Placeholder Content Image

Facebook messages lead to abortion charges for mother and daughter

<p dir="ltr">Social media users have been warned that Facebook messaging isn’t as private as we think it is, with users being urged to even delete their Facebook accounts after private messages between two women were handed over to police and led to them being charged.</p> <p dir="ltr">Jessica Burgess was charged after allegedly obtaining and giving abortion pills to her daughter Celeste earlier this year.</p> <p dir="ltr">The then-17-year-old was 23 weeks pregnant when she and her mum discussed using medication to induce an abortion and burn the foetus afterwards.</p> <p dir="ltr">The pair were initially charged with the felony of removing or concealing a body, as well as concealing the death of another person and false reporting.</p> <p dir="ltr">But, after receiving a tip from a woman who said she was a friend of Celeste’s and saw her take an abortion pill, detective Ben McBride then applied for a warrant to seize laptops and phones from the pair, and compelled Facebook to turn over messages they sent on the platform.</p> <p dir="ltr">As a result of reviewing the messages, Jessica was also charged with performing or attempting an abortion at more than 20 weeks of pregnancy - which is illegal under a Nebraska law enacted after <em>Roe v. Wade</em> was overturned - and performing an abortion as a non-licenced physician.</p> <p dir="ltr">When they were first interviewed, Jessica and Celeste told investigators the baby was born unexpectedly as a stillborn in the shower, before taking the foetus and burying it several miles out of town.</p> <p dir="ltr">However, court documents said the body showed signs of “thermal wounds”, and that the daughter confirmed that she and her mother burned the foetus in an exchange where she wrote that they would “burn the evidence afterward”.</p> <p dir="ltr">The two women pleaded not guilty to the charges at a hearing last week, where the prosecutor said it was the first time he has charged anyone for illegally performing an abortion after 20 weeks.</p> <p dir="ltr">Before the controversial overturning of <em>Roe v. Wade</em>, states weren’t allowed to enforce abortion bans before the point where the foetus is considered viable outside the womb, which is roughly 24 weeks.</p> <p dir="ltr">In one of the messages, Jessica tells her daughter she has obtained the medication and instructs her on how to use them.</p> <p dir="ltr">According to court documents written by a detective, Celeste “talks about how she can’t wait to get the ‘thing’ out of her body”.</p> <p dir="ltr">“I will finally be able to wear jeans,” one message read.</p> <p dir="ltr">Meta, Facebook’s parent company, said the warrants from investigators hadn’t mentioned abortion, but the case has raised concerns about how data companies collect could help prosecutors enforce abortion restrictions.</p> <p dir="ltr">#DeleteFacebook has since been trending online, with many sharing their fury and urging women to delete their accounts.</p> <p dir="ltr">“Every woman should delete Facebook right now,” 19-year-old activist Olivia Julianna wrote.</p> <p dir="ltr">Journalist Emily Crockett <a href="https://twitter.com/emilycrockett/status/1557093270299328515" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a> that the case occurred before Roe was overturned, arguing it was “just a preview of what’s to come”.</p> <p><span id="docs-internal-guid-ccd24f46-7fff-a649-e272-af388f6afcc4"></span></p> <p dir="ltr">“If you don’t #DeleteFacebook, at least make sure you never talk about anything over Facebook Messenger that you wouldn’t want turned over to the police,” she added.</p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: Getty Images</em></p>

Technology

Placeholder Content Image

Pregnant woman argues unborn baby counts as a passenger under new abortion laws

<p dir="ltr">A pregnant US woman has argued her unborn baby should count as a second passenger in her car in the wake of <a href="https://www.oversixty.com.au/health/body/heartbroken-high-profile-women-react-to-landmark-roe-v-wade-decision" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><em>Roe v Wade</em> being overturned</a>, after she was fined for driving in a lane that requires at least two people in the car.</p> <p dir="ltr">Brandy Bottone of Plano, Texas, was pulled over on June 29 after driving in a high-occupancy (HOV) lane by the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department looking for drivers violating HOV lane rules, as reported by <em><a href="https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/pregnant-woman-cited-for-hov-violation-says-her-unborn-baby-should-count-as-second-person/3010193/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NBC-Dallas Fort Worth</a></em>.</p> <p dir="ltr">HOV lanes, also known as carpool and T2 lanes, require drivers to have at least one passenger in their car when they use the lane.</p> <p dir="ltr">When an officer told Bottone about the rule and asked whether she had any passengers with her, she said she did.</p> <p dir="ltr">“I pointed to my stomach and said, ‘My baby girl is right here. She is a person’,” the 32-year-old told <em><a href="https://www.dallasnews.com/news/watchdog/2022/07/08/pregnant-woman-says-her-fetus-should-count-as-a-passenger-in-hov-lanes-she-got-a-ticket/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Dallas Morning News</a></em>.</p> <p dir="ltr">The officer argued that the rule applies to “two people outside the body”, to which Bottone responded that, since the overturning of <em>Roe v. Wade</em>, her unborn child is considered as a living person.</p> <p dir="ltr">“And then I said, ‘Well [I’m] not trying to throw a political mix here, but with everything going on, this counts as a baby’,” Bottone recounted.</p> <p dir="ltr">She said the officer told her he didn’t “want to deal with this”, insisting the law for HOV lanes required “two persons outside of the body” to be in the vehicle.</p> <p dir="ltr">While the penal code in Texas recognises a foetus as a person, there appears to be no language in the state Transportation Department’s code that recognises a foetus in the same way.</p> <p dir="ltr">Though deputies told Bottone that her case would likely be dismissed if she fought it, she still plans to fight the $215 ticket, arguing that her in-utero baby should count as another occupant.</p> <p dir="ltr">“This has my blood boiling. How could this be fair? According to the new law, this is a life,” she told <em>The Morning News</em>.</p> <p dir="ltr">“I know this may fall on deaf ears, but as a woman, this was shocking.”</p> <p><span id="docs-internal-guid-70a7d3e4-7fff-1441-abe6-955ac398f391"></span></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: NBC DFW</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Instagram and Facebook have been hiding abortion posts

<p dir="ltr">In the wake of the US Supreme Court overturning <em>Roe v. Wade</em> and placing the right to accessing an abortion in jeopardy, Instagram has been hiding posts that mention abortion from public view and, in some cases, asking viewers to verify their age in some cases to make posts visible.</p> <p dir="ltr">Several Instagram accounts run by abortion rights advocacy groups have found their posts and stories hidden with warnings that describe them as “sensitive content”.</p> <p dir="ltr">Bleu Grano, who runs the account Fund Aborition Not Police, found that a post containing a guide to abortion services - including how to obtain abortion pills through the mail - had been removed for violating the platform’s community guidelines on the “sale of illegal or regulated goods”.</p> <p><span id="docs-internal-guid-c638ca37-7fff-24db-1e0b-7cbc833c3505">“I got really stressed that they were going to suspend the account,” Grano told <em><a href="https://www.wired.com/story/meta-abortion-content-restriction/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Wired</a></em>. “I started to think it was specific to abortion, and stopped using the word ‘pills’ and only said ‘abortion by mail’.”</span></p> <p><img src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/2022/07/instagram-abortion-snip.jpg" alt="" width="1280" height="720" /></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>A educaitonal post Bleu Grano, who runs the account Fund Abortion Not Police, shared on Instagram was removed for violating certain policies amid growing crackdowns on posts mentioning abortion. Image: Bleu Grano</em></p> <p dir="ltr"><em><a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/m7gav3/facebook-is-banning-people-who-say-they-will-mail-abortion-pills" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Motherboard</a></em> also found that posts like Grano’s were being restricted by Meta (which owns both Facebook and Instagram) for violating policies that restrict the sale of illegal or controlled substances on the platforms.</p> <p dir="ltr">On June 27, <em><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/instagram-restricts-abortion-resource-posts-hashtags-rcna35522" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NBC</a></em> reported that Meta was restricting search results for the terms “abortion” and “mifepristine”, one of two drugs commonly used to induce a medical aboriton.</p> <p dir="ltr">These reports have led to speculation that the company had changed its policies since the Supreme Court decision - though Meta has denied making any changes.</p> <p dir="ltr">However, pro-choice advocates have said this censorship isn’t new, telling <em>Wired </em>that the company’s AI moderation system has been seen tagging abortion content, oftentimes about abortion pills, as “sensitive”, decreasing its visibility, or removing the content altogether.</p> <p dir="ltr">“We have been seeing social media platforms, specifically Meta, suppressing abortion content for quite a while now,” Jessica Ensley, the digital outreach and opposition research director at Reproaction, a nonprofit that supports access to abortion, told the outlet.</p> <p dir="ltr">A volunteer moderator for a large Facebook group for American women seeking abortion information and support said recent content removals were “totally precedented”, with posts about abortion pills being removed by Facebook for years.</p> <p dir="ltr">“What’s wild is that you don’t know where the line is,” she said. “Every single post has to be seen by a moderator, because we don’t want people posting requests for pills, to request or to send pills, because that will get the entire group taken down.”</p> <p><span id="docs-internal-guid-222bfa69-7fff-58bd-1043-9d763f389165"></span></p> <p dir="ltr">In comparison, a similar group she moderates on Reddit also has rules about not selling or buying rules on the platform. But, sharing content and links discussing the pills aren’t removed by the platform or put the group at risk of being shut down.</p> <p dir="ltr"><img src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/2022/07/Meta-Censoring-Abortion-Content-Abortion-Finder-Business.jpg" alt="" width="794" height="987" /></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Posts containing information about accessing abortion, like this one shared on Power To Decide’s Abortion Finder page, are being labelled as ‘sensitive content’ by the platform. Images: Power To Decide</em></p> <p dir="ltr">Though censoring this kind of content doesn’t seem to be a new issue, the platforms have only come under scrutiny for hiding this content but not others in the weeks since the Supreme Court decision.</p> <p dir="ltr">The <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/world/roe-v-wade-update-instagram-hides-some-posts-that-mention-abortion/1ce6239e-1337-4669-bc35-3a85c5cc1811" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Associated Press</a> recently identified nearly a dozen posts mentioning the word “abortion” which were covered up by Instagram, while an earlier report found that both platforms were deleting posts that offered to mail out abotion pills in states where their use was restricted.</p> <p dir="ltr">The platforms said the posts were being deleted because they violated policies relating to the sale or gifting of certain products, including pharmaceuticals, drugs, and firearms.</p> <p dir="ltr">But, the AP reported finding that similar posts offering to send guns or marijuan through the mail weren’t removed by Facebook, which is yet to respond to questions about the discrepancy.</p> <p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-7e13e528-7fff-729f-2b0b-8ce43ee00b59"></span></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Images: Supplied</em></p>

Technology

Placeholder Content Image

After Roe v Wade, here’s how women could adopt ‘spycraft’ to avoid tracking and prosecution

