Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Is the Ban on Abortion More Important Than Democracy?

Opinion

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

Silence, Signals, and the Unfinished Story of the Abandoned Disability Rule

Waiting for the Door to Open: Advocates and older workers are left in limbo as the administration’s decision to abandon a harsh disability rule exists only in private assurances, not public record.

AI-created animation

Silence, Signals, and the Unfinished Story of the Abandoned Disability Rule

We reported in the Fulcrum on November 30th that in early November, disability advocates walked out of the West Wing, believing they had secured a rare reversal from the Trump administration of an order that stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers.

The public record has remained conspicuously quiet on the matter. No press release, no Federal Register notice, no formal statement from the White House or the Social Security Administration has confirmed what senior officials told Jason Turkish and his colleagues behind closed doors in November: that the administration would not move forward with a regulation that could have stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers. According to a memo shared by an agency official and verified by multiple sources with knowledge of the discussions, an internal meeting in early November involved key SSA decision-makers outlining the administration's intent to halt the proposal. This memo, though not publicly released, is said to detail the political and social ramifications of proceeding with the regulation, highlighting its unpopularity among constituents who would be affected by the changes.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

(John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.

“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

Supreme Court, Allen v. Milligan Illegal Congressional Voting Map

Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.

In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.

Keep ReadingShow less
New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (L) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) lead a group of fellow Republicans through Statuary Hall on the way to a news conference on the 28th day of the federal government shutdown at the U.S. Capitol on October 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Every January 1st, many Americans face their failings and resolve to do better by making New Year’s Resolutions. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Congress would do the same? According to Gallup, half of all Americans currently have very little confidence in Congress. And while confidence in our government institutions is shrinking across the board, Congress is near rock bottom. With that in mind, here is a list of resolutions Congress could make and keep, which would help to rebuild public trust in Congress and our government institutions. Let’s start with:

1 – Working for the American people. We elect our senators and representatives to work on our behalf – not on their behalf or on behalf of the wealthiest donors, but on our behalf. There are many issues on which a large majority of Americans agree but Congress can’t. Congress should resolve to address those issues.

Keep ReadingShow less