
The politics of Dobbs persists
Greetings from Illinois, where we relish the summer heat. Thanks to Katherine Long and Emma Cordover for letting me jump in to today's Women Rule discussion. You can find me at skapos@politico.com.
Programming note: This newsletter is on hiatus until July 11 for the federal holiday in the U.S.
CHICAGO, Illinois — The political action committee that for decades supported candidates who back abortion rights in Illinois — making the state a haven for reproductive choice — is taking its political playbook to red states, including Indiana and Arkansas, which virtually ban the procedure.
'Since Roe fell, there are many PACs bubbling up in different states. I've been talking to new organizations, sharing our playbook, our questionnaires and ideas about where to start,' Personal PAC CEO Sarah Garza Resnick tells Women Rule.
It's been three years since the Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, giving states more authority to restrict abortion. The decision has emboldened states that are working to ban abortions, and it's also transformed blue states like Illinois, which are seeing abortions rise as more patients are crossing their borders seeking reproductive health care.
Data from the Illinois Department of Public Health shows there were 11,307 out-of-state abortions in Illinois in 2021, the year before Dobbs. In 2022, there were 16,849 abortions for people from out of state, and 2023 saw 26,168 out-of-state abortions.
The Dobbs ruling created a ripple effect that's going to further divide states and create islands of reproductive care across the country, Garza Resnick says.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Along with seeing more patients, how else are blue states feeling the impact of Dobbs three years later?
It's affecting the medical profession. There are places where doctors can't practice. They're gagged from talking to clients about abortions, which are a medical necessity. There are gynecologists leaving some states, so people with dire health care decisions won't have access to gynecological care, including abortion. It impacts everyone. There won't be enough doctors in years to come to get normal pap smears or mammograms and all the other things we need.
Georgia is seeing doctors leaving the state, and in Missouri, gynecological residency programs are being affected.
In Illinois in 2024, we saw 35,000 people become medical refugees and were forced to flee the states where they live with their families to come here to get abortion care. Illinois saw the largest amount of out-of-state patients, the next state is North Carolina, with almost 17,000 out-of-state patients traveling there for care.
Why is Illinois seeing an influx over New York or California?
It can be hard to travel to California or New York. It's more expensive. People go to places where they can drive.
Has the Dobbs decision emboldened members of Congress?
Federal Medicaid doesn't cover abortion care. But from city halls to Congress, anti-abortion politicians have been throwing every type of abortion restriction at the wall to see what sticks. Policies that we once considered 'extreme' are making their way through legislatures across the country.
How has Dobbs shifted the political landscape?
Unfortunately, abortion has always been a political issue because politicians think that they know what is best for women and our bodies and want to control us. Fortunately, abortion has always been popular. I think more campaigns need to stop siloing abortion off as a separate issue. For example, abortion is an economic issue because having a kid when you're not ready can upend your job, education and ability to make ends meet.
What are you advising other states trying to mirror what your PAC is doing?
We are working with advocates in other states to replicate Personal PAC's winning model of sending candidate questionnaires and educating people running for office. We are 100 percent pro-reproductive freedom, with no exceptions.
Is there room for the candidate who opposes abortion rights personally but supports a woman's right to get one?
You don't know what you're going to do until you're in that circumstance. Myself, as somebody who's had an abortion, I didn't anticipate an unplanned pregnancy. I would never judge somebody whatsoever about making the other choice. So yeah, I do think that somebody can say, 'I personally wouldn't have an abortion, but I don't think that the government should be involved in someone's pregnancy decisions.' I would stand behind that person.
The Supreme Court just upheld Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for transgender minors. Is that a residual effect of Dobbs?
The idea that the government can tell me and my child and their doctor what is best for them is exactly what the anti-choice movement has done to women and our health care. All of these cases are linked. What links access to birth control for married people and the ability for women to decide what to do with their bodies and gay marriage is case law that had been decided over the course of many decades by the U.S. Supreme Court. It's all an issue of control.
Have you seen an increase in aggression against abortion clinics or against candidates?
We've definitely seen an escalation: bomb threats, arsons, blockades, stalking of clinics and staff have all increased sharply. And, of course, the tragic murders [in] Minnesota.
Recently, abortion and IVF clinics have been hit by car‑bombings, firebombs, suspicious packages and surveillance that often crosses the line into doxxing and intimidation. We can't become numb to this political violence. It can never be seen as normal.
How do you see abortion rights playing in the 2026 midterms? There are ballot measures related to it in Missouri and Nevada.
Unfortunately, ballot measures are not a quick fix. You can see this playing out in states like Ohio, where the majority of Ohioans came out to enshrine the right to abortion in their state constitution, and yet there's still limited access to abortion there. Now, the legislature is trying to undo the will of the voters by introducing an abortion ban bill.
It's deeply frustrating. What we've advised in Indiana and other states trying to do this work is that at a very local grassroots level, this takes time. We need patience. The anti-choice movement has been incredibly deliberate for decades in controlling the messaging about how we think about our own bodies.'
POLITICO Special Report
Planned Parenthood Turns to States for a Lifeline by Rachel Bluth, Katelyn Cordero and Ben Jacobs for POLITICO: 'Planned Parenthood is pushing governors and legislators in California, New York and other blue states to cobble together emergency funding that will allow them to keep the lights on should the spigot of federal money run dry.
The Republican budget proposal moving through Congress would in one fell swoop prohibit most abortion providers from getting any federal funding, including Medicaid dollars.'
Rep. LaMonica McIver Pleads Not Guilty as Watchdog Group Files Complaint Against Alina Habba by Ry Rivard for POLITICO: 'Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) appeared in court Wednesday morning in front U.S. District Court Judge Jamel Semper on a trio of charges following a May scuffle outside a federal immigration facility.
'Your honor, I plead not guilty,' she said. … McIver is accused in a three-count indictment of slamming a federal agent with her forearm, 'forcibly' grabbing him and using her forearms to strike another agent. Allegations of physical violence by a sitting member of Congress are rare, with a handful of incidents including the pre-Civil War caning of a senator by a member of the House.'
Meet the Face of France's Pro-Palestinian Camp by Victor Goury-Laffont for POLITICO Europe: 'PARIS — Rima Hassan's journey aboard the Freedom Flotilla didn't end when Israeli forces intercepted it in the Mediterranean. It concluded before a sea of Palestinian flags being waved by cheering supporters back in Paris.
Hassan, a 33-year-old Franco-Palestinian MEP, had just returned to the French capital on June 12 after spending a week on the open water, followed by three days in Israeli custody after attempting to bring aid into the blockaded Gaza Strip.
The boat was not nearly big enough to carry sufficient aid to stave off the looming humanitarian catastrophe in the besieged coastal enclave. Speaking to the crowd alongside fiery hard-left French presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Hassan admitted it was 'mostly symbolic.''
Number of the Week
Read more here.
MUST READS
Mamdani's Wife, Absent for Much of Campaign, Is Thrust into Spotlight by Taylor Robinson for The New York Times: 'Zohran Mamdani stood before a cheering crowd late Tuesday night at a Long Island City bar, his victory in the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City all but guaranteed. His wife, Rama Duwaji, stood at his side, smiling, as he concluded his speech.
Many already knew Ms. Duwaji, 27, from the wedding photos that Mr. Mamdani posted to Instagram last month, showing the couple holding hands on the subway and in the streets of downtown Manhattan.
Ms. Duwaji is an animator and illustrator whose designs have appeared in The New Yorker, the BBC and The Washington Post, according to her portfolio website. She is ethnically Syrian and was born in Texas, a campaign spokeswoman said, and she holds a master's degree in illustration from the School of Visual Arts in New York.'
Malala Turns Her Fight for Equality to Women in Sports by George Ramsay, Amanda Davies and Aleks Klosok for CNN: 'Malala Yousafzai is known by millions around the world as an activist and human rights campaigner, a voice of power and inspiration who survived an assassination attempt by the Taliban at age 15. Perhaps less well known is her life as a sports fanatic.
But take any major women's sports event from the past few years and you can bet on Yousafzai being in the stands, whether that's cricket, soccer, basketball, netball or the Olympic and Commonwealth Games. She even chose to spend a freezing Valentine's Day evening with her husband, Asser Malik, watching American rugby star Ilona Maher turn out for English club side Bristol Bears.'
Supreme Court Allows States to Cut Off Medicaid Funding for Planned Parenthood by Ann E. Marimow for the Washington Post: 'A divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against Planned Parenthood, saying Medicaid patients do not have a right to sue to obtain non-abortion health care from the organization's medical providers.
The decision allows South Carolina to cut off Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood. It also has implications for patients in other states at a time when Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration are separately trying to defund even non-abortion health care offered by the nation's largest abortion provider.'
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
Watch the interview here.
on the move
Rachel Thomas is now senior director of corporate communications at Flagship Pioneering. She most recently was director of strategic communications for implementation in the Biden White House. (h/t POLITICO Playbook)
Kate Kamber Brennan is joining Rational 360 as SVP of digital. She previously led stakeholder targeting programs for Edelman's global business marketing team. (h/t POLITICO Playbook)
Na'ilah Amaru is now senior director of mobilization and engagement at the League of Women Voters. She was previously pursuing a Ph.D. in political science at the CUNY Graduate Center. (h/t POLITICO Influence)

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
Smerconish: Trump is on a Roll - Smerconish on CNN - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
Smerconish: Trump is on a Roll Smerconish on CNN 44 mins CNN Michael Smerconish weighs in on the recent victories for the Trump administration this week. Then, David Urban, a former Trump Campaign adviser, and Xochitl Hinojosa, a former DNC communications director, join Smerconish to discuss how the American public is reacting to Trump's latest wins. Plus, Andrew Daniller, a Pew Research Associate, shares his latest research on how non-voters would have influenced the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. And, the U.S. Supreme Court handed a blockbuster decision to limit judges' from issuing nationwide injunctions against the Trump administration. Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of UC Berkely Law School, weighs in on the court's decision.


CBS News
3 hours ago
- CBS News
U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Texas porn age verification law restarts fight with similar Florida legislation
In a ruling that has implications for a battle over a similar Florida law, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a Texas law requiring age verification for access to websites with pornographic content. The court, in a 6-3 decision, said the Texas law does not violate First Amendment rights and that at least 21 other states — including Florida — "have imposed materially similar age-verification requirements to access sexual material that is harmful to minors online." As the Supreme Court weighed the Texas case in January, Tallahassee-based U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a stay of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Florida law. Walker on Friday quickly lifted the stay and gave directions to lawyers, including about filing "supplemental arguments now that the Supreme Court has provided additional guidance as to the applicable level of scrutiny that applies to plaintiffs' claims." What the Supreme Court decision says Friday's majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, said age-verification laws "fall within states' authority to shield children from sexually explicit content." "The First Amendment leaves undisturbed states' traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective," said the opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. "That power necessarily includes the power to require proof of age before an individual can access such speech. It follows that no person — adult or child — has a First Amendment right to access speech that is obscene to minors without first submitting proof of age." But Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the age-verification requirement would burden the First Amendment rights of adults who want to view websites with pornographic content. "Texas can of course take measures to prevent minors from viewing obscene-for-children speech," Kagan wrote. "But if a scheme other than H. B. 1181 (the Texas law) can just as well accomplish that objective and better protect adults' First Amendment freedoms, then Texas should have to adopt it (or at least demonstrate some good reason not to). A state may not care much about safeguarding adults' access to sexually explicit speech; a state may even prefer to curtail those materials for everyone. Many reasonable people, after all, view the speech at issue here as ugly and harmful for any audience. But the First Amendment protects those sexually explicit materials, for every adult. So a state cannot target that expression, as Texas has here, any more than is necessary to prevent it from reaching children." Where does Florida's law stand now after the ruling? Florida lawmakers passed the age-verification requirements in 2024 as part of a broader bill (HB 3) that also seeks to prevent children under age 16 from opening social-media accounts on some platforms. The social-media part of the bill drew a separate constitutional challenge, with Walker this month issuing a preliminary injunction to block it on First Amendment grounds. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry group, and other plaintiffs filed the lawsuit challenging the pornography-related part of the law. The Free Speech Coalition also has been a plaintiff in the Texas case. The Florida lawsuit centers on part of the law that applies to any business that "knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on a website or application, if the website or application contains a substantial portion of material harmful to minors." It defines "substantial portion" as more than 33.3 percent of total material on a website or app. In such situations, the law requires businesses to use methods to "verify that the age of a person attempting to access the material is 18 years of age or older and prevent access to the material by a person younger than 18 years of age." The lawsuit raises objections about how the law would apply to minors and adults, including saying it "demands that, as a condition of access to constitutionally protected content, an adult must provide a digital proof of identity to adult content websites that are doubtlessly capable of tracking specific searches and views of some of the most sensitive, personal, and private contents a human being might search for." The lawsuit also alleges that the law does not properly differentiate between older minors and younger children. In addition to alleging violations of First Amendment rights, the lawsuit contends that the law violates due-process rights, the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause and what is known as the Supremacy Clause — issues that were not addressed in Friday's opinion about the Texas law.


The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
New Jersey AG ‘confident' in battle against Trump birthright citizenship order
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, one of the plaintiffs in a 22-state lawsuit against President Trump's executive order curbing birthright citizenship, said Saturday he was 'confident' the order could still be blocked nationwide following a Friday Supreme Court ruling that broadly restricted the ability of the court system to halt the president's policies. 'There's a whole range of administrative challenges that would make this completely unworkable, which is why I'm confident we'll get the nationwide relief we've sought when we go back to the lower courts,' Platkin said in an MSNBC appearance. The nation's highest court ruled Friday that Trump's executive order could be partially enforced because lower-court judges had exceeded their authority in issuing nationwide injunctions that blocked the policy. The ruling did not address the underlying constitutionality of Trump's order, but still drastically limited a judicial tool that has been used for decades, including to block federal policies from multiple presidential administrations. New Jersey is one of 22 Democratic-led states, along with a group of expectant mothers and immigration organizations, that sued to block the executive order almost immediately after it was issued in January. The injunctions issued by three federal judges in Washington, Maryland and Massachusetts in the ensuing months granted relief not just to those plaintiffs, but everyone in the country. That move, the Supreme Court majority said Friday, was unconstitutional. Instead, injunctions should be narrowly tailored to provide 'complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.' The lower courts will now get the first attempt at tailoring injunctions to comply with the ruling. On MSNBC, Platkin contended that 'complete relief' to the states harmed by the executive order would still involve blocking the executive order across the country. 'It would be impossible to administer a system of citizenship based on which state you live in,' he said. The suits of the non-state plaintiffs, meanwhile, were quickly refashioned into class-action lawsuits, a legal route that Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted could provide broader relief against the birthright citizenship order in her majority opinion. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days while the courts and parties sort out the next steps.