Archive by Author

36 experts agree: Stay the course in Ukraine

Over the past three months, the Ukrainians have thwarted Vladimir Putin’s effort to topple their duly elected government, take Kyiv and occupy much of the country. The battle is not over, however, so the West must continue to help ensure that the Kremlin’s aggression fails and that Ukraine forces a Russian withdrawal or achieves a negotiated outcome on terms acceptable to Ukrainians.

More than 30 of our fellow experts and national security professionals — whose digital signatures appear at the end of this op-ed — agree.

Russia’s egregious violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and numerous war crimes — from the indiscriminate bombardment of hospitals, schools and residential areas, to use of cluster and vacuum bombs, summary executions, widespread rape, mass deportations, including of children, and torture — have engendered strong popular support in the United States and other Western countries for Ukraine. The Biden administration and bipartisan leadership in Congress have risen to the challenge through close coordination with allies and partners in implementing punishing sanctions on Russia, supplying major weapons to Ukraine, strengthening NATO’s force posture on its eastern flank, and supporting the bids by Finland and Sweden to join NATO. Quick passage of the Lend-Lease Act and a $40 billion assistance package (that provides, among other things, $6 billion in military aid to Ukraine) provides a much-needed boost to Kyiv’s efforts but must also include stringent oversight to ensure proper use.

Putin’s war on Ukraine may be 5,000 miles from Washington, but it directly threatens critical American interests and deliberately risks a global food crisis. Putin’s war on Ukraine is a direct attack on international law and the global order which enshrines sovereignty, territorial integrity and the peaceful resolution of disputes and has given the world 75 years of prosperity and the absence of great power war. What’s more, Putin’s aggressive designs may not end with the subjugation of Ukraine. If successful there, he might be tempted to seek to restore Moscow’s influence throughout the entire area once controlled by the Soviet Union. That would pose a direct threat to NATO allies in the Baltic region and elsewhere in eastern Europe, allies to whose defense the United States is committed under the security guarantee in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

President Volodymyr Zelensky and Ukraine’s soldiers are not asking NATO to fight their battles for them, but they do need American and NATO weapons and economic assistance to prevail. It is in America’s national interest to see Ukraine emerge from this war as a truly sovereign and democratic state, in charge of its own foreign policy, militarily strong, territorially secure, and economically viable.

The United States and Europe must avoid the urge to encourage Kyiv to negotiate a ceasefire that falls short of Ukraine’s goals and could consign millions of Ukrainians to Russian control; after all, Putin denies the legitimacy of a unique Ukrainian identity, and Russian forces have already committed countless war crimes against them. Moreover, the Ukrainian side has tried to engage in good-faith negotiations, but got nowhere because Putin has shown no interest in serious negotiations. Western pressure on Kyiv to begin negotiations or accept a ceasefire that the Ukrainians do not want would likely harden the Kremlin’s attitude and prolong the fighting.

The United States should instead continue to exert leadership in the Western effort to provide Ukraine the weapons it needs, to impose additional sanctions on Moscow, and to bolster NATO’s military presence on its eastern flank. This includes sending Ukraine in a timely fashion more advanced weapons, such as long-range fires, high-altitude air defense systems and anti-ship missiles.

It also means intensified economic pressure, including measures to cut Russian revenues from oil sales either through a phased-in embargo by the European Union (EU) or, alternatively, EU price caps or tariffs on Russian sales backed up by U.S. secondary sanctions. Finally, it means traditional U.S. freedom of navigation exercises in the Black Sea, and a careful look at a multinational military escort of cargo ships to and from Odesa to ease the mounting global food shortage.

No one wants direct confrontation with Russia, but helping Ukraine to defend its land and freedom is in the West’s security interest. While the United States and NATO must certainly take into account Russian nuclear capacity, they should respond calmly and not be intimidated.

This unjustified war has a clear aggressor — Russia — and a clear victim — Ukraine. The West should aim to see that the Kremlin’s aggression fails and that Ukraine prevails on the battlefield or achieves an outcome that Kyiv can accept.

