The Fifth Circuit Proves Abortion Is on the Ballot this November

PUBLISHED 5/7/2026 by

A highlight of being in Ireland has been following the local news, especially the robust abortion beat: Irish lawmakers have been waging a loud fight to expand abortion rights—in particular, to ensure unnecessary waiting periods don’t impede access to care.

Breaking headlines from the United States were a dark juxtaposition.

The U.S. is one of only four nations worldwide actively rolling back reproductive rights.

And now we’re threatened with yet another fight: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling late last week aiming to create the most significant setback to abortion access since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision four years ago.

The three-member panel, two of whom are Trump appointees, blocked a 2023 FDA policy allowing mifepristone to be prescribed by telehealth providers and delivered by mail—a decision that applies to all states, whether abortion is legal or not, and where voters have mobilized to pass ballot measures and enshrine reproductive rights in their state constitutions.

This Fifth Circuit ruling is not the final word on the case. The two pharmaceutical companies that make mifepristone, Danco and GenBioPro, immediately filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. On Monday, Justice Samuel Alito announced an administrative stay through May 11, meaning the decision is on hold until at least then, while the justices review the appeal and decide whether the medically unnecessary in-person dispensing requirements can be reimposed for the duration of the litigation.

In the spirit of the fighting Irish, readers should take heart that the community of U.S. abortion providers, advocates and support networks “have shown amazing resilience and tenacity since the Dobbs decision,” according to Kelly Baden of Guttmacher. “They will continue to do what they can do to ensure that everyone, regardless of where they live, can access the abortion care they need.”

So, for now, our citizen mobilization strategy must be twofold: Support those who directly deliver those services and get ready to get loud. The abortion fight shows that access to healthcare, the integrity of science, the rules of democracy, and the right to bodily autonomy are not only all interconnected, but they are all on the ballot this November.

Tennessee Tries to Silence Women Nearly Killed by Its Abortion Ban: ‘We Will Have Our Day in Court,’ Pledges Lead Plaintiff

PUBLISHED 5/6/2026 by

Tennessee was supposed to face nine women in court on April 27 in a closely watched trial over the state’s abortion ban—women who say they were denied emergency care, forced to flee the state for abortions, or pushed to the brink of death after suffering catastrophic pregnancy complications. After waiting nearly three years to testify publicly about what happened to them, the plaintiffs were prepared to finally take the stand.

Then, less than two business days before the trial was set to begin, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti (yes, the same Skrmetti whose name is now attached to the Supreme Court’s landmark anti-trans healthcare ruling) filed an appeal invoking a newly enacted state law which prevents Tennesseans from suing over any state law that harms them. The move stripped the court of jurisdiction over the case, abruptly halting the proceedings and potentially delaying the trial for months or years.

“We should be in court today standing up to Tennessee’s abortion ban,” the Center for Reproductive Rights said in a statement after the cancellation. “These women deserve their day in court. But Tennessee politicians refuse to listen.”

Among the plaintiffs is Allie Phillips, who says she was forced to travel to New York for an abortion after learning her fetus had a fatal diagnosis and that continuing the pregnancy put her own life at risk. By the time she arrived for care, she learned the fetus had already died in utero, placing her at heightened risk of infection and blood clots.

Phillips shares her story and reaction to the canceled trial, in her own words.

“I would have testified about how I would have risked my future fertility and my life if I had stayed pregnant in Tennessee. … I already had a 6-year-old daughter, Adalie, to raise. She needed me to live and be her mom. …

“We’re appealing. We don’t know how it will take but even if it’s five years, we will have our day in court. I’m not going anywhere.”

They Blame Feminism for Falling Birth Rates—but Data Says It’s Saving Families

PUBLISHED 5/6/2026 by

Last month, the newest fertility data dropped—and the U.S. fertility rate has fallen again, hitting another record low.

Almost immediately, conservative influencers, media figures and elected officials pointed fingers at feminism, blaming women’s independence, career ambitions and access to contraception for the decline in births.

It’s a convenient narrative to push along their anti-birth control agenda. But it’s also wrong.

If you actually listen to women—and look at the data—the story becomes much clearer. The number one reason women are delaying or forgoing having children isn’t ideology, it’s affordability. Childcare costs, housing prices and healthcare access have made starting a family financially daunting for millions of Americans. Mix in student loan debt and political turmoil, and having a baby in 2026 is a scary venture. 

And yet, instead of addressing these barriers, policymakers—and organizations leading the way like the Heritage Foundation—are moving in the opposite direction. They are cutting or rolling back the very programs that make family life possible.

From Smith College to Florida’s New College: MAGA’s Campaign Against Universities, Women’s Studies and Liberal Arts

PUBLISHED 5/6/2026 by

As a professor at Smith College and chair of the Program for the Study of Women, Gender and Sexuality, I have closely followed the Trump administration’s attacks on higher education—and on my field in particular.

This week, those attacks landed squarely on my own campus: The Department of Education has opened a civil rights investigation into Smith’s policy of admitting transgender women, arguing the college may be violating Title IX by recognizing gender identity rather than “biological sex.” The probe—prompted by a complaint from a conservative advocacy group—questions whether a women’s college can remain legally “single sex” while including trans women, and raises the possibility of federal penalties or loss of status.

This move is not an isolated action. It is part of a broader campaign to redefine civil rights protections in ways that exclude transgender people, and to pressure colleges and universities into compliance with that vision.

It is also one of many recent attacks on higher education—especially liberal arts institutions—by Republican lawmakers and the Trump administration, aimed at universities they view as out of step with a conservative, anti-feminist agenda. In a 2021 speech titled “Universities Are the Enemy,” JD Vance declared, “We must aggressively attack the universities in this country. … Maybe it’s time to seize the endowments, penalize them for being on the wrong side of some of these culture war issues.”

Women’s, gender and sexuality studies teaches students to think critically, to question the status quo and to understand how power shapes our lives across gender, race, class, sexuality and more. These are precisely the kinds of questions that have made the field a target. Rather than engage with this work, critics have increasingly sought to discredit or dismantle it altogether. The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 provides a roadmap for doing just that—but many of these strategies have already been tested at the state level.

In a Small Room on Capitol Hill, Survivors of Epstein Refuse to Be Ignored

PUBLISHED 5/6/2026 by

Last week, while much of Washington’s attention was fixed on the highly choreographed visit of the king of England to the U.S. Capitol, a very different gathering was taking place just a few hallways away. Survivors of sexual abuse and trafficking, family members of Virginia Giuffre, advocates and several members of Congress packed into a small conference room in the Cannon House Office Building for a roundtable convened by Rep. Ro Khanna. The event came just days after public vigils marking the one-year anniversary of Giuffre’s death and was intentionally timed to coincide with the royal visit, drawing attention to the fact that survivors continue to feel ignored by many of the institutions and powerful figures connected to the Epstein network.

The purpose of the roundtable was not symbolic alone. Survivors and advocates gathered to push for concrete political and legal action in response to what they described as decades of systemic failure surrounding Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. They called for enforcement of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the release of millions of unreleased documents connected to the case, and passage of “Virginia’s Law,” which would expand statutes of limitations for survivors pursuing civil claims related to sexual abuse and trafficking.

For many in the room, this was also about correcting what they see as a dangerous imbalance in how the Epstein case has unfolded publicly: Survivors’ names and private details have repeatedly been exposed, while many powerful people connected to Epstein’s network have largely escaped scrutiny or accountability.

What unfolded inside that room felt urgent precisely because survivors understood how quickly public attention moves on. Many of the women speaking had spent years navigating systems—law enforcement, courts, media and political institutions—that they believe failed to protect them or meaningfully respond after the fact. With only a few minutes each, survivors attempted to compress years of trauma, coercion and institutional indifference into testimony aimed directly at lawmakers capable of advancing reforms.

A New Playbook for College Athletes: Consent, Intervention and Prevention

PUBLISHED 5/5/2026 by

June 2026 will mark the 54th anniversary of Title IX, the 1972 federal law barring sex-based discrimination in education, ensuring equal participation in sports and prohibiting sexual violence in educational programs receiving federal funding.

But even though Title IX passed more than half a century ago, and significantly more women now go to college than men, gender-based violence is still rampant among college students. Thirteen percent of U.S. college students experience rape or sexual assault during their time on (or off) campus. For women, that number doubles: 26.4 percent of women (and 6.8 percent of men) undergraduates experience sexual violence. Young women are especially vulnerable, compared to older grad students, and women college students aged 18 to 24 are three times more likely to experience gender-based violence than women in general.

Most colleges and universities have standard anti-sexual violence training during freshman orientation (often just required videos or something students click through online), but this information is often quickly forgotten or not practical enough for students to easily apply to their own lives and interactions. The nonprofit sexual assault prevention organization It’s On Us is seeking to change that with the The Playbook 2.0, a research-based workshop series for college athletes.

The Only Place to Report Police Sexual Violence Is the System That Causes It

PUBLISHED 5/4/2026 by

Nearly one in five New Yorkers have experienced sexual violence—and a new report finds that 12 percent have also faced sexualized behavior from NYPD officers, ranging from unwanted flirting and requests for phone numbers to catcalling. Across the U.S., police are accused of sexual violence with alarming regularity, yet just over 2 percent of those complaints result in officer discipline.

In New York City, the report finds that officers who perpetrate sexual violence rarely face consequences (less than 1 percent), underscoring that these incidents are not situations of isolated misconduct, but part of a broader pattern of harassment, assault and retaliation.

In highly policed communities, that pattern shapes how people move through the world. Nearly 75 percent of respondents said they go out of their way to avoid interacting with police—changing routes, avoiding certain blocks or staying inside at night.

“They want you to be [scared],” one 22-year-old Black man from Manhattan said. “If you’re not scared of them, then it’s like they’re not doing their job right.”

Others describe a constant state of vigilance: “When you hear a siren, you freeze. … If you see them following you in a car, you slow down and pray they drive past you.”

For survivors, the barriers to accountability are built into the system itself.

“There is this long history of officer impunity,” said Ileana Méndez-Peñate, noting the persistent lack of consequences.

As Priscilla Bustamante put it: “Where can I go? I can’t report police back to police.”

The report argues that meaningful change will require more than internal discipline—calling for independent oversight, reduced reliance on policing, and greater investment in community-based resources.

“This issue really shines a light on the fact that police are not really the answer,” Bustamante said. “They’re part of perpetrating the harm.”

How ICE Became the Enforcement Arm of the Patriarchy

PUBLISHED 5/4/2026 by

Speaking in early February, while the nation was still reeling from the killings of Minneapolis residents Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents, Jackson Katz, a leading voice in gender violence prevention and masculinity studies, and Loretta Ross, a celebrated Black feminist scholar and cofounder of SisterSong, examined the deadly ways misogyny and racism intersect in Donald Trump’s America.

The two of them had a nuanced exploration of how government institutions, cultural narratives and political movements shape—and weaponize—issues of gender and race. Their candid exchange critiques the forces behind U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and right-wing populism, and challenges us to rethink empathy, identity and our strategies for building a more inclusive feminist movement.

The Supreme Court Just Gutted the Voting Rights Act. Women Will Pay the Price.

PUBLISHED 5/2/2026 by and

The Court didn’t strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—but it didn’t need to. By requiring proof of intentional discrimination, the majority has made it dramatically harder to challenge maps that dilute the voting power of communities of color. As Justice Elena Kagan warned, the provision is now “all but a dead letter.”

For the women elected from majority-minority districts, that shift is not abstract. These are the very districts that made their representation possible—and now, those districts are among the most vulnerable to being redrawn or erased.

The consequences were immediate. Within hours of the ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, Florida lawmakers advanced a new congressional map targeting majority-minority districts, including seats held by women.

In the 11 states most likely to face redistricting pressure, up to 36 such districts could be redrawn—12 of them currently represented by women.

As voting rights litigator Yael Bromberg explained, the Court is now effectively looking for a “smoking gun” of discrimination. Short of that, legislatures can redraw maps along partisan lines, even when the racial impact is clear.

The statute remains on the books, but its practical force does not. And what replaces it is not neutrality—it is discretion. State legislatures can choose which incumbents to protect and which to leave exposed, creating new opportunities to sideline women and weaken the political power of the communities that elected them.

What happens next will not hinge on another sweeping ruling, but on a series of decisions that are easier to overlook and harder to challenge—and that will determine, district by district, who gets to remain represented at all.

A Back-and-Forth in the Courts: Feminist Lawyers Ask the Supreme Court to Step In—and Abortion Pill Access Is Restored, For Now

PUBLISHED 5/1/2026 by | UPDATED 5/4/2026 at 9:19 A.M. PT

The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily paused the Fifth Circuit’s Friday ruling that would have tightened access to mifepristone, preserving the current status quo while the justices consider the emergency appeal. The order keeps telehealth and mail access in place for now.

The Monday morning emergency action from the Court—which orders the Trump administration to answer by May 7—follows an urgent intervention from the manufacturers of mifepristone, GenBioPro and Danco.

Regardless of what the courts decide, international telehealth providers, community networks and websites selling pills are ready to ramp up services to fill the needs of Americans.