What’s Next for Menopause Legislation in Your State?

An unprecedented 19 states have introduced three dozen bills to improve menopause care and treatment; eight of those bills are now law.

At the federal level, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration finally removed the “black box warning” on estrogen products, ushering in a new era for menopause care whereby women and their doctors can make decisions without the unnecessary fear the prior label engendered.

And so, we kick off the new year with a mighty impressive track record. Can we expect more of the same in 2026? My prediction is a resounding yes. This is only the beginning of a long overdue and much deeper series of demands. Here’s my forecast for what to expect in the weeks and months ahead.

A Very Bad Year for Women’s Health

When I started writing for The Contrarian, a funny-not-funny inside joke was whether there would be enough fodder for a weekly democracy column that overtly centers gender. I think you already know the punchline. Suffice it to say, I did not miss a single Wednesday in all of 2025.

For my final entry of the year, we thought it worthwhile to offer a snapshot—a year’s worth of reporting on the depth of damage this administration has wreaked on women’s health, with real-time Contrarian reporting noted.

Trump’s Anti-Diversity Crusade Claims Two Campus Magazines

I recently discovered two glossy magazines published by and for young people: Alice, which focuses on fashion, beauty, personal health, wellness and lifestyle; and Nineteen Fifty-Six, which brings a Black cultural lens to coverage of news, style and the arts.

Both are student-run publications housed at the University of Alabama. And on any other day, they would make one think the future of journalism look very bright indeed. Except that the sole reason I found these magazines at all is because they are now officially suspended. Last week, campus officials announced their permanent shuttering. Yet another casualty of the Trump administration’s attacks on free speech and public higher education—all in the name of stamping out supposed diversity, equity and inclusion.

Are We Ever Off Work, or Just Out of Office? The OOO Messages Exposing America’s Care Crisis

A new public awareness campaign, “Out of Office for Care,” launched this week invites employees to set their “OOO” automated email replies to accurately reflect the array of care responsibilities that pull them away from work, and then share those messages publicly.

People across industries—artists, founders, caregivers, cultural influencers, nurses, educators, nonprofit leaders, small business owners and parents—can give the country an unfiltered look at why they step away from work, and what it costs to do so without paid leave.

OOO replies range from clever to catastrophic. Some name the person they are caring for; others reveal the exhaustion of trying to do it all. All together, they show a country exerting caring in every direction and a policy landscape that hasn’t caught up.

Among those making the rounds:
—”I’m OOO because inexplicably school ends at 3 and work ends at 5 at best. … I can’t keep up, I need sleep, I’m getting a cold, everything is expensive and unnecessarily hard, and the holidays are coming.”
—”I’m OOO because my parents are getting older and I can’t manage their RX and 500 unread emails at once. In-home care is $60K and I have limited PTO. WiIl get back to you ASAP!”
—“Hi, sorry to miss you! I’m OOO because I just gave birth, but like 1 in 4 women in the U.S. I’ll be back at work in a couple weeks.”

Feminists vs. Authoritarians: Honoring Leaders Holding the Line

Greetings from Los Angeles—on the heels of a very special evening to celebrate the heart and soul of the democracy movement. On Tuesday night, Ms. paid tribute at the Global Women’s Rights Awards to bold leaders operating at the intersection of media, the law and storytelling—recognizing these as the essential trifecta for toppling authoritarianism. And, importantly, for fueling a feminist future.

This FDA Decision Could Transform Menopause Care

On Monday, Nov. 10, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that the Food and Drug Administration would eliminate the “boxed labeling” requirement for estrogen products.

The “black box warning,” as it’s commonly called, is part of the fallout from a press conference that occurred more than 20 years ago, announcing the findings of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI). It’s also been the subject of a half-century-long push and pull with the federal government.

Make no mistake, this has been a longstanding demand—it’s neither new nor MAHA-driven. Doctors and scientists have made the case for its removal since the start to no avail, arguing the data from the WHI—the largest, most expensive, and only randomized placebo-controlled study of post-menopausal women—never supported putting it there in the first place.

The FDA’s reversal of the labeling requirement is a major win for evidence-based medicine. Now it’s up to us to responsibly inform women of their choices.

Trump Administration Forced to Fund SNAP Benefits—But Only Enough to Cover Half of November

The Trump administration will release funds to pay for half of November’s SNAP benefits, following two federal court rulings the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to release the money. Patrick Penn, who oversees the SNAP program at the USDA, warned of disruptions and delays, suggesting many SNAP recipients will still be without benefits for some time.

Trump’s IVF Announcement Fails Families—But Duckworth’s Right to IVF Act Could Deliver

Last week’s White House announcement is the equivalent of “politely [asking] companies to add IVF coverage out of the goodness of their own hearts—with zero federal investment and no requirement for them to follow through,” says Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

There is, in fact, an alternative to the Trump plan: The Right to IVF Act, introduced by Sen. Tammy Duckworth, would require employer-sponsored health plans and public health insurance, including Medicaid and military plans, to cover treatments. The bill also addresses discrimination and forbids the restriction of access to IVF based on marital status or sexual orientation.

Republicans have voted it down twice.