Old(er) women and young(er) women
The morning began with a news item about women winning a huge legal battle. But, that was too early. There were plenty of hours left in the day. Sure enough, there was another news item about women losing a huge legal battle.
The good news first, from the AP:
Europe’s highest human rights court ruled Tuesday that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change, siding with a group of older Swiss women against their government in a landmark ruling that could have implications across the continent. …
A group called Senior Women for Climate Protection, whose average age is 74, had argued that they were particularly affected because older women are most vulnerable to the extreme heat that is becoming more frequent.
If you are like me, then you were also not aware that older Swiss women were battling a climate change lawsuit. We were informed enough about young people suing governments that their futures were not being protected. Senior women?
And, incidentally, what happened to senior men? Aren’t they too affected by the increasingly frequent extreme heat? Why were they not part of the lawsuit?
Damn, I have too many questions already. But, first the news reports. More from AP:
The court — which is unrelated to the European Union — ruled that Switzerland “had failed to comply with its duties” to combat climate change and meet emissions targets.
That, the court said, was a violation of the women’s rights, noting that the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees people “effective protection by the state authorities from the serious adverse effects of climate change on their lives, health, well-being and quality of life.”
The BBC adds:
It is the first time the powerful court has ruled on global warming.
Swedish campaigner Greta Thunberg joined activists celebrating at the court in Strasbourg on Tuesday.
"We still can't really believe it. We keep asking our lawyers, 'is that right?' Rosemarie Wydler-Walti, one of the leaders of the Swiss women, told Reuters news agency. "And they tell us it's the most you could have had. The biggest victory possible."
"This is only the beginning of climate litigation," said Ms Thunberg. "This means that we have to fight even more, since this is only the beginning. Because in a climate emergency, everything is at stake."
The ruling is binding and can trickle down to influence the law in 46 countries in Europe including the UK.
The old(er) women accomplished something that Greta Thunberg and the youth could not!
It was an overwhelming super-majority ruling by 16 judges to 1, reports Euronews, which adds:
“This ruling in the Klimaseniorinnen case will have implications way behind Switzerland!” writes CIEL’s Duyck.
He points out that all European states have the same obligations as Switzerland under Article 8 regarding the need to protect the right to private and family life in the context of climate harms.
Six other climate cases adjourned by the ECHR will now be considered in light of today's “groundbreaking decision,” he adds. These including cases where plaintiffs are opposed to Austria, Germany, Italy and Norway.
Score: Women up by One
And then came this news out of Arizona, which turned the clock back to 1864, when Arizona was not even a state in the union:
Arizona’s highest court on Tuesday upheld an 1864 law that bans nearly all abortions, a decision that could have far-reaching consequences for women’s health care and election-year politics in a critical battleground state.
The 1864 law, the court said in a 4-to-2 decision, “is now enforceable.”
A 4-2 decision that was made possible only because Arizona’s Republicans had previously expanded the court with two additional seats and packed it with uber-conservatives.
More from NYT:
The Arizona Supreme Court said that because the federal right to abortion in Roe v. Wade had been overturned, there was no federal or state law preventing Arizona from enforcing the near-total ban on abortions, which had sat dormant for decades.
I learnt this from WaPo:
Under the 1864 territorial law, which went into effect 48 years before Arizona became a state, anyone who administers an abortion could face a mandatory prison sentence of two to five years. That ban could compel Arizona’s licensed abortion clinics to ramp down dramatically or shutter — though it’s unclear how the decision will be enforced.
I don’t understand how a law that went into effect 48 years before Arizona became a state can become the law again. What is next?
Score: Women down by a gazillion!
A month ago, worried that the developments (regressions) in the US needed to be addressed before it became a domestic issue, France set out to solidify its law on legal abortion, reported NPR:
France's lawmakers have approved a bill to enshrine the right to an abortion in the country's constitution, a historic move that came in response to concerns over the rollback of abortion laws in the United States.
Members of both houses of parliament gathered Monday for a joint session at the Palace of Versailles and approved the measure 780-72. The result drew a long standing ovation among many of the lawmakers.
At the Place Du Trocadéro overlooking the Eiffel Tower in Paris, hundreds of people gathered to watch the Versailles proceedings on a giant screen. The crowd cheered as the vote count was announced.
What all these tell me is this: Unlike what nominees for the judiciary claim during hearings about their commitment to settled law, there is no such thing as an issue having been settled because politicians with enough power can always reset the law to their preferences. And that means we have to fight for women’s rights, for clean water, for clean air, for … Join the fight if you are not in it already!