The Fall of Roe: The Rise of a New America

by Elizabeth Dias, Lisa Lerer, Lipica Shah (Narrator)

From two top New York Times journalists, the breathtaking untold story of the plan to overturn Roe v. Wade and the consequences for women, abortion, and the future of America.

In June 2022, Americans watched in shock as the Supreme Court reversed one of the nation’s landmark rulings. For nearly a half century, Roe was synonymous with women’s rights and freedoms. Then, suddenly, it was gone.

In their groundbreaking book The Fall of Roe, Elizabeth Dias and Lisa Lerer reveal the explosive inside story of how it happened. Their investigation charts the shocking political and religious campaign to take down abortion rights and remake American families, womanhood, and the nation itself.

Reeling from Barack Obama's 2012 landslide presidential victory – and motivated by a spiritual mission – a small but determined network of elite conservative Christian lawyers and powerbrokers worked quietly and methodically to keep their true cause alive: ending abortion rights. Thinking in generational terms, they devised a strategic, top-down takeover at every level of political and legal life, from little-known anti-abortion lobbyists in far flung statehouses to the arbiters of the constitution at the highest court in the land. Broad swaths of liberal America did not register the severity of the threat until it was far too late. At a moment when women had more power than ever before, the feminist movement suffered one of the greatest political defeats in American history.

15 hr. 39 min.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, History, Feminism, Audiobook, Social Justice, Law

16 pages, Audiobook

First published June 4, 2024

Reviews

[Justin Tate · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the story of how a minority of Christian nationalists gained enough power, over time, to overturn one of the most basic rights of American women. It's a story fifty years in the making and there's a good chance this saga will continue for fifty more. Or longer, depending on how things turn out this November.

For context, I finished reading The Fall of Roe the day after the first 2024 presidential debate. Like everyone else, I didn't love that the only candidate with good policies sounded raspy and forgetful. I'd be lying if I said I didn't wonder who else could be a good replacement nominee. I was also thinking a lot about this book, though.

The anti-abortion crowd, minority as they may be, gained their power due to having laser-like focus. They only supported candidates who aligned with this singular goal, and they stuck by them no matter what. After "Grab 'em by the pussy" leaked, this mission-driven populace stuck by their candidate. Not because they liked him or that he was a like-minded individual, but because he was willing to do what they wanted. While I don't support their mission, I think there's a lot to learn from their understanding of American politics.

The world has a lot of problems right now. Most will continue to be bad, regardless of who is president. Whether or not American women have access to abortion care, IVF, and bodily autonomy will all be decided by the next election though. Guaranteed there will be at least two Supreme Court retirements in the next four years. If more fundamentalists are packed onto the court, it will be eons before basic rights can be returned, and countless more rights will be ripped away in the meantime.

Reading this book confirmed a lot of what I already knew, but seeing history in this summarized format, connecting each action to its result, made it much easier to see how we got to this point. It also shows just how dramatically a country can change in a short time. We'll be talking about 2016 forever, either how it was the beginning of America's Handmaid's Tale era, or how it was the beginning of an unstoppable pro-women movement responsible for ousting every candidate untrustworthy on this issue.

I hope we can eventually get to that latter place. If so, we can reverse this idiotic lapse in judgment, and maybe even quickly. The pro-choice population is not a minority. Not even close. If all these voters agreed to reject anti-women candidates, there would never be another one elected to office again.

I'd be more optimistic, but 2024 is giving me 2016 vibes. I very much fear a 2025 where women are being tracked down by bounty hunters and abortion is illegal in all 50 states. What will all the non-voters and third-party voters say then? "But his stutter!!!"


**Kamala Harris update** - Biden is a truly great man, doing what Trump could never imagine: giving up power and the spotlight for the good of the country. In an election year all about abortion, it’s especially satisfying to have a woman at the top of the ticket.

That said, Harris is still up against a cult and centuries of misogyny. She could easily lose this. The electoral college favors rural states so much that Democrats really need to win the popular vote by 5 percentage points just to squeak out a narrow electoral college victory. I’m way more hopeful than I was a month ago, but there is no time to celebrate. We have to volunteer, donate and speak out. Read this book to learn how painstaking, how crafty, the opposition is. If you’ve heard of Project 2025, this book is also a terrifying vision of exactly how the anti-abortion playbook would be used to make that dark future become a reality.

[Susan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Elizabeth Dias and Lisa Lerer offer a riveting and eye-opening account of the reversal of our federally guaranteed right to abortion. Thanks to masterful structuring and excellent writing, the lively pace of this story never falters, with new inside information and both a forest and trees view on how right-wing activists skillfully coordinated efforts, while the left remained complacent too long to forestall the loss of the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. Parties on both sides are depicted with the skill of a novelist, as fleshed-out, well-meaning, driven human beings. Equally impressive is that somehow the book manages to remain politically neutral; these authors are topnotch journalists, and it shows. The story of abortion rights--and human rights in general--in the United States is far from over, and anyone in need of clues as to how even the freedoms we now take for granted might be perpetuated or felled needs to read this book.

[laurel [the suspected bibliophile] · Rating 5 out of 5]

What rights are a woman owed?

A book that covers the fall of Roe v Wade and the nearly 50-year precedent of abortion access in the United States, Dias and Lerer tackle the coordinated and targeted conservative issue groups, along with a waterfall of bad timing among Supreme Court justices (and hypocritical and dirty legislative tactics to stack the court), that led to this moment.

Back in 2014ish, I was talking fellow Marines (all male, of course) about abortion rights when it came up. All of them were pro-forced birth, and when I explained to them what would happen if Roe fell (how it adversely impacts poor people and BIPOC people) and that people having miscarriages would be targeted for murder, these men who were all fathers laughed at me, an unmarried queer woman who had never had a pregnancy, and told me I was wildly misinformed, that no one in their right mind would arrest a person who'd just suffered a miscarriage.

And I remember where I was on June 24, 2022, when Roe was overturned. I was at the information desk with my coworker. I had just opened a new tab on saw the news. I told them to look. We stared at each other for a long moment, a time of silence and mourning for two queer, childless millennials. The rest of the afternoon stretched into silence, our interactions with library patrons muted, with many nods of understanding and anguish.

I hate that I was right.

Dias and Lerer also look at what is at stake with the end of legal abortion: women's rights, bodily autonomy, trans rights, queer rights, the right to privacy, religious freedom, and democracy at large. True, the United States has never been a true democracy and it has never been equal for all its citizens, but ending Roe destroyed much of the chances of equality and equity.

Reading this book several months before another pivotal election makes it even clearer what's at stake. And it also makes it clear that just voting blue isn't going to cut it anymore, because there are a lot of anti-abortion Democrats in office, including the current sitting president.

[Megan · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Fall of Roe: The Rise of a New America is without question a deeply bleak and harrowing story of precisely how women’s autonomy and constitutional freedoms, once taken for granted, can be taken away in a society that grows complacent. After Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, women began to realize that they could finally have a say in when (or if) they wanted to get pregnant. Gone were the days of broken dreams after unintentionally becoming pregnant as the result of an overly pushy long-term boyfriend or husband. No longer would many women have to see their ambitions come to a halt, only so they could be tasked with raising a child they were not ready for emotionally and/or financially (not to mention all of the unpaid labor women do with childcare, and how much of it is monotonous and thankless).

Dias and Lerer explore how the extreme antiabortion groups went to work to undermine Roe from the very moment it was decided. To put it quite simply, minority rule worked for decades behind the scenes, waiting for this very moment – and they outmaneuvered the majority. I remember Mitch McConnell’s promise to Donald Trump very clearly: he’d support his bid for President, give him the Republican backing he needed, and Trump could exercise his power in any way he saw fit. The only guarantee McConnell needed from Trump? That he’d appoint Federalist Society list judges only: Supreme Court picks who were young, able to stay on the bench for decades, and had a history of not respecting Roe as codified law, with definitive signaling they’d be willing to overturn the decision if provided with the right case.

I wanted to be so wrong on this, more than anything. When Trump appointed Gorsuch, I was already beginning to feel panicked. Yet my mother, like most Democrats, thought I was overreacting: “It won’t be overturned. They’ve been saying that for years.” With Kavanaugh’s appointment – despite the flurry of objections – I knew in my heart of hearts that this wasn’t going to be a non-partisan Supreme Court. I knew that women’s rights were going to be pushed back to where conservative old men and religious nuts preferred them – the 1950s and 1960s. Once Amy Coney Barrett made the cut, that was it. I was just waiting at that point.

No longer do we have the nine justices that form the sincere heart of our democracy. The once respected Supreme Court, known for moving both left-leaning candidates as well as right-leaning candidates to the center, can no longer be counted on to be moderate. With the arrival of three new radically conservative judges, all with the same beliefs and in the same age group, they simply stuck to the ideological beliefs they’d held all their lives (instead of the usual method of a new justice coming onto the court and becoming more moderate after being around justices with vastly varying degrees of opinion).

Democrats simply didn’t want to talk about the issue and refused to believe such backwards policy could emerge as law in such a progressive age (even Ireland has less stringent abortion laws after they realized how many women were dying unnecessarily – doctors were terrified to perform life-saving surgeries when a woman genuinely miscarried, out of fear that they’d be arrested for abortion). They refused to see what was coming, even though:

"The antiabortion forces had done their job well. They didn’t conceal their ultimate aim; they had talked about undoing Roe for decades. The Federalist Society had made clear its intention to reorient the court around a new set of conservative principles that would make the justices more willing to undo precedents of the past.

But the storm of laws and litigation, proposals and policies over the past decade had made it easy to dismiss the antiabortion movement’s efforts as just another round of incremental steps. The laws seemed like small actions by fringe Republican state legislators, who were powerless to change national policy. All that noise drowned out the bigger picture of how a decade of work was leading to a new kind of court.

The antiabortion movement took advantage of the country’s complicated views about abortion to strike at what Americans didn’t find complicated at all: Roe. In the weeks after oral arguments, a CNN poll found that nearly 70 percent of Americans wanted Roe to be upheld, a number that had stayed broadly consistent since Alito was put on the bench in 2006. In April, nearly the same majority – 62 percent – said they were unaware of any laws passed by their state making it harder to get an abortion. The conclusions were clear. Most Americans supported abortion rights. And most Americans didn’t believe they were at risk.”

I suppose to me what I find so troublesome about this is that it seemed very obvious with the new Supreme Court appointments what antiabortion activists were planning. The fact that so many women just found it too ridiculous to believe wasn’t a belief shared by myself. When the Supreme Court has all of the power to change United States law, and you get three new vehemently antiabortion judges all appointed to the bench within a matter of three years – it doesn’t seem all that shocking. At least to me, it didn’t.

Keep in mind that “all six justices who undercut Roe were Leonard Leo mainstays: he had been involved in confirming Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. All were in the Federalist Society mold. And all were conservative Catholics – it was a vast shift from 1973, when all the justices were Protestant save one – and the sole Catholic justice sided with the majority in favor of Roe.

For Leo, the undoubted antiabortion activist champion of revoking women’s bodily autonomy in favor of Christian morality, the mission to end Roe came from a desire to shift how American interprets the Constitution. But those legal goals were difficult to untangle from deeply religious, and Catholic, convictions about what it means to be human, to be male or female, and how that understanding should ground society. The fight against abortion rights was a part of a broader battle against the secularization of an America that had turned its back on Christian concepts of morality, including the apparent holiness of human suffering. “Human suffering completes Christ’s salvific act,” Leo explained. Leo was praised by many for his unique ability to identify the problems of society and to solve them with Christ’s message."

“Unborn persons” are now afforded the rights of personhood. Even if a mother’s life is in danger, the fetus comes first. That’s the asinine logic behind these pro-birthers and their movement. Pro-birth is all it is, because the moment the child leaves the womb, the woman is on her own. No other democratic country has been so opposed to helping women with a financial safety net than the United States. Where Swedish mothers (and fathers!) get almost a year of paid maternal leave, along with paternal leave, and free daycare for children up to the age of 12 (I believe) – women are lucky to get a week of paid time off. Certainly, there is no such thing as free daycare, here.

This is what had always puzzled me so profoundly: if antiabortion activists really wanted to save the lives of the unborn, wouldn’t they focus more on women who were on the fence about it? Women who perhaps very much wanted a baby, but didn’t feel as though they were ready to face the economic challenges that accompany childrearing?

