The Worst Abortion Take of 2024

The New York Times is sadly known for its terrible coverage of life-and-death topics like Palestine and access to gender-affirming medical care. We should not forget that it is also often dogshit on abortion.

So as we close out the year, I wanted to take this opportunity to excavate the worst take on abortion access I've heard in the past 12 months. And it comes from NYT Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak speaking on The Daily podcast in July, after the end of the court's term.

Host Michael Barbaro asked Liptak about the two abortion cases the justices heard in the spring. Here's a rundown: The first was a laughable case about abortion pills in which the court said the plaintiffs trying to limit access weren't the correct parties to sue the FDA, and kicked the case back to a Texas judge. The second involved access to abortions in Idaho emergency rooms and the court let the state ban take effect in January before ruling in June that it was premature to hear the case, blocking the law again as litigation continues.

The court harmed countless Idaho women by letting the law take effect before they ever heard arguments and then, legally speaking, said "oopsie, we shouldn't have even agreed to take this case." They slapped a bandaid on a gushing wound of their own making. Meanwhile the status quo on abortion pills never changed.

But Liptak proclaimed that the court "effectively enhanced the availability of abortion." He added the qualifier that this was "a very tentative sliver of a victory for abortion rights," but nonetheless had the audacity to say that "women in Idaho have more access to emergency abortions as a consequence of this decision than if the court had gone the other way." (Here is a link to the episode transcript, though you may have to click "transcript" above the audio player.)

As an astute person replied on Bluesky when I first flagged this interview, Liptak's statements are like if a king announced he would execute an entire village, then changed his mind, and the town crier ran out to say the king saved everyone's lives.

Liptak then said that flicking away the abortion pill lawsuit over the plaintiffs lacking an injury that allows them to sue was the court "again, [ruling] in favor of abortion rights." He followed that up with a bunch of throat clearing about how other people can sue the FDA in the future and the decision doesn't mean abortion pills will remain available forever. "Here, too, this case is a victory for abortion rights," Liptak said, "but maybe an ephemeral one, and may well return to the court, which has not given an indication of how it will turn out if they actually address the merits."

One, this level of analysis is literally the butterfly meme. But more worrisome is that it's doing free public relations work for the 6-3 conservative supermajority. Liptak, a hard news reporter, is arguing that because the Supreme Court didn't take the most conservative stance possible on two cases that the justices never should have agreed to hear, that's somehow a win. He's shifting the Overton window whether he realizes it or not—but my money is on the Times wanting to say nice things about the Court as part of its slavish devotion to "both sides" framing.

The Supreme Court is a deeply unpopular institution that is going to wreak even more havoc on people's lives in 2025, including and especially regarding bodily autonomy. You do not, under any circumstances, gotta hand it to them.

Also:

• For even more EOY content, I contributed a feud to Jezebel’s Favorite Beefs of 2024: Justice Samuel Alito vs. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. The whole list is very good.
• I also have some (anonymous) entries in Jezebel’s 2025 Celebrity Predictions!!
• This newsletter is free to all, so please sign up to get thoughts like this in your inbox. You can help keep this place paywall-free to all by upgrading to a paid subscription. If you'd rather make a one-time contribution, you can send me a tip at @SusanRinkunas on Venmo or Ko-Fi. Thank you for helping me continue doing this work when full-time jobs are quite scarce.