Democrats are increasing pressure on President Biden to take executive action to protect abortion rights in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.  

Action from the president alone cannot reverse the slew of state bans going into effect after Friday’s ruling, but vocal Democrats say the urgency of the moment requires taking all action available to increase abortion access as much as possible.  

Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) led a group of 23 Senate Democrats calling on Biden to explore a range of executive actions, including allowing abortions to be performed on federal property and providing vouchers for women to travel out of state to get an abortion. 

“As extremist judges and Republican politicians intensify their efforts to strip Americans of their basic reproductive freedoms, you can demonstrate to the country and women everywhere that you will do everything in your power to fight back,” the senators wrote to Biden in a letter this month.  

The Congressional Black Caucus called on Biden to declare a public health emergency around abortion to “utilize additional flexibilities and deploy resources where necessary.” 

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), speaking at a protest on Friday, called it the “babiest of the babiest of the baby steps” for Biden to “open abortion clinics on federal lands in red states right now,” in addition to even more far-reaching steps like expanding the Supreme Court.  

The pressure is a test of how far Biden is willing to go on the issue as much of his party is outraged and demanding action. The president, a Catholic, has sometimes had a complicated history on abortion, for example reversing his support for the Hyde Amendment banning federal funding for abortion amid controversy in 2019 during the presidential primary.  

Biden’s response to the ruling so far has emphasized calling on the public to elect more Democrats in November so that Congress has the votes to codify Roe v. Wade into law, rather than executive action.  

Biden did allude to two actions his administration can take: protecting access to abortion pills and ensuring women are not blocked from traveling across state lines for abortions.  

But Lawrence Gostin, a health law professor at Georgetown University, said he was “underwhelmed” by the steps Biden has announced so far.  

Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland should more explicitly say they will challenge any state blocking access to abortion pills in court, Gostin said, citing the argument that federal approval of the pills from the Food and Drug Administration takes precedence over state restrictions.  

Asked about allowing abortions on federal lands, Vice President Kamala Harris told CNN’s Dana Bash on Monday “it's not right now what we are discussing,” pivoting to the stakes in November’s election.  

“We have to also recognize, Dana, that we are 130-odd days away from an election which is going to include Senate races,” she said. “Part of the issue here is that the Court has acted, now Congress needs to act.” 

Asked on Saturday about Biden’s “seeming lack of urgency” on abortion rights, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre pushed back, saying there has been “a lot of urgency.” 

She pointed to Biden’s remarks on the importance of protection abortion pill access and the ability of women to travel out of state.  

She did not go into specifics on any further actions. “I know people are asking about executive actions,” she said. “The President is going to continue to find solutions. He’s going to continue to talk to leading groups. He’s going to continue to talk to legal experts on what he can do from his — you know, his own executive perch, if you will.” 

It is legally unclear whether allowing abortions to be provided on federal land would work, given the Hyde Amendment banning federal funds from being used for abortion, Gostin said, but he argued it is “worth a shot.” 

“The White House can’t be cautious,” he said. 

There is a risk of state prosecution of people involved, though, if a state outlawed abortion.  

Harris was more open when asked about vouchers or other forms of financial assistance for lower-income women seeking to travel out of state for an abortion.  

“We know that on this issue, women who have access to resources will probably be far less impacted by this decision than women who don't have resources,” Harris said. “So this is something that we are looking at.” 

Declaring a public health emergency could help on the margins, for example freeing up some funding, said Neil Siegel, a Duke University law professor, but it cannot override state law.  

“I’m not aware of any power the president has to declare a public health emergency that would override or preempt state legislation restricting access to abortion,” he said. “A declaration of a public health emergency could empower the president to enhance access to care in states that permit it, and perhaps provide resources to pregnant people who want to travel interstate or receive abortion medication via the mail.” 

Some calls for action have not outlined specific steps.  

A group of 33 Senate Democrats over the weekend simply wrote to Biden: “Now is the time for bold action to protect the right to an abortion.” 

Inadequate access to nutrition has become a threat to public health in the U.S., amplifying existing food insecurity and social issues, the American College of Physicians declared on Monday.

With about 10 percent of the U.S. population suffering from food insecurity, more needs to be done to address the source of the problem and strengthen public health, the organization argued in a new position paper.

Achieving these goals means empowering physicians and other medical professionals to better account for social drivers of health that are happening beyond their office doors, according to the paper, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“Strengthening access to good nutrition is a public health imperative,” Ryan Mire, president of the American College of Physicians, said in a video statement accompanying the paper.

“We know that food insecurity is associated with worse mental and physical health, worse health outcomes and an increased risk of diet-related illnesses and health conditions,” added Mire, whose organization, which represents U.S. internists, is the largest medical-specialty group in the country.

Food insecurity in the U.S. is linked to a variety of health issues, such as greater risks of birth defects, anemia, lower nutrient intakes, cognitive issues, asthma, poor oral health and a heightened risk of mental and behavioral health issues in children, according to the position paper.

For non-senior adults who are food insecure, the paper identified a connection to lower nutrient intakes, higher rates of mental health problems, diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol, as well as poorer reported sleep and health exam outcomes.

As far as seniors are concerned, the authors likewise observed lower nutrient intakes, as well as poorer reported health, higher rates of depression and increased limitations on daily activity.

“Physicians and other clinicians should learn about the prevalence of food insecurity and its health consequences,” Mire said.

The American College of Physicians therefore suggests that physicians and healthcare professionals incorporate “screening tools for food nutrition and other social drivers of health as an integral part of medical practice,” Mire added.

The position paper provided several specific recommendations, calling upon officials to make food insecurity a policy and funding priority — as part of a broader effort to encourage safe and healthful diets.

The authors urged lawmakers to improve the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) to better serve the needs of and health of food insecure individuals. Meanwhile, they suggested that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services develop, test and support innovative models that incorporate benefits related to food insecurity issues.

“Strict qualification requirements and inadequate benefit calculation formulas have created a case scenario where it is still inadequate for patients to be able to afford healthy and nutritious foods,” Mire said.

“Nearly two out of three food assistance recipients have had to choose between paying for food versus paying for their medical bills or medications within the past year,” he added.

Medical professionals should take initiative on activities that might help them understand and mitigate food insecurity issues experienced by their patients, according to the paper.

In addition to screening patients for food insecurity, some such efforts could include the incorporation of food insecurity into medical education curricula, as well as establishing tools for referring patients in need to community and government resources, the authors explained. 

