More Than A Magazine, A Movement
In this three-part American Autocracy series, we track Trump’s comments on feminist issues.
This installment: the threat a Trump presidency poses for abortion. (Future installments will document Trump’s threats the LGBTQ+ community and his perceived enemies.)
When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the “separate but equal” doctrine that allowed public schools to segregate students by race in 1954, it opened the possibility of radical change. But 70 years later, the promise of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education has yet to be realized.
Psychologist Margaret Beale Spencer and attorney Nancy E. Dowd, authors of Radical Brown: Keeping the Promise to America’s Children, interrogate why progress has been slow and uneven.
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.
“Finally.” That’s what Emma thought when she heard Bethenny Frankel spill the beans about her epic split on her new Just B Divorced podcast. Finally, someone was validating what millions of women go through silently behind divorce court doors. The Real Housewives of New York alum has millions of fans and a multi-million dollar business empire. In the show’s first two episodes, Frankel took listeners behind the scenes of the “torture” she endured during a 10-year divorce for a two-year marriage.
But following her mother’s death, Frankel announced that she was putting the new pod on hold and the episodes disappeared.
The Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling that reinstated a draconian 1864 near-total abortion ban reveals the disingenuous nature of the “leave-it-to-the-states” positioning of some Republicans.
In response to the state Supreme Court’s decision, Democrats spearheaded legislation to repeal that law, which was recently signed by Gov. Katie Hobbs (D). However, leaving it to the states doesn’t always have such a rosy ending—and, indeed, this is not the end of efforts in Arizona or elsewhere by special interests trying to impose their regressive worldview on us all through law. A closer look into the Arizona abortion case and court that led to the reprise of this antiquated anti-abortion law reveals that some of the same anti-abortion zealots who played a central role in overturning Roe are also playing a role in revoking Arizonians’ access to abortion healthcare.
Texas abortion funds have been maneuvering complicated abortion restrictions for several years.
We interviewed representatives from the Frontera Fund, Texas Equal Access Fund (TEA Fund) and Jane’s Due Process (JDP) to learn how they have been navigating the increasingly challenging work of supporting abortion seekers in a state, home to 30 million residents, where abortions are completely inaccessible.
(This piece is the third in
a series of interviews with fund representatives across the U.S.)
In the last two months, the Supreme Court heard two case to limit nationwide access to abortion care. The chaotic state of play for abortion rights in the United States illustrates the consequences of failing to integrate efforts to strengthen democracy into strategies for advancing gender equity and vice versa.
For philanthropic leaders, the twin goals of strengthening democracy and advancing gender equity presents a compelling case for simultaneous investment. Divorcing gender justice from democracy is inconsistent ideologically, and it’s also irrational and unnecessarily expensive. To separate them is to delay success and pay for it many times over.
Fighting for better laws and challenging bad laws in the courts are critical parts of the fight for the freedom and dignity of women and pregnant people, but so is the underground abortion pill movement, which enacts that freedom and dignity directly, and resists the “psychology of servitude” and “habitual acquiescence” to unjust laws.
Imagine being guided by cruelty so deep you are compelled to take the food out of the mouths of your hungry neighbors. You don’t need this food yourself—in fact, you’re going to turn around and throw it in the trash. For nearly 2,000 intended recipients of a guaranteed income pilot program for low-income residents that was set to distribute $500 monthly for 18 months in Harris County, Texas, this is their reality.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has blocked implementation of the program—a move upheld, at least temporarily, by the state’s Supreme Court just a day before initial payments were set to begin last week.
Most Americans support the right to abortion. But the fact that we are relying on ballot initiatives to protect and expand abortion access to translate that support into policy—rather than our elected representatives—should call on us to expand our fight.
Nearly every part of our system of government is structured in ways that prevent popular rule.
