We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
South Carolina Republican state senator Penry Gustafson debates a six week abortion ban at the state legislature
South Carolina's six-week abortion ban
Victims of rape or incest will be able to access abortion care for up to 12 weeks gestation, according to the bill, which also has exceptions for if the mother’s life is in danger or if there are fetal abnormalities.
Opponents have vowed to challenge the bill in court, but it’s unclear how that might pan out. Consider that in 2021, the state legislature passed a similar measure that was struck down by the state Supreme Court, which claimed that curtailing abortion access violates women’s right to privacy. That has allowed abortion to remain legal in the state for up to 22 weeks, making South Carolina a haven for southern women seeking the procedure.
The bill would have passed earlier were it not for six bipartisan women lawmakers in the Senate – three Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent – who used a legislative procedure known as a filibuster to stall the bill’s passage.
As the presidential race gets underway, the Palmetto State will serve as a test case for candidates running for president. In particular, former Gov. Nikki Haley and Sen. Tim Scott, both South Carolinians who are running for the GOP nomination, will be forced to respond. Coming out too strong against abortion access won’t land well with an electorate that overwhelmingly backs Roe v. Wade – as proven by the 2022 midterm results. However, dissing the bill will surely be used as a cudgel by Donald Trump, and others, in a Republican primary.
The political machine that took down Roe v. Wade
50 years ago, when the Supreme Court granted the constitutional right to abortion, the country was far less divided than is it today. Now with that Roe v. Wade decision overturned, roughly half the states have "trigger laws" on the books restricting abortion, New York Times columnist Emily Bazelon tells Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
From a constitutional perspective, Bazelon says that abortion decisions today depend "on what you think of the idea that abortion is fundamental to women's liberty and equality" — a hard sell for what she calls a "maximalist" conservative majority on the court.
Bazelon adds that access to abortion pills is going to turn into a big legal battle. The Justice Department is working to ensure states can't ban abortion pills, which are federally approved, but Congress (as a whole) will be a tough sell.
But much of the rest of the world has been moving in the opposite direction. Largely Catholic countries in Latin America and Europe have legalized abortion, while African nations have rolled back or are rethinking colonial-era abortion bans. Regardless, the SCOTUS ruling will make waves around the world.
The abortion fight to come: why US Congressional control matters
New York Times columnist Emily Bazelon says the Justice Department is working to ensure states can't ban abortion pills, which are federally approved.
But then Congress (as a whole) will be a tough sell, she tells Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
The House could enshrine Roe v. Wade into law, but it'll surely die in the Senate, where Democrats remain "paralyzed" over getting rid of the filibuster. And then, of course, the next Congress could repeal the whole thing.
Still, even if Republicans win control of both houses in November, she doubts the GOP majority will move to outlaw abortion at the federal level.
Watch the GZERO World episode: US Supreme Court fights: why ending Roe is only the beginning
Abortion rights are expanding around the world while the US is an outlier
Almost 50 years ago, the wife of a Republican US president came out in favor of abortion. Good luck with that happening today.
We now live in a much more divided country — as has been on full display after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and removed the constitutional right to an abortion, Ian Bremmer tells GZERO World.
Interestingly, much of the rest of the world has been moving in the opposite direction. Largely Catholic countries in Latin America and Europe have legalized abortion in recent years, while African nations have rolled back or are rethinking colonial-era abortion bans.
China is ... complicated.
Regardless, the SCOTUS ruling will make waves around the world.
Watch the GZERO World episode: US Supreme Court fights: why ending Roe is only the beginning
Why permitting some abortion is smart politics
Since the SCOTUS Roe v. Wade ruling was leaked a couple of months ago, the GOP has refrained from putting Republican-led states on an abortion "purity test," says New York Times columnist Emily Bazelon.
Why? Because the majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal in some cases — but not all.
"Everything depends on where you draw the line," Bazelon tells Ian Bremmer on GZERO World.
The devil is in the details. "Which states and where and how many matters a lot," she says, adding that enforcement and access to abortion pills is going to turn into a big legal battle.
Watch the GZERO World episode: US Supreme Court fights: why ending Roe is only the beginning
Podcast: An active US Supreme Court overturns "settled law" on abortion. What's next?
Listen: Americans now live in a much more divided country — as has been on full display after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and removed the constitutional right to an abortion, while the rest of the world - including largely Catholic countries in Latin America and Europe - is moving in the opposite direction. But the SCOTUS ruling is already making waves around the world.
On the GZERO World podcast, Ian Bremmer speaks to New York Times columnist and senior research fellow at Yale Law School, Emily Bazelon, who knows a thing or two about abortion law.
