Prince Harry's lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch's News Group Newspapers (NGN), which publishes British tabloid The Sun, has come to an end. The trial had been due to start earlier this week, but a settlement was reached on Wednesday, Jan. 22, bringing the Duke of Sussex's extensive legal battle to an end.

As reported by the BBC, Prince Harry allegedly argued that private investigators and employees of NGN had "used unlawful techniques to pry on his private life." This press intrusion was apparently previously denied by "executives" at the company, but the end of Harry's legal fight has vindicated the royal.

A statement from NGN was read out in court, and admitted that "incidents of unlawful activity" had been carried out by private investigators on behalf of The Sun, from 1996 until 2011. The statement apologized to both Prince Harry and his late mother, Princess Diana, for the "extensive coverage" and the "serious intrusion" it caused.

Prince Harry was also awarded financial damages, which allegedly exceed $12 million, per People.

NGN apologized for "phone hacking, surveillance, and misuse of private information," and acknowledged that the tactics used against Princess Diana would have been especially alarming "during [Prince Harry's] younger years." The statement explained, "We acknowledge and apologize for the distress caused to the Duke, and the damage inflicted on relationships, friendships and family, and have agreed to pay him substantial damages."

Prince Harry's lawyer, David Sherborne, shared a statement outside of court, saying, "In a monumental victory today, News U.K. have admitted that The Sun, the flagship title for Rupert Murdoch's U.K. media empire, has indeed engaged in illegal practices." He continued, "This represents a vindication for the hundreds of other claimants who were strong-armed into settling, without being able to get to the truth of what was done to them."

Prince Harry's uncle and Princess Diana's brother, Charles Spencer, shared his admiration for the Duke of Sussex's win on X. "It takes an enormous amount of guts to take on opponents like News Group Newspapers, and great tenacity to win," Spencer wrote. "And it's just wonderful that Harry fought for—and gained—an apology to his mother. She would be incredibly touched at that, and rightly proud.

Last month, the Supreme Court ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade, a decision that has impacted access to essential health care and abortion for millions of women. Trigger bans have gone into effect across the country, forcing those who are pregnant to fear for their lives. In states like Oklahoma, abortion is now a crime of murder and women could go to jail for seeking necessary medical treatment like abortion. 

Such extreme laws will impact millions of women—and become even more dangerous with continued broad access to reproductive health data. While you may believe that your health information is safe, data from period tracking apps is actually not protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Additionally, according to a 2019 study published in The BMJ, 79 percent of sampled health apps available through the Google Play store regularly shared user data and were described as “far from transparent.” Despite many period tracking apps promising to protect user data, it remains unregulated and women have to put their trust—and even their lives—in the hands of corporations. 

Before the SCOTUS ruling, I sat down with Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (D-CA) to learn more about her My Body, My Data Act, which she introduced on June 16, 2022, and how it addresses data and safety concerns for women.

Emily Tisch Sussman: With My Body, My Data, how are you thinking about a post-Roe world?

Congresswoman Sara Jacobs: Look, I think the first and most important thing is that we in Congress do our job and codify the right to abortion into law so that we're not relying on the courts. However, in the world we live in right now, we probably don't have the votes for that in the Senate. There's a whole range of other things we need to and can be doing to protect people [who are in need of an abortion]. In places like Texas, there are severe anti-abortion laws that not only are about law enforcement being able to enforce them, but individual people. 

So, right now, the way it works is if you enter into a search history or a search engine a question about reproductive health or sexual health and you're using a period tracking app, a fertility tracking app, or anything like that, your data is not really protected. Companies can sell or share your data to really anybody and they can collect as much of it as they're able to through the app or the search engine. What this bill would do is state that [a company] can only collect and store the data that is strictly necessary for the service [it’s] providing. If you're running a period tracking app, you can only collect the very specific data that you need. And then, with a few exceptions, you cannot share or sell it. This will be enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). This will be important so that, for instance, if in Texas, a private non-profit group decided they wanted to start buying up all this data from these apps and create a matrix of who should be pregnant but isn't and then go and get their bounty for turning them in, this would protect against something like that.

ETS: Just to be really clear about that, we're talking about groups—that would probably be anti-abortion groups—that would buy search history data? Then, a private citizen, like a regular person, could go seek out that woman who conducted these searches and check to see if they were pregnant or not? And then, if it was a state like Texas where a [private citizen] can turn someone in for getting an abortion, they could sue you, right? Or, they could turn you in for potentially getting an abortion, so even if you’ve had a miscarriage, they could still alert authorities that you’ve potentially had an abortion?

SJ: That's exactly right. And that's what this bill will protect against. It also protects those where law enforcement is trying to enforce these anti-abortion laws. Basically, the idea is if these companies aren't allowed to collect and store the data, then the data is not there for a search warrant or something of that nature. I think about it like a bathtub: This bill basically drains the water from the bathtub so if law enforcement came and found the bathtub, there'd be nothing in it.

ETS: You've been quite open about the fact that you've gone through IVF and are thinking about your own personal reproductive future. How has your own journey played into your thinking about what the overturning of Roe v. Wade could mean for assisted reproduction?

SJ: I very publicly froze my eggs at the end of last year. That was another thing I had to do a lot of education about with some of my colleagues. And honestly, even with my friends, everyone's either freezing their eggs, talking about freezing their eggs, having babies, or wondering when they're going to have babies. So, the fact that that was the number one topic of conversation among my friends and peer groups, but not something we ever heard about in Congress was one of the reasons I decided to do it so publicly. And, you know, again, it's why when the draft decision came out, I started getting a ton of text messages from my friends asking, “Should I delete this app?” 

We know that the folks on TikTok and other spaces are having those same concerns. It’s not just about period tracking. It's not just about abortion, but as you said, it's also about the full range of reproductive health and the options that are available. I actually started using a period tracking app because of my egg freezing and because I needed to track very closely when I was ovulating. What we need to be thinking about is, yes, we need to codify the right to abortion into law. That's priority number one. But, there are so many other things we can also be doing to make sure we're protecting people in the meantime, like this bill on reproductive health data, like making sure that we are continuing to provide people access to birth control, to assisted fertility, to the full range of reproductive health options. 

To this point, another thing that I'm working on is actually making sure our military members have access to that full range of reproductive health options, making sure that insurance covers assisted fertility in many different instances, and not just the really narrow ones that they do right now. This way we can give people the ability to make the decision for themselves about when, how, and if they want to become a parent or if they don't want to become a parent at all.

ETS: What piece of the overturning of Roe v. Wade do you feel the most concerned about?

SJ: I mean, it's really hard to pick, right? My youngest sibling is trans and my middle sibling is gender non-conforming. And so, you know, as we're talking about all of this, it's not just about women, right? There are so many people who are going to be affected by this. It's not just reproductive health care, it's all kinds of gender-affirming care. 

The way I'm thinking about it is like, yes, it matters to me, because reproductive health care is my health care and I'm going through this process myself and I use these apps. However, the things we need to make sure we're focused on the most are the protections we can put in place for those people who are going to be the most impacted, which are low-income communities, which are people of color that we know already have a hard time accessing the services even [where they are currently legal]. That's where, again, these privacy concerns with reproductive health data are really important because these people will also be the ones most impacted by the ability for these groups or others to collect their data and go after them.

ETS: How likely is it that the My Body, My Data bill becomes law and what can we all do to help?

SJ: I'm feeling really hopeful that we'll be able to pass it through the House. But, as we all know, the challenge is in the Senate. I think we are all very acutely aware of what it would take to get anything through the Senate, so we are working on it. We have Senate partners that we're working very closely with. One of the other ways I'm thinking about this bill is that it can actually be a model for states who want to put these protections in place. We don’t need to only do it at the federal level.

I think the most important thing anyone can do is talk about these issues, normalize talking about reproductive health, normalize talking about abortions, talking about periods. I've been so moved by my colleagues who have spoken openly about the abortions that they’ve had. I think those kinds of things are really important. We must continue to tell the story about why this matters. Why what apps you use matters, why data privacy matters, why access to reproductive and sexual health matters. All of those stories are incredibly important as we work to change the conversation around these issues and really destigmatize this topic. We don't need to pretend like women and other people don't get periods—it's okay to talk about these things. These are things that have led to a lot of us being ashamed of our own bodies for no reason. 

ETS: You alluded to the likelihood of it passing, which is hopefully soon. Is there anything the White House can do administratively, or does it have to come from Congress? And where do you see the politics falling on the issue? It's a very new issue, which is good, as new issues don't typically have party lines baked into them. Where are you seeing this bill line up?

SJ: In terms of the Biden administration, I know that they are currently looking at all of the options they have to protect people in a post-Roe World. We've got amazing people working there on the Council on Gender Equality, who are really trying to make sure that every lever they have is pulled. 

In terms of the partisanship, look, the fact of the matter is privacy is actually not a progressive issue, right? I think everyone can agree that you want your most personal, sensitive health data to be protected, that it can't just be shared or bought by anyone who wants access to it. It seems to be a pretty baseline thing and honestly something that a lot of conservatives should be able to get behind. 

ETS: What do you say to your friends who are asking you if they should delete their apps? 

SJ: A big piece of this is about your search history or search engines. It is about apps, yes, but it’s also about websites and making sure that these companies are only collecting the data they need to provide the service. This is the time for us, as government, to do our job and put protections in place so that Americans can use helpful services like these without worrying about their data safety. I do think that there's a real conversation we need to be having about what data protection looks like right now, in this world, where we don't have this bill enacted into law. There are real concerns around how your data can be used. I'm not going to tell anyone to use or not to use something. I will say, though, that some of our partners who we are working with on this bill, who are data privacy advocates, are concerned about the time between now and when we get this bill enacted into law. 

You can find more information about the My Body My Data Act on Congresswoman Jacobs's Instagram, @RepSaraJacobs. 

Purvi Patel was hemorrhaging when she sought medical treatment at St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center in Mishawaka, Indiana in July 2013. She underwent emergency surgery to remove her placenta. While she initially denied having been pregnant, Patel eventually told medical staff that she’d suffered a pregnancy loss and had placed the stillborn fetus in a dumpster. Doctors called the police, who interrogated Patel while she was recovering in her hospital bed. When they searched her text messages, they saw a message Patel had sent a friend, saying she’d ordered medication abortion pills from an online pharmacy.

Patel was later arrested and convicted of feticide and child neglect, and sentenced to 20 years in prison. In 2016, the Indiana court of appeals overturned her feticide conviction and she was released. 

“Being accused of having a living child and abandoning it, while at the same time, being accused of killing a fetus—those are two contradictory charges,” says Sara Ainsworth, an attorney who wrote a friend-of-the-court brief for Patel’s appeal. “But juries often convict because of abortion stigma.”

Reproductive justice attorneys like Ainsworth are worried that the U.S. is about to see an increase in pregnancy criminalization cases like Patel’s following the June 24 Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade. That’s not to say it hasn’t been happening already. Since Roe was decided in 1973, the National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) documented more than 1,700 instances across the U.S. in which people were criminalized for their pregnancy status or outcomes. Thirteen-hundred of these cases occurred between 2006 and 2020. The people subject to these prosecutions are disproportionately people of color and the majority of them are low-income.

Discussing Patel’s win on appeal, Ainsworth says: “The court held that that law was never intended to be used against somebody who ended their own pregnancy or anyone at all in relation to their own pregnancy.” The 2009 Indiana law was actually passed in response to a pregnant woman who was shot and subsequently lost her twins. “I fear that we will continue to see laws misused in that way,” she adds.

Ainsworth asserts that Patel’s case is a typical scenario in which a patient sought medical care and then hospital providers violated her medical privacy rights under HIPAA by contacting law enforcement. “It’s not uncommon to see bedside interrogations happening,” says Ainsworth.

Farah Diaz-Tello, who also helped work on Patel’s defense, says that one of the primary pathways to criminalization is when a pregnant person accesses healthcare services. She says “providers may wrongly believe” they need to report a suspected abortion, or they may have political motivations. “The OB-GYN who treated [Patel] was a very vocal anti-abortion advocate,” she says. Diaz-Tello thinks about people’s experiences of loss and how that is marred. “It becomes a trauma when law enforcement is involved,” she says. “Having an obstetrical emergency is hard enough as it is.”

The attorney recalls a client she worked with who miscarried a wanted pregnancy at home. Afterward, she spoke with her doctor’s office about what to do with the fetal remains. Ultimately, she decided to save them so she could cremate them. But when her husband called the coroner, he was asked for a death certificate. He said he didn’t have one, and was told to call the police, who then rushed to their house to investigate. The incident was eventually resolved, but only after inflicting compounded trauma on the grieving couple.

“If pregnancy criminalization is allowed to proliferate, the criminal legal system will sweep up into its net not only those actively intending to end a pregnancy, but those suffering pregnancy loss,” says Jill Adams, executive director of If/When/How, a national legal organization that serves the reproductive justice community. In addition to training attorneys in pregnancy criminalization defense, If/When/How offers patient-facing services including a free, confidential Repro Legal Helpline providing legal advice and support and a Repro Legal Defense Fund to help with bail and legal fees.

Adams calls the difference between a self-managed abortion and a miscarriage a “thin, porous line” since, medically, the two present the same and, thus, have the same standard of care. Medication abortion pills don’t show up in a toxicology screen. Adams stresses that although sometimes people conflate the two, and often the same pills are used, a medication abortion is different from a self-managed abortion because in the former, a licensed medical professional is involved. When someone is self-sourcing or community-sourcing, they may encounter legal risk. 

“Overzealous prosecutors hell-bent on punishing someone they suspect has ended a pregnancy will use whatever part of the criminal code they can make stick,” declares Adams. “There are a wide range of laws misapplied, from homicide, feticide, to drug possesion to child abuse to abuse of a corpse.”

Adams explains that on appeal, judges usually look at the law’s intent and overturn the convictions. But that doesn’t mean damage hasn’t already occurred. Beyond abortion, criminalization carries its own stigma in our society.  “They may have lost their jobs, they may have lost their liberty, lost their parenting rights,” says Adams.

Ainsworth similarly recounts seeing people experience “severe harm” from these prosecutions, even when they are appealed. “Your life has been completely upended, your mugshot’s in the paper and all over the Internet.”

“It’s a horrific experience and it’s a horrific misuse of a criminal legal system to prosecute somebody for their pregnancy outcomes and that’s true whether or not the person decided to end their own pregnancy or whether they suffered a miscarriage or a stillbirth,” says Ainsworth. The stigma itself creates a rise in prosecutions, she adds, because everyone involved—police, prosecutors, child welfare systems—bring their own personal biases.

“Essentially what [stigma] does is put heightened suspicions on anybody whose pregnancy outcome is not a healthy baby. People who are experiencing intended, wanted pregnancies and lose them have been—and may be more often—accused of doing something to end them and charged with crimes. And the people targeted are disproportionately people of color and disproportionately immigrants.” 

Brittney Poolaw, a member of the Wichita nation, was 19 when she suffered a miscarriage at 17 weeks pregnant. She sought treatment at an Oklahoma hospital where, according to a police affidavit, she admitted to medical staff that she’d used both methamphetamine and marijuana. The medical examiner noted several contributing factors to the cause of death, including congenital abnormality, placental abruption, and maternal methamphetamine use. Poolaw was arrested for manslaughter, found guilty by a jury, and sentenced to four years in prison.

Poolaw is still currently serving her sentence. Emma Roth, a staff attorney at NAPW, says many women in similar circumstances choose to serve time rather than risk the uncertainty of an appeal, which could lead to a longer sentence. 

Latice Fisher, a Mississippi woman who faced allegations related to self-managed abortion in 2017, is one of the defendants NAPW has represented. “She similarly suffered a tragic stillbirth, yet police relied on the fact that she had conducted an internet search for abortion medication to subject her to criminal proseuction for second-degree murder,” says Roth, adding that now that Roe has been overturned, “We anticipate a very dramatic increase in the rate of criminalization of all pregnancy outcomes.”

NAPW reports that 38 states have fetal protection laws recognizing the fetus as a legal victim. Prosecutors in some of these states have used those laws to charge pregnant people who either experience loss or give birth to a baby believed to have been subjected to harm in utero. Alabama and Oklahoma are two states where pregnant people are often criminalized for substance use during pregnancy. 

One Arizona woman who had a medical marijuana license and was told by a doctor she could use marijuana while pregnant to treat her pregnancy-related nausea was charged with felony child neglect when her newborn tested positive for THC. Recently, in California, women like Adora Perez and Chelsea Becker were prosecuted and imprisoned for delivering stillborn babies; their charges were later dismissed. A 2019 study on race and child welfare found that pregnant Black women are more likely to be drug tested by medical staff and reported to child welfare authorities, even though Black and white pregnant women use drugs at approximately the same rate in the U.S.

As Dorothy Roberts writes in her book “Killing the Black Body,” as more anti-abortion advocates portray the fetus as an independent person, “the fetus acquired more and more legal rights of its own, often against the pregnant woman carrying it.” She likens this to when a pregnant enslaved woman’s body was “subject to legal fiat centuries ago because the fetus she was carrying already belonged to her master.”

It’s not just reproductive rights advocates who are worried about what this increased criminalization will mean. Doctors and medical boards are concerned that pregnant people will be hesitant to seek medical care, for fear of prosecution. The results could be fatal. 

Louisiana is just one state where arguments about pregnancy criminalization are playing out.

As an attorney, Louisiana state representative Mandie Landry has represented women seeking abortions. This past legislative session she introduced a bill intended to prevent pregnancy criminalization. “People are going to start being afraid to show up to the hospital or the ER for fear of being arrested,” Landry said when she presented the bill to the house committee in April. “We don’t want a woman to stay home and bleed out, we want her to go to the doctor, we want her to get help.”

Emergency medicine physician Nina Breakstone testified in support of the bill. “I don’t think the general public understands how many women experience complications in pregnancy,” said Breakstone. She stated that at her small community hospital outside of New Orleans she sees “two of these patients a shift.”

“I just want to emphasize how important it is that timely care happens for these people. I have seen terrible, terrible, terrible things happen to women and babies. I saw one woman die in front of me because she ruptured her uterus at home. I have seen ectopic pregnancies that resulted in hemorrhage.” Breakstone emphatically said, “I want this bill to pass because I want to protect my patients and I want them to come in as quickly as possible if they think something is wrong. This will save lives.”

The conversation quickly devolved into a debate about “fear-mongering” and abortion. Rep. Danny McCormick said he was concerned this would be “used to legitimize abortion in the future.” Landry replied to the objections by stating how important it was that this bill be passed before Roe was overturned and Louisiana’s trigger bans go into effect. Her voice filled with emotion she said, “This is probably the most important bill I’ve filed.”

The bill did not make it out of committee. McCormick, one of the members expressing his disapproval, authored his own legislation that would criminalize people seeking abortions, classifying abortion as homicide. While McCormick’s bill didn’t end up passing, new legislation enhancing criminal penalties for abortion providers and criminalizing the sale of abortion pills to Louisiana residents by mail was signed into law by Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards in June. There are no exceptions for rape or incest.

However, Louisiana is one of the states whose trigger bans are temporarily blocked. [Editor's Note: The legality of abortion in Louisiana is rapidly changing as things play out in court. We will not be updating this piece with each ruling; please check nola.com for the most up-to-date information.] Last week, abortion providers filed a lawsuit declaring its multiple trigger bans “unconstiutionally vague.” A hearing has been set for today to discuss the lawsuit. Earlier this week, the state Supreme Court rejected the Louisiana attorney general’s request to immediately reinstate the abortion ban. On Tuesday, numerous Louisiana doctors filed sworn affidavits about the harm Louisiana’s trigger bans would cause. They talked about working under threat of prosecution and feeling like they have to choose between their patient’s health and their own liberty. New Orleans Health Director Jennifer Avegno wrote that oncologists don’t know if, under Louisiana law, they will have to “withhold potentially life-saving chemotherapy treatments when treating pregnant patients for fear they could be criminally charged.”

Ellie Schilling is one of the attorneys who filed the petition blocking the trigger bans from going into effect in Louisiana. “We have seen for years, baseless prosecutions of people for their pregnancy outcomes,” Schilling tells Marie Claire. “Unfortunately that’s only going to increase now that conservative politicians and some law enforcement officers are going to feel emboldened.”

