To kick off the second season of She Pivots, I had the privilege of interviewing Vice President Kamala Harris in front of a live audience alongside Minnesota’s Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan. I wanted to uncover what drove her career path—from prosecutor to district attorney to attorney general to senator to vice president. 

Despite what many might see as a trajectory based on professional motivations, Harris’ biggest pivots have been driven by personal experiences. In fact, her decision to pursue a career of public service came with a life-altering moment in high school.

“One of my best friends in high school—while we were in high school, I learned that she was being molested,” Harris said during our live She Pivots podcast recording. “And I learned what it was and…the powerlessness that also is a part of it, that one is rendered to feel as though they are powerless. And, in many ways, that was one of the reasons I became a prosecutor.”

Motivated by her family and her deep desire to fight injustice on a larger scale, Harris decided she could have more impact as district attorney in California. But she faced her fair share of doubters, both before and after she was elected in 2003. “I was the first Black woman to ever have been elected as DA anywhere in the State of California,” Harris said. “And so, you can imagine when I decided to run, and I took on an incumbent, the number of people that said to me, ‘Oh, they're not ready for you.’ ‘It's not your time.’ ‘It's going to be hard work.’ And I didn't listen."

Harris’ passion for protecting those who are suffering injustices—stemming back to both her high school best friend’s experiences and her family’s own life experiences—has played an enormous role in every step of her career. Fighting for child sexual assault survivors pushed her to bring greater attention to domestic violence and sex trafficking crimes. And watching friends and loved ones battle complications during pregnancy motivated her fight to lower the Black maternal mortality rate when she was elected to the Senate in 2016. 

“Speaking of personal experiences, someone very close to me just lost a member of their family, she died in connection with childbirth, just within the last month,” Harris said.

As Vice President, Harris' roots and commitment to fighting injustice continues. “[I’m motivated by] my mother to just living, period, and experiencing, firsthand, so many of the points that you are making,” Harris told me. “And, in particular, an acute awareness of the fact that we can do something about most of the problems we have. I really am driven by that.”

This is especially true in protecting women’s bodily autonomy, something that hangs in the balance after the Supreme Court struck down the Roe v. Wade decision last year. My girls are two and four, and they were my first thought when the Dobbs decision came out. And I think about the fact that they're growing up with fewer rights than what I had, with fewer rights than their grandmother had. Harris agreed.

“Our 23-year-old daughter will have fewer rights than my 81-year-old mother-in-law. And they're both acutely aware of it,” Harris noted, reflecting on the personal stakes she has in this fight. Winning on issues like abortion access will never be easy, but Harris is up for the challenge. “Do not be overwhelmed, do not be tired, do not throw up your hands when it's time to roll up your sleeves,” Harris told the audience. 

Hear more from Vice President Harris’s live interview below. 

Over the last two years, we’ve been faced with several social challenges such as the Black Lives Matter movement, #MeToo movement, and, of course, this year’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. With such important issues on the table, CEOs and business leaders are more tested now than ever before on how they publicly respond—if they do at all. At Marie Claire’s 2022 Power Trip conference, MC’s Senior Editor Tanya Benedicto Klich sat down with four women who are using their companies as a vehicle for change. Panelists Mutale Nkonde, CEO and founder of AI for the People, Laura Modi, CEO and cofounder of baby formula company Bobbie, Amira Fouad, Director of Society Communications at Google, and Sali Christeson, CEO and founder of women’s workwear line Argent, spoke on how they are hoping to make a difference and what the cost of staying silent is for businesses. 

At AI for the People, one of their core missions is to increase civic engagement around algorithmic bias, says Nkonde “So many people in this room are either investors or they're building tech products and or they're thinking about ways of scaling into markets, but not always thinking about the ways that technology itself can express racial bias, can express gender bias, can express all the things.” 

In 2020, Nkonde and AI for the People researched the U.S. Top 50 companies’ $50 billion pledge to fight racial injustice. What Nkonde found may not be all that shocking: Gen Z-ers really care about companies that do what they said they're going to do and how a company treats their employees. But what may come as a surprise is that of the $50 billion pledged, only $250 million has been released to the public, “with a majority not going to systemic change,” Nkonde pointed out. 

Meanwhile, Christeson got inspired after reading an “insane” statistic on how women are judged based on what they wear: How you dress impacts "your bottom line of your lifetime...20 to 40 percent," she said. So, in 2015, Christeson quit her job in tech and went on a personal mission to find clothes that were catered to working women, which became her workwear line, Argent. Fast forward to 2020, and Argent partnered with Supermajority, a non-profit focused on bringing women together and harnessing their power as the majority of voters. The partners launched a pink suit on the day of the vice presidential debate to serve as a visual representation of that movement. And it worked. “We drove hundreds of thousands of women to phone bank, call, and really drive impact,” says Christeson. Now in 2022, Christeson uses her brand to continue her work supporting women. “We exist to give women the tools that they need to optimally navigate their careers, starting with the product, which is a physical connector, [a] reminder that when you are the only woman in the room, you know there's an army of us behind you and that you're paving the way.”

As for Modi, she told the crowd that, “You don't grow up dreaming of starting a powdered milk company,” but she did anyway—and has since taken over the industry with her line of organic formula, Bobbie. Since launching in 2021, Bobbie has become the fastest-growing formula since the ‘80s, she said. After this year’s baby formula shortage, Modi was even more fired up to change her industry. “It was entirely in me to fight for change in this product and industry. [An industry] that we quickly came to learn was complex, very controversial, and—now you've all come to learn—even slightly corrupt. And, my God, did that fuel me to know to drive change,” she explained. With the help of celebrity voices like Tan France and Ashley Graham, Bobbie has co-developed a bill to improve domestic manufacturing practices, which will be on the House floor in the coming weeks. 

Lastly, as the Director of Society Communications at Google, Fouad worked to implement tangible differences for the company's employees and users following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. From a tech perspective, Fouad wanted to ensure that when anyone wanted to find information on a hugely important decision like abortion, that information was readily available to them. Secondly, Fouad wanted to ensure that that person’s privacy was protected. “So we went ahead and let the courts in the world know that if anybody were to go ahead and make that search, that that privacy was theirs, to have that choice was theirs to have, and that they wouldn't be able to have that information shared,” she said. “It wasn't about the PR wins, it was very much about doing the right thing.” 

While how these companies advocate for change may look different, all four women agree that silence is not an option in this day and age. “I think historically companies have opted on the side of silence and I think that today's consumer wants to know where companies stand on issues they care about; if their values align,” explained Christeson. Nkonde added that if companies stay silent, they won’t be able to capture future markets. “If you look at even the midterms and the way Gen Z showed up and the issues that they showed up for… If you're showing up for women, you're showing up for the future market. If you're showing up for the environment, you're showing up for the future market. If you're innovating to the fact that we are gonna be a much more brown country in the next 20 years, you're showing up for your market.” 

Over the past two years, a culmination of many Americans’ greatest fears have come to fruition: a public health crisis, the loss of reproductive freedom, attacks on LGBTQ+ rights, a looming recession. When the aforementioned events have already occurred, it can feel difficult to find the motivation to vote this fall. But it's true what they say: the 2022 midterm elections (and every election going forward) really are consequential—especially when right-wing extremism is on the rise and manifesting through policies across the country.

“I don't think apathy is an option right now because the only way we get better outcomes from our leadership is by picking better leaders. Especially on the state and local level, we have seen the impact that these folks can have,” Amanda Litman, co-founder of Run for Something, tells Marie Claire. “While Congress might not be able to act right now on abortion access, DAs and county leaders and city elected officials and even school board members can make a real difference on reproductive health care access, on schools, on transportation funding, on housing. Most of the things that are really making people mad right now are things that can be solved by electing better local leaders.” 

In August, the Pew Research Center polled 7,647 adults to find out which issues are top of mind for voters in the 2022 midterms—the elections that will determine who controls Congress for the second half of President Biden’s term (and will largely influence his success), as well as the leaders in charge at the state and local levels across the country. The research found that for congressional elections, the economy is most important to voters followed by gun policy, violent crime, health care, voting policies, education, Supreme Court appointments, and abortion. A 19th News/SurveyMonkey poll conducted in August among a national sample of 20,799 adults showed that preserving democracy is also a top voting motivator for Americans. 

All of this research proves that there are a wide range of issues important to different people depending on their lived experiences and a dramatic difference in response to them between Democrats and Republicans. If you’re wondering how the 2022 midterm elections will impact you as you make a plan to vote, we outlined some of the key issues at stake in the midterms, below. We’ll continue to update this piece with new information leading up to Election Day on November 8, 2022.

Abortion Rights

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade this summer, which ended the constitutional right to have an abortion, reproductive freedom—or lack thereof—is now being determined by governors and state legislatures, and has become a leading issue this election cycle. Conservative states like Arizona, Kentucky, Texas, and Missouri have already banned abortion with no exception for rape or incest, and plenty more Republican-led states have legislation in the works and/or in effect to restrict abortion access. The consequences are detrimental and varied, from abortion clinics and hospitals being thrown into chaos to people being forced to travel out of state for care (many who can’t afford to do so in the first place) to putting mothers at risk of death in the event of an ectopic pregnancy. 

“Who we elect in November will decide what access to abortion looks like across the country,” explains Jenny Lawson, executive director of Planned Parenthood Votes. “Should the Senate go into the hands of anti-abortion politicians—should Mitch McConnell win the majority in the Senate and we lose the House—they have already committed to and are working towards banning abortion nationwide. When people go to vote this November, they are deciding whether or not they want reproductive freedom in their state or not. That is on the line.”

The Biden administration promised to codify Roe (a.k.a. pass a federal law that would offer the same protections Roe did) if two additional Democrats are elected to the Senate and Democrats keep control of the House. Meanwhile, Republicans promise to continue their efforts to ban abortion, as Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced a bill in September to ban abortion nationwide after 15 weeks. In July, President Biden signed an executive order that protects access to contraception, but abortion rights activists are still concerned that contraception could be next should conservative leaders determine any loopholes. 

To find out if the politicians on your ballot are pro-choice, #VoteProChoice has a guide to pro-choice candidates up and down the ballot. Cosmopolitan also published a piece on the five midterms races that matter most for abortion access. If you plan to do your own research on specific candidates, know that most candidates on your ballot who are pro-choice are bold and unapologetic about their stance on abortion access. If they aren’t, they’re likely anti-choice or in the process of shifting their stance, like Arizona Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters recently did. Lawson advises voters not to be fooled by politicians who are trying to change their record. 

The Environment

The climate crisis is here, and it reportedly contributed to an additional 10 percent of rainfall during Hurricane Ian. Despite being a bipartisan issue that affects everyone, climate change has remained a contentious debate in Congress with dire effects for communities across the globe. 

There is hope, though: In August, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, which includes the most significant climate change legislation we’ve seen—an investment of $369 billion in climate solutions and environmental justice. As Earthjustice noted in its brief following the passage of the bill, “We knew there would be painful provisions in any bill that could get Sen. Joe Manchin’s support, and the bill contains some troubling giveaways to fossil fuel interests that will cause undue harm to communities in the Gulf and Alaska. As a whole, however, it represents a huge step forward in the fight to preserve a livable planet and is one we need to take while we have the chance.” No Republican Senator voted for the bill, despite some of them previously warning of climate danger.

To put it simply, ignoring the climate crisis is not an option. In order to pass bold legislation that would reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, it’s important to vote for politicians that don’t receive campaign money from corporate interests, like fossil fuel companies. Though campaign finance data isn’t typically revealed until after an election cycle, you can view this Public Citizen report that shows which members of Congress have a history of receiving money from oil and gas companies. Local governments also play a big role in combatting the climate crisis, so you should keep an eye on who’s running for city council in your district and whether or not they plan to take action. 

Gun Policy

If you live in America, it will come as no surprise that there have been over 300 mass shootings in 2022 alone, and 45,222 people died in 2020 from gun-related injuries. Nobody is “bulletproof” from gun violence, and women in particular have a lot at stake when it comes to fighting against gun violence. This year, Congress passed the first federal legislation on gun violence in over 25 years (it had 15 Republicans sign on to it) and hundreds of laws have been passed at the state and local levels, which signals that Democrats and Republicans can come together on the issue. 

“When you go back a decade ago when we started doing this work, about a quarter of all Democrats in Congress had an A rating from the NRA. Today, none do,” says Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action. “That's because of the work that we have done, creating relationships on both sides of the aisle and showing lawmakers that there's an alternative—they can vote their conscience, they can do the right thing, they can carry out the will of their constituents. We need every single lawmaker to be on the right side of this issue.”

Gun owners also play a critical role in the gun policy discussion. “Most gun owners are responsible and the polling shows [that] they agree with things such as background checks, red flag laws, disarming domestic abusers, and storing your guns responsibly,” explains Watts. “Many of our volunteers are gun owners or their partners are gun owners. There are 400 million guns in this country. This is simply about restoring the responsibilities that should go along with gun rights.”

You can visit GunSenseVoter.org to see where candidates on your ballot stand on the issue. Additionally, you can find a list of Moms Demand Action volunteers running for office that are endorsed by the organization for the 2022 midterm elections. 

