Objective Reality May Not Exist at All, Quantum Physicists Say

Stav Dimitropoulos
Sat, July 9, 2022


Photo credit: VICTOR de SCHWANBERG/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY - Getty Images


One of the biggest mysteries in quantum mechanics is whether physical reality exists independent of its observer.

New research from Brazil provides strong evidence that there might be mutually exclusive, yet complementary physical realities in the quantum realm.

Future research on the great quantum debate might give us super-disruptive quantum technologies—and probably startling answers to the world’s greatest mysteries.

Does reality exist, or does it take shape when an observer measures it? Akin to the age-old conundrum of whether a tree makes a sound if it falls in a forest with no one around to hear it, the above question remains one of the most tantalizing in the field of quantum mechanics, the branch of science dealing with the behavior of subatomic particles on the microscopic level.


In a field where intriguing, almost mysterious phenomena like “quantum superposition” prevail—a situation where one particle can be in two or even “all” possible places at the same time—some experts say reality exists outside of your own awareness, and there’s nothing you can do to change it. Others insist “quantum reality” might be some form of Play-Doh you mold into different shapes with your own actions. Now, scientists from the Federal University of ABC (UFABC) in the São Paulo metropolitan area in Brazil are adding fuel to the suggestion that reality might be “in the eye of the observer.”

In their new research, published in the journal Communications Physics in April, the scientists in Brazil attempted to verify the “complementarity principle” the famous Danish physicist Niels Bohr proposed in 1928. It states that objects come with certain pairs of complementary properties, which are impossible to observe or measure at the same time, like energy and duration, or position and momentum. For example, no matter how you set up an experiment involving a pair of electrons, there’s no way you can study the position of both quantities at the same time: the test will illustrate the position of the first electron, but obscure the position of the second particle (the complementary particle) at the same time.
“God Does Not Play Dice”

To understand how this complementarity principle relates to objective reality, we need to dive back into history, about a century ago. A legendary debate took place in Brussels in 1927 between Bohr and the celebrated German-born theoretical physicist Albert Einstein during the fifth Solvay Conference (the most important annual international conference in physics and chemistry).

Photo credit: Science & Society Picture Library - Getty Images

Before the eyes of 77 other brilliant scientists, who had all gathered in the Austrian capital to discuss the nascent field of quantum theory, Einstein insisted that quantum states had their own reality independent of how a scientist acted upon them. Bohr, meanwhile, defended the idea that quantum systems can only have their own reality defined after the scientist has set up the experimental design.

“God does not play dice,” Einstein said.

“A system behaves as a wave or a particle depending on context, but you cannot predict which it will do,” argued Bohr, pointing to the concept of wave-particle duality, which says that matter may appear as a wave in one moment, and appear as a particle in another moment, an idea that French physicist Louis de Broglie first put forth in 1924.
The “Complementarity Principle”

It didn’t take long after the conclusion of the 1927 Solvay Conference for Bohr to publicly articulate his complementarity principle. Over the next few decades, the controversial Bohr notion would be tested and retested to the bone. One of those that experimented with the complementarity principle was American theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler.

Wheeler attempted to reimagine Thomas Young’s 1801 double-slit experiment into the properties of light in 1978. The two-slit experiment involves shining a light on a wall with two parallel slits. As the light passes through each slit, on the far side of the divider, it diffracts and overlaps with the light from the other slit, interfering with one another. That means no more straight lines: the graph pattern that emerges at the end of the experiment is an interference pattern, which means that the light is moving in waves. Essentially, light has both a particle and a wave nature, and these two natures are inseparable.

Wheeler had his device switch between a “wave-measuring apparatus” and a “particle-measuring apparatus” after the light had already traveled through most of the machine. In other words, he made a delayed choice between whether the light had already propagated as a wave or a particle, and found that even after delaying the choice, the principle of complementarity was not violated.

However, more recent surveys, which attempted to apply the quantum superposition principle on the delayed-choice experiment, saw the two possibilities coexist (just as two waves on the surface of a lake can overlap). This suggested a hybrid wave-like and particle-like behavior within the same apparatus, contradicting the complementarity principle.

