Dobbs v. Jackson

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court in which the Court held that the U.S. Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.

‘It’s About Who Gets to Decide’: Massachusetts Will No Longer Impose a Gestational Limit on Access to Abortion Care

PUBLISHED 9/9/2026 by

Gov. Maura Healey signed the Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act into law last month, making Massachusetts the 10th state, together with Washington, D.C., that does not impose a gestational limit on access to abortion care.

In so doing, Healey stressed the “heartbreaking stories” she heard “from women and families who were preparing to welcome a healthy baby into their family, only to receive devastating news later in their pregnancy. Instead of being able to rely on the doctors they knew and trusted at home, they were forced to travel hundreds of miles and pay out of their pockets while navigating unimaginable grief.”

I recently had the privilege of talking with Kate Dineen who shared her tragic experience of being denied abortion care in Massachusetts because of the state’s “24-week ban with very difficult to access exceptions.” 

Here is her story.

Who Should Decide Whether a Patient Needs an Abortion: A Doctor or an Opinion Columnist?

PUBLISHED 9/8/2026 by

In case you missed it, a Washington Post columnist published an op-ed late last month that can only be described as a whine-weary litany of complaints about blue states’ targeting of crisis pregnancy centers (its headline, “In Massachusetts, ‘reproductive freedom’ goes only one way”)—a response to the decriminalization of abortion care later in pregnancy in the Commonwealth this summer.

It is fatuous and lazy commentary, recycling antiabortion movement talking points and a tired victim narrative about crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). It reads like straight-up CPC industry PR—something you’d find in the right-wing Washington Examiner. An embarrassment, even to Jeff Bezos’ Post.

And yet: It’s notable that extremist talking points are platformed in such a mainstream outlet.

To set the record straight about the Massachusetts law: The Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act removed statutory restrictions that had limited abortion care at 24 weeks or later to specified medical circumstances. Providers and supporters of the repeal said those restrictions were so narrow and difficult to interpret that doctors and hospital attorneys feared criminal prosecution or civil liability for authorizing care, even in cases involving grave fetal diagnoses or serious threats to a patient’s health. As a result, some Massachusetts patients facing pregnancy complications had to travel to places such as Washington, D.C., Maryland or New Mexico for care.

The Post column flippantly describes the new law as allowing women “to terminate pregnancies until birth, for any reason, so long as doing so accords with a physician’s ‘professional judgment’” (the writer’s scare quotes).

If not a trained medical professional, then who should be empowered to make this healthcare decision with a patient? An opinion columnist?

Massachusetts Decriminalized Later Abortion, No Health Emergency Required

PUBLISHED 9/2/2026 by

Massachusetts law no longer imposes a gestational-age limit on abortion—meaning for the first time, a woman in the state can choose to end her pregnancy at any point, without a prosecutor looking over her doctor’s shoulder.

Gov. Maura Healey (D) last month signed the Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act, joining nine other states—Alaska, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon and Vermon, plus D.C.—in trusting patients and medical professionals to make abortion decisions throughout pregnancy, rather than politicians, police and prosecutors.

In Massachusetts, the legislative hearings focused on women who experienced a severe fetal diagnosis or a threat to their own health and had to travel out of state for medical care, which are very sympathetic stories that were able to win over many supporters.

While it’s certainly important that states like Massachusetts have made later abortion more accessible to people experiencing health emergencies, the Prioritizing Patient Access to Care Act is important for everyone seeking later abortion care, whatever the reason.

War on Women Report: Todd Blanche Is AG, Despite Pledge to Make Dobbs ‘Permanent’; Karen Attiah Is Back at WaPo (With Backpay); Rep. Cory Mills Loses Reelection After Abuse Allegations

PUBLISHED 9/1/2026 by and

MAGA Republicans are back in the White House, and Project 2025 is their guide, the right-wing plan to turn back the clock on women’s rights, remove abortion access, and force women into roles as wives and mothers in the “ideal, natural family structure.”

We know an empowered female electorate is essential to democracy. That’s why day after day, we stay vigilant in our goals to dismantle patriarchy at every turn. We are watching, and we refuse to go back. This is the War on Women Report.

