Roe v Wade (Supreme Court Decision)
Subterms
More stories
- in Elections
I Write About Post-Roe America Every Day. It’s Worse Than You Think.
Despite Republican assurances that their draconian abortion bans wouldn’t hurt women, a flood of heart-wrenching accounts from across the country prove otherwise. Yet even with that outpouring of stories, plus polls showing broad opposition to the bans and an increase in women registering to vote, it’s still unclear if the issue will be the deciding factor for voters in the midterm elections on Tuesday.It should be.This past summer, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, I started publishing a daily newsletter tracking abortion news, following everything from state bans to stories of women denied vital health care. After months of writing about abortion, it’s clear that stripping this right from half of Americans has had a swift, damaging and pervasive impact.What happens in the midterms won’t be about Republicans or Democrats, but whether people cast a vote for the continuation of suffering, or attempt to end the anguish that banning abortion has caused.This isn’t hyperbole. Laws that privilege fetuses over those who carry them haven’t just relegated women to second-class citizenship, they have also led to the denial of lifesaving care in case after case. In affidavits, Ohio health care providers reported having to comfort a sobbing cancer patient who was refused an abortion, and seeing at least three patients who threatened to commit suicide after being denied abortions.In August, a woman in Texas who was denied an abortion for an unviable pregnancy ended up in the intensive care unit with sepsis. Another Texas woman, pregnant and in failing health, was recently told she shouldn’t come back unless she had a condition as severe as liver failure or stroke. A woman in Wisconsin was left bleeding for more than 10 days after an incomplete miscarriage just days after the Supreme Court’s decision; a doctor in Texas was told not to treat an ectopic pregnancy until it ruptured.And then there are the stories of women forced to endure doomed pregnancies. Nancy Davis, a mother of three in Louisiana, was denied an abortion even though her fetus was missing part of its head. Chelsea Stovall in Arkansas, who was 19 weeks pregnant when she found out that her daughter wouldn’t survive, was also refused treatment. After traveling 400 miles to get an abortion, she told a local reporter, “I should be able to say goodbye to her where I want to.”Those are just the adults. This summer, Republicans insisted the story of a raped and pregnant 10-year-old in Ohio was a hoax, and later tried to paint the girl’s experience as a tragic anomaly. In fact dozens of girls in Ohio 14 years old and under had abortions in 2021. In neighboring Kentucky, more than a dozen children aged 14 or younger had abortions last year; two 9-year-olds needed abortions in the past few years. These are victimized children who will now be forced to carry pregnancies, perilous for their small bodies, or leave their home state for care.In other words: real people, across the country, are enduring real suffering. All of which was predictable and preventable.In response to the onslaught of post-Roe horror stories, Republican legislators and abortion opponents have claimed that physicians are misreading the laws and failing their patients as a result. It’s a clever move, attacking those who make them look the worst: doctors who see the devastating impact of abortion bans up close, every day. But conservatives have been planning for the end of Roe for decades, and their laws were written with careful consideration.It isn’t just obstetricians and fertility doctors who fear prosecution, but many types of physicians. At an annual meeting of pulmonologists, a special session was held on how to avoid breaking the law while caring for lung disease patients they may have to advise on ending dangerous pregnancies. Instead of being able to singularly focus on helping sick people get well, these doctors have to worry that doing their job could get them arrested.The impact of abortion bans goes far beyond horrific individual stories; they’ve had a cascading effect into countless areas of Americans’ lives. I spoke to a young woman struggling with infertility in Tennessee, for example, whose state representative told her that I.V.F. doctors could be prosecuted under the abortion ban there for discarding unused embryos (a common part of the I.V.F. process). “We just want to be parents,” she told me.Abortion bans have also put birth control access in danger. For years, conservative legislators and organizations laid the groundwork to falsely characterize some forms of contraception as abortifacients. This distortion has already started to hurt women in states with abortion bans: Because of the law’s ambiguity in Missouri, a chain of hospitals there briefly stopped providing emergency contraception, with a spokesperson explaining, “We simply cannot put our clinicians in a position that might result in criminal prosecution.”At the University of Idaho, the legal counsel advised it against providing students with birth control in