Quantum-Controlled Reality

The Brazilian scientists decided to also design a quantum-controlled reality experiment.

“We used nuclear magnetic resonance techniques similar to those used in medical imaging,” Roberto M. Serra, a quantum information science and technology researcher at UFABC, who led the experiment, tells Popular Mechanics. Particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons all have a nuclear spin, which is a magnetic property analogous to the orientation of a needle in a compass. “We manipulated these nuclear spins of different atoms in a molecule employing a type of electromagnetic radiation. In this setup, we created a new interference device for a proton nuclear spin to investigate its wave and particle reality in the quantum realm,” Serra explains.

“This new arrangement produced exactly the same observed statistics as previous quantum delayed-choice experiments,” Pedro Ruas Dieguez, now a postdoctoral research fellow at the International Centre for Theory of Quantum Technologies (ICTQT) in Poland, who was part of the study, tells Popular Mechanics. “However, in the new configuration, we were able to connect the result of the experiment with the way waves and particles behave in a way that verifies Bohr’s complementarity principle,” Dieguez continues.

The main takeaway from the April 2022 study is that physical reality in the quantum world is made of mutually exclusive entities that, nonetheless, do not contradict but complete each other.

This is a fascinating result, experts say. “The Brazilian researchers have devised a mathematical framework and corresponding experimental configuration that allows the testing of quantum theory, particularly understanding the nature of complementarity by studying the physical realism of the system,” Stephen Holler, an associate professor of physics at Fordham University, tells Popular Mechanics.

It is a study that highlights the long-standing adage of the iconic American quantum physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman: “If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don’t understand quantum mechanics,” says Holler. “There’s much to learn about the theory and researchers continue to make strides to understand even basic principles, which is especially important as we move into the age where quantum devices and computing are starting to proliferate.”

Dieguez is elated. “The fact that a material particle may behave like a wave and light like a particle, depending on the context, is still one of the most intriguing and beautiful mysteries of quantum physics,” he says.

Paradoxically, this inherent “weirdness” of quantum mechanics can prove quite serviceable: “The more we unravel quantum mechanics, the more we are able to provide disruptive quantum technologies outshining their classical counterparts, quantum computers, quantum cryptography, quantum sensors, and quantum thermal devices included,” says Serra.

That reality might be in the eye of the observer is a very peculiar aspect of the physical reality in the quantum domain, and the mystery itself shows no signs of abating, both researchers agree.

Magic, is the “Science and Art that provokes

 Change in conformity with the Will”

“all intentional acts are acts of magic.”

'Renewable' natural gas may sound green, but it's not an antidote for climate change


Emily Grubert, Assistant Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology

THE CONVERSATION
Sat, July 9, 2022 

Methane bubbles form in a pit digester on a dairy farm as bacteria break down cow manure. The methane can be collected and used as an energy source.

  Edwin Remsburg/VW Pics via Getty Images

Natural gas is a versatile fossil fuel that accounts for about a third of U.S. energy use. Although it produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants than coal or oil, natural gas is a major contributor to climate change, an urgent global problem. Reducing emissions from the natural gas system is especially challenging because natural gas is used roughly equally for electricity, heating, and industrial applications.

There’s an emerging argument that maybe there could be a direct substitute for fossil natural gas in the form of renewable natural gas (RNG) – a renewable fuel designed to be nearly indistinguishable from fossil natural gas. RNG could be made from biomass or from captured carbon dioxide and electricity.

Based on what’s known about these systems, however, I believe climate benefits might not be as large as advocates claim. This matters because RNG isn’t widely used yet, and decisions about whether to invest in it are being made now, in places like California, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Georgia and New York.

As someone who studies sustainability, I research how decisions made now might influence the environment and society in the future. I’m particularly interested in how energy systems contribute to climate change.

Right now, energy is responsible for most of the pollution worldwide that causes climate change. Since energy infrastructure, like power plants and pipelines, lasts a long time, it’s important to consider the climate change emissions that society is committing to with new investments in these systems. At the moment, renewable natural gas is more a proposal than reality, which makes this a great time to ask: What would investing in RNG mean for climate change?

What RNG is and why it matters

Most equipment that uses energy can only use a single kind of fuel, but the fuel might come from different resources. For example, you can’t charge your computer with gasoline, but it can run on electricity generated from coal, natural gas or solar power.

Natural gas is almost pure methane, currently sourced from raw, fossil natural gas produced from deposits deep underground. But methane could come from renewable resources, too.

Two main methane sources could be used to make RNG. First is biogenic methane, produced by bacteria that digest organic materials in manure, landfills and wastewater. Wastewater treatment plants, landfills and dairy farms have captured and used biogenic methane as an energy resource for decades, in a form usually called biogas.

Some biogenic methane is generated naturally when organic materials break down without oxygen. Burning it for energy can be beneficial for the climate if doing so prevents methane from escaping to the atmosphere.

In theory, there’s enough of this climate-friendly methane available to replace about 1% of the energy that the current natural gas system provides. The largest share is found at landfills.

The other source for RNG doesn’t exist in practice yet, but could theoretically be a much larger resource than biogenic methane. Often called power-to-gas, this methane would be intentionally manufactured from carbon dioxide and hydrogen using electricity. If all the inputs are climate-neutral – meaning, for example, that the electricity used to create the RNG is generated from resources without greenhouse gas emissions – then the combusted RNG would also be climate-neutral.

So far, RNG of either type isn’t widely available. Much of the current conversation focuses on whether and how to make it available. For example, SoCalGas in California, CenterPoint Energy in Minnesota and Vermont Gas Systems in Vermont either offer or have proposed offering RNG to consumers, in the same way that many utilities allow customers to opt in to renewable electricity.

Renewable isn’t always sustainable

If RNG could be a renewable replacement for fossil natural gas, why not move ahead? Consumers have shown that they are willing to buy renewable electricity, so we might expect similar enthusiasm for RNG.

The key issue is that methane isn’t just a fuel – it’s also a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. Any methane that is manufactured intentionally, whether from biogenic or other sources, will contribute to climate change if it enters the atmosphere.

And releases will happen, from newly built production systems and existing, leaky transportation and user infrastructure. For example, the moment you smell gas before the pilot light on a stove lights the ring? That’s methane leakage, and it contributes to climate change.

To be clear, RNG is almost certainly better for the climate than fossil natural gas because byproducts of burning RNG won’t contribute to climate change. But doing somewhat better than existing systems is no longer enough to respond to the urgency of climate change. The world’s primary international body on climate change suggests we need to decarbonize by 2030 to mitigate the worst effects of climate change.

Scant climate benefits

My recent research suggests that for a system large enough to displace a lot of fossil natural gas, RNG is probably not as good for the climate as is publicly claimed. Although RNG has lower climate impact than its fossil counterpart, likely high demand and methane leakage mean that it probably will contribute to climate change. In contrast, renewable sources such as wind and solar energy do not emit climate pollution directly.

What’s more, creating a large RNG system would require building mostly new production infrastructure, since RNG comes from different sources than fossil natural gas. Such investments are both long-term commitments and opportunity costs. They would devote money, political will and infrastructure investments to RNG instead of alternatives that could achieve a zero greenhouse gas emission goal.

When climate change first broke into the political conversation in the late 1980s, investing in long-lived systems with low but non-zero greenhouse gas emissions was still compatible with aggressive climate goals. Now, zero greenhouse gas emissions is the target, and my research suggests that large deployments of RNG likely won’t meet that goal.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts. It was written by: Emily Grubert, Georgia Institute of Technology.

Read more:

The US natural gas industry is leaking way more methane than previously thought. Here’s why that matters


Fight or switch? How the low-carbon transition is disrupting fossil fuel politics


30 years ago global warming became front-page news – and both Republicans and Democrats took it seriously

MIT scientists think they’ve discovered how to fully reverse climate change

Joshua Hawkins   Sat, July 9, 2022 

Scientists at MIT think they may have finally found a way to reverse climate change. Or, at the least, help ease it some.

