Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Many Haitians in the US — including in Springfield, Ohio — are on Temporary Protected Status.</li><li>TPS offers safety from deportation and grants work rights, but is reviewed periodically.</li></ul>Around 200,000 Haitians living in the US are on <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-grants-ukrainian-citizens-temporary-protection-from-deportation-2022-3">Temporary Protected Status</a>, including many of those living in Springfield, Ohio, who have been targeted by former President Donald Trump and others with <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ohio-gop-governor-garbage-springfield-pet-eating-claims-must-stop-2024-9">baseless claims about eating pets.</a>Those allegations have led to threats against the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/springfield-ohio-town-center-baseless-trump-pet-eating-claims-tensions-2024-9">Haitian community in Springfield</a>.Several immigration experts told Business Insider that if <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/its-absolutely-possible-trump-wins-the-2024-election-2023-9">Trump wins the 2024 election</a>, he is likely to terminate TPS for Haiti, which could force many Haitians living legally in Springfield and across the US out of the country.Trump has already called for mass deportations from the town, <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-deport-haitian-migrants-springfield-ohio-to-venezuela/">saying last week:</a> "We're going to start with Springfield and Aurora."<h2 id="b9f6a92c-d392-4542-8cc8-bf2b18cf7b37">TPS is temporary and discretionary</h2>TPS is not a permanent legal status; rather, it offers protection to migrants already in the US from deportation, while also granting them the right to work legally.In June, the Biden administration redesignated and extended TPS for Haiti for 18 months, allowing an estimated 309,000 additional Haitians in the US to apply for protection.Nancy Morawetz, a professor of clinical law at NYU, explained to BI that <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-grants-tps-to-venezuelans-living-in-us-2021-3">TPS is reviewed periodically</a> — every few years — to determine whether nationals of a specific country should continue to receive protection."Once a country is designated, each individual covered by the designation must apply separately for TPS status," she said, noting that existing TPS holders must also renew their paperwork with each redesignation.TPS is temporary and discretionary, and an administration may choose to designate or redesignate a country if it is experiencing conflict, environmental catastrophe, or other extraordinary conditions.<a target="_blank" href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2024/06/28/secretary-mayorkas-announces-extension-and-redesignation-haiti-temporary-protected">According to Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas</a>, the most recent extension and redesignation of TPS for Haiti was based on ongoing violence, insecurity, and <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/why-haiti-gets-earthquakes-tectonic-plates-2021-8#:~:text=The%20magnitude%207.2%20earthquake%20that,people%20and%20injuring%20another%20300%2C000.">frequent natural disasters in the country.</a>Tom K. Wong, director of the US Immigration Policy Center, told BI in an email that because of its discretionary nature, TPS could also "shrink" or "go away," depending on who the president is.This means that the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/harris-trump-presidential-election-50-days-vance-walz-electoral-math-2024-9">outcome of the presidential election in November</a> could be crucial.<h2 id="7a4ba170-5b93-4db8-b4d4-f7384c8dd3c9">Trump would likely refuse to redesignate TPS for Haiti</h2>"I think if Harris wins, I certainly wouldn't take any redesignation off the table," said David Leblang, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia who has published an academic paper on Temporary Protected Status.However, if Trump wins, Leblang told BI this is far less likely. "TPS will not be redesignated for probably any other country," he predicted.<div type="image" title="Former President Donald Trump, looks on during a campaign rally at The Expo at World Market Center Las Vega." height="743" width="1024" msid="113434794" hostid="261" sizebytes="17528"></div>Lori A. Nessel, a law professor at Seton Hall University School of Law, told BI that another Trump presidency could lead to the <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/jd-vance-deport-20-million-immigrants-reduce-home-prices-rents-2024-7">mass deportation</a> of "lawful, hardworking members of the community who have been given permission to reside here.""If he becomes president, I think there is certainly reason to be concerned that we might see another order ending TPS for Haitians and other nations like Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Sudan," she added.Nessel notes that migrants may qualify for another type of <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/category/immigration">immigration status</a> through their jobs or marriage, or may already be in the US on humanitarian parole, but she predicts that any decision to end TPS for Haitians would be met with fierce resistance.Indeed, it already was once before when <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-has-ended-temporary-protection-status-for-4-countries-2018-1">Trump sought to end TPS for certain countries</a> during his last administration.<h2 id="49126e05-b5bf-4400-9010-5603728e3e31">Legal resistance would probably follow</h2>During Trump's administration, the Department of Homeland Security <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/us/haitians-temporary-status.html">ordered an end to TPS for nearly 60,000 Haitians</a>."The litigation that ensued alleged that the decision to end TPS was unlawful on many grounds," Nessel said, with plaintiffs arguing that it was motivated by racial discrimination, in violation of the Fifth Amendment's guarantee to due process, and in violation of TPS holders' constitutional right to equal protection.Ultimately, the order was rescinded by the Biden administration.However, according to Julia Gelatt, associate director of the US Immigration Policy Program, history may guide any future Trump administration's approach to ending TPS.Gelatt told BI that <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/what-would-donald-trump-do-second-term">a second-time Trump administration</a> would likely take a slower, more deliberate approach to ending TPS, potentially using a more cautious rulemaking process to make it "more litigation-proof."She added: "The announcement could come quickly, but the actual timeline of when Haitian TPS holders would lose their protections, I'm less certain about. It could be a slower process."During Trump's last term, Gelatt said that uncertainty about TPS caused significant anxiety among <a target="_blank" class="" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/jd-vance-haitian-immigrants-ohio-eating-pets-trump-2024-9">Haitian migrants</a>, with many trying to move to Canada to avoid deportation to Haiti.Many had spent years building a life in the US, away from the insecurity and danger of their homeland."I think it's just important context that there's already been a wave of great concern in the Haitian community about the end of TPS," Gelatt said.