There is a lot of fear and concern that general criminal statutes of “aiding and abetting” or conspiracy could be “weaponized against other people who are just trying to participate in this space and help their fellow neighbors,” says Schilling, co-founder of the women’s rights group Lift Louisiana. If that happens, Schilling says, there will be reproductive justice lawyers trained, mobilized and “ready to step in and defend people from baseless and harassing criminal investigations and charges.”

For now, abortion remains legal in Louisiana, but reproductive rights in that state and many others feel like they are hanging by a thread. Doctors remain confused, healthcare appointments may be canceled at a minute’s notice, pharmacies are sometimes rejecting prescriptions, and the reproductive justice community prepares for the dark times they foresee ahead.

A previous version of this article misidentified the author of "Killing the Black Body." We regret the error.

This article has been updated to reflect the fact that Brittney Poolaw is a member of Wichita nation, not Comanche nation.

With the fall of Roe v. Wade, at least 26 states across the country are certain or very likely to ban abortion, to some degree. These bans include 6-week laws, which outlaw abortions that take place six weeks after conception (even though many women don't even know they're pregnant until after 6 weeks); 20-week bans, even though most abortions take place within 21 weeks, but for cases of lethal health risks and fetal deaths; and highly restrictive bans that lead to women being arrested for miscarriages. The overturning of Roe v. Wade could even spell the death of other American civil rights, such as same-sex marriage and basic access to contraception.

While it's easy to believe that all (or at least much) is lost, we can still mobilize to defend our rights as well as the rights of women around the country. Below, we've gathered some of the most impactful non-profits and grassroots organizations accepting donations that seek to protect the heath, safety, and reproductive freedom of all people with uteruses, regardless of background or socioeconomic status.

Planned Parenthood

You've almost certainly heard of Planned Parenthood, which often seems to sit at the crux of the fight for reproductive justice. The institution also provides a number of other services including cancer and COVID-19 screenings, contraception access, health, natal support, sexual dysfunction support, psychological services, STD screenings and treatment, sexual assault support, and counseling with regards to relationships, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This indispensable organization is a pillar of contemporary American medicine, especially for women and the LGBTQ+ community.

You can donate to Planned Parenthood at large, or you can donate directly to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which is set aside specifically to support all of Planned Parenthood's activities and to promote reproductive health across America.

National Black Women's Reproductive Agenda

This organization, founded in 2014, specifically assists Black women, who are disproportionately impacted by poverty in the United States and face a greater gender-based wage gap than their white counterparts, in accessing abortion and reproductive care. They work in tandem with eight state-based reproductive justice organizations in Ohio, California, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Louisiana, Texas, and Georgia, and are active in lobbying, community outreach, and education for reproductive rights and women's health. You can donate to them. 

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice

People of color and immigrant communities are set to be disproportionately impacted by abortion restrictions, especially considering the state of access in border states like Texas. Thus, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice strives to educate Latinx communities about abortion access and reproductive justice, as well as ensure all people have access to safe contraception and abortions regardless of socioeconomic status, immigration status, race, and linguistic ability. You can support them.

NARAL Pro-Choice America

Often referred to simply as NARAL, this non-profit fights not only for abortion rights but also for access to birth control and paid family leave, along with fighting pregnancy discrimination for female professionals. They also fight online disinformation and traps that could harm women looking for abortions, and they go undercover to unmask fake abortion clinics. Consider donating to them. 

National Abortion Federation

The National Abortion Federation connects abortion patients, providers, researchers, and advocates in order to directly provide safe, easily accessible, and affordable abortions to women across the nation. They also have a hotline for women who are urgently in need, require information, or are looking to connect with reproductive healthcare professionals. You can support them.

Center for Reproductive Rights

The Center for Reproductive Rights works closely with the United Nations across five countries to protect women's bodies. In addition to defending women's reproductive justice and access to safe abortions, they also support obstetrics care, maternal and natal care, contraception access, and they fight against forced sterilization and child marriage. Much of their work is also focused in the United States, including their work on policy change. You can donate to their efforts.

Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN)

Many survivors of rape, incest, and domestic violence find themselves in need of abortion services after the attack(s). This can be especially challenging for survivors, on both psychological and physical levels, and RAINN is devoted to providing counseling, medical services, and psychosocial support in the wake of these attacks in addition to helping women navigate their options. They have a 24/7 confidential hotline, a chat service, and you can support them financially online.

Guttmacher Institute

A subsidiary of Planned Parenthood until it became its own organization in 2007, the Guttmacher Institute is based upon three pillars to support abortion access in the U.S.: (1) high-quality research, (2) evidence-based advocacy, and (3) strategic communications. A great deal of their work involves researching and providing education about reproductive health and the importance of widespread access to contraception and safe abortions. You can donate to them. 

National Women's Law Center

The National Women's Law Center, also known as the NWLC, works on a number of fronts to support access to abortion across America. Their efforts include co-authoring legislation regarding women's rights, working with media outlets and the entertainment industry to prevent misinformation regarding reproductive rights, and litigation in favor of reproductive freedom. You can support them.

National Network of Abortion Funds

The National Network of Abortion Funds works with over 80 organizations across the United States to provide abortion access and reproductive resources in spite of any financial and logistical obstacles. Highly intersectional, they specifically address disparities in healthcare access due to factors like race and socioeconomic status, and their website even provides a user-friendly "Find a Fund" function that can connect users with local clinics, help them navigate getting an abortion via Medicaid, find discounts at clinics, and learn about abortion safety. You can donate to their cause. 

Ipas

Ipas is an international organization that strives to create "a world where every person has bodily autonomy and can determine their own future." Their work includes outright and political action in the United States as well as in developing countries like Malawi, Bolivia, and India in order to ensure that women everywhere have access to safe, high-quality abortion care and after-care. They also educate women about reproductive self-care, fight against gender-based violence and inequity, and support climate justice initiatives. You can offer them your financial support.

Abortion Care Network

According to the Abortion Care Network, 2 in every 3 women who have an abortion get one from an independent clinics. However, in the last ten years, more independent clinics have been forced to shut down than ever before. The Abortion Care Network works to keep these clinics open and helps them mobilize on social media and within their communities so that they can continue providing much-needed care and education to those in need of contraception and/or abortions. The organization also works to end harassment at and outside abortion clinics in order to decrease the incidence of anti-choice violence and to ensure all women have access to dignified reproductive care. You can donate to these efforts.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

The ACLU is one of the most prominent and impactful civil rights organizations in the country, and fights for American liberties and safety across party lines. Currently, they are filling litigation in trigger states as well as states likely to ban abortions, and are lobbying on both the federal and state levels for measures to protect reproductive justice. You can donate. 

Advocates for Youth

We love Advocates for Youth, which advocates for access to safe contraceptives, racial justice, honest sexual education, LGBTQ+ rights, support for sexual assault survivor, abortion access, and much more, particularly as it pertains to adolescents and young adults. In addition to advocating for changes in policy, the organization's Abortion Out Loud campaign also works with schools and college campuses to provide education, financial support, and access to young people in need of contraception and/or an abortion. You can donate to them. 

National Council of Jewish Women

This organization is involved in a number of initiatives including expanding abortion access in the U.S., helping Ukrainian refugees, fighting human trafficking, and more. When it comes to reproductive access specifically, the organization has led protests, lobbied for reproductive equality (including supporting the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act), and met with political leaders, including VP Kamala Harris, to ensure that women across the country have access to safe abortions, regardless of income, religion, and race. You can donate to their efforts. 

Halsey isn’t fazed by their fans who left a recent concert during a speech supporting women’s rights. The “Bad at Love” singer used their recent concert to speak out about the ramifications of the Supreme Court striking down Roe v. Wade, which made access to safe and legal abortions a constitutional right.

During a Sunday night concert in Phoenix, Halsey took to the stage to address the recent decision and its detrimental effects on Americans. Some fans seemingly took issue with their stance because they walked out of the concert.

They tweeted, "downside of doing outdoor venues: no door to hit them on the way out 👋🏼," on Monday in response to a fan’s tweet about the walkout.

"The truth is that my heart breaks looking out into this audience because I see so many people who deserve to have incredible lives, who deserve the right to healthcare that they need, who deserve the right to choose themselves in a situation where there is a choice," they said at the Arizona concert, per People. "I'm hoping every single one of you, and I don't want you to ever have to be in a situation where you don't have access to that."

They added, "If you don't like it, I don't know why you came to a Halsey concert, because I've never been shy that this is how [I feel]."

This isn’t the first time that Halsey has used a concert to speak out about abortion. During a different concert in Dallas on Tuesday, Halsey gave a similar speech, and led chants of "F— [Texas Attorney General] Ken Paxton!" and "F— [Governor] Greg Abbott!"

Halsey joins a long list of celebrities who have shown outrage over the latest SCOTUS decision.

Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, and feminist powerhouse Gloria Steinem have joined forces over the past few months to help ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which would "explicitly extend to women the rights granted in the Constitution to men," according to journalist Jessica Yellin.

One such right which has been abruptly stripped is the right to bodily autonomy, more specifically the right to a safe abortion, following the striking down of Roe v. Wade last week. This Supreme Court decision has shaken women and people with wombs across the country, who may find themselves in dangerous—and potentially lethal—situations when seeking out an abortion for whatever reason.

Meghan Markle joined Steinem and Yellin for a conversation about the decision's aftermath, published in Vogue, and expressed her disapproval in no uncertain terms.

"Women are already sharing stories of how their physical safety is being put in danger," the duchess said.

"Women with resources will travel to get an abortion, those without might attempt to give themselves one at tremendous risk. Some will have to source abortion pills from unregulated pharmacies. Others who are pregnant and find themselves in a medical emergency will be at the mercy of doctors and lawyers to determine if a procedure that is needed to save her life can even be done at all.

"What does this tell women? It tells us that our physical safety doesn’t matter, and as a result that we don’t matter. But we do. Women matter."

Markle spoke in her capacity as a women's right advocate as well as in her capacity as a mother. She described understanding how important it is for a person to decide whether or not they want to be a parent in that moment, and how much of a deeply personal choice that is.

"I think about how fortunate I felt to be able to have both of my children," she said.

"I know what it feels like to have a connection to what is growing inside of your body. What happens with our bodies is so deeply personal, which can also lead to silence and stigma, even though so many of us deal with personal health crises.

"I know what miscarrying feels like, which I’ve talked about publicly. The more that we normalize conversation about the things that affect our lives and bodies, the more people are going to understand how necessary it is to have protections in place."

The duchess also talked about the role that men need to play in advancing equal access to healthcare, and how much this matters to Prince Harry.

"Men need to be vocal in this moment and beyond because these are decisions that affect relationships, families, and communities at large," she said.

"They may target women, but the consequences impact all of us. My husband and I talked about that a lot over the past few days. He’s a feminist too."

She added, "And his reaction last week was guttural, like mine. I know that for so many women right now, there is a sentiment of despair. But again, we have to band together and not wallow. We have to do the work."

The overturning of Roe v. Wade last week has shaken people around the U.S. to their core, with protests breaking out across the country in response to the Supreme Court decision. Since the news broke, public figures have spoken out, loudly and with rage, and so have many celebrities.

Here's what people in the entertainment industry have had to say about the legal move that will make access to abortion so much more dangerous for millions of people with wombs.

Olivia Rodrigo and Lily Allen

During her Glastonbury festival set in England, Olivia Rodrigo brought out Lily Allen to sing "F*** You" to the Justices who struck down Roe. You can read more about the performance here.

Lizzo

Lizzo pledged a generous donation to organizations who help provide access to abortions. "I’m pledging $500k from my upcoming tour to Planned Parenthood and Abortion Rights. Live Nation agreed to match— to make it 1 MILLION dollars," she tweeted.

Sophie Turner

A visibly emotional Sophie Turner expressed exactly how she felt about the decision to overturn Roe via Instagram Stories. "Overturning Roe v. Wade is setting us back 50 years," she said.

"This isn't going to save any lives. It's going to kill and endanger millions of women who are gonna end up getting backstreet abortions, dangerous backstreet abortions, and end up dying from it.

"If this was actually about saving lives, if anyone cared about saving lives, then after any of the mass shooting that have happened here in the United States, we would have gun control. It's not about saving lives, it's about controlling a woman's body and controlling a woman's right to choose. And it's absolutely f***ing disgusting."

Taylor Swift

Taylor Swift quote-tweeted Michelle Obama's statement on the decision, adding, "I’m absolutely terrified that this is where we are - that after so many decades of people fighting for women’s rights to their own bodies, today’s decision has stripped us of that."

Harry Styles

Harry Styles wrote on Instagram Stories, "I'm absolutely devastated for the people of America today. Check on your friends. Look after each other. We're all in this together, and the fight is just beginning. A truly dark day for America."

The singer also held up a fan's sign during a recent performance that read, "My body, my choice."

Billie Eilish

At Glastonbury, Billie Eilish said, "Today is a really, really dark day for women in the U.S. and I'm just gonna say that, because I can't bear to think about it any longer in this moment."

Shonda Rhimes

Shonda Rhimes tweeted, "This is actually happening."

Jessica Biel

Jessica Biel tweeted, "I am enraged. What happened today is not only a disgusting step backward for women - undermining our ability to make decisions for our own bodies… but it’s also dangerous. You didn’t ban abortion, you banned access to SAFE abortion. #BansOffOurBodies."

Halle Berry

Halle Berry wrote, "I’m outraged! What the supreme court has done is BULLSHIT. Something has to be done! Guns have more rights than women.

"Stop this war on women & keep your laws off of our bodies. We have to ban together & NOT accept this! We can’t just post about it, we must DO SOMETHING about it"

Danny DeVito

Danny DeVito contributed simply, "Supreme Court my ass."

Viola Davis

Viola Davis commented, "And so it goes….Gutted. Now more than ever we have to use our voice and power! WE the people……

"The Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade."

Padma Lakshmi

Padma Lakshmi wrote, "People will still get abortions. 

"These procedures won't stop just because Roe v. Wade is overturned.

"This will only prevent safe, legal abortions from taking place."

P!nk

"Let’s be clear: if you believe the government belongs in a woman’s uterus, a gay persons business or marriage, or that racism is okay- THEN PLEASE IN THE NAME OF YOUR LORD NEVER F***ING LISTEN TO MY MUSIC AGAIN. AND ALSO F*** RIGHT OFF. We good?" P!nk tweeted.

Like so many other celebrities and public figures, Olivia Rodrigo isn't about to stay silent following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which will make access to safe abortion infinitely harder for millions of people with wombs across the U.S.

To help her air her rage and grief at Glastonbury festival in England, Rodrigo called Lily Allen to share the stage with her.

Once the British singer had appeared beside her, Rodrigo told the crowd, "Today's a very, very special day. This is actually my first Glastonbury, and I'm sharing the stage with Lily, which is the biggest dream come true ever."

The "Good 4 U" singer then shifted gears and expressed how upset she was over the Supreme Court decision. "But I'm also equally as heartbroken over what happened in America yesterday," she said. "The Supreme Court decided to overturn Roe v. Wade, which is a law that ensures a woman's right to a safe abortion and other basic human rights. And I'm devastated and terrified, and so many women and so many girls are going to die because of this."

Announcing what was coming, Rodrigo continued, "I wanted to dedicate this next song to the five members of the Supreme Court who have shown us that, at the end of the day, they truly don't give a sh*t about freedom. This song goes out to the Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh. We hate you."

Allen echoed, "We hate you."

The two women then launched into a rage-filled and cathartic rendition of Allen's 2009 hit song "F*** You."

The song—which includes lyrics such as, "F*** you (f*** you), f*** you very, very much / 'Cause we hate what you do / And we hate your whole crew" and, "Do you get, do you get a little kick out of being small minded?"—was originally written as an anti-President Bush anthem.

The Glastonbury crowd was all too happy to yell out these ever-relevant lyrics, while giving those five Justices the finger.

You can watch the performance here.

It's a dark day in our nation's history. Roe v. Wade has been overturned by Supreme Court, eliminating the U.S. right to a legal abortion after almost 50 years. 

In his immediate address to the nation following the decision, President Joe Biden called it a "solemn moment."

"They didn't limit it, they simply took it away," said the president. "This landmark case protected a women's right to choose, to reaffirm our basic principle of quality...Now with Roe gone, let's be very clear, the health and life of women in this nation are at risk." 

The Supreme Court decision will affect a women’s safe and confidential access to abortion, egregiously limiting reproductive rights, equitable healthcare, data privacy, and more. The nation’s leading voices on women’s equality took to social media to express their staunch objection to the Supreme Court decision and paint a picture of this decision's wide-ranging effects on all Americans.

Former First Lady Michelle Obama was among the first to speak up, pointing to a time when women had to risk losing their lives getting illegal abortions. "That is what our mothers and grandmothers and great-grandmothers lived through and now here we are again." 

She continued by highlighting her concern for teenage girls, mothers of nonviable pregnancies, as well as health care workers committed to reproductive rights. This is a moment for the next generation to seize, she added. "This horrifying decision will have devastating consequences, and it must be a wake-up call, especially to the young people who will bear its burden...If you give up now you will inherit a country that does not resemble you or any of the values you believe in."  

Former President Barack Obama echoed her sentiment. In a joint statement, the Obamas made clear that this is a time to take action: "Join with the activists who've been sounding the alarm on abortion access for years—and act." 

Officials like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote that this decision is literally a matter of life and death, and will hurt low-income communities the most. "Overturning Roe and outlawing abortions will never make them go away. It only makes them more dangerous, especially for the poor + marginalized. People will die because of this decision. And we will never stop until abortion rights are restored in the United States of America."

Congresswoman Cori Bush emphasized that "abortion care is health care" and speaks against far-right extremism: "Your racist, sexist, classist ruling won’t stop us from accessing the care we need."

"Hold onto hope. Do not give into despair," tweeted Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren. Following the Supreme Court leak last month, the official laid out the path to fight back for Marie Claire. 

Other leaders are focused on action, as well as holding the Supreme Court accountable for this outcome. 

Alexis McGill Johnson, CEO and president of Planned Parenthood, noted via social media: "The Supreme Court has now officially given politicians permission to control what we do with our bodies, deciding that we can no longer be trusted to determine the course of our own lives." 

Meanwhile, women's rights activist and journalist Gloria Steinem upheld the #BansOffOurBodies message: "Banning abortions does not stop the need for them, it just bans their safety."

Women's advocates were equally vociferous. Reshma Saujani, founder of Girls Who Code and the Marshall Plan for Moms, pointed out via Twitter that this is the second blow from the Supreme Court in two days. (On Thursday, the Court struck down a New York law limiting guns in public.) "Overturning Roe has never been about women or kids—but about controlling our lives and our bodies. If they really cared about us and our kids, they would make it *easier* to access abortion care. We would have paid leave, universal healthcare, and affordable child care."

As Biden pointed out in his speech, this decision is a deliberate effort made over decades. Saujani elaborates on this point, and suggests action steps: ""The anti-choice movement spent DECADES building toward this moment. They've been planting their anti-choice seeds for years. Not just on a state and national level — but on the local level as well. We have to do the same. Run for office. Run for your school board. Think LOCAL."

Some CEOs of corporations and tech startups announced they are prioritizing their workforce's health and wellbeing by ensuring access to benefits. In a Linkedin post, Lauren Hobart, CEO at Dick's Sporting Goods, announced concrete details on how the company will support employees: "... if a state one of our teammates lives in restricts access to abortion, DICK’S Sporting Goods will provide up to $4,000 in travel expense reimbursement to travel to the nearest location where that care is legally available. This benefit will be provided to any teammate, spouse or dependent enrolled in our medical plan, along with one support person."  

Daphne Delvaux, a California-based trial attorney focused on women's rights and workplace discrimination, expressed pure rage: "Justices accused of sexual assault wrote a ruling controlling women's bodies. A country without paid leave, healthcare, childcare, formula or safe schools is forcing pregnancies. No accountability or penalties on impregnators... "

You need not be a lawmaker, founder, or any person in power to speak up. Some of the most powerful stories come from the grassroots. Nashville-based activist Adrianne Wright poignantly illustrates this in her story about survival and healing from trauma for Marie Claire. And as Beth Silvers and Sarah Stewart Holland, cohosts of Pantsuit Politics, write in their call-to-action op-ed, "Democracy always offers a path forward even when we feel thrust into the past. And just like our grandmothers, we will have to fight to change a system that excludes and denies."

As for what we can do today, here are 10 organizations to support. If you're in need of resources and services: 

1. For those in a position to do so, donate to @AbortionFunds, @KeepOurClinics, @IWRising.

2. If you or someone you know needs an abortion, send them to ineedana.com. 

3. Get educated on abortion pills by going to @Plancpills.

With its stunning ruling Friday morning, the Supreme Court not only struck down Roe v. Wade—a precedent many believed until recently to be "settled law"—but also opened the door to reversals of other progressive decisions by the court. Specifically, Americans' rights to same-sex intimacy, marriage equality, and contraception. These rights were specifically called out by Justice Clarence Thomas, who argued in a concurring opinion with Friday's ruling that such rights should be "reconsidered." He added that the Supreme Court had a "duty" to do so.

Thomas wrote: "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous'...we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."

These are the cases he's talking about:

• Griswold v. Connecticut: The 1965 case that determined that people had a constitutional right to obtain contraceptives
• Lawrence v. Texas: The 2003 case that determined that people had a constitutional right to engage in same-sex sexual relations
• Obergefell v. Hodges: The 2015 case that determined that people had a constitutional right to marriage equality

Justice Thomas added: "After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are 'privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States' protected by the Fourteenth Amendment."

He concluded: "To answer that question, we would need to decide important antecedent questions, including whether the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects any rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution and, if so, how to identify those rights...That said, even if the Clause does protect unenumerated rights, the Court conclusively demonstrates that abortion is not one of them under any plausible interpretive approach."

The Due Process clause is the American right to due process before rights are taken away. Thomas is arguing that any rights not specifically in the Constitution could now be unraveled by the Court.

After the draft of the decision leaked in May, President Biden noted that the ruling could have a domino effect. "If the rationale of the decision as released were to be sustained, a whole range of rights are in question. A whole range of rights. And the idea [that] we’re letting the states make those decisions, localities make those decisions, would be a fundamental shift in what we’ve done.”

Today, June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court put every American woman in a time machine—not to a future filled with flying cars, but back to a past filled with desperation and back-alley abortions. Despite our preview (in the form of a highly unusual leaked draft opinion in May) of the Court’s inclination to overturn Roe v. Wade, it is still jarring to face this new reality: that in 2022 we have fewer rights than our mothers. 

Roe v. Wade was an earthquake in American politics 50 years ago. Before that landmark decision, American women spent decades using whatever resources they had to procure illegal abortions. Women with resources took flights to London or trips to Mexico. Women with little or no resources threw themselves down stairways or drank Lysol. Then, with one ruling, our mothers had a Constitutionally assured right to end an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy.

That is not to say Roe created a reproductive rights paradise. Since Roe, the Court has allowed states to regulate abortion care based on estimated gestation periods, the qualifications of doctors, the proximity of abortion providers to hospitals, parental consent for minor patients, and the “counseling” provided to patients in advance of receiving services. Roe was always an imperfect decision that left abortion care in a precarious position based on how state legislatures would attempt to restrict or expand the right it recognized. 

That precariousness—and the battle that ensued—has resulted in abortion becoming one of the most galvanizing issues in American politics. But most polling on abortion shows Americans didn’t want a trip in the Supreme Court’s time machine. They believe there is some Constitutional right to abortion care. 

Now, a Supreme Court majority of 6 justices—3 of whom were appointed controversially by a former, twice-impeached President who lost the popular vote—has overturned Roe. The Court says it is now righting a historic wrong by returning the power to regulate abortion to state legislatures, arguing that it makes the governance of abortion more democratic. Justice Alito writes in the majority opinion: "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives." (Ironic, considering yesterday the Court took away a state's right to regulate guns.) The Court is not accountable to public opinion, but at a time when the country is so deeply divided, so few people overriding the will of so many seems like the very opposite of democratic.

However, democracy always offers a path forward—even when we feel thrust into the past. And just like our grandmothers, we will have to fight to change a political system that excludes and denies. Here's what we must fight for:

1. Healthcare needs to be more available, affordable, accessible, and inclusive. 

Pre-Roe history teaches us one thing: A woman will go to dangerous lengths to end an unwanted pregnancy. In an age filled with mail-order pharmaceuticals and state legislatures struggling to keep up with the latest technology, there is a danger that some women will self-prescribe and self-procure drugs related to abortion care. In order to ensure women receive safe, effective care, it is critical they have strong, trusted relationships with medical professionals. Studies also show abortion restrictions most burden women of color and women who are socio-economically disadvantaged. Transgender men who become pregnant also need access to medical professionals to ensure that they are receiving safe and effective reproductive care.

Post-Covid, we know our healthcare system is overburdened and out of reach for too many. It needs an overhaul to meet a new host of challenges that will follow the Court’s decision, especially in the thirteen states that have so-called trigger laws. In Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, abortion is now or will soon be (via certification or following a 30-day period) illegal with limited or no exceptions. Navigating the exceptions requires a robust medical system, where patients connect with care early in their pregnancies and physicians are able to rapidly detect and properly certify medical need for abortion services. 

2. Parents must have greater societal support. 

The reality is that parenting in America is harder than it has to be. With the end to a constitutional right to abortion, more people will be forced into this reality against their will. Many American parents are walking tightropes that Covid has frayed. Parents all over the country can’t find infant formula or accessible child care or affordable housing. Some parenting hardships come with the role; others are policy choices. We have the ability to provide infrastructure to support families: to ensure that babies have formula, diapers, and skilled caregivers; to ensure that schools are safe and able to meet students’ diverse needs; to help families secure stable nutrition and housing; and to make education a ramp to a good life. 

3. We cannot agree to disagree about abortion. 

In some ways, Roe insulated our political conflict about abortion from its consequences. Those of us outside of reproductive healthcare and professional activism could identify as pro-choice or anti-choice without giving much consideration to the details. The Court’s decision allows state legislatures to enact extremely draconian measures, including throwing women who seek abortions in jail. Too often, state legislators are relatively unknown to the vast majority of their constituents, and their actions are shielded from public scrutiny unless they make national headlines. 

In the wake of the Court’s decision, we need to engage with each other and our state elections to arrive at legislation that reflects what most people see as common sense. Now that states are going to have broad authority over the availability of abortion services (including services that are provided when a desperately-wanted pregnancy is lost), it is critically important that we educate ourselves about the issues, share what we learn with our communities, familiarize ourselves with our state legislators, and support candidates who understand the depth and complexity of abortion care.

4. We need to act with purpose, not with violence. 

The American people are still reeling from Covid-19’s devastation. We have labor shortages, ongoing supply chain hardships, and rising prices. Mass shootings have shaken the country, and crime historically rises with the temperature. There are more guns than people in the United States, and domestic terrorism is on the rise. With this decision, the Supreme Court throws accelerant on an already-raging fire of polarization. Reproductive freedom is an issue of intense personal conviction and intense social power. We need to act with purpose and urgency to confront the challenges that will follow this decision. As we do so, we need to commit to non-violence. 

5. We need to invest in governmental reform. 

It is hard to pay attention to issues like gerrymandering or the Electoral Count Act when you’re just trying to get through each day. But there are so many efforts already under way to ensure that our government is more transparent, responsive, effective, and accountable to our people and our ideals. President Biden has asked a nonpartisan commission to consider reforms to the Supreme Court. Several states are using nonpartisan commissions to establish their legislative districts—others are considering such proposals. Proposals like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact exist to help us ensure that presidents represent the entirety of the country. Ranked choice voting, term limits, and open primaries might improve our elections, fields of candidates, and outcomes. It is easy to practice despair and cynicism, but we have the power to make our government work for us. Let today’s decision be a call to action for us to take it. 

Forty-nine years after it became the law of the land, the landmark Roe v. Wade decision—a Supreme Court ruling that made access to safe and legal abortion a constitutional right—has been struck down. Ruling in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization on Friday, the Supreme Court overturned the Roe precedent in a 6-3 decision, essentially allowing individual states and jurisdictions to pursue bans on abortion. In other words, reproductive freedom is no longer a constitutionally protected right across the United States.

"The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives," the decision reads.

A draft of the decision had been leaked to Politico in May, causing widespread uproar. President Biden noted prior to the decision that he was considering executive orders with the goal of protecting reproductive freedom in the wake of the decision, though Vox notes that an executive order could not directly challenge the ruling.

More than a dozen states already have "trigger laws," designed so that if Roe falls—as it now has—abortion bans immediately go into effect in the state. Roughly half of U.S. states have indicated that they plan to ban abortion in the wake of the decision.

"We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," wrote Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”"

The full decision can be read here.

Roe v. Wade has protected the right to a safe and legal abortion for nearly half a century. Over and over again, conservative Supreme Court nominees proclaimed Roe “settled law,” signaling to the American people that, on their watch, Roe would not be overturned. But now a draft opinion reveals that five justices believe this is their moment to strike down this “settled law,” permitting states to criminalize anyone who seeks an abortion, performs an abortion, helps someone find an abortion, or even has a miscarriage.

Yes, I’m angry. I’m angry at the justices who deliberately deceived the American people. I’m angry at the Republicans in Congress who stole two Supreme Court seats to get us to this day. And I’m angry at the cruelty of the anti-abortion politicians who will impose enormous pain, suffering, and possible death on people who have the fewest resources to fight back.

The minute Roe is officially gone, more than half the states in this country are poised to outlaw abortion or severely limit abortion access. If abortion is outlawed, the impact won’t fall equally on everyone. Wealthy women will still get safe, legal abortions by flying to another state or even traveling to another country.

But the world will be very different for those who have the least power: low-income women, young women, women of color, victims of incest and abuse, moms already working two jobs to support their children. This far-right, extremist Supreme Court doesn’t care if Americans suffer; they are hellbent on imposing their views on all of us.

For me, this isn’t about politics; this is personal. I have lived in a world where abortion was illegal. I learned early on that when the law bans all abortions, only safe and legal abortions will be banned. I lived in a world in which women bled to death from back alley abortions. A world in which infections and other complications destroyed women’s futures. A world in which some women took their own lives rather than continuing with a pregnancy they could not bear. For decades, expanded access to abortion has allowed people to make decisions about their own bodies and lives, promoting equity and access to life-changing opportunities. But these extremist justices on the Supreme Court want to send us back to those dark days and take away women’s rights to control their own futures. 

Changes in abortion laws will have dire consequences. In Texas, a young woman was charged with murder for an alleged self-induced abortion. (The charges were later dropped.) In Oklahoma, a new law would force a 12-year-old survivor of rape to bear the child of her predator. In Louisiana, Republicans are pushing for the most extreme bill yet, which would classify abortion as a homicide and could even criminalize using certain forms of birth control. And Republican politicians won’t stop at criminalizing abortion. They have already signaled that a Republican-controlled Senate would pursue a nationwide ban on abortion care.

Let me be crystal clear: Republicans in Congress are planning to restrict abortion access and reproductive health care everywhere, endangering all Americans, whether they live in red, blue, or purple states. And it is equally clear that the Supreme Court is opening the door to banning birth control, outlawing marriage equality, and even making interracial marriage illegal.  

American freedoms and the Constitution itself are under attack. The Republicans have planned long and hard for this day, and we can’t wait a second longer to fight back. We need action. 

The Supreme Court does not get the last word. The American people—through their leaders in Congress—can and must take action. Congress has the power to make Roe the law of the entire nation. The House has already passed legislation to shield abortion rights, and the Senate will take up the bill this week. We should debate that bill on the floor and then vote on it—because every American should know exactly where we stand and hold us accountable. But to get that vote and protect Roe, we must end the filibuster. This November, Americans will decide the future of Roe, and voters everywhere must bring their fury to the voting booth. 

Yes, I’m angry that a group of unelected ideologues on the Supreme Court think they can turn current law upside down and dictate to tens of millions of people across this country the terms of their pregnancies and their lives. 

I will use my anger to do everything I can to keep an extremist Supreme Court from having the last word on the right to a safe and legal abortion. In a democracy, that power is in the hands of the people. We need to use our anger to make real change. We’re not going back—never.

Update 5/3/22: Last night, Politico reported on a leaked draft majority opinion that revealed the Supreme Court has voted to overrule the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Justice Samuel Alito writes in the leaked document. 

If the leaked draft is adopted, it will rule in favor of Mississippi in its 15-week abortion ban. The court's decision won't be final until the decision is published, likely this summer. 

Original story 5/17/21: On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to review a major abortion case from Mississippi. In short, the state of Mississippi is trying to enforce a 15-week ban on abortion— a direct challenge to a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose, thanks to Roe v. Wade. 

What is at stake?

Here's some history: In 1973, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case Roe v. Wade, reaffirmed in 1982. The Roe v. Wade decision means that the court ruled that states could not ban abortion before the viability of the fetus outside the womb—this basically means that states are blocked from enacting abortion restrictions before a fetus could survive on its own. Doctors generally view this marker to be around 23 or 24 weeks. That means that under Roe v. Wade, states could not ban abortion prior to 23 or 24 weeks.

What's happening in Mississippi?

In 2018, then-Gov. Republican Phil Bryant signed a 15-week ban into law. The ban only had exceptions for medical emergencies or cases in which there is a "severe fetal abnormality," but not for instances of rape or incest. The law was a conscious, direct challenge to Roe v. Wade (as are many restrictive state abortion laws).

After the law was enacted in 2018, the only abortion clinic in Mississippi, Jackson Women's Health Organization, sued to try to block the law. Then, a Jackson, Mississippi federal judge blocked the law, saying the state had chosen to pass something unconstitutional. The Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the judge's decision, which is why the state appealed to the Supreme Court (leading us to this moment).

What happens now?

This news means that the Supreme Court will now consider whether to agree with the lower courts—that the 15 week ban is unconstitutional—or agree with the state and allow them to enforce the ban of abortion after 15 weeks. At large, the Supreme Court will be deciding if all state laws that ban pre-viability abortions are unconstitutional.

Could it lead to Roe v. Wade being overturned?

Reminder: The Supreme Court currently has a 6-to-3 conservative majority. Recently, they ruled to reinstate the mailing of abortion pills during the pandemic, creating additional burden for those seeking care. The outcome of case has the power to drastically limit a woman's right to an abortion— it even could lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

When will the case be heard?

It will be a while before we know what the court will decide. The courts will start hearing arguments during their next term, in October, and a decision is not expected until Summer 2022. Until then, people across the country will wait to hear if they will still have their (constitutionally protected) right to choose.

Sara Kruzan was just 11 years old when she was trafficked. George Howard, whom she referred to as ‘GG,’ groomed Sara for the sex trade and coerced her into prostitution. For more than four years, between ages 11 and 16, Howard subjected Sara to the extreme psychological and physical violence and manipulation that is typical of the sex trade. Social welfare and governmental early warning systems—created to help children like Sara—failed her, leaving her hopeless and helpless. Unable to escape Howard’s grasp, Sara felt compelled to use force against her trafficker. She shot and killed Howard and, while still a minor, was convicted of first-degree murder. None of Howard’s abuse was permitted to be used as evidence in Sara’s defense at her trial; she was sentenced to life in prison without parole at the age of 16. 

Sara served almost 20 years in prison before her sentence was commuted by then-California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Sara’s release was the result of tireless advocacy, countless hours of volunteer legal assistance, and seven years of litigation. Without all this hard work, Sara would still be incarcerated today. 

The media has recently paid more attention to survivors like Sara. The case of 16-year-old sex trafficking victim Cyntoia Brown, who received life imprisonment for the killing of a man who bought her for sex, raised public awareness and brought attention to the quiet criminalization of sex trafficking survivors. But unless this sympathy is accompanied by legal changes, the criminal justice system will continue to remain punitive for girls like Cyntoia and Sara. 

Today, Sara advocates for the passage of federal legislation: the Abolish Trafficking Reauthorization Act of 2022, which was introduced last week by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and John Cornyn (R-TX). It will reauthorize the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, a bill that includes Sara’s Law and the Unfair Sentencing Act. This legislation would enable judges to take into consideration abuse or trauma a child sex trafficking victim has endured to ensure that they do not receive lengthy prison sentences. The polices were first introduced in the House by Representative Bruce Westerman (R-AR) in April 2021, though no movement has been made on them since. 

While self-defense laws vary from state to state, one common criterion is that the threat must be immediate (such as having a gun held to one’s head). Because Sara, and so many like her, retaliate after years of abuse and trauma, they are not able to claim self-defense. Sara’s case reveals the deficiency of self-defense laws, especially with regard to underage victims who are sometimes tried as adults for killing their abuser. This was the case for 17-year-old Chrystul Kizer, who is being tried for murder for shooting her alleged trafficker after many years of abuse and exploitation. Systematic, on-going sexual abuse and sexual trafficking are crimes perpetrated at all times, not just during specific moments. 

Sara’s Law aims to correct the insufficiency of federal self-defense statutes by allowing judges to take age and a history of abuse into consideration when evaluating a minor’s culpability for a crime. It would also allow judges to deviate from mandatory sentences, suspend the entirety of a sentence, and allow cases involving these minors to be adjudicated in juvenile or family court, instead of being sentenced as adults. 

According to James Dold, CEO of Human Rights for Kids, “Sara’s Law is really the first national effort to center trauma and child status when courts are deciding how to handle cases of child sex crime victims who have come into conflict with the law. This idea will revolutionize how we treat children in the legal system who have experienced unimaginable trauma.” 

While guilty verdicts against human traffickers are gratifying for those healing from abuse, they aren’t enough. Sara is only one of many minors who have retaliated against an abuser only to be criminalized by the justice system itself. It’s time to take action for survivors like Sara, and Chrystul, and so many others, by urging our lawmakers to co-sponsor the Abolish Trafficking Reauthorization Act of 2022 and Sara’s Law and to bring them to the House and Senate floors for a vote. 

“I wrote Sara’s Law and the Unfair Sentencing Act after meeting with Sara Kruzan and hearing her story,” says Congressman Westerman. “It is unimaginable that children can be sentenced to life without the chance of parole for crimes against their abusers, and I am determined to correct this injustice. Harsh punishments on these children do not make the public safer, but only further their trauma and prevent rehabilitation efforts.” 

As Sara says: “It is time that we treat kids like kids and offer compassionate healing opportunities for the children who have endured such abuses.” 

The World Without Exploitation Youth Coalition has launched the #KidsArentCriminals campaign, advocating for Sara’s Law. Those wishing to get involved can join the campaign by attending webinars, lobbying their representatives by phone, and advertising the campaign on social media. 

The #KidsArentCriminals campaign is spearheaded by the Youth Coalition of World Without Exploitation, an organization dedicated to ending sexual violence and exploitation by advancing just policy and raising public awareness of key legal and cultural factors contributing to sexual abuse and the criminalization of survivors.

Diane "Di" Byrne finger-combs a fleck of styling cream from Jane Parrent’s layered hair. Di, the former owner of a modeling/talent agency who doesn’t usually do casual—even her jeans are neatly cuffed—is wearing flats, something she picked up from Jane. Once, when they were going to walk in an almond orchard, Jane told her not to wear heels, but Di still showed up in chunky platforms. In turn, Jane credits Di with teaching her etiquette, advising her on dressing for a fundraiser (no Birkenstocks), and clueing her in on when to keep quiet or speak up when dealing with the media. Of course, Jane owes Di for nixing the SpongeBob face mask Jane wanted to wear in court.

That is where the two women are on July 28, 2021, as Di touches up Jane’s hair: the metro division of California Superior Court of Kern County in Bakersfield, the largest city in the county and the ninth largest in the state. Jane and Di sit side-by-side on a bench outside courtroom 14—their “regular” courtroom. They have been attending hearings here for more than three years, ever since Di’s 38-year-old son, James Kulstad, was killed in a drive-by shooting and Jane’s 20-year-old daughter, Baylee Despot, disappeared. 

The hearing the two women are attending today, however, doesn’t directly concern either of their children. It is about the brutal murder of Micah Holsonbake, 34, who went missing in March 2018, the month before Baylee disappeared. His severed arm was found five months later in the nearby Kern River; his skull was discovered in August 2021. 

