Author: Shoshanna Ehrlich

Shoshanna Ehrlich is professor emerita of women’s, gender and sexuality studies at the University of Massachusetts Boston. Her books include Who Decides: The Abortion Rights of Teens and the co-authored Abortion Regret: The New Attack on Reproductive Freedom. She is currently a legal consultant with Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts, with a particular focus on the reproductive rights of teens.

There Is Nothing Patriotic About Denying Veterans Abortion Care

Claiming that abortion care is not an essential medical service, in August the Trump administration proposed a new rule to “reinstate the full exclusion on abortions and abortion counseling from the medical benefits package” for veterans and their dependents.” The proposed rule change drew fierce public opposition from a wide range of groups during the requisite 30-day comment period.

Then, under the cover of the holidays, the full exclusion on abortion and abortion counseling for veterans and their dependents took effect, by way of a legal directive issued in a Dec. 18 DOJ memo.

“You can’t thank a veteran for putting her body on the line for her country, then turn around and take away her right to control it. There is nothing patriotic about denying our nation’s heroes the care they deserve and the ability to determine their own futures.”

Dobbs Has Triggered Widespread Discrimination in Non-Reproductive Healthcare

In the years since Roe was overturned, physicians across a wide range of medical specialties have described how abortion bans are undermining their ability to follow evidence-based standards of care. Dermatologists, oncologists, neurologists, cardiologists and others told Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) that they are regularly forced to alter treatment plans, delay urgent care or avoid prescribing the most effective medications simply because those treatments could harm a pregnancy. These constraints are creating a chilling effect that reaches far beyond reproductive health and into the everyday practice of medicine.

As PHR’s Michele Heisler and Payal Shah explained, abortion bans are also fueling discriminatory care. Reproductive-age women are routinely denied the best available treatments, while men with the same conditions face no such barriers. Even within the group of reproductive-age women, clinicians are making decisions based on subjective judgments about a patient’s “contraceptive reliability”—a practice that opens the door to bias and disproportionately harms marginalized patients.

This two-tiered system of care is not hypothetical: It is already shaping medical decision-making in ban states, with dangerous consequences for patients’ health and lives.

A Game-Changing Approach: Providing Anonymous Hotel Check-Ins for Domestic and Sexual Violence Survivors

Safe Stays by ReloShare partners with hotels nationwide to protect survivors’ identities and expand access to secure housing.

“When guests check in, hotel staff often insist on seeing their identification and recording their full name. Because hotel staff members are not trained advocates, she said, they probably won’t be on high alert if an abuser calls or walks through the door,” said Ruth Glenn, the former chief executive and president of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. And “leaving is often the most dangerous time for survivors of abuse,” according to the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

Paige Allmendinger, Safe Stays by ReloShare’s chief product officer, told Ms., “First, we needed the ability for a guest to check in under a fake name, with no ID required at check-in. If the survivor’s real name isn’t tied to the reservation and an abuser calls the hotel searching for them, there won’t be any record that the survivor is in-house, giving the survivor a degree of protection at the very time they need it most.

“Second, we needed hotels to forego the usual requirement for a credit card from the guest or agency at check-in. Credit-card transactions can expose location putting survivors at risk. While social service organizations may have funding to pay for hotel stays, many have limited credit lines for upfront payment or can’t send staff in person to present a card at check-in.”

Federal Judge Rules Alabama Can’t Criminalize Help for Out-of-State Abortions

A federal court blocks Alabama’s attempt to punish those who help residents obtain legal abortions elsewhere—affirming core constitutional rights to travel, speak freely and support reproductive autonomy.

“The right to interstate travel includes both the right to move physically between two States and to do what is legal in the destination State—otherwise, our freedom of action is tied to our place of origin [and] the right to travel becomes a hollow shell.”

‘Make Motherhood Great Again’: Pronatalism Finds a Comfortable Home in the Trump Administration

Once dismissed as fringe, pronatalism has moved into the mainstream—finding powerful champions in Trump, Vance and Musk, and gaining policy traction within the administration. Rooted in eugenics, antifeminism, and anti-immigrant sentiment, this ideology casts high birthrates as a patriotic duty and low fertility as a national threat.

Now, federal policies are beginning to reflect this dangerous worldview—one that sees women’s bodies as tools of the state and reproductive freedom as collateral damage.

South Carolina Wants to Block Medicaid Patients From Planned Parenthood. Will SCOTUS Let It?

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, a case that could determine whether Medicaid patients have the right to sue when states deny them access to qualified healthcare providers like Planned Parenthood.

While the legal question is narrow, a ruling in favor of South Carolina could embolden other states to cut off Medicaid funding for reproductive healthcare, disproportionately impacting low-income patients and people of color.

Trump Administration Drops Lawsuit to Protect Emergency Abortion Access: ‘A Cruel and Callous Act That Could Cost Pregnant Idahoans Their Lives’

The Trump administration’s recent decision to drop the Biden-era lawsuit defending emergency abortion access in Idaho under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is another powerful indication of its intent to dismantle existing federal protections for sexual and reproductive health.

Anticipating this move, St. Luke’s Health System filed filed a new lawsuit against Idaho during the first month of Trump’s presidency. On March 3, upon learning that dismissal was imminent, St. Luke’s sought and was granted a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo—meaning Idaho remains barred from enforcing its criminal abortion law to the extent it conflicts with EMTALA. At least for the moment, pregnant Idahoans with emergency medical conditions that pose serious threats to their health are not faced with the dilemma of whether to be airlifted out of the state to receive stabilizing abortion care or wait until an abortion becomes necessary to prevent their death. However, the case is far from over, and the eventual outcome is uncertain—especially if it winds up again before the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority.

The Fight for Repro Freedom and LGBTQ+ Equality Isn’t Just Happening in the Legislatures—It’s Also Happening in the Checkout Aisle

John Mullin is the founder of the nonprofit Spending Spotlight, which is seeking to rally progressive consumers to redirect their individual spending patterns to counter the influence of corporate spending on right-wing causes. Recognizing, as he explained, that as a resident of Seattle, his “elected officials [were] already doing things on these issues that are in alignment with what I would like to see happen,” such that his vote was not “actually making a huge difference,” Mullin began to consider the idea of “voting” through the redirection of consumer dollars.

Mullin and his small volunteer team developed a strategically targeted plan for how consumers can shift their spending away from “companies using their dollars against our rights and freedoms.”

Montana Lawmakers Vote Down Bill That Would Have Treated Cross-Border Abortion Seekers as Traffickers of Their ‘Unborn Children’

On Nov. 5, 2024, Montana voters decisively approved a ballot initiative enshrining the right to abortion up until fetal viability (about 24 weeks gestation) in the state Constitution.

On Monday, Feb. 24, Montana Republicans introduced a radical antiabortion “trafficking” bill that would have made seeking an out-of-state abortion after viability, or simply helping someone get one, a felony.

Late on Thursday, Feb. 27, after intense and emotional committee hearings, eight Democratic lawmakers joined eight Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee to vote down the bill, HB 609. Four Republicans still voted in support of it.