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.
Donald Trump has announced he will impose a 30% tariff on imports from the European Union from 1 August.
The tariffs could make everything from French cheese and Italian leather goods to German electronics and Spanish pharmaceuticals more expensive in the US.
Mr Trump has also imposed a 30% tariff on goods from Mexico, according to a post from his Truth Social account.
Announcing the moves in separate letters on the account, the president said the US trade deficit was a national security threat.
In his letter to the EU, he wrote: “We have had years to discuss our trading relationship with The European Union, and we have concluded we must move away from these long-term, large, and persistent, trade Deficits, engendered by your tariff, and non-Tariff, policies, and trade barriers.
“Our relationship has been, unfortunately, far from reciprocal.”
In his letter to Mexico, Mr Trump said he did not think the country had done enough to stop the US from turning into a “narco-trafficking playground”.
The president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, said today that the EU could adopt “proportionate countermeasures” if the US proceeds with imposing the 30% tariff.
Ms von der Leyen, who heads the EU’s executive arm, said in a statement that the bloc remained ready “to continue working towards an agreement by Aug 1”.
“Few economies in the world match the European Union’s level of openness and adherence to fair trading practices,” she continued.
“We will take all necessary steps to safeguard EU interests, including the adoption of proportionate countermeasures if required.”
Ms von der Leyen has also said imposing tariffs on EU exports would “disrupt essential transatlantic supply chains”.
Meanwhile, Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof said on the X social media platform that Mr Trump’s announcement was “very concerning and not the way forward”.
He added: “The European Commission can count on our full support. As the EU we must remain united and resolute in pursuing an outcome with the United States that is mutually beneficial.”
Mexico’s economy ministry said a bilateral working group aims to reach an alternative to the 30% US tariffs before they are due to take effect.
The country was informed by the US that it would receive a letter about the tariffs, the ministry’s statement said, adding that Mexico was negotiating.
The US imposed a 20% tariff on imported goods from the EU in April but it was later paused and the bloc has since been paying a baseline tariff of 10% on goods it exports to the US.
In May, while the US and EU where holding trade negotiations, Mr Trump threated to impose a 50% tariff on the bloc as talks didn’t progress as he would have liked.
However, he later announced he was delaying the imposition of that tariff while negotiations over a trade deal took place.
As of earlier this week, the EU’s executive commission, which handles trade issues for the bloc’s 27-member nations, said its leaders were still hoping to strike a trade deal with the Trump administration.
Without one, the EU said it was prepared to retaliate with tariffs on hundreds of American products, ranging from beef and auto parts to beer and Boeing airplanes.
Donald Trump has said he plans to hit Canada with a 35% tariff on imported goods, as he warned of a blanket 15 or 20% hike for most other countries.
In a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, the US president wrote: “I must mention that the flow of Fentanyl is hardly the only challenge we have with Canada, which has many Tariff, and Non-Tariff, Policies and Trade Barriers.”
Mr Trump’s tariffs were allegedly an effort to get Canada to crack down on fentanyl smuggling, and the US president has expressed frustration with Canada’s trade deficit with the US.
In a statement Mr Carney said: “Throughout the current trade negotiations with the United States, the Canadian government has steadfastly defended our workers and businesses. We will continue to do so as we work towards the revised deadline of August 1.”
He added: “Canada has made vital progress to stop the scourge of fentanyl in North America. We are committed to continuing to work with the United States to save lives and protect communities in both our countries.”
The higher rates would go into effect on 1 August.
Shortly after Mr Trump unveiled his “Liberation Day” tariffs on 2 April, there was a huge sell-off on the financial markets. The US president later announced a 90-day negotiating period, during which a 10% baseline tariff would be charged on most imported goods.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, 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 Spreaker 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 Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
“We’re just going to say all of the remaining countries are going to pay, whether it’s 20% or 15%. We’ll work that out now,” he said.
He added: “I think the tariffs have been very well-received. The stock market hit a new high today.”
The US and UK signed a trade deal in June, with the US president calling it “a fair deal for both” and saying it will “produce a lot of jobs, a lot of income”.
Sir Keir Starmer said the document “implements” the deal to cut tariffs on cars and aerospace, adding: “So this is a very good day for both of our countries – a real sign of strength.”
It comes as Russia’s deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, said a new round of talks between Moscow and Washington on bilateral problems could take place before the end of the summer.
A Palestinian activist who was detained for over three months in a US immigration jail after protesting against Israel is suing Donald Trump’s administration for $20m (£15m) in damages.
Lawyers for Mahmoud Khalil have filed a claim against the administration alleging he was falsely imprisoned, maliciously prosecuted and smeared as an antisemite as the government sought to deport him over his role in campus protests.
He described “plain-clothed agents and unmarked cars” taking him “from one place to another, expecting you just to follow orders and shackled all the time”, which he said was “really scary”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:54
Mahmoud Khalil reunites with family after release
Mr Khalil said he was not presented with an arrest warrant and wasn’t told where he was being taken.
He said the detention centre he was taken to was “as far from humane as it could be” and “a place where you have no rights whatsoever”.
“You share a dorm with over 70 men with no privacy, with lights on all the time, with really terrible food. You’re basically being dehumanised at every opportunity. It’s a black hole,” he added.
Mr Khalil said he would also accept an official apology from the Trump administration.
The Trump administration celebrated Mr Khalil’s arrest, promising to deport him and others whose protests against Israel it declared were “pro-terrorist, antisemitic, anti-American activity”.
Mr Khalil said after around 36 hours in captivity he was allowed to speak to his wife, who was pregnant at the time.
“These were very scary hours, I did not know what was happening on the outside. I did not know that my wife was safe,” he said.
Mr Khalil said administration officials had made “absolutely absurd allegations” by saying he as involved in antisemitic activities and supporting Hamas.
“They are weaponising antisemitism, weaponising anti-terrorism in order to stifle speech,” he said. “What I was engaged in is simply opposing a genocide, opposing war crimes, opposing Columbia University’s complicity in the war on Gaza.”
A State Department spokesperson said its actions toward Mr Khalil were fully supported by the law.
Follow The World
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
Asked about missing the birth of his son while he was in prison, Mr Khalil said: “I don’t think there’s any word that can describe the agony and the sadness that I went through, to be deprived from such a divine moment, from a moment that my wife and I had always dreamed about.”
Meanwhile, the deportation case against Mr Khalil is continuing to wind its way through the immigration court system.