The idea revolves heavily around the creation and deployment of several thin film-like silicon bubbles. The “space bubbles” as they refer to them, would be joined together like a raft. Once expanded in space it would be around the same size as Brazil. The bubbles would then provide an extra buffer against the harmful solar radiation that comes from the Sun.

Could space bubbles reverse climate change?

space bubbles in front of sun, MIT concept

The goal with these new “space bubbles” would be to ease up or even reverse climate change. The Earth has seen rising temperatures over the past several centuries. In fact, NASA previously released a gif detailing how the global temperature has changed over the years. Now, we’re seeing massive “mouths to hell” opening in the permafrost.

There’s also the fact that scientists just discovered yet another hole in the Earth’s ozone layer. As such, finding ways to ease or reverse climate change continues to be a high priority for many. This new plan is based on a concept first proposed by astronomer Roger Angel. Angel originally suggested using a “cloud” of small spacecraft to shield the Earth from the Sun’s radiation.

Researchers at MIT have taken that same basic concept and improved it, though, by changing out inflatable silicon bubbles for the spacecraft that Angel originally proposed. Being able to reverse climate change would be a huge step in the right direction. Shielding the Earth from the Sun’s radiation would only be one part of it, though. We’d still need to cut down on other things, too.

How will bubbles shield the Earth?

space bubble raft could reverse climate change

But how exactly what a “raft” of space bubbles shield Earth from the Sun’s radiation? Well, the basic idea requires sending the bubbles to the L1 Lagrangian Point. This is the location directly between the Earth and the Sun where gravity from both our star and our planet cancels out. As such, the space bubbles would theoretically be able to just float without much pull from either body.

The researchers say we’d probably still need to put some kind of spacecraft out there to help keep things on track. But, it could give us a good chance at reversing climate change, or at least slowing down the changes. It is important to note that MIT does not view this as an alternative solution to our current adapt and mitigate efforts. Instead, it’s a backup solution meant to help if things spin out of control.

Israeli NGO says journalist killed by Palestinians, not by Israeli soldier

Benjamin Weinthal

FOX NEWS (SAY NO MORE)
Sat, July 9, 2022

The head of Israeli civil rights organization Shurat HaDin-Israel Law Center pinned the responsibility for the death of Shireen Abu Akleh, an Al-Jazeera journalist, on Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas in a complaint filed with the International Criminal Court, Fox News Digital can now reveal.

"It is obvious that the PLO’s (Palestine Liberation Organization’s) terrorist gangs in Jenin are the more reasonable shooters to be suspected and held liable for the reporter’s death," Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, president of Shurat HaDin-Israel Law Center, who filed the suit, told Fox News Digital.

"Abu Mazen (Abbas) should also answer for his responsibility for the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror attacks, as a whole, and the killing of the late Abu Akleh."

The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S., Israel and the European Union, is the armed wing of the Fatah movement. Fatah is the ruling party in the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the dominant faction in the PLO. Abbas is at the same time president PA, chairman of the PLO and chairman of Fatah.

AL-JAZEERA REPORTER DIES FOLLOWING DISPUTED INCIDENT IN THE WEST BANK

Al-Jazeera reporter Shireen Abu Akleh was killed May 11 during an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) raid to root out terrorists in Jenin, operating under the umbrella of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, also a U.S., EU and Israel-designated terrorist organization.

The IDF raid followed Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel. The death of Abu Akleh, a U.S. citizen, has led to widespread speculation about who killed the journalist during the heavy exchange of gunfire with accusations claiming she was intentionally hit by the Israeli troops, something they have vehemently denied.

The controversy comes a week before President Biden's planned visit to Israel and the region, with Abu Akleh's tragic death seen as being a growing point of contention with the Palestinians following the result of a U.S. State Department analysis.

"Forensic analysis, independent, third-party examiners, as part of a process overseen by the U.S. Security Coordinator (USSC), could not reach a definitive conclusion regarding the origin of the bullet that killed Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh," the State Department's website noted. "Ballistic experts determined the bullet was badly damaged, which prevented a clear conclusion."

However, the same forensic analysis — in what critics say seems to contradict the lack of knowledge about the origin of the fatal bullet — suggests the bullet probably came from an IDF position.

According to the State Department's statement, "Gunfire from IDF positions was likely responsible for the death of Shireen Abu Akleh. The USSC found no reason to believe that this was intentional."

BIDEN ADMINISTRATION OVERRULES TRUMP POLICY ON PALESTINIANS

The Jerusalem Post reported that the result would likely lead to friction between President Biden and Abbas ahead of their planned meeting in Bethlehem next week.

"The Biden administration deceived us," a senior Palestinian official in Ramallah, told the Post. "We thought they were going to hold an independent and professional investigation. Instead, they fully endorsed the Israeli narrative."

Fox News Digital sent press queries to the PA and to its mission at the United Nations but got no response as of publication time.

Shurat HaDin said it welcomes the independent U.S. forensic analysis’ findings, according to which "the ballistic experts determined the bullet (which was provided by the PA) was badly damaged, which prevented a clear conclusion."

The NGO also noted that "due to the dubious chain of custody over the bullet, which was [initially] withheld by the PA, there are two options as to the authenticity of the bullet which was supplied by the PA to the American team: If it is the original bullet, then the PA — having their own ballistic experts — has known for months that the bullet cannot incriminate Israel and deliberately withheld it to scapegoat Israel for the death of the reporter."

The second possibility, Shurat HaDin continued, is that "this is not the true bullet, and an untraceable bullet was deliberately provided by the Palestinians to the investigation team."

There are now dueling legal actions in the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands. The International Federation of Journalists is a partner in a complaint lodged against Israel for the death of Abu Akleh, the Palestine Chronicle reported Tuesday.

"U.S. authorities should not rest until those responsible for the death of Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh are identified and held to account," Sherif Mansour, Middle East and North Africa program coordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists, said Tuesday.

Shurat HaDin said it disclosed "new information on the circumstances leading to the incident in Jenin" in its complaint to the ICC.

The "IDF had acted upon Abbas’ personal request to refrain from entering the Jenin [refugee] camp, allegedly in order to allow the PA’s security forces to assert control over the area," the group said. "Yet, the PA either failed in this effort or deliberately allowed Jenin to become a hornet’s nest of terror, where a new alliance between the AAMB [Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades] and the Islamic Jihad terrorist group was made, establishing the joint ‘Jenin Battalion’ that was involved in the gunfire exchange during the incident."

In April, Raad Hazem, a 28-year-old Palestinian from Jenin, killed three people and wounded six others in a crowded bar in Tel Aviv. That attack followed a series of other terrorist incidents throughout Israel in March that resulted in the death of 11 people.

SEE

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for Shireen Abu Akleh 

Why Jewish giving to Israel is losing ground



Hanna Shaul Bar Nissim, Visiting Scholar, Adjunct assistant faculty, Indiana University
Sat, July 9, 2022 
THE CONVERSATION

American Jews donate at high levels to charity. One way they support causes in the U.S., Israel and other places is collective, often through large grant-making organizations.

In researching this organized philanthropy, I’ve observed that the proportion of Jewish institutional giving to Israeli causes has fallen since 2009. I believe that several factors, including demographic and social changes, a diminishing perception of Israel as being in need and concerns over the Palestinian-Israeli conflict have probably been driving this decline for years.

More recently, Israel’s increasingly conservative policies on social and religious issues, which are often at odds with what most American Jews support, might also be playing a role.

A tradition of support

American Jews proved a major source of philanthropic support for the Israeli state and Israeli society throughout the 20th century. A network of Jewish fundraising and advocacy groups have long organized collective donations and lobbying efforts.

These groups make major donations to large Israeli nonprofits, like the Jewish Agency for Israel and the Joint Distribution Committee, which then distribute them to smaller, local nonprofits.

However, knowledge about the actual scope of Jewish philanthropic contributions to Israel is limited. Data collected by my colleagues at Brandeis University indicate a steady increase from US .05 billion annually in 1975 to .05 billion in 2007 in real dollars.

And data from the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics indicate that charitable gifts to organizations in Israel, from sources in the U.S. and other foreign countries, kept growing – rising from .95 billion in 2009 to .91 billion in 2015.

A smaller share

I am conducting a study with a colleague at Brandeis University, Matthew Brookner, in collaboration with the Institute for Law and Philanthropy at Tel Aviv University. Together, we are exploring patterns and trends in Jewish grant-making to Israeli causes that have not been completely understood until now.

To understand Jewish giving to Israel we mined data using the Foundation Search database, which provided us with large amounts of digitized financial information.
Federations and foundations

To see what’s changing in this kind of giving, we split the data into large grants over 0,000 and smaller grants. Our initial findings are based on an analysis of 21,062 large grants allocated by 1,235 Jewish funding organizations between 2000 and 2015, totaling .3 billion.

We found that the total scope of donations for Israel grew between 2000 and 2015. While more money is contributed to Israeli causes, the share of Jewish giving going to Israel from the overall contributions – which also includes Jewish causes outside Israel and non-Jewish charities – has declined.

Among other things, we found that the top funding organizations to Israeli causes are still Jewish Federations, communal fundraising institutions that operate in most North American metropolitan areas. These federations gave Israeli causes a total of .3 billion between 2000 and 2015.

But giving from private foundations and pass-through organizations – intermediaries that transfer donations to other groups – now rivals that revenue source. Those kinds of donors provided .2 billion in support each during this period.

Two-thirds of the grants supporting Israeli causes were allocated to U.S.-based organizations, such as Friends of the Israel Defense Forces. We also found the peaks we expected to see in large grants for Israeli causes in the years 2002 and 2003, 2006 through 2008 and 2011.

These upswings coincided with major events including the Second Intifada, the Second Lebanon War and the conflict in Gaza in 2008 and 2009.

Giving fell, however, following the Great Recession. The single point of divergence in this time followed the devastating 2010 Mount Carmel forest fire near the Israeli city of Haifa.

Change of pace

Although American Jews still donate more to Israel amid wartime emergencies, we did not see similar spikes in giving following a major military operation in Gaza in 2012 or in 2014 when the conflict in Gaza flared again.

And overall, the proportion of Jewish giving going to Israeli causes as a share of donations is decreasing as is the share of giving to non-Jewish causes. Meanwhile, giving to Jewish causes outside Israel is rising.

In fact, only 9 percent of organized Jewish giving was allocated to Israeli causes in 2015. In comparison, 58 percent supported non-Jewish causes and 32 percent backed Jewish causes outside Israel.

This decrease in the share of giving for Israeli causes was evident as early as 2009, excluding the surge in donations in 2011 driven by the Mount Carmel forest fire.

A growing divide

Explaining this decrease in donations should acknowledge the existence of political, economic and demographic trends impacting U.S. Jewish philanthropy. In addition, Israel is becoming by many measures more socially, politically and religiously conservative, exacerbating points of contention between many U.S. Jews, who are more likely to be liberal than conservative, and Israel.

Among the deepest disagreements is what conversion to Judaism should require to be recognized by Israel’s government – which has repercussions in terms of which foreign Jews have a right to immigrate to Israel and live there as citizens.

After the question of “Who is a Jew?” had been hotly debated in the U.S. and Israel for more than three decades, the Knesset – Israel’s parliament – granted the Chief Rabbinate, a government ultra-Orthodox establishment, a monopoly over the conversion process to Judaism in the summer of 2017.

This move excluded Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist conversions altogether, raising objections from American Jewish leaders. Although Israel subsequently delayed the bill’s enactment, the criticism voiced by many American Jews has not abated.

Another source of friction between the world’s two largest Jewish communities is the ongoing efforts of non-Orthodox Jewish denominations to create a prayer space shared by women and men at the Western Wall, a holy site in Israel.

Former President Donald Trump’s policies toward Israel have aggravated this divide, especially due to his decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.

More erosion ahead

Israel’s increasingly conservative social and religious policies may be gradually eroding Jewish philanthropic support for Israeli causes.

I believe this trend will only grow, following the passage of a surrogacy law that instituted state support for surrogacy pregnancies – excluding gay men seeking to become fathers.

Another contentious law may have an even deeper impact. It declared that Jewish people have the exclusive right to self-determination in Israel. Its passage brought on massive demonstrations in Israel and elicited objections from some of the most prominent American Jewish organizations.

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit news site dedicated to sharing ideas from academic experts

Hanna Shaul Bar Nissim receives funding from The Institute for Law and Philanthropy, Tel Aviv University. Findings presented are an outcome of a collaborative research project between the Maurice & Marilyn Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies, Brandeis University and The Institute for Law and Philanthropy, Tel Aviv University exploring Jewish philanthropy toward Israel.

Roe v Wade: Thousands march to White House for abortion rights

By Holly Honderich
BBC News, Washington

• Published
  32 minutes ago

IMAGE SOURCE,EPA

Image caption,

Some demonstrators tied themselves to the White House fence, risking arrest

Thousands gathered in the US capital on Saturday, marching through pouring rain and risking arrest to protest the reversal of abortion rights last month.

The demonstration came two weeks after the Supreme Court repealed Roe v Wade - the ruling that had guaranteed abortion access nationwide for nearly 50 years.

Chanting "we won't go back", protesters converged on the White House, with some tying themselves to the gates outside.

An estimated 10,000 people gathered from across the US, organisers said.

Lauren Pierce, 33, an attorney from Dallas, was among them, travelling some 1,300 miles (2,100km) to attend the demonstration.

"There's nothing, to me, more worth fighting for than this cause - our fundamental right to have bodily autonomy," she said. "If that means taking up space and getting arrested then I think it's worth it."

Ms Pierce's home state of Texas is among the 10 US states where abortion has already been prohibited. At least a dozen other states are expected to follow.

Anti-abortion campaigners, many of whom see abortion as "murder", have celebrated the court's decision and the opportunity to outlaw the procedure in large swathes of the country.

IMAGE SOURCE,EPA

Image caption,

Pro-choice campaigners braved the rain for Saturday's demonstration

Ms Pierce said she had begun to hear of Texans who have found themselves suddenly without reproductive care. The average one-way driving distance for a person in Texas seeking an abortion in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy is now 250 miles, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research group.

"We're blocked in," she said.

Ms Pierce, like many others gathered at the White House, expressed frustration with President Joe Biden and his administration for not doing more to protect abortion access. Indeed, during Saturday's event organised by the Women's March, mention of Mr Biden's Democratic party drew nearly as many jeers as did mention of the Republicans.

On Friday, facing pressure from progressives, Mr Biden signed an executive order directing his health department to protect abortion care, including access to medication abortion and emergency contraception, and safeguards for patient privacy.

But the president's power is limited. He cannot force through legislation in Congress and he cannot undo the decision of the Supreme Court, now a 6-3 conservative supermajority.

"We know there are limits to his authority, but we want him to push that authority to its limit," said Rachel O'Leary Carmona, executive director of the Women's March.

Still, Ms Carmona said the order was an important first step.

"We're calling on President Biden to continue to take steps to protect abortion nationally," she said. "And if he can't do anything more from behind his desk he should get out into the streets."

But to many pro-choice advocates, Mr Biden's administration has failed to meet the moment after a historic reversal in women's rights.

"This is the first time ever a constitutional right has been taken away," said Helen Miller, 56, from Virginia. "We're here for our daughters, our children, our lives."

IMAGE SOURCE,REUTERS

Image caption,

President Biden has signed an executive order to protect abortion rights

IMAGE SOURCE,EPA

Some 40 million women of reproductive age are expected to lose access to abortion in the coming weeks.

Joanne Morris, 75, took in Saturday's protest from her hot pink wheelchair, holding a cardboard sign. "This boomer believes in choice and freedom," it said.

Standing with her daughter, Lisa, Ms Morris said she had travelled from Pennsylvania for her 16-year-old granddaughter.

"I want to see her have the same choices that I had," she said.

Ms Morris, a retired nurse, was 26 when the Supreme Court recognised a federal right to an abortion. She said didn't believe she would live to see Roe fall. "It feels like the country is headed in the wrong direction," she said.

IMAGE SOURCE,EPA

Image caption,

Some 40 million women are expected to lose abortion access in their states