporters, White voters are 9 percentage points more likely than Hispanic voters to say they have voted or will vote by mail or absentee, and 21 points more likely than Black voters to say this.

These differences can be partly explained by the fact that Black voters are more likely to live in states with stricter requirements for voting by mail. However, differences persist even after accounting for the geographic distribution of voters.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mail-in voting, absentee ballots and voter engagement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Voter engagement in the presidential election remains quite high. And interest and motivation to vote is equally strong among registered voters who support Donald Trump and those who favor Joe Biden. On three measures of interest in the campaign and voting, there are no significant differences between Trump and Biden supporters.

# data[].attributes.headline
Absentee ballots will be critical this fall. But in-person voting is even more essential.

# data[].attributes.subject
Absentee ballots will be critical this fall. But in-person voting is even more essential.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
People at the polling station at the Kentucky Exposition Center in Louisville on Tuesday. It was the only polling location in Jefferson County, home to some 767,000 people. (Brett Carlsen/Getty Images)

Richard H. Pildes is professor of constitutional law at New York University School of Law and is co-author of "The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process."

As the long lines in recent primary elections show, the desire to vote in person - even during the coronavirus pandemic - remains high. While election officials prepare for unprecedented levels of absentee voting in November, they must also avoid mistakes that undermine the capacity for in-person voting. Indeed, as long as in-person voting can be made reasonably safe and efficient, we should take every step to assure voters they have an in-person voting option - and to encourage them to use it. Failing to do so could lead to major problems.

Tasking election officials with preparing for high levels of absentee voting, while also ensuring capacity for strong in-person voting, is a tall order. They will be tempted to push people into the absentee process and to underinvest in in-person voting, as has happened in several primaries over the last few weeks. Yet, four reasons make in-person voting even more essential this fall.

First, precisely because levels of absentee voting will be so high, that process will face tremendous logistical pressure. Moreover, all states - as well as the U.S. Postal Service - will be experiencing this surge simultaneously. Even with recent, lower-turnout primary elections in individual states, we have witnessed the strains this puts on a system struggling to convert, virtually overnight, into voting by mail. Requested absentee ballots do not arrive; others are not returned until too late to be counted. In a close election, such logistical and administrative failings could become explosive. Voting in person, whether early or on Election Day, will relieve pressure on the absentee process - and be a critical fallback option as problems arise.

Second, absentee ballots are more complex to process and are rejected at much higher rates than ballots cast in person ( 3 to 10 percent in recent elections). Voters must remember to sign their name on the ballot envelope; in some states, that signature must be witnessed or notarized. Processing these ballots is also more difficult. Officials must determine whether the signature on the ballot envelope matches the voter's registration file and whether the ballot complies with other procedural requirements.

Voters who make a mistake on their ballot envelope should be given an opportunity to fix it. Though a low rejection rate might be tolerable when a small share of the vote is cast by absentee ballots, it is not when half to three-fourths of votes are cast this way. Yet correcting those mistakes adds more delay and increases the burdens on the system. When voting in person, mistakes can often be corrected on site; optical-scan machines will immediately tell a voter whether they have accidentally voted twice in the same race.

Third, a significant percentage of voters - historically, minority communities and younger voters; more recently, Republicans - simply do not trust that their votes will be counted fairly if mailed in.

All this is prelude, however, to the final and most important reason in-person voting should be encouraged. Even if absentee voting proceeds smoothly, a massive surge in mail-in ballots means hundreds of thousands of votes will not be counted until days after Election Day. Two weeks after its June 2 primaries, Pennsylvania was still counting absentee ballots. That experience creates one of the greatest risks to ensuring an election outcome widely accepted as legitimate this fall. If one candidate is ahead in key states on the night of the election, but loses those leads - and the race - over the course of the following week, charges of a stolen election will inevitably erupt.

To protect the capacity for in-person voting and also make it safe, here are a few suggestions: One-third of people vote at schools, yet many schools are, understandably, banning outsiders this fall. All states should make Election Day a school holiday, which would also enable teachers and staff to serve as poll workers. To replace locations likely to be unavailable, such as firehouses or senior centers, venues such as big-box retail stores can be turned into polling places. To substitute for the large share of poll workers who are seniors, we need a major effort to recruit poll workers from the ranks of students and others less vulnerable to covid-19 infection. Poll workers must be provided with the necessary equipment to protect themselves and continuously sanitize polling places. Early voting opportunities should be expanded.

If Congress's contribution is focused on providing funding to enable in-person voting, bipartisan support might be possible. In Kentucky, a coalition of Republican legislators and minority voters sued, unsuccessfully, to force the state to open more in-person sites. Most importantly, election officials, as well as campaigns, must not suggest that absentee voting is the only safe way to vote; that will not only deluge the absentee process but also depress turnout among groups who only trust voting in person.

The more people who vote in person, the sooner the result will be known, the less the risk that the absentee process will collapse, and the lower the threat that the election will melt down. We must not lose sight of that danger, even as states rightly ramp up the absentee part of the election.

Donna F. Edwards: It doesn't matter which woman Joe Biden picks as his running mate

Paul Waldman: The mail-in ballots are coming from . . . inside the White House!

Matt Bai: What Democrats get wrong about the 2016 election

Marc A. Thiessen: Trump's concern about mail-in ballots is completely legitimate

Updated October 15, 2020

Election 2020: What to know
Follow live updates on the election here.
In the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, Democratic nominee Joe Biden leads President Trump, with 54 percent of likely voters favoring him vs. 42 percent for Trump.

How to vote: Find out the rules in your state. Some states have already started sending out mail ballots; see how to make sure yours counts. Absentee and mail ballots are two terms for the same thing, mostly used interchangeably. Barring a landslide, we may not have a result in the presidential election on Nov. 3. Are you running into voting problems? Let us know.

Electoral college map: Who actually votes, and who do they vote for? Explore how shifts in turnout and voting patterns for key demographic groups could affect the presidential race.
Policy: Where Biden and Trump stand on key issues defining the election.
Battlegrounds: These are the 50 political states of America. Dive into Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Arizona, Georgia, Texas and Ohio, and sign up for The Trailer and get more states, plus more news and insight from the trail, in your inbox three days a week.

Coming up: Trump and Biden are scheduled to debate one more time this fall; here's what to know about the 2020 presidential debates.
Show More Show Less
Today's Headlines

The most important news stories of the day, curated by Post editors and delivered every morning.

By signing up you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Absentee ballots will be critical this fall. But in-person voting is even more essential.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Richard H. Pildes is professor of constitutional law at New York University School of Law and is co-author of " The Law of Democracy: Legal Structure of the Political Process ." As the long lines in recent primary elections show, the desire to vote in person - even during the coronavirus pandemic - remains high.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme Court Rejects Republican Challenge to Pennsylvania Vote

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme Court Rejects Republican Challenge to Pennsylvania Vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a one-sentence order, the court refused to overturn election results that had already been certified and submitted.

A "Stop the Steal" rally on Tuesday outside the Supreme Court. Credit... Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused a long-shot request from Pennsylvania Republicans to overturn Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s victory in the state, delivering an unmistakable rebuke to President Trump in the forum on which he had pinned his hopes.

The Supreme Court's order was all of one sentence, and there were no noted dissents. But it was nonetheless a major setback for Mr. Trump and his allies, who have compiled an essentially unbroken losing streak in courts around the nation. They failed to attract even a whisper of dissent in the court's first ruling on a challenge to the outcome of the election.

The court now has three justices appointed by Mr. Trump, including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whose rushed confirmation in October was in large part propelled by the hope that she would vote with the president in election disputes. But there was no indication that she or the other Trump appointees were inclined to embrace last-minute arguments based on legal theories that election law scholars said ranged from the merely frivolous to the truly outlandish.

Mr. Trump and his Republican allies have lost about 50 challenges to the presidential election in the past five weeks, as judges in at least eight states have repeatedly rejected a litany of unproven claims - that mail-in ballots were improperly sent out, that absentee ballots were counted wrongly, that poll observers were not given proper access to the vote count and that foreign powers hacked into and manipulated voting machines.

Mr. Trump has not come close - even once - to overturning the results of a single state's election, let alone the results in at least three states that he would need to take a victory from Mr. Biden. And around the country, judges have started to express their frustration with his attempts to have the courts substitute their will for those of voters.

Last month, for instance, the federal appeals court in Philadelphia rejected a different challenge to the results in Pennsylvania in scathing terms.

"Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy," wrote Judge Stephanos Bibas, who was appointed to the court by Mr. Trump. "Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here."

"Voters, not lawyers, choose the president," Judge Bibas wrote. "Ballots, not briefs, decide elections."

On Friday, Justice Brian Hagedorn of the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued an even stronger statement in an opinion rejecting a Republican attempt to overturn that state's elections results. "Judicial acquiescence to such entreaties built on so flimsy a foundation would do indelible damage to every future election," he wrote. "This is a dangerous path we are being asked to tread."

On Tuesday night, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Pennsylvania case, the Arizona Supreme Court unanimously rejected a challenge to the vote in that state, saying it had failed "to present any evidence of 'misconduct,' 'illegal votes' or that the Biden electors 'did not in fact receive the highest number of votes for office,' let alone establish any degree of fraud or a sufficient error rate that would undermine the certainty of the election results."

In the Pennsylvania case, the justices said they would not block a ruling from the state's highest court that had rejected a challenge to the state's use of mail ballots on Nov. 3.

The request that the Supreme Court intercede had faced substantial legal hurdles since it was filed long after the enactment of a 2019 statute that allowed mailed ballots and was based on questions of state, rather than federal, law.

In late November, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs, led by Representative Mike Kelly, a Republican, on the first ground, saying they could have challenged the 2019 law allowing vote by mail for any reason more than a year ago.

"At the time this action was filed on Nov. 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 primary election and the November 2020 general election," the court said. "Petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim. Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from petitioners' failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory scheme, as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters."

The plaintiffs had asked the state court to nullify mailed ballots after the fact or to direct the state legislature to pick Pennsylvania's electors.

The filing in the U.S. Supreme Court took issue with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's interpretation of state law and sought an order telling state officials not to take further actions to certify the vote in Pennsylvania or "to nullify any such actions already taken" while the plaintiffs pursued an appeal.

The U.S. Supreme Court does not ordinarily second-guess such rulings.

In urging the justices not to intercede, lawyers for the state said the Republicans' requests were "an affront to constitutional democracy."

"Petitioners ask this court to undertake one of the most dramatic, disruptive invocations of judicial power in the history of the Republic," they wrote. "No court has ever issued an order nullifying a governor's certification of presidential election results."

They said there were four flaws in the challengers' arguments. In the U.S. Supreme Court, the challengers said the state law was at odds with federal constitutional provisions governing elections. But they had not squarely made that argument in their main filings in the state courts, and the Supreme Court does not ordinarily decide questions not first decided by a lower court.

Moreover, lawyers for the state wrote, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision turned on a question of state law. That "adequate and independent state-law ground" for the decision, they wrote, bars U.S. Supreme Court review.

They added that the challengers had not suffered the sort of concrete injury that would give them standing to sue and that the 2019 law was not at odds with the state Constitution.

Image

Election workers at the Philadelphia Convention Center, where ballots were being counted in November. Credit... Ruth Fremson/The New York Times

In any event, lawyers for the state wrote, the matter was moot, since the state's election results in favor of Mr. Biden have been certified and submitted. The challengers' remaining argument, they wrote, was that the Supreme Court should simply overturn the state's election results. That request, they wrote, was breathtaking and unconstitutional.

As the court was dismissing the Pennsylvania case on Tuesday, a second election case came before it, an audacious lawsuit filed directly in the court by Texas against four other states. It asked the justices to extend the Dec. 14 deadline for certification of presidential electors.

The suit, filed by Texas's attorney general, Ken Paxton, said Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin had engaged in election irregularities that require investigation, and it asked the court to "enjoin the use of unlawful election results without review and ratification by the defendant states' legislatures."

Legal experts called the suit preposterous. "It looks like we have a new leader in the 'craziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election' category," Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, wrote on Twitter.

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court "original jurisdiction" to hear disputes "in which a state shall be party." In such cases, the Supreme Court acts much like a trial court, appointing a special master to hear evidence and issue recommendations. Though the Constitution seems to require the court to hear cases brought by states, the court has ruled that it has discretion to turn them down and often does.

When the court does exercise its original jurisdiction, it is usually to adjudicate disputes between two states over issues like water rights. In 2016, the justices turned down a request from Nebraska and Oklahoma to file a challenge to Colorado's legalization of recreational marijuana. The states said the Colorado law had spillover effects, taxing neighboring states' criminal justice systems and hurting the health of their residents.

Texas asked the justices to put its case on an exceptionally fast track. The court did not adopt the state's proposed schedule but did call for responses by Thursday.

In a blog post, Richard L. Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, called the Texas filing a "press release masquerading as a lawsuit."

Alan Feuer contributed reporting from New York.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court Rejects Republican Challenge to Pennsylvania Vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a one-sentence order, the court refused to overturn election results that had already been certified and submitted. WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused a long-shot request from Pennsylvania Republicans to overturn Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s victory in the state, delivering an unmistakable rebuke to President Trump in the forum on which he had pinned his hopes.

# data[].attributes.body
The Court is responsible for ensuring that the American people have a right of equal rights under the law and as such, also serve as representatives and interpreters of the Constitution. Judges must be impartial and strive to properly interpret the meaning, significance, and implications of the law. The justices decide what cases to hear and how to vote on the cases they have heard. Nominating a justice to the USSC would be beneficial because of their experience and their background. Determining a Supreme Court Justice is important because one has to be fair, know the law, and ensure the right doing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald Trump is the President of the United States and is a candidate in the 2020 US presidential election. Find out more about his bio and key issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read the latest streaming news and analysis on Joe BIden and the 2020 Presidential Election. Follow today's top polls, candidates, primaries, fundraising, debates and more with POLITICO.

# data[].attributes.body
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus."

# data[].attributes.body
Catfishing is pretending to be someone else to gain something out of the person they're communicating with. It should be illegal because, technically, it is a fraud. If someone were to catfish, I would sincerely upset due to the emotion and fear of it happening again. People can steal your information or any type by catfishing or scamming.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Cherry Wilson
BBC News

Anna Rowe had a whirlwind romance with Antony Ray after meeting him through the dating app Tinder.

But their 14-month relationship came crashing down when she discovered his profile was a fake.

His name was not Antony and he was not single.

In fact, he was a married dad who had initially used photos of a Bollywood actor on his profile and had lured in other women too.

"He used me like a hotel with benefits under the disguise of a romantic, loving relationship that he knew I craved," says Anna.

The practice of using a fake profile to start an online romance is known as "catfishing".

But how serious is catfishing and is it practical to make it a crime?

There were 3,889 victims of so-called romance fraud last year, who handed over a record £39m.

It has become so prevalent, that it led to the creation of reality TV show Catfish - which is dedicated to helping victims learn the true identity of their online romances.

Currently catfishing is not illegal but elements of the activity could be covered by different parts of the law.

If a victim hands over money, the "catfish" could be prosecuted for fraud.

Someone using a fake profile to post offensive messages or doctored images designed to humiliate could also face criminal action.

'Premeditated'

But Anna thinks the law needs to go further.

Writing on her petition, she said: "I did not or would not consent to have a sexual relationship with a married man, let alone a man who was actively having relations with multiple women simultaneously.

"His behaviour was definitely premeditated showing his intent to use women, yet the current law will not find his actions a criminal offence."

Tony Neate, chief executive of Get Safe Online, recognises the devastating impact catfishing can have on victims.

"It can ruin a life. I know there have been suicides because it's affected someone badly," he says.

"It can affect their mental stability and lead to depression and the victims feel they can't trust anyone again.

"I do think we need to look more wisely at this in relation to how it is tackled at the moment."

Built-in screening system

Mr Neate, a former police officer, says there should be a "discussion" about punishing the worst catfishing offenders.

But he raises concerns about how practical a new law would be to implement.

"I really feel for that poor woman [Anna] but we have got to be realistic on how far we got and how the police would be able to enforce it," he says.

"Let's have the discussion because we can't have people being hurt and it's something we have got to look at."

Many dating websites offer users advice on how to spot a scammer and tips to avoid being taken in by a fake profile. (See "Tips to avoid catfishes", below)

Popular dating site Match.com has a team which will remove unwanted accounts and check photos and personal ads.

It also has a built-in screening system that can help identify suspicious accounts, remove them and prevent re-registration.

Lovestruck has a verification service that can confirm members are single and professional by checking their profiles against their other social media sites.

'Genuine reasons'

But the advice has not stopped many people being duped.

But Andrew McClelland, chief executive of the Online Dating Association - the trade body for the industry - believes legislating against catfishing would be "difficult".

He said there could be genuine reasons why someone might not use their real details online - for example if they had been in an abusive relationship and did not want their ex-partner to find them.

Data protection and freedom of expression would also be an issue when it came to enforcing such a law, he added.

"The biggest problem this faces is how do you legislate against someone lying?" says Mr McClelland.

Tips to avoid catfishes

Ask lots of questions. Do not simply rely on the information given in someone's online profile

Search. Use the internet as a tool to search elsewhere for information and the social media accounts of the person you are chatting to

Speak to friends and family. Be guided by others on whether the profile appears genuine

Chat on the dating site. Avoid giving out your personal number or email before really getting to know someone

Never give out money. If someone asks for money on a dating website, do not send it to them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Cherry Wilson BBC News Anna Rowe had a whirlwind romance with Antony Ray after meeting him through the dating app Tinder. But their 14-month relationship came crashing down when she discovered his profile was a fake. His name was not Antony and he was not single.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abortion is legal throughout the United States and its territories, although restrictions and accessibility vary from state to state. Abortion is a controversial and divisive issue in the society, culture and politics of the U.S., and various anti-abortion laws have been in force in each state since at least 1900. The Democratic Party has generally defended access to abortion, whereas the Republican Party has generally sought to restrict abortion access or criminalize abortion.

Before the Supreme Court of the United States decisions of and Doe v. Bolton decriminalized abortion nationwide in 1973, abortion was already legal in several states, but the decision in the former case imposed a uniform framework for state legislation on the subject. It established a minimal period during which abortion is legal (with more or fewer restrictions throughout the pregnancy). That basic framework, modified in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), remains nominally in place, although the effective availability of abortion varies significantly from state to state, as many counties have no abortion providers. Planned Parenthood v. Casey held that a law cannot place legal restrictions imposing an undue burden for "the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus."

The abortion rate has continuously fallen from a peak in 1980 of 30 per 1,000 women of childbearing age (15-44), to 12 per 1,000 by 2016. In 2016, 66% of abortions were performed at 8 weeks or less gestation, and 91% of abortions were performed at 13 weeks or less gestation.

The main actors in the abortion debate are often framed as pro-choice, believing that a woman is entitled to choose whether to continue her pregnancy, versus pro-life, believing that the fetus has a sacred right to live, though most Americans are found to agree with some positions of each side. A 2018 Gallup survey found the percentages of "pro-choice" or "pro-life" respondents were equal (at 48%), but more considered abortion morally wrong (48%) than morally acceptable (43%). The poll results also indicated that Americans harbor diverse and shifting opinions on the legal right to abortion. The survey found that 29% of respondents believed that abortion should be legal in all circumstances, 50% that it should be legal under some circumstances, and 20% that it should be illegal in all circumstances. As of 2007, polling results found that 34% of Americans were satisfied with abortion laws.

The abortion debate most commonly relates to the " induced abortion" of an embryo or fetus at some point in a pregnancy, which is also how the term is used in a legal sense. Some also use the term "elective abortion", which is used in relation to a claim to an unrestricted right of a woman to an abortion, whether or not she chooses to have one. The term elective abortion or voluntary abortion describes the interruption of pregnancy before viability at the request of the woman, but not for medical reasons.

In medical parlance, "abortion" can refer to either miscarriage or abortion until the fetus is viable. After viability, doctors call an abortion a "termination of pregnancy".

When the United States first became independent, most states applied English common law to abortion. This meant it was not permitted after quickening, or the start of fetal movements, usually felt 15-20 weeks after conception.

Abortion has existed in America since European colonization. The earliest settlers would often encourage abortions before the "quickening" stage in the pregnancy. There were many reasons given for this, including not having resources to bear children. It was not until the late 1800s[clarification needed ] when states began to make abortions illegal. One reason given for the legislation was that abortions had been performed with dangerous methods and were often surgical. Because of this, many states decided to forbid abortions. As technology advanced and abortion methods improved, abortions still remained illegal. Women would resort to illegal unsafe methods, also known as " back alley" abortions.

Abortions became illegal by statute in Britain in 1803 with Lord Ellenborough's Act. Various anti-abortion statutes that codified or expanded common law began to appear in the United States in the 1820s. In 1821, a Connecticut law targeted apothecaries who sold "poisons" to women for purposes of inducing an abortion, and New York made post-quickening abortions a felony and pre-quickening abortions a misdemeanor in 1829. Other legal scholars have pointed out that some of the early laws punished not only the doctor or abortionist, but also the woman who hired them.

A number of other factors likely played a role in the rise of anti-abortion laws. Physicians, who were the leading advocates of abortion criminalization laws, appear to have been motivated at least in part by advances in medical knowledge. Science had discovered that conception inaugurated a more or less continuous process of development, which would produce a new human being if uninterrupted. Quickening was found to be neither more nor less crucial in the process of gestation than any other step. Many physicians concluded that if society considered it unjustifiable to terminate pregnancy after the fetus had quickened, and if quickening was a relatively unimportant step in the gestation process, then it was just as wrong to terminate a pregnancy before quickening as after quickening. Ideologically, the Hippocratic Oath and the medical mentality of that age to defend the value of human life as an absolute played a significant role in molding opinions about abortion. Doctors were also influenced by practical reasons to advocate anti-abortion laws. For one, abortion providers tended to be untrained and not members of medical societies. In an age where the leading doctors in the nation were attempting to standardize the medical profession, these "irregulars" were considered a nuisance to public health. The more formalized medical profession disliked the "irregulars" because they were competition, often at a cheaper cost.

Despite campaigns to end the practice of abortion, abortifacient advertising was highly effective. Contemporary estimates of mid-19th century abortion rates suggest between 20% and 25% of all pregnancies in the United States during that era ended in abortion. This era saw a marked shift in those who were obtaining abortions. Before the start of the 19th century, most abortions were sought by unmarried women who had become pregnant out of wedlock. Out of 54 abortion cases published in American medical journals between 1839 and 1880, over half were sought by married women, and well over 60% of the married women already had at least one child. The sense that married women were now frequently obtaining abortions worried many conservative physicians, who were almost exclusively men. In the post-Civil War era, much of the blame was placed on the burgeoning women's rights movement.

Though the medical profession expressed hostility toward feminism, many feminists of the era were also opposed to abortion. In The Revolution, operated by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, an anonymous contributor signing "A" wrote in 1869 about the subject, arguing that instead of merely attempting to pass a law against abortion, the root cause must also be addressed. Simply passing an anti-abortion law would, the writer stated, "be only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains. [...] No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh! thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime." To many feminists of this era, abortion was regarded as an undesirable necessity forced upon women by thoughtless men. Even the "free love" wing of the feminist movement refused to advocate for abortion and treated the practice as an example of the hideous extremes to which modern marriage was driving women. Marital rape and the seduction of unmarried women were societal ills which feminists believed caused the need to abort, as men did not respect women's right to abstinence.

However, physicians remained the loudest voice in the anti-abortion debate, and they carried their agenda to state legislatures around the country, advocating not only anti-abortion laws, but also laws against birth control. This movement presaged the modern debate over women's body rights. A campaign was launched against the movement and the use and availability of contraceptives.

Criminalization of abortion accelerated from the late 1860s, through the efforts of concerned legislators, doctors, and the American Medical Association. In 1873, Anthony Comstock created the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, an institution dedicated to supervising the morality of the public. Later that year, Comstock successfully influenced the United States Congress to pass the Comstock Law, which made it illegal to deliver through the U.S. mail any "obscene, lewd, or lascivious" material. It also prohibited producing or publishing information pertaining to the procurement of abortion or the prevention of conception or venereal disease, even to medical students. The production, publication, importation, and distribution of such materials was suppressed under the Comstock Law as being obscene, and similar prohibitions were passed by 24 of the 37 states.

