More Than A Magazine, A Movement
Since the Dobbs decision, antiabortion Republicans are putting their resources not into expanding care for the women they’re forcing into motherhood, but into enforcing abortion bans—including those that make women risk their lives and health in pregnancy, drive up maternal injury and mortality, and push healthcare providers out of the workforce or out of state.
State budgets are limited, and how lawmakers spend the money they have tells us a lot.
Matt Gaetz for attorney general. RFK, Jr., for head of Health and Human Services. Fox News host Pete Hegseth for defense secretary. Tulsi Gabbard for director of national intelligence.
The whole thing is a big public farce, and Trump is demanding that Republicans publicly play along—that they attach their names to this. It’s a signal that he expects to be treated as powerful beyond measure; that he is not to be questioned, no matter how dangerous or ridiculous his decisions. That he owns the government and everyone in it.
Tyrants are never one-man machines. They are made and enabled by many others. And when tyrants emerge in democratic systems, they are made by people who consent to their abuse and misuse of that system.
When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health and overturned Roe v. Wade, there was a lot of talk, mostly from “compassionate conservative” abortion opponents, about what was next. It would be necessary, these abortion opponents argued, for the pro-life movement and perhaps even the Republican Party to finally turn its focus to actually helping women and babies. The country would be remade into one reflecting a broader “culture of life.” We were going to get a bipartisan pro-family agenda. Abortion wouldn’t just become illegal; the nation would be so welcoming to pregnant women that abortion would simply be unthinkable.
None of that has happened.
Conservative politicians are complaining about childless cat ladies, declining marriage rates, unstable families and single-parent households. Their strategy so far has been to ban abortion, offer families no real support, do nothing to help struggling Americans find greater financial stability, promote a deeply misogynistic worldview to young men, and then yell at young women that they need to get married and have babies. Shockingly, this is not working very well.
On the other side, liberals have de-emphasized marriage and the nuclear family as the primary organizing unit for society, while offering women and men alike more choices about when, how, and if to start families, and more support if they do. And while marriage and childbearing rates are down generally, the prototypical Democratic voter—the college-educated woman working for pay in or near a large city in a blue state—is more likely to find herself in a happy, stable marriage than the prototypical Republican voter.
This isn’t a coincidence.
It’s not that Donald Trump is secretly pro-choice; it’s that he truly does not care at all about abortion rights either way, and anti-abortion groups were useful in getting him elected.
Now, though, those same groups are putting his candidacy at risk. 2024 is not 2016. Trump is adjusting accordingly. And one big adjustment is on abortion, which he wants Republicans to just quit talking about—for now. Once he’s in office, though, the calculus is different.
The tradwife movement is more than just eye-catching images of open land, barefoot kids, chickens and sourdough perfectly cultivated for an Instagram grid. It’s a cultural movement to influence young women to willingly check out of the workforce and give up their rights and agency.
And if progressives are too “burnt out” to check back in, these forces will win the culture war and the political movements to take away birth control, end no-fault divorce and take away a woman’s choice whether to go through with an unwanted pregnancy.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court issued the official ruling in its final major abortion case of 2024, dismissing the consolidated cases of Idaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States. The Court’s dismissal temporarily upholds a lower court ruling that sided with the Biden administration in requiring that hospitals perform life and health-saving abortions where needed.
This is good news for obvious reasons—chief among them that “women don’t deserve to die or become disabled because they got pregnant in an anti-abortion state” really should not be up for debate. With this decision, Idaho individuals still won’t have basic abortion rights, but they will at least have the same rights as everyone else to be medically stabilized if they find themselves pregnant and in an emergency medical situation.
But this Court wouldn’t answer a vital question: Do pregnant women deserve the same medical treatment to save their lives and preserve their health as everyone else? It may not be the worst-case scenario, but it’s also not any sort of win.
Abortion opponents know they will lose on the merits if they’re honest. And so they lie. Which is exactly how we get bills that suggest abortion pills are addictive, and threaten to jail women who haven’t had abortions, but who simply possess extremely safe and common medicines.
The very foundation of an abortion ban is an assumption that a woman’s body does not belong to her. Abusive men agree.
In the United States, it is legal to cross state lines for medical care, including abortion. But the anti-abortion movement wants this long-standing legal allowance to end.
It’s important to understand who is showing up at protests vs. who is leading them. Universities have to fulfill their educational obligations. Don’t call the cops on nonviolent protesters.