Hours after the bombshell ruling dropped on June 24, Bazelon analyzed what abortion rights will soon look like across different US states; why SCOTUS upheld the constitutional right to carry guns but not to get an abortion; the next steps by the Biden administration and Congress; and why the battle over abortion pills is likely headed to the same court that got rid of Roe.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published.
Roe v. Wade overturned: Abortion restricted in half of US states
Now that the US Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, roughly half the states have legislation on the books restricting abortion.
And 13 of them had "trigger laws" to ban abortion once the 1973 ruling was struck down. Residents of those states seeking abortions must now travel across state lines to get an abortion — and Missouri wants to sue those who do.
What's more, it'll be a long drive: an average of 125 miles, compared to just 25 when Roe was still the law of the land, Ian Bremmer explains on GZERO World.
Pro-abortion rights health experts worry this will increase maternal mortality rates in the US and cause financial hardship for families.
Mother and daughter outside the US Supreme Court.
Abortion pills are the next frontier
Roe v. Wade is dead, but the abortion debate in America lives on.
Since it became clear two months ago that the demise of the landmark 1973 decision was inevitable, the contours of the abortion debate have shifted.
Even before Roe’s reversal by the Supreme Court on Friday, access to surgical abortions – those involving a vaginal procedure – had already been severely curtailed in many parts of the country. Now they will be very difficult to obtain in at least half of all states. As a result, medical abortions – a less invasive method that involves swallowing a pill – have become the new frontier in the battle over reproductive rights and access in America.
What’s the nature of the increasingly combustible debate over abortion pills and what’s at stake?
Abortion by the numbers. Most abortions performed in the US – at least 90% – occur within the first trimester of pregnancy (up to around 12 weeks gestation). And most performed within the first trimester – around 54% – are medical abortions, meaning a woman takes medication, typically a two-pill regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol, in her home or doctor’s office.
How they work: mifepristone – the first abortion pill approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2000 for up to 10 weeks gestation – stops the body from producing progesterone, a chemical needed to maintain a healthy pregnancy. Misoprostol, usually taken around 36 hours later, causes contractions that help expel remaining fetal tissue from the body to avoid sepsis.
Crucially, amid the pandemic, the Biden administration lifted a provision requiring in-person consultations for medication abortions nationwide, allowing doctors to prescribe the pills during telemedicine consults before sending them directly to patients’ homes.
What do red states plan to do about it?
Now that Roe v. Wade has been gutted, giving states the power to decide laws surrounding abortion care and causing the immediate closure of abortion clinics in dozens of states, many Republican lawmakers have their sights set on banning medications that induce miscarriage.
Texas, for instance, passed a law last year banning doctors from prescribing abortion pills to women past seven weeks of pregnancy or from mailing pills to a patient at any time during pregnancy. In total, 19 states have enforced similar laws aimed at severely curtailing access to abortion pills.
Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, thinks that states will go after abortion pills with gusto.
“Some states will predictably attempt to intercept FDA-approved pills sent from out-of-state medical providers and will attempt in other ways to thwart access to medical abortions in efforts to give extraterritorial effect to the moral and religious views embodied in their internal anti-abortion laws to substances and services, including telemedical advice,” Tribe tells GZERO by email.
But Tribe notes that many of the efforts “will certainly be subject to challenge under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, the so-called ‘dormant Commerce Clause’ of the Constitution" that says states can’t place undue burdens on interstate commerce, making future litigation all but inevitable.
Still, enforcement of these rules will be tricky. Looking ahead: a medical provider who prescribes abortion pills to someone in a state where the procedure is outlawed would indeed be violating state law. So, if a Manhattan-based doctor sends abortion medication to a Dallas resident in her ninth week of pregnancy, the physician could be charged with a felony under Texas law.
But there are workarounds, and many women in conservative-leaning states have worked with medical providers in blue states to set up virtual mailboxes, making it harder for authorities to track mail routes and hand out criminal penalties.
To be sure, women living in states with severely curtailed abortion access have already been obtaining pills from European providers that work with pharmacies – many in India – to send abortion drugs to the US. But this is also a risk because, while it isn’t a highly enforced law, it is illegal under federal law for Americans to import drugs from overseas for personal use. So this is far from a foolproof solution.
Many red states say they will crack down on the abortion pill mail trade. But can they? Technically, no. The US Postal Service abides by federal law and therefore can’t seize federally approved medications sent by licensed practitioners. But given the mishmash of legalities nationally, hyper-motivated states will look for ways to produce the legal documents – such as warrants – needed to intercept mail of those suspected of abortion-related crimes.
So, what comes next? “The litigation spawned by these challenges is bound to end in the Supreme Court in the relatively near term, but not necessarily in the coming year or even two, during which the litigation is likely to be winding its way up the judicial ladder,” Tribe says.
In the meantime, the fierce abortion debate will rage on, tearing the country further apart.