Inside the courtroom, the two women are joined by Micah’s mother, Cheryl Holsonbake. The three sit quietly in a back row as the lawyer for defendant Matthew Vandecasteele asks for a postponement. Cheryl sighs, loudly. The other two look at her with understanding, not saying or doing anything—just being present.

The women—in their late 50s and early 60s—are known as the mothers of the Bakersfield 3, a name Di’s ex-husband came up with. It has since been shortened to BK3. 

B is for Baylee. 

K is for Kulstad. 

3 is a sideways M, for Micah.

It could also represent the trio of mothers, three very different women brought together by tragedy who through each other have found the strength to dig for answers, however brutal they may be. 

The trial for Micah’s murder is scheduled for this month, though it is expected to be postponed. Vandecasteele, who was accused of kidnapping and conspiracy (among other charges) in the case, agreed to a four-year prison term in exchange for his testimony. But there’s a major twist: One of the two remaining defendants is Baylee Despot, Jane’s daughter. On May 27, 2020, Baylee—who has not been seen or heard from since April 25, 2018—was charged (in absentia) with murder, along with Matthew Queen, the man she was living with, who now awaits trial. 

When Cheryl and her husband got the news, they “were shell shocked. Like, Baylee, really? Okay,”  Cheryl says. When Jane heard, she was devastated: “What do you say?”

And yet, the three mothers sit, shoulder to shoulder, as they’ve done for every hearing related to Micah’s murder, as well as some other local cases in which they supported the families of victims. Almost four years ago, when they teamed up to search for answers in their respective children’s cases, they made a pact to see each case through to the end—together. According to Di, that is when they’ve gotten leads and uncovered important facts: when they work together. “Stronger together,” says Jane. 

When Cheryl was nervous about giving a DNA sample for law enforcement databases like CODIS (Combined DNA Index System), Di brought her to the police station. When Di is unable to drive (knowing her son was killed in a car, she sometimes panics), Jane takes the wheel. After the severed arm was identified as belonging to Micah, Jane and Di placed yellow roses—his favorite—by the river. 

Jane, who is single and with a sunflower tattooed on the inside of her right wrist, is the free spirit—a self-described “party girl” who is seldom silent. Cheryl is organized, nurturing, and angry, the person who taught Di it is okay “to be quiet” and spend the day in bed when things get to be too much. 

Cheryl calls herself an introvert and lives in a rural part of Kern Country with her dogs and husband. Inside her wallet is a mini Post-It Note that reads: “Fight like a mother!!!” Di is the one Cheryl calls to refresh her memory when things get muddled and the one Jane credits with knowing “all the bigwigs.” Family members credit Di's ability to control her emotions, make time to grieve, and then pull herself together to get things done as the reason their kids’ cases have been kept alive. Di even shared  coveted time with the detective assigned to her son’s case with Cheryl, convincing Cheryl just how serious Di is about their children’s cases being related. 

“She wanted to make sure that [the authorities] knew this wasn't a solitary incident, that this was bigger than just James or just Micah,” says Cheryl. “And we were grateful.” 

In normal circumstances the three women’s paths would never have crossed; they are too different. Yet, just like relatives who have little in common, they are close because, as Di’s 21-year-old granddaughter Camryn Albert-Kulstad says, “they’re your family.” And it is to each other, rather than friends or family, that they turn for support.

Di

Di was the first to make a connection in the spring of 2018. Her son had been dead for about two weeks. Another man, Micah Holsonbake, had been missing since March 23, something Di learned from one of James’s friends. Micah was someone Di had heard James mention hanging out with. Di wondered if Micah’s disappearance was related to her son’s murder. Through a mutual acquaintance, Di found Cheryl’s number and called.

The journey that led to the mothers meeting began in 2007. James, who had been living and thriving in San Diego—surfing, skateboarding, and inventing (he had patented a skateboard part)—was struck by a car while crossing a street. That accident, she believes, triggered his drug addiction. His shattered arm and wrist were held together with pins. He was prescribed opioids for the pain. Fentanyl and heroin followed. 

Over the next decade, he lost his job and his home. James was proud and private, like his mother, which is why she remembers his vulnerability back then. “For him to call me and say, ‘Mom, I don't know what I'm gonna do. I'm losing my apartment,’” was shocking, says Di. He moved back to Bakersfield and in with her. There, he hung out with his brother Ryan, his daughter Camryn, and his cat, Kiki.

On the night of April 8, 2018, James drove Di's electric Fiat to the Southwest Bakersfield home of an acquaintance. Ryan Kulstad had been hanging out there earlier that evening. On the Dr. Phil show, Ryan said that the acquaintance owed James money and hadn’t wanted James to come to his house. After running an errand, Ryan was on his way back to the acquaintance's home when he spotted James pulling out of the driveway. Shots were fired from another vehicle. A bullet pierced the Fiat’s door and hit James in an artery. Ryan held his brother as he died. The case remains open; no suspects or leads have been made public.

Cheryl’s and Jane’s may be the voices heard most often in the press, but it is Di’s soft murmur that is almost always backing them up, joining them together, reining them in. In the group of moms, Di is the mother of them all. She is the one that used her networking skills to get the women on national TV (Dr. Phil, twice). Di will talk about how she’d wait outside James’s high school in San Diego to make sure he wouldn’t leave early to go surfing, but won’t say much about her own childhood—other than that her mother died when she was young. She shares this with granddaughter Camryn, who, as a baby, lost her own mother. Although raised by her maternal grandmother, Camryn says both Di and James were active in her life—until drugs took her father away.

What James had in common with Micah was addiction. What they didn’t have in common, it seems, were their alleged murderers.

Cheryl

Cheryl Holsonbake wasn’t surprised to hear from Di that spring of 2018. The name James Kulstad was mentioned by Micah’s landlord and other acquaintances when Cheryl and her family started searching for clues to his disappearance. The two hung out in the same circles. When Di called saying they should talk, Cheryl said, “Absolutely.”

Cheryl knows Bakersfield (population 403,455) well enough to call it a community rather than a city. It’s the central hub of a county that's filled with agricultural areas and oil fields, surrounded by desert and mountains. Today, there is a downtown with some high-rises, but much of Bakersfield is multilane highways and walled-off developments. Cheryl left Bakersfield in 1981 for a Christian college in Arkansas, followed by her high school boyfriend, Lance. The couple married and had two boys—Micah and Luke. Micah was in third grade when the family moved back to California. Bakersfield was different then; Cheryl remembers when everybody knew you and your business, like in an overblown small town. There were block parties. Events in the church hall. Potlucks at the park. Farmland stretched out all around. Generations of families stayed put. Now, when she thinks of Bakersfield, all she can think of is homicide. 

“How do we get Hometown, USA, back?” Cheryl wonders.

Micah was class president his freshman year at that same Christian college. Then the Twin Towers fell and he signed up to serve in the military. His service was cut short in spring 2003 by surgery to remove a large benign growth in his throat. For that, he was prescribed Vicodin. Later, there was OxyContin. In 2015, he survived an overdose of Fentanyl-laced OxyContin. After that, he lost his banking job and the relationship with his family deteriorated. To supplement his income, he and some friends started building guns in a garage; the weapons were later sold illegally. 

On Easter 2018, he didn’t call. Usually glued to his phone, Micah did not answer any of Cheryl’s calls over the next week. For the phone to ring and ring and then go to voicemail—“It was impossible for it not to be something bad,” she says. 

Cheryl and her family first learned about Baylee from some of Micah's friends. Then Micah's dad saw the "missing" flyer for Baylee Parrent Despot and things clicked. He texted the number on the flyer. Jane responded. The parents didn’t know each other, but their children had. Turns out, Baylee had been arrested outside Micah’s house for being drunk and disorderly in July 2017. 

Jane and Cheryl at first struggled to connect; it had been easier with Di, who right away swapped information about their sons’ associates. Jane seemed overwhelmed when Cheryl started talking about how their children’s cases might be connected. Cheryl called Jane a second time; she needed help finding a location related to Micah’s case. Jane took her there. Then they shared a meal and started talking about Matthew Queen, the man their children had in common. Baylee had been living with him, Micah may have been assembling guns for him. 

The first time all three mothers met was at the local NBC affiliate KGET TV17 in August 2018, when crime reporter Olivia LaVoice brought them in for a televised interview. Soon, all of their cases were being handled by Sergeant Chad Garrett. (Garrett declined to comment for this piece while awaiting a trial.) The three mothers started showing up at county board of supervisors meetings to talk about the nightmare they were living—and with suggestions for what could be done to draw attention to the unsolved cases. 

The trio aren’t relying on law enforcement alone, according to LaVoice, “they're getting other people, other elected officials involved too, which just never happened [in the community before].” When they didn’t feel like search efforts were accomplishing enough, the moms researched what other counties were doing, finding out what equipment and technology they had, says LaVoice, who’s no longer at the Bakersfield station, but is working on a podcast about the cases. Told by local law enforcement there wasn’t funding for new equipment, the mothers raised money themselves. In May 2020, they gave the Kern County Sheriff’s Office a $17,000 sonar scanning system to aid in water search and rescue efforts.

In the months before they identified the arm found in the river—stashed in a bag weighed down with rocks—Cheryl read an article about ANDE, a company that offers automated DNA testing in less than two hours. Cheryl told Jane. Jane got more information. Di used that new info to set up a meeting with local government officials. The moms explained that although bone fragments had been sent to Sacramento for DNA testing through the State Department of Justice, results could take a year or more. ANDE, a private company, could do the testing and get the results back right away. Soon ANDE reps were testing the arm.

That is how, just before Christmas 2018, Cheryl learned that it belonged to her son—the boy whose name she had chosen while walking along that same river. After law enforcement broke the news to the three mothers together (Lance was there too), Di and Jane went to that riverside spot to place flowers. 

“They did for me something that I couldn’t do for myself,” says Cheryl.

Cheryl can’t go near the river out of fear she will go too deep, that she will wade in there to be in the last known place her son was. Jane searches the river, rolling up her pants and stepping in, because it is the last place Baylee might have been. She believes this because her dreams and a psychic medium point her to the river, and that’s where Micah’s remains have been found. Going to the river is Jane’s therapy.

But then Cheryl has something—pieces of her son’s body—while Jane is still looking for anything that might tell her what happened to her daughter.

Jane

Jane has a dog whose name she’s not sure how to spell. Her daughter Baylee adopted Lanah—or is it Lana?—when the Belgian Shepard was just a puppy. Baylee went missing a year-and-a-half later. Now the dog is four and Jane takes it to a park several times a week to exercise. In the trunk of her Kia, next to a water dish, are a stack of missing-person flyers. They are always there. She has a staple gun and tape in her fanny pack and calls herself “Flyer Girl,” tacking them up anytime she sees an empty pole. The first time Cheryl ever went to therapy after Micah disappeared, Jane took her. Jane is “boots on the ground,” following every lead no matter the danger. It is not uncommon to find her wearing overalls and packing pepper spray. That’s just who she is.

Her missing Baylee, her girly-girl, used to wear princess costumes and raise pigs and a rabbit for Future Farmers of America (FFA). Jane’s youngest daughter (Baylee has an older sister, Katelyn) is tall and slim with a sleeve tattoo down her right arm. After high school, Baylee got married in Las Vegas and worked in restaurants. She was excited about turning 21 and getting her new ID. 

Now all Jane has of Baylee is a few boxes of belongings, stored in a closet. Jane thought about putting the clothes in a cedar chest and spent an entire day researching antique or vintage pieces. But then it dawned on her: “This is like Baylee's coffin.” And she couldn’t do it. 

The clothes weren’t even Baylee’s favorites. Jane believes those and some of Baylee’s other day-to-day possessions are still in the home of now-jailed Matthew Queen, the man charged with Micah’s murder who was involved with Baylee when she disappeared. Jane wants more. Clothes, information. Anything. Everything. As a mother, she says, you want something that “smells like them, which is like they're here.”

Jane feels the guilt of going on with regular life, of grocery shopping, while her child’s whereabouts are unknown. “Why am I buying food for me when my daughter is missing?”

But Baylee, like Micah and James, was starting to go away long before she actually went missing. She had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder at age 20 and, according to her mother, may have been bulimic. She was adrift. Like Micah, she overdosed and survived. Like James, she was in a car accident, hers in 2017. That year, her husband filed for divorce and she was arrested twice, first outside Micah’s house and then, in December, on weapons charges alongside Queen. (She paid a fine and was given probation.) Other traumatic things happened that year: a sexual assault she reported to police (her mother says it was a second assault); a restraining order placed against an acquaintance. But these aren’t things Jane talks about. She doesn’t want to do anything to potentially jeopardize the case against Queen and thereby undermine the chance for one of the Bakersfield 3 to see justice. Jane wants that for Cheryl.

“I fucked up a lot [as a mother],” says Jane. “I have a lot of guilt with, you know, What if I would have done this, maybe Baylee wouldn't have got so lost?”

In May 2020, Baylee and Queen were charged with Micah’s kidnapping, torture, and murder. The pair are alleged to have brought Micah to Vandecasteele’s garage in March 2018 to question him about a firearm they say Micah stole from Queen. They bound his arms with zip ties. According to Vandecasteele, Baylee entered his apartment to obtain a knife. He had researched dissolving a human body. Prosecutors believe Queen and Baylee tortured and killed Micah and then disposed of his body. Then the alleged killers “hauled it out there and chucked it in the river like trash,” Cheryl says. “They just wanted to annihilate, remove. And they did. They did their very best to take him from us completely—without even the ability to bury him." 

When a woman’s leg was found at a lake in the Buena Vista Aquatic Recreational Area about 25 miles southwest of Bakersfield in July 2018, Jane was sure it was Baylee’s—it just had to be, she says. It turned out to belong to 64-year-old Shirley Mae Cassel, a Santa Ana resident. The three mothers placed a cross there, anyway, by the murky water. They had nicknamed the previously-unidentified deceased “Lady in the Lake,” “Lil” for short, and shared her story on Facebook. It had become about more than their children. It had become about Bakersfield and Kern County. Since 2016 the homicide rate in the county has been the highest in the state. The three women formed their nonprofit, the Bakersfield 3 Charity, in April 2019, to raise money and awareness for countywide crime-solving efforts. The Kern Secret Witness Program, a nonprofit, which provides monetary rewards to anonymous tipsters who help solve crimes, had less than $2,000 in 2018. An April 2021 golf tournament hosted by the Bakersfield 3 Charity and the Kern Law Enforcement Association raised more than $25,000 for the program. At the country club where the event was held, Camryn scanned a display of crime victim photos for the face of her father, who had loved golf. In Camryn’s mind, it was James’s event. But his photo wasn’t there; the photos were from dozens of more recent crimes. It was another reminder that the Bakersfield moms, says Camryn, “are advocating for so much more than just their own families.” 

Retired Bakersfield homicide investigator Bill Darbee says, half-joking, that the moms’ relentlessness would have driven him “absolutely nutso” if he had worked the case. (Instead, early on he worked unofficially with the three as an investigator.) While he says it isn't that unusual for mothers to follow up on their children’s cases—he calls other women who do this “Mama Bears”—these moms “definitely are more involved than any other homicide investigation I've ever seen.” Their Secret Witness money attracts tips that lead to arrests, he adds. But what Darbee finds unique is the empathy they have for each other. This, he says, was dramatically demonstrated by Cheryl’s graciousness after Baylee was charged with Micah’s murder.

“I really thought, if anything, that was going to split the mom's passion for it, but it has done the opposite,” Darbee says. Immediately after learning about the charges being brought against Baylee, Cheryl went silent. It wasn’t just the news that crushed her—it was specifically the mention of torture. 

“The Baylee everybody knows and loves, she would never ever do anything that horrific to anybody unless her life was in danger or she was threatened, or maybe she was drugged and didn't know it,” Jane told reporters in May 2020. “I'm not trying to make excuses, I just want answers ... so until we can find her, if she's alive, and talk to her, only she knows for sure.” (Although Baylee has not been seen in nearly four years, prosecutors maintain that there is no known physical evidence that definitively confirms her death.) 

Cheryl understands Jane’s defense of Baylee. “I’m a mother,” Cheryl says. “The first thing I would say is ‘Oh, my son would have never done that.’ ” After all, Cheryl hadn’t wanted to believe her son was putting together guns and selling them for cash. Then people sent her video clips of Micah waving guns around. 

As they wait for answers in their children's cases, where once Cheryl would have called Jane, she now calls Di. It isn’t that she blames Jane; Cheryl just wants to protect Jane from the gory details of the actions her daughter is accused of. And when the trial starts this month, there are sure to be surprises—unpleasant ones; there usually are. Questions arise, such as: Why didn’t Baylee try to get help for Micah?

“Baylee may have participated more actively than any of us want to consider,” says Cheryl. But that won’t change Cheryl’s relationship with Jane. And it won’t change Jane’s feelings for Baylee. 

“We all still love our children,” says Cheryl—at their low points and their high points.

While Di was the first to reach out beyond her son’s murder, James’s killing remains unsolved and is not believed by authorities to be directly connected to Micah’s or Baylee’s disappearance. This led to reporters briefly talking about the Bakersfield 2, which made Di defensive. 

“We never said the same person killed all three of our kids,” she says. “What we said was, ‘We need to connect the dots.’ Because there's a circle, and it's a big moving part.”

On NamUs, the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System, Baylee’s last known location shows up on a map as an empty lot across from a local almond orchard. No one will tell Jane where that information came from. Police documents show that Queen took Micah to the same orchard at gunpoint in the months before he was murdered. Micah ran, scared for his life. 

The similarities. The differences. The What if?s.

Together in a victim’s room at the courthouse after a hearing, questions spill out. On the last day Jane saw Baylee outside Queen’s house: “What if I would have just said, ‘Just get in the car and come with me’?” Cheryl, who has family in the Midwest, wonders: “What if I would have taken Micah cross country?” Di had a bad feeling about her sons’ associates. “And what if James and Ryan would have listened to me about [them]?” she asks. 

Their children are all grown but that doesn’t stop the women from wondering what they could have done to help. After all, they are moms and, as moms, says Cheryl, “It's all always on you.”

“How do we do this? How do we get through this?” Cheryl asks as they wait together.

Where the rest of Micah is, aside from his skull and arm, Cheryl may never know. It’s a macabre thought (she admits this whole experience has darkened her outlook), but her husband’s pet chihuahua recently died and they will get his remains back. “We’ll have more of the family dog than Micah,” she says. That is not the kind of thing she can say to her peers, who are busy talking about retirement or holding showers for their grandbabies. If she tells her friends she wants to murder the man accused of killing her son, they tell her she doesn’t mean it. With Jane and Di she doesn’t have to worry about sounding right. The three women understand each other.

The battle for reproductive freedom continues today as the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that directly challenges Roe v. Wade. It's the first time the Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of a pre-viability (a.k.a. before the fetus can survive outside of the uterus) abortion ban since Roe became the law of the land nearly 50 years ago.

Reproductive justice advocates were surprised to learn in May that the Supreme Court would take up the case, which involves a Mississippi law passed in 2018 that bans abortion after 15 weeks. In 2019, the Mississippi abortion ban was struck down by lower courts and stopped from going into effect. Following this, Thomas Dobbs, state health officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, filed an appeal on behalf of the state requesting for the Court to uphold the 15-week ban and directly overturn Roe. The Court sat on the case for nearly a year before it decided to hear it.

"It's important to pay close attention to what happens in the oral arguments on Wednesday and how this gets spun by the states and by our opposition while we're waiting for the outcome," explains NARAL President Mini Timmaraju. "The anti-choice advocates are going to use the fact that the Court opened this window to hear this case and have let S.B.8, [the recent Texas law that bans abortions after six weeks], stand so long as more incentive to push further restrictions on abortion across the country."

The Center for Reproductive Rights will represent Jackson Women's Health Organization—the only licensed abortion clinic left in Mississippi—as the Supreme Court decides whether or not all pre-viability bans on elective abortions are unconstitutional. Jenny Ma, senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, tells Marie Claire that the simplest decision, and the option the Center is advocating for, would be that the Court recognizes Roe is the law of the land and reaffirms that decision like it did in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.

On the other end of the spectrum, in a devastating blow to abortion rights, the Court can accept Mississippi's arguments and overturn Roe v. Wade as well as Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In this scenario, the constitutional right to have an abortion would effectively be eliminated in about 26 states (12 of them have trigger laws that are waiting to go into effect if and when Roe is overturned). However, what it really comes down to is the details. The Court could decide not to explicitly uphold Mississippi's ban or overturn Roe. Instead, it could redefine provisions like the viability standard (fetal viability typically occurs around 24 weeks of pregnancy), which the state of Mississippi argues is arbitrary. 

"It's really important to understand that any decision that upholds Mississippi's ban is the same as overturning Roe," says Ma. "They might not say the words in the decision, but you cannot uphold this law without taking away the core holding of Roe, which is that the individual has the right to make the decision until viability."

Nearly six in 10 Americans support legal abortion and do not want Roe v. Wade overturned, yet 2021 has been the worst year on record for abortion access—with low income people of color, LGBTQ+ folks, and those who live in rural areas disproportionately impacted the most. At this critical time, pro-choice advocates are focused on electing pro-choice politicians in the 2022 midterm elections and passing the Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA). The bill would codify Roe and expand abortion access across the country by making it harder for states to pass medically unnecessary restrictions like waiting periods and telemedicine bans. It passed in the House and is currently sitting in the Senate.

As oral arguments commence, the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority is a major concern for abortion rights advocates. Three of the justices—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—were appointed by former President Donald Trump who previously promised to appoint Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade. These justices, as well as Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, recently voted not to block Texas' six-week abortion ban from going into effect on September 1. This morning, hundreds are rallying in front of the Supreme Court in hopes that their reproductive freedom will be protected.

"Our generation has just not been through this, and so I think in some ways the [abortion] rights have been expected," says Ma. "For pregnant people and women, it's just devastating to see these arguments being made."

The Court is expected to issue a decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in summer 2022, though it could technically do so anytime beginning in January. You can listen to the oral arguments starting at 10 a.m. ET.

Trigger warning: This article contains references to sexual assault, sexual harassment, and other forms of gender violence.

When Anita Hill testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 11, 1991, accusing then-U.S. Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, the outcome was anything but favorable. Thomas's ascendance to the highest court in the land, despite the accusations Hill detailed, confirmed how little our society valued women and set a precedent for how our nation would address gender violence moving forward. After the hearings, Hill had to make a choice: retreat back to her "normal life," resigned to the fact that her high-profile testimony made no impact on Thomas's confirmation, or believe that we, as a nation, could do better and work to enact change for future generations.

For the past 30 years, Hill has embraced the latter, reflected in her aptly-titled book, Believing: Our Thirty-Year Journey to End Gender Violence (out today). In the book, the Brandeis University professor and lawyer discusses America's gender-based violence epidemic and what has—and hasn't—changed in the three decades since her testimony. Rather than writing a memoir, Hill combines anecdotes from her own experience of sexual harassment with those from other survivors, and translates them into actionable ways in which our country can address gender violence today. Her decision to avoid centering herself in the book and in her advocacy work is partly due to Hill being a private person by nature, but also because she feels compelled to share the extensive training and research she's done on gender violence with the world.

"[My] experience [with sexual harassment] was just the beginning. What propels me is what I know now about the [systemic] problem," Hill tells Marie Claire. "We should be enlisting survivors more not just to tell about their experiences. There is also much wisdom around the solutions and how we can move forward. I want us to be recognized for all of those things that we can offer."

The significance, and perhaps irony, of releasing this book in 2021 is not lost on Hill. Not only has violence against women surged—the pandemic has exacerbated domestic violence, as well as online harassment—but the man who led the Thomas confirmation hearings is now President of the United States. Then there's the near-total abortion ban in Texas, a statute whose constitutionality will likely be determined by this Supreme Court. Had the Senate Judiciary Committee conducted a fair and open hearing following Hill's accusations in 1991 (Angela Wright, another woman who accused Thomas of sexual misconduct, was subpoenaed by the committee but not called upon to testify), perhaps we wouldn't have witnessed history repeat itself 27 years later during the confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh. Or witness the most restrictive abortion law in the country go into effect three years after that (Thomas and Kavanaugh were two of five justices who voted not to block the Texas law from going into effect).

Nevertheless, Hill describes the past year-and-a-half as "a moment of accountability." A time when America might finally be ready to acknowledge that gender-based violence has consequences—not just for women, but for society as a whole. Here, Hill speaks to Marie Claire about prioritizing anti-gender violence policies, her thoughts on the #MeToo movement, and the message she has for fellow survivors.

Marie Claire: In the book, you briefly mention your first face-to-face meeting with Dr. Christine Blasey Ford just over a year after her testimony, and her wish that the Senate will create a new system to handle sexual misconduct complaints. How did the results of Dr. Ford's testimony influence your own hope about ending gender violence?

Anita Hill: I'm hopeful for a number of things. One of the things that I'm hopeful about is the change in the American public over the last 30 years. When I testified, so many people said that they weren't even aware of the problem of sexual harassment. We've gotten a public that is much more aware, and it's because of many of the activists that have grown up during this period, the amount of attention that is being paid on colleges and university campuses, and a movement inside those campuses. There is a lot to be hopeful for, and the public's reaction to Dr. Ford's testimony—with the majority of the public saying that they did not believe that Kavanaugh should be confirmed—represents that movement.

MC: You spend some time discussing how Black women often feel at odds with their decision to come forward if the accused is also part of the Black community. During the Thomas hearings, how did you grapple with comments about protecting the community at large?

AH: I'm not sure that I personally was able to alone. One of the things that helped me very early on, and I'm eternally grateful for it, is the ad in the New York Times by a group called African-American Women in Defense of Ourselves, which was really a statement about Black women's experiences in this country and our history of abuse. Our history of silencing and denial of our experiences and our pain. It strikes me that when you talk about Black women's experiences, it's a prime example of what I call "grooming" in our culture, where we are led to believe that our pain is not significant. In the book, I write about [former U.S. Senator] Arlen Specter's statement during my testimony that what had happened to me "was not so bad." I think about how often we tell young girls that their problem is not so bad. "You should just ignore it." Eventually when you're told over and over that the problem is insignificant, you internalize that message.

Now add onto that racism, intersectional bias, and discrimination. If you raise a complaint against another person of color, you will be shamed into believing that you are doing something that hurts the community, the race. I hear from young Black women, especially when I'm on college campuses, about the same concern that they cannot come forward if their alleged abuser is another person of color, or specifically another Black person. So everybody is suffering in the community knowing that this problem exists, and we can't have any recourse because of the racist system that we live in. This is a cultural problem and a system problem. It shows in particular how the systems have failed Black women and other women of color.

I mentioned [in the book] the survivors conference that happened this past year that was really a monumental event in terms of where this issue has come over the last 30 years. But one of the things that women of color complained about was that they felt they had no place to go to get all of the problems addressed because the police, in taking their claims, were hostile to them. In many cases, they said they were made to feel as though they had done something wrong. That is just the systematized version of blaming the victim. It has racial implications, it has gender implications, and it's a problem that has to be fixed.

But I also talk about the other side of this in the book, and that is to have young Black men who really do want to be part of this fight against gender-based violence—against sexual assault, sexual harassment, and rape, specifically—but they also know that they can be wrongly accused by law enforcement. All of us are trapped in this system that keeps us less safe because of our race and because of the prevalence of gender violence. That's a complicated problem. So how do we get together? We have to start by giving equal space to have these conversations in a public way where they are not shamed for stepping up, and in a way that says that the community values you and values your voice.

MC: With these racial dynamics, it's even more amazing to me that you chose to continue on this path towards ending gender violence. You could have retreated back to your private life, but you chose the public.

AH: I chose the public not really knowing how deep the problem was. In the book, I talk about sexual harassment, but I also talk about all of the other stories that I hear. Like the man who called me almost immediately after the [Thomas confirmation] hearing and said that it reminded him of his problem trying to convince his family that he was being violated by a member of the family, and the denials that they had for his experience and how he was silenced.

I heard that thread over and over again from survivors. It's been 30 years of hearing victims and survivors talk about their own experiences. So what we're talking about is a problem that is a people problem, it's not just a problem of one type of behavior. There are so many elements that victims of sexual harassment, victims of incest, victims of intimate partner violence, and victims of rape all have in common. That's part of the scope of the problem, but in addition it's an institutional problem. We've got military scandals, we've got government scandals, we've got courts scandals, we have scandals in private industries. Name an institution that has been exempt from this problem. What it then comes down to is not just the individual damage and the institutional damage, but families and communities and, ultimately, our nation suffers.

MC: Speaking of which, you talk a lot about the individual vs. the collective, trying to get readers to understand that violence against women ultimately affects everyone. One of the examples you used was tied to the economy.

AH: Unfortunately, that is how our legal system [works]. In the United States v. Morrison case, it all boiled down to the commerce clause, and that really is quite sad. The idea that Congress is only able to pass protective legislation to end violence against women because of its relationship to commerce? That in and of itself is pretty shocking. But the fact that we had all of this evidence that there is an impact on commerce, and the Court still chose to deny that Congress had the authority to act, that's one of the things that I think has to change.

Some fixes are longterm, but for now we need changes to procedures. We need changes to the procedure that—if you want to call it that—Christine Blasey Ford fell into, that I fell into, that really hasn't changed that much, if at all. But we also need specific policies that are targeted to the harms that we know have been created. We have statistics that say that 38 percent of people who experience intimate partner violence will become homeless. So we have a housing crisis, we have a health crisis, we have an impact on education. We don't know what the impact is, but we know from the experiences of survivors and victims that there is an impact on their children's education and the family's ability to support itself. All of these things deserve immediate and deliberate attention, but we also need better processes and procedures.

MC: I was struck by your mention that small businesses are exempt from sexual harassment lawsuits. Independent contractors aren't protected either. Should our focus be on advocating for protections at the state level?

AH: There are so many ways that we need to think about solutions, but clearly our systems have failed. It's a systemic problem and the systems that we have in place are in part based on this idea that the problem is "not so big" and "not so important," or it's something that will eventually just go away naturally. As a matter of fact, all of our systems need to be revamped, including the fact that there are exempted businesses in terms of who gets to be held accountable for the sexual harassment and extortion and assault that goes on in our workplaces. One of the things that we have to consider is that independent contractors are a growing body in our workforce today.

MC: In the book, you briefly talk about President Biden's phone call to you in 2019. Have you been able to connect with the Biden administration about advancing anti-gender violence policies since then?

AH: I have not connected with them, nor have they with me. But I'm hoping that this will get enough attention that even though we certainly have numerous other issues that we're addressing right now, that people will understand that this is one of critical importance.

MC: Let's talk about the #MeToo movement. Lately, it's been difficult to analyze the impact of the movement when, for example, people like former Governor Andrew Cuomo have both drafted legislation to combat sexual harassment, and also been accused of sexual harassment. What are your thoughts on the movement as a whole, and do you believe it has changed anything on a systemic level thus far?

AH: The law has been changed and Governor Cuomo has resigned, so why was that possible? It was possible because there was advocacy. It was the movement. Why did he resign? He resigned because there was a system in place for an investigation, there was an explanation of the investigation that took place, there were conclusions that were reached, and there was a recommendation for accountability that came from many voices. As difficult as it has been to read the stories about some of the other involvement with Governor Cuomo, I don't want to take away from the law and I don't want to take away from the procedure that ultimately ended with him resigning.

But what I do want is that, with all of these decisions that are made, they be survivor-focused and enlist survivors in how these processes roll out and how they're developed. Those voices have to be there, and that's the lesson I believe of the last [month]. How do we make sure that what we're doing does not compromise survivors in any way? [The procedures and processes] are what we've been demanding. I believe that's what we need more of in the future, but we need it to come from leaders.

That will only happen if we, as a society, push for it. If the 70 percent of the people who acknowledged Christine Blasey Ford's brave testimony [and] who said, "This is not right. This is wrong. We need to do something. There should be a different outcome" get on board and begin to push for that, I believe it will happen. That's why I call the book Believing because I believe in all of the advocacy and the growth that we have done as a society. If we roll all of that together, I believe we can change.

MC: The near-total abortion ban in Texas is on a lot of people's minds. It feels like the epitome of everything you've described in this book.

AH: There is a direct relationship between [the ban and] violence, and that is the violence that is occurring outside of clinics that offer abortion to women who are seeking the services. That is a form of gender violence. In many cases, the services may be birth control or breast cancer examinations, so that is a very real and direct harm. The policing of women's bodies, especially turning the public into vigilantes, is shocking. It's the singling out of women for entirely different treatment because of their gender.

MC: What message do you want to share with fellow survivors today?

AH: I want them to read the book and understand that part of my believing is believing that we deserve better. We deserve solutions. We deserve recognition of the harm that is being caused to us, as well as to people around us. I want them to believe that [solutions] are possible and that they're going to take a lot of work. They're not going to be instant, there's no one magic pill that will cure everything. You've got to consider a whole bunch of things, including racism and sexism and class bias and homophobia because we come with all different identities as whole people. I want them to see themselves in this work, but I also want them to be hopeful that things can change for their children, even if not for them.

Interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

If you or someone you know has been sexually assaulted, RAINN—the nation's largest anti-sexual violence organization—is available 24/7 for confidential support. Call 800-656-4673 or use the org's online chat tool to talk with a trained staff member.

Tonight Donald Trump gave his first interview as President-Elect to Leslie Stahl at 60 Minutes. One of her first questions was about appointing a Supreme Court justice and what that will mean for issues like Roe v. Wade.

"During the campaign, you said that you would appoint justice who were against abortion rights," Stahl said. "Are you looking to appoint a justice who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade?"

"I'm pro-life," Trump replied. "The judges will be pro-life."

When Stahl probed him about the chances of Roe v. Wade being overturned, Trump's response was murkier:

"Well, there are a couple of things. [The nominee] will be pro-life, they'll be―in terms of the whole gun situation, we know the Second Amendment and everybody's talking about the Second Amendment and they're trying to dice it up and change it, they're going to be very pro-Second Amendment. But having to do with abortion―if it ever were overturned, it would go back to the States. So it would go back to the States."

"But then some women won't be able to get an abortion," Stahl clarified.

"No, it'll go back to the States," Trump said.

And the women who live in states that won't allow for abortions?

"Yeah, well, they'll perhaps have to go, they'll have to go to another state," he confirmed.

"And that's okay?" Stahl asked.

"Well, we'll see what happens," he replied. "It's got a long way to go, just so you understand. That has a long, long way to go."

Follow Marie Claire on Facebook for the latest celeb news, beauty tips, fascinating reads, livestream video, and more.

They are coming after our right to make our own decisions about our lives, families, and futures—and they are getting away with it.

The anti-choice movement, whose agenda is to end access to abortion care and make reproductive healthcare (including, even, contraception and IVF) more difficult to access, has been carrying out a focused and deliberate strategy to slowly but surely chip away at our rights via state legislatures and in the courts.

This year, they are aiming for their long-sought prize: an overturning of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision recognizing the constitutional right to abortion.

This year is already the worst year for attacks on access to abortion since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. State legislators hostile to abortion have introduced, advanced, or passed more than 315 bills undermining access to abortion since 2021 began—and they are showing no signs of slowing down. In 2021, more than 90 restrictions on abortion access have been enacted at the state level.

And now, as the Supreme Court is preparing to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization—a case about Mississippi’s unconstitutional law banning nearly all abortions after 15 weeks—228 U.S. senators and representatives submitted a brief to the Court saying the quiet part loud: arguing that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, two major abortion rights cases, should be “reconsidered and, where necessary, wholly or partially overruled.”

This comes just a week after the state of Mississippi filed its opening brief making the same ask, explicitly suggesting that the Court should overturn Roe.

This moment is the culmination of decades of work by those hostile to our fundamental freedoms. The anti-choice movement has spun a sinister web of laws that compound each other, increasing the costs of care until it is out of reach, closing down clinics that may never again open, and stigmatizing both those who access care and the doctors who provide it. Bans like the one in Mississippi will likely make it impossible for people who need to end a pregnancy to do so. Already the state has just one abortion clinic and multiple roadblocks that can delay a person’s ability to actually access care. These barriers to care impact most severely those already facing the highest obstacles to access, including Black, Indigenous, and other people of color; LGBTQ people; and those with low incomes.

Across the country, we’re witnessing a true avalanche of restrictions, seemingly hitting its crescendo now as the Supreme Court prepares to hear a case that could end the constitutional right to abortion in the United States.

Though we don’t know exactly what the Court will do, we do know that there is no path for it to uphold Mississippi’s 15-week ban without gutting or completely undoing Roe. Earlier court cases have considered laws designed to shut down abortion clinics or otherwise push access further out of reach; this one is explicitly about the legality of abortion. Previous state-issued bans have been tossed out by the courts because they were so patently a violation of Roe v. Wade; that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is extremely troubling. Thanks to the handiwork of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and Senate Republicans, there is an anti-choice supermajority of justices on the Court hostile to reproductive freedom and abortion access.

Should Roe fall, there would be devastating consequences for women and pregnant people across the country. At least 24 states would likely take action to ban abortion outright. Twelve states—including Mississippi—already have “trigger bans” in place, which would ban abortion automatically if Roe is overturned.

The reality is that the right to abortion in this country is hanging on by a thread—and these anti-choice lawmakers want to do away with it entirely. But the American people don’t. Polling shows that 77 percent of Americans support Roe v. Wade and there is no state in the country where banning abortion is popular. The efforts of these lawmakers fly in the face of the values of the vast majority of Americans—the very same people they were elected to represent.

So it’s time for all of us to get to work to secure our fundamental rights. We must call on our leaders in Congress to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act, a critical bill that would safeguard the federal right to abortion care, free from bans and medically unnecessary restrictions. And they can’t delay: if abortion clinics are forced to shutter in the aftermath of a Supreme Court ruling, people who need abortion care will have few, if any, places to turn.

Elected officials have a clear mandate from voters to protect the legal right to abortion—and we won’t let them forget it. By signing onto this brief, these anti-choice lawmakers are blatantly seeking to subvert the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans who support reproductive freedom. But we’re already mobilizing our 2.5 million members to hold politicians accountable at the ballot box, canvassing for pro-choice candidates and protesting anti-choice ones. We won’t stand by idly as extremists work overtime to strip us of our reproductive freedom.

We’re fighting for a world where each of us has the freedom to dream our best lives and live them. We want a world where all of our families and communities have everything they need to thrive. We cannot and will not sit by as these anti-choice politicians double down on interfering in our personal decisions and cave to extremist pressure to turn back the work of generations.

On March 16, 2021, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's final piece of work, Justice, Justice Thou Shalt Pursue: A Life's Work Fighting for a More Perfect Union, will be published by University of California Press. Co-written with Amanda L. Tyler, who served as a law clerk for Justice Ginsburg in 1999, the book is a curation of many of RBG's previously unpublished speeches, dissents, and conversations, honoring the late Supreme Court justice's legacy. Here, in an exclusive excerpt, Tyler reflects on what it meant to work with Justice Ginsburg and how it felt finishing the book days before she passed away in September 2020. Today, March 15, would have been RBG's 88th birthday.

This part of the book was not supposed to exist. On September 18, 2020, shortly after Justice Ginsburg and I submitted this book for publication, she succumbed to complications from cancer and passed away at her home surrounded by her family and loved ones.

It is impossible to put into words how devastating her loss is for those of us who were lucky enough to know her. As the outpouring of grief that gripped the United States following news of her death vividly illustrated, the country she loved and spent a lifetime serving also suffered a great loss with her passing. Justice Ginsburg was a national treasure—someone who through her life and work made ours a better, more just society. Indeed, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote after her passing, she was nothing short of an “American hero.”

In trying to process her loss, I keep coming back to the passage from Deuteronomy that hung on a wall in her chambers:

“Justice, justice thou shalt pursue.”

This calling drove Justice Ginsburg in all she did.

Indeed, Justice Ginsburg’s life’s work was defined by her dedication to making sure the United States Constitution leaves no one behind and truly is a document for all of us, “We the People.”

This book covers only a small part of the impact Justice Ginsburg’s life and work had on American law and society. And what an impact it was. From dismantling institutionalized gender discrimination as an advocate in the 1970s through 40 years as a federal judge, including 27 years on the Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg worked tirelessly to advance the principle that the United States Constitution is an inclusive document that promises everyone “equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in, and contribute to society based on their individual talents and capacities.”

