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 paÃs sobre o direito da mulher ao aborto legal. O processo trata de uma lei aprovada no Mississippi, em 2018, que proÃbe 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.
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, perÃodos de espera e entraves burocráticos.
Hoje, com a nomeação pelo ex-presidente Donald Trump da juÃza 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 juÃzes, com impacto no debate polÃtico do paÃs.
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.
Washington is no longer content with slow exhaustion; it has adopted a strategy of swift, symbolic strikes designed to recalibrate the international landscape.
Venezuela is likely to become another wasted crisis, resembling events that followed when the U.S. forced regime changes in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Venezuela is likely to become another wasted crisis, resembling events that followed when the U.S. forced regime changes in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq.
We are faced with a "scenario" in which Washington's exclusive and absolute dominance over the entire hemisphere, from Greenland and Canada in the north to the southern reaches of Argentina and Chile.
The message is unmistakable: there are no absolute guarantees and state sovereignty is conditional when it clashes with the interests of powerful states.
The madness lies in asserting something ... contrary to all evidence and intelligence. The method is doing it again and again, relentlessly, at full volume ... This is how Trump became president twice.
Should the justices side with Trump, they will — blinded by ideology — throw the system of checks and balances to the would-be dictator like raw meat.