Connect with us

News

Nebraska activists seek to put opposing abortion questions on the ballot

Published

on

Nebraska activists seek to put opposing abortion questions on the ballot

Demonstrators came to the Nebraska Capitol in Lincoln last year to protest plans to revive an abortion ban last year. They were prompted by the sentencing of an 18-year-old woman to 90 days in jail for burning and burying a fetus after she took medication given to her by her mother to end her pregnancy.

Margery Beck/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Margery Beck/AP

OMAHA, Nebraska — At a farmers’ market in midtown Omaha, abortion politics are playing out near the produce stands, flower vendors and a brass band.

Petitioners for two opposing ballot measures have set up folding tables near each other, competing for signatures from registered voters. One initiative would put an amendment in the state’s constitution allowing abortion until fetal viability – usually about 24 weeks. That would replace the current ban on most abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy currently in state law.

Samantha Weatherington stopped to sign the fetal viability proposal. To her, the state’s current ban is too restrictive.

Advertisement

“It’s terrifying to think that we can’t even make choices of our own bodies again, it’s like going back to the ‘40s and ’50s,” she said. “I don’t want to see people’s daughters using a coat hanger as a last resort.”

Less than 20 feet away is another table where petitioners solicit signatures for a different ballot question. This would ask voters to put the current 12-week ban into the constitution.

Andrew Shradar planned to sign that petition.

“I believe that it’s a human being at conception,” he said. “Protecting the unborn is what needs to be done no matter what, and for the two petitions that are being held right now, that’s the one I’m going to sign.”

At a farmers’ market in midtown Omaha, Richard Riscol solicits signatures for a petition to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would limit abortion at 12 weeks of pregnancy.

At a farmers’ market in midtown Omaha, Richard Riscol solicits signatures for a petition to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would limit abortion at 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Elizabeth Rembert/Nebraska Public Media

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Elizabeth Rembert/Nebraska Public Media

Advertisement

Since The Supreme Court overturned the federal right to abortion in 2022, the issue has been fought out state by state. It is already on the ballot in Colorado, Florida, Maryland and South Dakota and there are efforts underway in six more states.

The opposing groups have to get on the ballot and then compete

In several, like Arizona and Missouri, abortion rights supporters are going to the voters to get around Republican-led legislatures that have passed laws restricting abortion.

That’s the case in Nebraska too, but with the added twist of the competing campaigns. Four months after the abortion rights groups got going on the fetal viability proposal, activists opposing abortion started the drive for the 12-week ban.

To get on the ballot, the campaigns have until July 3 to collect signatures from 10% of the state’s registered voters – about 123,000 people. That has to include signatures from 5% of voters in at least 38 of Nebraska’s 93 counties. To pass, the ballot proposals require majority approval, with votes from at least 35% of those casting ballots in the November election.

There’s a chance they could both get on the ballot. “This is where the conflict arises,” said Sec. of State Bob Evnen in an interview. “You have two conflicting initiatives proposing an amendment to the Nebraska constitution. That conflict has to be resolved.”

Advertisement

And while it’s up to the governor – after the vote – to rule officially that two amendments are in conflict, he says he thinks these do. “They are wholly in conflict with each other,” he said. “There’s nothing to reconcile.”

Evnen says that would test for the first time a law established in 1912 that says that if they both pass, then whichever proposal gets more approving votes will be adopted in the state’s constitution.

“It’s possible that one of the proposals could get approved and not be adopted,” Evnen said. “It’ll come down to, whichever one receives the most votes is the one that would go into Nebraska’s constitution.”

Voter education will be key

That could all lead to confusing choices for Nebraska voters. Rachel Rebouché, a reproductive and family law expert and dean of Temple University’s law school, said that twist will make outreach even more important for each campaign.

“Having to choose between 12 weeks and fetal viability is going to slice voters up in different ways,” she said. “Each side has a stable group of supporters. But how are they going to reach people who have abortion ambivalence and convince them that their stance is the best option?”

Advertisement

For now, both campaigns said they’re focusing on getting their proposal onto the November ballot. Once that’s cleared, they said they’ll turn to educating and turning out voters, since a majority might not be enough to win.

“Decisions about pregnancy are personal, and they should be made between medical providers and the patient,” said Allie Berry, campaign manager for Protect Our Rights, which backs the fetal viability amendment. “A lot of people agree with that and are excited to sign.”

Brenna Grasz, treasurer for Protect Women & Children, is confident in the 12-week ban petition drive. “We believe that Nebraska voters are majority pro-life, and the vote in November will reflect that.”

One of her allies, Nebraska Right to Life President Sandy Danek, says she supports the 12-week amendment in part because it will allow for tighter abortion limits in law later. “It does give us an ability to go back to the Nebraska legislature and seek further protections,” she said. “I can’t tell you when the body will be in a place to do that, but this initiative does give us that liberty.”

Elizabeth Rembert reports for Nebraska Public Media.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

Benjamin Netanyahu dissolves Israel’s war cabinet after centrist members resign

Published

on

Benjamin Netanyahu dissolves Israel’s war cabinet after centrist members resign

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has dissolved the war cabinet he set up in the wake of Hamas’s October 7 attack following the resignation of two of its five members.

The body, headed by Netanyahu, has overseen Israel’s war in Gaza for the past eight months. However, its dissolution had been expected since the resignations last week of Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, two centrist politicians who joined Netanyahu’s coalition at the start of the war.

Following their departures, national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich — ultranationalists whose positions have frequently drawn fierce criticism from Israel’s allies, including the US — had demanded to be admitted to the war cabinet.

Advertisement

But according to Israeli officials, Netanyahu will instead now hold meetings in smaller forums to discuss sensitive matters. The wider security cabinet, which includes Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, will also continue to deal with matters relating to the war, officials said.

Gantz and Eisenkot demanded the establishment of the war cabinet, which also included defence minister Yoav Gallant and strategic affairs minister Ron Dermer, as a condition of joining Netanyahu’s emergency government last year.

The arrangement was designed to sideline Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who have repeatedly demanded a more aggressive approach to the war in Gaza as well as the re-establishment of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian enclave.

They have also opposed concessions that would have allowed a deal to free the Israeli hostages still held by Hamas in Gaza.

While the entry of Gantz — a longtime rival of Netanyahu — into the war cabinet briefly brought a veneer of unity to Israeli politics, in recent months, he and Eisenkot have become increasingly critical of Netanyahu’s conduct of the war.

Advertisement

Gantz has accused the Israeli prime minister, who depends on Ben-Gvir’s and Smotrich’s parties for his majority in parliament, of allowing decisions relating to the war to be affected by narrow political calculations.

The tensions came to a head earlier this month when Gantz pulled his National Unity alliance out of the emergency government and resigned from the war cabinet after Netanyahu ignored his demands for a series of policy shifts, including drawing up a plan for the aftermath of the war.

Eisenkot said he and Gantz left the government after the war cabinet was “infiltrated” by “ulterior motives and political considerations”, and described Ben-Gvir as “the alternate prime minister”.

Netanyahu’s office on Saturday accused the pair of lying, insisting the prime minister made decisions based only on Israel’s national security needs.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Russia will hold Evan Gershkovich’s espionage trial behind closed doors, state media reports | CNN

Published

on

Russia will hold Evan Gershkovich’s espionage trial behind closed doors, state media reports | CNN



CNN
 — 

American journalist Evan Gershkovich will stand trial behind closed doors in the Russian city of Yekaterinburg starting on June 26, state-run news agency TASS reported Monday, citing the court’s press service.

Gershkovich, 32, has been imprisoned since he was arrested while on a reporting trip in March last year by the FSB, Russia’s federal security service, which accused him of trying to obtain state secrets. Gershkovich, the US government and his employer, the Wall Street Journal, have vehemently denied the charges against him.

The Russian Prosecutor General’s office said last Thursday it had approved the indictment and referred Gershkovich’s case to a trial court. If convicted, he faces up to 20 years in prison.

The case will be heard in the Sverdlovsk Regional Court, TASS reported Monday.

Advertisement

For more than a year since his arrest, Gershkovich has been imprisoned in Moscow’s notorious Lefortovo Prison, and his pre-trial detention period had been extended numerous times. The trial venue of Yekaterinburg is more than 1,100 miles east of the capital.

Last week, Russian prosecutors said the FSB had “established and documented” that Gershkovich was acting on CIA instructions in the month he was arrested, alleging he had “collected secret information” about a Russian tank factory.

“Gershkovich carried out the illegal actions using painstaking conspiratorial methods,” it said in a statement.

Gershkovich’s detention has been a source of tension between Washington and Moscow, whose relations were already deeply strained due to Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

The White House has previously alleged the Kremlin is using Gershkovich, the first American reporter detained in Russia on allegations of spying since the Cold War, as a geopolitical hostage.

Advertisement

On Thursday, US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said the allegations against Gershkovich have “absolutely zero credibility.”

“We have been clear from the start that Evan has done nothing wrong. He should never have been arrested in the first place. Journalism is not a crime. The charges against him are false, and the Russian government knows that they’re false. He should be released immediately,” Miller said at a State Department briefing.

Gershkovich is among a number of Americans being held in Russia, including former Marine Paul Whelan, whom the US State Department has also declared as wrongfully detained.

The US has repeatedly warned American citizens not to travel to Russia.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

EU capitals to back new term for Ursula von der Leyen

Published

on

EU capitals to back new term for Ursula von der Leyen

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

EU leaders plan to approve Ursula von der Leyen for a second five-year term as president of the European Commission on Monday evening, as the bloc’s capitals choose continuity over change amid the war in Ukraine, tensions with China and political uncertainty in key countries. 

The heads of the EU’s 27 member states will use a private dinner in Brussels on Monday evening to give political backing to von der Leyen remaining in office, diplomats and officials from across the continent said, ahead of a formal rubber-stamping later this month.

“Nobody is discussing any other outcome,” said a senior EU diplomat who has spent the past week in discussions with key capitals. “For her, the die is cast.”

Advertisement

Von der Leyen would then need to win a majority of the newly elected European parliament to remain as the EU’s most powerful official through 2029, running the bloc’s executive branch with the power to regulate the world’s largest single market, propose new legislation and steer the continent’s policy direction.

Her supporters are quietly confident of securing parliament’s assent, given the victory of her centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) in the EU elections this month, and the majority held by centrist parties in the chamber despite a surge in support for the far right.

Von der Leyen is respected for her leadership of the EU through the Covid-19 pandemic and the bloc’s response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. But she has irked some capitals and many in her own commission with her centralised decision-making and a record of pushing the limits of her institutional powers. 

Her campaign stressed the value of stability, and played up the dangers of a change in leadership given the war in Ukraine and the uncertainty in the US-EU relationship that would result from a potential Donald Trump victory in US elections in November.

Her supporters have reinforced that message in the light of the political chaos unleashed in France by President Emmanuel Macron’s decision to call a snap election — a move that startled EU allies who worry about the future influence of the far-right in Paris.

Advertisement

Monday’s private dinner will also feature discussions on who to select for president of the EU Council — the official who chairs meetings of bloc leaders — and for high representative, the bloc’s chief diplomat. 

Officials said Portugal’s former premier António Costa was the clear frontrunner for the former, succeeding Charles Michel, while Estonia’s Prime Minister Kaja Kallas was the most likely choice for the latter, taking over from Josep Borrell.

They cautioned, however, that on the eve of the meeting, neither choice was as definite as von der Leyen.

Von der Leyen, a former German defence minister who was an unheralded choice for the post in 2019, received a boost last week from the bloc’s three most powerful members — France, Germany and Italy — offering their tacit acceptance at the G7 summit.

Following the summit on Italy’s Apulian coast on Friday, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said they believed a deal would be struck at Monday’s dinner, while Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said she believed the EPP had the right “to propose a commission president”.

Advertisement

The private dinner has been arranged as a prelude to a formal summit on June 27 and 28 at which a final agreement is due. A parliamentary vote on the next commission president is set for the week of July 15.

“Everyone wants to use [Monday] night to send a crystal clear message . . . so there’s no doubt over what the final decision will be,” said a second senior EU diplomat involved in the negotiations.

Continue Reading

Trending