It triggered a wave of change. Abortion bans were brought in, court cases mounted, clinics closed. Here is what has happened in the seven months since US abortion rights were overturned.
First off, what is Roe v Wade?
Roe v Wade refers to the 1973 Supreme Court case that said the government could not prohibit abortions because the constitutional right to liberty includes the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy.
Roe refers to Texan woman Norma McCorvey – known by the pseudonym Jane Roe – who challenged the state’s abortion laws after she couldn’t get a termination in 1969 because her life was not in danger. Wade is district attorney Henry Wade, who defended the anti-abortion laws.
The court decision meant every woman in the US had the right to an abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Another ruling – Planned Parenthood v Casey in 1982 – built on that by saying states could not have laws that create a “substantial obstacle” to a woman seeking an abortion up to 24 weeks.
More on Abortion
Related Topics:
States ban abortion
In 12 states, there are now near-total bans on abortion. In five of these states, the ban is being challenged in court but remains in effect.
Advertisement
The 12 states are: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia.
Two further states – North Dakota and Wisconsin – do not have bans in place but abortions are unavailable because clinics have closed.
Georgia has banned abortions past six weeks of pregnancy, severely limiting access to terminations because so many women do not find out they are pregnant – and have time to organise the procedure – before the six-week mark.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, which specialises in reproductive health, these 15 states are home to almost 22 million women aged 15 to 49. That means almost a third of America’s women of reproductive age are living in states where abortion is either unavailable or severely restricted.
More states could follow
A further nine states have introduced restrictions to abortion that would have been unconstitutional under Roe v Wade, have bans currently blocked by the court or are likely to introduce bans in the near future.
Arizona and Florida do not allow abortions past 15 weeks, while Utah has an 18-week ban.
In three states – Indiana, Wyoming and Ohio – near-total or early-gestation bans have been blocked by state courts for now, but lawmakers have indicated they intend to fight them.
In Iowa, Montana and Nebraska, anti-abortion policymakers have indicated that they want to ban abortion soon, but abortion care remains available for now.
What’s happened to abortion clinics?
At least 66 abortion clinics have stopped offering abortion care in the 15 states where abortion is banned or severely restricted.
The loss of these clinics is felt nationwide, according to the Guttmacher Institute, as clinics in states where abortion remains legal are inundated with people travelling interstate.
As the institute explains: “These dramatic increases in caseloads mean clinic capacity and staff are stretched to their limits, resulting in longer wait times for appointments even for residents of states where abortion remains legal.”
Astudyfrom the Society of Family Planning estimated legal abortions nationwide fell by more than 10,000 in the two months following the overturning of Roe v Wade, although some women may have sought abortion pills privately.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:11
Abortion revolution in the US
Exacerbating inequality
Many of the states that have banned or restricted abortion have high proportions of black, Latina and indigenous women.
Research by the Kaiser Family Foundation revealed how overturning Roe v Wade disproportionately impacts women of colour, as they are more likely to get abortions, have more limited access to health care, and face barriers to travelling out of state for an abortion.
The Guttmacher Institute notes in addition that “people living with low incomes… transmen and nonbinary people, immigrants, adolescents and people living with disabilities are all particularly likely to encounter compounding obstacles to abortion care and be harmed as a result”.
Some states have introduced protections
While the US has seen significant rolling back of abortion rights, there are pockets of good news for pro-choice activists.
Voters in Kansas protected abortion rights in the state’s constitution by rejecting an amendment that would have allowed lawmakers to restrict access to abortions.
New York will provide free abortion pills at four public clinics, making its health department the first in the nation to offer free medication abortion.
In the midterms, voters in five states chose to protect reproductive rights. Vermont, Michigan and California added protections to their state constitutions while voters in Kentucky rejected an amendment that would have removed any protection for abortion rights from the constitution.
In Montana, a bill that could have criminalised doctors for providing abortions was defeated.
Image: Voters in Kansas react with joy after abortion rights vote
Medical abortions
Medical abortions account for the majority of abortions in the US – in 2020, the most recent year for which data is available, abortion pills were used in 53% of cases.
Early evidence suggests they have become even more popular since Roe v Wade was overturned – one studysuggested the number of people seeking medical abortions has increased threefold.
At the beginning of January, the Food and Drug Administration changed its rules to allow retail pharmacies in the US to dispense abortion pills for the first time.
However, abortion pills are now seen as the next frontier in the fight by anti-abortion activists and they are pushing hard to curtail access.
In the deep blue waters of the Caribbean, visible from space, an unremarkable grey smudge.
Image: The USS Gerald R Ford seen off the US Virgin Islands on 1 December. Credit: Copernicus
But this is the USS Gerald R Ford: the largest, most deadly aircraft carrier in the world. And it is only part of an armada, apparently set on Venezuela.
Image: The Gerald R Ford, USS Winston S Churchill, USS Mahan and USS Bainbridge in the Atlantic on 13 November. Source: US Department of Defense
From being able to count on one hand the number of warships and boats in the Caribbean, since August we can see the build-up of the number, and variety of ships under US command.
And that’s only at sea – air power has also been deployed, with bombers flying over the Caribbean, and even along the Venezuelan coast, as recently as this week.
Image: A Boeing B-52H Stratofortress near Venezuelan coast from Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, on 3 December. Credit: FlightRadar24
Sky’s Data & Forensics unit has verified that in the past four months since strikes began, 23 boats have been targeted in 22 strikes, killing 87 people.
Datawrapper
This content is provided by Datawrapper, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Datawrapper cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Datawrapper cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Datawrapper cookies for this session only.
It was the first such strike since 15 November and since the defence secretary, sometimes referred to as secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, came under scrutiny for an alleged “second strike” in an earlier attack.
The US says it carried out the action because of drugs – and there has been some evidence to support its assertion.
The Dominican Republic said it had recovered the contents of one boat hit by a strike – a huge haul of cocaine.
Legal issues
Whatever the cargo, though, there are serious, disputed legal issues.
Firstly, it is contested whether by designating the people on the boats as narcoterrorists, it makes them lawful military targets – or whether the strikes are in fact extra judicial murders of civilians at sea.
And more specifically… well, let’s go back to that very first video, of the very first strike.
What this footage doesn’t show is what came afterwards – an alleged “second strike” that targeted people in the water posing no apparent threat.
And the 4 December strike shows this strategy isn’t over.
The strikes are just part of the story, as warships and planes have headed toward the region in huge numbers.
Drugs or oil?
Some have said this isn’t about drugs at all, but oil.
Venezuela has lots – the world’s largest proven reserves.
Speaking to the faithful on Fox News, Republican congresswoman – and Trump supporter – Maria Salazar said access to Venezuela would be a “field day” for American oil companies.
And Maduro himself has taken up that theme. A few days later, he wrote this letter to OPEC – which represents major oil producing nations – to “address the growing and illegal threats made by the government of the United States against Venezuela”.
That’s how Maduro has framed this – a plan by the US “to seize Venezuela’s vast oil reserves… through lethal military force”.
Lethal military force – an understatement when you think of the armada lying in wait.
And it may be called upon soon. Trump on Tuesday said he’s preparing to take these strikes from international waters on to Venezuelan territory.
Maduro has complained of 22 weeks of “aggression”. There may be many more to come.
Additional reporting by Sophia Massam, junior digital investigations journalist.
The Data X Forensics team is a multi-skilled unit dedicated to providing transparent journalism from Sky News. We gather, analyse and visualise data to tell data-driven stories. We combine traditional reporting skills with advanced analysis of satellite images, social media and other open source information. Through multimedia storytelling we aim to better explain the world while also showing how our journalism is done.
Donald Trump’s bruising assessment of Europe as “weak” and “decaying” is a bitter blow to nations already reeling from the release of his national security strategy.
At the end of the 45-minute interview with Politico, EU leaders might be forgiven for thinking, with friends like these, who needs enemies?
“Europe doesn’t know what to do,” Trump said, “They want to be politically correct, and it makes them weak.”
Image: Trump meets leaders from Ukraine, Germany, France, the UK, Italy, and Finland, as well as the EU and NATO, in August Pic: Reuters
On the contrary, I would imagine some choice words were being uttered in European capitals as they waded through the string of insults.
First up, the US president criticised European leaders for failing to end the war between Russia and Ukraine.
“They talk but they don’t produce. And the war just keeps going on and on,” he said.
The fact that the Russians have shown no real commitment to stopping the invasion they started is not mentioned.
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
Image: EU Flags at the European Commission Building. Pic: iStock
Instead, the blame is laid squarely at the feet of Ukraine and its allies in Europe.
“I think if I weren’t president, we would have had World War III,” Trump suggested, while concluding that Moscow is in the stronger position.
Critics claim that the White House has emboldened the Kremlin and brought Putin in from the cold with a summit and photo opportunities.
Trump highlights the fact that his return to office forced many European NATO members to increase defence spending drastically.
Image: Trump meeting European leaders in the Oval Office in August. Pic: @RapidResponse47
On this, he is correct – the growing insecurity around how long America can be relied on has brought security into sharp focus.
The release of the new US national security strategy has only added to the feelings of unease.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Tuesday claimed some of its contents were unacceptable from a European point of view.
“I see no need for America to want to save democracy in Europe. If it was necessary to save it, we would manage it on our own,” he told a news conference in Rhineland-Palatinate, the German state where Trump’s paternal grandfather was born.
Image: Meeting between, left to right, Keir Starmer of the UK, Volodymyr Zelenskyy of Ukraine, Emmanuel Macron of France, Donald Tusk of Poland, and Friedrich Merz of Germany. Pic: AP
The leader of the EU’s biggest power also said that the new US strategy was not a surprise and largely chimed with the vice president’s speech at the Munich Security Conference in February.
For this reason, Merz reiterated that Europe and Germany must become more independent from America for their security policies.
However, he noted, “I say in my discussions with the Americans, ‘America first’ is fine, but America alone cannot be in your interests.”
For his part, while Trump said he liked most of Europe’s current leaders, he warned they were “destroying” their countries with their migration policies.
He said: “Europe is a different place, and if it keeps going the way it’s going, Europe will not be…in my opinion, many of those countries will not be viable countries any longer. Their immigration policy is a disaster”.
He added: “Most European nations… they’re decaying.”
Again, the comments echoed his security strategy, which warned immigration risked “civilisation erasure” in Europe.
There’s no doubt immigration is a major concern for many of the continent’s leaders and voters.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
8:11
Zelenskyy meets European leaders
However, irregular crossings into the EU fell 22% in the first 10 months of 2025 according to Frontex, a fact which seems to have passed the president and his team by.
“Within a few decades at the latest, certain Nato members will become majority non-European”, his security document warned.
It also suggested “cultivating resistance” in Europe “to restore former greatness” leading to speculation about how America might intervene in European politics.
Trump appeared to add further clarification on Tuesday, saying while he did not “want to run Europe”, he would consider “endorsing” his preferred candidates in future elections.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
This comment will also ruffle feathers on the continent where the European Council President has already warned Trump’s administration against interfering in Europe’s affairs.
“Allies do not threaten to interfere in the domestic political choices of their allies,” Antonio Costa said on Monday.
“The US cannot replace Europe in what its vision is of free expression… Europe must be sovereign.”
So, what will happen now, and how will Europe’s leaders respond?
If you are hoping for a showdown, you will likely be disappointed.
Like him or loathe him, Europe’s leaders need Trump.
They need the might of America and want to try to secure continued support for Ukraine.
While the next few days will be filled with politely scripted statements or rejections of the president’s comments, most of his allies know on this occasion they are probably best to grin and bear it.
Police officers found a handgun, a silencer and a red notebook described as a “manifesto” when they arrested Luigi Mangione.
The 27-year-old was arrested in December 2024 and charged with killing UnitedHealthcare chief executive Brian Thompson in New York City.
Mangione‘s lawyers want to block prosecutors from showing or telling jurors at his eventual trial in Manhattan about statements he allegedly made and items they said police seized from his backpack during his arrest at a McDonald’s in Pennsylvania.
The objects include a 9mm handgun prosecutors say matches the one used in the killing, a silencer, a magazine with bullets wrapped in underwear and a notebook in which they say Mangione described his intent to “wack” a healthcare executive.
Image: Mangione with his attorney. Pic: Reuters
The defence contends the items should be excluded because police did not get a warrant before searching Mangione’s backpack.
Prosecutors deny claims Mangione was illegally searched and questioned.
They also want to suppress some statements he made to police, such as allegedly giving a false name, because officers asked him questions before telling him he had a right to remain silent.
Last week, Mangione watched surveillance videos of the killing of Mr Thompson, 50, as he walked to a New York City hotel for his company’s annual investor conference.
Mangione has pleaded not guilty to state and federal murder charges.
The state charges carry the possibility of life in prison, while federal prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.
This week’s hearing concerns only the state case, but Mangione’s lawyers want to bar evidence from both cases.
In September, a judge dismissed two terrorism counts against Mangione, finding prosecutors had not presented enough evidence Mangione intended to intimidate health insurance workers or influence government policy.
Trial dates are yet to be set in either the state or federal cases.