Since our last report:
—Under mounting pressure from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Scouting America eliminated dedicated community spaces for LGBTQ+ youth, girls and Scouts of color at its annual 2026 National Jamboree in West Virginia.
—An 18-year-old girl in North Carolina is facing criminal charges after allegedly taking abortion pills 31 weeks into her pregnancy, which prompted her to go into early labor.
—After a controversial two-day confirmation hearing in July, Todd Blanche has been confirmed as the new U.S. attorney general.
—In a win for domestic violence survivors, Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.) lost his bid for reelection amid accusations of abuse from women he has dated.
—A groundbreaking new report documents dozens of federal immigration agents who have faced administrative disciplinary action or criminal penalties for violent crimes.
—Ohio’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) abruptly ended its policy allowing transgender residents to update the gender marker on their driver’s licenses and state IDs to match their gender identity. 
—Chicago mother Keshia Golden, who says she killed her boyfriend in self defense in 2022, accepted a plea deal for involuntary manslaughter, allowing her to avoid jail time.
—Karen Attiah, columnist for The Washington Post, has won her job back, after being fired last year for her comments on race, gender and violence in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s death.

… and more.

Heidi Overton and the Overton Window: Trump’s Pick to Lead the FDA Gets Her First Senate Confirmation Hearing

PUBLISHED 8/27/2026 by | UPDATED 9/24/2026 at 10:54 A.M. PT

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee held a two-hour hearing with Dr. Heidi Overton, President Trump’s nominee for commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. Feminists and reproductive healthcare supporters are sounding the alarm about this pick, who has been public about her opposition to abortion.

This nomination indicates the administration’s further normalization of gutting healthcare and drug safety—yes, its attempt to shift the Overton Window. (Given her last name, how can I resist?) The Overton Window theory reflects the efforts of deft politicians to deliberately mold public perception of a policy or idea—and its eventual support or rejection. Hence, the widening or closing of the Overton Window.

Overton’s record leaves no doubt this administration aims to smash the window altogether. She currently serves as deputy director of the White House Domestic Policy Council and was part of the first Trump administration as well. Though she trained in surgery at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, there’s been nothing subtle about her resume or affiliations since her residency—including and especially her prominent role at America First Policy Institute (AFPI), a think tank that “exists to advance policies that … prioritize[e] free enterprise, national greatness, American military superiority, foreign-policy engagement in the American interest, and the primacy of American workers, families, and communities.”

A highlight reel of her AFPI tenure: She publicly celebrated when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade with its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022, stating that the ruling “will allow Americans to reevaluate the value of the potential of every baby in the womb and choose life through a democratic process.” She has questioned the long-established safety record of mifepristone, indicating her opposition to the FDA’s approval for its availability via telehealth. She has authored research and papers opposing gender-affirming care for minors; in a 2024 Newsweek op-ed, Overton complained that Democrats “won’t even define what a woman is.”

Talking Back to Dobbs: Federal Judge Says Idaho Can’t Force Pregnant Women to ‘Endure All Harm Short of Death’

PUBLISHED 8/26/2026 by | UPDATED 8/28/2026 at 7:17 A.M. PT

A federal district court issued the first post-Dobbs decision recognizing the U.S. Constitution still protects the right to abortion in specific circumstances.

And while legal opinions rarely move me to tears—as even the most progressive outcomes are typically cloaked in legal jargon that does not communicate the often urgent or tragic human experience underlying the case—Judge B. Lynn Winmill’s deeply attentive opinion in Seyb did just that.

Idaho has one of the nation’s strictest abortion regimes: Abortion is generally criminalized at every stage of pregnancy, with narrow exceptions. As Winmill writes, as a direct consequence of this ban, “a woman’s body itself is conscripted into service and forced to bear permanent damage in service of the potential life she carries.”

Winmill ruled Idaho’s abortion ban was unconstitutional on two grounds.

1. It violated the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause by denying pregnant patients a fundamental right to medically indicated abortion care.

2. By excluding self-harming behavior from the law’s life-saving exception, it denied patients with mental-health conditions equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

In their initial complaint, the plaintiff Dr. Seyb and his legal team that the requested relief “will address only a fraction of the harm that Idaho’s Abortion Bans are causing.” While meaningful, they wrote, such relief alone cannot secure justice for all Idaho residents; that would require repeal of the abortion bans through legislation or direct democracy—or the Supreme Court’s reversal of Dobbs.

Voters may soon have an opportunity to pursue that broader relief: In the upcoming midterms, Idahoans can cast a vote in favor of the Idaho Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act, a ballot initiative to restore abortion access in the state.

When Washington Won’t, New Jersey Will: Inside the Nation’s Strongest Combined Shield and Safety Law Protecting Abortion and Gender-Affirming Care

PUBLISHED 8/25/2026 by and

New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed a law Thursday establishing the nation’s strongest physical protections for gender-affirming care patients and providers, while expanding legal safeguards for reproductive healthcare access. The law, which passed both houses of the legislature in June, is a comprehensive shield law and state FACE Act corollary, joining suit with a growing state-led movement to enshrine protections for patients and providers. 

After assuming office in 2025, the Trump administration eviscerated enforcement of the federal FACE Act protecting abortion clinics, staff and patients. Then, the administration launched unprecedented attacks on the transgender community. In response, Democratic-led states are beginning to look at new ways to safeguard abortion and gender affirming healthcare providers and patients. Some states already have FACE laws protecting abortion clinics, providers and patients from threats, obstruction, intimidation and violence. And several states enacted shield laws to protect patients and providers of reproductive and gender-affirming healthcare from criminal, civil and professional prosecutions for providing health care to individuals from states where that healthcare is banned or restricted. 

New Jersey combines both mechanisms of protections. Already a shield state for abortion, New Jersey’s laws protect patients and providers from out-of-state prosecution, extradition and investigations. The new law strengthens these protections and reaffirms the confidentiality of patient-provider relationships while also creating strong safeguards for the physical safety of clinics, providers and patients.

How Abortion Restrictions Exacerbate America’s Affordability Crisis

PUBLISHED 8/25/2026 by and

Few decisions carry more weight than whether or when to have a child. Women who decide to end a pregnancy are making an intensely personal, at times deeply emotional, decision. They deserve quality care, compassion and respect. Instead, under the Trump administration, abortion restrictions are expanding and options for care are disappearing.

Four years after the Supreme Court’s  Dobbs ruling, abortion care comes with a maze of logistical and financial hurdles.

A new study from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) concluded Widespread abortion restrictions across numerous states and the rollback of federal funding and protections costs our country $140 billion annually. And the 16 states with the most restrictive abortion policies cost the national economy nearly $68 billion annually in lost earnings.

In the U.S. today, abortion is increasingly reserved for those who can find and pay for it.

We urge new thinking: Instead of a return to the  Roe v. Wade era ripe with restrictions and hurdles, let’s govern expansively. We envision a supportive government that makes abortion accessible to anyone who needs it.

I Want an Oura Ring. As a Reproductive Health Lawyer, I Know Better.

PUBLISHED 8/23/2026 by

I almost bought an Oura Ring at 3:12 in the morning. I was lying awake in my small D.C. apartment, my phone casting a blue glow across my face. I couldn’t sleep. Again. My mind was already racing through the work waiting for me in the morning: Federal Register alerts, Google alerts for abortion ban and pregnancy criminalization, another headline about a woman denied reproductive care.

So I did what people do when they can’t sleep: I shopped. I opened the Target app looking for something—anything—that might help me sleep, and soon an Oura Ring was sitting in my cart. Before checking out I opened TikTok to see whether it was actually worth it. Soon, I was watching a woman talk about her Oura Ring the way people talk about a revelation, a religious experience. One video became 10. Women talked about the ring as if it had given them access to a version of their bodies they had never been able to understand before. It noticed signs of illness before they felt sick. It helped explain their exhaustion. It tracked their cycles and identified patterns connected to fertility and pregnancy. Its promise was simple and seductive: the ring might know what was happening inside your body before you did.

It sounded incredible. I wanted the ring to tell me why I was so tired. I wanted it to warn me before I got sick. More than anything, I wanted to understand my own body. 

For generations, women have been told their pain is normal, their cycles are mysterious, and their instincts are unreliable. So when a device promises to listen to your body every minute of every day and translate its signals into something you can finally understand, it doesn’t feel like a luxury. It feels like power.

Keeping Our Eyes on the Prize: Building a Future Beyond Roe

PUBLISHED 8/21/2026 by

Nearly 50 years after Roe came, it went.

The Dobbs decision brought a devastating reversal—but it simultaneously ushered in a moment akin to 1972 … the opportunity to reimagine bodily autonomy and build something better.

And now, in 2026, we have begun to see glimmers of such vision emerge in the law by way of more expansive court rulings and bolder legislation.