Justice Ginsburg was also an inspiration. As someone who had confronted adversity throughout her life and bulldozed countless roadblocks thrown in her path along the way, her strength and determination fueled her forward time and again. I keep thinking back, for example, to how she went to the Court to announce an opinion from the bench the morning after she lost her beloved life partner, Marty. Profoundly dedicated to her role as a public servant, she insisted the work always had to go on. Right up until the very end, she battled cancer with courage and grace, keeping it at bay so many times that many of us began to believe she was invincible.

On this score, I think back in particular to the events at the heart of this book. When I telephoned the Justice to invite her to deliver the first Herma Hill Kay Memorial Lecture in her friend’s honor, she instantly accepted and suggested that we make it a conversation between the two of us. As originally scheduled, we would have held the event in January 2019. But in light of the Justice’s December 2018 surgery to address lung cancer her doctors had discovered, we had to postpone. I recall trying to talk her into canceling the January event well before we actually did. She was so committed to honoring her friend that she resisted. When, under the advice of her doctors, she finally relented, she insisted that we immediately set a new date. When that date arrived ten months later, she made the trip despite not being back at full speed. During her visit, I witnessed first-hand the Justice’s awe-inspiring resilience. Nothing—not even cancer—was going to keep her from honoring her dear friend. That is who Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was.

Less than a year later, the news came that we had lost her. It felt like a gut punch.

Her law clerks knew what we had to do. Despite the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, some 120 of us who had worked for her at the Supreme Court and at the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit traveled from all over the country to stand as honorary pallbearers as her casket returned to the Supreme Court one final time. It was our solemn duty to stand by her side as she passed under and later lay in repose below the Court’s portico at its west entrance that so fittingly reads “Equal Justice Under Law.”

We drew great comfort from being together during those difficult days, all of us holding her close in our hearts. She did so much for so many of us as a mentor and friend that it is simply impossible to convey her incredible generosity and kindness in this afterword. Beyond all that she taught us when we clerked for her, there were the job recommendations that followed, the encouraging notes that arrived to mark both personal and professional milestones (including “RBG grandclerk” T-shirts when new children joined our families), the support she offered as we struggled through our own periods of adversity, and the visits in which we cemented memories we will cherish forever.

After we received her at the Court, her clerks kept vigil by her side for the next 48 hours, two clerks at a time in 20-minute shifts. We stood outside with her during the day, bearing witness to the droves of mourners who came, often with children in tow, to pay their respects. In their grief, we saw just how enormous Justice Ginsburg’s impact on this country has been. Overnight, we came inside the Court to be alone with her, while she lay in the vast Great Hall, and there we stood by her side, just two clerks and one Honor Guard from the Supreme Court Police. It was a time to reflect and to tell her how much she changed our lives and how much we loved her. I served on the last clerk vigil before we returned her to her family, after which she departed the Supreme Court for the final time to lie in state at the Capitol. It is fitting that she was still making history, even in death, as the first woman and first Jewish person to be so honored. All the same, watching her leave the Supreme Court, knowing she would never return, was heartbreaking.

Over the spring and summer of [2020], as Justice Ginsburg and I assembled this book, I had the special privilege of working closely with her one last time. She was excited about this project as well as the forthcoming publication of her dear friend Herma Hill Kay’s important work chronicling the lives of the first women law professors in the United States. As we exchanged drafts of various parts of this book, the Justice was every bit as rigorous an editor as she had been 20 years ago when I clerked for her. Right up until the end, she was still teaching me about the craft of writing, how important precision is, and to never use four words when three will do.

During our last conversation, we talked about this project and how she was holding up as she endured numerous medical challenges. Then, the Justice asked about my children. In light of the ongoing pandemic, she wanted to know whether they would be returning to school this fall for in-person instruction or would be attending their classes online from home. More generally, she expressed deep concern for children everywhere who were being profoundly affected by the ongoing pandemic.

That, too, was Justice Ginsburg—always thinking about others and always looking toward the future.

Writing at this moment, that future seems uncertain. But in reflecting on her legacy as told in this book, we can all draw inspiration from the wisdom she imparted in her historic dissent in Shelby County. If she were here with us today, I think she would tell us never to forget, as she said in announcing her opinion from the bench, what “[t]he great man who led the march from Selma to Montgomery” told us: “‘The arc of the moral universe is long,’ he said, but ‘it bends toward justice,’ if there is a steadfast commitment to see the task through to completion.”

It is now the responsibility of all of us to take up this charge.

Excerpt from Justice, Justice Thou Shalt Pursue: A Life’s Work Fighting for a More Perfect Union, by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Amanda Tyler. Copyright Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Amanda Tyler. University of California Press.

On this day in 1973, the Supreme Court issued its landmark abortion-rights decision, Roe v. Wade. It was the first time anywhere in the world that a court ruled that its constitution recognized a right to abortion, citing liberties guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. In later cases, the Court would make clear that the ability to make this most intimate and personal decision is central to a woman’s dignity and to her equal participation in the social, economic, and political life of the nation.

Landmark rulings are never stand-alone affairs. Roe’s roots were grounded in Supreme Court decisions going back decades that protected a zone of personal decisions around family. In the years that followed, the Court extended its liberty holdings to wrap in LGBTQ+ rights, including the right to marriage equality and intimacy. Most Americans benefit from these rights without even realizing their connection to Roe.

And yet, not all of Roe’s progeny are cause for celebration. In subsequent cases, the Supreme Court allowed states to pile on onerous burdens to abortion care, leaving behind many people, including those who rely on federal health care programs like Medicaid.

Even as Roe stands, the burdens of abortion restrictions fall most heavily on people already facing multiple barriers to health care and other forms of discrimination, including BIPOC people, young people, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, those in rural areas, and those working to make ends meet. The constitutional courts of other nations have called out the cruelty and discrimination of recognizing rights only for those with means. The Supreme Court of Nepal, for example, ruled more than a decade ago that the government must set up a fund to cover the cost of abortion for poor and rural women, and invest enough resources to meet the demand for abortion services and education.

Nevertheless, Roe has been a critical bulwark against the hundreds of state abortion bans and restrictions enacted in the past decade. Four years ago, the Court struck down a Texas law designed to shut down abortion clinics throughout the state. Just last summer, in June Medical Services v. Russo, the Supreme Court threw out a copycat Louisiana abortion restriction. In the close 5–4 ruling, Chief Justice Roberts voted to uphold precedent. And lower courts, again and again, have relied on the precedent of Roe to strike down the relentless restrictions that keep on coming, including bans on when, how, and for what reason a person can decide to end a pregnancy.

But the Supreme Court has changed composition since the June Medical decision, following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her place. This capped a seismic shift in the federal courts during the Trump administration, with incredibly troubling implications for abortion. Justice Barrett’s academic writings, court decisions, and public advocacy reveal a legal view that the U.S. Constitution does not protect an individual’s personal liberty to make decisions about their reproductive health. The two other Trump appointees to the Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch, have already voted to uphold restrictions on abortion and contraception.

We now face a new Court—one with six of nine justices having already ruled against abortion rights—potentially altering years of progress.

Earlier this month, in the first abortion ruling since Justice Barrett was confirmed, the impact of this new math became obvious. Even while the Court itself hears arguments in its cases remotely from home, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, those six justices with a record of opposing abortion rights reinstated a callous and outdated FDA policy unnecessarily requiring people seeking medication abortion to travel to a health center to pick up the pills in person (rather than receiving them by mail). There are more abortion cases in the Court’s pipeline that could prove to be devastating to abortion access.

The new Supreme Court isn’t the only pending threat. A decade-long effort by anti-abortion state legislators has driven the passage of nearly 500 laws and restrictions intended to ban abortion out of existence. It’s working. More than 90 percent of U.S. counties are now without a single abortion provider; six states are down to their last abortion clinic. Across much of the South and Midwest, access to abortion is a right in theory only. And last year, elected officials in at least 10 states tried to exploit the COVID-19 pandemic to deny access to essential, time-sensitive abortion care.

The Center for Reproductive Rights’ state-by-state online tool, “What if Roe Fell,” puts into stark context what would happen if Roe were to be overturned or weakened: 24 states and three U.S. territories could swiftly move to ban abortion outright. Meaning, in nearly half the nation, abortion care would no longer be available.

Roe is in danger, and frankly, with its lack of protections, it was never enough. But there is a way forward: a federal legislative solution.

There’s no question Congress has a lot of important issues to tackle—the COVID-19 pandemic and the economic crisis, ongoing systemic racism, the future of the Affordable Care Act, and attacks on our democracy. But if we’ve learned anything from nearly half a century of Roe, it’s that equal access to abortion is central to a fair and just society.

That’s why the Center for Reproductive Rights is calling on the 117th Congress to pass bold federal legislation, starting with The Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), which would ensure that abortion care is free from medically unnecessary burdens and bans that impede access and shut down clinics. WHPA will protect access to abortion across the nation for everyone. We also need to pass the EACH Woman Act and repeal the discriminatory Hyde amendment, ensuring that a person’s economic circumstance will never be a barrier to abortion access.

Together, these actions will transform abortion rights and access. They will bring us closer to a world where every person can make their own decisions about their own pregnancy, free from political interference and discrimination, so we can move forward—not backwards.

As ballots continue to be counted in battleground states like Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, the American people are wondering how long it will take to receive the final results of the 2020 election. While it's unclear how long the results will take (patience is a virtue!), what is clear is that the timeline of a final outcome will most certainly be affected if any state's election results are contested and brought to the Supreme Court.

In a speech on election night, President Trump falsely declared victory and stated that he plans to challenge pending results in the Supreme Court, despite boasting moments before that he had a significant lead in Pennsylvania. He also stated that he wants ballots to stop being counted. Myrna Pérez, director of the Brennan Center's Voting Rights and Elections Program, explains that the path to the Supreme Court depends on who is contesting the election results and where the lawsuit is filed. "The most likely scenario [the president takes a case to the Supreme Court] is one in which they're able to identify something that they think will change the outcome of the election," says Pérez. "If the electoral votes and the closeness of the election councils against that, they will have fewer incentives to spend the time and the resources doing it."

Following a similar sentiment, the Supreme Court's likelihood of hearing a case, specifically if it has to do with a recount, will depend on how close the election results are. This is not something we'll know until all of the mail-in ballots have been counted. States like Pennsylvania have granted an additional three days to receive ballots postmarked on or before Election Day. On the other hand, mail-in ballots in North Carolina must be postmarked and received by November 12. (The winner of the presidential election may not even need to focus on these states, depending on the outcome in other swing states.) If the 2020 election results are brought to the Supreme Court, newly-sworn in Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett will be given the option to hear the case, or recuse herself from it.

In the meantime, the Trump campaign will likely file a range of lawsuits before we know the final results. On November 4, the campaign announced its lawsuit against Michigan, ordering the state to stop counting ballots. "We have filed suit today in the Michigan Court of Claims to halt counting until meaningful access has been granted," the campaign stated in a press release. "We also demand to review those ballots which were opened and counted while we did not have meaningful access. President Trump is committed to ensuring that all legal votes are counted in Michigan and everywhere else."

There's still a big question mark regarding how quickly said lawsuits will move through the courts, but Pérez has faith in the courts' efficiency. "We have a lot of checks in our systems. The institutions that we have set up to deal with legal matters when you have an election behind you are going to adapt as needed to deal with the pressing situation we have."

If you believe you were a victim of voter suppression and/or did not have the ability to exercise your right to vote, call the nonpartisan Election Protection Hotline at 866-OUR-VOTE.

With just eight days until Election Day, Amy Coney Barrett has officially been confirmed to the Supreme Court, filling Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's seat. The Senate vote took place on the evening of October 26, in a vote of 52-48. Coney Barrett was sworn in by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas tonight at 9 p.m. at the White House. Chief Justice John Roberts will administer the judicial oath during a private ceremony tomorrow, October 27, in the East Conference Room at the Supreme Court.

Since President Donald Trump nominated Coney Barrett exactly a month ago, people across the nation have expressed concern about the judge's perceived views on topics like abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and gun safety while working in the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, as well as her dedication to the judicial philosophy of originalism. Former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Judge Barrett's mentor who she clerked for, interpreted the constitution this way while serving on the Supreme Court. Democratic politicians and constituents alike have questioned Judge Barrett's lack of experience, and called the rushed confirmation process "a sham." Senate Republicans stand by the proceedings.

With the Affordable Care Act (ACA) set to become one of the first cases the Supreme Court will hear with Judge Barrett on the Court, which threatens to take away coverage of preexisting conditions for millions of Americans in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, many are feeling terrified, angry, and anxious for what's to come with a majority conservative court. See the Twitter reactions to Coney Barrett's SCOTUS confirmation as associate justice, below.

Data privacy legislation is not about secrecy; it’s about transparency. I know a lot about both. I was one of the original coauthors of the initiative that became the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the most comprehensive privacy law in the U.S., and before that I was a CIA counterintelligence officer and counsel on the House Intelligence Committee. Surprisingly, it was my career as a spy—where I did things like provide oversight of the NSA wiretapping program Edward Snowden later disclosed—that made me realize how desperately the U.S. needs a law to protect consumers’ online privacy. I’m inspired by this quote shared by Gabriel Weinberg, the founder of the privacy-focused search engine DuckDuckGo: “Everyone knows what you do in the bathroom, but you still close the door.” In other words, your info may not be a secret, but it should remain private.

The U.S. government hasn’t gotten that memo. Until the CCPA went into effect on January 1, 2020, there was minimal regulation as to what personal information companies could collect, how they could use it, and with whom they could share it. Outside of California, that’s still the case. When you click “accept” on an app or website, it’s nearly impossible to know what terms you’re really agreeing to. Companies can know where you live, how fast you drive, whether you have a chronic health condition, and even if you are pregnant or were a rape victim.

This personal information can be used to serve you annoying advertisements, fueling a $100-billion-plus digital advertising market. There are even entire companies, called ad or data brokers, that exist to collect, package, and sell data. It can be shared with employers, insurance companies, marketers, and more. Some entities even create an e-score, which can be purchased by virtually anyone. Unfortunately, the discriminatory effects of e-scores largely impact women and people of color.

The CCPA grants all Californians the right to find out what information businesses are collecting, opt out of the sale of personal information, and sue businesses if personal information is stolen. A looming question is whether Congress will pass comprehensive federal privacy legislation, like the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation. Several bills have been introduced, including one from New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand, but have been largely unsuccessful due to lobbying by the tech, retail, and advertising industries.

Governmental change takes time, but there are things you can do right now: If you live in California, opt out of the sale of your data. (Websites now must list this option.) If you live in Nevada or Maine (both have privacy laws), learn how you’re protected. If not, contact your representatives and demand that they pass legislation. (Several states, including New York and Washington, are working on bills.) Your information is being used against you. It’s time to take it back.

This article originally appeared in the Fall 2020 issue of Marie Claire.

subscribe here

On September 18, 2020, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court, died from complications of metastatic pancreatic cancer. The 87-year-old justice was a trailblazer for women everywhere, and her death has left Americans unable to comprehend what the future of the United States holds.

Initially, there were conflicting reports about whether or not President Donald Trump can and would nominate a Supreme Court justice during an election year. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) quickly became the decision maker. In 2016, McConnell infamously prevented Merrick Garland—President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nomination—from being confirmed to fill the vacancy of Justice Antonin Scalia by refusing to hold a hearing or vote. Instead, he said the next president should choose the nomination and let President Obama's nomination expire. Donald Trump ended up nominating Neil Gorsuch.

Within hours of the announcement of RBG's death, senators began speaking out about whether or not there should be a vote to confirm RBG's replacement during an election year. RBG dictated the following statement to her granddaughter, Clara Spera, on her deathbed: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed." Ultimately, McConnell and and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have decided that precedent—and RBG's wish—doesn't matter and they will move forward with confirmation hearings the week of October 12 for President Trump's nominee, Amy Coney Barrett—a religious conservative judge that currently serves on the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals—who will determine the course of our nation for decades to come.

Coney Barrett will likely be confirmed to the Supreme Court, unless Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and two other Republican senators vote "no." Below, the senators' initial thoughts on whether or not there should be an official nomination before the 2020 election, and whether or not they'll vote to confirm Judge Barrett:

Kamala Harris (D-CA): No / No

Chuck Schumer (D-NY): No / No

Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): No / No

Mitch McConnell (R-KY): Yes / Yes

Martha McSally (R-AZ): Yes / Yes

Ed Markey (D-MA): No / No

Richard Blumenthal (D-CT): No / No

Mazie Hirono (D-HI): No / No

Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): No / No

Bob Casey (D-PA): No / No

Bob Menendez (D-NJ): No / No

Ted Cruz (R-TX): Yes / Yes

Bernie Sanders (D-VT): No / No

Chris Murphy (D-CT): No / No

Rick Scott (R-FL): Yes / Yes

Kelly Loeffler (R-GA): Yes / Yes

Brian Schatz (D-HI): No / No

Tammy Duckworth (D-IL): No / No

Angus King (D-ME): No / No

Chris Van Hollen (D-MD): No / No

Susan Collins (R-ME): No / Unclear

Lindsey Graham (R-SC): Yes / Yes

Lisa Murkowski (R-AK): No / Unclear

John Barrasso (R-WY): Yes / Yes

Roy Blunt (R-MO): Yes / Yes

Mike Braun (R-IN): Yes / Yes

Tom Cotton (R-AR): Yes / Yes

Steve Daines (R-MT): Yes / Yes

Roger Wicker (R-MS): Yes / Yes

Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): Yes / Yes

Josh Hawley (R-MO): Yes / Yes

Rob Portman (R-OH): Yes / Yes

John Thune (R-SD): Yes / Yes

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI): No / No

Sherrod Brown (D-OH): No / No

Tom Carper (D-DE): No / No

Dick Durbin (D-IL): No / No

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY): No / No

Martin Heinrich (D-NM): No / No

Tim Kaine (D-VA): No / No

Amy Klobuchar (D-MN): No / No

Patrick Leahy (D-VT): No / No

Patty Murray (D-WA): No / No

Gary Peters (D-MI): No / No

Debbie Stabenow (D-MI): No / No

Tom Udall (D-NM): No / No

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): No / No

Cory Gardner (R-CO): Yes / Yes

Chuck Grassley (R-IA): Yes / Yes

Mitt Romney (R-UT): Yes / Yes

Doug Jones (D-AL): No / No

Marco Rubio (R-FL): Yes / Yes

Cory Booker (D-NJ): No / No

John Coryn (R-TX): Yes / Yes

Senator Coryn doesn't have a Twitter, but you can read his statements here and here.

Joni Ernst (R-IA): Yes / Yes

Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV): Yes / Yes

Thom Tillis (R-NC): Yes / Yes

David Perdue (R-GA): Yes / Yes

This post will be updated.

Put simply, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a legend. When the Supreme Court justice of 27 years passed away in September of 2020, the loss of a giant was felt everywhere, and especially by women. Through sharing what she meant to us—"Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the only proof I'll ever need that superheroes don't wear capes"—or re-reading our favorite quotes by her, we all have different ways of mourning her and honoring the legacy she left behind.

Few people put it better than Felicity Jones: "Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave us hope, a public figure who stood for integrity and justice—a responsibility she did not wear lightly," said Jones, who portrayed the powerhouse in the biopic On the Basis of Sex. "She will be missed not only as a beacon of light in these difficult times but for her razor-sharp wit and extraordinary humanity. She taught us all so much."

Ginsburg paved the way for women's rights and fought for us every single day of her life. But believe it or not, she didn't become a cultural icon until late in life. Here are some of the movies, TV shows, and books about her, so you can learn more about the justice's life and honor her everlasting legacy.

'RBG'

This Oscar-nominated documentary is a great place to start if you want to know more about the late justice. It covers her early years as a law student at Harvard in the late '50s to how she rose in the ranks to being appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton in 1993.

WATCH NOW

'On the Basis of Sex'

You have Felicity Jones as RBG, Armie Hammer as her loving attorney husband Martin Ginsburg, Kathy Bates as the feminist Dorothy Kenyon, Justin Theroux as the legal director of the ACLU—and does it work! While it only covers a small portion of her life, a.k.a the 1971 Reed v. Reed case, oh, do the tears roll. You'll admire her even more after watching this one.