LGBTQ+ Rights

In the past few years, there has been a staggering increase in attacks on trans rights and the passage of dangerous bills targeting LGBTQ+ youth—with no signs of them stopping. These bills are originating in conservative state legislatures and aim to prevent gender-affirming care, ban trans youth from participating in sports, prevent gender-affirming surgery, ban classroom discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity, and more. The 2022 midterm elections are an opportunity to fight back against these attacks on the LGBTQ+ community. 

As Chase Strangio, deputy director for transgender justice with the ACLU’s LGBT & HIV Project, told Marie Claire last year, “There's been a very well-funded, well-coordinated [anti-trans] movement. Lots of the funding comes from the far anti-LGBT right, but lots of the momentum comes from the emerging anti-trans 'feminist class' and the self-victimized public intellectuals who have made it their life's work to debate trans existence." 

Marriage equality is also on the ballot in 2022. The leaked Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision signaled that Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage, could be overturned next by the conservative Supreme Court majority. If this were to be the case, most states would immediately ban same-sex marriage. To prevent this from happening, the House passed the bipartisan Respect for Marriage Act, but it won’t be voted on in the Senate until after the midterms, so it’s important to find out whether or not the Senate candidate on your ballot supports the bill. Bonus if they’re one of the record number of LGBTQ+ people running for Congress this year.

The Economy

As the country deals with inflation and a looming recession, the economy is top of mind for Americans in the 2022 midterm elections. However, when researching candidates, it’s important to remember that policy makers did not cause inflation. Inflation was caused by global and public health issues, like supply chain disruptions due to COVID-19, port shutdowns, a shift of spending from services to goods, and the war in Ukraine. Knowing this, Economic Policy Institute President Heidi Shierholz advises voters to elect candidates based on their willingness to boost living standards and eliminate inequalities, which directly impacts the economy. 

“[Elected] policy makers don't have the ability to really affect inflation. They do have the ability to pass policies that ameliorate the harms of high inflation for the people who are hardest hit,” she says. “So things like raising the minimum wage, the expansions of the child tax credit which were in the relief and recovery packages. Those are the kinds of things that policy makers can do for the people who are getting hit hardest by inflation until inflation comes down. And it is.”

Still not convinced? Esquire asked GOP Senate candidates how they'd reportedly "fix" inflation, and the responses lacked substantial, immediate solutions. Meanwhile, union organizing is at its highest point of approval since 1965. State and local governments, not just the federal government, have the ability to build worker power (the Economic Policy Institute has outlined some of the ways they can do so). That starts with electing leaders in the midterms who can enact these policies. 

Voting Rights and Democracy

Democracy is on the ballot this November. The “big lie” spearheaded by former President Trump, which falsely claims that there was voter and election fraud during the 2020 election and led to an insurrection, has dramatically increased election misinformation and disinformation, as well as voters’ distrust in democracy. Politicians who do not believe in election integrity (60 percent of voters will have an election denier on the ballot this fall) have used this disinformation as an excuse to pass voter suppression laws that disproportionately harm people of color. A democracy is only a democracy when everyone is able to vote in free and fair elections. 

“What we have seen over the last couple of years are state legislatures introducing and enacting laws that make it harder to vote, and in some instances, enacting laws that make it easier for partisan actors to interfere in election processes,” explains Eliza Sweren-Becker, counsel in the Voting Rights & Elections Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. “So, democracy is on the ballot with respect to state lawmakers and also with respect to Congress. Those are elected officials that have a say in how our elections and how our democracy works.”

It's important to note that voter suppression can occur in many different forms before, during, and after voting. Think: anything from strict voter ID laws (check to see what ID may be required for you on Election Day) to voter roll purges. To avoid any potential voting complications on Election Day, check your voter registration status today by visiting RocktheVote.org, clicking “Check Your Registration Status,” and filling out the form with your personal details. 

Additionally, book bans are part of the wider threat to democracy. Conservative politicians have made it their mission not only to control women’s bodies, but the ability to learn the truth about America’s racist past. The 2022 midterms are the first major elections held since these book bans have gone into effect in communities across the country. The candidates elected in the 2022 midterms (especially school board and city council members) will determine whether or not these bans continue. 

Public Health

Despite President Biden’s recent declaration that the pandemic is over, the pandemic is, in fact, not over. This statement will have a dramatic effect on federal COVID-19 spending that has provided free vaccines, at-home testing, and additional public health resources throughout the past two years. Plus, it will likely prevent the reimplementation of mask mandates that control the spread of the virus. This harms everyone, but especially immunocompromised people who are high-risk and cannot perform the same daily activities as people who aren’t immunocompromised. 

That said, public health is on the ballot. To keep yourself, your family, and those around you healthy, it's critical to elect leaders who understand how many people are dying from COVID on a daily basis and are suffering from the effects of long COVID. These candidates will follow the science to enact policies that allow people to remain as safe and healthy as possible. Ultimately, these politicians will make their stance on public health clear if they want the support of their constituents, including the disability community–many of whom feel “disposable” by the current administration and other elected officials. 

Immigration

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s inhumane treatment of people seeking asylum is an example of how state and local leaders, in addition to Congress, play a critical role in immigration policy—an issue voters care about deeply in the 2022 midterm elections. Republicans have reignited their messaging around immigration, which includes extremist language while discussing strict border enforcement policies, deportations, and plans for states to “build their own walls.” 

“We know that there's going to be a really clear difference between the candidates on the ballot when it comes to immigration,” says Bri Gillis, vice president of political strategy for the National Immigration Law Center Immigrant Justice Fund. “On one hand, you have extremist Republicans who are incredibly out of line with where the mainstream public and the electorate is on immigrants' rights. And on the other side, you have Democrats who are pursuing solutions for a more just, humane, and fair immigration system, which is really what the voters want to see.”

Some of these Democratic solutions include defending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), creating pathways to citizenship, unifying families, and affirming the right to seek asylum. Democrats’ full push on immigration will reportedly occur after the midterms, but it's important to see exactly where candidates stand on the issue in the meantime. 

In the weeks leading up to and on November 8, 2022, people across the country will vote in the 2022 midterm elections for the politicians they want to represent them at the federal, state, and local levels (who’s on your ballot will vary depending on the state and district you live in). This includes U.S. representatives and senators, governors, secretary of states, attorney generals, city council people, and more—all of whom have a profound impact on our lives. 

The open Congressional seats are a primary focus for the Biden administration this November, as who controls the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate will influence President Biden’s agenda—and, ultimately, his success—for the second half of his term. However, many political organizers and activists will argue that voters’ energy should be equally, if not more, focused on who they’re voting for at the state and local level.

State legislatures, for example, have the power to ban abortion (and potentially restrict access to contraception), which we’ve already seen in conservative states like Arizona, Kentucky, and Mississippi following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in June. It’s also important to pay attention to secretary of states—27 of whom will be up for election during this election cycle—who are responsible for overseeing free and fair elections, as well as city council members who determine the budget for local schools and police departments, amongst other responsibilities.

With so much at stake at all levels of government across the country, it’s important to educate yourself and make a plan to vote in the 2022 midterm elections. Ahead, everything you need to know about the midterms, from the projected fate of Congress to key races to pay attention to.

Congress 101

All of the 435 House seats and 35 out of 100 Senate seats are up for election this November. Redistricting, as well as the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, have shaken up predictions about who will control the House and Senate come November. Before Roe was overturned, pundits strongly predicted Republicans would take control of the House. Now, they’re not so sure. 

Currently, there are 221 Democrats and 212 Republicans in the House (plus two vacancies following the death of Rep. Jackie Walorski and the resignation of Rep. Charlie Crist amid his run for Florida governor). To retain control of the House, Democrats have to keep 218 seats. Republicans are generally favored to keep most of the seats they currently occupy, however there are a wide range of scenarios that could play out. 

Meanwhile, in the Senate, all Republicans need to do is flip one seat to gain control of the chamber should all other occupied seats be held by the party. Fourteen Senate seats held by Democrats and 21 held by Republicans are up for grabs. Per The Hill, the Senate seats that are most likely to flip in 2022 for both Republicans and Democrats are in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Georgia, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, and Arizona. FiveThirtyEight laid out its predictions for the Senate, noting that Democrats are slightly favored to win the Senate. Though, again, anything is possible. Vox laid out three possible Congressional outcomes of the midterms— which includes Republicans controlling Congress, a divided Congress, and Democrats keeping control of Congress—and what each would mean for federal policy. 

What's at Stake

From abortion rights to gun policy to the environment to voting rights and democracy, there are a multitude of issues at stake in the 2022 midterm elections. If you're curious as to where Democrats and Republicans stand on the issues, this piece will give you a general overview of party policies and the consequences of voter apathy. 

Key Races to Pay Attention To

Women continue to play an important role in U.S. elections, both as candidates and voters, on both sides of the aisle. According to the Center for American Women and Politics, a record number of women are nominees for governor and state legislatures this fall, though we won’t see the same records in the U.S. House and Senate like we did in the 2018 midterm elections. (Vote Run Lead launched a data visualization tool that shows the status of women's representation in state legislatures across the country.) What everyone—but women especially—will need to pay attention to, no matter which party they belong to, are the election deniers on the ballot—some of whom are women themselves, like Arkansas gubernatorial nominee Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY-21) who’s up for reelection. 

“Something we're keeping our eye on and has big implications for women are all these election deniers. In at least 27 states there's an election denier on the ballot,” explains Erin Vilardi, founder and CEO of Vote Run Lead. “Election-denying and white supremacy and the patriarchy and the rights that women have gained in our democracy are deeply connected.” 

You’ve likely already seen the headlines about highly-anticipated races like the Texas governorship and the Pennsylvania Senate seat, amongst many others, that have been classified as some of the key races to watch during the 2022 midterms. That said, Marie Claire wanted to get a closer look specifically at the women who could break barriers at the state and local level this election cycle who may not receive as many national headlines, so we asked Vote Run Lead and Run for Something* to share some of the key races women and nonbinary candidates are running in that they’ve been keeping an eye on, below.

Although the list is primarily filled with Democrats, you can also view this full list of Republican women running for office in the 2022 midterms. 

State Races

Election: Arizona State House, District 4

Candidate: Laura Terech (D) 

Election: Arizona State House, District 24

Candidate: Analise Ortiz (D)

Election: California State Senate, District 20

Candidate: Caroline Menjivar (D)

Election: Colorado State House, District 29

Candidate: Lindsey Daugherty (D)

Election: Florida State Senate, District 18

Candidate: Eunic Ortiz (D)

Election: Florida State House, District 38

Candidate: Sarah Henry (D)

Election: Georgia Agriculture Commissioner

Candidate: Nakita Hemingway (D)

Election: Georgia Secretary of State

Candidate: Bee Nguyen (D)

Election: Georgia State House, District 97

Candidate: Ruwa Romman (D)

Election: Georgia State Senate, District 4

Candidate: Nabilah Islam (D)

Election: Illinois State House, District 51

Candidate: Nabeela Syed (D)

Election: Iowa State House, District 40

Candidate: MacKenzie Bills (D)

Election: Kentucky State House, District 33

Candidate: Kate Turner (D)

Election: Michigan State House, District 27

Candidate: Jaime Churches (D)

Election: Michigan State Senate, District 8

Candidate: Mallory McMorrow (D)

Election: New Hampshire Executive Council, District 5

Candidate: Shoshanna Kelly (D)

Election: New York State Senate, District 52

Candidate: Lea Webb (D) 

Election: Pennsylvania State Senate, District 38

Candidate: Lindsey Williams (D)

Election: South Carolina State House, District 5

Candidate: Heather Bauer (D)

Election: Texas State House, District 121

Candidate: Becca Moyer DeFelice (D)

Local Races

Election: DeKalb County Clerk

Candidate: Linh Nguyen (D)

Election: Harris County Judge

Candidate: Lina Hidalgo (D)

Election: Los Angeles County Supervisor

Candidate: Lindsey Horvath (D)

*The candidates listed above were shared by Vote Run Lead and Run for Something. They do not necessarily reflect endorsements from both organizations, nor does Marie Claire endorse these candidates. 

How to Register to Vote

Even if you believe you’re already registered to vote, voter suppression laws are currently being enacted across the country, which disproportionately affect people of color, so it’s important to make sure your registration is up-to-date and you’re ready to provide any additional materials needed leading up to or on Election Day. 

There are a number of ways to register to vote, but the easiest way would be to head to RocktheVote.org to register, check your registration status, request an absentee ballot (if necessary), and receive election reminders. You can find general voter and Election Day registration deadlines on Vote.org by typing in your state. This Washington Post article notes deadlines specifically for the 2022 midterm elections. 

You can also generate a sample ballot on Ballotpedia, where you’ll be able to see the candidates on your ballot as well as ballot measures that you can research before you head to the polls or vote by mail. After you've completed the above, encourage others to do the same and remind them that every election is consequential.

How to Become a Poll Worker

COVID-19 caused a poll worker shortage across the country during the 2020 election, which resulted in over 700,000 people becoming poll workers to help ensure safe, free, and fair elections. Today, there's still a great need for poll workers. If you're interested in becoming a poll worker and making a difference in your community during the 2022 midterm elections, head to PowerThePolls.org. Poll workers are trained and paid, though specific requirements for participation vary by jurisdiction. 

How Long Will It Take to Receive Final Election Results?

This will vary by state. States where voting is primarily conducted by mail, like California, Colorado, and Washington, typically take longer to count ballots, especially if they don't start counting until Election Day. In the 2020 election, vote-by-mail was a popular alternative to voting in person to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Right now, it's unclear whether we'll see a similar vote-by-mail trend in the 2022 midterm elections, though it is clear that more people are voting early in this year's midterm elections than previous ones. You can view early voting numbers across the country and follow live election updates here.

Every election matters—but this year, there’s more at stake than ever, from reproductive rights to the state of our democracy. With early voting underway in many states and election day (November 8!) right around the corner, now's the time to decide how you're going to vote. And no one understands how voters' choices could impact our country more than Vice President Kamala Harris. 

The Dobbs v. Jackson's decision, coupled with the continuing denial of the results of the 2020 election, have made it feel like the democracy America once had is crumbling beneath our feet. I was an organizer in 2016, and the impending doom we sensed that election night is eerily similar to the feelings evoked by the fall of Roe v. Wade in June.

Since the overturning of Roe, states across the country have either passed and signed or proposed legislation that would criminalize abortions. Nearly half of states—22 to be exact—have laws on the books to either ban or severely restrict abortion. That means 36 million women have lost access to this basic form of reproductive care. 

But despite the weight of these life-altering events, we have an opportunity ahead of us in this year’s midterms. 

I had the chance to sit down with the Vice President to have a conversation about where our country stands regarding reproductive rights for women—and so many other important policies. Alongside my co-moderator, Lt. Governor Peggy Flanagan of Minnesota, we were able to dive into what Vice President Harris sees as the key issues defining this year’s midterm election and how we, as voters, can make a difference.

 Here, the four major takeaways: 

1. The right to your own body is on the line.

When the Dobbs ruling came down, millions of women had essential access to abortion ripped away, both by pre-existing trigger laws and new laws introduced this summer. Vice President Harris reinforced the importance of local elections, especially in regards to abortion rights, telling the audience, “Back to the local races—you know, whoever is your county prosecutor, if they are elected, pay attention. Especially for folks…in states where they're criminalizing healthcare providers. Doctors, nurses, healthcare providers are being criminalized with laws that are being proposed and passed that would literally put a healthcare provider in jail [for providing abortion care].” 

It is a heartbreaking reality that states are even proposing—and then passing—legislation with no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. As a former prosecutor and staunch advocate for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, the Vice President emphasized the inhumanity of it: “We're talking about a human being who has endured an act of extreme violence and violation to their body, and so-called leaders would then deprive that individual of the ability to make decisions about their body going forward. It's immoral.”

Nevertheless, Vice President Harris and President Biden have vowed to do their part to protect women. “It is a fact that the President of the United States, Joe Biden, has said he will not allow the filibuster to get in the way of passing and signing into law the Women's Health Protection Act…which would codify the protections of Roe v. Wade,” she added. 

She went on: “It is also a fact that we need two more United States senators who agree with that, in order for the President to be able to do that.” Senate races in many swing states, including Georgia, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, are increasingly tight. And many candidates have been vocal about their opposition to abortion access—even if they have tried to hide that position post-primary.

2. Health care, especially for Black and Native mothers, is on the ballot.

One issue that is incredibly personal to Vice President Harris is maternal health care. She underscored what’s at stake for Black and Native mothers in the United States this election cycle, saying, “Black women are three times more likely to die in connection with childbirth. Native women are twice as likely to die in connection with childbirth. Rural women are one-and-a-half times as likely to die.” The Biden administration has elevated the issue, hosting the Maternal Day of Action Summit last year and announcing a series of actions aimed at reducing maternal mortality.

But more can be done. Congresswoman Lauren Underwood (IL-14) has introduced the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2021 in the House, but it has not moved forward in Congress. “Who is in Congress really matters,” Harris noted. Every House rep is up for election next week. Find out where your candidates stand on not just providing—but revolutionizing—essential health care.

 3. Democratic principles are at stake—in the United States and around the world.

Vice President Harris pointed out the implications of the election beyond abortion access: “There's so much about this issue, all of the layers to this issue, which include, as much as anything, our democracy and the state of our democracy. I think of democracy as [having] two sides to it. There's a duality to it. On the one hand, when the principles upon which our democracy was founded—freedom, liberty, justice—when a democracy is intact, it is extraordinarily strong, [as is] the power it gives the people. The duality is that, on the other hand, it is extremely fragile, this democracy. It is only as strong as our willingness to fight for it.”

Many candidates up and down the ballot this midterm cycle deny or reject the legitimacy of the 2020 election. They are outright running on it as part of their platform. If such candidates win, particularly offices like Secretary of State, our entire election system could be undermined or overhauled. Gerrymandering is already a serious problem that has historically allowed political parties to influence their own ability to stay in power; but this is different. The process of choosing our representatives could change from free and fair to partisan.

And the laws and policies we make in the United States have impacts far beyond our nation’s borders. Vice President Harris spoke about our country’s role in the world, noting, “One of my great fears is that autocrats around the world can then look at their people and say, ‘You want to talk about these rights? You want to talk about your United States of America? Look what they just did.’ And in that way, the impact will be not only for the people of America, but potentially people around the world.”

4. LGBTQ+ rights are under attack.

While the Dobbs decision only directly impacts abortion rights, the Supreme Court decision opened the door for other rights to be eroded in the future. Vice President Harris emphasized this risk, saying, “Don't forget, in the Dobbs decision…Clarence Thomas said the quiet part out loud. He literally said this opens up the next steps, which are to reexamine—which means question, which means attack, as far as I'm concerned—the right to contraception and the right to marry the person you love.” 

Congress has since taken steps to protect marriage equality, with the House passing the Respect for Marriage Act, which would codify the legality of same-sex and interracial marriages under federal law, with bipartisan support. But the Senate pushed their vote on the bill until after the midterms, meaning who we decide to send to Congress could affect whether or not this bill becomes law.

Vice President Harris ended the conversation with a call to action, telling the audience: “Do not be overwhelmed, do not be tired, do not throw your hands up when it’s time to roll up your sleeves.” 

Moms are fired up. A pandemic without childcare support, followed by the demise of the paid leave plan, more than 193 incidents of gunfire on school grounds during the 2021-2022 school year, and, of course, the fall of Roe v. Wade has given women plenty to be upset about—and put them at the forefront of this year's midterm elections. 

After the “Great Resignation” many women have still not returned to the workforce. And no wonder. Women have held a disproportionate amount of the responsibilities in the home while still expected to break through that glass ceiling. According to a McKinsey Women in the Workplace study, women feel far more exhausted, burned out, and under pressure than men. 

“We still have over a million women in the country that have not gone back to work yet,” New York Governor Hochul noted during my interview with her last month. 

The loss of women in the workforce is no accident. It was the culmination of a lack of paid leave, a lack of upward mobility, and a lack of help in the home. In 2021, when the country was poised to finally offer a comprehensive paid leave policy that would provide both women and men with the resources they need to care for their children and loved ones, the bill died in the Senate because Democrats could not achieve a simple majority. 

But even at school, where moms should be confident their children are cared for and safe, they cannot be. On May 24, 2022, 19 elementary school students were shot along with two teachers. The heartbreaking scene that played out in the halls of Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, is all too common. From Sandy Hook, to Stoneman Douglas, to Oxford High School, to Santa Fe High School, it is no wonder parents are afraid to send their children to school. 

And when, after the death of 19 children, nearly 200 congressional reps voted against gun control legislation, it became clear that if things were going to meaningfully change, we, the moms, had to change them. Local mom and organizer Bryony Freij is doing just that in New York’s 1st Congressional district, deemed the second most competitive district in the country. Freij has mobilized other moms to vote on initiatives like affordable housing, a key issue in places like Long Island. 

The power of moms is already on display. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Republican legislators and governors across the country immediately moved to make abortion illegal in their jurisdictions. In Kansas, the right to an abortion was on the ballot during the primaries in August. Leading up to the vote, women made up more than 70 percent of newly registered voters, according to an analysis of the state’s registered voter list by the New York Times. (It’s a nationwide trend; since the Dobbs decision, Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania have also seen surges in women registering to vote.) Thanks to those who went to the polls, the initiative was overwhelmingly rejected, meaning essential health care for hundreds of thousands of women both in Kansas and in surrounding states was maintained. 

I had the opportunity to sit down with Vice President Harris to talk about reproductive rights, or the lack thereof, recently, and during my conversation, she noted the implications of the Dobbs decision, “So much about the progress of our nation has been measured by the expansion of rights. And now we are seeing an intentional restriction of rights. What is that saying about the trajectory and the direction of our country? 

Families have been completely left out of the conversation surrounding access to abortion. More than 60 percent of those who seek an abortion already have children. Without my access to essential women’s health care like birth control (which is also being threatened), millions of women would be unable to properly plan for their family. 

Moms across the country are mobilizing around candidates who address these key issues. Take Wisconsin, where Moms for Mandela has emerged in support of Mandela Barnes, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate. This group is just one example of the organic organizing that will be influential to the outcome of this year's midterm elections. 

To think that in the face of no paid leave, rampant gun violence, the loss of our bodily rights, and more, women would not show up to the polls this November is simply ignorance. Come November, I have no doubt that women will be the largest force for change. They will be the deciders, holding the ability to tip the scales toward a safer future for our children, our bodies, and our country. 

Are you registered to vote? Check your registration at vote.org and register TODAY to vote on November 8th. 

Correction: A previous version of this article mistakenly listed Moms for Mandela as Moms of Mandela. We regret the error. 

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. 

President Biden signed an executive order today designed to protect access to medication abortion and contraception. The president has been under pressure from reproductive justice advocates and other Democrats who have criticized him for not taking more action after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on June 24. 

White House Gender Policy Director Jen Klein tells Marie Claire that the Biden administration has had dozens of meetings with multiple stakeholders to talk about reproductive rights in the last few weeks. The administration has met with doctors, healthcare providers, privacy experts, advocates, government officials, Planned Parenthood, and independent clinics. When asked if Biden has met recently with people who have had abortions to hear their stories, Klein said he has not, but that people on his staff (including Klein herself) have.

“We are being incredibly careful and analyzing every option,” says Klein. “We run down every option. The fact is there literally has not been anything that has been proposed by an advocate or a member of Congress that we haven’t considered.” 

Before signing the executive order, Biden called the Supreme Court’s decision “terrible” and “extreme” and reiterated that people need to “vote, vote, vote, vote.” His order directs his secretary of health and human services (HHS), Xavier Becerra, to come back in 30 days with steps that can be taken to ensure access to medication abortion, contraception, and emergency medical care. The executive order touches on a need for additional HIPAA guidance and better patient protections, and seeks to convene volunteer lawyers to represent “patients, providers, and third parties lawfully seeking or offering reproductive health care services.” 

The president also called for an interagency Task Force on Reproductive Health Care Access. Biden’s order asks the chair of the Federal Trade Commission to consider how to protect consumers’ privacy when seeking reproductive health care services.

As reproductive justice advocates wait to see how this executive order will play out, specifically, frustration persists for some Democrats who argue more needs to be done—in particular for pregnant people seeking abortions who can’t travel and live in states where the procedure is banned or extremely restricted.

Responding to Marie Claire's questions about what support is being considered for people who can’t travel for financial reasons, Klein says: “That is mostly being considered by non-governmental organizations. The philanthropy and the private sector is really stepping up to fund travel and they will continue to do that." She adds, "We don’t, at the moment, have a plan in place to be able to fund transportation.”

After a follow-up about how the administration will address cases of people like incarcerated individuals, who won’t be able to travel even if they secure funding, Klein says that they are looking into "everything." As for undocumented immigrants who may be prevented from access due to the risk of border check points, the White House will remain “vigilant” about how people are being restricted from travel, Klein says. “I would say that really no, no, no option and no action is off the table.”

In the wake of Dobbs, there have been reports of people being denied access to mifeprostone, a pill used in medication abortion, either because a doctor or pharmacist is nervous or receiving legal counsel not to prescribe or fill the medication. “Women are being told to wait until they’re ‘really sick’ at which point the pill can be given,” says Klein. 

She points to Attorney General Merrick Garland’s recent comments about medication abortion: “The FDA has approved the use of the medication Mifepristone. States may not ban Mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy.”

Klein asserts that today’s executive order “takes the next step” toward figuring out what can be done to ensure that medication abortion is available and accessible. In the meantime, the battles continue to play out on the state-level as doctors, attorneys, and pregnant people attempt to navigate the new landscape of reproductive rights.

This story has been updated.

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.

Halsey is opening up about suffering three miscarriages, one of which resulted in an abortion. In response to the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling, the “Nightmare” singer wrote an essay in Vogue about their experience.

“I rewrote my will during the third trimester of my pregnancy,” they revealed. Halsey is now mom to son Ender Ridley, who they welcomed in July 2021 with partner Alev Aydin. 

They continued, “After my past experiences, I was prepared for the worst. I gave detailed instructions regarding the donation of my organs should I die or be declared brain-dead, meaning if my heart beat on but my brain wasn’t functioning, the state would have permission to cut into my warm and still flush flesh and take my organs to save other lives.”

The singer pointed out the irony of that situation within the abortion debate: “How funny that while my own heart would amount to nothing more than a series of involuntary movements on an operating table, a beating heart in my womb could mean I couldn’t consent to saving my own life.”

They added that “this is what some people who wish to see the end of abortion rights believe is right.” However, Halsey’s experience has only made them more fiercely supportive of people having the right to choose.

“Many people have asked me if, since carrying a child to term after years of struggling to do so, I have reconsidered my stance on abortion,” they wrote. “The answer is firmly no. In fact, I have never felt more strongly about it. My abortion saved my life and gave way for my son to have his. Every person deserves the right to choose when, if, and how they have this dangerous and life-altering experience. I will hold my son in one arm, and fight with all my might with the other.”

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.

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.

On September 1, 2021, Texas' near-total abortion ban, S.B. 8, went into effect. The most restrictive abortion law in the country bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy (at six weeks, most people don't even know they are pregnant), does not make an exception for pregnancy that results from rape or incest, and allows private citizens to sue anybody who provides an abortion or assists someone in accessing an abortion after this time period. They will receive a $10,000 award if they are successful.

The law is the first of many that will likely be replicated in conservative states across the nation after the Supreme Court allowed the law to go into effect in a 5 to 4 vote. It also alludes to the Court's decision in the months ahead when it decides whether Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision that affirms access to a safe and legal abortion is a constitutional right, should be overturned.

As Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, wrote for Marie Claire on the 48th anniversary of Roe v. Wade this past January, "Roe has been a critical bulwark against the hundreds of state abortion bans and restrictions enacted in the past decade...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."

People of color will suffer the most from Texas' restrictive law, along with many young people, immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, and those who live in rural areas who already have barriers to quality health care and face other forms of discrimination. Traveling across state lines to receive the procedure is simply not an option for many people.

With abortion top of mind for both citizens and lawmakers (2021 is the worst legislative year for abortion rights since Roe), misinformation continues to circulate about the procedure itself and related laws across the country, like whether taking Plan B is the same thing as getting an abortion (it's not) and whether or not abortion is still technically legal in all 50 states (it is). To clarify these questions, Marie Claire enlisted the expertise of Dr. Meera Shah, a family medicine physician who currently serves as the chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic, to debunk common abortion myths by creating a comprehensive guide on abortion, below.

Is abortion still legal in all 50 states?

Texas' law banning abortion after six weeks makes it pretty close to being illegal in the state, but, yes, abortion is technically still legal in all 50 states and in D.C. "It's unfortunate, but a lot of the headlines make that very simple question pretty confusing," says Dr. Shah. "I have to let my patients know that abortion is legal everywhere, despite what the headlines say and the attacks on abortion care at the moment."

The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-choice research organization founded in 1968, has a frequently updated legislative tracker where you can check to see what type of restrictions and bans your state has introduced. You can access it here.

Is it still legal to get an abortion past the six-week mark?

Not in Texas due to the passage of S.B. 8, which went into effect on September 1. It's the most restrictive abortion law in the country.

"The reason why [lawmakers] picked six weeks is because this is usually the time at which there is some cardiac activity detected on ultrasound, but most people aren't even aware that they are pregnant at this time," explains Dr. Shah. "Often people discover that they're pregnant around seven to eight weeks. Essentially this bans the vast majority of abortions [in Texas]."

I want an abortion. How does the process work?

"It depends on where you live. In New York, if somebody discovers that they're pregnant and they decide that they don't want to continue with the pregnancy, they can call one of the many providers that are available who provide abortion care and make an appointment. Oftentimes, they're able to get an appointment that same day," says Dr. Shah. "Where I work at Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic, we have 10 health centers that provide abortion care six days of the week. The pregnancy is dated and then either a medication abortion is provided or a procedural abortion is scheduled. There's no waiting period, no mandatory script that has to be read. In some states, a script has to be read that's filled with lies that say things like 'abortion can cause breast cancer, abortion can cause depression.' It's not true."

Though the cost of an abortion widely varies, you can learn more about the potential cost here and here.

What are some barriers to accessing abortion?

"In some states, like Texas, there's a 24-hour waiting period where the patient has to go home [after getting the ultrasound] and return at least 24 hours later to get the abortion. In Indiana, it's 18 hours. In Missouri, it's 72 hours. In North Carolina, it's 72 hours as well," says Dr. Shah, noting this disproportionately affects people of color the most. "There are these arbitrary amounts of time where patients have to go home and return, which means that they have to take time off work, find transportation, and arrange childcare all to fulfill the requirements that are in place to restrict abortion access."

Dr. Shah continues, "These rules do nothing to 'change people's minds' as they're intended to. What they really end up doing is cause harm and distress. They cause people to have to pay more out of pocket to try and access care. In some states they don't even allow commercial insurances to pay for abortion care. So people are paying out of pocket essentially. Because of the Hyde Amendment, Medicaid can't be used to pay for abortion care."

The Biden administration recently announced it will remove the Hyde amendment from the proposed budget for the 2022 fiscal year.

How do I decide whether to receive a medication abortion or a procedural abortion?

"The vast majority of abortions occur early in pregnancy in the first trimester. We know that medication abortion is safe and effective up to 11 weeks. So if somebody is less than 11 weeks [pregnant], they can choose to have a medication abortion or they can choose to have a procedural abortion," explains Dr. Shah. "But because of all of these bans, what [lawmakers] do is they oftentimes push people into a later gestational age, thus forcing them to only have the option of a procedural abortion. It's a great and safe method, but some people would rather take a pill as opposed to having a procedure. We want to ensure that people are still able to make those choices."

If I choose to receive a medication abortion, can my abortion provider mail me pills or do I have to pick them up in person?

"Historically, the [abortion] provider has to dispense the pills from the health center, meaning a patient has to come to the health center to get the pill. Now, what is allowed is that a provider can mail the pill or send the prescription to a mail-order pharmacy to have it shipped to the patient if they qualify based on their gestational age that they report," says Dr. Shah. This is based on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules.

"The FDA has restrictions on the pill mifepristone. [At the beginning of] COVID-19, patients were being told that they should stay at home, shelter in place, and socially distance, yet they were also being told they can have telehealth for any health care needs, but for abortion you have to come in to get the pills," explains Dr. Shah. "There was this pause in the rule where patients were mandated to come in. Now it's back in place. Still, it's not an option for everyone everywhere because of state rules. So the FDA can say one thing, but then each state has the right to implement unnecessary barriers."

Will an IUD cause me to have an abortion if I get pregnant?

"No. An IUD is one of the most effective methods of contraception that we have. It prevents pregnancy before it even occurs," says Dr. Shah. "We see this a lot where politicians will say that IUDs or emergency contraception cause abortion, and that's just not how it works. It's not even medically possible."

Is Plan B the same as medication abortion?

"No. There are two different emergency contraceptive pills: One is Ella. One is Plan B. One is progesterone, one is a progesterone blocker," says Dr. Shah. "They prevent pregnancy by delaying ovulation. It does not cause an abortion. It's two totally different pharmacological mechanisms."

If you're already pregnant, Plan B won't affect the pregnancy either in the event that you were pregnant and didn't know.

How old do I have to be to get an abortion?

"That depends on the state you live in. In many states, minors have to have parental or guardian consent in order to get an abortion and if this isn't possible, then some states will allow judicial bypass, where the young person can go to court and have the court grant them the ability to get an abortion without parental or guardian consent," says Dr. Shah. "Interestingly, in these same states, if the individual wanted to continue the pregnancy, they do not have to have parental or guardian consent. They can continue a pregnancy and become a parent."

FIND MY STATE'S ABORTION AGE REQUIREMENTS

Can I go by myself to get an abortion or does someone have to come with me?

"That depends on your age. If you live in a state where you have to have consent from a parent or guardian, then you would need to bring somebody with you who can sign the paperwork," explains Dr. Shah. "If you're getting a procedural abortion and want sedation to help make the procedure more comfortable, you may be asked to bring someone with you who [can provide support] and drive you home afterward as well."

How do I find the closest abortion clinic near me?

You can utilize Power to Decide's abortion finder tool, which includes more than 750 verified abortion service clinics across the country and a list of state laws that might limit a person's access to abortion care.

FIND AN ABORTION CLINIC NEAR ME

Do transgender folks need to disclose that they are trans before getting an abortion?

"No. The only thing that we ask when seeing patients for abortion care are things that are medically relevant," says Dr. Shah. "At Planned Parenthood, we ask patients their pronouns because we want them to feel seen. It's a way for us to honor them and honor their identity and let them know that it's a safe place to get care. If they're pregnant and they don't want to be, the care is the same. The fact that they're trans or non-binary doesn't need to be disclosed if it's not medically relevant."

How can I fight against abortion restrictions both at the federal and state level?

You can learn more about federal and state restrictions on abortion here. The best way to fight against these restrictions are to take the following actions:

• Vote for pro-choice politicians up and down the ballot.
• Sign the petition against S.B. 8: Text SB8 to 22422 or click here.
• Follow organizations who are actively fighting for abortion rights like the ACLU, Planned Parenthood Action, NARAL, Whole Woman's Health Alliance, Power to Decide, the National Abortion Federation, and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
• Donate to abortion funds like the National Network of Abortion Funds, Indigenous Women Rising, and the Lilith Fund that provide assistance to people who want to receive an abortion but may not be able to afford it.

When we get news like the story this week, in which the Supreme Court quietly refused to block Texas’s draconian abortion bill, it can feel like things are pretty hopeless. The bill, called the Texas Heartbeat Bill or “SB8,” after its bill number, effectively outlaws abortion at six weeks, or when a “fetal heartbeat” can be detected by a physician. Never mind that many doctors agree that the science behind the bill is bad, perhaps the worst part of it—when forced to choose between many worst parts—is the section that allows fellow Texans to report those who are seeking abortions, as well as those who may have aided and abetted patients, for a potential reward of $10,000.

Because the Supreme Court didn’t actually hear the case, fighting against the bill in court is going to be extremely messy. Instead, the court chose to release an unsigned majority opinion, thereby offering no reasoning behind their decision to effectively reverse Roe v Wade—which the Constitution does not like courts to do! The dissenting Supreme Court justices (who made a point to put their names on their dissents so we could, by process of elimination, see who allowed the bill to go through), as well as President Biden have called into question whether any of this is even legal. Meanwhile, Texas clinics that provide healthcare to abortion seekers often see no other choice than to comply with the opaque new rules until they’re given better instructions to follow. So, yeah, that was bleak.

But after all that gloom, some bright spots have appeared. First, choice-protecting internet denizens decided to absolutely flood the so-called “Abortion Snitch Site” (formally called ProLifeWhistleBlower.com) set up by anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life with false reports and Shrek memes. At one point yesterday, I tried to access the site and it was pretty firmly not responding, the input form suddenly gone from the homepage and the rest of the site giving an error message. Thanks for protecting our rights, Internet!

Then last night, we hear that the website’s domain host, GoDaddy.com—who we must will always think of first and foremost as purveyors of those creepily horny aughts Super Bowl commercials—had found the Abortion Snitch site to be in violation of their terms of service. Per Gizmodo:

"...the very nature of the website appeared to run counter to GoDaddy’s terms of service, which stipulate that customers cannot use its platform in a manner that 'violates the privacy or publicity rights of another User or any other person or entity, or breaches any duty of confidentiality that you owe to another User or any other person or entity.'"

Apparently GoDaddy agreed, and told the site’s administrators that they had 24 hours to migrate to a new domain host or they were getting booted. Aww, the Abortion Snitch Site is having a bad weekend, huh?

TBD what’s actually happened to the site as of right now, though it seems that IP addresses from California to New York to Texas are no longer being given access, for what the error message that now pops up when you navigate to it calls “security reasons.” I assume when they say “security reasons'' they mean that Sexy Shrek (link SFW but disturbing in its own right), one of the many memes that Redditors bombarded the site with, is making them feel insecure about their own sexiness. And understandably so! I hope the Texas Right to Life folks who set this website up feel bad about themselves every day for the rest of their lives.

And so we bid adieu, at least for now, to the Abortion Snitch Site! May it limp out of existence, and may its cursed return be met with a deluge of furry porn.

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.

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.

At the Jan. 20 inauguration in D.C., Kamala Harris will be the first female and first Black woman to ever hold the office of vice president. The California senator, who was running in the Democratic presidential race before dropping out in December and being tapped by Biden as his VP, has long been vocal about many key issues, including abortion and women's reproductive health care.

Abortion has been a hot-button issue in this country for what feels like forever, and everyone has opinions on it—but you might be wondering where Harris stands on the subject. Let's dive in, shall we?

Harris wants to codify Roe v. Wade.

If you're familiar with women's reproductive rights, then you'll be familiar with Roe v. Wade. The 1973 Supreme Court case made it illegal for states to ban abortions, but ever since then, the ruling has been threatened continuously.

It is still possible for state legislation to limit or restrict access to the medical procedure, which is why some politicians want to codify the ruling. Codifying the ruling would grant a woman's right to an abortion would be a federal law and protected from being overturned if it reached the Supreme Court.

In 2019, The New York Times asked democratic presidential candidates to complete a survey on where they stood on certain abortion issues. Harris and Biden said yes to codifying Roe.

In August, Harris publicly supported Joe Biden's plans to codify the case. "As states across our nation continue to attack reproductive rights, especially abortion, it's more important than ever we have a president who will defend and expand these rights," she tweeted. "As president, @JoeBiden will codify Roe v. Wade and protect the constitutional right to choose."

Harris wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment.

Along with numerous other Democrats, Harris has pushed to repeal the Hyde Amendment, which blocks federal Medicaid funding for abortion services unless the person's continued pregnancy will put their life in danger or the baby is the product of rape or incest.

During a July 2019 debate, Harris challenged Biden on his record on the Hyde Amendment. The presidential nominee, known for backing the amendment, suddenly changed his mind in June.

"You made a decision for years to withhold resources to poor women to reproductive health care, including women who were the victims of rape and incest," said Harris to Biden. "Do you now say that you have evolved, and you regret that?"

The decades-old ban affects people with low incomes, people of color, young people, immigrants, and anyone else who relies on Medicaid for healthcare coverage. To put it into perspective, Medicaid provides coverage to 1 in 5 women between the ages of 15-44.

(You can go to allaboveall.org to learn how you can take action, btw.)

Major pro-choice organizations are backing Harris.

While in the U.S. Senate, Harris maintained a 100 percent rating from the reproductive rights group NARAL. According to NARAL's website, they highly rate "candidates who make women's health care, including abortion access, a priority."

Harris has also received support from Emily's List, an organization dedicated to getting pro-choice women elected to office. Its president, Stephanie Schriock, even made a statement when Harris' ended her campaign for president, saying:

"Kamala Harris is a fighter for the people, and she carried that grit throughout her presidential campaign. Her historic presence in the race—as one of the few women of color to run for president in history—brought a critical perspective and voice to conversations about America's future."

And when Biden and Harris won the election, Planned Parenthood wrote on its website: "Planned Parenthood has champions in the White House again." It added: "Our country’s leaders once again understand that abortion is health care."

Harris co-sponsored the Women's Health Protection Act.

Harris has continued to be vocal about the Women's Health Protection Act, which is similar to the Voting Rights Act but geared towards abortion access. If the Act passed, states would have to get pre-clearance from the federal government before implementing more abortion-based restrictions in their states and counties.

In May 2019, Harris spoke about the act at town hall event, saying, "Are we going to go back to the days of back-alley abortions? Women died before we had Roe v. Wade in place. On this issue, I'm kind of done."

If passed, the act could stop legislation like the "fetal heartbeat" bill, which bans abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected. (Tennessee lawmakers passed their version of this last June.) Sometimes, a heartbeat can be detected as early as six weeks into a pregnancy—before many people know they're pregnant.

Forty-three other senators currently co-sponsor the Women's Health Protection Act.

Harris warned Trump's Supreme Court nomination could threaten reproductive rights.

Eight days after the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, President Trump announced he would be nominating Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill Ginsburg's seat.

“Judge Barrett has a long record of opposing abortion and reproductive rights,” said Harris on the nomination and what this could mean to women everywhere per the Independent. “There is no other issue that so disrespects and dishonors the work of Justice Ginsburg’s life than undoing the seminal decision in the court’s history that made it clear a woman has a right to make decisions about her own body.”

During Barrett's confirmation hearings, Harris repeatedly pushed Barrett on her views on issues like abortion, but Barrett repeatedly referred to the "Ginsburg rule." The reference was to the late-justices standard that a judge provide no hints, forecasts, or previews of how they would vote on cases.

Harris argued with Barrett on this reasoning, explaining that Judge Ginsburg, during her own 1993 Supreme Court confirmation hearing, voiced her opinion on topics like abortion.

Despite not asking Harris her opinion about whether she was anti or pro-choice, the senator believed her actions spoke her beliefs. "I would suggest that we not pretend that we don't know how this nominee views a woman's right to choose or make her own decisions," Harris said.

She's never expressed support for late-term abortions.

At the only vice-presidential debate, host Susan Page pressed on Mike Pence what would become of Roe v. Wade if Judge Barrett was confirmed and what he thought of the case.

The Vice President responded, "I couldn't be more proud to serve as vice president to a president who stands without apology for the sanctity of human life. I'm pro-life. I don't apologize for it." Adding, "Joe Biden and Kamala Harris support taxpayer funding of abortion all the way up to the moment of birth."

This isn't true. Numerous fact-checkers moderating the event dubbed the statement false, as Harris nor Biden have never voiced their support for abortion up to the moment of birth.

Some anti-choice groups such as the Susan B. Anthony List went as far as to release political advertisements using those same claims. Facebook later blocked the ad due to its false nature.

When asked later the same question about the future of Roe v. Wade, Harris responded, "I will always fight for a woman's right to make a decision about her own body. It should be her decision."

UPDATE, April 21, 2020: Yesterday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals announced in a 2-1 opinion that Texas officials could legally restrict access to medication abortions during the coronavirus pandemic, claiming “the constitutional right to abortion does not include the right to the abortion method of the woman’s (or the physician’s) choice.” The decision comes less than a week after the courts first decided that Texas had not “made a strong enough case for banning medication abortion,” per Politico. The courts had eased the temporary ban on April 14, saying that a medication abortion was not a “procedure” and did not interfere with hospitals treating COVID-19 patients. Monday's decision revoked that ruling, meaning the issue will likely be taken to higher courts in the weeks to come.

ORIGINAL STORY, April 8, 2020: Heather* is a 30-year-old single mom living in Texas. She was just laid off from her full-time job as a result of Covid-19. She has no health insurance, no additional source of income, and she has no idea how she’s going to continue to pay her bills or provide for her two sons.

She’s also six weeks pregnant and unable to get the abortion she wants and needs.

“A pregnancy, for me, has the potential of being high-risk,” Heather tells Marie Claire. “I have a prolapsed uterus, cervix, and bladder. I would not be able to work full-time, and could be bedridden for a majority of my pregnancy. And I just do not want to have a child right now. Beyond all of the logical reasoning against continuing a pregnancy, I just don’t want to be pregnant.”

Despite her best efforts, Heather cannot access abortion care where she lives. On March 23, the state’s governor deemed the procedure medically unnecessary during the coronavirus pandemic, claiming a need to preserve personal protective equipment and hospital beds. A lawsuit filed on March 25 by Planned Parenthood and the Center for Reproductive Rights led to a temporary stay, allowing abortion services to continue. But just 24 hours after the ban was lifted, it was reinstated by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“I have been a nervous wreck,” Heather continues. “On top of having severe anxiety, hormonal difficulties from this pregnancy, and constant fear from the encroaching pandemic, the back and forth litigation has been overwhelming. I've had two appointments cancelled, only to be rescheduled days later. I'm going from extreme elation to extreme lows. I'm physically sick from it and unable to parent my sons the way they deserve during this crisis.”

Texas is not alone in its efforts to thwart a woman's right to choose. So far, the GOP governors and acting attorneys general of Ohio, Mississippi, Iowa, Alabama, Kentucky, and Oklahoma have also called for the cancellation of abortion services.

Meanwhile Republicans have tried to include anti-choice language in a Coronavirus relief bill, the Hyde Amendment was expanded in the recently passed Covid-19 emergency spending bill, and anti-choice groups have urged the Department of Health and Human Services to use its authority to ban abortion outright—a blatantly unconstitutional request.

“Anti-abortion policy makers have a long history of trying to attach draconian abortion restrictions to federal legislation,” says Megan Donovan, senior policy manager at the Guttmacher Institute. “And the threat remains as they move on to new Covid-19 responses. Members of Congress and this administration will seek to use these moments to negotiate and sort of force in anti-abortion policies in order to try and score political points instead of focusing on mitigating the public health crisis.”

While some lawmakers claim banning abortion would free up medical personnel and equipment, Dr. Dan Grossman, director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, an abortion research group at the University of California, proved via Twitter that it won’t. Studies have also shown that people who are refused wanted abortions are more likely to experience pregnancy complications—which would require a large amount of personal protective equipment to adequately treat. Those people are also more likely to experience depression and other mental health issues. They are more likely to live in poverty. And the children they already have are more likely to suffer in the long term.

And now that nearly 10 million Americans have filed for unemployment as a result of the coronavirus, these outcomes are likely to be exacerbated by a pandemic that is making it increasingly harder for people to provide for their families.

“We know in times like this people aren’t going to stop getting pregnant,” Dr. Ghazaleh Moayedi, a board member for Physicians for Reproductive Health and an OB-GYN and abortion provider in Texas, tells Marie Claire. “We’re probably going to see more pregnancies as a result of this pandemic than we would normally expect during the summer months. So our services are going to continue to be needed.”

She continues, “All the things that this whole country is going through right now? That’s what people seeking abortions go through every day: How am I going to pay for my care? How am I going to make money? How am I going to miss work? How am I going to get childcare? That’s what people seeking abortion care think all year, every year.”

Of course, barriers to abortion access are nothing new; the anti-choice movement has worked tirelessly since the passage of Roe v Wade to limit access to these medical services, especially for Black people, poor people, young people, people who live in rural communities, and people in the LGBTQ community. Even prior to the pandemic, 89 percent of counties nationwide did not have an abortion provider, while one-third of all abortion patients had to travel an average of 25 miles, both ways, to seek care.

So how could the state and federal government ease the burden on both patients and providers and eliminate unnecessary barriers to abortion access? For one, utilize telemedicine and telehealth services—as the federal government is already calling on general physicians to do—and lift the ban 18 states have on using telemedication for medication abortions. This would allow people to have abortion medication mailed to them, providing safe, legal abortions in the comfort of their homes. States also could wave mandatory waiting periods—which require the people who are seeking abortions to undergo multiple in-person visits, putting themselves at further risk of contracting the novel coronavirus. Medicaid and medicare policies could be adjusted to cover abortion costs and states could forbid anti-choice protestors from gathering outside of clinics. (Despite warnings from public health officials to remain indoors, protestors continue to demonstrate outside abortion clinics, yelling obscenities or spreading lies about contracting Covid-19 inside.)

Donovan adds that states also could allow more healthcare workers, rather than just certified OB-GYNs, to provide abortions. She notes that physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and certified nurse midwives could “be assisting in making abortion care available at any time, including a time of crisis like this.”

While the fate of abortion access in Texas during this pandemic plays out in court, Heather is continuing to try to access the care she needs. “I spent all of Wednesday cold calling women's health clinics and Planned Parenthoods in New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Illinois, and Missouri,” she explains. “I found a clinic that will see me—it is about nine hours away, in New Mexico, on the border of Texas. This kind of road trip entails spending more money, working out somewhere safe for my children to be, trying to find someone who will drive with me, and risking coronavirus exposure from making multiple unnecessary stops to use restrooms and get gas.”

Still, she plans to leave as soon as she can—despite the added risk.

“My life matters. My sons' lives matter. Forced birthing does not sound like freedom. It does not sound like America. It is dystopian, devastating, and unconstitutional."

If you are in Texas and are seeking abortion you should continue to reach out to your local clinics. Other resources include: Clinic Access Support Network, The Yellowhammer Fund, The Lillith Fund, Fund Texas Choice, West Fund, Naral Pro-Choice Texas, the National Network of Abortion Funds, La Frontera Fund, and Jane’s Due Process.

*Heather’s last name has been withheld to protect her identity and safety. 

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

Were Katie to guess how many women she’s helped through ending a pregnancy since getting her abortion doula certification two years ago, she’d put the number around “a couple hundred.” The 22-year-old (who doesn’t want her last name revealed, over concerns for her safety) is a member of the Knoxville Abortion Doula Collective, where she acts as a patient advocate and assists with a range of tasks around the procedure, from escorting patients into clinics to offering encouraging words and literal hand-holding. In a typical day she might see as many as 25 patients, even though sometimes the most she says to them is, “‘I'm here if you need me. You can hold my hand if you'd like.’”

Surely you've heard of traditional doulas: aides trained to assist people emotionally during childbirth. Abortion doulas do similar work, just for a different pregnancy outcome. Most abortion doulas and companions are volunteers, working to make sure that those seeking an abortion have support and access to information every step of the way.

Katie stresses that doulas do not offer medical advice or perform medical procedures. “Sometimes someone wants a hug, sometimes someone wants you to talk to them to distract them, and sometimes they just kind of want you to be there and just hold space for them in that moment.” She notes that most of the people who finish abortion doula training (which typically focuses on building empathy) and really thrive in the work are those who understand the limitations of their role. “You're not there to save anybody,” she says. “You're just there to support people, whatever that means for them.”

These selfless volunteers are integral in the fight for reproductive justice. Ericka Claudio, Lead Organizer of NARAL Pro-Choice Georgia, which works to get pro-choice candidates elected into office, says that women like Katie are helping to eliminate the stigma that still hangs heavy over abortion. “I myself have never had an abortion, but I can only imagine the type of support that you would need in that process, especially because of how shamed and how ridiculed the procedure is,” Claudio says. “It's important for women to have access to a doula. You don't have to worry about the judgment. You're talking to a professional, the same way if you were to go for a consult when you're buying a house. You want to have someone there that could help support you and your decisions and what you want, who can speak to a level of expertise so that you can feel safe and valued and validated in your decision-making process.”

The ability to even make those decisions is at stake in our country. In some pockets, like the Southeast, access has already be rolled way, way back. Tennessee, where Katie works, is one of the worst offenders. But it hasn't always been that way: The state used to be a kind of safe haven for those seeking abortion. Until 2014 the state's constitution spelled out a fundamental right to privacy, extending to a person’s option to terminate a pregnancy. But four years ago, Amendment 1—a proposal that, some have argued, purposefully used confusing language—passed, nullifying this constitutional right.

While it deeply affected Tennesseans seeking to terminate unwanted pregnancies, Katie says Amendment 1 also made pro-choice advocates in the state uniquely prepared to fight the perceived threat that Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court appointment would pose to Roe v. Wade, a battle for which pro-choice advocates across the country are gearing up. After all, they've been fighting to give patients better reproductive access for years. “We already live in a state where adverse pregnancy outcomes are criminalized,” Katie says, noting a Tennessee woman’s December 2015 arrest following her attempt to self-manage an abortion.

Tennessee’s neighbors aren’t exactly more progressive. The number of clinics in the region offering surgical abortions or the abortion pill are as follows: 14 in North Carolina, nine in Georgia, five in Alabama, four in Louisiana, three in South Carolina, two in Kentucky, and just one in Mississippi. With such limited access, it’s easy for Southerners to imagine a post-Roe v. Wade world: It’s almost their exact reality.

Under extremely oppressive restrictions, abortion doulas become even more crucial. As of spring 2015, for example, any pregnant person in Tennessee seeking an abortion must endure a 48-hour waiting period, necessitating two clinic trips (one for in-person counseling and another for the actual procedure). Abortion doulas escort the patient to one or both trips, helping them feel less alone and making sure that the patients' wishes are respected by doctors and nurses.

“I think just being able to be in the room and support people no matter what—no matter what they're feeling, no matter what they're bringing with them—is a lot more helpful than trying to make the issue a very black-and-white one,” Katie explains. “It’s not true that ‘everyone who has an abortion feels like this.’ It's never going to be true and we don't have to make it true. We just need to make sure people get the support that they need.”

Fewer clinics offering options coupled with the state-mandated waiting period creates additional challenges for pregnant women, including financial hurdles. Without insurance, an abortion at Tennessee and North Mississippi Planned Parenthood locations starts at $275; add to that the cost of taking off work, potentially arranging childcare, transit expenses, and the price tag of accommodations for about 72 hours, and the socioeconomic restrictions are staggeringly real.

To offset this attack on abortion access, many abortion doulas don't charge for their services. “Our co-op is sliding scale—low cost, free. I like to do my stuff for free,” says abortion doula Rowan, a companion with The Birmingham Birth Workers Cooperative in Alabama, who also works at a local restaurant. “I don't like to charge at all for it.” The doulas will often refer people in need to practical local organizations like Access Reproductive Care - Southeast and Alabama’s Yellowhammer Fund that offer financial assistance.

Rowan (who prefers they/them pronouns) adds that they’ve stayed relatively private about their status as a doula, concerned about their own personal safety as they practice controversial work in a conservative state. Even though abortion is currently federally legal, Katie, Rowan, and other abortion doulas and companions, particularly in the Southeast, face risks because of their choice to support reproductive rights in such a tangible way, much like the doctors and nurses who perform the procedures.

“Abortion doula work isn’t crucial because abortion is an inherently scarier or more traumatic medical procedure that people need support through,” Katie says. “People seeking abortion are politically and socially told, over and over, that their choices are wrong, and that because of that shame, they don’t deserve to be seen. I think there’s something powerful about people showing up in such a stigmatized moment to say the exact opposite.”

Katie and Rowan both push the concept of community among abortion workers and pro-choice advocates in order to rise above craven attacks on reproductive freedom. “The only way we're going to all make it out of this is together is by strengthening the work we're doing in our area, but also understanding that, for the long haul across the country, we need to all be working together,” Katie says.

“If abortion does become illegal in the state, obviously that makes things very difficult for the collective,” she says. “We don't know what that looks like. Does that look like all the clinics shutting down because they're no longer able to get funding? Does that look like it being illegal to talk about sex ed?”

Rowan says that, should the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, they would look into training to assist in at-home abortions. “If you take away people's rights to get an abortion, they're still going to find a way to get them,” they say. “Why not just have this safe, clean environment for them to have it done by a professional?”

Still, abortion doulas and other activists remain hopeful. “The South is bold, the South is vibrant, the South is beautiful, and I think there are a lot of people doing this work in the South because we want it to be a place worth living,” Katie says. “You care about the lives of the people who are having children, who are deciding not to have children, who are just trying to live out their daily lives here, and we want to make that better.”

Ultimately, Kate says that the satisfaction she finds in her work isn't from indulging a savior complex, but from how often patients tell her that her presence puts them at ease. “What comes to mind is just how many different times I've worked with patients who have then said 'thank you.' And not just 'thank you,' but 'thank you' in a surprised way, because [some patients] maybe didn't expect anyone to be there for them that day.”

To protect abortion access, Planned Parenthood urges people to contact their senators to tell them to reject Kavanaugh’s nomination, as well as any other nominee who does not support pro-choice legislation. You may also make monetary donations to organizations fighting to keep this crucial surgery available, safe, and legal, like National Network of Abortion Funds and National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL).

There are a whole slew of reasons why you might not want Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court. For example, the fact that he holds the view that presidents can't be indicted and yet was hand-selected by a president who is under special counsel investigation—a position Kavanaugh seemed to purposefully avoid answering for during this week’s hearings. Or perhaps it’s his extreme unpopularity, with some polls (like this ABC News/Washington Post one) finding more people opposed to his confirmation than for it. CNN notes that no nominee for the Supreme Court with this low an approval rating has ever been confirmed in the modern era.

Or perhaps it’s because you don’t want a 53-year-old, conservative white male to potentially cast the deciding vote on whether or not you get to make decisions about your own body. And now we can add another reason to think he’s a bad choice for the Supreme Court: In answer to a question posed by Senator Ted Cruz, Kavanaugh referred to birth control as “abortion-inducing drugs.” See the exchange here:

The question is in reference to a case called Priests for Life v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in which Kavanaugh wrote a dissent in favor of employers who wanted to deny their employees’ access to birth control without a co-pay. It’s kind of nitty-gritty, but here’s the line where Kavanaugh shows his real opinion on the issue of women's reproductive health: “Filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objected to.”

First of all, birth control is not an abortion-inducing drug, and it’s worrisome that the guy who could decide the future of Roe v. Wade might not understand that. Second, for all the claims from the right that fears of Kavanaugh overturning Roe are just histrionics, this is a very telling slip.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the difference between birth control and abortion was actually laid out in an amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court in 2013, explaining that "a contraceptive method by definition, prevents pregnancy by interfering with ovulation, fertilization, or implantation. Abortion ends an established pregnancy, after implantation." This scientific definition of pregnancy is also the legal definition, says the Institute, and has long been accepted by federal agencies, even in administrations that generally oppose abortion. Kavanaugh's apparent failure to understand this means he not only has a poor grasp of reproductive health terminology, but a poor grasp of the law that guides it. Again, this is the guy who may get the final say on Roe v. Wade.

In a statement issued Thursday afternoon, Planned Parenthood Executive Vice President Dawn Laguens said as much:

If Roe v. Wade is important to you, there’s still time to stop the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. Most immediately, you should contact your Senator and tell them you want them to oppose Kavanaugh’s nomination. You can head over to Whip the Vote, which will not only put you in touch with your representative, but also sends you to Indivisible, which has provided handy scripts for you to read from based on whether you're represented by Democrats, Republicans, or pro-choice Republicans (as is the case for those in Alaska who are represented by Senator Lisa Murkowski, or in Maine who are represented by Senator Susan Collins).

You could also show up to a protest and make your voice heard. If you’re near the Capitol, there’s an entire SCOTUS Week of Action that you can RSVP to here.

President Trump has nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, and one major reason why is clear: If he is appointed to the Court, Judge Kavanaugh will help overturn Roe v. Wade—the Supreme Court case that affirmed a woman’s constitutional right to make decisions about her own body.

Confidence is fairly high on this: Judge Kavanaugh was selected from a pre-approved list vetted by right-wing extremist groups that have made overturning Roe a key priority. Besides, President Trump didn’t try to hide the ball. He promised during the 2016 campaign that if he could appoint two or three justices, Roe would “automatically” be overturned. Candidate Trump doubled down on the point, explaining that women who sought abortions should be “punished.”

No one knows what Judge Kavanaugh has said to the people who put him on the pre-approved list, but his public record certainly demonstrates hostility towards contraception and abortion. In 2015, Judge Kavanaugh opposed a ruling to protect women’s access to birth control under the Affordable Care Act. And last year, when the Trump Administration tried to delay an undocumented teenager from accessing abortion services, Judge Kavanaugh sided with the Administration. He also praised former Chief Justice Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion in Roe v. Wade.

Groups that oppose Roe v. Wade are giddy over Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. March for Life, a group founded to “end abortion,” praised Judge Kavanaugh by “thank[ing] President Trump for delivering on his campaign promise.” The Susan B. Anthony List, another anti-abortion group, lauded Judge Kavanaugh’s “strong record of protecting life.” Judge Kavanaugh’s record, his conservative backers, and the President who nominated him make it crystal clear: if Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court, he will work to overturn Roe.

President Trump’s hostility to women is no secret, and his selection of Judge Kavanaugh to join the Court is just the most recent in his long line of attacks on reproductive freedom. But this attack is particularly dangerous because as a Supreme Court Justice, Judge Kavanaugh would be able to affect policy for a lot longer than a four-year Presidential term. Judge Kavanaugh would be on the Court for the rest of his life, affecting Supreme Court decisions for decades to come. And he would replace Justice Anthony Kennedy—a crucial swing vote to protect Roe during his time on the Court.

The dangers posed by Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination are very real. Access to contraception is critical to women’s physical and economic wellbeing. Ninety-nine percent of U.S. women who have ever had sex—and by extension, their partners— between the ages of 15-44 have used birth control to treat health conditions, prevent infections, and preserve opportunities at jobs and school. Without contraception, women’s health and futures are at risk.

The threat of overturning Roe v. Wade is also serious. When abortions are illegal, women don’t stop getting them— they just risk their lives to do it. Today, thanks to Roe, getting an abortion is safer than getting your tonsils out. Before Roe v. Wade, many women turned to back-alley butchers to end their pregnancies.

When I was a girl growing up in Oklahoma, we all heard the stories of women bleeding to death and dying of infections from illegal abortions. Overturning Roe would put women’s lives at stake.

A Justice who has been pre-screened for his commitment to take away a woman’s constitutional right to make her own decisions about her body does not belong on the Supreme Court in the 21st century. But here’s the thing—President Trump may have made his choice. But he is not a king. He can’t appoint someone to the Supreme Court without getting through the Senate first.

This fight won’t be easy, but we’ve been here before. In January 2017, millions of people across the country took a stand in one of the largest protests in world history. At the Women’s March, women (and friends of women) were loud and clear: A President who demeans women, mocks women, and attacks women would not keep them quiet.

America can’t go back to an era of back-alley abortions and can’t move into a future where reproductive rights are restricted. It’s time for Americans to raise their voices, flood the halls of the Senate, work the phone lines, and tell the President and the Senate: no to Judge Kavanaugh.

That sound you hear is anti-choice activists howling with joy. With the imminent departure of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who on Wednesday announced his intention to resign at the end of July, the Supreme Court of the United States is set to lean majority conservative—quite possibly dooming legal abortion in the United States.

With his final bow, Kennedy, who to his chagrin is often known as the "swing vote" among the nine justices, has screwed over American women more than he ever would have as an existing justice.

Until now, Kennedy has served as the "swing vote" on decisions that swing mildly to the left—the middle-ground justice on a court that often leans four left and four right. A lifelong conservative icon, Kennedy nonetheless passionately argued for gay marriage to become law—yet his decisions have betrayed an antiquated view towards women's rights (as fellow justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once pointed out).

Kennedy's decision particularly stings for its timing. We are more than two years out from the president of this country being anyone other than Donald Trump, who has pledged to nominate only conservative judges during his tenure. Trump's first and only nomination so far has been now-Justice Neil Gorsuch, who leans sharply to the right—and yet is not quite as evangelically conservative as liberal-leaning activists feared. In some ways, liberal groups argued, Neil Gorsuch was the best they could have hoped for.

In other words, all was not lost. Gorsuch had replaced Justice Antonin Scalia, after all, and the two served the same role on the court: Staid, reliably right-wing justices. So although Gorsuch was, in many liberals' eyes, the inferior choice to Obama nominee Merrick Garland, Gorsuch's arrival did not change the ideological makeup of the court in any significant way.

The same can't be said for Kennedy's departure.

When President Trump nominates a conservative justice, as he will, and when the Republican-leaning Congress approves that person, as it will, the highest court in the country will lose its swing member and become a conservative-leaning body. From there, it's only a matter of time until a challenge to existing abortion rights—as in, a challenge to women's right to have an abortion—mounts through the lower courts to reach the Supreme Court, and the group votes along party lines.

This is the point at which abortion becomes illegal. This is the point at which, much like when President Trump was elected, we wonder who is going to save us—and we realize that nobody will. That we live in a country where women are the lesser gender, where acquiring a termination could soon be a criminal act, and where minorities are treated as second-class citizens. And if the new justice is, like Neil Gorsuch, relatively young, then this could go on for decades.

There was nothing Anthony Kennedy could have done to screw over women more than what he has done.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court, with Neil Gorsuch casting the deciding vote in both cases, ruled against the rights of women, and against the dignity and humanity of our Muslim brothers and sisters.

One of those cases, NIFLA v. Becerra, was the result of the work my organization—NARAL Pro-Choice America—has done to fight an epidemic of fake women’s health centers. Yesterday's decision to protect their rights over ours tells us, more clearly than any case in recent history, that the Supreme Court of the United States holds the lives and futures of women in its hands.

We are now, without doubt, one Trump-nominated justice away from a Court that overturns Roe v. Wade. In a one-two gut punch to the reproductive rights community, Justice Anthony Kennedy—the swing vote in numerous cases throughout his 30 years on the bench—today announced his retirement, which means the vicious anti-woman activists are getting their vote. They say explicitly that overturning Roe is their ultimate goal, and after yesterday’s decision and today's announcement, they’re more optimistic than ever.

I worry that they’re right to be optimistic.

The background of yesterday’s case tells the story: Fake women’s health centers (also known as crisis pregnancy centers) are built and advertised to seem exactly like real reproductive health clinics, and they exist in every state in America. In many states, they outnumber real clinics. The individual clinics may look local, but, in reality, these places are well-funded creations of national anti-choice extremist groups.

These groups have created a playbook of lies and deception to trick pregnant women—especially those who are lower-income, young, and women of color—into coming there instead of a real clinic. They specifically target women seeking abortion care. Once they have these women in their care, they use pressure, shame, and coercion to try to talk them out of their decision. Some go so far as to let people without medical licenses perform ultrasounds on unsuspecting clients. When the Court heard the case back in March, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read the proof out loud in the courtroom for all to hear, quoting from the deceptive websites of one of the centers.

In order to help pregnant women get the accurate and timely information they need, California passed a commonsense law that made these clinics tell women a) if a fake clinic was medically licensed, and b) how to find out if they qualified for low-cost or free prenatal, contraception, or abortion services. This was a simple, reasonable, and carefully constructed law that didn’t even aim to close these centers.

Yet, the anti-choice movement sued to block the law, using a warped interpretation of the First Amendment to protect their fake clinics and continue controlling the lives of women. A federal district court in California ruled against the anti-choice movement. When they appealed, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against them again. But anti-democracy, anti-choice groups saw one more shot to protect their lies: The Supreme Court.

The hypocrisy of the five men is astonishing. Justice Breyer’s scathing dissent makes clear how, when it comes to balancing free speech rights against the rights of women to control their lives and choose abortion, free speech wins—but only when it’s the extreme anti-choice organizations speaking. Justice Breyer shows that, if our laws were actually applied equally, conservative states that force doctors to provide biased, anti-abortion counseling to pregnant women would face the same restrictions the Court placed yesterday on liberal states, preventing them from requiring posted notices about abortion access in the lobbies of fake centers. Yet the Court didn’t do that, said Breyer. Instead, the five-man majority failed to “interpret American constitutional law so that it applies fairly within a Nation whose citizens strongly hold these different points of view.”

We intuitively knew that this goal—a nation that applies laws differently to different people—was the aim of Republicans, especially Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, when he stole a Supreme Court vacancy from President Obama. We knew it was the goal when Trump nominated, and the Senate confirmed, now-Justice Gorsuch.

But yesterday was the clearest evidence yet that a rigged Court—against women, against immigrants, against the poor—was, and continues to be, the goal of Donald Trump and the Republican Senate.

It might be tempting to allow the manifestation of this rigged Court to dispirit us. We could easily see yesterday’s decision as nothing more than another loss for women’s rights and freedom under an administration that attacks women for cheap political points—or, frankly, just because they like to. Yet we must not allow ourselves to accept the judgements of yesterday’s majority. They do not speak for the reality women live every day. We will not and must not accept a life under the control of a lawless Supreme Court.

We can, however, use yesterday’s result as a call to action. Yesterday’s decision tells us much more about the anti-woman bias of five male justices than it does about the constitutionality of the FACT Act.

The time for leadership against a second Trump Court appointment is now. NARAL Pro-Choice America is all in. And yesterday, towards the end of the day, as we took stock of our day of loss, we already saw early signs of the backbone we must provide to keep control of our own destinies. New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand announced that if a Supreme Court vacancy occurs this year, she will vote no on any of the 25 potential Supreme Court nominees Donald Trump has listed—all of whom, according to Trump, will vote to strip our right to abortion.

Our movement is growing. It is energized. And it’s not going to let five biased men control our future.

This post has been updated.

Republicans really, really don't like Planned Parenthood. If thepresidential candidates haven't made that clear, conservatives in Congress did last week when they threatened to shut down the government—yet again—over Planned Parenthood's federal funding.

But the reason Planned Parenthood exists and even receives federal dollars in the first place is largely because Republicans got it off the ground. 

When birth control was legalized, Republicans helped expand access to contraception for low-income people because they recognized its economic value to women, families, and taxpayers. Even when abortion was legalized through Roe v. Wade, a women's right to choose wasn't immediately a partisan issue—or much of an issue at all.

Over the past few decades, the Republican Party has shifted further right—and the politics behind this evolution explain why the GOP is trying to stop the very thing that they started 45 years ago. 

From Nixon using abortion legislation to strategically woo Catholics to lobbyists deliberately linking family planning to abortion in the '90s, the Republican long game to court a new voter base was nothing if not effective. Today, it's almost impossible to be a pro-choice Republican running for any major political office. And across the country, state-level efforts to restrict abortion access are powering forward: in Texas, the number of abortion providers dropped from 40 to eight in a little over a year.

Though reproductive rights seem to be disappearing before our eyes, the secret Republican history of Planned Parenthood tells a different story—namely that it doesn't have to be this way, because it hasn't always been.

The organization was an affiliate of the American Birth Control League, which would eventually become Planned Parenthood.

He helped launch their first national fundraising campaign.

The same year, former Republican President Eisenhower (who said just six years earlier that it's not the government's "business" to support birth control) serves as co-chairman of a Planned Parenthood committee with Harry Truman. In a 1968 address to Congress, then-Congressman George H.W. Bush advocates for government support of family planning programs, citing statistics from a Planned Parenthood clinic.

The federal grant program, which provides planning services to low-income families, was championed by President Nixon and George H.W. Bush (who was such a vocal supporter of birth control that he was supposedly nicknamed "Rubbers"). The funds have never been used to provide abortions because of provisions written into the law.

Only a year after the Supreme Court struck down Massachusetts' prohibition of birth control for unmarried women through Eisenstadt v. Baird. 

As they adopt an anti-choice stance, the Democrats adopt their first pro-choice platform.

A Human Life Amendment, which would have overturned the Supreme Court's decision, comes to vote for the first and only time after several attempts. The Senate defeats it, with Goldwater reversing his previous position to vote against it (Planned Parenthood still issues an achievement award named for him.)

Their strategy centers on the idea that government funding for family planning providers "frees up" money that is used for abortions. In 1992, polls show that as many as 71% of Republican Party members are pro-choice. But by 1996, public opinion changes sharply as the number of people believing that abortion should be legal "under certain circumstances" overtakes the number of people who believed abortion should always be legal.

Only six Republicans vote against it.

She's grilled by GOP members who would rather the government shut down than Planned Parenthood continue to receive federal funding—even though that funding has never been used to provide abortions.

Follow Marie Claire on Instagram for the latest celeb news, pretty pics, funny stuff, and an insider POV. 

No matter where your beliefs fall on the political spectrum, today is a pretty big-deal day for women. Why? Because it's the 42nd anniversary of the passage of Roe v. Wade—a law that gave women control over their bodies and the right to make a decision that's never easy to make.

Forty-two years later, the fight isn't over, especially when it comes to individual states (and male lawmakers, for that matter) respecting and representing women's rights. 

The situation in the South continues to be scary: Doctors who perform abortions—a legal service—are murdered while sitting in church pews. Several states have shuttered legitimate clinics so that women don't have access to reproductive healthcare. Over the last four years alone, states have passed 231 new laws restricting a woman's right to have an abortion.

Just yesterday House Republicans were supposed to vote on a bill to ban abortions after 20 weeks (but then someone must have realized it might be a little gauche to take back the freedom for women to control their own bodies on the anniversary of the day that gave women the freedom to control their own bodies). Then today, a bill was passed that bans the use of federal tax dollars to cover abortions—leaving fewer options for women with Medicare, restricting a woman's ability to buy a private plan that includes abortion coverage, and denying small businesses the tax credit they currently receive through the Affordable Care Act. 

Abortion is one of the most polarizing issues of our time. But it's one that touches one in every three women over the course of her life. As we move toward the 43rd anniversary, we hope those women are part of the conversation too. 

You should also check out:

These Will Be the Biggest Feminist Issues of 2015

Nicki Minaj Opens Up About Having an Abortion

It's been 40 years since Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that first extended a woman's right to have an abortion, and the case is still very much prevalent in today's political and social conversation. For those who need a refresher, the case began in 1969 when a Texas woman, then pregnant with her third child, attempted to obtain an abortion first under false allegations of rape and, when that failed, by means of an illegal abortion. The case (in which the woman used the alias Jane Roe) eventually made its way to the Supreme Court where, three years later, the Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the Constitution.

Roe v. Wade is often referred to as being the first notable marker of the women's rights movement in American society. To deny the right of abortion is, to many, to instill obligatory motherhood and to disregard a woman's right to control her own body. The case initiated a moral and religious debate that, to this day, reflects the rights of womanhood.

The decision of Roe v. Wade has had a substantial role in subsequent political decisions, including the most recent election's so-called "War on Women." Because abortion is such a moral issue, the likelihood that the debate surrounding it will continue is quite high. Despite one's individual views on abortion itself, Roe v. Wade — both then and now — represents a decision in which supporting women's rights was the focal point, and that is a difficult stance with which to argue.

My first pregnancy was a breeze. I hung out at the beach near our Orange County home and exercised right up to the birth. My biggest complaint? I was too huge to lie on my stomach. Once the baby was 18 months old, my husband, Mike, and I began to plan for another. He was a law student, rising at dawn and not getting home until dinnertime, and I'd given up my full-time job as a preschool teacher to raise our daughter, Elise, and to work part-time as a nanny. Even though we were living paycheck to paycheck, we wanted to expand our family.

I became pregnant in July 2006, and at 18 weeks, I went for my first ultrasound. Mike had organized a celebratory dinner with family and friends for that night. When the first picture of the baby appeared on the screen, Mike, 3-year-old Elise, and I oohed and aahed over the baby's fingers and toes.

We waited for the technician to tell us the sex. But she was strangely quiet. Then she said, "I'm not getting the right readings." I told Mike to take Elise out of the room. "Is it something to do with the heart?" I asked. No, she said, the heart was fine—but something was severely wrong, and my OB/GYN would have to diagnose it. Still, I pressed for details. She said, "Your child is sick. I don't think it's going to survive." I broke into tears. I was 26. I was too young, too fit, too healthy for something like this to happen to me. The thought of abortion came to mind immediately, but along with it came a feeling of walking into the ocean and never coming back.

Mike was waiting outside. I told him we were having a little girl (whom we wanted to name Aubrielle), and that she might not be with us for very long. He hugged me, asked if I was OK, then called everyone to cancel the dinner.

That evening we told Elise. Mike and I were worried about how she would take the news, or whether she could even begin to understand, but she simply leaned over, kissed my belly, and said, "Aubrielle, you're sick, but you're going to heaven, and you'll get better there with Grandpa."

When I went to the hospital to see my OB/GYN, she diagnosed the baby with trisomy 13, also known as Patau syndrome—a genetic disorder involving multiple abnormalities, many of which are fatal. The disease occurs in about one out of every 10,000 newborns; more than 80 percent of children with it die within the first month. My doctor warned me that Aubrielle could die at any moment during the pregnancy, and certainly wouldn't live much beyond the birth. She concluded that abortion was the best option.[image id='c0912db9-f996-4a33-9fdb-e8c22557fffe' mediaId='08b5de63-cf06-4c15-a333-389b0dcfa1d3' loc='C'][/image]

Overwhelmed, I just cried. I didn't feel that terminating the pregnancy was the right option for me. My decision wasn't just about religion, although our family does go to church weekly; it was about my belief that this baby's life had meaning. I wanted to honor that.

Mike supported my decision, as did my mom and sisters. Naturally, there were times when I wrestled with my choice, especially when others questioned my sanity. They'd say, "What's the point of holding on to this baby? Have an abortion. Then you can try again in a few months." Moms I met in the park were often uneasy and wondered what I was doing. Some parents didn't want me around their children, because then they'd have to explain that my baby was going to die. And I could certainly understand how they felt.