light of the state’s abortion ban. Staff members could give out condoms, the guidance said, but only to prevent sexually transmitted infections, not “for purposes of birth control.” Employees were told that even speaking in support of abortion could put them in danger of being arrested and banned from future state employment.Republicans’ abortion laws have even led to a crisis in care in states where abortion is legal. Doctors are so overwhelmed with patients from other states that some clinics have weekslong waiting lists, which, along with the logistical hurdles out-of-state patients face, has led to later abortions — which Republicans claim to oppose. Writing about abortion every day feels like drowning, but what keeps me up at night is knowing that, by and large, we are hearing only from the women who felt comfortable enough going to the media. For every one story shared, there are hundreds or thousands more that we will never know about.Doctors who might otherwise speak up are also being silenced, warned by their employers’ PR and legal teams not to share stories of how abortion bans have affected their work and are hurting women.As Americans head into midterm elections, they need to consider not what Republicans say about abortion — but what they do, and what their laws have already done.Conservatives have claimed that they are not interested in targeting individual women. But in the past year, a teenager in Nebraska who authorities say had an illegal abortion is awaiting trial for concealing a death, and an Alabama county jail reportedly kept pregnant women in detention in an effort to “protect” their unborn fetuses from possible drug exposure.Republicans said women’s lives and health would be protected. They very clearly haven’t been. They said they’d make allowances for sexual assault victims, but states with rape and incest exceptions have language so narrow and vague that they’re near impossible to use.They said that women’s lives wouldn’t meaningfully change — but women are suffering, every single day.Republicans running for office have tried to sidestep the issue, dismissing it as unimportant or deleting any mention of abortion from their websites, knowing how unpopular bans have become.Voters should remember that none of this is accidental. All of this is misery, and hurt is by design. This alone should motivate voters to protect abortion rights.Jessica Valenti is the author of “Sex Object” and publishes a newsletter in which she writes about abortion every day.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More
- in Elections
The Dobbs Decision Revealed How Weak the Pro-Life Movement Really Is
For most of my adult life, I have hesitated when asked whether I identify as a member of the “pro-life” movement, despite my unconditional opposition to abortion. For one thing, I am not conscious of taking part in anything that resembles activism, though my wife volunteers as a birth assistant and doula for women who would otherwise receive very poor care.Another reason for my wariness is that I have little patience for “gotcha” follow-up questions about my views on the death penalty and health care policy. While I happen to oppose capital punishment as it is currently practiced in the United States and support single-payer health care, mandatory paid leave and generous child benefits, I do not think that opposition to abortion — what I consider to be the state-abetted killing of hundreds of thousands of infants each year — requires those views. If this means I am not “pro-life,” so be it.But the main reason for my ambivalence about the label “pro-life” is my longstanding concern about the cohesion and commitment of the anti-abortion movement. For too long, too many members were more focused on overturning Roe v. Wade than on persuading the American people about the nature of personhood. This equivocation about means and ends, which subsumed a clear moral question into the murk of judicial theory and political strategy, has always given me pause.In the aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court case that overturned Roe, I am sad to report that my misgivings have been vindicated. The court’s decision may have been a great victory for proponents of states’ rights and a necessary prelude to ending abortion, but the pro-life movement appears less powerful now than it has in years. Certainly, the blithe assumption that the movement included an overwhelming majority of Republican politicians and voters was spectacularly mistaken.In August, for example, what looked like a solidly conservative electorate in Kansas rejected an amendment to the State Constitution that would not have criminalized abortion but merely allowed the Legislature to consider such a ban. During this year’s midterm election campaigns, conservative Senate candidates such as J.D. Vance in Ohio and Blake Masters in Arizona have suddenly adopted equivocal positions on abortion that harken back to the compromises with which many socially conservative Democratic politicians were comfortable two decades ago.At the end of last month, Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, expressed his opposition to federal legislation that would ban abortions after 15 weeks. He argued that “the best way to save most babies is to allow states, each state, to protect babies in the way they deem most appropriate for their state.”How large a share of the right-of-center electorate does this waffling speak for? Whatever the exact proportions, it is certainly larger than the one represented by Tudor Dixon, the Republican candidate for governor in my home state of Michigan, whose forthright opposition to abortion does not include the usual litany of exceptions. Public polling suggests that Ms. Dixon will lose. (Anecdotally, I can say that Republican voters even in rural southwest Michigan tend to regard Ms. Dixon’s views on abortion as inconvenient at best, especially in a year when Gretchen Whitmer, the Democratic incumbent, should be vulnerable on economic and other issues.)It wasn’t always this way. In the early 1970s, opponents of abortion were often zealous activists like L. Brent Bozell Jr., whose anti-abortion sit-ins, explicitly modeled after those of the civil rights movement, were frequently denounced by the conservative press. After 1973, when Roe was decided, these opponents called for overturning the decision not simply because it was poorly reasoned and insufficiently grounded in the text of the Constitution, but because they regarded abortion as an unthinkable moral atrocity to which no one had a right, constitutional or otherwise. Roe may have been a weak piece of jurisprudence (as even many proponents of legal abortion conceded), but the ultimate goal of those who denounced it was not to rectify the state of the judiciary.These priorities should not have changed when the judicial philosophy known as originalism emerged as the most likely means of overturning Roe. But at some point during the intervening years, the wires got crossed.For decades now, originalism and opposition to abortion have been treated as synonymous by proponents and detractors alike. Pro-life organizations have routinely issued statements that are indistinguishable from originalist rhetoric in their denunciations of “judicial activism” and their emphasis on “the role of a Supreme Court justice, which is to interpret the Constitution without prejudice and to apply the law in an unbiased manner.” Justice Antonin Scalia, perhaps the most prominent originalist, appears as a matter of course on lists of pro-life heroes, even though he maintained that democratic majorities could legitimately legalize abortion if they chose to do so.Whose cause was really being advanced by such an alliance between a moral crusade and a constitutional theory? Originalism has won the day, but the anti-abortion cause has not.I believe that this state of affairs is a direct consequence of conflating what should have been an argument about principles with a question of tactics. The longer we nodded along with one another about what looks now like an ill-considered strategy — vote for the Red Team so that it can get the White House and a Senate majority, which it will use to confirm judicial nominees who, if the right case emerges, may undo a half-century-old legal precedent — the less attention we paid to whether we were all really trying to accomplish the same thing.I do not mean this cynically, though it’s true that many Republican politicians have been happy to instrumentalize abortion without having any serious underlying convictions themselves. Rather, I mean to bemoan the consequences of allowing abortion to be talked about at a remove, which has prevented generations of abortion opponents from cultivating the intellectual habits and the moral vocabulary necessary to advance their position directly.It is one thing to ask a candidate for public office to say that he supports nominees for the judiciary who “interpret the Constitution as written.” It is quite another to ask him to say, with philosophical consistency, that he regards abortion as the unjustified taking of human life, and that even horrifying circumstances of impregnation — rape, for example — do not alter the metaphysical status of those killed.If Dobbs has shown us anything, it is the limited usefulness of constitutional theory to the pro-life movement. The future of the cause will require sustained engagement with the questions of biology and metaphysics upon which the anti-abortion position has always depended, questions that lie outside politics in the conventional sense of the word. Legal thinking is by nature unsuited for such efforts — and perhaps even corrosive to them.The anti-abortion movement’s legal gambit reminds us of the danger for any cause of eliding first-order moral questions into second-order questions about tactics. The ends may not always justify the means, but in making these calculations it is helpful if one begins with the recognition that they are not identical.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More
- in Elections
How Republicans Watered Down Their Abortion Message