WATCH NOW

'Saturday Night Live'

If Kate McKinnon is posing as you weekly on SNL, you know you've made it. There are countless videos of McKinnon playing the famous judge on YouTube, but this is a personal favorite. Even Bader Ginsburg has given her stamp of approval on the impression. “I liked the actress who portrayed me,” said Ginsburg in 2018 at the Sundance Film Festival of McKinnon. “And I would like to say, ‘Gins-Burn!’ sometimes to my colleagues.”

The heartbreaking death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg—a Supreme Court icon who had served on the nation's highest court for 27 years—comes at a pivotal time for the nation. The announcement of Ginsburg's death came 46 days before an election that will determine whether Donald Trump will retain his position as president of the United States, or give up the White House to Democrat and former VP Joe Biden. The big question is thus: Can a Supreme Court justice be replaced during an election year—like the one we're in?

The answer is complicated. It's also one that was posited as recently as this spring, when Ginsburg was hospitalized for gallbladder treatment. "Republicans Suddenly Cool With Election Year Supreme Court Picks," read a Vanity Fair headline; the story explained that then-president Barack Obama tried his damnedest to get his nominee Merrick Garland into the Supreme Court before his two-term presidency ended, filling the seat left by Antonin Scalia. Republicans, particularly Mitch McConnell, fought Obama on that front, stating that since it was an election year and Obama was a "lame duck" president—I'm quoting McConnell here—the next president should pick the next SCOTUS justice. That wager paid off when Trump entered the White House and picked Neil Gorsuch to fill Scalia's seat. Which brings me to...

The Thurmond rule says "no"—but it isn't really a rule.

In politics, we have something called the Thurmond rule, which is named after Senator Strom Thurmond. In the late '60s, Thurmond blocked then-president Lyndon B. Johnson's appointment of Justice Abe Fortas as chief justice, citing the closeness of the upcoming election. The "Thurmond rule" posits that a federal justice, such as a Supreme Court justice, should not be decided in the run-up to an election.

But here's the catch: The "Thurmond rule" isn't really a rule. It has no legal standing, although members of both parties have used it over the past half-century to try to justify their decisions to push through—or not—a new SCOTUS justice. Most recently, it was invoked in 2016; Republicans cited the Thurmond rule as a reason to not vote on any nominee of Obama's. Basically...

Republicans said recently that justices should not be replaced during an election year.

Mitch McConnell has personally said that the Thurmond rule isn't really a thing. In 2008, as dug up by the Last Week Tonight team, McConnell said:

That comment came up in 2016, when McConnell said of Obama's nomination of Garland: "This vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."

McConnell's two comments are at odds, clearly—but that didn't stop the Republican Senate majority from stonewalling Garland as a matter of principle, because Garland was Obama's pick. The "rule" was taken seriously enough by Republicans at the time that the president's nominee was denied, so it would be hard to argue now that Trump deserves to push through a nominee while, potentially, at the very end of his presidency. (Update: Mitch McConnell said Friday night that Trump's nominee “will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”)

But the conclusion of the 2016 situation was less to do with an abstract "rule" and more to do with the fact that Republicans had, and have, control of the Senate. Therefore, if Trump does nominate a person to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court bench and the Senate does choose to confirm that person, no arbitrary rule can change that.

But time is not in Republicans' favor. With only a few dozen days left until the election, that's barely enough time to do a background check on a potential future justice, let alone go through the entire process of nominating and confirming somebody. Of course, if Trump is re-elected, he will have his choice of future justices. But even if Joe Biden is elected president in November, Trump may use his remaining months in office—he wouldn't leave the White House until mid-January—to make sure that his last act as president is to get a conservative nominee through.

History shows us how SCOTUS nominations play out in election years.

On Saturday at a campaign rally in North Carolina, President Trump said to the crowd, "There have been 29 times a vacancy opened during an election year or prior to an inauguration. Twenty-nine times. That's a lot," He continued, "Every single time, the sitting president made a nomination. That included — did you ever hear of George Washington? Did you ever hear of Thomas Jefferson? Or how about the great Abraham Lincoln?"

Well, this isn't exactly true. According to Senate and Supreme Court records, there have been only 16 vacancies of a Supreme Court seat, including Ginsburg's, that happened before Election Day during an election year. Ten of those suggestions ended up rejected or were later withdrawn by the president.

So while, yes, past presidents did indeed nominate someone for seats 29 times in total, not everyone fits the specific requirements that President Trump's scenario suggests.

If we really want to get into details, 10 vacancies happened after presidential elections and before a new president was sworn in. Another five vacancies occurred before the start of an election year, so nominations were then made during it. Both Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln fall under the latter.

Trump has announced his Supreme Court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, already signaling one step in the long process to replace a Supreme Court judge, so it'll be interesting to see what side of history this nomination will be on.

It's a dark day in America—President Donald Trump has officially nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, eight days after the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Coney Barrett, who is currently a judge on the seventh circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, is known for her anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ+, pro-gun views that will affect the livelihood of millions of Americans and, ultimately, the United States as we know it.

While Coney Barrett is not officially on the Supreme Court yet, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is pushing to hold confirmation hearings and a vote before the election on November 3, 2020. This goes completely against what McConnell preached in 2016 when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away. When President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to replace him, McConnell refused to hold a vote, citing the fact that it's an election year, and allowed President Obama's nomination to expire. Donald Trump ended up nominating Neil Gorsuch, a conservative judge, to the Supreme Court instead.

Similar to the morning after the 2016 election, people across the country are feeling terrified, anxious, and worried for what's to come should the Senate vote to confirm Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. See some of the reactions to Coney Barrett's nomination, below.

If you're looking to take action, contact your senators today and demand that they vote "no" on Coney Barrett's nomination. (You can see where senators stand on voting for a Supreme Court nominee during an election year here.) You can also help flip the Senate blue and donate to the campaigns of John Hickenlooper, Theresa Greenfield, Mark Kelly, Sara Gideon, Jaime Harrison, Amy McGrath, and MJ Hegar who are running against Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO), Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA), Senator Martha McSally (R-AZ), Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), respectively, in the 2020 election.

In just a few days, President Trump is expected to name his choice to replace the late Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away on Friday. Trump has said multiple times the nominee will most likely be a woman, and one of the top contenders for the spot is Judge Amy Coney Barrett. The New Orleans native is one of five female candidates the President is officially considering, and many White House officials have said that Coney Barrett seems to be the clear front-runner for the position. If nominated, she would be the youngest Justice on the bench at 48 years old.

Updated 09/25: According to multiple Republican sources close to the process of choosing the new candidate, President Donald Trump plans to pick Amy Coney Barrett to be the new Supreme Court justice. "The machinery is in motion," said one of the sources to CNN. Reportedly, the decision is set to be announced Saturday afternoon.

"She was the plan all along. She's the most distinguished and qualified by traditional measures," explained a former senior administration official to CNN. "She has the strongest support among the legal conservatives who have dedicated their lives to the court. She will contribute most to the court's jurisprudence in the years and decades to come."

Coney Barrett is a former clerk to the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

After graduating summa cum laude from Notre Dame Law School, Coney Barrett began her career in 1998 to 1999 as a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia before joining the school's faculty as a professor in 2002.

Many religious conservatives consider her an "ideological heir" to former conservative judge Scalia, and some fellow clerks say she was his favorite. Her peers have said she's a "textualist" like Scalia who, according to The New York Times, is "one who interprets the law based on its plain words, as opposed to someone who looks to accomplish the legislature’s purpose."

Where does she stand on Roe v. Wade?

Barrett has the backing of many conservatives and anti-abortion groups. But she's side-stepped questions about the topic in the past.

She's been praised by the President of the Susan B. Anthony List, Marjorie Dannenfelser, who leads the anti-abortion group: "She is the perfect combination of brilliant jurist and a woman who brings the argument to the court that is potentially the contrary to the views of the sitting women justices."

But Barrett has gone against some conservative decision in the past. According to the IndyStar, Barrett "called for the re-hearing of a case that struck down former Indiana Gov. Mike Pence's 2016 abortion law, which prohibited abortions if the fetus was disabled."

In January 2013, at a lecture, Barrett also said it's "unlikely" that Roe v. Wade would ever be overturned, due to the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey. "I think it is very unlikely at this point that the court is going to overturn Roe or Roe as curbed by Casey. The fundamental element, that the woman has a right to choose abortion, will probably stand," said Barrett. "The controversy right now is about funding. It's a question of whether abortions will be publicly or privately funded."

At the very same lecture, she even went as far as to say Roe's existence continues to complicate things beyond the law, saying, "Republicans are heavily invested in getting judges who will overturn Roe, and Democrats are heavily invested in getting judges who will preserve the central holding of Roe. As a result, there have been divisive confirmation battles of a sort not seen before."

She was nominated by Trump to serve on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017.

While she was going through the vetting process, concerns were raised that Coney Barrett's judgment on certain cases could be swayed towards decisions that aligned with her religious preferences.

Barrett belongs to a small Catholic group called People of Praise who have members swear an oath of loyalty and therefore listen to its "senior members"—they're called a "head" for men and a "handmaid" for women, by the way—who direct members on important life decisions like who to marry, where to live, how to raise children and so on.

At the hearing for Barett, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein expressed her concern saying: "When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that's of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country."

To which Barett responded: "It's never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law."

In the end, she was confirmed in a 55-43 vote by the Senate later that year. Three of those supporting votes were Democratic senators: Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and former Senator of Indiana, Joe Donnelly.

She met with President Trump recently.

According to The Hill, Barrett met with President Trump Monday at the White House. Sources say this shows that President Trump is seriously considering Barrett, along with Barbara Lagoa.

"She's one of the people that's very respected, but they're all respected," said Trump on Barrett. "She is certainly one of the candidates, yes."

This isn't her first time being considered, though. In 2018, Barrett was one of the many names on the list to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. Still, the President ultimately went on to nominate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Sources say that she does have an advantage since she's gone through the vetting process once before.

On Friday afternoon, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away at the age of 87. The second woman to ever serve on the Supreme Court, RBG was a liberal powerhouse who remained on the Court for 27 years. The feminist and cultural icon leaves behind an unforgettable legacy, and the unique details of her funeral reflect that.

Currently, the changemaker is being honored with a longstanding Supreme Court tradition: Her justice's seat and the courtroom's doors have both been draped in black wool crepe. The eight remaining justices expressed their grief in a statement from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.: "We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn, but with confidence, that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her—a tireless and resolute champion of justice."

This is how Washington and Ginsburg's family plan to bid her farewell while honoring her legacy in the coming weeks.

She will lie in repose at the Supreme Court.

It was announced Monday that Ginsburg will lie in repose at the Supreme Court this week. Her casket will be available for public viewing. On Wednesday, a private ceremony of close friends and family is scheduled for after Ginsburg's casket arrives at 9:30 a.m.

When the ceremony is over, her casket will be available for public view on the court building's steps from 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Wednesday, and again from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. on Thursday.

Then, she'll be the first woman *ever* to lie in state at the U.S. Capitol.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that Ginsburg's body will lie in state on Friday in the National Statuary Hall in the U.S. Capitol. A private ceremony will also be held. This will make Ginsburg the first woman ever to lie in state at the Capitol, and the second justice ever to have the honor of lying there. (Rosa Parks was the first woman to lie in honor.)

After that, she'll be buried in a private service.

Following those events, Ginsburg will be buried in a private service next week at Arlington National Cemetery, beside her husband Martin D. Ginsburg. Ginsburg will be the fourteenth justice to be buried at Arlington.

"People ask me sometimes, when do you think it will be enough? When will there be enough women on the Court? And my answer is, when there are nine." Those are the words of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court, who passed away from complications of metastatic pancreatic cancer on September 18, 2020, at 87 years old. It's impossible to describe the loss our country—especially women—has felt over the past few days, while urgently fighting to grant RBG her final wish: that she won't be replaced until a new president is installed.

As we continue to mourn the loss of a true champion for equal rights, Marie Claire asked women across the country to reflect on what RBG meant to them. We hope their responses inspire you to continue to uphold her legacy, and ensure the progress she has made for Americans lives on for years to come.

More Than a Feminist Icon

"Justice Ginsburg actually played a very significant role in my family’s story, representing Stephen Wiesenfeld when he sought social security survivor’s benefits after his wife (my grandpa’s cousin) died during childbirth. Those benefits were previously only available to widows, not widowers. To me, this is an important reminder that she was so much more than a feminist icon; when she said gender equality, she meant it whether you were a woman or a man. I’ll always admire how brilliant she was to open the minds of many men to understanding gender discrimination by proving to them that it impacts all of us." —Ali V., Florida, 26

The Personification of Grit

"Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the only proof I’ll ever need that superheroes don’t wear capes. Instead, they wear black robes, amazing glasses, and crewnecks reading 'SUPER DIVA' across the chest. The economic and societal freedoms women are able to enjoy in 2020 are directly attributed to RBG’s work in fighting for gender equality. In our mothers’ and grandmothers’ lifetime, up until 1974, all single, divorced, or widowed women had to have a male present to cosign any credit application. RBG was the personification of grit. As women, we owe it to her to vote out Trump in November." —Jaimie P., New Jersey, 25

A Champion of Freedom and Titan of Gender Equality

"For me, Justice Ginsburg will always be an icon—a champion of reproductive freedom and a titan of gender equality. A few years ago, I was lucky enough to speak with her about the status of abortion rights in this country, where she expressed great concern and frustration with the systemic dismantling of our personal autonomy. In that conversation, I remember being deeply moved by her presence—her eyes were fierce and her inner power palpable. I was with a true warrior, outfitted with lace gloves and a delicate beaded purse. That’s how I’ll always remember Justice Ginsburg—as the embodiment of resilience and strength. For those of us fighting for gender equality, she was an inspiration leading the way at every turn. I am devastated by this loss, but completely determined to honor her legacy by working every day for universal reproductive freedom." —Heidi S., New York, 49

Her Legacy Will Live On

"I will never forget when I was in kindergarten class, we had to draw a picture of what we wanted to be when we grew up. I had drawn myself as a lawyer. A little boy in my class made a comment about how girls are usually 'mommys,' not lawyers, and I said to myself, well I can be both. Now, I am a 3L in my last year of law school. Although I’ve only been in the profession for a short period of time, I’ve already felt the discomfort, self-doubt, and misgivings that I’m not supposed to be here. When I was in college, I started reading a lot about Ruth and her story. It was so inspiring. She has been such an encouragement to me that I can do anything. Although her passing is devastating, I know her legacy lives on in many young women, including myself. We will continue her fight." —Gabby V., Maryland, 24

RBG Is Strength

"Ruth Bader Ginsburg is STRENGTH!! She demonstrated her whole life never to allow obstacles to get in the way of your goals. I am grateful that my daughter is able to achieve anything she wants because of the incredible law legacy RBG carved for women and people with disabilities. RBG was Notorious Perfection!!" —Melissa E., Florida, 51

A Role Model

"As a woman guided by Jewish values and passionate about social justice and equity, the life and career of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (z"l) meant so much to me. She was my role model. Small in stature, her words and work were anything but. The lives of each and every American have been impacted by Ruth’s work, whether it was during her time as founder of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project or sitting on the bench at the highest court in the land. In the oral dissent that earned her the monicker 'The Notorious RBG' from Shelby County v. Holder, Justice Ginsburg quoted one of Martin Luther King Jr.’s most famous lines with an important addendum saying, 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. But only if there is a steadfast commitment to see the task through to completion.' May Ruth’s memory be a blessing, and guide us as we continue to move her fight for equal justice under law and a more-perfect union forward." —Elyssa R., New York, 25

One Woman Can't Do It All

"I feel so sad that I did not understand how important her work was until late in her life! I am the mom of three girls and the nana of three young granddaughters. We need more women like RBG to stand up for women’s rights! But, more importantly, we women need to do our part and stand tall for our rights. One woman can’t do it all. We must stand together!" —Linda E., Oregon, 68

Lessons as a Law Student, a Woman, and an American

"As a law student, because of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I learned to always make my opinion heard, even if it's the dissenting view. As a woman, because of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I learned to not let other people's boundaries dictate how far I can go. As an American, because of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I learned that even just one person has the power to make a positive change in our country." —Amanda C., Massachusetts, 25

An Inspiration

"RBG was an inspiration to me as a woman, mother, Jew, and badass. Her feisty nature, wit, and determination will only be a small part of her legacy. She fought for what was right and was a strong voice of reason. I will miss her honor, passion, intelligence, conscience, and power." —Sarah L., Florida, 40

Supreme Court justice and lifelong women's rights champion Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an icon to millions. And many of her biggest fans were A-listers, who supported her fiercely and are now mourning her death. In the hours after the announcement that Ginsburg had passed away at the age of 87, celebrities took to Twitter and Instagram and released statements to express their gratitude to the feminist icon.

Kerry Washington perhaps put it best: "Her rest is earned. It is our turn to fight."

Barack Obama

Felicity Jones

"Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave us hope, a public figure who stood for integrity and justice — a responsibility she did not wear lightly. She will be missed not only as a beacon of light in these difficult times but for her razor-sharp wit and extraordinary humanity. She taught us all so much. I will miss her deeply."

Dolly Parton

Jennifer Aniston

Reese Witherspoon

Justin Theroux

Taraji P. Henson

Jennifer Lopez

Priyanka Chopra

Brie Larson

Ava Duvernay

Viola Davis

Kerry Washington

Mindy Kaling

Mark Ruffalo

Jonathan Van Ness

Lena Dunham

Kelly Ripa

Mandy Moore

Connie Britton

Tracee Ellis Ross

Cara Delevingne

Today, America lost an icon. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court justice beloved by feminists everywhere, died at 87 from complications of metastatic cancer of the pancreas. She was at her home in Washington, D.C., with her family. Her death was announced by the Supreme Court.

Her passing will bring about many questions in this, an election year. In February 2016 when Justice Antonin Scalia passed away, then-President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to be his replacement. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell famously would not hold hearings for him because of the impending presidential election. According to NPR, on her deathbed, Ginsburg told her granddaughter that “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new President is installed.”

RBG, as she was lovingly dubbed, was a legal and pop culture icon. Known for her biting dissents, passion for equal rights for all, and her regular workout routine, Ginsburg was perhaps the country's most popular octogenarian. She was given the nickname “Notorious RBG” (which became the title for her biography) and even portrayed by Kate McKinnon on SNL, where she regularly scorched Weekend Update host Colin Jost with her Ginsburns.

Ginsburg was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, the second woman to serve on the United State's highest court. A graduate of Columbia Law School, the small (in stature) but mighty (in wit) lawyer made a name for herself championing equal rights for women in the workplace. The 2018 film On the Basis of Sex, starring Felicity Jones as Ginsburg, depicted her fight to prove that gender discrimination is unconstitutional.

This post will be updated.

It's no secret how much Donald Trump's kids are involved in his life, especially when it comes to what's going on in the White House. Ivanka and Donald Jr.'s relationships with their father's presidency is interesting, to say the least, but what's perhaps more intriguing is how some of his kids manage to avoid the scrutiny. It's easy to see that Tiffany Ariana Trump is a pro at this.

The second daughter to the President and the only child with Trump's second wife, Marla Maples, Tiffany knows how to keep it low-key when it comes to the public eye. Despite being named after the famous store Tiffany & Co—I'm completely serious—she isn't as flashy as many of her other half-siblings. Here's everything you need to know about the 26-year-old socialite.

Tiffany is in a serious relationship with Michael Boulos.

In what sounds like something out a movie, but isn't, Tiffany met now-boyfriend Michael Boulos met through Lindsay Lohan...kinda. During a nice, probably expensive, summer trip to Greece, the pair crossed paths at Lohan's club in Mykonos.

But Lohan swears she didn't play matchmaker, telling PEOPLE, "I wasn't there when they met." Further explaining, "I know him…and I know her…but I don't know what happened."

Boulous comes from major money; his family owns a company that trades in vehicles, equipment, retail, and construction. He grew up in Lagos, Nigeria, but now reportedly lives in London. According to Page Six, the pair have been together since 2018.

Tiffany followed one big family tradition.

