Trump Considers Blocking Abortion Access for Unaccompanied Immigrant Minors in Federal Custody (Again)

A looming policy change threatens to undo existing protections and leave pregnant immigrant teens in federal custody without meaningful access to abortion care.

We won’t know what direction the rule will take until the proposed rule is released, but if the Trump administration’s antiabortion policies—such as the reinstatement of the Veterans Administration’s ban on abortion and abortion counseling, the defunding of Planned Parenthood and the reinstatement of an expanded global gag rule—are any indication, the rights of this marginalized population are at great risk.

Josh and Erin Hawley’s ‘Love Life Initiative’ Signals a New Phase of the Antiabortion Fight

Erin and Josh Hawley’s new dark-money group, the Love Life Initiative, arrives at a moment when abortion opponents are shifting tactics. With Roe overturned and sweeping bans already in place across much of the country, the focus is now on cutting off the remaining paths to care—through ballot measures, advertising campaigns and state-level policy fights designed to reshape public opinion and law from the ground up. The Hawleys frame this effort as a moral crusade to restore a national “culture of life.”

But in practice, it is an escalation of a post-Dobbs strategy that has already restricted access across wide swaths of the United States.

The consequences of that strategy are increasingly stark. Pregnant women in states with abortion bans are dying after being denied care, and people living in those states face significantly higher risks during pregnancy, with women of color bearing the brunt.

At the same time, public support for abortion rights has grown, and abortion-protective states have moved to shield providers and patients from out-of-state enforcement.

The Love Life Initiative reflects a movement determined not only to defend its legal victories but to reverse that growing acceptance—by reshaping the political and cultural terrain on which the abortion debate now unfolds.

Louisiana Court Pauses Lawsuit Demanding Nationwide Telehealth Abortion Ban

On April 7, Judge David Joseph of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted the Department of Justice’s motion to stay Louisiana’s case attempting to restrict access to the medication mifepristone while the Food and Drug Administration conducts its own review of the medication based on discredited antiabortion propaganda.

The court denied Louisiana’s motion for a preliminary injunction to bar patients nationwide from obtaining mifepristone by mail via telehealth or at pharmacies, instead requiring them to pick up the medication in person from a medical provider.

As a result of Joseph’s ruling, mifepristone access will not change across the country.

“Putting this baseless case on hold is certainly a better outcome than what Louisiana asked for: severe and immediate restrictions on mifepristone that would upend abortion and miscarriage care across the country,” said Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the Reproductive Freedom Project of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “But it is small comfort that the Trump administration now holds the baton in this ongoing attack on medication abortion when we can see the administration teeing up the same harmful restrictions that abortion opponents are trying to win in court. 

Many observers believe that the Trump administration wants to delay restrictions on mifepristone until after the November elections because early abortion with pills is broadly popular across the political spectrum.  

Alliance Defending Freedom Succeeded in Overturning Roe. Now It’s Turning to the United Kingdom.

If you follow the fight over abortion access in the U.S., you’ve likely heard of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). The powerful nonprofit was instrumental in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court case that overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. ADF drafted model legislation used to defend Mississippi’s 15-week ban and has long championed policies targeting LGBTQ+ rights, contraception access and same-sex marriage.

Now, ADF is setting its sights across the Atlantic. The organization—which boasts operations in 112 countries—has been quietly expanding its influence in Britain through its new alliance with the right-wing Reform Party, led by populist figure Nigel Farage.

The Reform-ADF partnership is following a familiar playbook: reframing reproductive rights as a free-speech issue. ADF has backed efforts to challenge the Public Order Act of 2023, which established “safe access zones” around abortion clinics—150-meter perimeters designed to prevent harassment and obstruction. Despite broad public support for these zones (77 percent of Britons favor them), Farage and his allies have called the policy a “sinister crackdown on expression.”

“There is a clear pattern here of U.S.-funded antiabortion activists testing the limits of the new U.K. law, seemingly trying to find the most acceptable-looking behavior to gain public sympathy, and then using that to try to tear down the law,” said Karen Wright, public affairs manager for Humanists U.K. “It is deeply concerning to see efforts from outside groups attempting to influence domestic law, particularly when it comes to women’s reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy.”

Supreme Court Soon to Hear a Religious Freedom Case That’s United Both Sides of the Church-State Divide

A case headed to the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 10 stands apart from most of the high-profile cases we’ve seen lately. Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections asks whether an inmate who’s part of a minority religious group—the Rastafarians—can sue for monetary damages after a warden violated his religious rights by forcing him to cut his hair.

With nearly 2 million people currently held in prisons, jails and other detention facilities, the inability to seek damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act means there’s little accountability when those rights are violated.

Landor’s case also highlights something fundamental: Minority religions are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as major faiths. How the Supreme Court rules will speak volumes about the future of religious freedom—and how it applies to issues the Constitution’s authors could never have imagined.

Supreme Court to Hear Two Key Cases on Abortion Access

Rather than being done with the issue of abortion, the Supreme Court has taken up two cases this term that could have further disastrous effects on abortion access. One case could lead to limits on access to one of the two drugs used for medication abortion, and the other could allow states to ban emergency abortion care to save a patient’s life.

Decisions in both cases would have effects nationwide—illustrating the chaos and confusion that the Dobbs decision has created for providers and patients.

Far-Right Players Behind Latest Attacks on Abortion in Emergencies

In April, the nation’s highest Court will hear a pair of cases that will determine whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) preempts state laws that impede emergency abortions needed to protect the health of pregnant people even if they are not on the brink of death. 

Both of these cases have ties to the main antiabortion zealots that helped overturn Roe: Leonard Leo and Alliance Defending Freedom.