In the nearly two years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, we’ve witnessed the sober consequences of denying abortions to people who desperately want them. Women have been forced to continue pregnancies that have almost killed them, and given birth to children they can’t afford to care for, children conceived by rape, and children they are simply not ready to have. Now we’re seeing the flip side of the anti-abortion movement’s push to give legal rights to
The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision about the most common pharmaceutical used for medication abortions may be just the beginning of the political battle over the drug.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of lower-court rulings that would severely reduce access to mifepristone. The Court’s acceptance of the case marked a crucial juncture in the legal maneuvering over the medication.
But however the high court rules, pressure is mounting inside the GOP coalition for the next
In a normal year, the March for Life would begin somewhere along the National Mall. The cavalcade of anti-abortion activists in Washington, D.C., would wind around museums and past monuments, concluding at the foot of the Supreme Court, a physical representation of the movement’s objective: to overturn Roe v. Wade. The march happens in January of each year to coincide with the anniversary of the Roe decision.
But this is not a normal year. Tomorrow’s march will be
Even in states that have adopted the clear-and-convincing standard, victims face long odds. Lisae Jordan, the pro-choice advocate who worked on Maryland’s legislation, told me, “There are so many cases where you’re never going to be able to prove the rape occurred in a court of law.” Moreover, the laws usually stipulate that a court may terminate a father’s rights if it’s in the best interest of the child, not that it must. Lucy Guarnera described the legislation in
Abortion opponents seem not to have expected some of the more draconian consequences of the Dobbs decision—that anti-abortion laws would prevent pregnant women who were not seeking abortions from receiving needed treatment for miscarriages, or that women facing dire medical complications from their pregnancies would not be able to get proper care. After all, the anti-abortion laws that were in force in the pre-Roe era before 1973 were almost never used to prosecute doctors treating miscarriages or providing lifesaving
This is an edition of Up for Debate, a newsletter by Conor Friedersdorf. On Wednesdays, he rounds up timely conversations and solicits reader responses to one thought-provoking question. Later, he publishes some thoughtful replies. Sign up for the newsletter here.
Question of the Week
Should Americans have a right to privacy and/or bodily autonomy? If so, what should those rights encompass and exclude? Abortion? Carrying a pistol? Selling a kidney? Taking heroin? Keeping a Swiss bank account? Assembling explosive devices
President Joe Biden said Friday that ‘it’s a sad day for the court and the country’ after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
‘Now with Roe gone, let’s be very clear, the health and life of women across this nation are now at risk,’ he said from the White House.
He added that ‘the court has done what it’s never done before – expressly taking away a constitution right that is
