June, 24 2026, 12:21pm EDT

Reproductive Freedom for All Announces $23.5 Million “My Body. My Ballot.” Campaign on the Dobbs Anniversary
4.5 million members strong, the nation’s oldest member-based reproductive freedom organization launches largest-ever midterm electoral program ahead of November
On the four-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Reproductive Freedom for All announces the launch of My Body. My Ballot., a $23.5 million campaign to mobilize voters, hold anti-abortion politicians accountable, and elect reproductive freedom champions in key races across the country.
At the center of this campaign is a simple truth: support for abortion access is popular across party lines – more popular than any individual politician or political party. As many voters turn away from Trump and the MAGA movement because of their continued attacks on abortion access, Reproductive Freedom for All is seizing the opportunity to elect pro-abortion candidates up and down the ballot.
The campaign marks Reproductive Freedom for All’s largest-ever midterm electoral program and will focus on persuading and mobilizing voters – including independents, soft Republicans, and split-ticket voters – whose support for abortion access puts them at odds with Trump and his endorsed candidates. It will deploy a layered strategy that includes on-the-ground organizing, research, digital engagement, and political accountability. The program will include deep investments in direct voter contact, including coordinated canvassing programs designed in direct partnership with specific campaigns. It will also include relational organizing training with our members, with priority investments across Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, California, and Georgia. Top-tier targets will include AZ-06, MI-07, and NV-03 congressional districts, alongside critical statewide races and ballot initiatives. The campaign will also include a national communications and digital program designed to reach voters across legacy media, podcasts, creator platforms, and social media ecosystems where public opinion and cultural conversation are increasingly shaped.
Four years after Dobbs, reproductive freedom remains one of the most salient issues in American politics. Anti-abortion politicians and extremists have made clear they will not stop at overturning Roe. They are attacking medication abortion, undermining emergency abortion care, defunding Planned Parenthood, gutting Medicaid, and pushing policies that raise costs for families already struggling to make ends meet. My Body. My Ballot. seizes on a critical political moment as divisions deepen within the Republican Party. As anti-abortion groups pressure the Trump administration to go even further, Republicans are caught between a radical anti-abortion movement demanding a nationwide ban and the 8 in 10 voters who support legal abortion and overwhelmingly oppose political interference in personal medical decisions.
Reproductive Freedom for All President and CEO Mini Timmaraju released the following statement:
“Abortion is popular – more popular than any individual politician. What’s not popular is Trump and the MAGA movement, who continue to lose voter support with every new attack on abortion access. Instead of lowering costs or helping families plan their futures, MAGA Republicans have advanced policies that make it harder for people to decide whether, when, and how to grow their families.
My Body. My Ballot. is about making sure every voter understands how the issues they care most about are connected: our bodies, our families, our health care, our economic security, and our freedom. We have the members, the political power, and the organizing infrastructure to turn outrage into action.
Four years after Dobbs, abortion bans have created a dangerous and chaotic patchwork where access to care depends on where someone lives, how much money they have, and whether they can travel. Anti-abortion politicians created this crisis, and this November, Americans will make sure they are held accountable.”
New Reproductive Freedom for All polling underscores the opportunity for this campaign. The research, conducted by Impact Research, surveyed likely voters in battleground U.S. House districts, including an oversample of voters who did not support Kamala Harris in 2024 but voted “yes” on abortion rights ballot measures statewide in Arizona, Michigan, and Nevada. The results show that voters overwhelmingly want lawmakers to protect reproductive health care—and that communicating clearly about politicians’ efforts to gut health care access, undermine medical privacy, and prioritize abortion restrictions over families’ needs can meaningfully move voters.
Eight in 10 voters surveyed said it is important for lawmakers to protect access to reproductive care, including 58% who said it is very important. Battleground voters also rejected additional abortion restrictions: Half said lawmakers should pass laws protecting abortion access nationwide.
Support for a nationwide abortion ban carries significant political consequences. More than 4 in 10 voters said a politician’s support for a nationwide abortion ban would be a total dealbreaker—placing it among the most disqualifying positions tested, alongside raising taxes on middle-class families and cutting Medicaid. After hearing messaging about attacks on health care access and privacy and politicians’ misplaced priorities, voters backed a generic Democratic congressional candidate by 12 points, 48% to 36%—a net five-point gain from the start of the poll (45% to 38%).
The campaign launch also kicks off Reproductive Freedom for All’s National Week of Action, running June 22–28, with events across the country designed to educate voters, train volunteers, elevate storytellers, and drive direct action in target states and districts. The week will feature 11 in-person events across our chapter states, alongside 12 national activations — including multiple phone banking actions and shifts, as well as a national text bank.
Key components of the campaign include:
- A national organizing program powered by members:Reproductive Freedom for All will activate its 4.5 million members nationwide to grow its volunteer leadership infrastructure and launch direct voter contact and visibility events in priority districts and regions. The campaign will span canvases across our chapter states — including cities like Phoenix, Tucson, Bakersfield, and Savannah — alongside Pride marches, rallies, community roundtables, and press conferences with elected leaders and stakeholders. It will also feature multi-day phone banks at both the in-person and virtual levels.
- Direct voter contact in priority states and districts:The program will include deep investments in direct voter contact, including coordinated canvassing programs designed in direct partnership with specific campaigns. It will persuade and mobilize voters – including independents, soft Republicans, and split-ticket voters – whose support for abortion access puts them at odds with Trump and his endorsed candidates. The program will also include relational organizing training with our members, with priority investments across Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, California, and Georgia. Top-tier targets will include AZ-06, MI-07, and NV-03 congressional districts, alongside critical statewide races and ballot initiatives.
- Research-backed messaging on freedom, care, and economic security:The campaign will use Reproductive Freedom for All’s latest research to connect abortion access to the economic pressures families are already facing, including the reality that deciding whether to have a child is one of the biggest economic decisions a person can make. Campaign messaging will also educate voters on threats to medication abortion, emergency care, health privacy, and access to reproductive health care nationwide.
- Candidate endorsements and accountability:Reproductive Freedom for All will endorse reproductive freedom champions and hold anti-abortion politicians accountable for their records, including those aligned with anti-abortion groups pushing the Trump administration to restrict access even further. The campaign will make clear who is working to protect abortion access—and who is working to push care further out of reach.
- State ballot measures. Reproductive Freedom for All will support ballot measure work in Virginia, Missouri, and Nevada, as part of a broader strategy to engage voters around reproductive freedom up and down the ballot. This work will connect ballot measure engagement to the campaign’s broader voter contact, persuasion, and turnout strategy.
- Digital and creator program to mobilize voters:Reproductive Freedom for All will run a comprehensive digital program across social media, podcast platforms, creator partnerships, paid digital, email, SMS, and rapid-response content. The creator strategy will go beyond paid amplification by partnering with trusted messengers, independent creators, storytellers, and issue-adjacent voices who can authentically reach persuadable audiences and encourage voter engagement.
The campaign builds on Reproductive Freedom for All’s latest research, which connects reproductive freedom to economic security and the freedom to decide whether, when, and how to grow a family. That research will inform the campaign’s ads, field scripts, digital content, volunteer trainings, and voter conversations—including outreach to independent and soft Republican voters who are frustrated by rising costs and alarmed by continued attacks on abortion access.
For over 50 years, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America) has fought to protect and advance reproductive freedom at the federal and state levels—including access to abortion care, birth control, pregnancy and post-partum care, and paid family leave—for everybody. Reproductive Freedom for All is powered by its more than 4 million members from every state and congressional district in the country, representing the 8 in 10 Americans who support legal abortion.
202.973.3000LATEST NEWS
'Totally Crazy': Trump Holds Bipartisan Housing Bill Hostage to Push Evisceration of Voting Rights
"Trump just threw a tantrum," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren. "He's refusing to sign bipartisan legislation to make housing more affordable in a bizarre effort to try to rig the elections."
Jun 24, 2026
Congress this week passed a bipartisan bill "to build more housing, lower costs, and stop private equity's housing grab," as US Sen. Elizabeth Warren highlighted after the final vote, but President Donald Trump on Wednesday scrapped his plans to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act over a stalled GOP attack on voting rights.
Trump initially took a swipe at Warren (D-Mass.) on his Truth Social platform Wednesday morning, writing that "the Elizabeth 'Pocahontas' Warren centric housing bill, which is of minor importance compared to lower interest rates, and even FISA, pales in comparison to passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT. That is what Americans, both Dumocrats, Republicans, and everyone else, care about."
"Get the bad Republicans to approve it or, better yet, Terminate the Filibuster and approve it, AND EVERYTHING ELSE REPUBLICANS HAVE EVER DREAMED OF," Trump continued. "The Dumocrats will do it in hour one, 100%. Republicans will feel very stupid if they don’t do it first. I'll be watching with tears in my eyes!!!"
