Connect with us

Politics

Column: Two years after the Supreme Court's abortion decision, meet the expert on post-Roe America

Published

on

Column: Two years after the Supreme Court's abortion decision, meet the expert on post-Roe America

For two years, ever since the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion, the country has waged a fierce fight over women’s health, government’s reach, individual choice and efforts to either ban or guarantee access to the procedure.

Standing athwart that conflict is Mary Ziegler: Interpreter, guide, prognosticator.

Whenever a law is passed, a court decision rendered, a medical horror story surfaced — which happens not infrequently — Ziegler is invariably asked to weigh in from her perch at UC Davis. She’s given as many as 15 interviews in a day.

That ubiquitous presence, Ziegler’s frequent written commentary and the six books she’s published, with a seventh on the way, have made the 42-year-old law school professor, in the estimation of historian David Garrow, the preeminent authority on the past 50 years of abortion wars.

Advertisement

“One of the hallmarks of Ziegler’s scholarship,” he noted in a laudatory 2021 book review, “is her outreach to activists and litigators on both sides.”

That’s why she’s a trusted and valuable source, residing on the speed-dial of countless reporters nationwide.

Ziegler, who came to Davis in 2022 by way of Florida State University, didn’t set out to become a one-stop clearinghouse for history, commentary and abortion arcana. Her inquisitiveness led her there.

She developed her interest in the mid-2000s, as a Harvard Law School student.

A professed “legal history nerd,” Ziegler found a dearth of scholarly research on the social and political fallout from Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 decision spelling out a constitutional right to abortion. She began diving into digitized newspaper archives, to learn more, and started writing, prolifically, on the subject.

Advertisement

Initially, “I didn’t think I would do anything professionally,” Ziegler said last week over lunch in this bayside enclave she calls home. “What interested me was just pure curiosity.”

“At the time,” she added, with a laugh, her scholarship “obviously wasn’t as relevant as it turned out to be later.”

(Ziegler’s father, a French professor, urged her to pursue a career that was practical and reasonably well-paying. She considered medicine, but doesn’t like the sight of blood. So law school it was.)

Ziegler, who published her first book-length treatment of the abortion issue in 2015, didn’t necessarily anticipate the reversal of Roe, which helped turn her into a quasi-legal and media celebrity. While opponents continuously sought to chip away at the landmark ruling, many considered the matter “settled law” — which is how Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh described Roe in 2018 as he faced Senate confirmation. (In 2022, Kavanaugh was part of the 5-4 ruling in Dobbs vs. Jackson that overturned the nearly half-century-old decision.)

The day the court issued that ruling, Ziegler burrowed into her work, writing furiously and conducting a long series of back-to-back-to-back interviews. When she finished, she broke down and cried.

Advertisement

It wasn’t just the striking down of a constitutional right, said Ziegler, an avowed feminist and supporter of legalized abortion.

“I remember reading Dobbs and the idea that somehow this was going to make it better and people were going to stop fighting. I remember thinking that is definitely not going to happen,” she said. “I thought about all the unintended consequences it was going to have” such as denial of urgent medical care — even in cases unrelated to abortion.

“That doesn’t mean I disparage people who think abortion is wrong. But, to me, criminalizing it and all that comes with that has always been a dark part of American history. I saw it setting us on a path to more conflict, not less.”

Which has proven abundantly true.

Ziegler sees the next several years as a push-pull between conservative judges, anti-abortion lawmakers and the majority of Americans who, by and large, wish to keep abortion legal and accessible.

Advertisement

(Bill Lax / UC Davis)

In a recent piece on Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis and her gubernatorial ambitions, your friendly columnist ventured to say abortion rights were rock-solid in California, with its constitutional guarantee and Democrat’s hegemonic control of Sacramento.

Ziegler doesn’t necessarily agree.

“I don’t think Congress is going to do anything,” she said, noting the risk of a severe political backlash. “I’m less sure about [former President] Trump.”

Advertisement

If elected in November, she said, Trump could unilaterally invoke the Comstock Act, a dusty 1873 anti-vice law that could serve as an effective nationwide abortion ban. While she made no prediction, Ziegler didn’t rule out the prospect. With Trump, you never know.

“I don’t think it’s a crisis,” she said. “That seems overblown to me. But I also think complete complacency … is wrong, too.”

“On the one hand,” she went on, “it’s not going to be popular if he does it. On the other, I don’t know what his incentives are if he can’t run for reelection. Maybe his donors like it. Maybe base voters who buy his merchandise like it.”

A pale sun glinted off San Francisco Bay as tourists plied the waterfront promenade. Politics and the abortion debate seemed far off, for the moment.

Ziegler sees the next several years as a push-pull between conservative judges, anti-abortion lawmakers and the majority of Americans who, by and large, wish to keep abortion legal and accessible.

Advertisement

“I think it depends on who’s deciding, and I don’t mean in the classic, ‘It’s my body, my choice’ way of who’s deciding,” Ziegler said. “We’ve seen to date that, for the most part, when you ask voters directly, they want abortion to be broadly legal, particularly early in pregnancy and increasingly later in pregnancy as well… But I think there are lots of possibilities where that doesn’t happen.”

With that, she boxed her leftovers and headed home, to further explain and explore America’s abortion fight.

Politics

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Published

on

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

new video loaded: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

transcript

transcript

Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

“Cause we don’t know when the video will be out. I don’t know when the transcript will be out. We’ve asked that they be out as quickly as possible.” “I don’t like seeing him deposed, but they certainly went after me a lot more than that.” “Republicans have now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify. So we’re once again going to make that call that we did yesterday. We are now asking and demanding that President Trump officially come in and testify in front of the Oversight Committee.” “Ranking Member Garcia asked President Clinton, quote, ‘Should President Trump be called to answer questions from this committee?’ And President Clinton said, that’s for you to decide. And the president went on to say that the President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved. “The way Chairman Comer described it, I don’t think is a complete, accurate description of what actually was said. So let’s release the full transcript.”

Advertisement
Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

By Jackeline Luna

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

Published

on

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accused Everett, Washington, Mayor Cassie Franklin of escalating tensions with federal authorities after she issued a directive limiting immigration enforcement in the city.

Franklin issued a mayoral directive this week establishing citywide protocols for staff, including law enforcement, that restrict federal immigration agents from entering non-public areas of city buildings without a judicial warrant.

“We’ve heard directly from residents who are afraid to leave their houses because of the concerning immigration activity happening locally and across our country. It’s heartbreaking to see the impacts on Everett families and businesses,” Franklin said in a statement. 

“With this directive, we are setting clear protocols, protecting access to services and reinforcing our commitment to serving the entire community.”

Advertisement

ICE blasted the directive Friday, writing on X it “escalates tension and directs city law enforcement to intervene with ICE operations at their own discretion,” thereby “putting everyone at greater risk.”

Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new citywide immigration enforcement protocols are intended to protect residents and ensure access to services, while ICE accused her of escalating tensions with federal authorities. (Google Maps)

ICE said Franklin was directing city workers to “impede ICE operations and expose the location of ICE officers and agents.”

“Working AGAINST ICE forces federal teams into the community searching for criminal illegal aliens released from local jails — INCREASING THE FEDERAL PRESENCE,” the agency said. “Working with ICE reduces the federal presence.”

“If Mayor Franklin wanted to protect the people she claims to serve, she’d empower the city police with an ICE 287g partnership — instead she serves criminal illegal aliens,” ICE added.

Advertisement

DHS, WHITE HOUSE MOCK CHICAGO’S LAWSUIT OVER ICE: ‘MIRACULOUSLY REDISCOVERED THE 10TH AMENDMENT’

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement blasted Everett’s mayor after she issued a directive restricting federal agents from accessing non-public areas of city facilities without a warrant.  (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

During a city council meeting where she announced the policy, Franklin said “federal immigration enforcement is causing real fear for Everett residents.”

“It’s been heartbreaking to see the racial profiling that’s having an impact on Everett families and businesses,” she said. “We know there are kids staying home from school, people not going to work or people not going about their day, dining out or shopping for essentials.”

The mayor’s directive covers four main areas, including restricting federal immigration agents from accessing non-public areas of city buildings without a warrant, requiring immediate reporting of enforcement activity on city property and mandating clear signage to enforce access limits.

Advertisement

BLOCKING ICE COOPERATION FUELED MINNESOTA UNREST, OFFICIALS WARN AS VIRGINIA REVERSES COURSE

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new directive is aimed at protecting residents amid heightened immigration enforcement activity. (iStock)

It also calls for an internal policy review and staff training, including the creation of an Interdepartmental Response Team and updated immigration enforcement protocols to ensure compliance with state law.

Franklin directed city staff to expand partnerships with community leaders, advocacy groups and regional governments to coordinate responses to immigration enforcement, while promoting immigrant-owned businesses and providing workplace protections and “know your rights” resources.

The mayor also reaffirmed a commitment to “constitutional policing and best practices,” stating that the police department will comply with state law barring participation in civil immigration enforcement. The directive outlines protocols for documenting interactions with federal officials, reviewing records requests and strengthening privacy safeguards and technology audits.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin issued a directive limiting federal immigration enforcement in city facilities. (iStock)

“We want everyone in the city of Everett to feel safe calling 911 when they need help and to know that Everett Police will not ask about your immigration status,” Franklin said during the council meeting.
”I also expect our officers to intervene if it’s safe to do so to protect our residents when they witness federal officers using unnecessary force.”

Fox News Digital has reached out to Mayor Franklin’s office and ICE for comment.

Advertisement

Related Article

White House slams Democrat governor for urging public to track ICE agents with new video portal
Continue Reading

Politics

Power, politics and a $2.8-billion exit: How Paramount topped Netflix to win Warner Bros.

Published

on

Power, politics and a .8-billion exit: How Paramount topped Netflix to win Warner Bros.

The morning after Netflix clinched its deal to buy Warner Bros., Paramount Skydance Chairman David Ellison assembled a war room of trusted advisors, including his billionaire father, Larry Ellison.

Furious at Warner Bros. Discovery Chief David Zaslav for ending the auction, the Ellisons and their team began plotting their comeback on that crisp December day.

To rattle Warner Bros. Discovery and its investors, they launched a three-front campaign: a lawsuit, a hostile takeover bid and direct lobbying of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress.

“There was a master battle plan — and it was extremely disciplined,” said one auction insider who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Netflix stunned the industry late Thursday by pulling out of the bidding, clearing the way for Paramount to claim the company that owns HBO, HBO Max, CNN, TBS, Food Network and the Warner Bros. film and television studios in Burbank. The deal was valued at more than $111 billion.

Advertisement

The streaming giant’s reversal came just hours after co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos met with Atty Gen. Pam Bondi and a deputy at the White House. It was a cordial session, but the Trump officials told Sarandos that his deal was facing significant hurdles in Washington, according to a person close to the administration who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Even before that meeting, the tide had turned for Paramount in a swell of power, politics and brinkmanship.

“Netflix played their cards well; however, Paramount played their cards perfectly,” said Jonathan Miller, chief executive of Integrated Media Co. “They did exactly what they had to do and when they had to do it — which was at the very last moment.”

Key to victory was Larry Ellison, his $200-billion fortune and his connections to President Trump and congressional Republicans.

Paramount also hired Trump’s former antitrust chief, attorney Makan Delrahim, to quarterback the firm’s legal and regulatory action.

Advertisement

Republicans during a Senate hearing this month piled onto Sarandos with complaints about potential monopolistic practices and “woke” programming.

David Ellison skipped that hearing. This week, however, he attended Trump’s State of the Union address in the Capitol chambers, a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The two men posed, grinning and giving a thumbs-up, for a photo that was posted to Graham’s X account.

David Ellison, the chairman and chief executive of Paramount Skydance Corp., walks through Statuary Hall to the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026.

(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

Advertisement

On Friday, Netflix said it had received a $2.8-billion payment — a termination fee Paramount agreed to pay to send Netflix on its way.

Long before David Ellison and his family acquired Paramount and CBS last summer, the 43-year-old tech scion and aircraft pilot already had his sights set on Warner Bros. Discovery.

Paramount’s assets, including MTV, Nickelodeon and the Melrose Avenue movie studio, have been fading. Ellison recognized he needed the more robust company — Warner Bros. Discovery — to achieve his ambitions.

“From the very beginning, our pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery has been guided by a clear purpose: to honor the legacy of two iconic companies while accelerating our vision of building a next-generation media and entertainment company,” David Ellison said in a Friday statement. “We couldn’t be more excited for what’s ahead.”

Warner’s chief, Zaslav, who had initially opposed the Paramount bid, added: “We look forward to working with Paramount to complete this historic transaction.”

Advertisement

Netflix, in a separate statement, said it was unwilling to go beyond its $82.7-billion proposal that Warner board members accepted Dec. 4.

