Massachusetts Abortion Provider Serves Patients Living in States Banning Abortion

Since Dobbs, an increasing number of abortion providers are providing telemedicine abortion services to women living in states banning abortion. 

Today there are four practices with over two dozen providers that provide telehealth abortion services to people in restrictive states. One of them is the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project, called The MAP for short. Ms. spoke with the medical director of The MAP: Dr. Angel Foster, a Harvard-trained obstetrician/gynecologist and health sciences professor at the University of Ottawa, where she leads a large research group that’s dedicated to global abortion work. 

Despite Recent Legal Wins, Abortion Access Is Still at Risk

Abortion legislation in the U.S. has, from the outset, been motivated by political and economic ends, rather than health and safety.

While there have been some positive decisions on abortion access in the United States in the past month, there is still an overwhelming amount of confusion regarding abortion medication and reproductive legislation.

Decades of clinical and epidemiologic evidence documenting the experiences of millions of people over a quarter century have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of abortion medication. Still, many people are scared to use it.

Supreme Court’s Blow to Federal Agencies’ Power Will Likely Weaken Abortion Rights. Here Are Three Issues to Watch.

One of the Court’s most significant decisions of 2024 was Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. In a reversal of 40 years of precedent, courts—not agencies—will have the last word on interpreting federal law.

In her Loper dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote: “In every sphere of current or future federal regulation, expect courts from now on to play a commanding role.” Kagan’s dissent raises the specter of judges across the country—not doctors or scientists or educators, nor even politicians, who at least must answer to the public—playing a “commanding role” in reproductive rights policy.

How a Kamala Harris Candidacy Could Supercharge Democrats’ Message on Abortion

President Joe Biden’s decision to not seek a second term—and his endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris to replace him—gives Democrats the opportunity to elevate an eager and consistent messenger on abortion rights heading into the first presidential election since the fall of Roe v. Wade

Harris had already become the administration’s leading voice on the importance of abortion rights, one of the Democratic Party’s top issues, at the federal and state level. She has spent the last year using rallies and interviews to make a clear-eyed case to voters on how a second Donald Trump presidency and Republican majorities in Congress could restrict abortion access. 

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. 

Tennessee Is the Second State to Criminalize Minor ‘Abortion Trafficking.’ Activists Are Pushing Back.

In May 2024, following Idaho’s lead, Tennessee became the second state in the country to criminalize the ‘abortion trafficking’ of minors, making it a class A misdemeanor.

Late last month, Nashville Democratic Rep. Aftyn Behn and abortion rights attorney and activist Rachel Welty brought a lawsuit in federal district court challenging the trafficking law on constitutional grounds and asking to have it permanently enjoined. 

Trump’s Lies About Abortion in America Were Particularly Appalling

Trump lied constantly about the realities of abortion in the U.S. during Thursday’s debate. He falsely claimed that “all legal scholars” wanted Roe overturned, and that Democrats intend to execute newborns.

He is responsible for young victims of rape or incest being forced to give birth or travel across state lines to access abortion, and women facing life-threatening pregnancy complications due to inability to access abortion, just to name a few.

War on Women Report: Supreme Court Fails to Deliver Abortion Wins; Senate Republicans Block Contraception and IVF Bills

U.S. patriarchal authoritarianism is on the rise, and democracy is on the decline. But day after day, we stay vigilant in our goals to dismantle patriarchy at every turn. The fight is far from over. We are watching, and we refuse to go back. This is the War on Women Report.

Since our last report: New Hampshire became the 13th state to outlaw child marriage; parents sue Louisiana for new law requiring 10 Commandments be displayed in schools; Republican-dominated legislatures continue to attack rights, introducing further restrictions on abortion, contraception and IVF; Trump defends state-level abortion bans and the overturn of Roe at the debate; Iowa’s six-week abortion ban approved by the state Supreme Court and more.

‘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? 

In U.S. v. Rahimi, Domestic Violence Victims Live to Die Another Day

Friday morning, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that a law restricting firearms access for a narrow class of individuals subject to a specific kind of domestic violence restraining order does not violate the Second Amendment. The ruling is a “win” in much the same way the Court’s ruling in the mifepristone case FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine earlier this month is a win: The Court did the “bare minimum” necessary to cling to the last vestiges of its legitimacy.

The threat posed by violent abusers like Zackey Rahimi might be temporarily disarmed today, but the threat posed by the Supreme Court’s patriarchal agenda remains a loaded weapon.