As White House scrambles for ways to protect abortion, Senate to vote on codifying rights

As an appeals court judge, Samuel Alito repeatedly drew criticism from his colleagues for disrespecting precedents and established understandings of the law. Fellow judges said, for example, that one of his dissents ignored “our precedent” and another deviated from the axiom that laws must be interpreted “by well-recognized rules.”

Two decades later, a leaked draft opinion shows that the Supreme Court may soon overturn precedents like Roe v. Wade and eliminate women’s constitutional right to have an abortion. Alito wrote the draft, devoting 30 pages to arguing that it was unnecessary for the court to follow decisions that had affirmed abortion rights for nearly 50 years.

The legal principle of stare decisis — that previous rulings should generally be respected and not lightly overturned — “is not an inexorable command,” Alito wrote, adding: “When one of our constitutional decisions goes astray, the country is usually stuck with the bad decision unless we correct our own mistake.”

The apparently imminent demise of constitutional abortion rights raises the question of how aggressive the Roberts court will become in overturning precedents — and whether similar constitutional rights that protect various types of sexual activity and conjugal relationships may be challenged by cultural and religious conservatives in coming years.

White House scrambles for ways to protect abortion — 6:35 p.m.

In the hours after a leaked Supreme Court document signaled the court was poised to overturn Roe v. Wade in the coming weeks, President Biden vowed to fight to protect access to abortion.

‘’We will be ready when any ruling is issued,’’ Biden said in a statement Tuesday.

But in marathon meetings and phone calls among White House officials, government lawyers, outside advisers, and federal agency officials, a sobering reality settled in: There’s little the White House can do that will fundamentally alter a post-Roe landscape.

Officials are discussing whether Medicaid funding could be made available to women to travel to other states for an abortion, according to outside advisers who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions, but many doubt whether that is feasible.

Opinion: It starts with Roe v. Wade, but it won’t stop there — 4:25 p.m.

By Scott Lehigh, Globe opinion columnist

Don’t worry, it’s only the constitutional right to abortion that will vanish, Justice Samuel Alito tries to suggest in the leaked draft of an opinion that would overturn the court’s long-time precedents on that matter.

Don’t bet on it. Many rights, from same-sex marriage to the bedroom liberties of adults to access to contraception to the freedom of people of different races to marry depend on a constitutional right to privacy. If the US Supreme Court no longer interprets the US Constitution as including such a right, the foundation of those freedoms would be severely undercut or entirely stripped away.

It may seem alarmist to suggest any state would again ban interracial marriage if it no longer enjoyed Supreme Court protection. But here’s the irony: Without the recognition of a constitutional right of privacy, the court wouldn’t have struck down state bans on such marriages, or even on the use of contraception, in the first place.

Louisiana Republicans advance bill that would charge abortion as homicide — 3:22 p.m.

By the Washington Post

Republicans in the Louisiana House advanced a bill Wednesday that would classify abortion as homicide and allow prosecutors to criminally charge patients, with supporters citing a draft opinion leaked this week showing the Supreme Court ready to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The legislation, which passed through a committee on a 7-to-2 vote, goes one step further than other antiabortion bans that have gained momentum in recent years, which focus on punishing abortion providers and others who help facilitate the procedure. Experts say the bill could also restrict in vitro fertilization and emergency contraception because it would grant constitutional rights to a person “from the moment of fertilization.”

Discussing the legislation less than 48 hours after the leaked Supreme Court draft proposing to overturn the 1973 ruling that has protected abortion rights, lawmakers and advocates who spoke in support of the bill appeared energized by the prospect of a long-sought imminent victory. One advocate who helped draft the bill specifically cited the draft opinion.

“The Supreme Court is poised to ignore Roe versus Wade,” said Bradley Pierce, executive director of the Foundation to Abolish Abortion.

He appeared at the committee hearing with the bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Danny McCormick, a Republican.

“We’ve been waiting 50 years to get to this point,” said McCormick, who did not respond to a request for comment.

Illinois could become sole abortion refuge in Midwest — 3:06 p.m.

By Bloomberg News

Illinois, the only state that’s codified legal abortions in the U.S. heartland even if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, is girding for a surge in the number of women coming from other states for abortions.

The sixth-largest U.S. state already has seen an increase in demand given a slew of abortion restrictions enacted over the last decade in neighboring states. When the court releases its final decision, bans -- except in extreme cases such as rape, incest or risk to the mother’s life -- could be triggered around the Midwest, potentially turning the Land of Lincoln into an island of abortion rights.

If Roe is overturned, so-called “trigger bans” or restrictions would take effect in Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri and Kentucky, with Indiana likely to join that group and the fate of Minnesota -- which currently has some restrictions in place -- uncertain, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, who joined an amicus brief in September urging the Supreme Court to uphold Roe v. Wade, said he’s worried that his state’s reproductive health care providers may be overwhelmed as more and more out-of-state women seek its abortion services.

“We’d be an oasis,” Raoul said in an interview. “Right now with Roe v. Wade in effect, there’s already been increases with the introduction of legislation throughout the country. So, if Roe v Wade is overturned, for sure, for sure that increase would go up dramatically.”

While the total abortions for Illinois residents fell 6.3% to 36,174 in 2020 from 2010, the number for out-of-state residents almost tripled to 9,686, according to the most recent data compiled by the Illinois Department of Public Health.

The barriers to getting an abortion in Rhode Island — 2:40 p.m.

By Alexa Gagosz, Globe Staff

PROVIDENCE — Dr. Beth Cronin had a patient come into her practice recently with an unplanned pregnancy. The couple already had children, and were not in any financial position to have another, but could not afford to pay for an abortion, which can cost hundreds or even thousands of dollars.

“So now we have people — like this patient — that are stuck,” said Cronin told the Globe Wednesday. “This is a time-sensitive procedure. But they don’t have a choice since they can’t put up the funds immediately.”

Though Rhode Island passed the Reproductive Privacy Act in 2019, protecting the right to an abortion in the state, the law doesn’t make it much easier to terminate a pregnancy.

Abortions in Rhode Island can start around $600, and go up to $5,000 or more, depending on if there’s any complications. Some organizations — like Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Federation, and other local groups — have a fund that helps cover costs for those who can’t pay. But those limited funds can’t pay for everyone. And they don’t cover lost wages, transportation, childcare, or other expenses besides the cost of the procedure.

Ideas: Americans can prove Alito wrong at the ballot box — 1:58 p.m.

By Mary Ziegler

When a draft opinion reversing Roe v. Wade leaked this week, there was a clear disconnect between public opinion and where the Supreme Court seems to be headed. True, polls have long shown that Americans are conflicted about the morality of abortion and generally favor some restrictions on the procedure. But when it comes to criminalizing abortion or reversing Roe, a strong majority is clearly opposed. And yet the conservative court seems poised not just to gut abortion rights but to do so rapidly, in an opinion dripping with disdain for abortion rights and setting the stage for the unraveling of other constitutional protections.

Strikingly, the draft proclaims an indifference to public opinion. In it, Justice Samuel Alito explains that the court is ill equipped to predict public reaction to its decisions and should not try. The justices’ job, he suggests, is to interpret the Constitution, consequences be damned.

Many contest Justice Alito’s views on of the Constitution and question the interpretive approach used in the draft. And the idea of a Supreme Court completely indifferent to public opinion would be new in modern US politics. For years, scholars could credibly claim that the court rarely strayed far from public opinion and faced a serious backlash when it dared to try. This court, Alito suggested, is different — it does not care — and does not have to care about what anyone else thinks.

Senate to vote next week on protecting abortion rights — 1:25 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The Senate will vote next week on legislation that would codify abortion rights into federal law as Democrats mount their response to the Supreme Court’s leaked draft decision that would overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling.

The procedural vote, scheduled for Wednesday, will mostly be symbolic and once again show the limits of the Democratic majority in the 50-50 Senate. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer a New York Democrat, does not have the necessary 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster and move ahead with the bill, which means the effort is certain to fail. But he said members of both parties need to go on record about where they stand.

“Next week’s vote will be one of the most important we ever take,” Schumer said Thursday. “Because it deals with one of the most personal and difficult decisions a woman ever has to make in her life.”

He insisted that bringing the Women’s Health Protection Act back to the Senate floor after it failed in March is “not an abstract exercise.” The bill passed the House in September.

Abortion pills stand to become next battleground in post-Roe America — 12:55 p.m.

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, the legal and culture wars over abortion that have consumed the United States for decades would increasingly be fought on a new front: abortion pills.

Medication abortion — a two-drug combination that can be taken at home or in any location and is authorized for use in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy — has become more and more prevalent and now accounts for more than half of recent abortions in the United States. If the federal guarantee of abortion rights disappears, medication abortion would likely become an even more sought-after method for terminating a pregnancy — and the focus of battles between states that ban abortion and those that continue to allow it.

“Given that most abortions are early and medication abortion is harder to trace and already kind of becoming the majority or preferred method, it’s going to be a big deal,” said Mary Ziegler, a visiting law professor at Harvard. “It’s going to generate a lot of forthcoming legal conflicts because it’s just going to be a way that state borders are going to become less relevant.”

About half the states are expected to quickly make all methods of abortion illegal if the justices’ decision in a Mississippi case resembles a draft opinion leaked this week that would nullify the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion. Other states would likely continue to allow abortion, and several are already taking steps to accommodate patients from the states where abortion may be outlawed.

Medication abortion is less expensive and less invasive than surgical abortions. In December, the Food and Drug Administration made access to it significantly easier by lifting the requirement that patients obtain the first of the two pills, mifepristone, by visiting an authorized clinic or doctor in person. Now, patients can have a consultation with a physician via video or phone or by filling out online forms, and then receive the pills by mail.

But many conservative states have already begun passing laws to restrict medication abortion, including banning it earlier than 10 weeks’ gestation and requiring patients to visit providers in person despite FDA rules. Nineteen states ban the use of telemedicine for abortion. This year, Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion advocacy group, listed laws against medication abortion as first among the organization’s “pressing priorities” for 2022.

Residents of states that would quickly ban all abortion methods if Roe were overturned — including Texas, Missouri, Utah and Tennessee — would be legally prohibited from having telemedicine abortion consultations from any location in their state, even if the doctor were located in a state with legal abortion. Such patients would have to travel to a state where an online, video or phone consultation is legal — the IP address of the computer or phone they were using would identify where they were located. Then, they would have to receive the pills by mail at an address in a state with legal abortion, even if it were a post office box or a hotel.

Once conflicted, President Biden embraces role as abortion defender — 11:27 a.m.

During five decades in elected office, President Biden has tried to avoid picking a side on abortion whenever he could. Now that’s impossible as the Supreme Court seems poised to strike down the constitutional right to abortion. A draft copy of the court’s majority opinion was published by Politico earlier this week, and a final decision is expected this summer.

As the Democratic president who happens to be serving when the Republicans’ anti-abortion agenda reaches its crescendo, Biden is being drafted into the kind of fight that he’s sidestepped for much of his career.

Memories of pre-Roe America, from people who were there — 10:44 a.m.

Advocates on both sides of the issue have anticipated this moment - the undermining or complete overturning of Roe - for decades. But only a small share remember life pre-Roe, a period defined by deep stigma around sex and limited access to contraception and abortions for women.

At the time, 17 states permitted the procedure. New York, with the most liberal policy, allowed it within the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, as CBS reports. The rest prohibited it except to save the life of the pregnant person.

Your phone could reveal if you’ve had an abortion — 9:09 a.m.

When someone gets an abortion, they may decide not to share information with friends and family members. But chances are their smartphone knows.

The leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion proposing to overturn Roe v. Wade raises a data privacy flash point: If abortion becomes criminal in some states, might a person’s data trail be treated as evidence?

There is precedent for it, and privacy advocates say data collection could become a major liability for people seeking abortions in secret. Phones can record communications, search histories, body health data and other information. Just Tuesday, there was new evidence that commercial data brokers sell location information gathered from the phones of people who visit abortion clinics.

Alito abortion draft pushes little-known justice into spotlight — 8:33 a.m.

By Bloomberg

Justice Samuel Alito mostly avoided the limelight for 16 years, even while being arguably the most conservative member of the U.S. Supreme Court. But that low profile is changing after he authored a draft opinion that would overturn the landmark abortion-rights ruling Roe v. Wade.

The opinion, if finalized, promises to be one of the most momentous in U.S. history, toppling a 1973 decision that has since allowed tens of millions of women to legally end pregnancies. The leaked draft also raises questions about Supreme Court precedents that protect other rights, including same-sex marriage and contraception.

And it could catapult Alito, once best known for mouthing “not true” during President Barack Obama’s 2010 State of the Union address, to a new level of prominence: despised by some, revered by others.

Supporters describe Alito, 72, as a man whose core beliefs haven’t changed much since he was tapped in 2005 by President George W. Bush to succeed the retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Alito’s confirmation the following year instantly shifted the court to the right.

“He’s known from the start that he would never be accepted by kind of the mainstream liberal society and he’s never tried for that kind of acceptance,” said Alexander Volokh, a former Alito law clerk who teaches at Emory University School of Law. “So he’s basically proud of staking out what he believes in as a conservative opinion.”

What’s changed since his appointment is the court has grown more conservative around him, giving Alito the votes as well as the seniority to write far-reaching opinions. He wrote the 2018 decision that said government employees have a constitutional right not to pay union fees and the 2014 ruling that said closely held companies can refuse on religious grounds to offer their workers birth-control coverage.

“He remains the most consistently conservative justice on a court that now includes six incredibly conservative justices,” said Brianne Gorod, chief counsel of the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center. “Whereas other justices will occasionally vote in ways that are seemingly at odds with their ideological preferences, Justice Alito almost never does.”

A history of abortion in the United States — 7:54 a.m.

By Shelley Murphy and Tonya Alanez, Globe staff

Those who’ve been watching the abortion rights debate closely were not surprised by the signal that the conservative majority Supreme Court plans to eviscerate what has been a Constitutional right for nearly 50 years. Here are the key moments that brought us to this point.

Matt Gaetz blasted after calling women protesting the draft abortion decision ‘over-educated’ — 7:01 a.m.

By Shannon Larson, Globe staff

Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida received swift condemnation after he questioned how many of the women protesting in response to the news that Roe v. Wade may be overturned are “over-educated, under-loved millennials.”

How many of the women rallying against overturning Roe are over-educated, under-loved millennials who sadly return from protests to a lonely microwave dinner with their cats, and no bumble matches?
— Matt Gaetz (@mattgaetz) May 4, 2022

The blowback ranged from fellow elected officials to comedians denouncing his comments as misogynistic and drawing attention to the fact the congressman is currently under federal investigation for sex-trafficking.

Scrapping Roe would affect both sides of border, Canadian official says — 1:59 a.m.

If Roe v. Wade were overturned, Americans could continue to receive abortions in Canada, Karina Gould, the country’s minister of families, children and social development, said Tuesday. She said such a decision would affect people on both sides of the border.

The US Supreme Court could be poised to overturn the 1973 landmark decision legalizing abortion in the United States, according to a leaked draft opinion obtained by Politico, the authenticity of which the court has confirmed.

May 4, 2022

What’s next in the investigation of the Supreme Court leak? — 9:16 p.m.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in ordering an investigation into an “egregious breach of trust” in the leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion on abortion, tasked a relatively unknown court official to carry out what could be one of the most high-profile investigations in decades.

The Marshal of the Supreme Court has now undertaken the investigation to try to identify the source of the leak — a nearly unprecedented breach of protocol that sent shock waves through the Supreme Court and Washington legal community.

“This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here,” Roberts said in ordering the investigation.

‘Everyone who is vulnerable in some way’ will bear the brunt if court overturns Roe, specialists say — 8:22 p.m.

Deanna Pan, Globe Staff

Teenagers. People of color. Low-income workers. Undocumented immigrants. Victims of domestic violence. If the Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to abortion, those and other marginalized groups will bear the brunt of the consequences, according to reproductive rights experts.

“Everyone who is vulnerable in some way that makes leaving a state more difficult or impossible — that’s who this overturning is going to fall more heavily on,” said Shoshanna Ehrlich, a gender and sexuality studies professor at the University of Massachusetts Boston.

Yvonne Abraham: Alito’s hall-of-mirrors opinion on Roe reveals the GOP’s death spiral — 7:24 p.m.

Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff

It has been a few days since Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s hall-of-mirrors opinion seeking to overturn Roe v Wade was leaked. But for those of us who support abortion rights, it will be a long time before the shock subsides, if it ever does.

We all knew something like this was coming: Republicans’ machinations over the last few years left no doubt that one day soon we’d arrive at the moment when the nation’s highest court would overturn the 50-year-old precedent.

“I never wanted to be wrong about something so much in my life,” said Rebecca Hart Holder, head of Reproductive Equity Now.

Mass. Senate president commits to increased funding for abortion access — 6:38 p.m.

Stephanie Ebbert, Globe Staff

State Senate President Karen E. Spilka met with abortion rights advocates on Wednesday and committed to boost funding in the next state budget an additional $2 million for abortion access, a spokesman said.

The meeting came on the heels of the news that the Supreme Court is poised to strike down Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that made abortion legal.

Abortion rights will remain protected under Massachusetts law, even if the court overturns Roe. But Massachusetts policymakers are beginning to consider how to handle an anticipated influx of patients from states that will prohibit it.

The House adopted a budget amendment last week that would devote $500,000 to improving reproductive health care access, infrastructure, and security. It was not yet clear whether Governor Charlie Baker would support the funding, which Planned Parenthood said would represent the state’s first budget investment in “abortion funds,” or nonprofit organizations help individuals pay for the procedure.

Both chambers’ plans would provide grants to three area abortion funds — Jane Fund of Central Massachusetts, the Abortion Rights Fund of Western Massachusetts, and the Eastern Massachusetts Abortion Fund.