She graduated from the University of Pennsylvania in 2016 with a bachelor's degree in sociology. Attending UPenn is a huge family tradition for the Trumps—her dad, Donald Trump Jr., and Ivanka Trump all went there.

More recently, Tiffany graduated from Georgetown University Law School this past May. Her father tweetedabout the huge accomplishment: "Congratulations to my daughter, Tiffany, on graduating from Georgetown Law. Great student, great school. Just what I need is a lawyer in the family. Proud of you Tiff!"

Tiffany hasn't said what her next steps will be career-wise, or whether she intends to take the bar exam, per CNN. She did tell ABC in a 2016 interview that she was interested in joining the Trump family real estate and hospitality business, but things could've changed.

Tiffany spoke at the 2016 Republican National Convention.

On the second night of the 2016 Republican National Convention, Tiffany addressed the delegates. "Please excuse me if I'm a little nervous," she began. "When I graduated college a few months ago, I never expected to be here tonight addressing the nation. I've given a few speeches in front of classrooms and students, but never in an arena with more than 10 million people watching."

She spoke about her father, highlighting the qualities she likes best about him. "In person, my father is so friendly, so considerate, so funny, and so real," she said. "I have admired my father all of my life, and I love him with all my heart."

Tiffany once attempted a singing career.

Personally, this fascinates me: In 2011, Tiffany released a single called "Like a Bird ." On The Oprah Winfrey Show, she said she was trying to figure out if she would take her music career "to the next level as a professional." Let's just say that was the only song we ever got from her.

The socialite has done plenty of other things too, like interning for Vogue in 2015 (apparently she got lunch with Anna Wintour??) to modeling for Just Drew designer Andrew Warren for his fall New York Fashion Week 2016 show.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the Trump administration the go-ahead to implement its dangerous attempt to allow bosses to deny their employees birth control coverage. The decision comes just after the Court handed down its ruling in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, striking down Louisiana’s anti-choice clinic shutdown law.

That case was a narrow victory for access to abortion in Louisiana, but prompted headlines sounding the alarm about the impact of the case on the critical 2020 election, thanks to renewed interest in the courts and their impact on reproductive rights. Together, these two cases underscore the dire threat that President Donald Trump poses to both reproductive freedom and the integrity of the federal judiciary at large. But it may not be the threat you think.

You see, Trump is no visionary when it comes to undermining our fundamental freedoms. In truth, he’s nothing more than a puppet in the radical Right’s decades-long scheme to curtail democracy and lock in white patriarchal power by advancing their agenda through a takeover of our nation’s courts. It’s that threat—the ultra-conservative, mostly white cohort of activists indiscriminately wielding disinformation to push their dangerous ideology and gain more power—that we must understand and fight against by electing champions for reproductive freedom up and down the ballot this November.

When the Court upheld the Trump administration’s reckless attacks on contraceptive access, the radical Right got their way, with far-reaching ramifications for our fundamental rights. When the Right and their puppets in elected office go after birth control in the first place, they show their hand. It’s clear what their unpopular agenda is really about: gaining more power, controlling women, and maintaining the white patriarchal status quo. Make no mistake, our reproductive freedom is in peril.

To be sure, the Court’s decision striking down Louisiana’s clinic shutdown law in June Medical Services was a win for reproductive freedom in the United States and for the people of Louisiana who will, at least for now, maintain access to the time-sensitive and essential care they need. Had the anti-choice majority on the Court allowed the state’s medically unnecessary clinic shutdown law to go into effect, the consequences would have been catastrophic for abortion access in the state. Thanks to a web of anti-choice restrictions access there is already severely restricted— especially for those with low-incomes and for Black and Brown communities who disproportionately face barriers to care. With fewer than a handful of clinics remaining in the state, had any been forced to shut down, getting an abortion in Louisiana would have become a near impossibility for many.

While the outcome in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo was made possible by Justice John Roberts siding with the majority, it’s obvious that he is not on our side. He even noted that he still disagreed with the 2014 decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt in which the Court ruled an identical clinic shutdown restriction in Texas was unconstitutional.

These cases show us that while we may sometimes see small victories designed to placate us, we cannot become complacent. After all, Roberts in his concurring June Medical Services opinion left the door open for anti-choice, anti-freedom politicians to redouble their efforts to undermine access to abortion care. And Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s two Court picks, showed us exactly where they stand when they voted against our fundamental rights in both cases. We don’t need any more proof to know the threat these justices pose to reproductive freedom.

These cases in many ways encapsulate the moment we find ourselves in. The radical Right’s use of abortion as a trojan horse to provide cover for the right-wing agenda to curtail democracy is far from over. As I explain in my new book, The Lie That Binds, co-authored with NARAL Pro-Choice America Research Director Ellie Langford, this is an untold story that we desperately need to hear. There’s so much at stake and we have to look at the threats with eyes wide open in order to counter this insidious decades-long campaign undermining our fundamental freedom.

The radical Right has played a long game, creating an infrastructure through conservative groups like the Federalist Society that have allowed them to work doggedly and systematically for decades to covertly stack the federal judiciary and take over the Supreme Court. We could be dealing with the dire repercussions of the lifetime judicial appointments they orchestrated for decades. Which is exactly why we must step up and put an end to it.

While all of our rights are on the line, this is acutely true for women and communities of color. Women of color always suffer more from injustices and oppressions, reproductive and otherwise. Which is why white women who care about reproductive freedom have a responsibility to work harder than ever to acknowledge the embedded racism in these attacks and redouble our efforts to make 2020 count.

As Americans who cherish our democracy and our freedom, this year’s election matters more than any other so far in any of our lifetimes. We must not only defeat Trump, who is the living embodiment of the deal with the devil made by the anti-choice movement, but flip the Senate and take Mitch McConnell's gavel away.

We must vote out the politicians who rubber-stamped Trump’s agenda, like Sens. Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, Joni Ernst, Cory Gardner, Lindsey Graham. They must know that their votes to confirm Kavanaugh to the Court and solidify an anti-choice, anti-freedom majority on the bench sealed their fate. And by taking back these seats, we can work to pass critical federal legislation like the Women’s Health Protection Act and the EACH Woman Act that will protect and expand our reproductive freedom.

The ruling in this week’s birth control case made clear that we can’t rely on the Supreme Court to protect reproductive freedom. And while the decision in June for Medical Services v. Russo offered us a small moment of reprieve from the relentless attacks on reproductive freedom, what it also gave us is the chance to fight another day. That day is coming this November.

In the second landmark ruling of the week, the Supreme Court has voted against President Trump's call to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, a.k.a. DACA. This is a major victory for hundreds of thousands of children, known as "Dreamers," and allows them to remain safe from deportation.

The Obama-era legislation lets children of immigrants brought into the country before their 16th birthday, prior to June 2007, live and work in the U.S. The Supreme Court voted 5-to-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts casting the fifth vote and stating that the Trump administration's call to shut down the legislation was "arbitrary and capricious." Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor also voted in favor of keeping DACA.

The White House could try to repeal DACA again, but as NBC News' Pete Williams puts it, "The White House might not want to end such a popular program in the heat of a presidential campaign." Naturally, people are thrilled with the decision—especially after the Supreme Court voted in favor of protecting LGBTQ rights in the workplace just a few days prior.

You can read the Supreme Court's full decision here.

For more stories like this, including celebrity news, beauty and fashion advice, savvy political commentary, and fascinating features, sign up for the Marie Claire newsletter.

subscribe here

• David McAtee, a 53-year-old Black restaurant owner from Louisville, Kentucky, was shot and killed when police officers and the Kentucky National Guard opened fire on June 1.
• Police officers Katie Crews and Austin Allen, who were involved in the shooting, had not activated their body cameras, leading to the firing of Louisville Metro Police Chief Steve Conrad.
• McAtee was killed less than three months after Black ER technician Breonna Taylor was gunned down by police in her Louisville apartment.
• Donate to McAtee's family, sign petitions demanding justice, and donate to bail funds for protestors below.

David McAtee was known by two other names in his Louisville community, where he was known to serve free food to police officers and those who couldn't afford it: YaYa—as in his restaurant, YaYa's BBQ Shack—and "the barbecue man." On June 1, just after midnight, he was shot and killed in the doorway of that restaurant, after police and the Kentucky National Guard opened fire.

"My son was a good son,” Odessa Riley, McAtee's mother, said on Monday, as WAVE 3 News reports. "I know that from the bottom of my heart because I am the one that raised him and I raised him to do the right thing."

McAtee was cooking at his barbecue restaurant on the evening of May 31 and the early hours of June 1, while others were sitting, talking, and listening to music, moving between YaYa's, the nearby Dino’s Food Mart and a gas station, as the Washington Post and the Guardian report. Both the Kentucky National Guard and the Louisville Metro Police subsequently arrived to disperse the gatherers, who were out after the newly imposed 9 p.m. curfew.

"It was just a normal day. People just having fun. Not nobody was about trouble," Marvin McAtee, David McAtee's nephew, told the Guardian. "A curfew? You come and shoot at people for a curfew? I cannot stand it."

According to David James, president of the Louisville Metro Council, officers began firing pepper balls into the crowd almost immediately. "Maybe four-and-a-half seconds, five seconds after they get out of that truck, they’re clearing that lot using pepper-ball guns," James told the Washington Post. "There was no walking up to people and saying: 'Hey, man, there’s a curfew, and we’re trying to clear the lot and keep everybody safe. We’re just trying to get everybody to clear out.' That didn’t happen."

Two pepper balls were fired towards McAtee and his niece, the Los Angeles Times reports, with one just missing the latter's head. Surveillance footage shows McAtee raising his arm in the air, potentially firing a warning shot, according to the Guardian; his nephew, Marvin McAtee, told the paper that his uncle wouldn't fire at police and was simply defending his restaurant, adding that he didn't see him fire any shots.

In the video, McAtee then runs back inside and collapses. Police said two officers and two members of the National Guard opened fire at McAtee after he shot his gun, the Guardian reports. Officials subsequently said that the bullet to the chest that killed him was fired by a member of the National Guard, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal, though they said they couldn't identify which rifle discharged the bullet.

Police officers Katie Crews and Austin Allen, who were involved in the shooting, had not activated their body cameras, leading to the firing of Louisville Metro Police Chief Steve Conrad, as CNN reports. "This type of institutional failure will not be tolerated," Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer said.

"He left a great legend behind. He was a good person," McAtee's mother, Odessa Riley said of her son, maintaining that he didn't fire any shots. "Everybody around him would say that," she said. "My son didn't hurt nobody. He didn't do nothing to nobody."

"The only thing I want for my son is peace and justice, and I’m going to make sure he gets there."

How can I help demand justice for David McAtee?

Sign a petition calling for justice for David McAtee here.

Donate to a fundraiser for McAtee's family here.

Donate to the Louisville Community Bail Fund for protestors here.

Split a donation between bail funds across the country here.

Donate to Black Lives Matter here.

Sign the Black Lives Matter petition to #DefundThePolice here.

Donate to the Movement for Black Lives, a coalition of Black organizations across the U.S., here.

Black Lives Matter

In her nondescript, windowless office off a narrow hallway, Kathaleen Pittman, the administrator of the Hope Medical Group for Women abortion clinic, watches patients come and go, coordinates her staff, and represses occasional waves of paranoia. “If I get too involved in the what-ifs, it’s almost paralyzing,” she says. “Our focus has to be on taking care of the women. It is hard to do when a lot of patients are asking, ‘What’s going to happen?’ and there are no assurances that we can give them.” That’s because this small independent clinic in Shreveport, Louisiana, is the new epicenter of America’s abortion wars, and worse times are looming.

On March 4, Hope will appear before the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that could both gut abortion access in Louisiana—and the nation—and mark the beginning of the end of Roe v. Wade. The case stems from a 2014 Louisiana law that would force abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The law is identical to one struck down in Texas in 2016’s landmark Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt Supreme Court decision, but Louisiana’s version was nevertheless upheld in 2018 by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, one of the most conservative appellate courts in the nation. The decision outraged abortion-rights groups, which described it as “brazen” and “rogue.” In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Hope’s appeal. The decision is expected in June.

Louisiana’s Act 620 is a classic example of what pro-choice groups call TRAP, or targeted regulation of abortion provider, laws. Admitting privileges, which give abortion providers the ability to admit and treat their patients at nearby hospitals, have been a key part of such laws. But in 2016, the Supreme Court found that admitting privileges provide no demonstrable health benefit, principally because abortions have very low complication rates, making hospitalizations extremely rare, and by law hospitals must treat emergency patients regardless of whether the doctor has an agreement with them.

Such laws have forced clinics to close because doctors have a difficult, often impossible, time gaining admitting privileges at hospitals in stridently antiabortion states. In Texas, the law shuttered half of that state’s roughly 40 clinics before the Supreme Court struck it down, and many never reopened because they had lost their lease, their staff, and doctors had found jobs elsewhere, or they had sold equipment. If Louisiana’s version of the law takes effect, the last three abortion clinics in the state, including Hope, would likely shut down.

National nonpartisan groups have supported Hope’s case. In briefs filed with the Supreme Court, the American Medical Association called the law unnecessary, in part because abortions are exceedingly safe. The American Bar Association, in its first amicus brief to the court in an abortion case, warned that allowing the law to stand would be perilous to the court’s integrity; what good is Supreme Court precedent if just three years later it can be undone?

But two things have changed since the Texas decision in 2016, and their names are justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. Louisiana’s law will be the first abortion case argued before a newly archconservative Supreme Court remade by President Donald Trump. At the very least, some expect the court to use cases like Louisiana’s to slowly dismantle Roe, diminishing its strength until it’s essentially impotent. Upholding Louisiana’s law will signal that the court is hostile to Roe, as many fear.

Hope sits at an unremarkable intersection in Shreveport, a small city in a quiet corner of Louisiana so close to neighboring states, it’s dubbed “Ark-LA-Tex.” You enter a plain, single-story brick building through a heavy green door, then pass by a second security door and into a brightly lit waiting room often filled with pensive faces. On one visit, I met a woman in her 20s from Texas there to undergo an abortion as part of a plan to leave an abusive partner. A couple from Lake Charles, Louisiana, who already had three kids with special needs told me they couldn’t care for a fourth, who they feared would have a similarly acute condition.

Even a majority of Democrats in this part of the country are pro-life. In 2016 alone, the legislature passed seven antiabortion measures. Last year, the state’s Democratic governor, John Bel Edwards, signed a “heartbeat” abortion ban. When Pittman joined the clinic in 1992, it was one of 17 in the state. She has watched Louisiana steadily slice away at abortion rights since.

Pittman grew up in a tiny town named Dubberly in northwest Louisiana, about half an hour away. She’s the 14th of 16 children from a devout Baptist home, and her first encounter with abortion was when she tried to help her friend get one in the early aftermath of the Roe decision. Today, Pittman is a presence in every sense: imposingly tall with wide-set shoulders, slightly wild hair, and a broad smile; she’s also intimidatingly frank yet gracious.

Being raised in a large family taught her how to stay calm amid drama, she notes, and thus makes her a good fit for her job. She mother-hens her staff of 23 (many of whom are part-time) and treats the day-to-day stresses with aplomb while reserving her steely Southern spine for what she calls the “pro-birth” movement.

Facing a Supreme Court case after working at the clinic for nearly three decades is “surreal,” Pittman says. “To be fighting more and more battles than we were back then, it’s amazing.” Staffers at the clinic practice a kind of extreme compartmentalization. “If we did not, then we would absolutely go crazy,” she says.

Katie Caldwell, a clinic counselor and advocate, has worked at the clinic for most of the last 10 years. “It’s gotten more difficult to do this job, but that’s been the case for a while,” says Caldwell. “If you fall into despair about it, then what good are you doing?” Pittman always keeps her cool. “I think she feels the weight, but she carries it gracefully,” Caldwell says. “If she’s sweating it, she’s not showing it, because she knows that’s what you do as a leader.”

Another counselor, A.J. Haynes, describes it as “survival mode.” She says the clinic has seen an uptick in greeting cards with kind messages and offers of support, a sign the public understands the threat. “We’ve already been at this level of awareness of what’s at stake, and we’re just waiting on everyone else to wake up,” says Haynes.

The clinic handles about a third of the 8,000 to 10,000 abortions performed in the state each year while complying with the state’s roughly 1,000 abortion regulations, managing clinic protesters and patient escorts, and fielding countless media requests. Hope has also long had the legal support of the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), the leading pro-choice legal nonprofit in the country. The center has filed 27 lawsuits in Louisiana since 1992 (when CRR was founded), and Hope has been working with lawyers from the center for Pittman’s entire career. “Thank God for them,” Pittman says. “If it weren’t for the attorneys, there wouldn’t be a single clinic still open in Louisiana.”

CRR’s senior litigation director, Julie Rikelman, who will argue the case before the Supreme Court, says the lawsuit is “critical.” Not only is Louisiana arguing its law should take effect, it’s also asking the court to rethink whether clinics should even be allowed to file lawsuits on behalf of their patients’ Constitutional right to abortion. It’s hard to overstate the ramifications of the case. For decades, clinics have been the ones suing governments to protect reproductive rights, and the Supreme Court has regularly found in their favor. It has accepted that anyone pregnant trying to get an abortion is in an ill-suited position to file and fight a lawsuit that could drag on for years. By the time any final judgment was rendered, it would be too late for the plaintiff to have an abortion. “They want to make it harder for people to challenge abortion restrictions,” Rikelman says. “It’s just another one of the strategies to try and push abortion out of reach.”

But the argument underlines another crucial element of the final defense for abortion rights. The battle is largely being fought by small clinics such as Hope, which are often all that remain in the most fiercely antiabortion states. All of Louisiana’s remaining clinics are independently owned, and the same is true for Alabama’s last three, Wyoming’s remaining two, and the lone clinics left in Kentucky, Mississippi, North Dakota, and West Virginia, according to a 2019 report from the Abortion Care Network. “It’s ‘little old us,’ ” says Pittman, versus the antiabortion movement, which is arguably at its zenith. “We’re up against this wall, and we have no choice. We can’t back down, we have to press forward, so we’ll just keep going and, fingers crossed, hope for the best.”

Correction: A previous version of this story misspelled Julie Rikelman's name. We regret the error.

This story appears in the March 2020 issue of Marie Claire

subscribe here

As of late, the political sphere has been a dark, dark space. In the past few weeks, a series of harsh laws have been passed across the United States, limiting Americans' access to necessary reproductive health services. In states including Georgia, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, and Ohio, abortions are illegal once a fetal heartbeat can be detected—Alabama took the restrictions even further when its governor signed legislation that completely criminalized abortion in the state, with no exceptions for rape and incest.

With these these draconian laws being signed just one year before the highly anticipated 2020 presidential election, one can't help but wonder where all 26 of the announced candidates stand on the issue at hand. How will the next commander-in-chief effectively protect reproductive rights and ensure the safety and agency of women's bodies across the country?

Well, if he's voted president, Cory Booker has a number of things in mind.

Earlier today, the New Jersey senator shared a comprehensive plan to restore and further protect reproductive rights should he become the 46th President of the Unites States. Booker pledges that his first executive order will include policies that will aggressively safeguard reproductive health. His proposal includes a plan to codify landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade into federal law, as well as several initiatives dedicated to making reproductive healthcare more readily available to those who need it. Per the plan, Booker will sign legislation that will provide federal funding for family planning and increase access to contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

Additionally, his first presidential budget will do away with the Hyde Amendment, a law barring the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion except when the life of the woman would be endangered by carrying the pregnancy to term. Booker would be the first president in 20 years to propose a presidential budget that intentionally ends the Hyde Amendment.

"My goal with these actions isn’t just to undo the damage the Trump administration and Republican state legislatures and governors have caused," says Senator Booker, "But to affirmatively advance reproductive rights and expand access to reproductive care for all.”

The senator's stance on reproductive rights is in direct opposition to that of the current president, who took to Twitter just a few days ago to reassert his conservative position. "As most people know, and for those who would like to know, I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions—Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother—the same position taken by Ronald Reagan,” President Trump shared over the social media platform. His far-right perspective has resulted in various national and even global efforts by his administration to curb access to sex education, contraception, and abortion, including the reallocation of funding from sex ed programs to curriculum that promotes abstinence and the re-institution of the "global gag rule," holding back financial support from NGOs that align themselves with abortion in any way.