Arkansas May Not Be Ready for a ‘Healing' Anti-Abortion Monument
In 2023, an artist named Lakey Goff won a public contest to design the state's official anti-abortion memorial. Her entry — which called for 1,400 plants and a Bible quotation, as well as the piped-in sounds of Arkansas waterfalls — stood out from a raft of more literal-minded entries featuring fetuses and infants. Ms. Goff has described her 'living wall' as a gesture of reconciliation after decades of conflict over abortion policy.
'We're not at war with each other anymore,' Ms. Goff said last year to the members of the state commission that chose her design. 'This is about healing.'
But the monument remains unbuilt, months after work on it was supposed to start, not least because the debate over abortion has continued to rage. Even in one of the most conservative states in the nation, bitterness and discord remain, three years after the Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to abortion. Healing seems like a distant dream.
Arkansas has long been hailed as the 'most pro-life state in America' by Americans United for Life, a leading anti-abortion group. On June 24, 2022, the day that Roe was overturned, the state enacted one of the strictest abortion bans in the country, with no exceptions for rape or incest.
But last year, abortion rights activists gathered more than 100,000 signatures from many corners of the state for a ballot initiative that would have restored the right to an abortion up to 18 weeks after conception. Anti-abortion forces described the effort as 'radical' and countered with a statewide 'decline to sign' campaign.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
15 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Republicans and independents have warmed on the Supreme Court, but Democrats haven't: AP-NORC poll
WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans' views of the Supreme Court have moderated somewhat since the court's standing dropped sharply after its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022, according to a new poll. But concern that the court has too much power is rising, fueled largely by Democrats. The survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about a third of U.S. adults have 'hardly any confidence at all' in the court, but that's down from 43% three years ago. As the new AP-NORC polling tracker shows, about half of Americans have 'only some confidence' in the court, up from 39% in July 2022, while a relatively small number, about 1 in 5, have 'a great deal of confidence,' which hasn't shifted meaningfully in the past few years. The moderate increase in confidence is driven by Republicans and independents. Still, views of the nation's highest court remain more negative than they were as recently as early 2022, before the high-profile ruling that overturned the constitutional right to abortion. An AP-NORC poll conducted in February 2022 found that only around one-quarter of Americans had hardly any confidence in the court's justices. Persistent divide between Republicans and Democrats The partisan divide has been persistent and stark, particularly since the Dobbs ruling, when Democrats' confidence in the nine justices plummeted. The survey shows Republicans are happier than Democrats and independents with the conservative-dominated court, which includes three justices appointed by President Donald Trump, a Republican. Few Republicans, just 8%, view the court dimly, down from about 1 in 5 in July 2022. For independents, the decline was from 45% just after the Dobbs ruling to about 3 in 10 now. The views among Democrats were more static, but they are also slightly less likely to have low confidence in the justices, falling from 64% in summer 2022 to 56% now. In recent years, the court has produced historic victories for Republican policy priorities. The justices overturned Roe, leading to abortion bans in many Republican-led states, ended affirmative action in college admissions, expanded gun rights, restricted environmental regulations and embraced claims of religious discrimination. Many of the court's major decisions from this year are broadly popular, according to a Marquette Law School poll conducted in July. But other polling suggests that most don't think the justices are ruling neutrally. A recent Fox News poll found that about 8 in 10 registered voters think partisanship plays a role in the justices' decisions either 'frequently' or 'sometimes.' Last year, the conservative majority endorsed a robust view of presidential immunity and allowed Trump to avoid a criminal trial on election interference charges. In recent months, the justices on the right handed Trump a string of victories, including a ruling that limits federal judges' power to issue nationwide injunctions. Katharine Stetson, a self-described constitutional conservative from Paradise, Nevada, said she is glad that the court has reined in 'the rogue judges, the district judges around the country' who have blocked some Trump initiatives. Stetson, 79, said she is only disappointed it took so long. 'Finally. Why did they allow it get out of hand?' she said. Growing concerns the court is too powerful Several recent decisions were accompanied by stinging dissents from liberal justices who complained the court was giving Trump too much leeway and taking power for itself. 'Perhaps the degradation of our rule-of-law regime would happen anyway. But this court's complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote when the court ruled on nationwide injunctions. The July AP-NORC poll found a growing similar sentiment. About 4 in 10 U.S. adults now say the court has 'too much' power in the way the federal government operates these days. In April, about 3 in 10 people were concerned about the court's power. The shift is largely due to movement among Democrats, rising from about one-third in April to more than half now. Debra A. Harris, a 60-year-old retired state government worker who now lives in Winter Haven, Florida, said the court's decisions in recent years 'just disgust me to my soul.' Harris said the court has changed in recent years, with the addition of the three justices appointed by Trump. 'I find so much of what they're doing is based so much on the ideology of the Republican ticket,' Harris said, singling out last year's immunity decision. 'We don't have kings. We don't have dictators.' George Millsaps, who flew military helicopters and served in Iraq, said the justices should have stood up to Trump in recent months, including on immigration, reducing the size of the federal workforce and unwinding the Education Department. 'But they're bowing down, just like Congress apparently is now, too,' said Millsaps, a 67-year-old resident of Floyd County in rural southwest Virginia. ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,437 adults was conducted July 10-14, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at
Hamilton Spectator
29 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Republicans and independents have warmed on the Supreme Court, but Democrats haven't: AP-NORC poll
WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans' views of the Supreme Court have moderated somewhat since the court's standing dropped sharply after its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022, according to a new poll. But concern that the court has too much power is rising, fueled largely by Democrats. The survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about a third of U.S. adults have 'hardly any confidence at all' in the court, but that's down from 43% three years ago. As the new AP-NORC polling tracker shows, about half of Americans have 'only some confidence' in the court, up from 39% in July 2022, while a relatively small number, about 1 in 5, have 'a great deal of confidence,' which hasn't shifted meaningfully in the past few years. The moderate increase in confidence is driven by Republicans and independents. Still, views of the nation's highest court remain more negative than they were as recently as early 2022, before the high-profile ruling that overturned the constitutional right to abortion. An AP-NORC poll conducted in February 2022 found that only around one-quarter of Americans had hardly any confidence in the court's justices. Persistent divide between Republicans and Democrats The partisan divide has been persistent and stark, particularly since the Dobbs ruling, when Democrats' confidence in the nine justices plummeted. The survey shows Republicans are happier than Democrats and independents with the conservative-dominated court, which includes three justices appointed by President Donald Trump, a Republican. Few Republicans, just 8%, view the court dimly, down from about 1 in 5 in July 2022. For independents, the decline was from 45% just after the Dobbs ruling to about 3 in 10 now. The views among Democrats were more static, but they are also slightly less likely to have low confidence in the justices, falling from 64% in summer 2022 to 56% now. In recent years, the court has produced historic victories for Republican policy priorities. The justices overturned Roe, leading to abortion bans in many Republican-led states, ended affirmative action in college admissions, expanded gun rights , restricted environmental regulations and embraced claims of religious discrimination. Many of the court's major decisions from this year are broadly popular, according to a Marquette Law School poll conducted in July. But other polling suggests that most don't think the justices are ruling neutrally. A recent Fox News poll found that about 8 in 10 registered voters think partisanship plays a role in the justices' decisions either 'frequently' or 'sometimes.' Last year, the conservative majority endorsed a robust view of presidential immunity and allowed Trump to avoid a criminal trial on election interference charges . In recent months, the justices on the right handed Trump a string of victories, including a ruling that limits federal judges' power to issue nationwide injunctions . Katharine Stetson, a self-described constitutional conservative from Paradise, Nevada, said she is glad that the court has reined in 'the rogue judges, the district judges around the country' who have blocked some Trump initiatives. Stetson, 79, said she is only disappointed it took so long. 'Finally. Why did they allow it get out of hand?' she said. Growing concerns the court is too powerful Several recent decisions were accompanied by stinging dissents from liberal justices who complained the court was giving Trump too much leeway and taking power for itself. 'Perhaps the degradation of our rule-of-law regime would happen anyway. But this court's complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise,' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote when the court ruled on nationwide injunctions. The July AP-NORC poll found a growing similar sentiment. About 4 in 10 U.S. adults now say the court has 'too much' power in the way the federal government operates these days. In April, about 3 in 10 people were concerned about the court's power. The shift is largely due to movement among Democrats, rising from about one-third in April to more than half now. Debra A. Harris, a 60-year-old retired state government worker who now lives in Winter Haven, Florida, said the court's decisions in recent years 'just disgust me to my soul.' Harris said the court has changed in recent years, with the addition of the three justices appointed by Trump. 'I find so much of what they're doing is based so much on the ideology of the Republican ticket,' Harris said, singling out last year's immunity decision. 'We don't have kings. We don't have dictators.' George Millsaps, who flew military helicopters and served in Iraq, said the justices should have stood up to Trump in recent months, including on immigration, reducing the size of the federal workforce and unwinding the Education Department. 'But they're bowing down, just like Congress apparently is now, too,' said Millsaps, a 67-year-old resident of Floyd County in rural southwest Virginia. ___ The AP-NORC poll of 1,437 adults was conducted July 10-14, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at .
CNN
7 hours ago
- CNN
Trump releases long-awaited executive order on college athletics. It's not the quick fix the White House promised
President Donald Trump on Thursday signed a long-anticipated executive order on college sports, an attempt to provide federal guidance to the wild world of big money that has transformed collegiate athletics in recent years. The executive order signed by Trump said it is executive branch policy 'that third-party, pay-for-play payments to collegiate athletes are improper and should not be permitted by universities,' while it specifically allowing endorsement deals. It did not lay out a specific enforcement mechanism. But those expecting the administration to suddenly provide the guardrails and rules that have been sorely lacking in college sports in recent years will likely come away disappointed. The order aims to preserve and expand college sports, citing their unique place in American culture and how vital they are to American success in the Olympics. But it appears to fall short of what some in athletic departments around the country would have hoped: Clear federal guidance that would put an end to the chaos wrought by the name, image and likeness (NIL) deals that were deemed acceptable by the Supreme Court and the rampant transfers that have shaken college sports. 'It is the policy of my Administration that all college sports should be preserved and, where possible, expanded,' reads the order. 'My Administration will therefore provide the stability, fairness, and balance necessary to protect student-athletes, collegiate athletic scholarships and opportunities, and the special American institution of college sports. It is common sense that college sports are not, and should not be, professional sports, and my Administration will take action accordingly.' While the White House's fact sheet stated the executive order 'saves college sports,' the language itself does not implement any immediate changes. The order posits that athletic departments with more than $125 million in revenue during the last athletic season should provide more scholarship opportunities than in 2024-25 in non-revenue sports (sports that do not turn a profit and are typically subsidized with money earned from football and basketball) and provide the maximum number of roster spots permitted. Departments with more than $50 million in revenue during last year's athletic season should provide at least as many roster spots as last year and the maximum under the rules. Departments that made less than $50 million should not shrink scholarship opportunities or roster spots in non-revenue generating sports. The order also states that any revenue sharing agreement worked out between athletes and schools should be done in a way that 'preserves or expands scholarships and collegiate athletic opportunities in women's and non-revenue sports.' While the order also states that third-party, play-for-play payments to athletes should not be permitted, it notes that policy doesn't apply to payments that an athlete receives at a fair-market value from a separate party, such as a brand endorsement, according to the order. The NCAA already modified rules to address some of the points spelled out in the order. On the third-party payments, the NCAA's Division I Board of Directors in April moved to create oversight of all NIL deals over $600 and rules around what to do if a NIL deal is 'determined not to have been made with the purpose of using a student-athlete's NIL to advance a valid business purpose and/or is determined to have been made outside a reasonable range of compensation.' NCAA president Charlie Baker said in a statement that the organization appreciates Trump's order but Congress has to be the one that makes the most important changes. 'The NCAA is making positive changes for student-athletes and confronting many challenges facing college sports by mandating health and wellness benefits and guaranteeing scholarships, but there are some threats to college sports that federal legislation can effectively address and the Association is advocating with student-athletes and their schools for a bipartisan solution with Congress and the Administration,' Baker's statement reads. 'The Association appreciates the Trump Administration's focus on the life-changing opportunities college sports provides millions of young people and we look forward to working with student-athletes, a bipartisan coalition in Congress and the Trump Administration to enhance college sports for years to come.' While the order sets out the administration's policies, it does not have any enforcement mechanism. It also uses the word 'should' 10 times – binding federal laws and executive orders with enforcement mechanisms typically use the word 'shall.' Republican Reps. Brett Guthrie of Kentucky, Tim Walberg of Michigan and Jim Jordan of Ohio – the chairs of the Energy and Commerce committee, Education and Workforce committee and Judiciary Committee respectively – thanked Trump for the order but urged their colleagues to pass a law enshinring changes. 'We thank President Trump for his commitment to supporting student-athletes and strengthening college athletics in the NIL era. The SCORE Act, led by our three committees, will complement the President's executive order, and we look forward to working with all of our colleagues in Congress to build a stronger and more durable college sports environment,' the statement read. Where the text does lay out specific orders, it calls on administration officials to develop plans for implementation. Within 30 days, Education Secretary Linda McMahon – in consultation with Attorney General Pam Bondi, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson – 'shall develop a plan to advance the policies' set forth in the order 'through all available and appropriate regulatory, enforcement, and litigation mechanisms.' Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer and the National Labor Relations Board are ordered to 'determine and implement the appropriate measures with respect to clarifying the status of collegiate athletes, including through guidance, rules, or other appropriate actions, that will maximize the educational benefits and opportunities provided by higher education institutions through athletics.' The order also directs Bondi and Ferguson to work on a report within 60 days on how best to protect college athletics from antitrust lawsuits.