“Physicians cannot do this alone. These efforts need to be supported by governments, payers and other stakeholders,” Mire said.

“Looking more big picture, we need to undertake efforts to reform our food nutrition systems and to research and implement innovative and sustainable systems in addressing food insecurity,” he added.

Top Biden administration officials met with health insurance industry executives Monday to ensure that their plan members have access to contraceptive services at no cost. 

Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, Labor Secretary Marty Walsh and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen met with major health insurance groups and plan sponsors to remind them of the legal obligation under ObamaCare to provide contraceptive coverage for free.

The meeting comes just days after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and left states to decide whether abortion is legal. In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas called on the Supreme Court to reconsider its landmark 1965 case protecting access to contraceptives.

In all 50 states, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) guarantees coverage of women’s preventive services, including free birth control and contraceptive counseling, for individuals and covered dependents.

In 2020, the law provided 58 million women access to preventive services without cost sharing.

In a statement, the secretaries said they are concerned about complaints that some plans are not following the law and denying coverage in certain instances.

"The departments expect plans and issuers to immediately take steps to ensure that they are complying, and they may take enforcement or other corrective actions as appropriate," the secretaries said in a statement.

The ACA requires that insurers cover at least one form of contraception for each method that's been cleared or approved by the Food and Drug Administration without cost sharing.  

"There have been troubling and persistent reports of noncompliance with these requirements," Becerra, Yellen and Walsh wrote in a letter to payers ahead of Monday's meeting.

"It is more important than ever to ensure access to contraceptive coverage without cost sharing, as afforded by the ACA," they wrote.

In May, the House Oversight and Reform Committee similarly pressed major health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers on their coverage of contraceptives. Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) sent letters to nine companies requesting information on their birth control coverage.

Advocates are concerned Republican legislatures emboldened by the decision overturning Roe could try to outlaw some emergency contraceptives such as Plan B and intrauterine devices, even though they are covered by the law's mandate.

Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.) warned on Monday that states where abortion remains legal have “no capacity” to absorb an influx of patients from states where it has been banned, after the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade.  

The former Minnesota Planned Parenthood executive told Washington Post Live’s Leigh Ann Caldwell about her visit to a clinic in Duluth, Minn., two weeks ago. She said the clinic has recently started caring for more patients from Wisconsin and Michigan, states where abortion rights are now under threat pending legal battles. 

"They are doing everything they can, but they are severely resource-constrained in terms of the providers that they have, in terms of the physical facilities that they have, in terms of the financial resources they need to try to expand access to care, which they desperately want to do,” Smith said. 

“This is why I say that a ban on abortion in South Dakota or North Dakota or Wisconsin has effects on people not only in those states but people living in Minnesota because there is no capacity to absorb that additional need in one place,” she added.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D), who is up for reelection this year, signed an executive order on Saturday protecting those seeking abortion who travel to Minnesota.

Waiting times for abortions in Minnesota are already increasing, Smith said, adding that health care centers aren't equipped to meet the rising demand. She said that private donations could help alleviate the pressure, but wouldn’t be a sustainable solution. 

“At the end of the day we can’t solve this problem with philanthropy, we have to solve this problem by changing the laws and making sure that a woman in northern Wisconsin has the same rights that a woman living in northern Minnesota does,” Smith said.

However, Smith conceded that congressional action on abortions was unlikely this session, and has joined calls for the Biden administration to move ahead with executive actions that could help counter tightening abortion restrictions in red states across the country.  

In March, the Senate voted 49-51 on a bill that would have put Roe v. Wade’s protections into law, falling well short of the needed 60 votes, with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and all 50 Republicans voting "no."

Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) have been discussing compromise legislation, which Smith said hinges on two questions for her: can the legislation achieve 60 votes, and will it protect basic Roe protections and stop “draconian” limitations on the procedure. 

Smith echoed many fellow Democrats in saying any progress in the abortion fight depended on the party holding its majority in the House and picking up two Senate seats in November’s mid-terms. That could allow Democrats to eliminate the filibuster, which both Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) have resisted for abortion and other issues. 

Smith and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), in a joint op-ed this weekend, called for President Biden to consider systemic reforms in the Supreme Court composition and the Electoral College to counter the conservative anti-abortion movement. 

Amith urged Democrats to mobilize in every state for all elections, noting it will take time to undo the “dramatic” implications brought on by the court.

“The Supreme Court has spoken, but they will not have the last word,” Smith said.

A Louisiana judge blocked enforcement on Monday of statewide abortion ban designed to automatically go into effect when Roe fell.

Two abortion rights groups on Monday filed a challenge to Louisiana’s trigger law, which went into effect following the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that struck down the federal right to abortion.

The Center for Reproductive Rights and Boies Schiller Flexner LLP requested emergency relief allowing providers in the state to continue providing abortions and patients to access the procedure.

In an email after the judge's decision Monday, the Center for Reproductive Rights said, "Abortion care will resume in the state and a hearing has been set for July 8th."

The groups, filing on behalf of organizations such as Hope Medical Group for Women and Medical Students for Choice, asked the court to review the state's trigger laws and determine what options exist for lifesaving care that requires aborting a pregnancy.

"In a stunning state of affairs, the day Dobbs was issued, state and local officials issued conflicting statements about whether and which trigger laws were actually in effect and thus what conduct—if any—was prohibited. Due process requires more," the groups wrote in a statement Monday.

"There is tremendous urgency around this petition and emergency motion as the Dobbs decision has precipitated a tidal wave of canceled appointments and the withdrawal of critical services in states with trigger laws throughout the nation, perhaps none more so than in Louisiana where the trigger laws are immediately effective," they added.

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry tweeted shortly after Friday's decision that "Louisiana’s trigger law banning #abortion is now in effect."

With its decision in Dobbs, the Supreme Court's conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade, a landmark decision that established the constitutional right to abortion nearly 50 years ago.

Louisiana was among more than a dozen GOP-led states that quickly enacted trigger laws either banning or severely restricting abortion within their borders.

Democrats at the state and federal level are discussing various actions to protect abortion access, from declaring a federal health emergency to setting up clinics on tribal lands outside of state legal jurisdiction.

“We are committed to this monumental legal challenge – not to perpetuate an endless political battle, but to ensure our patients’ wellbeing and so that they may draw strength from our dedication to this fight,” Hope Medical Group Administrator Kathaleen Pittman said in a statement Monday.

Medical Students for Choice Executive Director Pamela Merritt said her organization wanted to ensure that every medical student in the U.S. can receive education and training on abortion and family planning.

“Our members are outraged and heartbroken by the Supreme Court’s decision,” Merritt said in a statement. “While we have been actively preparing for this moment, it’s never easy to see the government take human rights away from millions of people, including those in Louisiana.”

Updated: 1:09 p.m.

The Supreme Court on Monday sided with two doctors challenging their convictions on drug distribution charges for over-prescribing opioid medications in a decision that could make it harder for federal prosecutors to prove such cases against licensed physicians.

The court was unanimous in ruling for the two doctors but split 6-3 on narrower legal issues in the decision. The justices stopped short of overturning the convictions, instead sending them back to the lower courts to reexamine the legal challenge in light of Monday's decision.

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the decision for the majority, ruling that in cases where someone who is authorized to prescribe medication is being prosecuted under the Controlled Substances Act, prosecutors must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally acted in an unauthorized manner."

"We normally would not view such dispensations as inherently illegitimate; we expect, and indeed usually want, doctors to prescribe the medications that their patients need," Breyer wrote. "In §841 prosecutions, then, it is the fact that the doctor issued an unauthorized prescription that renders his or her conduct wrongful, not the fact of the dispensation itself. In other words, authorization plays a 'crucial' role in separating innocent conduct—and, in the case of doctors, socially beneficial conduct—from wrongful conduct."

Breyer was joined in the opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Prosecutors alleged that the two doctors — Xiulu Ruan and Shakeel Kahn, who were tried separately — ran lucrative "pill mills," flooding their patients with prescriptions for fentanyl and other serious pain management medications.

Ruan and Khan were convicted by juries and each received sentences of more than 20 years in prison. They challenged their convictions, arguing that the instructions the juries received risked criminalizing standard medical and prescription practices.

The eldest daughter of the woman known under the pseudonym "Jane Roe," who brought Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court in 1973, said that her mother would be "devastated" by Friday's Supreme Court ruling overturning the landmark decision.

Melissa Mills, the daughter of Norma McCorvey, also known as "Jane Roe," said she was in "disbelief" when news broke of the Courts' decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which eliminated the constitutional right to abortion and handed states authority to drastically limit or ban the procedure.

"I was in disbelief. I was devastated," Mills said during an appearance on CNN's "New Day." "I knew it was coming, but it was just too real that it really happened."

She added that her mother, who passed away of heart failure at 69 in 2017, would be "devastated" to see that her grandchildren would not have the same rights that she fought for just under 50 years ago.

"My mother would just be devastated, just hard to believe now her grandkids are going to have the same rights as as we've had for 50 years," Mills said.

When asked by host Brianna Keilar what her concerns were as a mother, Mills replied that it was the same concerns her mother worried about.

"Someone telling you what to do with your reproductive rights and someone having their hand on you, telling you when and where and how you need to live your life," she said.

"As a woman, we have to take care of ourselves and sometimes we have to take care of ourselves in that way, and that should be our decision, nobody else's. Nobody, especially not a man," she added.

McCorvey, a working-class mother of two, became pregnant with a third child in Texas and wanted to terminate her pregnancy. However, she could not legally do so under the state’s abortion ban.

Through her legal representation, she was able to take her case to the Supreme Court as an anonymous plaintiff under the alias “Jane Roe." She gave birth to Mill’s younger sister, Shelley Lynn Thornton, before the final ruling.

Mills said she was proud of her mother for her work, saying she was proud of her for "going through and helping everyone."

"It wasn't just herself, she helped all women," Mills said.

Over half of the Americans questioned in a new poll say the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade is a "step backward" for the U.S.

In the CBS News/YouGov poll released Sunday, 52 percent of voters said the decision was a "step backward," while 31 percent say it is a "step forward." Seventeen percent said it was neither.

Overall, the poll found that 59 percent of respondents disapprove of the ruling, and 41 percent approve. More than two-thirds of women surveyed -- 67 percent -- disapproved of the ruling while 33 percent were in favor of it.

A majority of women in the survey -- 56 percent -- also said the court's decision will make their lives worse, while only 16 percent say it will make it better. Twenty-eight percent of women said it will not make a difference.

Justices in a 5-4 decision on Friday overturned Roe, sending the future of abortion rights back to states to decide whether they want to ban procedures or tighten restrictions.

The new survey also measured emotions toward the decision, which sparked protests across the U.S., with those who approve of the decision, especially those who identify as conservative or white evangelicals, reporting feeling "both hopeful and happy."

On the other side, many voters who disapprove of the decision have reported feeling "upset, angry, and many add scared," pollsters said. They noted that the sentiments are more commonly felt among the women who disapprove of the decision, compared to the men who do.

A majority of respondents -- 57 percent -- said it is likely that the court will limit same-sex marriage next, while 55 percent said justices will limit access to birth control.

The poll of 1,591 adults was conducted from June 24 to 25 following the ruling. It has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

Colorado police and the FBI are investigating a fire at a pregnancy center early Saturday morning as arson after finding graffiti and threatening messages scrawled on the Denver-area building.

The fire broke out at Life Choices in the city of Longmont around 3:17 a.m., police wrote in a Facebook post. The facility "sustained fire and heavy smoke damage" but no injuries were reported.

The fire came hours after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case precedent that had established abortion as a constitutional right. The 5-4 decision means states will now decide whether they want to ban or limit abortions, and about half of states have already done so or will restrict it further in the near future.

Photos submitted by Longmont Public Safety showed the pregnancy center was vandalized with black paint in several areas.

One message on the side of the building read: "if abortions aren't safe neither are you," while another written on the sidewalk read: "BANS OFF OUR BODIES."

Longmont is about a half-hour outside of Denver, which saw thousands of abortion rights protesters march across the city over the weekend to protest the Supreme Court's decision.

In April, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed a bill into law guaranteeing access to abortion, setting the stage for the state to become an abortion haven with much of the Midwest's abortion clinics expected to soon stop offering the procedure.

In a statement on Friday, Polis said "Coloradans do not want politicians making their healthcare decisions."

"Coloradans don’t have to worry because our rights are still protected today despite the unfortunate reality that the U.S. Supreme Court just rolled those freedoms back for millions of Americans in other states," the governor added. "In Colorado, we will continue to choose freedom and we stand against government control over our bodies."

