Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Risks and rewards in a polarized nation: Businesses face tough choices after Roe v. Wade ruling

Opinion

Dick’s Sporting Goods CEO Lauren Hobart

“We recognize people feel passionately about this topic — and that there are teammates and athletes who will not agree with this decision,” Dick’s Sporting Goods CEO Lauren Hobart wrote.

Jamie McCarthy/Getty Images for Footwear News

Davies is a podcast consultant, host and solutions journalist at daviescontent.com.

The Supreme Court overturned 50 years of legal precedent and quickly cut off legal access to abortions for women in large parts of the country Friday. Many big corporations realized quickly that they had to respond to the sweeping decision.

In the days before the widely anticipated announcement, some of the nation’s largest employers reached out to their workforce, offering support for those who are directly affected. After the publicized leak in early May of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito arguing for a reversal of Roe v. Wade, corporate boards and CEOs knew they had to consider their options.

The nation’s largest bank, JPMorgan Chase, told workers that it will pay for travel to states that allow legal abortions. Amazon will cover costs for employees seeking abortions in states where the procedure were made illegal. CVS, Apple, Meta, Dick’s Sporting Goods and Disney also issued statements that attempted to reassure anxious workers.

“We recognize people feel passionately about this topic — and that there are teammates and athletes who will not agree with this decision,” Dick’s CEO Lauren Hobart wrote.The court’s explosive decision and the emotional debate that followed are the latest of many recent controversies where corporations were under pressure to take a stand.


Gone are the days when businesses could solely focus on their core business model — keeping customers, winning new ones and making a profit.

“There is one and only one social responsibility of business,” Milton Friedman famously wrote more than 50years ago — ironically around the time of the Roe decision. The Nobel Prize-winning economist said that a corporation should “use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.”

But now we live in very different times. Pursuing shareholder value alone is not enough. Many of the most highly valued young workers expect their employers to reflect their values. Businesses also face greater scrutiny from consumers. Brands feel required to to be socially and politically relevant.

“It’s just no longer an option for businesses to hide on the sidelines on all issues,” says entrepreneur and market research executive Diane Hessan, author of the recent book “Our Common Ground.” “This is the time when businesses feel obligated to have some sense of social responsibility because their customers and partners want them to, and their employees want them to. In many cases they are the last bastions of where we have trust.”

But speaking out on polarizing issues can carry real risks. Examples of corporate stumbles include Disney’s shifting stand on Florida’s “don’t say gay” legislation barring instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in kindergarten through third grade. Coca Cola and Delta Airlines angered conservatives when they criticized Georgia’s law to tighten regulations on voter access. Both Atlanta-based companies faced pressure from Black employees and others to come out against the Georgia law.

“Companies are on the receiving end of a lot of criticism,” says Elizabeth Doty, director of the Erb Institute’s Corporate Political Responsibility Taskforce at the University of Michigan. “We felt they needed a place to get foresight to dig into what’s behind these complaints.”

The task force was formed to help companies manage risks and concerns related to their corporate political activities.

“Companies need to go from trying to navigate this minefield to be consistent with themselves, investing in systems for healthier debate,” Doty told me during a recent interview for our podcast, “How Do We Fix It?”

Citing the voting rights example, she said that one successful approach for corporate leaders could be to ask “what makes for a trustworthy election system and then fund a cross-partisan process to go in and do that.”

This process-driven approach to finding common ground and boosting civic engagement may be an opportunity both for corporate leaders and the Bridge Alliance movement.

“Most people trust businesses more than government or news organizations,” says Hessan. “Business does have a huge opportunity.”

Doty agrees. “Companies at a minimum can invest in healthier public discourse,” she says. “In the right conditions people can come together.” By setting ground rules for honest conversations among employees from different backgrounds and viewpoints, corporations can create a more positive workplace environment and start the enormous task healing rigid political divisions.

Read More

Just the Facts: $100,000 Visa Executive Order

"Just the Facts" on the new $100,000 H-1B visa fee, its impact on tech firms, startups, and healthcare, plus legal challenges and alternatives for skilled workers.

Getty Images, Popartic

Just the Facts: $100,000 Visa Executive Order

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

What Is the $100,000 Visa Fee?

This is a new one-time $100,000 application fee for employers seeking to sponsor foreign workers under the H-1B visa program. The visa is designed for highly skilled professionals in fields like tech, medicine, and engineering.

Keep ReadingShow less
Monetary vs. Fiscal Policy: Why Both Disrupt Free Markets—and Neither Is Inherently Conservative or Progressive

Dave Anderson shares how the Fed’s rate cuts reveal misconceptions about fiscal vs. monetary policy and government intervention in U.S. free markets.

Getty Images, Royalty-free

Monetary vs. Fiscal Policy: Why Both Disrupt Free Markets—and Neither Is Inherently Conservative or Progressive

The Federal Reserve Board's move on Wednesday, Sept. 17, to lower the federal funds interest rate by one-quarter of a point signals that it is a good time to discuss a major misconception that most voters have about public policy.

It is typically assumed that Democrats stand for government intervention into free markets to counteract the inherent bias towards those who are more economically well off. It is also assumed that Republicans, in contrast, reject the idea of government intervention in free markets because it violates rights to property and the natural order of free markets, which promotes the greatest total welfare.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of a nurse's hand resting on the shoulder of an older man who's hand rests on top.

September is World Alzheimer’s Awareness Month. Dr. Dona Kim Murphey explains how systemic failures, Medicare privatization, and racial disparities are deepening the dementia care crisis.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

Profits Over Patients: Re-Examining Systems As Culprit in Dementia Care (or Lack Thereof)

September is World Alzheimer's Awareness Month. Alzheimer's is the most common kind of dementia, a disorder characterized by the progressive loss of brain cells and, in its final stages, complete dependence—the inability to remember, speak, move, or even eat or swallow unassisted. Many end up in nursing homes. Seven million people are impacted by dementia in the United States today, a number that will more than double in the next 25 years.

But awareness is not just about understanding the magnitude of the problem or content expertise on the choices we make as individuals to mitigate the enormous present and future challenges of this disease. It is about a consciousness of the role of systems, namely insurance and government, that are seriously undermining our ability to care.

Keep ReadingShow less
Government by Deadline: Why Shutdowns Are Killing Congressional Power

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) arrives for a news conference following a House GOP Conference Meeting at the U.S. Capitol on September 16, 2025 in Washington, DC. House Republican leadership faces a long week as they try to rally House Republicans behind a stopgap funding bill to avert a shutdown, while also navigating growing pressure to boost security for lawmakers in the wake of Charlie Kirk's killing.

Getty Images, Kent Nishimura

Government by Deadline: Why Shutdowns Are Killing Congressional Power

Every autumn brings its rituals: football, spectacular fall colors, and in Washington, the countdown to a government shutdown. Once a rare emergency, these funding standoffs have become as routine as pumpkin‑flavored beverages.

September 30 marks when federal funding will expire, a recurring cliff since the 1970s. Each year it looms larger, shaping the rhythm of Congress’s work. Lawmakers are again scrambling—not to solve problems, but merely to keep the lights on.

Keep ReadingShow less