How state regulations on abortion, birth control, and other reproductive health issues have changed since Roe vs. Wade was overturned
– - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - –
On June 24, 2022, the whole of the United States sat in awe watching their TVs as a landmark case standing for almost 50 years was overturned by the supreme court. Many celebrated, many mourned, many were angry, or excited. No matter the emotion behind it, there was almost nobody that day that didn’t hear the news of Roe v Wade. Directly after it hit the public, everything was different. Many states enacted trigger laws made in anticipation of this day- either banning abortions with some exceptions or completely. Others took extra precautions to protect reproductive rights for their citizens. Protests erupted in the streets, and still do to this day. No matter how you look at it, the United States was changed that day, and to understand this, we must first talk about...
 

How we got here  

In the early 20th century, abortion was illegal in many states. However, slowly as more issues started popping up such as severe birth defects in children in the 1950s, activists and citizens alike began laying the groundwork for abortion rights- starting with the right to contraceptives.
Finally, on January 22, 1973, after much fight, the right to abortion was granted under Roe v Wade. This was very controversial, but a sought after victory for many, and was seen as a landmark case. However, almost 50 years later, during his infamous presidential win in 2016, Donald Trump appointed three supreme court justices: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
Then, the case was taken to the supreme court through Dobbs vs Jackson, and these three, as well as two other justices all voted to overturn Roe v Wade, as it's not enshrined into the constitution, solidifying the decision to have it overturned. This was so controversial in fact, that the citizens of the United States remained strong in their overwhelming opinion that Roe v Wade should be maintained, with 62% of Americans agreeing that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
 

So, why is this important?
This ban triggered many disparities that will impact everybody, not just those that can give birth. Post Roe, we’ve already seen higher infant mortality rates, with black infants dying at a rate of 11% higher than expected when Roe v Wade was intact. In addition, many pregnancy complications, such as an ectopic pregnancy, have to be treated by terminating the pregnancy, and this is being called into question in a post Roe v Wade world. Not only this, but if you are pregnant and have cancer, or cardiac disease and are at a higher risk, you would typically need an abortion, but many medical practitioners are afraid of being prosecuted. These may be unintended consequences, but they will affect many people nonetheless.

What is the current state of this issue?
All the way before Roe v Wade, abortion has been a hot button topic, and that hasn’t changed now. First, we can take a look at the states that have banned abortions so far with almost no exceptions, and what this may mean. As of 2025, these include: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia. Citizens in these states are left with the difficult decision to carry to term, give the baby up for adoption, cross state lines to get a safe abortion, or many have resorted to having pills mailed to them from states where it is legal. However, this is being targeted by many states, and may not be allowed soon, though as of right now, it’s seen as an appropriate and effective solution for many.
Many states are still battling these bans, including our own state, Iowa. The state is in an ongoing litigation against the six-week ban. Though many have fought against the governor, Kim Reynolds, ultimately many of them were dropped, and no change has been made as of now, so the six-week ban is upheld. Many other states have ongoing lawsuits, such as North Dakota, Wyoming, and Missouri, to name a few, and Arizona, Michigan, and Ohio have managed to block the ban altogether after much debate.
 

So, what might this mean for the future?
To start, many organizations such as planned parenthood may be in legal jeopardy if they attempt to give out information about getting abortions in another state where it is legal. Even if people do get the information, they may not be able to afford the amount of money it takes to travel and get the procedure done in a different state, possibly putting their life at risk if they attempt to get it somewhere else.
Some also speculate that states may even try to figure out when people are seeking an abortion in another state, and send them back to their home state before they’re able to actually get the abortion, or that they might be fined or put in jail, which happened recently already to a woman in Texas.
Additionally, Roe v Wade was primarily linked to the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, related to the broad “right to privacy”. Joe Biden commented on this saying: “every other [Supreme Court] decision relating to the notion of privacy is thrown into question.” This could mean that the supreme court and states may very well go after other rights, not just abortions, and many are concerned about rights such as contraception availability, or even marriage equality. Because this may interfere with the privacy people have in their homes or with their families from the government, many are afraid of being tracked or having a paper trail behind them if they seek out an abortion.
In a post Roe v Wade world, it has ultimately come down on each state's shoulders as to what they want to do in regards to abortion rights. The future of this remains to be seen, and at the end of the day, it’s important to stay vigilant and up to date on your own state’s rights. If you are curious about your own state or others, this information can be found on planned parenthood.

Resources:
History.com Editors. (2018, March 27). Roe v. Wade: Decision, Summary & Background.
HISTORY. https://www.history.com/articles/roe-v-wade
Oyez. (2022). Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Oyez.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/19-1392
Public Health On Call. (2025, March 13). The Unequal Impacts of Abortion Bans | Johns
Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/the-unequal-impacts-of-abortion-bans
Brennan Center for Justice. (2022, September 28). Roe v. Wade and Supreme Court
Abortion Cases. Www.brennancenter.org; Brennan Center for Justice.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/roe-v-wade-and-supreme-court-
abortion-cases

McCann, A., & Schoenfeld Walker, A. (2024, December 3). Tracking Abortion Bans across

the Country. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/us/abortion-
laws-roe-v-wade.html

Luthra, S. (2025, January 15). These states already restrict abortion. Their legislatures could

push it even further. The 19th. https://19thnews.org/2025/01/abortion-opponents-state-
legislatures-bans-restrictions/

Pearson, C. (2022, June 28). What Is Ectopic Pregnancy? The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/article/ectopic-pregnancy-symptoms-treatment.html
Rubin R, Abbasi J, Suran M. How Caring for Patients Could Change in a Post–Roe v Wade
US. JAMA. 2022;327(21):2060–2062. doi:10.1001/jama.2022.8526
Kamarck, E. (2022, May 3). What Happens after Roe v. Wade? Brookings.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/america-after-roe-v-wade/
Pew Research Center. (2022, July 6). Majority of Public Disapproves of Supreme Court’s
Decision To Overturn Roe v. Wade. Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy; Pew

Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/07/06/majority-of-public-
disapproves-of-supreme-courts-decision-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc, et al. v. Kim Reynolds, et al. (2024). State Court

Report. https://statecourtreport.org/case-tracker/planned-parenthood-heartland-inc-et-al-v-
kim-reynolds-et-al

Morris, W. (2024, August 15). Abortion clinics end suit over 6-week ban, ending battle after
Iowa Supreme Court decision. The Des Moines Register; Des Moines Register.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2024/08/15/planned-parenthood-
emma-goldman-clinic-dismiss-lawsuit-over-iowa-6-week-abortion-ban/74811661007/

Supreme Court of the United States. (2024). Current Members. Supremecourt.gov.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx
Constitution Annotated. (2024). Due Process Generally | Constitution Annotated |
Congress.gov | Library of Congress. Congress.gov.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-3/ALDE_00013743/
Chin, C. (2022, May 25). What Privacy in the United States Could Look Like without Roe v.

Wade. Www.csis.org. https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-privacy-united-states-could-look-
without-roe-v-wade

Feb 17, P., & 2023. (n.d.). State and Federal Reproductive Rights and Abortion Litigation

Tracker. KFF. https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/report/state-and-federal-
reproductive-rights-and-abortion-litigation-tracker/

How is NIL and the Transfer Portal Affecting College Athletics?

In recent years, college athletics have entered an unprecedented era of mobility and monetary focus. The
driving factor behind this change is the NCAA’s Transfer Portal and its Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL)
policies. A report by Reuters.com states that in the 2024/2025 cycle, nearly 4,000 men’s and women’s
basketball players entered the transfer portal, that's an 11% increase over the prior year, and more than
2,700 college football athletes transferred in spring 2025 alone. Concurrently, the NIL market has
skyrocketed into a billion dollar industry, SponsorUnited data shows that tracked NIL deals have
surpassed $1 billion since 2021, led by athletes like University of North Carolina’s R.J. Davis (25 deals)
and University of Southern California’s JuJu Watkins (20 deals).

According to Analis Bailey, journalist for AXIOS, star players now garner 6 and even 7 figure NIL deals,
like Louisiana State’s Flau’jae Johnson, who reportedly earned up to 1 million dollars last year. She
explains that NIL deals like this are starting to rival professional rookie salaries, which incentivises
college players to stick around at the college level longer before turning pro.

Together, these shifts have completely upended roster stability, intensified recruiting battles among Power
5 collegiate programs, and prompted advocacy for federal legislation, as well as calls for the NCAA to
reform and balance athlete empowerment.

So why are we talking about it now? The answer is simple: Transfer portal rates are increasing
exponentially every year, and the pace of change came to a head in 2025. If we don’t make changes now,
the damage to college sports as a whole may be irreversible. Analis Bailey reported that nearly 40% of
NCAA basketball players tested the transfer portal in 2024–25, that number went up dramatically from
just 15% in 2021. Meanwhile, high profile NIL earnings have soared, with top women’s basketball talent
now often securing deals exceeding $500,000 per year, and several eclipsing the $1 million dollar mark.

This explosion of athlete agency has coincided with growing political attention as well. Maura Carey, of
AP News, reported that congress is currently in talks of debating NIL legislation that would impose
standardized disclosure and transparency rules, and the White House is considering a presidential
commission on college sports governance. She also says that many collegiate coaches and administrators
have voiced alarm over fractured team cultures and academic disruptions, warning that “free agency” is
killing the traditional collegiate model.

Where it sits right now, the NCAA is bracing for further legal and regulatory shifts from the government.
Reuters suggests that one such shift seems more likely than not. A court approval of $2.8 billion dollars
that would allow NCAA schools to share up to $20.5 million annually with athletes has been flowing
through judges in recent weeks, along with other regulation ideas. Needless to say, the stakes for
universities, conferences, and student-athletes could not be higher.

What is the current status of the transfer portal? Well when it was launched in October 2018, it was meant
to replace the permission-to-contact rule, which now operates year round with two primary windows for
football (December and Spring) and basketball (post season). In spring 2025, over 2,700 football players
entered, including more than half of power five underclassmen, marking an all time high. For basketball,
ESPN ranked nearly 4,000 athletes in the portal, over 2,300 men’s athletes and 1,600 women’s. However,
only about 45 percent of those who entered the portal secured new scholarships, this left many without
teams or aid .

NIL has also changed quite a bit in the few years since it was introduced. From when the NCAA’s interim
NIL policy took effect in July 2021 to now, athletes have collectively earned hundreds of millions in
endorsements. SponsorUnited reports that college basketball accounts for the greatest share of deals, with

athletes like R.J. Davis and JuJu Watkins driving a $1 billion market. Women’s basketball players in
particular have outpaced the male players in deal growth, and social media engagement, with Paige
Bueckers from The University of Connecticut amassing over 3 million followers and multiple
endorsement deals.

In football, recent news has surrounded marquee transfers such as Duke’s Darian Mensah and UCLA’s
Nico Iamaleava. With both players securing new deals in the past few weeks, the market has never been
hotter. Mensah was the beneficiary of an $8 million dollar NIL deal to move to Duke from Tulane,
however most of the controversy followed Iamaleava from Tennessee. Maura Carey detailed the drama in
her article, saying that the drama started when Tennessee refused to pay Iamaleava $4 Million dollars, a
raise from his previous $2 Million, and everything went downhill from there. Nico refused to play for
Tennessee without a raise and skipped a week of practice in the first ever collegiate contract “hold out”,
which has only ever been seen at the pro level. With the team not willing to pay Nico the money, he left
for the transfer portal, but it seemed as though no other university was willing to pay the price it took
either. In the end, Nico signed with UCLA for $1.8 Million dollars, a pay cut from his previous contact.
This set a precedent of sorts, the athletes hold most of the power now, but the universities refuse to be
pushed around and bullied when it comes to their money. This situation just illustrates the syncracy
between the portal and NIL, wherever the money is, players can and will go there through use of the
portal.

The change in recent years is unheard of, but how did we get here? Tim Shaw, a journalist for Reuters,
describes a time before 2018, when athletes needed their school’s permission to contact other collegiate
programs. The transfer portal, which was inspired by professional free agency, was introduced to
streamline transfers and increase athlete autonomy. Initially, there was a one year sit out rule, but players
were later granted a one time immediate eligibility waiver in 2021 to promote more freedom among
players. Shaw reported that NIL talks began with California’s Fair Pay to Play Act (2019), which

prompted NCAA interim NIL rules in July 2021. The Supreme Court’s NCAA v. Alston decision also
weakened amateurism by striking down limits on education related benefits. Subsequently, digital
platforms like On3 and 247Sports began tracking portal entries and NIL valuations, fueling media
coverage and market transparency .

