Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Consequences and repercussions from SCOTUS’ Dobbs decision

Consequences and repercussions from SCOTUS’ Dobbs decision
Getty Images

Steve Corbin is Professor Emeritus of Marketing at the University of Northern Iowa.

It has been a year since the Supreme Court stripped women of their nearly 50 year right to make their own reproductive health-care decisions in the overturning of Roe v. Wade. SCOTUS’ Dobbs v. Jackson decision has created a ripple effect, catching many people by surprise:


1) For the first time ever, a majority of Americans say abortion is morally acceptable and recent abortion laws are too strict.

2) For the first time in two decades, more people identify as pro-choice than pro-life.

3) For the first time in 49 years, “The Dobbs decision transferred all-or-nothing disputes to the states” (Wall Street Journal), an undue burden on state supreme courts.

4) A recent NBC News poll found voters who oppose the court’s actions include 55 percent of men, 67 percent of women, 66 percent of suburban women, 77 percent of female voters ages 18-49, 92 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of independents and 31 percent of Republicans.

5) A March17 - May 18 Kaiser Family Foundation survey of 569 OBGYN doctors revealed shocking findings: “68 percent found the [Dobbs] ruling has worsened their ability to manage pregnancy-related emergencies, [and] has worsened pregnancy-related mortality (64 percent), racial and ethnic inequities in maternal health (70 percent) and the ability to attract new OBGYNs to the field (55 percent).”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

6) Michele Goodwin, a legal expert in bioethics and health law, notes “A dramatic proliferation in anti-abortion legislation in the United States has coincided with this nation becoming the deadliest in the `developed world’ to be pregnant and attempt to give birth” (Ms., May 24, 2022).

7) Black women are 3.5 times more likely to die due to maternal mortality than their white counterparts, unabated by abortion bans.

8) The states with the highest maternal mortality rates also lead the nation in anti-abortion legislation.

9) Isabella Oishi, Georgetown Law student, writes that since the Texas Heartbeat Act (SB 8) became law, it did not reduce the need for abortion care. Rather, there has been an 11-fold increase in Texans crossing state lines for abortions.

10) Oishi further reveals that states prohibiting women to seek abortions in other states is “likely unconstitutional based on the right to travel, the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause. The anti abortion legislation harkens back to the (1793) Fugitive Slave Act.”

11) Federal judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, announced a constitutional right to abortion may be found in the 13th Amendment, ratified at the end of the Civil War in 1865 -- made slavery and involuntary servitude illegal. This is an area that was ignored by the Supreme Court (National Review).

12) Andrew Koppelman, author of “Forced Labor: A Thirteenth Amendment Defense of Abortion,” writes “forced pregnancy’s violation of personal liberty is obvious. Restrictions on abortion also violate the [13th] amendment’s guarantee of equality, because forcing women to be mothers makes them into a servant caste, a group that, by virtue of a status of birth, is held subject to a special duty to serve others and not themselves” (National Review).

13) Elie Mystal, a legal scholar, wrote in the March 2022 issue of The Nation: “these [anti-abortion] states are borrowing traces of the sadistic logic and psychological tactics of this country’s enslavers.” As recently as June 29, Ja’han Jones, a research-based author, concurred with Mystal by noting “with abortion rights being rescinded across the country, it’s more important than ever that we call restrictions on this vital procedure what they actually are: slavery.”

The issues of pro-choice vs. pro-life, awareness of the 13th Amendment’s slavery and involuntary servitude prohibition, OBGYN doctor concerns, morality and maternal mortality have come center stage to voters and the 2024 election. GOP candidates will – most likely -- purposely ignore these multitude of findings while Democrats will tout women’s reproductive rights.

SCOTUS’s 6-3 decision created this unnecessary chaos for 334 million Americans.

Disclosures:

Steve is a non-paid freelance opinion editor and guest columnist contributor (circa 2013) to 172 newspapers in 32 states who receives no remuneration, funding or endorsement from any for-profit business, not-for-profit organization, political action committee or political party

Read More

The Fragile Ceasefire in Gaza

A view of destruction as Palestinians, who returned to the city following the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, struggle to survive among ruins of destroyed buildings during cold weather in Jabalia, Gaza on January 23, 2025.

Getty Images / Anadolu

The Fragile Ceasefire in Gaza

Ceasefire agreements are like modern constitutions. They are fragile, loaded with idealistic promises, and too easily ignored. Both are also crucial to the realization of long-term regional peace. Indeed, ceasefires prevent the violence that is frequently the fuel for instability, while constitutions provide the structure and the guardrails that are equally vital to regional harmony.

More than ever, we need both right now in the Middle East.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money Makes the World Go Round Roundtable

The Committee on House Administration meets on the 15th anniversary of the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United v. FEC.

Medill News Service / Samanta Habashy

Money Makes the World Go Round Roundtable

WASHINGTON – On the 15th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and one day after President Trump’s inauguration, House Democrats made one thing certain: money determines politics, not the other way around.

“One of the terrible things about Citizens United is people feel that they're powerless, that they have no hope,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Ma.).

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less
Independents as peacemakers

Group of people waving small American flags at sunset.

Getty Images//Simpleimages

Independents as peacemakers

In the years ahead, independents, as candidates and as citizens, should emerge as peacemakers. Even with a new administration in Washington, independents must work on a long-term strategy for themselves and for the country.

The peacemaker model stands in stark contrast to what might be called the marriage counselor model. Independent voters, on the marriage counselor model, could elect independent candidates for office or convince elected politicians to become independents in order to secure the leverage needed to force the parties to compromise with each other. On this model, independents, say six in the Senate, would be like marriage counselors because their chief function would be to put pressure on both parties to make deals, especially when it comes to major policy bills that require 60 votes in the Senate.

Keep ReadingShow less