Millions of women across the US could soon lose their legal right to abortion, according to a leaked Supreme Court document.
Reports have suggested the US Supreme Court has voted to overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 case that legalised abortion across the country.
If the court strikes down the ruling, individual states would be allowed to ban abortion, if they wish - a move that is expected to see abortion banned in almost half of US states.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon warned the lives of women in the US will be put at greater risk if the decision is overturned.
She tweeted: “The right of women to decide what happens to our own bodies is a human right.
“And experience tells us that removing the legal right to abortion doesn’t stop abortions happening - it just makes them unsafe and puts the lives of women at much greater risk #RoeVWade.”
The right of women to decide what happens to our own bodies is a human right. And experience tells us that removing the legal right to abortion doesn’t stop abortions happening - it just makes them unsafe and puts the lives of women at much greater risk #RoeVWade
— Nicola Sturgeon (@NicolaSturgeon) May 3, 2022
Responding to the First Minister, campaign group Back Off Scotland renewed calls for buffer zones, which provide services to protect women from intimidation by abortion protesters, to be installed around clinics in Scotland.
The group tweeted in response: "Expressing outrage only goes so far. You’re the First Minister, you have a Women’s Health Minister and the Lord Advocate in your cabinet.
"You must uphold reproductive rights in this country and introduce buffer zones now."
A document titled “Opinion of the Court” shows a majority of the US court’s justices earlier this year threw support behind overturning the 1973 case that legalised abortion across the country.
According Politico, who published the document in full, the draft opinion shows the court voted to strike down the landmark case.
Politico reports that Justice Alito and four other Republican-appointed justices - Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett - are in favour of the move against Roe v Wade but it is not clear how Chief Justice John Roberts will vote.
It is also unclear if the draft represents the court’s final word on the matter, but if it does overturn the decision it means each state will be able to decide whether to restrict or ban abortions.
However "trigger laws" could instantly make abortion illegal in 22 US states.
Until now, the US Supreme court has allowed states to regulate but not ban abortion before around 24 weeks.
There has been a push to restrict abortion in several Republican-led states — Oklahoma being the most recent — even before the court issues its decision.
The leaked document - labelled "1st Draft" - appears to reflect the majority opinion of the court, and Politico reports that it was written by Justice Samuel Alito and circulated within the court on 10 February.
But it is unclear if it represents a final opinion, as justices have previously changed their views during the drafting process. The Supreme Court and the White House have not yet commented.
Its publication on Monday night sparked an immediate outcry from Democrats, as well as protests by both pro-choice and anti-abortion campaigners outside the court in Washington DC.
Leading Democratic politicians Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer said jointly that if the report was accurate, the Supreme Court was "poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past 50 years".
A Supreme Court spokeswoman said the court had no comment and The Associated Press could not immediately confirm the authenticity of the draft Politico posted, which dates from February.
Roe v Wade in 1973 gave women in the US an absolute right to an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy, and limited rights in the second trimester.
But in the decades since, anti-abortion rulings have gradually pared back access in more than a dozen states.
In 2021 alone, nearly 600 abortion restrictions were introduced nationwide, with 90 enacted into law. That is more than in any year since Roe.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here