More Than A Magazine, A Movement
Monday, July 1, marked the end of a historic and ominous Supreme Court term—with bombshell rulings on presidential immunity, the right to abortion care in emergencies, gun control, the criminalization of homelessness, the availability of medication abortion and more.
A panel at the 14th annual Supreme Court Review at Georgetown Law School discussed the high Court’s monumental decisions from the last several months, which will have ripple effects for years and decades to come.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for all “official acts” he took while in office. The case, which began last year, is related to charges against the former president for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol.
“With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor concluded in a scathing dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Read more of our favorite takes from her dissent.
Trump lied constantly about the realities of abortion in the U.S. during Thursday’s debate. He falsely claimed that “all legal scholars” wanted Roe overturned, and that Democrats intend to execute newborns.
He is responsible for young victims of rape or incest being forced to give birth or travel across state lines to access abortion, and women facing life-threatening pregnancy complications due to inability to access abortion, just to name a few.
The Southern Baptist Convention rejected a proposed amendment that would have designated any church with a woman pastor as no longer in “friendly cooperation” with the SBC. Those churches could have then been expelled from the SBC.
Some might express surprise at this vote and wonder if Southern Baptists are changing direction on women’s issues—if they’re becoming more accepting of women in leadership.
They’re not. This vote wasn’t at all about supporting women.
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.
If former president Donald Trump is reelected, advocacy groups expect him to enact anti-LGBTQ+ policies that are more far-reaching and extreme than those he put in place during his first term—based on his campaign promises and policies suggested by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that has shaped the GOP’s agenda for decades.
The state of Texas does not believe its arsenal of antiabortion laws has done enough to strip pregnant people of control over their bodies.
Represented by antiabortion warrior Attorney General Ken Paxton, Texas is suing the Biden administration in a challenge to the Title IX claim that abortion-related discrimination is prohibited sex discrimination. Two professors from the University of Texas-Austin—John Hatfield, a professor of finance, and Daniel Bonevac, a philosophy professor—subsequently joined the suit as named plaintiffs.
At its core, this case is about the surveillance and control of the sexual and reproductive lives of students, and the chillingly privileged view that professors are somehow entitled to this measure of control over students’ lives based upon their own views about abortion.
The GOP and its mouthpieces in conservative media repeat constantly that Trump and MAGA are the natural home of “real men,” who are the only ones that have what it takes to protect and defend this country.
By contrast, Biden embodies a wonkish, managerial masculinity that is calm, measured and empathetic. But that matters very little in terms of how he will be judged on his debate performance. What will matter is his energy level. His assertiveness and aggressiveness. The way he responds to Trump’s verbal aggression and bullying behavior. Whether or not he “scores points” in verbal repartee. In other words, the way he performs his “manhood.”
It’s been two years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and the young women of America are tired. We’re exhausted.
It would be easy to listen to naysayers who tell us it’s not our time to take action. And it would be easy to just give up. But that is not how we’re going to make change. We’ll make a change by turning out in mass this November to send a clear message: The vast majority of people in every state across the country—red states and blue states—want to protect abortion access.
In 1970, college student Katherine Ann Power became involved with a revolutionary anti-war guerilla group. Power was the getaway driver when the group attempted to rob a Massachusetts bank to help finance the anti-war movement.
For years, Power lived as Alice Metzinger: baker, cook and eventually— mom. As she reflected on her own responsibility for the officer’s death, she concluded that she needed to turn herself in to begin the long process of redemption and restitution.
Power has just written a memoir about her experience, Surrender: My Journey from Guerilla to Grandmother. She recently talked with Ms. about her involvement in the anti-war movement, the killing of police officer Walter Schroeder, her time in prison and her reflections on it all.