Read the week's best commentary from bloggers at Mother Jones and Slate's "XX Factor."
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS:
"Trump can't overturn Roe, but he will still be a nightmare for abortion rights," Becca Andrews, Mother Jones: "Reproductive rights advocates have said a Trump presidency will potentially be a difficult time for abortion access and reproductive rights -- and not only because he will appoint an [antiabortion-rights] Supreme Court justice," Andrews writes. She explains that while legal experts think overturning "Roe v. Wade might be the hardest goal for [Trump] to achieve," as doing so would require "Trump's judicial appointees ... to disregard a landmark case as well as more than 40 years of settled precedent since it was decided," there are several "other areas where Trump can put pressure on women's access to reproductive health." For instance, Andrews notes that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who Trump is considering for attorney general, has supported a range of antiabortion-rights efforts, including cutting off federal funding for abortion providers and banning a medically proven method of abortion care, while Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), a member of Trump's transition team, heads a congressional panel targeting abortion providers. According to Andrews, other concerns include Trump's support for a 20-week abortion ban and codification of the Hyde Amendment, as well as the possible loss of the Affordable Care Act's (PL 111-148) contraceptive coverage rule, which would "not require congressional approval." However, Andrews writes that "the greatest concern among providers and reproductive rights activists is that lawmakers in conservative states will be further emboldened by an [antiabortion-rights] presidential administration and by a [conservative], largely [antiabortion-rights] majority in Congress." She concludes by citing Willie Parker, an abortion provider who works in the South, who said, "'We don't know exactly what [the new administration] is going to do, but we can't take the position of "wait around and see." We have to work as if the things that we fought hard to protect for women were under assault, and we have to bring all of our creativity and our energy to bear to preserve those things'" (Andrews, Mother Jones, 11/21).
What others are saying about reproductive rights:
~ "Pope Francis extends abortion forgiveness powers to regular priests," Ruth Graham, Slate's "XX Factor."
ANTIABORTION-RIGHTS MOVEMENT:
"Anti-abortion activists tried to oust pro-choice state judges. They failed miserably," Stern, Slate's "XX Factor": While abortion-rights opponents "in Congress and the White House can now move to aggressively restrict abortion access and stack the federal judiciary with [antiabortion-rights] judges" following the election, the antiabortion-rights movement "suffered a surprising setback" in two states, Stern writes. He explains that judges on the state Supreme Courts in Alaska and Kansas who previously ruled in favor of abortion rights "were up for retention elections this year, and [antiabortion-rights] groups snapped into action, urging voters in both states to unseat the judges simply because they support abortion rights." However, according to Stern, "Despite months of campaigning, abortion foes were unable to unseat" them. "Not a single judge targeted by anti-abortion groups lost his or her seat," Stern writes, adding, "Voters resoundingly rejected calls to remove judges from the bench on account of their judicial philosophy." Noting that the state Supreme Court elections are particularly encouraging given that "the federal judiciary seems likely to crack down on abortion rights in the near future," Stern concludes, "As federal protections for abortion access fade, state protections will become increasingly vital" (Stern, "XX Factor," Slate, 11/18).
ACCESS TO CARE:
"Under Siege, abortion-rights advocates must link health care to economic prosperity," Deana A. Rohlinger, American Prospect: "[T]he reproductive-rights movement's leaders would be wise to look long and hard at why so many women voted" for President-elect Donald Trump, Rohlinger, a sociology professor at Florida State University, writes. She explains that "the 53 percent of white women who cast their votes for [Trump] were less worried about birth control or abortion access than they were about jobs in America." She cites data showing that 37 percent of women with underage children "are not employed outside of the home," that women "are more than twice as likely as men to be employed part-time" and that the wage gap is substantially higher in states that voted for Trump. According to Rohlinger, "This makes it easier to understand why so many white women voted" for Trump, compared with "women in higher income brackets who voted for Hillary Clinton; women who have a shot at competing with men in the marketplace, and who therefore tend to rally behind politicians and policies promoting work-family balance and the protection of reproductive rights." Rohlinger writes that based on the election results, "[i]t is clear that reproductive-rights advocates need to do a better job of getting outside of their political silos and talking to the citizens in the suburban and rural areas." Advocates are well positioned to do so, she contends, given the "direct correlation between safe, accessible reproductive health services and women's economic prosperity." Arguing that too many women during this election "failed to connect the dots between their reproductive rights and economic security," Rohlinger concludes, "It's up to abortion-rights advocates to do a better job speaking to all women about why both their constitutional rights and their economic futures are now at stake" (Rohlinger, American Prospect, 11/21).