Many Haitians in Springfield are on Temporary Protected Status — which could disappear if Trump wins

A bill seeking to provide for four nominees by a bank account holder was introduced in the <keyword id="19895394" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Lok-Sabha" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Lok Sabha" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="Lok Sabha">Lok Sabha</keyword> on Friday to ensure better protection of depositors and enhance customer convenience. Introduced by Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary in the Lower House, the Banking Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024, has a provision for simultaneous and successive nominations to bank accounts, lockers, etc. As per the provision of the bill, a bank account holder can nominate up to four persons. The bill also seeks to transfer of unclaimed dividends, shares, and interest or redemption of bonds to the Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF), allowing individuals to claim transfers or refunds from the fund, and thus safeguarding investors' interests. As the banking sector has evolved over the years, and with a view to improving bank governance and investor protection, it has become necessary to make certain amendments to five Acts, according to Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill. The Bill, which was approved by the <keyword id="19916620" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Union-Cabinet" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Union Cabinet" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="Union Cabinet">Union Cabinet</keyword> last week, proposes to amend the <keyword id="20824389" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Reserve-Bank-of-India-Act" source="keywords">Reserve Bank of India Act</keyword>, 1934, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the State Bank of India Act, 1955, the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, and the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980. The proposed bill seeks to improve governance standards, provide consistency in reporting by banks to the Reserve Bank of India, ensure better protection for depositors and investors, improve audit quality in public sector banks, bring customer convenience in respect of nominations, and to provide for increase in the tenure of the directors in co-operative banks. Another proposed change relates to redefining 'substantial interest' for directorships, which could increase to Rs 2 crore instead of the current limit of Rs 5 lakh, which was fixed almost six decades ago. Congress member Manish Tewari opposed the introduction of the bill, saying the power to legislate with regard to cooperatives vests with state governments. RSP member N K Premachandran opposed amending five legislations through one bill, while TMC member Saugata Roy termed the bill "superfluous", saying the the amendments proposed in the bill could have been done through administrative decisions. Responding to opposition's remarks, <keyword id="19956758" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Finance-Minister" source="keywords">Finance Minister</keyword> Nirmala Sitharaman said the various amendments done in Banking Regulations Act with respect to <keyword id="20814377" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="cooperative-banks" source="keywords">cooperative banks</keyword> are not just one or two but several. "Simple understanding is we are not touching any aspect of the cooperatives other than that which claims under the name of banking...the sections which have been brought in for amendments, as also the court verdicts, have repeatedly reinforced the point that Banking Regulation Act and the Cooperative Banks do have this relationship and therefore it has to be taken through this route," she said. Otherwise, there is no attempt to undermine the cooperatives, particularly cooperatives dealing with everything other than banks, she said defending the Bill. The bill proposes to increase the tenure of directors (excluding the chairman and whole-time director) in cooperative banks from 8 years to 10 years, so as to align with the Constitution (Ninety-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011. Once passed, the bill would allow a director of a Central Cooperative Bank to serve on the board of a State Cooperative Bank. The bill also seeks to give greater freedom to banks in deciding the remuneration to be paid to statutory auditors. It also seeks to redefine the reporting dates for banks for regulatory compliance to the 15th and last day of every month, instead of the second and fourth Fridays. "What's the rationale behind it? The current reporting Friday system has several limitations that impact the accuracy and effectiveness of the reporting of data. "These limitations are incomplete coverage of monthly data, seasonal fluctuations in banking activity which lead to inconsistent reporting, and the need for adjustment every 11th year which introduces complications and inconsistencies. That is why, in order to address the issue, it is proposed to amend the legislation," she said. The announcement about amendments to the Banking Regulation Act was made by the Finance Minister in the 2023-24 Budget speech. "To improve bank governance and enhance <keyword id="22728161" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="investors-protection" source="keywords">investors' protection</keyword>, certain amendments to the Banking Regulation Act, the Banking Companies Act and the Reserve Bank of India Act are proposed," she had said.

Bill to provide up to four nominees to a bank account introduced in Lok Sabha

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the Supreme Court for siding with a web designer who wanted to not serve same-sex couples.</li><li>Sotomayor wrote a firey dissent, arguing that high court's decision will lead to LGBTQ+ Americans becoming second-class citizens.</li></ul>Justice Sonia Sotomayor slammed the Supreme Court for siding with a Colorado web designer who argued her constitutional rights were being violated if she was forced to make a website for a same-sex couple getting married, tearing into her colleagues for setting up LGBTQ+ Americans to be "second-class" citizens."Today is a sad day in American constitutional law and in the lives of LGBT people," Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the court's opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, leading the high court's six conservative members in finding that public accommodation laws cannot supersede a person's First Amendment rights. Sotomayor was joined in her dissent by the court's two other liberals, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.Sotomayor wrote that this is the first time in the nation's history that the Supreme Court has allowed a public business to discriminate against a "protected class" of people. Under federal law, sexual orientation is a protected class that cannot be discriminated against. Friday's decision underlines that such protections are not absolute."The opinion of the Court is, quite literally, a notice that reads: 'Some services may be denied to same-sex couples,'" Sotomayor wrote.Gorsuch devoted large sections of his majority opinion to responding to Sotomayor. He also argued that Sotomayor "conjures out of thin air" that the ruling will allow for very apparent discrimination."Our decision today does not concern—much less endorse—anything like the " 'straight couples only' " notices the dissent conjures out of thin air," Gorsuch wrote in a footnote.Addressing her dissent, Gorsuch argued that Sotomayor ignored the difference between someone wanting to control their own speech versus ensuring the sale of something on equal terms."While it does not protect status-based discrimination unrelated to expression, generally it does protect a speaker's right to control her own message—even when we may disapprove of the speaker's motive or the message itself," Gorsuch wrote in a footnote about the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment. "The dissent's derision is no answer to any of this."Sotomayor said the court's opinion will lead to LGBTQ+ Americans and potentially other groups of people receiving unequal treatment without legal recourse."What message does that send? It sends the message that we live in a society with social castes. It says to the child of the same-sex couple that their parents' relationship is not equal to others'."In concluding her dissent, Sotomayor said the future treatment of LGBTQ+ Americans in the public space was not solely decided by the high court. Rather, it is now up to individual business owners to plot the path forward."Every business owner in America has a choice whether to live out the values in the Constitution."

Sotomayor dissents after SCOTUS underlines protections for LGBTQ+ people: 'a sad day in American constitutional law'

<ul class="summary-list"><li>California voted to protect abortion as a constitutional right.</li><li>Proposition 1 would make abortion and contraception access a state constitutional right.</li></ul>California voted to protect abortion rights, approving a ballot measure that will amend the state's constitution to say that the state cannot take away a person's right to abortion or contraception and will not interfere with reproductive freedoms. 2022 General Embeds <h2>Ballot measure details</h2>After the Supreme Court ruled that the right to abortion is no longer federally protected, many states decided to implement abortion bans. However, blue-leaning states like California took a different route and voted to continue protecting abortion and contraceptive access as a fundamental right. The state legislature put the <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SCA10">measure, Proposition 1, on the ballot</a> around the time of the Supreme Court's ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson.The constitutional amendment will not change much on abortion law in the state, according to the state's <a href="https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2022/Prop1-110822.pdf">legislative analyst's office</a>. State law will still only allow late term-abortions in special cases and require people to have licenses to perform these medical procedures.The analyst's office also said there will likely be no fiscal impact as a result of this measure being implemented.<h2>Support and opposition</h2><a href="https://www.protectabortionca.com/act-now/#factsheet">Yes on 1</a> includes support from Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California Teachers Association, Planned Parenthood, and a number of other reproductive rights and justice groups.Supporters argue that the measure is necessary to add another layer of protection to reproductive healthcare amid fears that <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/lindsey-graham-national-abortion-ban-roe-wade-backlash-2022-9">federal lawmakers</a> could instate a national abortion ban.<a href="https://www.noproposition1.com/about-prop-1">No on 1</a> is endorsed by the California Republican Party, the California Catholic Conference, and anti-abortion groups across the state.<h2>What experts are saying</h2>Fifty-five percent of likely voters said they would vote for Proposition 30, 40% would vote against it, and 5% said they were unsure, a September statewide survey from the <a href="https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-their-government-september-2022/">Public Policy Institute of California found.</a>

RESULTS: California votes to protect abortion as a constitutional right

<ul class="summary-list"><li>A lawsuit brought against the state of Montana by a group of kids heads to trial on Monday.</li><li>Whether a constitutional right to a livable climate is protected by state law is at the center of the lawsuit.</li></ul>Whether a constitutional right to a <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-alter-human-life-un-ipcc-report-2022-2">healthy, livable climate</a> is protected by state law is at the center of a lawsuit going to trial Monday in Montana, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/climate-action-30-top-global-leaders-working-toward-climate-solutions-2022">where 16 young plaintiffs</a> and their attorneys hope to set an important legal precedent.It's the first trial of its kind in the U.S., and legal scholars around the world are following its potential addition to the small number of rulings that have established a government duty to protect citizens from <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/climate-change-alter-human-life-un-ipcc-report-2022-2">climate change</a>.The trial comes shortly after the state's Republican-dominated legislature passed measures favoring the fossil fuel industry by stifling local government efforts to encourage renewable energy while increasing the cost to challenge oil, gas, and coal projects in court.By enlisting plaintiffs ranging in age from 5 to 22, the environmental firm bringing the lawsuit is trying to highlight how young people are harmed by climate change now and will be further affected in the future. Their testimony will detail how wildfire smoke, heat and drought have harmed residents' physical and mental health.The plaintiffs' youth has little direct bearing on the legal issues, and experts say the case likely won't lead to immediate policy changes in fossil fuel-friendly Montana.But over two weeks of testimony, attorneys for the plaintiffs plan to call out state officials for pursuing oil, gas and coal development in hopes of sending a powerful message to other states.Plaintiff Grace Gibson-Snyder, 19, said she's felt the impacts of the heating planet acutely as wildfires regularly shroud her hometown of Missoula in dangerous smoke and as water levels drop in area rivers."We've seen repeatedly over the last few years what the Montana state Legislature is choosing," Gibson-Snyder said. "They are choosing fossil fuel development. They are choosing corporations over the needs of their citizens."In high school, Gibson-Snyder was an environmental activist who was too young to vote when she signed on as a plaintiff. The other young plaintiffs include members of Native American tribes, a ranching family dependent on reliable water supplies and people with health conditions, such as asthma, that put them at increased risk during wildfires.Some plaintiffs and experts will point to farmers whose margins have been <a href="https://apnews.com/article/droughts-science-government-and-politics-business-environment-and-nature-8c5863077b1e8f3876dd7d0b4426d27c" target="_blank" rel="noopener">squeezed by drought</a> and extreme weather events like last year's <a href="https://apnews.com/article/technology-science-weather-montana-billings-45805c9bd89b39307b4fa0ec30ac8a93" target="_blank" rel="noopener">destructive floods</a> in Yellowstone National Park as further evidence that residents have been denied the clean environment guaranteed under Montana's Constitution.Experts for the state are expected to downplay the impacts of climate change and what one of them described as Montana's "minuscule" contributions to global greenhouse gas emissions.Lawyers for Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, a Republican, tried repeatedly to <a href="https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/ap_news/montana-youth-climate-trial-to-move-forward-next-month-with-narrowed-scope/article_1f5e7812-1e62-5633-905d-79ad55db5247.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">get the case thrown out</a> over procedural issues. In a June 6 ruling, the state Supreme Court rejected the latest attempt to dismiss it, saying justices were not inclined to intervene just days before the start of a trial that has been "literally years in the making."One reason the case may have made it so far in Montana, when dozens of <a href="https://apnews.com/article/richmond-lawsuits-virginia-climate-and-environment-8c9b90ec8dcc33b0419ed6e3fdddd460" target="_blank" rel="noopener">similar cases elsewhere</a> have been rejected, is the state's unusually protective 1972 Constitution, which requires officials to maintain a "clean and healthful environment." Only a few other states, including Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York, have similar environmental protections in their constitutions.In prior rulings, State District Judge Judge Kathy Seeley significantly narrowed the scope of the case. Even if the plaintiffs prevail, Seeley has said she would not order officials to formulate a new approach to address climate change.Instead, the judge could issue what's called a "declaratory judgment" saying officials violated the state Constitution. That would set a new legal precedent of courts weighing in on cases typically left to the government's legislative and executive branches, environmental law expert Jim Huffman said.Still, such a ruling would have no direct impact on industry, said Huffman, dean emeritus at Lewis &amp; Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon."A declaratory judgment would be a symbolic victory, but would not require any particular action by the state government. So the state could, and likely would, proceed as before," he said.Economist Terry Anderson, a witness for the state, said that over the past two decades, carbon dioxide emissions from Montana have declined, but that's in part due to the shuttering of coal power plants."Montana energy or environmental policies have virtually no effect on global or local climate change because Montana's GHG (greenhouse gas) contributions to the global total is trivial," Anderson said in court documents.He argued climate change could ultimately benefit Montana with longer growing seasons and the potential to produce more valuable crops.Supporters of the lawsuit predicted an overflow crowd when the trial starts Monday in Helena. They rented a nearby theater to livestream the proceedings for those who can't fit in the courtroom.The case was brought in 2020 by attorneys for the environmental group Our Children's Trust, which has filed climate <a href="https://apnews.com/article/archive-d333ef30b16d442fb25481a927336da3" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuits in every state</a> on behalf of young plaintiffs since 2011. Most of those cases, including <a href="https://apnews.com/article/archive-505718d1fff142fbae307495d0759704" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a previous one in Montana</a>, were dismissed prior to trial.A ruling in favor of the Montana plaintiffs could have ripple effects, according to Philip Gregory, Our Children's Trust attorney. While it wouldn't be binding outside Montana, it would give guidance to judges in other states, which could impact upcoming trials such as one in Hawaii, Gregory said.Attempts to get a similar decision at the federal level were boosted by a <a href="https://apnews.com/article/youth-climate-lawsuit-trial-oregon-7ad2fa18f5276f12c64c0ce775aba2f6" target="_blank" rel="noopener">June 1 ruling</a> allowing a case brought by young climate activists in Oregon to proceed to trial in U.S. District Court. That case was <a href="https://apnews.com/article/north-america-lawsuits-us-news-us-supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-da345dcfc68842e59147cc4bf1613e6f" target="_blank" rel="noopener">halted by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts</a> on the eve of the trial in 2018.From 2011 through 2021, Our Children's Trust brought in contributions of more than $20 million, growing from four employees to a team of more than 40 attorneys and other workers and about 200 volunteers, according to tax filings and the group's website.Founder Julia Olson said securing the trials in Montana and Oregon marked a "huge step" forward for the group."It will change the future of the planet if courts will start declaring the conduct of government unconstitutional," she said.While Montana's Constitution requires the state to "maintain and improve" a clean environment, the Montana Environmental Policy Act, originally passed in 1971 and amended several times since, requires state agencies to balance the environment with resource development.Lawmakers revised the policy this year to say <a href="https://apnews.com/article/gas-plant-climate-judge-0d658f52a3d10d2ebd50f40499ac33e2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">environmental reviews</a> may not look at greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts unless the federal government makes carbon dioxide a regulated pollutant.A key question for the trial will be how forcefully the state contests established science on human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, said Jonathan Adler, environmental law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. If the state doesn't deny that science, the trial will deal with the question of whether courts can tell governments to address climate change."I'm skeptical about that," Adler said. "It really pushes the boundaries of what courts are capable of and effective at addressing."To Gibson-Snyder, now a student at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, the court system became the only avenue to make change as a 16-year-old.Since then, "I've become maybe a bit disillusioned," she said. "The question is not only can we create sustainable policy, it's how can we dismantle the policy that's actively harming Montana?"

A lawsuit brought by kids in Montana could determine if the state has a constitutional duty to protect its residents from climate change

<ul class="summary-list"><li><keyword id="11901426" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="abortion" source="Orion">Abortion</keyword> rights supporters and opponents have previously floated constitutional amendments.</li><li>Amending the US <keyword id="6363843" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="constitution" source="Orion">Constitution</keyword> for any reason is almost impossible in 2022.</li></ul>The <keyword id="11893011" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="supreme-court" source="Orion">Supreme Court</keyword> has <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-abortion-decision-final-ruling-scotus-roe-v-wade-2022-6">struck down Roe v. Wade</a>, the 1973 decision that rules the US Constitution protected a woman's right to an abortion without significant government restrictions.So could the American body politic effectively override the Supreme Court by amending the Constitution?Almost impossible.Under the most favorable circumstances, amending the Constitution is one of the most difficult — and rare — acts in US <keyword id="11893346" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="politics" source="Orion">politics</keyword>.The nation has accomplished amending the Constitution just 27 times in the 233 years since the Constitution became the nation's supreme collection of laws. More than half of those amendments took place within the first 80 years after the Constitution's creation.The most recent amendment to the Constitution took place in 1992 — an entirely forgettable change more than 202 years in the making that prohibited Congress from increasing or decreasing its own pay until after an election. Of late, conservatives have clamored for a balanced budget amendment. Liberals have fought to overturn the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission campaign finance decision via <a href="https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/congressman-schiff-introduces-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united#:~:text=Today%2C%20Congressman%20Adam%20Schiff%20(D,ruled%20in%20Citizens%20United%20v.">constitutional amendment.</a> Neither of these, nor any other constitutional amendment proposal since the early 1990s, has gone anywhere.And now, in 2022, when congressional Republicans and Democrats find themselves bitterly divided and all-but-bereft of common ground, no matter the cause or concern, the notion of them agreeing on anything related to an issue so polarizing as abortion falls somewhere between fantasy and lunacy.A <a href="https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution">constitutional amendment proposal</a> supporting or limiting abortion rights would, like any amendment, require a two-thirds vote of both the US House and US Senate — a much greater threshold than Congress passing a <keyword id="11899820" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="law" source="Orion">law</keyword>, which Democrats are also expected to try in an all-but-futile attempt <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/democrat-call-to-codify-roe-unlikely-to-save-abortion-rights-2022-5">to codify Roe v. Wade</a> for the long term.If such a constitution amendment proposal somehow passed, three-fourths of state legislatures must then ratify it for the amendment to become law.From the 1970s through the early 2000s, abortion rights opponents — overwhelmingly Republicans — tried this route. They proposed a series of materially similar constitutional amendment proposals, which all sought to overturn Roe v. Wade. Often dubbed the "Human Life Amendment," none came close to passage out of either the House or Senate.Alternately, two-thirds of US states could request the nation conduct a constitutional convention — sometimes known as an Article V convention — for the purpose of amending the Constitution. Three-fourths of states would again have to ratify any amendments the convention proposed. There are also fundamental questions about how a constitutional convention might even work, with the Congressional Research Service <a href="https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R42589.pdf">noting</a> numerous unanswered questions. Such a convention has never occurred in US history.The likelihood of one occurring for the purposes of creating a constitutional right to abortion seems as remote today as ever, particularly given that Republicans control a notable majority of state legislative bodies, according to the <a href="https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/partisan-composition.aspx">latest count</a> by the National Conference of State Legislatures.Despite the odds, some <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-call-for-action-report-supreme-court-overturn-abortion-roe-2022-5">Democrats</a> almost certainly will advocate making the right to an abortion the Constitution's 28th amendment. If nothing else, the effort could motivate voters, help <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/roe-v-wade-supreme-court-political-fundraising-2022-6">raise campaign money</a>, and otherwise rile up the party's base ahead of the 2022 midterm elections where Democrats risk losing slim majorities in both the House and Senate.A preview of this arrived in the minutes after the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision Friday in Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade."Can you chip in $15 so we can WIN these midterms and finally codify reproductive rights into law?" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote — one of <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/roe-v-wade-supreme-court-political-fundraising-2022-6">numerous Democratic fundraising messages</a> to quickly hit supporters' inboxes. "Our ONLY option is to marshal a response so historic — 100,000 gifts before midnight — that we DEFEAT every anti-choice Republican that made this happen, EXPAND our Majorities, and FINALLY codify our reproductive rights into law. So, can I expect to see your name on my "Pro-Choice Champion" list tomorrow morning?"But for now and the foreseeable future, every political sign points to any constitutional amendment effort ending up alongside <a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/MeasuresProposedToAmendTheConstitution.htm">nearly 12,000</a> other proposed constitutional amendments — in Congress' repository of historical footnotes.

Why a constitutional amendment protecting Roe v. Wade and enshrining abortion rights is next to impossible

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Ohio will vote August 8 on a measure to make it harder for voters to amend the state constitution.</li><li>JD Vance backs it, arguing it protects voters from "out of state" interests ahead of an abortion referendum.</li></ul>On August 8, voters in Ohio are set to vote on <a href="https://signalcleveland.org/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-august-vote-on-issue-1/">Issue One</a>, an effort to prevent voters from amending the state constitution by a simple majority vote.If the ballot measure passes, future amendments to the state constitution would require at least 60% support among voters to be enacted. The change has been pushed by Ohio Republicans ahead of a <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ohio-abortion-amendment-gains-signatures-ballot/story?id=100711358" target="_blank" rel="noopener">referendum in November on enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution.</a>Republican Sen. JD Vance, the state's newly-elected senator and a self-styled "populist," has endorsed the effort — and he insists that for him, it's not simply a clever way to head off a possible victory for supporters of abortion rights in November."Obviously, I am pro-life," Vance told Insider at the Capitol this week, before arguing that "whatever your views are on abortion," decisions about the matter "should be made by the elected representatives that people send to the General Assembly."Insider then asked how Vance, as a populist, squares his support for an effort that would make it harder for voters to directly affect matters of public policy."The anti-populist argument I would make about this stuff," said Vance, "is that very often, these campaigns are funded and created by out of state interests who come in, use an off-cycle election to change the constitution of the people of Ohio, knowing that during midterm elections fewer people vote, and that's how a lot of things have happened in the state of Ohio in the last few years."He added that "out of state interests see the Ohio referendum process as an opportunity to tee off on the Constitution," and that it would "get a lot worse in the next 10 years."Vance joins other Republicans in the state — including Gov. Mike DeWine, Secretary of State Frank Rose, and numerous state legislators — in backing the measure.The irony, however, is that the main outside group promoting the effort in the state, a political action committee called "Protect Our Constitution," is funded almost entirely by a single out of state Republican megadonor.According to <a href="https://www6.ohiosos.gov/ords/f?p=CFDISCLOSURE:48:::NO:RP:P48_REPORT_ID,P48_TYPE,P48_LISTTYPE:427608082,CONTRIBUTION,simple" target="_blank" rel="noopener">filings with the Ohio Secretary of State</a>, $4 million of the nearly $4.9 million dollars that the group has raised came from Richard Uihlein, a billionaire shipping magnate who lives in Illinois.Uihlein and his wife, Elizabeth, have spent heavily on a variety of Republican causes and campaigns, making them among the most prolific Republican megadonors in the country.During the 2022 cycle, Elizabeth Uihlein contributed $250,000 to a Peter Thiel-backed super PAC supporting Vance's Senate candidacy, in addition to $5,800 she contributed directly to his campaign.Despite Uihlein's funding, Protect Our Constitution's messaging on the issue is largely in line with Vance's."There is nothing radical about requiring a 60% vote to amend the State Constitution," reads <a href="https://www.voteyesohio.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a message on the group's website</a>. "We need to rally against out of state interests and extreme groups who want to make their radical agenda PERMANENT in our constitution."At the same time, the main group urging a vote against the measure, One Person One Vote, has also raked in millions of dollars from out of state.Of the <a href="https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/2023/07/27/ohio-issue-1-supporters-critics-funded-by-out-of-state-donors/70383823007/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">$14.8 million raised by the group</a>, $2.6 million came from a progressive dark money group called the Sixteen Thirty Fund, more than $1.8 million from a San-Francisco based social justice organization called the Tides Foundation, and another $1 million came from the National Education Association.The referendum on the controversial change, which <a href="https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2023/07/19/ohio-issue-1-poll-finds-most-ohio-voters-oppose-august-ballot-issue/70383816007/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recent polling indicates most voters are against</a>, comes ahead of a vote in November on <a href="https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/getattachment/cf27c10f-b153-4731-ae9e-e3555a326ed9/The-Right-to-Reproductive-Freedom-with-Protections-for-Health-and-Safety.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">enshrining in the state constitution</a> the "right to make and carry out one's own reproductive decisions."The amendment would allow Ohio officials to prohibit abortion "after fetal viability," with an exception for protecting the "life or health" of the mother.

Populist senator JD Vance supports an effort to make it harder to change Ohio's constitution &mdash; even though it's backed by a GOP Illinois billionaire &mdash; because he says it protects voters from 'out of state interests' ahead of abortion referendum

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Kentucky voted against a ballot measure that would deny abortion rights.</li><li>Amendment 2 would have changed the constitution to clarify that the right to abortion does not exist.</li></ul>Voters in Kentucky rejected a proposal to deny abortion rights in the state's constitution.A "yes" on Amendment 2 would have added language to the state constitution clarifying that the right to an abortion is not protected under the state constitution.Polls closed in the state at 6 p.m. local time. Given the state has multiple timezones, the first polls closed at 6 p.m. EST and the last polls closed at 7 p.m. EST. 2022 General Embeds <h2>Ballot measure details</h2>Kentucky had tried to pass a constitutional amendment that would make clear that abortion is not a protected procedure. <a href="https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/recorddocuments/bill/21RS/hb91/bill.pdf">If passed, Amendment 2</a> would have added the line "to protect human life, nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to secure or protect a right to abortion or require the funding of abortion" to the state constitution. The state legislature <a href="https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/21rs/HB91.html">voted to put Amendment 2</a> on the ballot in 2021.Abortion is banned in Kentucky, except in cases of <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-kentucky#:~:text=Abortion%20is%20banned%2C%20except%20in,physical%20plant%2C%20equipment%20and%20staffing.">endangerment to life</a>, after legislators <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trigger-laws-abortion-dobbins-jackson-supreme-court-first-13-2022-6">enacted a trigger law</a> following the Supreme Court's June 24 ruling overturning abortion rights.Currently, there are <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2022/10/10/kentucky-abortion-law-2022-jewish-lawsuit/">three lawsuits challenging abortion law</a> <a href="https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/kentucky-providers-file-new-lawsuit-challenging-abortion-bans-state-court">in Kentucky</a>, all of which assert that the state's constitution provides a right to abortion. If Amendment 2 had passed, it would have curtailed this argument in these lawsuits, which are set to be heard in the Kentucky Supreme Court soon.Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-policy-absence-roe">have passed amendments</a> over the past decade that clarify that the constitution does not provide a right to abortion.<h2>Support and opposition</h2><a href="https://www.yesforlifeky.com/news/passing-the-yes-for-life-constitutional-amendment-will-end-legal-back-and-forth">Yes for Life Kentucky</a> led the campaign in support of Amendment 2. Other supporters include religious groups like the Catholic Conference of Kentucky and state Republicans. Those in support argue that the amendment is necessary to remove future legal challenges to the state's abortion law.<a href="https://protectkentucky.com/about/">Protect Kentucky Access</a> led the campaign against Amendment 2. Opponents include Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Human Rights Campaign PAC. Those opposed say the amendment will make it harder to pass abortion-rights legislation in the state or argue that a person's right to abortion is protected.Voters <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-should-be-terrified-over-abortion-referendum-turnout-in-kansas-2022-8">rejected a similar measure</a> in Kansas in August.

RESULTS: Kentucky voters reject an anti-abortion constitutional amendment

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Proposition 1 would make abortion and contraception access a state constitutional right.</li><li>Supporters say the measure will further protect abortion access for Californians.</li></ul>A "yes" on California's Proposition 1 will amend the state's constitution to say that the state cannot take away a person's right to abortion or contraception and will not interfere with reproductive freedoms.<h2>Ballot measure details</h2>After the US Supreme Court ruled that the right to abortion is no longer federally protected, many states decided to implement abortion bans. However, states like California are taking a different route and voting to continue protecting abortion and contraceptive access as a fundamental right. The state legislature put the <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SCA10">measure on the ballot</a> around the time of the Supreme Court's ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson.The constitutional amendment will not change much on abortion law in the state, according to the state's <a href="https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2022/Prop1-110822.pdf">Legislative Analyst's Office</a>. State law will still only allow late term-abortions in special cases and require people to have licenses to perform these medical procedures.The analyst's office also said there will likely be no fiscal impact as a result of this measure being implemented.<h2>Support and opposition</h2><a href="https://www.protectabortionca.com/act-now/#factsheet">Yes on 1</a> includes support from Governor Gavin Newsom, the California Teachers Association, Planned Parenthood, and a number of other reproductive rights and justice groups.Supporters argue that the measure is necessary to add another layer of protection to reproductive healthcare amid fears that <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/lindsey-graham-national-abortion-ban-roe-wade-backlash-2022-9">federal lawmakers</a> or another Supreme Court decision could instate a national abortion ban.<a href="https://www.noproposition1.com/about-prop-1">No on 1</a> is endorsed by the California Republican Party, the California Catholic Conference, and anti-abortion groups across the state, who argue that the state should be focused on pro-life positions.<h2>What experts are saying</h2>Fifty-five percent of likely voters said they would vote for Proposition 30, 40% would vote against it, and 5% said they were unsure, a September statewide survey from the <a href="https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-californians-and-their-government-september-2022/">Public Policy Institute of California found.</a>

Proposition 1: Californians will vote to make abortion a constitutional right

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Michigan's Proposal 3 would make pregnancy decisions a state constitutional right.</li><li>Proponents say that the measure will protect abortion access and medical staff who perform abortions.</li></ul>A "yes" on Michigan's Proposal 3 will amend the state's constitution to add an individual right to reproductive freedom, which includes abortion.<h2>Ballot measure details</h2><a href="https://www.michigan.gov/sos/-/media/Project/Websites/sos/BSC-Announcements/Proposal/Proposal-22-3-Ballot-Language.pdf?rev=3c3ba8f917494ffcb3097b64d1986df0&amp;hash=EF30BEBB703151E63C8893BB042791F4">Proposal 3,</a> also known as the "Reproductive Freedom for All" measure, would establish a right to reproductive healthcare, including pregnancy, contraception, sterilization, abortion, and miscarriage management. It would also protect those who perform reproductive-related procedures and care, including abortion providers, from prosecution and would nullify any state laws that restrict access to this care.Currently, Michigan's restrictions on abortion access include parental consent for minors and waiting periods for abortions, according to the <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-michigan">Guttmacher Institute.</a>Proposal 3 would still uphold a state law that restricts abortions past the point of fetal viability, between 24 and 28 weeks of gestation, with exceptions to the health of the patient.<a href="https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/michigan/2022/09/08/michigan-voters-to-decide-future-of-abortion-care-after-high-court-approves-ballot-proposal/">A petition</a> to bring the measure to voters this November received 700,000 signatures, and the state Supreme Court certified Proposal 3 in July, weeks after the Supreme Court's draft opinion leak on <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-confirms-authenticity-draft-opinion-gutting-roe-v-wade-2022-5">national abortion rights</a>.Other states that are voting to add abortion protections to their constitution include California and Vermont<h2>Support and opposition</h2><a href="https://mireproductivefreedom.org/learn-more/">Supporters of Proposal 3</a> include Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, ACLU Michigan, Planned Parenthood, and the Center for Reproductive Rights.Supporters say the constitutional amendment is necessary to affirm the right to abortion and nullify a 1931 state law that completely bans abortions and threatens abortion providers with up to 15 years of imprisonment.In September, a court of claims judge <a href="https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2022/09/07/judge-issues-permanent-injunction-blocking-enforcement-michigans-abortion-ban/8013273001/">granted a permanent injunction</a> on the enforcement of the law.<a href="https://supportmiwomenandchildren.org/amendment-summary/">No on Prop 3</a> includes a coalition of pro-life and religious organizations. They oppose the proposal because it would cancel out laws on the books that restrict abortions, including parental consent laws.<h2>What experts are saying</h2>As of late September, around 62% of Michigan voters said they would vote yes on Proposal 3, 24% said they'd vote no, and 14% were unsure, a <a href="https://www.clickondetroit.com/decision-2022/2022/10/05/poll-where-michigan-voters-stand-on-term-limits-abortion-rights-voting-rights-ballot-proposals/">survey commissioned by Detroit News found.</a>

Proposal 3: Michigan voters will decide on a constitutional right to abortion

A recent report has shown that even as the Chinese Communist Party offers young newlyweds 30 days of paid holiday as part of its three-child policy, many women are sceptical that real progress will follow. The Global Institute for Women's Leadership's new collection, Essays on Equality: The politics of childcare, pointed out the unwillingness among Chinese women to have more children. The essay has uncovered anomalies in the 3-child policy stating that the policy has infringed upon women's reproductive rights and added an unequal burden of childcare responsibilities, affecting their careers, the <keyword id="16358290" type="General" weightage="80" keywordseo="voice-against-autocracy" source="Orion">Voice Against Autocracy</keyword> reported. The birth rate downturn in <keyword id="1334" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="china" source="Orion">China</keyword> is the result of a "one child" policy imposed between 1980 and 2015, and a surge in education costs that have put many Chinese against having more than one child, or even having any at all. The Chinese government implemented a one-child policy for 35 years (1980 to 2015) and compelled millions of women to forced contraception, forced sterilization, and forced abortion. Due to plummeting birth rates, the government wanted women to have more children and swiftly moved from a one to two-child policy in 2016. But that too failed to yield the desired results. However, the government swiftly moved to a three-child policy in 2021 and offered tax cuts, subsidies, cash rewards and other incentives. The Voice Against Autocracy reported that none of these has worked so far and China's birth rate continues to drop. The total fertility rate decreased from 2.6 in the late 1980s to just 1.15 in 2021. In fact, in 2022 the population might have declined for the first time since the Great Famine of 1959 to 1961, according to a projection by the <keyword id="440932" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="shanghai-academy-of-social-sciences" source="Orion">Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences</keyword>. The three-child policy met with widespread cynicism online. People opposed it using an analogy of a luxury car. "I'm not buying three Rolls-Royces not because there's any restriction, but because they're expensive," a post on the Chinese social media platform <keyword id="670351" type="General" weightage="50" keywordseo="weibo" source="Orion">Weibo</keyword> read. "I want to sell my quota to rich people," wrote another. Women in China have resisted 3 child policy because of the unequal burden of childcare responsibilities and its potentially detrimental impact on their careers. A 2020 study, on the impact of family planning policy changes on urban women, reported that 45 per cent of respondents said their employment was negatively affected by pregnancy or childrearing. Over one-third of women reported financial loss, and more than 20 per cent described losing opportunities for training or promotions. Another 13 per cent said they were fired or forced to resign, and eight per cent said they experienced demotion. The study pointed out that companies do not want to hire women employees who might be absent during the three to six months of maternity leave, and the costs associated with hiring a replacement. The Chinese government has taken some steps to assist women in the workplace. In November, the government amended the Women's Rights and Interests Protection Law, the highest law concerning gender equality in the country, for the first time in nearly 30 years, the Voice Against Autocracy reported. Among the provisions to combat gender discrimination in the workplace, the law banned employers from inquiring or investigating the marital and maternal status of female job applicants or making such status a condition for employment. The Women's Protection Law, which came into effect in January 2023 is likely to strengthen enforcement, which has been poor so far. In August 2022, 17 central government agencies jointly issued a notice outlining the government's plan to increase the birth rate, with one of the major measures being increasing government-sponsored childcare facilities and services. The Chinese Communist Party's latest offer to young newlyweds is 30 days of paid holiday, it has given some hope to the government that it would boost the country's falling birth rates. China has smartly created an eco-system to ensure the fertility rate increases. Couples of reproductive age are being offered incentives so that they can comply with 3 child policy. But the reality is contrary to the government's expectations. China's population fell last year for the first time in six decades. Last year, China recorded its lowest-ever birth rate, of 6.77 births per 1,000 people. However, the government should develop programmes to reduce discriminatory gender norms related to childcare responsibilities, end discriminatory parental leave policies, expand parental leave policies and protections for both men and women who wish to take it, and ensure the availability and affordability of childcare and other forms of professional caregiving. And most importantly, the government must abolish the three-child policy because birth limits, no matter the number, are fundamentally an infringement on women's reproductive rights and bodily autonomy, stated the essay in Global Institute for Women's Leadership's new collection. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/news/indian-b2b-saas-companies-are-2x-more-capital-efficient-than-global-peers/articleshow/98277192.cms">Indian B2B SaaS companies are 2x more capital efficient than global peers: EY report</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/sc-dismisses-plea-to-constitute-renaming-commission-says-india-a-secular-country/articleshow/98276995.cms">SC dismisses plea to constitute "Renaming Commission"; says India a secular country</a>

You Searched For "constitutional protection" and got 11 results

Many Haitians in Springfield are on Temporary Protected Status — which could disappear if Trump wins

Joshua Nelken-Zitser

Bill to provide up to four nominees to a bank account introduced in Lok Sabha

PTI

Sotomayor dissents after SCOTUS underlines protections for LGBTQ+ people: 'a sad day in American constitutional law'

Brent D. Griffiths

RESULTS: California votes to protect abortion as a constitutional right

Hannah Getahun

A lawsuit brought by kids in Montana could determine if the state has a constitutional duty to protect its residents from climate change

Associated Press

Why a constitutional amendment protecting Roe v. Wade and enshrining abortion rights is next to impossible

Dave Levinthal

Populist senator JD Vance supports an effort to make it harder to change Ohio's constitution even though it's backed by a GOP Illinois billionaire — because he says it protects voters from 'out of state interests' ahead of abortion referendum

Bryan Metzger

RESULTS: Kentucky voters reject an anti-abortion constitutional amendment

Hannah Getahun

Proposition 1: Californians will vote to make abortion a constitutional right

Hannah Getahun

Proposal 3: Michigan voters will decide on a constitutional right to abortion

Hannah Getahun

China's birth rate continues to fall as women resist 3-child policy

ANI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides

You Searched For "constitutional protection" and got 11 results

Many Haitians in Springfield are on Temporary Protected Status — which could disappear if Trump wins

Joshua Nelken-Zitser

Bill to provide up to four nominees to a bank account introduced in Lok Sabha

PTI

Sotomayor dissents after SCOTUS underlines protections for LGBTQ+ people: 'a sad day in American constitutional law'

Brent D. Griffiths

RESULTS: California votes to protect abortion as a constitutional right

Hannah Getahun

A lawsuit brought by kids in Montana could determine if the state has a constitutional duty to protect its residents from climate change

Associated Press

Why a constitutional amendment protecting Roe v. Wade and enshrining abortion rights is next to impossible

Dave Levinthal

Populist senator JD Vance supports an effort to make it harder to change Ohio's constitution even though it's backed by a GOP Illinois billionaire &mdash; because he says it protects voters from 'out of state interests' ahead of abortion referendum

Bryan Metzger

RESULTS: Kentucky voters reject an anti-abortion constitutional amendment

Hannah Getahun

Proposition 1: Californians will vote to make abortion a constitutional right

Hannah Getahun

Proposal 3: Michigan voters will decide on a constitutional right to abortion

Hannah Getahun

China's birth rate continues to fall as women resist 3-child policy

ANI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides

Populist senator JD Vance supports an effort to make it harder to change Ohio's constitution even though it's backed by a GOP Illinois billionaire — because he says it protects voters from 'out of state interests' ahead of abortion referendum