The Roe Dilemma

Here’s What You Need To Know

Amidst the uproar over the leaked U.S. Supreme Court draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson that could determine the fate of Roe v. Wade, companies face pressure from competing stakeholders to take a public stand. Whatever position they take—or even if they stay silent—is bound to alienate one or even both sides of this charged debate. Yet, news of the draft decision is just the latest social issue flashpoint in which companies are caught in the crosshairs, with questions, concerns, and demands coming from employees, consumers, investors, elected officials, and beyond.

Public affairs professionals know threading this needle will be difficult. As we’ve warned before, “Especially in this hyperpolarized political environment, it is important for CEOs and companies to remember that while they may believe they are signaling the right thing, they very well may be widening the divide instead of closing it.” Here’s what you need to know to navigate this ongoing challenge smartly…

The Demand To Take a Stand

The leaked draft caused a wave of activism demanding and expecting companies to act. Some companies, including Amazon, Apple, Citigroup, Levi Strauss & Co., Lyft, Salesforce, Uber, and Yelp, swiftly adopted new employee benefit packages covering the travel costs of employees seeking abortion procedures. The moves come in response to pressure from not just outside activists but also employees within companies. The pressure, though, is not one-sided. Congressional Republicans, for example, were already pursuing cancellation of Citigroup’s contract to provide payment services for House offices over the bank’s plans to cover abortion travel for workers.

Subscribe to Receive Insights

"*" indicates required fields

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Companies must also contend with the fact that younger consumers—an influential demographic sought by many companies—expect companies to speak out on important social issues, including abortion access. Those consumers claim to be more likely to patronize businesses that openly share their values. Investors are likewise seeking companies committed to social impact, including pledges on abortion rights and similar social issues. In February, a group of 36 investors managing $236 billion in holdings sent a letter to CEOs of more than thirty companies requesting they disclose their stances and employee benefits related to reproductive healthcare.

Every Action Has a Reaction

The desire to respond quickly to the leaked draft may be driven in part by corporate executives who just watched The Disney Company’s CEO forced by employees and activists to belatedly speak out regarding a Florida sex education measure. Yet, the second half of that all-too-true fable is just as important a lesson. In response to Disney’s opposition to the measure, the Florida legislature empowered Governor Ron DeSantis to revoke Disney’s special operating privileges in the Sunshine State. Similarly, when Delta spoke out against a Georgia election law, state House Republicans passed a bill stripping Delta of a jet fuel tax break.

As we noted after Texas passed a contentious abortion law last year, this “new reality means trying to get along with the leaders who enact policies that are good for business while placating the activists whose agitation isn’t, or finding ways to speak up for important values without blowback from elected officials.” Indeed, as we saw with Disney, such blowback is no longer just coming from politicians, but also from consumers who do not share the more vocal protestors’ views. After all, Americans remains split 50-50 on whether firms should address this issue.

This Isn’t Going to End Any Time Soon

Last week, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security circulated warnings to corporate leaders “flagging the potential for civil unrest” once a ruling in Dobbs becomes official. The potential for extreme rhetoric, violence, and destruction means companies will have to be careful in how they respond to the ruling, and if or how they associate with various advocacy groups that could be implicated—fairly or unfairly—to disruptions.

In the longer term, companies’ response to this anticipated decision are likely to be scrutinized to see if their practices match their proclamations. For example, how many companies will now cover employees’ travel for an abortion but not for critical cancer care or other complex health issues? The potential for such questions regarding companies’ real commitment to women’s health is a future viral moment waiting to happen. In addition, a decision dismantling Roe in whole or part will lead to a lengthy state-by-state battle, with Republican-led states emboldened to restrict abortion and Democratic-led states encouraged to protect and expand access. This widening legal divergence will undoubtedly foster tensions between companies and state governments. Even at the federal level, firms have to consider that Democrats’ current hold of the reins of power may end in November, and Republicans are already planning their investigations.

Abortion laws also are not the only social issue companies will face pressure to address. From voting laws and sex education to transgender rights and critical race theory in public schools to issues not yet ripe for politicization, stakeholders and policymakers will crank up the heat on firms to take a stand even as they remain divided over what that stand should be.

Conclusion

While the Dobbs leak provided little time for companies to react, public affairs professionals must anticipate the pressure campaigns to come. As crisis communication guru Richard Levick warned last week, “Taking sides on the most problematic issues of the day may not be advisable, but it may also be unavoidable.” At Delve, we recommend firms “take a cohesive approach that aligns their brand strategy and policy stances … assess[ing] risk from both a global and local perspective so that you can better understand and address key vulnerabilities—before they are pointed out in the public arena, and before you lose control of the narrative.”