Mississippi Clinic at Center of Supreme Court Case Is Still Open — 4:52 p.m.

The morning after the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion in a case concerning Mississippi’s only abortion provider, Derenda Hancock arrived at the clinic around sunrise, just as she does most days, to lead a group of volunteers escorting patients. Wednesday morning, the group was back to do it again.

Women regularly come to the clinic, Jackson Women’s Health, from across Mississippi, as well as Louisiana and Texas. This week, at least one came from Tennessee.

The clinic challenged the Mississippi law that would shut down abortions there, in a case that has climbed to the Supreme Court and paved the way to what will surely be one of the most consequential decisions on abortion rights in decades.

Often, it can seem like a wide gulf separates the legal fight in Washington from the practical realities on the ground. But the draft opinion has brought renewed concern about the fate of the clinic once the final ruling arrives.

“We know there is no winning,” Hancock said by phone as she helped direct traffic and kept watch over the perimeter of the clinic, known as the Pink House for its flamingo exterior.

With Roe v. Wade at risk, activists aim at expanding access to abortion in R.I. — 4:52 p.m.

By Alexa Gagosz, Globe Staff

ROVIDENCE — In 2018 and 2019, Tammy Brown could often be found holding a bright, red bullhorn and wearing a shirt that read “Abortion is Healthcare.” She and other pro-choice activists were in and out of the State House during that legislative year, warning lawmakers that if Roe v. Wade was ever overturned, Rhode Islanders would lose access to abortions.

Republicans and pro-life Democrats questioned the necessity of passing a bill that would protect abortion access at the state level, saying that activists were “overreacting” and the 1973 Supreme Court decision would “never be overturned.”

“I think that’s a concern that’s not rooted in reality,” former House speaker Nicholas Mattiello, an antiabortion Cranston Democrat, said in 2018.

Later that year, lawmakers passed the Reproductive Privacy Act, which codified Roe v. Wade into Rhode Island state law, protecting the right to abortion in Rhode Island even if the landmark 1973 decision is weakened or overturned by the US Supreme Court. Twenty-nine members in the House, both Republican and Democratic — many of whom are still in office — voted against it.

“And now we’re facing what we all knew was the inevitable,” said Brown. “What everyone told us would ‘never’ happen.”

Did Trump’s Supreme Court nominees hide their abortion views? Here’s what Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said about Roe during their hearings — 4:24 p.m.

By Pranav Baskar, Globe correspondent

Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch are currently under fire from some lawmakers after Politico published a leaked draft opinion that would overturn the 50-year right to an abortion–a dramatic overruling of decades of Supreme Court precedent. The draft, which the court confirmed is authentic on Tuesday, may not represent the justices’ final decision.

Senator Susan Collins, a moderate, pro-abortion rights Republican from Maine, suggested to the Globe that she felt the justices, who Politico reported are among the five justices poised to overturn Roe, misrepresented their views in private discussions she had prior to voting to confirm them if they do vote to gut the precedent. She told reporters at the time that she believed Kavanaugh agreed with her that Roe was “settled law.”

Analysis: In 2 key New England races, the candidates disagree over abortion — and the outcomes could have a major impact — 4:13 p.m.

By James Pindell, Globe staff

Should Roe be overturned this summer, abortion will undoubtedly be a major topic of conversation in the region in all political contests. But in two statewide races, in Maine and New Hampshire, the contrast between the two candidates is stark - and the outcomes could have an immediate impact on the future of abortion rights.

If Roe is repealed, then the question of whether abortion is legal will be immediately referred back to each state. This raises the stakes in competitive races for governor.

New round of state abortion battles winding up after leaked Supreme Court draft opinion — 3:55 p.m.

The Supreme Court’s apparent intention to abolish a nationwide right to abortion, spelled out in a draft opinion leaked this week, will expand the battlefield of the nation’s most highly charged culture war, taking it to states where abortion access has long been assured.

Democrats in blue states are bracing for a wave of legal attacks and other maneuvers seeking to undermine access, and some are even taking steps to enshrine the right to abortion in their constitutions, making it much more difficult to impose a ban in the future.

Republican states are expected to ban or restrict abortion, but tactics also could include an aggressive effort to go beyond their borders to sue abortion providers and find other ways to punish those who assist a woman in securing an abortion.

Demonstrators rally at Harvard Yard to protest feared reversal of Roe v. Wade after leaked Supreme Court opinion — 3:36 p.m.

By Matt Yan, Globe correspondent

Demonstrators converged on Harvard Yard Wednesday to speak out against the feared reversal of Roe v. Wade, in the wake of a leaked draft opinion from the US Supreme Court that appears poised to overturn the bedrock legal precedent that’s protected abortion rights in the country for decades.

Harvard University student Liz Benecchi, left, leads demonstrators in a chant while rallying in Harvard Yard on Wednesday.Erin Clark/Globe Staff

Ava Pallotta, center, spoke to students at Harvard University while they rallied on Wednesday in Harvard Yard to defend abortion rights.Erin Clark/Globe Staff

Students at Harvard University rallied on Wednesday in Harvard Yard.Erin Clark/Globe Staff

Ava Pallotta, a freshman at Harvard and lead organizer of the rally on the steps of the historic Memorial Church, said she broke down sobbing when she heard from her mom that Roe would likely be overturned.

“The reason why I think I am here is because my mother and women before had access to safe abortions and to see that in jeopardy is not something I thought I was ever going to have to endure in my lifetime,” said Pallotta, of Rye Brook, N.Y., in an interview before the rally, which hundreds attended.

Antiabortion groups cautiously hopeful after Supreme Court leak — 3:04 p.m.

Minutes after reading that the Supreme Court was prepared to gut Roe v. Wade, Kristan Hawkins joined a conference call to plan.

The antiabortion activist had rearranged her life for this moment, even selling her house last year and moving her family into a camper to travel the country advocating for abortion restrictions. Now a leaked majority opinion said Roe “must be overruled.”

But it was only a draft. On their call, Hawkins and fellow activists at Students for Life of America scrambled to respond. “We got to get folks at the court tomorrow,” Hawkins remembers saying. “We have to see, you know, is this real?”

“Before you go to bed tonight, pray for the five Justices,” Hawkins tweeted to her 20,000 followers Monday during a long night of texts, calls and tears. “Pray for their safety. Pray for their courage.”

Monday’s leak electrified the antiabortion movement, which has spent nearly half a century working to reverse the court’s 1973 decision that a woman has a constitutional right to end her pregnancy. For advocates such as Hawkins - the 36-year-old founder of Students for Life of America - the draft opinion reportedly circulated in February was a thrilling signal that the abortion battle is about to radically shift.

“It’s not going to be the same-old, same-old waiting for a few older guys in Washington, D.C., to finally act,” said Hawkins, whose activism against abortion dates to high school.

The court’s leak set off protests in many quarters and rejoicing in others, yet many abortion opponents said they were holding back. Describing themselves as cautiously optimistic, activists worried about a last-minute upheaval to the court, prayed for its members’ protection and hoped the leak would solidify conservative justices’ positions rather than pressure them to back off.

What will happen to abortion pills? Five things to know if Roe v. Wade is overturned — 1:48 p.m.

By Anissa Gardizy, Globe staff

If the US Supreme Court strikes down its landmark Roe v. Wade decision, it could trigger abortion bans in almost half of US states.

The move would restrict access to abortions at a time when abortion pills, as they are called, just became easier for some people to obtain. In certain states, including Massachusetts, residents can get pills that induce an abortion mailed to their home after participating in a telehealth appointment — without the need to see a physician to pick up the medication in person.

Here’s a look at how the Supreme Court decision could affect access to abortion pills.

Abortion draft puts wave of public pressure on Supreme Court — 1:25 p.m.

The traditionally insular Supreme Court is about to face the full force of public pressure and abortion politics as justices make a final decision on whether to throw out the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling.

Demonstrators gathered Wednesday outside the court, arriving every day since a Monday night leaked draft opinion suggested a majority of the justices are prepared to overturn the 1973 opinion that essentially ended the crime of abortion and ensured Americans could legally access the medical procedure.

Justice Samuel Alito appeared to be bracing for the onslaught, stiffening the spines of his conservative court colleagues as they review his draft and issue their final court opinion, expected in late June.

Draft opinion leak heightens the perception of a politicized Supreme Court — 12:53 p.m.

Connie Wright, a grandmother in Iowa, fell to her knees and gave thanks when she heard that the right to abortion might soon be reversed by the Supreme Court. Jenny Doyle, a neonatal nurse practitioner in Colorado, wanted to leave the country. “I think Iceland sounds good,” she said.

But the two had a common response this week as news of a leaked draft opinion that would reverse Roe v. Wade rocked the nation: The Supreme Court has become too political.

Scholars and political experts have regularly debated whether the court’s steady march to the right, hastened by Republican-led Senates that denied President Barack Obama one court nomination and President Joe Biden a second, was sapping public faith that its rulings followed the law instead of politics.

Mississippi’s last abortion clinic may move to New Mexico if Roe is overturned — 12:10 p.m.

Mississippi’s last abortion clinic, the one at the center of the Supreme Court case that could strike down Roe v. Wade, is prepared to move to New Mexico if the landmark 1973 ruling is overturned this summer, according to the clinic’s director.

Shortly after a published draft of a Supreme Court opinion that would overturn the landmark abortion ruling reverberated across the country, Shannon Brewer, the director of the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, told NBC News that Mississippi’s only clinic would move to New Mexico if it is forced to close or reduce its services.

The clinic, known as “Pink House,” is named in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a challenge to Mississippi’s law banning most abortions after 15 weeks. The draft opinion of the case, first reported by Politico, said that Justice Samuel Alito, along with Justice Clarence Thomas and all of three of President Donald Trump’s nominees to the court - Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett - had already decided to overturn the precedent set in Roe. The draft opinion was confirmed as legitimate by Chief Justice John Roberts, who clarified that the document “does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”

But the report, and the disruption it has caused in the nation’s political landscape, has led Jackson Women’s Health to look west for its potential future.

“Our plans are to open a facility in New Mexico,” Brewer said to NBC. “We’ve been calling it the Pink House West just to let people know we’re still here for them, and we’re still going to fight for women regardless.”

Supreme Court draft opinion is ‘about a lot more than abortion,’ Biden says — 11:40 a.m.

By Amanda Kaufman, Globe staff

President Biden on Wednesday said the Supreme Court draft opinion that indicated justices were preparing to overturn Roe v. Wade is “about a lot more than abortion.”

Biden, who briefly took questions from reporters at the White House after speaking about the US economy, raised the possibility of the Supreme Court targeting other rights next.

“What are the next things that are going to be attacked?” Biden said. “Because this MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that’s existed in American history — in recent American history.”

R.I. Supreme Court rejects challenge to Reproductive Privacy Act — 11:12 a.m.

By Edward Fitzpatrick, Globe staff

The Rhode Island Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a legal challenge to the Reproductive Privacy Act, the law Rhode Island enacted in 2019 to protect abortion rights in case the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

The decision comes just two days after news broke that the US Supreme Court is poised to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion nationally.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court rejected a legal challenge brought by Catholics for Life and others, claiming the Reproductive Privacy Act violated the Rhode Island Constitution. Attorney General Peter F. Neronha’s office disagreed and defended the validity of the law.

After Roe draft opinion, singer Phoebe Bridgers reveals she had an abortion — 10:10 a.m.

Just hours after she’d climbed the stairs of New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art in a Jonathan Simkhai gown adorned with crystals, singer Phoebe Bridgers got personal about the Supreme Court’s draft opinion on overturning Roe v. Wade.

“I had an abortion in October of last year while I was on tour,” Bridgers tweeted and posted on her Instagram story Tuesday afternoon. “I went to planned parenthood where they gave me the abortion pill.

“It was easy. Everyone deserves that kind of access.”

The message from Bridgers, 27, followed a Monday night report from Politico detailing a draft decision, penned by Justice Samuel Alito Jr., in which five Supreme Court conservatives agreed that the nearly 50-year-old case establishing the right to abortion should be overturned. On Tuesday, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. confirmed the authenticity of the document and said the court is investigating the leak.

News of the court’s draft decision resurfaced concerns over access to the abortion pill, which the Food and Drug Administration in December made deliverable by mail through telehealth consultations. As some states clamp down on abortion rights, however, access to the pill is in jeopardy but remains in demand. In Texas, for instance, studies show thousands of woman obtained the pill online after the state enacted a law restricting abortion access.

Bridgers, who in her social media posts encouraged her followers to donate to abortion rights funds, said she took the abortion pill to end a pregnancy in the fall.

The “Kyoto” singer has been outspoken on abortion rights over the past few years. Last year, Bridgers announced that the proceeds from her cover of “That Funny Feeling” on Bo Burnham’s Netflix special “Inside” would go to Texas Abortion Funds, which would distribute the money to 10 organizations. In a statement about the release, Bridgers said, “This one’s for Greg Abbott,” referring to the Texas governor, a Republican, who signed a bill in May banning abortions as early as six weeks into pregnancy. In 2020, Bridgers partnered with indie rock band Bright Eyes on a song to benefit Planned Parenthood.

Bridgers is not the only celebrity to weigh in on the abortion debate in the wake of the leak. Whoopi Goldberg, who has spoken openly about her abortion at 14 years old, gave an impassioned monologue on “The View” on Tuesday morning. The actor and co-host said the point of the Roe decision was to give people “somewhere safe and somewhere clean” to have an abortion.

“It has nothing to do with your religion. This is not a religious issue, this is a human issue,” she said. She went on to say that getting an abortion “is a hard, awful decision that people make.”

Column: The Uterine State of America: Our lives depend on Roe v. Wade — 9:45 a.m.

By Jeneé Osterheldt, Globe staff

Those who claim to uphold the Constitution are losing sight of justice.

We cannot afford to let freedom waiver and be put up for debate. Freedom is life. Everything else is a slow death. And we, America, have always been dying slowly, and sometimes quick.

America should not be able to hold a person hostage to their pregnancy, make one’s body a prison, and then call itself a land of liberty.

Abortion rollback risks erasing decades of economic gains for US women — 9:21 a.m.

By Bloomberg

Overturning Roe v. Wade risks widening economic inequality in the U.S., threatening decades of gains for women in places where abortion could be all but banned.

On Tuesday the Supreme Court confirmed that an initial draft overturning the 1973 Roe ruling, leaked to Politico, was authentic although not the final ruling. The draft would strike down the half-century federal precedent that had given women the right to seek an abortion and would allow states to make their own laws and restrictions.

Analysis: If Roe goes, so will the filibuster. But it won’t be today — and it won’t be the Democrats — 8:54 a.m.

By James Pindell, Globe staff

In the wake of the report Monday night that the US Supreme Court appears on the verge of overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion ruling next month, Democrats on the national level have a clear path forward – and it’s one they won’t take.

Repealing Roe, after all, doesn’t impose a national law as it relates to abortion rights. It kicks the question back to every state to make up their own laws, or even to Congress to craft a federal law.

Overturning Roe could open the door to a federal abortion ban, legal analysts say — 8:24 a.m.

By Milton J. Valencia, Globe staff

The strongly worded legal language used in a draft Supreme Court opinion that appears to overturn 50-year-old abortion-right protections could provoke conservative efforts to enact a universal, nationwide abortion ban, according to legal and policy analysts on both sides of the political debate. They say the case has already galvanized advocates who want a federal law criminalizing abortion.

The Supreme Court, based on the draft opinion, appears set to not only uphold a controversial Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy but also overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that protected a woman’s right to abortion. The court opinion suggests the question over abortion restrictions should be legislated at the state level.

Visibly rattled Elizabeth Warren reacts to Roe v. Wade leak in video — 8:03 a.m.

By Shannon Larson, Globe staff

As Senator Elizabeth Warren made her way to a car outside of the Supreme Court, her outrage was palpable.

“I am angry. Angry and upset and determined. The United States Congress can keep Roe v. Wade the law of the land. They just need to do it,” Warren said as she was surrounded by reporters. The scene was captured on video, and quickly ricocheted across social media Tuesday.

The Massachusetts Democrat was reacting to the leak of a draft opinion penned by Justice Samuel Alito, first reported by Politico, that demonstrates the nation’s highest court is poised to overturn the pivotal 1973 ruling.

As US poised to restrict abortion, other nations ease access — 7:21 a.m.

As women in the United States find themselves on the verge of possibly losing the constitutional right to abortion, courts in many other parts of the world have been moving in the opposite direction.

That includes in a number of traditionally conservative societies — such as recently in Colombia, where the Constitutional Court in February legalized the procedure until the 24th week of pregnancy, part of a broader trend seen in parts of heavily Catholic Latin America.

It’s not yet clear what impact there will be outside the United States from the leaked draft opinion suggesting the US Supreme Court could overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

A decision to overturn Roe v. Wade would upend the midterms — 6:57 a.m.

In an already divided country, political battle lines hardened Tuesday with the prospect that the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade - a move that threatens to upend the 2022 midterm elections and turn the campaign into a massive mobilizing effort over the issues of abortion, individual rights and the contrasting philosophies of the two major political parties.

Supporters of abortion rights and their Democratic allies predicted that the thunderclap heard Monday night with Politico’s publication of a leaked draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito would reverberate through to the fall campaign and possibly beyond.

With abortion in jeopardy, minority women have most to lose — 5:04 a.m.

If you are Black or Hispanic in a conservative state that already limits access to abortions, you are far more likely than a white woman to have one.

And if the U.S. Supreme court allows states to further restrict or even ban abortions, minority women will bear the brunt of it, according to statistics analyzed by The Associated Press.

The potential impact on minority women became all the more clear on Monday with the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion suggesting the court’s conservative majority is poised to overturn the landmark 1973 decision legalizing abortion. The draft decision is not yet final but it sent shockwaves through the country. Overturning the Roe v. Wade decision would give states authority to decide abortion’s legality. Roughly half, largely in the South and Midwest, are likely to quickly ban abortion.

May 3, 2022

Scenes from the Roe v. Wade rally for abortion rights in Providence — 10:31 p.m.

By Alexa Gagosz and Carlos R. Muñoz, Globe Staff

Hundreds of people crowded in front of the Rhode Island State House Tuesday night in protest after a draft majority opinion leaked to the public Monday showed the US Supreme Court preparing to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that protects women’s right to an abortion.

College students raised signs, abortion providers marched up the hill to the State House’s stairs wearing their white coats, and women who said they came of age when abortion was still illegal throughout the US were in the crowd. They cheered on speakers, like Tammy Brown, a board member of The Womxn Project, who called on Governor Dan McKee to submit a budget amendment that would use the state’s Medicaid program to cover abortions.

People are crowding around the mall side of the Rhode Island State House for an abortion rights rally hosted by the @WomanProjectHQ. @Globe_RI @BostonGlobe https://t.co/IThIT49YVJ
— Alexa Gagosz (@AlexaGagosz) May 3, 2022

Thousands gather at protests in cities across US in response to possible Roe ruling — 9:27 p.m.

By Bloomberg

A day after the leak of a draft majority Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, people in more than a dozen cities rallied for abortion rights. Protests scheduled to begin at 5 p.m. quickly grew from hundreds into the thousands, with the biggest gatherings outside the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., and at Foley Square in New York.

Many of the protests were led by the Women’s March, which started in Washington, D.C., after President Donald Trump’s inauguration in 2017, and were held at courthouses across the US.

Nichole McClish of Lansing, Mich., uses a sign to block anti-choice protesters at the Michigan Capitol in Lansing, Tuesday, May 3, 2022, during a rally organized by Planned Parenthood Michigan in response to the news that the U.S. Supreme Court could be poised to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide. Daniel Shular | MLive.com/Associated Press

Amy P., who didn't want to provide her last name, of San Francisco, attends a protest about the Supreme Court's decision to overthrow Roe v. Wade while standing outside the Phillip Burton Federal Building on Tuesday, May 3, 2022, in San Francisco. Yalonda M. James/Associated Press

Voters in Maine criticize Susan Collins for past confirmation votes — 9:05 p.m.

Brian MacQuarrie and Sabrina Shankman, Globe Staff

Nearly four years have passed since Senator Susan Collins cast the crucial swing vote that confirmed Brett Kavanaugh, who had been suspected of opposing Roe v. Wade, as a Supreme Court justice. The furor that followed her decision had largely abated.

But the leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion to overturn constitutional protection for abortion has once again put Collins back in the crosshairs of voters, as Kavanaugh is purportedly one of five conservative justices in favor of repealing Roe.

“I’m appalled. That’s the only word I can think of,” Anna Karlina, 75, said as she sold her photography from a few stands off cobblestone Exchange Street in the Old Port. “I feel like it’s just turned the clock back 60 years. But I’m not surprised, put it that way.”

Demonstrators protest in front of Massachusetts State House — 8:55 p.m.

Danny McDonald and Nick Stoico, Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent

Thousands of people turned out at the Massachusetts State House Tuesday evening to defend abortion rights and protest against a leaked draft opinion of the US Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case that legalized abortion nationwide.

The protests in Boston came less than a day after the draft opinion was published online by Politico Monday night. The release set off a wave of reaction from activists, politicians, and legal experts as many grappled with how the ruling would change the future of reproductive rights in the United States.

Leaked Roe decision rips through Washington, prompting accusations of betrayal — 8:38 p.m.

Jess Bidgood, Globe Staff

In his draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade and its guarantee of the right to an abortion, Justice Samuel Alito shrugged off the potential for a public outcry following the bombshell.

“We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision,” he wrote, in a draft leaked Monday and since confirmed as authentic by the court.

On Tuesday, he had the chance to find out.

The stunning leak of the opinion, while not necessarily the court’s final decision, threw the nation’s capital into a frenzy, as Republicans fumed about the breach but expressed muted enthusiasm for the prospect of a ruling that would clear the way for states to ban the procedure, while Democrats articulated their rage but failed to coalesce around a plan to save the nearly 50-year-old right.

For conservative legal movement, a long-sought triumph appears at hand — 7:50 p.m.

WASHINGTON — In May 1987, Attorney General Edwin Meese traveled to St. Louis and spoke before a group of clergy members opposed to abortion. Denouncing Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling on abortion rights, he told them that he saw reason to hope that “in our lifetimes” it would be thrown on “the ash heap of legal history.”

Thirty-five years later, a leaked draft opinion suggests that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority is poised to overturn Roe, permitting states to outlaw abortion. Liberals may be aghast, but for the conservative legal movement, of which Meese was a key early figure, a long-sought moment of triumph appears to be at hand.

“This will feel like a tremendous vindication for the conservative legal movement,” said Mary Ziegler, a Harvard Law School visiting professor and the author of several books about the anti-abortion movement and legal politics. “The movement goes beyond Roe v. Wade, but overruling it has become the preoccupation for the movement and the test of its success.”

If the Supreme Court does issue a final opinion that looks much like the leaked draft, one question the moment will raise is what the conservative bloc does next with its control over the judiciary.

Assembly leaders vow to defend R.I. law protecting abortion rights — 7:10 p.m.

By Ed Fitzpatrick, Globe Staff

PROVIDENCE — The state’s top legislative leaders on Tuesday said they will defend the state law designed to protect abortion rights in Rhode Island if the US Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.

According to a draft opinion published Monday by Politico, the US Supreme Court has voted privately to strike down the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, along with a supporting 1990s-era decision known as Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

That bombshell news has focused renewed interest on the Reproductive Privacy Act, which the House and Senate passed in 2019 to codify abortion rights in Rhode Island in case the high court reversed Roe v. Wade.

Protesters gather in Portland, Maine, some to criticize Collins — 6:30 p.m.

By Peter Bailey-Wells and Sabrina Shankman, Globe Staff

Protesters in Maine’s largest city gathered Tuesday evening following the news of the Supreme Court’s draft decision that would overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling. And some of those gathered declared their frustration with their state’s Republican senator, Susan Collins.

Collins had said earlier Tuesday that “the decision was completely inconsistent with my discussions with both Justices [Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch].” Collins voted to confirm both justices to the court when they were nominated by President Trump. Both men are believed to be among the majority on the court behind the circulated draft.

Lots of folks at the protest in Portland, with a whole lotta ire targeting Susan Collins pic.twitter.com/ILqYVlpo7O
— Sabrina Shankman (@shankman) May 3, 2022

Collins, who has expressed support for abortion rights, previously said during Gorsuch and Kavanaugh’s confirmation processes that she felt confident from their discussions and public statements they would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Oklahoma governor signs Texas-style ban on most abortions — 5:55 p.m.

By The Associated Press

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma’s Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a Texas-style abortion ban on Tuesday that prohibits abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, part of a nationwide push in GOP-led states hopeful that the conservative U.S. Supreme Court will uphold new restrictions.

Stitt’s signing of the bill comes on the heels of a leaked draft opinion from the nation’s high court that it is considering weakening or overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nearly 50 years ago.

The bill Stitt signed takes effect immediately with his signature, but abortion rights advocates already have challenged the new law in court. It’s not clear when the Oklahoma Supreme Court might issue a ruling in the case, but abortion providers say once the new law is in place, they will immediately stop providing services unless the court intervenes.

“There will be people who lose access, even if the halt in services is only brief,” said Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, which operates abortion clinics in Oklahoma City and Tulsa.

Democrats start new push to ensure women get free birth control promised by ACA — 5:50 p.m.

By The Washington Post

WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats launched a new push Tuesday to ensure that women can obtain the free birth control required by the Affordable Care Act, framing the policy as imperative if the Supreme Court should move to strike down abortion rights, as is widely expected after a draft ruling leaked Monday night.

Sens. Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, and Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, who chair the health and finance panels respectively, said they were opening an investigation into complaints that health insurers are denying patients’ requests for birth control and forcing them to pay out of pocket.

“We are hearing from patients who are being asked to jump through ridiculous, crazy, unnecessary steps to get the birth control that works for them,” Murray said in an interview, stressing that access to birth control is a key pillar of reproductive health. “Those who want to take away your right to get an abortion are not going to stop there . . . And we need to stand up and fight back with everything we’ve got.”

Under federal law, insurers must cover contraception without requiring co-pays, a policy that the National Women’s Law Center in November 2020 estimated applied to 64 million women, although some religious organizations and other organizations have used exemptions to opt out. However, NWLC and other advocates have faulted federal and state agencies for not aggressively enforcing the provisions, spotlighting examples of insured patients being denied coverage. The Biden administration in January chastised insurers after receiving “complaints and public reports of potential violations of the contraceptive coverage requirement.”

Senate Democrats fume over abortion draft — 5:11 p.m.

By The Associated Press

Furious Senate Democrats are vowing to vote on legislation to protect abortion access for millions of Americans.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on Tuesday angrily denounced the Supreme Court’s leaked draft decision that would overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling.

Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, of West Virginia, is holding firm to his refusal to end the filibuster, saying Tuesday that “The filibuster is the only protection we have for democracy.”

So without Republican support, Congress is essentially powerless to prevent the unraveling of the abortion access.

Schumer stopped short of promising to change Senate filibuster rules to overcome Republican obstruction to salvage the abortion law.

Key Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said if the draft holds, “it rocks my confidence in the court.”

Democrats signaled they will fight it out on the campaign trail this fall.

New Mexico governor vows to protect access to abortion — 5:02 p.m.

By The Associated Press

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, who signed a law last year that overturned the state’s long-dormant ban on most abortion procedures, took to Twitter on Tuesday and promised to safeguard local access to abortion services.

Grisham, a Democrat who signed that law in anticipation of a new approach from the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote that “The moment so many of us feared is upon us.”

New Mexico voters in 2020 ousted several socially conservative Democratic legislators who were supportive of the state’s 1969 ban.

New Mexico already receives many patients from neighboring states such as Texas that have tightened restrictions on abortion procedures. Albuquerque is home to one of only a few independent clinics in the country that perform abortions in the third trimester.

Republicans in the legislative minority vowed to revisit the state’s abortion laws, while Democratic activists scheduled an evening women’s march in support of abortion rights outside a federal courthouse in the state capital, Santa Fe.

Democratic state House Speaker Brian Egolf said Tuesday on Twitter that “the trend in this country is dangerous. Today, it’s loss of access to care; next it’s contraception.”

Doctor says Texas law gives glimpse to what post-Roe landscape would look like — 4:55 p.m.

By The Associated Press

Dr. Iman Alsaden, the medical director for Planned Parenthood Great Plains, said her organization has already had a glimpse of what a post-Roe v. Wade landscape would look like.

Texas’ ban on abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy took effect in September, resulting in a 2500% increase in the number of patients from Texas at her group’s clinics in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma.

“Since that day, my colleagues and I have regularly treated patients who are fleeing their communities to seek care,” Alsaden, who is based in Overland Park, Kansas, told reporters during a conference call on Tuesday.

She said many of these patients are forced to drive hours to make appointments on time and to scramble to make travel and childcare arrangements.

“They’re taking time off of work, taking time out of school and taking time away from their family responsibilities to get the care that until September 2021 they were able to get safely and readily in their communities,” Alsaden said.

Column: The Supreme Court is coming after democracy itself — 4:29 p.m.

By Adrian Walker, Globe staff

No, the draft decision signaling the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade doesn’t come as a surprise.

And no, that fact doesn’t do anything to lessen the shock of the decision, or the dread of what could be coming next.

A Supreme Court majority that has been shaped by its opposition to abortion rights is ready to pull the trigger. A draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, first reported by Politico, shows that at least five justices are ready to reverse the 1973 decision that enshrined abortion as a constitutional right.

The decision would be a huge win for the right-wing minority that has doggedly battled abortion rights for decades. And a stunning defeat for the other 70 percent of us, who support the right to choose.

Part of the shock here is the thumping triumph of minority rule. The fact that the country overwhelmingly disagrees with this decision means nothing. If this happens, nine people with lifetime tenure get to tell the other 330 million of us how we can live our lives, right down to what women can do with their bodies.

Obamas warn of consequences of overturning Roe v. Wade, issue call to action — 4:10 p.m.

By Amanda Kaufman, Globe staff

Former president Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle Obama, warned Tuesday of grave consequences should the Supreme Court strike down Roe v. Wade and issued a call to action for Americans to volunteer and protest in support of abortion rights.

The Obamas issued a joint statement after Politico published a leaked draft opinion that suggested the justices were preparing to overturn the landmark abortion decision.

”If the Supreme Court ultimately decides to overturn the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, then it will not only reverse nearly 50 years of precedent — it will relegate the most intensely personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues,” the Obamas wrote in the statement.

They also warned that should the Supreme Court strike down Roe v. Wade, the consequences of the decision will be a threat to everyone who believes “there are limits to how much the government can encroach on our personal lives.“

Should Roe v. Wade be overturned, the statement continued, it would be “unlikely to significantly reduce abortions,” while people with less money and less access to care would be “desperately seeking out illegal abortions that inevitably pose grave risks to their health, their future ability to bear children, and sometimes their lives.”

The Obamas also asked people to “join with the activists who’ve been sounding the alarm on this issue for years — and act.”

”Stand with them at a local protest,” the statement continued. “Volunteer with them on a campaign. Join with them in urging Congress to codify Roe into law. And vote alongside them on or before November 8 and in every other election. Because in the end, if we want judges who will protect all, and not just some, of our rights, then we’ve got to elect officials committed to doing the same.”

Senator Collins tells reporters Supreme Court judges hid their Roe views — 4:04 p.m.

By Pranav Baskar, Globe correspondent

Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a moderate Republican, suggested on Tuesday she felt misled by two of the conservative justices who signed onto the leaked draft opinion eliminating the Constitutional right to an abortion as she faced renewed scrutiny for her votes for them on Tuesday.

Collins, who supports abortion rights, attracted heat on the left for voting to confirm Donald Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court in recent years, after saying she felt confident from their discussions and public statements they would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the precedent that protects the right to an abortion.

Leaving the Senate floor at a brisk pace, Collins fielded questions from reporters as she waited for an elevator to arrive.

In the brief interview, she stuck closely to the wording of the brief statement she released Tuesday morning, reiterating that the draft opinion published by Politico “was completely inconsistent with my discussions with both Justices [Kavanaugh and Gorsuch].”

When The Globe pressed the senator if she felt misled by the justices, she responded: “I said that in my statement,” adding, “Does anyone read the statements?” (Collins’ statement does not use the term misled.) Meanwhile, an aide stood between the elevator doors, urging her to move onto her next commitment.

Collins also said she believes Supreme Court confirmation hearings still serve a vital purpose, even if they did not help her divine Kavanaugh and Gorsuch’s true intentions.

“While there are certainly examples of people throughout the ages who have misled Congress during confirmation hearings,” Collins said, “generally they are very useful in allowing members to flesh out nominees’ views.”

Collins’ response has been more guarded than her colleague Senator Lisa Murkowski, another moderate Republican who supports abortion rights and said she was confident Gorsuch would not rule to overturn Roe. (She did not vote for Kavanaugh.)

“My confidence in the court has been rocked,” she told reporters.

Her Democratic opponent sought to make Collins’ Kavanaugh vote a key issue in her 2020 reelection bid in Maine. Collins won the race handily.

Earlier on Tuesday, Collins said she believes Democrats’ bill to protect the right to abortion via a federal law is a “non starter” that will not pass, and offered her own more “tailored” bill with Murkowski that accomplishes a similar goal as an alternative.

Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he will bring the Democratic version up for a vote, although he does not appear to have the votes to pass it.

California plans extra abortion protections — 3:41 p.m.

California voters could get a chance to add abortion protections to the state’s constitution this fall.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and top legislative leaders committed Monday to putting an amendment on the November ballot that would “enshrine the right to choose.”

Newsom has pledged to make California a sanctuary for people having abortions. State legislative leaders have endorsed 13 bills to fulfill that pledge, including proposals that could use taxpayer money to pay for people from other states to visit California for abortions.

Monday night, Newsom and legislative leaders added another proposal to their list: an amendment to the state constitution. They provided no further details, other than saying it would preserve the right to choose.

Newsom’s office says its goal is to put the amendment on the ballot this November.

It takes a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Democrats control so many seats they could muster the necessary votes without relying on Republicans.

Politico published Roe v. Wade draft opinion after ‘extensive review process’ — 3:18 p.m.

Moments after Politico published a draft opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito that would strike down Roe v. Wade, a scoop that rattled the country, the publication’s top editors sent an email to its newsroom.

“After an extensive review process, we are confident of the authenticity of the draft,” Politico’s editor-in-chief, Matthew Kaminski, and its executive editor, Dafna Linzer, wrote. “This unprecedented view into the justices’ deliberations is plainly news of great public interest.”

The editors did not explain what that review process entailed, or how the lead reporters on the story, Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward, had obtained the draft. The article said that the document was provided by “a person familiar with the court’s proceedings,” and that the person had provided additional details that helped authenticate the document, but didn’t say what those details were.

Kaminski declined to comment further.

“We’re going to let the story and our staff note speak for themselves,” he said.

News organizations around the world, including The New York Times and The Associated Press, quickly followed Politico’s reporting. In an interview with Gerstein on “The Rachel Maddow Show” Monday evening, Maddow told Gerstein that he would “always in your entire life be the reporter that broke this story.”

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court confirmed that the draft opinion was authentic. Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement that he had directed the Marshal of the Court to investigate the leak, which he described as “a singular and egregious breach” of trust.

Traci Schweikert, Politico’s chief talent officer, sent an email to workers Tuesday detailing safety measures that it said it “proactively” put in place for its offices, such as restricting access to certain floors, “given the heightened visibility to Politico following our reporting on the Supreme Court last night.”

Both sides stunned by abortion draft opinion — 3:01 p.m.

People on both sides of the abortion divide have been expecting that this summer the Supreme Court would reverse the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide.

On Monday night, a leaked draft opinion written in February that would overturn Roe began reverberating around the world. Even those anticipating the undoing of Roe said it was still staggering to see the words in print, forcing them to reckon with the likely reality the nation will soon enter.

The draft opinion doesn’t represent the court’s final word, and the language could change before the court issues its ruling. But if the heart of the draft remains the same, it would give states the power to decide the legality of abortion. More than half are likely to quickly ban abortion.

“I can’t stop crying,” said an elated Mississippi state Rep. Becky Currie, who sponsored the 2018 law that is the basis for the Supreme Court case. “I am not quite sure I have the words to express how I feel right now, but God has had his hands on that bill since the beginning.”

The leaked draft, published late Monday by Politico, is a 98-page majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which challenged the constitutionality of Currie’s bill that banned abortion after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Dalton Johnson, the owner of an Alabama abortion clinic, said that as he read the leaked draft, he was struck by the harshness of the language that would end the constitutional right to an abortion, shuttering clinics in about half of the states, including his.

“I’m still in shock,” Johnson said Tuesday.

Missouri law criminalizing most abortions would kick in if Roe v. Wade is overturned — 2:43 p.m.

A Missouri law criminalizing most abortions is set to kick in if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

The state’s Republican attorney general, Eric Schmitt, who is running for Senate, said Tuesday that he would take immediate action to allow the state’s abortion ban to take effect if the Supreme Court overturns the landmark ruling.

Under Missouri’s 2019 law, doctors who perform abortions would face five to 15 years in prison, with an exception for abortions needed to save mothers’ lives.

About half of U.S. states are already expected to ban abortion if Roe falls, according to the abortion-rights think tank the Guttmacher Institute. Twenty-two states, largely in the South and Midwest, already have total or near-total bans on the books. Aside from Texas, all are now blocked in court because of Roe.

Police erect fence outside of Supreme Court, blocking access — 2:36 p.m.

Police have erected a low metal fence outside of the Supreme Court blocking access to all but the lowest level of the building’s steps and separating demonstrators into separate pens.

Anti-abortion rights protestors carried signs Tuesday that said “Ignore Roe” and “In God We Trust,” while their pro-abortion-rights counterparts held placards declaring “Bans off our Bodies” and “Impeach Kavanaugh” — a reference to Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

One man with a bullhorn shouted, “Before the United States, before the constitution, there was God’s law.”

The crowds were expected to build throughout the day as people finished work. Multiple pro-rights groups called for a mobilization and mass gathering at the court at 5 p.m.

Politico published a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion late Monday showing that a majority of the court is prepared to overrule the landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion nationwide. Chief Justice John Roberts verified Tuesday that the leaked draft is authentic but cautioned that it doesn’t represent any justice’s final opinion.

Rhode Island lawmakers, health care workers, and religious leaders react to leaked draft opinion — 2:29 p.m.

By Alexa Gagosz, Globe staff

Advocates, religious and political leaders, and health care workers in Rhode Island reacted with a mix of horror and elation after a leaked draft opinion suggested that the Supreme Court could overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which protects women’s rights to abortion access.

“While it’s devastating, it’s not at all surprising,” said Senator Tiara Mack, a Providence Democrat, who said she was inspired to run for elected office because of abortion rights. “And even before a post-Roe world, we have Rhode Islanders who still don’t have access to abortion.”

History shows justices’ votes can change, sometimes dramatically — 2:25 p.m.

The text of a Supreme Court opinion and even the justices’ votes can change, sometimes dramatically, between the time they take a first vote on the case during a private conference following oral arguments and when the decision is announced.

That happened in the 1992 abortion case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which ended up reaffirming the right to an abortion.

Initially, as Evan Thomas recounted in his recent biography of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, it seemed there were five justices willing to overrule Roe v. Wade. But in late May of that year, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote to his colleague Justice Harry Blackmun, himself the author of Roe v. Wade, that there had been some developments in the case.

Three justices — Kennedy and O’Connor and Justice David Souter — had been “meeting secretly to save a woman’s right to abortion,” Thomas wrote.

“The Troika, as they became known, was cobbling together a joint opinion” that would lead to the preservation of Roe, he wrote. All three justices have since retired.

Europe’s politicians react to Supreme Court report — 2:12 p.m.

By New York Times

On Tuesday, the report that the Supreme Court might overturn Roe v. Wade triggered surprise and concern across Europe, a continent that has in the past decades consistently moved toward liberalizing abortion.

But anti-abortion lawmakers, who have long been outnumbered in Western Europe, welcomed the news as an important precedent that could help them roll back legislation in their countries as well.

Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of the Scottish government, tweeted her support of abortion rights early Tuesday.

“The right of women to decide what happens to our own bodies is a human right,” she wrote, adding: “And experience tells us that removing the legal right to abortion doesn’t stop abortions happening — it just makes them unsafe and puts the lives of women at much greater risk.”

In Ireland, where one of the world’s most restrictive abortion bans was repealed in 2018, abortion-rights associations looked on in despair.

“It is heartbreaking and rage-inducing,” Abortion Rights IE, a volunteer group that supports access to abortion in Ireland, wrote on Twitter. “Here in Ireland, we know all too well the consequences of abortion being illegal.”

But in Spain, Lourdes Mendéz, a lawyer and lawmaker representing the far-right Vox party, cheered the news.

“Will our Spanish Constitutional Court have the honesty and decency to rule that the abortion law was a mistake from the start and declare it unconstitutional?” he tweeted.

Leak prompts big question: Who benefits from a Supreme Court in public disarray? — 2:02 p.m.

By Adam Liptak, New York Times

Sources have motives, and the leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade raises a question as old as the Roman Empire. Cui bono? Who benefits?

Not the Supreme Court as an institution. Its reputation was in decline even before the extraordinary breach of its norms of confidentiality, with much of the nation persuaded that it is little different from the political branches of the government. The internal disarray the leak suggests, wholly at odds with the decorum prized by Chief Justice John Roberts, was a blow to the legitimacy of the court.

Relations among the justices, too, on the evidence of questioning at arguments and statements in opinions, have turned fraught and frosty.

“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked when the challenge to Roe was argued in December, as it became clear that five justices were ready to overrule the decision.

The fact of the leak cannot be separated from its substance. Only a move as extraordinary as eliminating a constitutional right in place for half a century could transform the court into an institution like any other in Washington, where rival factions disclose secrets in the hope of obtaining advantage.

A majority of Americans have supported abortion rights for decades, polling shows — 1:45 p.m.

By Christina Prignano and John Hancock, Globe staff

Even as the Supreme Court appears primed to overturn Roe v. Wade, decades of polling data show that most Americans have long backed abortion rights, with a relatively stable majority expressing support for the view that abortion should be legal in most or all cases.

Public sentiment on abortion rights has taken on a new urgency as state legislatures across the country could soon be in a position torestrict abortion or ban it outright after a draft opinion published by Politico suggested the Supreme Court has voted privately to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. Such a stark reversal of the 1973 ruling would end the guaranteed right to abortion that American women have held for nearly 50 years.

Manchin holds firm on refusal to end the filibuster — 1:33 p.m.

Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, of West Virginia, is holding firm to his refusal to end the filibuster despite the Supreme Court’s leaked draft decision that would overturn the nation’s landmark Roe v. Wade law.

Changing the Senate’s filibuster rules is likely the only way that Democrats could pass legislation protecting abortion rights. It now takes 60 votes to move forward on most legislation.

But changing the Senate rules would require the support of all 50 Senate Democrats. Manchin, along with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, has long opposed taking that step.

Asked Tuesday if he would vote to eliminate filibuster now, Manchin replied: “The filibuster is the only protection we have for democracy.”

He said filibusters have protected abortion rights in the past and added, “we have to look at it, but the bottom line is it’s the only check and balance we have.”

Texas race could show abortion leak’s impact — 1:25 p.m.

The first test of how the Supreme Court’s leaked abortion draft opinion could affect the midterms is likely weeks away in Texas, where U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar, one of the last anti-abortion Democrats in Congress, is in a runoff later this month against abortion rights proponent Jessica Cisneros.

Abortion rights groups for months have poured money and staff on the ground into the South Texas district. On Tuesday, they looked at the race with new urgency.

But they also acknowledged they’ve been down this road before: dire warnings that Roe was in jeopardy, fueling massive voter mobilization efforts but still not changing the balance of power on the courts or in statehouses. What’ll be different next time is a question that gnaws at even their most faithful.

“It’s been really hard to organize around it, to be candid,” said Mini Timmaraju, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “Sometimes you need that extra push. And unfortunately, as horrific as this is, this is probably it.”

Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said a month ago that her group’s internal polling showed a “believability gap” that people did not think the Supreme Court would overturn Roe. She said Wednesday that the leaked opinion could close those numbers.

“That frustration and rage, and coupled with the incredible grassroots organizing that is happening, particularly among communities of color, reproductive justice organizations, will be the time that really transforms this midterm,” she said.

R.I. congressional candidate Allan Fung reacts to Roe v. Wade news — 1:24 p.m.

By Edward Fitzpatrick, Globe staff

Former Cranston Mayor Allan W. Fung, a Republican candidate for Congress, on Tuesday responded to reports that the US Supreme Court has voted privately to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision by noting that Rhode Island has enacted a law to protect abortion rights and saying, “I’m not running to try to change the laws on abortion.”

When asked if he describes himself as “pro-choice” or “pro-life,” Fung chose neither description, saying, “I’m not a labels-type person.”

“I don’t support taxpayer funding of abortion,” Fung said during the taping of the Rhode Island Report podcast. “I don’t support late-term abortion. I don’t support partial-birth abortion.”

Activists to hold rally in Boston in wake of draft opinion leak — 1:20 p.m.

By Emily Sweeney, Globe staff

Abortion rights activists announced that an “emergency rally” would be held in Boston Tuesday as protests continued outside of the US Supreme Court in Washington D.C. in response to the leak of a draft opinion suggesting the court may overturn Roe v. Wade.

More demonstrations are expected to happen elsewhere across the country.

What’s next for abortion after Supreme Court leak? — 1:16 p.m.

It’s not surprising that the court, which has a strong conservative majority after former President Donald Trump appointed three justices during his single term in office, would seek to curb abortion rights. However, the breadth of the draft opinion startled advocates and sent shockwaves through American politics.

Here’s a look at where things stand right now.

Scenes from the Supreme Court in Washington — 1:07 p.m.

Demonstrators protested outside of the Supreme Court Tuesday in Washington.Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press

Senator Amy Klobuchar spoke outside of the Supreme Court on Tuesday.Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press

Senator Elizabeth Warren spoke to demonstrators outside of the Supreme Court.Anna Moneymaker/Getty

A young protester listened as Senator Elizabeth Warren spoke to pro-choice demonstrators outside of the Supreme Court.Anna Moneymaker/Getty

‘This is the time to fight,’ Vice President Harris says — 12:58 p.m.

By Gal Tziperman Lotan, Globe staff

In a statement on Tuesday, Vice President Kamala Harris focused on the right to privacy on which the court had originally based Roe.

”If the right to privacy is weakened, every person could face a future in which the government can potentially interfere in the personal decisions you make about your life,” Harris said in a statement. “This is the time to fight for women and for our country with everything we have.”

GOP Senator Murkowski says she’s ‘rocked’ by abortion draft opinion — 12:53 p.m.

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, one of the few Senate Republicans in favor of protecting abortion access, reacted with alarm Tuesday to the Supreme Court’s draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

“My confidence in the court has been rocked,” Murkowski told reporters on Capitol Hill.

Murkowski denounced the leak of the draft resolution as an “absolutely reprehensible” act — the Supreme Court is now investigating — and cautioned that “we don’t know the direction that this decision may ultimately take.”

Sen Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) doesn’t like where this court is headed ===> pic.twitter.com/NOfLGnjRGb
— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) May 3, 2022

Still, she noted that she has already proposed legislation along with fellow Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine that would codify abortion rights.

“I thought it made sense then and I think it makes perhaps more sense” now, she said.

The court is expected to rule on the abortion case before its term ends in late June or early July.

‘We feared a moment like this could come,’ Representative Pressley says — 12:39 p.m.

By Diti Kohli, Globe staff

With the reversal of Roe v. Wade threatened in a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion, Representative Ayanna Pressley called the attack on abortion care a “sobering confirmation” of what reproductive justice advocates — including herself — have long expected.

”We feared a moment like this could come,” she said.

In a conversation with Emancipator columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr on Tuesday morning, Pressley laid blame on the conservative Supreme Court justices who drafted the majority opinion that would slash longstanding protections to abortion.

”It’s par for the course for the Supreme Court in its current iteration, given the imbalance and far-right extremism,” Pressley added. “They have obstructed the will of the people on so many issues of consequence — from voting rights to housing rights to bodily autonomy and reproductive justice.”

Remember, Pressley said, that the leaked court document is a draft, not a ruling, and that “Roe v. Wade is still the law of the land.

”But the Massachusetts congresswoman still set her sights on steps legislators can now take to assist birthing people who will require the procedure going forward, especially Black, brown, Indigenous, LGBTQIA+, and low-income people.

”Abortion care is health care,” Pressley said. It “should be equitably accessed to by all, and no one should be denied based on geography, race, or socioeconomic status.”

She advocated for the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill that would protect key parts of reproductive health care, including providers’ right to carry out the procedure when a patient’s health is at risk. And Pressley encouraged abortion providers in Massachusetts, where the procedure is protected by law, to be “on the ready” for a spillover of patients from Southern states.

”For those states who do not have laws codifying access to abortion care, they will be coming here,” she said.

In the future, she worries for what this could mean for other laws protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendement of the Constitution.

”This is not a drill,” Pressley said. “This certainly has the feasibility — the possibility — of setting very dangerous precedent.”

‘I am angry’: Warren joins protesters outside of the Supreme Court — 12:32 p.m.

By Amanda Kaufman, Globe staff

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren joined protesters outside of the Supreme Court in Washington who gathered on Tuesday following the publication of a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion indicating justices are preparing to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The photo, in which Warren is seen embracing protesters, was posted by Warren’s communications director Alex Sarabia.

“I am angry,” the tweet reads, attributing the quote to Warren.

Senator Elizabeth Warren joins protesters at the U.S. Supreme Court in defense of #RoeVWade.

“I am angry” — @SenWarren pic.twitter.com/dLvtGKU6HI
— Alex Sarabia (@SarabiaTX) May 3, 2022

Senator Elizabeth Warren spoke to pro-choice demonstrators outside of the Supreme Court Building on Tuesday in Washington, D.C.Anna Moneymaker/Getty

Senator Elizabeth Warren spoke to pro-choice demonstrators outside of the Supreme Court Building on Tuesday. Anna Moneymaker/Getty

Shortly after the draft opinion was published online Monday night, Warren wrote on Twitter that “it’s time for the millions who support the Constitution and abortion rights to stand up and make their voices heard. We’re not going back — not ever.”

Warren also posted a video to Twitter in which she speaks before the protesters, saying “I am angry because an extremist United States Supreme Court thinks that they can impose their extremist views on all of the women of this country, and they are wrong.”

Watch Warren address protesters here:

I am angry because an extremist Supreme Court thinks they can impose their extremist views on all of the women of this country and they are wrong.

I have seen the world where abortion is illegal. We’re not going back—not now, not ever. pic.twitter.com/5lE8rCQz5U
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) May 3, 2022

Key passages from the leaked draft opinion by the Supreme Court — 12:22 p.m.

By Martin Finucane, Globe staff

A leaked draft of an opinion by the US Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision guaranteeing abortion access, has sent shock waves across America.

Here are some key passages from Justice Samuel Alito’s draft majority opinion, which was obtained by Politico.

With Supreme Court poised to overturn abortion rights, activists in Massachusetts voice outrage and resolve — 12:12 p.m.

By Stephanie Ebbert, Globe staff

The leak of a draft opinion showing the Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade sent shockwaves across the country Tuesday, prompting activists to organize protests at federal, state and town buildings across the country.

Advocates sought to reassure patients that abortion remains legal for now nationally, and will remain so in Massachusetts, particularly given protections built into state law in 2020.

Court that rarely leaks does so now in biggest case in years — 12:08 p.m.

The Supreme Court keeps secrets. Year after year, in major case after major case, there’s little beyond what the justices say during oral arguments that suggests how they will rule until they actually do.

That is, apparently, until Monday evening when Politico published what it said is a draft of an opinion in a major abortion case that was argued in the fall. While there have, on very rare occasions, been leaks of the outcomes in cases, the publication of an apparent draft running nearly 100 pages was without an evident modern parallel.

‘We can despair, and then we organize:’ Mass. lawmakers decry draft SCOTUS opinion — 11:47 a.m.

By Gal Tziperman Lotan, Globe staff

Massachusetts lawmakers gathered in front of the State House Tuesday morning to decry a draft Supreme Court opinion obtained by Politico, indicating the court is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion.

“We are gathered here in front of the State House on a devastating but utterly predictable day,” Representative Katherine Clark said. “Today we are faced with the reality that women are going to be forced into pregnancy, that women who have been victims of rape, incest, whose pregnancy may determine whether they live or die, will not have that right to make a decision.”

'Today is the day we galvanize,' Rep Clark says

“Today we are faced with the reality that women are going to be forced into pregnancy," said Representative Katherine Clark of Revere.

Roberts orders probe into ‘egregious’ leak of abortion opinion draft — 11:25 a.m.