Most Viewed Videos

“Every district attorney in the state is going to be empowered to potentially investigate miscarriages to test the limits of the law and see if they can put doctors in prison,” said State Senator Kelda Roys, a Democrat in Wisconsin. “It makes things very difficult for health care providers. It unleashes a whole host of terrible circumstances.”

The sudden importance of laws that were written before women had the right to vote has sent legislators, activists and abortion providers scrambling to understand the implications. In Wisconsin, clinics in Milwaukee and Madison had already paused scheduling appointments for abortion procedures next week in anticipation of the Supreme Court ruling; after its decision came on Friday morning, all of the state’s clinics stopped providing abortions entirely.

Ismael Ozanne, the Dane County district attorney, signaled on Friday that he would not enforce the Wisconsin law that criminalized abortion, a suggestion that a patchwork situation could develop in which abortion is prosecuted differently from county to county.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights, eight states still have abortion bans on the books that predate Roe v. Wade, but some have more recent bans that would most likely take precedence. In recent years, states including New Mexico, Vermont and Massachusetts have removed old bans.

Gov. Tony Evers of Wisconsin has called for the repeal of the state’s abortion ban, which dates to 1849 and had been considered a relic since Roe v. Wade legalized abortion.Credit…Andy Manis/Associated Press

In Michigan, where a law from 1931 bans abortion, the battle is already playing out in the courts. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit in April asking the Michigan Supreme Court to resolve whether the State Constitution protects the right to abortion. A Michigan judge issued an injunction in May that stops the ban from being enforced, at least temporarily, until a separate lawsuit is resolved.

On Friday, Ms. Whitmer called the 1931 law “antiquated,” noting that it does not provide exceptions for rape or incest. “The 1931 law would punish women and strip away their right to make decisions about their own bodies,” she said in a statement.

Ms. Whitmer has vowed to veto legislation that would restrict abortion. The Michigan Legislature has a Republican majority but not one large enough to be likely to override a veto.

There is also a pre-Roe ban in West Virginia, but experts said it was unclear whether that or newer state laws that put fewer restrictions on abortion would take effect. The state’s attorney general, Patrick Morrisey, said in a statement on Friday that he would soon “be providing a legal opinion to the Legislature about how it should proceed to save as many babies’ lives as humanly and legally possible.”

Arizona, Alabama and North Carolina also have older abortion laws on the books, but more recent restrictions passed in those states could take precedence, such as a total ban on abortion that became law in Alabama in 2019 but was superseded by Roe until now.

In Wisconsin, both sides are preparing for lawsuits and political battles over whether the abortion ban, which has been unenforceable since Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in 1973, will result in prosecutions.

“The future of this old law will be determined in our state courts and our state political system,” said Mike Murray, the vice president of government and external affairs for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin. “On a practical level, there is going to be litigation requesting clarification from our state courts about whether or not the 1849 law is enforceable.”

Gracie Skogman, the legislative director for Wisconsin Right to Life, said she hoped the 1849 law “is enforceable and saves lives here in Wisconsin, but we also do expect that there will be legal challenges.” On Friday, the organization said “Wisconsin is in powerful position to defend preborn life due to our pre-Roe statute.”

Under the ban in Wisconsin, doctors who perform abortions can be found guilty of a felony. It includes exceptions for an abortion that is necessary to save the mother’s life, but does not make exceptions for cases of rape or incest.

Laws banning abortion in the 19th century were typically the result of an effort to regulate how medicine was practiced, which medicines could be distributed and who was providing drugs that could cause abortion, historians said. The laws tended to ban abortion only after “quickening” — a point about midway through pregnancy when a woman can feel a fetus move in the womb.

James Mohr, a professor at the University of Oregon whose book “Abortion in America” details the history of abortion in the United States, said 19th-century laws banning abortion were passed not for political reasons, but because of pressure from elite physicians, who were concerned that people who called themselves doctors were performing abortions without training.

“It’s very hard for Americans to wrap their mind around the fact that abortion was simply not a public issue in the 19th century,” he said. “It was not discussed in public, it was not political, it was not politicized.”

After states passed abortion bans, he said, “It would appear that the practice of abortion continued just about the way it always had.”

“The same number of pregnancies as a percentage continued to be terminated,” he continued. “Prosecutors almost never brought prosecutions under these laws because juries wouldn’t convict.”

Lauren MacIvor Thompson, an assistant professor of history and interdisciplinary studies at Kennesaw State University in Georgia who studies abortion history, said that recent laws banning abortion were far more restrictive than those passed well over a century ago.

“By and large, many of the laws passed in the 19th century were more lenient and often did not punish the woman,” she said. “That is shifting rapidly.”

Abortion rights advocates demonstrated this month in the Michigan Capitol to demand the repeal of the state’s 1931 abortion ban.Credit…Matthew Dae Smith/Lansing State Journal, via Associated Press

Past efforts to repeal the 1849 law in Wisconsin have fizzled, even when the Democratic Party controlled both the governor’s office and the Legislature, and there was little push from the public to overturn it.

“I hadn’t heard much about the ban until quite recently,” said Jenny Higgins, a professor of gender and women’s studies and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health. “Folks didn’t really believe that overturning Roe was possible, or palatable, until recently.”

Wisconsinites have indicated in recent polls that they favor keeping abortion legal. In a recent poll conducted by Marquette Law School, 58 percent of state residents said abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

This past week, Gov. Tony Evers convened a special session in the Legislature to pressure lawmakers to repeal the abortion ban. A ring of protesters in pink shirts gathered at the Statehouse in Madison, their chants ricocheting under the dome of the Capitol building.

