Justice & Law

After Sept. 11, the U.S. Press Corps Chose Patriotism Over Scrutiny

PUBLISHED 9/11/2026 by

(This article originally appeared in the December 2001/January 2002 issue of Ms. magazine.)

A free, independent and critical press is never more crucial than in wartime, when millions of lives and the course of history can turn on small bits of information.

But since the Sept. 11 attacks, corporate media outlets have been busy doing what News Corp owner Rupert Murdoch called their “patriotic duty”: waving the flag, toeing the government’s line, and ceding their major editorial judgment calls to Condoleezza Rice and other administration bigwigs. These insiders have pressured news executives to suppress information ranging from Al Qaeda statements and security details to public health data available under the Freedom of Information Act.

‘Survivors Have Answered Enough’: The Epstein Reading Room Takes Survivors’ Fight on the Road

PUBLISHED 9/11/2026 by | UPDATED 9/14/2026 at 8:36 A.M. PT

Attorney General Todd Blanche came to Dallas last week to deliver a “law and order” message at Trump’s midterm rally, where he praised the president and promised accountability for people who break the law. His central line was: “To evil men and women in this country, know this: President Trump will hold you accountable.”

A few miles away, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse and their family were asking why that commitment to accountability had not extended to them.

They gathered inside the Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein Memorial Reading Room, surrounded by 3,437 bound volumes containing nearly 3.5 million pages released by the Justice Department. The books weigh about 17,000 pounds and stretch across hundreds of feet of shelving, turning a sprawling digital archive into something visitors can see, walk through and begin to comprehend.

The scale of the files is staggering, but survivors said releasing millions of pages is not the same as delivering justice. They are still waiting for the Justice Department to release the remaining records, protect their identities and investigate viable leads involving alleged co-conspirators and enablers.

“Justice that stops when it reaches power is not justice,” survivor Sharlene Rochard said.

The thousands of bound volumes make that unfinished work impossible to ignore.

After completing its Dallas run, the Trump-Epstein Reading Room is back on the road.

Trump and DOJ’s Epstein Cover-Up Is Front of Mind for Voters Going into Midterms

PUBLISHED 9/10/2026 by

With just two months until the midterm elections, voters across party lines are looking for candidates who are willing to take on corruption, hold powerful abusers accountable and demand the full release of the Epstein files.

A new nationwide poll conducted by public opinion research firm GBAO and released Wednesday by COURIER and Reckoning Action found that 88 percent of Americans who plan to vote in the midterms, including 83 percent of Republican voters, will prioritize candidates who promise to hold powerful people accountable, including through the release of the full Epstein files. Justice for Epstein’s victims ranked higher for voters than almost every other issue, including healthcare, affordability, immigration, public safety and the Iran War.

Releasing the Epstein files became a national priority in 2025, as the Trump administration became engrossed in an apparent cover-up of the records, what they contained, and who they might implicate. The most grievous transgressions include secret meetings in the Situation Room; moving Epstein’s convicted co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell to a low-security prison; holding a fake Epstein files release party with far-right media personalities; and closing its investigation into Epstein without additional prosecutions after a hasty review of less than 7 percent of the DOJ’s investigative files.

In lieu of executive accountability, the public turned to Congress. Pressure from voters grew so intense that the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA) passed with virtually unanimous support.

But the new polling suggests that voters may now turn to the ballot box to punish those they believe have failed to ensure the law is upheld. To date, only half of the 6 million records from the government’s case files on Epstein have been released, and the U.S. Department of Justice has failed to provide Congress with explanations for redactions and omissions as required by law.

The full release of the Epstein files will take a Congress willing to use its power to force the DOJ to comply with the law, as Attorney General Todd Blanche has stonewalled any attempts to do so. Senate Republicans approved Blanche’s nomination to his role in August, despite pleas from survivors of Epstein’s abuse to reject him. Blanche took lead on the Epstein investigation in 2025, members of Congress currently investigating his handling of the case say his priority has been to protect the president every step of the way.

(Editor’s note: The Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein Memorial Reading Room—a traveling exhibit that organizes the 3.5 million pages of DOJ’s released Epstein files into 3,437 bound books—is on tour. Five cities will host the full Reading Room; the smaller Bookmobile will visit 20+ more along the way; read on for the full schedule.)

Fifth Circuit Judges Seem Skeptical of Louisiana’s Challenge to Telehealth Abortion

PUBLISHED 9/10/2026 by

On Wednesday, Sep. 9, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans heard oral arguments in Louisiana v. FDA, a lawsuit filed by the Louisiana attorney general seeking to end telehealth abortion nationwide, even in states that protect abortion access.

Since the fall of Roe and a national snapback of abortion rights in a majority of U.S. states, the antiabortion movement has been laser focused on trying to restrict telehealth abortion because it’s increasing in both awareness and popularity, and it allows patients to circumvent state bans.

The 5th Circuit is considered one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country. But the three-judge panel randomly selected to hear Wednesday’s case included two judges appointed by Democratic presidents: Judge Stephen Higginson, appointed by former President Barack Obama; and Judge Dana Douglas, by former President Joe Biden. The third judge, Judy Richman, was appointed by George W. Bush.

During oral arguments, all three judges indicated skepticism about Louisiana’s arguments, starting with Louisiana’s right to bring the case.

