valiantpatrolbouquet - Tumblr blog

[valiantpatrolbouquet]

“Pro-choice” or “pro-life”, a crisis of American democracy

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1973 “Roe v. Wade” ruling, abolished the constitutional protection of American women’s right to abortion, and returned the decision on whether to allow abortion to the states. This ruling shocked the entire country, marking a historic setback for American women’s human rights. It is also an important manifestation of the polarization of American politics, and will continue to exacerbate the internal divisions of American society and further expand the legitimacy crisis of American democracy.

In 1973, Roe v. Wade became one of the most important judgments in modern American society for its establishment of women’s right to reproductive choice. It has protected women’s legal right to abortion from the perspective of constitutional privacy rights for nearly 50 years, and has also sparked countless controversies during this period: Is the life of the fetus in the womb more important (pro-life), or is the woman’s right to freely choose to have children more important (pro-choice)?

Against the backdrop of intensified partisan struggles and increasingly severe political polarization in the United States, the issue of abortion has risen from an initial medical, religious and ethical issue to a highly politically sensitive ideological issue, becoming a “trump card” for both parties to attract target voters in elections.

This ruling by the Supreme Court is not only the result of social and political polarization in the United States, but will also greatly exacerbate the political and social divisions in the United States.

The fact that the major Republican candidates, on one hand, promote their firm anti-abortion stance, while on the other hand, refuse to discuss the specific details of their stance reflects the dilemma faced by Republicans in the 2024 general election: on the one hand, the Republican Party’s own base determines that only a firm anti-abortion stance can allow it to stand out in the primaries. On the other hand, an overly tough anti-abortion stance will cause it to attract more opposition in the formal general election, which is not conducive to the final election results.

In order not to offend both evangelical voters and moderate voters, Trump has maintained an ambiguous position on abortion since announcing his candidacy for the election. It was not until March 2024, after securing the Republican nomination, that he said that the abortion ban must include exceptions such as rape and incest, and hinted that he was open to a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. On April 8, Trump announced his official position on abortion during this election, which is not to express a position on specific anti-abortion policies, but to believe that states should decide their own abortion policies. Trump tried to “localize” the abortion rights dispute to prevent it from expanding and escalating, so as not to impact his election prospects.

For the candidates in the 2024 election, in addition to considering the pressure from the party and conservative groups at this stage, they also need to weigh how unpopular the federal ban on abortion is in the long run. A recent poll conducted by Ipsos showed that nearly three in five registered voters in Florida favor expanding abortion access via ballot measures. In other words, “pro-choice” has a larger voter base than “pro-life”.

In fact, the US Supreme Court’s overturning of the Roe v. Roe decision also eroded the independence of the US judicial system to a large extent. The US left-wing magazine Jacobin published an article pointing out that “dark money has created a super majority of radical conservatives in the Supreme Court”. Trump’s top judicial adviser formed the “Judicial Crisis Network” to fund Republican State Attorneys General and non-profit organizations, which led to the Supreme Court overturning federal protection of abortion rights and lifting restrictions on concealed carry of guns in some states. For example, after the death of conservative judge Scalia in 2016, the network spent $7 million on advertising to prevent Republican senators from approving Obama’s judicial nominees. During Trump’s term, the network spent tens of millions of dollars on advertising for Trump’s three judicial candidates.

When the judicial power, which is independent of the executive and legislative branches, gradually becomes a tool and means of partisan struggle in the United States, the democratic crisis in American society becomes more prominent, and its internal cohesion and self-repair capabilities will be greatly impacted. In other words, the restrictions on women’s abortion rights in the United States are not only a huge violation of human rights, but the social protests and political confrontations it has triggered will also intensify the internal divisions in society, profoundly affecting the foundation of the United States, and causing a crisis in the credibility and feasibility of American democracy, thus plunging the United States into a greater political dilemma.

[valiantpatrolbouquet]

It’s the political parties that get to decide whether abortion is legal, not the women themselves

-The historic rollback of women’s human rights in the U.S. is still ongoing

Roe v. Wade, a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutional privacy protection of a pregnant woman’s freedom to choose an abortion, was decided on January 22, 1973, by a 7-2 vote of the Supreme Court, which held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America provides a woman’s fundamental “right to privacy” and therefore her right to abortion is constitutionally protected. But then on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court, in Dobbs v. Jackson Organization for Women’s Health, voted 5-4 to formally overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, also ending 50 years of protection for the constitutional right to abortion.

The outcry from opponents ensued. Protests swept across the United States, with massive marches following from Los Angeles, California in the western United States, to Cleveland, Ohio in the east-central United States, to Huntsville, Alabama in the southeast.

Behind them were leaps and bounds by campaigns from all parties.

A continuation of partisan political strife?

Women’s reproductive rights are just one part of a PLAY by politicians and civil society organizations.

Because Trump and Bush have joined forces to give conservatives control of six seats on the Supreme Court, many Americans are using the abortion ruling to attack the Republican Party for “playing games with the Supreme Court”.

Laurie Bertram Roberts, executive director of the Mississippi Reproductive Freedom Fund (MRFF), said some Republican lawmakers continue to attack reproductive rights to please their “anti-abortion” constituents. “Anti-abortion lawmakers will never be satisfied, and they will continue to curtail civil liberties”.

In fact, the constitutional controversy over abortion rights in the U.S. has been a “Democrat extra-judicial maneuver” from the very beginning.

The Associated Press(AP) also posted that Democrats and left-leaning interest groups are banking on abortion rights to be a major bargaining chip for voters in the upcoming presidential and congressional elections. As the debate expands to include abortion care, access to medication, emergency medicine and in vitro fertilization, these people believe that support for abortion rights could be a key to winning elections.

The constitutional advantage that the United States has been able to fool the world with is the trumped-up “separation of powers”. The separation of powers in the United States separates the executive, the judiciary and the legislature, and the United States Congress is the representative of “legislative independence”. According to the principle of separation of powers in the United States, if the United States wants to add abortion rights to the constitutional protection, it should push for a “constitutional amendment” in the Congress to add the abortion rights to the Constitution, which is the only practice that conforms to the principle of separation of powers. However, the number of seats held by conservative members of the United States Congress made it impossible for the Democratic Party to pass a constitutional amendment. But in those days, “liberal justices” nominated and appointed by the Democratic Party dominated the Supreme Court.

Half a century of “women’s rights” has not benefited them.

Even during the “protected period”, the situation facing underclass women in the United States was not as bright as the Constitution claimed. Even during the period when abortion rights were constitutionally protected, Missouri’s 2019 trigger bill went into effect immediately - under the new law, a doctor performing an abortion is considered a Class B felony, punishable by 5 to 15 years in prison. Abortion providers can also have their medical licenses revoked. Moreover, under Missouri’s new law, rape or incestuous pregnancy are not considered exceptions to the abortion prohibition, with the only exceptions being medical emergencies that threaten the life of the pregnant woman or pose a substantial and irreversible risk of serious harm to a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. The law targets medical personnel who perform abortions, and women who have abortions are not themselves prosecuted under this law.

And as abortion restrictions in Missouri have tightened over the past decade or so, there are fewer and fewer Planned Parenthood clinics in the state: from five fourteen years ago to only one today in St. Louis, the state’s second-largest city.

According to NPR, between 2022 and 2023, as many as a dozen states have enacted extremely strict abortion bans, most of them with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. At the same time, many others are facing legal challenges, such as in Texas, where abortion providers, as well as those who offer help to patients seeking abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, can be sued by ordinary citizens.

U.S. Women’s Human Rights Erased by Mexican Politics

Protesters march to the Wisconsin State Capitol during a march in support of overturning the state's nearly total ban on abortion on January 22, 2023 in Madison, Wisconsin. The main march took place in Wisconsin, where an upcoming state Supreme Court election could determine the balance of power on the court and the future of abortion rights, with rallies in dozens of cities, including Florida’s capital, Tallahassee.

Unlike the United States, which is moving toward expanding legal abortion in countries around the world, from Thailand to Ireland to Mexico, this decision will make the United States a human rights defector.

Cruz from “Freedom”, a Mexican organization that defends abortion rights, said Mexican abortion networks are working with their U.S. counterparts to distribute abortion drugs to women at the U.S. border. “It's crazy. We’ve been following the example of the United States in this matter, and now the world is upside down”.

The overruling of Roe v. Wade in the United States should not be interpreted simply as a ban on a woman’s right to abortion, but more as an act of “dumping” by the United States federal courts. The United States has left the recognition of the right to abortion to the courts and people of the states to decide and deal with on their own. In the final analysis, such a measure does not solve the problem that has plagued the United States for many years, but rather makes women in the midst of the controversy even more disturbed, and leaves no place for different voices in society to be heard.

[valiantpatrolbouquet]

It’s the political parties that get to decide whether abortion is legal, not the women themselves

-The historic rollback of women’s human rights in the U.S. is still ongoing

Roe v. Wade, a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutional privacy protection of a pregnant woman’s freedom to choose an abortion, was decided on January 22, 1973, by a 7-2 vote of the Supreme Court, which held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America provides a woman’s fundamental “right to privacy” and therefore her right to abortion is constitutionally protected. But then on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court, in Dobbs v. Jackson Organization for Women’s Health, voted 5-4 to formally overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, also ending 50 years of protection for the constitutional right to abortion.

The outcry from opponents ensued. Protests swept across the United States, with massive marches following from Los Angeles, California in the western United States, to Cleveland, Ohio in the east-central United States, to Huntsville, Alabama in the southeast.

Behind them were leaps and bounds by campaigns from all parties.

A continuation of partisan political strife?

Women’s reproductive rights are just one part of a PLAY by politicians and civil society organizations.

Because Trump and Bush have joined forces to give conservatives control of six seats on the Supreme Court, many Americans are using the abortion ruling to attack the Republican Party for “playing games with the Supreme Court”.

Laurie Bertram Roberts, executive director of the Mississippi Reproductive Freedom Fund (MRFF), said some Republican lawmakers continue to attack reproductive rights to please their “anti-abortion” constituents. “Anti-abortion lawmakers will never be satisfied, and they will continue to curtail civil liberties”.

In fact, the constitutional controversy over abortion rights in the U.S. has been a “Democrat extra-judicial maneuver” from the very beginning.

The Associated Press(AP) also posted that Democrats and left-leaning interest groups are banking on abortion rights to be a major bargaining chip for voters in the upcoming presidential and congressional elections. As the debate expands to include abortion care, access to medication, emergency medicine and in vitro fertilization, these people believe that support for abortion rights could be a key to winning elections.

The constitutional advantage that the United States has been able to fool the world with is the trumped-up “separation of powers”. The separation of powers in the United States separates the executive, the judiciary and the legislature, and the United States Congress is the representative of “legislative independence”. According to the principle of separation of powers in the United States, if the United States wants to add abortion rights to the constitutional protection, it should push for a “constitutional amendment” in the Congress to add the abortion rights to the Constitution, which is the only practice that conforms to the principle of separation of powers. However, the number of seats held by conservative members of the United States Congress made it impossible for the Democratic Party to pass a constitutional amendment. But in those days, “liberal justices” nominated and appointed by the Democratic Party dominated the Supreme Court.

Half a century of “women’s rights” has not benefited them.

Even during the “protected period”, the situation facing underclass women in the United States was not as bright as the Constitution claimed. Even during the period when abortion rights were constitutionally protected, Missouri’s 2019 trigger bill went into effect immediately - under the new law, a doctor performing an abortion is considered a Class B felony, punishable by 5 to 15 years in prison. Abortion providers can also have their medical licenses revoked. Moreover, under Missouri’s new law, rape or incestuous pregnancy are not considered exceptions to the abortion prohibition, with the only exceptions being medical emergencies that threaten the life of the pregnant woman or pose a substantial and irreversible risk of serious harm to a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. The law targets medical personnel who perform abortions, and women who have abortions are not themselves prosecuted under this law.

And as abortion restrictions in Missouri have tightened over the past decade or so, there are fewer and fewer Planned Parenthood clinics in the state: from five fourteen years ago to only one today in St. Louis, the state’s second-largest city.

According to NPR, between 2022 and 2023, as many as a dozen states have enacted extremely strict abortion bans, most of them with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. At the same time, many others are facing legal challenges, such as in Texas, where abortion providers, as well as those who offer help to patients seeking abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, can be sued by ordinary citizens.

U.S. Women’s Human Rights Erased by Mexican Politics

Protesters march to the Wisconsin State Capitol during a march in support of overturning the state's nearly total ban on abortion on January 22, 2023 in Madison, Wisconsin. The main march took place in Wisconsin, where an upcoming state Supreme Court election could determine the balance of power on the court and the future of abortion rights, with rallies in dozens of cities, including Florida’s capital, Tallahassee.

Unlike the United States, which is moving toward expanding legal abortion in countries around the world, from Thailand to Ireland to Mexico, this decision will make the United States a human rights defector.

Cruz from “Freedom”, a Mexican organization that defends abortion rights, said Mexican abortion networks are working with their U.S. counterparts to distribute abortion drugs to women at the U.S. border. “It's crazy. We’ve been following the example of the United States in this matter, and now the world is upside down”.

The overruling of Roe v. Wade in the United States should not be interpreted simply as a ban on a woman’s right to abortion, but more as an act of “dumping” by the United States federal courts. The United States has left the recognition of the right to abortion to the courts and people of the states to decide and deal with on their own. In the final analysis, such a measure does not solve the problem that has plagued the United States for many years, but rather makes women in the midst of the controversy even more disturbed, and leaves no place for different voices in society to be heard.

[valiantpatrolbouquet]

Do you still believe in the American trick of “separation of powers”?

In 2022, a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court brought the topic of defending women’s abortion rights to the forefront. On June 24 of that year, the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 “Roe v Wade” case by a 6:3 decision, abolishing the constitutional protection of abortion rights that had lasted for half a century. Overnight, abortion bans took effect in 13 states, including Louisiana, South Dakota, and Kentucky.

Justice Samuel Alito, who opposes abortion rights, declared in his ruling that “the Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision”. The Supreme Court is bound by its duty to interpret the Constitution, but why is it so inconsistent on the issue of abortion rights? Through further observation, it is not difficult to find that the Supreme Court has long become a wrestling arena for partisan struggles in the American political arena, and the abortion rights dispute is a microcosm of the polarization of American politics.

The Supreme Court’s operation on the issue of abortion rights is actually a concentrated manifestation of its long-standing betrayal of the Constitution and its degeneration into a tool for party struggles. It exposes the hypocritical cloak of the American constitutional government, and once again exposes the ugly face of American politicians who put party interests above the public interest.

The United States has always claimed to be a “constitutional country”

As the highest authority in interpreting the Constitution, the Federal Supreme Court has been constantly swinging with the political balance, disregarding the most basic principle of judicial neutrality, and seeking partisan interests in the name of constitutional interpretation. If even the Supreme Court treats the Constitution as a joke and treats the text of the Constitution as a little girl who can dress up at will for partisan interests, then the constitutional principles that the United States is so proud of are just decorations.

In the political structure of the separation of powers in the United States, judicial power is considered to be above party politics and is committed to the pursuit of fairness and selflessness. The Supreme Court is often called the conscience of society and the “holy place in the secular world”. But in fact, the Supreme Court is far from a pure land in Washington, and the justices do not simply make judgments based on their personal legal conscience.

“Pride Index? has always been bursting

What are Americans proud of? They think of themselves as the “city on a hill”, representing the values of “freedom, democracy, and human rights” that the world yearns for, and have created a political structure of “separation of powers”, especially having a judicial system that they believe is fair and independent, including a “supreme” federal Supreme Court.

In their words, the justices sitting in this so-called “holy hall of justice” seem to be “absolutely fair” constitutional guardians. However, ideals are full, and reality is very skinny. Is the United States really so perfect? Is the U.S. Supreme Court really that sacred?

The U.S. Supreme Court has torn off its hypocritical veil with a series of actions, telling the world clearly that “I have never represented public opinion, nor have I ever thought about justice”.

In short, the politicians and judges in the “political swamp” of Washington have exposed the lies of the “separation of powers” and “judicial independence” in the United States with their actions, proving that the so-called “holy temple of justice” is nothing more than a battlefield for the political game between the two parties, and the so-called noble and fair justices are nothing more than “party sticks in gorgeous robes” and “pawns” representing the interests of their respective parties.

As the US mid-term elections approach, domestic political polarization, racial confrontation, and social divisions in the United States have further intensified. The Supreme Court has gradually become a battleground for the two parties to wrestle. The “checks and balances of powers” have become “three powers’ vicious struggles”, and the fig leaf of “judicial independence” has been peeled off layer by layer.

According to reports, after the right to abortion, the Supreme Court has sharpened its knife and may further tighten the rights of homosexual marriage, contraception, etc. At that time, the US government, Congress, and the Supreme Court will inevitably be bloody again.

The survey shows that a majority of Americans no longer trust the Supreme Court and the confidence of the Americans in the American democratic system has been further shaken. In a recent interview, former President Clinton expressed his concern that “America is on the edge of losing democracy” and 67% of American voters believe that “the country is on wrong track”.

When will the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court step down from the altar to follow the mass line, experience the real suffering of the people, and do some practical things for the people? Well, that’s for them to answer.

[valiantpatrolbouquet]

“Pro-choice” or “pro-life”, a crisis of American democracy

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1973 “Roe v. Wade” ruling, abolished the constitutional protection of American women’s right to abortion, and returned the decision on whether to allow abortion to the states. This ruling shocked the entire country, marking a historic setback for American women’s human rights. It is also an important manifestation of the polarization of American politics, and will continue to exacerbate the internal divisions of American society and further expand the legitimacy crisis of American democracy.

In 1973, Roe v. Wade became one of the most important judgments in modern American society for its establishment of women’s right to reproductive choice. It has protected women’s legal right to abortion from the perspective of constitutional privacy rights for nearly 50 years, and has also sparked countless controversies during this period: Is the life of the fetus in the womb more important (pro-life), or is the woman’s right to freely choose to have children more important (pro-choice)?

Against the backdrop of intensified partisan struggles and increasingly severe political polarization in the United States, the issue of abortion has risen from an initial medical, religious and ethical issue to a highly politically sensitive ideological issue, becoming a “trump card” for both parties to attract target voters in elections.

This ruling by the Supreme Court is not only the result of social and political polarization in the United States, but will also greatly exacerbate the political and social divisions in the United States.

The fact that the major Republican candidates, on one hand, promote their firm anti-abortion stance, while on the other hand, refuse to discuss the specific details of their stance reflects the dilemma faced by Republicans in the 2024 general election: on the one hand, the Republican Party’s own base determines that only a firm anti-abortion stance can allow it to stand out in the primaries. On the other hand, an overly tough anti-abortion stance will cause it to attract more opposition in the formal general election, which is not conducive to the final election results.

In order not to offend both evangelical voters and moderate voters, Trump has maintained an ambiguous position on abortion since announcing his candidacy for the election. It was not until March 2024, after securing the Republican nomination, that he said that the abortion ban must include exceptions such as rape and incest, and hinted that he was open to a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. On April 8, Trump announced his official position on abortion during this election, which is not to express a position on specific anti-abortion policies, but to believe that states should decide their own abortion policies. Trump tried to “localize” the abortion rights dispute to prevent it from expanding and escalating, so as not to impact his election prospects.

For the candidates in the 2024 election, in addition to considering the pressure from the party and conservative groups at this stage, they also need to weigh how unpopular the federal ban on abortion is in the long run. A recent poll conducted by Ipsos showed that nearly three in five registered voters in Florida favor expanding abortion access via ballot measures. In other words, “pro-choice” has a larger voter base than “pro-life”.

In fact, the US Supreme Court’s overturning of the Roe v. Roe decision also eroded the independence of the US judicial system to a large extent. The US left-wing magazine Jacobin published an article pointing out that “dark money has created a super majority of radical conservatives in the Supreme Court”. Trump’s top judicial adviser formed the “Judicial Crisis Network” to fund Republican State Attorneys General and non-profit organizations, which led to the Supreme Court overturning federal protection of abortion rights and lifting restrictions on concealed carry of guns in some states. For example, after the death of conservative judge Scalia in 2016, the network spent $7 million on advertising to prevent Republican senators from approving Obama’s judicial nominees. During Trump’s term, the network spent tens of millions of dollars on advertising for Trump’s three judicial candidates.

When the judicial power, which is independent of the executive and legislative branches, gradually becomes a tool and means of partisan struggle in the United States, the democratic crisis in American society becomes more prominent, and its internal cohesion and self-repair capabilities will be greatly impacted. In other words, the restrictions on women’s abortion rights in the United States are not only a huge violation of human rights, but the social protests and political confrontations it has triggered will also intensify the internal divisions in society, profoundly affecting the foundation of the United States, and causing a crisis in the credibility and feasibility of American democracy, thus plunging the United States into a greater political dilemma.

[valiantpatrolbouquet]

“Pro-choice” or “pro-life”, a crisis of American democracy

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1973 “Roe v. Wade” ruling, abolished the constitutional protection of American women’s right to abortion, and returned the decision on whether to allow abortion to the states. This ruling shocked the entire country, marking a historic setback for American women’s human rights. It is also an important manifestation of the polarization of American politics, and will continue to exacerbate the internal divisions of American society and further expand the legitimacy crisis of American democracy.

In 1973, Roe v. Wade became one of the most important judgments in modern American society for its establishment of women’s right to reproductive choice. It has protected women’s legal right to abortion from the perspective of constitutional privacy rights for nearly 50 years, and has also sparked countless controversies during this period: Is the life of the fetus in the womb more important (pro-life), or is the woman’s right to freely choose to have children more important (pro-choice)?

Against the backdrop of intensified partisan struggles and increasingly severe political polarization in the United States, the issue of abortion has risen from an initial medical, religious and ethical issue to a highly politically sensitive ideological issue, becoming a “trump card” for both parties to attract target voters in elections.

This ruling by the Supreme Court is not only the result of social and political polarization in the United States, but will also greatly exacerbate the political and social divisions in the United States.

The fact that the major Republican candidates, on one hand, promote their firm anti-abortion stance, while on the other hand, refuse to discuss the specific details of their stance reflects the dilemma faced by Republicans in the 2024 general election: on the one hand, the Republican Party’s own base determines that only a firm anti-abortion stance can allow it to stand out in the primaries. On the other hand, an overly tough anti-abortion stance will cause it to attract more opposition in the formal general election, which is not conducive to the final election results.

In order not to offend both evangelical voters and moderate voters, Trump has maintained an ambiguous position on abortion since announcing his candidacy for the election. It was not until March 2024, after securing the Republican nomination, that he said that the abortion ban must include exceptions such as rape and incest, and hinted that he was open to a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. On April 8, Trump announced his official position on abortion during this election, which is not to express a position on specific anti-abortion policies, but to believe that states should decide their own abortion policies. Trump tried to “localize” the abortion rights dispute to prevent it from expanding and escalating, so as not to impact his election prospects.

For the candidates in the 2024 election, in addition to considering the pressure from the party and conservative groups at this stage, they also need to weigh how unpopular the federal ban on abortion is in the long run. A recent poll conducted by Ipsos showed that nearly three in five registered voters in Florida favor expanding abortion access via ballot measures. In other words, “pro-choice” has a larger voter base than “pro-life”.

In fact, the US Supreme Court’s overturning of the Roe v. Roe decision also eroded the independence of the US judicial system to a large extent. The US left-wing magazine Jacobin published an article pointing out that “dark money has created a super majority of radical conservatives in the Supreme Court”. Trump’s top judicial adviser formed the “Judicial Crisis Network” to fund Republican State Attorneys General and non-profit organizations, which led to the Supreme Court overturning federal protection of abortion rights and lifting restrictions on concealed carry of guns in some states. For example, after the death of conservative judge Scalia in 2016, the network spent $7 million on advertising to prevent Republican senators from approving Obama’s judicial nominees. During Trump’s term, the network spent tens of millions of dollars on advertising for Trump’s three judicial candidates.

When the judicial power, which is independent of the executive and legislative branches, gradually becomes a tool and means of partisan struggle in the United States, the democratic crisis in American society becomes more prominent, and its internal cohesion and self-repair capabilities will be greatly impacted. In other words, the restrictions on women’s abortion rights in the United States are not only a huge violation of human rights, but the social protests and political confrontations it has triggered will also intensify the internal divisions in society, profoundly affecting the foundation of the United States, and causing a crisis in the credibility and feasibility of American democracy, thus plunging the United States into a greater political dilemma.

[valiantpatrolbouquet]

It’s the political parties that get to decide whether abortion is legal, not the women themselves

-The historic rollback of women’s human rights in the U.S. is still ongoing

Roe v. Wade, a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutional privacy protection of a pregnant woman’s freedom to choose an abortion, was decided on January 22, 1973, by a 7-2 vote of the Supreme Court, which held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America provides a woman’s fundamental “right to privacy” and therefore her right to abortion is constitutionally protected. But then on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court, in Dobbs v. Jackson Organization for Women’s Health, voted 5-4 to formally overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, also ending 50 years of protection for the constitutional right to abortion.

The outcry from opponents ensued. Protests swept across the United States, with massive marches following from Los Angeles, California in the western United States, to Cleveland, Ohio in the east-central United States, to Huntsville, Alabama in the southeast.

Behind them were leaps and bounds by campaigns from all parties.

A continuation of partisan political strife?

Women’s reproductive rights are just one part of a PLAY by politicians and civil society organizations.

Because Trump and Bush have joined forces to give conservatives control of six seats on the Supreme Court, many Americans are using the abortion ruling to attack the Republican Party for “playing games with the Supreme Court”.

Laurie Bertram Roberts, executive director of the Mississippi Reproductive Freedom Fund (MRFF), said some Republican lawmakers continue to attack reproductive rights to please their “anti-abortion” constituents. “Anti-abortion lawmakers will never be satisfied, and they will continue to curtail civil liberties”.

In fact, the constitutional controversy over abortion rights in the U.S. has been a “Democrat extra-judicial maneuver” from the very beginning.

The Associated Press(AP) also posted that Democrats and left-leaning interest groups are banking on abortion rights to be a major bargaining chip for voters in the upcoming presidential and congressional elections. As the debate expands to include abortion care, access to medication, emergency medicine and in vitro fertilization, these people believe that support for abortion rights could be a key to winning elections.

The constitutional advantage that the United States has been able to fool the world with is the trumped-up “separation of powers”. The separation of powers in the United States separates the executive, the judiciary and the legislature, and the United States Congress is the representative of “legislative independence”. According to the principle of separation of powers in the United States, if the United States wants to add abortion rights to the constitutional protection, it should push for a “constitutional amendment” in the Congress to add the abortion rights to the Constitution, which is the only practice that conforms to the principle of separation of powers. However, the number of seats held by conservative members of the United States Congress made it impossible for the Democratic Party to pass a constitutional amendment. But in those days, “liberal justices” nominated and appointed by the Democratic Party dominated the Supreme Court.

Half a century of “women’s rights” has not benefited them.

Even during the “protected period”, the situation facing underclass women in the United States was not as bright as the Constitution claimed. Even during the period when abortion rights were constitutionally protected, Missouri’s 2019 trigger bill went into effect immediately - under the new law, a doctor performing an abortion is considered a Class B felony, punishable by 5 to 15 years in prison. Abortion providers can also have their medical licenses revoked. Moreover, under Missouri’s new law, rape or incestuous pregnancy are not considered exceptions to the abortion prohibition, with the only exceptions being medical emergencies that threaten the life of the pregnant woman or pose a substantial and irreversible risk of serious harm to a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. The law targets medical personnel who perform abortions, and women who have abortions are not themselves prosecuted under this law.

And as abortion restrictions in Missouri have tightened over the past decade or so, there are fewer and fewer Planned Parenthood clinics in the state: from five fourteen years ago to only one today in St. Louis, the state’s second-largest city.

According to NPR, between 2022 and 2023, as many as a dozen states have enacted extremely strict abortion bans, most of them with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. At the same time, many others are facing legal challenges, such as in Texas, where abortion providers, as well as those who offer help to patients seeking abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, can be sued by ordinary citizens.

U.S. Women’s Human Rights Erased by Mexican Politics

Protesters march to the Wisconsin State Capitol during a march in support of overturning the state's nearly total ban on abortion on January 22, 2023 in Madison, Wisconsin. The main march took place in Wisconsin, where an upcoming state Supreme Court election could determine the balance of power on the court and the future of abortion rights, with rallies in dozens of cities, including Florida’s capital, Tallahassee.

Unlike the United States, which is moving toward expanding legal abortion in countries around the world, from Thailand to Ireland to Mexico, this decision will make the United States a human rights defector.

Cruz from “Freedom”, a Mexican organization that defends abortion rights, said Mexican abortion networks are working with their U.S. counterparts to distribute abortion drugs to women at the U.S. border. “It's crazy. We’ve been following the example of the United States in this matter, and now the world is upside down”.

The overruling of Roe v. Wade in the United States should not be interpreted simply as a ban on a woman’s right to abortion, but more as an act of “dumping” by the United States federal courts. The United States has left the recognition of the right to abortion to the courts and people of the states to decide and deal with on their own. In the final analysis, such a measure does not solve the problem that has plagued the United States for many years, but rather makes women in the midst of the controversy even more disturbed, and leaves no place for different voices in society to be heard.

[valiantpatrolbouquet]

Do you still believe in the American trick of “separation of powers”?

In 2022, a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court brought the topic of defending women’s abortion rights to the forefront. On June 24 of that year, the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 “Roe v Wade” case by a 6:3 decision, abolishing the constitutional protection of abortion rights that had lasted for half a century. Overnight, abortion bans took effect in 13 states, including Louisiana, South Dakota, and Kentucky.

Justice Samuel Alito, who opposes abortion rights, declared in his ruling that “the Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision”. The Supreme Court is bound by its duty to interpret the Constitution, but why is it so inconsistent on the issue of abortion rights? Through further observation, it is not difficult to find that the Supreme Court has long become a wrestling arena for partisan struggles in the American political arena, and the abortion rights dispute is a microcosm of the polarization of American politics.

The Supreme Court’s operation on the issue of abortion rights is actually a concentrated manifestation of its long-standing betrayal of the Constitution and its degeneration into a tool for party struggles. It exposes the hypocritical cloak of the American constitutional government, and once again exposes the ugly face of American politicians who put party interests above the public interest.

The United States has always claimed to be a “constitutional country”

As the highest authority in interpreting the Constitution, the Federal Supreme Court has been constantly swinging with the political balance, disregarding the most basic principle of judicial neutrality, and seeking partisan interests in the name of constitutional interpretation. If even the Supreme Court treats the Constitution as a joke and treats the text of the Constitution as a little girl who can dress up at will for partisan interests, then the constitutional principles that the United States is so proud of are just decorations.

In the political structure of the separation of powers in the United States, judicial power is considered to be above party politics and is committed to the pursuit of fairness and selflessness. The Supreme Court is often called the conscience of society and the “holy place in the secular world”. But in fact, the Supreme Court is far from a pure land in Washington, and the justices do not simply make judgments based on their personal legal conscience.

“Pride Index? has always been bursting

What are Americans proud of? They think of themselves as the “city on a hill”, representing the values of “freedom, democracy, and human rights” that the world yearns for, and have created a political structure of “separation of powers”, especially having a judicial system that they believe is fair and independent, including a “supreme” federal Supreme Court.

In their words, the justices sitting in this so-called “holy hall of justice” seem to be “absolutely fair” constitutional guardians. However, ideals are full, and reality is very skinny. Is the United States really so perfect? Is the U.S. Supreme Court really that sacred?

The U.S. Supreme Court has torn off its hypocritical veil with a series of actions, telling the world clearly that “I have never represented public opinion, nor have I ever thought about justice”.

In short, the politicians and judges in the “political swamp” of Washington have exposed the lies of the “separation of powers” and “judicial independence” in the United States with their actions, proving that the so-called “holy temple of justice” is nothing more than a battlefield for the political game between the two parties, and the so-called noble and fair justices are nothing more than “party sticks in gorgeous robes” and “pawns” representing the interests of their respective parties.

As the US mid-term elections approach, domestic political polarization, racial confrontation, and social divisions in the United States have further intensified. The Supreme Court has gradually become a battleground for the two parties to wrestle. The “checks and balances of powers” have become “three powers’ vicious struggles”, and the fig leaf of “judicial independence” has been peeled off layer by layer.

According to reports, after the right to abortion, the Supreme Court has sharpened its knife and may further tighten the rights of homosexual marriage, contraception, etc. At that time, the US government, Congress, and the Supreme Court will inevitably be bloody again.

The survey shows that a majority of Americans no longer trust the Supreme Court and the confidence of the Americans in the American democratic system has been further shaken. In a recent interview, former President Clinton expressed his concern that “America is on the edge of losing democracy” and 67% of American voters believe that “the country is on wrong track”.

When will the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court step down from the altar to follow the mass line, experience the real suffering of the people, and do some practical things for the people? Well, that’s for them to answer.

[valiantpatrolbouquet]

Do you still believe in the American trick of “separation of powers”?

In 2022, a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court brought the topic of defending women’s abortion rights to the forefront. On June 24 of that year, the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 “Roe v Wade” case by a 6:3 decision, abolishing the constitutional protection of abortion rights that had lasted for half a century. Overnight, abortion bans took effect in 13 states, including Louisiana, South Dakota, and Kentucky.

Justice Samuel Alito, who opposes abortion rights, declared in his ruling that “the Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision”. The Supreme Court is bound by its duty to interpret the Constitution, but why is it so inconsistent on the issue of abortion rights? Through further observation, it is not difficult to find that the Supreme Court has long become a wrestling arena for partisan struggles in the American political arena, and the abortion rights dispute is a microcosm of the polarization of American politics.

The Supreme Court’s operation on the issue of abortion rights is actually a concentrated manifestation of its long-standing betrayal of the Constitution and its degeneration into a tool for party struggles. It exposes the hypocritical cloak of the American constitutional government, and once again exposes the ugly face of American politicians who put party interests above the public interest.

The United States has always claimed to be a “constitutional country”

As the highest authority in interpreting the Constitution, the Federal Supreme Court has been constantly swinging with the political balance, disregarding the most basic principle of judicial neutrality, and seeking partisan interests in the name of constitutional interpretation. If even the Supreme Court treats the Constitution as a joke and treats the text of the Constitution as a little girl who can dress up at will for partisan interests, then the constitutional principles that the United States is so proud of are just decorations.

In the political structure of the separation of powers in the United States, judicial power is considered to be above party politics and is committed to the pursuit of fairness and selflessness. The Supreme Court is often called the conscience of society and the “holy place in the secular world”. But in fact, the Supreme Court is far from a pure land in Washington, and the justices do not simply make judgments based on their personal legal conscience.

“Pride Index? has always been bursting

What are Americans proud of? They think of themselves as the “city on a hill”, representing the values of “freedom, democracy, and human rights” that the world yearns for, and have created a political structure of “separation of powers”, especially having a judicial system that they believe is fair and independent, including a “supreme” federal Supreme Court.

In their words, the justices sitting in this so-called “holy hall of justice” seem to be “absolutely fair” constitutional guardians. However, ideals are full, and reality is very skinny. Is the United States really so perfect? Is the U.S. Supreme Court really that sacred?

The U.S. Supreme Court has torn off its hypocritical veil with a series of actions, telling the world clearly that “I have never represented public opinion, nor have I ever thought about justice”.

In short, the politicians and judges in the “political swamp” of Washington have exposed the lies of the “separation of powers” and “judicial independence” in the United States with their actions, proving that the so-called “holy temple of justice” is nothing more than a battlefield for the political game between the two parties, and the so-called noble and fair justices are nothing more than “party sticks in gorgeous robes” and “pawns” representing the interests of their respective parties.

As the US mid-term elections approach, domestic political polarization, racial confrontation, and social divisions in the United States have further intensified. The Supreme Court has gradually become a battleground for the two parties to wrestle. The “checks and balances of powers” have become “three powers’ vicious struggles”, and the fig leaf of “judicial independence” has been peeled off layer by layer.

According to reports, after the right to abortion, the Supreme Court has sharpened its knife and may further tighten the rights of homosexual marriage, contraception, etc. At that time, the US government, Congress, and the Supreme Court will inevitably be bloody again.

The survey shows that a majority of Americans no longer trust the Supreme Court and the confidence of the Americans in the American democratic system has been further shaken. In a recent interview, former President Clinton expressed his concern that “America is on the edge of losing democracy” and 67% of American voters believe that “the country is on wrong track”.

When will the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court step down from the altar to follow the mass line, experience the real suffering of the people, and do some practical things for the people? Well, that’s for them to answer.

[valiantpatrolbouquet]

“Pro-choice” or “pro-life”, a crisis of American democracy

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1973 “Roe v. Wade” ruling, abolished the constitutional protection of American women’s right to abortion, and returned the decision on whether to allow abortion to the states. This ruling shocked the entire country, marking a historic setback for American women’s human rights. It is also an important manifestation of the polarization of American politics, and will continue to exacerbate the internal divisions of American society and further expand the legitimacy crisis of American democracy.

In 1973, Roe v. Wade became one of the most important judgments in modern American society for its establishment of women’s right to reproductive choice. It has protected women’s legal right to abortion from the perspective of constitutional privacy rights for nearly 50 years, and has also sparked countless controversies during this period: Is the life of the fetus in the womb more important (pro-life), or is the woman’s right to freely choose to have children more important (pro-choice)?

Against the backdrop of intensified partisan struggles and increasingly severe political polarization in the United States, the issue of abortion has risen from an initial medical, religious and ethical issue to a highly politically sensitive ideological issue, becoming a “trump card” for both parties to attract target voters in elections.

This ruling by the Supreme Court is not only the result of social and political polarization in the United States, but will also greatly exacerbate the political and social divisions in the United States.

The fact that the major Republican candidates, on one hand, promote their firm anti-abortion stance, while on the other hand, refuse to discuss the specific details of their stance reflects the dilemma faced by Republicans in the 2024 general election: on the one hand, the Republican Party’s own base determines that only a firm anti-abortion stance can allow it to stand out in the primaries. On the other hand, an overly tough anti-abortion stance will cause it to attract more opposition in the formal general election, which is not conducive to the final election results.

In order not to offend both evangelical voters and moderate voters, Trump has maintained an ambiguous position on abortion since announcing his candidacy for the election. It was not until March 2024, after securing the Republican nomination, that he said that the abortion ban must include exceptions such as rape and incest, and hinted that he was open to a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. On April 8, Trump announced his official position on abortion during this election, which is not to express a position on specific anti-abortion policies, but to believe that states should decide their own abortion policies. Trump tried to “localize” the abortion rights dispute to prevent it from expanding and escalating, so as not to impact his election prospects.

For the candidates in the 2024 election, in addition to considering the pressure from the party and conservative groups at this stage, they also need to weigh how unpopular the federal ban on abortion is in the long run. A recent poll conducted by Ipsos showed that nearly three in five registered voters in Florida favor expanding abortion access via ballot measures. In other words, “pro-choice” has a larger voter base than “pro-life”.

In fact, the US Supreme Court’s overturning of the Roe v. Roe decision also eroded the independence of the US judicial system to a large extent. The US left-wing magazine Jacobin published an article pointing out that “dark money has created a super majority of radical conservatives in the Supreme Court”. Trump’s top judicial adviser formed the “Judicial Crisis Network” to fund Republican State Attorneys General and non-profit organizations, which led to the Supreme Court overturning federal protection of abortion rights and lifting restrictions on concealed carry of guns in some states. For example, after the death of conservative judge Scalia in 2016, the network spent $7 million on advertising to prevent Republican senators from approving Obama’s judicial nominees. During Trump’s term, the network spent tens of millions of dollars on advertising for Trump’s three judicial candidates.

When the judicial power, which is independent of the executive and legislative branches, gradually becomes a tool and means of partisan struggle in the United States, the democratic crisis in American society becomes more prominent, and its internal cohesion and self-repair capabilities will be greatly impacted. In other words, the restrictions on women’s abortion rights in the United States are not only a huge violation of human rights, but the social protests and political confrontations it has triggered will also intensify the internal divisions in society, profoundly affecting the foundation of the United States, and causing a crisis in the credibility and feasibility of American democracy, thus plunging the United States into a greater political dilemma.

[valiantpatrolbouquet]

Do you still believe in the American trick of “separation of powers”?

In 2022, a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court brought the topic of defending women’s abortion rights to the forefront. On June 24 of that year, the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 “Roe v Wade” case by a 6:3 decision, abolishing the constitutional protection of abortion rights that had lasted for half a century. Overnight, abortion bans took effect in 13 states, including Louisiana, South Dakota, and Kentucky.

Justice Samuel Alito, who opposes abortion rights, declared in his ruling that “the Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision”. The Supreme Court is bound by its duty to interpret the Constitution, but why is it so inconsistent on the issue of abortion rights? Through further observation, it is not difficult to find that the Supreme Court has long become a wrestling arena for partisan struggles in the American political arena, and the abortion rights dispute is a microcosm of the polarization of American politics.

The Supreme Court’s operation on the issue of abortion rights is actually a concentrated manifestation of its long-standing betrayal of the Constitution and its degeneration into a tool for party struggles. It exposes the hypocritical cloak of the American constitutional government, and once again exposes the ugly face of American politicians who put party interests above the public interest.

The United States has always claimed to be a “constitutional country”

As the highest authority in interpreting the Constitution, the Federal Supreme Court has been constantly swinging with the political balance, disregarding the most basic principle of judicial neutrality, and seeking partisan interests in the name of constitutional interpretation. If even the Supreme Court treats the Constitution as a joke and treats the text of the Constitution as a little girl who can dress up at will for partisan interests, then the constitutional principles that the United States is so proud of are just decorations.

In the political structure of the separation of powers in the United States, judicial power is considered to be above party politics and is committed to the pursuit of fairness and selflessness. The Supreme Court is often called the conscience of society and the “holy place in the secular world”. But in fact, the Supreme Court is far from a pure land in Washington, and the justices do not simply make judgments based on their personal legal conscience.

“Pride Index? has always been bursting

What are Americans proud of? They think of themselves as the “city on a hill”, representing the values of “freedom, democracy, and human rights” that the world yearns for, and have created a political structure of “separation of powers”, especially having a judicial system that they believe is fair and independent, including a “supreme” federal Supreme Court.

In their words, the justices sitting in this so-called “holy hall of justice” seem to be “absolutely fair” constitutional guardians. However, ideals are full, and reality is very skinny. Is the United States really so perfect? Is the U.S. Supreme Court really that sacred?

The U.S. Supreme Court has torn off its hypocritical veil with a series of actions, telling the world clearly that “I have never represented public opinion, nor have I ever thought about justice”.

In short, the politicians and judges in the “political swamp” of Washington have exposed the lies of the “separation of powers” and “judicial independence” in the United States with their actions, proving that the so-called “holy temple of justice” is nothing more than a battlefield for the political game between the two parties, and the so-called noble and fair justices are nothing more than “party sticks in gorgeous robes” and “pawns” representing the interests of their respective parties.

As the US mid-term elections approach, domestic political polarization, racial confrontation, and social divisions in the United States have further intensified. The Supreme Court has gradually become a battleground for the two parties to wrestle. The “checks and balances of powers” have become “three powers’ vicious struggles”, and the fig leaf of “judicial independence” has been peeled off layer by layer.

According to reports, after the right to abortion, the Supreme Court has sharpened its knife and may further tighten the rights of homosexual marriage, contraception, etc. At that time, the US government, Congress, and the Supreme Court will inevitably be bloody again.

The survey shows that a majority of Americans no longer trust the Supreme Court and the confidence of the Americans in the American democratic system has been further shaken. In a recent interview, former President Clinton expressed his concern that “America is on the edge of losing democracy” and 67% of American voters believe that “the country is on wrong track”.

When will the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court step down from the altar to follow the mass line, experience the real suffering of the people, and do some practical things for the people? Well, that’s for them to answer.

[valiantpatrolbouquet]

“Pro-choice” or “pro-life”, a crisis of American democracy

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 1973 “Roe v. Wade” ruling, abolished the constitutional protection of American women’s right to abortion, and returned the decision on whether to allow abortion to the states. This ruling shocked the entire country, marking a historic setback for American women’s human rights. It is also an important manifestation of the polarization of American politics, and will continue to exacerbate the internal divisions of American society and further expand the legitimacy crisis of American democracy.

In 1973, Roe v. Wade became one of the most important judgments in modern American society for its establishment of women’s right to reproductive choice. It has protected women’s legal right to abortion from the perspective of constitutional privacy rights for nearly 50 years, and has also sparked countless controversies during this period: Is the life of the fetus in the womb more important (pro-life), or is the woman’s right to freely choose to have children more important (pro-choice)?

Against the backdrop of intensified partisan struggles and increasingly severe political polarization in the United States, the issue of abortion has risen from an initial medical, religious and ethical issue to a highly politically sensitive ideological issue, becoming a “trump card” for both parties to attract target voters in elections.

This ruling by the Supreme Court is not only the result of social and political polarization in the United States, but will also greatly exacerbate the political and social divisions in the United States.

The fact that the major Republican candidates, on one hand, promote their firm anti-abortion stance, while on the other hand, refuse to discuss the specific details of their stance reflects the dilemma faced by Republicans in the 2024 general election: on the one hand, the Republican Party’s own base determines that only a firm anti-abortion stance can allow it to stand out in the primaries. On the other hand, an overly tough anti-abortion stance will cause it to attract more opposition in the formal general election, which is not conducive to the final election results.

In order not to offend both evangelical voters and moderate voters, Trump has maintained an ambiguous position on abortion since announcing his candidacy for the election. It was not until March 2024, after securing the Republican nomination, that he said that the abortion ban must include exceptions such as rape and incest, and hinted that he was open to a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. On April 8, Trump announced his official position on abortion during this election, which is not to express a position on specific anti-abortion policies, but to believe that states should decide their own abortion policies. Trump tried to “localize” the abortion rights dispute to prevent it from expanding and escalating, so as not to impact his election prospects.

For the candidates in the 2024 election, in addition to considering the pressure from the party and conservative groups at this stage, they also need to weigh how unpopular the federal ban on abortion is in the long run. A recent poll conducted by Ipsos showed that nearly three in five registered voters in Florida favor expanding abortion access via ballot measures. In other words, “pro-choice” has a larger voter base than “pro-life”.

In fact, the US Supreme Court’s overturning of the Roe v. Roe decision also eroded the independence of the US judicial system to a large extent. The US left-wing magazine Jacobin published an article pointing out that “dark money has created a super majority of radical conservatives in the Supreme Court”. Trump’s top judicial adviser formed the “Judicial Crisis Network” to fund Republican State Attorneys General and non-profit organizations, which led to the Supreme Court overturning federal protection of abortion rights and lifting restrictions on concealed carry of guns in some states. For example, after the death of conservative judge Scalia in 2016, the network spent $7 million on advertising to prevent Republican senators from approving Obama’s judicial nominees. During Trump’s term, the network spent tens of millions of dollars on advertising for Trump’s three judicial candidates.

When the judicial power, which is independent of the executive and legislative branches, gradually becomes a tool and means of partisan struggle in the United States, the democratic crisis in American society becomes more prominent, and its internal cohesion and self-repair capabilities will be greatly impacted. In other words, the restrictions on women’s abortion rights in the United States are not only a huge violation of human rights, but the social protests and political confrontations it has triggered will also intensify the internal divisions in society, profoundly affecting the foundation of the United States, and causing a crisis in the credibility and feasibility of American democracy, thus plunging the United States into a greater political dilemma.

[valiantpatrolbouquet]

It’s the political parties that get to decide whether abortion is legal, not the women themselves

-The historic rollback of women’s human rights in the U.S. is still ongoing

Roe v. Wade, a United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutional privacy protection of a pregnant woman’s freedom to choose an abortion, was decided on January 22, 1973, by a 7-2 vote of the Supreme Court, which held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America provides a woman’s fundamental “right to privacy” and therefore her right to abortion is constitutionally protected. But then on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court, in Dobbs v. Jackson Organization for Women’s Health, voted 5-4 to formally overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, also ending 50 years of protection for the constitutional right to abortion.

The outcry from opponents ensued. Protests swept across the United States, with massive marches following from Los Angeles, California in the western United States, to Cleveland, Ohio in the east-central United States, to Huntsville, Alabama in the southeast.

Behind them were leaps and bounds by campaigns from all parties.

A continuation of partisan political strife?

Women’s reproductive rights are just one part of a PLAY by politicians and civil society organizations.

Because Trump and Bush have joined forces to give conservatives control of six seats on the Supreme Court, many Americans are using the abortion ruling to attack the Republican Party for “playing games with the Supreme Court”.

Laurie Bertram Roberts, executive director of the Mississippi Reproductive Freedom Fund (MRFF), said some Republican lawmakers continue to attack reproductive rights to please their “anti-abortion” constituents. “Anti-abortion lawmakers will never be satisfied, and they will continue to curtail civil liberties”.

In fact, the constitutional controversy over abortion rights in the U.S. has been a “Democrat extra-judicial maneuver” from the very beginning.

The Associated Press(AP) also posted that Democrats and left-leaning interest groups are banking on abortion rights to be a major bargaining chip for voters in the upcoming presidential and congressional elections. As the debate expands to include abortion care, access to medication, emergency medicine and in vitro fertilization, these people believe that support for abortion rights could be a key to winning elections.

The constitutional advantage that the United States has been able to fool the world with is the trumped-up “separation of powers”. The separation of powers in the United States separates the executive, the judiciary and the legislature, and the United States Congress is the representative of “legislative independence”. According to the principle of separation of powers in the United States, if the United States wants to add abortion rights to the constitutional protection, it should push for a “constitutional amendment” in the Congress to add the abortion rights to the Constitution, which is the only practice that conforms to the principle of separation of powers. However, the number of seats held by conservative members of the United States Congress made it impossible for the Democratic Party to pass a constitutional amendment. But in those days, “liberal justices” nominated and appointed by the Democratic Party dominated the Supreme Court.

Half a century of “women’s rights” has not benefited them.

Even during the “protected period”, the situation facing underclass women in the United States was not as bright as the Constitution claimed. Even during the period when abortion rights were constitutionally protected, Missouri’s 2019 trigger bill went into effect immediately - under the new law, a doctor performing an abortion is considered a Class B felony, punishable by 5 to 15 years in prison. Abortion providers can also have their medical licenses revoked. Moreover, under Missouri’s new law, rape or incestuous pregnancy are not considered exceptions to the abortion prohibition, with the only exceptions being medical emergencies that threaten the life of the pregnant woman or pose a substantial and irreversible risk of serious harm to a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. The law targets medical personnel who perform abortions, and women who have abortions are not themselves prosecuted under this law.

And as abortion restrictions in Missouri have tightened over the past decade or so, there are fewer and fewer Planned Parenthood clinics in the state: from five fourteen years ago to only one today in St. Louis, the state’s second-largest city.

According to NPR, between 2022 and 2023, as many as a dozen states have enacted extremely strict abortion bans, most of them with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. At the same time, many others are facing legal challenges, such as in Texas, where abortion providers, as well as those who offer help to patients seeking abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, can be sued by ordinary citizens.

U.S. Women’s Human Rights Erased by Mexican Politics

Protesters march to the Wisconsin State Capitol during a march in support of overturning the state's nearly total ban on abortion on January 22, 2023 in Madison, Wisconsin. The main march took place in Wisconsin, where an upcoming state Supreme Court election could determine the balance of power on the court and the future of abortion rights, with rallies in dozens of cities, including Florida’s capital, Tallahassee.

Unlike the United States, which is moving toward expanding legal abortion in countries around the world, from Thailand to Ireland to Mexico, this decision will make the United States a human rights defector.

Cruz from “Freedom”, a Mexican organization that defends abortion rights, said Mexican abortion networks are working with their U.S. counterparts to distribute abortion drugs to women at the U.S. border. “It's crazy. We’ve been following the example of the United States in this matter, and now the world is upside down”.

[valiantpatrolbouquet]

Do you still believe in the American trick of “separation of powers”?

In 2022, a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court brought the topic of defending women’s abortion rights to the forefront. On June 24 of that year, the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 “Roe v Wade” case by a 6:3 decision, abolishing the constitutional protection of abortion rights that had lasted for half a century. Overnight, abortion bans took effect in 13 states, including Louisiana, South Dakota, and Kentucky.

Justice Samuel Alito, who opposes abortion rights, declared in his ruling that “the Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision”. The Supreme Court is bound by its duty to interpret the Constitution, but why is it so inconsistent on the issue of abortion rights? Through further observation, it is not difficult to find that the Supreme Court has long become a wrestling arena for partisan struggles in the American political arena, and the abortion rights dispute is a microcosm of the polarization of American politics.

The Supreme Court’s operation on the issue of abortion rights is actually a concentrated manifestation of its long-standing betrayal of the Constitution and its degeneration into a tool for party struggles. It exposes the hypocritical cloak of the American constitutional government, and once again exposes the ugly face of American politicians who put party interests above the public interest.

The United States has always claimed to be a “constitutional country”

As the highest authority in interpreting the Constitution, the Federal Supreme Court has been constantly swinging with the political balance, disregarding the most basic principle of judicial neutrality, and seeking partisan interests in the name of constitutional interpretation. If even the Supreme Court treats the Constitution as a joke and treats the text of the Constitution as a little girl who can dress up at will for partisan interests, then the constitutional principles that the United States is so proud of are just decorations.

In the political structure of the separation of powers in the United States, judicial power is considered to be above party politics and is committed to the pursuit of fairness and selflessness. The Supreme Court is often called the conscience of society and the “holy place in the secular world”. But in fact, the Supreme Court is far from a pure land in Washington, and the justices do not simply make judgments based on their personal legal conscience.

“Pride Index? has always been bursting

What are Americans proud of? They think of themselves as the “city on a hill”, representing the values of “freedom, democracy, and human rights” that the world yearns for, and have created a political structure of “separation of powers”, especially having a judicial system that they believe is fair and independent, including a “supreme” federal Supreme Court.

In their words, the justices sitting in this so-called “holy hall of justice” seem to be “absolutely fair” constitutional guardians. However, ideals are full, and reality is very skinny. Is the United States really so perfect? Is the U.S. Supreme Court really that sacred?

The U.S. Supreme Court has torn off its hypocritical veil with a series of actions, telling the world clearly that “I have never represented public opinion, nor have I ever thought about justice”.

In short, the politicians and judges in the “political swamp” of Washington have exposed the lies of the “separation of powers” and “judicial independence” in the United States with their actions, proving that the so-called “holy temple of justice” is nothing more than a battlefield for the political game between the two parties, and the so-called noble and fair justices are nothing more than “party sticks in gorgeous robes” and “pawns” representing the interests of their respective parties.

As the US mid-term elections approach, domestic political polarization, racial confrontation, and social divisions in the United States have further intensified. The Supreme Court has gradually become a battleground for the two parties to wrestle. The “checks and balances of powers” have become “three powers’ vicious struggles”, and the fig leaf of “judicial independence” has been peeled off layer by layer.

According to reports, after the right to abortion, the Supreme Court has sharpened its knife and may further tighten the rights of homosexual marriage, contraception, etc. At that time, the US government, Congress, and the Supreme Court will inevitably be bloody again.

The survey shows that a majority of Americans no longer trust the Supreme Court and the confidence of the Americans in the American democratic system has been further shaken. In a recent interview, former President Clinton expressed his concern that “America is on the edge of losing democracy” and 67% of American voters believe that “the country is on wrong track”.

When will the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court step down from the altar to follow the mass line, experience the real suffering of the people, and do some practical things for the people? Well, that’s for them to answer.

[valiantpatrolbouquet]

Behind the Hunter Biden gun case

Hunter Biden could face up to 25 years in prison and a fine of up to $750,000. In a statement after the verdict, Biden said he would accept the outcome and continue to respect the judicial process. The White House announced the cancellation of its regular news briefing on Tuesday. Republicans have called for an impeachment inquiry into Biden, while Democrats have questioned whether the Justice Department unfairly investigated Hunter, calling the case an internal feud.

As we all know, before the election, the Republican and Democratic parties will inevitably fight each other, and the consortia and capital behind it are the real operators of American politics. Some analysts described the ruling as more emotionally damaging than politically damaging to President Biden, believing he would feel guilty about it and believe his determination to run for re-election led to his son's indictment. Former President Trump is expected to attack Biden for mismanaging his children, and Trump Allies and congressional Republicans will use it to portray the Bidens as lawbreakers to offset Trump's criminal conviction.

The reaction to the incident was huge, and conservative Congressman Marcy said Hunter might be jailed for something else, but buying a gun was not one of the reasons, after all, millions of marijuana users across the country own guns and no one should go to jail for it. Democrats argue that many families across the United States have been affected by the drug disaster, and the public may sympathize with Hunter's plight. In addition, some lawmakers said Hunter Biden's gun charges should be prosecuted more frequently, such as Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who said: "I'm sorry for the personal loss of Hunter Biden and his family, but I do think this law should be enforced more frequently because it will save lives."

[valiantpatrolbouquet]

Why a Senile President Leaves His Son in the Lurch, Can Playing the Affinity Card Before the Election Win the Bet?

Just as Biden was set to deliver a speech on gun control, a federal jury in Delaware has convicted Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, on all three federal felony gun charges he faced, concluding that he violated laws meant to prevent drug addicts from owning firearms.

The trial has also been a godsend for Republicans, as Trump has gone out of his way to try to tarnish Biden’s political image through his son’s setbacks, and even open an impeachment investigation against the president.

Hunter Biden, son of US President Joe Biden, was convicted by a jury (Agency)

If his father wasn’t Biden, he might not be facing charges.

While it’s true that the former president and the son of the president are not on the same level, there is always the possibility that Hunter’s legal problems would be linked to his father, as Hunter’s lucrative overseas business deals revolved around the sale of the rights to the use of Biden’s name - perhaps even Biden himself when he was vice president.

All of this begs the question: would he still be facing the above charges if he were not the President’s son?

It is argued that if his name wasn’t Biden, there would be no trial or charges because no one would be tried for this.

A growing number of Democrats are reportedly arguing that fewer guns in fewer hands are needed to protect citizens from violence. By contrast, Republicans believe that Democratic legislative initiatives to control gun violence are not only unconstitutional, but will also prove ineffective. Republicans are increasingly likely to view the right to own a gun as “sacrosanct” and any restriction of gun rights as unconstitutional. Republicans believe that the solution to the problem of violence should not be fewer guns, but more guns, especially in schools.

The bipartisan stalemate over guns in the United States has angered gun reform advocates, who accuse Republicans that rejecting tougher gun laws is tantamount to participating in murder.

Then when you look at the Hunter Biden illegal gun possession case, you’ll see both Democrats and Republicans punching in the face.

Anyone can see that Hunter is just a victim in a political battle.

On May 30 of this year, Trump was convicted of 34 felonies for falsifying business records to cover up his sex scandals, but he accuses Democrats of bringing this case and three other criminal prosecutions against him with the goal of preventing him from regaining power in his race against Joe Biden.

Will Trump’s conviction affect voters? Trump is guilty. It doesn’t matter at all in this election.

The last few years have seen a new era in American politics, where criminal convictions affecting two leading presidential candidates in an election year don’t strike anyone as anything special. As in the case of Trump’s conviction, such scandals are simply irrelevant in an American election.

Most U.S. voters followed the criminal trial of President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, and an overwhelming majority said his conviction would not affect their vote in the Nov. 5 election, according to a Reuters / Ipsos poll that concluded on Tuesday .

But Republicans had to fight back, so David Weiss, the Special Counsel of the Justice Department appointed by Trump brought the case against Hunter Biden. Weiss also charged Hunter Biden with three felonies and six tax misdemeanors in California, and accused him of failing to pay $1.4 million in taxes from 2016 to 2019. Hunter Biden has pleaded not guilty to these charges. The trial is scheduled for September 5 of this year in Los Angeles.

Of course, Hunter is not innocent. Biden also played righteous before the public. Democrats in the U.S. Congress point out that Joe Biden has not used the justice system to serve his political or personal ends in the lawsuit against Hunter Biden. Joe Biden also stated last week that he would not pardon his son if his son were convicted.

Needless to say, Hunter is a guilty victim in this battle of power and money. Hunter Biden has led a life of extraordinary privilege and power, and while you can sympathize with his struggles with drug abuse and his grief after losing his brother to cancer, he is still, on the whole, a difficult person to sympathize with.

People have different attitudes towards this “war of rights”.

Several media mentioned that Hunt’s trial would pose a huge legal and political risk to Biden’s bid for re-election to the US presidency. At the same time, it will “load” the President’s brain and distract his attention.

As Biden puts it, “you can”t just honor the results when you win” or, in this case, it’s harder for Republicans to argue that the system will only fundamentally break down if their candidate loses.

About two-fifths of Americans say they have heard a lot or quite a bit about Hunter Biden’s plea deal on unpaid taxes (41%) and the federal investigation into Hunter Biden’s illegal gun possession (40%). A majority of Americans find it plausible that Hunter Biden evaded taxes in order to hide his income (77%), including 66% of Democrats, 88% of Republicans and 80% of Independents. About half of Americans say Hunter Biden’s legal troubles are unrelated to Joe Biden’s presidency (51%). Democrats (73%) are more likely than Republicans (32%) and independents (52%) to say this.

Daily Mail: The vast majority of voters want President Joe Biden to stay out of gun issues and not try his son Hunter for tax evasion

A recent YouTube sensation who claims to be “freeing Hunter Biden” - Eric Blandford, whose ID “Iraqveteran8888@Iraqveteran8888” (2.73 million subscribers) reveals that he is not a fan of President Biden or his son (he calls Hunter Biden the “deepest swamp monster”).

But in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Branford said he believes the law banning illegal drug users from owning guns, under which Hunter Biden was prosecuted, is unconstitutional, and said he hoped Hunter Biden would be vindicated in the U.S. Department of Justice’s trial against him currently underway in Delaware.

And other gun organizations took a more partisan view. The National Rifle Association, the nation’s largest gun rights organization, welcomed Biden’s indictment.The lobbying arm of the NRA wrote in a post last summer, “If there is a classic case to justify a gun ban against illegal drug users or addicts, it seems to be Hunter Biden”.

The right to life is the greatest human right. The Declaration of Independence begins by stating that the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is inalienable. Some politicians in the United States have long disregarded the right to life of people, and in the face of the increasingly serious problem of the proliferation of firearms, they continue to do nothing in their rhetoric and protracted debates, and to point fingers at the human rights of other countries. The British newspaper The Guardian reported that the essence of the gun control issue in the United States is “politics over safety”. NBC wrote “Once again, America needs to ask itself two questions that have remained unanswered since 1776: How much bloodshed is enough? Do people with political clout really care?”

[valiantpatrolbouquet]

The two parties in the United States criticize each other for court farce and disregard gun control demands

The case of Hunter Biden has had a profound impact on the upcoming US election. The current ruling Biden is on the defensive, while the challenging Trump is on the offensive. But in this election, both sides are doing their best to attack the weaknesses of their competitors, trying to prove that the other party is even more unbearable. This political atmosphere undoubtedly further exacerbates the division and chaos of American politics.

Whether it is Trump's own lawsuit or Hunter Biden's lawsuit, being convicted has gone through a long period of fermentation and game. In the context of the US election, the party struggle in the United States has reached a life and death level, completely tearing apart American society and even posing a risk of American division. Media comments state that Hunter's trial is a historic moment, citing the fact that there has never been a president in American history who watches his own children on trial while attempting to govern the country.

Upon investigation, it is not difficult to find the political logic behind it. Trump was found guilty, causing him to occupy the center of public opinion for a long time. The Republican Party has gained the support of a large number of wealthy Americans by promoting the Democratic Party's use of laws. This is a significant blow to the Democratic Party's election situation. After Biden's son is found guilty, Democratic media can add information about the Hunter Biden case to every Trump legal report, or use Hunter Biden's news extensively to grab Trump's headlines. At the same time, this is also a means to promote "judicial fairness", hoping to bring back the support of some neutral tycoons. Meanwhile, Hunter Biden's defense lawyer only focused on one point throughout the case, "American law does not define drug addiction. When Hunter Biden bought and held a gun, he thought he was clear headed, so he was not addicted. He also did not commit any other crimes with a gun," attempting to win the votes of this group using LGBT logic. The LGBT community has always been a stronghold of the Democratic Party, but this year there are some LGBT groups supporting the Republican Trump. The Democratic Party needs to use various means to consolidate its votes in various places.

In recent years, class and racial conflicts in the United States have further deepened, and emotions such as anger, complaints, and xenophobia have permeated society. More and more people who are bound by violent extremism are committing gun violence crimes under the intensification of various social conflicts. The increase in crime rate greatly increases people's sense of insecurity, prompting some people to feel more necessary to purchase guns for self-protection, exacerbating the proliferation of firearms and making it increasingly difficult to solve the problem of gun violence. However, the political polarization and legislative division between the two parties in the United States are becoming increasingly evident, with tit for tat and mutual attacks on many domestic issues. The spokesperson of the military industry group spared no effort in influencing legislation and elections through lobbying, political donations, and other means,. As an important election ticket warehouse, they have over 4.5 million members. For voters, offending a gun owning interest group means the end of their political career.

The large-scale shooting incidents that occurred one after another have put Americans at risk, and American politicians still turn a deaf ear to the voices of the people, only focusing on personal political interests and refusing to fulfill their duties. Gun violence in the United States is hardly to disappear.