When it comes to one of the most—or perhaps the most—important elements of the January 6 tragedy, the House select committee investigating the matter was largely not needed. The whole world already knows what Donald Trump did while the armed mob that he summoned and directed to the Capitol was savagely assaulting law enforcement officers, ransacking Congress, and trying to defeat the constitutional order: nothing.

Usually an investigation needs to determine who did what and when, but in this instance the basic story is already established. For a long stretch of the insurrectionist attack, Trump took no steps to halt it or to protect the police battling the fight-for-Trump terrorists or the elected officials inside the building, including his own vice president. Perhaps Trump’s worst action throughout his whole effort to overturn the election, this profound dereliction of duty is undeniable. We all saw what didn’t happen. In full public view, Trump did not abide by his oath of office and failed to defend the Constitution and the US government. No subpoena nor any testimony is necessary to prove this fundamental truth. 

Yet, the January 6 committee on Thursday night disclosed new details that rendered the picture of Trump’s worst day as president even worse. It revealed that from the time he returned to the White House after spreading his Big Lie at a rally—and being prevented by the Secret Service from joining the armed mob heading to the Capitol—he ensconced himself in his West Wing dining room for hours. There he watched the riot on Fox News and made not a single call to the military, law enforcement, or Washington, DC, government officials. He rejected numerous pleas from aides, advisers, Republican members of Congress, and family members (Ivanka and Donald Jr.) to intervene and call off the insurrectionists rampaging in the Capitol. Instead, he phoned Republican senators, as part of his scheme to forestall certification of the electoral count. And he spoke at least twice with Rudy Giuliani, his consigliere.

About what? That’s not known. But it’s a good guess that it was about how the riot could be exploited to halt or delay the certification. The committee also noted that there are no official records of what Trump did during these hours and no call records document who else he spoke to. (The committee learned about the Giuliani calls from the lawyer’s own phone records.) 

Through assorted testimony and evidence, the committee made it plain: Trump purposefully did nothing to end the raid. He wanted the violence at the Capitol to continue. As Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) put it, “President Trump did not fail to act [on January 6]… He chose not to act.” Kinzinger and other committee members noted there can be no greater indictment of a president than that he refused to defend America’s own government.

About one hour into Thursday’s primetime hearing on the January 6 insurrection, Rep. Elaine Luria (D-Va.) drew viewers’ attention to one of the most infamous images from January 6—a photo of Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley, pumping his fist at a crowd of soon-to-be rioters before he entered the Capitol that morning. 

Hawley was a significant player in the events of that day. As I reported in a profile of Hawley for the magazine, the ultra-ambitious Hawley had deceived conservative audiences about the outcome of the election over the preceding weeks (refusing, for instance, to say whether Biden actually would be the next president), and egged on Trump’s efforts to overturn the election by signaling his intention to object to the certification of the Electoral College results. The fist pump became a symbol for how Republicans brought the nation to that point.

But then Luria showed a previously unseen image of Hawley that day—a clip of the young senator running through a corridor to escape the mob he’d cheered on hours earlier.

The story of #January6th in two Josh Hawley moments. pic.twitter.com/mQJq3cUy6z

— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) July 22, 2022

Late last month, shortly after the US Supreme Court stripped away federal protection for abortion rights, Dr. Christina Francis, an OB/GYN based in Fort Wayne, Indiana, took to Instagram with an urgent message: She wanted her followers to know that even in states where abortion will soon be illegal, doctors still would be able to terminate pregnancies to save the life of the mother. “Treating ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages or other life-threatening conditions in pregnancy is not the same thing as an abortion,” she said in a video she took of herself from inside a car. “This is very important to clear up because I know that many women are feeling fearful that they might not be able to receive life-saving care if they need it.” Commenters thanked Dr. Francis for her clarification. “The amount of people that don’t know the difference is disturbing,” said one. “So many people spreading false information. Thank you for sharing and educating!”

