Justice & Law

Menopause Is a Public Policy Story. Congress Must Treat It Like One.

PUBLISHED 9/16/2026 by

On Wednesday, Sept. 16, I testified before the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging at Congress’ first-ever hearing devoted to menopause. I am an attorney, advocate and author whose primary professional focus is menstruation, menopause and the law—an unusual sphere of expertise, I know. These experiences too often go neglected and are deeply deserving of public policy attention and intervention.

Menopause is a whole-body transition affecting women’s immediate and long-term physical, cognitive, mental and metabolic health. Too often, women navigate these changes without the support they need.

In the United States, about 1.3 million women enter menopause each year—roughly 6,000 per day. Yet there are only around 4,000 certified menopause practitioners across the country, and menopause care deserts are common, especially in rural areas and across the South and Midwest.

Menopause is an individual and collective health story. But it also is a marriage and family story. A career and economic story. An aging and longevity story. And most certainly, a public policy story. There is no singular reform that will respond to every scenario or address every challenge facing every woman in midlife. But a collection of proposals already on the table in Congress, under consideration at federal agencies and advancing in statehouses offer a meaningful start.

(This essay is adapted from the written testimony Jennifer Weiss-Wolf submitted to the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging for its Sept. 16 hearing, “Half the Country, Zero Hearings: Meeting the Moment to End the Menopause Care Gap in America”—Congress’ first-ever hearing devoted to menopause.)

The World Cannot Forget About Women and Girls in Afghanistan

PUBLISHED 9/16/2026 by

Almost exactly five years ago, the Taliban swept back into power in Afghanistan and created the most violent and hostile environment for women and girls on earth. Through more than 160 official decrees, the Taliban have erased women from every aspect of public life. They are not allowed to attend school past sixth grade, are banned from nearly all professions, are unable to leave their homes without a male chaperone and are even forbidden from singing or speaking to each other in public. This legally mandated, institutionalized system of oppression meets the criteria for apartheid on the basis of gender. Despite repeated calls from Afghan women and girls for solidarity and condemnation, the Taliban continue to push the limits of gender-based oppression, and seemingly nothing is stopping them.

Now, as world leaders prepare to gather in New York for the United Nations General Assembly’s High-Level Week, taking place Sept. 18 to 28, they must not allow the rights and freedom of Afghan women and girls to become an afterthought.

‘Furious’ Is a Cathartic Feminist Fable After Years of Epstein Stonewalling

PUBLISHED 9/15/2026 by and

Congress passed the Epstein Transparency Act in November 2025, yet the Department of Justice is refusing to release all the Epstein files. For those they have released, the DOJ redacted the perpetrators’ names while revealing the victims’ names. We have watched the victims demand accountability at the Capitol and attend congressional hearings, while being ignored by attorneys general, politicians and prosecutors—over and over. No one has been charged. No one has been charged, prosecuted or convicted other than one woman, Epstein’s partner in crime, Ghislaine Maxwell.

As we rage against the injustices of Epstein’s crimes and the ongoing cover-ups, we find dark satisfaction in the new Hulu series Furious that portrays women with no other recourse fighting back against perpetrators and the protectors and systems that are failing to hold these abusers accountable.

Furious invites survivors of sexual abuse and allies to imagine what it would feel like to “have all the fucking power in the world,” then tap into that power to continue the work of destroying rape culture.

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 10/5/2026 at 12:16 P.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 an op-ed late last month that can only be described as a 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 notable that extremist talking points are platformed in such a mainstream outlet.

To set the record straight about the Massachusetts law: The Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act removed statutory restrictions that had limited abortion care at 24 weeks or later to specified medical circumstances. Providers and supporters of the repeal said those restrictions were so narrow and difficult to interpret that doctors and hospital attorneys feared criminal prosecution or civil liability for authorizing care, even in cases involving grave fetal diagnoses or serious threats to a patient’s health. As a result, some Massachusetts patients facing pregnancy complications had to travel to places such as Washington, D.C., Maryland or New Mexico for care.

The Post column flippantly describes the new law as allowing women “to terminate pregnancies until birth, for any reason, so long as doing so accords with a physician’s ‘professional judgment’” (the writer’s scare quotes).

If not a trained medical professional, then who should be empowered to make this healthcare decision with a patient? An opinion columnist?