In 1900, abortion was a felony in every state. Some states included provisions allowing for abortion in limited circumstances, generally to protect the woman's life or to terminate pregnancies arising from rape or incest. Abortions continued to occur, however, and became increasingly available. The American Birth Control League was founded by Margaret Sanger in 1921; it would become Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942.

By the 1930s, licensed physicians performed an estimated 800,000 abortions a year.

One notable case dealt with a woman named Sherri Finkbine. Born in the area of Phoenix, Arizona, Sherri had 4 healthy children. However, during her pregnancy with her 5th child, she had found that the child might have severe deformities. Finkbine had been taking sleeping pills that contained a drug called Thalidomide which was also very popular in several countries. She had later learned that the drug was causing fetal deformities and she wanted to warn the general public. Finkbine strongly wanted an abortion, however the abortion laws of Arizona limited her decision. In Arizona, an abortion could only occur if the mother's life was in danger. She met with a reporter from The Arizona Republic and told her story. While Sherri Finkbine wanted to be kept anonymous, the reporter disregarded this idea. On August 18, 1962, Finkbine traveled to Sweden where she was able to obtain a legal abortion. It was also confirmed that the child would have been very much deformed. Sherri Finkbine's story marks a turning point for women as well as the history of abortion laws occurring in the United States. Sherri Finkbine, unlike many other women, was able to afford going overseas to have the abortion. However, many women seeking abortions may not be able to afford travel. In such cases, women may turn to illegal forms of abortion.[citation needed ]

In 1964, Gerri Santoro of Connecticut died trying to obtain an illegal abortion, and her photo became the symbol of an abortion-rights movement. Some women's rights activist groups developed their own skills to provide abortions to women who could not obtain them elsewhere. As an example, in Chicago, a group known as " Jane" operated a floating abortion clinic throughout much of the 1960s. Women seeking the procedure would call a designated number and be given instructions on how to find "Jane".

In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut struck down one of the remaining contraception Comstock laws in Connecticut and Massachusetts. However, Griswold only applied to marital relationships. Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extended its holding to unmarried persons as well. Following the Griswold case, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued a medical bulletin accepting a recommendation from six years earlier that clarified that "conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum"; and consequently birth control methods that prevented implantation became classified as contraceptives, not abortifacients.

In 1967, Colorado became the first state to decriminalize abortion in cases of rape, incest, or in which pregnancy would lead to permanent physical disability of the woman. Similar laws were passed in California, Oregon, and North Carolina. In 1970, Hawaii became the first state to legalize abortions on the request of the woman, and New York repealed its 1830 law and allowed abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy. Similar laws were soon passed in Alaska and Washington. In 1970, Washington held a referendum on legalizing early pregnancy abortions, becoming the first state to legalize abortion through a vote of the people. A law in Washington, D.C., which allowed abortion to protect the life or health of the woman, was challenged in the Supreme Court in 1971 in United States v. Vuitch. The court upheld the law, deeming that "health" meant "psychological and physical well-being", essentially allowing abortion in Washington, D. C. By the end of 1972, 13 states had a law similar to that of Colorado, while Mississippi allowed abortion in cases of rape or incest only and Alabama and Massachusetts allowed abortions only in cases where the woman's physical health was endangered. In order to obtain abortions during this period, women would often travel from a state where abortion was illegal to one where it was legal. The legal position prior to Roe v. Wade was that abortion was illegal in 30 states and legal under certain circumstances in 20 states.

In the late 1960s, a number of organizations were formed to mobilize opinion both against and for the legalization of abortion. In 1966, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops assigned Monsignor James T. McHugh to document efforts to reform abortion laws, and anti-abortion groups began forming in various states in 1967. In 1968, McHugh led an advisory group which became the National Right to Life Committee. The forerunner of the NARAL Pro-Choice America was formed in 1969 to oppose restrictions on abortion and expand access to abortion. Following Roe v. Wade, in late 1973, NARAL became the National Abortion Rights Action League.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, 30 states prohibited abortion without exception, 16 states banned abortion except in certain special circumstances (e.g., rape, incest, health threat to mother), 3 states allowed residents to obtain abortions, and New York allowed abortions generally. Early that year, on January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court in invalidated all of these laws, and set guidelines for the availability of abortion. Roe established that the right of privacy of a woman to obtain an abortion "must be considered against important state interests in regulation". Roe established a " trimester" (i.e., 12 week) threshold of state interest in the life of the fetus corresponding to its increasing "viability" (likelihood of survival outside the uterus) over the course of a pregnancy, such that states were prohibited from banning abortion early in pregnancy but allowed to impose increasing restrictions or outright bans later in pregnancy.

In deciding Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that a Texas statute forbidding abortion except when necessary to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional. The Court arrived at its decision by concluding that the issue of abortion and abortion rights falls under the right to privacy (in the sense of the right of a person not to be encroached by the state). In its opinion, it listed several landmark cases where the court had previously found a right to privacy implied by the Constitution. The Court did not recognize a right to abortion in all cases:

State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

The Court held that a right to privacy existed and included the right to have an abortion. The court found that a mother had a right to abortion until viability, a point to be determined by the abortion doctor. After viability a woman can obtain an abortion for health reasons, which the Court defined broadly to include psychological well-being.

A central issue in the Roe case (and in the wider abortion debate in general) is whether human life or personhood begins at conception, birth, or at some point in between. The Court declined to make an attempt at resolving this issue, noting: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Instead, it chose to point out that historically, under English and American common law and statutes, "the unborn have never been recognized ... as persons in the whole sense", and thus, the fetuses are not legally entitled to the protection afforded by the right to life specifically enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment. So, rather than asserting that human life begins at any specific point, the court simply declared that the State has a "compelling interest" in protecting "potential life" at the point of viability.

Under , state governments may not prohibit late terminations of pregnancy when "necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother", even if it would cause the demise of a viable fetus. This rule was clarified by the 1973 judicial decision Doe v. Bolton, which specifies "that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient". It is by this provision for the mother's mental health that women in the US legally choose abortion after viability when screenings reveal abnormalities that do not cause a baby to die shortly after birth.

In the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court abandoned Roe's strict trimester framework but maintained its central holding that women have a right to choose to have an abortion before viability. Roe had held that statutes regulating abortion must be subject to " strict scrutiny" - the traditional Supreme Court test for impositions upon fundamental Constitutional rights. Casey instead adopted the lower, undue burden standard for evaluating state abortion restrictions, but re-emphasized the right to abortion as grounded in the general sense of liberty and privacy protected under the constitution: "Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' The controlling word in the cases before us is 'liberty'."

The Supreme Court continues to grapple with cases on the subject. On April 18, 2007, it issued a ruling in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, involving a federal law entitled the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 which President George W. Bush had signed into law. The law banned intact dilation and extraction, which opponents of abortion rights referred to as "partial-birth abortion", and stipulated that anyone breaking the law would get a prison sentence up to 2.5 years. The United States Supreme Court upheld the 2003 ban by a narrow majority of 5-4, marking the first time the Court has allowed a ban on any type of abortion since 1973. The opinion, which came from justice Anthony Kennedy, was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and the two recent appointees, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.

In the case of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court in a 5-3 decision on June 27, 2016 swept away forms of state restrictions on the way abortion clinics can function. The Texas legislature enacted in 2013 restrictions on the delivery of abortions services that created an undue burden for women seeking an abortion by requiring abortion doctors to have difficult-to-obtain "admitting privileges" at a local hospital and by requiring clinics to have costly hospital-grade facilities. The Court struck down these two provisions "facially" from the law at issue -that is, the very words of the provisions were invalid, no matter how they might be applied in any practical situation. According to the Supreme Court, the task of judging whether a law puts an unconstitutional burden on a woman's right to abortion belongs with the courts, and not the legislatures.

The Supreme Court ruled similarly in June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo on June 29, 2020, in a 5-4 decision that a Louisiana state law, modeled after the Texas law at the center of Whole Woman's Health, was unconstitutional. Like Texas' law, the Louisiana law required certain measures for abortion clinics that, if having gone into effect, would have closed five of the six clinics in the state. The case in Louisiana was put on hold pending the result of Whole Woman's Health, and was retried based on the Supreme Court's decision. While the District Court ruled the law unconstitutional, the Fifth Circuit found that unlike the Texas law, the burden of the Louisiana law passed the tests outlined in Whole Woman's Health, and thus the law was constitutional. The Supreme Court issued an order to suspend enforcement of the law pending further review, and agreed to hear the case in full in October 2019. It was the first abortion-related case to be heard by President Donald Trump's appointees to the Court, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. The Supreme Court found the Louisiana law unconstitutional for the same reasons as the Texas one, reversing the Fifth Circuit. The judgement was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts who had dissented on Whole Woman's Health but joined in judgement as to upheld the court's respect for the past judgement in that case.

Current legal status

Since 1995, led by congressional Republicans, the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate have moved several times to pass measures banning the procedure of intact dilation and extraction, commonly known as partial birth abortion. Such measures passed twice by wide margins, but President Bill Clinton vetoed those bills in April 1996 and October 1997 on the grounds that they did not include health exceptions. Congressional supporters of the bill argue that a health exception would render the bill unenforceable, since the Doe v. Bolton decision defined "health" in vague terms, justifying any motive for obtaining an abortion. Congress was unsuccessful with subsequent attempts to override the vetoes.

The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 ("BAIPA") was enacted August 5, 2002 by an Act of Congress and signed into law by George W. Bush. It asserts the human rights of infants born after a failed attempt to induce abortion. A "born-alive infant" is specified as a "person, human being, child, individual". "Born alive" is defined as the complete expulsion of an infant at any stage of development that has a heartbeat, pulsation of the umbilical cord, breath, or voluntary muscle movement, no matter if the umbilical cord has been cut or if the expulsion of the infant was natural, induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

On October 2, 2003, with a vote of 281-142, the House approved the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act to ban partial-birth abortion, with an exemption in cases of fatal threats to the woman. Through this legislation, a doctor could face up to two years in prison and civil lawsuits for performing such a procedure. A woman undergoing the procedure could not be prosecuted under the measure. On October 21, 2003, the United States Senate passed the bill by a vote of 64-34, with a number of Democrats joining in support. The bill was signed by President George W. Bush on November 5, 2003, but a federal judge blocked its enforcement in several states just a few hours after it became public law. The Supreme Court upheld the nationwide ban on the procedure in the case Gonzales v. Carhart on April 18, 2007, signaling a substantial change in the Court's approach to abortion law. The 5-4 ruling said the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act does not conflict with previous decisions regarding abortion.

The current judicial interpretation of the U.S. Constitution regarding abortion, following the Supreme Court of the United States's 1973 landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, and subsequent companion decisions, is that abortion is legal but may be restricted by the states to varying degrees. States have passed laws to restrict late-term abortions, require parental notification for minors, and mandate the disclosure of abortion risk information to patients prior to the procedure.

The official report of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, issued in 1983 after extensive hearings on the Human Life Amendment (proposed by Senators Orrin Hatch and Thomas Eagleton), stated that

Thus, the [Judiciary] Committee observes that no significant legal barriers of any kind whatsoever exist today in the United States for a mother to obtain an abortion for any reason during any stage of her pregnancy.

One aspect of the legal abortion regime now in place has been determining when the fetus is " viable" outside the womb as a measure of when the "life" of the fetus is its own (and therefore subject to being protected by the state). In the majority opinion delivered by the court in Roe v. Wade, viability was defined as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks". When the court ruled in 1973, the then-current medical technology suggested that viability could occur as early as 24 weeks. Advances over the past three decades allow survival of some babies born at 22 weeks.

As of 2006, the youngest child to survive a premature birth in the United States was a girl born at Kapiolani Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii at 21 weeks and 3 days gestation. Because of the split between federal and state law, legal access to abortion continues to vary by state. Geographic availability varies dramatically, with 87 percent of U.S. counties having no abortion provider. Moreover, due to the Hyde Amendment, many state health programs do not cover abortions; currently 17 states (including California, Illinois and New York) offer or require such coverage.

The legality of abortion is frequently a major issue in nomination battles for the U.S. Supreme Court. Nominees typically remain silent on the issue during their hearings, as the issue may come before them as judges.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, commonly known as " Laci and Conner's Law" was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush on April 1, 2004, allowing two charges to be filed against someone who kills a pregnant mother (one for the mother and one for the fetus). It specifically bans charges against the mother and/or doctor relating to abortion procedures. Nevertheless, it has generated much controversy among pro-abortion rights advocates who view it as a potential step in the direction of banning abortion.

The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is a United States Congress bill to ban late-term abortions nationwide after 20 weeks post- fertilization on the basis that the fetus is capable of feeling pain during an abortion at and after that point of pregnancy. The bill was first introduced in Congress in 2013. It successfully passed the House of Representatives in 2013, 2015, and 2017, but has yet to pass the Senate. Opponents of the bill reject the claims made by the bill's supporters regarding fetal development, and argue that such a restriction would endanger women's health.

Abortion is legal in all U.S. states, and every state has at least one abortion clinic. Abortion is a controversial political issue, and regular attempts to restrict it occur in most states. Two such cases, originating in Texas and Louisiana, led to the Supreme Court cases of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) and June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo (2020) in which several Texas and Louisiana restrictions were struck down.

The issue of minors and abortion is regulated at the state level, and 37 states require some parental involvement, either in the form of parental consent or in the form of parental notification. In certain situations, the parental restrictions can be overridden by a court. Mandatory waiting periods, mandatory ultrasounds and scripted counseling are common abortion regulations. Abortion laws are generally stricter in a conservative Southern states than they are in other parts of the country.

In 2019, New York passed the Reproductive Health Act (RHA), which repealed a pre- Roe provision that banned third-trimester abortions except in cases where the continuation of the pregnancy endangered a pregnant woman's life.

Abortion in the Northern Mariana Islands, a United States Commonwealth territory, is illegal.

Alabama House Republicans passed a law on April 30, 2019 that will criminalize abortion if it goes into effect. Dubbed the " Human Life Protection Act", it offers only two exceptions: serious health risk to the mother or a lethal fetal anomaly. It will also make the procedure a Class A felony. Twenty-five male Alabama senators voted to pass the law on May 13. The next day, Alabama governor Kay Ivey signed the bill into law, primarily as a symbolic gesture in hopes of challenging Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.

Since Alabama introduced the first modern anti-abortion legislation in April 2019, five other states have also adopted abortion laws including Mississippi, Kentucky, Ohio, Georgia and most recently Louisiana on May 30, 2019.

In May 2019, the US Supreme Court upheld an Indiana state law that requires fetuses which were aborted be buried or cremated. In a December 2019 case, the court declined to review a lower court decision which upheld a Kentucky law requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and show fetal images to patients before abortions.

On June 29, 2020, previous Supreme Court rulings banning abortion restrictions appeared to be upheld when the U.S Supreme Court struck down the Louisiana anti-abortion law Following the ruling, the legality of laws restricting abortion in states such as Ohio was then called into question. It was also noted that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who agreed that the Louisiana anti-abortion law was unconstitutional, had previously voted uphold a similar law in Texas which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, anti-abortion government officials in several American states enacted or attempted to enact restrictions on abortion, characterizing it as a non-essential procedure that can be suspended during the medical emergency. The orders have led to several legal challenges and criticism by human rights groups and several national medical organizations, including the American Medical Association. Legal challenges on behalf of abortion providers, many of which are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and Planned Parenthood, have successfully stopped most of the orders on a temporary basis.

Qualifying requirements for performing abortions vary from state to state, and are currently being changed in several states by lawmakers who anticipate the possibility that may soon be overturned. Currently, New York, Illinois, and Maine allow non-physician health professionals, such as physicians' assistants, nurse practitioners, and certified nurse midwives, acting within their scope of practice, to perform abortion procedures; their laws do not explicitly specify which types of abortions these non-physicians may do. California, Oregon, Montana, Vermont, and New Hampshire allow qualified non-physician health professionals to do first-trimester aspiration abortions and to prescribe drugs for medical abortions. Washington State, New Mexico, Alaska, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey allow qualified non-physicians to prescribe drugs for medical abortions only. In all other states, only licensed physicians may perform abortions. In 2016, the FDA issued new guidelines recommending that qualified non-physician health-care professionals be allowed to prescribe mifepristone in all states; however, these guidelines are not binding, and states are free to determine their own policies regarding mifepristone.

Because reporting of abortions is not mandatory, statistics are of varying reliability. Both the Centers For Disease Control (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute regularly compile these statistics.

The annual number of legal induced abortions in the US doubled between 1973 and 1979, and peaked in 1990. There was a slow but steady decline throughout the 1990s. Overall, the number of annual abortions decreased by 6% between 2000 and 2009, with temporary spikes in 2002 and 2006.

By 2011, abortion rate in the nation dropped to its lowest point since the Supreme Court legalized the procedure. According to a study performed by Guttmacher Institute, long-acting contraceptive methods had a significant impact in reducing unwanted pregnancies. There were fewer than 17 abortions for every 1,000 women of child-bearing age. That was a 13%-decrease from 2008's numbers and slightly higher than the rate in 1973, when the Supreme Court's decision legalized abortion. The study indicated a long-term decline in the abortion rate.

A Guttmacher Institute survey of abortion providers estimated that early medical abortions accounted for 17% of all non-hospital abortions and slightly over one-quarter of abortions before 9 weeks gestation in the United States in 2008. Medical abortions voluntarily reported to the CDC by 34 reporting areas (excluding Alabama, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) and published in its annual abortion surveillance reports have increased every year since the September 28, 2000 FDA approval of mifepristone (RU-486): 1.0% in 2000, 2.9% in 2001, 5.2% in 2002, 7.9% in 2003, 9.3% in 2004, 9.9% in 2005, 10.6% in 2006, 13.1% in 2007, 15.8% in 2008, 17.1% in 2009 (25.2% of those at less than 9 weeks gestation). Medical abortions accounted for 32% of first-trimester abortions at Planned Parenthood clinics in 2008.

A majority of abortions are obtained by religiously identified women. According to the Guttmacher Institute, "more than 7 in 10 U.S. women obtaining an abortion report a religious affiliation (37% protestant, 28% Catholic, and 7% other), and 25% attend religious services at least once a month. The abortion rate for protestant women is 15 per 1,000 women, while Catholic women have a slightly higher rate, 20 per 1,000."

Abortion rates tend to be higher among minority women in the U.S. In 2000-2001, due to lower access to health care and contraception, the rates among black and Hispanic women were 49 per 1,000 and 33 per 1,000, respectively, vs. 13 per 1,000 among non-Hispanic white women. Note that this figure includes all women of reproductive age, including women that are not pregnant. In other words, these abortion rates reflect the rate at which U.S. women of reproductive age have an abortion each year.

In 2004, the rates of abortion by ethnicity in the U.S. were 50 abortions per 1,000 black women, 28 abortions per 1,000 Hispanic women, and 11 abortions per 1,000 white women.

A 1998 study revealed that in 1987 to 1988, women reported the following as their primary reasons for choosing an abortion:

The source of this information takes findings into account from 27 nations including the United States, and therefore, these findings may not be typical for any one nation.

Percentage
of women

Reasons contributing to a late abortion

71%

Woman did not recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation

48%

Woman had found it hard to make arrangements for an earlier abortion

33%

Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents

24%

Woman took time to decide to have an abortion

8%

Woman waited for her relationship to change

8%

Someone had earlier pressured woman not to have abortion

6%

Something changed some time after woman became pregnant

6%

Woman did not know timing is important

5%

Woman did not know she could get an abortion

2%

A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy

In 2000, cases of rape or incest accounted for 1% of abortions.

Percentage
of women

Reason for choosing to have an abortion

74%

Having a baby would dramatically change my life

73%

Cannot afford a baby now

48%

Do not want to be a single mother or having relationship problems

38%

Have completed my childbearing

32%

Not ready for another child

25%

Do not want people to know I had sex or got pregnant

22%

Do not feel mature enough to raise another child

14%

Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion

13%

Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus

12%

Concerns about my health

6%

Parents want me to have an abortion

less than .5%

Became pregnant as a result of incest

70% of all pregnancies among Black women were unintended

57% of all pregnancies among Hispanic women were unintended

42% of all pregnancies among White women were unintended

When women have abortions (by gestational age)

According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2011, most (64.5%) abortions were performed by ≤8 weeks' gestation, and nearly all (91.4%) were performed by ≤13 weeks' gestation. Few abortions (7.3%) were performed between 14 and 20 weeks' gestation or at ≥21 weeks' gestation (1.4%). From 2002 to 2011, the percentage of all abortions performed at ≤8 weeks' gestation increased 6%.

In the US, the risk of death from carrying a child to term is approximately 14 times greater than the risk of death from a legal abortion. The risk of abortion-related mortality increases with gestational age, but remains lower than that of childbirth through at least 21 weeks' gestation.

Americans have been equally divided on the issue; a May 2018 Gallup poll indicated that 48% of Americans described themselves as "pro-choice" and 48% described themselves as "pro-life".[citation needed ] A July 2018 poll indicated that 64% of Americans did not want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade, while 28% did. The same poll found that support for abortion being generally legal was 60% during the first trimester, dropping to 28% in the second trimester, and 13% in the third trimester.

Support for the legalization of abortion has been consistently higher among more educated adults than less educated, and in 2019, 70% of college graduates support abortion being legal in all or most cases, compared to 60% of those with some college, and 54% of those with a high school degree or less.

In January 2013, a majority of Americans believed abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a poll by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal. Approximately 70% of respondents in the same poll opposed Roe v. Wade being overturned. A poll by the Pew Research Center yielded similar results. Moreover, 48% of Republicans opposed overturning Roe, compared to 46% who supported overturning it.

Gallup declared in May 2010 that more Americans identifying as "pro-life" is "the new normal", while also noting that there had been no increase in opposition to abortion. It suggested that political polarization may have prompted more Republicans to call themselves "pro-life". The terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" do not always reflect a political view or fall along a binary; in one Public Religion Research Institute poll, seven in ten Americans described themselves as "pro-choice" while almost two-thirds described themselves as "pro-life". The same poll found that 56% of Americans were in favor of legal access to abortion in all or some cases.

Pew Research Center polling shows little change in views from 2008 to 2012; modest differences based on gender or age.
(The original article's table also shows by party affiliation, religion, and education level.)

Support for the legalization of abortion is significantly higher among more educated adults than less educated, and has been consistently so for decades. In 2019, 70% of college graduates support abortion being legal in all or most cases, as well as 60% of those with some college education, compared to 54% of those with a high school degree or less.

By gender, party, and region

A January 2003 CBS News/The New York Times poll examined whether Americans thought abortion should be legal or not, and found variations in opinion which depended upon party affiliation and the region of the country. The margin of error is +/- 4% for questions answered of the entire sample ("overall" figures) and may be higher for questions asked of subgroups (all other figures).

A CNN// Gallup poll in January 2003 asked about the legality of abortion by trimester, using the question, "Do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during each of the following stages of pregnancy?" This same question was also asked by Gallup in March 2000 and July 1996. Polls indicates general support of legal abortion during the first trimester, although support drops dramatically for abortion during the second and third trimester.

Since the 2011 poll, support for legal abortion during the first trimester has declined.

According to Gallup's long-time polling on abortion, the majority of Americans are neither strictly "pro-life" or "pro-choice"; it depends upon the circumstances of the pregnancy. Gallup polling from 1996 to 2009 consistently reveals that when asked the question, "Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?", Americans repeatedly answer 'legal only under certain circumstances'. According to the poll, in any given year 48-57% say legal only under certain circumstances (for 2009, 57%), 21-34% say legal under any circumstances (for 2009, 21%), and 13-19% illegal in all circumstances (for 2009, 18%), with 1-7% having no opinion (for 2009, 4%).

" Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?"

Legal under any circumstances

Legal only under certain circumstances

Illegal in all circumstances

No opinion

According to the aforementioned poll, Americans differ drastically based upon situation of the pregnancy, suggesting they do not support unconditional abortions. Based on two separate polls taken May 19-21, 2003, of 505 and 509 respondents respectively, Americans stated their approval for abortion under these various circumstances:

Another separate trio of polls taken by Gallup in 2003, 2000, and 1996, revealed public support for abortion as follows for the given criteria:

Gallup furthermore established public support for many issues supported by the anti-abortion community and opposed by the abortion rights community:

Permitted in all cases

Permitted, but subject to greater restrictions than it is now

Only in cases such as rape, incest, or to save the woman's life

Only permitted to save the woman's life

Never

Unsure

A June 2000 Los Angeles Times survey found that, although 57% of polltakers considered abortion to be murder, half of that 57% believed in allowing women access to abortion. The survey also found that, overall, 65% of respondents did not believe abortion should be legal after the first trimester, including 72% of women and 58% of men. Further, the survey found that 85% of Americans polled supported abortion in cases of risk to a woman's physical health, 54% if the woman's mental health was at risk, and 66% if a congenital abnormality was detected in the fetus.

