SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
alliance defending freedom
Group That Helped Reverse Roe Sets Sights on Birth Control
"We tried to tell all those fuckers that if Trump was elected, we were going to get Handmaid's Tale-d," said one author.
Apr 16, 2025
Nearly three years after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' 2022 concurring opinion for the reversal of Roe v. Wadeelevated fears of Americans losing the right to contraception, a far-right legal group is working to limit access to birth control.
Jezebelreported Wednesday on the current anti-contraception effort by the conservative Christian group, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)—which has bragged that its "attorneys and staff were proud to be involved from the very beginning" in the fight to overturn Roe, the 1973 ruling that affirmed the right to abortion nationwide up until the Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization decision.
Last week, ADF wrote to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, urging HHS to "end funding to an organization that has become a radicalized opponent of health and of your agenda: the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG) and its related entities." The legal group also recommended opening "a civil compliance investigation into whether ACOG improperly used HHS cooperative agreements to promote" diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
"If you have a uterus, it's a great time to get permanent birth control, and stock up on some Plan B and Ella."
The ADF letter states that an HHS agency, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), "pays ACOG to create online content and podcasts advocating DEI, gender ideology, and abortion advocacy. This program has allocated ACOG over $15 million and needs to be ended promptly to prevent the continued waste of taxpayer funds."
In addition to taking aim at funding for the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health (AIM)—which, according to its website, works to "make birth safer, improve maternal health outcomes, and save lives" with its content—ADF wants the Trump administration to "end HRSA's cooperative agreement with ACOG that radicalized the women's preventive services mandate under Obamacare."
Jezebel explained how ADF's attack on the Women's Preventive Services Initiative (WPSI) threatens access to birth control:
The Affordable Care Act says insurance companies have to cover a range of women's preventive health services without cost-sharing like copays or deductibles. The law doesn't name which services, but rather tasks an HHS agency to determine what services have strong evidence showing health benefits. That agency gave a contract to ACOG, which convenes the WPSI panel that includes representatives from its membership and three other major professional organizations. One of the panel's recommendations is that "adolescent and adult women have access to the full range of contraceptives and contraceptive care to prevent unintended pregnancies and improve birth outcomes." So insurance in the U.S. has to cover birth control pills, patches, rings, implants, [intrauterine devices, or IUDs], and tubal ligation without additional costs beyond people's monthly premiums.
Groups like ADF do not like this requirement—especially the mandated coverage of IUDs and emergency contraception like Plan B or Ella. Conservatives falsely claim that these methods block implantation of fertilized eggs, which they believe is tantamount to abortion. (ADF represented one of the plaintiffs in the 2014 Hobby Lobby case who objected to covering these methods.) "This mandate has included a coverage requirement for contraception, including some items that can prevent the implantation of embryos after conception," the ADF letter notes. "The failure to offer robust religious and moral exemptions to that mandate led to years of litigation and repeated trips to the U.S. Supreme Court." Yes, they want employers to be able to object to covering birth control in their insurance plans for either religious or moral reasons, which could really mean anything, including sexist and eugenic objections to single women or people with disabilities being sexually active.
ADF urges HHS to "conduct any scientific reviews in-house," Jezebel pointed out, noting recent mass layoffs at the department. "Alternatively, HHS could add members of anti-abortion groups to the advisory panel. Whatever happens here, potential changes to insurance coverage of certain birth control methods—based on the false idea that they cause abortions—is alarming."
On the campaign trail, President Donald Trump bragged about his role in reversing Roe—he appointed three of the court's right-wing justices—but also attempted to downplay reproductive rights as a key issue for voters.
Regarding contraception specifically, Trump swiftly tried to backtrack after signaling support for limits on birth control during a radio interview last May. U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said at the time: "Trump is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Here he is encouraging the far right. Later, he claimed he didn't mean it. But he can't hide his record. And his allies still plan to restrict birth control nationwide."
The ideas in ADF's letter "did not appear out of thin air," Jezebel stressed Wednesday. "Ending mandated insurance coverage of Ella is a proposal in Project 2025 (page 485), as is restoring religious and moral exemptions (page 483), and ending this contract with ACOG (page 484). Trump tried to disavow the Project 2025 playbook on the campaign trail, but his administration is implementing much of it and conservative groups are asking him to enact parts he hasn't gotten to yet."
HHS cutting ties with ACOG is just a step. Many far-right forced pregnancy advocates want the Supreme Court to—as Thomas wrote three years ago—"reconsider all of the court's substantive due process precedents," including the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut ruling, which affirmed that the government cannot interfere in the procurement of contraceptives.
The new reporting led reproductive rights advocates to share their own healthcare experiences and encourage patients to seek out longer-term birth control like IUDs now, while they still have access to such options.
Feeling really grateful right about now for the tubal ligation I started fighting tooth and nail for at 19 and finally managed to score by age 27. We tried to tell all those fuckers that if Trump was elected, we were going to get Handmaid's Tale-d. www.jezebel.com/far-right-gr...
[image or embed]
— Brianna Karp ( @briannakarp.bsky.social) April 16, 2025 at 5:22 PM
"I've said this repeatedly but I'll say it again: If you're able, get an IUD," said content designer Shauna Wright. "It's easily removed but otherwise lasts for years. (Voice of experience here: Ask for a paracervical block pre-insertion, and if they refuse, find another dr.)"
Writer Effie Seiberg similarly said: "If you have a uterus, it's a great time to get permanent birth control, and stock up on some Plan B and Ella. (Ella works better for people 165-195 lbs.)"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Abortion Defenders Decry 'Baseless' Attack on Mifepristone as SCOTUS Hears Case
"The overturn of Roe was just the first step in the far right's relentless campaign to restrict women's reproductive freedom," said one advocate. "We always knew they would come for medication abortion, too."
Mar 26, 2024
As the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a case brought by right-wing activists seeking to sharply limit access to a commonly used abortion pill, reproductive rights advocates renewed warnings that Republicans' endgame isn't just making abortion a states' rights issue, but rather forcing a nationwide ban on all forms of the medical procedure.
Thehigh court justices—including six conservatives, half of them appointed by former President Donald Trump, the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee—are hearing oral arguments in Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a case brought by the right-wing Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of anti-abortion doctors. The case involves the abortion pill known by the generic name mifepristone, which was first approved by the FDA in 2000 as part of a two-drug protocol to terminate early-stage pregnancies.
"If the Supreme Court refuses to follow the evidence and imposes medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone, it will be just another stepping stone in the anti-abortion movement's end goal of a nationwide ban on abortion."
"Mifepristone has been used by millions of women over the last 20 years, and its safety and effectiveness have been well-documented," said Jamila Taylor, president and CEO of the Institute for Women's Policy Research. "The drug has taken on even greater importance for women's health since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and the far right has moved to block women's access to healthcare at every turn."
In a dubious practice known as "judge shopping," the plaintiffs filed their complaint in Amarillo, Texas, where Matthew Kacsmaryk, the sole federal district judge and a Trump appointee, ruled last April that the FDA's approval of mifepristone was illegal. Shortly after Kacsmaryk's ruling, a federal judge in Washington state issued a contradictory decision that blocked the FDA from removing mifepristone from the market. The U.S. Department of Justice subsequently appealed Kacsmaryk's ruling.
Later in April 2023, the Supreme Court issued a temporary order that allowed mifepristone to remain widely available while legal challenges continued. A three-judge panel of the right-wing 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last August that the FDA's 2016 move to allow mifepristone to be taken later in pregnancy, mailed directly to patients, and prescribed by healthcare professionals other than doctors, was likely illegal. However, the court also allowed the pill to remain on the market pending the outcome of litigation.
In an analysis of the case published Tuesday, jurist Amy Howe explained:
There are three separate questions before the justices on Tuesday. The first one is whether the challengers have a legal right to sue, known as standing, at all. The FDA maintains that they do not, because the individual doctors do not prescribe mifepristone and are not obligated to do anything as a result of the FDA's decision to allow other doctors to prescribe the drug.
The court of appeals held that the medical groups have standing because of the prospect that one of the groups' members might have to treat women who had been prescribed mifepristone and then suffered complications—which, the FDA stresses, are "exceedingly rare"—requiring emergency care. But the correct test, the FDA and [mifepristone maker] Danco maintain, is not whether the groups' members will suffer a possible injury, but an imminent injury.
Destiny Lopez, acting co-CEO of the Guttmacher Institute, called the plaintiffs' claims "baseless."
"If the Supreme Court refuses to follow the evidence and imposes medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone, it will be just another stepping stone in the anti-abortion movement's end goal of a nationwide ban on abortion," she said on Tuesday. "As the court weighs its decision, let's be clear that the only outcome that respects facts and science is maintaining full access to mifepristone."
As more than 20 states have banned or restricted abortion since the Supreme Court's June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling overturnedRoe v. Wade and voided half a century of federal abortion rights, people have increasingly turned to medication abortion to terminate unwanted pregnancies. And while Republicans have often claimed that overturning Roe was not meant to ban all abortions but merely to leave the issue up to the states, GOP-authored forced pregnancy bills and statements by Republican lawmakers and candidates including Trump—who last week endorsed a 15-week national ban—belie conservatives' goal of nationwide prohibition.
Project 2025, a coalition of more than 100 right-wing groups including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and other anti-abortion organizations, wants to require the FDA to ban drugs used for medication abortions, protect employers who refuse to include contraceptive coverage in insurance plans, and increase surveillance of abortion and maternal mortality reporting. The coalition is reportedly drafting executive orders through which Trump, if reelected, could roll back Biden administration policies aimed at protecting and expanding abortion access.
"The overturn of Roe was just the first step in the far right's relentless campaign to restrict women's reproductive freedom. We always knew they would come for medication abortion, too," Taylor said. "But conservatives seeking to block access to mifepristone are not concerned about women's safety; they want to block all abortion options for women and prevent them from making their own reproductive decisions, even in their own homes."
Right-wing groups including the Heritage Foundation have been pressing Trump to invoke the Comstock laws, a series of anti-obscenity statutes passed in 1873 during the Ulysses S. Grant administration. One of the laws outlawed using the U.S. Postal Service to send contraceptives and punished offenders with up to five years' hard labor. Named after Victorian-era anti-vice crusader and U.S. postal inspector Anthony Comstock, the laws were condemned by progressives of the day, with one syndicated newspaper editorial accusing Comstock of striking "a dastard's blow at liberty and law in the United States."
Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern said Tuesday that far-right Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito—who wrote the majority opinion in Dobbs—"are clearly eager to revive the Comstock Act as a nationwide ban on medication abortion, and maybe procedural abortion, too."
"That would subject abortion providers in all 50 states to prosecution and imprisonment," he added. "No congressional action needed."
Progressive U.S. lawmakers joined reproductive rights advocates in rallying outside the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
"Mifepristone is safe and effective and has been used in our country for decades," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.). "These far-right justices need to stop legislating from the bench."
Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) asserted that "medication abortion is safe, effective, and routine healthcare."
"Over half of U.S. abortions are done this way and we have decades of scientific evidence to back up its safety," she added. "SCOTUS must protect access to mifepristone and we must affirm abortion care as the human right that it is."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Post-Dobbs Abortion Pill Surge Highlights Stakes of Looming Supreme Court Case
"Next week as we hear oral arguments in the FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine case, remember who will be impacted," said one group.
Mar 20, 2024
As abortion bans and restrictions have taken hold in at least 21 states since the right-wing majority on the U.S. Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade nearly two years ago, Americans' reliance on medication abortion became increasingly clear—with the use of abortion pills reported in 63% of all abortions that took place within the formal healthcare system in 2023.
Medication abortion represented 53% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2020, signifying a substantial increase since the court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.
The Guttmacher Institute released the results of its Monthly Abortion Provision Study on Tuesday, a week before the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Food and Drug Administration, et al., Applicants v. Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine, et al., a case brought by the right-wing Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of anti-abortion doctors.
The group filed the case aiming to revoke the FDA's approval of mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortions, more than two decades after it was approved following years of research.
"As our latest data emphasize, more than 3 out of 5 abortion patients in the United States use medication abortion," said Amy Friedrich-Karnik, director of federal policy for Guttmacher. "Reinstating outdated and medically unnecessary restrictions on the provision of mifepristone would negatively impact people's lives and decrease abortion access across the country."
Right-wing Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled last year in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas that mifepristone's registration should be invalidated, a decision that was quickly put on hold by the Supreme Court.
Next week, the Supreme Court will hear the U.S. Department of Justice's appeal of Kacsmaryk's decision with a focus on two issues: whether the Alliance of Hippocratic Medicine has legal standing and whether the FDA did adequate research before it expanded access to mifepristone in 2016 and 2021. A ruling is expected this summer.
Guttmacher's research showed a 10% increase in all abortions in the U.S. between 2020-23, with a rate of 15.7 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age last year—the highest rate and number of abortions in more than a decade.
States without total abortion bans saw a 25% rise in abortion care compared to 2020, and the increase was even sharper in states bordering those with bans—37% between 2020-23.
"Next week as we hear oral arguments in the FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine case, remember who will be impacted," said Whole Women's Health, which runs reproductive health clinics in several states.
Rachel Jones, principal research scientist for Guttmacher, said the group's findings show that "as abortion restrictions proliferate post-Dobbs, medication abortion may be the most viable option—or the only option—for some people, even if they would have preferred in-person procedural care."
Reproductive rights advocates and medical experts including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have long warned that restrictions on mifepristone—adopted by the FDA under pressure from the pro-forced pregnancy movement—are medically unnecessary and aim only to stop people from receiving care.
Advocates fear that the Supreme Court could rule that the FDA's 2021 decision to allow mifepristone to be dispensed via telemedicine and the mail violates the Comstock Act, a law that dates back to 1873 and prohibited the distribution of "obscene" materials through the mail.
"The modern anti-abortion movement wants to reinvent the Comstock Act as an abortion ban," University of California, Davis, law professor Mary Ziegler toldMs. magazine on Tuesday.
If healthcare providers can no longer dispense mifepristone via telemedicine, people seeking abortions would be forced to go in person to get care, "exposing them not only to delays and increased costs but also to harassment, threats, and other types of violence from anti-abortion extremism, which has increased dramatically since the fall of Roe," reported Ms.
Ahead of the Supreme Court's hearing in the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine's "groundless case challenging FDA approval of mifepristone," said Guttmacher, "mifepristone is available and the facts remain clear: medication abortion is safe, effective, widely used, and critical to bodily autonomy for all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular