1). “Top Military Fired by Trump, While Stripping Away First Amendment Rights, Prof. David Cay Johnston”, Feb 25, 2025, Mark Thompson interivews Prof. David Cay Johnston, The Mark Thompson Show, duration of video 41:13, at < https://www.youtube.com/watch?
2). “Ominous Move to Strip Americans of First Amendment Rights (Trump Dictator Watch)”, Feb 25, 2025, David Cay Johnston, DC Report, at < https://www.dcreport.org/2025/
3). “Kentucky Considers Charging Abortion Patients As Murderers”, Feb 25, 2025, Jessica Valenti, Abortion, Every Day, at < https://jessica.substack.com/
4). “Beyond abortion: A timeline of reproductive health care and the true impact on women and society: This is not just about personal choice; it is about national and economic stability and the future of public health”, Feb 20, 2025, Allison Carmen, Salon, at < https://www.salon.com/2025/02/
~~ recommended by dmorista ~~
Introduction dmorista: The cabal who tells Donald Trump what to do (whispering in his ear more-or-less) and the totally illegal and inconstitutional rampage of Elon Musk, both continue. Following a close approximation of how Hitler and the Nazis moved in the first couple of months after Hitler became Chancellor the assaults on the norms of U.S. politics, jurisprudence, and consitutional government have intensified and are taking place on a dizzying scale and at a breakneck pace. Anybody who hoped that the constitutional “guardrails would function to limit the Fascist takeover” has to be pretty disillusioned by now. In Item 1)., “Top Military Fired ….” the venerable David Cay Johnston (who knows Trump personally having interviewed him numerous times) looks at the attacks on constitutional rule, freedom of the press, and the largely apolitical military sees plenty of reason for pessimism. In Item 2)., “Ominous Move to Strip Americans ….” he points out that:
“As president in 2018 Trump praised a violent attack on a news reporter by Republican politician Greg Gianforte of Montana, his favored candidate for one of two House seats.
“Trump and Vice President JD Vance have called for CBS to lose its broadcasting license and imprisoning 60 Minutes journalists involved in a fall 2024 interview with Kamala Harris. (Trump was offered the same kind of interview but declined.) (Emphasis added)
“Trump sued CBS seeking $10 billion in damages claiming 60 Minutes manipulated Harris; comments. When CBS took the extraordinary step of releasing transcripts of its full interview Trump’s complaint was shown to be nonsense.
“Instead of folding his case, Trump responded by doubling his demand to $20 billion.
“It’s not just journalists Trump wants to gag. During his first term Trump forced White House staff—even interns—to sign unconstitutional non-disclosure agreements.
“In 2018, Trump proposed that protests be made illegal, citing dictators who have crushed dissent. Peaceful protests and assemblies are protected under the First Amendment. (Emphasis added)
The attacks on the rights and well-being of the American people are increasing and the most virulent and crazed are against women. As Jessica Valenti points out in Item 3)., “Kentucky Considers Charging ….” the struggle over women's reproductive rights is intense, though not entirely a series of defeats. The unfortunate truth is that now in a 7th state, Kentucky, forced-pregnancy / forced-birth operatives has introduced a bill to charge women who obtain abortions with murder (outside of Kentucky where the procedures are legal or inside the state). Kentucky is a capital punishment state so these women could be executed should such legislation pass. I will note that there is a movement called “Abortion Abolition” that is very eager to begin executing women for obtaining abortions. Anybody who is interested in taking a look at these religious fanatics should go and look at one of 4 videos, posted there at “Abolitionists Rising” at < https://abolitionistsrising.
Valenti discussed one important positive development in which the Supreme Court ruled against yet one more attempt to allow forced-pregnancy / forced-birth operatives to get right up into women's faces at abortion clinics noting that:
“Conservatives, desperate to harass women without consequence, argue that buffer zones violate their free speech rights—and they’ve filed lawsuits across multiple states trying to overturn Hill.
“The two cases that conservatives brought to SCOTUS challenged clinic buffer zones in New Jersey and Illinois. In both cases, antis argued that they weren’t able to fully exercise their free speech rights because they couldn’t get up in patients’ faces—seriously.
“In Carbondale, Illinois, for example, anti-abortion activists claimed they need to get close enough to “make eye contact” with women in order to effectively change their minds about abortion. What they call ‘sidewalk counseling,’ however, is really just harassment and intimidation: these same activists were known to get aggressive with patients and staff, even trying to peek into a clinic over a security fence by using a ladder.
“If the Supreme Court took up these cases, clinic protections could have been totally decimated. Anti-abortion violence has already been on the rise since Roe was overturned, and Donald Trump just gave extremists the green light to attack clinics without fear of consequence—imagine what would happen without buffer zones!”.
Finally in Item 4)., “Beyond abortion: ….” the author takes a wider look at reproductive health-care and the consequences of cutting spending on medical care while enforcing draconian forced-pregnancy / forced-birth policies. The U.S. was already, even before the Dobbs decision, devolving towards a Third World reproductive health-care conditions for poor and rural women. When Dobbs was ruled already 1/3 of U.S. counties did not have an OB/GYN or any sort of abortion services. Those numbers are now far worse. Women are traditionally tightly and viciously controlled in fascist regimes. And the political leadership position of serious sexual perverts, like Trump and much of his retinue of retainers, is also typical.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Trump Demands Journalists Use Language He Wants or Face Punishment
Donald Trump’s oft-stated hostility to journalism, and his dictatorial efforts to force journalists to heel, took a disturbing turn in a Washington courtroom on Monday, February 24. A turn detrimental to the health of our First Amendment rights.
A federal judge appointed by Donald Trump indicated that he would allow the Trump administration to bar from the White House press room the nonprofit Associate Press, one of the country’s largest news organizations.
if tomorrow the White House decides to abolish the White House press pool, they can do that… I don’t think that offends the Constitution.
—Brian Hoduk, Justice Department civil lawyer
The AP was blocked because it does not use language that Donald Trump demands that all Americans use or risk government punishment, calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. This could be seen as a petty dispute, but I see it as a window into Trump’s continuing efforts to consolidate power as our de facto dictator, which in large part requires bringing the press to heel so Americans learn only the official Trump version of events, not some pesky independent reporting. Telling journalists what language to use contradicts the free speech and free press rights all Americans enjoy under our Constitution’s First Amendment. But Trump knows that this will have a visceral impact only on the minority of Americans who understand, care about, and will fight for our Constitutional rights.
Freedom of the press is not just important to democracy, it is democracy.”
– Walter Cronkite
Most Go Along
The social experiments by Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo on inflicting pain and running a faux prison showed that only one in six people will resist or reject orders to harm others. Zimbardo, a Stanford University professor whose experiment I wrote about at the time, insisted to his dying day that he had no interest in those who wouldn’t go along, only those who complied.
Donald has a long history of showing his utter lack of regard for our Constitution when he finds it inconvenient. In this his obsequiously loyal ally is Vice President JD Vance, a Yale-educated lawyer who knows better, but favors demonstrating his fealty to Trump above his oath of office to protect and defend our constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Now Trump appears to have another ally in U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden, a 2017 Trump appointee.
In that Monday’s hearing, judge McFadden declined to direct the Trump administration to let Associated Press reporters into the White House press room.
“I can’t say the AP has shown a likelihood of success here,” Judge McFadden said.
McFadden called the AP ban “problematic” and advised the government that “case law in this circuit is uniformly unhelpful to the White House.” He then ordered a hearing in March. without any relief for AP until then.
Five Days
The judge also critiqued AP for waiting five days to file its case, saying it showed that AP didn’t consider this an emergency.
It’s hard to imagine a clearer First Amendment violation. Trump is punishing the Associated Press for exercising a Constitutional right, namely, to choose the words it thinks are proper and appropriate in news articles. That Judge McFadden is trying to weasel pout of his duty to uphold Constitutional rights is another sign of obeisance to our dictator’s demands.
Trump made clear last week that unless AP writes the news as he demands, using his fictional Gulf of America in relevant articles, it will not be reinstated.
“We’re going to keep them out until such time that they agree it’s the Gulf of America,” Trump said.
The AP sued over what it says is “an unconstitutional effort by the White House to control speech — in this case refusing to change its style from the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.”
“The press and all people in the United States have the right to choose their own words and not be retaliated against by the government,” AP’s complaint declared.
AP sued Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff, her deputy Taylor Budowich and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt
In what looks like a foretelling of more restrictions on independent journalism, Brian Hudak, the chief civil lawyer in U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia, said that “if tomorrow the White House decides to abolish the White House press pool, they can do that… I don’t think that offends the Constitution.”
As a matter of law, Hudak is right about that. But that seems less likely than what Trump and his minions have already started doing, which is giving preferential treatment to pro=Trump propaganda outlets posing as news organizations.
Squeezing News Organizations
The White House and the Pentagon have started squeezing out news organizations with solid reputations for factual accuracy in favor of faux news organizations, like Fox, OAN, and Breitbart. Don’t be surprised if Trump eventually gives favorable treatment to some future correspondent for his own website, the badly misnamed Truth Social.
Equally ominous was how U.S. Attorney for the nation’s capital described his role – as Trump’s personal lawyer, another ominous sign of Trump consolidating power as a dictator by appointing to powerful positions people who regard themselves as his loyal subjects first, last, so and always.
“As President Trump’s lawyers, we are proud to fight to protect his leadership as our President and we are vigilant in standing against entities like the AP that refuse to put America first,” Martin wrote.
You will look long and hard trying to find that quote in Tuesdays reports by our major news organizations, which continue to treat trump as a political oddity, not a career white-collar crime boss, convicted felon, and enemy of our Constitution.
Trump has long said that it should be against the law to write things about him unless he approves, one of his many public statements demonstrating his belief that he holds dictatorial powers.
Trump Praises Violence
As president in 2018 Trump praised a violent attack on a news reporter by Republican politician Greg Gianforte of Montana, his favored candidate for one of two House seats.
Trump and Vice President JD Vance have called for CBS to lose its broadcasting license and imprisoning 60 Minutes journalists involved in a fall 2024 interview with Kamala Harris. (Trump was offered the same kind of interview but declined.)
Trump sued CBS seeking $10 billion in damages claiming 60 Minutes manipulated Harris; comments. When CBS took the extraordinary step of releasing transcripts of its full interview Trump’s complaint was shown to be nonsense.
Instead of folding his case, Trump responded by doubling his demand to $20 billion.
It’s not just journalists Trump wants to gag. During his first term Trump forced White House staff—even interns—to sign unconstitutional non-disclosure agreements.
In 2018, Trump proposed that protests be made illegal, citing dictators who have crushed dissent. Peaceful protests and assemblies are protected under the First Amendment.
Trump has made it very clear that he doesn’t stand for the freedom of the press. Rather he sees them as sources of personal enrichment through lawsuits like the one against CBS.
ABC, owned by Disney, already knuckled under with $16 million to Trump lawyers and his future presidential library over a case so frivolous that First Amendment lawyers virtually all say Disney would have prevailed.
Abusing Presidential Power
Why did Disney back down? Because Trump has many levers with which to punish the film, amusement park, and cruise ship company—as well as its executives and directors— if it stands up for itself and our freedoms.
As a presidential candidate, Donald told supporters he would sue journalists and get richer doing so.
Eight years ago at a Ft. Worth rally Trump said, “I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,” We’re going to open up those libel laws. So, when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”
While Trump often claims that news articles aren’t accurate, he almost always makes naked claims.
Trump’s Threats
In the past 36 years he has threatened many times to sue me. I always politely respond that “if you have a case, Donald, you should bring it.” Trump never has because he knows that I have the facts and that in litigation he would have to answer questions under oath during the discovery phase.
But his actions here are not about facts or truth. They are about suppressing facts that he wants to hide.
As a private citizen his threats were just bullying. It worked on many journalists, especially soft spined editors and producers fearful of litigation. As president he can now bring the government’s resources to savage our First Amendment rights – your rights.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Kentucky Considers Charging Abortion Patients As Murderers
Click to skip ahead: You Love to See It has good news about buffer zones! In the States, news from North Dakota, Tennessee, Wyoming and Illinois. Equal Protection Strikes Again reports that Kentucky is the seventh state this year to consider a bill that would punish abortion patients as murderers. In Criminalizing Care, a closer look at the doctor being targeted by Texas and Louisiana. In the Nation, some quick hits.
You Love to See It
Anti-abortion groups are pissed, which means I’m having a great day. The Supreme Court has declined to hear two cases aimed at eradicating buffer zones outside of abortion clinics. I’ll be honest, I was nervous about this one. After tracking the attacks on buffer zones for two years, I was bracing for bad news. So this feels like a huge relief.
For those who need a refresher: Buffer zones keep anti-abortion protesters a set distance from clinic property to protect patients and staff from harassment and violence. (The Supreme Court upheld these laws in Hill v. Colorado.)
Conservatives, desperate to harass women without consequence, argue that buffer zones violate their free speech rights—and they’ve filed lawsuits across multiple states trying to overturn Hill.
The two cases that conservatives brought to SCOTUS challenged clinic buffer zones in New Jersey and Illinois. In both cases, antis argued that they weren’t able to fully exercise their free speech rights because they couldn’t get up in patients’ faces—seriously.
In Carbondale, Illinois, for example, anti-abortion activists claimed they need to get close enough to “make eye contact” with women in order to effectively change their minds about abortion. What they call ‘sidewalk counseling,’ however, is really just harassment and intimidation: these same activists were known to get aggressive with patients and staff, even trying to peek into a clinic over a security fence by using a ladder.
If the Supreme Court took up these cases, clinic protections could have been totally decimated. Anti-abortion violence has already been on the rise since Roe was overturned, and Donald Trump just gave extremists the green light to attack clinics without fear of consequence—imagine what would happen without buffer zones!
To no one’s surprise, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented with their colleagues on the Court. Thomas, especially, was irate—writing that Hill is “defunct” and should be overturned.
“Hill manipulated this court’s First Amendment jurisprudence precisely to disfavor ‘opponents of abortion’ and their ‘right to persuade women contemplating abortion that what they are doing is wrong.’”
Thomas even accused his fellow conservative justices of “abdicating” their “judicial duty.”
While the Court’s decision to reject these cases is a win, it doesn’t mean the fight is over.
Law professor Mary Ziegler told The Washington Post that while the news is important, “there’s plenty of reason to think the court could still find bubble or buffer laws it doesn’t like.”
We also know that this isn’t conservatives’ only tactic—attacks on clinic protections are part of a broader strategy outlined in Project 2025. In addition to doing away with buffer zones, conservatives want to repeal the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which makes the obstruction of abortion clinics and violence against them a federal crime.
Why put so much effort into endangering clinics, patients, and staff? Because they want to punish women. And with more people self-managing their abortions at home with medication, conservatives are losing access to their favorite pastime: harassing women.
“No patient should have to encounter threats, intimidation and attacks while seeking healthcare—and no medical provider or health center staff should be threatened because of their work to deliver abortion care to patients in need.”
-Alexis McGill-Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America:
In the States
North Dakota is advancing a ‘med ed’ bill that would force doctors to watch an hour-long video about the state’s abortion law before they can provide care. If House Bill 1511 passes, it would allocate funds to create the so-called instructional video—which, let’s be real, would almost certainly be produced by a rabid anti-abortion group.
How do I know? Because they’ve pulled this shit before. Remember what happened in South Dakota?
The short version is that Republicans know they have a PR problem with women going septic and dying. But instead of changing their policies, they’re doubling down—pushing ‘med ed’ bills that require state health departments to create ‘clarifying’ materials for doctors about abortion bans.
The goal is to make voters think Republicans are helping doctors provide legal care. The reality? These bills let anti-abortion activists and lawmakers—not medical professionals—dictate what counts as ‘life-saving’ or necessary abortion care. In South Dakota, the health department worked with an anti-abortion group that believes abortion is never medically necessary to save a woman’s life.
Now, North Dakota is taking a page from the same playbook. The state’s ban is currently blocked, so this bill is about two things: throwing up more roadblocks for doctors willing to provide care now and laying the groundwork for Republicans to reimpose the ban the moment they get the chance.
Read more on ‘Med Ed’ bills below:
Two Tennessee Republicans have introduced a bill allowing abortion in cases of fatal fetal abnormalities—a move that’s sure to spark debate among their conservative colleagues. It’s a grim sign of the times when not forcing women to carry doomed pregnancies to term is considered controversial.
But don’t get too excited—this bill is hardly a win. If anything, it looks like a calculated attempt by these lawmakers to feign moderation. House Bill 1241 would allow abortion in cases of fatal fetal conditions, but only before 24 weeks. And even then, the diagnosis must guarantee the fetus will die at birth or imminently thereafter. That means if a newborn could survive for a few painful days or weeks, the pregnancy wouldn’t qualify.
Incredibly, even that narrow exception is too much for many Tennessee Republicans or the anti-abortion groups in the state. They’d rather see women and babies suffer than give an inch on their politics.
In Wyoming, Republicans are trying to restrict abortion any which way they can—from bills mandating unnecessary transvaginal ultrasounds to restrictions on the state’s sole clinic. And anti-abortion activists are trying to intervene (again) in the case that will decide reproductive rights access in Wyoming.
In better news…
You can always count on Illinois: The state budget for 2026 includes $24 million for reproductive health services, including abortion. Illinois has seen a massive post-Roe increase in abortion patients, straining providers and hospitals across the state. Illinois Rep. Amy “Murri” Briel says, “so many states around us are what they call ‘blacked out,’ meaning there’s no access to any sorts of care.”
Related: I had to flag this noxious quote from Devin Jones, a Republican committeeman of Chicago’s 18th Ward, responding to the news about the budget:
“Less than 1% of abortions are because of rape or incest, right, so the vast majority are financial and convenience issues. The fact that we’ve built up a society where men, by and large, have made women feel like they cannot afford to do what their body naturally does, which is to give birth to children.”
If you’re still reading this, it means you haven’t thrown your laptop across the room. Kudos!
Quick hits:
The abortion rate is increasing in Colorado, largely due to out-of-state patients;
Robin Chappelle Golston, president of Planned Parenthood Empire State Acts talks about the state of abortion rights in New York;
And more on Texas’ increasing sepsis rate among pregnant women in Spectrum News and The New Republic.
‘Equal Protection’ Strikes Again
Kentucky is now the seventh state this year to consider punishing abortion patients as murderers. House Bill 523 would require prosecutors to charge women who end their pregnancies in the same way they would in a homicide case. While Kentucky does have the death penalty, it’s on hold and no one has been executed since 2008—though that’s hardly reassuring.
This legislative session alone, we’ve seen ‘equal protection’ bills in Idaho, Indiana, South Carolina, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Texas. (The bills in Oklahoma and North Dakota recently failed.) This legislation is drafted and pushed by an extremist faction of the anti-abortion movement that calls itself abortion ‘abolitionists.’
And while Republicans continue to claim that these men are outliers, we sure are seeing a lot of their legislation lately!
And remember—this was one of my 2025 predictions. I warned that these so-called ‘abolitionists’ would go mainstream. I don’t usually hate being right, but I definitely do right now.
Criminalizing Care
I really loved this CNN profile of Dr Maggie Carpenter, the New York abortion provider being targeted by Republicans in Texas and Louisiana. In a moment when we’re mostly hearing about Dr. Carpenter’s work because of how she’s being criminalized, it’s really lovely and important to remember what a fantastic person and provider she is.
One Texas woman who sought out Dr. Carpenter said, “I was terrified. I didn’t know who to go to. I didn’t know who to tell.” Now, the young woman says, “I feel proud of her, I’m just very grateful that there are women like her.”
Another patient, Maya Gottfried, credits Dr. Carpenter—then her primary care physician—with saving her life. Gottfried says Dr. Carpenter “actually listened” to her complaints about abdominal pain and sent her to a specialist who diagnosed her with colorectal cancer. “Dr. Maggie is an example of what I would hope every doctor would aspire to be,” she said.
And Dr. Ingrid Frengle-Burke, Carpenter’s best friend and former colleague, calls her “an inspiration, a hero, a fierce advocate for her patients.” She continues, “If doing that makes a person a criminal, then I think we should all be criminals.”
To support Dr. Carpenter, consider donating to her organization, the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, here.
In the Nation
The National Women’s Law Center outlines the actions Trump has taken so far in 2025 to limit abortion and reproductive rights;
US News on how RFK could restrict abortion rights from his new post at the HHS;
Salon lays out a step-by-step timeline of what happens when you ban abortion and restrict women’s ability to get reproductive healthcare;
And The New York Times reports that a manufacturer of abortion medication is entering the legal fight over the FDA rules on the drug. (More from me on this tomorrow.)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Beyond abortion: A timeline of reproductive health care and the true impact on women and society
The conversations and debates over reproductive rights in America have long been centered on abortion. However, the fight for reproductive justice extends far beyond access to abortion — it encompasses the full spectrum of reproductive health, including contraception, pregnancy, childbirth, postpartum care, and more.
Beyond the moral and political arguments, there is a profound lack of awareness about how these policies — shaped in Washington, state legislatures, and the courts — impact not only women’s health but also the economy, workforce, family structures, health care costs, and the well-being of future generations.
Related
This is not just about personal choice; it is about national stability, economic sustainability, and the future of public health. If we continue to narrowly define reproductive care and ignore the dire consequences of inadequate services for women, we will see an escalating national crisis — one that threatens not only individual lives but also the country’s economic and health care systems as a whole.
Phase one: The wastelands of women’s health care
Even before the fall of Roe v. Wade, the United States was already in the midst of a reproductive health care crisis. Over 35% of counties nationwide qualify as maternity care deserts — areas with no hospitals providing obstetric care, no birthing centers, and no OB-GYNs available. Women in these regions face higher maternal and infant mortality rates, increased risks of preterm birth, and limited access to contraception and family planning services.
Even before the fall of Roe v. Wade, the United States was already in the midst of a reproductive health care crisis.
The looming policies of the new administration threaten to exacerbate this crisis. Proposed cuts to Medicaid expansion and nutritional support programs for low-income pregnant women could further restrict access to essential maternal health care. Research has shown that states with Medicaid expansion have significantly lower maternal mortality rates, while non-expansion states have higher rates of pregnancy-related deaths. Without these critical services, the health care gap between wealthy and low-income mothers will widen, worsening disparities in birth outcomes and long-term health for both mothers and children.
Phase two: The expansion of abortion bans and medication restrictions
With a conservative majority in the Supreme Court and anti-abortion activists emboldened, the current administration is expected to push policies that further restrict reproductive health care. The enforcement of the Comstock Act could ban the mailing of abortion pills nationwide, even in states where abortion remains legal. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood faces further defunding, cutting off access to birth control, cancer screenings, and STI treatment.
In addition, there are growing challenges health care providers face in offering tele-health abortion services across state lines, particularly in states with restrictive abortion laws. As these laws evolve, tele-health providers are increasingly exposed to legal risks, leading to hesitation and a chilling effect on reproductive care delivery. A landmark case has already set a precedent: a New York-based doctor was criminally indicted in Louisiana for prescribing abortion pills to a patient in a state where abortion is banned. Legal experts predict this case will escalate to the Supreme Court, where a conservative majority could rule that states have the power to extend their abortion bans beyond their borders.
Phase three: The collapse of maternal and postpartum care
One of the most underreported consequences of banning abortion in the United States is how forced births will devastate maternal and postpartum care. The U.S. already has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed nations, and ongoing restrictions on reproductive health care will worsen outcomes for both mothers and children.
As more women are forced to carry high-risk pregnancies to term without adequate prenatal care, rates of gestational diabetes, preeclampsia and postpartum hemorrhaging will increase — leading to lifelong health complications and even death.
Related
Maternal mental health is the primary complication associated with childbirth and one of the leading causes of maternal mortality in the United States, which will make the consequences even more severe. Perinatal mood and anxiety disorders (PMADs), which already affect 1 in 5 women — are projected to skyrocket as more women are forced into pregnancies they did not plan or cannot afford. Women with unintended pregnancies are twice as likely to experience postpartum depression at 12 months compared to those with intended pregnancies, even after adjusting for factors like age, poverty and education level. Additionally, the American Psychological Association reports that individuals who are denied abortions are more likely to experience higher levels of anxiety, lower life satisfaction, and lower self-esteem.
Catherine Birndorf, MD, a reproductive psychiatrist and founder of The Motherhood Center of New York, warns: "Whatever you believe about a woman's right to have an abortion, the irrefutable medical fact is that forced pregnancy — when a woman or girl becomes pregnant without seeking or desiring it, and abortion is denied, hindered, delayed or made difficult — will profoundly increase the number of perinatal mood and anxiety disorders in women and birthing people, also commonly known as postpartum depression.”
And it won’t just affect mothers — children born to mothers with untreated PMADs face a greater risk of developmental delays, emotional instability, behavioral and cognitive impairments, and higher rates of substance use disorder and economic hardship later in life. According to Dr. Birndorf, “When left untreated, PMADs not only impact mental health but also contribute to long-term physical illnesses that can lead to epigenetic changes that can affect women, their children, and their families for generations.”
Phase four: Economic fallout and the rising cost of inaction
The failure to invest in postpartum care is already destabilizing families, driving women out of the workforce, and creating long-term illness in mothers and children — consequences that will ripple across generations. As more mothers are forced to give birth without access to comprehensive reproductive health care, both mental and physical, the crisis will only deepen. Many will face long-term disability, chronic pain, or severe mental health struggles, making it difficult to return to work or care for their children. Household incomes will decline, workforce shortages will intensify, and reliance on government assistance will increase.
But the crisis will not end with mothers. Their children of women with untreated PMADS will face lifelong health consequences, requiring costly special education services, medical interventions, and mental health support. These challenges will persist across generations, compounding economic instability and widening health disparities.
We need your help to stay independent
Furthermore, without investment in proper postpartum care, hospitalization costs will soar from emergency room visits to inpatient stays — a crushing financial strain on hospitals, particularly in states that restrict reproductive health care but fail to invest in maternal health. Medicaid and social services will also need to absorb the rising financial strain of treating preventable postpartum conditions which can overwhelm both state and federal budgets.
A call to action: Reproductive health care is an economic imperative
The short and long-term consequences of restricting reproductive health care will ripple across this nation — from escalating education and welfare expenses to rising poverty and deteriorating maternal and infant health outcomes. States mandating births without ensuring postpartum health care funding will face deepening economic instability and widening health inequities.
This is no longer just a women’s health issue — it is an economic and public health emergency that demands immediate action. If policymakers fail to act now, the cost to our health care system, workforce and economy will be catastrophic. Investing in comprehensive reproductive care is not just a political choice; it is a national necessity.
