SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
dobbs v. jackson women's health organization
Samuel Alito Gets the Facts Wrong... Again
In majority opinions gutting abortion rights and voting rights, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito made crucial errors.
May 17, 2026
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the conservative majority’s opinions in two of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions in recent years: 1) Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization—overruling Roe v. Wade; and 2) Louisiana v. Callais—neutering the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In both cases, Alito recited and relied on asserted “facts” that did not exist.
Alito Rewrote History to Ban Abortion
Ohio State University Prof. Treva Lindsey observed, ”From the nation’s founding through the early 1800s, pre-quickening abortions—that is, abortions before a pregnant person feels fetal movement—were fairly common and even advertised.“
But Alito claimed incorrectly in Dobbs that “no common-law case or authority... remotely suggests a positive right to procure an abortion at any stage of pregnancy” and, in the United States specifically, “an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973.”
Writing for the three dissenters, Justice Elena Kagan called Alito “embarrassingly” wrong. There was no such “unbroken tradition,” and historical evidence undermined his claim. But the conservative majority got its desired outcome.
Roberts Began the Assault on the Voting Rights Act
In 2013, Chief Justice John Roberts and the conservative majority began undermining the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County case. Prior to that decision, states and localities with a history of racial discrimination in voting had to obtain federal approval before making changes to election rules—a process known as preclearance. The state or locality had to prove that any changes would not disadvantage racial and ethnic minorities.
Rewrite history; distort reality; make up facts; overturn longstanding precedent. For Justice Alito—with an occasional assist from Chief Justice Roberts—it’s all in a day’s work.
Roberts argued that the elections of 2008 and 2012—when there was no difference in voter participation rates between Black and white voters (i.e., no “turnout gap”)—meant that the Voting Rights Act had done its job and preclearance could be suspended.
Even at the time, Roberts’ reasoning was suspect. The elections of 2008 and 2012 were anomalies—not the end of the turnout gap—because Barack Obama’s candidacy had driven up Black turnout.
In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted another flaw in Roberts’ logic: “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”
Justice Ginsburg was correct, and now democracy is getting wet. A 2024 study concluded:
The formerly covered states [subject to preclearance] have large nonwhite populations and large turnout gaps, leading to some of the largest statewide turnout distortions in the nation. Put differently, a decade after Shelby County, the turnout gap continues to have a disproportionate impact in precisely the parts of the country that were once covered due to their histories of racially discriminatory voting practices.
Stated simply, “[S]ince 2013, the racial turnout gap around the nation has exploded.”
Alito Finished the Job
Justice Alito ignored the exploding turnout gap in striking the fatal blow to the Voting Rights Act on April 29, 2026. For decades previously, the court had ruled repeatedly that a state could not undermine minority voters’ power to choose their desired candidates by drawing legislative districts that dispersed such voters across majority-white districts. Instead, states had to create “majority-minority” districts, thereby assuring minority representation in statehouses and Congress.
In its amicus brief to the court in the Callais case, the Department of Justice (DOJ) ignored the trend after 2013 and argued that majority-minority districts were no longer necessary because “the racial gap in voter registration and turnout had largely disappeared, with minorities registering and voting at levels that sometimes surpassed the majority. Shelby County, 570 U.S. at 547-548.” To emphasize the point, the DOJ observed, “Since 2004, black voters have turned out at higher rates than white voters in two of five presidential elections nationwide and in Louisiana.”
Armed with the Callais decision, Republicans are now racing to eliminate majority-Black districts throughout the country.
Alito parroted the DOJ’s sophistry: “Black voters now participate in elections at similar rates as the rest of the electorate, even turning out at higher rates than white voters in two of the five most recent Presidential elections nationwide and in Louisiana.”
As election experts have observed, Alito’s claim that Black and white turnout reached parity in 2 of the 5 most recent presidential elections “represents egregious cherry-picking. [H]e was not referring to recent elections, but to those in 2008 and 2012—the years that Barack Obama ran for president. In the three most recent presidential elections, the trend shows exactly the opposite. The indisputable fact is the racial turnout gap is widening, and the Roberts Court is partially responsible [because of its Shelby County decision].”
Armed with the Callais decision, Republicans are now racing to eliminate majority-Black districts throughout the country.
Rewrite history; distort reality; make up facts; overturn longstanding precedent. For Justice Alito—with an occasional assist from Chief Justice Roberts—it’s all in a day’s work.
Keep ReadingShow Less
How Innovators Are Emotionally Supporting Abortion Seekers in a Post-Roe World
With laws constantly changing and often unclear, being able to reach abortion seekers on an emotional level is a critical touchpoint in the new digital landscape of access.