Yet every time Aubrielle kicked, it was a thrill. I'd hold my belly and read stories to her and Elise. I started to think about what others were going through in life and what problems they had, instead of thinking so much about ours. My marriage gained strength, too: Mike focused, selflessly, on what we needed as a family. One night when I was feeling sad, he held me as I cried till dawn.

Before my due date, my perinatal nurse, Suzanne, paid us several visits, discussing my birth plan and how we wanted Aubrielle's first few hours documented—we chose photographs and hand- and footprints. I requested a Cesarean so we'd possibly have Aubrielle for a little longer, if she wasn't stillborn. I also asked for my family to have access to the recovery room. Suzanne helped us prepare Elise by showing her pictures of other babies with trisomy 13, so Elise wouldn't be shocked by Aubrielle's cleft lip and palate. Elise touched the pictures, saying the poor babies had "owwees."

A few nights before the scheduled delivery, my sisters and friends threw me a "relaxation party." We ate ice cream and listened to music, and they brought presents: picture frames, scrapbooks, toys for Elise, a pink blanket for Aubrielle.

The evening before I was due to deliver, I was taking a shower, and this terrible feeling came over me—that I was going to the hospital to die myself. I fell to the ground, sobbing. What was I doing? Was I crazy to have chosen this? I wondered. I felt such raw pain; I was paralyzed by it. But afterward, exhausted and spent, I felt a sense of peace, and the despair that had gripped me began to evaporate. This was the right choice, not just for us, but for Aubrielle. I would give her everything I could as a mother.

The next day, I went to the hospital, and my OB/GYN said she couldn't find Aubrielle's heartbeat. Mike and I looked at each other as if to say, "Well, that's it, she's gone." But then my doctor saw that she was breeched, and we went ahead with the C-section.

The first time I saw Aubrielle, Mike was holding her. I'll never forget her first cry, so tiny and faint. Mike kept saying, "She's here! She's alive!" He handed her to me, and I told her how much I loved her. As if in response, she squeezed my finger. Mike gave the baby to Elise, and as she held Aubrielle, she sang a lullaby, the same one she had sung to my belly during pregnancy.

Aubrielle, who weighed 5 pounds, lived four-and-a-half hours. During that time, our family had a small party with flowers, pink cupcakes with sprinkles, a balloon that said "Happy Birthday Princess," and bracelets for Elise, the baby, and me. Aubrielle wore a white cotton dress that my mother had made and a bow in her brown hair. But about an hour after the birthday party, back in my private room, Aubrielle was starting to fade. Her chest, face, and hands were turning blue. I'd never lost anyone before. I looked down at my baby and watched her take her last breath. Then she was gone.

The funeral was a few days later. Aubrielle was wearing her special dress, and about 50 close friends and family members came to pay their respects. Both Mike and I gave speeches, as did a few others; then we sang songs and celebrated her life.

I still miss Aubrielle. I have no regrets about what I did, and I'll always have that extraordinary time I spent with my daughter. We visit her grave every week, where we sit on a picnic blanket and eat cupcakes. Mike and I waited for my body to recover from the C-section before trying again for another baby. Our son Luke was born in January. Now when I look at Elise and Luke playing together, I can't help but picture Aubrielle with them. She is always with us in our minds and our hearts.

As told to Juliette Dominguez, a freelance writer based in New York. She has written for the L.A. Times Magazine, Harper's Bazaar, and the Daily Mail, among others.[image id='a98b358c-0139-41cb-84f1-757049682c62' mediaId='1164b498-de34-4f90-86e6-c7a5096c7998' loc='C'][/image]

I'd always dreamed of having four children in a traditional French Quarter home near a streetcar line.

My husband and I had been married for six months when we decided we were ready to have kids. I was 28 and about to finish grad school, and we had just moved into a three-bedroom starter house in the suburbs of New Orleans. It didn't take long to get pregnant, and I still remember the morning we knew we had conceived, in November of 2006. I had woken up at 5 a.m. and taken a digital pregnancy test. "Pregnant." My heart stopped—I was overwhelmed with excitement. I ran to the bedroom to show my husband, who smiled from ear to ear. He pulled me down for a hug, and as we lay in bed together, we talked about how, by this time next year, we'd have a baby with us to celebrate the holidays.

I have a mild form of cerebral palsy, and my doctors had warned me that I might not be able to carry the baby to term. And yet, other than morning sickness, the first trimester was going smoothly. When I was about 10 weeks pregnant, I went for my regular OB checkup. There was no prenatal testing, no ultrasound—it was still too early in the pregnancy—but my doctor said the baby's heartbeat was excellent, that I was measuring well, and that I wouldn't need to come back until my second trimester examination.

My father-in-law happens to be a perinatologist. His office is right across the street from my doctor, so after my appointment, my husband and I thought we'd stop by to get an ultrasound and take a peek at the baby. It was just for fun. My father-in-law spread the cold, wet jelly on my tummy, and my husband and I were giddy as we pointed to an outline of the baby's skeleton on the screen; we giggled as we pretended to know whom the baby looked like. But 20 minutes later, I noticed my father-in-law staring at the machine intently, pausing now and again to write something down. He never stopped to point out the baby's heart or its nose. He would not look at us or speak. When I tried to break the uncomfortable silence, he shushed me.

When my father-in-law pulled us into the patient room, he was very serious—too serious—and I was somewhat offended that he seemed to have gone into doctor mode instead of dad mode. That's when he said, quite frankly and directly, "There is something wrong." He never said that the problem might be "something else" or that it could be a mistake—there was something wrong. My husband and I just nodded in silence. My father-in-law said I would need a slightly more invasive test called a CVS to determine what we were dealing with. Then he picked up the phone to make an appointment with his partner for the same week.[image id='e7371532-6101-4e9b-9397-2f7650736fc4' mediaId='5bfcb49b-3982-4aba-a79f-fbc39640d3ae' loc='C'][/image]

Over the next six weeks, I subjected myself to three tests: the CVS, which draws a sample from the placenta; a blood test; and an amnio—each one followed by an agonizing two-week period when my husband and I would have to wait for results; this being right after Katrina, the samples had to be sent out of state. I spent that time in a fog. I barely slept. I had to force myself to eat, even though I should have been famished from the pregnancy.

I was in my last semester of school, but I lost focus. I sat in class practically comatose. I didn't take notes; I just waited for class to end. I'm usually the kind of person who holds my feelings in, but I was crying all the time—in the car, in between classes, in the bathroom. I prayed to God and asked him, Why me? I closed the door to the nursery, where I'd filled the shelves with my old children's books such as Where the Wild Things Are and The Giving Tree that my parents had given me. To make things worse, I was starting to show. I began to wear baggier clothes—I didn't want friends congratulating me when I knew in my heart that I was going to lose the baby.

I was 16 weeks pregnant when the last set of test results came in. My husband and I were at home, and I made him take the 6 p.m. call while I just hid, sobbing in bed under the covers. The doctor told my husband that the baby had trisomy 2, a fatal chromosomal abnormality that occurs in 0.016 of pregnancies.

When we went for our follow-up appointment, the doctor gave us a list of the problems our baby could face: It could be born with congenital heart defects; structural brain abnormalities; lung deformation; or suffer from seizures. The doctor couldn't even say if the baby would survive the pregnancy, but the best-case scenario was that it would live for two weeks.

Our doctor didn't talk to us about our options outright. But we knew what they were. The doctor slipped us a piece of paper with the names of two clinics—one was Dr. George Tiller's in Kansas, the other was in Dallas—and left the room.

That night, I curled up in a ball in the bathtub for two hours, my husband sitting next to me on the cold tile floor. I didn't let him touch me. I didn't want to be touched. As we discussed our options, our religious upbringings pressed down on us. Having grown up in the Catholic city of New Orleans and having gone to a Catholic high school, college, and graduate school, I'd always thought of abortion as a decision made by a woman who didn't want her baby, or by someone who had been raped. I'd always known I would become pregnant purposefully, when I was married. And that's exactly what I had done. I had no plan for this. In all of the discussions we had in Catholic school about terminating pregnancies, we'd never once addressed reasons such as my own. There was nobody to ask what to do.

Our first option was to have the baby. And yet, that seemed implausible. There was already the possibility that I wouldn't be able to carry a healthy baby to term, let alone one that may not even survive in the womb. But even if I could, I didn't know how I would tell people who wanted to celebrate with showers and baby gifts that the baby was fatally ill. Most of all, I couldn't bear the idea of watching my baby suffer once born. I would have to watch it die.

Our second option was to terminate the pregnancy. I've never used the word abortion.

When I called my parents, I was mostly scared of what my father would say, since he was the most religious person in my family. My father has never been a man of many words, and while he was upset, he didn't object. I'll never know whether his sadness was out of sympathy, or because I'd already made the decision. We never told my mother-in-law, a devout Catholic who has expressed very passionate views on this issue. I knew our decision would hurt her. And I knew she would judge us.

Of the two clinics, my husband and I chose the one in Dallas because it was closer. So one day at 5:30 a.m., we got in the car, drove 10 hours, and checked ourselves into a Hampton Inn.

The next morning, we drove to the clinic. There was a long driveway that led to the building, almost as if they were trying to hide it from view. As we walked from the parking lot to the front door, I remember a protestor holding up a sign, trying to lure us over to discuss adoption. She wanted to help us find someone for our baby, someone who could take care of it, give it a loving home. I was angry. I wanted my baby. I had a loving home for it. I wanted to say something to her, but I didn't. Instead, I just looked at my feet.

The clinic's waiting room had 10 dingy couches lined up in rows, facing each other—you had to sit across from someone experiencing the same trauma as you were. Some people were just lounging around, lying on them; others had brought in food, even though patients aren't supposed to eat before the procedure. There were women who talked about getting their nails done afterward. But there were also mothers with their teenage daughters, and women who were much further along in their pregnancies than I was, sobbing. We sat there for 10 hours, a forced waiting period meant to give us time to change our minds.

We finally met with the doctor at 4 p.m. In cold, clinical terms, he explained there would be two procedures—one to dilate the cervix, a second to remove the fetus—and that I'd have to pay an extra few hundred dollars for a general anesthesia if I wanted more than the local, which would leave me awake. I paid the extra money. I didn't want any memory of what was happening.

When I went into an examination room, they inserted sticks called laminaria that slowly dilate the cervix. When I woke up, they gave me a bottle of Advil and sent me back to the hotel. That night, my mother-in-law called. She wanted us to turn on channel 4 so that I could see my cousin, who is an actor, on television. As far as she knew, there was nothing out of the ordinary going on. She didn't even know we were out of town. That's when the burden of having this secret really hit me. To have to hide our pain and sorrow made it feel like punishment.

The next morning, I went in for the second procedure. When I woke up, I was in a room with about six recliners lined up in a row. When I looked down at myself, at the pad beneath me, I saw that I was sitting in a pool of my own blood. A woman came by to help me clean up. Once I was dressed, she walked me to the back door.

OVER THE NEXT TWO months, my hormones were raging. At school, I would start bawling in the middle of the dining hall. One time, it was so uncontrollable, a counselor who worked for the campus ministry asked me if I wanted to talk in her office. (I declined.) If people asked about the pregnancy, I just told them I'd lost the baby. Luckily, most people just assumed I had miscarried—I saw that as a blessing and left it at that. Eventually, with finals coming up, I went to talk to the dean. I told her that my baby had died, and she arranged it with my professors for me to work at my own pace.

Back in May, I cried when I saw the news of Dr. Tiller's murder and had to listen to all the rhetoric on television vilifying women like me.

Looking back, I know I made the right decision—I wanted to prevent my child from a painful death. But because of my religion, I feel I will never be forgiven for making the choice I made. I no longer feel I can even be called Catholic, another loss altogether.

About a month after I terminated my first pregnancy, my husband and I started trying again. I naively believed that having a healthy child would heal all wounds. But you never forget. Now I have an 18-month-old girl and another baby on the way. And while my daughter didn't erase what happened, she did make it easier to feel hopeful about life.

As told to Yael Kohen.

The recent murder of abortion doctor George Tiller has raised the stakes on one of the hardest issues any of us will ever face. Two women tell their stories.

On May 31, Dr. George Tiller, one of the last remaining providers of third-trimester abortions, was gunned down in the lobby of his Wichita, KS, church by a deranged abortion foe. While the pro-life movement condemned the murder, it has spent years trying to outlaw the kind of services he provided. Pro-choice advocates argue that late-term abortions are necessary to protect the health of the mother and that she should have full control of these decisions; they also claim efforts to ban specific practices are the first step toward outlawing abortion altogether. How did late-term termination become the third rail in the abortion debate?

2003 President Bush signs into law Congress's Partial Birth Abortion Act, banning a procedure called "intact dilation and extraction," which involves puncturing the fetus's skull so it can pass through the cervix when removed.

2007 The Supreme Court upholds the law, the first time the court has ever permitted a ban on a specific abortion procedure that doesn't include an exception for the mother's health.

2009 In March, a Kansas jury acquits Dr. Tiller of carrying out 19 illegal late-term abortions. (Prosecutors had accused Tiller of violating Kansas law by failing to get a second opinion by an independent doctor.) On May 31, Tiller was shot and killed in his Wichita church. Today, there are only two late-term abortion clinics left in the country.