Of course, that’s not what they want. I can’t quite understand why freedom of religion – or on the contrary, freedom against imposition of religion – is even bothered to be included in our Constitution anymore. Not only are the majority of Americans not anywhere near as religious as they were back when Roe was decided, but even those who are religious have different beliefs about when life starts. I know that Judaism believes life starts outside the womb. I know there are other religions that define life in this way as well, but apparently that has now become irrelevant.

Overturning Roe has not only eroded the idea of separation of church and state, but has also taken away constitutional rights of autonomy, as well as the freedom of movement (your abortion rights now depend on your geographical location and whether you have the money and time to travel out of state to get one). Of course, the latter may also become a moot point, if we truly revert to a dystopia where bounty hunters search for pregnant women leaving the state – or find ones that have left the state and returned after having the procedure performed in a state that allows abortion – and prosecute them as if they just shot up a Kindergarten class (which, ironically, is easier to do now than obtain an abortion in the most restrictive states).

The fifteen-week law wasn’t even enough for these minority morality heroes: “The post-Roe activists wanted bills that would outlaw abortion starting at six weeks, criminalize some forms of contraception, and ban the distribution of abortion pills… the rightward shift meant that for Republican politicians, simply declaring oneself “pro-life” and opposing Roe was no longer enough. To win primary races and prove their conservative credentials with the rising fringe of their party, Republicans embraced six-week bans with no exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. These hard-right stances would have been considered disqualifying just ten years earlier. And as Texas had recently demonstrated, they still remained deeply unpopular with a majority of voters.

But the Republican candidates of 2022 were embracing total abortion bans with no exceptions and paying no price with their party."

We’ve already seen that legalized abortion has shown consistent drops over the decades since Roe was decided in 1973. It has been proven in many other countries and pre-Roe, that if women do not want to be pregnant, they will do anything within their power to terminate the pregnancy. The whole issue is beyond comprehension to me. Don’t like one? Don’t get one.

If you’re truly a Christian, doesn’t God decide the fate of the sinners? Isn’t it up to your Creator to worry about unborn fetuses? I would imagine that for those who truly follow the Bible instead of merely wielding it as a weapon, they would abide by the warning, “Judge not lest ye be judged.” Outlawing abortion doesn’t stop abortion, it simply makes abortion more dangerous.

Will we reach this conclusion? Of course. The only question is: how many women will have to suffer through unwanted childbirths, die from botched miscarriages or attempts to abort with poisonous chemicals, how many children will have to grow up in a horrible environment where they never feel loved, before we come to our senses and realize: this didn’t work before, and it isn’t working now? I only hope the damage is limited, but I’m not optimistic about any of this, not anymore.

“The Dobbs ruling was the final cause of death for a right that had been growing weaker for decades. For half a century, America’s highest legal authority understood that a right to an abortion was rooted in the Constitution’s promise of liberty and implied right to privacy. This new court declared that reasoning was wrong and reversed Roe entirely. The 1973 decision that most American women believed had granted them a sense of autonomy and equality – and that had pushed Christian conservatives to war – was over. After decades of legislation and lawsuits, failures and victories, politicking and prayer, the country finally split in two.”

An incredibly painful read, especially for women, and for women with daughters that will grow up in a post-Roe world. Nevertheless, an absolutely imperative read, for we cannot afford to be complacent on this issue any longer. If somehow, we can manage to restore some of the liberties to women that were taken away so swiftly in 2022, we cannot ever again take these liberties for granted. The meticulous research that went into this book to explain how all the pieces of the puzzle quietly fell into place are shocking and disturbing – but must be read and understood if we are to hope for a better future.

[Colleen Browne · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book traces the movement to take the right to terminate unwanted or oftentimes, unsafe pregnancies away from women right down to the Dobbs decision. For the majority of Americans, it was wrongly decided and has put many women in a very medically dangerous position as a result. But at the end of the day, the anti abortion people were much better organized and better funded than the pro-choice people. As the writer explains, most people took Roe as "unoverturnable". People simply did not believe that the Court would ever do it, even as they chipped away at the decision over the years.

In recent years, there have been a myriad of laws passed (primarily in the south) to restrict its practice; most of which were ruled unconstitutional. The final blow was Mitch McConnell's refusal to allow Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland a hearing of any kind arguing that it was too close to the election for it to go ahead even though the election was 9 months away. The election of Trump meant that he would make the appointment instead and his choice came from the Federalist Society's list of acceptable, anti abortion judges. His second nominee was Gorsich and finally, when Ruth Bader Ginsberg died at the end of Trump's term, McConnell once again chose to proceed on a purely partisan manner by allowing the nomination of Coney-Barrett. This time however, he turned his previous argument on its head arguing for the importance of proceeding. Despite the lies they told in their confirmation hearings, it was clear to anyone who listened that they would vote to overturn Roe.

There was now a majority of originalist judges on the court- a belief that the vast majority of constitutional experts agree is not legitimate. Since times have changed, it is impossible to discern what the framers would have thought. The most obvious example has to do with the internet. Since no such thing existed at the time, judges cannot possibly know what they would have thought. Moreover, it has been convincingly argued that when originalists make their decisions, they are soley based on their own beliefs.

The author acknowledges that it will be a long time before this decision is thrown out but they strongly urge people to fight to change laws in the states and to elect members of Congress who will support a law reinstating Roe. This is a timely and well researched book.

[Gabrielė Bužinskaitė · Rating 4 out of 5]

When Roe v. Wade was overturned that summer, I was shocked. How’s that possible? What did I miss? Turns out, that day, millions of Americans were asking themselves just the same questions.
 
After nearly half a century, the constitutional right to abortion was suddenly erased from American life. Well, suddenly to outsiders, decades-long and overdragged to anti-abortionists.

What an inspiring example of investigative journalism. The book reveals how a small group of passionate Christian conservatives worked obsessively to overturn a law most Americans saw as given and untouchable.
 
Their success wasn’t chance, it was all-consuming passion, calculated strategy, and, either extraordinary luck or, as they believe, divine intervention.
 
The authors did not just retell the story of Roe's overturn; they made me live it from both sides of the argument. And, against my judgment, made me feel an uncomfortable, awkward connection with the side I oppose.
 
If not for the stiff-at-times writing and my stinginess, I'd give it five stars.

[Trevor Abbott · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was one of the most important books I’ve ever read

It presents the lifespan and impact of Roe both in snapshots of life and in wider political battles over the years in a non partisan, factual manner

Turns out the scariest thing in this book was the facts
Please read this

[Sophie Schott · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best book I’ve read so far this year. Impressed by this matter-of-fact (and fact-focused) rendering of a complex and deeply personal issue. If you want to read anything about democracy and women’s role in it, this is the book for you. Was moved by the stories of so many advocates and given a new perspective into my own life and the political moments I’ve lived through. This book deserves all the stars.

Edit after re-read: someday I will teach a whole class on this book.

[Panda · Rating 5 out of 5]

Audiobook (16 hours) narrated by Lipica Shah

Excellent narration and audio quality, without distortion, erroneous noise, or obvious edits.

The deliberate and successful nonpartisan writing style was the best part of this read.

Elizabeth Dias and Lisa Lerer wrote a non judgemental exploration of what happened and why. For those of us who seek understanding of perspectives, this is the book to read on this subject. Note that the after story interview with the authors is also very good, allowing a peek into the actual personalities of the authors.


The following are thoughts and some research that I did as I was reading:


US politicians needs to stop infantilizing women.

As I am reading this, it occurs to me that my overall thoughts on the subject remain steady. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, she agreed with Roe V Wade's initial outcome but not the reasons behind it. It should have been about women's rights. Or more precisely:

“The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When the government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a full adult human responsible for her own choices.”
― Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Why are we putting women in a place in America where we constantly have to prove our intent? Our morality? That we are good? That we belong in society? That we are not sociopathic, sex crazed, murderers?

Do those who continue to debate the abortion issue believe that a measurable percentage of women in American society are sociopathic, sex crazed, murderers?

Or is it that we are hysterical, dramatic creatures unable to make decisions through our emotions?

Perhaps we are both?

Is it possible that the majority of women are neither?

“There are few greater incursions on a body than forcing a woman to complete a pregnancy and give birth. “
― Justice Stephen Breyer (dissenting opinion, page 21 Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ.)

How many personal decisions that have to do with men are put to a nationwide vote?

Perhaps we should consider the potential of abuse and misuse of medications like Viagra by young men on the party scene. The use of Viagra to elicit an erection while using Cocaine is such a common occurrence that there is a name for it. The combination of these two specific drugs is called the "sextacy" combination. They should not be mixed, however, and using them in this way could be fatal.

Do we not care about mens lives?

If life is the concern that has an entire nation in perpetual discussion and debate on decisions that have absolutely nothing to do with those not in the room, perhaps we need to consider putting an age restriction and very specific laws on the prescribing of Viagra, to save mens lives.

No?

It's silly to discuss amongst the nation who should or should not have access to a medication as it's the right of the person considering it to speak with their doctor?

I agree.

My doctor also went to medical school.

How about I leave your erection alone and instead of dying in the emergency room while random people argue my case in court, you allow me to retain my rights to speak with my doctor about what is going on inside my body?

I don't even know you, why do you insist on being all up in my vagina?

The aftermath of the fall of Roe V Wade included a 66 page dissenting opinion by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ, as authored by Justice Stephen Breyer:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documen...

You may choose to read it in full at the link above. I also pulled out three random quotes to show a little bit of the mood of the opinion.

From page 6:

“The Court reverses course today for one reason and one reason only: because the composition of this Court has changed. Stare decisis, this Court has often said, “contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process” by ensuring that decisions are “founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 827 (1991); Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U. S. 254, 265 (1986). Today, the proclivities of individuals rule. The Court departs from its obligation to faithfully and impartially apply the law. We dissent.”

From page 7:

“We believe in a Constitution that puts some issues off limits to majority rule. Even in the face of public opposition, we uphold the right of individuals—yes, including women—to make their own choices and chart their own futures. Or at least, we did once.”

From page 21:

“JUSTICE KAVANAUGH cannot obscure that point by appropriating the rhetoric of even-handedness. His position just is what it is: A brook-no-compromise refusal to recognize a woman’s right to choose, from the first day of a pregnancy. And that position, as we will now show, cannot be squared with this Court’s longstanding view that women indeed have rights (whatever the state of the world in 1868) to make the most personal and consequential decisions about their bodies and their lives. Consider that position, as we will now show, cannot be squared with this Court’s longstanding view that women indeed have rights (whatever the state of the world in 1868) to make the most personal and consequential decisions about their bodies and their lives. Consider first, then, the line of this Court’s cases protecting “bodily integrity.” Casey, 505 U. S., at 849. “No right,” in this Court’s time-honored view, “is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded,” than “the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person.” Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891); see Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept. of Health, 497 U. S. 261, 269 (1990) (Every adult “has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body”). Or to put it more simply: Everyone, including women, owns their own bodies. So the Court has restricted the power of government to interfere with a person’s medical decisions or compel her to undergo medical procedures or treatments. See, e.g., Winston v. Lee, 470 U. S. 753, 766–767 (1985) (forced surgery); Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165, 166, 173–174 (1952) (forced stomach pumping); Washington v. Harper, 494 U. S. 210, 229, 236 (1990) (forced administration of antipsychotic drugs). Casey recognized the “doctrinal affinity” between those precedents and Roe. 505 U. S., at 857. And that doctrinal affinity is born of a factual likeness. There are few greater incursions on a body than forcing a woman to complete a pregnancy and give birth.“

As I was reading this book I could feel the passion from both sides of the debate.

I believe that some of those working to take down Roe V Wade did so because they really believed that doing so would save lives. The problem is that this way of thinking only works if you believe that those who access abortion as medical care are cold blooded murderers. Of course we need people to stop us from making our own medical decisions, just in case we are having a lapse in judgment and just doing the stabby stabby thing without any actual logical thought or reason while batting our eyes to get our doctors to go along with our murderous plans.

Stop infantilizing women!

Mama Doctor Jones is a practicing Board Certified Obstetrician and Gynecologist who creates educational content as an expert in periods, pregnancy, and science communication. She is also a wife and mother of four and can be found here:

Twitch
twitch.tv/mamadoctorjones

Instagram
instagram.com/mamadoctorjones

Facebook
facebook.com/MamaDoctorJones

Twitter
twitter.com/mamadoctorjones

TikTok
tiktok.com/@mamadoctorjones

Her latest video is titled:
Outdated Abortion Laws Risk Your Safety (feat. Senator Eva Burch from Arizona)
https://youtu.be/je6lstK13AQ?si=KZOJr...

Notable and important US legal abortion information videos include:
Life After Abortion Access | Post-Roe v Wade America
https://youtu.be/IqyN_G4D1Sk?si=gTWW9...

How Texas' Abortion Ban Increased Infant Deaths
https://youtu.be/YSnN-jmWN-4?si=YJLob...
In this video she goes over the studies and statistics included three articles, that she cites with links under her video.

Pro-Lies: Abortion Propaganda Professionals
https://youtu.be/rcNcoPQFsr0?si=y5nLO...

Republicans are torturing pregnant women with lethal diagnoses....
https://youtu.be/fH8KQrP-FMw?si=5OJH3...

Mama Doctor Jones is just one example of easily digestible, accessible information on the topic.
I chose to link to her as she grew up in rural Texas.
She is a doctor, a mom, a neighbor, the woman in the line behind you at the grocery store. In other words, she is relatable.

[Emma · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent rundown of the concerted campaign among a far-right Christian minority to take down Roe. They were aided, as usual, by their superior coalition politics, their capture of the judiciary, and their ability to wield power maximally. By contrast, the liberal mainstream represented majority opinion but was disorganized and lacked the ability to interpret the seriousness of the threat. It is a depressing read not just for the content but for the way this pattern repeats and is honed each time. There is not much in here that hasn't been revealed in reporting already, but it's a very useful synopsis of how civil rights are assumed to be permanent even in the face of opposition that literally does not believe in democracy or compromise. Additionally, the focus on the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal firm that deliberately set up bills to engineer a circuit split and force the issue to SCOTUS (you may recognize ADF from many other social conservative cases) is helpful.

[Cathrine "Capi" · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was one of the most disheartening books I've ever read. As it went back and forth between the activities and stories of the two sides, pro-choice and pro-life, it was clear that the antiabortion folks have been working toward this goal for a VERY long time, and they had endless money. The attempts of the religious minority to remake our country in their image is terrifying. Going back hundreds (thousands?) of years, religion has caused more death and destruction than anything else. This country was NOT founded on religion and every effort should be made to keep religion OUT of our politics (impossible at this point, sadly). If abortion is to be prevented, it is imperative that healthcare, childcare, education, and more need to be improved drastically. I was a junior in high school when Roe was passed. If churches are going to be making our policy choices, they need to be fully taxed. There should be NO POLITICS in churches, and no churches in politics. The book was well written, well researched, showed both sides of the issue, and is definitely worth reading - so we can fight back appropriately!

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

A revealing look at a political revolution (there is no other word for it) in which an ideological minority – mostly conservative Catholics, with the help of the far right – chipped away at Roe for decades, lulling both Democrats and mainstream Republicans into a sense of complacency that Roe would never fall. And then, with a startling collection of surprising events – Casey energizes anti-abortion women, a pro-abortion win in Texas actually helps the anti-abortion cause, Trump is elected, anti-abortion crusader Pence is chosen as VP, McConnell refuses to vote on Garland, Ginsburg dies merely four months away from a Biden presidency, Kavanaugh turns out to be less of a wild card than assumed, Biden is useless as a former anti-abortion advocate who only changed for political expediency, and the Democrats fail to codify Roe into law despite holding the presidency, Senate, and House – Roe is overturned. But that collection of events would not have meant much without the decades of work by anti-abortion activists. They did the work needed to set up a judiciary that will be anti-abortion for decades – both lower court and Supreme Court – despite not reflecting the view of a growing majority of Americans.

The lynchpin, of course, was Trump’s election. Any other mainstream Republican would have filled his administration with cronies or mainstream conservatives who increasingly saw Roe as a battle that wouldn’t be won. Trump didn’t care about issues beyond self aggrandizement, so he allowed the fringe right into his inner circle, with only one caveat: loyalty to Trump. And they were all strongly anti-abortion: Pence, Conway, Pomeo, Dannenfelser. So The Heritage Foundation crafted Trump’s policy while judicial appointments were entirely directed by the Federalist Society, led by Leonard Leo, with strong ties to Opus Dei. And the result of decades of chipping away at Roe? Six conservative Catholics on the Supreme Court who immediately overturned it. (They held the case a year to make it appear they weren't overturning it immediately after Ginsburg's death.)

The most shocking thing: this is only the beginning. As the book makes clear, they want to end abortion nationally with a Constitutional amendment, and they already control 23 states (38 are needed). Then they want to make it an international movement. Beyond that, they are beginning to target contraception, IVF, same-sex unions, affirmative action, and gender rights. The authors make clear by the end of this book that Roe is not the end but the beginning of the revolution. While I was in the middle of reading it, the news broke about the Heritage Foundation’s 2025 Project – a hint of which is revealed in the final pages. The potential for a long-term rule by a political minority is real. We are likely already in the midst of it.

[☽ Chaya ☾ · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was very insightful but so horrifying. You basically follow the slow chipping away at Roe until Roe is completely overturned.
It's insane how a minority managed to put everything in place to get the result they wanted. It's pretty impressive to be honest. But I think it shows the issue with the system. It's not normal that any minority could use the system to their advantage in order to get a specific outcome.
My heart bleeds for American women and I wish I could do something.

The book is very dense. It took me a while to get my rhythm. There're so many names and places, and since I'm not American, it felt like so much information. But after a while, I tried to more so focus on the bigger picture and not try and remember every little piece of information. The first part, I think was slightly less interesting overall but from Trump's election on, I could barely put this book down.

[Ann · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a devastating book to read, especially for those of us who were teenagers or adults when Roe was decided. We were so oblivious and unwilling to recognize how a well organized and fanatical minority could patiently spend years working their way into power. As a corrupt Supreme Court makes every effort to help make America great again for old white heterosexual men, women continue to lose a foothold that most of us never realized was so precarious. I had no idea that I needed to be fearful for the future back in 2016 but I sure know it now. VOTE BLUE up and down the ticket as if your freedom depends on it. Because it does.

[Brittany E. · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was such a great read. I had no idea just how long anti-abortion groups have been laying the groundwork to have Roe overturned. This was really well researched and for such a heavy topic, it was an easy read. The authors did good job of remaining factual about what can be such a sensitive topic. I wish that everyone would read this book.

[Melissa Wood · Rating 5 out of 5]

Required reading. This was non-partisan and incredibly researched. If you want to know how we got to where we are today in regards to the reproductive rights of women this book will really explain it all.

[Kendra Kreienbrink · Rating 3 out of 5]

Really really interesting to learn more about what eld up to Roe being overturned. I definitely learned a ton about how much work went into making that happen. However, a bit slow and really hard to read knowing where the country is at currently

[Rossi Redgrave · Rating 4 out of 5]

As someone who has always lived in countries where abortion is safe and legal, I’ve taken for granted the fight that was necessary to enshrine this right for women. The Fall of Roe is a powerful reminder of how all that work can be undone by a relatively small, but highly organized, group.

Taking us on a journey over a decade, the two authors – New York Times journalists Elizabeth Dias and Lisa Lerer – provide a fair, balanced, and at times frightening insight into how Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022 after nearly 50 years of federally-guaranteed abortion rights. The authors’ surprisingly thorough access to the key players in the Dobbs case is one of the reasons this book works so well. It reads like an accurate, mostly unbiased dissection of what happened in this landmark case and explores what it could mean for the future of the US, especially under a second Trump term.

I only had two gripes with the book. First, some sections felt overly verbose, and the historical narrative sometimes veered into sentimental and almost religious imagery, which seemed unnecessary. The real-life accounts woven throughout already capture much of the emotion and devastating reality of Roe’s fall. This (personal) drawback is likely why it took me so long to read. Second, the ending felt a bit rushed, and I would’ve appreciated a little more on potential future developments.

Fundamentally, the best thing about this book is that, regardless of my personal opinion on the issue, Dias and Lerer cleverly explain how both sides see themselves as the heroes of this turning point in history, and how both are shaping their next steps.

[Kelly Kurposka · Rating 4 out of 5]

“‘May the rage of women through the centuries center you as you go into this.’”

“Just 8 percent of Americans wanted to ban abortion at conception with no exceptions, half of the 16 percent who said the same in 2012. Another 29 percent believed it should be illegal in “most” cases. The reality was that there would have been no Dobbs without a coordinated, sniper-like strategy to take down Roe. A mission that went against the wishes of a majority of Americans.”

“In the weeks after oral arguments, a CNN poll found that nearly 70 percent of Americans wanted Roe to be upheld, a number that had stayed broadly consistent since Alito was put on the bench in 2006. In April, nearly the same majority—62 percent—said they were unaware of any laws passed by their state making it harder to get an abortion. The conclusions were clear. Most Americans supported abortion rights. And most Americans didn’t realize they were at risk.”

“Things she had believed had been crumbling in America, like the separation of church and state, and the idea that America was a pluralist country and not a Christian nation, were actually far more unsettled, she thought.”

“Clinton thought about how the three Trump justices answered questions about Roe in their confirmation hearings, testifying about precedent and suggesting the ruling was not at risk. ‘They just flat out lied. And Democrats did nothing in the Senate,’ she said. Those justices, she said, ‘were all teed up to do the bidding of political, ideological, religious organizations and leaders that they are beholden to. It’s just truly remarkable.’”

“When asked in surveys, nearly six in ten Americans said they believed the decision was ‘mostly based on politics’—not in the law. For many Americans, the speed of the upending of Roe, less than two years after Republicans procured their conservative majority on the court, undercut their belief that the court was impartial.”

“Now an overwhelmingly Christian minority, who believed that a fetus should have the same fundamental rights as born humans, brought the end of Roe. They saw their win as a civil rights victory equal to those of the past.
But the essence of this battle was fundamentally different. The fetus was inextricably tied to the woman. Rights for one inherently meant fewer freedoms for another. Unlike those other fights—for gay rights, civil rights, and women’s rights—the fall of Roe was a contraction of rights for women, not an expansion.
The antiabortion activists did not win by opening American hearts and minds to their cause, as those other activists did. Not a single state had a majority of adults that favored overturning Roe. Even in Mississippi, only 40 percent agreed with the court’s decision. Nor did they convince large numbers of women to stop getting abortions: data suggested that legal abortions likely increased in the first six months of 2023, as tens of thousands of women crossed state lines to procure the procedure and access to medication abortion by telemedicine increased. Their victory was an undoing of what vast national majorities supported.”

“After the [Dobbs] decision, views on abortion shifted rapidly. Nearly 70 percent of the country believed that abortion should be legal in the first three months of pregnancy, a record high. A majority said the procedure was ‘morally acceptable.’”

“For nearly half a century, Roe was seen as a foundation of women’s freedoms in America. A pregnant woman could legally choose whether she wanted to bear a child. It was a ruling ushered in by a rapidly changing understanding of women’s place—economically, legally, and domestically—in the national project. When Roe was decided, women could not get a credit card in their own names, could not legally refuse sex to their husbands, lacked guarantees not to be fired if they became pregnant, and did not have legal protections against sexual harassment. There were no female senators, and the first female Supreme Court justice—Sandra Day O’Connor—would not be confirmed for another eight years.
The Dobbs decision effectively restored childbearing as an inescapable fate for pregnant women and girls in broad swaths of conservative America.”

[Gail Lørdi · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book does a great job of uncovering the processes behind the lengthy legal and political battle that occurred over decades, slowly chipping away and leading to the ultimate downfall of Roe.  Stylistically focusing on personal narratives of Americans affected by the June 2022 ruling and using their words to open each section relayed an important message about respecting the intersections of the personal and political in our daily lives and those around us.  The authors noted in their conversation (included in the post-credits of the audiobook version, which I read) that many parts of their story had to be cut because they did not serve the narrative they were trying to cultivate.  This is understandable when writing a historical autopsy of one specific moment in time honing in on the fall of Roe; however, there are some glaring omissions that I felt needed to be addressed.  Primary among them are the less perceptible issues of gender rights and the eugenic history of the scientific/medical foundations of women's reproductive health, family planning, and contraceptive/abortive care.  These issues are the reason behind my ⅗ star review for such a critical and necessary piece of non-fiction writing in 2024.  I still highly recommend this read but with the following caveats.

