It was sometime in the late 1990s that I first interviewed Alan Webster about New Zealand’s part in a global Values Study.

It’s a fascinating snapshot of values in countries all over the world and I still remember seeing America grouped with many developing countries on a spectrum that had most English-speaking, democratic and developed countries grouped at the other end.

It charted belief in angels and other supernatural beings.

• READ MORE: Decision on Roe v Wade will not end abortion rights in Hawai’i
• Roe reversal reignites Guam debate over ‘Heartbeat’ bill
• Other abortion rights reports

It was a lightbulb moment that has always helped me remember how deep religious beliefs run in the US and how socially different it is from most Western, Enlightenment-inspired countries.

That memory came back to me when I awoke to the news that the US Supreme Court has overturned Roe v Wade in a 6-3 ruling, eliminating a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion — a right that has been in place since 1973.

Abortion rights will now be decided state by state, with 26 states ready to enact laws that ban abortion, often with no exceptions. That means no abortion even in cases of rape or incest.

It is undoubtedly a landmark moment in US politics and law, the latest step (not the end) in a decades-long campaign by conservative Americans to overturn America’s most controversial and divisive law.

‘Enflamed debate, deepened division’
Writing the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that “far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division”.

He’s right, but the implication that this ruling somehow calms the waters is either deeply naive or deeply cynical. It does nothing more than flip the issue, like the handover of the ball in a football game, with what has been the team on defence now going on attack and vice versa.

And because change in and of itself is fuel for any fire, this only ensures abortion remains THE divisive issue in American politics for, well, who knows how many years to come?

Abortion has divided the country for decades; more so than foreign wars, economic policy and even gun control. It is the answer to so many questions non-Americans have about US politics.

Many around the world have been perplexed by the growing divisions in US politics, the loss of civility, the rise of Trump. There are answers there about the influence of money, taxes, changing demographics and more.

But at the heart of US political polarisation, often unspoken, masked or downplayed, has always been abortion.

One of the most confounding of political mysteries in the past decade was why 84 percent of white evangelicals in 2016 voted for a thrice-married alleged sexual abuser as president and why “character” suddenly fell down their list of voting priorities.

Today’s court decision is the answer.

Evangelicals motivated by abortion
Evangelicals are motivated by abortion more than any other issue and Trump’s commitment to swaying the court against it convinced them to vote for him even when it was against their economic interests and compromised other values.

Many in conservative religious circles in the US compared Trump to King David, arguing that God has long used flawed and corrupt individuals to bring about his will.

That faith has been vindicated today and Trump’s status as a moral hero is enshrined, despite his many other sins.

Such is the strength of belief for or against abortion. Its power to divide is so strong because, seen through different lenses, it is so obviously right or wrong to those on either side of the debate.

It is, to those on either side, obvious that they are right and they are horrified — not just perplexed, but horrified — that anyone might disagree with them.

Those celebrating today’s overturn are celebrating the end of mass murder, because to them the decision to abort a foetus is the decision to take a life. (Others, to be fair, see it as a legal issue, one that is not in the Constitution and so should always have been viewed as a political debate not a constitutional right).

Those weeping over today’s ruling do not see a foetus as a human life and rather see the courts telling a woman what she can do with her body, right to the point of that woman’s life and death.

Matter of life over death
When both sides see their view as a matter of life over death, you can understand the depth of feeling and pain on both sides and that, whatever Alito may be hoping, today’s decision will do nothing to heal America.

What’s more, the impact of today’s ruling on US politics will be deep. Three things stand out:

• Reproductive rights will dominate the 2022 mid-term elections and the US presidential elections in 2024. The court has said abortion is not a constitutional right, therefore it is up for grabs politically. Debate over national bans v national rights has already begun. That will mean less political oxygen for pressing political issues such as climate change, China and the Ukraine invasion.
• This could be the start of a conservative pendulum swing in US politics, led by the US Supreme Court. Judge Clarence Thomas in his support of the majority opinion suggests the now reliably conservative court could dive further into America’s moral dilemmas, ruling on same-sex marriage and contraception rights.
• Perhaps most troubling, it undermines citizens’ faith in their major public institutions. A majority of Americans favour at least some rights to abortion and some gun control. This week the Supreme Court has issued rulings at odds with public opinion on both. At a time when core institutions such as Congress and the media are losing the trust of citizens, adding the courts to that list is a major worry. If the foundations of liberal democracy are not serving the people, then those people start to look for alternatives, the baby can be lost with the bathwater and whole systems of law, order and government can start to look fragile.

These are perilous days for the American project and that has implications for all of us. The’s court ruling is yet another polarising decision in these most polarising times and it’s hard to see where the healing can begin.

Tim Watkin is a founder of political news website Pundit, has a long career in journalism and broadcasting, and now runs the podcast team at RNZ. This article was originally published on Pundit and is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

The government has responded with a counter attack to a critical report on human rights practices in Indonesia that was released by the United States last week.

This response is seen as a bad sign of the state of human rights in Indonesia.

The US government released its annual report titled, 2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Indonesia on the official US Embassy website for Indonesia.

• READ MORE: KPK deputy becomes global laughingstock after being cited in US rights report
• Other Indonesian human rights reports

The report discusses a number of cases of human rights violations in Indonesia during 2021.

A number of cases were highlighted including:

• the killing of six Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) members;
• internet restrictions in Papua;
• the summoning of the University of Indonesia Student Executive Council (BEM UI) over a tweet describing President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo as the “King of Lip Service”;
• the criminalisation of human rights activists by Presidential Chief of Staff Moeldoko and Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs and Investment Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan; and
• the involvement of Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Deputy Commissioner Lili Pintauli Siregar with “ethical violations” in the Tanjung Balai corruption case.

Indonesia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded to the report with insinuations.

Ministry spokesperson Teuku Faizasyah questioned the US record on human rights violations.

“Are there no human rights cases in the US? Serious?” Faizasyah asked CNN Indonesia.

Coordinating Minister for Security, Politics and Legal Affairs (Menko Polhukam) Mahfud MD also commented on several cases covered by the report.

One of these was the government’s monitoring of citizens through the covid-19 tracing app PeduliLIndungi (Care and Protect).

Mahfud responded with claims about the government’s achievements in dealing with the covid-19 pandemic in Indonesia, saying that it had performed better than the US.

“If by parts of the world, Indonesia is included as very good, far better than America in dealing with covid,” said Mahfud in a video recording on the Menko Polhukam YouTube channel.

Unwilling to accept criticism
Al-Azhar Indonesia University political commentator Ujang Komarudin views the counter attack by the government as being because it is unwilling to accept criticism from foreign parties.

He said that the government believed that it was being dictated to by the US through the report.

According to Komarudin, the government wanted to reaffirm its authority in the eyes of the public and because of this strong denials were conveyed to the US.

“They made these denials in order to safeguard the government’s credibility which is currently being questioned by the public,” said Komarudin last Sunday.

Komarudin also believes that the government does not consider that it is at fault in cases of alleged human rights violations. He believes that this kind of political communication is a bad sign for the state of democracy and human rights in Indonesia.

“Because it’s as if there’s no problem, as if there’s nothing wrong. This is what is currently being done by our officials,” he said.

Government denials
Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) Deputy Coordinator Rivanlee Anandar says that every year the government responded to reports on human rights violations released by the US with denials.

With these denials, Anandar suspected that the government wanted to cover up the human rights violations which had occurred. He is concerned that this response is a reflection on the handling of human rights cases in the future.

“This shows an insensitivity to the report, trying to cover up the problems in Indonesia by throwing the issue back at the US. We’re concerned that this will only worsen the situation,” Anandar told CNN Indonesia.

Anandar said that the report should be used as material for a proper evaluation by the government. He believes that the government should reflect upon the report.

Especially since this report will be a reference for countries which are concerned about human rights in reading future trends. According to Anandar, other countries will view Indonesia based on this report.

Anandar gave as an example the cases of violations of civil freedoms which were marked by repression by the police. In the report, the US said that these violations were triggered by government policies which gave rise to massive protest actions.

“That is the pattern which can be seen and in the future must be fixed by ensuring that there are no more discriminative policies”, he said.

Not obliged to respond
National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) Commissioner Beka Ulung Hapsara said that the report represented the US’s way of looking at problems related to human rights in Indonesia. According to Hapsara, the government had its own resolution and rehabilitation mechanism which could still be used.

“It requires an official response but not as an obligation. The government and all of us can of course use the US foreign affairs report for an evaluation but not as an obligation,” Hapsara told CNN Indonesia.

Hapsara said that several of the cases cited in the US report had come to the Komnas HAM’s attention, such as the shooting of the FPI members and cases involving the Information and Electronic Transaction Law (ITE).

“Several cases have been of concern to the Komnas HAM and Komnas HAM has been actively involved in them, both in terms of monitoring and investigations as well as other efforts,” he said.

Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. Subtitles added during translation. The original title of the article was Laporan HAM AS dan Upaya Pemerintah Jaga Kredibilitas.