This FDA Decision Could Transform Menopause Care

PUBLISHED 11/12/2025 by and

On Monday, Nov. 10, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that the Food and Drug Administration would eliminate the “boxed labeling” requirement for estrogen products.

The “black box warning,” as it’s commonly called, is part of the fallout from a press conference that occurred more than 20 years ago, announcing the findings of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI). It’s also been the subject of a half-century-long push and pull with the federal government.

Make no mistake, this has been a longstanding demand—it’s neither new nor MAHA-driven. Doctors and scientists have made the case for its removal since the start to no avail, arguing the data from the WHI—the largest, most expensive, and only randomized placebo-controlled study of post-menopausal women—never supported putting it there in the first place.

The FDA’s reversal of the labeling requirement is a major win for evidence-based medicine. Now it’s up to us to responsibly inform women of their choices.

The Politics of ‘Audit’: How Texas Is Using Bureaucracy to Erase Gender Studies

PUBLISHED 11/11/2025 by , , and

Professor Melissa McCoul was dismissed in September after teaching LGBTQ+ themes in her children’s literature course at Texas A&M. Just this week, a faculty council determined McCoul’s firing violated her academic freedom.

But politicians and activists who oppose what they call “woke gender ideology,” are galvanized and doubling down, using this Texas A&M case to push for curricular reviews aimed at eliminating women’s, gender and sexuality studies from public colleges and universities across Texas.

Framed as bureaucratic oversight, conservatives seek to eliminate gender studies and related fields through procedural mechanisms that evade public scrutiny. The assaults on gender studies in Texas are not just a local issue; they are a national bellwether. They signal a coordinated effect to dismantle feminist and queer inquiry and remind us that silence, in the face of repression, is complicity.

Why Won’t the U.S. Stop Child Marriage?

PUBLISHED 11/11/2025 by

Child marriage is a persistent, evolving, global problem, and the United States is far from immune: Between 2000 and 2018, nearly 300,000 children were married in America—most of them girls wed to adult men.

Lack of a strong legal framework to prevent child marriage in the U.S. contributes to its prevalence. Banning child marriage is still in the best interest of America’s children and teens.

Repro Groups Sue Michigan Over Law Denying Pregnant Women Control of Their Bodies in End-of-Life Decisions

PUBLISHED 11/11/2025 by

Bodily autonomy shouldn’t vanish with a positive pregnancy test—yet in Michigan, it can.

On Oct. 23, a coalition of Michigan women, physicians and patient advocates filed a lawsuit, Koskenojo v. Whitner, challenging the constitutionality of Michigan’s pregnancy-exclusion law that forces life support on pregnant women by denying incapacitated pregnant patients the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment. The case relies on a voter-approved 2022 constitutional amendment that explicitly protects “the right to make and effectuate decisions about all matters relating to pregnancy.”

One plaintiff—Nikki Sapiro Vinckier of Birmingham, Mich.—explained her objections to Michigan’s pregnancy exclusion law. “As a woman and a mother, it’s infuriating to know that my body can still be regulated more than it’s respected. As a trained OB-GYN physician assistant, I know this law protects no one—it only punishes those who can get pregnant. The pregnancy exclusion clause isn’t about safety or care. It’s about control. There is no place for a law that discriminates against pregnant people in a state that claims to trust women.”

Playing Games With Hunger

PUBLISHED 11/11/2025 by

Gail Todd lives with her husband and three daughters in the southeastern section of Washington, D.C., and works at a Walmart in suburban Maryland. Her husband is a shift manager at a fast-food restaurant. Food stamps—the common name for the vouchers or debit cards supplied by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP—helped Todd when she struggled financially after her first daughter was born. She had to turn to them again four years ago because her job, combined with her husband’s wages, doesn’t pay enough to feed her family.

Before Walmart, Todd, pregnant now with her fourth child, worked for $8.35 an hour at McDonald’s. Walmart’s $10 hourly wage was better. In the beginning she worked roughly 40 hours a week, but since May her weekly hours have been reduced to between 16 and 28, earning her no more than $900 a month. The loss in income coincided with a cut to the family’s monthly food-stamps benefit from $339 down to $239—the lowest she’s ever received—because a temporary boost to the program in the stimulus bill was allowed to expire Nov. 1, 2013.

“The food stamps, they help, but it’s not enough because I can’t feed my family,” she says.

[From the Spring 2014 issue of Ms.]

‘The Rent Eats First’: 10 Days Without SNAP Benefits Shows How America’s Safety Net Is Failing Its Most Vulnerable

PUBLISHED 11/10/2025 by

Throughout the United States, the millions of families that rely on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits—which make up 12.3 percent of Americans—have spent at least 10 days without them. The uncertainties about whether they will return, and when, has left families desperate. For many, the crisis has reinforced what they’ve long felt: The nation’s social safety programs are failing to meet real, everyday needs—and across Iowa, Michigan and Pennsylvania, Americans are growing disillusioned with politicians who can’t protect their most basic ones.

For many disabled Americans, losing SNAP also means losing the nutritional needs that help keep them out of the floundering U.S. healthcare system. They shared with Ms. a glimpse into what the past 10 days without SNAP have looked like, and what millions of Americans who rely on these programs actually need.

“If I lose benefits, am I going to be able to remain going to school?”

“They’re thinking about next week. Will they have food? Will they be hungry?”

“The problem is, the rent always eats first, or the house payment is going to eat first. After that? Are you going to [get your] medicine? No, we [have to pay] our utilities…. then you [think], ‘Okay, I’ve only got enough for either food or my medicine.’”

FDA Rewrites the Story on Estrogen: A Win for Women

PUBLISHED 11/10/2025 by

Estrogen, the hormone long cast as a public health threat, has been unfairly maligned.

The FDA has finally announced it will remove the incorrect “boxed warning” from vaginal estrogen products and issue corrected labeling for other estrogen therapies—a much needed course correction for one of modern medicine’s most damaging missteps.

When the Headline Gets It Wrong: Feminism Isn’t the Problem—Patriarchy Is

PUBLISHED 11/8/2025 by | UPDATED 11/11/2025 at 11:46 A.M. PT

When I saw the headline “Did Women Ruin the Workplace? And if So, Can Conservative Feminism Fix It?” in The New York Times Opinion section, my heart sank. It felt like a headline torn from another era—a provocation that had no place in 2025.

False accusations remain extremely rare—estimated at between 2 percent and 8 percent of reports—while roughly two-thirds of sexual assaults are never reported at all. The crisis is sexual violence, not accountability.

Yet, for centuries, women have been labeled “emotional” or “petty” to justify their exclusion from leadership and public life. Hearing these stereotypes revived in 2025—in The New York Times, no less—is disheartening. At a time when reproductive rights are being stripped away and women’s autonomy is under attack, we don’t need pseudo-intellectual nostalgia for patriarchy disguised as debate. We need truth, solidarity and progress.

The message from the writers is clear: Women should know their place. But women already do—it’s everywhere decisions are made, everywhere power is exercised, everywhere the future is being built. We’re not staying in our lane. We made the road. And we’re not going anywhere.

Fear, Privilege and the Illusion of Safety in ‘Only Murders in the Building’

PUBLISHED 11/7/2025 by

As Hulu’s Only Murders in the Building unfolds, safety begins to look less like locked doors and more like open conversation.

The friendship among Charles (Steve Martin), Oliver (Martin Short) and Mabel (Selena Gomez) is where this transformation starts. Mabel—young, Latina and less financially secure—doesn’t fit the Arconia’s image of who belongs. But through her, Charles and Oliver begin to question the false comfort of wealth and privacy. Together, they build a kind of safety grounded in trust and shared vulnerability.

By its later seasons, Only Murders has redefined what security means. It’s no longer about who can afford to keep others out—it’s about who’s willing to let others in. The show suggests that real safety comes not from walls, locks or property values, but from empathy, care and connection.

A Hunger for Justice: Why SNAP Cuts Are a Feminist Public Health Issue

PUBLISHED 11/7/2025 by

When policy proposals like The One Big Beautiful Bill Act and the Trump administration’s recent attempt to partially suspend food-stamp payments threaten the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), we must acknowledge that these decisions are not about fiscal responsibility. They are an ideological manifestation of historical racism and sexism that inevitably punishes Black and brown families and undermines the stability of our entire society.

In fact, SNAP recipients are 45 percent less likely to experience food insecurity, demonstrating that SNAP is one of the most effective anti-poverty programs we have in the U.S.