Reporting by ESPN, AP News, Reuters, and sports business outlets has amplified portal rumors and NIL
deal announcements, accelerating the arms race among programs and sponsors. This has empowered
athletes but also magnified institutional pressures to compete on an open market for talent and
endorsements

So what’s going to happen in the future? Reuters reports that the focus will likely be on federal NIL
legislation advancing through Congress, with bills proposing standardized contracts, disclosure mandates,
and anti-exploitation safeguards. A presidential commission on college sports could issue executive
recommendations to narrow down NIL rules and establish uniform portal windows. Meanwhile, final
court approval of the House v. NCAA $2.8 billion dollar settlement remains pending, with justice
department concerns over athlete compensation.

Long-term projections suggest that if unchecked, the portal-NIL paradigm may cement power five
dominance, driving mid-major universities toward collective NIL initiatives or even forced conference
realignments to survive. Alternatively, successful legislative and NCAA reforms could recalibrate the
college ecosystem, reinforcing smaller programs, safeguarding academic values, and maintaining broader
competitive balance across college sports .

Works Cited

Bailey, Analis. “Sports - Axios.” AXIOS, www.axios.com/sports. Accessed 13 May 2025.

“California Bill Text.” Bill Text - SB-206 Collegiate Athletics: Student Athlete Compensation and
Representation., leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200SB206.
Accessed 13 May 2025.
Carey, Maura. “A Judge Orders Changes to a $2.8B NCAA Deal, Which Attorneys Say Could
Trigger Chaos.” Reuters, 24 Apr. 2025,
www.npr.org/2025/04/24/g-s1-62471/ncaa-athlete-payments-lawsuit-scholarship-roster-limits-dela
y.
Dellenger, Ross. “As Coaches Squabble about Nil, Enforcement May Still Be Leagues Away.” SI,
Sports Illustrated, 23 May 2022,
www.si.com/college/2022/05/23/nick-saban-jimbo-fisher-nil-ncaa-congress.

Olson, Eric. “College Football Players Chasing Dollars with Portal Open and House Settlement
Approval Delayed.” AP News, AP News, 17 Apr. 2025,
apnews.com/article/nil-ncaa-transfer-portal-b9ed5a3711fb9ed35e0e3e7d2c6c825e?utm.
Shaw, Tim. Judge Delays Approval of $2.8 Billion NCAA Settlement over Roster Limit Question |
Reuters,
www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/judge-delays-approval-28-billion-ncaa-settlement-over-roster-limi

The True Cost of Fast Fashion: Beyond Low Prices, It’s Environmental Damage
Fast fashion has taken over the clothing world, offering trendy styles at super affordable prices.
Brands like Zara, H&M, and Shein drop new looks all the time, making it easy for people to stay
on top of the latest fashion without spending a lot. However, this convenience comes at a
significant cost. The environmental impact of fast fashion has sparked growing concerns about
its contribution to climate change, limited access to clean water, and waste pollution.
Fast fashion is characterized by the mass production of cheap clothing, often inspired by viral
trends. These garments are designed to be worn only a few times before being discarded, causing
a cycle of overconsumption and waste. While this has made fashion more accessible, it has also
led to an increase in textile waste, water consumption, and carbon emissions. As the industry
continues to grow, many question whether this system is sustainable and what can be done to
address its harmful effects.
What is Fast Fashion and How Does It Work?
With the rise of consumer demand for new styles, fast fashion has become a dominant force in
the clothing industry. “Fast fashion" is a retail business model that involves copying style trends,
mass-producing items, and making those items available for purchase while demand is high. This
means trendy designs seen on runways or social media can hit store shelves in just a matter of
weeks. Major retailers like to rely on this method, releasing new collections constantly to keep
up with trends. Some companies, like Shein and Temu, have taken it even further, pushing into
what’s now called "ultrafast fashion," releasing thousands of new styles daily.
According to BBC News, the term describes the quick turnover of fashion trends and the move
towards cheap, mass-produced clothing, with new lines constantly being released. This cycle of
rapid production has caused global clothing output to nearly double since 2000. As clothes
become cheaper and more disposable, consumers buy more and throw them away faster, often
after just a few wears. If this pattern continues, global apparel consumption is expected to rise by
63% by 2030. With up to 10,000 new items added each day by some brands.
The Environmental Impact of Fast Fashion
The environmental impact of fast fashion is massive, with the industry putting serious strain on
the planet. Making clothes, from sourcing materials to manufacturing, shipping, and selling, uses
up huge amounts of natural resources. Cotton alone takes up about 2.5% of the world’s farmland,
while synthetic fabrics like polyester, made from petroleum, add to pollution and drain limited
resources. According to McKinsey & Company, textile production generates around 1.2 billion
tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year—more than all international flights and shipping
combined. Highlighting the significant environmental toll, an article in Nature Reviews Earth &
Environment reports that the fashion industry produces over 92 million tons of waste per year
and consumes 79 trillion liters of water.
Fast fashion’s heavy use of synthetic materials makes things even worse. Polyester, for example,
sheds microplastics when washed, polluting oceans and harming marine life. On top of that,
dyeing fabrics uses tons of chemicals, water, and energy, often contaminating nearby rivers and
streams. McKinsey also reports that for every five pieces of clothing made, three end up in
landfills or are burned.

What Can Be Done to Fix It?
The solution to the environmental damage caused by fast fashion starts with a shift in both
industry practices and consumer behavior. The slow fashion movement offers a promising
alternative by encouraging people to buy fewer, but higher-quality garments. This approach
helps reduce waste, limits unnecessary production, and supports more sustainable manufacturing
methods.
However, many brands claim to be eco-friendly, yet critics argue that these efforts are often just
greenwashing. USA Today highlights that the constant demand for new clothes is taking a heavy
toll on both workers and the environment. This ongoing cycle encourages unsustainable practices
and exploitation. A better solution would be to design clothes to last, be repaired, or even
recycled.
What Does the Future of Fashion Look Like?
The future of fashion depends on whether the industry can shift from a model of constant
consumption to one of sustainability. While the market for fast fashion continues to expand,
signs of change are emerging. Gallup statistics show that consumer habits are already shifting in
some areas, with most U.S. workers now dressing casually on the job. More than seven in ten say
their typical workplace attire is either business casual (41%) or even more relaxed, like casual
street clothes (31%). Growing awareness of the fashion industry’s environmental impact has led
to increased attention for more sustainable practices. Brands are facing intense pressure to reduce
their carbon footprint and adopt eco-friendly manufacturing methods.
Despite these pressures, most major brands are still falling short of their decarbonization targets,
and consumer behavior hasn't yet undergone the necessary changes for a transformation. While
trends like second-hand shopping and buying less are growing, they still represent a small
fraction of the market. The rise of these alternative consumption models shows that consumers
are starting to recognize the need for change, but without significant adjustments in industry
practices, the environmental damage will continue to worsen.
Fast fashion may seem like a bargain, but it comes with a heavy price, not just for the
environment but also for the workers who are part of its global supply chain. As the fashion
industry's impact on the planet becomes more evident, moving toward a more sustainable future
requires effort from both brands and consumers. While slow fashion, sustainable initiatives, and
innovations in textile recycling offer hope, the industry must take greater responsibility for its
environmental toll. Only by shifting to a sustainable model, one that reduces overproduction,
focuses on quality, and minimizes waste, can we truly address the real cost of fast fashion.

References

Brenan, M. (2023, September 8). Casual Work Attire Is the Norm for U.S. Workers. Gallup
News. https://news.gallup.com/poll/510587/casual-work-attire-norm-workers.aspx
McKinsey & Company. (2025, January 23). What is fast fashion? McKinsey & Company.
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/mckinsey-explainers/what-is-fast-fashion
Niinimäki, K., Peters, G., Dahlbo, H., Perry, P., Rissanen, T., & Gwilt, A. (2020). The
environmental price of fast fashion. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1, 189–200.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0039-9
Stallard, E. (2022, July 29). Fast fashion: How clothes are linked to climate change. BBC News.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60382624
Tyler, P. B. (2024). What is fast fashion? How the retail business model could be negatively
impacting consumers. USA TODAY.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/retail/2024/12/12/fast-fashion-negative-
impacts/76925169007/

Video link : https://drive.google.com/file/d/17Q_QlUIQFSWkr3auUA3RB3Qh_y2IwNVm/view