Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Biden likely would not be able to fulfill promises on abortion policy

News

President Biden speaks at a campaign rally

President Joe Biden rallies supporters at a campaign event in Virginia in January.

Juliann Ventura/Medill News Service

Norman is a graduate student at Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism.

Hoping to capitalize on the hottest issue for Democrats running for office in the past two years, President Joe Biden has made abortion a major plank of his re-election campaign. However, legal experts question what can be accomplished in such a polarized government.

Given that nearly every bill in the Senate must get the support of 60 senators and most efforts at compromise in the House of Representatives have not been successful, an expansion of abortion rights beyond the measures that the Biden administration has already taken seems unlikely.


Last month, at Biden’s first joint campaign event of the year with Vice President Kamala Harris, banners declaring “Restore Roe” hung above them. However, the slogan severely overstates what Biden can actually accomplish if re-elected, legal experts said.

In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned its own landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which had made abortion a constitutional right. If Biden were to attempt an executive order, it would likely be stopped by the court, and any legislative efforts to toss aside the Dobbs decision – the new legal standard – would not make it through either chamber of Congress.

Dobbs eradicated constitutional protections for a woman who chooses to seek an abortion. Since then, over 20 states have restricted abortion, including 14 states that set bans in almost all circumstances. The decision also eliminated a lot of roadblocks to expand abortion restrictions on the federal level.

“Even though there are constraints on what a Democratic president can do, there are a lot fewer constraints on what a Republican could do than we are used to,” said Mary Zeigler, expert on the politics of reproduction from University of California, Davis. “Executive action to restrict abortion rights hasn’t really been experimented with in the same way [as an expansion of rights], because we have always had Roe in the background.”

Since Dobbs, the threats to abortion access have aided Democratic candidates in close races where abortion was directly or indirectly on the ballot.

Heading Into the 2022 midterm elections, which took place only a few months after the Dobbs decision was released, Republicans predicted an electoral “red wave” would develop as voter expressed disappointment in the first part of Biden’s term. Instead, the GOP lost its Senate majority and barely maintained control of the House.

In 2023, Ohio voters approved a ballot initiative that would put the right to abortion and other reproductive rights into the state Constitution. In Virginia, Democrats held their majority in the state Senate and flipped the state’s House of Delegates. Democratic voters were primarily motivated to resist the threat of Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s proposed 15-week abortion ban. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat, was also able to win re-election in a red state, defeating a challenger who strongly opposed abortion rights.

Biden’s move to make abortion rights a part of his campaign is less about what he would do to restore rights and more about what the probable GOP nominee, former President Donald Trump, would do if elected. Biden’s supporters were glad to see that he was giving proper attention to abortion rights.

“I have two daughters who are growing up with less rights than I did,” said Jessica Berg, a high school teacher from Virginia who teaches women’s and gender studies. She said it was important for the Biden campaign to signify how important reproductive rights are.

Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices, all of whom voted with the majority opinion in Dobbs. This angered voters like Kris Nelson, chair of Virginia’s Warren County Democratic Committee.

“People have got to realize how important their vote is. If we would have paid attention in 2016 with the Supreme Court, we would not be living this history right now,” she said.

When Biden finally took the stage, he heavily criticized Trump for the role that he played in the Dobbs decision.

“Let there be no mistake. The person most responsible for taking away this freedom in America is Donald Trump,” Biden said.

He also condemned the Republican Party as a whole, saying that “MAGA Republicans” are “hell bent” on taking restrictions further. However the only actual promise that Biden made was to “not sign” a bill banning abortion nationwide.

Biden has repeatedly stressed his support for a woman’s right to choose, but also acknowledged that without congressional support he cannot stop state actions that restrict abortion.

Instead, he used executive branch authority to ensure some protections for abortion access and related medication:

    • The Food and Drug Administration and the Justice Department are fighting in federal courts to defend access to mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortions.
    • Biden issued an executive order directing agencies to improve access to affordable, high-quality contraception.
    • He empowered the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to provide governors with increased access to care for women who travel from out of state to receive an abortion.

    Read More

    An Iranian flag and the message "No King" graffitied on the ruins of the data center building of Sharif University of Technology after a U.S.-Israeli missile strike on April 7, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

    How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.

    Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

    The Last War We Understood

    Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.

    Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

    America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

    TGI /Tetra Images

    Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

    Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

    The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
    a large white building with a flag on top of it

    The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

    This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

    Part 3 — The Path Forward

    Keep ReadingShow less
    The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

    Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

    The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

    This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

    Part 2 — The Untold History

    Keep ReadingShow less