Saudi Arabia might host the Billie Jean King cup
![]() January 18, 2024 Greetings, Meteor readers, If you’ve been with us long enough, you likely know I—like almost half of Americans—have an unnatural obsession with reality television because I am, as a coworker put it, “a garbage person.” I see no lies. So it behooves me to share with my fellow garbage goblins that Love is Blind: Sweden is where it’s at right now. If you plan to be indoors this weekend hiding from the weather, please give it a watch and let me know exactly how much you hate Sergio. In today’s newsletter, we’re meeting up at the intersection of global politics and women’s sports—my favorite place to be. Plus a frightening bill looking to ban gender-affirming care, and a monumental lawsuit. Love is Swedish, Shannon Melero ![]() WHAT'S GOING ONA Prince and the King: For years, the nation of Saudi Arabia has been using sports to improve its image on the global stage—or, as Human Rights Watch called it, “sportswashing.” In lieu of addressing the limited freedoms women have in the country, Prince Mohammed bin Salman al Saud (or MBS as he’s referred to) has been focusing his attention on acquiring licenses to bring (mostly) American sporting leagues and top-name athletes to Saudi. (His most notable contracts are a 10-year multi-billion-dollar agreement with the WWE, the LIV golf merger, and an ambassador deal with Rafael Nadal.) Now, the Kingdom is in talks to host the 2025 Billie Jean King Cup (BJK), aka the most prestigious tournament in women’s tennis. Why should this matter to anyone but diehard tennis fans who may have to figure out how to get to Saudi Arabia come Cup season? ![]() THE CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM FROM THE 2023 BILLIE JEAN KING CUP. (IMAGE BY MATT MCNULTY VIA GETTY IMAGES) Two key reasons: The first is, of course, money. Like most sports, there’s still an alarming gender pay gap in tennis. According to Sportico, “Across 2020, 2021, and 2022, the top 10 male players earned 53% more than their female counterparts.” And despite women’s earnings increasing (Iga Swiatek was the third highest-paid tennis player in the world in 2023), the Women’s Tennis Association Tour won’t reach pay equity with its male counterpart, the ATP, until 2033. That’s a long time to wait. While a new host country won’t close that gap overnight, the Saudis have made it abundantly clear that they’re willing to put their money where their mouth is, which could easily translate into a larger prize pot for players. It also creates an opening for players—particularly African and Middle Eastern ones—to reach a wider audience and, therefore, more earning opportunities. The second reason is human rights. It’s impossible to ignore the country’s litany of violations—gender discrimination, the use of torture, and the brutal, state-sanctioned murder of journalists. When the WTA announced it was considering Riyadh as a location for its finals, tennis immortals Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert penned a letter against the move citing the Kingdom’s anti-LGBTQ stance. World number-six-ranked player Ons Jabeur has expressed support in bringing women’s tennis to Saudi Arabia, but her colleagues have yet to share what they think. And we cannot forget the Billie Jean King of it all. Last year when asked about whether or not the Cup could end up in Saudi, King told Reuters, “The thing I’m concerned about is the women, I want change if we go. But I’m big on engagement and inclusion so it’s a tough one.” AND:
![]() WEEKEND READSOn conflict: The seemingly disjointed battles taking place across the Middle East may be sending global superpowers into one big war. (The New Yorker) On money: What is unpaid caregiving really costing women? Their retirement. (The Washington Post) On polyamory: Monogamists are bored. (The Cut) On growth: Hala Alyan on the power of changing your mind. (Time) ![]() FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays.
|
Donald Trump's Defamation Trial (Part 2)
![]() January 16, 2024 Happy Monduesday™, Meteor readers, Big week ahead! I am, of course, talking about the opening rounds of the Australian Open, which has already seen the exit of Naomi Osaka, returning to the sport after giving birth to her first child. It’s also a huge week for us here at The Meteor, as tomorrow we’ll be premiering the first two episodes of our brand new podcast, The A Files: A Secret History of Abortion. More on that tomorrow! In today’s newsletter, we run through the madness in Iowa, catch up on what’s happening in Iran, and learn about a groundbreaking food program in Colorado. Shoveling snow, Shannon Melero ![]() WHAT'S GOING ONAll about Don: In a landslide victory, Donald Trump—a man currently facing 91 criminal charges and a candidate who has refused to participate in a single debate—took first place in the Iowa caucus. Ron DeSantis came in second, Nikki Haley in third, and Vivek Ramaswamy dropped out entirely and gave his (meaningless) endorsement to Trump. Speaking of Trump, instead of celebrating his win in Iowa, he’s back in New York standing trial in a second defamation case to decide a suit brought by E. Jean Carroll. He lost the first one. This time around, he will reportedly be taking the stand in his own defense against Carroll, who says he defamed her by denying having attacked her in a dressing room in the 90s. Like the previous case, this is a civil matter—Carroll is suing for $10 million in damages. Maybe I’m the only person left in the country who feels this way, but it’s genuinely shocking that the lead GOP presidential candidate is spending so much time defending himself in court. AND:
![]()
![]()
![]() FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays.
