Activism / March 31, 2026
Journalist Amy Littlefield’s new book on abortion access captures the grassroots social movement that has gathered enough power to overturn legal abortion, albeit from a minority view.
(Author photo by Daniel Patterson) When the Supreme Court shifted to the right following the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, veteran reproductive rights journalist Amy Littlefield knew what was coming: There were now enough conservative votes to overturn the decision. Roe v. Wade. Sure enough, less than two years later, the Court revoked the constitutional right to abortion, paving the way for 13 states to ban the procedure altogether. Littlefield’s new book, Egg killersinvestigates the decades-long effort to end legal abortion from an unlikely angle: the book is presented as a thriller, aiming to track down the culprit responsible for overturning legal abortion and discern how he succeeded when the right had always had the support of most Americans. From the Roe v. Wade running from 1973 until its dismantling nearly 50 years later, Littlefield’s book offers an account of the rise of the anti-choice movement and the amalgam of political tactics and right-wing belief that underpinned it. The contradictions that emerge as Littlefield investigates this “spiritual civil war” demand nuance in what can otherwise seem like a coldly polarized conflict: Nancy Reagan was quietly pro-choice, former Republican Sen. Bob Packwood was a womanizer who “cared about abortion rights, even as he took advantage of women’s lower social status.” Littlefield also examines the divides within the pro-choice movement: Frances Kissling, a former leader of Catholics for Choice and on Littlefield’s “side,” questions the use of gender-neutral language when discussing abortion. Her investigation becomes a character study in the interest of a broader historical revelation: As she waits for Roger Craver, the pioneer of the direct-mail programs of progressive organizations that historians say led to a focus on the issues most relevant to the donor class, Littlefield writes: “I felt as if I was about to confront not just a person, but a phenomenon.” »
This broad tension between the role of individuals and that of structures is one that Littlefield approaches with the spirit of an inveterate journalist: she calls on politicians to account for the laws they have collectively enforced; integrates specific victims like Rosie Jimenez into a broader exposition of abortion as fundamentally a class issue; channels its own outbursts of anger into the energy of the pro-choice movement as a whole. It finds its place in the granularity of one-on-one encounters with anti-choice figureheads – and even a quick swim in Mexico with Kissling – to draw out decades of political meaning. In writing this book, Littlefield told me, she investigated anti-abortion luminaries as suspects in the form of a thriller—accessible like the mysteries that always brought her satisfaction and comfort. She called for this interview from a nursing room in Baltimore and hung up to find that another breastfeeding mother had left her a business card scrawled with a THANKS. —Sophie Mann-Shafir
SMS: What did writing this book make you think about how and why? Roe deer was overturned? Is there only one answer?
AL: I think it’s a complex and multi-layered answer. Many of us who have touched on this topic understand that the balance of power at the Supreme Court and the legal organizing work of groups like Alliance Defending Freedom have played a huge role at the macro level. But I wanted to dig deeper to look at the behind-the-scenes numbers you haven’t heard about. I think one of the difficult realities of facing as an abortion rights advocate is that abortion opponents have built an incredibly impressive grassroots social movement, and they did so even though they represented a minority viewpoint. Quite quickly after Roe v. Wade happened, more people supported legal abortion than not. And yet, despite a minority point of view, this movement managed to achieve a monumental victory by overturning a constitutional right. And they did it thanks to famous strategists and Supreme Court justices, but also to more discreet people in the shadows.
Related articles SMS: Did you have to change the way you thought about abortion opponents as you sat across from the pioneers of the anti-abortion movement?
AL: In almost every interview I’ve conducted, there was a point where the person I was talking to, after questioning them about their motivations, would say some version of, “Well, I hope that when I get to the gates of heaven, the work I’ve done against abortion will get me a ticket in.” » I first heard it from this man named Paul Haring, who played an early role in the Hyde Amendment, first passed in 1976, which banned federal funding of abortion. He was trying to convert me to Catholicism, so for him it was like an elevator pitch.
Current number
I was thinking about the alliance that brought about the end of Roe deer as a collaboration between believers and opportunists. There were times when there was so much discussion about heaven that the boundaries began to blur, and believers seemed to be seeking the greatest opportunity of all, which is eternal life.
SMS: Let’s talk about how you chose to frame your book. We are more frequently faced with accusations of murder from the right – who generally view abortion and even emergency contraception as murder. Can you talk about your choice to use this framework from such a different political angle?
AL: It started because I was a new mom when Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, and I realized that Roe deer would fall shortly after. I’ve been covering abortion access and the slow, gradual decimation of abortion access for many years, so I knew this was going to happen, and I knew people were going to die from it. At the time, in this fog of new motherhood mixed with anger over the erosion of abortion rights, the only media I could consume were police killings, which had also been my comfort as a teenager. So this format started as a way for me to inspire myself to tell a really thought-provoking story.
I also try to play around by flipping the script with anti-abortionists, who call people who support abortion rights murderers. I’m trying to examine the question of what responsibility supporters of these policies bear for people who have died because of their policies, whether it’s Rosie Jimenez, who died in the 1970s, Becky Bell in the 1980s, or until today, all the women whose deaths have been reported by ProPublica.
SMS: What has your research made you think about these responsibilities? Did some sort of revelation come from talking to the “culprits”?
AL: I was quite surprised by the level of denial on the part of the men I spoke to who were involved in these policies, and the way in which they managed to deflect responsibility: by blaming the doctors or the women themselves, and by denying that these abortion bans had anything to do with deaths that were quite clearly and directly the result of anti-abortion policies. I tried to follow the murder mystery format, where there’s a dramatic resolution, where there’s a sense that the person feels bad about what they’ve done. The killer repents or expresses remorse, or is taken away in handcuffs. In real life, it turns out that doesn’t happen. There is no justice for the murderers of Roe deer. There’s no big dramatic confessional moment about these preventable deaths of women who died because of anti-abortion policies, even though I tried my best to get one.
Popular “Swipe left below to see more authors”Swipe →
SMS: You connect anti-abortion legislation to decades of forced sterilization campaigns against people of color, beginning in the early 1900s and extending into the ’80s. They are somewhat opposing practices, but they are both fundamentally about controlling people’s bodies. The United States has a history of infringing on the freedoms of some while protecting those of others. How do you view the anti-choice movement in relation to other American power structures?
AL: I use the Hyde Amendment as a sort of Rosetta Stone to talk about the intersection of racism, classism and sexism, and restrictions on abortion. They all came together in this policy, which was to make the opponents of abortion understand that they could not ban abortion for everyone – it was not politically possible. So they were going to ban it from poor people, who were disproportionately women of color. I’m talking about how the word “taxpayer” has played a very important role in this debate. “Taxpayer” has always meant the right of white men to not have to pay for the things that women of color need to survive, abortion being one of them. I saw this word as a red herring that came up frequently in this story, including around the justifications used for the forced sterilization of women of color. Of course, this is closely related to this story, as it is also about violations of bodily autonomy.
SMS: You write about the carelessness of politicians when it comes to abortion, like Reagan, Biden, and Trump. Do you perceive this change in position as a real change in belief or strategy?
AL: When we look at the changing loyalties of Democratic and Republican politicians on abortion, it is often a question of political expediency – Donald Trump being just the most recent and dramatic example. This is someone who once declared himself “very pro-choice” and then named the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade. And now, much to the frustration of anti-abortion activists, he is not moving as quickly as they would like to stop the mailing of abortion pills to homes.
In some internal documents I found – communications between Reagan’s campaign and anti-abortion groups – his campaign understood that this was a minority view, but they had a crucial contingent of people willing to vote on a single issue of abortion. They figured out how to mobilize this contingent to elect Republicans and build this alliance that interested Republican politicians in the cause. I document this fabrication of abortion as a political cause, especially in the late 1970s and 1980s.
SMS: In connection with this successful fabrication, you document a disagreement with Frances Kissling, former president of Catholics for Choice, over the reasons for the struggles and defeats of the pro-choice movement. She thinks it’s too bold; you think it’s not bold enough. What should the pro-choice movement learn from the anti-abortion movement?
AL: One thing is learning to be bold and progressive at the same time. The anti-choice side was incredibly radical in some ways, and very patient and strategic in other ways. There were groups that gradually worked through the courts, and then groups like Operation Rescue that blocked clinics, making abortion a stigmatized and controversial thing, even though it had long been popularly supported.
And as a result, Overton’s window was often pulled to the right. This is why the example of All Above All and the movement to repeal the Hyde Amendment is such a promising example. They really pushed the Overton window to the left on the issue of public funding of abortion, so long stigmatized. Even within the pro-choice movement and among Democratic politicians, there were many skeptics who wondered why you would touch that third rail, why you would talk about public funding. They had just come off a bitter fight over the Affordable Care Act, and Republicans were calling the policy socialism. It was like we didn’t just solve this problem? I think the bottom line is that we need to change the way we think and approach this issue.
SMS: You’ve spent a lot of time face to face with choice advocates, without finding a clear conclusion to the murder mystery, confession or resolution. Where did this lead you to think about co Why hope, or even hope, moving forward?
AL: I think it seems like people are taking the law into their own hands, and I think we’re actually in a very difficult and yet hopeful moment for this process. There are anti-abortion offenders like Monica Migliorino Miller, who kept fetuses in her closet and still remains in prison for her activism. But these people also exist on the right side of history, and they’re really having a great time right now. I think of Minneapolis, of the moms and dads driving minivans and filming federal agents out the window – all those who carry out the quiet, deliberate work of justice. There has been new momentum in these efforts within the abortion rights movement following the Dobbs decision. One of the most significant forms of activism I see is how medical providers protected by safe harbor laws in blue states are sending abortion pills to states where abortion is banned, risking their lives. I think that in the absence of big dramatic moments where the detective provides a sense of justice, the grassroots activists have found a way to cope on their own.
Support independent journalism that breaks the rules Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding popularity couldn’t have been clearer: rampant corruption and billions of dollars’ worth of personal enrichment during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided solely by his own abandoned sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets.
Today, an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire across the region and Europe. A new “forever war” – with an ever-increasing likelihood of US troops on the ground – could very well be upon us.
As we have seen time and time again, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory justifications for attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are threatened by non-citizens registered to vote. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war.
In these dark times, independent journalism is the only one that can uncover the lies that threaten our republic – and civilians around the world – and shine a light on the truth.
The nation’s experienced team of writers, editors and fact-checkers understand the scale of what we face and the urgency with which we must act. That’s why we publish critical reporting and analysis on the war with Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more.
But this journalism is only possible with your support.
This month of March, The nation must raise $50,000 to ensure we have the resources to produce reports and analysis that set the record straight and empower people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?
Sophie Mann-Shafir Sophie Mann-Shafir is a writer and journalist currently living in Brooklyn.