First Four Antiabortion Extremists Sentenced in Nashville for Blockading Tennessee Clinic

Four antiabortion extremists, Dennis Green, Paul Vaughn, Coleman Boyd and Cal Zastrow, were sentenced last week following their convictions for felony conspiracy and violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. These charges stemmed from their involvement in a 2021 blockade of the carafem Health Center in Nashville, a reproductive health clinic that offered abortion care.

On March 5, 2021, the four defendants and the seven other indicted individuals blockaded the entrance to the Carafem Nashville Health Center. Patients were unable to enter the clinic, and staff members were unable to leave. In Coleman Boyd’s live stream of the blockade, he can be heard harassing and intimidating a patient, calling her a “mom coming to kill her baby.” Boyd also encouraged one of his children—a minor—to do the same. A patient and employee of the clinic testified at the trial, saying they felt fear and anxiety during the clinic blockade. Court documents described the blockade as “borne out of the defendant’s lack of respect for the law,” meant to “train and encourage others to carry out additional unlawful blockades.”

The 22 Scariest Lines We Found in Project 2025’s 900-Page ‘Mandate for Leadership’

Project 2025, the extremist blueprint for the next Republican president, maps out the permanent reversal of more than 50 years of gains for American women and LGBTQ+ people. The authors of Project 2025—80 percent of whom served in the first Trump administration—paint a picture of a nation where women are fundamentally second class citizens.

Project 2025 contains an 887-page policy agenda. We read the whole thing, so you don’t have to. Here are the most terrifying things we found. 

JD Vance, Trump’s VP Pick, Has Opposed Abortion and LGBTQ+ Rights

Former President Donald Trump has selected as his running mate Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, who has opposed abortion rights and LGBTQ+ rights in his time in political office. 

Vance, who ran as staunchly anti-abortion in his Senate campaign and in 2021 compared abortion to slavery, has somewhat shifted his public stance on the issue. Trump has reportedly viewed a hardline stance on abortion as a negative for a running mate. 

On the campaign trail in 2021, Vance defended the lack of exceptions for rape and incest in a Texas abortion ban known as S.B. 8, saying in an interview that “two wrongs don’t make a right.” In a July 2021 interview with Fox News, he criticized “the childless left,” saying, “Why have we let the Democrat Party become controlled by people who don’t have children?” In June, Vance voted against a Democratic-led bill to enshrine access to in vitro fertilization (IVF). 

The GOP Isn’t Getting Less Radical on Abortion—They’re Getting Better at Lying

It’s not that Donald Trump is secretly pro-choice; it’s that he truly does not care at all about abortion rights either way, and anti-abortion groups were useful in getting him elected.

Now, though, those same groups are putting his candidacy at risk. 2024 is not 2016. Trump is adjusting accordingly. And one big adjustment is on abortion, which he wants Republicans to just quit talking about—for now. Once he’s in office, though, the calculus is different.

The Supreme Court Left the Door Open for Attacks on Emergency Medical Care

The Supreme Court handed down its decision on EMTALA last week and vacated the case. This conclusion—at least temporarily—protected a small sliver of the safety net that pregnant patients can count on for care. For the time being, this means that patients in need of emergency abortion care will no longer need to be airlifted out of Idaho, which has been happening since the start of 2024. You would think this decision would be comforting.

It is not.

Instead of doing what it should have done, which was affirm that pregnant people have the same protections as anyone else, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts and left the door open for other extremists to bring this argument again.

Two Years Post-Dobbs: The Ones Who Don’t Make It

Since the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the number of out-of-state patients I’ve seen as an abortion provider in Maryland has skyrocketed. Many of the individuals who were able to get the abortion they sought had to navigate costly barriers. However, the patients I see are the ones who have overcome all of these obstacles to get the basic healthcare they need.

It pains me to think about all the patients who do not make it to the health center, the ones who cannot navigate the myriad barriers to get the abortion care they need out-of-state.

‘Not a Victory,’ But ‘a Delay’: With the Supreme Court’s EMTALA Ruling, U.S. Women Are Still at Risk

In an opinion published Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed its final major abortion case of the term. The opinion was a narrow ruling that Idaho cannot prohibit doctors from performing emergency abortions for women with life-threatening pregnancy complications while the case is appealed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Make no mistake: The ruling in Moyle and Idaho is barely a win for abortion supporters. The Court refused to rule on the underlying issue: Must state abortion bans provide an exemption when a woman’s health is at risk, not only her life? 

Title IX Says Universities Must Accommodate Students Who Have Had Abortions. Texas Is Suing.

The state of Texas does not believe its arsenal of antiabortion laws has done enough to strip pregnant people of control over their bodies.

Represented by antiabortion warrior Attorney General Ken Paxton, Texas is suing the Biden administration in a challenge to the Title IX claim that abortion-related discrimination is prohibited sex discrimination. Two professors from the University of Texas-Austin—John Hatfield, a professor of finance, and Daniel Bonevac, a philosophy professor—subsequently joined the suit as named plaintiffs.

At its core, this case is about the surveillance and control of the sexual and reproductive lives of students, and the chillingly privileged view that professors are somehow entitled to this measure of control over students’ lives based upon their own views about abortion.