Gynecologists fear anti-abortion campaigns


Where are you going, doctor?
Image: www.plainpicture.com

In Germany, the number of doctors who perform abortions is falling. Our author set out to find the reasons. Many gynecologists are afraid of anti-abortion campaigns.

Amy Coney Barrett is to become the new judge at the Supreme Court on the proposal of American President Donald Trump. The nomination of the conservative Catholic and mother of seven has heated emotions, largely because of Barrett’s adopted attitude towards abortion. Part of American society sees it as the possible tip on the scales in order to curtail the (criminal) free decision about an abortion in the future. The other part is hoping for legal interpretations in the sense of Pro-LifeMovement that aims to make it more difficult to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

Social dissent over abortion is less intense in Germany than in the United States. And yet the topic is always an issue for us to discuss. In recent years, it has often been about the number of doctors willing to perform the procedure. Because it is declining. So massive in comparison to the beginning of the two thousand years that some people ask whether there are still enough.

.

Republicans Speed ​​Up Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination

Dhe Judiciary Committee of the US Senate apparently wants to vote next Thursday (October 22) on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. This was announced by the chairman of the committee, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, at the end of Barrett’s four-day hearings.

The Republican majority ignored the protests of the Democrats over the compressed schedule in the middle of a pandemic. Towards the end of the month, the entire Senate could vote on the personnel and raise Barrett to the ranks of constitutional judges.

Democratic Senator Dick Durbin called for the vote to be postponed. With the help of procedural rules, the Democrats could still try to delay the vote by a week. Democratic vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris, a member of the committee, criticized Barrett’s confirmation process as being questionable because of its proximity to the presidential election.

Dodged critical questions

The senators discussed the schedule before the committee heard witnesses about Barrett’s candidacy. They had previously questioned the 48-year-old Catholic in full-day hearings. In doing so, Barrett repeatedly dodged critical questions about abortion, contraception, and legal precedents.

After the judicial committee vote, Barrett’s confirmation will go to the Senate plenary. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell reckons in his own words with enough votes for a confirmation.

FAZ newsletter “America Votes”

Can Trump hold his own against Biden? A personal assessment and the FAZ’s most important America analyzes in your e-mail inbox every Thursday.

According to Trump and the Republicans, Barrett is to replace the late Liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She would be the sixth or seventh Catholic in the nine-member Supreme Court College – depending on whether you count Neil Gorsuch, who grew up a Catholic but now, according to reports, feels part of a Protestant congregation. With Barrett, Conservative Supreme Court judges would be six to three in the majority, possibly for decades. In the United States, the highest court plays a major role in political disputes.

The confirmation before the presidential elections on November 3rd is controversial. According to surveys, a majority of the population is of the opinion that the vacant seat on should be determined by the election winner.

.

Barrett approaches Democrats

AOn the first day of her hearing as a candidate for the Supreme Court, my Coney Barrett will attempt to allay concerns that her appeal would be a throwback to premodern times. According to a manuscript distributed in advance, she wanted to tell the Senate Legal Committee in Washington that if she was confirmed, she would be the first mother with schoolchildren on the bench.

Majid Sattar

Political correspondent for North America based in Washington.

As with her presentation in the rose garden of the White House, the current appellate judge emphasizes in the speech manuscript in which legal tradition she stands. From the former constitutional judge Antonin Scalia, for whom she once worked as a research assistant, she had learned that a judge must apply the law as the text provides and not as he or she wishes. This sometimes means that a judge himself or herself does not like the result of their own case law. But that is exactly what the rule of law means. Barrett reiterated that upholding the rule of law is an important task of the courts. However, courts are not there to solve all social problems. Political decisions and value judgments have to be made by the legislature and the executive, which are directly elected by the people for this purpose.

FAZ newsletter “America Votes”

Can Trump hold his own against Biden? A personal assessment and the FAZ’s most important America analyzes in your e-mail inbox every Thursday.

Barrett was due to speak before the judicial committee after a break. Republican Justice Lindsey Graham, chairman of the judicial committee, appealed at the beginning of the hearing to treat the candidate with respect so close to the election date, despite the political debate over the timing of the nomination process. Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Democrats, agreed. The Senator made it clear that in her eyes Barrett threatened the end of “Obamacare”. The judge was very critical of a judgment with which “Chief Justice” John Roberts defended the health care reform.

Most Democrats, in their opening statements, stressed the importance of health insurance coverage especially in these times. It was Republican Chuck Grassley, with a view to abortion law, who pointed out that many Democrats were too Catholic for Barrett to sit in the bench. He recalled that the constitution forbade religious sentiment tests.

.

Amy Coney Barrett: Who will lead the hearing – Politics

When speaking at campaign events, Lindsey Graham likes to begin his speech with the words, “I’m from the federal government. I’m here to help.” He borrowed this little joke from former President Ronald Reagan, and he’s been doing it for a while: 65-year-old Graham has served in the US Senate for South Carolina since 2003. For a long time he was considered a moderate politician who worked with the Democrats. He was respected on both sides of the political spectrum. However, since Donald Trump was elected president, he has undergone an amazing change. Graham is Trump’s most ardent and hasty defender, which has led Democrats to despise him almost as much as they despise the president himself.

From this Monday on, Graham will be in the focus of the Democratic furor, because as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate, he chairs the hearing of Amy Coney Barrett, who, according to the will of the Republicans, the place on the Supreme that has become vacant through the death of the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg Court should take. Graham wants to get the case through before the November 3rd election. If everything goes according to plan, the Republicans will confirm Barrett as the new life judge to the Supreme Court in the last week of October.

The whole process infuriates the Democrats, but they are particularly angry with Graham. This is because he said in October 2018 that if there was a vacancy at the Supreme Court last year of Trump’s first term in office, then they would wait until after the election with the occupation. One could take him at his word. This statement no longer interests him in the least.

That he has broken his word so blatantly should not have come as a surprise to the Democrats. Before the 2016 elections, Graham made several statements about what he thought of Donald Trump. He called him a racist, described him as “xenophobic” and “bigoted”. He called him a “crank” and said Trump was “unsuitable for office”. That didn’t stop him from extolling Trump after the election. The Democrats especially get on their nerves that he likes to praise Trump’s golf game so much.

However, Graham is not only a shameless opportunist, he is also a shrewd politician. He proved that, among other things, when the Republicans last occupied a seat on the Supreme Court. Their candidate, Brett Kavanaugh, was accused by Christine Blasey Ford of sexually molesting her as a teenager. Ford testified in the Senate that she looked believable, while Kavanaugh didn’t look good. Graham saw that the Republicans were about to slip the matter away. He gave a cracking five-minute speech accusing the Democrats of wanting to destroy Kavanaugh’s life in order to score politically. He called out to his Republican colleagues that if they did not vote for Kavanaugh, they legitimized the “most despicable process” he had ever seen in his political life. It was like a wake-up call to the Republicans. They chose Kavanaugh, who without Graham’s Speech of Anger would probably not be in the Supreme Court today.

At the time, Graham’s poll numbers soared after previously falling – possibly because the grassroots didn’t want to forget what he once said about Trump. Graham is now hoping for a similar effect again: that the Republican base will give him high credit if he, as head of the judiciary committee, ensures that the judge’s post is filled quickly. He needs all the support: Graham is running for re-election as Senator in November, and his Democratic rival Jaime Harrison has recently caught up dramatically.

.

Donald Trump’s White House Superspreading Event?


Rosengarten infection source? Last Saturday, Trump presented his candidate for the Supreme Court in front of around 150 guests.
Bild: AP

Trump is in the hospital, several contacts are infected – including his campaign manager, the party leader and two senators. But the president was still flying through the country when quarantine would have been announced.

DOnald Trump’s infection is just the tip of the iceberg, if you will. More and more employees of the President and politicians from his environment report positive test results. Anonymous sources from the White House tell reporters of panic and anger. Some cannot help feeling that the president was putting their own people in danger. Trump had a fever, cough and a blocked nose, it was said on Friday afternoon. Nevertheless, he will stay in the Walter Reed Hospital for a few days. There is a kind of presidential suite there where he can continue his official business.