--Updated at 8:22 a.m.

Authorities in Oregon arrested 10 protesters who were part of a large crowd supporting abortion rights after the demonstration turned violent.

Police in the city of Eugene, a city about an hour and a half away from Portland, said in a news release that protesters clashed with officers and threw smoke bombs during the demonstration at a pregnancy center on Friday night.

Nine people were charged with disorderly conduct including one person who was additionally charged with escape in the third degree and resisting arrest. One person was charged with harassment.

Officials said a large crowd gathered at the Dove Medical Center around 9:21 p.m. on Friday night as part of the "Night of Rage" protests against the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, which had enshrined abortion as a constitutional right, earlier in the day.

Protesters arrived wearing black clothing as well as masks and hoods, according to the Eugene Police Department. The crowd grew to 75 people and some protesters eventually began picking up rocks and putting on gas masks, officials added.

Police reportedly tried to disperse the crowd after protesters began hurling smoke bombs and filled water bottles at officers.

Officials said officers began making arrests but members of the crowd resisted, some of them violently. Officers began shooting inert pepperballs at the feet of the protesters, the department added, which eventually broke up the demonstration.

Several protests swept the nation after the Supreme Court's conservative majority voted 5-4 on Friday to overturn Roe v. Wade, allowing individual states to ban or limit abortions.

In Arizona, thousands of protesters converged on the state capitol building on Friday night, forcing some lawmakers to huddle in the basement, according to The Associated Press.

Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies Pfizer and BioNTech announced Saturday that updated versions of their vaccines that were adapted to the omicron variant of COVID-19 deliver a “substantially higher immune response” against the strain.

Studies “found that a booster dose of both Omicron-adapted vaccine candidates elicited a substantially higher immune response against Omicron BA.1 as compared to the companies’ current COVID-19 vaccine,” according to a press release from the companies, referring to the original omicron variant.

One of the updated vaccines is monovalent, targeting omicron alone, and the other is bivalent, combining the monovalent one with the companies' vaccine targeting the initial COVID-19 strain.

Both vaccines, when taken as a fourth booster shot, were found to significantly increase neutralization against omicron. The companies said that after the shots were administered, each in two different dosage amounts, the monovalent booster increased that neutralization 13.5- and 19.6-fold and the bivalent increased it 9.1- and 10.9-fold.

The studies were conducted with 1,234 adults aged 56 or older.

The vaccines also “demonstrated a favorable safety and tolerability profile similar to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine,” the companies said.

They added that preliminary laboratory studies showed the updated vaccines performing well against the BA.4 and BA.5 omicron subvariants, though not as well as they were found to against the original omicron variant.

“Omicron has newly evolving sublineages that have outcompeted BA.1 and exhibit a trend of increasing potential for immune escape,” said BioNTech CEO and Cofounder Ugur Sahin. “We will therefore remain vigilant and are prepared to rapidly adapt our Omicron-adapted vaccine candidates to emerging sublineages if epidemiological and laboratory data suggest.”

Pfizer and BioNTech have shared these results with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency.

The companies will discuss the data with regulators with the goal of “rapidly introducing [an] adapted booster to address current and future variants,” the press release said.

Discussions with the FDA Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee will take place on Tuesday and with the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities on Thursday.

The Supreme Court issued the biggest decision of its term on Friday when it overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion. 

The decision came more than a month after a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion indicated that the high court would overturn the 1973 landmark decision. Opponents of abortion rights celebrated while those in favor of access to the procedure despaired over what a post-Roe future will look like.

With the decision on how to regulate abortion left to the states, a patchwork of laws is emerging as some states move to ban or limit abortion while others rush to create additional protections for people who perform or obtain the procedure.

It is expected that abortion could be banned or severely restricted in about half the states.

More than a dozen states had “trigger” laws in place before the Friday ruling, designed to ban or seriously restrict abortion as soon as Roe was overturned. Some of those bans have already gone into effect while others are likely to become effective in a matter of days or weeks. 

Here are the states that have already banned or restricted abortion:

June 24

Missouri

Missouri became among the first states to effectively end abortions when state Attorney General Eric Schmitt (R) “triggered” legislation banning the medical procedure by issuing an opinion certifying Roe had been overturned just hours after the Supreme Court ruling.

Louisiana

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry (R) confirmed that its trigger law went into effect after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. According to the text of that legislation, one of the circumstances in which the law goes into effect is if the Supreme Court partly or fully reverses the 1973 landmark decision, which would give states the authority over whether to allow the medical procedure. 

South Dakota

South Dakota’s trigger law became effective on Friday. Text from the state’s legislation notes the trigger ban becomes effect the same day that the Supreme Court gives states the rights to choose abortion enforcement policies. 

Kentucky

Kentucky’s trigger law went into effect on Friday, with the legislation’s text noting that it could become effective immediately should Roe v. Wade be partly or fully reversed by the Supreme Court. 

Oklahoma

Oklahoma is now enforcing its abortion ban after Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor (R) certified to top officials in the state and its legislature that Roe v. Wade had been overturned by the high court. He notified officials that they would be allowed to begin enforcing its trigger law.

Ohio

Ohio’s abortion ban is now law after a court dissolved an injunction against the legislation. 

Arkansas

Arkansas initiated its trigger law after state Attorney General Leslie Rutledge (R) certified following the Supreme Court’s decision that it had overturned Roe v. Wade. 

Linda Goler Blount was just a child in 1973 when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roe v. Wade, legalizing access to abortion for women nationwide. 

“Women know how to take care of themselves,” said her mother, a kindergarten teacher and member of the National Negro Business and Professional Women's Club.

On Friday, these memories came rushing back to Blount as she read the news: the conservative-majority Supreme Court had overruled the right for women to "take care of themselves.” 

Blount was, ironically, at the gynecologist when the news broke. As she looked around the doctor’s office, all she could think was, “What’s going to happen to the women in this room with me?”

“There’s been a generation of young women and children who are being given the very clear message that their lives aren't worth anything, that they can be trusted to make the best decisions for their health,” Blount said. 

Women of color across the country have found themselves flooded with disbelief, anger and fear since news of the 6-3 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Black women are three to four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications and twice as likely to lose an infant to premature death. In 2019, Hispanic mothers were 80 percent more likely to receive late or no prenatal care compared to white mothers, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

While the Biden administration on Friday released a new plan to fight the maternal health crisis, a study released by Duke University in December showed that a complete abortion ban could increase Black maternal deaths by 33 percent and nationwide by 21 percent.

So Blount, the executive director of the Black Women’s Health Initiative, said she’s concerned not only for women who look like her, but for all people who can get pregnant. 

“We're going to lose a lot of women,” said Blount. “A lot of Black women and Brown women, but a lot of white women, too. Women are going to die in childbirth, and they're going to die because some may try to induce their own abortions. Some will die because of underlying health conditions that will not be able to be addressed so they'll have to carry a baby to term which will raise their risk for maternal mortality.”

But, she argued, the people who are pushing for the end to abortion rights aren’t interested in heaing the statistics. Instead, the conversations are happening in an “echo chamber.”

“We're talking to each other, but the people who need to hear this and understand the repercussions of their decisions aren’t interested and they're not listening,” she said.

The overturning of the nearly 50 year right to an abortion has been met with backlash from leaders and organizations across the country. 

The NAACP blasted the court’s decision as an "egregious assault on basic human rights” while the Congressional Black Caucus demanded Biden declare a national emergency. And Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.),  Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Health Braintrust, released an “outraged” statement condemning the decision.

“Black women, marginalized women, low-income women and rural women will bear the brunt of this,” Kelly said. “However, this is an attack on the personal freedom and bodily autonomy of every single person living in the United States.”

Lupe Rodriguez, executive director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, said Friday was a “dark day” that left millions of women feeling a lot of grief and pain.

“We have existed with structural inequities in health care access for forever,” she said. “So many of our communities, even before this court case, did not have true access to reproductive health care.”

With a presence in states around the country, including Texas, New York, Virginia and D.C., Rodriguez said she and her team have been mobilizing and preparing for the court’s decision since Texas passed a trigger law last year. 

But it was laws like Texas’s that left so many women unsurprised by Friday’s ruling. 

Alicia Garza, principal of the Black to the Future Action Fund, was in the middle of a workout when her trainer suddenly gasped and relayed the news. 

“When I heard the news that the decision had finally been announced, [I] wasn't shocked but it was like the pit of my stomach dropped,” Garza said.

She said her team had been preparing for this moment since the leak of the Supreme Court draft opinion a few weeks ago. 

The end to abortion rights, Garza said, impacts Black families in a myriad of ways — and the vigilante clauses in some states’ laws is one of the most concerning.  

Vigilante clauses encourage private citizens to file civil lawsuits against people they believe to have violated the abortion ban. 

“Just like Black communities are disproportionately impacted by a lack of access to quality and affordable health care, Black communities are also disproportionately impacted by criminalization and targeted for this kind of vigilantism and surveillance,” Garza argued. 

That criminalization, Rodriguez said, could lead to Black and Brown families having their children taken away, losing their livelihoods and being imprisoned. 

Still, for some women, the overturning of abortion rights has opened the door for offering pro-life options to Black and Brown women. 

Cherilyn Holloway, founder of Pro-Black Pro-Life, said her heart grieves for the women who feel they are being attacked and their rights stripped away. However, she also said she feels a sense of responsibility to her community now.

“I feel an overwhelming sense of responsibility and opportunity to do more work in these communities to uplift the Black woman in a way that she feels liberated through the community that's around her and not through the shedding of future generations,” Holloway said.

Holloway said her organization focuses on community and letting women, especially Black women, know that abortion is not their only option.

“The idea that more Black women are going to die because our maternal mortality rate is so high … we're not saving more Black women by allowing them to have abortions,” said Holloway. “No Black women should be dying in childbirth.”

That’s why she's focused on combating systemic inequities, like implicit bias in the medical community and economic inequity.

But for Blount, these issues could be addressed without limiting a person’s right to choose. 

Blount said the strategy has to be “state-by-state.” Providing resources for women in states that have outlawed abortions to travel to ones where the procedure is still legal is critical, she said.

The Black Women’s Health Imperative will also look to directly supply resources to women in need — specifically it's looking to stockpile up to 700,000 doses of Plan B and medical abortions. 

Meanwhile, Rodriguez and her team at the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice are sharing pertinent information about what rights women still have. She said they'll also continue pushing for legislation that promises reproductive freedom. 

“We will change the power structures that have brought us to this moment and our communities are going to take over this power and will give us all the rights we deserve,” she said.

The Black to the Future Action Fund is also mobilizing its volunteers and supporters. But Garza added they’re also just trying to create space for people to express how they’re feeling and what they want to see happen. 

All of this, she concluded, is to help determine who to vote in – and out – come November. 

“We're gonna get to decide who signs the bills in our states,” said Garza. “We get to do an audit of all the people who represent us and make decisions on our behalf and we get to look and see which one of these people is going to fight like hell to protect [our] healthcare. Anybody who doesn't make that list is going to have to find another job after November.”

The Supreme Court's extraordinary decision to eliminate the universal right to abortion is a watershed moment in the American experiment, ending half a century when people were free to make their own reproductive decisions and immediately ushering in an era when states can make that choice for them.

From a practical standpoint, the court's decision is an earthquake, one that is already leading to the creation of a checkerboard legal system in which blue states continue allowing the procedure and red states apply new restrictions or outright bans. 

Politically speaking, however, the battle going forward will look much the same as it’s been, pitting pro-choice liberals against anti-abortion conservatives in a cultural cage match to determine the fate and form of reproductive rights across the country. 

Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of Friday’s decision, Democrats are already vowing to codify abortion protections into law — same as they've done for decades — while Republicans are pledging to build on their momentous victory with new designs on an old goal: to ban the procedure nationwide.

The dichotomy was reflected on a microcosmic scale outside the Supreme Court on Friday morning, where a crowd of hundreds, then thousands, quickly formed following the unveiling of the decision — a spontaneous celebration/protest that turned First Street NE, which separates the Court from the Capitol, into a human parking lot.

It was a study in contrasts. Depending on your perspective, it was a day of either jubilation or sadness — a reason to dance in the streets or to scream out loud. 

Abortion opponents have fought to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that established the constitutional right to abortion, since the day it came down in 1973. They formed a euphoric scene outside the Court, featuring music and bubbles, hugs and tears of joy.

"I've never been this happy, I think, in my entire life,” said A.J. Hurley, director of Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, who was in town from Los Angeles in anticipation of the decision.

For abortion rights defenders, who had carved out their own space in front of the Court, it was a moment of focused anger. The ruling, they said, was a violation of bodily autonomy — "Women are not incubators,” they chanted — and many vowed to simply ignore the decision. 

“I will aid and abet abortion,” read one popular sign.

Claire Qian, from Lexington, Ky., had a personal reason to be there protesting Roe’s repeal. Her mother, she said, had two abortions, the first for financial reasons and the second because of medical complications. 

“If she had had the kid, she would have died,” Qian, 20, said. “And I remember she was sobbing, she was a wreck. It wasn't an easy decision at all — she was emotionally in turmoil for a while. But it was necessary, because she has a right to live as well.”

Qian’s sign told the tale: “My Mother’s Abortion Saved Her Life.”

Abortion opponents, of course, have a much different view, with many arguing that life begins at conception and therefore terminating a pregnancy is the equivalent of murder. 

“For 50 years in this country, the government has thought it's OK to kill children because of your size and where you're located,” Hurley said. 

Many abortion foes had been leery of Donald Trump and his crude brand of politics but supported him nonetheless for the opportunity to transform the Supreme Court. It was a gamble that was validated this week: Trump seated three Justices in the course of four years, all of whom voted to overturn Roe. Victory in hand, opponents of abortion are now planning to take their activism to those states where abortion will remain legal. 

"This is just the beginning," said Kristin Turner, head of Pro-Life San Francisco. 

While emotions were high on both sides Friday —  leading to a few face-to-face shouting matches — there appeared to be no violent confrontations, as the two sides remained largely separated throughout the day. Huge numbers of Capitol Police were on hand just in case.  

Kristin Tobaben Smith, 47, an ESL teacher visiting from Denver, Colo., was on the Metro with her two daughters when someone told her to avoid the Supreme Court because of the demonstration. Instead, the trio made a beeline toward it.

"I've been to these before. The first one I went to I was young, I was in college. And I was fighting for my rights as a woman to make choices, but now it's even more important for me because I have two daughters,” said Tobaben Smith. “And for them to make choices on how they take care of their bodies is for them to make, not the government.”

Her younger daughter, 11-year-old Claire, shared similar thoughts. 

"I feel like the U.S. government is not being very kind to women, because they're taking away a lot of rights from them,” she said. “It's supposed to be a free country, but then people are taking all the girls' rights to either have a child, or not to have a child. And it's sad because it's their bodies.”

Friday’s decision, while explosive, was also expected. Politico had published a draft ruling last month that proved to be largely in line with the final decision. 

Still, for abortion rights supporters, knowing the outcome in advance did little to dull their emotions when the ruling was made official. 

“I literally started shaking with anger,” said Rep. Sara Jacobs, a 33-year-old California Democrat. “As a young woman, and one of the few women of reproductive age in Congress, this decision feels very personal. Because it's five radical judges saying that they know more about the health care decisions that I need to make about my body than I do.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to repeal Roe comes on the heels of a pair of rulings to expand religious freedoms and extend gun rights, and the three combined have added to the controversy swirling around a Court that’s already seen its public standing plummet in recent years.

Roe is historically popular, with public opinion polls indicating for decades that less than a third of the country supports its repeal. Given those figures, some Democrats are accusing the Court — or at least the Republicans who secured the conservative majority — of ignoring the will of voters. 

"There is no democracy — there is no freedom — if women cannot make decisions about their own health care, including reproductive health care,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.). “It's a disgraceful decision."

Adding to the controversy, several of the Trump-appointed justices had indicated during their confirmation hearings that, not only were they committed to the long-held legal doctrine of honoring precedent, but that Roe — which has weathered numerous challenges over the years — was among those decisions. Some are now questioning whether to take the Court seriously at all. 

“It's clear that the Supreme Court has no legitimacy left with the American people,” said Jacobs, “and that they are overturning the will of people across the country.”

A federal appeals court on Friday temporarily blocked the Food and Drug Administration’s order banning the sale of Juul e-cigarettes, giving a reprieve to the company while the court hears more arguments.  

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted Juul’s request to stay the order until the court has time to hear further argument on the issue. The court noted its stay does not reflect on how it will rule on the substance of the case.  

The move comes one day after the FDA banned sales of Juul's e-cigarettes in a major blow against the company.  

Juul has been at the center of controversy over the rise of youth vaping.   

In making its order, the FDA cited “insufficient and conflicting data” from the company about “potentially harmful chemicals leaching” from its products.  

In its court filing, Juul pushed back by calling the FDA’s order “arbitrary and capricious.” 

The company said the move came “after immense political pressure from Congress once it became politically convenient to blame [Juul] for youth vaping, even though several of its competitors now have a larger market share and much higher underage-use rates.” 

The FDA’s order came as part of its broader review of e-cigarettes and amid concern about teenage use of the products.  

A debate has unfolded over the balance between preventing more young people from using e-cigarettes on one hand, and providing options for adult smokers who are looking to quit on the other.  

Health groups had praised the FDA’s order on Thursday.  

“Juul was the most popular e-cigarette among teens for several years and remains among the most popular today,” said American Lung Association President and CEO Harold Wimmer. “Ending the sale of all Juul products, including its menthol flavor, sends the message to companies that their blatant disregard for public health will not be tolerated.” 

The Supreme Court has delivered a major ruling striking down Roe v. Wade. We'll dive into the ramifications and where abortion stands in states following the ruling.

For The Hill, we’re Peter Sullivan, Nathaniel Weixel & Joseph Choi. If you enjoy this newsletter, please consider sharing it with a friend. Not on the list? Subscribe here.

Roe v. Wade is struck down. What happens now?

The decision Friday striking down Roe v. Wade leaves abortion laws up to each state, leaving a patchwork of laws across the country.

• Thirteen states have immediate trigger laws to ban almost all abortions: Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.
  
• More to watch: States including Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Michigan, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, Alabama and Ohio also have pursued laws that would ban abortion, but they would not go into effect immediately.
  
• Other situations: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed into law a 15-week abortion ban in April, which will go into effect on July 1. Like the Mississippi law at issue in the Supreme Court case, it bans the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy and doesn’t include exemptions for rape, incest or human trafficking.

The pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute estimates that 33 million U.S. women of child-bearing ages live in states that have laws on the books or set to be implemented that would ban or heavily restrict access to abortion. Guttmacher estimates 26 states are certain or likely to ban abortion.

“Those who have struggled in the past are going to be forced into possibly untenable situations to travel great distances or could be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term,” said Bethany Van Kampen, a senior policy advisor for Ipas, an abortion rights advocacy group. 

Map note: Three states — Oklahoma, Arkansas and Mississippi — have a trigger law for a Roe decision and have also passed pre-Roe decision abortion bans, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. 

View the full map and read more here

Biden reacts to ruling: Court paving ‘extreme’ path

President Biden on Friday accused the Supreme Court of taking an extremist path with its decision overturning Roe v. Wade, arguing the court made a “tragic error.”

• What he said: “It’s a sad day for the court and for the country,” Biden said at the White House. “The health and life of women in this nation is now at risk.”  
  
• Biden specifically called out the court for completely overturning Roe v. Wade and leaving the decision on abortion rights entirely to states. 
  
• He noted a person who is the victim of rape and incest would no longer be able to get an abortion unless a state law provides such an exception.

In the room: Biden delivered the remarks just after noon on Friday, roughly two hours after the ruling was issued.

A group of about a dozen female White House aides, including domestic policy adviser Susan Rice, watched on silently during his speech from a corner of the room.

Read more here.  

THOMAS OPENS DOOR TO OVERTURNING OTHER PRECEDENTS

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday called for overturning the constitutional rights the court had affirmed for access to contraceptives and LGBTQ rights in an opinion concurring with the majority decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

• In his separate opinion, Thomas acknowledged that Friday’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization does not directly affect any rights besides abortion.
  
• However, he argued that the constitution’s Due Process Clause does not secure a right to an abortion or any other substantive rights, and he urged the court to apply that reasoning to other landmark cases. 

His argument: Thomas wrote, “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”

Why it matters: The three cases Thomas mentioned are all landmark decisions and deal with contraceptives, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.

Since Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion overturning Roe was leaked earlier this year, Democrats and liberal activists have warned that the conservative majority would soon turn its attention to other rights that the court has previously affirmed.

Read more here. 

COLLINS: RULING ‘INCONSISTENT’ WITH WHAT TRUMP NOMINEES TOLD ME

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) on Friday said conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch misled her about their views on the importance of Supreme Court precedent during their confirmation proceedings in 2017 and 2018.

• Collins, who voted to confirm then-President Trump’s first two nominees to the court despite her support for abortion rights, has said she believed the justices would hold up important precedents such as Roe v. Wade.
  
• A court majority that included Kavanaugh and Gorsuch on Friday struck down the landmark 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion.

What she was told: “This decision is inconsistent with what Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said in their testimony and their meetings with me, where they both were insistent on the importance of supporting long-standing precedents that the country has relied upon,” Collins said, explaining her votes for those nominees during the Trump administration. 

“The Supreme Court has abandoned a fifty-year precedent at a time that the country is desperate for stability,” Collins said in a statement. “This ill-considered action will further divide the country at a moment when, more than ever in modern times, we need the Court to show both consistency and restraint.”

Read more here. 

Biden vows to protect access to pills, contraception, travel

President Biden on Friday vowed to protect access to abortion pills and contraception in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

• In remarks from the White House, Biden lambasted the decision as a “tragic error” carried out by an “extreme,” conservative-controlled Supreme Court.
  
• “It’s a sad day for the country in my view, but it doesn’t mean the fight’s over,” he said, calling for Congress to codify abortion protections through federal law.

White House action: Biden vowed that his administration would protect women’s access to medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including both contraceptives and oral abortifacients such as mifepristone.

“My administration will also protect a woman’s access to medications that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA. Like contraception which is essential for preventative health care [and] mifepristone, which the FDA approved 20 years ago to safely end early pregnancies and is commonly used to treat miscarriages,” the president said. 

Abortion travel: He also said his administration would defend the “bedrock right” of a woman living in a state where abortions are now outlawed to travel to another state where it is available and terminate her pregnancy. 

“If any state or local official, high or low, tries to interfere with a woman exercising her basic right to travel, I will do everything in my power to fight that deeply un-American attack,” said Biden. 

Read more here

WHAT WE'RE READING

• Covid-19 vaccines prevented nearly 20 million deaths in a year, study estimates (Stat) 
• From joy to anger, faith leaders react to Roe’s reversal (Associated Press) 
• Can I still buy Plan B? Where can I get it? What to know after SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade (USA Today)
  
  

STATE BY STATE

• A Post-‘Roe’ World in Georgia Will Mean More Restrictions — And More Political Battles (Kaiser Health News) 
• West Coast governors promise to defend abortion rights (Oregon Public Broadcasting) 
• Mississippi Abortion Clinic Will Remain Open Until At Least July 4th (Mississippi Free Press) 
  
  

OP-EDS IN THE HILL

We must end the public health emergency carefully

That's it for today, thanks for reading. Check out The Hill's Health Care page for the latest news and coverage. See you next week.

VIEW THE FULL EDITION HERE

Abortion pills are likely to become the next major front of the fight over reproductive healthcare in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

Republican-led states have been moving to limit or even completely ban access to the drugs, and advocates worry the Supreme Court's decision will embolden even more states to crack down.

Immediately following the ruling, Attorney General Merrick Garland said the Justice Department will protect the right to an abortion, including medication abortion.

"We stand ready to work with other arms of the federal government that seek to use their lawful authorities to protect and preserve access to reproductive care," Garland said in a statement. 

"In particular, the [Food and Drug Administration] FDA has approved the use of the medication Mifepristone. States may not ban Mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy," Garland said.

President Biden on Friday also pledged to protect access to abortion pills, though the White House is limited in what it can do. 

In brief remarks, Biden said he was directing the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that abortion pills would be available to the “fullest extent possible,” without specifying what measures the department would be taking.

There are two pills needed for a medication abortion, which is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. 

Mifepristone, a drug that blocks hormones necessary for pregnancy, was approved in 2000. It is then followed by misoprostol, which causes contractions and helps empty the uterus.

Medication abortion has become an increasingly common method for ending pregnancies. According to the Guttmacher Institute, it accounted for 54 percent of all abortions in 2020. 

The FDA temporarily lifted a requirement that mifepristone be dispensed in-person at a clinic or hospital because of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Biden administration made the change permanent in December, paving the way for doctors to prescribe the drug digitally and then mail the pills to patients.

Likely in anticipation of the Supreme Court's decision, state lawmakers introduced a flurry of restrictions on medication abortion this year. There are currently 19 states, mostly in the South and Midwest, that ban providers from prescribing abortion pills through telemedicine.

In 32 states, clinicians who administer medication abortion are required to be physicians.

Texas prohibits the use of medication abortion starting at seven weeks of pregnancy, while Indiana bans its use at 10 weeks. 

This week, Louisiana's governor signed into law a bill that outlawed out-of-state providers from mailing abortion pills, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $75,000 fine. 

Only a few states have tried to ban the pills outright, and those moves are tied up in court. 

Still, now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe, there's a concern more states will try and there's no clear precedent whether the Justice Department has the power to stop them.

States have the authority to regulate practice of medicine, but Garland is seemingly arguing that federal law — and a federal drug approval — takes precedence over state law.

Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown University, said Garland needs to take action against any state that sets up barriers or outright bans access to abortion drugs. 

"The FDA is our premier public health regulatory agency. And it should set, and does set, a national uniform standard for safe and effective drugs ... states don't get to pick and choose which FDA approved drugs they will and won't allow," Gostin said.

But Gostin also said the Supreme Court doesn't have a consistent track record ruling about FDA preemption of state law.  

"It's unclear whether a very conservative Supreme Court would allow FDA to preempt state bans, particularly since it's already ruled that abortion isn't protected under the Constitution," Gostin said. "And so I think it could go either way."

In one of the more recent examples of FDA preemption, Massachusetts in 2014 tried to ban the FDA-approved opioid Zohydro. The manufacturer sued, and a federal district court struck down the state's restrictions.

But the state didn't appeal the decision, so it never advanced in the courts, making its impact on future case law unclear. 

Vice President Harris on Friday said that the Supreme Court ruling striking down Roe v. Wade had spurred a “health care crisis” in the United States and warned that other rights were under threat.  

“This is a health care crisis because, understand, millions of women in America will go to bed tonight without access to the health care and reproductive care that they had this morning,” Harris said in remarks from Plainville, Ill.  

Echoing President Biden’s remarks hours earlier, Harris urged voters to elect more Democrats in order to enshrine the right to an abortion in law, as well as protect the rights to birth control, same-sex marriage and interracial marriage.  

“The great aspiration of our nation has been to expand freedom. But the expansion of freedom clearly is not inevitable. It is not something that just happens, not unless we defend our most fundamental principles, not unless we elect leaders who stand up for those principles,” Harris told her audience. 

“You have the power to elect leaders who will defend and protect your rights. And as the president said earlier today with your vote, you can act, and you have the final word. So, this is not over,” she said.  

Harris had been in Illinois to discuss the administration’s work on maternal health care, but her speech was reworked to address the Supreme Court ruling Friday morning.  

The 6-3 decision by a majority of conservative justices struck down Roe v. Wade, a landmark ruling almost 50 years ago that said abortion was a constitutional right. 

The move was expected following a leaked draft ruling published by Politico last month, but it nevertheless has sent shockwaves through the country.  

Thirteen states in the U.S. have so-called trigger laws that restrict abortion and will take effect now that Roe has been struck down. 

Harris has been meeting with stakeholders on abortion rights in recent weeks and rebuked the draft ruling during a speech at an EMILY’s List gala last month.  

On Thursday, she met with a group of Democratic attorneys general to discuss how to push back on state laws restricting abortion.  

In remarks from the White House, Biden said the Supreme Court had made a “tragic error” and accused the court of taking the country down an “extreme and dangerous path.”  

He also vowed to protect access to abortion pills and contraception and urged voters to elect lawmakers who support abortion rights so that Congress can enact a law guaranteeing women the right to an abortion. 

The Pentagon is evaluating its policies following the Supreme Court’s Friday decision striking down Roe v. Wade, which since 1973 had guaranteed a woman's right to an abortion, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said.

The ruling is set to affect thousands of military personnel and their families who may be stationed or work in states where abortions will soon be outlawed or heavily restricted. 

The Defense Department is “examining this decision closely and evaluating our policies to ensure we continue to provide seamless access to reproductive health care as permitted by federal law,” Austin said in a statement.  

“Nothing is more important to me or to this Department than the health and well-being of our Service members, the civilian workforce and DOD families. I am committed to taking care of our people and ensuring the readiness and resilience of our Force,” he said.  

The Pentagon had faced pressure ahead of the ruling over whether it would protect access to abortion for pregnant servicewomen who would have to seek the procedure in a different state than where they are stationed. Such a process isn’t always easy for troops as they usually must get approval from superiors to travel from their installations.  

Women within the Army are likely to experience the most difficulty in obtaining an abortion as it is the largest military service and has thousands of troops stationed in states that already or will soon have the strictest antiabortion laws, including Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Kentucky.  

Though the Army has a compassionate reassignment policy — a rule that permits troops to seek to change their duty station if dealing with a difficult family situation — federal funds cannot be used for abortions, including at military health care centers, unless the pregnancy is the result of incest, rape or a threat to the mother’s life.  

Austin did not say what policies would be reviewed or what changes might soon be coming, if any.  

President Biden on Friday vowed to protect access to abortion pills and contraception in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

In remarks from the White House, Biden lambasted the decision as a "tragic error" carried out by an "extreme," conservative-controlled Supreme Court.

"It's a sad day for the country in my view, but it doesn't mean the fight's over," he said, calling for Congress to codify the abortion protections that were guaranteed through Roe v. Wade through federal laws.

As for the White House, Biden vowed that his administration would protect women's access to medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including both contraceptives and oral abortifacients such as mifepristone.

"My administration will also protect a woman's access to medications that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA. Like contraception which is essential for preventative health care [and] mifepristone, which the FDA approved 20 years ago to safely end early pregnancies and is commonly used to treat miscarriages," the president said.

"Some states are saying that they'll try to ban or severely restrict access to these medications. But extremist governors and state legislatures are looking to block the mail or search a person's medicine cabinet or control a woman's actions by tracking data on her apps she uses," said Biden. "[They] are wrong and extreme and out-of-touch of the majority of Americans."

Biden said he was directing the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that such medications would be available to the "fullest extent possible," without specifying what measures the department would be taking.

He also vowed that his administration would defend the "bedrock right" of a woman living in a state where abortions are now outlawed to travel to another state where it is available and terminate her pregnancy.

"If any state or local official, high or low, tries to interfere with a woman exercising her basic right to travel, I will do everything in my power to fight that deeply un-American attack," said Biden.