logo
The Biggest Anti-Abortion Victory Since ‘Dobbs'

The Biggest Anti-Abortion Victory Since ‘Dobbs'

The Atlantic01-07-2025
This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.
Amid all the news coverage of the GOP's spending-bill extravaganza—the late-night deficit debates, the strategy sessions, the hallway blanket-wearing —one piece of the package has received comparatively little attention: a provision that would block abortion clinics from receiving Medicaid funds for any of the non-abortion services they provide.
During the past three years, abortion restrictions have mostly taken effect mostly in red and purple states—where legislatures have voted to enact them. But if this proposed provision passes, clinics all over the country will be affected. It would 'have a pretty devastating impact on a lot of providers,' Mary Ziegler, a legal scholar and an Atlantic contributor, told me. Some would probably close, and others would have to limit the number of patients they serve. It's 'a really big deal,' she said, with perhaps the most significant consequences for abortion access since the passage of the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funds for abortions in most cases.
All of this is complicated—which helps explain the dearth of attention to the matter. But funding for independent abortion providers works like this: Clinics receive money from a variety of sources, including local donations, insurance payments, and Medicaid reimbursements. (Yes, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America receives millions in contributions every year, but most of those funds are earmarked for advocacy, Ziegler told me.) A big percentage of Planned Parenthood's patient pool relies on Medicaid. In keeping with the Hyde Amendment, providers are not reimbursed for abortions, but they do receive federal payments for other services, such as breast-cancer screenings, Pap smears, and STI testing. This new legislation would make Planned Parenthood and other clinics ineligible for any kind of Medicaid reimbursement, Ziegler said.
If clinics are not paid for these services, then, in many cases, they won't be able to provide them. Maybe some clinics would be able to find funds from state legislatures or local donors to fill in the gaps, but many wouldn't. An initial version of the bill passed by the House would have blocked Medicaid funding for 10 years, but the current version, which passed the Senate earlier today, would prohibit that funding for just one year after the law's passage. (That's right—we'll all be back here again soon.)
The cuts represent a pretty clear departure from President Donald Trump's 'leave it to the states' approach to abortion policy. They'd affect clinics everywhere, not just in places where Americans have grown accustomed to hearing about abortion restrictions. Most Planned Parenthood clinics at risk of closure under the bill are in states where abortion is legal, the organization says. That's partly because more blue states have recently expanded Medicaid. Up to one-third of patients at Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, for example, are on Medicaid, and reimbursement totals in the millions of dollars, PPNNE CEO Nicole Clegg told me. 'We'll work with our state leaders' and increase local fundraising efforts, she said. But it will be difficult to make up the difference.
The bill's passage is part of an abortion one-two punch: Last week, the Supreme Court made it easier for states to deny Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. 'This is tremendous progress on achieving a decades-long goal that has proved elusive in the past,' Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told me in a statement about the SCOTUS decision and the GOP bill. 'This proves what we've said all along: Congress can cut Planned Parenthood's funding—and they just did,' Kristan Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America, wrote on X about the bill. 'The moral obligation is clear: If we can do it for 1 year, we must do it for good.'
The events of this week also represent a slight strategy change. Reporters like me who have long covered the anti-abortion movement anticipated that, under the second Trump presidency, activists would shift their efforts in a different direction: attempting to outlaw abortion via the 1873 Comstock Act. Many who follow this debate agree that they probably still will. But so far, Trump 'hasn't really been doing a lot of what the anti-abortion movement has wanted,' Ziegler said. She wonders whether it was 'a self-conscious decision to go where they thought Republicans already were'—to work toward withholding funding, which is probably politically safer for the GOP than pursuing a relatively unpopular outright abortion ban.
Next stop: the House of Representatives. Lawmakers there took up the bill today and want to make it law by Friday. But defenders of abortion access are keeping an eye out. As always, with a razor-thin Republican majority, anything could happen.
A big, bad, very ugly bill
Jonathan Chait: Congressional Republicans didn't have to do this.
A classic childhood pastime is fading.
Today's News
President Donald Trump visited ' Alligator Alcatraz,' a makeshift migrant-detention center in the Florida Everglades, and said that he wants to see more detention centers in 'many states.'
Trump wrote in a social-media post that the Department of Government Efficiency might need to reexamine government subsidies for Elon Musk's businesses.
Zohran Mamdani officially won New York City's Democratic mayoral primary by 12 points.
Evening Read
The Birth-Rate Crisis Isn't as Bad as You've Heard—It's Worse
By Marc Novicoff
First, the bad news: Global fertility is falling fast. The aging populations of rich countries are relying on ever fewer workers to support their economy, dooming those younger generations to a future of higher taxes, higher debt, or later retirement—or all three …
By about 2084, according to the gold-standard United Nations 'World Population Prospects,' the global population will officially begin its decline. Rich countries will all have become like Japan, stagnant and aging. And the rest of the world will have become old before it ever got the chance to become rich.
Sorry, did I say 'bad news'? That was actually the good news, based on estimates that turned out to be far too rosy.
More From The Atlantic
Watch. F1 (out now in theaters) threads the nitty-gritty details of Formula One racing into a traditional underdog drama, David Sims writes.
Read. Soft Core, by Brittany Newell, is a noirish novel set in the world of strip clubs and BDSM dungeons that ventures beyond titillation and into the daily grind, Lily Burana writes.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

James Carville says Dems should ‘kick the s— out of' JD Vance over England vacation
James Carville says Dems should ‘kick the s— out of' JD Vance over England vacation

New York Post

time9 minutes ago

  • New York Post

James Carville says Dems should ‘kick the s— out of' JD Vance over England vacation

Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville used some colorful language on Wednesday in describing how his party should go after Vice President JD Vance for taking a vacation to the 'Martha's Vineyard of England.' During the latest episode of his 'Politics War Room' podcast with co-host Al Hunt, Carville blasted Vance both for stumping for the Big, Beautiful Bill and for planning a vacation to Oxfordshire, England, suggesting they were evidence that Vance does not care about working-class Americans. He then urged the Democratic Party to blast him for these blunders. 'Use JD Vance and just kick the s— out of him every chance you get,' he said to the Democratic Party. Hunt began the Vance-bashing by bringing up his recent stop in Georgia to sell Americans on President Donald Trump's $3.3 trillion 'Big, Beautiful Bill' that the president signed into law earlier this summer. Carville encouraged Vance to stump for the legislation, noting the bill's unpopularity, and stated that Democratic lawmakers like Sen. John Ossoff, D-Ga., should welcome the vice president's criticism for not supporting the bill. 3 James Carville flamed Vice President JD Vance over his recent vacation to Oxfordshire, England. Getty Images 'So, memo to John Ossoff, let JD Vance frame the debate. Accept his terms of the debate. As we pointed out, the most unpopular piece of legislation in recent times in this century is the big, bad bill. If they give you a gift, take the gift,' the strategist stated. Stating what he believes Ossoff should say, he continued, 'The vice president came to Georgia, and he's attacking me because I voted against this. Well, guess what? I did. And I would do it again, and again, and again, and again.' 'When you get a gift, take the g—– gift.' 3 U.S. Vice President JD Vance fishes with British Foreign Secretary David Lammy at Chevening House on August 8, 2025 in Sevenoaks, England. Getty Images He then discussed how Vance's vacation to England earlier this month is another soft spot Democratic figures should attack. 'He went on a vacation. Florida resorts are hurting. Las Vegas tourism is down substantially. National Parks – Yellowstone's down 15%,' he said. 'So, okay, he's entitled to a vacation. I'll give him that. Guess where he went? To a place called Oxfordshire in England – which is a tony, wealthy place that rich Londoners go to. Call it the Martha's Vineyard of England. And why we didn't blow this up!' 'You mean, you can't vacation, and your wife and kids, in your own country?' Carville added in outrage. 3 A view of Chevening House in Kent, England, as Britain's Foreign Secretary David Lammy and US Vice President JD Vance meet inside, Friday, Aug. 8, 2025. AP He urged Democrats to seize on both the vacation and the legislation at every opportunity. Hunt chimed in, 'Every Democrat, bring him into your district. You want JD Vance there.' 'Yeah, you want JD. Yeah, yeah, JD f—— Vance – going to Oxfordshire,' Carville replied. The vice president's office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump's GOP on verge of big Texas win, but battle for power is only starting: 5 takeaways
Trump's GOP on verge of big Texas win, but battle for power is only starting: 5 takeaways

USA Today

time9 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Trump's GOP on verge of big Texas win, but battle for power is only starting: 5 takeaways

