Latest news with #Abortion
Khaleej Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Khaleej Times
Poland holds tight presidential polls with EU role at stake
Voters in Poland began casting ballots on Sunday in a tight presidential election with major implications for the country's role in Europe, and for abortion and LGBTQ rights. Warsaw's pro-EU mayor Rafal Trzaskowski, 53, an ally of the centrist government, was facing off against nationalist historian Karol Nawrocki, 42. Opinion polls suggest the race was too tight to call. Polls close at 9:00 pm (1900 GMT) in the country, a member of the EU and Nato that borders Ukraine and has been a key supporter of its neighbour in the war against Russia. An exit poll was expected as soon as ballots close and election officials predicted that the final result will be known on Monday. "I'm voting for Trzaskowski. He's educated, speaks many languages, is intelligent, just all round great," said Agnieszka Lewinska, a 56-year-old cleaner in the town of Halinow just outside the capital. Warsaw pensioner Lila Chojecka, 60, said she cast her ballot for Nawrocki. "Catholic values are important to me. I know he shares them," she told AFP, calling the candidate "hope for Poland". A victory for Trzaskowski would be a major boost for the progressive agenda of the government led by Prime Minister Donald Tusk, a former European Council president. It could mean significant social changes such as the introduction of civil partnerships for same-sex couples and an easing of a near-total ban on abortion. Presidents in Poland, a fast-growing economy of 38 million people, have the power to veto legislation and are also the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. A victory for Nawrocki would embolden the populist Law and Justice (PiS) party, which ruled Poland between 2015 and 2023, and could lead to fresh parliamentary elections. Many Nawrocki supporters want stricter curbs on immigration and advocate for conservative values and more sovereignty for the country within the European Union. "We should not give in to European pressure," 40-year-old Agnieszka Prokopiuk, a homemaker, said ahead of the vote. "We need to make our own way... and not succumb to trends from the West," she told AFP in the city of Biala Podlaska in eastern Poland near the Belarus border. Anna Materska-Sosnowska, a politics expert, called the election "a real clash of civilisations" because of the wide policy differences between the candidates. Many Trzaskowski voters support greater integration within the EU and an acceleration of social reforms. Malgorzata Wojciechowska, a tour guide and teacher in her fifties, said Polish women "unfortunately do not have the same rights as our European friends". "I hope that Rafal Trzaskowski will relaunch the debate on abortion so that we can finally live in a free country where we can have our own opinion," she told AFP. The election is also being watched closely in Ukraine, which is seeking to bolster international support in its negotiations with Russia as Moscow's invasion grinds on. Nawrocki, an admirer of US President Donald Trump, opposes Nato membership for Kyiv and has called for curbs on benefits for the estimated one million Ukrainian refugees in Poland. He used his last campaign hours on Friday to leave flowers at a monument to Poles killed by Ukrainian nationalists during World War II. "It was a genocide against the Polish people," he said. The election's final result is expected to hinge on whether Trzaskowski can mobilise enough supporters and whether far-right voters will cast their ballots for Nawrocki. Far-right candidates secured more than 21 per cent of the vote in the election's first round, which Trzaskowski won by a razor-thin margin of 31 percent against 30 per cent for Nawrocki.
The Journal
24-04-2025
- Politics
- The Journal
Over 1.2 million people sign petition to EU calling for financial support for abortions
MORE THAN 1.2 million signatures have been collected by a pro-choice campaign calling on the European Commission (EC) to propose financing 'safe and legal abortion'. The My Voice, My Choice campaign started collecting signatures exactly a year ago and today is the last day that people can add their support. This is a European Citizens' Initiative, which, if over one million are collected, requires the EC to officially reply to the petition, outlining its legal and political conclusions as well as any actions it will take in response. The campaign aims to 'make women's lives freer, safer, and better; wherever they live in our union'. Veronika Povž, communication director of the campaign said that 'those with enough money can travel for an abortion — there's always a way for them'. But it's the marginalised groups and those who can't afford it who suffer the most. Instead of interfering with laws and regulations of Member States, the initiative instead asks the Commission: 'To submit a proposal for financial support to Member States that would be able to perform safe termination of pregnancies, in accordance with their domestic law, for anyone in Europe who still lacks access to safe and legal abortion.' It proposes that this would be a voluntary 'opt-in mechanism' for each country. Effectively, that means that support would be provided in countries with more liberal abortion access to enable them to provide care for women travelling from areas with more restrictive laws. Advertisement Thousands of women continue to travel to access care, as reported by The Journal Investigates earlier this month in our Exporting Abortion investigation. We revealed that over 5,000 women in Europe travel from their home countries across borders for abortions each year. Few successful citizens' campaigns More than a decade after the creation of the European Citizens' Initiative, the EU's common petitioning system, it is clear that gathering a million signatures for or against a cause is a major challenge. Even among the 27 million inhabitants of the EU, to reach this high bar requires a lot of campaigning and funding. Each country has set thresholds for signature number, dependent on population size, and campaigns must get support from at least seven EU countries to be considered. For this pro-choice initiative, 19 out of the 27 Member States were over their set threshold. That included over 12,500 people from Ireland, far more than the 9,165 threshold. The highest number of signatures per population came from Slovenia (over 65,000) where the campaign started. Over 200,000 signed the initiative in France, with over 150,000 from Germany and Italy. Bulgaria, Luxembourg and Lithuania had the lowest proportion of signatures. Significant funding was required to get over the line. My Voice, My Choice declared over €830,000 in sponsorship since February last year. However, though this particular campaign has successfully collected the required signatures, it is only the 11th European Citizens' Initiative to do so since it started 13 years ago. In that time, 95 initiatives have failed — 68 failed to obtain the required signatures and 27 were withdrawn by their initiators — out of a total of 119 accepted by the European Commission to collect signatures. Related Reads 'I'll never forgive my country': Women on the trauma of having to travel to UK for terminations 'The most vulnerable are still being exported': Why and how women have to travel for abortions Over 5,000 women in Europe have to travel abroad for abortions each year Signatures to be verified The pro-choice campaign is not done yet as the next step once the signature collection closes later today is verification. A Commission spokesperson told us that 'Member States will have 3 months to perform the verification' of the statements of support. Once that is done, and there are at least one million signatures remaining, then My Voice, My Choice can submit it to the EC for examination. The Commission then has six months to officially reply. The spokesperson said: 'Where the Commission intends to take action in response to the initiative, including, where appropriate, the adoption of one or more proposals for a legal act of the Union, the Communication shall also set out the envisaged timeline for these actions.' — Maria Delaney is the editor of The Journal Investigates . This article was produced in the framework of the PULSE cross-border journalistic cooperation project. It was developed with György Folk, Brussels (EUrologus) and Viktória Serdült (HVG) Budapest. Our investigative unit is dedicated to lifting the lid on how Ireland works. This takes time and it takes resources. Find out how you can help: Support The Journal Investigates Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone... A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation. Learn More Support The Journal
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Here's Where Trump's Cuts to Planned Parenthood Will Hurt Most
The Trump administration on Tuesday froze $35 million in family planning, sexual, and reproductive health funding. The 'Abortion, Every Day' newsletter reports that the move, which targets funding under Title X, will hit multiple nonprofit organizations, including conservatives' bogeyman Planned Parenthood. Several states will be impacted, with Maine, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Tennessee, and Utah having their Title X funds reduced to zero. Other states, such as Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and Alaska will lose the majority of their funding, while Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia will lose part of their funding. Title X provides funds, mostly to uninsured and low-income Americans, for cancer screenings, birth control, and testing for sexually transmitted infections, as the country's only federal family planning program. Sixty percent of women benefit from publicly funded clinics as their usual source of health care, while for 40 percent, these clinics are their only health care option. The move comes after the White House froze $120 million in Title X program grants last week, half of the entire program, to make sure that recipients were complying with executive orders against diversity, equity, and inclusion. Conservatives have also wanted to defund Planned Parenthood and other organizations that advocate for abortion rights for a long time, despite federal law already prohibiting taxpayer funds being used for the procedure. Now it seems that the right is going even further in targeting family planning and reproductive health altogether. Millions of people will lose access to pregnancy testing, contraception, STI treatment, infertility evaluation and counseling, and numerous other health services. But, as was said in the first Trump administration, the cruelty is the point.
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Montana 'Abortion Trafficking' Bill Could Criminalize Crossing State Lines for an Abortion
A new Montana bill "establishing the criminal offense of abortion trafficking" could criminalize pregnant women who cross state lines to get an abortion. Under House Bill 609, from state Rep. Kerri Seekins-Crowe (R–Billings), anyone convicted of "abortion trafficking" would face up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. The bill defines abortion trafficking as purposely or knowingly transporting "an unborn child that is currently located in this state either to a location within this state or to a location outside of this state with the intent to obtain an abortion that is illegal in this state." Aiding or assisting someone else in such transportation would also make one guilty of abortion trafficking. Criminalizing driving someone else out of Montana to do something that's legal in another state is itself ridiculous. But the language of this bill would very clearly criminalize some pregnant women who transport themselves out of state too. Per a constitutional amendment voters passed in 2024, Montana allows abortion up until fetal viability and provides an exception to this limit if the mother's life or health is at risk. This fact may give pause to people who think that's an acceptable limit—after all, it's only criminalizing folks who are getting the bad kind of abortions, right? Look, I don't love the idea of late-term abortions either. But let's step back here for a moment. First, there are what many would consider justifiable reasons for getting an abortion after about 24 weeks, including fatal fetal conditions that aren't discovered until later in a pregnancy. "Had a bill like this been law at the time, I wouldn't just be a grieving mother, I'd be a felon," Anne Angus told Jessica Valenti of Abortion, Every Day: The 35-year-old left Montana for an abortion in 2022, after her fetus was diagnosed with a fatal condition. She was 24 weeks pregnant—which was past the legal abortion window at the time. Under HB 609, she could have faced years in prison. "All for fleeing the state to give my son the compassion and dignity he deserved," she says. What's more, you needn't cheer on unconstitutional, travel-limiting measures like this just because they might stop a few abortions that don't meet your moral standards. There are other solutions—like pushing for changes to laws in states with no limits—that could address abortion-after-viability concerns without implicating other rights. It's also possible that Montana voters will someday topple the recent constitutional amendment and the state will ban abortion much earlier in pregnancy or ban it entirely. In that case, a woman leaving the state for a first-trimester abortion could still be found guilty of abortion trafficking. Perhaps most importantly, we should keep in mind that this is unlikely to stop with Montana. In fact, it's possible that Montana is seen by some as the perfect test ground for this sort of thing precisely because it currently allows abortions until viability. "By starting in a state where abortion is legal until 'viability,' it gives Republicans a certain amount of PR cover. They can pretend this isn't about restricting women's right to travel—just about stopping 'late' abortion," suggests Valenti. "It's no accident that HB 609 targets later abortion patients… just like it's no coincidence that earlier 'trafficking' laws focused on teens." That's just speculation, of course. But it wouldn't surprise me if backers of abortion trafficking laws like Montana's H.B. 609 may be counting on people to let this one slide, since it would only implicate post-viability abortions (for now). Meanwhile, they get to test out messaging and legal arguments before moving on to a state where abortion is banned earlier or entirely. For now, H.B. 609 has been referred to the Montana House Judiciary Committee and had an initial hearing this morning. Whatever happens with this bill, it surely won't be the last we'll hear about abortion trafficking, a term Republicans have begun to use and favor more frequently in recent years. It's a handy framing trick. Calling something "abortion trafficking" sounds a lot more nefarious than "driving out of state for an abortion." The latter implicates Americans' right to freedom of movement and might give some moderate people pause. But trafficking means to deal or trade in something illegal and is used in other criminal statutes (drug trafficking, sex trafficking, labor trafficking). For those not paying close attention, abortion trafficking may seem to mean something worse than it does. And even for those who know the definition, it may unconsciously prime expectations of shiftiness and criminality, even when it's being used to refer to someone who leaves the state to get a legal abortion somewhere else. This is a well-worn strategy. As Mistress Matisse pointed out on X, "They tested 'self-trafficking' charges on sex workers first." Sex workers have sometimes been charged with "sex trafficking" themselves. In addition, sex work customers or prospective customers are sometimes described as sex traffickers and charged with sex trafficking. Because sex trafficking can also refer to terrible crimes, like forcing someone else to sell sex, the term is a muddled mess that allows authorities to invoke evil criminals and heroic rescues when what they're doing is arresting people for trying to have consensual sex. Some Republicans seem intent on pulling a similar trick with abortion trafficking. The term is being defined differently in the various states that have considered abortion trafficking legislation. In Idaho and Tennessee, abortion trafficking laws ban helping a minor get an out-of-state abortion. Regardless of precise definition, invoking trafficking suggests some sort of coercion—a girl or woman being ferried across state lines for an abortion against her will—or the involvement of a black-market abortionist, when the reality is usually people taking advantage of freedom of movement and federalism in order to have abortions. Anti-drag bills in Idaho and Iowa: A bill in Iowa would make it a felony to bring a minor to a drag show. "The legislation, House Study Bill 158, moved out of an Iowa House subcommittee, where lawmakers said they expect changes to the bill," according to the Iowa Capital Dispatch. "Under the current proposal, any adult person who knowingly brings a minor to a drag performance at a business can be charged with a class D felony. The owner or manager of an establishment who knowingly allows minors to attend drag shows could also be charged with a class D felony, and businesses could be fined $10,000 under the bill." Meanwhile, in Idaho, an anti-drag bill just passed out of committee and is headed to the House floor. "House Bill 230, sponsored by Rep. Ted Hill, R-Eagle, would require event hosts and organizers to verify people's age to attend public performances that are considered 'indecent sexual exhibitions,' using the same indecency standard used by the Federal Communications Commission to determine whether content is appropriate for daytime television," and minors illegally exposed to so-called indecent performances could sue, reports the Idaho Capital Sun. "While the bill does not explicitly say the words 'drag shows,' the [Idahoa Family Policy Center] said the legislation was inspired by drag shows held in public parks in Coeur d'Alene and Boise." Abortion-as-homicide bills flounder…and proliferate: A bill from Dusty Deevers—Oklahoma state senator, Christian nationalist, anti-porn crusader—that would have made women who get abortions punishable under homicide laws failed to pass out of the state Senate judiciary committee. Six members of the committee voted no, while just two voted in favor. Likewise, a North Dakota measure that would have made abortion punishable under homicide laws failed to pass out of the state's House of Representatives, with 77 nays to just 16 yays. But similar bills in Indiana and South Carolina have yet to receive votes. Meanwhile, other states—like Kentucky, most recently—have started introducing legislation to punish abortion under homicide statutes. Such proposals have also been introduced in Idaho and Texas. Content moderation is not an antitrust issue: New Federal Trade Commission efforts "indicate that, once again, the connection between antitrust and concerns about content moderation may be under consideration," notes Jennifer Huddleston of the Cato Institute. "Yet this misunderstands the appropriate use of antitrust enforcement, the likely outcomes for content moderation under such enforcement, and the ways the current liability protection of Section 230 actually encourages competition in content moderation." Reason Senior Editor Jacob Sullum's take? FTC head Andrew Ferguson "is flexing his regulatory powers in a way that undermines freedom of speech by meddling in private editorial choices." Ferguson said this is about stopping "unfair and deceptive practices," but the FTC has no business trying to make social media "fair," Sullum suggests: In practice, ensuring "fair" treatment of users means overriding editorial decisions that the FTC deems opaque, unreasonable, inconsistent, or discriminatory. The challenge of making sure that social media are "fair and balanced" is illustrated by a 2004 FTC complaint against Fox News. Two left-leaning advocacy groups claimed the news outlet's use of that slogan amounted to deceptive advertising. Assessing that complaint, then-FTC Chairman Timothy Muris noted, would require "evaluating the content" of the channel's news coverage—a probe foreclosed by the First Amendment. Sullum further notes that conservatives should be wary of ideas like this because "if the FTC can second-guess editorial judgments to achieve what a Republican majority thinks is the right mix of opinions, a future commission controlled by Democrats can enforce a different agenda." The post Montana 'Abortion Trafficking' Bill Could Criminalize Crossing State Lines for an Abortion appeared first on
