Skip to content
Project 2025
Donate to support
diverse voices
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Cargo containers piled on each other.

The Facts on U.S.–Canada Tariffs Nearly One Year Into Trump’s Plan

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

Policymakers must address worsening civil unrest post Roe

Opinion

Policymakers must address worsening civil unrest post Roe

Pro and anti-abortion protestors clash at Women's March rally in Washington

Getty Images
Sarah K. Burke
By Sarah K. BurkeSep 14, 2023
Sarah K. Burke
See More Writings by author

Burke is a PhD candidate in political science at the University of California, Irvine. She is currently producing a dissertation on the effect of reproductive justice on intrastate peace, stressing the importance of equitable abortion access and women's political representation for cultivating peaceful societies. She is also a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

One year after the fall of Roe, the United States has seen a tragic amount of preventable harm—maternal mortality rates have increased exponentially—mirroring patterns seen in countries like El Salvador and Nicaragua. These harms were unfortunately predictable. What is perhaps unexpected is the upsurge in diverse forms of violence after Roe 's repeal, including murder and arson. It is imperative for policymakers to closely monitor this unique strain of civil unrest stemming from abortion bans in conservative states.

According to the Institute of Economics and Peace (IEP), the United States has seen a deterioration in overall peacefulness since 2015. According to their 2023 report, civil unrest continues to be the primary driver of this deterioration. Essentially, political terror and political instability are leading Americans to feel less “safe and secure.” I posit that abortion bans exacerbate this terror and instability by emboldening clinic attacks, murder, protests, and counter protests.

Erosion of a Sense of Safety

In May of 2023, The National Abortion Federation released their annual report on violence against abortion providers. The report found that post- Roe, the number of death threats, burglaries, and arson attacks against abortion clinics in the United States increased significantly. Extreme right-wing ideologies (see the Army of God Manual) call for “justifiable homicide” of abortion providers. This political terrorism subsequently produces fear of seeking and performing medical care.

To make matters worse, the threat of violence extends beyond clinics. Also in May of 2023, a 26-year-old Texas woman named Gabriella Gonzalez was shot and killed by her boyfriend after she traveled to Colorado for an abortion. This striking murder highlights yet another danger posed by abortion bans. Experts fear that individuals who become pregnant in abusive relationships will become inextricably tied to their abusers or—in this case—face fatal violence when they cannot access abortion quickly and discreetly. Like clinic attacks, increased fear of domestic abuse creates an environment of insecurity and fear in the wake of abortion bans.

In addition to these forms of political violence, political demonstrations may deteriorate feelings of safety and security. In the two months following the Court ruling, there were over 3,000 protests by actors on both sides of the issue. While the majority of protests were peaceful, at least 45 protests included unlawful militia creating an environment of hostility and potential violence.

Implications of Civil Unrest

It is clear that abortion bans can fuel clinic attacks, domestic violence, and demonstrations, leading to less sense of safety and more civil unrest. While other factors influence peacefulness as well (e.g. wealth, political system, amount of violent crime), these post- Roe spikes in violence are concerning in that they could be precedents to real civil conflict. Scholars know that the treatment of women predicts peacefulness in society. This means that as women face more violence and instability, there is a real chance that the country will become more prone to violence.

Moreover, these trends should concern policymakers as they could soon get worse. The fall of Roe v. Wade was one catalyst for civil unrest, but additional proposed legislation from GOP leaders threaten to exacerbate the situation yet further. These include attempts to outlaw Mifepristone (Plan B), contraception, and possibly even no-fault divorce. According to gender scholars, these things are mainstays of gender equality.

Considering the data, instances of violence, and that 50% of Americans fear impending civil war, U.S. policymakers should be concerned with maintaining safety and security while preventing civil unrest. One answer is codifying the right to abortion, making it accessible, and preventing further harm, thus reducing instances of clinic attacks, domestic violence, protests, and counter protests.

Policy Recommendations for State Legislators

Permitting Abortion

1. Build abortion protections into new statutes or constitutional amendments and repeal any medically unnecessary restrictions and bans on abortion.

Making Abortion Accessible

2. Repeal or replace laws requiring that only physicians can perform abortions to allow advanced practice clinicians (APCs) to do so as well.

3. Require private insurance plans to cover abortion care and provide funding through state Medicaid programs.

4. Repeal any parental notification or consent laws.

Preventing Harm

5. Enforce “Medical Safety Zones” to protect clinics.

6. Vote against any attempts to restrict Mifepristone, contraception, and/or no-fault divorce.

Addressing the consequences of the erosion of the right to abortion requires a comprehensive approach that not only guarantees access to reproductive health, but also prioritizes abortion seekers and providers’ security. By enacting the recommended policy measures, state legislators can help ensure that the United States remains a safe and secure environment for all, regardless of their reproductive choices.

This writing was originally published through the Scholars Strategy Network.


Latest news

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”
Ethics & Leadership

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift
Elections

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes
Media & Technology

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

Read More

a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less
The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin
us a flag on pole
Photo by Saad Alfozan on Unsplash

The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin

Where is our nation headed — and why does it feel as if the country is spinning out of control under leaders who cannot, or will not, steady it?

Americans are watching a government that seems to have lost its balance. Decisions shift by the hour, explanations contradict one another, and the nation is left reacting to confusion rather than being guided by clarity. Leadership requires focus, discipline, and the courage to make deliberate, informed decisions — even when they are not politically convenient. Yet what we are witnessing instead is haphazard decision‑making, secrecy, and instability.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026