Trump's Texas fight is aimed at giving the GOP an advantage in 2026 and a lame-duck president more power while in office. Democrats have other plans. A partisan battle in Texas over who holds power in Washington during the final two years of President Donald Trump's second term has unfurled into a nationwide debate drawing in top political figures as voters brace for another divisive election in 2026. The Lone Star State's GOP lawmakers are poised to send new congressional maps to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott on Aug. 21 that Trump and his allies hope will give them a strategic advantage in holding onto their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. But the fight in Austin has spread beyond the state's borders and created significant uncertainty about who will be in position to govern during the second half of the Trump administration and after the next race for the White House. 'Game on,' New York Gov. Kathy Hochul wrote Aug. 20 in a social media post. She is one of several Democratic leaders considering their own steps like the Texas Republicans to re-draw congressional district borders inside their state. Here are five takeaways on the fast-spreading redistricting wars: Republicans have the upper hand if the redistricting war expands. States typically redo their congressional boundaries for voters every decade, specifically in the two years that follow a new census. But Trump has encouraged redistricting to happen ahead of the 2026 U.S. House elections. His motivation? The tendency of the party in the White House to lose seats in the U.S. House during the congressional elections that happen between presidential elections. Recent examples include the 1994, 2010, 2018 and 2022 political cycles. Trump and the GOP are hoping to break that trend or increase their 219-212 U.S. House majority through states with Republican legislatures that can draw congressional maps. By contrast, many Democratic states have passed laws and constitutional amendments creating independent commissions to draw their congressional district maps instead of politicians. That's part of why states such as Missouri and Indiana have discussed redistricting for Republican advantage, but the Democratic stronghold of Washington has ruled it out completely. Additionally, Ohio needs to re-draw its own congressional maps under a constitutionally-mandated process that would happen regardless of today's political climate, and Florida has created a special committee to re-draw congressional maps. Taken together, that means that there are three high-population states actively pursuing Republican seats, and so far California is the only major state likely to redistrict for Democrats ahead of 2026. A legal fight over the new Texas maps is brewing What's happening this week in Texas won't be the final say on whether the maps are permanent. That's for the courts to decide, though fights like this can take years to work their way through the system. Both Democrats and Republicans previewed their legal arguments during the Texas legislature's Aug. 20 House floor debate that ended in the House's approval of the Republican-favored new maps. Democratic lawmakers accused their GOP colleagues of 'packing' Hispanic voters into some districts and 'cracking' or 'diluting' their representation. Those are all key terms referring to practices that opponents have used when challenging maps in the past. They also asked Republicans whether they drew maps based on voters' Hispanic ethnicity since race-based gerrymandering is still illegal. Texas state Rep. Todd Hunter, the Republican author of the bill that changes the maps, explained that an outside law firm drew the maps, not members of the legislature or their in-house staff. He said he asked the firm to re-draw the maps to improve his party's 'political performance' in the state, using a term that he said was backed up by a recently decided federal court case. Hunter used the term repeatedly during hours of questioning by Democrats. Americans still don't like gerrymandering Americans haven't historically liked it when politicians draw maps in their favor, but they may support the practice when it benefits the party they agree with. A nationwide Reuters/Ipsos poll that ran from Aug. 13 to 18 found that a small majority of respondents thought the ongoing redistricting plans were 'bad for democracy,' and Democrats were more likely to think this than Republicans. A poll by the market research firm YouGov that ran Aug. 1 to 4 found that three-quarters of adults saw it as a 'major problem' when states draw maps to intentionally favor one party, and another one-fifth saw it as a 'minor problem.' These proportions, too, higher among Democrats and lower among Republicans. But in California, where Democratic lawmakers wants voters to decide in a Nov. 4 special election whether to redraw their own maps in favor of Democrats, a majority of voters support the initiative. The proposal has support from 57% of California voters, according to Gov. Gavin Newsom's own polling, as reported by Axios, including overwhelming support from Democrats and overwhelming opposition from Republicans. A Politico-UC Berkeley Citrin Center poll of nationwide voters that ran through Aug. 20 found about one-third of respondents said Democrats in California should 'fight back' with their own maps. That broke down to almost two-thirds of Democrats, one-third of independents, and about one-tenth of Republicans. New Democrats are getting their time in the spotlight Americans are seeing new faces emerge from the Democratic Party as they make national headlines fighting back against often better-known Texas Republicans. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, widely seen as a frontrunner for his party's presidential nomination in 2028, is one of them. His decision to go toe-to-toe with Texas and leverage his position in the only state with more congressional seats than the Lone Star State has meant an introduction to Americans all over the country and a national spotlight on his ideas. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, one of the names floated for vice president in 2024, got his name out there when he hosted Texas Democrats who fled their state for nearly two weeks. But the ongoing fight has also highlighted what anti-gerrymandering advocates have called an unfair map tilted toward Democrats in Illinois. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who says she wants to retaliate against Texas, is also gaining some attention. Another new face is Texas Rep. Nicole Collier of Fort Worth, who slept on the floor of the legislature. Texas Republican leaders have been requiring the Democratic lawmakers who broke quorum earlier this month to sign permission slips to leave the chamber and have a state police escort follow them around 24 hours a day to make sure they don't attempt to leave the state again. 'Today is not the end,' Collier said after the House passed the bill Aug. 20. 'It is the beginning, the start of a new Democratic party where we won't back down. … And we will push and push and push until we take over this country.' Barack Obama, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are all involved Trump kicked off the firestorm when he called on Texas lawmakers to redraw the maps and provide five more Republican-leaning congressional districts. Now he's going toe-to-toe with Democratic Party standard bearers who have come into the fight. Former President Barack Obama posted on X that the attempt to re-draw districts in Texas was an 'assault on democracy,' and praised Texas Democrats. Now he's endorsed Newsom's plan to redistrict California's congressional maps in retaliation. Former Vice President Kamala Harris also called Collier while she stayed in the legislature: 'You really are inspiring so many people, and I just want you to know that you are among those who history will reveal to have been heroes of this moment. So you just stay strong and do what you are doing.' Harris ruled out a run for governor of her home state of California in 2026, leaving Americans to wonder whether she'll run for president in 2028. Contributing: Kathryn Palmer, USA TODAY

Trump's child care win is no victory for American families
Trump's child care win is no victory for American families

The Hill

time9 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump's child care win is no victory for American families

Corrine Hendrickson opened Corrine's Little Explorers in New Glarus, Wisconsin nearly 18 years ago. She has served 70 children since then in her family child care business. But in August, she will be closing her doors, because operating the program is simply no longer sustainable. Similarly, Seedlings to Sunflowers, a child care program in Maine, is struggling. Forced to raise rates to meet rising expenses, it instead created a funding gap as parents left the program because they no longer could afford it. Seedlings recently crowdfunded $25,000 from community members and families to stay open, but this is not a sustainable strategy. Meanwhile, a mom in Bedford, Ohio was paid too little to afford child care — which cost her nearly twice family's rent — but too much to qualify for assistance. Ultimately, her husband quit his job to care for their child. These are some of the many reasons I am not doing a victory lap for the relatively meager child care provisions in the Trump mega-bill signed into law in July. The provisions in the bill would do nothing to help people like Hendrickson keep serving children. It would not allow Seedlings to Sunflowers keep its rates affordable or support families like the Ohio mother's family to find and afford child care. In this bill, Republicans haven't given families any new child care options or opportunities. The child care sector will not get new resources to expand or essential support for more stable operations, which means families will still struggle to find child care options that work for them. And the families that do find options still will have trouble paying the high prices. Some families may receive a bit more money through the bill's tax credit increase to help pay for child care. But the average credit for those who receive it will be about $890 — a small dent in the average annual child care cost of $13,128. Even those few families who might receive the new maximum credit of $3,000 will still be on the hook for a significant payment, which their low incomes will not likely accommodate. Meanwhile, many families will see their health care and food bills rise as a result of the bill, which may offset the increased child care credit. And if their child care provider is losing health insurance at the same time or leaving a job because of the bill's cuts to Medicaid, their child care arrangement may become more unstable. The bill's support for child care relies on tax credits and deferrals, disproportionately benefiting wealthier families and corporations — an overall theme of the bill itself. Specifically, the bill expands three tax programs. The Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit is a credit that comes to you after you have spent the money up front. The credit won't be of any use if you can't afford to pay for child care up front, can't find care that meets your needs or don't earn enough to pay taxes. The Dependent Care Assistance Program allows parents whose employers participate to opt into accounts that set aside pre-tax dollars to pay for child care expenses. Parents who use these flexible spending accounts cannot also use the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit for the same expenses. The Employer-Provided Child Care Credit provides employers a tax credit for spending resources on child care-related expenses. What families need is reliable, stable child care options that meet their needs — affordable, convenient, with no wait list. They want to know their children are safe, happy, healthy and learning, and the early educators who care for them are being paid well to stay in the profession they love. The big Republican bill provides none of that. We're holding our elected officials to too low a standard if we are calling this bill a child care win for families when millions will still be left struggling to find and afford child care. When taken in its entirety, the bill is a major net loss for children and families. It is hard to squint at this and see 'incremental progress' and 'bipartisan support' when Republicans control Washington and insist on throwing child care policy into chaos. They have been freezing, unfreezing, delaying and then moving forward child care and Head Start funding to states and programs, and proposing cuts to major child care and early learning programs in their federal budget proposal. Not to mention the DOGE cuts that pushed out about half of federal Office of Child Care staff and shut down important regional Child Care and Head Start offices. Political leadership should strive toward a future where Hendrickson, the mother in Ohio and families around the country would have something to celebrate. We already see candidates for governor in New Jersey and Virginia centering their plans for affordable child care in their campaigns. Same goes for Zohran Mamdani's upset victory in New York City where he ran on free child care made possible by richer New Yorkers paying their fair share. We should hold our elected representatives to a higher standard to address the concerns of families, not jump up and down when they mention those concerns while backing up the Brinks truck for the wealthy. Julie Kashen is the director of Women's Economic Justice and senior fellow at the Century Foundation.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store