1). “Democrats: Stop Bro-ing Out With Young Male Voters & Fight for Young Women”, May 28, 2026, Jessica Valenti, Abortion, Every Day, at < https://jessica.substack.com/
2). “Texas Could Send Its Most Dangerous Anti-Abortion Politician to Washington”, May 27, 2026, Kylie Cheung, Abortion, Every Day, at < https://jessica.substack.com/
3). “North Carolina Bill Would Legalize Killing Abortion Providers and Advocates—Seriously”, May 26, 2026, Jessica Valenti, Abortion, Every Day, at < https://jessica.substack.com/
4). “Campaign launches urging 'no' vote on new Missouri abortion ban”, May 28, 2026, Anna Spoerre, Springfield News Leader, at < https://www.news-leader.com/
5). “Letter from (the so-called) Center for Christian Virtue to United States Attorney Dominick S. Gerace II”, May 20, 2026, Aaron Baer, President, Center for Christian Virtue, at < https://static1.squarespace.
6). “Trump’s hypocritical new website for moms does more harm than good”, May 28, 2026,Sonia Suter and Naomi Cahn, opinion contributors, The Hill, at < https://thehill.com/opinion/
7). “As voters prioritize cost of living, focus on abortion evolves in midterm elections”, May 22, 2026, Elena Moore, NPR, All Things Considered, includes embedded 4-minute long audio segment, at < https://www.npr.org/2026/05/
~~ recommended by desmond ~~
Introduction by desmond: The political struggle over Abortion access and Reproductive Healthcare Rights in General continues unabated, in fact it grows more tense. As always, Jessica Valenti and Kylie Cheung are keeping vigilance at Abortion, Every Day. The two of them, posting separate articles (2 from Jessica and 1 from Kylie) that address some of the issues that arise from the endless attacks of the forced-pregnancy / forced-birth movement. Item 1)., “Democrats: Stop Bro-ing ….” discusses, among many other important issues, the situations in Missouri and Ohio. These are both states that passed state constitutional amendments making Abortion Access legal and protected. The response of the forced-pregnancy / forced-birth operatives was to obstruct and attack the new legal rights passed by the population in a never ending process of obstruction. Item 4)., “Campaign launches urging 'no' vote ….”, reports on the situation in Missouri where, among many other moves, the State Legislature placed an amendment on the November Ballot; that amendment uses the same title of the victorious Abortion Rights initiative, Amendment 3, for a measure that would reverse the Amendment passed in 2024. The original Amendment 3 was passed despite many dishonest and corrupt moves by the reactionary Republicans, but won by only a 3.2% margin at 51.6% to 48.4%. The lies and attempts to stop the 2024 Amendment 3 vote in Missouri were legion.
In Ohio, that passed its campaign for Issue 1, by a comfortable 13.5% margin of 56.78% Yes, and 43.22% No, there have also been endless attacks and legal maneuvering. As Reported in Item 1 and posted here as Item 5). “Letter from (the so-called) ….”, far-right “Center for Christian Virtue” sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney demanding that the Comstock Act be actively enforced.
The higher margin in Ohio as compared to Missouri in the state constitutional amendments is, no doubt, due to the larger urban population in Ohio as compared to Missouri. In Missouri only 8 counties had over 50% votes for the protection of abortion rights and they were all associated with Kansas City, St. Louis, or Columbia (the major university town). In Ohio 25 Counties voted over 50% to protect Abortion Rights. See the maps of Missouri and Ohio vote results by county below.
Further information in Item 2)., “Texas Could Send ….”, an article that discusses the chance that after winning the primary election against Sen. John Cornyn that “Texas Attorney General and anti-abortion extremist Ken Paxton” could end up in the U.S. Senate. And in Item 3)., “North Carolina Bill ….” two State Legislators from that state introduced a constitutional amendment that:
“Two North Carolina Republicans have introduced legislation that would codify fetal personhood from fertilization, punish abortion patients as murderers, and outlaw IVF and some forms of birth control. But that’s not all: HB 1232 would legalize “deadly force” in defense of a fertilized egg: (Emphasis in original)
“Any person has the right to defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person.”
“Let’s be clear—this means it would be perfectly fine to kill an abortion provider, an activist, or even someone who drives a friend to the clinic. Anyone who helps a woman get an abortion could be murdered, and their killer could claim it was justifiable. (Emphasis added)
“Reps. Keith Kidwell and Ben Moss, Jr. introduced the legislation as a constitutional amendment; if the General Assembly passed the bill, it would then be sent to voters for approval.”
Representative Kidwell was apparently surprised by the negative reception this crackpot legislation provoked and has withdrawn himself from the political operations of the N.C. State Legislature. During the last year over a dozen state legislatures considered similar “Abortion Abolitionist” bills that would feature executions of women who have obtained abortions (even if done so in a state where it is legal). The two can be contacted at < https://www.ncleg.gov/Members/
In Item 6., “Trump’s hypocritical ….” two authors posted a editorial opinion in The Hill pointing out the duplicity and dishonesty of the Federal Government's new "Moms.gov" website, rolled out on Mother's Day, May 10th.
Finally in Item 7)., “As voters prioritize ….”, NPR published a text discussion and presented a 4-minute segment on All Things Considered about how the Democrats are balancing their political ads more towards affordability and not towards Abortion Rights, Mifepristone and TeleHealth, and other Reproductive Healthcare issues.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Missouri's Abortion Ban Trick, Washington Post's Misleading Graph & the Fight for Young Women Voters
Quick hits: Congratulations, Colorado!; Missouri Launches “Stop the Ban”; Anti-Abortion Glossary: “Sex-Rejecting”; In the States: New Jersey, Michigan, Florida, Ohio & More; WTF, Washington Post?; Ballot Box: Gretchen Whitmer, Katie Hobbs, and Young Male Voters; In the Nation: Trump is Sending the DOJ After E. Jean Carroll
Congratulations, Colorado!
Colorado college students will now be able to get their abortions on campus, thanks to a law signed just yesterday by Gov. Jared Polis. Come the Fall semester, any public or private college with a health center must provide access to abortion pills, and any college with a campus pharmacy must stock the medication. (Schools without pharmacies can have providers write a prescription to be filled somewhere else.)
With abortion medication under constant attack—and young people often facing the biggest hurdles to care—this legislation is a huge deal. It’s also not the only one of its kind; since the end of Roe, we’ve seen similar laws get passed in California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts.
As you can imagine, conservatives are not happy about this new spate of bills making abortion pills more available to young people. That’s not only because of their opposition to abortion, but because they’re hoping to convince the next generation of young women to forgo college altogether for early marriage and motherhood.
Luckily, Colorado isn’t having any of it. Huge thanks to all of the advocates who worked so hard to make this law happen—you’re awesome.
Missouri Launches “Stop the Ban”
Missouri advocates have officially launched their campaign to oppose the abortion ban on November’s ballot. “Stop the Ban” is a coalition of abortion rights groups—from Planned Parenthood affiliates and the local ACLU to Abortion Action Missouri and others.
As you likely remember, Missouri voters passed abortion protections in 2024, and Republicans have fought them every single day since—relying on unconstitutional restrictions and endless court battles to defy the will of the people. Now they’re putting abortion back on the ballot, hoping to trick voters into codifying a near-total abortion ban.
Trick how? Well, Republicans call their ban “Amendment 3”—the exact same name as the pro-choice measure voters approved in 2024. The anti-abortion group backing the amendment is also trying to sound as feminist as possible: they call themselves, “Her Health, Her Future.”
But Republicans aren’t relying on trickery alone. Since they know abortion rights are popular, they’ve bundled their ban with an attack on gender-affirming care for minors—hoping that maybe anti-trans bigotry will win over voters. (Their campaign signs literally read: “Yes on 3 Ban Transgender Surgeries for Minors.”)
If Republicans’ version of “Amendment 3” passes, abortion would only be legal in medical emergencies and for sexual violence victims early in pregnancy.
From Tori Schafer, a spokesperson for Stop the Ban and an attorney with the ACLU of Missouri:
“And we need to educate voters about the bottom line, and the bottom line here is clear: The new amendment 3 is an abortion ban that takes away a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions and instead puts it in the hands of politicians and lawyers.”
Watch Stop the Ban’s first ad below:
Anti-Abortion Glossary: “Sex-Rejecting”
Believe it or not, “sex rejecting” is not some new incel lingo. It’s actually the latest in anti-trans messaging.
I first clocked the term this week in the Christian Post, when the conservative news outlet ran a headline declaring, “Nearly 80% of Planned Parenthood clinics offer ‘sex-rejecting procedures’.”
The “sex-rejecting procedures” they’re referring to? Hormone therapy and referrals.
The term comes from the American College of Pediatricians (ACP)—a well-known anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ organization that’s been designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The group released a ‘report’ this week attacking Planned Parenthood because it provides gender-affirming care. ACP, eager to capitalize on the anti-trans / parental rights panic, even claims that “in some locations, patients receiving these procedures and services are as young as 16 years of age.” (The linked footnote leads to a single New York affiliate that provides hormone therapy to those 16 years-old and older, with parental consent.)
If I had to guess, I’d say that “sex-rejecting” has a pretty small chance of catching on—in part because it does sound so much like something you’d find on a weirdo subreddit. But consider this your regular reminder that powerful conservative groups are constantly throwing new language at the wall to see what sticks. It wouldn’t be the worst idea for our side to try the same now and then.
In the States: New Jersey, Michigan, Florida, Ohio & More
New Jersey lawmakers just approved legislation that will protect patients seeking abortion and gender-affirming care. And I’ve to say, I love these happy pictures published by the New Jersey Monitor. 🫶
In addition to protecting providers and patients from out-of-state prosecution and civil suits, this legislation makes it a crime to interfere with patients seeking care. As you can imagine, anti-abortion activists are seriously pissed off; they say the law will make it impossible for them to “counsel” patients outside of clinics.
The bill comes at the same time that conservative organizations are bringing legal challenges against buffer zones in various states—claiming that they violate clinic harassers’ First Amendment rights.
The New Jersey Assembly now needs to approve the legislation before it’s sent for Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s signature.
Meanwhile, Michigan’s abortion protections will remain in place despite the best efforts of Right to Life of Michigan. The group has been trying to repeal the constitutional amendment that voters passed in 2022, arguing that it “threatens parental rights.”
This is the same exact argument conservatives used in the lead up to that 2022 vote—claiming that if the amendment were to pass, parental consent in Michigan would be eradicated. That didn’t happen (unfortunately), which sort of puts a dent in their argument.
The ruling from a federal appeals court this week, however, didn’t address that issue. The court simply ruled that the anti-abortion group didn’t have standing to bring a challenge in the first place. In response to the ruling, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel called the suit “procedurally flawed, meritless, and politically motivated.”
“Although a loud faction remains determined to undermine bodily autonomy, the Michigan Constitution guarantees that decisions about your health belong to you,” Nessel said.
While Michigan’s AG is working to protect reproductive rights, the Miami Herald warns that Florida’s attorney general is hellbent on attacking it. Editorial board member Isadora Rangel predicts that AG James Uthmeier is making surrogacy “the next culture war” in an attempt to codify fetal personhood and further restrict abortion.
Essentially, Uthmeier has inserted himself in a local surrogacy case. He argues surrogacy violates the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on slavery—relying on the notion that fertilized eggs are human beings.
“The bigger problem is that if the courts consider a fetus a person, then our ‘legal landscape would change dramatically,’ [law professor Caroline Mala] Corbin said. Abortion could be considered murder, and women could fall under ‘intensive surveillance’ of what they do during pregnancy, she added. Say an expecting mother eats raw fish, which doctors strongly advise against during pregnancy, and contracts salmonella — would she find herself in legal crosshairs?”
It may sound like a reach, Rangel writes—but so did the end of Roe at one point.
For more on fetal personhood, consider revisiting my conversation with law professor Mary Ziegler:
Finally, let’s talk about Ohio—where the conservative Center for Christian Virtue (CCV) is demanding that federal attorneys enforce the Comstock Act. The group wants prosecutors to investigate anyone who ships abortion pills into or out of the state, work with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service to “document violations of the Comstock Act,” and pursue prosecutions.
The move comes in the wake of a broader attack on abortion pills. As you probably remember, a federal ruling on telemedicine abortion threw the country into chaos before the Supreme Court stepped in to pause it. (Unfortunately, their decision wasn’t a resolution—just a delay.)
Speaking of CCV, NPR has an interesting profile out today that digs into the group and the lawmakers they work with. It’s a useful reminder that anti-abortion organizations have a broad range of interests—from attacking DEI initiatives to lobbying for bills that would require schools to teach the “positive impact of Judeo-Christian values in U.S. history.”
Quick hits:
A former Republican strategist has filed to run for Illinois governor as an Independent;
A Kentucky man has been arrested for attempted fetal homicide, accused of replacing his girlfriends regular medication with “an unknown substance”;
And Missouri lawmakers are considering a bill that would expand tax credits for donations to crisis pregnancy centers.
WTF, Washington Post?
This really pissed me off today: a new ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll asked Americans what they “dislike most” about each party—and the Washington Post published a graph suggesting that abortion is the top reason voters dislike Democrats:
Given how incredibly popular abortion rights are, I didn’t buy it. So I went to the actual poll numbers. Sure enough: only 6% of respondents cited abortion—lumped together, absurdly, with “race, gender, crime positions, too woke”—as a reason to dislike Democrats. Meanwhile, “weak/spineless/don’t stand up against Trump or for what’s right” was cited by 10% of respondents. Yet that reason appears below abortion on the Post’s graph!
How could they possibly defend that? Well, it appears the Post combined the abortion category with another listed reason to dislike Democrats—“too liberal,” which also got 6%. In other words, reporters smooshed two separate data points together, artificially inflating opposition to abortion rights.
ABC News published an image that’s far more accurate, with the actual percentages in the graph, and the issues in the right order.
And listen, I know I can be nit-picky about mainstream media coverage—but this stuff matters. The Washington Post is read by the people who shape elections: from campaign donors and legislators to Beltway consultants. When those people see a graph implying Democrats are losing voters over abortion rights, it’s a big deal.
Ballot Box: Gretchen Whitmer, Katie Hobbs, and Young Male Voters
Just hours after saying she wouldn’t be running for president in 2028, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer appeared to backtrack—telling reporters, “never say never.”
Earlier today, the Democratic governor told Fox 2 Detroit,“There will be a robust group of people running for president, I will not be one of them in 2028.” But at a conference a few hours later, Whitmer said she wanted “to correct the record.”
“You know, I never thought I would run for governor. So I guess I should know better…never say never. But I don’t want any distractions as I wrap up my eight years as governor.”
Interesting.