|
Coretta Scott King's Misrepresented Legacy
![]() January 11, 2024 Hey, Meteor readers, Y’all, I encourage you to check in on your football friends. We’ve had a tough week. And by we, I mean me, since the hottest old man I’ve ever seen chew gum, Pete Carroll, is no longer the head coach of the Seattle Seahawks. ![]() In today’s newsletter, we remind everyone who Coretta Scott King really was. Plus, banning sexy books in Florida, abnormal weather, and weekend reading. Pete, my DMs are open, Shannon Melero ![]() WHAT'S GOING ONMore than someone’s wife: If you’re not caught up on why everyone’s discussing Coretta Scott King, here’s the TL;DR: In December, actor Jonathan Majors was found guilty of assault and harassment. During his trial, a recording was played for the jury in which Majors berated his then-girlfriend Grace Jabbari, telling her that she needed to comport herself like Mrs. King. (His implication was he wanted someone who would stand beside—and in a sense behind—a powerful man.) Then this week, in an interview with Good Morning America, Majors doubled down on the sentiment, saying that his new girlfriend, Meagan Good, “held [him] down like a Coretta.” Ignoring for a moment that Majors is trying to compare himself to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the assertion he’s making here is that Coretta Scott King was a woman of value because of her willingness to stand by her man no matter what. As Brittany Packnett Cunningham explained on Instagram, Coretta Scott King has been made out to be “the patron saint of cleanup women.” This is far from the first time Mrs. King’s life has been reduced to her marriage. I still remember Fabolous’ 2007 hit “You Make Me Better,” where he delivers the line, “Imma need Coretta Scott if I’m gonna be King.” But as Dr. Bernice King—her daughter—wrote in 2017, “Before she was a King, my mother was a civil rights activist, a member of the NAACP and the Race Relations and Civil Liberties Committees at Antioch College. Coretta Scott was determined that her life would serve to lift others. She was already a woman of great character.” Let’s also remember that without the work and persistence of Mrs. King, we probably wouldn’t have a Martin Luther King Day at all. So this year, rather than continue to misquote and decontextualize her husband, we give Coretta Scott King the recognition she deserves as an individual, a legend in her own right, and not just a supporting player. AND:
![]()
![]() WEEKEND READING 📚On “bouncing” back: The incomparable Naomi Osaka is making her return to tennis after becoming a mom, and she’s got a lot to say about it. (The Athletic) On sequels: The Ku Klux Klan had a significant revival in the early 1900s. With the extremist right gaining more power in the U.S., it’s worth revisiting how hate groups have managed to rebrand themselves successfully in the past. (Teen Vogue) On the podium: Did you watch the Republican primary debate between the remaining sad bunch last night? If so, you probably have the same question we have: “What is Nikki Haley even talking about?” (The Atlantic) ![]()
![]() FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays.
|
Why South Africa Is Bringing a Case Against Israel
![]() January 9, 2024 Hey there, Meteor readers, My new Panda Planner arrived in the mail over the weekend, and I can truly begin 2024 in earnest now that I have this oversized book to store my five different kinds of to-do lists. ![]() In the words of Issa Rae, “I am about to be so much better. That text? Responded to. That email? Answered. That project? Finished. That other project? Started.” In today’s newsletter, we look at the charges being levied against the Israeli government, the Golden Globes, and a little bit of good news. This opener? Signed off, Shannon Melero ![]() WHAT'S GOING ONDetermining genocide: On Thursday, the International Court of Justice in the Hague will begin hearings on the question of whether the Israeli government is guilty of carrying out genocide against Palestinians since the Hamas attack on October 7. The case, brought to the ICJ by South Africa, could be the first step in establishing a long-lasting ceasefire since a portion of the suit requests that certain immediate provisions—including a suspension of Israel’s campaign in Gaza—be made by the court. (Both Israel and the United States have called the suit “meritless.”) While it may seem odd that South Africa, a country with no obvious skin in the game between Hamas and Israel, would bring such a suit, the African National Congress has been a supporter of Palestine for decades (due to its own well-known history of enduring and eventually ending apartheid, the same policy that the United Nations has said Israel is carrying out in the Palestinian territories). Any territory that is a member of the United Nations and agrees to its treatises and jurisdiction can bring forth a suit against another member nation. And both South Africa and Israel are signatories of the 1948 Genocide Convention, which prohibits any signing nation from committing genocide. (The U.S. is also a signatory.) But while this case could prompt a ruling on whether or not Israel broke the treaty and committed genocide, it is not a criminal case and thus cannot dole out punishment for war crimes, something that would have to be decided by the International Criminal Court. Also worth knowing: South Africa’s suit focuses on military actions carried out against non-combatant groups—chief among them children—over the course of years. The lawsuit cites findings from the UNHRC’s 2019 Independent Commission of Inquiry, which found “reasonable ground to believe” that Israeli snipers “‘intentionally shot’ children knowing them to be children” as well as health workers and journalists. It also cites the disproportionately high deaths of journalists over the last two months illustrating that, “Palestinian journalists are being killed at a rate significantly higher than has occurred in any conflict in the past 100 years.” Looking for a quick decision on all this? Don’t. Hearings begin this Thursday and will continue into Friday, but those “prima facie” proceedings will only decide whether the case goes forward at all, and whether provisional measures can be implemented. That’s important—those measures could lessen the severity of the situation within a matter of weeks while the ICJ continues to deliberate—but an ultimate determination about the genocide classification will take years. ALSO IN THE NEWS AND:
![]()
![]() TELL ME SOMETHIN' GOOD 🎶
![]() FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays.