Jul 10, 2025
In the three years since the Dobbs decision resulted in abortion bans in 42 states across the U.S, the ecosystem of abortion access in America has shifted and stretched to meet the ever-changing moment. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Planned Parenthood vs. Medina has paved the way for even more states to further target abortion providers by enabling states to withhold state funding to clinics that provide sexual health services from sexually transmitted infection tests to cervical cancer screenings simply because they also offer abortion care.
With laws constantly changing and often unclear in the eyes on abortion seekers, being able to reach abortion seekers on an emotional level is a critical touchpoint in the new digital landscape of access. Innovators have stepped up to meet the demand for emotional support, helping individuals feel heard and get informed throughout the abortion process as laws change and stigma abounds. They’re pairing abortion seekers with counselors, peers, and educators as the digital entry point to care, meeting and supporting the actual and immediate needs, whether they are anxious, confused about where to find care, or feeling stigmatized.
With policies currently in Congress that might lead to the closure of even more reproductive healthcare clinics, including services from cancer screenings to STI testing, the need to keep patients informed of how to get the care they want has never been more dire.
We might discuss the emotional journey of an abortion seeker around getting them from confusion and disorientation to understanding and relief, regardless of their choices.
At the same time, Crisis Pregnancy Centers, or fake clinics that pose as counseling centers for pregnant people, persist in their anti-abortion messaging and are funded nationwide at five times the rate of abortion clinics and funds. Through the language of free testing and counseling, they encourage patients to enter illegitimate medical clinics, by talking about abortion decision-making despite the fact that they do not provide it, or any other form of medical care.
Their latest move has been to go digital, expanding their already vast and well-funded footprint into a mobile chat experience that utilizes the language of values-based decision-making and regret avoidance to deter those seeking real support amid a complicated landscape.Their goal is clear: be the first to reach abortion seekers confused by the complex legal landscape when they go online looking for information. They then delay, deter, and redirect them away from real medical care.
The punchline is that their latest innovation is a rip-off. Planned Parenthood’s Chat and Text program has paired website visitors with sex educators for the past 15 years, and the M+A hotline has operated a phone line staffed by doctors and volunteers since 2019. And post-Dobbs, the internet abounds with even more determined activist-innovators. There are comprehensive resource websites for those seeking medication abortion by mail, awareness campaigns, brave providers shielded by their state’s laws, health centers with stronger telehealth capabilities, and abortion doulas and hotlines stitching pieces together with the patient’s needs in mind.
Knowing that most users’ journeys start with a Google search on their mobile devices, it’s important to ensure that emotional support tools are easily accessible in a variety channels like web chat, text, Signal, or WhatsApp, and through completely low-tech options, and ensuring immediate connection to a person who can help no matter how someone prefers to communicate. These crucial organizations engage users compassionately and non-judgmentally. Powered by counselors, volunteers, and care providers, they are digital communities formed to listen, validate, and educate, without pathologizing the user’s emotional state. Engaging emotionally also helps users talk through social and legal stigma, misinformation, and education needs no matter where they live.
Reprocare is a peer phone and textline that offers comprehensive support at every phase of the process including informed landscape navigation for people who need detailed hand-holding and practical support, and the care team sends care packages directly to users who are alone and who express a need for resources and a human touch. Reprocare’s sister company, Autonomie, also builds technology that quickly matches users with abortion funds that help them access care.
Aya Contigo calls their bilingual chat tool “an abortion doula in your pocket,” and it first launched in the U.S. in Spanish, primarily using WhatsApp to reach vulnerable Latino communities. Designed in Venezuela with feminist organizations and 1,000 co-creators, it brings lessons from the Latin American feminist movement to our country, including the tradition of “acompañantes” or accompaniment as a framework. Using bilingual educators on WhatsApp chat and the asynchronous resources on their downloadable app, Aya Contigo ensures patients are never alone, that they have check-ins and follow-ups and are treated gently and compassionately for the days and weeks following their medication abortion.
Exhale Pro Voice is a post-abortion counseling program that offers a non-judgemental support text line for after-abortion support. Exhale also promotes its services for partners, parents, and friends of those who have had an abortion, in order to meet their unique emotional needs and also learn to be a support system for the person in their lives. Exhale is also a crucial resource for counselors, providers, and reproductive health workers seeking a confidential space outside of their work to sustain their well-being, especially important after three years of confusion and challenging, uphill work.
All-Options goes a step further, with a reproductive justice framework that understands that access to abortion has always been inequitable, be it because of location, resources, family, or tradition. Through their talk line, users are given emotional support to understand their access abortion care, and can also speak with a spiritual counselor, access adoption resources, pregnancy resources and infant care support, and a diaper program in their Indianapolis community.
Meeting the emotional impact of bans means considering a reframing of what we could term “the journey map” of an abortion seeker. The Turnaway Study highlights the mental health impact on those denied abortions over a period of 10 years. It elevates an important point: The most common emotion after an abortion is a sense of relief. Framed this way, we might discuss the emotional journey of an abortion seeker around getting them from confusion and disorientation to understanding and relief, regardless of their choices.
Today, researchers are only beginning to track the mental health impact of the Dobbs decision, and recent studies highlight depression and anxiety among women of reproductive age in general. Nearly 25% of women 18-25 years old have had a major depressive episode in the past year, and women of reproductive age in states where abortion is banned report increased anxiety. Further behaviors among young adults post-Dobbs, like increased permanent contraception like tubal ligation and vasectomy in banned states, are proof of the social pressures and sense of personal insecurity, and a lack of bodily autonomy created by bans.
Emotional support is key not just to providing immediate care, but to transforming the abortion access landscape. The coalition building of organizations that prioritize emotional and cultural competency can provide innovative, scalable solutions to a complex societal problem. While funders understand emotional support as a component of the wider access landscape, they don’t always see it as a fulcrum for change and outsize impact. Investing in innovators who have built this direct accompaniment ecosystem, powered by real, caring humans, is vital to maintaining access for critical abortion and reproductive healthcare.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Press Freedom Groups Warn FBI's Dobbs Leak Probe Could Have 'Wide-Reaching Chilling Effect'
"What is the impetus for the decision to give renewed focus into a three-year-old incident with no apparent criminal violation?" asked the organizations.
Jun 03, 2025
A coalition of 12 press freedom groups warned the FBI Wednesday that contrary to claims by deputy director and former right-wing prosecutor Dan Bongino, a new probe into the leaked 2022 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in a landmark reproductive rights case appears aimed not at confronting "potential public corruption," but threatening constitutionally protected newsgathering activities.
Defending Rights and Dissent led a coalition including Fight for the Future and the Freedom of the Press Foundation in writing to FBI Director Kash Patel about Bongino's recent announcement that he is receiving weekly briefings on a probe into Politico's May 2, 2022 publication of the Supreme Court's draft opinion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization nearly two months before the ruling was officially handed down and ended the constitutional right to abortion care.
Bongino said the FBI is spending more resources on investigations into possible public corruption including the Dobbs leak, the planting of pipe bombs near the headquarters of the Democratic and Republican national committees in January 2021, and a bag of cocaine that was found in the White House in 2023—but didn't specify how any of the cases address corruption specifically.
The groups asked Patel for "clarifying information" about the probe into the Dobbs draft decision leak.
Considering that FBI investigations are typically limited to violations of federal laws, national security threats, and foreign intelligence, the groups asked whether the probe is "predicated on a federal statute, and if so, what statute is it predicated on."
"Absent clarifying information, the Dobbs-related enquiry could give the appearance of an impermissible investigation into First Amendment-protected activities."
They also asked: "What is the impetus for the decision to give renewed focus into a three-year-old incident with no apparent criminal violation? Is there new evidence of violations of federal statutes?"
"While there are federal statutes governing national defense information, classified information, tax information, or certain government records whose release could cause unwarranted invasions of privacy, none of these statutes on their face criminalize sharing an unpublished court opinion with a journalist," said the groups.
Legal analysts said shortly after the draft opinion leak that—despite then-former President Donald Trump's demand for a "thorough criminal investigation" and his claim that journalists who published the opinion should be jailed until they released their sources—there was likely no crime committed in the leak.
"I am extremely skeptical of what basis or what authority the Justice Department would have to inquire into this matter," national security and whistleblower lawyer Bradley P. Moss told The Washington Post at the time. "It is certainly a fireable offense—without question—but there is no obvious criminal provision that would apply."
The Supreme Court and the Secret Service both conducted investigations that did not identify who was responsible for leaking the opinion to journalists.
The FBI's probe is reportedly "focused on finding the source who gave the unpublished opinion to Politico," wrote the groups. "As organizations that defend press freedom, free expression, and civil liberties, we are deeply concerned by the potentially chilling nature of this investigation on First Amendment-protected newsgathering."
"Absent clarifying information," they added, "the Dobbs-related enquiry could give the appearance of an impermissible investigation into First Amendment-protected activities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular