Comstock Act

In 1873, the Comstock Act banned sending obscene literature, abortifacients, contraceptives or sexual information through the U.S. mail system. The language regarding contraception was later removed in 1971 after the Griswold v. Connecticut ruling. Antiabortion advocates have suggested that Comstock Law could be used as a backdoor method of enforcing a national abortion ban by restricting the shipment of abortion drugs as well as medical equipment used in abortions.

Fifth Circuit Judges Seem Skeptical of Louisiana’s Challenge to Telehealth Abortion

PUBLISHED 9/10/2026 by

On Wednesday, Sep. 9, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans heard oral arguments in Louisiana v. FDA, a lawsuit filed by the Louisiana attorney general seeking to end telehealth abortion nationwide, even in states that protect abortion access.

Since the fall of Roe and a national snapback of abortion rights in a majority of U.S. states, the antiabortion movement has been laser focused on trying to restrict telehealth abortion because it’s increasing in both awareness and popularity, and it allows patients to circumvent state bans.

The 5th Circuit is considered one of the most conservative appeals courts in the country. But the three-judge panel randomly selected to hear Wednesday’s case included two judges appointed by Democratic presidents: Judge Stephen Higginson, appointed by former President Barack Obama; and Judge Dana Douglas, by former President Joe Biden. The third judge, Judy Richman, was appointed by George W. Bush.

During oral arguments, all three judges indicated skepticism about Louisiana’s arguments, starting with Louisiana’s right to bring the case.

While the recent 5th Circuit hearing offers hope that efforts to restrict mifepristone through the courts will not succeed anytime soon, two greater threats remain: Trump’s antiabortion nominee to lead the FDA, Heidi Overton, and Attorney General Todd Blanche’s promise to restrict the mailing of mifepristone under the Comstock Act. (This move would spur immediate lawsuits by Democratic states and manufacturers of mifepristone.)

Meanwhile, abortion rights advocates will never give up in finding new ways to put abortion pills in women’s hands.

Todd Blanche Suggests He Is Open to Using the DOJ to Restrict Mailing the Abortion Pill

PUBLISHED 7/17/2026 by | UPDATED 8/4/2026 at 10:13 A.M. PT

Antiabortion Republican senators scored a major win from embattled acting Attorney General Todd Blanche during his contentious confirmation hearing to lead the Department of Justice.

Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz used Wednesday’s hearing to press Blanche to restrict access to the abortion pill mifepristone, and Blanche ultimately agreed to revisit the current Department of Justice interpretation of the 1873 Comstock Act, which allows the nationwide mailing of the abortion pill under certain circumstances.

The Antiabortion Movement Has a New Plan for a National Abortion Ban

PUBLISHED 7/14/2026 by | UPDATED 9/2/2026 at 8:43 A.M. PT

Judges, lawyers and sexual abuse survivors have raised very strong reasons why it would be reckless and unconscionable for the Senate to confirm Todd Blanche to the post of Attorney General of the United States. One of the under-reported issues, though, is Blanche’s backing from well-funded antiabortion groups.

If the Republican Congress confirms Blanche, he could weaponize the DOJ in service of the antiabortion machine’s wish list, increasing the potential for some of the biggest blows to abortion access since Dobbs. 

Blanche’s confirmation could mean the further decimation of access to abortion healthcare in the United States at the behest of the antiabortion machine, which has already successfully pressured the Trump administration to meet its demands by, for example, calling for FDA head Martin Mackary to be fired. Meanwhile, the antiabortion machine is ratcheting up the pressure to push its agenda at various levels across the U.S.

Reasonable members of Congress who believe in the independence of the DOJ from outside pressure, including that of the administration itself, will vote to oppose Blanche’s nomination for U.S. attorney general. 

A (Brief) History of Women’s Rights, 1600 to Present

PUBLISHED 6/3/2026 by and

From the Haudenosaunee women who successfully challenged warfare in the 17th century, to today’s feminist organizers defending democracy, reproductive freedom and civil rights, the struggle for women’s equality has never been a straight line. It is a story of persistence, resistance and collective action spanning centuries.

Compiled by editors at Ms. and researchers from the National Women’s History Alliance, this women’s history timeline traces the interconnected histories of feminism, abolition, labor organizing, civil rights, reproductive justice, LGBTQ+ liberation and democratic participation.

No timeline can fully capture more than 400 years of feminist history, let alone every movement, leader, victory and setback that has shaped the ongoing fight for equality. Rather than offering a comprehensive account, this chronology highlights pivotal moments and turning points that help tell the story of how women have expanded the boundaries of freedom, democracy and human rights in the United States and beyond.

The timeline is part of Ms. magazine’s FEMINIST 250: Founding Feminists project, a multimedia essay series marking the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence by examining the women and feminist movements that have worked to make the nation’s founding promises more fully realized. Through reported features, essays, interviews and historical analysis, FEMINIST 250 explores not only where we have been, but where we must go next to achieve true equality.

FEMINIST 250’s Parts 2 and 3—Feminist Lessons and Feminist Futures—drop this month on MsMagazine.com.

Conservative Justices Resurrect the Comstock Act, Threatening Abortion Access Nationwide

PUBLISHED 5/21/2026 by

On May 1, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the mailing of mifepristone, one of the most widely used abortion medications in the country, threatening access for patients already facing a shrinking number of clinics nationwide. Although the Supreme Court temporarily stayed the ruling earlier this month, Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent revealed something even more alarming: a renewed effort to resurrect the Comstock Act, a 19th-century anti-obscenity law once used to criminalize the mailing of abortion- and contraception-related materials.

