Abortion Revisited

Published in Folha de Sao Paulo
(Brazil) on 23 May 2021
by Editorial (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Thiago Sebben. Edited by Gillian Palmer.
With a conservative majority, the U.S. Supreme Court will debate women's right to legal abortion.

The United States Supreme Court has announced that it will analyze a case that could change the country's jurisprudence on women's right to legal abortion. The action deals with a law passed in Mississippi in 2018, which prohibits the termination of pregnancy after the 15th week of the gestation period.

Depending on the decision of the court's conservative majority, regulations on the matter may be defined state by state, and no longer at the federal level.

A right established in the country since 1973's Roe v. Wade decision is at stake. At that time, the possibility of abortion was established if the fetus is unable to survive outside the uterus (usually until around the 23rd or 24th week of gestation).

There have been many attempts by anti-abortion groups to provoke the Supreme Court to revise the precedent, especially in more conservative states. Restrictions in local legislation have been more common, such as mandatory counseling, waiting periods and bureaucratic hurdles.

The Supreme Court has intervened in regulations of this nature in two recent episodes. In June 2020, it vetoed 5-4 a Louisiana rule that required doctors who perform abortions to enter into an agreement with a hospital near their work location. In a 2016 decision, it overturned a Texas rule that imposed strict conditions on doctors and abortion clinics in the state.

With the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett by former President Donald Trump, conservatives now have six of nine seats in the court. The pending ruling is expected to be pronounced only in mid-2022, the midterm election year.

Note that, unlike the Brazilian Supreme Court, the U.S. Supreme Court chooses which cases to accept. Therefore, it is a conscious movement to be made by the judges, with an impact on the country's political debate.

Opinion polls reveal that most Americans (between 60% and 70%, depending on the survey) do not want the court to reverse the Roe v. Wade precedent.

The opinion of this newspaper is that termination of pregnancy by decision of pregnant women should be treated from the perspective of public health, not criminal law. The procedure under the conditions established by law must be a right of women, as is the case in most developed democracies.

Brazil would do well to expand the possibilities for legal abortion; the United States should avoid setbacks in this matter.

Editor’s note: The original language publication of this article is accessible with a paid subscription


Aborto revisitado

Com maioria conservadora, Suprema Corte dos EUA debaterá esse direito da mulher

A Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos anunciou que analisará um caso que pode mudar a jurisprudência no país sobre o direito da mulher ao aborto legal. O processo trata de uma lei aprovada no Mississippi, em 2018, que proíbe a interrupção da gravidez depois da 15ª semana de gestação.

A depender da decisão da maioria conservadora da corte, o regramento do assunto passará a ser definido estado por estado, e não mais em âmbito federal.

Em jogo está um direito instituído no país há quase cinco décadas —desde o caso Roe versus Wade, de 1973. Ali se estabeleceu a possibilidade de abortar se o feto não tiver condições de sobreviver fora do útero (em geral até por volta da 23ª ou 24ª semana de gestação).

Não faltam tentativas de grupos antiaborto de provocar novamente a Suprema Corte para rever o precedente, em especial em estados mais conservadores. Restrições nas legislações locais têm sido mais comuns, como aconselhamento obrigatório, períodos de espera e entraves burocráticos.

Em dois episódios recentes, a Suprema Corte interveio em leis dessa natureza. Em junho de 2020, vetou, por 5 a 4, uma regra da Louisiana que exigia de médicos que realizam abortos um convênio com hospital próximo de onde trabalham.
Em outro caso, de 2016, derrubou norma do Texas que impunha condições rígidas a médicos e clínicas de aborto no estado.

Hoje, com a nomeação pelo ex-presidente Donald Trump da juíza Amy Coney Barrett, os conservadores contam com 6 dos 9 assentos na corte. A decisão pendente deve ser proferida apenas em meados de 2022, ano eleitoral.

Deve-se observar que, à diferença do Supremo Tribunal Federal brasileiro, a Suprema Corte americana escolhe quais processos aceitar. Trata-se, pois, de um movimento consciente dos juízes, com impacto no debate político do país.
Pesquisas de opinião revelam que a maioria dos americanos (entre 60% e 70%, a depender da sondagem) não querem que o colegiado reverta o precedente Roe vs. Wade.

No entender desta Folha, a interrupção da gravidez por decisão da gestante deve ser tratada sob a ótica da saúde pública, não do direito penal. O procedimento, nas condições estabelecidas em lei, deve ser um direito das mulheres, como se dá na maioria das democracias mais desenvolvidas.

O Brasil faria bem em ampliar as possibilidades de aborto legal; aos Estados Unidos conviria evitar retrocessos nessa matéria.

This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Australia: Australia Boosts Corporate Law Enforcement as America Goes Soft

Japan: US President and the Federal Reserve Board: Harmonious Dialogue To Support the Dollar

Peru: Blockade ‘For Now’

Australia: Donald Trump Is Taking Over the US Federal Reserve and Financial Markets Have Missed the Point

Topics

Peru: Blockade ‘For Now’

Japan: US President and the Federal Reserve Board: Harmonious Dialogue To Support the Dollar

Austria: The EU Must Recognize That a Tariff Deal with Trump Is Hardly Worth Anything

Mexico: The Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Venezuela and President Nicholás Maduro

Hong Kong: Cordial Cross-Strait Relations Will Spare Taiwan Trump’s Demands, Says Paul Kuoboug Chang

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade

Related Articles

Austria: If Trump Gains Control of the Fed, His Power Mongering Will Be Limitless

Sri Lanka: Trump Is Very Hard on India and Brazil, but For Very Different Reasons

Colombia: US Warships Near Venezuela: Is Latin America’s Left Facing a Reckoning?

Germany: Learn from Lula

India: Trump vs Judiciary: Will US Power Balance Shift?