More Than A Magazine, A Movement
I’m talking both to the man who murdered Laken Riley and the people who use her name to push their own agenda. Laken Riley is not a bill or a law. She was a person.
It’s time for the world to give Laken Riley her name back. Let her family remember her for the life she lived. Let them empower her memory without invoking her name as a political battle cry. And let’s fight for a world where we invoke Riley’s memory to protect more women just like her, and not for another twisted cause.
In the whirling, swirling hellscape of illegality and cruelty that is the current American political scene, it’s hard to keep track of all the individuals and groups demonized, deported and derided by an administration seemingly motivated by a Machiavellian desire for power that might make Machiavelli himself blush with shame. In the midst of an apocalyptic news cycle, one targeted segment of the population seems to be fading from view: women.
But let us not, as Abigail Adams wrote so many years ago, forget the ladies. “Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could.”
The idea of reopening Alcatraz for what Trump termed as punishment for the country’s “most ruthless and violent” criminals should not be viewed in isolation. It calls for a broader reckoning with why such carceral relics were created in the first place and why their logic persists.
Alcatraz was designed to be the ultimate deterrent, embodying the harshest aspects of the U.S. penal system as a symbol of punitive excess. Yet it was historically ineffective: The prison’s closure in 1963 was due to high operational costs and its failure to rehabilitate inmates, suggesting that its model was unsustainable and ineffective.
Reproductive freedom advocates filed a lawsuit, Vernon v. Kobach, on May 29 challenging the constitutionality of a Kansas law that automatically invalidates a person’s end-of-life treatment decisions in their living will if they are pregnant. The case argues that this law violates pregnant patient’s constitutional rights to bodily autonomy, privacy and equal treatment under Kansas law. The complaint asks the court to permanently prohibit the state from enforcing the pregnancy exclusion—restoring pregnant women’s’s right to have their end-of-life decisions honored, just like anyone else.
Kansas is one of 28 states that restrict advance directive during pregnancy—16 based on the potential of fetal survival and 12 regardless of fetal survival.
“Across the country, people are shocked and horrified to learn that their end-of-life directives might be invalidated because they are pregnant,” said Farah Diaz-Tello, senior counsel and legal director at If/When/How. “Everyone deserves to be able to make decisions about their body and their life; pregnancy is no excuse to deny someone’s fundamental rights.”
Three years after Dobbs, the antiabortion movement is escalating efforts to block access to medication abortion, criminalize interstate travel, and impose a nationwide ban—threatening reproductive freedom across all 50 states.
As antiabortion groups continue to push back against access to reproductive care, empowering state protections on abortion is imperative.
When women assume a position of power, does she represent feminist leadership? Can she govern according to feminist principles? What is the difference between women’s leadership and feminist leadership?
This public syllabus on feminist leadership, assembled by Ms. contributing editor Janell Hobson and students in her graduate research seminar at the University at Albany, is an attempt to respond to these questions by exploring different examples of feminist leaders and feminist movements—both globally and historically.
We hope this syllabus can educate us on the kind of feminist leadership that will move us forward toward an inclusive democracy.
(This is Part 2 of a two-part series on women leaders and feminist leadership. Part 1—out last week—breaks down Angela Bassett’s role as U.S. president in the latest and final installment of Mission: Impossible, and how her representation on screen blurs the line between the impossible fictions and possible realities of women’s power in American politics.)
Last week was another raucous week in Congress, with continued discord over the fiscal, social and societal implications of President Donald Trump’s so-called “big, beautiful bill” as it heads to the Senate.
Meanwhile, the wheels continue to spin in dozens of statehouses across the country, many of which are at the height of their own legislative sessions. And it’s not all doom and gloom—which is one of the exciting aspects of state politics.
Either way, state legislatures offer an extraordinary window into the good, the bad and the ugly of the democratic process—a laboratory for what robust, participatory democracy can and often does achieve.
Throughout the month of May, the Profiles in Courage spotlighted women in the Department of Justice, federal agencies and the military whose careers have been defined by integrity, resilience and reform. Their quiet heroism—often at personal cost—reaffirms the enduring role of public servants who choose justice over self-interest. Through their stories, Ms. pays tribute to a tradition of service that safeguards democracy and inspires the next generation to lead with courage.
In 2023, labor lawyer Gwynne Wilcox—whose union-side advocacy career has spanned decades—shattered two barriers: becoming the first Black woman seated on the National Labor Relations Board and, soon after, its chair. The board’s institutional independence was hastily put to the test on Jan. 27, 2025, just one week after President Donald Trump’s return to office. Wilcox received a midnight email from the White House saying she was dismissed, effective immediately.
Refusing to accept her unlawful dismissal, Wilcox filed suit against the Trump administration. On May 22, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a brief order allowing Trump to dismiss Wilcox from the NLRB. Writing for the three dissenters, Justice Elena Kagan quoted Alexander Hamilton as saying: “To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents.” The order, she said, “favors the president over our precedent.”
Despite widespread public support and growing national momentum for reproductive rights, Youngkin’s second veto of the Virginia Right to Contraception Act underscores a troubling pattern of political resistance to safeguarding access to birth control.
In every issue of Ms., we track research on our progress in the fight for equality, catalogue can’t-miss quotes from feminist voices and keep tabs on the feminist movement’s many milestones. We’re Keeping Score online, too—in this biweekly roundup.
This week:
—House Republicans pass a reconciliation bill with almost $1 trillion in cuts to SNAP and Medicaid; feminists call it “unacceptable, inhumane and reckless.”
—”There is literally no oversight happening in this committee under the GOP,” laments Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.), ranking member of the Subcommittee on DOGE, led by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.
—Mahmoud Khalil’s powerful letter to his newborn son: “How is it that the same politicians who preach ‘family values’ are the ones tearing families apart?”
—Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s HHS will no longer advise pregnant women and children to receive the COVID vaccine, an unusual decision that sidesteps standard CDC process.
—Women-owned small businesses have higher job satisfaction.
—A federal judge attacks protections for LGBTQ Americans.
… and more.