The Comstock Act’s history is deeply tied to censorship, moral policing and attacks on marginalized communities. Under its broad and subjective definition of “obscenity,” authorities targeted contraception, abortion information, sexual health materials, queer literature and even works of classical art. Its reproductive restrictions disproportionately harmed poor and working-class women, who were often cut off from the safest and most affordable forms of care.

Today, antiabortion activists are once again looking to Comstock as a tool to restrict abortion nationwide—this time through the courts. Thomas’ explicit invocation of the law in the mifepristone fight signals how far-right legal movements are attempting to revive long-discredited morality laws to roll back reproductive freedom and other established rights.

The Supreme Court Keeps Mifepristone Available by Mail as Litigation Continues

PUBLISHED 5/14/2026 by | UPDATED 5/22/2026 at 9:27 A.M. PT

The mifepristone case that has landed on the Supreme Court’s shadow docket is the new face of conservative efforts to impose a nationwide ban on abortion.

It’s possible that the Court is close and needs a little more time to reach a decision. There has been some thought it might set the case for argument on the merits as early as next month, or more realistically, next term, and decide it on the merits quickly, at least as courts count time.

But given the political weight of the issue in a midterm election year, the Court could also return to its history with mifepristone: kicking the can down the road. That’s what they did when the Texas case, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, came before it in June 2024, deciding that the plaintiffs lacked standing and dismissing the case, instead of ruling on the substantive issue.

The Supreme Court Preserved Mail-Order Abortion Pills—for Now. Julie Kay Says Providers Are Still Preparing.

PUBLISHED 5/14/2026 by | UPDATED 5/22/2026 at 9:28 A.M. PT

Thursday, May 14, at 5 p.m. ET, the Supreme Court’s temporary stay in the mifepristone case is set to expire, once again leaving abortion providers, patients and advocates waiting to see whether the Court will extend the pause, or allow the Fifth Circuit’s restrictions on mifepristone to take effect.

If the Court does nothing, the lower-court ruling could snap back into place, threatening mail-order and telemedicine access to mifepristone, one of the two drugs commonly used in medication abortion.

But abortion rights advocates say the story does not end there. Telemedicine abortion networks, shield-law protections, advance provision and community-based access have already reshaped abortion care in the post-Dobbs landscape—and those systems are continuing to evolve.

Julie F. Kay, a human rights lawyer and founder and executive director of Reproductive Futures, has spent years working at the intersection of reproductive rights, telemedicine abortion and shield-law protections. She co-founded the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, challenged Ireland’s abortion ban before the European Court of Human Rights, and co-authored Controlling Women: What We Must Do Now to Save Reproductive Freedom.

Texas Sues California Doctor Over Abortion Pills in Escalating Interstate Fight

PUBLISHED 2/25/2026 by | UPDATED 3/4/2026 at 7:57 A.M. PT

Texas antiabortion politicians have made one thing clear: Their ban was never meant to stop at the Texas border.

On Feb. 1, Dr. Remy Coeytaux of California became the first person to be sued in federal court under Texas’ newly enacted House Bill 7, a bounty-hunter law that invites private citizens to file civil suits against anyone who manufactures, distributes, mails or provides abortion medication to women in Texas. The plaintiff in the lawsuit is Jerry Rodriguez, a private citizen who claims that Coeytaux prescribed and mailed abortion pills used by his former girlfriend to end her pregnancy.

The legal pressure on telehealth providers intensified this week: On Tuesday, Feb. 24, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also filed suit against Aid Access, an Austria-based nonprofit that ships medication abortion internationally (including to all 50 states), along with its founders Rebecca Gomperts and Coeytaux. The complaint alleges the defendants violated Texas law by prescribing and mailing abortion medication to Texas patients and seeks an injunction preventing them from providing services to residents of the state.

Telehealth providers in states like California, New York and Massachusetts have been able to serve patients in banned states because of these shield laws: legal protections that prevent states with bans from prosecuting providers who are acting lawfully in the states where they work. So far, shield laws have withstood attacks from banned states. 

Texas and Florida Sue FDA in New Bid to Block Abortion Pill Access

PUBLISHED 12/17/2025 by

Texas launched a lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last week over the agency’s approval of mifepristone, marking the state’s latest effort to crack down on access to abortion pills.

Joined by Florida, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the case on Dec. 9 in federal court in Wichita Falls. The two states argued in a 120-page complaint that the FDA did not properly evaluate mifepristone’s safety and effectiveness when approving the drug in 2000 and its subsequent generic versions. They also challenged the agency’s moves that expanded access to the pills, including the ability to dispense them by mail.

Abortion access advocates have blasted the lawsuit.

“If they succeed in restricting access to mifepristone, abortion access will be devastated across the country, even in states where abortion remains legal,” Shellie Hayes-McMahon, executive director of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Texas. “This lawsuit is not about safety or healthcare; it is about control. And nothing short of full control over our bodies will satisfy them.”

Project 2026 Declares Open War on Women’s Rights

PUBLISHED 12/13/2025 by

When The Heritage Foundation released its new policy blueprint for 2026 this week—an extension of the now-infamous Project 2025—it did so with the calm confidence of an institution convinced no one will stop it. The document is shorter than last year’s 900-page “Mandate for Leadership,” but no less dangerous. It is, in fact, more candid.

Project 2026 lays out a government redesigned to control women’s bodies, erase LGBTQ+ lives, dismantle civil rights protections and roll back decades of hard-won progress. Wrapped in the language of “family,” “sovereignty” and “restoring America,” it is a direct attempt to impose a narrow, rigid ideology on an entire nation.

Make no mistake: This is a plan for forced motherhood, government-policed gender and the end of women’s equality as we know it.

But Project 2026 is not destiny. It is a warning—and one we must answer with the full force of a movement that has never accepted a future written for us by someone else.