|
"I've never seen anything like this"
![]() January 4, 2024 Hey there, Meteor readers, My Christmas tree is still up and I feel no shame about that. So if you, too, are a delayed tree remover, I see you and I love you. In today’s newsletter, we look at the devastating food crisis in Gaza. Plus, Claudine Gay speaks for herself, a big week for lawsuits, and your weekend reads. Lazily yours, Shannon Melero ![]() WHAT'S GOING ONStarving to death: In late December, the United Nations released a report detailing “acute food insecurity” throughout Gaza. At the time, reporters found that more than 90 percent of the over 600,000 people living in the Gaza Strip were starving. At least 335,000 children were at risk of “severe malnutrition and preventable death,” according to the report. As we enter the fourth month of Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, the “entirely manmade…preventable catastrophic” food conditions are worsening. In an interview with The New Yorker’s Isaac Chotiner, Arif Husain, the chief economist at the United Nations World Food Program, described the situation as unprecedented. “I’ve never seen anything like this in terms of severity, in terms of scale, and then in terms of speed,” he says. Husain notes that the main contributing factor to the food crisis is inadequate and inaccessible aid. “On a good day, aid groups are bringing in maybe twenty-five to thirty percent of what [Gazans] need,” he told Chotiner. And the constant bombings and ground invasions by the Israeli military mean that even that small percentage doesn’t get properly distributed. All in all, Husain says 577,000 people in Gaza are classified as “I.P.C. Phase 5, meaning a catastrophic type of hunger.” That number accounts for 80 percent of the total global I.P.C. population. This degree of intentional starvation is also considered a war crime. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court classifies “the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population” as a “crime against humanity.” As Husain makes clear, “[Aid] needs to go to where the people are. And I don’t know how you can do that without a humanitarian ceasefire.” ALSO IN THE NEWS
![]() ![]() WEEKEND READING 📚On ice: The Professional Women’s Hockey League is in its inaugural season and is already breaking attendance records. Could this be the league that lasts? (The Athletic) On the frontier: Pregnancy care in rural areas across the U.S. is dwindling, and those most at risk are Indigenous infants up against a congenital syphilis crisis. (Vox) On screen: Yet another lawsuit has come out against the production companies behind Love is Blind. What the hell’s going on over there? (The Cut) FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays.
|
The Pope's Declaration May Feel Late...But It's Still Important
![]() December 19, 2023 Ho, ho, ho, Meteor readers, Only a few more days ‘til Christmas, and I, for one, am very much looking forward to cooking my family’s ancestral holiday dinner, passed down to me by generations of Puerto Rican women: lasagna. In today’s newsletter, Phill Picardi helps us make sense of Pope Francis’s latest announcement—plus, a new bill to save books and a touch of, yes, good news. No-boil noodles for the win, Shannon Melero ![]() WHAT'S IT REALLY MEAN?Yesterday, Pope Francis issued a declaration stating that priests are now allowed to bless same-sex couples. There is, of course, a caveat: The blessings must be in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church. This means that while those couples can be blessed, they still cannot receive the sacrament of holy matrimony, and their marriages cannot be formally recognized by the Church. Still, this is a bold step forward for Francis, who has been fending off conservative attacks from within the Vatican walls and, in the U.S., the overall influence of the political right. How happy should or shouldn’t we be about this? We knew exactly who to ask: Meteor collective member Phillip Picardi, who is both the CMO of the LA LGBT Center and a graduate of Harvard Divinity School. What does this new document from the Vatican mean for the LGBTQ+ Catholic community? Phillip Picardi: This is the rare headline about Christianity and LGBTQ+ people that doesn’t involve violent protests, book bans, or the rollback of basic civil rights. Instead, this is the Pope—who’s believed by Catholics to be the divinely ordained Head of the Church—telling his global clergy that they can bless LGBTQ+ couples. This is a massive turnaround, considering the Church’s hard-nosed stances on gay adoption, same-sex marriage, trans rights, and even safe sex practices around HIV/AIDS. Now, while a blessing isn’t going to solve the issues facing our community, it can’t hurt. Religious-based discrimination is a huge issue for the LGBTQ+ community—in fact, many of the youth who end up seeking housing with the LGBT Center [have been] kicked out of their homes for reasons related to religion. If this starts to change some of that harmful rhetoric, it can be significant. The declaration makes a point to distinguish between allowing same-sex couples a blessing rather than allowing them to receive the sacrament of matrimony. What’s the difference between these two things? Sacraments are the ways a Catholic moves through their journey within the church throughout their life. They’re liturgical sacraments, which means that they hold a certain rigor within the structure of the Church. Catholicism is very big on making sure Catholics have been educated and prepared before receiving these sacraments because, in a sense, they’re also a reception of God. A blessing is a much more casual acknowledgment by a clergy member; it doesn't hold the same liturgical rigor. Pope Francis, with this order, is trying to make it so that Catholic priests feel comfortable giving blessings to folks, even though they may not know about their moral litmus test. Before, getting a blessing from the Church was something that the Vatican said you needed to be somewhat morally pure or prepared for. So, he's removing this idea that there needs to be a moral exam for someone to receive a blessing or acknowledgment from the church. Is this a big step forward? Or not big enough? I think that depends on your own relationship to faith. If you are not Catholic, a move like this from the Pope can seem inconsequential or rudimentary—a small spiritual concession to make. And I think that can be a fair assessment considering how far other faith traditions have come on LGBTQ+ issues. On the other hand, if you are Catholic and know about the history of the Church, this can feel massive. Pope Francis is breaking with centuries of tradition that have seen the Church further marginalize and harm LGBTQ+ people. He’s also issuing this sort of “spiritual executive order” at a time when the Catholic church is, unfortunately, tilting even farther towards the right. The Pope has the power to change how Catholics look at their neighbors or how a parent looks at their child. Even for LGBTQ+ Catholics—because it’s estimated that at least half of our community is religious!—this is significant. It can feel like an opportunity for healing or reconciliation after a lifetime of religious-based trauma, after feeling abandoned by a church community or even by God. And if this is the beginning of that change—then this is a positive step in the right direction. ALSO IN THE NEWS
![]() TELL ME SOMETHIN' GOOD 🎶
![]()
![]() CLICK THE LINK ABOVE TO GET YOUR UNIQUE SHARE CODE TO SEND TO A FEW FRIENDS. IF FIVE OF THEM SIGN UP FOR THIS NEWSLETTER, YOU GET A METEOR TOTE! ALREADY HAVE A CODE BUT CAN'T FIND IT? NO WORRIES, IT'S WAITING FOR YOU DOWN BELOW ⬇️
![]() 1 Any promises of children being exchanged for goods and services are not legally binding. FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays.
|
A Crucial Year Ahead for Abortion Access
NEWS
Why legislative decisions will matter more than ever in the second year since Roe was overturned
BY SUSAN RINKUNAS

It has been nearly 18 months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and the impact of the laws that have come to life since have had devastating consequences for pregnant people. One after another, we’ve read awful stories of patients being rushed to the ICU with sepsis, nearly bleeding out in bathrooms, or having to go out of state for abortions when their fetuses don’t have skulls.
Amid all this news, it can be hard to pinpoint a bright spot, but there is one: Support for abortion has repeatedly won elections. In what would have otherwise been a sleepy off-year of races, voters were so furious about their rights being taken away that they re-elected a Democrat as Governor in Kentucky, codified abortion in Ohio, and flipped a chamber in Virginia, blocking a ban there.
Republicans know their plan to ban abortion in every state is toxic with voters, so they’re trying to deceive people from their end goal. It’s why we’ve seen conservative hand-wringing over the label “pro-life,” attempts to deflect with transphobia, and, yes, even backing away from the word “ban” in favor of “limit” or “minimum standard.”
But, according to Ryan Stitzlein, vice president of political and government relations at Reproductive Freedom for All, voters have shown a sustained fury over the abortion access crisis, and it stands to reason that they’ll keep it up. A major problem, however, is that our democracy isn’t the most democratic, and the majority doesn’t always prevail. (See: 2016.) Amid all the righteous anger, there’s a lurking threat that a Republican president could ban abortion nationwide.
“This is not us being ‘hysterical.’ This is real,” Stitzlein says. “They’re not going to stop until they’ve completely banned abortion.”
