Chipping away at women's rights
Will the Supreme Court come for contraception next?
I'm a big fan of contraception. Thanks to the blessed availability of the pill, I got to have my child when I chose to. This doesn't make me unusual: At least 90 percent of American women use contraception at some point in their lives. But what about future American women? What about my teenage daughter? The three justices that former President Donald Trump nominated to the Supreme Court have already shredded one precedent that guaranteed women reproductive freedom, and there's a real chance they will tear up another. In their confirmation hearings, each of Trump's picks swore they would treat Roe v. Wade as the law of the land. Brett Kavanaugh insisted that Roe was "settled as precedent." So did Neil Gorsuch. Amy Coney Barrett said she would "follow the law of stare decisis." All three voted to overturn the decision anyway.
The right to abortion and the right to contraception both spring from the constitutional right to privacy grounded in Griswold v. Connecticut, the case that established the right of married couples to access birth control. It, too, is supposed to be settled law. Yet some Republicans, including Justice Clarence Thomas, are on the record calling for that decision to be reconsidered. Conservative activists have been sowing misinformation, falsely claiming that standard birth-control methods sometimes abort, not just prevent, pregnancies. Overturning Griswold would outrage most Americans, but this court doesn't seem to care what most Americans want — after all, polls taken the very month that it overturned Roe found that a decided majority of us favored keeping abortion legal. Now that Roe is gone, my daughter is growing up in a world where she has fewer rights than I had. Her male peers don't face the same situation, since nobody is gunning for condoms, the one form of birth control that requires buy-in from men. No, they are coming for the pill, the IUD, and the morning-after pill — the measures that women alone take to ward off unintended pregnancy. A war on women, indeed.
This is the editor's letter in the current issue of The Week magazine.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Susan Caskie is The Week's international editor and was a member of the team that launched The Week's U.S. print edition. She has worked for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Transitions magazine, and UN Wire, and reads a bunch of languages.
-
Farage’s £9m windfall: will it smooth his path to power?In Depth The record donation has come amidst rumours of collaboration with the Conservatives and allegations of racism in Farage's school days
-
The issue dividing Israel: ultra-Orthodox draft dodgersIn the Spotlight A new bill has solidified the community’s ‘draft evasion’ stance, with this issue becoming the country’s ‘greatest internal security threat’
-
Codeword: December 13, 2025The daily codeword puzzle from The Week
-
‘Toxic chemicals emitted by those facilities can ravage the human body’Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
Trump: Losing energy and supportFeature Polls show that only one of his major initiatives—securing the border—enjoys broad public support
-
Trump’s poll collapse: can he stop the slide?Talking Point President who promised to ease cost-of-living has found that US economic woes can’t be solved ‘via executive fiat’
-
The military: When is an order illegal?Feature Trump is making the military’s ‘most senior leaders complicit in his unlawful acts’
-
Ukraine and Rubio rewrite Russia’s peace planFeature The only explanation for this confusing series of events is that ‘rival factions’ within the White House fought over the peace plan ‘and made a mess of it’
-
The US-Saudi relationship: too big to fail?Talking Point With the Saudis investing $1 trillion into the US, and Trump granting them ‘major non-Nato ally’ status, for now the two countries need each other
-
Nigel Farage: was he a teenage racist?Talking Point Farage’s denials have been ‘slippery’, but should claims from Reform leader’s schooldays be on the news agenda?
-
Tariffs: Will Trump’s reversal lower prices?Feature Retailers may not pass on the savings from tariff reductions to consumers