More Than A Magazine, A Movement
Abortion is an essential healthcare service. Abortion access is varied across the world and throughout the United States due to anti-abortion legislation. Access is often dependent on social factors such as income, race, geographic region and citizenship status.
In California—a state where Black women account for 21 percent of pregnancy-related deaths and just 5 percent of births—systemic racism continues to shape maternal outcomes. Despite past reforms, accountability has fallen short.
That is why the recent signing of AB 260, the Sexual and Reproductive Health Care Act, and AB 55, the Freedom to Birth Act, represents a watershed moment.
California’s new shield law, AB 260, represents a bold reimagining of what it means to protect reproductive freedom in a post-Dobbs America. By allowing prescribers and pharmacies to omit identifying information from mifepristone labels—and by ensuring that confidential logs can’t be accessed by out-of-state authorities—the law does more than safeguard privacy. It dismantles the machinery of fear and surveillance that antiabortion extremists have built to track, intimidate and punish people for exercising bodily autonomy. In a nation where a single prescription can become evidence in a courtroom, California has declared: not here.
The legislation’s power lies in its refusal to accept intimidation as the cost of care. It shields patients, prescribers and pharmacists alike, and even mandates coverage of mifepristone regardless of the FDA’s shifting political winds. At its core, AB 260 is both a legal and moral statement—that access to abortion medication is not a privilege to be defended in court, but a right to be protected in law. For anyone navigating pregnancy in hostile states, California’s message carries weight and relief: You can seek care without fear that your name, your doctor’s name or your pharmacist’s name will be weaponized against you.
Last week’s White House announcement is the equivalent of “politely [asking] companies to add IVF coverage out of the goodness of their own hearts—with zero federal investment and no requirement for them to follow through,” says Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
There is, in fact, an alternative to the Trump plan: The Right to IVF Act, introduced by Sen. Tammy Duckworth, would require employer-sponsored health plans and public health insurance, including Medicaid and military plans, to cover treatments. The bill also addresses discrimination and forbids the restriction of access to IVF based on marital status or sexual orientation.
Republicans have voted it down twice.
Russia’s hostility to feminism today stems not from its foreignness, but from memory. A century ago, it was Russian women who lit the first sparks of revolution. On International Women’s Day in 1917, factory workers filled the streets of Petrograd demanding bread, peace and equality—an uprising that toppled the Romanovs and pulled the world into modernity. Under the Bolsheviks, women won the right to vote, divorce became accessible and abortion was legalized. For a brief, radical moment, the Soviet experiment made women’s liberation a pillar of the state.
Julia Ioffe’s book, Motherland: A Feminist History of Modern Russia, from Revolution to Autocracy, reminds us that today’s Russia rejects feminism precisely because it once knew what it could do: ignite revolutions, upend hierarchies and reimagine power itself.
You may know—and love—Dr. Jennifer Lincoln already. If you are unfamiliar, she’s a board-certified OB-GYN and a famous content creator with 2.8 million followers on TikTok and large platforms on Instagram and YouTube. Dr. Lincoln is also a practicing OB-hospitalist who works in labor and delivery, night and day.
She makes content to dispel medical misinformation, a frequent tool of the patriarchy. As ‘MAHA’ influencers decry everything from birth control to Tylenol, at the expense of women, she’s pushing back with evidence-based information.
Like most Americans, I felt uninformed about sexual reproductive health, even after my in-school health classes. In high school, I searched YouTube for information about reproductive health, where I found my way to Dr. Lincoln, who not only provided the health class I never had, but also ignited my interest in reproductive justice. Without her influence, I likely would not have become a feminist writer at Ms.
Over Zoom, I had the privilege of chatting with Dr. Lincoln about her journey from OB-GYN to viral educator, how the post-Dobbs landscape has reshaped her work, and why she believes accurate, inclusive sex education is one of the most powerful tools we have for liberation. Our conversation spanned everything from social media strategy to Christian nationalism—and what it really means to fight misinformation with empathy.
For the last three years, Students for Life of America (SFLA) has sought to use environmental concerns to attack abortion rights, claiming—without scientific evidence—that the medication mifepristone contaminates U.S. water supplies and threatens wildlife, the environment and potentially human health.
A recent New York Times article amplified this antiabortion effort, presenting these claims without substantial context. The article does not include interviews with anyone informed about the politics behind the campaign or the science of mifepristone in wastewater. Only a brief mention—seven paragraphs in—notes that environmental experts have dismissed SFLA’s claims, before returning to treating the claims as a legitimate concern.
“There is absolutely no evidence that this is an environmental issue,” said Nathan Donley, the environmental health science director for the Center for Biological Diversity. “Pharmaceutical waste can be a big issue when we’re talking about widely used drugs, but to somehow point to mifepristone as a bad actor here is completely disingenuous.”
Jack Vanden Heuvel, a molecular toxicologist at Pennsylvania State University, agreed: “Most wastewater treatment plants are very effective at getting rid of any mifepristone that is there.” He described SFLA’s position as “a pretty weakly supported argument.”
In America’s hyper-macho, gun-drenched culture, growing up female has never been safe. But under the Trump administration, America is becoming a much more dangerous place for women and girls.
America is dangerous for women and girls because our leaders choose to make it so. The Trump administration has already begun blocking access to abortion and Medicaid coverage for reproductive health, as well as targeting the rights of pregnant people within the 2023 Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
Already, the macho culture of the U.S. has steadily made women’s safety in the nation decline. Around 41 percent of women in the U.S. have experienced sexual violence, while a third of women reported severe assault by a husband or boyfriend. The normalization of gun violence and violent pornography have also run rampant across the country, making America more dangerous day by day.
Pronatalism is not simply about encouraging births—it is a political project rooted in racism and control. Its goal is to engineer a future that permits only certain people to bear and raise children while coercing or punishing others for reproducing or parenting.
Adriana Smith’s experience of coerced reproduction is a devastating example: a Black nurse and mother declared brain-dead, yet kept on life support for months to sustain her pregnancy under Georgia’s restrictive abortion laws. This is what pronatalism looks like in practice—the state asserting ownership over a Black woman’s body.
As Black feminists, we understand that reproductive choices are personal, but they are also deeply shaped by structural power. Pronatalist leaders and influencers cloak their agenda in the language of family and morality, but in truth, they seek to restrict autonomy and consolidate control. Reproductive justice, by contrast, insists on every person’s right to decide whether and how to have children, and to parent in safety and dignity.
Seventy-seven percent of Indian Americans ages 25 and older hold a bachelor’s or advanced degree—one of the highest education levels of any group in the country. However, there aren’t many that are civically active in their communities. Few post about controversial issues. Fewer donate. Almost none speak publicly. These are the women who are otherwise bold: executives, founders, fundraisers, moms who command rooms. But when it comes to controversial topics—especially anything that could “stir the pot”—there’s a quiet, familiar retreat.
Therapist and founder of Brown Girl Therapy, Sahaj Kohli has spent years studying this phenomenon. Through a book, a podcast and a mental health community for bicultural and immigrant women, she’s helping these women understand “your voice doesn’t have to be angry or loud in order for it to be brave. It just has to be yours.”
As we celebrate Diwali—a festival that honors light’s triumph over darkness—it’s worth remembering that our voices are part of that light. Choosing to speak, even when it’s uncomfortable, is how we brighten the path for those who come after us.
If your period is late and you don’t want to be pregnant, do you really have to wait for a positive pregnancy test before you can act? The answer is often no. Increasing availability of “period pills” means you don’t have to wait or sit in uncertainty.
As missed period pills change how people stay in control of their bodies—and how early abortion care may be accessed—we see more questions and, unfortunately, more attacks from those who don’t support a full range of pregnancy options.
Here’s what’s important to know.