Democrats have gone all-in on abortion rights in these elections. But as the issue started having an impact, Republicans adapted.When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, Republicans suddenly faced a conundrum.They could embrace the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which reversed a nearly 50-year precedent and eliminated the federal right to an abortion. Or they could tack toward the political center and alight on more of a consensus, as Chief Justice John Roberts unsuccessfully sought to do within the court.Instead, many Republican candidates tried to pull off a magic trick by doing both. And, with just six days before Election Day, there are signs some of them have managed to pull a rabbit out of the proverbial hat.The emotionally fraught issue of abortion put Republicans in a bind. The party’s base was ecstatic at achieving a long-cherished goal. But the middle-of-the-road voters who often decide elections were decidedly less enthused, and Democrats had found a topic that could mobilize their otherwise dyspeptic partisans.The court’s timing was not propitious for Republicans. A leaked draft of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion, which hewed closely to the final text, hit the internet in May — in the heart of a primary season when candidates were competing to win the right’s favor. And yet polling showed that it was strikingly unpopular, with nearly 60 percent of the public disagreeing with the high court’s ruling.Even anti-abortion groups, such as Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, advised Republican candidates in a leaked memo to focus on “Democratic extremism” and “avoid traps laid by the other side and their allies in the media.”Shaking up the Etch A SketchSo, what was an aspiring Republican officeholder to do?As an adviser to Mitt Romney once said during the 2012 presidential race, running in a general election is “almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again.”They shook it up and tried to start over.In August, Blake Masters, the G.O.P. nominee for Senate in Arizona, scrubbed his website of comments calling for a 100 percent abortion ban and a federal “personhood” law. Instead, in a video he posted to Twitter, he said, “I support a ban on very late-term and partial-birth abortion.” (Very few abortions take place after the first 21 weeks of a pregnancy, and when they do, it’s often when the pregnant woman encounters health complications.)During his Senate primary in Georgia, Herschel Walker initially opposed any exceptions to banning abortion, even for rape, incest or the woman’s health. On at least one occasion, he told reporters, “There’s no exception in my mind.” But he later said he supported a Georgia bill that would ban abortions after fetal cardiac activity.Adam Laxalt, who is hoping to unseat Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, has called Roe v. Wade “a joke” and a “total, complete invention.” Now, he points to the legality of abortion in Nevada to inoculate himself from Cortez Masto’s attacks.Some of these pivots have been clumsy. Bo Hines, a former college quarterback who is running for a House seat in North Carolina, backs creating a panel that would decide whether to allow abortions in case of rape or incest. But he’s been vague about how it might work.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.Governor’s Races: Democrats and Republicans are heading into the final stretch of more than a dozen competitive contests for governor. Some battleground races could also determine who controls the Senate.Democrats’ Mounting Anxiety: Top Democratic officials are openly second-guessing their party’s pitch and tactics, saying Democrats have failed to unite around one central message.Social Security and Medicare: Republicans, eyeing a midterms victory, are floating changes to the safety net programs. Democrats have seized on the proposals to galvanize voters.Debunking Misinformation: Falsehoods and rumors are flourishing ahead of Election Day, especially in Pennsylvania. We debunked five of the most widespread voting-related claims.“There are certainly legal mechanisms you could place legislatively that would create an individual basis,” Hines told Spectrum News. Democrats blasted out a news release calling the idea “post-Dobbs rape panels.”Dr. Mehmet Oz, who is running against Lt. Gov. John Fetterman for Senate in Pennsylvania, says he opposes a federal abortion ban. But he implied during their lone debate that “local officials” should be involved in the decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy. Whom he meant was a mystery — the alderman? county assessor? — and Democrats pounced.Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin took a novel approach. Although he has backed a federal abortion ban in the past, he now calls for “a one-time, single-issue referendum to decide the question.” His campaign even released a sample ballot with a multiple-choice quiz, asking: “At what point does society have the responsibility to protect the life of an unborn child?”The Burger King strategy: Have it your wayTudor Dixon’s journey might be the most instructive. She’s running for governor of Michigan against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who has aggressively positioned herself as a defender of abortion rights. Whitmer has asked for an injunction to stop a 1931 “trigger law” criminalizing abortion that took effect after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs.A grass-roots coalition on the left, meanwhile, is pushing a ballot measure that would make abortion legal again in Michigan. In response, anti-abortion groups have claimed it would invalidate laws requiring parental consent and even permit children to have gender-reassignment surgery without their parents’ permission. Legal experts say all that would be for courts to decide, but Democrats have griped that the right “has done a good job of muddying the waters.”During the primary, Dixon said she opposed abortion in the case of rape or incest, remarking in one interview that in conversations with rape victims, she had found “there was healing through that baby.”Now, Dixon warns that the ballot measure would invalidate parental consent laws. And if Michiganders want to protect abortion rights but oust Whitmer, they can vote for her and the ballot measure.I know you are, but what am I?As they walked back positions they took during the primary, Republicans accused Democrats of trying to distract from topics that played more to their advantage: inflation and crime. Judging from the recent comments of Gov. Gavin Newsom of California and Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, some Democrats even agree.Many Republicans also followed the Susan B. Anthony group’s playbook and portrayed Democrats as the true extremists. Saying that Democrats support “abortion on demand” has been a frequent Republican talking point. That has occasionally tripped up Democratic candidates, but it has rarely done real damage.For instance: Clips of a Fox News interview pinged around social media in May in which Representative Tim Ryan, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Ohio, was asked whether he supported “any limits to abortion at any point” and said it was entirely the woman’s decision. But Ryan has clawed his way within striking distance of his Republican opponent, J.D. Vance.In libertarian-ish Arizona, as Dave Weigel recounts on Semafor, Republicans seized on Planned Parenthood’s support for defunding the police and its use of gender-neutral language to try to delegitimize the abortion rights position writ large.It’s hard to say whether these tactics have worked. But they do seem to have helped take abortion from a lopsided issue to a more neutral one. They also have prevented Republicans who took hard lines in their primaries from suffering the fate of Todd Akin, whose “legitimate rape” remark immediately placed him on the fringe during the 2012 Senate race in Missouri.But abortion hasn’t been the disqualifying issue some Democrats hoped it would be. A Wall Street Journal poll published on Wednesday found that white suburban women, a key target of the Democrats’ abortion message, were swinging back toward Republicans.Republicans who haven’t shaken up the Etch A Sketch have had a tougher time.A rally for Doug Mastriano in Harrisburg, Pa., in September.Mark Makela for The New York TimesConsider the plight of Doug Mastriano, who has stuck to his no-exceptions guns and is down by nearly 10 percentage points against Attorney General Josh Shapiro in the Pennsylvania governor’s race.Or look at Representative Ted Budd, the Republican nominee for Senate in North Carolina, who supported a federal abortion ban that Senator Lindsey Graham proposed even as other Republicans distanced themselves from the idea. Before inflation came roaring back to the forefront of voters’ concerns in late September, Budd’s race against Cheri Beasley, a moderate former judge, had tightened considerably.Democrats have spent nearly $320 million on commercials focused on abortion rights, my colleagues noted yesterday. That’s 10 times as much as they have spent on inflation ads.Much of that has been aimed at holding Republicans accountable to their previous stances. But while there’s been some second-guessing about the wisdom of that approach, many in the party insist it was worth it.“It competes with a lot of other motivations,” said Christina Reynolds, the communications director of Emily’s List, an abortion rights group that backs female candidates. “But this is an issue that has put us in the fight in many ways.”What to read President Biden will give a speech tonight about protecting democracy and the threats that election deniers pose to the voting process, Katie Rogers writes. Follow live coverage on NYTimes.com.A federal judge in Arizona sharply curtailed the activities of an election-monitoring group in the vicinity of ballot boxes, including taking photos or videos of voters and openly carrying firearms, Ken Bensinger reports.Cecilia Kang outlined five of the biggest unfounded rumors that have been circulating about voting.Congressional Republicans, looking toward election victories, have embraced plans to reduce Social Security and Medicare spending. Jim Tankersley writes that Democrats have seized on that to galvanize voters.The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered election officials to refrain from counting mail-in ballots that lack a written date on their outer envelope, siding with Republicans, Neil Vigdor writes.Thank you for reading On Politics, and for being a subscriber to The New York Times. — BlakeRead past editions of the newsletter here.If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to others. They can sign up here. Browse all of our subscriber-only newsletters here.Have feedback? Ideas for coverage? We’d love to hear from you. Email us at onpolitics@nytimes.com. More
