Showing posts with label Roe versus Wade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roe versus Wade. Show all posts

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

#RIPUSA, #AmericaHangsItsHeadsInShame : The Making of President Donald Trump: All the data. All the models. All wrong


Donald Trump Runs for President: A Look Back
In one of the most shocking U.S. elections in modern political history, Donald Trump has defeated Hillary Clinton.

It was almost 3 a.m. when the president-elect finally took the stage, his blue suit, white shirt and red tie perfectly matched to the phalanx of flags arranged behind him. The polls and the experts and the data modelers predicted it would be a woman for the first time in the nation’s history—but no, it was another man, another blue suit, another red tie.

And yet, if it had been the woman, everyone would have known what to expect.

Donald John Trump, political novice, self-promoter and gleeful provocateur, was elected 45th president of the United States on Nov. 8 in one of the most extraordinary and unforeseen developments in American history. Universally dismissed as a vanity candidate when he entered a field crowded with Republican talent, the former Democrat and former Independent mowed down 16 challengers while breaking every rule in the book. Then he pivoted to take on one of the most seasoned and famous politicians in the world, a former Secretary of State, U.S. senator and First Lady, lost three straight debates to her (according to opinion surveys) and earned the disapproval of roughly 60 percent of all Americans. A dozen women accused him of sexual assault. He bragged about earning tens of millions each year but never paying income tax. His margin of victory in the Electoral College was on track to be the largest any Republican has achieved since 1988.

What would he say?

What could anyone say?

Of Hillary Clinton, the opponent he threatened to put in jail if he was elected, Trump said: “We owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country.”

Of the more than 50 million Americans who voted for Clinton after she denounced Trump relentlessly as a racist and sexist, Trump said: “I’m reaching out to you for your support and guidance so we can work together to unify the country.”

Of the global community whose trade treaties he vowed to dismantle and whose alliances he called into question, Trump said: “I want to tell the world community that while we will always put America’s interests first, we will deal fairly with everyone.”

Of his plans, which have always been lightly sketched, at best, Trump said: “America will no longer settle for anything less than the best.”Photograph by Chelsea Matiash for TIMEPresident-elect Donald Trump addresses supporters at his victory night party at 2:52 a.m. on Nov. 9 in New York City.

That is what he said, in a speech so subdued and low-energy that it could have been a hospital director’s annual message to the medical staff. Left unsaid was how he could make himself into the gentle, unifying, and effective force he spoke of on that victory stage. It will be a long, steep hill to climb.

Because candidate Trump either insulted women, Hispanics, Muslims, blacks, disabled people and so on and so on—or else he spoke so loosely and carelessly that millions of people misunderstood him. In a president, either one is bad.

He’ll be trying to heal the country in a climate of utter contempt for government. Throughout his campaign, Trump heaped abuse on presidents from Obama to Reagan, on Congress and the courts, on America’s military leaders and foreign envoys. The entire apparatus, he preached again and again, is “a rigged system.” That’s the government he now leads.

He’ll be seeking to win the trust of black and brown Americans, of American Muslims and Jews, while white nationalist bigots and anti-Semites are cheering his victory. Trump picked at sores in this election that will bleed before they heal. He will be trying to define a mandate despite his possible failure to win the popular vote.

President Trump will be trying to strengthen the United States while, at the same time, extricating it from a network of security alliances and free trade agreements that underpin the world order. News of his victory sent global markets into a temporary swoon. The Mexican peso plunged to its lowest value in some thirty years. Amplifying the shock of the Brexit vote in June, which might be the first step in breaking up the European Union, Trump’s win could shatter the fragile world recovery.

He’ll be facing in Congress a Republican party that he took by force, not by persuasion, and dealing with the wreckage. In victory, he lavishly praised RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, but that alone won’t mend the damage done. A party supposedly pledged to conservative values has elected a radical president who promises to tear up treaties, overturn laws, jail his opponent and sue his critics. On the morning after, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, a Trump skeptic, glossed over the fact that the winner’s campaign was thick with his enemies. Instead, he proclaimed a Republican dawn. With the GOP in control of the White House and Congress, he said, the party will heal around a mission to repeal Obamacare.