It’s not hard to see why the post took off: It came across as authoritative and reassuring during a period of great uncertainty. After the repeal of Roe v. Wade, many women and OBYGNs are very worried that they soon won’t be allowed to treat serious complications of pregnancy—like ectopic pregnancy, where a fertilized egg grows outside the womb. If left unattended because of concerns that removing it would be against laws prohibiting abortions, an ectopic pregnancy can potentially kill the mother if the pregnancy’s growth splits the fallopian tube in which it is most commonly housed. The calm clarity from Dr. Francis gave the impression of offering a clear path forward. In the days after she posted her video, it went viral on Instagram and TikTok.

But Dr. Francis left out a few key pieces of information about herself: She is a member of the anti-choice organization American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), as well as the anti-choice think tank Charlotte Lozier Institute. Her video was part of an all-out disinformation campaign by the anti-abortion movement to minimize the impact of the ruling on Roe—with an assist from powerful social media influencers who built their brand by spreading disinformation about Covid.

In addition to claiming that the law won’t affect pregnant women whose life is in danger, some influencers promote other false narratives downplaying the potential ramifications of the decision, assuring their followers that their access to contraceptives will be untouched, and their own lives won’t change. But that’s misleading, says Dr. Marta Perez, a board-certified OBGYN based in Austin, Texas. Now that Roe has been repealed, she explains, “even normal reproductive health care is going to have an extra layer of complexity and barriers.” People dealing with unexpectedly thorny pregnancies will have a harder time finding the care and treatment they need, no matter what their views on abortion might be. And there is some indication that not everyone would support abortions for conditions that endanger mothers: On July 16, three weeks after the Dobbs decision, Idaho Republicans at their annual convention voted to reject an amendment to their platform that would have made an exception to allow abortions that would save the life of the mother. The margins weren’t even close: 412 delegates voted no to the amendment, while just 164 voted yes.

But even in places that do favor such exemptions, the difference between an abortion and a lifesaving pregnancy termination is not as stark as anti-abortion crusaders claim, Dr. Perez says. “Anyone who has worked in reproductive healthcare,” she says, “has had a patient who has told the doctor, ‘I’m anti-abortion,’ and has [later] needed or wanted an abortion.”

As Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with his Chinese counterpart for a rare, bilateral chat on Saturday, the Associated Press said the two countries were seeking “to calm rising tensions on many fronts.” After a five-hour meeting in Indonesia, where talks were “exceptionally candid,” per Bloomberg, it doesn’t appear the rivals are any closer to navigating their increasingly adversarial relationship.

Blinken, in comments to reporters after his discussion with Foreign Minister Wang Yi of China, focused on the Chinese government’s unique position in the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine. Despite pledging support to Ukraine and claiming to be neutral, China has continued buying Russian oil and used its state propaganda to amplify Vladimir Putin’s talking points. 

“It’s pretty hard to be neutral when it comes to this aggression,” Blinken said. “There is a clear aggressor. There is a clear victim.” More to the point, China’s actions do not resemble those of a neutral party. As Blinken pointed out, Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping released a lengthy statement of friendship in early February, when Putin was widely reported to be preparing for an invasion of Ukraine. 

In the weeks since the start of the war, China has resisted helping the United States isolate Russia and has often used Putin’s own criticisms of the West to justify its stance, like when state media borrowed his description of the United States as an “empire of lies.” Blinken said he “tried to convey” to Wang that “this really is a moment where we all have to stand up” to condemn Russia’s aggression and push to end the war. “I won’t characterize his response,” Blinken added. 

China’s official readout of the meeting included a familiar list of grievances, including the claim that “many people thus argue that the United States is taking on growing China-phobia.” It also noted that Wang “refuted the United States’ erroneous views on Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and maritime issues, among others.”

With Donald Trump set to waive his claim to executive privilege, onetime adviser Steve Bannon may be due for a date before Congress. Trump had fought to prevent Bannon, a ringleader of the conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election, from appearing before the Congressional committee investigating the pro-Trump insurrection on January 6. Still, sources told the Washington Post that Trump now is “considering sending a letter” to Bannon that would clear the way for his testimony. 

Per the Post‘s reporting:

The letter would reiterate that Trump invoked executive privilege in September 2021, when Bannon was first subpoenaed by the House committee. But it would say that the former president is now willing to give up that claim—the validity of which has been disputed—if Bannon can reach an agreement on the terms of an appearance before the panel.

Bannon defied that original Congressional subpoena, leading to his indictment in November on contempt charges. For months, Bannon has fruitlessly tried to get his case dismissed while portraying himself as a victim of overzealous Justice Department prosecutors. 

Whether Trump even has the right to withhold his testimony through executive privilege is subject to debate. (Bannon had been long gone from the White House by the time of January 6.) Given how the testimony of so many former members of his administration only further added to Trump’s culpability, Bannon might offer Trump an opportunity to put one of his most ardent True Believers in the spotlight while under oath.

After agreeing to buy Twitter for $44 billion, Elon Musk has decided that the deal is off. But his attempt to break this agreement has roiled the tech company and set up a future riddled with legal headaches and uncertainty. The mood inside Twitter is grim, as the Washington Post reported Saturday: 

In April, Musk offered to take the company private at $54.20 a share—valuing the company’s shares at more than a 50% premium—but in the days since, the stock (and morale inside the company) has plunged. He’s used his personal Twitter to amplify criticism of Twitter executives (not including the ones who have jumped ship). He also promised to restore Donald Trump’s account and raised a ruckus over the company’s handling of bot accounts. 

The bots are angry at being counted

A former spokesman for the Oath Keepers militia group is set to testify Tuesday at a January 6 committee hearing on the role that the organization and other extremists played in efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Jason Van Tatenhove, a Colorado resident and former tattoo shop owner, is scheduled to appear to detail his work as a national media director for the Oath Keepers in 2015 and 2016 and what he says was the group’s radicalization during that period. Van Tatenhove, who now works as an independent journalist, was apparently close to Stewart Rhodes, the group’s founder. Van Tatenhove disclosed his plans to testify at a live hearing this month on his Substack and to a Colorado news outlet. A person familiar with the committee’s plans confirmed that Van Tatenhove is one of multiple former extremist group insiders slated to testify Tuesday, July 12. Van Tatenhove declined to comment to Mother Jones.

Tuesday’s session will be the panel’s first hearing following the explosive June 28 testimony of former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson. Among other things, Hutchinson indicated that Trump knew that many of the supporters he urged to march on the Capitol on January 6 were armed. On Friday, the committee privately interviewed Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone, who appears to be in a position to confirm or dispute some of Hutchinson’s claims. Hutchinson’s testimony indicated, for example, that Cipollone was present when Trump reputedly expressed approval of the attack on the Capitol while it was occurring. She also said Cipollone had warned that Trump’s plan to personally join supporters outside the Capitol was illegal. Such a warning could help prosecutors establish that Trump knew his efforts to interfere with the certification of electoral votes on January 6 were against the law—a key element in any potential criminal prosecution of Trump over that matter.

It is not clear, however, whether Cipollone actually addressed those issues in his interview with the committee. He was expected to decline to answer some questions by asserting that some conversations were shielded by executive privilege. The committee left it unclear Friday how much that ruled out. “He’s been a cooperative witness within the parameters of his desire to protect executive privilege for the office of general counsel,” a committee source said, according to NBC News.

Tuesday’s hearing will reportedly be led by Democratic Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Stephanie Murphy of Florida, two committee members who so far have played no public role in its hearings. The panel is expected to focus on the role of extremist groups in the January 6 attack. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), another committee member, said on CBS News last week that the hearing will examine “financing” for the mob that stormed the Capitol and the participation of “white nationalist groups like the Proud Boys, the Three Percenters, and others.”

President Joe Biden signed an executive order on Friday that attempts to safeguard at least some abortion access for residents of states seeking to outlaw the procedure. The move comes as Democrats and pro-choice advocates have implored Biden to respond more forcefully to the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

“We cannot allow an out-of-control Supreme Court working in conjunction with extremist elements of the Republican Party to take away freedoms and our personal autonomy,” said Biden in a speech from the White House, with Vice President Kamala Harris and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra beside him.