Meanwhile, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has launched her reelection campaign, centered on lowering costs for working families and reminding voters of her working class roots. It’s worth remembering just how strong a pro-choice governor she’s been: before Arizona voters passed abortion protections in 2024, Hobbs transferred prosecution authority over abortion exclusively to Attorney General Kris Mayes—a deliberate move to keep cases away from overzealous local DAs and in the hands of a pro-choice AG she knew had no interest in targeting abortion-related “crimes.”
Last up—let’s talk about the political gender gap. The New York Times has a piece today about Democrats’ attempts to woo young male voters; it’s worth a read. I think the reporters did a good job of hinting at the point they clearly wanted to make: that too many young men want the regressive male privilege that their fathers and grandfathers enjoyed.
Shauna Daly, of the (liberal) Speaking with American Men project, told the Times that Democrats need to put forward an alternative vision and challenge the appeal of “turning back the clock.”
But I also really appreciated this thought:
“Richard Reeves, the president of the American Institute for Boys and Men, a left-leaning research institute, said he was exasperated with people assuming that all young men had suddenly become fervent Trump supporters or Andrew Tate-style misogynists. ‘Maybe,’ Mr. Reeves said, ‘they’re actually really swingy and up for grabs.’”
I really hope that’s right. But I also have a different take entirely: rather than trying to bro out with young men, I think Democrats should be doubling down on young women. In a moment when conservative donors are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to convince the next generation of girls that the loss of their rights is aspirational, we can’t afford to take that support for granted.
In the Nation: Trump is Sending the DOJ After E. Jean Carroll
This is just disgusting: our adjudicated rapist president is weaponizing the Department of Justice to investigate and terrorize E. Jean Carroll.
A jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll in 2023, awarding her $5 million damages. And in 2024, a jury ruled that the president had to pay Carroll $83 million in damages for repeatedly defaming her. (Unfortunately, that payout has been delayed by the courts.)
CNN reports that the DOJ is looking at Carroll for perjury, based on comments she made about not getting outside funding for her lawsuit. You read the details there and at NBC, but we all know what this is really about. Trump hates all women, but he especially hates women who beat him.
This investigation is just the latest in Trump’s long line of revenge investigations and prosecutions. It’s obscene. I hope Carroll knows we’re all sending her virtual support and are furious on her behalf.
Quick hits:
The Guardian has more on the study that shows abortion bans are restricting access to miscarriage care;
Pew reports that Americans who regularly attend church are more likely to hear negative messages about abortion from their clergy;
And op-ed at The Hill points out the hypocrisy of Moms.gov.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Texas Could Send Its Most Dangerous Anti-Abortion Politician to Washington
Click to skip ahead: Arkansas Women Will Get Their Day in Court;Advocates Sue to Stop Trump’s Anti-Abortion Payout; Ballot Box: Texas, Maine, Iowa; In the States: North Carolina, Arizona, Washington, Illinois; Anti-Abortion Strategy: Coercion & Crisis Pregnancy Centers
Arkansas Women Will Get Their Day in Court
Good news out of Arkansas, where a legal challenge to the state’s ban can continue on. After being dismissed last month, the suit—brought by Amplify Legal—was revived this week.
We told you about lead plaintiff Emily Waldorf in January, and ProPublica just published an in-depth piece about her ordeal. The Arkansas mother was denied an emergency abortion in 2024 after her water broke just 17 weeks into her pregnancy. Waldorf’s family even reached out to Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ office to beg for help, but an aide said, “What is it you expect the governor’s office to do?”
Eventually, Waldorf requested to be transferred to a nearby hospital in Kansas, strapped to a stretcher in the back of an ambulance. There, the hospital gave her misoprostol almost immediately, allowing her to safely complete the miscarriage.
Waldorf—and all the women in this case—should have been able to receive care in their own communities. Stories like hers aren’t uncommon—just last week, we told you about a new study showing how bans have negatively impacted miscarriage care, rendering it less likely that providers offer medications or use the standard regimen of both mifepristone and misoprostol. The result is preventable morbidities, mortality, and needless suffering.
In a statement yesterday, Amplify said they’re glad the case will continue on:
“Our clients will testify to their horrific experiences under the abortion bans, and we look forward to demonstrating why the state’s remaining jurisdictional arguments are without merit.”
We’ll keep you updated on this one as it moves forward.
Advocates Sue to Stop Trump’s Anti-Abortion Payout
As we reported last week, the Trump administration could cut some violent anti-abortion extremists a check through its $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund”: a pot of settlement money the White House is issuing to Republicans (including January 6th rioters!) who say they were wrongly targeted by the Biden administration.
If you find this as disgusting as I do, here’s some good news: as of Friday, advocates are suing the administration to block these payouts, rightly claiming there’s no legal basis for such a fund.
“The unlawfulness that has imbued the Anti-Weaponization Fund from its inception requires that it be wholly dismantled,” the complaint says.
Remember: nearly 1,600 people were charged with January 6-related federal crimes, and over 1,200 were convicted—only for Trump to sweepingly pardon them in one of his first moves as president last year. Many immediately went on to commit more crimes, including an alarming amount of child sexual abuse-related crimes. Many January 6 rioters were also identified as prominent anti-abortion activists and clinic harassers.
Trump’s plan to pay conservatives ‘targeted’ by the previous administration comes after he pardoned over two dozen anti-abortion activists convicted of violating the FACE Act, and after his Justice Department released a 900-page report painting those extremists as political victims of Biden.
To this administration, Christian activists who face charges for attacking clinics are just hapless victims of religious discrimination.
Support Independent Feminist Media
Ballot Box: Texas, Maine, Iowa
Texas Attorney General and anti-abortion extremist Ken Paxton has defeated incumbent Sen. John Cornyn in the race for U.S. Senate. Paxton won off strong support from Trump and far-right GOP machines like Turning Point USA.
MAGA might be celebrating today, but Paxton—who’s dedicated his career to persecuting abortion providers, midwives, funds, and patients—is a uniquely vulnerable candidate. The Republican attorney general is embroiled in several corruption and adultery scandals, at a time when Trump’s popularity and the economy are cratering.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s still Texas—but Democrat James Talarico might have a fighting chance against an opponent like Paxton. At the very least, the Texas GOP—you know, the state party that wants to ban IVF and potentially sentence abortion patients to death—could be poised to spend an astonishing amount of money to hold a seat in a reliably red state.
Something to keep an eye on as we close in on Maine’s June 9th primary: the Democratic primary frontrunner, Troy Jackson, has a surprisingly mixed background on reproductive rights. Importantly, Jackson is clear about his pro-abortion position now—and has been since Dobbs in 2022. But while serving in the state legislature in the early 2010s, Jackson had a 100% rating from Maine Right to Life and voted for legislation that would have enshrined fetal personhood. 👀
Fox Newsnotes that as recently as 2022, he told local reporters he struggled with the issue of abortion. Since then, Jackson has helped repeal abortion restrictions and expand access, and has received glowing, public praise from Planned Parenthood.
People can certainly move on this issue, and there should always be room for this. That’s where we, the electorate, come in: by making it untenable to be anything but fully, unapologetically pro-choice.
Look to Iowa, for instance, where another Democratic frontrunner—gubernatorial candidate Rob Sand—just committed to vetoing any and all abortion restrictions that come across his desk. Sand has been vocal about how the state’s six-week ban has endangered patients and shaken the state’s medical system, which suffers from the lowest rate of OBGYNs per capita in the U.S.:
“It makes it harder for us to find people who are planning a career in delivering babies to be here in Iowa, because they want to be able to make the right decision for the health of their patient without having them get so sick.”
In the States: North Carolina, Arizona, Washington, Illinois
First, an update in North Carolina—where a terrifying new bill would legalize killing abortion providers by allowing “deadly force” in defense of a fertilized egg. Jessica laid it out in yesterday’s newsletter:
After a wave of justified backlash, Rep. Ben Moss announced that he’s removed himself as a sponsor of the bill “in its current form.” Instead of acknowledging how insane the legislation is, he suggested we all merely misunderstood:
“I believe legislation must be written with absolute clarity so that its intent cannot be misunderstood or broadly misinterpreted in ways that create fear and confusion.”
This is a typical page in the anti-abortion playbook. We often see it after legislators introduce ‘equal protection’ bills that would charge abortion patients with homicide, which in some states can mean the death penalty. When feminists point this out, those lawmakers and activists call us hysterical or accuse us of deliberately mischaracterizing their legislation. (Or they’ll say the bill wouldn’t give women the death penalty, a jury would—as if that’s somehow better.)
It’s infuriating and intentional. That said, Moss was one of two co-sponsors—you can contact the other Republican who wants to legalize killing abortion advocates here.
Arizona voters enshrined abortion rights in their state constitution in 2024—but nurses say a shadow ban is already undermining those protections. A slate of restrictions limiting who can perform abortions effectively bars advanced practice clinicians like nurse practitioners from providing the procedure. The result is a bottleneck at a time when demand is increasingly strained by out-of-state patients.
The ACLU recently filed a lawsuit arguing that under the abortion rights constitutional amendment, these restrictions should be void. They have a strong case, but unfortunately, we all have to be prepared to wait: a hearing for when the trial can be held has been scheduled for a year from now on April 2, 2027.
In Illinois, reproductive advocates are keeping their foot on the gas—with particular urgency given the legal chaos surrounding telemedicine access to mifepristone. Speaking to Capital News Illinois, the Chicago Abortion Fund is pressing the legislature to not abandon HB 5408—legislation that allow those with limited or no insurance to get financial help accessing abortion care. The bill passed the state House in April, but hasn’t even received a hearing in the Senate.
Megan Jeyifo, executive director of Chicago Abortion Fund, said:
“We want to see those investments continue and be sustained. We don’t want to get to a place where we’re still very much in this public health crisis, and we’re like, ‘OK, we checked the box, we got this for one year, and now we can move on.’”
Finally, the Seattle Times has more on one Planned Parenthood affiliate’s bold, necessary announcement that it will provide advance provision abortion pills. Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai‘i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky (PPGNHAIK) is providing telehealth abortion pills “just in case” to patients in Hawai’i and Washington. Chief of Medical Affairs Dr. Colleen McNicholas says:
“It’s an opportunity to help people plan and be prepared for a time in the future where they might need to have access to medication abortion and may anticipate facing challenges.”
Anti-Abortion Strategy: Coercion & Crisis Pregnancy Centers
As we inch closer to the midterms, keep an eye on two key anti-abortion strategies—claiming abortion medication is a tool of abusers, and insisting that crisis pregnancy centers can replace real healthcare clinics.
Amid all the chaos surrounding telemedicine access to mifepristone, anti-abortion media outlets have relentlessly pushed baseless claims equating remote access to medication abortion with “coercion,” “exploitation,” and “abuse.” One recent Live Action headline: “How abortion drugs enable abuse and exploitation.” More headlines from similar right-wing rags: “Chemical abortion enables abusers,” and “Abortion advocates went from ‘safe, legal, and rare’ to emotional blackmail.” Earlier this month, the Wall Street Journal published an article titled, “Mifepristone as a Tool for Coercion.”
It’s clear that the anti-abortion movement thinks this is a winning message for their losing issue. So, it seems like as good a time as any to re-up our explainer on this anti-abortion strategy:
Remember: abortion bans are coercion. The laws are a tool in the toolkit of abusers, often entrapping victims or tying them to their abuser for a lifetime—while forced pregnancies render them exponentially more vulnerable to abuse. That’s what makes conservatives’ co-optation of ‘coercion’ and ostensibly feminist concerns all the more sickening.
Another vile strategy on the rise: anti-abortion leaders pitching crisis pregnancy centers as the ‘replacement’ for real clinics that are increasingly being forced to shutter. AED has been warning about this tactic for a while now: exorbitantly funded anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers capitalizing on declining access to reproductive care by styling themselves as the ‘replacement’—even as they actively endanger pregnant people.
Now we’re seeing that strategy come to fruition—at great cost to women—in one Idaho town. In 2023, Sandpoint lost its fourth and last labor and delivery ward—in part because OBGYNs feared criminal charges for doing their job under the state ban. (From August 2022 to December 2024, Idaho lost 35% of all OBGYNs.)
Now, CBS News has a frustrating new report on CPCs descending on Sandpoint like vultures amid the community’s maternal care crisis. The report focuses on a CPC called 7B, previously called Life Choices Pregnancy Center and Sandpoint Crisis Pregnancy Center. (It’s likely the group changed their name after terms like “pregnancy center” became so closely associated with the anti-abortion movement.) Per the report, “In a town with limited maternity care, 7B has been providing important resources to struggling low-income women.”
That line from CBS reporters is so frustrating, because let’s be clear: CPCs operate with one core purpose, and that’s to dissuade women from having abortions—no matter what lies that requires, or threats to the pregnant person’s health.
In several cases, CPCs have endangered women’s lives by intentionally or inadvertently failing to inform consumers about dangerous fetal conditions. At least one Texas woman could have died because a CPC neglected to inform her of her ectopic pregnancy; the group shrugged this off, essentially claiming to bear no responsibility, as they aren’t a health provider. (They said their ultrasounds are “for educational purposes only.”)
But it’s true: CPCs aren’t medical facilities—so how can they possibly address a state-wide crisis of real healthcare clinics shuttering under abortion bans? That 7B reports seeing more pregnant people now that OBGYNs across Idaho have shuttered isn’t an inspirational, feel-good story—it’s a recipe for disaster. As Andrea Swartzendruber, an associate professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Georgia College of Public Health, told CBS:
“Crisis pregnancy centers have, for years and years, capitalized on gaps in access to healthcare. In no way, shape, or form do crisis pregnancy centers have the infrastructure or ability or training to bridge those gaps.”
Despite all this, CPCs are estimated to have raked in $2.5 billion in revenue in 2025 alone. And just this month, the Trump administration rolled out MOMS.gov, a dystopian government website that directs prospective abortion seekers to a data collection website run by one of the country’s most notorious CPC organizations. This comes as anti-abortion states are increasingly passing legislation to shield CPCs from government regulation or any accountability.
The maternal care crisis in Sandpoint is, at its core, a reminder of how devastating Dobbs has been on a granular, local level. And local anti-abortion officials don’t care. At a January budget meeting, Bonner County commissioners, who set funding priorities for the local health district, argued against funding reproductive health services because one official said women’s health services and serving “female patients” (women account for 70% of the district’s clinical patients) are too “niche.”
xxxxxxx
North Carolina Bill Would Legalize Killing Abortion Providers and Advocates—Seriously
Quick hits: HB 1232 Would Legalize Killing Abortion Providers & Advocates; In the States: Alabama, Ohio, Alaska, Maryland & More; Attacks on Democracy in Virginia, Missouri & Ohio; This Absolutely Made My Day; When Will the GOP Call the Anti-Abortion Movement’s Bluff?; Listen Up: Abortion Medication Under Fire
A note on the 🚩 emoji: it’s to alert you that the link goes to a conservative or religious outlet and to proceed with caution. I’d skip giving them the clicks if I could, but covering anti-abortion strategy sometimes means going straight to the source!
HB 1232 Would Legalize Killing Abortion Providers & Advocates
I hope you all enjoyed the long weekend, because we’re starting today off with a doozy! Two North Carolina Republicans have introduced legislation that would codify fetal personhood from fertilization, punish abortion patients as murderers, and outlaw IVF and some forms of birth control. But that’s not all: HB 1232would legalize “deadly force” in defense of a fertilized egg:
“Any person has the right to defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force if necessary, from willful destruction by another person.”
Let’s be clear—this means it would be perfectly fine to kill an abortion provider, an activist, or even someone who drives a friend to the clinic. Anyone who helps a woman get an abortion could be murdered, and their killer could claim it was justifiable.
Reps. Keith Kidwell and Ben Moss, Jr. introduced the legislation as a constitutional amendment; if the General Assembly passed the bill, it would then be sent to voters for approval. The good news, of course, is that there’s pretty much no chance of that happening. But you know what I’m going to say: that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be taking this bill very, very seriously.
After all, in the four years since the end of Roe, ‘equal protection’ bills—legislation that would punish abortion patients as murderers, which in some states means the death penalty—have become largely normalized. Over a dozen states considered the bills last year, and the number of co-sponsors grows every session. The abortion ‘abolitionists‘ behind this push are no longer on the fringes of the movement, either. They’re writing op-eds in mainstream newspapers, partnering with major organizations like Heartbeat International, speaking at Turning Point USA events, running for office and winning. They even got ‘equal protection’ added to the official Texas Republican Party platform.
When I first started writing about these bills, I got called an alarmist. But here’s the thing: we should be alarmed! Punishing women has always been the goal for these maniacs, and they’re getting more explicit about that by the day.
Whether or not a bill has a chance of passing right now is beside the point. In fact, one of our weaknesses as a movement is that we’re stuck on reacting to current threats, rather than looking decades forward. That’s certainly what the anti-abortion movement is doing: they’re laying the groundwork now for laws they want to pass in ten or twenty years. With bills like this, Republicans are giving us a roadmap—why in the world would we ignore it?
I also think it’s important to remember that this North Carolina bill isn’t just a legislative danger, but a cultural one. Death threats against clinics and providers doubled last year; this bill sends the message that violence against providers isn’t just fine—but brave.
One last very important thing: We don’t want anyone in North Carolina to be scared off from seeking out abortion or birth control. So if you share anything about this legislation, please stress that it is a bill and not a law. (That kind of confusion happens more than you might think.)
Finally, if you’d like to contact the sponsors of HB 1232, you can find their information here and here.
In the States: Alabama, Ohio, Alaska, Maryland & More
Let’s start with some fun news: Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has lost his bid for U.S. Senate. Cue the world’s tiniest violin. 🎻
Marshall has been an anti-abortion scourge on Alabama, and I couldn’t be more thrilled to see him go. As attorney general, Marshall targeted abortion funds and argued that advocates who even told women how to get an out-of-state abortion could be prosecuted. (He likened it to a “mobster…asking a hitman to kill a rival.”) He also argued in a legal filing that the state could restrict women from leaving Alabama to get abortions the same way it restricts the travel of sex offenders.
In other words, he’s truly terrible—though I do have him to thank for one of Abortion, Every Day’s proudest moments. In 2023, I discovered that Marshall planned to get around the prohibition on prosecuting abortion patients by instead charging women who took abortion pills with “chemical endangerment of a child”—a law meant to prevent adults from bringing their kids to drug dealers’ houses. Thanks to AED’s coverage, the story made state and national news, and Marshall was forced to reverse course.
All of which is to say: good riddance!
Help us keep holding the GOP accountable
Marshall isn’t the only anti-abortion attorney general on his way out: over in Ohio, AG Dave Yost is leaving office after losing the Republican gubernatorial primary to tech billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy. If Yost’s name sounds familiar, it may be because I’ve written about him often over the years: he tried to obstruct the implementation of an abortion rights amendment approved by voters in 2023, for example, claiming Ohioans didn’t understand what they voted for.
Really, though, Yost will go down in history as the man who called the story of a 10-year-old rape victim fake news—and then refused to apologize. “I don’t understand what you think I need to apologize for,” he said at the time.
It’s that trademark soullessness that makes him such a good fit for his next gig: Yost is joining Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)—the group that overturned Roe—as their new “vice president of Strategic Research and Innovation.” Bullshit title for a bullshit guy!
The Alaska legislature just passed a bill that allows pharmacists to write prescriptions for certain basic medications—part of a broader effort to increase healthcare access across the state, especially in rural communities. And while lawmakers made clear HB 195 doesn’t make it easier to get abortion medication (sadly), antis spent a lot of time and money claiming otherwise.
The Anchorage Daily News has a really good rundown of the anti-abortion response to the bill, including this absolutely bonkers mailer that Alaska Right to Life used to attack sponsor Sen. Cathy Giessel. But it was something else entirely that really caught my eye: reporter Mari Kanagy points out that even after lawmakers amended the bill to state that pharmacists couldn’t prescribe mifepristone, Republican Rep. Jamie Allard said it didn’t go far enough:
“She presented an amendment on the House floor last week restricting pharmacists from not only prescribing but dispensing any abortion-inducing drug or other selective progesterone receptor modulators.”
Why that particular classification? I’m betting it’s because “selective progesterone receptor modulators” don’t just include abortion pills—but the emergency contraceptive, ella. This is why I pay such close attention to language.
Finally, big thanks to Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, who just signed legislation that requires hospitals to provide emergency abortions. The bill is akin to a state-level EMTALA—making clear that hospital ERs have a legal responsibility to give stabilizing and life-saving abortion care to patients.
I know, you’d hope that goes without saying! But thanks to the proliferation of religious hospitals, we’ve seen women denied emergency abortions even in pro-choice states.
Quick hits:
A federal appeals court ruled today that the anti-abortion group suing to repeal Michigan’s constitutional abortion protections lack the standing to do so;
The Sacramento Bee reports that maternal deaths have dropped in California, but Black women are still dying at four times the overall rate;
The Kansas Reflector explains the fight over the Kansas Supreme Court and what it means for abortion rights;
And Indiana conservatives (🚩) are using Trump’s push on “anti-Christian bias” to revive their own religious freedom arguments.
Attacks on Democracy in Virginia, Missouri & Ohio
Republicans know that voters overwhelmingly want abortion to be legal. That's why they're attacking democracy in every state where a pro-choice ballot measure is on the table or has already passed. Let’s start with Virginia, where voters are set to weigh in on an abortion rights amendment this November. But not if Republicans have anything to do with it!
Conservative activists have already filed two different lawsuits to stop voters from having a say. Liberty Counsel sued in March, arguing the amendment wasn’t properly circulated and posted for public inspection. (In other words, they want to stop the vote on a technicality.) A second suit, filed last month by several conservative groups, claims the ballot question misleads voters about what the amendment would actually do.
“I have a right to participate in the constitutional referendum that’s free from fraud,” says plaintiff and Bluefield Councilwoman Meagan Kade.
“You know, I’m not personally fooled by the deceptive ballot question for the amendment. But, I know that so many others inevitably will be and that harms me and that harms my vote.”
Insisting that people are too stupid to understand what they voted for is a playbook move—and for good reason. If conservatives can convince people that no one really wants to protect abortion rights, they don’t have to admit they’re trying to subvert democracy.
We’re seeing the same thing in Missouri, where Republicans have been throwing everything at the wall trying to repeal the abortion rights amendment voters passed in 2024. Their latest move: putting abortion back on the ballot this November, claiming—you guessed it—that voters didn’t really understand what they were approving two years ago. Their measure would repeal existing protections and reinstate a near-total ban.
But if Missouri Republicans were so confident their state is ‘pro-life,’ they probably wouldn’t have named their anti-abortion measure ‘Amendment 3’ — the exact same name as the pro-choice amendment voters passed in 2024. It’s almost like they’re trying to trick people into voting for an abortion ban!
And in Ohio, conservatives are hoping two new lawsuits will undo the abortion protections voters approved in 2023. Faith2Action is arguing that a majority vote isn’t actually enough to pass a constitutional amendment—and that Ohio should have called a full constitutional convention instead. Meanwhile, a juvenile court judge named David Engler has challenged the amendment by claiming it eliminates parental consent laws and judicial bypass rules. (If only.)
All of which is to say: they are desperate to keep this issue from voters. We should be hammering that fact constantly. This isn’t just an attack on our bodies and rights, but democracy.
This Absolutely Made My Day
Let’s take a brief break for a palate cleanser, because this story from The Guardian had me dying laughing this afternoon. I'll let you read it yourself—in this case, a picture really does say a thousand words.
When Will the GOP Call the Anti-Abortion Movement’s Bluff?
Another day, another empty threat from the anti-abortion movement. Alice Miranda Ollstein at POLITICO reports that in the wake of their telemedicine abortion loss, anti-choice groups are demanding that Trump and his federal agencies “take immediate action or risk depressing conservative turnout in the upcoming midterm elections.”
“Our patience has run out,” Kristi Hamrick at Students for Life told Ollstein. Patrick Brown from the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC)—the group behind the widely debunked mifepristone 'study'—was even more pointed, accusing the White House of letting conservative lawsuits do their dirty work for them:
“It is such an example of them wanting to take the coward’s way out, rather than put any political capital behind the issue. They’re hoping the court will take care of that for them, and they will just say, ‘We didn’t have any choice.’”
Here’s the thing: despite all their huffing and puffing, anti-abortion groups aren’t going anywhere. Organizations like Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America (SBA) provide serious door-knocking firepower in key races, and their donors gave them a lot of money to do that GOTV work. They wouldn’t take kindly to the group sitting out elections.
Anti-abortion leaders also have a leverage problem: abortion doesn’t drive Republican voters the way it drives Democrats. And since the end of Roe, groups like SBA have lost too many high-profile races to keep strutting around like kingmakers. Remember what happened in Virginia? I do!
The White House clearly remembers, too. Outside of some perfunctory glad-handing, the Trump administration has been repeatedly calling the anti-abortion movement’s bluff: not enforcing the Comstock Act, slow-walking the FDA’s mifepristone review, and distancing itself from the movement at every turn—whether it’s the EPA, the FDA, or Trump himself. Anti-abortion advice loses Republicans elections, and they know it.
Don’t get it twisted, though. None of that means this administration isn’t a threat. In some ways it makes them more dangerous—because their attacks on abortion access don’t always come with the kind of headline-grabbing moves that are easy to organize around. Instead, it’s the quiet stuff: regulatory rollbacks, FDA bureaucracy weaponized against medication abortion, and judicial nominations that will shape access for decades.
We need to make all of it just as politically toxic as an outright abortion ban.
Ballot Box: Democrats Need to Ramp Up Their Abortion Messaging
You’d think that Republicans running scared from abortion would inspire Democrats to lean into the issue—but no such luck. According to NPR, while reproductive rights dominated the 2022 and 2024 elections, 2026 candidates have spent four times less on campaign ads about abortion.
NPR chalks this up to an attention shift in the party “as voters consistently rank cost-of-living concerns as their top issue.” But, of course, abortion is a cost-of-living issue. Mini Timmaraju, president of Reproductive Freedom for All, says making that connection clear resonates with Americans:
“Most voters who care about reproductive freedom also understand the interconnection between the rising cost of healthcare, the rising costs of childcare, the lack of maternal healthcare in their communities. And they need to hear about these issues together.”
One Democrat making the connection explicit? Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey. Here’s what she told the Boston Globe:
“Make no mistake about it, abortion is economic, and the ability to access abortion care or not has real consequences for women across this country. It has consequences in terms of their health—sometimes consequences are life or death—and it does have economic consequences.”
As I’ve said before, this message only gets stronger with time—because the longer abortion bans are in effect, the more people are impacted physically, emotionally, and financially. Healey is right to stress that, and other Democrats should take note.
Listen Up: Abortion Medication Under Fire
“You Call” at KALW hosted an epic line-up of guests last week to talk about attacks on abortion medication. Host Rose Aguilar was joined by Nation correspondent and authorAmy Littlefield; Elisa Wells, co-founder of Plan C; and Dr. Angel Foster, co-founder of The Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project. My plan is to cuddle up on the couch tonight and listen to all this brilliance—let me know if you do the same!
xxxx
Campaign launches urging 'no' vote on new Missouri abortion ban
- A campaign has launched to oppose a November ballot measure that would reinstate Missouri's abortion ban.
- Amendment 3 would also add a constitutional ban on gender-affirming care for minors.
- Opponents argue the measure is a "bait and switch" to overturn a 2024 vote that protected abortion rights.
The campaign opposing a November ballot measure that would reinstate Missouri’s abortion ban formally launched Wednesday, May 27, arguing Republican lawmakers are trying to overturn the 2024 vote that ended the state’s near-total ban through a “bait and switch” measure.
The coalition, called Stop the Ban Missouri, has already amassed nearly $2 million. Its first ad leans heavily into the idea that voters are being asked to revisit a decision they made less than two years ago.
“In America and here in Missouri, we believe our vote is sacred. That the people are the ones who decide. And in 2024, the people of Missouri decided to stop Missouri’s abortion ban,” a voiceover in the ad says. “But now, politicians are trying to overturn the will of the people and ban abortion again.”
The proposed amendment, drafted and approved for the ballot by lawmakers in 2025, was a direct response to a citizen-led reproductive rights amendment that narrowly passed in 2024. That vote made Missouri the first state to overturn a near-total abortion ban through a public vote.
The 2024 measure was listed as Amendment 3. The new proposal will also appear on the ballot as Amendment 3.
If approved in November, the amendment to Missouri’s constitution would ban nearly all abortions, with limited exceptions for medical emergencies and for survivors of rape or incest. It would also add a ban on gender-affirming care for minors to the constitution, something that is already barred under a 2023 state law.
“We know, in this ballot measure, politicians are playing tricky games and trying to confuse Missouri voters,” said Tori Schafer, a spokesperson for Stop the Ban and an attorney with the ACLU of Missouri. “And we need to educate voters about the bottom line, and the bottom line here is clear: The new amendment 3 is an abortion ban that takes away a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions and instead puts it in the hands of politicians and lawyers.”
Supporters of the amendment argue it would restore abortion restrictions removed by the 2024 vote while preserving exceptions for medical emergencies, fetal anomalies and survivors of rape or incest. The campaign backing the measure, Her Health, Her Future, has also said the amendment is necessary to protect parental consent, clinic regulations and the proposed ban on gender transition procedures for minors.
“The Her Health, Her Future PAC was launched with one clear and unwavering mission,” Mike Hafner, who was an advisor to Kehoe’s gubernatorial campaign and who is now a campaign advisor for the PAC, said last fall. “To defend the dignity of human life and ensure Missourians have the knowledge and necessary tools to stand boldly for the unborn.”
Missouri became the first state to enforce a near-total abortion ban after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022, when a 2019 trigger law took effect. The following year, more than 11,500 Missourians left the state to obtain abortions legally in Kansas and Illinois.
Since the 2024 reproductive rights amendment passed, Missourians can again legally access procedural abortions at Planned Parenthood clinics in Kansas City, Columbia and St. Louis. Medication abortion is legal but remains inaccessible pending a state court decision on what regulations on abortion and abortion providers are now unconstitutional under the reproductive rights amendment.
Schafer said in the last year the campaign has heard from many Missourians angered that abortion is back on the ballot.
“Truthfully, the energy is really high because in the fight for reproductive freedom, we know that this has been going on for decades and decades,” she said. “Since the 1970s with Roe, politicians in Missouri and special interests have been trying to take this right away from Missouri voters. So we are, unfortunately, used to this fight, and we are ready for it.”
The Stop the Ban coalition is made up of Abortion Action Missouri, the ACLU of Missouri, Action St. Louis Power Project, Beacon Reproductive Health Network, Planned Parenthood Great Plains Votes, Planned Parenthood Great Rivers Action, PROMO and the Fairness Project.
Hoping to overcome a narrow loss in 2024, anti-abortion leaders launched Her Health, Her Future last September. Backers include Gov. Mike Kehoe and First Lady Claudia Kehoe, who serves as campaign treasurer, as well as other top Republican elected officials.
So far, that campaign has raised nearly $500,000.
At the Midwest March for Life in Jefferson City this spring, campaign signs for Her Health, Her Future dotted the Capitol lawn. They read: “Yes on 3 Ban Transgender Surgeries for Minors.”
That message points to one of the central fights over the November amendment: whether voters will view it primarily as an abortion measure, as a restriction on gender-affirming care for minors, or both.
A recent poll by Saint Louis University and YouGov showed 60% of Missourians support abortion access in the first eight weeks of pregnancy. It also found 67% of Missourians oppose gender transition medications for minors and 73% oppose gender transition surgeries for minors.
The poll also found the proposed Amendment 3 ahead but without a majority, with 47% support, 40% opposition and 12% undecided.
Critics of the amendment have pointed to the addition of the gender-affirming care ban as “ballot candy” to draw support for an abortion ban that might otherwise be more difficult to pass.
“Unfortunately politicians are trying to trick Missouri voters into banning abortion by combining these two separate topics,” Schafer said. “And so, we’ll be talking to voters about that, and I think that voters will feel confident in voting ‘no’ in November, given that information.”
Missourians will see the following on the November ballot:
“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
- Repeal the 2024 voter-approved Amendment providing reproductive healthcare rights, including abortion through fetal viability;
- Allow abortions for rape and incest (under twelve-weeks’ gestation), emergencies, and fetal anomalies;
- Allow legislation regulating abortion;
- Ensure parental consent for minors’ abortions;
- Prohibit gender transition procedures for minors?”
The ballot language was finalized by Missouri’s Western District Court of Appeals in December after the court determined previous ballot language drafted by Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins failed to sufficiently inform voters that a “yes” vote would repeal abortion rights.
While Gov. Mike Kehoe could have placed abortion on the August ballot, he kept it as part of the November general election.
“Missourians are used to having to tell politicians in Jefferson City what they want by using the ballot measure process,” Schafer said. “And so we know Missourians are with us, and we already said no to abortion ban just two years ago, and we’re confident that Missourians will defeat this new abortion ban by voting no on Amendment 3 in November.”
xxxxxxxxxxxx
5). “Letter from (the so-called) Center for Christian Virtue to United States Attorney Dominick S. Gerace II”, May 20, 2026, Aaron Baer, President, Center for Christian Virtue, at < https://static1.squarespace.
com/static/ 5fce5393c1e311104da811e6/t/ 6a172b7ac006f73ea247b6b0/ 1779903354227/Comstock+Letter+ -+Ohio+US+Attorney+Gerace+II+- +Web.pdf >.Please click on this link to see this letter - I cannot post to Blogger Trump’s hypocritical new website for moms does more harm than good
On May 10 — Mother’s Day — the Trump administration rolled out Moms.gov. The site claims to help “mothers and fathers who face difficult or unexpected pregnancies,” while also protecting mothers and promoting healthy American families. In conjunction with the unveiling, Melania Trump published an op-ed declaring that “Women can lead boldly at work while restoring the honor of motherhood.” Dr. Mehmet Oz, Trump’s Medicare and Medicaid administrator, suggested that the U.S. was “under-babied.”
It was quite a show. But behind that façade, the Trump administration has issued countless policies that directly threaten the health and well-being of women and children. The Moms.gov website looks innocuous. A closer look, however, shows that the resources are a sham.
Those who want to “Access Pregnancy Support Services and Health Centers,” are sent to a link for “pregnancy centers,” then to the so-called “Option Line.” This external site is run by the anti-abortion group Heartbeat International. The pregnancy centers provide only “limited medical services” and don’t offer referrals for abortion.
The Option Line also provides information on “My Pregnancy Options,” a page that shares an abortion link emphasizing “the risk of physical harm.” It also discusses “Abortion Pill Reversal” for those experiencing “regret.”
Meanwhile, the “adoption” and “parenting” links do not mention risks. That is deceptive: The risk of a pregnancy-related death is between 44 and 70 times higher than abortion-related mortality, according to a recent study. And the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says that abortion pill reversal is “not based on science.”
On Mother’s Day, the administration also proposed a rule to expand workers’ fertility benefits, a follow-up to an executive order proposing to make “it easier for loving and longing mothers and fathers to have children.” Again, the reality does not live up to the hype. Although the rule permits employers to provide supplemental coverage of in vitro fertilization, there are no requirements or incentives for employers to offer this insurance. This does nothing to prevent existing inequities in IVF access.
Despite its rhetoric, this administration has done a great deal to make pregnancy and childbirth a dangerous enterprise. On the abortion front, its policies have done much to threaten maternal health. In Trump’s first term, he appointed justices who were central to overturning Roe v. Wade. In his second administration, Trump signed an executive order supporting the Hyde Amendment, which denies the use of federal dollars for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother’s life. It has no exception for maternal health concerns, making abortions hard to access for low-income women already facing greater health threats during pregnancy.
The Trump administration has also signaled that hospitals are not required to offer abortions even if the abortion is medically necessary to prevent organ failure, preserve the patient’s future fertility or otherwise save the patient’s health.
The Biden administration provided guidance indicating that a federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, required emergency abortions when pregnancy poses “serious jeopardy.” It even sued Idaho because its abortion ban meant that women facing serious but not necessarily life-threatening risks could not obtain abortions.
Last June, the Trump administration put a nail in that legislation’s coffin when it rescinded federal guidance requiring hospitals to provide health- or life-saving abortions during medical crises.
The administration is also working to undermine access to medication abortion, which is used in nearly two-thirds of abortions, and therefore should be considered part of “essential health care.”
Mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortion, was approved more than 25 years ago and has been shown in more than 100 studies to be safe and effective — safer even than Viagra and ibuprofen. Yet this fall, the administration decided to conduct “its own review” of mifepristone to determine its “safety and efficacy.” The basis for this review? A study that has not been peer reviewed and is considered “junk science.“
Finally, Trump has cut critical programs that promote the health of women and children. Dramatic reductions at the Department of Health and Human Services have undercut programs like Title X, which provides services to nearly 3 million low-income or uninsured patients annually. He also cut funding for the national Maternal Mental Health Hotline.
Trump’s reconciliation bill, enacted last July, cut Medicaid by almost $1 trillion over a decade as well as the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Medicaid is the main source of healthcare coverage nationwide for pregnant women, providing care from preconception through the postpartum period. By the age of 18, 75 percent of American children will have relied on Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program to provide healthcare coverage.
Trump’s law also slashed funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and took away the full Child Tax Credit for millions of low-income and immigrant families. Trump also proposed cutting funding by almost one-third for the Office on Women’s Health.
The shiny new Moms.gov website hides a tarnished record that actually harms women and children.
Sonia Suter is a professor of law at The George Washington University Law School and founding director of the Health Law Initiative.
Naomi Cahn is a professor of law at the University of Virginia School of Law and co-author of “Fair Shake” (Simon & Schuster, 2024).
FILE – A pregnant woman stands for a portrait in Dallas, May 18, 2023. (AP Photo/LM Otero, File)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
As voters prioritize cost of living, focus on abortion evolves in midterm elections
An abortion-rights activist holds a box of mifepristone pills as demonstrators from both anti-abortion and abortion-rights groups rally outside the Supreme Court on March 26, 2024. Amanda Andrade-Rhoades/AP hide caption
toggle caption
Amanda Andrade-Rhoades/AP
Stay up to date with our Politics newsletter, sent weekly.
In the last two federal elections since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Democrats have made reproductive rights a key part of their pitch to voters.
That messaging dominated the airwaves. During the 2022 and 2024 elections, Democrats in House and Senate races spent more on campaign ads mentioning abortion than on any other issue, according to data from AdImpact.
But in 2026 that focus may be changing. Since January, candidates have spent almost four times less on campaign ads about abortion, compared to the same period in 2024.
It underscores a broader shift in attention within the party ahead of the midterm elections this fall, as voters consistently rank cost-of-living concerns as their top issue, raising questions about what an evolving Democratic message on reproductive rights looks like in 2026.
Abortion-rights advocates acknowledge it's been a challenge to break through on messaging this year, citing a crowded news cycle, but argue that calls to protect reproductive access and care need to be part of the political conversation around affordability.
"When you talk about reproductive freedom in the context of the larger crisis in this country around the economy, it resonates," said Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All.
"Most voters who care about reproductive freedom also understand the interconnection between the rising cost of healthcare, the rising costs of childcare, the lack of maternal healthcare in their communities," she added. "And they need to hear about these issues together."
"Unaffordable isn't accessible"
That connection is one that Democrat Graham Platner has also leaned into in his bid for U.S. Senate in Maine.
Graham Platner and his wife, Amy Gertner, share a moment after a campaign event on May 17 in Portland, Maine. Joe Raedle/Getty Images hide caption
toggle caption
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Platner, an oyster farmer and veteran, is known for railing against the billionaire class and political status quo. But he and his wife have also been sharing a more personal side of their story: their struggle to start a family and the high costs associated with fertility treatments such as IVF.
"To watch the woman that I love, who I want to start a family with, go through this experience of infertility. Like, I can see how it impacts her," Platner said, sitting next to his wife, Amy Gertner, in a video shared in January.
In the video, the couple announced they would be taking a brief break from the campaign trail to go to Norway, emphasizing that fertility treatments like IVF cost, on average, tens of thousands of dollars less there than treatment in the U.S.
Democrats have often talked about family planning as part of a larger conversation focused on warding off Republican-led restrictions on women's health and reproductive rights. Platner has not shied away from making that point, but he's also approached the issue through an affordability lens, calling for universal healthcare and childcare.
"If you have the right to do something but you can't afford it, you don't actually have access to it," he told NPR.
"Everyone, in my opinion, deserves good, high-quality healthcare, whether that is reproductive healthcare around the beginning of pregnancy or around ending one. Either way, it is part of reproductive healthcare," he added. "I think we need to change our thinking around what access actually is, because something that is unaffordable isn't accessible."
Maine is one of several states with fairly strong abortion protections. But Platner's Republican opponent, five-term incumbent Susan Collins, has a complicated history with the issue, voting to confirm two of President Trump's Supreme Court picks, both of whom later voted to overturn Roe. This year marks the first time she's on the ballot since the historic ruling.
Collins, who says she supports abortion rights, has argued that the Dobbs decision was "inconsistent" with what both justices communicated during their confirmation processes. However, her connection to the issue won't sit well with voters this year, argued Platner's campaign manager, Ben Chin.
"We do expect that to be a major reckoning for her," Chin told reporters on a call last month.
"That's an economic issue, too"
Abortion and reproductive rights issues have been a key topic in several closely watched state races. However, even as fewer Democrats vying for House and Senate focus their bids around the issue, lawmakers running for reelection or seeking higher office say their message on the topic hasn't changed.
Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn., addresses media on Feb. 20 in St. Paul, Minn. David Berding/Getty Images hide caption
toggle caption
David Berding/Getty Images
"Voters do have an ability to think about more than one thing and certainly for many, many voters, economic opportunity, economic concerns are going to be front and center," said Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn. "But remember, the right to decide when, the right to decide with whom, to start a family, that's an economic issue too."
Craig, who's long been a reproductive rights advocate on Capitol Hill, is running for the open Senate seat in her home state of Minnesota. In an interview with NPR, she emphasized her support for codifying federal protections for abortions and pledging, if elected, to vote against Trump's judicial nominees and Cabinet picks that she says have a record of being anti-abortion.
"I think that there is this opportunity to remind folks that actually Republicans are taking away your rights," she added. "We can still run very strongly against their assault on reproductive rights in this country, and we can relate that back to economic issues in this country."
Fights over abortion policy continue post-Roe
It's a topic that could become paramount for Democrats moving forward, as Republican-led states try to scale back or get rid of the abortion pill mifepristone and Trump faces pressure from his base to take additional action in his second term.
Mifepristone is available via telehealth in the U.S., but the future of that access is playing out in the federal courts. Just last week, the Supreme Court ordered that the law to provide the drug by mail would stay in place, after reviewing a recent ruling from the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans that would have made it illegal nationwide to mail mifepristone.
It's a reminder that the conversation around abortion rights is far from settled, argues Kelly Baden, vice president for public policy at the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research organization that supports abortion rights.
"I think we're at a really, almost accidental detente when it comes to abortion policy in the U.S. right now," said Baden. "And to be clear, it's not great."
Currently, 13 states have total abortion bans, but levels of access elsewhere vary, and in the years since the Dobbs decision, the number of abortions in the U.S. has slightly increased — due, in part, to the ability to mail medication abortion pills to patients, according to KFF, a nonpartisan health research organization.
"As long as people are still getting abortion care … abortion opponents will keep legislating it at every level and in every courtroom that they can to try to stop it," Baden added. "That means it will be on the ballot one way or another, this midterm and probably every election."
No comments:
Post a Comment