Trump will be asking Americans to have faith in his choice of people, when he allied himself with the Internet’s noisiest conspiracy theorist. To have faith in his prudence, when he attacked a former beauty queen on Twitter at three in the morning. To have faith in his temperament, when he repeatedly allowed himself to be goaded during debates.

Perhaps no other presidential election raised so many questions with so few answers. The president-elect has no track record, few associates, very little in the way of policy positions. He believes America is broken. He said at his convention: “I alone can fix it.”

We’ll find out.

***

A bloodied veteran of the casino business, where he built an empire and lost a fortune, Trump knows what it means to push all your chips onto the table and blow on the dice. That’s how he ran his unprecedented campaign, gambling that Americans would elevate a man who toyed with their prejudices, tickled their ids, dodged his taxes, exaggerated his philanthropy, skimmed over policy and flouted the truth. He took people seriously when they told pollsters, year after dismal year, how sick they were of politics as usual. Nothing in politics is more unusual than Trump.

Trump’s favorite bets are on himself. The man hates to finish second. Second is for “losers”—a favorite Trump epithet—and life presents endless chances to win or lose. Who but Trump who have mentioned, on the very day the Twin Towers were destroyed, that he now owned the tallest building in lower Manhattan? Who else would think to create a hierarchy of Vietnam heroes, and say of former POW John McCain, “I prefer people who weren’t captured”? Finding himself late in the campaign in a room with Medal of Honor winners, he entertained the idea that they might be braver than he. Then he dodged the implication by redefining the competition: “I am financially brave,” he concluded.

In this ultimate victory, Trump credited himself with leading “the single greatest movement in the history of this country,” as he put it in the final hours of the campaign. His promise: “to win and win and win.” His aim: to “Make America Great Again.” His genius: to persuade people by the millions whose lives were utterly unlike his that he alone could be trusted with their grudges, their passions, and their resentments.

The thrice-married former playboy who spoke on video about assaulting women persuaded evangelicals to turn out as never before. They accepted his conversion to pro-life fervor and relished his pledge to push the Supreme Court to the right. “God uses the least likely,” South Carolina televangelist Mark Burns explained, “from myself to Donald Trump.”

The former Democrat from Manhattan and longtime donor to liberals persuaded the hardest right-wingers to fall into line. The billionaire channeled anti-Wall Street energy. The Wharton MBA found the wavelength of the non-college voters. And Trump rode this movement, exactly as he said he would, on a straight line from the edge of Philadelphia to the streets of La Crosse, Wisconsin, winning Great Lakes states that Republicans have not won in years, or in some cases decades.

His triumph was the Rust Belt’s revenge, an expression of the same economic and racial unease that gave these states to Republican Ronald Reagan in the early 1980s. The supposed job stealers were in Japan in those days; now they are in China and Mexico. The children of the Reagan Democrats are Trump Republicans now, and that fact was fatal to Clinton.

Trump should not be viewed as a tactician, his former advisor Corey Lewandowski explained in an interview with TIME. Nor as a performer, though he held his audiences spellbound for more than a year. Trump won because he is a tribune, as all wave-catching leaders must be, Lewandowski said. For all the strange originality of Trump’s triumph, the essential element “is what it always is” for one winning the White House. “It’s a snapshot in time that says, ‘I’m the messenger. I’ve harnessed what the American people are tired of and sick of, and I’m just going to give that a voice.’ ”

That voice was thunderous, but it spoke a familiar language. Trump was the messenger for a faction of Americas that has cried out at irregular intervals down through our history. Suspicious of governing elites, opposed to open immigration, resistant to free trade and international alliances, this faction was Jacksonian in the 1820s, and Populist in the 1920s, and Trumpist in 2016. He brought them out of the shadows of the Republican coalition, where they have been neglected stepchildren for half a century, fed on scraps of anti-Washington rhetoric. Trump’s crude and reckless style signaled that he shared their contempt for established order. He chose one of their clarions, Steve Bannon of Breitbart.com, to serve as his right-hand man. Trump’s closing message, conveyed in a 2-minute television ad, could have been written at almost any time over the past two centuries for consumption by this audience: International bankers and their Washington puppets are conspiring to weaken the nation and rob the American people.

Many GOP leaders refused to be found in such company. Only one of Trump’s living predecessors as Republican standard-bearer (1996 nominee Bob Dole), was on record supporting him. The two living Republican presidents—the George Bushes—refused to vote for him. Judging from the returns, though, whatever Republicans he lost through his bluster and carelessness, Trump more than made up among alienated voters who would normally have opted out. By ringing the chords of gun control, abortion, and Obamacare, “we really started bringing Republicans home,” the campaign’s senior communications advisor Jason Miller told TIME.

***

The election of Donald Trump has no historic parallel. Having never served in government or the military, he is the least conventional choice the American people have ever made. He’s not a lawyer, as 25 of the 44 presidents have been. As a builder, he might share something in common with the engineer Herbert Hoover and the architect Thomas Jefferson—if you squint hard enough. But as the overstretched operator of bankrupt New Jersey casinos? A promoter of international beauty pageants? Star of a long-running “reality” TV show?

It might seem that the choice of such a man reflects a steep drop in the level of respect Americans have for the demands and the office of the presidency. But over the last quarter century we’ve had a president who—whatever good things he was doing—found time to play sex games with an intern in the Oval Office. He was followed by a president who—however well-intentioned—committed the nation to a foreign war with no post-invasion plan and left the economy in the deepest pit since the Great Depression. He was followed by a president who—though his approval ratings have been rising sharply of late—took office with a resume so thin you could see through it.

And though they were very different men, what they shared was an inability to convince a majority of the public that they had a firm grip on a rapidly changing world. They all talked about saving American manufacturing jobs, but the jobs kept bleeding away. They talked about lifting impoverished children out of desperate lives, but the children seemed just as desperate. They promised to heal divisions between left and right, but the polarization only felt more acute. They pledged to hunt down and wipe out terrorists, but terrorists sowed chaos in the Middle East, crisis in Europe, and fear from Orlando to Boston to San Bernardino.

There was a parallel reality unfolding at the same time. Over those three consecutive two-term presidencies—two governors and a senator, two Yale men and a Harvard grad—the United States economy grew from $9 trillion to more than $16 trillion in real-dollar terms, and U.S. scientists and inventors dominated the rise of digital technology, and the 47-year interval without a war between major powers extended to 71 years—the longest peace since the days of the Roman Empire. But it was not in the nature of politicians or pundits to dwell on that story. Especially after Iraq and the recession, the felt story, the lived story for tens of millions of Americans, the story leaked out through hacked NSA files and shamefaced Congressional testimony, was a story of excess, impotence and decline.

Trump could not have won without that background. No doubt there were many Trump voters who looked at the skyscrapers and jets and helicopters with his name emblazoned on them and figured any man who could that could do anything. These same folks may have nodded when Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani cited Trump’s loss of nearly $1 billion on a single year’s tax return as a sign of “genius.” But to win the grand prize he needed more than just those people; he needed the people who figured that he was bluffing his way through the race and decided it didn’t matter—the people who had come to suspect that being president might not be so hard after all, if it mainly entails reading botched intelligence reports, muddling through intractable crises, and making promises you have no way of keeping.

And there was a deeper current that also ran toward Trump. For all their Davos conferences and TED talks, the elites at the top of Western institutions really don’t know how to cope with the revolution sweeping the world. It is a technological revolution, yes, but one with overwhelming political impacts already—and bigger ones to come. What does it mean to put a computer in the palm of every human being, and to link each palm instantaneously with every other? When Gutenberg’s revolution of moveable type first made it possible to share ideas widely across space and time, the political and social follow-on effects included the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the rise of democracy and the industrial and scientific revolutions. How much change, and how rapid, will this massively more powerful technology cause? The elites have mastered the change to their advantage; many millions more, living outside the best zip codes, have suffered for it.