As we close out another year of egregious cutbacks to abortion access, here’s what we can expect in 2024.
Abortion policy duked out at the state level
As advocates long warned, the fight for abortion is playing out at the state level and in the courts. There are now 16 states with near-total bans on abortion after laws took effect in Indiana and North Dakota this year, and another four states ban the procedure at 15 weeks of pregnancy or earlier. State lawmakers have the opportunity to block restrictions, pass protections for patients and providers, or even introduce messaging bills on abortion that inform people about threats they face, says Jennifer Driver, senior director of reproductive rights at the State Innovation Exchange (SiX) Action.
Criminalization of providers and patients
In response to threats against telemedicine providers, legislatures in states where abortion is protected are passing “shield laws” to legally protect providers who treat patients across state lines. Still, Driver says those laws are untested as of yet. As for the criminalization of patients, the Nevada legislature could repeal its ban on self-managed abortion, she says—it’s the only state with such a ban left on the books. However, prosecutors can and do weaponize other statutes to criminalize people for behavior during their pregnancy or for pregnancy loss.
Insurance fights
Lawmakers in states like Colorado, New Jersey, and Rhode Island are also doing what they can to expand insurance coverage of abortion, whether through Medicaid or by requiring private insurance plans to cover the procedure without cost-sharing, says Kimya Forouzan, principal policy associate for state issues at the Guttmacher Institute. But it’s not all smooth sailing. In Michigan, one Democrat’s objection to Medicaid coverage effectively ended that effort. Still, the state was able to end the requirement that people with private insurance purchase a separate coverage rider for abortion.
Crisis pregnancy centers
Forouzan says protective states are also moving to regulate anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers under deceptive advertising statutes, but anti-abortion advocates have sued on First Amendment grounds. Those lawsuits could move their way through the court system in 2024. Conservative states will continue to funnel money and tax credits to CPCs, the vast majority of which offer no legitimate medical care.
Travel bans
In conservative states, the next frontier in the fight against access is restricting travel, Driver says. Idaho passed a law banning people from taking minors out of state for abortions without parental consent, and conservative activists like Jonathan Mitchell and Mark Lee Dickson have been working at the city and county level to try to ban people from driving abortion-seekers on Texas highways to appointments out of state. These attacks seem blatantly unconstitutional, but Forouzan notes that judges don’t need to uphold the ordinances for them to cause harm. “For many people who are trying to access abortion care, hearing that travel is banned or even just vaguely hearing that they could get in trouble or become criminalized for it is enough to dissuade people to not seek care,” she says.
Overlap with anti-trans rhetoric
Forouzan says we can expect to see more politicians connect attacks on abortion access to attacks on gender-affirming care. She cites as examples how Nebraska lawmakers first failed to pass a six-week ban but then later attached a 12-week ban to a bill banning affirming care for transgender youth. And in Ohio, opponents of the ballot measure tried to claim it would protect gender-affirming care.
Local elections and ballot measures
State legislators—who determine the fate of many of these laws—will be up for re-election next fall. Arizona will be a big state to watch that could flip to Democratic control. (The state has a 15-week ban in place, but a Democratic governor.) Driver predicts more candidates for state houses will lean into abortion in their campaigns like they did in Virginia this year. “This was the first time that I had seen candidates actually position themselves against their opponents by saying ‘I am the person that is going to protect access,’” she says. She’ll also be watching to see if conservatives in tough races double down on abortion or backtrack from the issue to try to keep their jobs.
Court appointments will also be crucial: It’s possible access could be fully restored in Wisconsin in 2024, thanks to a Democrat flipping control of the state Supreme Court earlier this year. In Florida, where the Governor appoints state Supreme Court justices, an impending ruling could slash the window of access down from 15 weeks to six—it would be a gigantic blow to the Southeast. There will be many other crucial state races for Governor and Attorney General—electeds who choose whether to sign or veto bills into law and how to enforce them.
And, yes, there are pro-choice ballot measures in the works in about 12 more states for 2024—including in states with active bans—where voters could make a difference. Surely, the victory in Ohio rattled the anti-abortion side: It was the seventh pro-choice victory since the Dobbs decision, and the first affirmative vote in a red state. Already, Ohio lawmakers started scheming ways to weaken it.
Continual erosion of democracy
We could see states use the coming legislative session to try to restrict the citizen-led referendum process by ending it altogether, raising the threshold for passage, or exempting abortion from statewide votes, Driver says. There’s a connection between the erosion of both democracy and abortion rights—bans pass in gerrymandered legislatures. These most recent efforts are “a sign that anti-abortion leaders are really ready to reject the will of the people,” she says.
The national fight to protect access

Stitzlein says ballot measures can be “hugely impactful,” but the threat of a nationwide ban still exists. To fix the abortion crisis in the U.S., there needs to be a federal law protecting access to the procedure. The way to do that, he says, is to re-elect Joe Biden and send him Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. Candidates need to run pro-actively on the message of codifying abortion rights and remind voters in states like Ohio that the work isn’t over.
“Reasonable” Republicans
We’re already seeing GOP presidential candidates shift to a faux-moderate position, and Stitzlein expects it to continue as candidates up and down the ballot try to hide their ultimate goal: banning abortion everywhere. Voters will be hit with a barrage of messaging from Republicans who swear that there won’t be a nationwide ban—either because a ban won’t pass Congress, like Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis have claimed, or because abortion should be a state issue, as Kari Lake said in a recent reversal of her position. These are, of course, gigantic lies spun out of political desperation. “The fact that you have people like Donald Trump and Kari Lake—of all people—trying to present themselves as moderates on abortion is demonstrative in and of itself of just how toxic this issue is,” Stitzlein says.
Banning abortion without Congress
Contrary to what multiple Republican candidates have said, legislation isn’t the only way a GOP President could ban abortion in 2025. They could simply direct the Department of Justice to enforce the Comstock Act of 1873, a zombie anti-vice law that prohibits mailing items used for abortion. The law is still on the books but wasn’t enforced while Roe stood. Now, conservative groups, including the Heritage Foundation, are urging a potential GOP administration to invoke the law to ban the mailing of abortion pills, though Comstock could be used to end all abortions. So, yes, there’s a world in which Trump wins in 2024, doesn’t have enough Senate votes to pass a law, but can ban abortion regardless.
The impact of Trump judges
If Biden wins but Democrats lose the Senate, it’s unlikely he’d be able to nominate federal judges or fill any potential Supreme Court vacancies. It’s worth repeating that the reason Roe was overturned and we’re facing the threat of a nationwide abortion ban is because Trump appointed three justices in a single term.
A legacy of the Trump administration is packing the court system with far-right activist judges, Stitzlein says, and there’s no more significant example than Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas. Kacsmaryk ruled in April to revoke FDA approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, and the Supreme Court just decided to hear the case. That lawsuit is another threat flying under the radar, Driver says. “I’m having to remind [state] legislators this case is still happening,” she says. “The everyday person is not following along.” Kacsmaryk is the judge in two other cases, one that could bankrupt a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Texas (and possibly the entire organization), and another that could imperil birth control access for minors at federally-funded clinics. Even if Biden wins, these lawsuits—and all those Trump judges—aren’t going anywhere.
Be mad, stay mad
“We’ve seen this huge surge in turnout every time abortion has been on the ballot, and we expect that to continue to grow in intensity the longer we’re in this crisis,” Stitzlein says. But U.S. voters have a lot of reasons to be mad, including the high cost of living, ongoing wars, and lack of progress on climate action and student loans. There’s still a chance that abortion rage might not be enough to keep authoritarians out of office. After all, Biden only beat Trump in the Electoral College by 44,000 votes in three states. About a year out, it’s not impossible to imagine that vote margin evaporating and the rights of millions of people along with it.
Susan Rinkunas is a reporter covering abortion, reproductive health, and politics. Her work has appeared in Jezebel, The Guardian, Slate, NBC News, Elle, and more.
Kate Cox Should've Had a Choice
![]() December 12, 2023 Greetings, Meteor readers, I know that it’s not cool to scold people, but some of y’all deserve it. Stop sending money to George Santos on Cameo! It was funny when he was lying and scamming his way around Congress, but this man should not be profiting off his nonsense to the tune of $174,000. Honestly, if you want to pay that much to have someone sassy insult your friends, I’ve got a Venmo account, way better lighting, and have never been expelled from Congress. In today’s newsletter, we read between the lines of Texas’s Supreme Court ruling against Kate Cox. Plus, a ceasefire in the Congo and a reprieve for children apprehended at the U.S. southern border. Reminding you Santos Cameos are not in your budget, Shannon Melero ![]() WHAT'S GOING ONAn inhumane ruling: The story of Kate Cox, a Texas woman who sued, won, and then eventually lost her fight to obtain an abortion in her state has dominated the headlines over the last few days. So what makes this case such a huge story? Let’s start from the top. Kate Cox found out in November that her pregnancy was doomed. During an NIPT screening (between 10-13 weeks) meant to determine the sex of the fetus, Cox’s doctor found markers that the fetus was at high risk for Trisomy 18, “a condition with a very high likelihood of miscarriage or stillbirth and low survival rates.” Despite these initial results, Cox remained hopeful and underwent further testing, which only revealed worsening conditions for her fetus, including irregular skull and heart development, a twisted spine, and a neural tube defect. A specialist told Cox that in the best-case scenario—if the fetus managed to survive labor—it would only live for a week. Cox was devastated. Not only was her pregnancy not viable, there was a chance carrying it to term would impact her ability to conceive in the future. And yet, she was told by her medical professionals that she didn’t meet the legal threshold to obtain an abortion because of the extreme ban in Texas—a story shared by many other women in the state (and across the country) since the Dobbs decision. With the support of a doctor who was willing to perform the abortion, Cox quickly sued the state to request an exemption, given the dangerous medical circumstances surrounding her pregnancy. Last Friday, a lower court ruled in her favor—but shortly after Attorney General Ken Paxton appealed the decision, and the case was sent to Texas’s Supreme Court. On Monday, the highest court in Texas, much to the shock of medical professionals and advocates, overturned the lower court's decision. They ruled that Cox was not eligible for an abortion under the state’s guidelines. (Instead of waiting for her condition to worsen, Cox sought an abortion out of state just before the ruling was issued.) What is truly baffling about the ruling issued by the court are the linguistic gymnastics used by the justices to explain the decision. They place most of the blame on her doctor, writing that the physician had failed to meet a standard from the Texas ban that allows an abortion “if the pregnant female…has a life-threatening physical condition aggravated by, caused by, or arising from a pregnancy that places the female at risk of death or poses a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.” Let’s pause here. At the point in which the suit was filed, Kate Cox’s life was not in immediate danger, and (ostensibly) potentially not being able to conceive again falls under “impairment to a major bodily function.” The fact that these laws are written in such a way that doctors have to hesitate in making the decisions that are best for their patients for fear they might have their licenses revoked or prosecuted is anything but “pro-life.” It’s a double-edged sword that even the Court was forced to acknowledge in its ruling: “Under the law,” the justices wrote, “it is a doctor who must decide that a woman is suffering from a life-threatening condition during a pregnancy, raising the necessity for an abortion…A pregnant woman does not need a court order to have a lifesaving abortion in Texas.” Unfortunately, Justices Devine and Blacklock, under your state’s law, she does. But she absolutely should not have to. AND:
![]() MORE FROM THE METEORIf you’re in New York this weekend: In Love and Struggle, Vol. 3 is happening at the Minetta Lane Theatre! Come hang out with us on December 14, 15, or 16 and see performances from voice actor Cree Summer, comedian Zainab Johnson, poet Mahogany L. Browne, musician Nona Hendryx (she was one of the singers on the original Lady Marmalade!!!), and many more. You can get your tickets (and a sweet discount) here. If you’re looking for a podcast: Last week, In Retrospect revisited the “most hated woman in America,” actress Robin Givens. If you don’t know the story: In 1988, Givens and her husband, Mike Tyson, gave a television interview to Barbara Walters, addressing persistent tabloid rumors that their marriage was violent. In a stunningly honest moment, sitting next to Tyson, Givens admitted that her husband's abuse tormented her. But Givens’ honesty about her violent marriage to Mike Tyson wasn’t met by massive public empathy for her. Instead, she was vilified—even as additional evidence of his abuse emerged. (Givens ultimately endured, filing for divorce and rebuilding her life despite the vitriol.) In a comprehensive two-episode story, hosts Susie Banikarim and Jessica Bennett examine the cruel public reaction and what it teaches us about America’s misunderstanding of domestic violence at that time; plus, guest Dr. Salamishah Tillet weighs in on what happens when a Black woman comes forward about her abuse. ![]() ![]() CLICK THE LINK ABOVE TO GET YOUR UNIQUE SHARE CODE TO SEND TO A FEW FRIENDS. IF FIVE OF THEM SIGN UP FOR THIS NEWSLETTER, YOU GET A METEOR TOTE! ALREADY HAVE A CODE BUT CAN'T FIND IT? NO WORRIES, IT'S WAITING FOR YOU DOWN BELOW ⬇️
![]() FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays.
|
An "Education Crisis" in Afghanistan
![]() December 7, 2023 Evening, Meteor readers, Did y’all see who TIME voted person of the year? Not to sound like a hipster, but she has been my person of the year since 2012 when the spirit first moved me to jump up on a coffee table and jam out to a burned copy of RED my friend gave me. (Thank you, Brittany, for showing me the light all those years ago.) ![]() In today’s newsletter, we learn of a new crisis unfolding in Afghanistan. Plus, a little unsportswomanlike gloating, and our weekend reading list and a special feature on an inspiring young activist. Balancing it all, Shannon Melero ![]() WHAT'S GOING ONLost boys: Since the Taliban’s return to power in 2021, the harrowing conditions faced by women and girls in Afghanistan, including their loss of access to education, have been widely shared. But a new report from Human Rights Watch is shedding light on a new group of victims who may have been overlooked: school-age boys. The report has discovered an “alarming deterioration in boys’ access to education” —what HRW describes as an education crisis that could create a “lost generation.” Before the Taliban’s return, most schoolteachers were women; now that they’re barred from teaching, boys are attending classes led by unqualified male teachers, and in some cases, there are no teachers at all. One student who spoke with the researchers said, “The newly hired teachers have highly aggressive behavior toward the students, so the school environment is full of fear.” The report found that many students have stopped going to school altogether to avoid the sharp uptick in corporal punishment. Another student recounted to HRW that he had been whipped on his feet during a morning assembly and had his head shaved in front of his classmates because his hairstyle was “too Western.” A common thread among all the students interviewed is how deeply they feel the absence of the women who once taught them—including those with specialization in subjects like physics and biology, subjects that are no longer being taught in some schools because of a lack of qualified educators. The long-term effects of the education crisis, coupled with Afghanistan’s current economic crisis, will reverberate for generations. When boys and girls are denied access to education, they are more likely to experience heightened rates of discrimination, poverty, and violence. The future of an entire nation is being determined at this very moment, and unless the Taliban can be convinced to function in their country’s best interests, it will be a dark one indeed. AND:
![]() MORALES (CENTER) SURROUNDED BY FELLOW SURVIVORS AND SUPPORTERS IN HER YOUTH NETWORK. (PHOTO COURTESY OF ABRIANNA MORALES)
![]() TRINITY RODMAN STRIKING A WINNING POSE AT TRAINING CAMP. (IMAGE BY BRAD SMITH VIA GETTY IMAGES) ![]() WEEKEND READING 📚
![]() FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend?
|
32,000 more births
![]() November 30, 2023 Darling Meteor readers, Exciting news! If you click the button below, you’ll get your first annual Meteor Wrapped highlighting how much time you spent reading, what you clicked, and which Meteor events were your favorite. Just kidding! We don’t jive with creepy algorithms that put all your business out there (as entertaining as it is to see what everyone’s been listening to). In today’s newsletter, we check in with the abortion lawsuit in Texas, see dead things come back to life, and share our long reads for the weekend. Don’t need a Wrapped to know I only listened to Taylor, Shannon Melero ![]() WHAT'S GOING ON32,000 more births: On Tuesday, the Texas Supreme Court heard testimony from some of the 22 plaintiffs in a lawsuit arguing that the medical exceptions in Texas’s abortion ban are too narrow to protect women with complicated or nonviable pregnancies. The testimonies, from women whose lives were threatened by the denial of an abortion, ranged from horrific to unspeakable: last-minute travel plans after heartbreaking ultrasounds; sepsis; purple limbs from severe blood clots; and giving birth to a fetus missing parts of its skull. Writer Jessica Valenti pointed out on Xwitter that when asked by a judge if acrania (the condition that prevents the skull from fully forming) qualifies as an exception to the state’s abortion ban, the lawyer representing Texas admitted she didn’t know what it was. Yet another reason why non-doctors shouldn’t have final say over medical decisions. While some of the lawsuit’s plaintiffs were eventually able to obtain abortions, a new data analysis from the Institute of Labor and Economics sheds light on pregnant people who weren’t. The data estimates that a “significant minority”—between one-fifth and one-fourth—of women living in ban states who may have otherwise gotten an abortion did not get one. That means that in the first six months of this year, 32,000 more people than were expected based on past trends gave birth in those states. One of the authors of the paper says this reflects an “inequality story”: Women in their 20s and Black and Latine women—all of whom tend to be lower-income and are less likely to have the resources to travel—were disproportionately among those who gave birth. Ultimately, this study paints a far broader picture of who is affected by abortion bans than the Texas lawsuit is able to. The stories from the Texas plaintiffs—most of whom are white, married, and wanted to be pregnant before they were faced with medical emergencies—are terrible and dehumanizing, and demand justice. But if you widen the lens, you find a number of invisible victims, who may or may not fit the “good victim” stereotype. People of color are most affected by bans like the one in Texas (where the population is 40% Latine) and yet they remain underrepresented. Perhaps some of those 32,000 pregnant people were also diagnosed with fetal abnormalities—but the rest of them likely would have sought abortions for all kinds of individual reasons. Those reasons don’t matter. The right to bodily autonomy is not conditional; we have to be in it for every last person. AND:
![]() ![]() JUST CLICK THE LINK ABOVE TO GET YOUR UNIQUE SHARE CODE TO SEND TO FRIENDS. IF FIVE OF THEM SIGN UP, WE'LL SEND YOU A METEOR TOTE! ALREADY HAVE A CODE BUT CAN'T FIND IT? NO WORRIES, IT'S WAITING FOR YOU DOWN BELOW. ⬇️
![]() WEEKEND READING 📚
Correction: An earlier version of this piece stated that the students in Vermont had been killed instead of injured. We regret the error. ![]() FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their unique share code or snag your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays.
|