{"id":254102,"date":"2021-09-28T08:35:49","date_gmt":"2021-09-28T13:35:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=254102"},"modified":"2021-09-28T16:48:25","modified_gmt":"2021-09-28T21:48:25","slug":"abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted\/","title":{"rendered":"Abortion center at heart of SCOTUS case obliviously claims ‘people would be harmed’ if abortion is restricted"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this guest post are solely those of the author and are not necessarily reflective of Live Action or Live Action News.<\/em><\/p>\n

On September 13, Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization (JWHO) filed its brief with the Supreme Court in support of its challenge to Mississippi\u2019s 15-week abortion ban in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization<\/em>. But the stakes are much higher than whether JWHO, Mississippi\u2019s sole abortion provider, will be allowed to continue doing abortions up to 16 weeks, its current cut-off. Mississippi has argued that the Court should overrule <\/span>Roe v. Wade<\/span><\/i> (1973) and <\/span>Planned Parenthood v. Casey<\/span><\/i> (1992), the Supreme Court cases that discovered and perpetuated a constitutional right to abortion at any stage of pregnancy.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

JWHO\u2019s first argument was to suggest that the Court should not even hear the case, claiming that Mississippi had not included the question of overturning <\/span>Roe<\/span><\/i> and <\/span>Casey<\/span><\/i> in its petition to the Court. But whether <\/span>Roe<\/span><\/i> and <\/span>Casey<\/span><\/i> should be overturned was implicit in the first question presented by Mississippi: \u201cWhether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortion are unconstitutional.\u201d Mississippi\u2019s petition to the Court contained other questions, including one more narrowly addressing whether its 15-week-ban could be upheld under <\/span>Casey<\/span><\/i>. The Supreme Court, in granting Mississippi\u2019s petition, specifically limited its review to the first question, putting the validity of <\/span>Roe<\/span><\/i> and <\/span>Casey<\/span><\/i> squarely at issue.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

JWHO claims abortion is part of “liberty” and “physical autonomy” \u2014 but abortion is different<\/strong><\/p>\n

JWHO then laid out its theory as to why <\/span>Roe<\/span><\/i> and <\/span>Casey<\/span><\/i> are \u201cwell-grounded in the Constitution and in the Court\u2019s broader jurisprudence.\u201d Quoting<\/span> Casey<\/span><\/i>, JWHO argues that the right to abortion is grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment\u2019s protection of \u201cliberty,\u201d including \u201cthe right to make family decisions and the right to physical autonomy.\u201d Broad, indeed. Such general concepts cover a wide swath of human conduct that is routinely regulated by the state.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In support of the \u201cphysical autonomy\u201d interest, JWHO cites several cases dealing with state-mandated intrusions on the body, including medical procedures and forcible administration of drugs. But these cases involved, and upheld to one degree or another, a right to <\/span>refuse<\/span><\/i> such intrusions. JWHO could not find any case outside the abortion context where the Supreme Court found a constitutional right to <\/span>obtain<\/span><\/i> a medical treatment or procedure or to <\/span>receive <\/span><\/i>drugs as a matter of \u201cphysical autonomy.\u201d Indeed, the Supreme Court specifically refused to create such an affirmative right in <\/span>Washington v. Glucksberg<\/span><\/i> (1997), where it declined to find that an individual had a constitutional right to assisted suicide.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

JWHO also points to the Supreme Court\u2019s ever-expanding list of activities to which it has extended constitutional protection, under the rubric of matters relating to \u201cmarriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.\u201d A tent that big can easily accommodate the right of a woman to \u201cend her pregnancy.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

But, as even the Court in <\/span>Roe<\/span><\/i> and <\/span>Casey<\/span><\/i> recognized, abortion is different, because of the \u201cpotential life\u201d that will be ended. Justice Blackmun, who authored the <\/span>Roe<\/span><\/i> decision, could not decide what to do with that difference, so he arbitrarily drew a line at viability and concocted vague rules for each side of the line. The remainder of JWHO\u2019s brief is spent downplaying the difference and defending that line, which is the \u201ccentral holding\u201d of <\/span>Roe<\/span><\/i> and <\/span>Casey<\/span><\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n

JWHO claims nothing has changed with regard to our knowledge of a preborn child’s humanity since Roe\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Addressing the fact that, unlike with other privacy rights recognized by the Court, a human life is ended in every abortion, JWHO\u2019s brief dryly states that <\/span>Roe<\/span><\/i> \u201calready took any such difference into account.\u201d And so did <\/span>Casey<\/span><\/i>, by broadly declaring that the \u201cState\u2019s interest in the protection of life falls short of justifying any plenary override of individual liberty claims.\u201d JWHO\u2019s argument is that nothing has changed in our awareness of the humanity of the unborn child since <\/span>Roe<\/span><\/i> and <\/span>Casey<\/span><\/i> were decided, and therefore there is no justification for overruling those decisions.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Likewise, JWHO argues, nothing has changed in our understanding of viability that would undercut the Court\u2019s decision to use it as the line of demarcation for when the state\u2019s interest in \u201cpotential life\u201d becomes weighty enough to justify restricting abortion.\u00a0 The Court anticipated that the \u201cpoint\u201d of viability would inch a bit earlier in pregnancy, and it has. But that\u2019s no reason to overrule a half-a-century old precedent.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

As further support for holding fast to <\/span>Roe<\/span><\/i> and <\/span>Casey<\/span><\/i>, JWHO argues that the viability line has proved \u201cworkable\u201d over the decades, pointing to numerous cases which have applied the rules \u201cwith remarkable uniformity,\u201d all resulting in abortion restrictions being struck down. \u201cViability\u201d is working great for abortion providers.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

What about dangers to mothers from later abortions? The Court has already heard it all, JWHO says, and besides, abortion has only become safer since <\/span>Roe<\/span><\/i> was decided \u2013 many times safer than childbirth, they falsely<\/a> claim<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Fetal pain? Considered and rejected,\u00a0and not true anyway according to all the major medical organizations,\u00a0they again falsely<\/a> claim<\/a>,<\/span><\/p>\n

More reliable contraceptive methods? \u201cFalse and paternalistic.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

But hasn\u2019t society become more accommodating of pregnant women and mothers with children to take care of? A \u201cnonsensical\u201d argument, they claim.<\/span><\/p>\n

After dismissing the suggestion that anything has changed in the past 30 to 50 years, JWHO paints the frightening picture of what happens to women who are \u201cdenied\u201d abortions. JWHO cross-references to dozens of coordinated friend-of-the-court briefs from hundreds of entities, all with the same message: Women. Need. Abortion. Anything other than affirmance of <\/span>Roe<\/span><\/i> and <\/span>Casey<\/span><\/i> \u201cwould shatter the understanding that women have held close for decades about their bodies, their futures, and their equal right to liberty.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Despite what JWHO claims about fetal development and viability, and despite the fact that the social sciences do not present a compelling argument for overturning <\/span>Roe,<\/span><\/i>\u00a0the best reason to reverse <\/span>Roe<\/span><\/i> is because <\/span>Roe<\/span><\/i> is just as wrong \u2013 egregiously wrong \u2013 as it was the day it was decided.<\/span><\/p>\n

JWHO pronounces that, if <\/span>Roe<\/span><\/i> and <\/span>Casey<\/span><\/i> are overturned, \u201cPeople would be harmed.\u201d That statement illustrates the obliviousness of pro-abortion thinking \u2014\u00a0thinking which for almost 50 years has prevailed in Supreme Court decisions. The Court must confront and reject the fundamental error of excluding the unborn from the category of \u201cpeople\u201d whose lives and well-being are deserving of protection.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bio: Catherine Short is\u00a0Chief Legal Officer for the Life Legal Defense Foundation.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cLike\u201d Live Action News on Facebook<\/a>\u00a0for more pro-life news and commentary!<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this guest post are solely those of the author and are not necessarily reflective of Live Action or Live Action News. On September 13, Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization (JWHO) filed its brief with the Supreme Court in support of its challenge to Mississippi\u2019s 15-week abortion ban in the case of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":840,"featured_media":193888,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false},"categories":[15,7077],"tags":[13111,10512,946,1326,13109,13110,344,3707,732,144,197],"yoast_head":"\nAbortion center at heart of SCOTUS case obliviously claims 'people would be harmed' if abortion is restricted<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Despite the abortion center's claims, the best reason to reverse Roe is because Roe is just as wrong \u2013 egregiously wrong \u2013 as it was the day it was decided.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Abortion center at heart of SCOTUS case obliviously claims 'people would be harmed' if abortion is restricted\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Despite the abortion center's claims, the best reason to reverse Roe is because Roe is just as wrong \u2013 egregiously wrong \u2013 as it was the day it was decided.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Live Action News\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/liveaction\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-09-28T13:35:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-09-28T21:48:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/Supreme-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"650\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Catherine Short\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@liveaction\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@liveaction\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Catherine Short\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Catherine Short\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/ba04b51f251514bca420c1a81890778b\"},\"headline\":\"Abortion center at heart of SCOTUS case obliviously claims ‘people would be harmed’ if abortion is restricted\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-09-28T13:35:49+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-09-28T21:48:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted\/\"},\"wordCount\":1107,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"autonomy\",\"Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization\",\"Fourteenth Amendment\",\"Jackson Women's Health Organization\",\"JWHO\",\"liberty\",\"marriage\",\"Planned Parenthood v. Casey\",\"privacy\",\"roe v. wade\",\"Supreme Court\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Analysis\",\"Guest Column\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted\/\",\"name\":\"Abortion center at heart of SCOTUS case obliviously claims 'people would be harmed' if abortion is restricted\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-09-28T13:35:49+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-09-28T21:48:25+00:00\",\"description\":\"Despite the abortion center's claims, the best reason to reverse Roe is because Roe is just as wrong \u2013 egregiously wrong \u2013 as it was the day it was decided.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Abortion center at heart of SCOTUS case obliviously claims ‘people would be harmed’ if abortion is restricted\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/\",\"name\":\"Live Action News\",\"description\":\"Covering Human Rights, Abortion, & Pro-Life Issues\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Live Action\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Live-Action-Logo-Black.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Live-Action-Logo-Black.png\",\"width\":701,\"height\":710,\"caption\":\"Live Action\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/liveaction\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/liveaction\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/liveactionorg\/\",\"https:\/\/www.pinterest.com\/LiveActionFilms\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/LiveActionFilms\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/ba04b51f251514bca420c1a81890778b\",\"name\":\"Catherine Short\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5a6641b85e37e099040752039b3ddcec?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5a6641b85e37e099040752039b3ddcec?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Catherine Short\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/author\/catherine-short\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Abortion center at heart of SCOTUS case obliviously claims 'people would be harmed' if abortion is restricted","description":"Despite the abortion center's claims, the best reason to reverse Roe is because Roe is just as wrong \u2013 egregiously wrong \u2013 as it was the day it was decided.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Abortion center at heart of SCOTUS case obliviously claims 'people would be harmed' if abortion is restricted","og_description":"Despite the abortion center's claims, the best reason to reverse Roe is because Roe is just as wrong \u2013 egregiously wrong \u2013 as it was the day it was decided.","og_url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted\/","og_site_name":"Live Action News","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/liveaction","article_published_time":"2021-09-28T13:35:49+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-09-28T21:48:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":650,"url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/01\/Supreme-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Catherine Short","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@liveaction","twitter_site":"@liveaction","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Catherine Short","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted\/"},"author":{"name":"Catherine Short","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/ba04b51f251514bca420c1a81890778b"},"headline":"Abortion center at heart of SCOTUS case obliviously claims ‘people would be harmed’ if abortion is restricted","datePublished":"2021-09-28T13:35:49+00:00","dateModified":"2021-09-28T21:48:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted\/"},"wordCount":1107,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization"},"keywords":["autonomy","Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization","Fourteenth Amendment","Jackson Women's Health Organization","JWHO","liberty","marriage","Planned Parenthood v. Casey","privacy","roe v. wade","Supreme Court"],"articleSection":["Analysis","Guest Column"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted\/","url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted\/","name":"Abortion center at heart of SCOTUS case obliviously claims 'people would be harmed' if abortion is restricted","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-09-28T13:35:49+00:00","dateModified":"2021-09-28T21:48:25+00:00","description":"Despite the abortion center's claims, the best reason to reverse Roe is because Roe is just as wrong \u2013 egregiously wrong \u2013 as it was the day it was decided.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/abortion-scotus-claims-people-harmed-restricted\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Abortion center at heart of SCOTUS case obliviously claims ‘people would be harmed’ if abortion is restricted"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#website","url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/","name":"Live Action News","description":"Covering Human Rights, Abortion, & Pro-Life Issues","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization","name":"Live Action","url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Live-Action-Logo-Black.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Live-Action-Logo-Black.png","width":701,"height":710,"caption":"Live Action"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/liveaction","https:\/\/twitter.com\/liveaction","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/liveactionorg\/","https:\/\/www.pinterest.com\/LiveActionFilms\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/LiveActionFilms"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/ba04b51f251514bca420c1a81890778b","name":"Catherine Short","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5a6641b85e37e099040752039b3ddcec?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/5a6641b85e37e099040752039b3ddcec?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Catherine Short"},"url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/author\/catherine-short\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254102"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/840"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=254102"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254102\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":254282,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/254102\/revisions\/254282"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/193888"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=254102"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=254102"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=254102"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}