But Republicans, who hold a majority in the State Senate, ended the session almost as quickly as it began, without a vote or discussion. Robin Vos, the speaker of the Assembly, posted on Twitter on Friday that “safeguarding the lives of unborn children shouldn’t be controversial.”

Mr. Evers, who is running for re-election in November, condemned the Republican lawmakers after the session, saying they had jeopardized access to health care.

“Republicans’ refusal to act will have real and severe consequences for all of us and the people we care most about who could see their ability to make their own reproductive health care decisions stripped away from them,” Mr. Evers said in a statement.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/06/26/us/abortion-roe-wade-supreme-court

STOCKHOLM (AP) — Turkey´s president on Monday complicated Sweden and Finland´s historic bid to join NATO, saying he cannot allow them to become members of the alliance because of their perceived inaction against exiled Kurdish militants.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan doubled down on comments last week indicating that the two Nordic countries´ path to NATO would be anything but smooth. All 30 current NATO countries must agree to open the door to new members.

Erdogan spoke to reporters just hours after Sweden joined Finland in announcing it would seek NATO membership in the wake of Russian’s invasion of Ukraine, ending more than 200 years of military nonalignment. He accused the two countries of refusing to extradite “terrorists” wanted by his country.

“Neither country has an open, clear stance against terrorist organizations,” Erdogan said, in an apparent reference to Kurdish militant groups such as the banned Kurdistan Workers´ Party, or PKK.

Swedish officials said they would dispatch a team of diplomats to Ankara to discuss the matter, but Erdogan suggested they were wasting their time.

“Are they coming to try and convince us? Sorry don´t wear yourselves out,” Erdogan said. “During this process, we cannot say ‘yes’ to those who impose sanctions on Turkey, on joining NATO, which is a security organization.”

Sweden has welcomed hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East in recent decades, including ethnic Kurds from Syria, Iraq and Turkey.

Turkey´s objections took many Western officials by surprise and some had the impression Ankara would not let the issue spoil the NATO expansion. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg over the weekend said “Turkey has made it clear that their intention is not to block membership.”

In Washington, Swedish Ambassador Karin Olofsdotter was among those who said they were taken aback by Turkey´s objections.

“We have a very strong anti-terrorist agenda and a lot of, almost, accusations that are coming out … are simply not true,” she said.

Sweden decided Monday to seek NATO membership a day after the country’s governing Social Democratic party endorsed a plan for the country to join the trans-Atlantic alliance and Finland’s government announced that it would seek to join NATO.

Swedish Prime Minister Magdalena Andersson warned that the Nordic country would be in a “vulnerable position” during the application period and urged her fellow citizens to brace themselves for the Russian response.

“Russia has said that that it will take countermeasures if we join NATO,” she said. “We cannot rule out that Sweden will be exposed to, for instance, disinformation and attempts to intimidate and divide us.”

Moscow has repeatedly warned Finland, which shares a 1,340-kilometer (830-mile) border with Russia, and Sweden of repercussions should they pursue NATO membership. But Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday seemed to downplay the significance of their move.

Speaking to a Russian-led military alliance of six ex-Soviet states, Putin said Moscow “does not have a problem” with Sweden or Finland applying for NATO membership, but that “the expansion of military infrastructure onto this territory will, of course, give rise to our reaction in response.”

Andersson, who leads the center-left Social Democrats, said Sweden would hand in its NATO application jointly with Finland. Flanked by opposition leader Ulf Kristersson, Andersson said her government also was preparing a bill that would allow Sweden to receive military assistance from other nations in case of an attack.

“The Russian leadership thought they could bully Ukraine and deny them and other countries self-determination,” Kristersson said. “They thought they could scare Sweden and Finland and drive a wedge between us and our neighbors and allies. They were wrong.”

Once a regional military power, Sweden has avoided military alliances since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Like Finland it remained neutral throughout the Cold War, but formed closer relations with NATO after the 1991 Soviet collapse. They no longer see themselves as neutral after joining the European Union in 1995, but have remained nonaligned militarily until now.

After being firmly against NATO membership for decades, public opinion in both countries shifted following Russia’s Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine, with record levels of support for joining the alliance. The Swedish and Finnish governments swiftly initiated discussions across political parties about NATO membership and reached out to the U.S., Britain, Germany and other NATO countries for their support.

On Sunday, Andersson’s party reversed their long-standing position that Sweden must remain nonaligned, giving NATO membership overwhelming support in Parliament. Only the small Left and Green parties objected when the issue was discussed by lawmakers on Monday.

Left Party leader Nooshi Dadgostar, whose calls for a referendum on the matter were dismissed by the government, said joining NATO would raise tensions in the Baltic Sea region.

“It does not help Ukraine,” she said.

Andersson said Sweden would make clear that it doesn’t want nuclear weapons or permanent NATO bases on its soil — similar conditions as neighboring Norway and Denmark insisted on when the alliance was formed after World War II.

During a visit to Helsinki on Monday, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said there is “very significant” support in Congress for welcoming Finland and Sweden to the alliance and that he expects ratification before the August recess.

In a joint statement, Nordic NATO members Norway, Denmark and Iceland said they were ready to assist Finland and Sweden “with all necessary means” during the application process.

___ Jan M. Olsen in Copenhagen, Denmark, Suzan Fraser in Ankara, Turkey, and Ellen Knickmeyer in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of the war at https://apnews.com/hub/russia-ukraine

Source Article from https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-stockholm-sweden-finland-f7328801f699fbb2f28826c0f14d4ef6