A 30,000-Foot View of the Abortion Ruling’s Political Fallout

The Supreme Court’s ruling last week overturning Roe v. Wade has roiled the country and shifted the main struggle over abortion rights from the courtroom to the political arena.

To get a broader understanding of what’s going on, I spoke with Kate Zernike, a national correspondent for The New York Times who focuses on the debate over abortion. Her new book, “The Exceptions: Nancy Hopkins, M.I.T. and the Fight for Women in Science,” will be published by Scribner in February.

Here’s our conversation, lightly edited for clarity and length:

This abortion ruling by the Supreme Court was long expected after Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation in the fall 2020 cemented the conservatives’ majority. What has surprised you, though?

Although I knew that this decision would be devastating, especially for supporters of abortion rights, I was struck by how it affected them and how sustained their anger over the past week.

Not because I didn’t think people cared about abortion rights. But I’ve been watching this issue for a long time, and it’s always been true that the anti-abortion side has been much more motivated and passionate than the abortion rights side.

I think about something a provider in Missouri said to me: People think about abortion when they’re asked about it and when they need one. They weren’t necessarily going to vote on the issue, or fight to keep the right to an abortion. It looks like there will be more fighting than I had expected.

In November, a senior official in President Biden’s administration confessed a fear to me. This person was just as concerned about the possibility that violence could be effected by a radicalized left than from a radicalized center. What are the most worrying trends and dynamics that authority holders worry about, based on your reporting?

I saw most of the concern regarding violence coming from Republicans. Gov. Glenn Youngkin, Virginia, warned about it, particularly threats to the justices. Senator Chuck Grassley, Iowa, demanded that F.B.I. Attorney General Merrick Grland and Glenn Youngkin, Virginia, warned about it.

Reports of violence are rare. The debate is between leaders of abortion rights groups and Democrats about how to best talk on abortion.

The compromising attitude of Democrats on abortion is particularly reprehensible to young leaders. They want to talk about an absolute, inviolable right to abortion: You have to trust women to make their own decisions, they say, and any infringement takes away from women’s autonomy and equal rights.

But the anti-abortion side has skillfully played that to accuse Democrats of wanting “abortion on demand” — anytime, in any circumstance, right up until birth.

There’s little evidence that women are so blasé about abortion, or that abortions frequently happen late in pregnancy. Most abortions occur in the first trimester. But it’s an effective slogan, and it goes against what polls show Americans want, which is for abortion to be available, with some restrictions.

Many of the links, including Some Democratic attorneys general, are showing a growing willingness to reject the court’s legitimacy across a range of issues, including abortion. What do you think these sentiments are, and where could they be going?

I know there are some who say, Expand court. But I’ve heard very little of this from abortion rights groups in the days since the court’s decision. Some of them were maybe hoping that the court would not overturn Roe entirely, and would stick to Chief Justice John Roberts’s position of upholding only Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban.

These groups quickly switched to a new strategy, which focuses on fighting abortion laws that are based on state constitutions. They also campaign for or against ballot initiatives in Michigan and Kansas that would enshrine and remove state constitutional protections. They are focusing on what they could do immediately to ensure that women still have access to abortions.

One major bit of fallout from the ruling, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, is the cascade of so-called trigger laws that have snapped into place in several states, including Missouri. What can we learn from the fights over these laws

Over the weekend, we saw a slew of lawsuits challenging abortion bans in state court, alleging that the bans were against state constitutions. That’s the first line of defense, and it’s had at least temporary success in places like Florida and Louisiana.

Abortion rights groups believe that many state constitutions offer more protection for abortion than does the federal Constitution, which was the backstop during the half century that Roe was in effect.

That’s not true in all states. In Louisiana, for example, the state’s Constitution says there is no right to an abortion. So the lawsuit against the trigger ban in Louisiana is about buying the time to keep clinics open as long possible.

There’s been a lot of debate over how the abortion issue might affect the midterm elections, and I wonder if some of the reporting and commentary has underestimated the angry response we are seeing now from abortion-rights supporters. How do Democrats feel about how this anger is being channeled to productive political ends?

This is how it affects the midterms The most critical political question. I think back to the Missouri provider and wonder if people will be thinking about this issue now.

As I reported last weekend, in the late Roe era, the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America polled women about what it would take for them to come out to support Roe, and they always said, “If it were overturned.”

We’re now at that moment. Polls show that the majority of Americans, and women in particular, disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision.

Are they too upset to do anything about it. In addition to the lawsuits and the ballot initiatives that I mentioned, there are Democratic-aligned groups like Vote Pro Choice and the States Project that are saying, Democrats have failed to recognize that state and local elections matter, because they’ve been too focused on Congress and the White House.

These groups seek to flip state legislatures like the Republicans did in 2010. They will also elect judges and commissions that will decide if state bans are upheld in courts and then enforced. While winning the legislature is difficult in many cases it is not easy. However, groups in states like Michigan are confident they can win the presidency by flipping just a few of their seats.

What to read tonight

We appreciate your reading.

— Blake

Is there anything you think we’re missing? Is there anything you would like to see more? We’d love to hear from you. Send us an email at onpolitics@nytimes.com.