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
reproductive rights
Medication Abortion Is Safe—Political Attacks on Healthcare Are Not
If the FDA further restricts access to abortion pills, more people, especially those in marginalized communities, will die.
Jun 05, 2025
Next to the abortion pills in my medicine cabinet lies a potentially risky drug: Tylenol. Ironically, while this common pain reliever is widely accepted, safer, life-saving drugs like mifepristone and misoprostol have been under relentless attack by Republican lawmakers.
For decades, these pills, Food and Drug Administration-approved after rigorous testing and proven safe through extensive studies, have been trusted by millions of physicians and pregnant people to treat miscarriages, carry out abortions, or address various medical issues. Yet, the necessity and widespread use of abortion pills seem to elude the wisdom of lawmakers and health secretaries, and highlight a troubling disconnect between the realities faced by patients and the decisions made by lawmakers.
For example, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently directed the FDA to review regulations based on a demonstrably flawed study funded by the organization responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade. This study has not undergone peer review or been published in any medical journal, highlighting its misguided methodology and analysis. For instance, it inappropriately cites bleeding and follow-up exams as adverse effects when, in reality, bleeding is an intended effect, and experts recommend follow-up exams.
The science and testimonies are clear: Abortion pills are normal, safe, and necessary.
My abortion saved my life. I am at high risk of death during pregnancy, and my sister, who shares the same medical syndromes, nearly died in childbirth. Mentally, I would have preferred to end my life rather than continue a pregnancy with my then-abusive boyfriend or pass down incurable, painful medical conditions. Emotionally, I could not handle the responsibilities of motherhood. I believe it is the most demanding and beautiful role on Earth, but it must remain a choice.
Every day that the government forces someone to remain pregnant against their will is another day the United States commits a crime against humanity, according to the United Nations. One in four people who can get pregnant will have at least one abortion in their lifetime, with nearly two-thirds of them relying on abortion pills.
I advocate for abortion patients daily and hear their harrowing stories of reproductive and medical distress. For many of them who want to save their life, preserve their liberty, or pursue happiness, abortion pills are their only option, solely due to their address and station in life. For example, consider two women who look down at a positive pregnancy test weeks after being diagnosed with cancer. One is an Oregonian; the other is a Floridian. The Oregonian can access abortion pills or have a D&C within a day or two, well past an unreasoned “heartbeat” law. Meanwhile, the Floridian may have no choice but to rely on abortion pills to protect her life, risking a future where her children could become orphans, as the majority of people who have an abortion are already parents.
If the FDA further restricts access to abortion pills, more people, especially those in marginalized communities, will die. Victims of abuse will be forced to carry pregnancies resulting from incest and rape. More people will drop out of college, and more unwanted children will be born into neglect. These are not mere possibilities; they are certainties based on the experiences of hundreds of thousands of people.
People in blue states may mistakenly believe the FDA’s decision wouldn’t impact their rights, but they would be wrong. Revoking or restricting access to abortion pills would have a ripple effect, overwhelming health centers in blue states with patients from red states. Worse yet, it could eliminate access to abortion pills entirely, effectively reducing abortion resources by 66%. Extremist Republican lawmakers are banking on rolling back our right to abortion pills as a stepping stone to enacting a nationwide abortion ban, followed by the restriction of contraception rights and the falsification or elimination of sex education. This “review” is all part of a plan to control our reproductive rights, finances, health, education, autonomy, and destiny.
Reproductive restrictions for anyone create reproductive restrictions for everyone. The science and testimonies are clear: Abortion pills are normal, safe, and necessary. More than 7 in 10 Americans support access to medication abortion, including half of Republicans.
Just as we should have been more vocal when the Trump administration withdrew from the World Health Organization and defunded cancer research, we must be vigilant about their strategy to roll back reproductive rights. I urge you to share your opinion, call your representatives, and demand that they use their leverage, platform, and influence to speak out and pressure the Department of Health and Human Services to end its misguided review of these safe and vital medications. Together, we can push back against these unjust restrictions and protect the human rights, health, and dignity of the people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Continues Far-Right 'Crusade Against Our Courts' With Judicial Slate
"If confirmed," said one watchdog leader, "these nominees would be expected to not only look the other way as the building blocks of America's democracy are gutted, but to pave the way for Trump's radical agenda."
Jun 04, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump worked to force the federal judiciary to the far right with 234 confirmed nominees during his previous term, and he continued that mission on Wednesday, when the first slate of his second-term selections attended a Senate hearing.
Trump has announced 11 nominees, but only Whitney Hermandorfer, his pick to serve on the Cincinnati, Ohio-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, and four candidates to be district court judges in Missouri—Zachary Bluestone, Joshua Divine, Maria Lanahan, and Cristian Stevens—came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which considers them before a full floor vote.
Just hours before the hearing began, Maggie Jo Buchanan, interim executive director of the advocacy group Demand Justice, wrote for Salon that "Trump's judicial nominees are key to the far right's crusade against our courts."
"If confirmed, these nominees would be expected to not only look the other way as the building blocks of America's democracy are gutted, but to pave the way for Trump's radical agenda—gutting reproductive freedoms and allowing the administration to take healthcare away from millions," she warned. "Many of them have histories of defending anti-choice legislation and other radical policies championed by Trump and his MAGA allies in Congress."
"Trump is picking up where he left off in his first term by using judicial nominees to advance an extreme agenda that undermines Americans' fundamental freedoms."
Buchanan wasn't alone in sounding the alarm about threats to healthcare. In anticipation of the hearing, the watchdog Accountable.US published a report detailing how "Trump's first judicial picks have a dangerous record of undermining fundamental freedoms, with a number of them who have a record of directly targeting reproductive rights."
Accountable.US cited Hermandorfer defending Tennessee's near-total ban on abortion as director of strategic litigation for the state attorney general's office, as well as Divine, Missouri's solicitor general, and his deputy, Lanahan, supporting extreme anti-choice efforts in their state.
"Trump is picking up where he left off in his first term by using judicial nominees to advance an extreme agenda that undermines Americans' fundamental freedoms," said Accountable.US president Caroline Ciccone. "But this time, Trump is selecting nominees with personal allegiances to the president, who will go even further in using the bench to cut off Americans' rights. Senators should know a vote to confirm Trump's judicial nominees is a vote to radically undermine reproductive freedom."
Reproductive rights aren't the only topical concern. Buchanan noted that "some of the nominees in this first slate have also supported Trump's attack on birthright citizenship, which has been widely viewed as unconstitutional. And in true loyalist fashion, one worked to defend Trump by seeking to interfere in New York's attempt to hold Trump accountable for state crimes."
The nominee who got involved in the New York case is Divine, who is also under fire for targeting the Biden administration's attempt to provide student debt relief. Student Borrower Protection Center legal director Winston Berkman-Breen said Wednesday that the nominee "built his political brand off the suffering of tens of millions of student loan borrowers across this country, and now the Trump administration is rewarding him with a position that will let him enshrine his personal ideologies into law."
"Time and time again in his lawsuits challenging legal student loan payment and relief programs, Divine took extreme positions at odds with traditional judicial interpretations related to injury, standing, and venue," Berkman-Breen pointed out. "Because of Divine, millions of student loan borrowers remain buried in crushing debt."
"Divine's actions exceeded the bounds of zealous advocacy and were a direct affront to judicial procedure," he added. "Americans deserve a judge who will review the facts of the case before them and apply the law under the Constitution and as passed by Congress—not an ideologue who will manipulate those laws to obtain the outcome he prefers."
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 240 national organizations, similarly asserted in a Tuesday letter that "at a time when so many of our fundamental civil rights are under attack, we need to trust that our judges will impartially and fairly rule on cases without bias or animus."
The coalition specifically took aim at Trump's 6th Circuit nominee, writing that "unfortunately, a careful review of Ms. Hermandorfer’s record shows a demonstrated hostility towards our civil and human rights that is disqualifying for a judicial nominee. We strongly urge the Senate to oppose her nomination."
Earthjustice Action legislative director of the Access to Justice Program Coby Dolan stressed in a Wednesday statement that "we need principled judges who will uphold the law and serve as a bulwark against this administration's brazen attacks on the rule of law and our environment."