While the recent 5th Circuit hearing offers hope that efforts to restrict mifepristone through the courts will not succeed anytime soon, two greater threats remain: Trump’s antiabortion nominee to lead the FDA, Heidi Overton, and Attorney General Todd Blanche’s promise to restrict the mailing of mifepristone under the Comstock Act. (This move would spur immediate lawsuits by Democratic states and manufacturers of mifepristone.)

Meanwhile, abortion rights advocates will never give up in finding new ways to put abortion pills in women’s hands.

‘It’s About Who Gets to Decide’: Massachusetts Will No Longer Impose a Gestational Limit on Access to Abortion Care

PUBLISHED 9/9/2026 by

Gov. Maura Healey signed the Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act into law last month, making Massachusetts the 10th state, together with Washington, D.C., that does not impose a gestational limit on access to abortion care.

In so doing, Healey stressed the “heartbreaking stories” she heard “from women and families who were preparing to welcome a healthy baby into their family, only to receive devastating news later in their pregnancy. Instead of being able to rely on the doctors they knew and trusted at home, they were forced to travel hundreds of miles and pay out of their pockets while navigating unimaginable grief.”

I recently had the privilege of talking with Kate Dineen who shared her tragic experience of being denied abortion care in Massachusetts because of the state’s “24-week ban with very difficult to access exceptions.” 

Here is her story.

Who Should Decide Whether a Patient Needs an Abortion: A Doctor or an Opinion Columnist?

PUBLISHED 9/8/2026 by

In case you missed it, a Washington Post columnist published a so-called op-ed late last month that can only be described as an antiabortion, whine-weary litany of complaints about blue states’ targeting of crisis pregnancy centers (its headline, “In Massachusetts, ‘reproductive freedom’ goes only one way”)—a response to the decriminalization of abortion care later in pregnancy in the Commonwealth this summer.

It is fatuous and lazy commentary, recycling antiabortion movement talking points and a tired victim narrative about crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). It reads like straight-up CPC industry PR—something you’d find in the right-wing Washington Examiner. An embarrassment, even to Jeff Bezos’ Post. And yet: It’s still a win for the extremists to have their talking points platformed in such a mainstream outlet.

Gloria Steinem Lit a Revolution. The Torch Is Ours Now.

PUBLISHED 9/5/2026 by

This week, Gloria Steinem died at the age of 92, peacefully at her home in New York City and surrounded by people who loved her.

We will miss her at Ms. I will miss her personally.

There were parts of Gloria’s childhood that mirrored my own. For a period of time, Gloria did not attend school because she was tending to her mother. She later said that she chose not to have children because she had already had a mother to take care of.

We do not talk enough about stories like that: the sensitivity that came from her own childhood. Pronatalism in the United States still insists that all women should want children, care for those children, stay home and find satisfaction within the narrow boundaries others have drawn for them. Even education has historically been framed not as a path toward women’s intellectual or economic freedom, but as a place to find a husband.

To want something more—and to care about something larger than the life prescribed for you—has always carried challenging consequences for women. Gloria understood that deeply. She also understood that the freedom to shape one’s life begins with the ability to govern one’s own body.

In 2017, standing before the Women’s March in Washington, D.C., Gloria called for “a deep democracy” in which people would refuse to be quiet or controlled. “We are at one with each other,” she said. “We are looking at each other, not up. No more asking Daddy.”

Those words carry a special weight today. Democracy has never been a gift delivered from above. Equality has never arrived because people in power suddenly found it convenient. Both are built by people who recognize one another, tell the truth about their lives and refuse to accept that injustice is inevitable.

How Can Feminists Advance Racial Equity in a Post-DEI World? Join Book Talk With Ralina L. Joseph [Sept. 10 @ Ms. HQ in LA]

PUBLISHED 9/2/2026 by

As attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion intensify across the U.S., how can feminists deepen their commitment to racial justice—and sustain that work without succumbing to exhaustion?

On Thursday, Sept. 10, at 6 p.m., Ms. will welcome author and scholar Ralina L. Joseph for a special evening examining the interconnectedness of race, equity and feminism. Joseph will discuss her new book, Racial Exhaustion: How to Move Through Racism in the Wake of DEI, in conversation with Sarah Banet-Weiser, dean of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.

The event is at Ms. magazine headquarters: 433 S. Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, Calif. RSVP today!

Massachusetts Decriminalized Later Abortion, No Health Emergency Required

PUBLISHED 9/2/2026 by

Massachusetts law no longer imposes a gestational-age limit on abortion—meaning for the first time, a woman in the state can choose to end her pregnancy at any point, without a prosecutor looking over her doctor’s shoulder.

Gov. Maura Healey (D) last month signed the Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act, joining nine other states—Alaska, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermon, plus D.C.—in trusting patients and medical professionals to make abortion decisions throughout pregnancy, rather than politicians, police and prosecutors.

In Massachusetts, the legislative hearings focused on women who experienced a severe fetal diagnosis or a threat to their own health and had to travel out of state for medical care, which are very sympathetic stories that were able to win over many supporters.

While it’s certainly important that states like Massachusetts have made later abortion more accessible to people experiencing health emergencies, the Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act is important for everyone seeking later abortion care, whatever the reason.