Less than an hour later, he added, "Today's Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency."
Trump and other backers of the anti-voter bill argue it is needed to prevent undocumented immigrants from voting in US elections—which is already illegal, and research shows is remarkably rare. Critics warn that the legislation would disenfranchise eligible voters who lack access to proof-of-citizenship documents.
While Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) responded by stressing that he and other Republicans in the House of Representatives support the SAVE America Act, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said the canceled ceremony was Trump's "call to make" but expressed hope that he'll "find his way to sign" the housing bill, other lawmakers—including Warren—and supporters of the legislation took aim at the president over his move.
"Congress overwhelmingly passed a housing bill to bring down costs. But Trump just threw a tantrum," Warren wrote on social media. "He's refusing to sign bipartisan legislation to make housing more affordable in a bizarre effort to try to rig the elections. Nope—I'll keep fighting to lower housing costs."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told journalists that "Trump is running away from one of the very few accomplishments that could actually help the American people," and urged the president not to veto the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.
Approved by the Senate in an 85-5 vote on Monday and the House in a 358-32 vote on Tuesday, the bill contains dozens of provisions to promote the rebuilding of older homes and development of vacant buildings, encourage local governments to build more housing, streamline regulations for construction, ban corporate investors from buying single-family homes to rent out, and more.
Stressing that the bill passed "overwhelmingly in a bipartisan way," and would "save American families a lot of money when it comes to housing," Sen. Andy Kim (D-Calif.) said that "I honestly can't believe that the president is holding this hostage."
"I hope the American people see this for what it is, which is that he doesn't care at all about the high cost of living that a lot of Americans are struggling with," Kim declared. "He doesn't care about the housing crisis. He is just continuing to push forward on his extreme agenda."
In the House, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) replied to the president: "The housing crisis is a national emergency. Do something to make life more affordable for hardworking American taxpayers. Sign the bill."
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) pointed to Trump's campaign pledges, writing: "The president who promised lower costs on Day 1 is refusing to sign the largest housing affordability bill in a generation. It's a slap in the face to millions of Americans struggling to afford a place to live. My Republican colleagues need to find some courage and stand up to this mad king."
In a video, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) warned the public that Trump "is taking away your housing for his personal projects that can never pass and are unconstitutional."
Longtime human rights advocate Kenneth Roth, who's now a visiting professor at Princeton University, similarly summarized: "Trump to America: I [couldn't] care less about affordable housing. So I won't sign a bill to advance it unless Congress endorses my autocratic efforts to restrict the right to vote."
Although Trump has not decisively said whether he will formally block the bill, Roth wondered, "Will the Republicans have the backbone to override his veto?"
Either way, The New York Times noted that "Trump's decision threatened to deprive Republicans, in particular, of an opportunity to showcase a legislative success in a year with very few of them—one that spoke directly to voters' economic concerns."
In a Wednesday statement, Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, looked to the midterm elections, in which Democrats aim to retake majorities in both chambers of Congress.
"Donald Trump has been clear: The SAVE Act is his #1 legislative priority—not lowering costs for working people, creating good-paying jobs, or helping families afford a roof over their heads," said Edkins. "Today, he decided it was more important to help Republicans avoid accountability for the cost-of-living crisis than actually do something about it."
"Trump was born on third base, and it shows. He has no clue what it’s like to struggle to make rent, save for a down payment, pay a mortgage, or worry that your kids will be able to afford a home of their own," he added. "Trump could've signed bipartisan legislation today to help lower housing costs and give Republicans something—anything—to show voters that they deserve reelection this November. Instead, he told working families to screw themselves. It's selfish, petty, and self-defeating."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amid Warnings of Atrocities in Sudan, Van Hollen Says Senate 'Missed Opportunity' to Cut Off Arms to UAE
"The United States shouldn't just be talking about ending the slaughter in Sudan," the senator said. "We should actually be using our leverage."
Jun 24, 2026
After the US State Department warned earlier this week of imminent “atrocities” by Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces, Sen. Chris Van Hollen on Tuesday criticized the US Senate for missing a recent opportunity to cut off weapons to the United Arab Emirates, which has supplied the genocidal paramilitary group.
On Monday, the State Department warned that RSF forces were massing near the city of El-Obeid and could commit “mass atrocities” against civilians if allowed to take the city.
"The belligerents must uphold their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect civilians and ensure that those seeking safety can do so without fear or obstruction," the department said.
The statement echoed concerns expressed last week by a coalition of states at the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), which said that roughly 500,000 civilians, including more than 100,000 displaced people, could be at risk of violence if RSF escalated its assault.
UN human rights experts have said RSF's October offensive in Darfur bore the "hallmarks of genocide," with more than 6,000 people killed and numerous civilians tortured, raped, and starved during a three-day rampage across the city of El-Fasher.
But while Trump's State Department has sanctioned some entities accused of supplying fighters for the RSF, the Monday statement made no mention of the UAE, which rights groups point out is the group’s principal foreign backer.
A report issued last year by Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) found that the UAE was continuing to provide weapons to the RSF despite telling the US that it was not.
Following previous failed attempts at pushing Congress to impose an arms embargo on Sudan through standalone legislation, Van Hollen attempted to do so again last week by tacking a pair of amendments onto the bipartisan PEACE in Sudan Act, which requires the State Department to assess designating armed Sudanese groups as terrorists and allows Trump to impose optional sanctions on foreign actors funding the war, but stopped short of introducing any hard leverage.
At a markup session for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week, Van Hollen introduced an amendment banning the US from selling or transferring military equipment to the UAE as long as it continues supporting the RSF. The amendment failed in a 15-7 vote, with four Democrats—Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Chris Coons (Del.), Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), and Jacky Rosen (Nev.)—joining every Republican on the committee, aside from Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), in opposition.
A second amendment, which did not single out the UAE specifically but restricted arms sales to any country arming either side of the conflict, also failed 13-9, but received support from Shaheen and Rosen.
Coons said he'd have "enthusiastically" supported the amendment, but voted no because he believed it would "bring down" the broader Sudan bill in a GOP-controlled Senate. Duckworth did not explain her reasoning for voting no.
In light of the State Department's warning this week about RSF's march toward El-Obeid, Van Hollen told a Drop Site News reporter on Tuesday that he believed the no vote on his amendments "was a missed opportunity."
"The United States shouldn't just be talking about ending the slaughter in Sudan. We should actually be using our leverage," he said.
Noting that Trump likely would not support a restriction on arms to the UAE given his extensive financial entanglements with the Emiratis and his previous policy of fast-tracking weapons to the country without any strings attached, Van Hollen said his goal was simply to "keep the pressure on."
He said, "We need to keep showing the hypocrisy of the Trump administration policy, where they claim they want to do something but refuse to take some of the basic actions we can take as a country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Applause as Judge Halts 'Blatantly Illegal and Cruel' ICE Courthouse Arrest Policy Nationwide
"The courthouse is meant to be a refuge for the pursuit of justice, not a hunting ground for ICE," said one attorney.
Jun 24, 2026
A federal judge on Tuesday ordered a nationwide halt to a Trump administration policy expanding immigration enforcement officials' authority to arrest non-citizens at US immigration courthouses.
US District Judge P. Casey Pitts, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, ruled that the courthouse arrests carried out by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violated the Administrative Procedures Act's requirement for "reasoned decision making" in federal agencies' policy decisions.
After reviewing the evidence, Pitts found that the government "failed to provide reasoned explanations for their actions," which he thus deemed "arbitrary and capricious."
"The expansion of arrests at immigration courthouses results not from merely unreasoned decision making," Pitts emphasized, "but a complete lack of decision making."
The Trump administration last year rescinded previous policies that had restricted ICE agents' ability to make arrests at courts, and allowed agents to keep noncitizens detained for up to 72 hours.
In prior years, noted Pitts, courthouse arrests "would be undertaken only against noncitizens whom ICE had a heightened interest in detaining immediately because, for example, they were ‘suspected of terrorism or espionage,’ had been convicted of crimes, ‘participated in organized criminal gangs,’ or ‘otherwise pose[d] a serious risk to public safety.'"
Pitts' ruling, which the Trump administration is expected to challenge, restores those previous restrictions on courthouse arrests.
Jordan Wells, senior staff attorney at the Bay Area chapter of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, told The San Francisco Chronicle that Pitts' ruling restored the notion that "the courthouse is meant to be a refuge for the pursuit of justice, not a hunting ground for ICE."
“No one, including immigrants, should be forced to choose between their liberty and their day in court," added Wells, whose organization is co-representing a group of asylum seekers who had filed a complaint to overturn the ICE courthouse arrest policy.
Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) hailed Pitts' ruling as "excellent news."
"Immigrants who show up to court—'the right way'—have been targeted by this administration," Escobar wrote in a social media post. "So glad to see this blatantly illegal and cruel policy struck down."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