A July 2002 Public Agenda poll found that 44% of men and 42% of women thought that "abortion should be generally available to those who want it", 34% of men and 35% of women thought that "abortion should be available, but under stricter than limits it is now", and 21% of men and 22% of women thought that "abortion should not be permitted".

A January 2003 ABC News/The Washington Post poll also examined attitudes towards abortion by gender. In answer to the question, "On the subject of abortion, do you think abortion should be legal in all cases, legal in most cases, illegal in most cases or illegal in all cases?", 25% of women responded that it should be legal in "all cases", 33% that it should be legal in "most cases", 23% that it should be illegal in "most cases", and 17% that it should be illegal in "all cases". 20% of men thought it should be legal in "all cases", 34% legal in "most cases", 27% illegal in "most cases", and 17% illegal in "all cases".

Most Fox News viewers favor both parental notification as well as parental consent, when a minor seeks an abortion. A Fox News poll in 2005 found that 78% of people favor a notification requirement, and 72% favor a consent requirement.

An April 2006 Harris poll on Roe v. Wade, asked, "In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that states' laws which made it illegal for a woman to have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy were unconstitutional, and that the decision on whether a woman should have an abortion up to three months of pregnancy should be left to the woman and her doctor to decide. In general, do you favor or oppose this part of the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal?", to which 49% of respondents indicated favor while 47% indicated opposition. The Harris organization has concluded from this poll that, "49 percent now support Roe vs. Wade".

Two polls were released in May 2007 asking Americans "With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?" May 4-6, a CNN poll found 45% said "pro-choice" and 50% said pro-life. Within the following week, a Gallup poll found 50% responding "pro-choice" and 44% pro-life.

In 2011, a poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute found that 43% of respondents identified themselves as both "pro-life" and "pro-choice".

"Partial birth abortion"

"Partial-Birth abortion" is nomenclature for a procedure called intact dilation and extraction generally used by those who oppose the procedure. A Rasmussen Reports poll four days after the Supreme Court's opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart found that 40% of respondents "knew the ruling allowed states to place some restrictions on specific abortion procedures." Of those who knew of the decision, 56% agreed with the decision and 32% were opposed. An ABC poll from 2003 found that 62% of respondents thought partial-birth abortion should be illegal; a similar number of respondents wanted an exception "if it would prevent a serious threat to the woman's health".

Gallup has repeatedly queried the American public on this issue, as seen on its Abortion page:

A law which would make it illegal to perform a specific abortion procedure conducted in the last six months (or second and/or third trimester) of pregnancy known by some opponents as a partial birth abortion, except in cases necessary to save the life of the mother

70%

63%

66%

64%

61%

61%

55%

57%

The abortion debate has also been extended to the question of who pays the medical costs of the procedure, with some states using the mechanism as a way of reducing the number of abortions. The cost of an abortion varies depending on factors such as location, facility, timing, and type of procedure. In 2005, a non-hospital abortion at 10 weeks' gestation ranged from $90 to $1,800 (average: $430), whereas an abortion at 20 weeks' gestation ranged from $350 to $4,520 (average: $1,260). Costs are higher for a medical abortion than a first-trimester surgical abortion.

The Hyde Amendment is a federal legislative provision barring the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions except for rape and incest. The provision, in various forms, was in response to , and has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976, and represented the first major legislative success by the pro-life movement. The law requires that states cover abortions under Medicaid in the event of rape, incest, and life endangerment. Based on the federal law:

32 states and D. C. fund abortions through Medicaid only in the cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. SD covers abortions only in the cases of life endangerment, which does not comply with federal requirements under the Hyde Amendment. IN, UT, and WI have expanded coverage to women whose physical health is jeopardized, and IA, MS, UT, and VA also include fetal abnormality cases.

17 states (AK, AZ, CA, CT, HI, IL, MD, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA, WV) use their own funds to cover all or most "medically necessary" abortions sought by low-income women under Medicaid, 12 of which are required by State court orders to do so.

5 states (ID, KY, MO, ND, OK) restrict insurance coverage of abortion services in private plans: OK limits coverage to life endangerment, rape or incest circumstances; and the other four states limit coverage to cases of life endangerment.

11 states (CO, KY, MA, MS, NE, ND, OH, PA, RI, SC, VA) restrict abortion coverage in insurance plans for public employees, with CO and KY restricting insurance coverage of abortion under any circumstances.

U.S. laws also ban federal funding of abortions for federal employees and their dependents, Native Americans covered by the Indian Health Service, military personnel and their dependents, and women with disabilities covered by Medicare.

Under this policy, US federal funding to NGOs that provide abortion is not permitted.

Though members of both major political parties come down on either side of the issue, the Republican Party is often seen as being anti-abortion, since the official party platform opposes abortion and considers unborn fetuses to have an inherent right to life. Republicans for Choice represents the minority of that party. In 2006, pollsters found that 9% of Republicans favor the availability of abortion in most circumstances. Of Republican National Convention delegates in 2004, 13% believed that abortion should be generally available, and 38% believed that it should not be permitted. The same poll showed that 17% of all Republican voters believed that abortion should be generally available to those who want it, while 38% believed that it should not be permitted.

The Democratic Party platform considers abortion to be a woman's right. Democrats for Life of America represents the minority of that party. In 2006, pollsters found that 74% of Democrats favor the availability of abortion in most circumstances. Of Democratic National Convention delegates in 2004, 75% believed that abortion should be generally available, and 2% believed that abortion should not be permitted. The same poll showed that 49% of all Democratic voters believed that abortion should be generally available to those who want it, while 13% believed that it should not be permitted.

The Green Party of the United States supports legal abortion as a woman's right.

The Libertarian Party platform (2012) states that "government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration". Abortion is a contentious issue among Libertarians, and the Maryland-based organization Libertarians for Life opposes the legality of abortion in most circumstances.

The issue of abortion has become deeply politicized: in 2002, 84% of state Democratic platforms supported the right to having an abortion while 88% of state Republican platforms opposed it. This divergence also led to Christian Right organizations like Christian Voice, Christian Coalition and Moral Majority having an increasingly strong role in the Republican Party. This opposition has been extended under the Foreign Assistance Act: in 1973 Jesse Helms introduced an amendment banning the use of aid money to promote abortion overseas, and in 1984 the Mexico City Policy prohibited financial support to any overseas organization that performed or promoted abortions. The "Mexico City Policy" was revoked by President Bill Clinton and subsequently reinstated by President George W. Bush. President Barack Obama overruled this policy by Executive Order on January 23, 2009,[citation needed ] and it was reinstated on January 23, 2017, by President Donald Trump.

The risk of death due to legal abortion has fallen considerably since legalization in 1973, due to increased physician skills, improved medical technology, and earlier termination of pregnancy. From 1940 through 1970, deaths of pregnant women during abortion fell from nearly 1,500 to a little over 100. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the number of women who died in 1972 from illegal abortion was thirty-nine.

The Roe effect is an hypothesis which suggests that since supporters of abortion rights cause the erosion of their own political base by having fewer children, the practice of abortion will eventually lead to the restriction or illegalization of abortion. The legalized abortion and crime effect is another controversial theory that posits legal abortion reduces crime, because unwanted children are more likely to become criminals.

Since Roe v. Wade, there have been numerous attempts to reverse the decision. In the 2011 election season, Mississippi placed an amendment on the ballot that redefine how the state viewed abortion. The personhood amendment defined personhood as "every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof". If passed, it would have been illegal to get an abortion in the state.

According to a 2019 study, if Roe v. Wade is reversed and abortion bans are implemented in trigger law states and states considered highly likely to ban abortion, "increases in travel distance are estimated to prevent 93,546 to 143,561 women from accessing abortion care."

Although it is uncommon, women sometimes give birth in spite of an attempted abortion. Reporting of livebirth after attempted abortion may not be consistent from state to state, but 38 were recorded in one study in upstate New York in the two-and-a-half years before Roe v. Wade. Under the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, medical staff must report live birth if they observe any breathing, heartbeat, umbilical cord pulsation, or confirmed voluntary muscle movement, regardless of whether the born-alive is non-viable ex utero in the long term because of birth defects, and regardless of gestational age, including gestational ages which are too early for long-term viability ex utero.

Notable cases

Becky Bell, an American teenage girl who died as a result of an unsafe abortion in 1988.

Gianna Jessen, an American woman who was born alive after an attempted saline abortion.

Sherri Finkbine, an actress who had difficulty seeking an abortion for her Thalidomide deformed baby.

Gerardo Flores, convicted in 2005 on two counts of capital murder for giving his girlfriend, who was carrying twins, an at-home abortion.

Rosie Jimenez, an American woman who died the first recorded death due to an illegal abortion after federal Medicaid funds for abortions were removed by the Hyde Amendment.

Gerri Santoro, an American woman who died because of an illegal abortion in 1964.

Reagan, Leslie J. (1997). When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and Law in the United States, 1867-1973. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-08848-4.

Rowland, Debran (2004). The Boundaries of Her Body: The Troubling History of Women's Rights in America. Naperville, Ill.: Sphinx Publishing. ISBN 1-57248-368-7.

Shimabukuro, Jon O. (December 7, 2018). "Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response" (PDF). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.

Weingarten, Karen (2014). Abortion in the American Imagination: Before Life and Choice, 1880-1940. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-6530-9.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abortion is legal throughout the United States and its territories, although restrictions and accessibility vary from state to state. Abortion is a controversial and divisive issue in the society, culture and politics of the U.S., and various anti-abortion laws have been in force in each state since at least 1900.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe the government is the people who make choices and think it meets the needs of everyone. I assume they are concerned with all the appropriate issues that need to be done so that our democracy can proceed. I think of the police and the authorities when I hear "government." I think about injustice because of everything that is happening in the world. Those who are involved can cause good and bad in our lives as well.  The image below reflects 'government' because it is a community of citizens who work together to make an informed decision about our state.

# data[].attributes.headline
Two people were hurt after an explosion at a West Virginia chemical plant

# data[].attributes.subject
Two people were hurt after an explosion at a West Virginia chemical plant

# data[].attributes.headline
A surfer was attacked and killed by a shark in Hawaii, forcing the suspension of a surfing competition

# data[].attributes.subject
A surfer was attacked and killed by a shark in Hawaii, forcing the suspension of a surfing competition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
a surfer was attacked and killed by a shark in hawaii

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
forcing the suspension of a surfing competition  - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A surfer was attacked and killed by a shark in Hawaii, forcing the suspension of a surfing competition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A surfer who was attacked by a shark in Hawaii on Tuesday has died, prompting the suspension a women's professional surfing competition in Honolua Bay.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Supreme Court was *never* going to hand the election to Donald Trump

# data[].attributes.subject
The Supreme Court was *never* going to hand the election to Donald Trump

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
the supreme court was *never* going to hand the election to donald trump - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Analysis: The Supreme Court was *never* going to hand the election to Donald Trump

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a single sentence, the Supreme Court on Tuesday unraveled Donald Trump's grand plan to overthrow the 2020 election.

# data[].attributes.headline
Vaccines on horizon as virus surges through Trump country. And the political debate is as heated as ever

# data[].attributes.subject
Vaccines on horizon as virus surges through Trump country. And the political debate is as heated as ever

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
vaccines on horizon as virus surges through trump country. and the political debate is as heated as ever - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Vaccines on horizon as virus surges through Trump country. And the political debate is as heated as ever

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For the new Covid vaccines to work well and control the spread of the disease, experts say, a lot of people have to use them. And that raises the question: As with masks, will vaccinations be viewed by many in political -- rather than public health -- terms? It looks like the answer already is yes for some.

# data[].attributes.headline
Threat of government shutdown looms amid holdups to spending bill vote

# data[].attributes.subject
Threat of government shutdown looms amid holdups to spending bill vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
threat of government shutdown looms amid holdups to spending bill vote  - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Threat of government shutdown looms amid holdups to spending bill vote

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Senate leaders are trying to resolve last minute objections to two must-pass bills, which could trigger a brief government shutdown, even as they struggle to reach critical deals on a new pandemic stimulus and a sweeping government funding package before the end of the year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Appreciate What You Have and Stop Comparing Yourself to Others

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If you want to start learning to appreciate what you have and stop wanting more, try these scientifically-proven strategies from psychologists.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
to grasp the nature, worth, quality, or significance of; to value or admire highly; to judge with heightened perception or understanding : be fully aware of… See the full definition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Food Insecurity? | Feeding America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hunger affects millions of people in America. Learn about the root causes of food insecurity and hunger in America and it's impacts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
United States v. Briggs is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 13, 2020, during the court's October 2020-2021 term. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. It was consolidated with United States v. Collins.

Oral argument for United States v. Briggs was initially scheduled for March 23, 2020, during the court's October 2019-2020 term. However, the U.S. Supreme Court announced on March 16 that it was postponing the 11 oral arguments originally scheduled during its March sitting. In a press release, the court said the delay was "in keeping with public health precautions recommended in response to COVID-19." COVID-19 is the abbreviation for coronavirus disease 2019, caused by SARS-CoV-2.

Click here for more information about the court's response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Click here for more information about political responses to the pandemic.

The case: Michael Briggs was found guilty of rape in 2014 in a general court-martial for an act that occurred in 2005. On appeal, Briggs asserted that the statute of limitations had expired. The United States Air Force Criminal Court of Appeals affirmed the court-martial's decision. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces affirmed in part and denied review in part. On appeal, the Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces' judgment, and remanded. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reversed the Air Force Criminal Court of Appeals' decision and dismissed the charge against the respondent. The United States of America filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court.

The issue: "Whether the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding-contrary to its own longstanding precedent-that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years."

The outcome: The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The following timeline details key events in United States v. Briggs:

October 13, 2020: Oral argument was heard.

March 16, 2020: The U.S. Supreme Court postponed its March sitting. Oral arguments in United States v. Briggs were initially scheduled for March 23, 2020.

November 15, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

July 22, 2019: The United States of America filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.

February 22, 2019: The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reversed the Air Force Criminal Court of Appeals' decision and dismissed the charge.

The following timeline details key events in United States v. Collins:

November 15, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

August 9, 2019: The United States of America filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.

May 12, 2019: The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces dismissed the charge and vacated the sentence.

Background

On November 15, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear United States v. Briggs and United States v. Collins as consolidated cases.

In 2014, a general court-martial convicted Michael Briggs of one charge of rape in violation of Article 120(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 920 for an event that occurred in 2005. Briggs appealed to the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, seeking to file a supplemental assignment of error asserting that the statute of limitations had expired, along with unrelated assignments of error. The Air Force Criminal Court of Appeals denied leave to file on the basis that Briggs had not raised the statute of limitations during the trial, rejected the other assignments of error, and affirmed the trial court findings and sentence.

Briggs filed a petition for grant of review with the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The court granted review of one assignment of error filing concerning the lower court's judicial composition, denied review of an assignment of error filing stating that Briggs' counsel failed to raise the statute of limitations, and affirmed the decision of the Air Force Criminal Court of Appeals. Briggs appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States on a writ of certiorari regarding the judicial composition issue. The Supreme Court initially denied the petition. Upon reconsideration, the Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces' judgment affirming the Air Force Criminal Court of Appeals' decision, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for further consideration. On remand, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces reversed the decision, dismissed the charge, and vacated the sentence. The United States of America appealed the decision to the Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari.

Similarly, in United States v. Collins, Richard Collins was found guilty of rape in violation of Article 120(a), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. § 920. On appeal, Collins asserted that the statute of limitations had expired, and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces dismissed the charge and vacated the sentence.

10 USC 920: Art. 120(a)

Questions presented

The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:

Questions presented:

Whether the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding-contrary to its own longstanding precedent-that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years.

The case is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Oral argument

Transcript

External links

Cite error: <ref> tag defined in <references> has no name attribute.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
United States v. Briggs is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on October 13, 2020, during the court's October 2020-2021 term. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. It was consolidated with United States v.