Sincerely (in alphabetical order),

Dr. Stephen Blank, Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute

General Philip Breedlove, US Air Force, Retired; 17^th Supreme Allied Commander Europe; Distinguished Professor, Sam Nunn School, Georgia Institute of Technology

Ian Brzezinski, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Europe and NATO Policy

General Wesley K. Clark, US Army, Retired; 12^th Supreme Allied Commander, Europe; Senior Fellow, UCLA Burkle Center

Eliot A. Cohen, Former Counselor, US Department of State

Lt. General Keith Dayton, US Army, Retired

Dr. Larry Diamond, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; Senior Fellow, Stanford University

Ambassador Paula Dobriansky, Former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, US Department of State

Dr. Eric S. Edelman, Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, US Department of Defense

Dr. Evelyn N. Farkas, Executive Director, The McCain Institute; Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia  

Ambassador Daniel Fried, Former Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Ambassador to Poland, US Department of State; Weiser Family Distinguished Fellow, Atlantic Council

Dr. Francis Fukuyama, Stanford University

Melinda Haring, Deputy Director, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council; Senior Fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute

Ambassador John Herbst, Former US Ambassador to Ukraine

Lt. General Mark Hertling, US Army, Retired; Former Commanding General, US Army Europe

Lt. General Ben Hodges, US Army, Retired; Former Commanding General, US Army Europe

Glen E. Howard, President, Jamestown Foundation

Natalie A. Jaresko, Former Minister of Finance of Ukraine; Chairperson, Aspen Institute Kyiv; Distinguished Fellow, Eurasia Center, Atlantic Council

Dr. Donald N. Jensen, Adjunct Professor, Johns Hopkins University

Dr. Andrea Kendall-Taylor, Former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Russia and Eurasia, National Intelligence Council

David J. Kramer, Former Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, US Department of State

Dr. Matthew Kroenig, Deputy Director, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Director of the Center’s Scowcroft Strategy Initiative, Atlantic Council

Jan M. Lodal, Distinguished Fellow, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council

Nadia McConnell, President, US-Ukraine Foundation

Robert McConnell, Former Assistant Attorney General, US Department of Justice; Director for External Relations, US-Ukraine Foundation’s Friends of Ukraine Network (FOUN)

Ambassador Michael McFaul, Former US Ambassador to Russia; Director, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University

Barry Pavel, Senior Vice President, Atlantic Council

Ambassador Steven Pifer, William J. Perry Fellow, Stanford University; Former US Ambassador to Ukraine

Herman Pirchner, Jr., President, American Foreign Policy Council

Ambassador Stephen Sestanovich, Professor, Columbia University; Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations; US Ambassador-at-Large for the Former Soviet Union, 1997-2001

Ambassador Andras Simonyi, Former Hungarian Ambassador to the United States

Christopher Skaluba, Director, Transatlantic Security Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, Atlantic Council

Ambassador William B. Taylor, Former US Ambassador to Ukraine

Ambassador Alexander Vershbow, Former NATO Deputy Secretary General; Former Assistant Secretary of Defense; Former US Ambassador to Russia and NATO

Ambassador Kurt Volker, Former US Ambassador to NATO and US Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations; Distinguished Fellow, Center for European Policy Analysis

Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, Former US Ambassador to Ukraine

Institutional affiliations are for purposes of identification only. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Employees at Sonic Drive-In call police to report python in kitchen

(NEXSTAR) – A stray python slithered into a Sonic Drive-In last month, sending employees running from the restaurant.

Workers at a Sonic location in Brunswick, Georgia, found the python snuggled up behind the fryer on the evening of May 20. Lt. Matthew Wilson of the Brunswick Police responded to find the employees had all “exited the business” upon finding the snake, which they initially described as brown with a diamond pattern on its skin.

Lt. Wilson, believing the snake could have been a rattler, requested permission to take a look. Fortunately, he was able to confirm the snake was non-venomous.

