Starting Wednesday, the policy pauses entry at the border once 2,500 illegal entries have occurred in any 24-hour period.

The executive order follows two failed attempts in Congress this year to pass bipartisan immigration reforms. One effort included a bill negotiated between Republican and Democratic lawmakers that was blocked in the Senate in January after Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump criticised it.

Tuesday's action by the Biden White House drew fierce backlash from agencies that partner with the federal government to resettle refugees once they are processed by the Border Patrol. Six of those nine agencies are faith-based and have a long history of advocating for immigrants.

Read More

According to the data, neither Biden nor his Republican rival, former president Donald Trump, are viewed favourably by most Catholics surveyed, but Biden is the more unpopular of the two.

The findings were part of a presentation on "Religion and Politics Ahead of the US Elections" by Pew's associate director of research, Greg Smith, at the 2024 annual conference of the Religion News Association, which concluded over the weekend.

Included in the data provided by Smith, Pew's late February survey of 12,000 US adults found that only 35% of Catholics hold a favourable view of Biden, while 64% have an unfavourable view of the incumbent president.

Read More

The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, involves a Mississippi law that bans abortion starting at the 15th week of pregnancy.

Significantly, the statute draws the line before fetal viability—the point at which survival is possible outside the womb.

The Court has previously held that before viability, "the state's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure."

To uphold Mississippi's law, the Court would have to rewrite the rules—perhaps just the opportunity it needs to overturn Roe altogether.

If that happens, it will represent the culmination of decades of work by anti-abortion-rights activists.

But for those activists, gutting Roe would be just the beginning.

Ever since Roe, abortion-rights foes and their Republican allies have been asking the Court to reverse course—to acknowledge that the Constitution has nothing whatsoever to say about abortion, either in favor of or against it.

Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court justice arguably most beloved by conservatives, routinely stated that the Constitution is silent on abortion.

Republicans have railed against the Court's judicial activism in Roe, insisting that the justices robbed the American people of the opportunity to decide the abortion issue for themselves.

In this account, Roe did not just destroy valuable opportunities for compromise on abortion; the decision did fundamental damage to America's democratic principles, removing one of the most controversial issues from representative legislatures and resolving it by judicial fiat.

But within the anti-abortion-rights movement, there is not so much talk about democracy anymore.

Now some abortion-rights opponents are quite literally looking for a Roe of their own, asking the Court to recognize fetal rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Remember that overturning Roe wouldn't make abortion illegal; it would mean that states could set their own abortion limits, which would no longer be subject to constitutional review.

That will never be enough for anti-abortion-rights activists, though.

In the conservative magazine First Things, John Finnis, a professor emeritus at the University of Notre Dame, recently made an argument that could provide the framework an anti-abortion-rights Supreme Court could use to outlaw abortion across the country: that the legislators who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment viewed unborn children as persons.

If the Constitution recognizes fetal personhood, then unborn children would have the right to equal protection under and due process of the law.

Abortion would be unconstitutional in New York as well as in Alabama.

Other leading anti-abortion-rights scholars have made the same argument.

Finnis's article has provoked debate across the ideological spectrum.

The conservative attorney Ed Whelan has taken issue with the substance of Finnis's claim, suggesting that unless the anti-abortion-rights movement first wins over public opinion, Finnis's approach will backfire.

Progressives have been far harsher, unsurprisingly.

Writing in The New York Times, the columnist Michelle Goldberg denounced what she calls an authoritarian turn in anti-abortion-rights advocacy—one more sign that the GOP has changed fundamentally in the post-Trump era.

The abortion debate has never been about just Roe—and it's never been about letting a popular majority have a say.

What's new is that this argument now meets a receptive Supreme Court for the first time in more than a generation. Continue reading