The executive order is somewhat vague but directs Becerra to submit a report within 30 days that outlines his agency’s efforts to protect access to abortion medication and emergency contraception, ensure patient privacy, and expand legal options for people seeking reproductive care. The order also calls for better public outreach by the federal government so that pregnant people understand how to obtain the health care they need, and it creates a federal task force to protect access to reproductive health services.

To bolster legal representation for individuals seeking or offering abortions, Biden’s order directs the attorney general and White House counsel to recruit private pro bono attorneys, bar associations, and public interest organizations. “I’m asking the Justice Department, much like they did in the civil rights era, to do something, to do everything in their power, to protect these women seeking to invoke their rights,” Biden said, adding that attorneys would work to help abortion clinics and pregnant people who travel out of state for abortion care.

Amid concerns that law enforcement officials might use period-tracking apps and other online data to prosecute abortion seekers, Biden’s order also directs the Federal Trade Commission to take steps to protect people’s privacy. And it urges Becerra to explore additional ways of using the privacy provisions in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to prevent the disclosure of sensitive health information to third parties.

Two prominent figures have resigned in protest from the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft—one of the only major think tanks to promote a skeptical view of US power and military interventionism. In announcing their departures, Joe Cirincione and Paul Eaton criticized the organization’s dovish response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

“They take this indefensible, morally bankrupt position on Ukraine,” Cirincione said in an interview Thursday with Mother Jones. “This is clearly an unprovoked invasion, and somehow Quincy keeps justifying it.”

Cirincione, who was until recently a “distinguished non-resident fellow” at Quincy, tweeted news of his resignation on Thursday, citing the institute’s “position on the Ukraine War” as his reason. Formerly the head of the Ploughshares Fund, an influential grant-giving foundation in the small progressive foreign policy world, Cirincione helped raise money for Quincy in its early days and connected it with key donors. But Ukraine proved to be his breaking point.

In articles posted online and in media appearances, other Quincy experts have called for the Biden administration to press Ukraine to reach a peace deal that allows Russia to keep some of the territory it has seized, arguing the alternative is a prolonged war and increased risk of direct conflict between the United States and Russia. That position has little public backing from prominent Democrats in Washington, who support the administration’s efforts to aid Ukraine’s military.

In an interview Thursday night, Cirincione said he “fundamentally” disagrees with Quincy experts who “completely ignore the dangers and the horrors of Russia’s invasion and occupation and focus almost exclusively on criticism of the United States, NATO, and Ukraine.”

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The European parliament has backed plans to label gas and nuclear energy as “green,” rejecting appeals from prominent Ukrainians and climate activists that the proposals are a gift to Vladimir Putin. One senior member said the vote was a “dark day for the climate,” while experts said the EU had set a dangerous precedent for countries to follow.

The row began late last year with the leak of long-awaited details on the EU’s green investment guidebook, intended to help investors channel billions to the clean power transition. The European Commission decided some gas and nuclear projects could be included in the EU taxonomy of environmentally sustainable economic activities, subject to certain conditions.

Under the plans, gas can be classed as a sustainable investment if “the same energy capacity cannot be generated with renewable sources” and plans are in place to switch to renewables or “low-carbon gases.” Nuclear power can be called green if a project promises to deal with radioactive waste. The plan could only be stopped by a majority of EU member states or members of the European parliament.

With most EU governments in favor, attention turned to the European parliament, but on Wednesday that body’s  members (MEPs), failed to muster a blocking majority. Only 282 MEPs voted in favor of an amendment against the inclusion of gas and nuclear, falling short of the 353 votes needed to overturn the decision.

The Trump-BoJo comparisons were always fun but ultimately a bit facile. The cartoonish hair. The buffoonish act. The lying. The shameless pursuit of self-promotion at any cost. Both were labeled “populists” who ruthlessly ruled their parties. But history will show that today’s the day these easy similarities ended: Boris Johnson, amid dozens of resignations and endless scandal, announced that he would step down as Britain’s prime minister. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is still the frontrunner for the 2024 Republican nomination.

For traumatized Americans, Johnson’s demise must feel head-spinningly quick and perhaps a bit envy-inducing.

