Latest news with #EqualProtectionClause
Newsweek
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Ohio Bill Seeks to Ban and Criminalize Abortion: What We Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Republican lawmakers in Ohio have introduced a bill that seeks to ban almost all abortions in the state and criminalize the procedure. State Representatives Levi Dean and Johnathan Newman introduced the Ohio Prenatal Equal Protection Act on Wednesday. The bill would grant legal protections from the moment of fertilization, meaning abortion would be treated as homicide, in a challenge to an abortion rights amendment to the State Constitution that voters approved in 2023. Newsweek reached out to Dean and Newman for comment via email. Why It Matters Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, anti-abortion activists have been pushing measures to enshrine the rights of fetuses in a bid to end abortion nationwide. Ohio voters enshrined abortion protections in 2023, prompting judges to strike down abortion bans in the state. Abortion is legal up to 20 weeks from fertilization in Ohio. While Republicans in Ohio have historically passed abortion restrictions and bans, legislation in the past has been aimed at penalizing abortion providers rather than the people who have them. But the new bill, if enacted, would change that. It could also affect in vitro fertilization (IVF) and some forms of contraception. Demonstrators gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court as the justices hear arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health on December 1, 2021. Demonstrators gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court as the justices hear arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health on December 1, To Know End Abortion Ohio, which collaborated with Dean and Newman to draft the bill, says the constitutional amendment approved in 2023 violates the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Austin Beigel, the president of End Abortion Ohio, told Newsweek the bill is "a very, very simple piece of legislation" that "grants personhood to all human beings." The bill would ensure that "from the moment of fertilization, when you have a new, distinct living organism, you have personhood rights, and you have the equal protection of the law," he said. "So the same laws that protect a born infant will protect that same person inside their mother's womb." Beigel added that while the bill does not explicitly mention IVF, the "natural consequence of personhood rights for all human beings includes those currently living in petri dishes and cryochambers across our country and our state." Abortion rights advocates say the bill goes against the will of Ohio voters. "Ohioans spoke loud and clear that we want our access to reproductive healthcare protected, not attacked when we passed the Ohio Reproductive Freedom Amendment in 2023," Kellie Copeland, the executive director of Abortion Forward, which worked to pass the amendment, said in a statement to Newsweek. Beigel said that his organization is not concerned about going against what voters want because "the will of the majority of voters was for something evil." "They were asking for the right to murder another so we are proud to stand against evil, even when evil is the majority," he added. Other groups that support abortion bans—Ohio Right to Life and Citizens for Christian—do not support the legislation, according to The Cincinnati Enquirer. What People Are Saying Abortion Forward executive director Kellie Copeland, in a statement to Newsweek: "Voters in Ohio sent a clear message in 2023 we must be free to make our own decisions, define our own path in life, and safely care for our families and communities. Deciding if, when, or how to become a parent is one of the most important decisions we make. These decisions should be up to each individual Ohioan, not government. "These out-of-touch anti-abortion extremists want to give legal rights to fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses. This would strip Ohioans' ability to make decisions for our lives, health, and well-being, including banning all abortion care, banning some types of birth control, and denying IVF treatment that helps people build their families. "Bills like this embolden law enforcement to surveil and investigate people for their actions during pregnancy – families and loved ones could be targeted by law enforcement for helping someone access an abortion, miscarriage care, or even IVF. Black people, other people of color and immigrants are most likely to be targeted, questioned, and harmed by policies like this." End Abortion Ohio, in a statement: "Ohio's pro-abortion constitutional amendment should be treated as null and void because it flagrantly violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by denying preborn persons the right to life. In appealing to the 14th Amendment, the Ohio Prenatal Equal Protection Act appeals to a higher law; the U.S. Constitution. "But even so, we appeal to the highest law; the law of God. In the Holy Scriptures, All men are created equal, being made in the image of God." Ohio Right to Life President Mike Gonidakis told The Cincinnati Enquirer: "We have never supported criminalizing a woman for having an abortion, and we never will. It's completely out of bounds and inappropriate." Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin, in a statement: "Mere days after an anti-abortion fanatic targeted and killed reproductive rights advocates, Republicans in the Ohio legislature have decided that women who receive abortions are the actual threat. Ohio Republicans intend to charge women who receive abortions with homicide, ban IVF, and even some forms of contraception, as they proudly go against the people of Ohio. Nearly three years ago, Donald Trump opened the door to these extreme anti-choice policies through the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Now, with Trump's blessing, the far-right has declared war on women's rights." What Happens Next Beigel said the legislation has garnered seven co-sponsors so far. But while Republicans control both chambers of the Ohio Legislature, it remains to be seen whether the bill will have enough support to pass. Republican House Speaker Matt Huffman told the Enquirer it's too early to know where House Republicans stand on the bill.
Miami Herald
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Amy Coney Barrett Makes Unexpected Move in Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth in a major setback for the transgender community. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who fully joined the majority in its 6-3 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, wrote a separate concurring opinion suggesting the ruling does not go far enough. In the opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Barrett argued that laws classifying people based on transgender status do not trigger heightened scrutiny by the courts. Legal experts say that if a majority of the court adopts her reasoning for that argument, it could further erode transgender rights. Barrett's opinion may come as a surprise to those who have hailed her as a centrist. Appointed to the court by President Donald Trump in 2020, she has routinely voted with her conservative colleagues, including in the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. The New York Times recently said Barrett "is showing signs of leftward drift," and noted that she is the Republican-appointed justice most likely to be in the majority of decisions that reach a liberal outcome. And her siding with liberal justices and ruling against the Trump administration in some recent cases has led to anger from Trump supporters, with some accusing her of being "a radical liberal." But some experts say it's a mistake to believe she is shifting to the left. The court's majority opinion upheld Tennessee's ban on the grounds that the law's restrictions on treating minors for gender dysphoria turn on age and medical use, not sex. But Chief Justice John Roberts' 24-page majority opinion did not decide whether transgender status is a "suspect class" or "quasi-suspect class" under the Equal Protection Clause. Barrett argued in her concurring opinion that transgender status does not constitute a "suspect class" entitled to stronger legal protections. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a separate concurring opinion, in which he also said he does not believe transgender status qualifies as a suspect or quasi-suspect class. Barrett argued that the test to determine whether members of a group is a suspect class is "strict," including considering whether members of the group exhibit "immutable or distinguishing characteristics," whether the group has historically been subject to discrimination and whether it is "a minority or politically powerless." "Transgender status is not marked by the same sort of "'obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics'" as race or sex," she wrote. "The plaintiffs here, for instance, began to experience gender dysphoria at varying ages—some from a young age, others not until the onset of puberty. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs acknowledge that some transgender individuals 'detransition' later in life—in other words, they begin to identify again with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex." She wrote that "a history of private discrimination" against transgender people is not enough because what is relevant is a history of "de jure" discrimination, that is, discrimination enforced by law or official policy. In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that transgender people "have long been subject to discrimination in health care, employment, and housing, and to rampant harassment and physical violence." She added that they have also "been subject to a lengthy history of de jure discrimination in the form of cross-dressing bans, police brutality, and anti-sodomy laws." Barrett also argued that recognizing transgender people as a suspect class "would require courts to oversee all manner of policy choices normally committed to legislative discretion." It also implicates "several other areas of legitimate regulatory policy—ranging from access to restrooms to eligibility for boys' and girls' sports teams. If laws that classify based on transgender status necessarily trigger heightened scrutiny, then the courts will inevitably be in the business of 'closely scrutiniz[ing] legislative choices' in all these domains." Jonathan Turley, a conservative legal analyst and professor at George Washington University's law school, told Newsweek: "I honestly do not believe that Justice Barrett is influenced by public criticism. As a lawyer, academic, and jurist, she has always spoken clearly in her own voice. Her jurisprudential foundations run very deep after years of thinking and writing about the law. Most justices are far more concerned about their legacy than their popularity in rendering opinions." Turley also wrote on X: "The transgender community can scratch off Barrett on their possible allies in some of the pending cases in lower courts." MSNBC legal commentator Jordan Rubin wrote in a blog post: "While the question of what general legal protections transgender people have wasn't the main issue in the Skrmetti case, at least three justices appear prepared to rule against them on that broader question, which could make it even more challenging for them to press legal claims in all sorts of cases going forward." Slate journalist Mark Joseph Stern said: "This is a really atrocious concurrence. It's totally gratuitous, and I struggle to understand why she wrote it except to further prevent transgender people in this country from ever winning in a court." Stern added that Barrett, along with Justices Thomas and Samuel Alito, "wanted to say, clearly, that the Constitution does not protect transgender people from overt, invidious discrimination. They didn't win today. But they may win in the next case." The decision in United States v. Skrmetti is one of the most significant rulings about transgender people to come from the Supreme Court. While the court did not rule on whether laws that classify on the basis of transgender status are subject to heightened scrutiny, that could be a question that the court addresses in the future—and Barrett has made clear in her concurring opinion how she would vote. Related Articles Will Donald Trump Get to Pick New Supreme Court Justices?Why Amy Coney Barrett May Have Sat Out Huge Supreme Court CaseFive Supreme Court Justices Sit Out Case in Rare MoveThe 1600: Are We Headed for the Worst of Tariff Worlds? 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
American Military News
15 hours ago
- Health
- American Military News
Supreme Court upholds child sex change ban in Tennessee
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Tennessee law on Wednesday that bans sex changes for minors in the state, ruling that the prohibition on 'certain medical treatments for transgender minors' is not discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said, 'Tennessee's law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review.' According to Fox News, the case, 'United States v. Skrmetti,' was originally brought against Tennessee's Senate Bill 1, which bans 'all medical treatments intended to allow 'a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex' or to treat 'purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor's sex and asserted identity.'' Tennessee's Senate Bill 1 prevents healthcare providers from performing sex change procedures for minors with gender dysphoria and from using hormone and puberty blocker treatments to allow minors to transition to a different sex. READ MORE: Supreme Court allows AR-15, high-capacity magazine bans to continue In the Supreme Court's majority opinion on Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, 'This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound.' 'The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best,' Roberts added. 'Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us, Beach Communications, 508 U. S., at 313, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' Following the Supreme Court's ruling on Wednesday, conservative political commentator Matt Walsh released a statement saying that he was 'grateful' to be a part of a 'truly historic victory' after years of fighting against child sex change procedures. 'Three years ago, we launched our investigation into Vanderbilt's child mutilation practices. We rallied in the state capital. Our lawmakers responded with a law banning child mutilation in the state,' Walsh tweeted. 'Today the Supreme Court upheld our law, which means child mutilation can be banned anywhere and everywhere in the country. And should be.'
Newsweek
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Amy Coney Barrett Makes Unexpected Move in Supreme Court
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender youth in a major setback for the transgender community. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who fully joined the majority in its 6-3 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, wrote a separate concurring opinion suggesting the ruling does not go far enough. In the opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Barrett argued that laws classifying people based on transgender status do not trigger heightened scrutiny by the courts. Legal experts say that if a majority of the court adopts her reasoning for that argument, it could further erode transgender rights. Amy Coney Barrett meets with U.S. Sen. James Lankford on October 21, 2020 in Washington, D.C. Amy Coney Barrett meets with U.S. Sen. James Lankford on October 21, 2020 in Washington, D.C. Sarah Silbiger/Pool-Getty Images Why It Matters Barrett's opinion may come as a surprise to those who have hailed her as a centrist. Appointed to the court by President Donald Trump in 2020, she has routinely voted with her conservative colleagues, including in the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. The New York Times recently said Barrett "is showing signs of leftward drift," and noted that she is the Republican-appointed justice most likely to be in the majority of decisions that reach a liberal outcome. And her siding with liberal justices and ruling against the Trump administration in some recent cases has led to anger from Trump supporters, with some accusing her of being "a radical liberal." But some experts say it's a mistake to believe she is shifting to the left. What To Know The court's majority opinion upheld Tennessee's ban on the grounds that the law's restrictions on treating minors for gender dysphoria turn on age and medical use, not sex. But Chief Justice John Roberts' 24-page majority opinion did not decide whether transgender status is a "suspect class" or "quasi-suspect class" under the Equal Protection Clause. Barrett argued in her concurring opinion that transgender status does not constitute a "suspect class" entitled to stronger legal protections. Justice Samuel Alito wrote a separate concurring opinion, in which he also said he does not believe transgender status qualifies as a suspect or quasi-suspect class. Barrett argued that the test to determine whether members of a group is a suspect class is "strict," including considering whether members of the group exhibit "immutable or distinguishing characteristics," whether the group has historically been subject to discrimination and whether it is "a minority or politically powerless." "Transgender status is not marked by the same sort of "'obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics'" as race or sex," she wrote. "The plaintiffs here, for instance, began to experience gender dysphoria at varying ages—some from a young age, others not until the onset of puberty. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs acknowledge that some transgender individuals 'detransition' later in life—in other words, they begin to identify again with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex." She wrote that "a history of private discrimination" against transgender people is not enough because what is relevant is a history of "de jure" discrimination, that is, discrimination enforced by law or official policy. In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that transgender people "have long been subject to discrimination in health care, employment, and housing, and to rampant harassment and physical violence." She added that they have also "been subject to a lengthy history of de jure discrimination in the form of cross-dressing bans, police brutality, and anti-sodomy laws." Barrett also argued that recognizing transgender people as a suspect class "would require courts to oversee all manner of policy choices normally committed to legislative discretion." It also implicates "several other areas of legitimate regulatory policy—ranging from access to restrooms to eligibility for boys' and girls' sports teams. If laws that classify based on transgender status necessarily trigger heightened scrutiny, then the courts will inevitably be in the business of 'closely scrutiniz[ing] legislative choices' in all these domains." What People Are Saying Jonathan Turley, a conservative legal analyst and professor at George Washington University's law school, told Newsweek: "I honestly do not believe that Justice Barrett is influenced by public criticism. As a lawyer, academic, and jurist, she has always spoken clearly in her own voice. Her jurisprudential foundations run very deep after years of thinking and writing about the law. Most justices are far more concerned about their legacy than their popularity in rendering opinions." Turley also wrote on X: "The transgender community can scratch off Barrett on their possible allies in some of the pending cases in lower courts." MSNBC legal commentator Jordan Rubin wrote in a blog post: "While the question of what general legal protections transgender people have wasn't the main issue in the Skrmetti case, at least three justices appear prepared to rule against them on that broader question, which could make it even more challenging for them to press legal claims in all sorts of cases going forward." Slate journalist Mark Joseph Stern said: "This is a really atrocious concurrence. It's totally gratuitous, and I struggle to understand why she wrote it except to further prevent transgender people in this country from ever winning in a court." Stern added that Barrett, along with Justices Thomas and Samuel Alito, "wanted to say, clearly, that the Constitution does not protect transgender people from overt, invidious discrimination. They didn't win today. But they may win in the next case." What's Next The decision in United States v. Skrmetti is one of the most significant rulings about transgender people to come from the Supreme Court. While the court did not rule on whether laws that classify on the basis of transgender status are subject to heightened scrutiny, that could be a question that the court addresses in the future—and Barrett has made clear in her concurring opinion how she would vote.
The Herald Scotland
a day ago
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Supreme Court upholds ban on trans care. It's a win for kids
In recent years, 27 states have passed laws or policies limiting those procedures for minors, so the consequences of the court's decision will be felt nationwide. The question before the court was whether Tennessee's law violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause by prohibiting cross-sex hormones and puberty blockers for minors. The Biden administration and the plaintiffs challenging the law claimed it was unconstitutional since a biological male teenager could be given testosterone to treat delayed puberty, while a biological female teenager would be denied the same hormone to treat gender dysphoria. The court's majority didn't buy that argument, and Chief Justice John Roberts clearly laid out the court's rationale. "This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best." Opinion: Supreme Court hears arguments in trans case. They should uphold Tennessee law. Rather, in concluding that the law doesn't violate the 14th Amendment, Roberts wrote, "We leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process." Supreme Court upholds Tennessee law. As with abortion, let states decide. That's the right approach for now. States are in the best position to grapple with these complicated issues and to reflect the values of those who live within their borders. That's been the case with abortion after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. Opinion: Democrats scream democracy is in peril ... while proving that it's absolutely fine Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti called the new ruling a win, saying the "common sense of Tennessee voters prevailed over judicial activism." "A bipartisan supermajority of Tennessee's elected representatives carefully considered the evidence and voted to protect kids from irreversible decisions they cannot yet fully understand," Skrmetti said in a statement. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. It's important to note the Supreme Court didn't do anything to prevent states from offering hormones and puberty blockers to gender-confused youth. Rather, it gave states the green light to regulate those treatments. More research is needed on long-term effects of 'gender-affirming care' As Roberts wrote, the implications for all involved in these cases are profound. Parents of teens experiencing gender dysphoria obviously want to do what's best for their children. Yet, the long-term consequences of these life-altering treatments are unknown. Trump is right: Transgender athletes turn girls' track meets into a farce | Opinion A 2024 review from England's well-regarded National Health Service advised "extreme caution" in the use of such drugs for minors, and the country will offer puberty-blocking drugs only for those in clinical trials. Other European countries are backing off the use of these procedures, too. Many federal and state laws are designed to protect youth, from the required use of car seats to the age when they may legally drive or buy alcohol. Surely, states should also have the right to protect children from experimental procedures that could irrevocably change the rest of their lives. And now they do. Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@ or on X, formerly Twitter: @Ingrid_Jacques
