Latest news with #SupremeCourt
New York Post
4 minutes ago
- Politics
- New York Post
Most US adults still support legal abortion 3 years after Roe was overturned, poll finds
Three years after the Supreme Court opened the door to state abortion bans, most U.S. adults continue to say abortion should be legal — views that look similar to before the landmark ruling. The new findings from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll show that about two-thirds of U.S. adults think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. About half believe abortion should be available in their state if someone does not want to be pregnant for any reason. Advertisement 6 The new findings from the poll show that about two-thirds of U.S. adults think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. AP That level of support for abortion is down slightly from what an AP-NORC poll showed last year, when it seemed that support for legal abortion might be rising. Laws and opinions changed when Roe was overturned The June 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and opened the door to state bans on abortion led to major policy changes. Advertisement Most states have either moved to protect abortion access or restrict it. Twelve are now enforcing bans on abortion at every stage of pregnancy, and four more do so after about six weeks' gestation, which is often before women realize they're pregnant. In the aftermath of the ruling, AP-NORC polling suggested that support for legal abortion access might be increasing. 6 About half believe abortion should be available in their state if someone does not want to be pregnant for any reason. REUTERS Advertisement Last year, an AP-NORC poll conducted in June found that 7 in 10 U.S. adults said it should be available in all or most cases, up slightly from 65% in May 2022, just before the decision that overruled the constitutional right to abortion, and 57% in June 2021. The new poll is closer to Americans' views before the Supreme Court ruled. Now, 64% of adults support legal abortion in most or all cases. More than half the adults in states with the most stringent bans are in that group. 6 The June 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and opened the door to state bans on abortion led to major policy changes. AP Advertisement Similarly, about half now say abortion should be available in their state when someone doesn't want to continue their pregnancy for any reason — about the same as in June 2021 but down from about 6 in 10 who said that in 2024. Adults in the strictest states are just as likely as others to say abortion should be available in their state to women who want to end pregnancies for any reason. Democrats support abortion access far more than Republicans do. Support for legal abortion has dropped slightly among members of both parties since June 2024, but nearly 9 in 10 Democrats and roughly 4 in 10 Republicans say abortion should be legal in at least most instances. Fallout from state bans has influenced some people's positions — but not others Seeing what's happened in the aftermath of the ruling has strengthened the abortion rights position of Wilaysha White, a 25-year-old Ohio mom. She has some regrets about the abortion she had when she was homeless. 6 In the aftermath of the ruling, AP-NORC polling suggested that support for legal abortion access might be increasing. AP 'I don't think you should be able to get an abortion anytime,' said White, who calls herself a 'semi-Republican.' But she said that hearing about situations — including when a Georgia woman was arrested after a miscarriage and initially charged with concealing a death — is a bigger concern. Advertisement 'Seeing women being sick and life or death, they're not being put first — that's just scary,' she said. 'I'd rather have it be legal across the board than have that.' Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Julie Reynolds' strong anti-abortion stance has been cemented for decades and hasn't shifted since Roe was overturned. 'It's a moral issue,' said the 66-year-old Arizona woman, who works part time as a bank teller. Advertisement She said her view is shaped partly by having obtained an abortion herself when she was in her 20s. 'I would not want a woman to go through that,' she said. 'I live with that every day. I took a life.' Support remains high for legal abortion in certain situations 6 'It's a moral issue,' said the 66-year-old Arizona woman, who works part time as a bank teller. AP The vast majority of U.S. adults — at least 8 in 10 — continue to say their state should allow legal abortion if a fetal abnormality would prevent the child from surviving outside the womb, if the patient's health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy, or if the person became pregnant as a result of rape or incest. Advertisement Consistent with AP-NORC's June 2024 poll, about 7 in 10 U.S. adults 'strongly' or 'somewhat' favor protecting access to abortions for patients who are experiencing miscarriages or other pregnancy-related emergencies. In states that have banned or restricted abortion, such medical exceptions have been sharply in focus. This is a major concern for Nicole Jones, a 32-year-old Florida resident. Jones and her husband would like to have children soon. But she said she's worried about access to abortion if there's a fetal abnormality or a condition that would threaten her life in pregnancy since they live in a state that bans most abortions after the first six weeks of gestation. Advertisement 'What if we needed something?' she asked. 'We'd have to travel out of state or risk my life because of this ban.' Adults support protections for seeking abortions across state lines — but not as strongly 6 In states that have banned or restricted abortion, such medical exceptions have been sharply in focus. REUTERS There's less consensus on whether states that allow abortion should protect access for women who live in places with bans. Just over half support protecting a patient's right to obtain an abortion in another state and shielding those who provide abortions from fines or prison time. In both cases, relatively few adults — about 2 in 10 — oppose the measures and about 1 in 4 are neutral. More Americans also favor than oppose legal protections for doctors who prescribe and mail abortion pills to patients in states with bans. About 4 in 10 'somewhat' or 'strongly' favor those protections, and roughly 3 in 10 oppose them. Such telehealth prescriptions are a key reason that the number of abortions nationally has risen even as travel for abortion has declined slightly.
CTV News
5 minutes ago
- Business
- CTV News
Supreme Court won't hear thumbs-up emoji case involving Saskatchewan farmer
In this file photo, emojis in the Snapchat app are shown in Toronto on Monday, March 7, 2016. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Staff OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada has given a thumbs-down to hearing a legal case involving an emoji. The country's highest court dismissed an application by farmer Chris Achter to appeal a decision by the Court of Appeal of Saskatchewan. The Appeal Court upheld a verdict that found a thumbs-up emoji met signature requirements and was a legally binding agreement between Achter and Kent Mickleborough, a grain buyer with South West Terminal. In 2021, Mickleborough sent a text of a contract to Achter for a delivery of flax, and the farmer responded with a thumbs-up emoji. Achter didn't deliver the product, and the company took him to court for breaching the contract. The Supreme Court says costs are to be given to the grain company. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 24, 2025. The Canadian Press
Hans India
5 minutes ago
- Politics
- Hans India
'They will get relief from there as well': Waris Pathan as SC stays acquittal in Mumbai train blasts case
Mumbai: In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to stay the Bombay High Court verdict that had acquitted all 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai train bomb blasts case, AIMIM leader and former Maharashtra MLA Waris Pathan on Thursday expressed confidence that the apex court would ultimately provide relief to them as well. Speaking to IANS, Pathan said: "The Supreme Court has stayed the appeal filed by the Maharashtra government and has clearly stated there is no need to put the accused back in jail. After 18 years, the High Court examined the entire case and declared all 12 accused innocent. And within just a day or two, the state government rushed to appeal against it." Pathan emphasised the thoroughness of the Bombay High Court's 670-page judgment. "The High Court examined all evidence and witnesses in detail. It even mentioned in the verdict that the confessions were obtained under duress and torture. These are not minor observations. Now that the matter is with the Supreme Court, I am confident that once the apex court reviews the judgment and evidence, these individuals will again get relief," he added. Pathan further raised concerns about selective justice and religious bias in how terror cases are pursued in India. "We are all united against terrorism. Every citizen wants terrorism to be eradicated. But what we cannot allow is selectiveness. Why is it that one community faces immediate action while others are spared for years without even an appeal being filed? Justice must be equal for all," he told IANS. Referring to his legal background, Pathan stated that many cases involving people from non-Muslim communities haven't seen appeals or legal action even after several years. "If the law is equal for everyone, then the Maharashtra government should pursue appeals across the board, not selectively," he said. Pathan further criticised Congress MP and Mumbai unit chief Varsha Gaikwad for calling on the Maharashtra government to appeal against the High Court's acquittal verdict. "This is the height of hypocrisy. These so-called secular parties, which are part of the Maharashtra Mahagathbandhan, have now been exposed. The High Court has acquitted these 12 men after 19 long years, yet they want them to be put back in jail. Muslims voted for them, trusted them, made them win, and gave them power — all in the name of secularism. And today, when justice is finally delivered, they are the first to oppose it," he said. "The public is watching. People can see how Muslims are used for votes and then betrayed. When it's time to stand by them, these leaders are the first to walk away. But the answers will come — and the people will give them." The 2006 Mumbai train bombings were one of the deadliest terror attacks in India, killing over 180 people. The case has remained under legal scrutiny for nearly two decades, and the recent developments have once again placed it in the national spotlight.
New Indian Express
5 minutes ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
No current plan to drop ‘socialism', ‘secularism' from Preamble: Law Minister Arjun Meghwal
The Union government has clarified that it has 'no current plan or intention' to reconsider or remove the words 'socialism' and 'secularism' from the Preamble of the Constitution Responding to a question in the Rajya Sabha on Thursday, Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal said that while discussions or debates may be taking place in certain public or political circles, the government has neither announced any formal proposal nor initiated any legal or constitutional process to alter the Preamble. 'The government's official stand is that there is no current plan or intention to reconsider or remove the words 'socialism' and 'secularism' from the Preamble of the Constitution,' Meghwal said in a written reply. Meghwal said that any amendment to the Preamble would require extensive deliberation and broad consensus, which, at present, is not under consideration. The Law Minister also noted that in November 2024, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions challenging the 1976 amendment that added the two words. The court upheld Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, including the Preamble, and clarified that in the Indian context, 'socialism' refers to a welfare state and does not hinder private enterprise, while 'secularism' is an essential part of the Constitution's basic structure. Meghwal said while certain groups may be advocating a review of the added terms, such opinions do not reflect the government's official position. 'Such activities may generate public discourse, but they do not indicate any official action or policy direction,' he said. Last month, former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar stirred controversy when he described the inclusion of the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble as a 'festering wound.' His remarks lent weight to RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale's call for a national debate on whether these terms should continue to define India's foundational values. Dhankhar had asserted that the Preamble is 'sacrosanct and not changeable,' calling the insertion of the words during the Emergency 'a sacrilege to the spirit of Sanatan.' (With inputs from PTI )
India Today
5 minutes ago
- India Today
Rajasthan man, 53, to be tried as juvenile for raping minor 37 years ago
Thirty-seven years after raping an 11-year-old girl in Rajasthan's Ajmer, a man, now nearly 53, was declared a juvenile by the Supreme Court. The court upheld the conviction but sent the case to a Juvenile Justice Board for sentencing under the Juvenile Justice incident occurred in November 1988 when the victim was raped while fetching water at her school. The Supreme Court bench, led by Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, reviewed school records showing the convict was born in 1972, making him 16 years and 2 months old at the time. advertisementThe court set aside the previous five-year jail sentence and directed that the punishment follow the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000 which limits penalties to three years in a juvenile home. As the convict is now 53, legal experts suggest he may face alternative penalties like community service. He has already served one year in jail during the court noted the issue of juvenility was not raised during the trial or High Court proceedings. It was brought up for the first time in the Supreme Court appeal. In January 2025, the court ordered Rajasthan authorities to verify the convict's age. A report from the Additional Sessions Judge in Ajmer confirmed his 1972 birth year based on school bench said that juvenility can be raised at any stage even after the case has been resolved. The conviction was upheld based on the victim's statement, supported by witness testimonies and medical evidence. The court stated that a credible victim statement alone can be sufficient for conviction in sexual offense cases and there will be no need further corroboration.- Ends
