Two Neighbours, Two Courts, One Paradox: Abortion Rights in the US and Mexico

By Devashri Awasthi, McGill International Review
Mar 21, 2026

In September 2021, Mexico’s Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) unanimously declared criminalizing abortion unconstitutional. Nine months later, the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (1973). The irony is striking: Mexico—commonly perceived as conservative and overwhelmingly Catholic—expanded abortion rights through judicial reasoning, while the United States—long self-identified as a global rights leader—restricted access through partisan judicial maneuvering. Two neighbouring Christian-majority countries with politically compromised judiciaries reached diametrically opposite conclusions on closely related constitutional questions.

Taken together, these rulings pose a clear comparative puzzle. Holding religion constant and treating politics as the product rather than the cause, analyzing this outcome centres on judicial interpretation, social movements, and international human rights uptake as the channels through which the bounds of the decision were set.

Continued: https://www.mironline.ca/two-neighbours-two-courts-one-paradox-abortion-rights-in-the-us-and-mexico/

‘Lone Star Three’: How Three UT Austin Students Paved the Way for Birth Control Access in 1960s Texas

In the years before Roe v. Wade, three UT Austin students built a quiet network helping women access birth control and abortion care in Texas.

March 5, 2026
by Livia Follet and Ava Slocum

In 1969, Victoria Foe, Judy Smith and Barbara Hines were students at the University of Texas in Austin, when Smith invited Foe and Hines to attend women’s liberation meetings at her house. What began as late-night conversations quickly grew into a campus Birth Control Information Center … and eventually an underground network helping women access abortion at a time when the procedure was illegal in Texas.

Their activism would eventually extend far beyond their university campus, planting the seeds for Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that would legalize abortion in the U.S. Not until 1965 did the Supreme Court recognize a constitutional right for married couples to use birth control; in 1972, it extended that right to unmarried people as well.

Continued: https://msmagazine.com/2026/03/05/lone-star-three-documentary-roe-v-wade-texas-abortion-birth-control-victoria-foe-judy-smith-barbara-hines/

Does a Fetus Have Constitutional Rights?

“Personhood,” by Mary Ziegler, is a field guide to the seemingly boundless tactical resourcefulness of the anti-abortion movement.

By Margaret Talbot
April 14, 2025

In the first two years after the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, the number of abortions performed annually in the United States went up. On the face of it, this might seem perplexing. After all, many states seized the opportunity presented by the Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to enact daunting new restrictions on abortion: twelve adopted near-total bans, and four more imposed gestational limits of six weeks, a point at which many people may not yet realize they are pregnant. Yet, suddenly, the U.S. was seeing an increase in abortions—from about nine hundred and thirty thousand in 2020 to more than a million in 2023. The best explanation for this apparent paradox was that providers and activists in states where abortion was still accessible devoted considerable energy and resources into making it more so. This was especially true for medication abortions provided via telehealth. In December, 2021, the F.D.A. had lifted its requirement that mifepristone be prescribed in person; the number of virtual clinics, which assess a patient’s eligibility online or by phone, and mail out the medications, proliferated.

Continued: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/04/21/personhood-mary-ziegler-book-review

USA – Abortion Ballot Measures Aren’t Safe From the Courts

People are understandably excited about statewide votes on abortion, but they could be gutted by a future Trump administration or by conservative judges.

By Susan Rinkunas
June 6, 2024

There could be nearly a dozen constitutional amendments codifying the right to abortion on the ballot this fall—and some could even overturn active abortion bans, like in Florida, Missouri, and South Dakota.

But abortion ballot measures are not a magic fix: They don’t immediately undo bad laws, as evidenced by Ohio advocates having to file multiple lawsuits to challenge past restrictions, and they can’t bring back clinics that closed. And there’s one more vulnerability we’re not talking about: Pro-choice ballot measures aren’t safe from a future Trump administration, or the conservatives on the Supreme Court.

Continued: https://www.jezebel.com/abortion-ballot-measures-arent-safe-from-the-courts

Hillary Clinton Has Some Tough Words for Democrats, and for Women

In an interview for a forthcoming book, Mrs. Clinton also suggested that if Donald Trump won in November “we may never have another actual election.”

By Lisa Lerer and Elizabeth Dias
May 25, 2024

Hillary Clinton criticized her fellow Democrats over what she described as a decades-in-the-making failure to protect abortion rights, saying in her first extended interview about the fall of Roe v. Wade that her party underestimated the growing strength of anti-abortion forces until many Democrats were improbably “taken by surprise” by the landmark Dobbs decision in 2022.

In wide-ranging and unusually frank comments, Mrs. Clinton said Democrats had spent decades in a state of denial that a right enshrined in American life for generations could fall — that faith in the courts and legal precedent had made politicians, voters and officials unable to see clearly how the anti-abortion movement was chipping away at abortion rights, restricting access to the procedure and transforming the Supreme Court, until it was too late.

Continued: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/25/us/politics/hillary-clinton-abortion.html

Anti-Abortion Republicans Want Comstock Laws to be their Secret Weapon in 2024

In this op-ed, Rachael Klarman and Will Dobbs-Allsopp of Governing for Impact explain the threat posed to abortion rights by a little-known 19th century law, the Comstock Act.

BY RACHAEL KLARMAN AND WILL DOBBS-ALLSOPP
FEBRUARY 7, 2024

The 2024 presidential election is officially underway, yet the race’s gravest stake has received alarmingly little attention: Prominent conservatives have a plan for the next anti-choice president to ban abortion nationwide without an act of Congress—and it may well succeed.

Their secret weapon is the long-dormant Comstock Act, a 19th century law still on the books, which states that to ship, carry, or receive “any drug, medicine, article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion” would be a federal crime. If your eyes are blinking in disbelief, we felt similarly when we first read the statute — though organizers and writers have been trying to draw attention to the threat for the past several months. Given the riotous state of American abortion politics, how can nationwide restrictions potentially already exist in federal law, yet receive so little mainstream attention?

Continued: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/comstock-abortion-secret-weapon-oped

USA – ‘Plain historical falsehoods’: How amicus briefs bolstered Supreme Court conservatives

A POLITICO review indicates most conservative briefs in high-profile cases have links to a small cadre of activists aligned with Leonard Leo.

By HEIDI PRZYBYLA
Dec 3, 2023

Princeton Professor Robert P. George, a leader of the conservative legal movement and confidant of the judicial activist and Donald Trump ally Leonard Leo, made the case for overturning Roe v. Wade in an amicus brief a year before the Supreme Court issued its watershed ruling.

Roe, George claimed, had been decided based on “plain historical falsehoods.” For instance, for centuries dating to English common law, he asserted, abortion has been considered a crime or “a kind of inchoate felony for felony-murder purposes.”

Continued: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/03/supreme-court-amicus-briefs-leonard-leo-00127497

03.12.2023

Alliance Defending Freedom

Allison Orr Larsen

American Historical Association

amicus briefs

Amy Coney Barrett

anti-choice cruelty

anti-choice deception

anti-choice hatred

anti-choice lies

anti-choice misinformation

anti-choice misogyny

Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

Center for Reproductive Rights

Concord Fund

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

DonorsTrust

Ethics and Public Policy Center

Judicial Crisis Network

Judicial Education Project

Organization of American Historians

USA – Judge James Ho’s Connections to the Anti-Abortion Movement

An extreme right-wing judge and former clerk for Clarence Thomas, James Ho has close ties to anti-abortion and dark money groups.

10/5/2023
by ANSEV DEMIRHAN and EVAN VORPAHL

In August, three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (which covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) ruled that mifepristone—the most widely used abortifacient, and more commonly known as the abortion pill—could no longer be provided by mail. They imposed a new requirement that the medicine only be administered in the presence of a physician. They also limited the use of this drug to the first seven weeks of pregnancy, even though it is safe to use at least throughout the first 10 weeks.

The ruling did overturn a lower federal court edict from Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk—a Trump-appointed judge who failed to disclose to the U.S. Senate and the American people his recent anti-abortion writings—to revoke the FDA’s 23-year old approval of mifepristone as a safe drug for Americans seeking abortions.

Continued: https://msmagazine.com/2023/10/05/judge-james-ho-abortion/

USA – The Right’s War on Abortion Was Never About Legal Doctrine

The justices in the Dobbs majority promised to return abortion “to the people’s elected representatives.” For conservative activists, this was just the beginning.

BY PETER SHAMSHIRI
MAY 30, 2023

When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Court’s conservatives tried to couch the decision in moderated, legalistic terms.

In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the Court was simply returning the power to regulate abortion “to the people’s elected representatives.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a platitude-ridden concurrence stating that “on the issue of abortion, the Constitution is neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral.” Both justices were making the same point. They were claiming that the decision did not speak to the propriety of abortion, but instead was a judgment only about the scope of the Constitution.

Continued: https://ballsandstrikes.org/law-politics/dobbs-opinion-never-about-legal-doctrine/

30.05.2023

Commentary

14th Amendment

Brett Kavanaugh

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

USA – THE FIRST “WRONGFUL DEATH” CASE FOR HELPING A FRIEND GET AN ABORTION

The lawsuit’s long game — beyond instilling fear — is establishing fetal personhood, the holy grail of the anti-abortion movement.

Mary Tuma
April 26 2023

“YOUR HELP MEANS the world to me,” a grateful Brittni Silva texted her best friends, Jackie Noyola and Amy Carpenter, last July. “I’m so lucky to have y’all. Really.”

A month after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the Houston mother of two experienced an unplanned pregnancy with her now ex-husband and allegedly sought abortion care with the help of her friends. For nearly a year, Texas had imposed a six-week abortion ban, and a full “trigger” ban would be enacted in just a few weeks. Silva needed to act fast and extricate herself from what appeared to be an emotionally unhealthy relationship with a husband she would go on to divorce in February. Her friends offered their unwavering support.

Continued: https://theintercept.com/2023/04/26/abortion-wrongful-death-texas-lawsuit/