The authors definitely achieved their goal of telling the story in a nonpartisan and journalistic way; however, I feel the ball was dropped in their discussion of how arguments posed by intersectional feminists within the abortion rights movement posed questions and uncovered hidden histories within the development of women's rights in the last century that highlighted the more profound and more fundamental problems within the development of the American project itself.  

They briefly mentioned a very important part of RBG's perspective, including on Struck v. Secretary of Defense that highlights the very issue inherent within our decades long reliance on Roe (a medical health ruling) to uphold women's rights to self determination on a foundational level.

"There's no statement in the Constitution that men and women are people of equal citizenship stature, every constitution in the world written since the year 1950 has an equal rights amendment… So I would like to see in this, our constitution, that simple statement."

"That was what was missing when Roe got to the Court, the challenge was to the most extreme law in the nation, [which declared] the only basis for an abortion was the woman's life," Ginsburg said. Although the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade affirmed a woman's right to abortion, subsequent decisions have primarily resulted limited rather than expanded that right. "Perhaps, if the Court had proceeded the way [Thurgood] Marshall did, with building blocks, we might not have had the result that we had," she said.

"Roe isn't really about the woman's choice, is it? It's about the doctor's freedom to practice…it wasn't woman-centered, it was physician-centered."

Beyond this central question about women's rights is an even bigger looming and divisive question- the definition and rights of those within a representative gender spectrum that has expanded in the last few decades.  This was hinted at by the authors when mentioning the lived realities of Americans accessing care at abortion clinics on the ground (one of which included a trans male).  However, the authors misstepped on this front by focusing only on women and spreading a message that fighting for the rights of all will only cause more barriers to achieving the rights of some (cis-women).  In fact, some of their arguments seemed to stress that the divides within liberal parties between traditional white feminism and intersectional feminism were the cause of the fall of Roe rather than acknowledging the fallout from very real systemic inequalities faced by much of the American populace.

At points, it felt like the authors skimmed the surface of how historic and systemic inequalities play a distinct role in shaping public opinion on and reliance on abortion rights as a family planning tool that supports women who do not have the same economic resources and support afforded to others within the country- especially in noting the geographic and monetary correlation between abortion access in the years leading up to and following the fall of Roe when legal challenges began to proliferate in state governments.  Unfortunately, they did not delve deeper into why people did not take the encroaching threats seriously, which, in my personal experience, tend to remain the same; with enough money and expendable resources, anything can be accessible, legal, invisible, or at the very least forgivable.

Circling back to my main concerns over omissions in this book is the eugenic history of the scientific/medical foundations of women's reproductive health, family planning, and contraceptive/abortive care. Two prolific members of the development of these technologies were mentioned throughout the text, including Margaret Sanger and Gregory Pincus, who have a storied and troubling history within the intersections of colonialism and eugenics.  I thought it was a distinct shame the authors did not even discuss this (beyond saying that Sanger attended a KKK rally in New Jersey, which, as a local historian in NJ, I can attest to).  Again, it is understandable why some things needed to be cut from the story for brevity's sake; however, there are many facets of this history that are not discussed by abortion rights proponents and should be.  This book would have made an excellent outlet to highlight some of the problematic histories involved and perhaps dig deeper into the issues that plague our society.

To be specific, one issue that came to mind after reading the anemic descriptions of Sanger and Pincus is the story of how contraceptive drugs were formulated and trialed. I highly recommend reading about this history from some of the following sources to understand more about the thoroughly American heritage of the eugenicist missions popular at this time to eradicate (often US-colonial) populations experiencing poverty or disabilities through genocidal practices of forced sterilization and exploitative experimentation without obtaining patient consent.  It's important to remember that in the 1950s, the female reproductive system was effectively a mystery to scientists, and state regulations made regulated research illegal in most places.  This left scientists to research in unregulated ways, often at the expense of marginalized populations with few ways to protect themselves from exploitation and manipulation.

San Juan, Puerto Rico, as a colonial territory of the US, was targeted by Sanger and Pincus to be used as a large-scale testing ground for the first contraceptive drug they created, Enovid. Ultimately, up to ⅓ of Puerto Rican women were sterilized at this time, often involuntarily, under policies that forced women to obtain hysterectomies once they gave birth to two children.

If learning about these histories feels important to you, I recommend reading some of these comprehensive research publications. The Bitter Pill: Harvard and the Dark History of Birth Control | Magazine.  Introduction · Conceiving the Pill · OnView.  Facts and ideas from anywhere - PMC. The First Birth Control Pill Used Puerto Rican Women as Guinea Pigs | HISTORY. Afterward, it's especially poignant to compare the narratives with the one pushed forward currently by Sanger's founded Planned Parenthood Foundation. The Birth Control Pill: A History.

[Joseph Kratz · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just cannot take some of these people

[Emily Shore · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was phenomenal. It created a story to follow a deeply complex, but also radically simple piece of legislation (the right to an abortion) throughout the 49 years it stood in modern America. Similar to how those passionate about abortion (either for or against) feel, seeing it as complex, but also simple. Each chapter alternated between the anti abortion and abortion rights perspective. It was written, in my opinion, from a very objective stand point. It provided details, stories, and full knowledge of the saga that was Roe v. Wade in the United States. While it did not alter my core belief or opinion regarding the topic, it permitted me into an intensified contemplation of the argument as a whole. To have an opinion is to be able to know and understand both sides of it, and this book gifted me the full knowledge of the lifetime debate regarding abortion. We are so far away from the end, there is so much left to do. There is no grand conclusion to this book, but that is the same of Roe itself. Even in being overturned, it is far from over, for both the offense and the defense.

I cannot express how important I think this book is, and how much I think everyone should read it, regardless of which side of the abortion argument someone falls on.

[Pat Morris · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book should be read by every thinking person. It gives a blow by blow narrative of the Christian right and their generational fight to overturn Roe and the last 40 years of progressive justice for all people.I know these people they are my neighbors and even my relatives. Roe was just the first giant step, they are coming for many of us. Same sex marriage, birth control, gay rights, IVF, affirmative action, banning book, gun rights are part of their agenda of Christian nationalism to take America back to 1950. We need to organize and fight like hell before we loose our country.

[ladywallingford · Rating 5 out of 5]

The story of how conservatives in the form of activists, lawyers, and politicians in power and who were much more organized than their liberal counterparts chipped away at Roe over the last decade.

The story of a minority of people forcing their values on the majority in a "tyranny of the minority" in the name of "religious freedom."

The story of a complacent population who never thought Roe would fall.

This book is all of these things and more. As a woman, it is anger-inducing.

[MeMeMe · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was very informative and showed that the Christian right is far better at using the system to make sure that everyone else’s rights are eliminated. Progressives better wake up and learn to play the game otherwise we’ll be living in a Christofascist country real soon. I feel even more hopeless after reading this.

[Brooke · Rating 5 out of 5]

I was so angry and intrigued while listening to this one. The authors did an amazing job of showing what both sides were responsible for in a timeline that told an incredible, if not disheartening, story.

[Christine · Rating 5 out of 5]

The more knowledge, the more anger. I need to go find George Carlin's ghost and share a few drinks.

[Laura O'Kane · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anyone who is at all concerned with women's rights to abortion, contraception, reproductive healthcare, and IVF, as well as the rights of the LGBTQ community, should read this book immediately. This is a thoroughly researched, compelling, well-written, and horrifying look at how an organized network of extremist, religious, right-wing individuals began laying the groundwork for overturning Roe v. Wade nearly from its inception. Equally terrifying is that liberals never seriously took the threat of Roe falling. There's much to be learned from this book, and anyone who thinks that religious extremists are not gunning next for contraception and IVF rights, is sadly mistaken. This is easily one of the scariest, most important books I've ever read. The more we understand about how basic human rights are being stripped from Americans, the more we can do to try and prevent a total catastrophe in this country.

[Caroline · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oh man how I could rant. I wish the timelines and/or main points about Roe v. Wade being overturned was a bit more organized but this is a fantastic catalogue of events that led to June 24, 2022. The authors do a great job of referencing both political and ethical camps and strip the main argument down to the inequity of human rights that women now face in the states that they live in. I hope people eventually see the repetitive rhetoric that has been used to oppress people in this country since its founding. Let the states decide how people’s bodies are treated, because we haven’t heard that before. Embarrassing.

[Nikki Corina Dela Rosa · Rating 4 out of 5]

A book that’s quite controversial around the topic of abortion rights in the United States, in regard to the overturning of Roe v. Wade through Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling in 2022. It’s still a shocking event for many Americans until now, especially for women that use abortion rights as a symbol of morality and culture of womanhood in this nation. Growing up Catholic, which I no longer am, abortion was a conversation that’s barely brought up in conservation spaces. But I was also raised pagan in a matriarchal country— in which the women like my aunts and lady neighbors, in the privacy of the kitchen, would share their secrets on how to lose pregnancy through primitive and modern practices. There’s gossip in women gatherings, there’s always gossip of so-and-so did-this and did-that to intentionally miscarry at home; this gossip made abortion feel like a life skill learning moment on the women's experience. I developed a foundational belief that abortion is a human right that is neither good nor bad, it is part of womanhood and collective wellness. But the U.S. found a way to weaponize the basic human right of women to abortion as a political agenda to gain power in a system that will always serve the best interest of the affluent white Americans.

I say affluent white Americans because I’m including the white women in both the Democratic and Republican parties. The Fall of Roe: The Rise of a New America by Elizabeth Dias and Lisa Lerer does a fresh take on delivering the background of abortion rights in the United States. Dias and Lerer provides an extensive historical survey of the womanhood experience in the U.S. which includes the fact that there are Democratic and Republican women who are anti-abortion (and even pro-life Republicans had once thought of undergoing abortion at some point in their life). In addition, the pro-life and the pro-choice movements had women such as Marjorie Dannenfelser and Cecile Richards as key players in pushing political agendas. Despite the women’s position in abortion rights, the authors spoke about the women in the light of their achievements whether they supported abortion or not (which I find to be a remarkable example of womanhood and feminism). I think it’s also fresh that the authors made strong efforts to stand a neutral stance to deliver historical literature in the twenty-first century by using unbiased language, but there’s evidence in terminologies used that shows a partisan preference such as calling Democrats as “the Left.” For me, as someone with an immigrant lens, the Democrats are nowhere near being on the political Left— political jargon, whether used correctly or incorrectly, is a telling sign of impartiality.

Despite impartiality, the book has noteworthy information that makes it significantly enticing to read:
1. The book does a deep dive into the history of Planned Parenthood beyond who Margaret Sanger was and her role in reproductive rights. To be a critical reader, it’s important to know the racist past of Planned Parenthood in relation to the Eugenics Movement backed by Republican politicians. Planned Parenthood was, and still is, tied to the white feminist agenda that disproportionately expropriates the reproductive rights of Black, Indigenous, Hispanic, and Asian women in the U.S.
2. The Democrats are also part of the problem for making a deal with anti-abortion politicians. Many Democratic politicians, even during Obama’s administration and Biden’s presidency, supported the Hyde Amendment— making abortion financially inaccessible to low-income women in medicaid and medicare, Indigenous women, U.S. veterans, women in Peace Corps, women in immigration detention facilities, and incarcerated women. So yes, even when states allowed abortion procedures, the majority of who can afford it are the middle-class white women, despite 75% of women that get an abortion are low-income and women of color.
3. Abortion rights coincides with public health services, and the book proves the horrendous state of the U.S. healthcare system. For those who are pro-life, they fight to overturn Roe, but don't think about the deficit in public health funding for mothers and families that need financial support to raise a child that they justified to be worth saving. For those who are pro-choice, they fight to save Roe, but don't think about the restrictions in public health funding for the 75% that actually need it to afford the procedure. Women in the U.S. are in perpetual distress whether or not abortion rights exist, but politicians continue to fight for it or against it because they see it as a challenge in civil rights rather than a human right.

The Fall of Roe further heightens my belief that feminism, especially feminism by white female leaders, isn’t always in power for the benefit of all women. Women are a product of the system that they serve, tied to the masculinity of global politics. Coming from a country that already had two female presidents I experienced that women in power doesn’t always lead to gender, race, and class equity. But somehow, in the U.S., their citizens still put hope and belief that a female president will greatly change the nation for the betterment of the women's experience. What changes do you foresee after the fall of Roe? How will it shape the experiences of all women, immigrants, and the LGBTQIA+ in the U.S.?