“I went inside and looked at the snake and immediately observed the snake not to be a rattlesnake and that it was a ball python as I personally own one,” wrote Lt. Wilson in a statement shared with Nexstar.

Lt. Wilson then scooped up the python with his bare hands — and a broom handle — and placed it in a bag. The python was transported to a temporary home in a terrarium, as there are “no local trappers or resources” in Brunswick that would be able to take the snake.

Lt. Wilson says it’s unclear where the python came from, though it’s possible the snake slithered away from — or was released by — a resident who was keeping it as a pet.

Weeks later, no one has reported the loss of a snake to Brunswick Police or animal-control services. The python, meanwhile, has been handed over to a local snake-owner who has experience with this species, Lt. Wilson said.

Source: TEST FEED1

Cyber Command chief confirms US took part in offensive cyber operations

U.S. Cyber Command Director Gen. Paul Nakasone confirmed for the first time that the U.S. had conducted offensive cyber operations in support of Ukraine.

“We’ve conducted a series of operations across the full spectrum; offensive, defensive, [and] information operations,” Nakasone said in an interview Wednesday with Sky News, a British television news channel. 

Although the general did not provide specifics, he said the operations were lawful and conducted with civilian oversight of the military.

“My job is to provide a series of options to the Secretary of Defense and the president, and so that’s what I do,” he told Sky News.

Nakasone previously said his agency deployed a “hunt forward” team in December to help Ukraine shore up its cyber defenses and networks against active threats. But his latest remarks appear to be the first time that a U.S. official said publicly that the U.S. has been involved in offensive cyber operations in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 

The general, who was speaking in Tallinn, Estonia, told Sky News that the “hunt forward” operations have enabled the U.S. to look for foreign hackers and identify their strategies before they target the United States.

In the interview, Nakasone also said the U.S. is conducting operations to dismantle Russian propaganda, particularly disinformation campaigns that may influence elections. 

“We had an opportunity to start talking about what particularly the Russians were trying to do in our midterm elections. We saw it again in 2020, as we talked about what the Russians and Iranians were going to do, but this was on a smaller scale,” Nakasone said. 

“The ability for us to share that information, being able to ensure it’s accurate and it’s timely and it’s actionable on a broader scale has been very, very powerful in this crisis,” he added.

Experts have warned that Russia will likely deploy its cyber operations in the 2022 midterm elections, which may take different forms, including disinformation campaigns and election hacking. The experts also said that Russia’s playbook is to divide the U.S. along party lines and suppress voter turnout.

Source: TEST FEED1

Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg stepping down

Meta Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg is stepping down after 14 years with the company, she announced Wednesday. 

She will continue to serve on the company’s board of directors.

“When I took this job in 2008, I hoped I would be in this role for five years. Fourteen years later, it is time for me to write the next chapter of my life. I am not entirely sure what the future will bring – I have learned no one ever is. But I know it will include focusing more on my foundation and philanthropic work, which is more important to me than ever given how critical this moment is for women,” Sandberg wrote in a post on Facebook, which is owned by Meta. 

She will leave the company “this fall,” she said.

Sandberg will be replaced as COO by Javier Olivan, the company’s chief growth officer, but his role will differ from the work Sandberg did for the company, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a post. 

“Looking forward, I don’t plan to replace Sheryl’s role in our existing structure. I’m not sure that would be possible since she’s a superstar who defined the COO role in her own unique way. But even if it were possible, I think Meta has reached the point where it makes sense for our product and business groups to be more closely integrated, rather than having all the business and operations functions organized separately from our products,” he said. 

Olivian will lead the company’s integrated ads and business products in addition to continuing to lead growth teams. It will be more of a “traditional COO role,” Zuckerberg said. 

“I’m going to miss running this company with Sheryl. But I’m glad that she’ll continue to serve on our board of directors so we can benefit from her wisdom and experience even after she transitions out of her day-to-day management role in the coming months,” he said. 

