Linda Greenhouse, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and former Supreme Court reporter for the New York Times, dives into the evolving landscape of abortion laws in the U.S. She discusses the Supreme Court's recent decisions and the unique lawsuits from three states claiming that abortion access threatens their birth rates. Greenhouse also explores the resurgence of outdated anti-abortion arguments and the socio-political implications of declining birth rates, highlighting how these narratives are shaping future legal battles over reproductive rights.
The recent Supreme Court case reveals states claiming that abortion access threatens their population growth, framing it as a sovereign injury.
Linda Greenhouse emphasizes the absurdity of linking women's reproductive choices with demographic and financial concerns, reflecting broader societal values on abortion.
Deep dives
Shifting Landscape of Abortion Politics
The landscape of abortion politics is evolving, particularly following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which has sparked new legal challenges and public discourse. Linda Greenhouse, a veteran journalist, reflects on her extensive experience covering abortion issues, noting that she first reported on the topic back in 1969. This significant recent change has prompted discussions about whether abortion will remain a prominent political issue, especially with differing views from political leaders regarding its regulation. Greenhouse suggests that while it may appear to be fading, new developments in legal cases indicate that the topic will continue to be contentious and relevant.
Legal Arguments Regarding Reproductive Rights
The ongoing legal dispute surrounding the abortion pill, mifepristone, highlights the intersection of reproductive rights and state interests. A recent case emerged when states like Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri claimed that increased access to abortion pills harms their population growth, presenting this issue as a sovereign injury. The argument posits that declining birth rates could affect the states' representation and federal funding, framing abortion access as a threat to state interests. Greenhouse critiques this line of reasoning, stressing the absurdity of associating women's reproductive choices with population control and financial strain.
Historical Context of Abortion and Population Arguments
Abortion has always been entangled with broader societal views on population and reproduction, reflecting changing cultural and political attitudes. Historical context reveals that concerns over declining birth rates often fueled anti-abortion sentiment, leading to the criminalization of the practice in the late 19th century. In contemporary discussions, echoes of past pro-natalist arguments resurface, as seen in the claims by conservative figures linking diminished birth rates to a perceived demographic threat. This complex intersection of abortion politics, societal values, and historical narratives underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of the ongoing debates around reproductive rights.
The Supreme Court threw out the last attempt to ban mifepristone, the “abortion pill,” because they couldn’t figure out who in the case was being injured. Now three states are claiming they are being harmed, because abortion access is preventing population growth for them
Want more What Next? Join Slate Plus to unlock full, ad-free access to What Next and all your other favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the What Next show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen.
Podcast production by Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme and Rob Gunther.
Disclosure in Podcast Description: A Bond Account is a self-directed brokerage account with Public Investing, member FINRA/SIPC. Deposits into this account are used to purchase 10 investment-grade and high-yield bonds. As of 9/26/24, the average, annualized yield to worst (YTW) across the Bond Account is greater than 6%. A bond’s yield is a function of its market price, which can fluctuate; therefore, a bond’s YTW is not “locked in” until the bond is purchased, and your yield at time of purchase may be different from the yield shown here. The “locked in” YTW is not guaranteed; you may receive less than the YTW of the bonds in the Bond Account if you sell any of the bonds before maturity or if the issuer defaults on the bond. Public Investing charges a markup on each bond trade. See our Fee Schedule. Bond Accounts are not recommendations of individual bonds or default allocations. The bonds in the Bond Account have not been selected based on your needs or risk profile. See https://public.com/disclosures/bond-account to learn more.