Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

    Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

    President Donald Trump speaks at a White House press briefing on Jan. 30, 2025.

    Credit: Jonah Elkowitz/Medill News Service

    Ingrassia Exit Highlights Rare GOP Pushback to Trump’s Personnel Picks

    WASHINGTON — Paul Ingrassia withdrew his nomination to lead the Office of Special Counsel on Tuesday night after facing Republican pushback over past controversial statements.

    While Ingrassia joins a growing list of President Donald Trump’s nominees who have withdrawn from consideration, many who have aired controversial beliefs or lack requisite qualifications have still been appointed or are still in the nomination process.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    A Revolution in Congressional Decision-Making
    low light photography of armchairs in front of desk

    A Revolution in Congressional Decision-Making

    The dysfunction of today’s federal government is not simply the product of political division or individual leaders; it is rooted in the internal rules of Congress itself. The Founders, in one of their few major oversights, granted Congress the authority to make its own procedural rules (Article I, Section 5) without establishing any framework for how it should operate. Over time, this blank check has produced a legislative process built to serve partisan power, not public representation.

    The result is a Congress that often rewards obstruction and gridlock over compromise and action. The Founders imagined representatives closely tied to their constituents—one member for every 30,000 to 50,000 citizens. Today, that ratio has ballooned to one for every 765,000 in the House, and in the Senate, each member can represent tens of millions (e.g., California). As the population has grown, representation has become distant and impersonal, while procedural rules have tightened the grip of party leadership. Major issues can no longer reach the floor unless the majority party permits it. The link between citizens and decisions has nearly vanished.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    Lasting peace requires accepting Israel’s right to exist

    US President Donald Trump hailed a "tremendous day for the Middle East" as he and regional leaders signed a declaration on Oct. 13, 2025, meant to cement a ceasefire in Gaza, hours after Israel and Hamas exchanged hostages and prisoners. (TNS)

    Lasting peace requires accepting Israel’s right to exist

    President Trump took a rhetorical victory lap in front of the Israeli parliament Monday. Ignoring his patented departures from the teleprompter, which violated all sorts of valuable norms, it was a speech Trump deserved to give. The ending of the war — even if it’s just a ceasefire — and the release of Israel’s last living hostages is, by itself, a monumental diplomatic accomplishment, and Trump deserves to take a bow.

    Much of Trump’s prepared text was forward-looking, calling for a new “golden age” for the Middle East to mirror the one allegedly unfolding here in America. I’m generally skeptical about “golden ages,” here or abroad, and especially leery about any talk about “everlasting peace” in a region that has known “peace” for only a handful of years since the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

    Keep ReadingShow less
    A child looks into an empty fridge-freezer in a domestic kitchen.

    The Trump administration’s suspension of the USDA’s Household Food Security Report halts decades of hunger data tracking.

    Getty Images, Catherine Falls Commercial

    Trump Gives Up the Fight Against Hunger

    A Vanishing Measure of Hunger

    Consider a hunger policy director at a state Department of Social Services studying food insecurity data across the state. For years, she has relied on the USDA’s annual Household Food Security Report to identify where hunger is rising, how many families are skipping meals, and how many children go to bed hungry. Those numbers help her target resources and advocate for stronger programs.

    Now there is no new data. The survey has been “suspended for review,” officially to allow for a “methodological reassessment” and cost analysis. Critics say the timing and language suggest political motives. It is one of many federal data programs quietly dropped under a Trump executive order on so-called “nonessential statistics,” a phrase that almost parodies itself. Labeling hunger data “nonessential” is like turning off a fire alarm because it makes too much noise; it implies that acknowledging food insecurity is optional and reveals more about the administration’s priorities than reality.

    Keep ReadingShow less