The aftershocks of the earthquake triggered in Washington last week, with the explosive leak of the first draft of an opinion authored by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, and backed in by four other Justices, including the three radical conservatives appointed by former president Donald Trump, continue to shake the foundations of the capital and the landscape across the country
USSC Bruce Wolpe joins U.S correspondent Veronica Dudo, and ticker’s Holly Stearnes join a panel on U.S. abortion rights
The magnitude of the impact of the draft opinion is simply enormous.
What has been accepted by well over 60% of the American people as a constitutional right – the ability of women to have access to abortion services – is about to be removed.
There is no good that comes from going down that road of taking rights away from people. In 1856, in the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court held that former slaves did not have standing in federal courts because they lacked U.S. citizenship, even after they were freed.
PROTESTORS IN U.S.
That decision, so outrageous, contributed to the Civil War. In 1954, in Brown v Board of Education, the Court ruled that segregated “separate but equal” schools for Black students recognised by the Supreme Court 50 years earlier was unconstitutional as this did not afford equal protection under law – a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment enacted after President Lincoln and the North won the civil war and ended slavery.
The arc of justice in other words, is best when the law advances rights – not takes them away.
33 million American women between the ages of 15 and 44 living in over two dozen states across the country will be denied access to abortion services if this draft opinion is ultimately adopted.
But nothing in the Constitution prevents Congress from enacting a law to legally establish and protect a woman’s right to have access to abortion services.
U.S WOMAN PROTESTS
This is the basis of the Women’s Health Protection Act which passed the House last September.
The Democratic leadership of the House recognised that what everyone is facing this week was coming, and that the best protection against overturning the precedent of Roe v Wade is through legislation.
The bill provides that, “Congress finds abortion services are essential to health care. A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services.”
This is the bill that the Democratic leadership will bring to the Senate this week. It will fail.
No Republicans in the House voted for this bill, which passed on a party-line vote of 218-211. There are only two Republicans in the Senate– both women, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska – who support abortion rights.
All but one or two of the 50 Democrats will support it. Bu the Senate is not a democratic institution. A simple majority vote is insufficient to pass legislation.
WASHINGTON, DC – APRIL 21: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
A bill needs a supermajority of 60 votes to pass the Senate. That is completely out of reach today for abortion rights.
The Senate could change its rules and allow the abortion rights bill to pass in this one instance by a simple majority. But that will not happen either.
At least two Democrats oppose upending this Senate tradition, and no Republican will vote against their leadership to alter the Senate to pass a Democratic bill on abortion.
This ugly hyper-partisanship will have several ramifications.
If this Senate cannot protect these rights, perhaps more Democrats in the Senate can. Democrats will use this vote to target Senate seats held by Republicans that are up in the November midterm elections in states like Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Wisconsin.
This could well energise not only Democrats but also key swing independent voters who do support, in significant numbers, abortion rights.
But the human impact on women is frightening.
The journalist who obtained the draft opinion in the leak from the Supreme Court, and broke the story, Josh Gerstein of Politico, said this last Friday:
“And if Justice Alito’s draft opinion that we reported and made public on Monday becomes the Supreme Court’s final word on this issue, you’d have really a situation of abortion haves and have-nots across the country, where you would have many states where abortion was relatively available and probably about 26 states where abortion is banned or very, very sharply restricted. You would then have women trying to get medication abortions in those states or possibly travel through what might develop as a kind of Underground Railroad to get them out of those states and into other states where they could get legal abortions. It would be a pretty dramatic change in the availability of abortion across the country.”
Gerstein is right. This is the world we are in.
WOMEN ACROSS THE U.S RALLY IN PROTEST
160 years after the Civil War, another Underground Railroad – this time to take women away from states with restrictive medical laws.
A Handmaid’s Tale come to life, as Canada pledges to open its borders to American women seeking reproductive health services.
Engraved on the pediment of the Supreme Court building in Washington are the words, “Equal Justice Under Law.”
The Supreme Court’s imminent decision and the failure of Congress to enact legislation to overturn it betrays a US political system failing to protect all women equally under law.
Bruce Wolpe is a Ticker News US political contributor. He’s a Senior Fellow at the US Studies Centre and has worked with Democrats in Congress during President Barack Obama's first term, and on the staff of Prime Minister Julia Gillard. He has also served as the former PM's chief of staff.
In Short:
– China defends rare earth export restrictions as lawful responses to U.S. tariffs and promotes global peace.
– U.S. imposes 100% tariffs, affecting trade relations and causing significant market losses.
China has defended its recent export restrictions on rare earths as a legitimate response under international law, countering U.S. claims of economic coercion after new U.S. tariffs were imposed.The Chinese Ministry of Commerce clarified that these measures, implemented on October 9, aim to enhance export control systems and promote global peace amid a turbulent security landscape.
The controls include not only rare earth materials but also intellectual property and technologies related to them.
The ministry noted that these restrictions are not outright export bans, asserting that applications meeting certain criteria will still be approved. It indicated confidence that the measures would have a minimal impact on the supply chain. Foreign entities will need a license if exporting products containing over 0.1% of locally-sourced rare earths, with weapons-related applications automatically denied.
In response, U.S. President Donald Trump announced on October 10 new 100% tariffs on Chinese imports, beginning November 1, along with export controls on critical software. Following these statements, global stock markets reacted negatively, resulting in a loss of $2 trillion in market capitalisation.
China contends that the U.S. operates double standards, as its own control list comprises over 3,000 items compared to China’s fewer than 1,000. China plays a crucial role in the rare earth supply, holding approximately 70% of the global market.
Trade Tensions
In addition to the export controls, China disclosed plans to begin charging U.S. ships docked at its ports, mirroring new U.S. fees for Chinese vessels. This action is presented as a necessary counter to U.S. measures, complicating the atmosphere of ongoing trade discussions.
U.S. and Chinese officials have engaged in various negotiations over recent months, focusing on topics such as the divestment of TikTok, but tensions remain high following recent developments.
In Short:
– Trump announced layoffs for thousands of government workers, blaming Democrats during the government shutdown.
– Job cuts affect multiple agencies, with unions filing lawsuits against the layoffs’ legality.
President Donald Trump announced layoffs affecting thousands of U.S. government workers, attributing the decision to Democrats during the ongoing government shutdown.Job cuts began at several federal agencies, including the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of Health and Human Services, although the overall number of layoffs remains uncertain.
Roughly 300,000 federal workers were already anticipated to leave jobs this year due to a downsizing initiative by Trump.
The layoffs come as Trump continues to pressure Democrats for government funding. Republicans, holding majorities in Congress, require Democratic support in the Senate for funding measures.
Democrats insist they will not compromise under pressure, holding Republicans accountable for job losses. Labor unions have filed lawsuits against the layoffs, arguing their legality during the shutdown.
Job Cuts
A federal court will hear the case soon. Despite legal requirements for notification before layoffs, some officials have raised concerns over the impact on federal services.
Top Republican Senator Susan Collins expressed her objection to the layoffs, emphasising the importance of federal employees.
A White House budget director confirmed the initiation of layoffs, while many federal workers are either on furlough or working without pay. The Department of Health and Human Services is particularly affected, with a substantial number of staff receiving layoff notices.
Job reductions are also reported at the Education and Commerce Departments, among others. The Department of Homeland Security has made cuts in its cybersecurity division. However, the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration remain unaffected.
In Short:
– Hamas called Trump a racist but believes he may help facilitate peace with Israel.
– Ongoing negotiations are uncertain, with Hamas optimistic despite lacking formal guarantees.
Hamas has called Donald Trump a racist and a “recipe for chaos.” However, a phone call from Trump convinced Hamas that he might facilitate a peace deal with Israel, even if they surrender their hostages.
Under the agreement, which began on Friday, Hamas will release hostages without a commitment from Israel to withdraw. This decision is seen as precarious, with fears that hostilities may resume post-release, similar to events following a previous ceasefire.
During indirect negotiations, Trump’s involvement reportedly reassured Hamas leaders, bolstering their confidence in a lasting ceasefire.
Future Uncertain
Negotiations continue over details such as the timetable for Israeli troop withdrawal.
The mediating role of Qatar and Turkey has been pivotal, alongside U.S. participation, in moving discussions forward.
Hamas has shifted its stance on hostage retention, viewing it as detrimental to global support for their cause. Nonetheless, they received no formal guarantees regarding the progression towards a more comprehensive agreement to end the conflict.
Despite awareness of the risks involved in their gamble, Hamas leaders seem optimistic about ongoing talks, with pressures from mediators fostering a sense of seriousness in negotiations from both sides.
Trump’s anticipated visit to the region is expected to reinforce these developments, even as complexities remain in finalising the terms of the deal.