- in Elections
Alito Says Leak of Ruling Overturning Roe Put Justices’ Lives at Risk
The leak of a draft opinion, he said, “gave people a rational reason to think” the eventual decision could be prevented “by killing one of us.”WASHINGTON — The leak of his draft majority opinion overruling Roe v. Wade put the Supreme Court justices in the majority at risk of assassination, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said during wide-ranging remarks in a public interview on Tuesday at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative legal group.“It was a grave betrayal of trust by somebody,” he said. “It was a shock, because nothing like that had happened in the past. It certainly changed the atmosphere at the court for the remainder of last term.”“The leak also made those of us who were thought to be in the majority in support of overruling Roe and Casey targets for assassination because it gave people a rational reason to think they could prevent that from happening by killing one of us,” Justice Alito said.He said the idea was hardly fanciful, noting an attempt on the life of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. A California man armed with a pistol, a knife and other weapons was arrested in June near Justice Kavanaugh’s Maryland home and charged with attempted murder. Among other things, the man said he was upset with the leaked draft suggesting the court would overturn Roe, the police have said.The leaked draft was published by Politico in early May, while the decision itself was issued in late June. The decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overruled Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that had established a constitutional right to abortion, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed Roe’s core holding.Understand the Supreme Court’s New TermCard 1 of 6A race to the right. More
- in Elections
Biden to Pledge Codifying Abortion Rights if Democrats Expand Majorities
The commitment comes as the White House and Democrats have been focused on protecting abortion access before the midterm elections. But it is not clear if the issue is resonating with voters.WASHINGTON — President Biden is expected to pledge on Tuesday that the first bill he would send to Congress next year if Democrats retain House control and expand their Senate majority would be to codify abortion rights across the country, according to a Democratic official.The commitment comes as the White House and Democratic candidates have been increasingly focused on protecting abortion access before the midterm elections next month, seeking to broaden support among women and independent voters. Mr. Biden said this summer that he supported ending the filibuster to protect a woman’s right to an abortion and a broader constitutional right to privacy.The president will speak Tuesday afternoon at an event that is being hosted by the Democratic National Committee at the Howard Theater in Washington.In his remarks, Mr. Biden will lay out what is at stake in the midterm elections, casting them as a choice between Republicans who have called for a national abortion ban and Democrats who want to protect reproductive freedom, the Democratic official said.Abortion rights have been a central focus of political campaigns since the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade in June, ending the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.Most abortions are now banned in at least 14 states, and other states are engaged in legal fights over access. Biden administration officials estimate that nearly 30 million women of reproductive age live in a state with a ban and that about 22 million women cannot access abortion care after six weeks.Mr. Biden unveiled new measures this month to try to protect abortion access. He directed the Education Department to remind universities that they cannot discriminate against students on the basis of pregnancy, including if a pregnancy has been terminated. The Department of Health and Human Services also announced $6 million in grants to expand access to family planning clinics that receive Title X federal funding.“Right now, we’re short a handful of votes,” Mr. Biden said this month at the White House. “The only way it’s going to happen is if the American people make it happen.”It is not clear that Democrats’ focus on abortion is resonating. A New York Times/Siena poll released this week found that the economy was a far more important issue to voters and that women who identified as independent voters were swinging sharply in favor of Republicans.In his speech on Tuesday, Mr. Biden was expected to say that if Congress passed legislation to codify abortion rights, he would sign it next year around the 50th anniversary of the Roe decision. More