Sandberg joined Facebook, now under the parent company name Meta, in its early days and worked closely with Zuckerberg throughout the company’s rise in power and size. 

During her time as the company’s number two, Facebook grew to immense power — and with it, faced increased scrutiny on matters including the spread of misinformation, the collection of personal data and its acquisitions of WhatsApp and Instagram. 

In her post announcing her resignation, Sandberg said the “debate around social media has changed beyond recognition since those early days.” 

“To say it hasn’t always been easy is an understatement. But it should be hard. The products we make have a huge impact, so we have the responsibility to build them in a way that protects privacy and keeps people safe,” Sandberg wrote. 

“Just as I believe wholeheartedly in our mission, our industry, and the overwhelmingly positive power of connecting people, I and the dedicated people of Meta have felt our responsibilities deeply. I know that the extraordinary team at Meta will continue to work tirelessly to rise to these challenges and keep making our company and our community better,” she added. 

Updated at 4:10 p.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

Expressing gratitude with coworkers improves stress responses in the heart: study

Teammates who thanked each other before taking on a high-stress task showed better heart-related stress responses than other groups who did not show similar expressions of gratitude, according to a new experimental study.  

“Our results have meaningful implications for organizations and particularly for employees who work together under acutely stressful conditions to accomplish joint goals,” said Christopher Oveis, senior author of the study, which will be published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology. 

The authors wrote that the impetus for their study was due to a dearth of research on how gratitude might “impact loose tie relationships,” like coworkers. 

The study’s results were gathered from an experiment that paired up 200 University of California, San Diego students who lived with their suitemates to imitate relationships between those who spend a good deal of time together but are not personally close, like coworkers. 

Each pair was given an “essentially impossible task,” according to Oveis, in which they had six minutes apiece to produce a design for a bicycle and six minutes to pitch their idea to a panel of judges – a model based on the television series “Shark Tank,” with the winning team receiving $200. 

“The experiment is designed to create a maximally stressful environment so we can gauge how gratitude shapes stress response during teamwork because most people spend a third or more of their daily lives at work,” Oveis added.  

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news. 

Participants wore electrodes on their necks and torsos, while also wearing a blood pressure cuff, to test their cardiovascular responses to the stressful assignment. Then researchers randomly selected teams to show gratitude.

When assigned a challenging task, Oveis said, people react in one of two ways. The challenge response results in a person’s heart pumping out more blood leading to a heightened neurological response.  

“But other people don’t fare as well and instead have a threat response: The heart pumps out less blood, the vasculature constricts, blood flow to periphery is reduced and performance goes down,” Oveis said.  

The researchers found that a simple expression of gratitude effectively eliminated this threat response.  

“Gratitude expressions within work environments may be key to managing our day-to-day stress responses as well optimizing how we respond during high-pressure performance tasks like product pitches, so that we can make our stress responses fuel performance instead of harm it,” Oveis said. “But at their core, gratitude expressions play a fundamental role in strengthening our relationships at work.” 

READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA 

CITY OF AUSTIN PREPARES TO DECRIMINALIZE ABORTION IF ROE V. WADE IS STRUCK DOWN 

CARSON DALY SAYS HE’S IN A ‘MUCH BETTER PLACE’ AFTER TALKING ABOUT ANXIETY ATTACKS 

HERE ARE THE STATES WHERE YOU CAN (AND CANNOT) CHANGE YOUR GENDER DESIGNATION ON OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS 

LIA THOMAS: ‘TRANS WOMEN ARE NOT A THREAT TO WOMEN’S SPORTS’ 

Source: TEST FEED1

Jill Biden to host unveiling of Nancy Reagan stamp

First lady Jill Biden next week will help unveil a new postal stamp to honor former first lady Nancy Reagan, the White House announced Wednesday.

Biden will host the event on Monday at the White House. She’ll be joined by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy; Fred Ryan, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation; and Anne Peterson, who is Nancy Reagan’s niece.

As first lady, Reagan founded the “Just Say No” anti-drug program as her major initiative and promoted the awareness campaign to children throughout her husband’s two terms in office. She also previously served as first lady of California while her husband was governor.

Reagan died in 2016 at age 94.

A handful of other first ladies have been honored with U.S. Postal Service stamps, including Eleanor Roosevelt, Martha Washington, Dolley Madison and Lady Bird Johnson.

Source: TEST FEED1

Jury finds Depp, Heard both liable for defamation

A Virginia jury on Wednesday found that Johnny Depp and his former spouse, Amber Heard, both defamed each other, awarding $15 million in damages to the “Pirates of the Caribbean” star and $2 million to Heard.

The Wednesday verdict in the high-profile defamation case marked a big win for Depp, whose legal team had argued that an op-ed about sexual violence penned by Heard harmed his Hollywood career.

The verdict awarded $5 million in punitive damages and $10 million in compensatory damages to Depp, while Heard won $2 million as part of a countersuit.

Depp had sued Heard for $50 million in damages. In a $100 million counterclaim, Heard accused Depp of damaging her reputation by dubbing her a liar following her allegations of sexual violence against him. 

The 58-year-old “Rum Diary” star had claimed that Heard, who married him in 2015 before divorcing a year later, ruined his reputation by insinuating he abused her in a 2018 Washington Post op-ed. The op-ed, in which Heard spoke out against sexual violence, never named Depp.

Heard said she was “heartbroken” by the ruling.

“The disappointment I feel today is beyond words,” Heard said in a statement immediately following the verdict. “I’m heartbroken that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power, influence, and sway of my ex-husband,” she said.

“I’m even more disappointed with what this verdict means for other women. It is a setback. It sets back the clock to a time when a woman who spoke up and spoke out could be publicly shamed and humiliated. It sets back the idea that violence against women is to be taken seriously,” Heard said.

Depp said in a statement that he was “truly humbled” by the decision, saying, “The jury gave me my life back.”

“From the very beginning, the goal of bringing this case was to reveal the truth, regardless of the outcome,” Depp said.

“Speaking the truth was something that I owed to my children and to all those who have remained steadfast in their support of me. I feel at peace knowing I have finally accomplished that,” he said.

The jury’s decision brings an end to a star-studded trial that quickly swelled into a media firestorm.

Depp, who was seen performing at a concert in England earlier in the week, was not present in the courtroom as the verdict was read on Wednesday.

The verdict came after Depp’s case against the “Aquaman” actor generated headlines around the world as both fans and critics became regular court watchers, viewing livestreams and breathless coverage of the daily proceedings in Virginia’s Fairfax County Circuit Court.

Thirty-six-year-old Heard had testified that Depp had physically and sexually abused her throughout much of their relationship. She claimed in court that she masked bruises on her face with makeup.

Denying he ever physically assaulted his ex-wife, Depp claimed that Heard was the one who mentally and physically abused him in the past.

Including explosive testimony from Heard and Depp, the six-week trial also included a host of Hollywood witnesses, with model Kate Moss and actor Ellen Barkin both offering testimony, along with a parade of talent agents, doctors, and friends and family members.

Heard claimed in stirring testimony that Depp had assaulted her the night before a fight between the couple that severed one of her then-husband’s fingertips. Depp had claimed that Heard had thrown a vodka bottle at him.

“At some point I shoved him hard, to get him off me, and he shoved me back,” Heard told the court of Depp.

“Johnny had the bottle inside of me, and he shoved it into me over and over again,” Heard testified.

On the stand, Depp described what it was like listening to his ex-wife’s testimony throughout the trial, saying, “It’s insane to hear heinous accusations of violence, sexual violence … that she’s accusing me of.”

“[It’s] horrible, ridiculous, humiliating, ludicrous, painful, savage, unimaginably brutal, cruel,” Depp said.

Jurors had deliberated since Friday before delivering their verdict.

Updated at 4:08 p.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden issues proclamation recognizing LGBTQ+ Pride Month

President Biden has declared June to be LGBTQ+ Pride Month, calling on the American people to “recognize the achievements of the LGBTQI+ community, to celebrate the great diversity of the American people, and to wave their flags of pride high.”

In a presidential proclamation issued Tuesday on the eve of Pride Month, Biden honored the resilience of LGBTQ+ people across the nation, whose rights, he said, have been under relentless attack.

“Members of the LGBTQI+ community — especially people of color and trans people — continue to face discrimination and cruel, persistent efforts to undermine their human rights,” the president said, referring to the onslaught of legislation targeting LGBTQ+ people in state legislatures across the country. 

Some of those measures, like what has become known as Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill and Alabama’s felony ban on gender-affirming care for transgender and nonbinary minors, have already been signed into law. Nine states this year have passed laws to prevent transgender athletes from playing on sports teams that match their gender identity, and more are looking to follow.

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

State-led efforts to restrict the rights of LGBTQ+ people have “left countless LGBTQI+ families in fear and pain,” Biden said Tuesday.

“All of this compounded has been especially difficult on LGBTQI+ youth, 45 percent of whom seriously considered attempting suicide in the last year — a devastating reality that our Nation must work urgently to address,” he added, referring to recent research from the LGBTQ+ youth suicide prevention and crisis intervention group The Trevor Project.

Biden said his administration condemns proposed legislation with the potential to harm LGBTQ+ youth, and noted that his office has taken “historic action” to advance LGBTQ+ equality in the U.S., including by offering a gender-neutral “X” gender designation on passports for nonbinary Americans and establishing the first White House Gender Policy Council.

Last year, Biden also signed an Executive Order charging the federal government with preventing and combating discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Biden on Tuesday directed part of his message toward transgender youth, telling them, “I will always have your back as your President.” Biden used the same language in his last two State of the Union addresses and in a tweet denouncing anti-LGBTQ+ legislation in Florida.

Ahead of Biden’s 2022 State of the Union address in March, “Pose” actress Angelica Ross delivered the LGBTQ State of the Union, where she accused the president and his administration of doing the “bare minimum” for LGBTQ+ youth.

“You say trans youth are brave and claimed to have their backs, and your administration has not done enough to sufficiently protect them. Talk is cheap. We need you to act,” the actress, who is transgender, said.

READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA

CITY OF AUSTIN PREPARES TO DECRIMINALIZE ABORTION IF ROE V. WADE IS STRUCK DOWN

CARSON DALY SAYS HE’S IN A ‘MUCH BETTER PLACE’ AFTER TALKING ABOUT ANXIETY ATTACKS

HERE ARE THE STATES WHERE YOU CAN (AND CANNOT) CHANGE YOUR GENDER DESIGNATION ON OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS

LIA THOMAS: ‘TRANS WOMEN ARE NOT A THREAT TO WOMEN’S SPORTS’

HOW BUYING A HOME IS CHANGING IN AMERICA

Source: TEST FEED1

Abortion and the Supreme Court: An American tragedy

If William Shakespeare were alive today, he would likely write a play about abortion rights and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Consistent with Shakespeare’s preference for short titles, the play might be called “Tragedy Supreme.”

The first act opens in October 1972 with Supreme Court justices in a conference room. Justice Harry Blackmun might ask, “Why did we ever agree to take Roe v Wade? We’re not physicians, ethicists, or specialists on when life begins within a woman’s uterus. We’re just lawyers!” 

Justice Thurgood Marshall quips, “Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn and cauldron bubble,” with Justice Lewis F. Powell adding, “First thing we do — let’s kill all the lawyers.” They all laugh, then quietly review their papers. 

The second act opens on Jan. 22, 1973, when SCOTUS announces its landmark decision in Roe v Wade. In a 7 to 2 decision, Blackmun, writing the majority opinion, finds the restrictive Texas regulation of abortion unconstitutional.

Justice Blackmun summarizes the opinion by saying the court finds that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The third act opens in the spring of 1992, with SCOTUS, now composed of eight men and the first woman, in a conference room. “Twenty years ago,” Blackmun says, “I thought we settled this issue of abortion. Why are we looking at the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey?”  

Justice William Rehnquist says their decision is to be based on “the Constitution and the laws of the country,” not on gender perspectives, religious views, political preferences, nor personal passions. The other justices nod in agreement.

The fourth act opens on Jan. 22, 1992, when the court announces its decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In a 5 to 4 decision, the court reaffirms Roe, but adds a new standard.

With Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter writing the majority opinion, the decision is summarized: The court reaffirms Roe v. Wade, but are imposing a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions. The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an ‘undue burden,’ which is defined as a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.

The fifth act opens in April 2022 with the justices in a conference room discussing Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. That case concerns Mississippi’s ban on most abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy.

Chief Justice John Roberts begins by calling the leaked abortion decision “Absolutely appalling.” He added, “If the person behind it thinks that it will affect our work, that’s just foolish.” 

Justice Samuel Alito notes that abortion is not the same as other unenumerated rights because it destroys a “potential life.”

In response, Justice Stephen Breyer says, “This court, in the course of a generation, has determined and then redetermined that the Constitution offers basic protection to the woman’s right to choose.”

Justice Clarence Thomas says the Supreme Court can’t be “bullied,” adding, “We are becoming addicted to wanting particular outcomes, not living with the outcomes we don’t like.” He notes his position has been consistent, having voted to overturn Roe in 1992. 

Justice Elena Kagan interjects, pointing out that to overturn a long-standing precedent, “usually there has to be a justification, a strong justification.” 

Alito continues by calling Roe “egregiously wrong,” saying the right to abortion is not explicit in the Constitution’s text and is “not deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.” He says “abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion.”

With Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Thomas nodding their heads in agreement, Kavanaugh says the problem is that “you can’t accommodate both interests. You have to pick. That’s the fundamental problem.” He continues, “Then the question becomes, what does the Constitution say about that?”

Justice Gorsuch expresses concerns about procedural issues. “I do not care if the case is about abortion or widgets or anything else.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wonders if overturning Roe poses an existential threat. “Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” 

Justice Barrett asks, “Why don’t the safe-haven laws take care of that problem?” She adds, “The court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.”

Justice Roberts says while the leaked document is an “egregious breach of trust” it is not the final text. He says in Dobbs v Jackson, “The thing that is at issue before us today is [Mississippi’s law banning abortion after] 15-weeks,” not whether to overturn Roe v Wade or not. 

The conservative justices show little interest in that approach. Justice Alito says, “The only real options we have” are to reaffirm Roe or to overrule it.

The play’s sixth act awaits SCOTUS’s decision on Dobbs v. Jackson. However, several things appear clear currently.

First, most Americans, approximately 70 percent, would not like to see SCOTUS overturn its 1973 Roe decision. And this has been the case over the past five decades.

Second, overturning Roe would contribute to the widespread belief that America’s highest court is motivated by politics and religious beliefs rather than law. Currently, a small proportion of Americans,  14 percent, have a lot of confidence in SCOTUS.

Third, President Biden has urged Congress to codify the right to abortion. Congress, however, has not been able to pass such legislation.

Fourth, if SCOTUS overturns Roe, the country will become a patchwork of abortion laws and a myriad of enforcement regulations. Thirteen states have “trigger laws” that would make abortion unlawful, with Oklahoma banning abortion from the moment of conception. And some 16 states and Washington D.C. have laws ensuring abortion rights.

Whatever SCOTUS decides regarding abortion rights, if Shakespeare were alive today, he would see what’s unfolding and conclude “Tragedy Supreme” is a drama well worth penning.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and the author of numerous publications on population issues, including his book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

Source: TEST FEED1