<p>The art of concealing or misrepresenting one’s identity in the physical world has long been practised by spies engaged in espionage. In response, intelligence agencies designed techniques and technologies to identify people attempting to hide behind aliases.</p> <p>Now, following the US Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v Wade, women in the United States seeking assistance with unwanted pregnancies have joined the ranks of spies.</p> <p>The ruling has resulted in several trigger laws coming into effect in conservative states to outlaw abortions in those states. These laws, coupled with groups targeting women’s reproductive rights protests, have raised fear among women of all ages about their data being used against them.</p> <p>Thousands have engaged with online posts calling on women to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/28/why-us-woman-are-deleting-their-period-tracking-apps" target="_blank" rel="noopener">delete their period tracking apps</a>, on the premise that data fed to these apps could be used to prosecute them in states where abortion is illegal. At the same time, abortion clinics in New Mexico (where abortion remains legal) are <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-mexico-shields-abortion-providers-ahead-expected-patient-surge-2022-06-27/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reportedly</a> bracing for an influx of women from US states.</p> <p>As someone who has served as a special agent for the United States Army and Federal Bureau of Investigation, and as a Senior Intelligence Officer with the US Defense Intelligence Agency, I can tell you deleting period tracking apps may not be enough for vulnerable women now.</p> <p>But there are some tools women can use to conceal their identities, should this be necessary – the same tools once reserved for professional spies.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Menstrual tracking app Stardust is one of Apple’s top three most-downloaded free apps right now. It’s also one of few apps that has said it will voluntarily—without being legally required to—comply with law enforcement if it’s asked to share user data. <a href="https://t.co/sJ17VAiLvp">https://t.co/sJ17VAiLvp</a></p> <p>— Motherboard (@motherboard) <a href="https://twitter.com/motherboard/status/1541456351414583297?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2022</a></p></blockquote> <p><strong>The privacy myth</strong></p> <p>Apart from espionage, the emergence of the internet created a new impetus for widespread data collection by data aggregators and marketers. The modern surveillance economy grew out of a desire to target products and services to us as effectively as possible.</p> <p>Today, massive swathes of personal information are extracted from users, 24/7 – making it increasingly difficult to remain unmasked.</p> <p>Data aggregation is used to assess our purchasing habits, track our movements, find our favourite locations and obtain detailed demographic information about us, our families, our co-workers and friends.</p> <p>Recent events have demonstrated how tenuous our privacy is. <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/22/20926585/hong-kong-china-protest-mask-umbrella-anonymous-surveillance" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Protests in Hong Kong</a> have seen Chinese authorities use cameras to identify and arrest protesters, while police in the US deployed various technologies to identify <a href="https://theconversation.com/police-surveillance-of-black-lives-matter-shows-the-danger-technology-poses-to-democracy-142194" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Black Lives Matter</a> protesters.</p> <p>Articles appeared in Australian <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/06/29/protests-police-government-surveillance-how-to-avoid/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">media outlets</a> with advice on how to avoid being surveilled. And people were directed to websites, such as the <a href="https://www.eff.org/wp/behind-the-one-way-mirror" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Electronic Frontier Foundation</a>, dedicated to informing readers about how to avoid surveillance and personal data collection.</p> <p>What we’ve learned from both spy history and more recent events is that data collection is not always overt and obvious; it’s often unseen and opaque. Surveillance may come in the form of <a href="https://theconversation.com/surveillance-cameras-will-soon-be-unrecognisable-time-for-an-urgent-public-conversation-118931" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cameras</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-hide-from-a-drone-the-subtle-art-of-ghosting-in-the-age-of-surveillance-143078" target="_blank" rel="noopener">drones</a>, automated number plate readers (<a href="https://theconversation.com/number-plate-recognition-the-technology-behind-the-rhetoric-17572" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ANPR/ALPR</a>), <a href="https://www.q-free.com/reference/australia/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">toll payment devices</a>, <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/publication/acoustic-surveillance-devices" target="_blank" rel="noopener">acoustic collectors</a> and of course any internet-connected <a href="https://theconversation.com/smartphone-data-tracking-is-more-than-creepy-heres-why-you-should-be-worried-91110" target="_blank" rel="noopener">device</a>.</p> <p>In some cases when your fellow protesters upload images or videos, crowd-sourced intelligence becomes your enemy.</p> <p><strong>Data deleted, not destroyed</strong></p> <p>Recently, a lot of the focus has been on phones and apps. But deleting mobile apps will not prevent the identification of an individual, nor will turning off location services.</p> <p>Law enforcement and even commercial companies have the ability to access or track certain metrics including:</p> <ul> <li>international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI), which is related to a user’s mobile number and connected to their SIM card</li> <li>international mobile equipment identity (IMEI), which is directly related to their device itself.</li> </ul> <p>Ad servers may also exploit device locations. Private companies can create advertisements targeting devices that are specific to a location, such as a women’s health clinic. And such “geofenced” ad servers can identify a user’s location regardless of whether their location settings are disabled.</p> <p>Further, anonymised phone track data (like call signals pinging off nearby towers) can be purchased from telecommunications providers and de-anonymised.</p> <p>Law enforcement can use this data to trace paths from, say, a fertility clinic to a person’s home or “bed down” location (the spy term for someone’s residence).</p> <p>The bottom line is your phone is a marker for you. A temporary cell phone with an overseas SIM card has been the choice for some people wishing to avoid such tracking.</p> <p>Adding to that, we recently saw headlines about <a href="https://theconversation.com/bunnings-kmart-and-the-good-guys-say-they-use-facial-recognition-for-loss-prevention-an-expert-explains-what-it-might-mean-for-you-185126" target="_blank" rel="noopener">facial recognition technology</a> being used in Australian retail stores – and America is no different. For anyone trying to evade detection, it’s better to swap bank cards for cash, stored-value cards or gift cards when making purchases.</p> <p>And using public transport paid with cash or a ride-share service provides better anonymity than using a personal vehicle, or even a rental.</p> <p>In the spy world, paying attention to one’s dress is critical. Spies change up their appearance, using what they call “polish”, with the help of reversible clothing, hats, different styles of glasses, scarves and even masks (which are ideally not conspicuous these days). In extreme cases, they may even use “appliances” to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cias-former-chief-of-disguise-drops-her-mask-11576168327" target="_blank" rel="noopener">alter their facial characteristics</a>.</p> <p>Then again, while these measures help in the physical world, they do little to stop online detection.</p> <p><strong>Digital stealth</strong></p> <p>Online, the use of a virtual private network (<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-a-virtual-private-network-vpn-12741" target="_blank" rel="noopener">VPN</a>) and/or the onion browser, <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-the-dark-web-46070" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Tor</a>, will help improve anonymity, including from internet service providers.</p> <p>Online you can create and use multiple personas, each with a different email address and “personal data” linked to it. Aliases can be further coupled with software that removes cookies and browser history, which will help conceal one’s online identity.</p> <p>One example is <a href="https://www.ccleaner.com/ccleaner/download" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CCleaner</a>. This program removes privacy-violating cookies and internet history from your device, while improving your device’s privacy.</p> <p>There are also plenty of online applications that allow the use of <a href="https://theconversation.com/dont-be-phish-food-tips-to-avoid-sharing-your-personal-information-online-138613" target="_blank" rel="noopener">temporary email addresses</a> and phone numbers, and even temporary accommodation addresses for package deliveries.</p> <p>To some, these may seem like extreme privacy measures. However, given the widespread collection of identity data by commercial companies and governments – and the resultant collaboration between the two – there’s reason to be concerned for anyone wanting to fly under the radar.</p> <p>And for women seeking abortions in the US, these measures may be necessary to avoid prosecution.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Not to be that guy but it seems like it really should be bigger news that the national guard is now helping crack down on abortion protests <a href="https://t.co/DGh83in0Cm">https://t.co/DGh83in0Cm</a></p> <p>— Read Wobblies and Zapatistas (@JoshuaPotash) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoshuaPotash/status/1541527897273409536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2022</a></p></blockquote> <p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dennis-b-desmond-1252874" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dennis B Desmond</a>, Lecturer, Cyberintelligence and Cybercrime Investigations, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-the-sunshine-coast-1068" target="_blank" rel="noopener">University of the Sunshine Coast</a></em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/after-roe-v-wade-heres-how-women-could-adopt-spycraft-to-avoid-tracking-and-prosecution-186046" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>.</em></p> <p><em>Image: Getty Images</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

