A humanitarian Crisis in China

The latest Texan abortion legislation and how it could affect a woman,s right to choose. Isla McDonald - Lower Sixth, South

THROUGHOUT AMERICAN, AND ARGUABLY INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, THE TOPIC OF ABORTION HAS BEEN WIDELY DEBATED AND DISCUSSED, BUT IT HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY APPARENT OVER MORE RECENT YEARS THAT IT IS A MECHANISM THAT ENCOURAGES GREAT IDEOLOGICAL DIVISIONS.

Furthermore, what with Trump’s latest nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, a traditional conservative legacy within the judiciary is looking all the more likely. With the prospect of a rehearing of Roe vs Wade looming in the not-so distant future, could it be all up in the air for rights of women’s bodies?

The original Supreme Court decision surrounding Roe vs Wade took place in 1973 and saw a 2-7 vote in favour of the motion that governments lacked the power to prohibit abortions. The landmark decision declared that denying a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy came under the freedom of personal choice in family matters as protected by the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

The name of the case Roe vs Wade comes from a 25-year-old woman, called Norma McCorvey under the pseudonym

“Jane Roe”, who challenged Texan criminal abortion laws that forbade abortion as unconstitutional except in cases where the mother’s life was in danger. ‘Wade’ was Henry

Wade: the Texan Attorney General who was on the defence, in support of the anti-abortion laws.

SO, WHAT DID THE RULING STATE ABOUT ABORTION LAWS?

Roe vs Wade established a ‘trimester-dependant’ set of regulations. It gave a woman the right to an abortion within the first three months of pregnancy, it allowed for some government regulation in the second trimester of pregnancy and declared that states could exert control, and even restrict, abortions in the last three months of pregnancy as it would be likely that the foetus could survive if it was born, outside the womb. If in the final trimester, an abortion was required in order to save the mother’s life, this was also an exception to the ruling.

HOW HAVE ABORTION REGULATIONS CHANGED SINCE THEN?

However, since the Supreme Court decision almost half a century ago, this ruling has been argued to have been gradually unwound. In 1980, the Supreme Court upheld a law that banned the use of federal funds for abortion except when necessary to save a woman’s life. Later, in 1989, further restrictions on this were imposed including allowing states to prohibit abortions at state clinics or by state employees. However, arguably the most significant ruling since has been in 1992 in Planned Parenthood vs Casey which apparently continued to uphold Roe vs Wade, introducing new legislation which established that states could restrict abortions, for non-medical reasons, even in the first trimester.

HOW HAS IT CHANGED RECENTLY?

And now, in more recent news, Governor Greg Abbot’s decision to sign into Texan law a new measure which prohibits abortions from any point after six weeks, new global conversations are being had looking into how far a woman’s right to choose has been infringed. Nationwide, it has claimed to be one of the most extreme decisions since the landmark Roe vs Wade ruling and this law takes place in September of this year. Abbot’s signature on the ‘Heartbeat Bill’ comes just after the Supreme Court said it would hear a case concerning a piece of Mississippi law that would ban most pregnancy terminations after 15 weeks, and which could lead to further limits on abortion rights. While a dozen states have passed similar so-called ‘Heartbeat Bills’ - bans on abortion once embryonic cardiac activity is detected - none have yet been enforced due to court challenges. It is the first major abortion case heard before the courts newly expanded conservative majority, and could have overarching effects for the state of Texas, where a pending bill would outlaw almost all abortions if the Supreme Court overruled Roe vs Wade. The bill also includes pregnancies involving rape or incest, except in medical emergencies.

Furthermore, there are going to be significant financial impacts following the state’s judicial decision. As a result, any individual can sue anyone who “aids or abets” abortion care or someone who “intends” to help an abortion patient, a breathtakingly wide range of possible people and groups. While those who sue can collect a minimum of $10,000 if they are successful, those unjustly sued cannot recover legal fees. The antiabortion laws private enforcement provision is the first of its kind in the country.

Picture credits to the Houston Press

But the real question is:

are all of these restrictions constitutional?

That is something which I think is subjective and a question to which we will get no real answer to in the near future. For my Lower School Project, Protest Lens, I decided to compare the recent US senate protests and the Hong Kong protests of 2019. I love how these protests are so similar yet, in half-century, we may only be able to gather evidence on one of these scenes. Making my project a time capsule.

On numerous days around the world, we have seen violent fights: fights for peoples’ voices to be heard. On 6 January 2021, a peaceful march turned bloody when protesters stormed the US Senate. Similarly, on the 1 July 2019 a small group of Hong Kong protesters broke off from a larger demonstration and stormed the Legislative Council building.

democracy Protest Lens

Radha Peratides - Upper Third

These became known as the Capitol Riots and the Hong Kong AntiGovernment-Protests.

Blood, tear gas, spray paint and cries of desperation, were all common factors of these two large scale protests. They startled people as they woke up across the world; well, not all around the world, one country was oblivious to the Hong Kong protest.

CHINA

After these shocking events, pictures and videos were shared around the world. One day, knowledge and evidence of the Hong Kong riots and what happened may disappear, just like the events of Tiananmen Square. In China, if you search for the Tiananmen Square protests, you will find a perfect tourist picture of the square itself. People of China, young and old, were never told of this massacre and will never know what happened. There is a so called ‘tank man’ of this massacre who blocked a parade of tanks slowing them from reaching his fellow protesters. No one knows what happened to him. Now there is a ‘tank man’ of the Hong Kong protest. A man standing in front of hundreds of the press, and protesters in LegCo. And there is another iconic figure for the US riots, a man dressed as a bull in the Senate. As the original tank man slowly fades so will the Hong Kong man. But as the US man is identified and locked up, he will one day be released, and we will have no problem finding his picture still up online.

1.4 billion people, a seventh of the world’s population does not have access to student protests in Tiananmen Square and possibly the

Hong Kong protests in the future.

For Protest Lens, I have selected the most powerful images from the Hong Kong and US protests and collaged them side by side into the form of a camera. The images revolve around the US senate and the LegCo.

On either side you can see both figures that lead each of the protests. A Hong Konger stands up on a desk in front of a defaced Hong Kong/ China logo. On the other side there is a US protestor dressed in an animal skin hat and cow horns, his face is painted with the US flag. He is shouting angrily at the camera. Mounted to the top of the camera is a flash that can be activated by tapping it; it is reminiscent of a CCTV camera.

As media feeds take over our lives, we must protect our access to non-biased news in Western democratic countries and work to bring awareness to those who live with government censored news feeds. Protest Lens is a time capsule that one day may be illegal to show in countries around the world.

The correlation between Morality and Power seen through Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. Neve Hudson – Lower Sixth, Haslewood

THE LINK BETWEEN MORALITY AND POWER HAS BEEN EXPLOITED BY MANY WORLD LEADERS, BUT MOST NOTABLY BRITAIN’S PRIME MINISTER, BORIS JOHNSON AND FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, DONALD TRUMP.

Both leaders can be suggested to have acted in their own interests, abandoning a sense of morality, especially when trying to achieve credibility. Johnson has been accused of having no ‘moral defence’ by John Major and being ‘morally bankrupt’. In comparison, former President of the United States, Donald Trump, has been suggested to be amoral, overlooking fundamental morality in his four year term. As his sister, a retired federal judge, Marianna Trump Barry has said, ‘He has no principles. None. None’. Even the internationally respected Dalai Lama stated that Trump had a ‘lack of moral principle’ in 2019.

Boris Johnson has been seen to make many immoral actions, as Theresa May accused him of ‘abandoning global moral leadership’ in

January 2021. This was a consequence of Johnson’s threat to break international law during Brexit trade negotiations through breaking an international treaty. The Prime Minister’s rejection of the portrayal of Britain on a global scale is evident as he sought to further his own interests and policies, thus highlighting his manipulation of power and disregarded morality. Similarly, the 6 January storming of the Capitol this year, incited by Donald Trump’s claims of a rigged election, is perhaps the most evident example of his exploitation of power. His claims led to the potential destruction of American democracy and resulted in numerous fatalities. Trump completely abused his power and had no moral inclination to the effects of such an attack on democracy. Like Boris Johnson, Trump overlooked the international perception of the insurrection, placing more value on his personal interests, and promotion of his power. Therefore, the failings of morality when subjected to personal power are evident through Johnson and Trump’s actions.

Both Johnson and Trump have subjected groups of people to harm as a result of their policies, demonstrating the weakness of morality when faced with large amounts of power. With a potential lockdown and a rising number of Covid-19 cases in the UK, Johnson stated that if he were to not reopen schools it would be ‘socially intolerable, economically unsustainable and morally indefensible’. The harm that was being done to adolescents social and mental health was arguably exaggerated, and ‘far more damaging’ than any risk from the virus. Johnson stated that he had a ‘moral duty’ to act, undermining the significant fatality and case numbers in the UK and overlooking the transmission of the virus through younger age groups. He clearly overlooked his ‘moral duty’ when handling other aspects of the Covid-19 crisis. The Prime Minister oversaw the moving of thousands of sick, elderly people from hospitals to care homes, resulting in an increase of deaths. Furthermore, he was a catalyst for more fatalities, as he deferred the treatment of cancer patients, resulting in 35,000 excess deaths. Evidently, the link between Johnson’s morality and power come into play as he was willing to oversee the deaths of thousands of citizens in order to reject a lockdown, and send children into dangerous environments, perhaps an ignorant and amoral act.

Trump could also be suggested to lack morality when asserting his own power in the US. When appealing to the Conservative middle class of America, Trump continually discussed ‘law and order’, alluding to his characterisation of minorities as dangerous people. His suggestions allowed Trump to depict himself as the only figure in charge that could keep the people safe. Thus, demonstrating his lack of morality, and enhancement of law and order and policing, creating an abuse of power, and subjecting mass groups of people in America to violence and segregation. Moreover, despite initiating a larger emphasis on ‘law and order’ and the strength of the military, Trump was seen to significantly undermine the service of soldiers, calling them ‘losers’. Also, he maligned respected Senator and Naval Officer John McCain’s experience as a Vietnam War prisoner, embracing torture as a military tool. Trump’s exploitation of his executive power while undermining others roles is a clear demonstration of his poor morality.

Thus, it is clear that both Johnson and Trump have manipulated their own power, whilst overlooking the potential danger that they cause to others as a result of these actions, highlighting their weak morality.

In addition, it can be argued that the Covid-19 crisis has truly uncovered the failure of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump’s morality and abuse of power to a further extent. The allegations by Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s previous Chief Advisor, suggested that Johnson was said to have been so against another lockdown that he would ‘let the bodies pile high in their thousands’. Johnson’s amoral attitude towards the death and suffering of the British public strongly highlights his selfish intentions of manipulating power. Such a clear representation of an abuse of power and avoidance of consequences conveys the Prime Minister’s acceptance of the cost of human life when avoiding the political and economic effects of another lockdown. Additionally, at the recent G7 summit, Boris Johnson rejected claims of ‘moral failure’ when not providing vaccines for poorer nations. Previous prime minister Gordon Brown’s criticism of Johnson further highlights his mishandling of the Covid-19 crisis. The decision to not provide developing countries with vaccines could perhaps emphasise the Prime Minister’s poor morality and abuse of power, as he is subjecting others to worse situations, for his personal, political and economic benefit.

Likewise, Trump has been accused of mishandling the Covid-19 crisis to a significant extent, calling it ‘kung flu’ and suggesting to the public that the virus will disappear. When recovering from corona virus, Trump was seen to take off his mask in public eye, completely disregarding the fact that this action undermined and made a mockery of the mass number of deaths in the US from the virus. This action symbolised Trump’s lack of morality for the hundreds of thousands affected by the virus and portrayed the abuse of his personal power through his influence and significant position. Trump’s continual disregard for the severity of the virus sheds light on his amoral nature and is arguably worsened by his position of mass power. Ultimately, Covid-19 has allowed for Johnson and Trump’s weak morality and abuse of power to be exposed further. Thus, the correlation between morality and power can be exposed by both Boris Johnson and Donald Trump. British politics and society can be critiqued as we are led to question the extent that Johnson can manipulate power to his benefit and still remain ‘safe’ in his leadership of the Conservatives, all while casting aside morality and the impacts of his actions on human life and the international image of Britain.

Furthermore, an evaluation of US politics can also be conducted, through the idea of the ‘Imperial President’ Trump, who has manipulated and extended Federal Power to his own will, with disregard to morality. American society can also be questioned. Within his term, surveys regularly showed that the public rated Trump as lowest among modern presidents on ethical standards, including Nixon and Clinton. Despite this, Trump still remained a president with an array of support, as people were seen to judge him by his actions rather than who he was, seen through, 60% of Americans say their opinion of Trump is based more on what he has done as president. Thus, the impact of poor morality and abuse of power on the public’s perception could be suggested to be small.

THEREFORE, THROUGH BORIS JOHNSON AND DONALD TRUMP IT IS EVIDENT THAT WORLD LEADERS ARE SUBJECT TO EXPLOITING THEIR POWER WITH LITTLE MORALITY. MORALITY CAN BE QUESTIONED WHEN THEY MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE ONLY TO FURTHER THEIR OWN IMAGE OR BENEFIT THEMSELVES RATHER THAN OTHERS. THROUGH RECENT CRISES SUCH AS COVID 19, THE TRUE ABUSE OF POWER AND LACK OF MORALS HAVE BEEN EVIDENT.

Is the UK Constitution still strong today?

Alice Hanson - Lower Sixth, Hawkins

The UK Constitution can be argued to be weak today due to the lack of protection of human rights. For example, until 1998 there were no laws guaranteeing people’s rights. This was addressed by the Human Rights Act 1998, but this can be set aside or overturned by a government quite easily. Furthermore, the Constitution allows for pre-democratic elements to survive like the Monarchy and House of Lords. The House of Lords is undemocratic as the public cannot vote for who is in the House of Lords like they can for the House of Commons. The Constitution also encourages strong executive which then leads to centralised government – this makes it necessary to change the Constitution to fit the values of today as parliament is ruled by the executive and there are minimal checks and balances to reduce their power. This highlights the weaknesses of the Constitution and its irrelevance today – it allows for undemocratic elements, like the House of Lords, and there is little protection of human rights as the Human Rights Act can be easily set aside by a government, which is dominated by an executive.

However, the Constitution is still strong today as its evolution over time has allowed it to reflect the values of the British public and adapt to modern beliefs in society. Institutions have been ‘tested by time’ and they have not been broken or deemed unfit, proving the strengths of the Constitution today. Furthermore, the Constitution provides a coherent and strong system of government, and the parliamentary sovereignty allows for a clear centre of authority. Also, the rule of law ensures protection over the rights of citizens and is the ‘second twin pillar’ of the Constitution – the other being parliamentary sovereignty – the rule of law means that the law applies to everyone, including those in the government. This shows the strength of the Constitution today because it has evolved over time and applies the rule of law to everyone, even those in power. Therefore, it provides a clear system of government, and parliamentary sovereignty allows for a clear and strong centre of authority. Arguably the UK Constitution is past its ‘use-by date’ as it can lead to elective dictatorships. This is because once elected, governments can effectively act how they like due to the combination of parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary governments. Furthermore, as the Constitution is uncodified it can lead to it being hard to interpret because it is not written down in one document. For example, after the 2010 general election there was uncertainty to what should have happened, and this led to a hung parliament. This shows that the UK constitution is weak and irrelevant today because it is hard to interpret due to its uncodified nature and it can lead to elective dictatorships.

However, the stronger argument is that the UK Constitution is still strong today because of the advantages of it being uncodified. As it is uncodified, the Constitution is easier to change which makes it dynamic and flexible and therefore more amendable to Constitutional reform. This makes is especially relevant today as it can change and adapt easily to modern beliefs, and necessary situations. Because of the uncodified nature of the Constitution, outdated laws can and have been changed. For example, the Marriage Act 2013 allowed for same sex couples to be married. This shows the relevance and strength of the Constitution today because it has a dynamic nature which allows for outdated laws to be changed, and for modern beliefs to be reflected. Therefore, because the Constitution is uncodified it allows for it to be changed easily and adapted, and so outdated laws can be changed, like the Marriage Act 2013, proving its strength in today’s modern world. Some may argue that the UK Constitution is weak today because even despite judicial reform and devolution, executive and legislative power in the UK is still blurred.

This means that power is still too concentrated in the executive which allows it to become an elective dictatorship as the executive can reshape the Constitution as they wish. There are meant to be checks and balances in place to limit government power; it is a key feature of a liberal democracy but one that the UK lacks. Furthermore, this allows governments to almost act how they please in between elections. This shows that the UK Constitution has no relevance in a modern and democratic society because of the missing checks and balances, that should be there to stop abuse of power in government, and also the concentration of power within the executive, which creates an executive democracy rather than a parliamentary one. However, the more credible argument is that the UK Constitution is still strong and relevant today because the UK allows for changes to happen due to democratic pressure. Furthermore, in the UK the influence of unelected judges is minimal, unlike in the US where judges interpret the meaning of the Constitution and have the power to declare laws passed by an elected legislature, unconstitutional – this is wholly undemocratic, as they have not been elected by the public.

Therefore, in the UK, government decisions backed by Parliament cannot be overturned by judges and because of parliamentary sovereignty, the government normally get their way which allows for strong decisive action. For example, the Atlee Government of 1945-1951 set up the NHS by doing this. This shows that the UK Constitution is still strong today because it allows for changes to be made due to democratic pressure and there are limits on the influence of unelected judges, unlike the US.

In conclusion, the UK constitution is still strong today as it allows for changes to be made to outdated policies and laws, this is because of its uncodified nature, and it is reflective of the values of the British people. There is also the restriction of the influence of unelected judges unlike in the US. However, there is an argument that it is not strong enough today, it is still missing checks and balances against the government and there is still the possibility that it can lead to an elective dictatorship.