Trump Regime Makes Further Attacks on Reproductive Healthcare and Women's Rights in his Vicious Version of American Society

1). “The Trump Administration Says IUDs and the Pill Are Abortions”, Sep 12, 2025, Jessica Valenti & Kylie Cheung, Abortion, Every Day, at < https://jessica.substack.com/p/trump-birth-control-abortion >.

2). “Meta is Censoring Abortion Pill Information”, Jessica Valenti & Kylie Cheung, Sep 15, 2025, Abortion, Every Day, at < https://jessica.substack.com/p/meta-censoring-abortion-information >.

3). “Texas and Florida Could Force Trump to Take a Stance in an Abortion Pill Case: They’re trying to join a case that anti-abortion advocates kicked off under the Biden administration”, Sep 15, 2025, Oriana González, NOTUS, at < https://www.notus.org/courts/texas-florida-abortion-pill-case > .

4). “Groups Fight for 'Permanently Defunded' Planned Parenthood after GOP Bill's One-Year Funding Cuts”, Sep 15, 2025, Maddie Gannon, Spectrum News, at < https://spectrumlocalnews.com/me/maine/news/2025/09/15/groups-behind--defund--planned-parenthood-effort-pledge-more-to-come-after-gop-bill-halts-funds-for-one-year-abortion-trump >.

5). “GOP states try new ways to target abortion pills and telehealth: By the end of 2024, 1 in 4 abortions were provided via telehealth”, Sep 11, 2025, Anna Claire Vollers, Stateline, at < https://stateline.org/2025/09/11/gop-states-try-new-ways-to-target-abortion-pills-and-telehealth/ >

6). “Texas bill to restrict abortion pills beefs up an existing legal tool for a new fight: HB 7, which passed the Legislature this month, allows private citizens to sue abortion pill providers and manufacturers, mirroring a 2021 law that allows private enforcement of abortion bans”, Sep 12, 2025, Jessica Shuran Yu, Texas Tribune, at < https://www.texastribune.org/2025/09/12/texas-abortion-pill-private-lawsuits-legal-fight/ >.

7). “What to know about a Texas bill to let residents sue out-of-state abortion pill providers”, Aug 29, 2025, Geoff Mulvihill, Associated Press, (AP), at < https://apnews.com/article/abortion-pills-providers-lawsuits-texas-bill-9065c2322e3cbe0135292c5c36e49390 >.

8). “State lawmakers call for legislature to restore funding for Abortion Access Project”, Sep 9, 2025, Mitchell Roland, The Spokesman Review, at < https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2025/sep/09/state-lawmakers-call-for-legislature-to-restore-fu/ >.

~~ recommended by dmorista ~~

Introduction by dmorista: In conjunction with the latest wave of political repression against anybody not willing to fawn over the memory of Right-wing Hate monger Charlie Kirk; a new wave of Reproductive Healthcare repression is forming up. As reported by the intrepid Jessica Valenti and Kylie Cheung in Item 1)., “The Trump Administration ....”, the Trump Regime's spokespeople have declared that the most common forms of birth control, hormonal birth control pills and IUD's, are not actually contraceptives but instead are “Abortofacients”. This despite the fact that this is scientifically and factually DEAD WRONG!! And the malignant role of the internet, as controlled largely by a loathsome cabal of billionaire “Tech Bros”, who are concerned that the U.S. Human Fertility rate has fallen to a record low (1.7 children / woman / lifetime for the entire female population and even lower at 1.4 children / woman / lifetime if the fertility of only “native-born” {of whatever race or ethnic group} women are measured). Replacement human female fertility is 2.1 children / woman / lifetime The censorship and interference against feminist websites providing reproductive healthcare information is discussed at some length in Item 2)., “Meta is Censoring ....”. We must remember that the main interest in children, of the reactionary billionaire “Tech Bros”, is to provide low-wage workers to exploit, cannon fodder to send to fight their wars, and sexual objects for them to abuse in company with our Sex Criminal President and his perverted associates.

Texas, acting in it's self assumed Fascist Vanguard Role, has passed a new Vigilante-Bounty Hunter law to try to repress the ongoing number of Abortion Pills flowing into the leading Dark Ages Red State from more enlightened Blue States; Blue States that have shield laws to protect the physicians who respond to the hundreds of thousands of requests from women who live in the Texas, the leading Dark Ages Red States who, for a wide variety of reasons, want to terminate pregnancies.

The ongoing attacks on women who want to use modern methods of contraception and when necessary abortion care have centered in attacks on Planned Parenthood. Various aspects of recent development in the struggle around Planned Parenthood and the provision of Medication Abortion (that now accounts for 2/3 of all abortions in the U.S.) are reported in Items 3 - 8

The fact is that not just the U.S., but all other developed countries and an increasing number of developing countries, have female fertility rates that are below replacement. At a fertility rate of 1.4 the U.S. is in the middle of the pack. The lowest human fertility rates are in South Korea and Taiwan. Both were right around 1.0 children / woman / lifetime, then after a well known murder of a young woman by Korean version of a “manosphere” women in South Korea began a “sex strike” known as the 4 Bs movement. Some reports say the that drove human fertility rate in S. Korea to 0.751 children / woman / lifetime. Maybe, as concubines might get harder to find, Elon Musk should plan on filling his Mars Rocket with inflatable love dolls!!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Trump Administration Says IUDs and the Pill Are Abortions

9.12.25

---

By Jessica Valenti, Kylie Cheung

9 min. read

View original

---

Click to skip ahead: The White House Says Birth Control Is Abortion surfaces a quote that people aren’t paying nearly enough attention to. Republicans Seek to End Title Xreports that the House has passed a bill that eliminates the nation’s family planning program. California Passes Key Protection for Providershas great news about the state’s expanded shield law. Court Ruling Allows Planned Parenthood ‘Defunding’ is, unfortunately, exactly what it sounds like. In the Nation digs further into the House appropriations bill. In the States, news from Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas, and more.

The White House Says Birth Control is Abortion

Today, the Trump administration told The New York Times that IUDs, hormonal implants, and the Pill are actually abortions. We’ve been waiting for this to happen.

For years, Abortion, Every Day warned that Republicans would try to ban birth control by twisting language—redefining certain contraceptives as ‘abortifacients’. It’s their best bet at staving off voter outrage: pretending that they’re opposing abortion, not birth control.

Up until recently, conservative lawmakers and activists did this behind-the-scenes—slipping the fake definition into a lawsuit here, a policy there. But they’ve been getting bolder since Trump took office. And today, they stopped pretending:

In a statement to The New York Times about the administration’s plan to destroy $10 million in birth control meant for women abroad, U.S.A.I.D. offered this statement:

“President Trump is committed to protecting the lives of unborn children all around the world. The administration will no longer supply abortifacient birth control under the guise of foreign aid.”

That’s right, abortifacient birth control. (To be clear: Abortions end a pregnancy, birth control prevents one—abortifacient birth control is not a thing.)

So what kind of birth control does the Trump administration consider abortion? Well, the contraception awaiting incineration includes IUDs, birth control pills, and hormonal implants.

There’s no overstating how important this is. A Trump administration official just said, on the record, that the president believes some of the most common forms of birth control are abortions. Think about what that means: does the White House believe those types of contraception are illegal in states with abortion bans? Or that they should be?

This wasn’t a mistake, an error, or a misunderstanding about what kinds of drugs are being held in this warehouse: U.S.A.I.D. is currently being run by anti-abortion extremist Russ Vought, head of the White House Office of Management and Budget. Vought was a key contributor to Project 2025, the policy director of the GOP platform writing committee, and a guy Students for Life has called, “Trump’s most pro-life cabinet member.”

So yeah, they want to ban birth control.

The term used in the U.S.A.I.D. statement—”abortifacient birth control”—is also telling. I first flagged the termabortifacient contraceptives back in 2023, when it showed up in a lawsuit brought by an Oregon anti-abortion group that didn’t want to cover employees’ birth control. Just last year, the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a near-identical suit in Washington, again claiming IUDs and emergency contraception were abortions.

This isn’t some theoretical strategy; it’s already shaping policy. In 2023, for example, Indiana lawmakers tried to pass a bipartisan bill to increase contraception access—but after being lobbied by local anti-abortion activists, Republicans stripped all language referring to IUDs, claiming they were abortifacients. Republican Rep. Cindy Ledbetter said the bill was changed because “we are a strong pro-life state.”

This is exactly why language is so important, and why we’ve been so dogged about tracking anti-abortion strategy—they truly think no one will notice what they’re up to. And if mainstream outlets don’t catch on, they just might be right.

I know political news is moving quickly right now, but this deserves front-page attention: the Trump administration has officially said it believes birth control is abortion. Surely that should set off a few alarms!

Abortion, Every Day is working hard to surface the stories that other outlets ignore or get wrong. But we rely on reader subscriptions to operate. If you can swing $6 a month or $60 a year, please consider becoming a paying member today:

Become a Member

Republicans Seek to End Title X

Again—the Trump administration’s attack on birth control isn’t just rhetorical, and it isn’t some future danger: On Wednesday, the House Appropriations Committee advanced a bill that sweepingly eliminates Title X funding—entirely.

Remember, Title X is the nation’s only federal family planning program. It provides affordable reproductive health care—birth control, STI testing, cancer screenings—primarily to low-income and uninsured patients. It’s also a vital safety net: Six in 10 women who visit a publicly funded clinic consider it their usual source of medical care; for four in 10, it’s their only source.

This isn’t the first time the GOP has tried to strip Americans of access to contraception; Republicans have tried repeatedly to gut or eliminate Title X. But advocates are getting more concerned. One Indiana-based activist told AED, "There have always been threats to Title X funding, but this current administration is not messing around anymore or making compromise—and so we should be worried when they say what they are going to do.”

As we’ve noted many, many times before: Republicans don’t need a law that says birth control is illegal—they just need to make it impossible to get.

California Passes Key Protection for Providers

We still have more unfortunate news to pass on about that House appropriations bill and a Planned Parenthood court ruling—so before we dig deeper into the shit, let’s take a break for some objectively terrific news: California has passed AB 260, which will allow abortion providers to keep their names off of prescription labels for abortion medication!

As we’ve noted before, this is a crucially-needed privacy protection. Republicans are ramping up their attacks on abortion providers who ship abortion pills into anti-choice states—bringing civil suits, criminal charges, and emboldening violence against providers and clinics. This law will make it that much harder for zealous prosecutors, activists, and AGs to target providers.

And while other pro-choice states have enacted similar laws, abortion rights advocates have been especially eager for the legislation in California. As NPR noted this week, most providers aren’t shipping abortion pills themselves—they’re relying on pharmacies in California. "We're really the main hub for mailing abortion pills," Honeybee Health’s Jessica Nouhavandi told NPR. “Almost everything comes out of California.”

Even more good news: AB 260 also protects patients, allowing them to keep their name off prescription labels. It’s a protection that’s especially important to those in abusive and controlling relationships, and may help with any future legislation that targets patients. (After all, Republicans are increasingly introducing “equal protection” bills that would punish abortion patients as murderers.)

We’re living in scary times, and we need legislation like this more than ever—everywhere.

Court Ruling Allows Planned Parenthood ‘Defunding’

On Thursday, the First Circuit Court ruled that the Trump administration can enforce the “defund” portion of Republicans’ federal budget law, which bars organizations that provide abortion services from receiving Medicaid funds.

You may remember that a federal district court had issued a preliminary injunction blocking this portion of the bill from being enforced—but this most recent ruling granted a stay of that injunction. That means up to 200 Planned Parenthood clinics across the U.S. are now at risk of closure, and over 1.1 million Planned Parenthood patients will be denied basic health services.

We covered the far-ranging impacts of the defund provision earlier this summer: One in four abortion providers across the country could be forced to shutter—many in states where abortion is legal. The short version? It’s a backdoor national abortion ban:

In the Nation

While we’re trudging through bad news, let’s swing back to that House appropriations bill. In addition to eliminating Title X, Republicans are also seeking to end the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, prohibit Medicaid coverage of abortion, expand on the devastating Weldon Amendment, and interfere with postgraduate abortion training for medical students.

Congress will need to pass the appropriations bill by September 30, or we could face government shutdown. That’s right: With the government’s ability to remain open on the line, Republicans are focusing on stripping reproductive care from low-income people and pushing for more teens to get pregnant. After all, as Planned Parenthood notes, not only does the appropriations bill eliminate funding for TPPP—but it continues to fund abstinence-only sex education programs.

This, all while top conservatives are growing more and more obsessed with national fertility rates, sperm counts of young men, and seemingly more determined than ever to make children give birth. Happy Friday!

This may not be the final version of the appropriations bill that Congress passes—but it’s telling and terrifying that this is the agenda Republicans want: one with more teen pregnancies and no funding for life-saving reproductive health care.

Need a palate cleanser? Rewire spoke to Dr. Shelley Sella, author of Beyond Limits: Stories of Third-Trimester Abortion Care. If you want more of the brilliant Dr. Sella, watch AED’s livestream conversation with her here.

In the States

Missouri abortion advocates and providers were in court this week, fighting to legalize abortion medication. And yes, you are remembering correctly: Missouri voters did pass a pro-choice amendment meant to protect abortion rights! But GOP leaders don’t give a shit about what voters want, and they’ve been working to undo Amendment 3 since November. (They’ve even launched another ballot measure asking voters to ban abortion—using the name ‘Amendment 3’ in an effort to trick Missourians.)

With abortion medication, Republicans mandated a state-approved “complication plan”—claiming that the pills are dangerous. That’s why the ACLU of Missouri and two Planned Parenthood providers were in court this week, pointing out that the requirement has nothing to do with patient safety and everything to do with undermining the wishes of voters. In fact, the groups said that they actually provided the state with a “complication plan”—but instead of responding, state leaders created a new “emergency rule” to continue the block on the pills.

From Emily Wales, president of Planned Parenthood Great Plains:

“The state is attempting to bury in baloney what we all know to be true: medication abortion is standard reproductive health care, unquestionably protected by the state's constitution. Missourians don't just deserve better—they are entitled to it.”

We’ll keep you updated as the case moves forward. For more about the attacks on democracy in Missouri—and the groups fighting to get patients care anyway—read this terrific guest column from the Missouri Abortion Fund:

Meanwhile, over in Pennsylvania, Republican gubernatorial candidate Stacy Garrity is trying to thread the needle on abortion. POLITICO reports that the state treasurer—who always held the anti-choice party line—now claims that she won’t support a state ban. She even suddenly stopped selling anti-abortion merch: her campaign website took down its “Born to be Pro-Life” onesies and “Defund Planned Parenthood” t-shirts. (Charming.)

Garrity is doing what we’ve seen from lots of Republicans these days: claiming that she’s somehow ‘moderate’ and ‘in the middle’ on the issue. But none of it is authentic: when POLITICO first asked her about her abortion stance, she panicked and asked if she could call the reporter back. Then she sent a predictable statement about “respect[ing] the current law on the books.” Here’s the real tell, though:

“I believe in the dignity of every human life, but I have always supported exceptions for rape, incest and to protect the life of the mother.”

That’s the new party line: Republicans truly believe the ‘three exceptions’ are their best way through voters’ ire over abortion bans. That’s why we need to remind people—again and again—that exceptions aren’t real, and that these maniacs don’t believe in them anyway.

Besides, if candidates really want to talk about exceptions, ask them how they believe the state should determine who is a ‘real’ rape victim. Ask them what ‘life of the mother’ really means. I’m curious to see if any of them will have a good answer.

Finally, the Texas Tribune digs into HB 7—the nightmare anti-abortion bill expected to be signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott any day now. The legislation allows citizens to sue anyone who mails abortion pills into the state for at least $100,000. (Really, anyone who touches the pills could be targeted: manufacturers, hotline operators, even a friend who picks up the pills from a PO Box.)

As we’ve warned previously, the real goal here is to create a chilling effect that scares providers out of sending abortion medication into Texas. And John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, confirms exactly that to the Tribune:

“If litigation is necessary, we will bring that and we have a specific legal strategy given House Bill 7 that we will follow to overcome the limits of the shield law. Our side hopes that this [bill] is a deterrent rather than needing to bring litigation.”

Everything they do is about fear and intimidation.

Quick hits:

• New Orleans Public Radio reports that more states are expected to follow Louisiana’s lead and make abortion medication a controlled substance;

• A Texas lawyer pens an op-ed for The Dallas Morning News arguing that the state’s newest abortion law is unconstitutional;

• New Jersey Planned Parenthood has launched a new telehealth medication abortion center;

• And we’re starting to see ads about abortion pop up in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court race.

“The assumption that a parent is always the safest and most trusted person in an adolescent’s life is a falsehood. Sometimes parents are abusive. Sometimes the parent is the perpetrator of sexual assault. For these patients, requiring parental involvement can be dangerous.”

- Dr. Laura Dalton, chief medical operating officer for Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, Ms. magazine

One more thing before you go: since everyone is talking about political rhetoric, debate, and ‘free speech’, I just wanted to re-up this piece I wrote last month about the danger of platforming extremists. If you missed the column when it first published, I think you’ll find it especially relevant this week.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Meta is Censoring Abortion Pill Information

9.15.25

By Jessica Valenti, Kylie Cheung

9 min. readView original

Click to skip ahead: 

Abortion Censorship on the Rise

 highlights a new report showing that social media platforms are increasingly blocking content about abortion pills—even when they don’t violate the rules. 

Attacks on Planned Parenthood

 has news from Ohio, Oregon, and Maine. 

In the States

has news from Arizona, California, Kentucky, and Tennessee. In 

Ask Them to Define Birth Control

, a request for reporters and media outlets. 

The Quickie

 has an under-6-minute video breaking down last week’s top stories. 

Bans Linked to Increased Crime

shares a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research. 

What ‘Pro-Life’ Looks Like

 relays reporting on pregnant women in ICE detention centers. And 

In the Nation

, quick hits on the latest GOP attacks on abortion pills, and a podcast deep dive into telehealth.

Abortion Censorship on the Rise

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) just dropped a vital report on social media censorship of abortion information: the group found that despite insisting their policies haven’t changed, platforms like Meta are increasingly taking down abortion-related content—especially posts about abortion pills.

What’s more, when EFF investigated nearly 100 examples of blocked content, they found that almost none actually violated platform policies.

The most common kind of censorship happened when a user shared basic information about abortion medication. One health policy strategist had her Threads post removed, for example, after explaining the shelf life of abortion pills and sharing that they’re available by mail. Meta claimed it was because “[they] don’t allow people to buy, sell, or exchange drugs that require a prescription from a doctor or a pharmacist.”

A Minnesota abortion clinic had its entire Facebook account suspended for the same reason. Tammi Kromenaker from the Red River Women’s Clinic told the Associated Press, “We were not trying to sell drugs; we were just informing our followers about a service, a legal service that we offer.”

Again, Meta claims that their policies haven’t changed—but here at AED, we started to notice a crackdown almost immediately after Trump’s inauguration. Remember our reporting from back in January? We found that Instagram was blocking and blurring content from Aid Access, one of the most important abortion pill providers in the country.

It’s not just Meta, though: EFF found censorship across platforms—from TikTok to LinkedIn.

Right now, access and information is everything. And while conservatives try to ban abortion pills, they know the next best thing is to make it impossible for people to find out how to get them. And that’s all happening at the same time that Republican-led states like Texas are passing legislation to allow people to sue providers, distributors—and even websites and social platforms. As those civil suits become more common, we can expect more platforms will kowtow to pressure.

By the way, that’s exactly why AED has started to make plans about how we can communicate with you offline, if necessary. If censorship worsens—or if speaking plainly about abortion becomes risky—we want to be prepared. I’ll share details soon, but I want you to know we’re thinking ahead.

In the meantime, make sure you’re keeping track of EFF’s “Stop Censoring Abortion” campaign here.

Attacks on Planned Parenthood

I’m very sorry to say that as of today, Ohio Planned Parenthood clinics can no longer serve Medicaid patients. As we reported last week, a judge has allowed Republicans to cut off Medicaid funding from Planned Parenthood clinics as the case is battled out in court.

For Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio (PPGOH), the ruling means that the nearly 22,000 Medicaid patients who rely on their clinics for care may not be able to get vital healthcare services. The group says their doors will remain open, however, and that they’ll still offer discounts and payment plans to help ensure patients can still access care. President Erica Wilson-Domer says, “Planned Parenthood has always been committed to providing health care regardless of a patient’s financial circumstances.”

PPGOH tells patients to call 1-800-230-PLAN if they have questions, or for information on how to pay.

Planned Parenthood clinics across the country are facing similar struggles: In Maine, where Planned Parenthood of Northern New England faces a $1 million cut, the group says they’re exploring other funding options to tide them over. Oregon Planned Parenthood clinics say the same: they’re looking for alternate funding while the issue is heard out in court.

In the States

Arizona Republicans are trying to stop doctors from suing over abortion restrictions in the state, claiming that they don’t have legal standing and that the restrictions should remain.

Remember—Arizona voters passed a pro-choice ballot measure in November that protects abortion rights until ‘viability.’ Still, GOP leaders have been in court for months arguing that restrictions—like a 24-hour waiting period and ultrasound mandates—remain constitutional.

Today we learn that top Republican lawmakers are asking a judge to toss the legal challenge to those restrictions—arguing that the doctors who brought the suit don’t have standing. “They must show that there’s a real threat of prosecution in order for their lawsuit to succeed,” attorney Justin Smith said.

In fact, Smith—who is representing Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro—claims that because Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has promised not to charge abortion providers, these doctors have nothing to worry about.

It’s an especially hilarious argument when you realize that Petersen is actually running for attorney general; so if he wins, I imagine he’ll be pretty eager to charge abortion providers!

Luckily, the judge didn’t seem convinced by Republicans’ argument, asking, “Are they supposed to violate the law so that they can find out whether it’s enforceable or not?” Lol.

We’ll keep you updated as the case moves forward, but just consider this yet another reminder that Republicans do not care what voters want—they just want to ban abortion. (And fuck democracy if it stands in their way.)

Meanwhile, over in Kentucky—where abortion is banned and a 21-year-old woman faces the threat of prison time over a nebulous ‘abuse of a corpse’ charge—the state reports that there were no abortions in the state between April and June. This seems…unlikely. Reports from organizations like the Guttmacher Institute and the Society of Family Planning’s #WeCount project indicate that abortion has persisted—and even increased—in banned states since Dobbs. That’s in large part thanks to abortion medication, telehealth, and shield laws.

Oh—and Kentucky law requires abortions to be reported to the Office of Vital Statistics within three days of the end of the month in which the abortion occurred. Just another chilling example of the national reproductive police state. (Remember what we reported about Oklahoma last month?)

This is wild: it was just this summer that Tennessee passed the Fertility Treatment and Contraceptive Protection Act, becoming the only state in the South to pass a law protecting birth control and IVF access. But audio of an anti-abortion strategy session reveals that state legislators and Gov. Bill Lee plan to gut the law or repeal it entirely.

Rachel Wells at TN Repro News—who you should be following if you don’t already—reports that the call took place the morning after the law was signed, and included (among others) Will Brewer of Tennessee Right to Life and Rep. Monty Fritts.

On the call, Brewer says that Gov. Lee’s staff assured him the governor only signed the bill to prevent bad press, and that the governor plans to ‘fix’ the bill next year. Brewer also lays out how Republicans should present a unified front to ensure they can repeal the law without a lot of public debate or media attention.

Wondering why an anti-abortion activist is dictating what Tennessee lawmakers do? Well, Brewer has an awful lot of power in the state: back in 2022 and 2023, Abortion, Every Dayreported often on his batshit lobbying efforts to stop state lawmakers from adopting an abortion ban exception for women’s lives. (He insisted that pregnancy complications often just “work themselves out” and that doctors should be forced to “pause and wait this out and see how it goes.”)

Tennessee Right to Life eventually forced Republicans to water down the ‘exception’ to the point of uselessness. Read Wells’ full report for more, and chalk this up as more proof they were never going to stop at abortion.

Quick hits:

New Jersey Right to Life penned an op-ed opposing New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Mikie Sherrill, which is actually a terrific reason to support her;

And Washington Democrats are pressing for the restoration of state funding for a program that supported abortion clinics and patients.

Ask Them to Define Birth Control

Attacks on birth control aren’t just happening in Tennessee: just last week, I reported that the Trump administration was defining the most common kinds of contraception as ‘abortifacients’, and that Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett seemed to indicate she believed emergency contraception and IUDs were up to the state.

We’ve watched this sort of thing happen for years: conservative lawmakers, leaders, and activists conflate birth control with abortion without major pushback. Or they claim to support access to contraception without clarifying what, exactly, they think contraception is.

Right now, the stakes couldn’t be higher: we need reporters to start asking Republicans precicely what they mean when they say they support ‘birth control.’

What kinds of birth control are they talking about? Do they think oral contraception, emergency contraception, and all kinds of IUDs are birth control? Are there any forms of contraception that they don’t support? Do they believe there is such a thing as ‘abortifacient birth control’?

It’s vital that reporters, editors, and newsroom leaders understand anti-abortion language games. Remember what happened in the lead-up to November? Donald Trump and JD Vance scored headline after headline declaring the pair didn’t support a national abortion ban, because media outlets didn’t understand what a ‘minimum national standard’ was.

With birth control access on the line, let’s not make the same mistake twice.

The Quickie

Last week was a shit show. If you weren’t paying attention to abortion rights news—or didn’t get a chance to read The Week in Abortion—I did a quick and dirty rundown of everything you need to know. Also: videos like this are easy to share if you know someone who might want to stay updated. (Here’s the TikTok version for those who prefer that platform.)

Bans Linked to Increased Crime

This is interesting: A new paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research reports a link between barriers to abortion care and increased rates of property crime. Researchers found that after Texas passed a 2013 law that shuttered half the state’s abortion clinics, there was a rise in crime like burglary, motor vehicle theft, and robbery.

They posit that the rise in “financially motivated crime” could be due to the economic strain abortion restrictions place on families:

“We provide novel evidence that increases in travel distance also result in significant declines in labor force participation, elevated debt-to-income ratios, rising income inequality, higher mortgage delinquency, and more evictions, all of which reflect increased economic hardship.”

All Things Considered has a short segment on the study, if you’d like to learn more.

What ‘Pro-Life’ Looks Like

The Cut’s Andrea González-Ramírez recently spoke to a midwife serving pregnant women in ICE detention centers, and the stories are just devastating. According to Amanda Heffernan, one pregnant woman lost 25 pounds in the span of a month; another had a stillbirth while in custody in Louisiana; and a woman at a detainment center in Tacoma has been incarcerated for half her pregnancy and separated from her two-year-old child. She hasn’t had a single visit with an actual obstetric provider despite being 14 weeks into her pregnancy, and has been denied adequate medical care and healthy food.

It goes without saying that living conditions in ICE detention centers are awful for everyone—but it’s clear they’re distinctly awful and dangerous for pregnant women.

In other ‘pro-life’ news, The Daily Beast reports that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem cruelly misidentified an immigrant woman grieving a recent stillbirth, falsely claiming this woman was charged with homicide.

In May, Iris Dayana Monterroso-Lemus shared how she spent three days in ICE custody—starved and denied basic medical care—while miscarrying a nonviable fetus at 20 weeks. The mother of six was deported to Guatemala shortly after. That’s when Noem’s DHS launched a smear campaign against the woman, claiming that ICE did provide her with medical care, and that she had faced an active homicide warrant in Guatemala.

The message to immigrant women was clear: come forward with your stories of mistreatment, and we’ll assassinate your character.

To read more about the link between ICE, reproductive rights, and the anti-abortion movement, read Kylie’s column below:

In the Nation

Stateline has a good rundown of the ways that Republicans are going after abortion pills—including citizen lawsuits, restrictions on telehealth, and reclassifying abortion medication as a controlled substance.

Spectrum reports that anti-abortion groups aren’t satisfied with Republicans’ year-long ban on Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood—they want the organization decimated. (In particularly disgusting news, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America has a tracker for shuttered PP clinics. I suppose we should thank them: now we have a premade list of places to study for increases in maternal and infant mortality, STI spikes, and teen pregnancy outbreaks.)

NOTUS looks at the latest in the mifepristone lawsuit—pointing out that Texas and Florida joining makes the legal attack more likely to move forward. If you want more info, make sure to read AED’s explainer of the suit here.

Finally, if you’re looking for something to listen to today, NPR’s podcast “1A” digs into the future of telehealth access to abortions:

That’s it for today, folks—we hope everyone had a good weekend despite the hellscape, and that you spent some time talking to friends and family about abortion.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Texas and Florida Could Force Trump to Take a Stance in an Abortion Pill Case

They’re trying to join a case that anti-abortion advocates kicked off under the Biden administration.

---

By Oriana González

4 min. read

View original

---

Texas and Florida’s attorneys general could soon put the Trump administration in an awkward position over a Biden-era abortion pill case, if a federal judge allows the states to join the lawsuit.

The Supreme Court last year unanimously dismissed the original lawsuit brought by a coalition of anti-abortion groups known as the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine because it lacked standing and sent the case back to the lower courts. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that the coalition’s opposition to abortion pills did not amount to actual harm. AHM then dropped the lawsuit, and three GOP-led states — Missouri, Kansas and Idaho — took it over.

The Trump administration, which inherited the case from the Biden administration, has been defending mifepristone only on procedural grounds, arguing that the three states’ lawsuit cannot continue because none of them is located where the court presiding over the case is: Texas.

But now the attorneys general of Texas and Florida, Ken Paxton and James Uthmeier, are entering the fray.

“It fixes the venue question, plain and simple,” Steven Aden, chief legal officer and general counsel for the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life, which is not involved in the lawsuit, told NOTUS. “The weakness of the venue case for [Missouri, Idaho and Kansas], obviously, was that none of them was Texas.”

Texas and Florida’s attorneys general are arguing that they must be involved in the lawsuit because their interests “may no longer be adequately represented” by the current plaintiffs. Missouri now protects abortion rights in its Constitution, and abortion rights activists in Idaho are beginning the process of adding an abortion rights constitutional amendment to the state’s ballot in 2026.

The Trump administration, the defendant in the case, cannot drop or withdraw from the lawsuit. That there are other defendants in the case — two abortion pill manufacturers — makes it much less likely that the administration could enter a settlement with the plaintiff states to quickly end the case.

Texas and Florida’s potential involvement puts the Trump administration in a difficult position: having to defend a drug that the federal government has avoided taking a clear position on. Mifepristone is endorsed and considered safe and effective by major medical organizations. But Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy has cast doubt on its safety and recently said the Food and Drug Administration will review the drug. A formal review would likely be the only way for the administration to get out of the case.

“It’s a political football,” Aden told NOTUS. “I think they’re looking at what HHS is doing with regard to the labeling of mifepristone, and politically, they believe that what HHS does will be sufficient to mollify the conservative movement and the pro-life faction.”

“I think that’s their political calculus, and that’s why they filed the motion initially to have the suit dismissed from Texas, because I don’t think they want to play on this field. They may have no choice now,” he continued.

The Trump administration is expected to challenge Texas and Florida’s motion to intervene, and a response is due in mid-October. The Justice Department did not respond to NOTUS’ request for comment on the filing and what that means for its defense moving forward.

If allowed to intervene, Texas and Florida plan to ask the court to get rid of the FDA’s approval of mifepristone — using an Ethics and Public Policy Center report on abortion pills to argue that the drug is dangerous — and to enforce the Comstock Act, an 1873 federal law that prohibits the shipment of “every article or thing designed, adapted or intended for producing abortion.” Democrats in Congress have introduced largely symbolic legislation to repeal the statute.

Anti-abortion advocates have been fighting to keep the case in Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s jurisdiction, given his history of being friendly with the anti-abortion movement. In 2023, he ordered the FDA to withdraw its approval of mifepristone, effectively banning it. When the Supreme Court dismissed the case, Kacsmaryk’s order no longer applied.

“I am confident that Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, as a sensible judge, is going to rule rightly in this case. He is not bought by the abortion industry,” said Mark Lee Dickson, a prominent anti-abortion advocate in Texas who worked with conservative lawyer Jonathan Mitchell to find a plaintiff for the case located in Texas. Mitchell did not respond to NOTUS’ requests for an interview.

Kacsmaryk “is a judge that really does judge righteously, and I believe that this case is in good hands,” Dickson continued.

Texas officials, in particular, have taken actions to ensure that their state is the perfect plaintiff in the case: The legislature passed a bill allowing private citizens to sue anyone who mails abortion pills into the state, and the state has been pursuing charges against abortion pill providers who live in states that protect abortion rights.

This makes it more likely that Kacsmaryk will allow Texas and Florida to intervene in the case.

“Sometimes other states beat us to the punch, but when we show up on the field, we get things done,” Dickson told NOTUS. “Texas and Florida are in this to end abortion pills once and for all.”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

'Defund' Planned Parenthood groups pledge more to come after Medicaid cuts

Trump’s tax bill passed this summer blocks Medicaid payments from going to certain health care providers, including Planned Parenthood, for one year.

6 min. read

View original

---

WASHINGTON — Groups at the center of the yearslong push to stop federal dollars from reaching Planned Parenthood are expressing mixed reactions to the provision in President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax legislation — dubbed the “one big beautiful bill” — that seeks to do just that.

Several vocal groups on the issue acknowledged the provision as a key first step — or a "critical opening move,” as one put it. At the same time, they are vowing more action to come, with one going as far as to refer to what ultimately passed — a one-year halt in funds rather than a 10-year stop — as “a very deep disappointment.” 

---

What You Need To Know

• Groups at the center of the years-long push to stop federal dollars from reaching Planned Parenthood are expressing mixed reactions to the provision in President Donald Trump’s sweeping tax legislation – dubbed the “one big beautiful bill” – that seeks to do just that

• Several vocal groups on the issue acknowledged the provision as a key first step – or a "critical opening move,” as one put it

• At the same time, they are vowing more action to come, with one going as far as to refer to what ultimately passed – a one-year halt in funds rather than 10 – as “a very deep disappointment"

• Language included in Trump’s mega tax bill passed by Congress earlier this summer through a process known as reconciliation prohibits Medicaid reimbursement payments from going to certain health care providers, including Planned Parenthood, for one year

• The provision is currently tied up in a legal battle but those behind the effort are vowing to push for more years of funding stripped

---

Language included in Trump’s mega tax bill passed by Congress earlier this summer through a process known as reconciliation prohibits Medicaid reimbursement payments from going to certain health care providers for one year. It applies to those that meet two qualifications: they received more than $800,000 in funding from the federal health care program for low-income Americans in 2023 and they offer abortions, even if that is not the only service provided. 

The legislation never mentions Planned Parenthood by name but a spokesperson for its political arm, Sarah Guggenheimer, referred to it as a “targeted attack” on the country’s largest abortion and reproductive health provider. 

According to Planned Parenthood’s annual report, 39% of its revenue came from government reimbursements and grants in 2023. A report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office released in November 2023 found the organization and its affiliates received more than $1.5 billion in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP payments over two years, 2019-21. 

The Hyde Amendment already bars federal funds from being able to go directly to abortion services, but Planned Parenthood notes it provides a range of other health services such as STI and pregnancy testing and mental health support. 

Planned Parenthood almost immediately sued over the provision after the bill’s passage, and it is currently tied up in a legal battle. Just last week, an appeals court ruled that the Trump administration could move forward with the measure to block Medicaid payments from going to Planned Parenthood while the legal challenge plays out. It comes after a federal judge in July had required the government to continue with reimbursements amid the court battle. 

If ultimately allowed to stay in place, it would be the culmination of years of efforts from anti-abortion groups that have pushed the effort they’ve branded “Defund Planned Parenthood.”

Emily Erin Davis, the vice president of communications for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, acknowledged as much in a statement to Spectrum News, saying the organization is “thrilled” that it finally happened. 

“This is a monumental win, one we've been fighting years for, in the fight to stop forced taxpayer funding of the abortion industry — a victory never before accomplished,” Davis said. “It would not have been possible without the leadership of House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Leader John Thune.”

SBA Pro-Life America has even started an online tracker of Planned Parenthood closures in the wake of the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

But not all are expressing the same level of excitement. While Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, agrees the provision was a “great first step,” she is deeply upset that the 10-year time frame for Medicaid payments to be banned in the version of the bill that originally passed the House in late May got “neutered” to one by the time the final text passed both chambers and received the president’s signature.

Hawkins specifically noted that shouldn’t have been the case with Republicans in control of both the House and the Senate as well as the White House. 

“I took a lot of flack and heat from others on Capitol Hill because I wasn't acting ‘cheery’ enough that Planned Parenthood was something being defunded for a year,” Hawkins said. “And while we celebrate that win, that step, it wasn't the leap that we needed and that we wanted and that we should have had with a trifecta, a Republican trifecta in Washington, D.C. “ 

In her statement, Davis pointed to the “complex rules” of the reconciliation process for the dwindling of the number of years. As Republicans were working to get the bill finalized and passed earlier this summer, senators revised the provision from 10 years to one just ahead of a Senate parliamentarian ruling that the measure could fit within the rules that govern reconciliation and stay in the bill. There are different rules around reconciliation bills, and the Senate parliamentarian is a nonpartisan official who, among other things, is tasked with advising members on whether certain measures fit within the guidelines. 

Hawkins, however, is not satisfied, alleging there was a possible “backroom negotiation” in the upper chamber. 

“To see the Senate reverse that and whittle it down to one year was a very deep disappointment for pro-life activists and one that I'm quite frankly still having to answer for with pro-life activists who simply don't understand,” she said. “And I need to be honest with you, I don't have a good answer.”

The office of Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., did not respond to an inquiry on the topic. 

And Hawkins says the timeframe makes a tangible difference, arguing that health centers could find a way to hold on without the funding for just one year to keep their doors open while a decade would be another story.

“One year is a nuisance. One year, they can get loans,” she asserted. “Ten years could be bankruptcy.”

Guggenheimer disagrees, saying the absence of federal funds for a year simply can’t be made up in other ways for some centers. 

“Private donations and state funding are very appreciated — and it can provide relief in the short term — but it can't make up the loss of Medicaid reimbursement at this scale” she said. 

She noted each member organization, as she referred to them, is currently in the process of working through whether it can hang on during this year. And she argued the impact of the provision stretches far beyond abortion, leading to the possibility as many as 200 health centers will close and 1.1 million of Planned Parenthood’s patients on Medicaid will be blocked from being able to use their insurance at its clinics, stripping access to things like cancer screenings, birth control assistance and STI testing at its clinics. 

“Whether it's one year or 10 years, the consequences would be devastating, and, frankly, permanent,” Guggenheimer said. 

Guggenheimer also warned this was likely not the end of the conversation, referring to the one-year funding halt as just an “opening salvo.”

And those backing the effort to strip funding certainly hope that is true. Hawkins vowed to continue fighting for a similar provision — with a longer time period — to be included in any additional reconciliation legislation Congress pursues, noting the House speaker has floated the possibility of more before the 2026 midterms. 

“Mike Johnson has said that there might be as many as two more reconciliation bills before the midterms,” she said. “We need to push for the maximum defunding when reconciliation comes back. Ten years needs to be in this.”

In a statement, Olivia Summers, a senior litigation counsel for American Center for Law & Justice, a legal and advocacy organization that noted it has “long taken the position that Planned Parenthood should be fully and permanently defunded at the federal level,” and whose chief counsel has appeared before the Supreme Court for cases on the issue, expressed a similar pledge to push for more. 

“This one-year restriction is a critical opening move,” Summers’ statement read. “But the ACLJ will continue to push—through legislation, litigation, and public advocacy—until Planned Parenthood is permanently defunded and the conscience rights of American taxpayers are finally respected.”  

On the legal front, Summers said the group is confident in the ability for the provision to hold up in court, including if it reaches the highest court in the nation, where conservatives have a majority. 

“We maintain that Congress has the authority to control the purse and fully expect that the Supreme Court will ultimately agree,” she wrote. 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

GOP states try new ways to target abortion pills and telehealth • Stateline

In state legislatures around the country, medication abortion has emerged as the central focus of the fight over abortion rights.

---

By Anna Claire Vollers

3 min. read

View original

---

In state legislatures around the country, medication abortion has emerged as the central focus of the fight over abortion rights. As Democratic lawmakers in blue states enact shield laws to protect abortion medication prescribers, their Republican counterparts — particularly in states that have banned abortion — are filing a flurry of bills to restrict access.

Medication abortion accounted for nearly two-thirds of all clinician-provided abortions in states without total abortion bans in 2023, the most recent data available from the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization focused on advancing reproductive rights.

Using medication to end a pregnancy requires taking two medications in succession: mifepristone to stop the pregnancy and misoprostol to induce contractions in the uterus to expel pregnancy tissue. These medications are also used by medical providers for other conditions, including to manage miscarriage and treat postpartum hemorrhage.

Research has shown medication abortion is effective and safe, with complications requiring hospitalization occurring in less than 0.3% of patients. Research also has shown medication abortion provided via telehealth is effective and safe, and comparable to in-person medication abortion.

Read on for an update on GOP-led state efforts to restrict access to abortion medication:

Reclassifying abortion pills as controlled substances

Last year, Louisiana — which has banned abortion — became the first state to pass a law reclassifying mifepristone and misoprostol as Schedule IV controlled substances, in the same class as drugs such as  Xanax and Valium. Hospitals in the state have had to change how the drugs are stored, locking them in passcode protected containers outside of delivery rooms. Physicians in the state have said the new restrictions have interfered with or negatively impacted their treatment of patients.

Republican lawmakers in Kentucky, Missouri and Texas introduced similar legislation in their most recent legislative sessions, though all three bills died in committee.

More states are expected to follow Louisiana’s lead in the coming legislative session.

Banning and restricting telehealth abortions

While most abortions occur in person, telehealth is a growing provider. By the end of last year, 1 in 4 abortions was provided via telehealth, according to #WeCount, a national reporting effort by the Society of Family Planning, an abortion research organization.

About half of those were from providers practicing in states with shield laws who mailed abortion pills to people in states with telehealth restrictions, six-week abortion bans or total abortion bans.

Nine states currently have laws that explicitly ban telehealth-provided medication abortion, or ban the mailing of medication abortion drugs, according to KFF, a research and policy organization. Those are Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia.

Eight Democratic-led states have shield laws designed to protect providers who offer medication abortion via telehealth to patients across state lines: California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

But GOP-led states are fighting back.

Lawmakers in at least 14 states have introduced bills to criminalize the purchase, prescription and distribution of medication abortion, according to Jennifer Driver, who tracks reproductive state policy for the State Innovation Exchange, an organization focused on passing progressive state legislation.

In July, 15 Republican attorneys general signed a letter urging Congress to ban such shield laws because, they said, the laws interfere with states’ ability to enforce their own criminal laws.

Allowing citizen lawsuits

This month, the Texas Legislature passed a first-of-its-kind bill that would allow Texans to sue physicians, manufacturers and others from outside the state who mail abortion medication into the state. It also bans the manufacturing of abortion drugs in Texas. It’s now headed to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who is expected to sign it.

The law is expected to set up a legal fight over whether one state’s laws can be enforced in another state.

Meanwhile, a Louisiana law passed in June and dubbed the “Justice for Victims of Abortion Drug Dealers Act,” allows the mother of a fetus to sue out-of-state doctors and activists for performing or facilitating a medication abortion, and extends the window for such lawsuits from three years to five years.

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Texas abortion pill bill uses an old legal tool in a new fight

HB 7, which passed the Legislature this month, allows private citizens to sue abortion pill providers and manufacturers, mirroring a 2021 law that allows private enforcement of abortion bans.

---

By Jessica Shuran Yu

7 min. read

View original

---

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

---

When state lawmakers earlier this year failed to pass a bill to further restrict the flow of abortion pills into Texas, John Seago from Texas Right to Life considered it among the biggest missed opportunities of the regular legislative session.

Texans have been mailing in abortion pills at a rapid clip even though they’re illegal statewide and in spite of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s attempts to punish out-of-state doctors who prescribe them. Tools to discourage the inundation haven’t worked.

“There is a significant gap in the enforcement of pro-life laws that pro-abortion activists have been exploiting in the last couple of years and that is what we are trying to respond to,” Seago said.

Now that Republicans lawmakers took the summer to finish what they left undone on abortion pills, advocates on both sides of the abortion debate say a tool now exists in the form of House Bill 7, which awaits the governor’s approval, that could meaningfully tamp down on the practice.

Abortion-inducing medication is already outlawed in Texas and for years, Texas has allowed private citizens to sue abortion providers. The bill does not introduce new bans to abortion and it applies an existing legal tool — private enforcement — to the abortion pill ban more specifically. But, it introduces to the abortion fight a novel “bounty hunter” provision by giving a monetary award to those who bring a lawsuit and are not related to any part of the pregnancy.

Lawmakers who oppose the bill and pro-choice advocates are worried that it will have a strong chilling effect on the access to abortion pills in the state, while enriching the pockets of anti-abortionists.

Here is how the law is expected to play out, according to experts.

Bounty hunter provision: A new tool in the abortion fight

Pregnant people who seek out for themselves or take abortion pills are exempt from being sued under HB 7.

Anyone who manufactures, distributes or plays any part in helping a pregnant woman access abortion-inducing medication can be sued. They include, but are not limited to:

• Doctors who prescribe abortion medication.
• Companies like Aid Access who mail abortion pills to all 50 states.
• A family member or friend who orders abortion pills for their pregnant friend.

Anyone can bring a lawsuit. If they win, plaintiffs can get at least $100,000 from the defendant if they are related to the fetus. If they are not, they can only receive $10,000 and would have to donate the rest of the money to a charity or nonprofit. The charity of their choosing, however, cannot be one that they or their family members receive a salary or any financial benefits from.

“This bill is carefully and meticulously crafted and I believe this bill is compassionate to its core,” said the bill’s author Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Allen, when he presented it on the House floor.

Because the law provides the option for a smaller reward, it could incentivize people to lie to get more money, said Darcy Caballero, the political director of Planned Parenthood Texas Votes.

Subsequently, having to prove the plaintiff’s relationship to the fetus could lead to privacy violations of the fetus or the pregnant person, she said. “There is very little that someone could do to review the claim without engaging in totally invasive procedures.”

Leach assured that the bill protects the identity and personal health information of the pregnant person.

Sen. Nathan Johnson, D-Dallas, has questioned if this provision was a “cash grab” and said in an interview that he can imagine pro-life nonprofits encouraging their supporters to file lawsuits and donate the money to their nonprofit.

Civil lawsuits: An old tool in the abortion fight

Using lawsuits to enforce an abortion ban is not new to Texas.

Senate Bill 8, also known as the Heartbeat Act, which went into effect in 2021 allowed lawsuits to be filed against physicians who provided abortions in Texas or anyone who “aids and abets” an abortion in violation of Texas law.

Theoretically, someone could sue an out-of-state provider of abortion medication under SB 8 by arguing that they are aiding and abetting an abortion that took place in Texas. This argument would be less straightforward and HB 7 more specifically targets out-of-state abortion manufacturers and providers.

Shortly after SB 8 went into effect, it was ruled unconstitutional by a Texas judge. Before HB 7 passed, Democratic lawmakers expressed concerns that there are several unconstitutional provisions in the bill, including how, as Johnson said, it “delegates the power of the state to individuals and to drive people against each other.”

Seago, on the other hand, believes shield laws are what’s unconstitutional and HB 7 is a strategy to fight against them.

HB 7 is another shield law test

Last year, Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Margaret Carpenter, a New York doctor who Paxton accused of mailing abortion pills to Texas. New York, along with 22 other states, has shield laws which provide protections against civil and criminal lawsuits to health care providers who help provide abortions to those who live in states with restrictive abortion laws.

HB 7 is yet another test of those shield laws and Texas’ abortion ban. “Texas, can make these statements that their law should apply in one way or the other… that doesn't necessarily mean that another state is going to see it that way,” said Sarah Corning, an attorney at the ACLU of Texas.

So far, criminal prosecution for doctors in states without abortion bans have not worked, Seago said. He and other anti-abortion advocates hope that the threat of a lawsuit is enough to stop out-of-state providers from mailing abortion pills into Texas and that the courts don’t have to be involved.

“If litigation is necessary, we will bring that and we have a specific legal strategy given House Bill 7 that we will follow to overcome the limits of the shield law,” Seago said. “Our side hopes that this [bill] is a deterrent rather than needing to bring litigation.”

Lawmakers and those who support abortion believe that HB 7 was crafted to mimic SB 8’s success in limiting abortion providers in Texas — not many lawsuits have been filed under the Heartbeat Act because the law is working, Leach said.

“SB 8 had the greater chilling effect on behaviors and actions within Texas” compared to bills that criminalized abortion, said Kristén Ylana, the chief of staff for Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin. She believes those who worked on HB 7 knew that the “bounty hunter” provision and the steep fines that came with civil lawsuits would be effective in scaring out-of-state abortion providers into stopping.

How will HB 7 affect access to abortion pills in Texas?

While there are disagreements on how effective HB 7 will be in reducing the number of abortion-inducing drugs that enter Texas, many pro-abortion advocates and lawmakers agree that this bill could have a “chilling effect” on safe access for women who need the pills.

“I’m absolutely concerned about the availability of the medications due to the chilling effects of the lawsuits,” Howard said. If providers are faced with lawsuits that would strip them of $100,000 each at minimum, it may not be financially feasible for them to keep mailing abortion pills to Texas, she added.

Johnson also said that “pharmacies and pharmaceutical manufacturers are going to be terrified to deal with Texas or… make a legal calculation and just not deal with [Texas].”

Ylana, Howard’s chief of staff, added that they anticipate the lawsuit will be used since they’re easy to bring and that organizations like Aid Access will be targeted first.

Shellie Hayes-McMahon, the executive director of Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, said that she doesn’t believe that the number of abortion pills being used in Texas will decrease as a result of HB 7.

“Women will find a way to exercise bodily autonomy but what Texas is trying to do is ensure that they are unsafe in doing so” Hayes-McMahon said.

Lawsuits under HB 7 do not apply to the use of abortion-inducing medication in medical emergencies.

Will HB 7 punish intent?

Before the bill passed, many lawmakers raised concerns that the law would punish intent. In other words, a pregnant person’s friend or family member researching an abortion pill — not necessarily providing it — would be at risk of a lawsuit.

Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, the sponsor of the bill, did not specifically say the bill would prevent such lawsuits, but “if someone files a frivolous or a groundless pleading like that, they're subject to sanction by the court.”

Corning, the ACLU attorney, said that theoretically, someone can sue a person because of something they said relating to aiding in the distribution of abortion pills. However, free speech rights can be used as a defense.

“We have very strong free speech protections and so if we’re talking about things like providing information or looking things up, reading content, that’s all speech that’s protected by the First Amendment,” Corning said.

The future of abortion laws in Texas

No Texas law directly punishes pregnant people for getting abortions. While a handful of bills that attempt to do so have been filed, none of them have made it far in the Legislature.

Many Republican lawmakers insist they would not support laws penalizing pregnant people, but several Democrat lawmakers are worried that Texas will eventually allow civil and criminal actions against pregnant people directly.

“I think it’s a very big concern,” Johnson said. “We’re living in a time right now when what used to be unthinkable just a few years ago is now not just a bill, it passes.”

Howard is not as sure and wants to believe her Republican colleagues who say they don’t believe pregnant women should be criminalized. However, she agreed that what’s happening in the current political landscape wouldn’t have been predictable 10 years ago, so it’s hard to say what else will be possible.

---

Three featured TribFest speakers confirmed! You don’t want to miss ​​Deb Haaland, former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and 2026 Democratic candidate for New Mexico governor; state Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston and 2026 Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General; and Jake Tapper, anchor of CNN’s “The Lead” and “State of the Union” at the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Get your tickets today!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

What to know about a Texas bill to let residents sue out-of-state abortion pill providers

A Texas measure would let private citizens sue doctors and others who provide abortion pills that end up in the state.

4 min. read

View original

---

A measure that would allow nearly any private citizen to sue out-of-state prescribers and others who send abortion pills into Texas has won first-round approval in the state House.

It would be the first law of its kind in the country and part of the ongoing effort by abortion opponents to fight the broad use of the pills, which are used in the majority of abortions in the U.S. — including in states where abortion is illegal.

The bill passed in the House on Thursday and could receive a final vote in the Republican-dominated state Senate next week. If that happens, it would be up to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, to decide whether to sign it into law.

Here are things to know about the Texas legislation and other legal challenges to abortion pills.

The Texas measure is a new approach to crack down on pills

Even before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed state abortion bans, pills — most often a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol — were the most common way to obtain abortion access.

Now, with Texas and 11 other states enforcing bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy, and four more that bar most of them after the first six weeks or so of gestation, the pills have become an even more essential way abortion is provided in the U.S.

“We believe that women need to be protected from the harms of chemical abortion drugs,” said Amy O’Donnell, a spokesperson for Texas Alliance for Life, which supports the bill. “They harm women and their intent is to harm unborn babies.”

Under the bill, providers could be ordered to pay $100,000. But only the pregnant woman, the man who impregnated her or other close relatives could collect the entire amount. Anyone else who sues could receive only $10,000, with the remaining $90,000 going to charity.

The measure echoes a 2021 Texas law that uses the prospect of lawsuits from private citizens to enforce a ban on abortion once fetal activity can be detected — at about six weeks’ gestation. The state also has a ban on abortions at all stages of pregnancy.

The pill bill also contains provisions intended to keep those with a history of family violence from collecting and barring disclosure of women’s personal or medical information in court documents.

Anna Rupani, executive director of Fund Texas Choice, a group that helps women access abortion, including by traveling to other states for it, said the law is problematic.

“It establishes a bounty hunting system to enforce Texas’ laws beyond the state laws,” she said.

A law could open the door to further battles between states

While most Republican-controlled states have restricted or banned abortions in the last three years, most Democratic-controlled states have taken steps to protect access.

And at least eight states have laws that seek to protect prescribers who send abortion pills to women in states where abortion is banned.

There are already legal battles that could challenge those, both involving the same New York doctor.

Louisiana has brought criminal charges against Dr. Maggie Carpenter, accusing her of prescribing the pills to a pregnant minor. And a Texas judge has ordered her to pay a $100,000 penalty plus legal fees for violating that state’s ban on prescribing abortion medication by telemedicine. New York officials are refusing to extradite her to Louisiana or to enter the Texas civil judgement.

If the Texas law is adopted and use, it’s certain to trigger a new round of legal battles over whether laws from one state can be enforced in another.

“Its very different from what’s come before it,” said Greer Donley, a University of Pittsburgh law professor who studies the legal landscape of abortion.

Two key states seek to get into anti-mifepristone legal battle

Texas and Florida — the second and third most populous states in the country — asked a court last week to let them join a lawsuit filed last year by the Republican attorneys general of Idaho, Kansas and Missouri to make mifepristone harder to access.

Those states contend — as many abortion opponents do — that mifepristone is too risky to be prescribed via telehealth and that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration should roll back approvals and tighten access.

The U.S. Supreme Court last year unanimously rejected a case making similar arguments, saying the anti-abortion doctors behind it did lacked the legal standing to take up the case.

This week, more than 260 reproductive health researchers from across the nation submitted a letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration affirming the safety record of the abortion medication mifepristone. In the letter, the researchers urge the FDA not to impose new restrictions on the drug and to make decisions based on “gold-standard science.”

The FDA is also facing a lawsuit from a Hawaii doctor health care associations arguing that it restricts mifepristone too much

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

State lawmakers call for legislature to restore funding for Abortion Access Project

Nearly 60 Democratic legislators have signed an open letter calling on Washington lawmakers to restore funding to a state program that helps clinics and patients pay for abortion services after lawmakers cut its funding by 55% during the 2025 legislative session.

---

By Mitchell Roland

3 min. read

View original

---

Nearly 60 Democratic legislators have signed an open letter calling on Washington lawmakers to restore funding to a state program that helps clinics and patients pay for abortion services after lawmakers cut its funding by 55% during the 2025 legislative session.

According to the letter, cuts in state and federal funding will also reduce Planned Parenthood’s clinical services budget by 33%.

“Safety net family planning providers cannot continue to serve patients at present levels without state investment, and if Washington does not take action to restore funding, health outcomes in our state will plummet and the state will ultimately pay the price tag,” the letter states.

The letter – sent last week to Gov. Bob Ferguson, the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority leader, and the top budget writers in the House and Senate – was signed by Spokane Reps. Timm Ormsby and Natasha Hill, and Sen. Marcus Riccelli. Ormsby, who chairs the House appropriations committee, was both a signee and a recipient of the letter.

In a statement Tuesday evening, Ferguson said that during “this time of national attacks on reproductive freedom, it’s more important than ever to ensure Washington is protecting reproductive health care.”

“I appreciate the legislators’ support for my longstanding commitment to restoring this funding,” Ferguson said.

The letter comes after the budget adopted by state lawmakers earlier this year included a $4.25 million cut in funding for the Abortion Access Project in each of the next two years.

“To stay afloat, safety net providers need state lawmakers to restore previous funding levels to the Abortion Access Project,” the letter states.

In the letter, the legislators said they are “dedicated to keeping safety net abortion providers afloat by advocating for $21.5 million” in the upcoming supplemental budget during the upcoming session, “to ensure Washingtonians do not lose access to sexual and reproductive health care.”

In a statement, Courtney Normand, Washington state director for the Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, said the group is “heartened by the strong support from legislative leaders and urge Governor Ferguson to include a full restoration of the Abortion Access Project in his supplemental budget proposal later this year.”

“Washington has always led in defending reproductive freedom, but leadership requires action to ensure those freedoms are truly attainable,” Normand said. “At a time of unprecedented attacks at the federal level, our state must stand firm and protect abortion access for every Washingtonian – no matter their zip code or income.”

Earlier this year, Ferguson said he would use state funds to make up for cuts in federal funding to Planned Parenthood included in President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill and added that he would work with state lawmakers to address state funding cuts.

Following the passage of the federal bill this summer, which includes a one-year moratorium on Planned Parenthood’s health centers from receiving Medicaid reimbursements, Ferguson announced the state would use approximately $11 million from the Washington Healthcare Authority’s budget to backfill the lost federal dollars should the provision withstand legal challenges. In the letter released, the Democratic lawmakers said they are in “strong alignment” with the decision.

“We applaud Governor Ferguson acting swiftly to backfill the federal Medicaid dollars and his commitment to restore funding to the Abortion Access Project,” the letter states.

During a press conference in July announcing his decision, Ferguson said he had also had “many conversations” with Jennifer Allen, CEO of Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, about the state funding cuts adopted by the Legislature.

“I’m actively working with her, and other legislative leaders, to make sure in the proposed budget that we have coming up, that we make sure, especially in these times, that we adequately fund Planned Parenthood and making sure that people in Washington state have access to the full range of reproductive healthcare,” Ferguson said. “So, I think you’ll be seeing that in a supplemental budget.”

Faced with a multi-billion-dollar budget shortfall last session, Ferguson said he did not have the ability to amend the proposed budget and said legislators faced “tough choices” in crafting a budget.

“But I think we’re all on the same page on, during this really challenging time, to try and restore that funding,” Ferguson said during a July 9 press conference.