“We believe we would have been strong stewards of Warner Bros.’ iconic brands, and that our deal would have strengthened the entertainment industry and preserved and created more production jobs,” Sarandos and co-Chief Executive Greg Peters said in a statement.

“But this transaction was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price,” the Netflix chiefs said.

Netflix may have miscalculated the Ellison family’s determination when it agreed Feb. 16 to allow Paramount back into the bidding.

The Los Gatos, Calif.-based company already had prevailed in the auction, and had an agreement in hand. Its next step was a shareholder vote.

Advertisement

“They didn’t need to let Paramount back in, but there was a lot of pressure on them to make sure the process wouldn’t be challenged,” Miller said.

In addition, Netflix’s stock had also been pummeled — the company had lost a quarter of its value — since investors learned the company was making a Warner run.

Upon news that Netflix had withdrawn, its shares soared Friday nearly 14% to $96.24.

Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos arrives at the White House

Netflix Chief Executive Ted Sarandos arrives at the White House on Feb. 26, 2026.

(Andrew Leyden / Getty Images)

Advertisement

Invited back into the auction room, Paramount unveiled a much stronger proposal than the one it submitted in December.

The elder Ellison had pledged to personally guarantee the deal, including $45.7 billion in equity required to close the transaction. And if bankers became worried that Paramount was too leveraged, the tech mogul agreed to put in more money in order to secure the bank financing.

That promise assuaged Warner Bros. Discovery board members who had fretted for weeks that they weren’t sure Ellison would sign on the dotted line, according to two people close to the auction who were not authorized to comment.

Paramount’s pressure campaign had been relentless, first winning over theater owners, who expressed alarm over Netflix’s business model that encourages consumers to watch movies in their homes.

During the last two weeks, Sarandos got dragged into two ugly controversies.

Advertisement

First, famed filmmaker James Cameron endorsed Paramount, saying a Netflix takeover would lead to massive job losses in the entertainment industry, which is already reeling from a production slowdown in Southern California that has disrupted the lives of thousands of film industry workers.

Then, a week ago, Trump took aim at Netflix board member Susan Rice, a former high-level Obama and Biden administration official. In a social media post, Trump called Rice a “no talent … political hack,” and said that Netflix must fire her or “pay the consequences.”

The threat underscored the dicey environment for Netflix.

Additionally, Paramount had sowed doubts about Netflix among lawmakers, regulators, Warner investors and ultimately the Warner board.

Paramount assured Warner board members that it had a clear path to win regulatory approval so the deal would quickly be finalized. In a show of confidence, Delrahim filed to win the Justice Department’s blessing in December — even though Paramount didn’t have a deal.

Advertisement

This month, a deadline for the Justice Department to raise issues with Paramount’s proposed Warner takeover passed without comment from the Trump regulators.

“Analysts believe the deal is likely to close,” TD Cowen analysts said in a Friday report. “While Paramount-WBD does present material antitrust risks (higher pay TV prices, lower pay for TV/movie workers), analysts also see a key pro-competitive effect: improved competition in streaming, with Paramount+ and HBO Max representing a materially stronger counterweight to #1 Netflix.”

Throughout the battle, David Ellison relied on support from his father, attorney Delrahim, and three key board members: Oracle Executive Vice Chair Safra A. Catz; RedBird Capital Partners founder Gerry Cardinale; and Justin Hamill, managing director of tech investment firm Silver Lake.

In the final days, David Ellison led an effort to flip Warner board members who had firmly supported Netflix. With Paramount’s improved offer, several began leaning toward the Paramount deal.

On Tuesday, Warner announced that Paramount’s deal was promising.

Advertisement

On Thursday, Warner’s board determined Paramount’s deal had topped Netflix. That’s when Netflix surrendered.

“Paramount had a fulsome, 360-degree approach,” Miller said. “They approached it financially. … They understood the regulatory environment here and abroad in the EU. And they had a game plan for every aspect.”

On Friday, Paramount shares rose 21% to $13.51.

It was a reversal of fortunes for David Ellison, who appeared on CNBC just three days after that war room meeting in December.

“We put the company in play,” David Ellison told the CNBC anchor that day. “We’re really here to finish what we started.”

Advertisement

Times staff writer Ana Cabellos and Business Editor Richard Verrier contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending