Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Is the Ban on Abortion More Important Than Democracy?

Is the Ban on Abortion More Important Than Democracy?
Abortion at the Dinner Table
Getty Images

After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, 93 prosecutors from 29 states vowed in a statement that they would not pursue abortion cases. In return, 17 states have attempted to pass laws curbing prosecutorial discretion, a legal principle that has existed since the United States’s founding.

On average, more than a quarter (28%) of cases are dismissed by prosecutors for various reasons, including insufficient evidence, constitutional violations, procedural errors, lack of resources, more pressing priorities, or negative public opinion. Prosecutors are public servants, propelled to power by the people, committed to justice. They make decisions based on the tenets of their position.


Prosecutorial discretion grants elected district attorneys the authority to decide whether to prosecute and which charges to file. As a cornerstone of representative democracy, this discretion allows prosecutors the freedom to delegate limited criminal legal resources to certain crimes and, subsequently, not to pursue others.

Discretion isn’t a get-out-of-jail card. Prosecutors have responsibilities to their constituents, laws, and the Constitution. District attorneys are voted into office, and if their policies fail to resonate with voters, communities will elect new leadership. However, elections aren’t the only way to curtail abuse. District attorneys are subjected to civil lawsuits and criminal charges for constitutional violations by the state bar and district judges.

Discretion determines the will of the people. It signals to prosecutors how they should allocate their attention. Residents choose to elect prosecutors based on their values. Some will vote for a prosecutor who won’t pursue low-level drug possession, shoplifting, and, beginning in 2022, abortion.

While state legislators enact laws, the decision rests with the prosecutors. Just because something can be prosecuted doesn’t mean it should. Prosecutors promote justice, efficiency, and public safety. If pursuing a case doesn’t align with these principles, they can choose to dismiss the case. In states with court backlogs and overcrowded jails, prosecutors will prioritize violent crimes. Exposing people to the carceral system doesn’t make jurisdictions safer. It unhinges families, increases unemployment, and pushes people further into a system.

Retaliating against prosecutors isn’t just petty; It’s upending the separation of powers. Florida State Attorney Andrew Warren was suspended from his office by Gov. Ron DeSantis in August 2022, after he signed the pledge stating his refusal to prosecute abortion-related cases. He, a man who was voted for by over 300,000 Floridians, was ousted from office and embroiled in a two-year legal battle by one individual for exercising his rights as a prosecutor and his First Amendment right as a U.S. citizen. The case was dismissed, but for those two years, Warren was unable to do his job. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it handed the power to regulate decisions on abortion and bodily autonomy to individual states. They wanted to reduce the oversight of the government. Yet, when cities and counties decide to pursue cases based on the sentiments of their constituents, they are instead met with threats to be removed from office. Why can’t elected officials prioritize what their residents want in a country that prizes democracy? Many of the prosecutors facing threats from state officials were elected into office after signing the 2022 statement against pursuing criminalization of abortion cases.

Six states have passed laws to curb the autonomy of prosecutors, with Texas passing a bill to remove elected prosecutors from office: a violation of the state’s own constitution. Imagine a prosecutor drops a case against a doctor for performing an abortion because the evidence shows it was a life-saving procedure, and as a result, the prosecutor is penalized. This will only ensnare doctors and elected officials in a legal battle funded by taxpayers to determine what their constitutions already knew and already voted for: that the prosecutor used their discretion wisely.

This discretion protects people. It ensures prosecutors are intentional about the cases they choose to pursue. It guarantees they have valid evidence before filing charges. When prosecutors exercise their discretion, they’re ensuring a case has probable cause before moving forward. If we undermine this principle, we chip away at necessary constitutional freedoms, starting with the Fifth Amendment.

You bestow prosecutors that power. As a citizen, you have the right to make your voice heard. In many states, prosecutors face trials before removal from office. Call the courthouse, email the judge, send a scathing tweet. They’re using abortion as the Trojan horse to dismantle the Constitution. Don’t let them do it.

Farah Merchant is a fellow of the OpEd Project with the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice and the Every Page Foundation.

Read More

Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals
Photo illustration by Lisa Larson-Walker/ProPublica

Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals

Veterans hospitals are struggling to replace hundreds of doctors and nurses who have left the health care system this year as the Trump administration pursues its pledge to simultaneously slash Department of Veterans Affairs staff and improve care.

Many job applicants are turning down offers, worried that the positions are not stable and uneasy with the overall direction of the agency, according to internal documents examined by ProPublica. The records show nearly 4 in 10 of the roughly 2,000 doctors offered jobs from January through March of this year turned them down. That is quadruple the rate of doctors rejecting offers during the same time period last year.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The Protect Reporters from Excessive State Suppression (PRESS) Act aims to fill the national shield law gap by providing two protections for journalists.

Getty Images, Manu Vega

Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The First Amendment protects journalists during the news-gathering and publication processes. For example, under the First Amendment, reporters cannot be forced to report on an issue. However, the press is not entitled to different legal protections compared to a general member of the public under the First Amendment.

In the United States, there are protections for journalists beyond the First Amendment, including shield laws that protect journalists from pressure to reveal sources or information during news-gathering. 48 states and the District of Columbia have shield laws, but protections vary widely. There is currently no federal shield law. As of 2019, at least 22 journalists have been jailed in the U.S. for refusing to comply with requests to reveal sources of information. Seven other journalists have been jailed and fined for the same reason.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrat Donkey is winning arm wrestling match against Republican elephant

AI generated image

Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrats are quietly building momentum in the 2025 election cycle, notching two key legislative flips in special elections and gaining ground in early polling ahead of the 2026 midterms. While the victories are modest in number, they signal a potential shift in voter sentiment — and a brewing backlash against Republican-led redistricting efforts.

Out of 40 special elections held across the United States so far in 2025, only two seats have changed party control — both flipping from Republican to Democrat.

Keep ReadingShow less
Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

A DC Metropolitan Police Department car is parked near a rally against the Trump Administration's federal takeover of the District of Columbia, outside of the AFL-CIO on August 11, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

President Trump announced the activation of hundreds of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., along with the deployment of federal agents—including more than 100 from the FBI. This comes despite Justice Department data showing that violent crime in D.C. fell 35% from 2023 to 2024, reaching its lowest point in over three decades. These aren’t abstract numbers—they paint a picture of a city safer than it has been in a generation, with fewer homicides, assaults, and robberies than at any point since the early 1990s.

The contradiction could not be more glaring: the same president who, on January 6, 2021, stalled for hours as a violent uprising engulfed the Capitol is now rushing to “liberate” a city that—based on federal data—hasn’t been this safe in more than thirty years. Then, when democracy itself was under siege, urgency gave way to dithering; today, with no comparable emergency—only vague claims of lawlessness—he mobilizes troops for a mission that looks less like public safety and more like political theater. The disparity between those two moments is more than irony; it is a blueprint for how power can be selectively applied, depending on whose power is threatened.

Keep ReadingShow less