A temporary transfer of power to Vice President Mike Pence is not considered, the White House assured. Trump was seen in a short video in which he thanked everyone for the recovery wishes and assured them that the hospital stay was a precautionary measure so that everything would go well. In the evening he reported briefly on Twitter: “It’s going well, I think. Thank you all. LOVE! “

.

Amy Coney Barrett, a practicing Catholic on the Supreme Court

PORTRAIT – Named by Donald Trump, this mother of seven is a respected lawyer. She is seen by Democratic pressure groups as partisan and backward.

Amy Coney Barrett on September 27, 2020 in Washington.
Amy Coney Barrett on September 27, 2020 in Washington. CARLOS BARRIA / REUTERS

From our correspondent in the United States

Amy Coney Barrett, 48, will become the youngest judge of the Supreme Court when she takes office. If her longevity matches that of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she will be able to sit for four decades in the highest American court.

His human qualities and professional skills were unanimously praised, including by liberal magistrates. Born in Louisiana, a graduate of Notre-Dame University, where she also taught law, Barrett was one of the collaborators of Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016.

A respected lawyer, she belongs to the same school as her mentor. “His judicial philosophy is also mineBarrett said when his appointment was announced: “a judge must apply the law as it is written. Judges are not policy makers, and they must be resolved to put aside any political views they might have.“. Barrett is described in legal circles as a

This article is for subscribers only. You have 75% left to discover.

Subscribe: 1 € the first month

Cancellable at any time

.

Nomination for the Supreme Court: The Quiet Revolution

Amy Coney Barrett is not an isolated case: In the almost four years of his tenure, Trump has permanently reshaped US law.

Protests in the Supreme Court against Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination Foto: reuters/James Lawler Duggan

Yes, Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court is disturbing. Donald Trump’s proposal aims to radicalize the US Supreme Court conservatively. With her Christian fundamentalist views, Barrett makes it all the more painful to feel the void the death of the feminist icon Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has left. But Barrett’s nomination is only one small, if prominent, piece in a large puzzle.

When Barrett says that the wording of the US Constitution (from 1787 and in spirit) outweighs the decisions the Supreme Court has passed since then, that could mean the overturning of landmark judgments. The desegregation of 1954 is not, according to all reason, one of them. But the constitutionality of abortion, enshrined in the legendary Roe vs. Wade from 1973, should be up for discussion with a constitutional judge Barrett.

Same-sex marriage, judgments against discrimination based on gender or skin color will not be sacrosanct for Barrett, at least not if you measure them against their previous statements. Not to mention Obama Care, the first general health insurance for all Americans.

Amy Coney Barrett is the third Trump nomination for the Supreme Court and her name is now known worldwide. But who are Roderick Young or Cory Wilson known? Young is the 161st federal district court judge to be appointed by Trump. Wilson is number 53 on the list of judges in one of the 13 federal appeals courts. There are also two judges at the Federal Court for International Trade. More than 30 further legal confirmations from Trump are still pending in the US Senate. And the Republican-dominated Senate still has time to approve more judges, including Amy Coney Barrett.

Beyond his Twitter rage, beyond his lies and beyond the subtle threat of not leaving the White House voluntarily, Trump has calmly, radically and sustainably reshaped the judiciary in the USA in the almost four years of his tenure. On February 1, 2017, as one of his first acts, Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to succeed the deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia; later followed by Brett Kavanaugh.

Of the roughly 800 federal judgeships across the country, 218 have now been appointed by Trump. For the most part, like Amy Barrett, they are often young, dynamic, reactionary federal judges. You speak right for life – well beyond Trump’s term in office. This is the real tragedy of the conservative revolution in US legal policy.

.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett and the vote against abortion


Trump’s candidate: Amy Coney Barrett could turn back Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s life’s work.
Image: AFP

The debate over abortion becomes the topic of the American election campaign: Judge Amy Coney Barrett, nominated by Trump as a candidate for the Supreme Court, could bring about the conservative turnaround.

Ahen President Bill Clinton contemplated promoting Ruth Bader Ginsburg to US Supreme Court Justice in the summer of 1993, one of his advisors had bad news for him: women were against them. How could that be? The federal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1980 had become famous as a gender equality advocate.

Patrick Bahners

Patrick Bahners

Feuilleton correspondent in Cologne and responsible for “humanities”.

In December 1992, half a year before the vacancy on the top bench, the former professor at Columbia University gave a lecture in which she discussed what it means to “To speak with the voice of a judge”. Ginsburg presented the decisions on equality in the workplace that she had won with her participation as a model of a gradual advancing case law – and as a warning counterexample of judicial over-zeal, she presented of all things the ruling of the Supreme Court, which was now considered the palladium of women’s rights, the prohibition of statutory abortion bans Roe v. Wade case, ruled 1973. In Ginsburg’s view, the court had not so much completed the gradual liberalization of abortion laws in the states as it unwisely prematurely cut it off. The proclamation of an unlimited basic right to abortion provoked a counter-movement.

.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett and the vote against abortion


Trump’s candidate: Amy Coney Barrett could turn back Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s life’s work.
Image: AFP

The debate over abortion becomes the topic of the American election campaign: Judge Amy Coney Barrett, nominated by Trump as a candidate for the Supreme Court, could bring about the conservative turnaround.

Ahen President Bill Clinton contemplated promoting Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the US Supreme Court in the summer of 1993, one of his advisors had bad news for him: women were against them. How could that be? The federal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter in 1980 had become famous as a gender equality advocate.

Patrick Bahners

Feuilleton correspondent in Cologne and responsible for “humanities”.

In December 1992, half a year before the vacancy on the top bench, the former professor at Columbia University gave a lecture in which, against the background of her own role change from academic commitment to a judicial career, she discussed what it means to “To speak with the voice of a judge”. Ginsburg presented the decisions on equality in the workplace that she had won through her participation as a model of a gradual advancing case law – and as a warning counterexample of judicial over-zeal, she presented of all things the ruling of the Supreme Court, which was now considered the palladium of women’s rights in the opinion fight, the prohibition of statutory abortion bans in Roe v. Wade case, ruled 1973. In Ginsburg’s view, the court had not so much completed the gradual liberalization of abortion laws in the states as it unwisely prematurely cut it off. The proclamation of an unlimited basic right to abortion provoked a counter-movement.

.

Election of judges at the Federal Constitutional Court: more cooperation, less conflict

The Federal Constitutional Court is not as competitive as the US Supreme Court. In addition, the terms of office are not as epochal.

The mood at the Federal Constitutional Court is somewhat more pleasant Photo: Uli Deck / dpa

In Germany, too, there are occasional discussions about the election of judges for the Federal Constitutional Court. But as a rule they do not concern the general public as much as the successor to the late judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the USA is now.

The importance of the dishes is similar. The Federal Constitutional Court has the last word on many politically controversial issues, because it measures laws against the constitution, which we call the Basic Law. The US Supreme Court is – in addition to its role as the highest specialized court – a kind of constitutional court. He too can control the legislature.

However, the Federal Constitutional Court is always balanced. Half of the judges are elected in the Bundestag and half in the Bundesrat with a two-thirds majority. That means that the big blocs (CDU / CSU, SPD and increasingly also the Greens) have to come to an agreement. This means that more moderate lawyers are chosen who are also acceptable for the other camp.

Rare event with long-term effects

In the USA, on the other hand, the president nominates the judges according to his own taste, who then have to be confirmed by the Senate (equivalent to the German Bundesrat). If the president belongs to the same party as the majority in the Senate, he can successively appoint several judges with the same basic convictions, thus significantly shifting the direction of the court. It used to be even more difficult, but since 2017 a 60 percent majority is no longer required in the Senate. The simple majority that the Republicans currently hold is sufficient.

Since there are only nine judges on the Supreme Court and they are elected for life, judge elections are also a relatively rare event with a very long-term effect. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, was in office for 27 years. In contrast, eight judges each work in the two senates of the Federal Constitutional Court, a total of 16. That is also long, but not so epoch-making.

Cooperative style

The electoral process also corresponds to a more cooperative working style at the Federal Constitutional Court. There it is usually possible to pass judgments unanimously or with a large majority, while at the Supreme Court votes are now more often based on party preferences. Therefore the reputation of the Supreme Court is not (anymore) as high as that of the Karlsruhe judges.

.