We’re doing things a little differently this week, with Jessica offline and our daily reports on pause. To make sure you stay briefed in the meantime, we’re publishing a special edition of The Week in Abortion—available to all subscribers, whether you’re a paying member or not.
Let’s start with the news conservatives haven’t been able to shut up about.
When Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez began publicly sharing her EGG FREEZING JOURNEY on Instagram last week, she had a simple request for her followers: “Don’t be weird.” Predictably enough, that is exactly what right-wingers have spent the past week doing: being weird.
Anti-abortion leaders, popular right-wing influencers, and ‘tradwives’ have been up in arms at AOC for daring to tell young women everywhere that they should plan their future and—if they want—build their families on their own terms.
Parts of the outrage have been perfectly predictable: right-wingers hate to see women thrive in their professional lives, and not be forced to marry and immediately pop out babies at 20-years-old. Just look at the conservative refrain that AOC is ‘delusional’ for wanting to ‘have it all,’ or selfish for wanting to have kids later, or any number of other attacks women often face for exerting agency over their lives. Jessica explained this in a video last week.
But parts of the outrage probably surprised some people: why would anti-abortion activists and pro-natalists be mad that AOC was making a plan to have children—isn’t that what they want? Not exactly.
The anti-abortion movement is incredibly anti-IVF and anti-fertility technology, for multiple reasons. Top anti-abortion groups, which hold significant influence over the White House, say that IVF ‘kills more babies than abortion.’ Under the ideology of fetal personhood, they see IVF and the routine destruction of unused embryos as murder. They also demonize IVF and fertility tech because these resources allow LGBTQ couples to have babies—and, as in AOC’s case, allow women to delay having babies a bit later in life.
Why are pro-natalists mad about this? First of all, a lot of white nationalist birth panics aren’t sincere: after all, there isn’t any real, apocalyptic, actual threat to the birth rate—they simply push that narrative to justify fascist demands that compel birth. Among those demands are pushing young women and girls—especially white young women and girls—to have more babies and as early as possible, as a means of pushing that demographic out of public life.
On Instagram Live last week, AOC addressed young women and girls directly, encouraging them to take control of their reproductive lives—of course people like Matt Walsh are mad as hell.
I was able to speak to The Recount about this backlash a bit, last week:
And, in an important legal win involving the FEDERAL RIGHT TO ABORTION, a federal district court in Idaho ruled that the U.S. Constitution protects the right to abortion when someone’s life or health is threatened. This marks the first federal court ruling to recognize that the U.S. Constitution still protects the right to abortion in some circumstances:
Vitally, the ruling includes threats to mental health, at a time when more and more research is linking abortion bans to risk of suicide. As we’ve seen across the country where abortion is banned, these laws affect maternal mortality rates—often prompting anti-abortion states to hide or obfuscate maternal mortality data. Idaho’s maternal mortality review committee from 2018 to 2024 found mental health conditions were among the most common underlying cause of pregnancy-related death in the state.
Since that report, ominously, the state’s maternal mortality review committee announced they’re no longer classifying deaths from suicide as pregnancy-related deaths (if the victim had a history of suicidal ideation or attempted suicide)—suggesting that the state might hide or artificially decrease maternal death data. That’s exactly why this federal court ruling recognizing mental health conditions as a legitimate threat to the pregnant person’s life is so important.
The court ruling states:
“By prohibiting women from obtaining essential medical care when pregnancy poses a severe danger, Idaho contradicts this long tradition and the underlying right to defend oneself from harm.”
This framing, pointing out our right to defend ourselves from those who would cause us physical harm or threaten our lives, is both apt and powerful: abortion care is self-defense against those who would harm or impose their will on our bodies.
While we can certainly expect pushback from the anti-abortion movement, the ruling, which holds nationwide implications, is groundbreaking and could save lives.
Some additional reading on what’s happening at the federal level: since Todd Blanche was confirmed as Attorney General earlier this month, National Abortion Federation’s Brittany Fonteno wrote this week in Time about Blanche’s history of extreme, anti-abortion statements and actions.
This includes a misleading pledge to pass a national abortion ban, backing a federal fund to pay out violent anti-abortion protesters who faced criminal charges under the Biden administration, and releasing a report that depicted any actions to hold anti-abortion protesters accountable for breaking the law as victims of anti-Christian discrimination.
Meanwhile, a lot happened IN THE STATES, so let’s start with Texas, where the birth of a baby with a severe heart defect has ignited heated debate over the state’s total abortion ban and surrogacy policies—with Texas AG Ken Paxton getting involved. The birth parents, Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar, wanted the surrogate, McKenna West, to have an abortion after they learned this past spring that the fetus suffered from a rare and life-threatening congenital heart condition, hypoplastic left heart syndrome.
West, who lives in Alaska, didn’t want an abortion. She traveled to Texas—with the support of anti-abortion groups and Paxton’s office—to receive treatment from specialists. Ahmed and Gilkar live in California. Earlier this month, West told conservative podcaster Megyn Kelly that she is anti-abortion and felt “trapped” by the surrogacy contract she signed, which allows the parents to terminate the pregnancy.
While news headlines and ‘pro-life’ activists desperately try to spin conservative involvement in this case as care for a young woman who refused to be ‘coerced’ to have an abortion, let’s be clear what’s actually happening here. The anti-abortion movement sees an opportunity to push the narrative that emergency abortions for fetal conditions aren’t necessary—that abortion is never necessary.
West gave birth on Wednesday and named the baby “Gabriel” against the parents’ wishes. She’s now seeking custody of the child. An attorney for the parents said:
“As if the heartbreak of his condition were not enough, they are devastated to see their family tragedy transformed into political theater by the Texas Attorney General’s office and McKenna West.”
Paxton, the top cop in a state that leads the nation in maternal mortality thanks to the abortion laws he supports, had the gall to state that his office “[uses] every tool available to protect innocent lives.”
What happens now? As of this week, a court issued a temporary restraining order barring the parents from removing the child from Texas. A hearing in the case is set for the end of the month. All of this is, obviously, not just heartbreaking but incredibly dicey, as surrogacy cases can be. But however you might feel about surrogacy, the heavy involvement of the anti-abortion movement is ominous at a time when more and more states are considering laws to write emergency abortions out of existence—either redefining abortion so that emergency abortions aren’t abortions, or pushing doctors to provide more dangerous c-sections instead.
As Jessica has previously explained, this is all part of a tactic to divorce abortion from healthcare and do away with any exceptions—exceptions, even for women’s lives.
In some other important state news, the Texas Observer reports that the state’s Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Review Committee must release its latest report on state maternal deaths on September 1. But the committee announced in 2024 that they would skip analyzing data from 2022 and 2023, the first two years after the Supreme Court killed Roe v. Wade and Texas’ total ban took effect.
Amid those two years, Porsha Ngumezi died from being denied an emergency abortion, leaving her husband a single father who says the committee’s refusal to include Porsha’s death in their report has “retriggered” his pain.
The Texas Observer story comes at a time when anti-abortion states’ maternal review committees are firing members, appointing anti-abortion extremists, delaying the release of data, changing what they count as a maternal death (as in Idaho), and otherwise obstructing transparent release of maternal health data since Dobbs. It’s all part of a coordinated effort to minimize the devastation inflicted by abortion bans.
In Missouri, the Springfield Planned Parenthood began offering in-clinic, procedural abortions at the end of last week. This comes just weeks after the clinic began offering medication abortions. It’s the fourth clinic in the state to offer in-clinic abortions again after the state passed a constitutional amendment in 2024 to reverse a total abortion ban.
Yet, three months from now, the state will again vote on an abortion-related ballot measure—this time, a deceitfully written measure that would reinstate the total ban:
Dr. Margaret Baum, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, says:
“We know abortion care is on the line in Missouri, and that’s exactly why we are expanding. We won’t back down. We are standing proudly in solidarity with our patients who want, who need, and who voted for access to abortion care.”
Meanwhile, States Newsroom has a new feature on crisis pregnancy centers in states like Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, and even Illinois, a pro-choice state.
The testimonies in the article portray some of the harrowing realities of CPCs: these aren’t benevolent health care facilities trying to serve low-income women—they’re ideologically driven anti-abortion groups that will say and do anything to stop someone from having an abortion, and often endanger women’s health in the process.
A Florida woman recounted going to a CPC for an ultrasound, being pressed to join the church, and called for weeks on end by staffers who wanted to confirm she was still pregnant. A nurse in Kentucky recounted training to provide ultrasounds at one CPC—only to discover the disinfectant that the CPC was using “was both expired and the wrong kind for cleaning transvaginal probes because it didn’t kill strains of a high-risk sexually transmitted infection, human papillomavirus, or HPV.”
And, of course, there’s the excellent news we had from Massachusetts last week: Gov. Maura Healey signed a bill to legalize abortion throughout pregnancy. It’s the 10th state to legalize abortion past 24 weeks. Jessica wrote all about how momentous this legislation is below:
The legislation is a triumph for reproductive freedom, inspired by stories of women who were forced to travel out of the pro-choice state for emergency, time-sensitive care. As Jessica noted, “nothing about this legislation is radical” in a country where over 80% of voters reject government intervention in our pregnancies.
As Gov. Healey put it, “We believe that health care decisions should be made between women and families and their doctors, not politicians.”
We’ll have more special posts for you through the rest of the week—and Jessica will pop out from holiday to do a quick livestream about AOC, the surrogacy story, and more. So keep an eye on your inbox, and upgrade to join the conversation if you’re not already a paying member.
I hope everyone is enjoying their summer,
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.