Sure, BoJo had remained defiant and issued Trumpian threats to fight through the storm. “Frankly, the job of a prime minister in difficult circumstances when you have been handed a colossal mandate is to keep going, and that’s what I’m going to do,” he said, only yesterday, as a stream of once-loyal, big-name officials abandoned him. “Boris Johnson is the condemned man who refuses to die,” one Bloomberg columnist declared. But a single sleep later, that writing on the wall became a flashing neon sign: “This is the end.”

According to the Washington Post:

Before the breakfast shows on television were over, there were 53 resignations, including four Cabinet ministers in just two days. Many of the letters included brutal assessments of Johnson’s tenure and critiques of his honesty. Some pleaded with him to go.

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Joe Biden’s election triggered a global surge in optimism that the climate crisis would, finally, be decisively confronted. But the US Supreme Court’s decision last week to curtail America’s ability to cut planet-heating emissions has proved the latest blow to a faltering effort by Biden on climate that is now in danger of becoming largely moribund.

The Supreme Court’s ruling that the US government could not use its existing powers to phase out coal-fired power generation without “clear congressional authorization” quickly ricocheted around the world among those now accustomed to looking on in dismay at America’s seemingly endless stumbles in addressing global heating.

The decision “flies in the face of established science and will set back the US’s commitment to keep global temperature below 1.5C,” said Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development in Bangladesh, in reference to the internationally agreed goal to limit global heating before it becomes truly catastrophic, manifesting in more severe heatwaves, floods, droughts and societal unrest.

“The people who will pay the price for this will be the most vulnerable communities in the most vulnerable developing countries in the world,” Huq added.

Hanz Dismer doesn’t have many moments to catch their breath at work these days. The education research coordinator at Hope Clinic for Women, an abortion clinic in Granite City, Illinois, Dismer is constantly bustling between supporting clinic staff, finalizing clinic research on patient demographics and statistics for the clinic, and providing counseling to patients.

“Right now, it’s very overwhelming,” Dismer says. The phone interview ended abruptly because they were called to counsel another patient.

Hope Clinic opened its doors in 1974, just a year after the Supreme Court legalized abortion nationwide in its Roe v. Wade decision. Since then, Granite City’s population has declined by 32 percent, eight percent since 2010 alone. Today, barely more than 25,000 people call Granite City home.

Yet Hope Clinic stands to become much more crowded very soon. As of Friday, June 24, abortion is illegal in Missouri, a stone’s throw from Granite City, thanks to a trigger law that took effect with the release of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. That’s also the case in neighboring Kentucky and in nearby Arkansas. Tennessee currently has a six-week ban in effect. A week before the Supreme Court ruling the Iowa Supreme Court declared that Iowans have no state constitutional right to abortion, overruling their previous 2018 decision that said the opposite. Other Midwestern states, like Indiana and Ohio, are hostile to abortion rights and will likely move to ban abortion, putting further pressure on Illinois, whose 25 abortion clinics are bracing for impact.

Granite City is not exactly a progressive place. In 2020, 60 percent of voters in Madison County, which includes Granite City, went for Trump, while only 37 percent voted for Biden. But Illinois enshrined abortion rights in the state constitution in 2019. So Hope’s unique location will make it one of the nearest abortion clinics for millions of people across both the South and Midwest.

President Joe Biden signed the first federal gun safety legislation in decades today, finally breaking a stalemate on the issue that has long persisted in Congress. 

“This time, when it seems impossible to get anything done in Washington, we are doing something consequential,” Biden said. 

Passed in the aftermath of the horrific back-to-back mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, the legislation provides $750 million for states to fund violence prevention plans and mental health programs. The bill also shores up background checks for 18- to 21-year-olds and eliminates the so-called “boyfriend loophole”—a gap in existing law that previously allowed domestic abusers to acquire deadly weapons so long as they and their partners were unmarried and childless. 

The legislation also includes funding for states to implement red flag laws. However, the red flag provisions aren’t mandatory, and, as my colleague Abby Vesoulis has reported, it’s extremely unlikely that Republican-controlled states will adopt them. 

The legislation is notable for breaking through a sclerotic legislative branch mired in partisan wrangling. Nevertheless, it falls far short of the proposals that gun control advocates have pushed for and that most Americans say they want in public opinion surveys, such as universal background checks and assault-weapon bans. Democrats, including Biden, have described the bill as a small step forward that will help break the seal on gun safety, rather than a conclusion to the debate. 

In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, yesterday, a male driver reportedly rammed his truck into a group of women protesting the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. The collision sent at least one woman to the hospital. Local police said that they’re investigating the incident. 

Police said that an argument broke out between the driver of the truck and a protester before the collision, according to the Washington Post. Witnesses told the Huffington Post that the driver navigated around a line of cars, ran a red light, and plowed into the marchers, running over a woman’s ankle.

Video taken immediately after the incident shows women attempting to stop the truck, which continues to drive forward. 

A truck driver plowed through multiple pro-choice protesters in Cedar Rapids, Iowa on Friday, sending at least one woman to the hospital.

Video provided by Linn County Supervisor Stacey Walker shows several victims — all women — trying to stop the driver as he careens into them pic.twitter.com/jcGTcfcK8X

It was already clear seven months ago that the conservative supermajority on the court was gearing up to overturn Roe v. Wade, but that didn’t make Friday’s decision any less devastating. 

After the reality sunk in, Mother Jones reporters snapped into action. We published no fewer than 15 stories on the decision yesterday, covering the devastating impact that the ruling will have, the Democrats’ impotent and infuriating response, and the Christian right’s long journey to victory. 

Here’s a compilation of our coverage:  

SCOTUS Finally Made It Official: Roe Is Dead by Becca Andrews and James West
The court officially ruled to let a Mississippi law stand that bans abortion after 15 weeks—overturning decades of precedent and threatening your constitutional rights.

Justice Clarence Thomas Just Said the Quiet Part Out Loud by Hannah Levintova 
In a concurring opinion, he called on the Supreme Court to build on overturning Roe by reassessing rights to same-sex marriage and contraception.

This article is a collaboration between Mother Jones and Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting, which is a nonprofit investigative newsroom. Sign up to get their investigations emailed to you directly.

For more than a year, Kelly Flynn had to hire off-duty officers to provide security for her Florida abortion clinic, A Woman’s Choice of Jacksonville, after a local anti-abortion group moved into the vacant building next door and police calls related to harassment spiked.

Now, though, the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office is assigning an on-duty officer to the clinic every day “to ensure the safety of all parties,” spokesperson John Medina said in a statement, and expects to continue “for the foreseeable future.” The officers’ regular presence, Flynn said, has been reassuring to patients and staff: “We are a safe place.”

The change in policy began soon after Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting spotlighted a surge in harassment, disturbances, and violence at clinics around Florida amid a lack of state and local protections for abortion providers and patients. 

The Jacksonville move reflects a growing awareness among local, state, and federal authorities about the mounting risks that abortion providers and patients will face now that the US Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade. The decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is expected to trigger a new wave of clashes as abortion is certain or likely to be banned in 26 states and the remaining open clinics will offer anti-abortion protesters and extremists fewer and clearer targets. 

More half of all abortions in the United States are currently performed by taking a set of pills. The first, mifepristone, interrupts the hormones needed to continue a pregnancy; the second, misoprostol, expels the contents of the uterus. For decades, the FDA has approved both drugs to be used together to end pregnancies before 10 weeks. Over the years, the agency has repeatedly honed its regulations of mifepristone, setting specific regulations on who may prescribe it, and how it can be dispensed.

But today, the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization cleared the way for states to enact abortion bans, including prohibiting medication abortion. But do states really have the power to ban a medication approved and regulated by the FDA? This open question is poised to become an important new front in the legal wars over abortion, now that Roe v. Wade has been lost, according to Rachel Rebouché, interim dean of Temple University’s law school.

Making this question more urgent, in reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision this morning, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a statement saying the Justice Department “will use every tool at our disposal to protect reproductive freedom.” One of those tools: The constitutional principle of “preemption,” which could theoretically be applied to stop states from banning abortion medications, because the FDA already allows them.

It’s something that, in a paper earlier this year, Rebouché and her colleagues argued the federal government could do in the very scenario we’re faced with today.

Now, it looks like the attorney general agrees with them. “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 his statement today. “In particular, the 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.”

The Supreme Court has, as anticipated, overturned the federal right to abortion as established in Roe v. Wade, allowing states that have been waiting for this moment to make their moves to ban abortion. However, as the timeline is unclear in some of those states, some clinics are immediately closing their doors to avoid pricey lawsuits and, at worst, potential arrests. In short, the ruling is already having a devastating impact on providers and, of course, patients desperate for the abortion care that has long been a constitutional right.

A Whole Woman’s Health clinic in McAllen, Texas, was forced to turn away 22 patients today who had already consented to abortion care, and staff has been calling patients to cancel future appointments. This clinic is of specific importance for the population it serves—mostly low-income Latinx families—and its location in the Rio Grande Valley. Some residents of the Rio Grande Valley are undocumented, and it’s impossible to leave the Valley without going through a domestic Border Patrol checkpoint. There’s regular surveillance: Cameras often record cars that pass through and monitor interactions between agents and drivers. At checkpoints, armed US Customs and Border Protection agents inspect vehicles one at a time, and by passing through these checkpoints, undocumented people risk the very thing they are likely seeking—abortion care to protect their families and their lives. I’ve said it before but it bears repeating: The overturning of Roe will impact everyone, but low-income pregnant people and pregnant people of color will carry the heaviest burden. 

Planned Parenthood clinics, too, across Texas have ceased abortion services. “The pause in our abortion care,” said Jeffrey Hons, the president of Planned Parenthood South Texas, “is the right thing to do so that we have time to ensure that Planned Parenthood organizations remain compliant with the law.”

As of publication, Alabama, South Dakota, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kentucky have all banned abortion. As my colleague Noah Kim points out, Idaho, Tennessee, and Texas have 30-day periods within which the trigger laws will take effect. (Tennessee’s attorney general just proposed implementing a six-week ban on abortion immediately, with an outright ban to take effect in the 30-day window.) Planned Parenthood of Tennessee and Northern Mississippi, for its part, is pledging to keep its clinics’ doors open for as long as possible, though the clinic in Nashville is closed today for inventory and staff training, CEO Ashley Coffield says.

This is just the beginning. Already it appears Florida and Virginia, two states where abortion has been fought over but that do not have any trigger laws, intend to move forward with 15-week bans on abortion. 

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority is waging a full-scale war on modernity. On Friday, the court’s six conservative justices ended the constitutional right to abortion that had allowed American women to enjoy full citizenship and equality (at least in theory) for nearly 50 years. We often talk about legal efforts to undo abortion rights with the phrase “setting back the clock.” That understates the radical project that today’s Supreme Court is undertaking.

To justify overturning Roe v. Wade, the conservative majority argues that abortion is not a right grounded in our history and traditions. Because the right to abortion rested largely on the guarantees of the 14th Amendment, which was adopted in 1868, Justice Samuel Alito notes in his majority opinion that the morality of the 1860s should be applied to pregnant people today.

“By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, three-quarters of the States had made abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy, and the remaining States would soon follow,” he writes. Alito then takes his time machine back to 13th century England to build his case that abortion is not, historically, part of our tradition.

It doesn’t take a genius to poke holes in the logic here, or even question this framework. As the three dissenting liberals on the court point out, women were purposefully excluded from both the Constitution and the 14th Amendment by the men who wrote them. “Those responsible for the original Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment, did not perceive women as equals, and did not recognize women’s rights,” the dissent states. “When the majority says that we must read our foundational charter as viewed at the time of ratification (except that we may also check it against the Dark Ages), it consigns women to second-class citizenship.”

In other words: the majority’s reliance on the laws of centuries yore is not a bug, but a feature. Alito and his fellow conservatives on the court have embraced “history” to justify their decisions. History here belongs in scare quotes because the goal of a historical test for the court here seems to be to pick and choose the artifacts they want.