On the same day the Trump administration revoked guidance ensuring emergency medical care for pregnant women, the Trump administration made moves toward nationwide restrictions on abortion medications.
Women in STEM
Rest in Power: Étienne-Émile Baulieu, Abortion Pill Inventor and Women’s Rights Advocate
Millions of women around the world gained safety, dignity and autonomy over their bodies thanks to Étienne-Émile Baulieu. The visionary biochemist, feminist and fearless innovator—best known for developing and championing “RU 486,” now known as mifepristone—died at his Paris home on May 30 at the age of 98.
Mifepristone has saved countless lives and offered millions of women a way to end unwanted pregnancies in the privacy and comfort of their homes. Baulieu and others championed the development of mifepristone for uses beyond abortion—including for treatment of fibroids, endometriosis, postpartum depression and cancer. He supported its use in managing miscarriages and as a way to help to dilate the cervix to reduce the need for Caesarean births. His vision for mifepristone wasn’t just to end pregnancies but to protect women’s health and reduce medical intervention that too often harmed them.
He predicted in 1991: “RU-486 will make its American entrance: science, good sense, and freedom will triumph.”
And here’s his view on why there has been tremendous opposition to abortion pills from the antiabortion movement: “A method that makes the termination of pregnancy less physically traumatic for women and less risky to their health has always been rejected by pro-lifers: What they really seek is to harm and punish women.”
Outperforming Men, Undervalued Anyway: How Conservative Myths Undermine Women in Medicine
Medical literature extensively documents differences in practice by a physician’s gender. Women are more likely to practice evidence-based medicine and adhere to clinical guidelines. Nationally, women outpace men in both college and medical school enrollment. In medical training, women outperform their male peers on clinical assessments and are more likely to attain an honors degree.
Therefore, the merit-based hiring practices that the Trump administration vociferously demands should logically reflect these data. Yet, in 2022, women accounted for 38 percent of active physicians in the U.S., up from 26 percent in 2004.
Might this indicate that men, not women, are the “diversity hires” of medicine?
Trump’s STEM Funding Attacks Will Undo Decades of Gender Equity Progress
Trump’s aversion to science and research is well-known. So, it is not surprising that the country’s top scientific research agencies, including the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), were among those targeted under his anti-DEI executive orders and reckless federal funding cuts.
Labeling all equality-focused initiatives as “wokeness,” “discrimination” and “wasteful spending” is really about putting up new barriers for women and minorities.
Why Democracy Needs Data—and What Happens When It Vanishes
In the first few months of Donald Trump’s return to the presidency, one thing has become crystal clear: The war on gender and racial equity is being waged in a new arena—on the battleground of data.
This fight isn’t waged with tweets or soundbites. It’s carried out through budget cuts, shuttered research programs and disappearing federal surveys. It’s a quiet but devastating assault on the tools we rely on to tell the truth—and to hold those in power accountable. And the message is chilling: If we can’t measure inequality, maybe we can pretend it doesn’t exist.
When race is stripped from maternal health reports, we overlook the crisis facing Black mothers. When LGBTQ+ identity is erased from youth surveys, we lose critical insight into mental health and safety. When disability status is omitted from labor market data, inequities in access and pay go unaddressed.
We need a renewed federal commitment to the research infrastructure that allows us to see and solve inequality—not ignore it.
Adriana Smith and the Legal Horror of Reproductive Servitude in the U.S.
Three months ago, 30-year-old Adriana Smith was declared brain-dead. But a hospital in Georgia is keeping her “alive” on life support because of the state’s strict abortion ban.
“In what universe does a hospital in Georgia … believe that they can take ownership of Adriana Smith’s body?” asked Michele Goodwin on a recent emergency episode of On the Issues: Fifteen Minutes of Feminism. “According to the hospital, she is now an incubator. … This is not science fiction, though I wish that it were.”
“I think every woman should have the right to make their own decision,” Smith’s mother, April Newkirk, said. “And if not, then their partner or their parents.”
FDA Review of Abortion Pill Signals First Step Toward Nationwide Ban
In a stunning move that could mark the first step toward a nationwide ban on abortion pills, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has ordered the FDA to reevaluate its decades-old approval of mifepristone—a medication used safely by over 7.5 million Americans over the last quarter-century for abortion and treatment of miscarriages.
The directive, based on a single junk-science report from an antiabortion group, signals a dangerous shift: the politicization of FDA policy and a coordinated push to strip access to medication abortion across the country.
The National Science Foundation Canceled Our Grant Because It Focused on Women
In a sweeping rollback of diversity efforts, the NSF abruptly terminated our grant for a journal focused on advancing gender equity in academic STEM—jeopardizing decades of progress for women in science.
When Being a Mom in Med School Means You Can’t Afford to Graduate
A single mother on the verge of becoming a doctor confronts an inflexible loan cap that punishes low-income parenting students and threatens to derail years of sacrifice.
STEM, Space and the Sparkle Trap: How Patriarchy Still Shapes Women and Girls’ Potential
Despite its promise of progress, Blue Origin’s all-female spaceflight exposed the persistent double standards women face in STEM—where success is still too often judged by sparkle, not substance.