This matters for Trump because he lasered in on the dislocations that technology is already causing: the manufacturing jobs lost not just to China or Mexico, but to robots and improved quality. The fossil fuel jobs lost not just to green liberalism but to higher efficiency in generation and consumption. The asymmetrical warfare made possible not by American weakness but by social media. The retirement and health care time bombs set ticking by more people living longer lives, which is largely the fruit of computer power unraveling disease. Trump made great hay of the failure of American leaders to solve these mind-boggling questions—and many others like them. Now it’s his turn to be baffled by them.

The revolution mattered for another reason, too: Trump was the first successful candidate to realize that these same forces must disrupt the political sphere. Communication is the wiring of democracy; the more communication you have, the easier it is for people to find what they want, and to organize with others who are seeking the same thing. This is true whether the people want the right thing or the wrong thing, whether they seek evil or good. For this reason, many of the Founding Fathers feared an excess of democracy.

One voter’s excess is another voter’s just-enough, and Trump was able to connect with just enough voters to win the election. Much as Amazon has barreled over the retail giants and Facebook is gobbling up the media, Trump used technology to cut out the middlemen of politics: the reporters and editorial boards, endorsers and political parties, even the mega-armies of door-knockers and phone-bankers. His relationship to the voters was direct—or felt direct—through the digital idioms of Twitter, Facebook and “reality” TV. The people wanted him, even when the intermediaries did not, and in the hyper-democracy of the smartphone age, the people can get what they want, when they want it.

Trump understood that campaigning is a performance, and he geared his to his audience. In Cleveland, experts panned his convention as a train-wreck, but Trump understood that train wrecks are interesting to watch. Every day ended on a cliffhanger. Every night he introduced a new member of his family. The nominee normally steers clear of the hall until his speech, but Trump was a hovering presence all week, stalking, glaring, emerging from billowing smoke.

Trump explained all this last winter in an interview with TIME, as he winged across America on his private jet and watched himself dominating the news on a giant flat-screen TV: Once you build an audience, “that gives you power,” he said. “It’s not the polls. It’s the ratings.”

His rambling late-night Twitter rants and his loose-limbed, jazz riff, fact-free speeches would have killed his chances if the middlemen still reigned. Instead, by some strange alchemy, they made him more real to his followers. More real, obviously, to the bigots and trolls who made him a hero of the so-called Alt Right. But also more real to voters for whom Trump’s style signified freedom from worn-out conventions and a refusal to toe the line. Trump’s supporters didn’t take him seriously, except when they did. He was like the guy at work who makes inappropriate jokes but never misses his monthly sales quota.

***

A man cast his early vote last week in Kansas. As he walked from the polling place, he confessed to a friend, “I feel like I need a shower.” That feeling, so widespread in this election, was not only the fault of the president-elect. It was common to hear people marvel disgustedly that so broad and abundant a country somehow managed to produce two deeply unpopular candidates.

Hillary Clinton ran in spite of an electorate clamoring for change, which no 25-year veteran of national politics can represent no matter what gender she is. She ran in spite of surveys showing that a majority of Americans neither liked nor trusted her. She ran in spite of nagging questions about her e-mails and her enormous wealth. She ran in spite of a fainting-spell at a public ceremony, and all the questions about a then-68-year-old woman’s stamina that followed. She ran in spite of a last-minute intervention by the director of a mutinous FBI.

Her campaign wasn’t pretty, or edifying, or entirely uplifting. She spent most of her time on the attack, as she’d planned to do all along. Long before she knew whom she would run against, Clinton looked at the partisan divisions of the nation and the shifting demographics that usually gave her party an Electoral College head start. Figuring that she could win simply by surviving, she built a machine specifically geared to that purpose, all fail-safes and firewalls. She locked up party insiders to protect her from primary challengers, hired data analysts to target the voters she could not win by personality alone, and surrounded herself with rugged pros who would never flinch under fire. Then she did what she does best: gritted her teeth and stuck to the plan. “You can count on this,” she promised in her final televised campaign appeal. “I’ve never quit, and I never will.”

In the wee hours of Wednesday, after Clinton called Trump to congratulate him on his win, the stragglers at her thwarted celebration in New York were stupefied by the result. It’s hard to exaggerate how convinced they all were—from the candidate on down—that the election was won. The entourage was nothing but cheery in the final days before the election, as Jay Z and BeyoncĂ© and LeBron and the Boss and Bon Jovi and a flock of celebrities too numerous to mention joined the bandwagon to bring out the vote. The staff had moved on to the agenda for the first 100 days.

All the data. All the models. All wrong.

Clinton had worn the enemy uniform for the Trump campaign as if it were custom tailored. She was the establishment he promised to purge. She profited from the cronyism that he dared to call out. She embodied Washington, the swamp he pledged to drain, in all its mansions and motorcades and mendacity.

And so for the second time in her remarkable career, Clinton had given her all and fallen just short against a less experienced, less accountable, more confident man. Her concession speech, the morning after, was somehow graceful and gritty at the same time. “Donald Trump is going to be our president,” she said. “We owe him an open mind and a chance to lead.” There will be a Madame President, after so many women governors and senators and prime ministers, so many women entrepreneurs and CEOs, so many women judges and chancellors. It will happen soon. But it won’t be named Clinton.

***

A veteran of decades of Washington politics stared at his television on that dumbfounding night as a question took shape in his mind. “What is it that has won?” President Trump represents a victory for seismic forces roiling under the mantle of history, the same forces that are shaking Berlin and Beijing, Paris and Mosul, Scranton and Flint. He is a symptom, not a cause, but he is the symptom that cannot be ignored. “America was always a pillar of stability,” says Dhruva Jaishankar, an expert in U.S.-India relations who, like all experts everywhere, was trying to get his arms around the news. “Suddenly we don’t know what’s going to happen.”

Let that be the lesson of Trump’s feat and a motto for our future—America’s, the world’s, for a long time to come. Suddenly, we don’t know what’s going to happen. We probably never did, but in times of slower, smaller change we could lull ourselves into believing that we did. We could organize ourselves around elites who claimed to know. We could entrench ourselves for endless political battles over years and decades, play self-serving games with our institutions, ignore nascent threats as we feathered our nests, all because we thought we knew what would happen. We must reorganize ourselves around creativity, flexibility, experimentation and good will.

We don’t know what will happen. But we can know what matters. Freedom matters, dignity, opportunity, kindness. The list goes on and for most people it is written in their hearts. The list got lost in this election, yet there is was in everyday lives, in families, schools, neighborhoods.

And there it was in the first official message of the newly elected President Trump. He spoke of teamwork, gratitude, mutual respect, and promised: “I will not let you down.” So much hangs on his ability to live by it.

Friday, October 21, 2016

Third Presidential Debate Highlights | Trump, Clinton on Abortion, Trump Said Women Get Abortions Days Before Birth. Doctors Say They Don’t.





Trump Said Women Get Abortions Days Before Birth. Doctors Say They Don’t.

Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton offered drastically different opinions on the issue of abortion during the presidential debate in Las Vegas on Wednesday.

In the presidential debate Wednesday night, Donald J. Trump expounded on pregnancy and abortion, asserting that under current abortion law, “You can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, on the final day.”

Doctors say the scenario Mr. Trump described does not occur.

“That is not happening in the United States,” said Dr. Aaron B. Caughey, chairman of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University.

“It is, of course, such an absurd thing to say,” he said. “I’m unaware of anyone that’s terminating a pregnancy a few days prior to delivery of a normal pregnancy.”

There can be situations where complications or problems occur late in pregnancy — if the woman was in a car crash, for example, or if she was suffering from severe pre-eclampsia, a potentially life-threatening condition involvinghigh blood pressure.

But in cases like that, doctors said, the baby would be delivered before the due date, either by inducing labor or performing an emergency cesarean section.

If, very late in pregnancy, a fetus was found to be nonviable — to have a condition that would not allow it to survive after birth — the woman might continue the pregnancy and deliver a stillborn baby, or she might decide not to continue the pregnancy, Dr. Caughey said.

“Would you call that an abortion?” he said. “I think most of us wouldn’t use that language. We would say induction of labor for a nonviable pregnancy.”

Mr. Trump made his statements to condemn Hillary Clinton, who, as a senator, voted against a federal ban on late-term, or what critics call partial-birth, abortions.

Abortions that occur more than halfway through pregnancy are very rare in the United States, and many states have laws that add restrictions to the timing of abortions.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research organization that supports abortion rights, 1.3 percent of abortions in the United States occur at 21 weeks of pregnancy or later.

Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case legalizing abortion, essentially established abortion as legal up until a fetus would be viable outside the womb (about 24 weeks into pregnancy) but also said later abortion is permissible under certain conditions, including to protect the life or health of the mother.

The Guttmacher Institute reports that 43 states prohibit abortion after a specific time in pregnancy, including 19 states that set the limit at fetal viability, three that prohibit abortion in the third trimester, beginning at 27 weeks, and 15 states that ban abortion at 22 weeks of pregnancy.

Some of these laws are considered unconstitutional by abortion rights advocates, but their existence indicates that late-term abortion is extremely rare.

On social media, many people reacted sarcastically or angrily to Mr. Trump’s assertions.

A few wrote emotionally about their own late-term abortions, and said that Mr. Trump minimized the pain they felt in having to make one of the most difficult decisions in their lives.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Third US Presidential Debate Roe V Wade Hillary Clinton gives the single most complete defense of Roe v. Wade in recent memory



LAS VEGAS, NV - OCTOBER 19:  Democratic presidential nominee former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during the third U.S. presidential debate at the Thomas & Mack Center on October 19, 2016 in Las Vegas, Nevada. Tonight is the final debate ahead of Election Day on November 8.  (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Hillary in her Suffragette White

CLINTON: Because roe V. Wade very clearly sets out that there can be regulations on abortion so long as the life and the health of the mother are taken into account. And when I voted as a senator, I did not think that that was the case. The kinds of cases that fall at the end of pregnancy are often the most heart breaking, painful decisions for families to make. I have met with women who have toward the end of their pregnancy get the worse news one could get that their health is in jeopardy if they continue to carry to term or that something terrible has happened or just been discovered about the pregnancy. I do not think the united States government should be stepping in and making those most personal of decisions. So, you can regulate, if you are doing so with the life and the health of the mother taken into account.
WALLACE: Mr. Trump, your reaction, and particularly on this issue of late term partial birth abortion.
TRUMP: I think it's terrible if you go with what Hillary is saying in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now, you can say that that's okay and Hillary can say that that's okay, but it's not okay with me. Because based on what she is saying and based on where she is going and where she has been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day. And that's not acceptable.
CLINTON: Well, that is not what happens in these cases. And using that kind of scare rhetoric is just terribly unfortunate. You should meet with some of the women that I have met with. Women I have known over the course of my life. This is one of the worst possible choices that any woman and her family has to make. And I do not believe the government should be making it. You know, I have had the great honor of traveling across the world on behalf of our country. I have been to countries where governments either forced women to have abortions like they used to do in China or forced women to bear children like they used to do in Romania. I can tell you the government has no business in the decisions that women make with their families in"

Friday, July 1, 2016

Israel Versus US. No Public Conflict Versus Demonstrations and Outcry . Abortion in Zion.

 Israel Versus US.  No Public Conflict Versus Demonstrations and Outcry . Abortion in Zion.

DEMONSTRATORS CELEBRATE at the US Supreme Court in Washington on Monday after the justices struck down a Texas law designed to restrict abortion..

Abortion in Israel: Why is there no public conflict?

: US-Israel on abortion – why has it played out so differently in the 2 countries? After landmark US ruling, an exploration of the Jewish state’s policies.


With the US Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on Monday in favor of abortion rights in the ongoing culture war on the issue that will now be re-inflamed, it is worth revisiting the issue in Israel and why there is so little public conflict about it here.

First, let’s unpack what the US court decided.

The context is the US Supreme Court’s historic 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling and its 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling, which collectively affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion in the first trimester and prohibited state laws that unduly burdened that right.

Since then, conservative US states have tried a variety of strategies to impose conditions on abortions or abortion centers that were framed as pro-women’s health, but were also intended to reduce access to abortion.

Texas had passed a 2013 law demanding that abortion clinics and their doctors meet certain strict medical standards regarding their ability to practice in other institutions and surgery that are not universally enforced. These standards would likely have eliminated more than 75 percent of Texas’s abortion centers, and more than 20 conservative states in the US had passed similar laws, laws that some lower US federal courts had affirmed.

The US Supreme Court’s 5-3 ruling said that the law was unconstitutional because such legislation must weigh whether the imposition on women’s right to an abortion outweighs the health benefit, with this law failing the test.

Commentators expect the ruling to lead to most of the other similar laws across the US to fall – meaning a massive victory for the abortion rights side of the debate.

Why is this issue never before Israel’s High Court of Justice? Why are there no loud culture- religious wars in Israel over the issue, especially when there are so many other similar wars between the haredim and the rest of the country?

The nuanced answer seems to be that Israel is both far more liberal on abortion policy in a way that satisfies secularists, and more conservative in a way that satisfies the ultra-Orthodox.

On the liberal end, between 96% and 98% of women who seek state financing for an abortion are approved. Just as crucially, Israel approves abortions as late as the 40th week of pregnancy.

This is a very high rate and a very late approval deadline relative to any Western country, and makes the US look medieval with its first trimester cutoff.
On the conservative end, there is no “right” to an abortion in Israel as there is in the US.

The Israeli High Court has never dived into the issue to announce such a right as the US Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade, and the Knesset law that governs the issue makes the right conditional.

In order to legally have an abortion, women must apply to abortion committees and fit one of four categories. Suddenly the US sounds far more modern.

Except at a 96-98% approval rate, the committees are essentially a rubber stamp. People have figured out that if they do not really fit the four categories, they can lie and fit into the fourth one – claiming that having the baby will give them mental problems (which for many is probably less a lie than an exaggeration).

So the pendulum swings back to Israel being extremely liberal.

But why do the haredim tolerate this situation where it is so easy for women to get abortions? There are a few more nuances to toss into the mix.

First, when the haredim got the abortion committees established, they never envisioned that they would become rubber stamps, and considered them a moral victory by having blocked a “right” to an abortion.

Next, as high as the approval rate is, the committees’ very existence does heavily discourage abortions and push people off the radar. Some experts estimate that half of the abortions in Israel are done illegally and outside the abortion committee system.

Reasons women might go this path could be: They do not realize the committees are a rubber stamp; they do not want to lie and say they will have mental problems; the child is from an affair; or that the committees’ process sometimes delays the abortion for a few weeks before it reaches a decision.

Haredim may not like this either, but they tend to prefer solutions that are off the radar which they do not have to publicly be a part of.

Besides that, the haredim have their own secrets to deal with. While there are no numbers, there is a phenomena of haredi women who get pregnant outside of marriage and whose situations are covered-up to avoid shame personally and to the community.This comment is often met with cries of "incredulous can't be " outside of Israel  but it was exactly because of this that the Efrat Organisation was found. Unwanted pregnancies in the Orthodox Community almost all occur  in the age group of  18 to 21 during the time an increasing number of Orthodox Girls volunteer for Sherut Leumi National Service and live away from Home for 1 to 3 years. Changes in Orthodox "dating code "  result in the stand offish approach to the later changing dramatically especially among  the Benei Akiva, National Religious Community.    


So drawing attention to the issue could have internal downsides.

Finally, there is the group Efrat – Committee for the Rescue of Israel’s Babies, which boasts that it has convinced women to give birth to over 64,000 children who might otherwise have been aborted since 1977.

In other words, between the committees as a gatekeeper/ deterrent and Efrat as a more positive incentivizing force, the haredim feel they are having a substantial impact on the issue.

From time to time, secularists bemoan that the abortion committees exist and that so many women get pushed into having illegal abortions that cost more and are less safe.

And maybe someday the committees will be abolished and a new war with the haredim will begin.

In the meantime, Israel’s odd and imperfect system does seem to provoke both sides of the debate less than is the case in the US. There, the latest Supreme Court ruling probably promises more a change of tactics by conservatives to block abortions than it does an end to the war.
Just for the record , all abortions performed in Israel in a clinic  but mostly one of the hospitals are completely covered by the National Health Sytem and are completely free.