"Time to ban viagra": Bette Midler gets fired up

<p>Bette Midler has responded to the US Supreme Court's ruling to overturn Roe v Wade in an equally hilarious and furious reaction. </p> <p>The 76-year-old actress took aim at the justices whose decision allowed individual states to decide whether to make abortion illegal.</p> <p>In a fiery post to social media, she said, "Time to ban Viagra. Because if pregnancy is 'God's will', then so is your limp d**k."</p> <p>The post racked up nearly 250,000 likes amid the huge wave of opposition to the controversial SCOTUS ruling.</p> <p>Midler has been vocal with her criticism of the decision since last week, calling Justice Clarence Thomas an "a**hole" and branding Justice Samuel Alito a "villain".</p> <p>In her first reaction to the news, she wrote, "They did it. THEY DID IT TO US! #SCOTUS has overturned #RoevWade, enshrined in the Constitution as settled law for over 50 years."</p> <p>"How dare they? This #SCOTUS is absolutely tone-deaf to the will and even the actual needs of the American people. #WakeUpAmerica."</p> <p>Bette Midler is far from the only celebrity to weigh in on the devastating decision. </p> <p>Many <a href="https://oversixty.com.au/health/body/heartbroken-high-profile-women-react-to-landmark-roe-v-wade-decision" target="_blank" rel="noopener">high-profile women</a>, including former First Lady Michelle Obama, have made moving and poignant statements about the controversial ruling which have garnered international attention. </p> <p>In a post on Instagram, Michelle Obama said, "I am heartbroken that we may now be destined to learn the painful lessons of a time before Roe was made law of the land - a time when women risked their lives getting illegal abortions."</p> <p>"That is what our mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers lived through, and now we are here again."</p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p>

Body

Placeholder Content Image

"Heartbroken": High-profile women react to landmark Roe v Wade decision

<p>When the US Supreme Court made the landmark decision to overturn Roe v. Wade on Friday June 24, women across America and all around the world took to social media to express their anger, disgust, sadness and outrage.</p> <p>A range of celebrities and high-profile women spoke out over the decision, as they grieved the loss of fundamental women's right and bodily autonomy in the eyes of the law.</p> <p>Roe v. Wade was implemented to grant women in the US the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, regardless of their reasoning.</p> <p>The landmark abortion ruling, which has been in place since 1973, was officially overturned last week, meaning individual states in America now have the right to ban women from seeking legal abortions – which several states have now already done.</p> <p>Australian model Robyn Lawley made a statement on her Instagram as she wrote on her torso, "My body my choice".</p> <p>The model shared her disgust for the ruling, while also empathising with women living the US of the challenges they are about to face.</p> <blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/CfOyiHmO1ud/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"> </div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"> </div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CfOyiHmO1ud/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Robyn Lawley (@robynlawley)</a></p> </div> </blockquote> <p>Former First Lady Michelle Obama posted an emotional statement online, which has been shared millions of times by men and women alike who are in disarray over the ruling.</p> <p>In the statement she wrote, "I am heartbroken that we may now be destined to learn the painful lessons of a time before Roe was made law of the land - a time when women risked their lives getting illegal abortions."</p> <p>"That is what our mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers lived through, and now we are here again."</p> <blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/CfMSJTKu_XY/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"> </div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"> </div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CfMSJTKu_XY/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Michelle Obama (@michelleobama)</a></p> </div> </blockquote> <p>Pop star Taylor Swift was one of the many who reposted Obama's message, adding, "I'm absolutely terrified that this is where we are – that after so many decades of people fighting for women's rights to their own bodies, today's decision has stripped us of that."</p> <p>Kim Kardashian echoed the thoughts of many as she shared that "In America, guns have more rights than women," as the overturning of Roe v. Wade has somehow taken priority over tighter gun restrictions, despite there being over <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/02/mass-shootings-in-2022/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">250 mass shootings in 2022</a> so far.</p> <p>Hillary Clinton also chimed in on the decision, saying overturning Roe v. Wade is "a step backward".</p> <p>"Most Americans believe the decision to have a child is one of the most sacred decisions there is, and that such decisions should remain between patients and their doctors," Clinton said.</p> <p>"Today's Supreme Court opinion will live in infamy as a step backward for women's rights and human rights."</p> <p>Everyday women across America shared their fear over the ruling, with many encouraging others to delete their period tracking apps, to have real conversations with their partners about their intimacy, and to start savings accounts to travel out of their state for an abortion if needed.</p> <p>As protestors took to the steps of the Supreme Court to protest the overturning of Roe v. Wade, online spaces were dominated with anger, as "my body, my choice" began trending on Twitter and became the battle cry for the women of the United States and around the world.</p> <p><em>Image credits: Getty Images</em></p>

Body

Placeholder Content Image

Could the Depp v. Heard case make other abuse survivors too scared to speak up?

<p>Johnny Depp has <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-06-02/verdict-delivered-johnny-depp-amber-heard-trial/101115246" target="_blank" rel="noopener">won his defamation suit</a> against his ex-wife Amber Heard for her Washington Post op-ed article published in 2018, which <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/06/01/arts/johnny-depp-amber-heard-verdict">stated</a> she was a “public figure representing domestic abuse”.</p> <p>The facts in every case are unique, and the jury is always in a better position to judge these facts than commentators relying on media reports.</p> <p>Nevertheless in such a high profile case as this, the verdict has a ripple effect that can go beyond the facts. The unfortunate reality is the Depp Heard case is likely to reinforce the fear that women who come forward with claims of sexual and domestic abuse will encounter a system in which they are unlikely to be believed.</p> <p>Reform is needed to better balance the protection of men’s individual reputations with the rights of women to speak about their experiences.</p> <p><strong>Defamation a tool of elite men</strong></p> <p>Depp was awarded more than US$10 million in damages after convincing the jury Heard was a malicious liar.</p> <p>This is despite the fact a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/06/01/johnny-depp-libel-law-uk-us/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">UK judge determined</a> in 2020 that it was “substantially true” Depp had assaulted Heard repeatedly during their relationship.</p> <p>After the verdict, Heard commented she was “heartbroken that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power, influence, and sway” of her famous ex-husband.</p> <p>Historically, the common law of defamation was built to <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09612025.2021.1949822" target="_blank" rel="noopener">protect public men in their professions and trades</a>. It worked to both defend their reputations individually and shut down speech about them as a group.</p> <p><a href="https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/comulp2&amp;div=6&amp;g_sent=1&amp;casa_token=fybEy5Ip_goAAAAA:mZwcFssrx7DMteRZh-2VpbadOiPG52vukVjaL_zAG2Rr-r9-GIbN1HpUADIArNrKIooONYOmpoKf&amp;collection=journals" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Data from the United States in the late 20th century</a> shows women comprise only 11% of plaintiffs bringing defamation suits.</p> <p>As legal scholar Diane Borden <a href="https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/comulp2&amp;div=6&amp;id=&amp;page=" target="_blank" rel="noopener">has noted</a>, the majority of libel plaintiffs are “men engaged in corporate or public life who boast relatively elite standing in their communities”.</p> <p>Defamation trials – which run according to complex and idiosyncratic rules – are often lengthy and expensive, thus favouring those with the resources to instigate and pursue them.</p> <p>Various defences exist, including arguing that the comments are factually true, or that they were made on occasions of “qualified privilege”, where a person has a duty to communicate information and the recipient has a corresponding interest in receiving it.</p> <p>But in one way or another, disputes concerning allegations of sexual and domestic abuse usually come down to matters of credibility and believability that play on gendered stereotypes.</p> <p>It becomes another version of “he said, she said”, and as we’ve seen from the social media response to Amber Heard, women making these types of allegations are often positioned as vengeful or malicious liars before their cases even reach the courts. This is despite the fact <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/0375553f-0395-46cc-9574-d54c74fa601a/aihw-fdv-5.pdf.aspx?inline=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sexual assault</a> and <a href="https://www.safesteps.org.au/understanding-family-violence/who-experiences-family-violence/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">intimate partner violence</a> are common, and <a href="https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2017-09/apo-nid107216_1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">false reporting</a> <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26679304/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">is rare</a>.</p> <p>In fact, most victims don’t tell the police, their employer or others what happened to them due to <a href="https://theconversation.com/almost-90-of-sexual-assault-victims-do-not-go-to-police-this-is-how-we-can-achieve-justice-for-survivors-157601" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fears</a> of not being believed, facing professional consequences, or being subject to <a href="https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/the-online-hate-for-amber-heard" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shaming and further abuse</a>.</p> <p>Heard has received thousands of <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/amber-heard-says-she-receives-death-threats-every-day-over-depp-claims-2022-05-26/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">death threats</a> and suffered relentless mockery on social media.</p> <p><strong>Time for reform</strong></p> <p>The global #MeToo movement and recent Australian campaigns, such as those instigated by Grace Tame and Brittany Higgins, encourage survivors to speak out and push collectively for change.</p> <p>But now, ruinous and humiliating defamation suits could further coerce and convince women to keeping their experiences quiet and private. Measures must be taken to better protect public speech on such matters.</p> <p>One potential way forward is for defamation trials involving imputations of gendered abuse to incorporate expert evidence about the nature of sexual and domestic violence in our society.</p> <p>For decades, <a href="https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/hwlj19&amp;div=8&amp;g_sent=1&amp;casa_token=&amp;collection=journals" target="_blank" rel="noopener">feminist legal scholars</a> fought for the inclusion of such evidence in criminal trials, especially those relating to matters of self-defence in domestic homicides and issues of consent in rape proceedings.</p> <p>Expert sociological and psychological evidence can combat and discredit ingrained patriarchal assumptions and myths – comments and questions such as “what was she wearing?”; “why didn’t she fight back?”; “why didn’t she just leave him?”; “why was she nice to him afterwards?” or “why didn’t she tell people at the time?”</p> <p>Otherwise, pervasive gender bias – often held by both men and women, judge and jury – can undermine the voices and accounts of women before they even set foot in court, before they even open their mouths.</p> <p>Defamation trials have not traditionally included such expert evidence. But now that they have become a powerful forum for silencing speech about gendered harm, perhaps it’s time they did so.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/184324/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /></p> <p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jessica-lake-126813" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jessica Lake</a>, Research Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-catholic-university-747" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Australian Catholic University</a></em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/could-the-depp-v-heard-case-make-other-abuse-survivors-too-scared-to-speak-up-184324" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>.</em></p> <p><em>Image: Getty Images</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

US Senate to vote on abortion rights bill – but what would it mean to codify Roe into law?

<p><em>The U.S. Senate is <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/05/11/1097980529/senate-to-vote-on-a-bill-that-codifies-abortion-protections-but-it-will-likely-f">expected to vote on May 11, 2022</a>, on a bill that would enshrine the right to an abortion into law.</em></p> <p><em>The Democrats’ bill, the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text">Women’s Health Protection Act</a>, isn’t expected to pass – a previous attempt was blocked by the Senate. But it reflects attempts by abortion rights advocates to find alternative ways to protect a woman’s right to the procedure following the publication of a <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473">leaked draft opinion</a> from Justice Samuel Alito indicating that a majority on the Supreme Court intend to overturn Roe v. Wade.</em></p> <p><em>But is enshrining abortion rights via legislation feasible? And why has it not been done before? The Conversation put these questions and others to <a href="https://www.bu.edu/law/profile/linda-c-mcclain/">Linda C. McClain</a>, an expert on civil rights law and feminist legal theory at Boston University School of Law.</em></p> <p><strong>What does it mean to ‘codify’ Roe v. Wade?</strong></p> <p>In simple terms, to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/codify#:%7E:text=To%20codify%20means%20to%20arrange,by%20subject%2C%20into%20a%20code.">codify something</a> means to enshrine a right or a rule into a formal systematic code. It could be done through an act of Congress in the form of a federal law. Similarly, state legislatures can codify rights by enacting laws. To codify Roe for all Americans, Congress would need to pass a law that would provide the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/03/us/what-is-roe-v-wade.html">same protections that Roe</a> did – so a law that states that women have a right to abortion without excessive government restrictions. It would be binding for all states.</p> <p>But here’s the twist: Despite some politicians saying that they want to “codify Roe,” Congress isn’t looking to enshrine Roe in law. That’s because <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18">Roe v. Wade</a> hasn’t been in place since 1992. The Supreme Court’s <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744">Planned Parenthood. v. Casey</a> ruling affirmed it, but also modified it in significant ways.</p> <p>In Casey, the court upheld Roe’s holding that a woman has the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy up to the point of fetal viability and that states could restrict abortion after that point, subject to exceptions to protect the life or health of the pregnant woman. But the Casey court concluded that Roe too severely limited state regulation prior to fetal viability and held that states could impose restrictions on abortion throughout pregnancy to protect potential life as well as to protect maternal health – including during the first trimester.</p> <p>Casey also introduced the “<a href="https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/WWH-Undue-Burden-Report-07262018-Edit.pdf">undue burden” test</a>, which prevented states from imposing restrictions that had the purpose or effect of placing unnecessary barriers on women seeking to end a pregnancy prior to viability of the fetus.</p> <p><strong>What is the Women’s Health Protection Act?</strong></p> <p>Current efforts to pass federal legislation protecting the right to abortion center on the proposed <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3755/text">Women’s Health Protection Act</a>, introduced in Congress by Rep. Judy Chu and sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Richard Blumenthal in 2021. It was passed in the House, but was <a href="https://time.com/6152473/abortion-roe-v-wade-democrats/">blocked in the Senate</a>. Democrats put the bill forward for a procedural vote again after Alito’s draft opinion was made public. Supporters of the bill are still expected to fall short of the votes they need. Rather, the vote is being used, in the <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/05/10/1097820801/senate-democrats-plan-a-vote-on-abortion-rights-but-its-unlikely-to-pass">words of Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar</a>, “to show where everyone stands” on the issue.</p> <p>The legislation would build on the undue burden principle in Casey by seeking to prevent states from imposing unfair restrictions on abortion providers, such as insisting a <a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/vbnqw4/abortion-clinics-are-closing-because-their-doorways-arent-big-enough">clinic’s doorway is wide enough</a> for surgical gurneys to pass through, or that <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/targeted-regulation-abortion-providers">abortion practitioners need to have admitting privileges</a> at nearby hospitals.</p> <p>The Women’s Health Protection Act uses the language of the Casey ruling in saying that these so-called TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws place an “undue burden” on people seeking an abortion. It also appeals to Casey’s recognition that “the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.”</p> <p><strong>Has the right to abortion ever been guaranteed by federal legislation?</strong></p> <p>You have to remember that Roe was very controversial from the outset. At the time of the ruling in 1973, most states had restrictive abortion laws. Up to the late 1960s, a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1973/01/28/archives/gallup-poll-finds-public-divided-on-abortions-in-first-3-months.html">majority of Americans opposed abortion</a>. A poll at the time of Roe found the public evenly split over legalization.</p> <p>To pass legislation you have to go through the democratic process. But if the democratic process is hostile to what you are hoping to push through, you are going to run into difficulties.</p> <p>Under the U.S. system, certain liberties are seen as so fundamental that protecting them should not be left to the whims of changing democratic majorities. Consider something like interracial marriage. Before the Supreme Court ruled in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/395">Loving v. Virginia State</a> that banning interracial marriages was unconstitutional, a number of states still banned such unions.</p> <p>Why couldn’t they pass a law in Congress protecting the right to marry? It would have been difficult because at the time, the <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx">majority of people were against</a> the idea of interracial marriage.</p> <p>When you don’t have sufficient public support for something – particularly if it is unpopular or affects a non-majority group – appealing to the Constitution seems to be the better way to protect a right.</p> <p>That doesn’t mean you can’t also protect that right through a statute, just that it is harder. Also, there is no guarantee that legislation passed by any one Congress isn’t then repealed by lawmakers later on.</p> <p><strong>So generally, rights have more enduring protection if the Supreme Court rules on them?</strong></p> <p>The <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx">Supreme Court has the final word</a> on what is and isn’t protected by the Constitution. In the past, it has been seen as sufficient to protect a constitutional right to get a ruling from the justices recognizing that right.</p> <p>But this leaked opinion also points out that one limit of that protection is that the Supreme Court may overrule its own precedents.</p> <p>Historically, it is unusual for the Supreme Court to take a right away. Yes, they said the <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/163us537">Plessy v. Ferguson ruling</a> – which set up the legal basis for separate-but-equal – was wrong, and overruled it in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/347us483">Brown v. Board of Education</a>. But Brown recognized rights; it didn’t take rights away.</p> <p>If Alito’s draft ruling is to be the final word, the Supreme Court will be taking away a right that has been in place since 1973. For what I believe is the first time since the end of the Lochner era, the Supreme Court would be overriding precedent to take away a constitutional right from Americans. While Justice Alito notes that, in 1937, the Court overruled “an entire line” of cases protecting “an individual liberty right against federal health and welfare legislation,” that “right” to economic liberty and freedom of contract was as much one of businesses as much as for individuals. The Court has not overruled of the long line of cases (in which Roe and Casey fit) protecting “liberty” in making significant decisions about intimacy, sexuality, family, marriage, and reproduction.</p> <p>Moreover, the leaked opinion is dismissive of the idea that women have to rely on constitutional protection. “Women are not without electoral or political power,” <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/read-justice-alito-initial-abortion-opinion-overturn-roe-v-wade-pdf-00029504">Alito writes</a>, adding: “The percentage of women who register to vote and cast ballots is consistently higher than the percentage of men who do so.”</p> <p>But this ignores the fact that women <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/roe-v-wade-overturned-supreme-court-abortion-draft-alitos-legal-analys-rcna27205">rarely make up close to half</a> of the members of most state legislative bodies.</p> <p><strong>So are the promises to get Congress to protect abortion rights realistic?</strong></p> <p>Republicans in the Senate successfully blocked the proposed Women’s Health Protection Act. And unless things change dramatically in Congress, there isn’t much chance of the bill becoming law.</p> <p>There has been talk of trying to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-supreme-court-abortion-move-sparks-calls-ending-senates-filibuster-2022-05-04/">end the filibuster rule</a>, which requires 60 votes in the Senate to pass legislation. But even then, the 50 votes that would be needed might not be there.</p> <p>What we don’t know is how this Supreme Court leak will affect the calculus. Maybe some Republican senators will see that the writing is on the wall and vote with Democrats. Republican senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski <a href="https://www.collins.senate.gov/newsroom/senators-collins-and-murkowski-introduce-bill-to-codify-supreme-court-decisions-on-reproductive-rights_roe-v-wade-and-planned-parenthood-v-casey">introduced legislation</a> earlier this year that would codify Roe in law, but isn’t as expansive as the Women’s Health Protection Act. Senator Collins has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/05/sen-collins-voices-opposition-legislation-that-would-create-statutory-right-abortion/">recently indicated</a> that she will not support the Act out of concern for religious liberty of anti-abortion health providers.</p> <p>And then we have the midterm elections in November, which might shake up who’s in Congress. If the Democrats lose the House or fail to pick up seats in the Senate, the chances of pushing through any legislation protecting abortion rights would appear very slim. Democrats will be hoping that the Supreme Court ruling will mobilize pro-abortion rights voters.</p> <p><strong>What is going on at a state level?</strong></p> <p>Liberal states like Massachusetts have <a href="https://www.boston.com/news/policy/2020/12/29/massachusetts-senate-override-abortion-access/">passed laws that codify Roe v. Wade</a>. Now that the Supreme Court’s apparent intentions are known, expect similar moves elsewhere. Massachusetts and other states are looking to go a step further by <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/05/01/1095813226/connecticut-abortion-bill-roe-v-wade">protecting residents who help out-of-state women</a> seeking abortion. Such laws would seemingly counter moves by states like Missouri, which is seeking to <a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-03-11/editorial-missouri-might-make-it-illegal-to-help-a-woman-get-an-abortion-elsewhere-thats-ridiculous">push through legislation that would criminalize helping women</a> who go out of state for abortions.</p> <p><strong>Wouldn’t any federal law just be challenged at the Supreme Court?</strong></p> <p>Should Congress be able to pass a law enshrining the right to abortion for all Americans, then surely some conservative states will seek to overturn the law, saying that the federal government is exceeding its authority.</p> <p>If it were to go up to the Supreme Court, then conservative justices would presumably look unfavorably on any attempt to limit individual states’ rights when it comes to abortion. Similarly, any attempt to put in place a federal law that would restrict abortion for all would seemingly conflict with the Supreme Court’s position that it should be left to the states to decide.</p> <p><em>This is an updated version of an article <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-would-it-mean-to-codify-roe-into-law-and-is-there-any-chance-of-that-happening-182406">originally published on May 5, 2022</a>.</em><!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/182908/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p> <p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/linda-c-mcclain-1343287">Linda C. McClain</a>, Professor of Law, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/boston-university-898">Boston University</a></em></p> <p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-senate-to-vote-on-abortion-rights-bill-but-what-would-it-mean-to-codify-roe-into-law-182908">original article</a>.</em></p> <p><em>Image: Getty Images</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

America’s Roe v Wade abortion law could be overturned

<p dir="ltr">Leaked US Supreme Court documents revealing that the Roe v Wade abortion law is set to be overturned have sparked outcry across the US - prompting protests and widespread debate online - and made headlines around the world.</p> <p dir="ltr">The documents, first published by <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Politico</a> and <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/read-justice-alito-initial-abortion-opinion-overturn-roe-v-wade-pdf-00029504" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shared in their entirety</a>, contain a draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that rejects two significant decisions for abortion rights: 1973’s Roe v Wade and the subsequent Planned Parenthood v Casey.</p> <p><span id="docs-internal-guid-044e8cfe-7fff-ca1a-b3ca-c9ca5b509738"></span></p> <p dir="ltr">Roe v Wade allowed women the right to access abortions during the first two trimesters, with restrictions in the second trimester. In 1992, Planned Parenthood v Casey replaced the trimester framework with restrictions depending on whether the foetus could survive outside the womb.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">Thousands out in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/FoleySquare?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#FoleySquare</a>.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AbortionIsHealthcare?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AbortionIsHealthcare</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BansOffOurBodies?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BansOffOurBodies</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RoeVWade?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RoeVWade</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/abortionrights?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#abortionrights</a> <a href="https://t.co/4JS3vQ3nhp">pic.twitter.com/4JS3vQ3nhp</a></p> <p>— Melissa Bender (@mbendernyc) <a href="https://twitter.com/mbendernyc/status/1521638278843273217?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 3, 2022</a></p></blockquote> <p dir="ltr">In the leaked documents, Justice Alito wrote that Roe v Wade “was egregiously wrong from the start”.</p> <p dir="ltr">“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he wrote in a document labelled as the ‘Opinion of the Court’.</p> <p dir="ltr">“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Where previous arguments to overturn the decision have stemmed from the rights of the foetus, Justice Alito reasoned that it has no ties to the US Constitution, which makes no reference to abortion rights specifically.</p> <p dir="ltr">“Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Consitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion,” he wrote, noting that the right to an abortion isn’t “implicitly protected by any constitutional provision”.</p> <p dir="ltr">As a result, some experts are concerned that this reasoning could also see the right to contraception be targeted next, according to <em><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2022/05/03/after-roe-v-wade-vote-access-to-contraception-could-be-under-scrutiny/?sh=2b09b0566a29" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Forbes</a></em>.</p> <p dir="ltr">Jamie Raskin, a constitutional scholar and Congressman, explained to the Rachel Maddow Show that Roe is based on an earlier case, Griswold v Connecticut, which struck down a law banning birth control and that overturning Roe and Casey could result in Griswold falling too.</p> <p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-affc0e7a-7fff-f023-4846-d7b46200404f"></span></p> <p dir="ltr">“We know there is a right-wing war on contraception now, but if Casey is to fall, if Roe v Wade is to fall, then Griswold v Connecticut, presumably, is to fall as well, because the word ‘contraception’ or ‘birth control’ doesn’t appear in the Constitution,” Mr Raskin said.</p> <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> <p dir="ltr" lang="en">PSA: if Roe falls, your constitutional right to birth control will also be in jeopardy.</p> <p>This has never just been about abortion. It’s about controlling &amp; criminalizing our bodies.</p> <p>— Rep. Barbara Lee (@RepBarbaraLee) <a href="https://twitter.com/RepBarbaraLee/status/1518667259413245953?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 25, 2022</a></p></blockquote> <p dir="ltr">Aside from affecting family life, restricting access to birth control also has repercussions on women’s careers and salaries. Harvard economists Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/117269.pdf?casa_token=HuDCGE6BhzgAAAAA:0txAsdJnXKkosw8IWUugCK7SinBvLRsFfMWkbJ78jKDMb3RYZr_j83avLtoyRC7mcAQkFMpO4jaMid5sBJm2g-WlhlnbE-ikIdLHjhrwjQg_oUQ0TapA" target="_blank" rel="noopener">have pointed out</a> that access to contraception and abortions prompted the increase in women who were ‘high-powered professionals’ since the 1970s.</p> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/26/contraception-birth-control-access-contributes-to-womens-wage-increases-says-new-study.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Another study</a> found that women with access to legal contraception earned 11 percent more by year by the time they turn 40, with the study authors suggesting that women can choose to delay having children and invest more in their education and occupation.</p> <p dir="ltr">Current and former leaders have since weighed in on the documents, with President Joe Biden arguing “basic fairness” demands the Supreme Court not overturn the decision, per <em><a href="https://time.com/6173002/joe-biden-abortion-fundamental-right/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">TIME</a></em>.</p> <p dir="ltr">Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker for the House of Representatives, described the potential decision as an “abomination”, as reported by <em><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/03/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-draft-abortion-ruling" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Guardian</a></em>.</p> <p dir="ltr">“If the report is accurate, the supreme court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past 50 years - not just on women but on all Americans,” she said. </p> <p dir="ltr">“The Republican-appointed judges’ reported votes to overturn Roe v Wade would go down as an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.”</p> <p dir="ltr">Though the Supreme Court has confirmed that the leaked documents are authentic, a court statement has emphasised that the draft isn’t the judge’s final word and could change according to the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-04/us-supreme-court-investigate-roe-v-wade-leak/101035852" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ABC</a>.</p> <p dir="ltr">Chief Justice John Roberts has also said he has ordered an investigation into the situation, which he called an “egregious breach of trust”.</p> <p dir="ltr"><span id="docs-internal-guid-fd004f02-7fff-1858-d3e5-2789cc53707b"></span></p> <p dir="ltr"><em>Image: Getty Images</em></p>

Legal

Placeholder Content Image

Humans v Machine: fake news headlines or real deal?

<div class="copy"> <p>Can you tell whether the title of a scientific article was written by a human or an AI? Because half the time, not even doctors can spot the fake science headline, according to a<a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj-2021-067732" target="_blank"> paper</a> published in <em>BMJ.</em></p> <p>In a study worthy of the silly season, researchers used an AI to generate research paper titles and tested whether readers could tell if they were fake.</p> <p>They took the top titles from 10 years of <em>BMJs </em>Christmas edition – which are often quirkier than normal – to teach an AI to write its own titles. These were then rated by a random sample of doctors from multiple disciplines and countries.</p> <p>They found that AI-generated titles were rated at least as enjoyable (69%) compared to real titles (64%), although the real titles were rated as more plausible (73%) than AI titles (48%).</p> <p>They also found that the AI titles were deemed less scientific if generated at random, but this became less apparent when the titles were then curated by a human.</p> <p>The authors say that this shows how the best results come from an AI and a human working together, where the AI can compensate for human oversights but humans can make the final call.</p> <p>The two AI-generated titles deemed the most plausible were: “The clinical effectiveness of lollipops as a treatment for sore throats” and “The effects of free gourmet coffee on emergency department waiting times: an observational study.”</p> <p>The silliest title generated by the AI was: “Superglue your nipples together and see if it helps you to stop agonising about <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/health/mediterranean-diet-helps-ed/" target="_blank">erectile dysfunction</a> at work.” The authors note that this demonstrates the AI doesn’t know how to be polite, which limits its real-world application without human help.</p> <em>Image credits: Getty Images </em></div> <div id="contributors"> <p><em>This article was originally published on <a rel="noopener" href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/ai/fake-science-headline/" target="_blank">cosmosmagazine.com</a> and was written by Deborah Devis. </em></p> </div>

Technology

Placeholder Content Image

Leaving Neverland: Director says police are convinced of Michael Jackson’s guilt

<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The director of the explosive </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">Leaving Neverland</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"> documentary has claimed that police who investigated Michael Jackson over child sex abuse claims were convinced of the singer’s guilt.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Jackson is facing renewed allegations that he molested children after the </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">Leaving Neverland</span><span style="font-weight: 400;"> documentary aired graphic claims from Wade Robson and James Safechuck.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The claims have angered the Jackson family and fans of his music.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">However, director Dan Reed said that their allegations went through a vigorous process of fact-checking.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Speaking to </span><a href="https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/none-of-them-had-any-doubts-at-all-about-his-guilt-leaving-neverland-director-dan-reed/news-story/b44cc1532b5cb88b76b15c3f3d8abe79"><span style="font-weight: 400;">The Morning Show</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> Reed explained that he “went in with an open mind” before becoming convinced of Jackson’s guilt. </span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“I didn’t approach this in a naive way. I listened very carefully to days and days and days of interview, then we went and did about 18 months of research and checked everything we could and tried to poke holes in Wade and James’ accounts,” Reed explained.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“We didn’t find anything that cast any doubt on their accounts — on the contrary, we found a lot of corroborating evidence.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“I interviewed the police investigators and the sheriff’s department investigators who were part of looking into Michael Jackson’s background, and none of them had any doubts at all about his guilt.”</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Reed explained that he was worried about the impact that the documentary would have on Jackson’s children, but the stories of Robson and Safechuck needed to be told.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“The politics of the Jackson clan is very complicated and this supposed attempted suicide of Paris, which she has immediately denied, that’s very puzzling. I don’t know what’s going on there,” Reed said.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“Jackson’s children had nothing to do with the sexual abuse and of course they’re upset that their dad is being accused of all this stuff. But these allegations have been around for decades now and they won’t come as any surprise to the kids.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“I feel for them, I wish them the very best, but the truth must come out because I think this is an important story.”</span></p>

Music