"It is the Senate's constitutional obligation to rigorously scrutinize these nominees, asking tough questions to determine whether they are impartial, believe in the government's ability to tackle our most pressing issues, and understand the difference between facts and politics," Dolan added. "We need oversight, not rubber stamps."
The Senate is controlled by the GOP, but only narrowly. Buchanan argued that "given what we are seeing out of the administration, there is no acceptable reason for Senate Democrats to assist their Republican colleagues in pushing through Trump's judicial nominees."
'Some Senate Dems voiced regret for supporting Trump’s cabinet nominees who were seen as mainstream but went full MAGA once confirmed Senators should not set themselves up for the same feelings of shame in voting for Trump's nominees for lifetime appointments' mmmhmm www.salon.com/2025/06/04/t...
[image or embed]
— Barred and Boujee and NEWLYWED aka Madiba Dennie (@audrelawdamercy.bsky.social) June 4, 2025 at 1:19 PM
The committee's ranking member, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on Wednesday pointed to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi's recent decision to limit the American Bar Association's (ABA) access to information about judicial nominees as proof that "the Trump administration is clearly just trying to cover for unqualified and extreme nominees."
Timereported last week that Bondi's "move against the ABA came a day after Trump announced six new judicial nominees, which included top Justice Department official Emil Bove being put forward to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit."
The other five newly announced nominees—Ed Artau, Kyle Dudek, Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe, John Guard, and Jordan E. Pratt—are on track to serve as district judges in Florida.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Order to Hospitals on Emergency Abortions 'Means Women Will Die,' Warn Advocates
"The Trump administration would rather women die in emergency rooms than receive lifesaving abortions," said one reproductive rights leader.
Jun 04, 2025
Ensuring unequivocally that hospitals must provide abortion care to patients whose pregnancies have placed them in life-threatening medical emergencies is not "the policy of this administration," said the nation's top health agency on Tuesday—making clear, said one Democratic senator, that Trump administration officials "don't care how many women die or are forced into health crises to advance their anti-abortion agenda."
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a policy statement saying that guidance regarding emergency abortion care introduced in July 2022 by the Biden administration—just after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people in the U.S. don't have the constitutional right to abortion care—was being rescinded.
Former President Joe Biden made clear to hospitals in 2022 that under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), they were obligated to provide abortion care if it was medically necessary, even in states that ban abortions. Medical emergencies that required abortion care included "ectopic pregnancy, complications of pregnancy loss, or emergent hypertensive disorders, such as preeclampsia with severe features," according to Biden's guidance.
The 1986 law requires hospitals that receive federal funding to treat or stabilize patients experiencing medical emergencies even if they lack health insurance or cannot pay for health services, or to transfer them to another facility for care. EMTALA has been interpreted to include abortion care by both Republican and Democratic administrations going back to former President George W. Bush, but the CMS statement suggested President Donald Trump will not require hospitals to protect women's health or lives by providing abortions.
While rescinding Biden's guidance, CMS said it would continue to enforce EMTALA, "including for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy."
"CMS will work to rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration's actions," the agency added—an apparent reference to a lawsuit filed by the Biden administration against Idaho, which claimed its near-total abortion ban superseded EMTALA.
That case went to the Supreme Court in 2024 and was dismissed, leaving in tact a federal court ruling that required Idaho hospitals to provide emergency abortion care.
Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women's Law Center, emphasized that the CMS action "doesn't change hospitals' legal obligations, but it does add to the fear, confusion, and dangerous delays patients and providers have faced since the fall of Roe v. Wade."
"Stripping away federal guidance affirming what the law requires will put lives at risk," said Goss Graves. "At the same time, this administration claims it is considering ways to support 'population growth,' but it is actively dismantling the systems that protect pregnant people's health and lives. The hypocrisy is staggering. No matter what political games the administration wants to play, we will continue to stand with the patients, doctors, and hospitals fighting every day to do what is right."
Mary Ziegler, a professor at University of California, Davis, toldThe New York Times that the CMS guidance creates "a lot of unanswered questions about what hospitals are supposed to do going forward. So more confusion means more risk."
"We've already seen since the overturn of Roe that uncertainty and confusion tends to mean physicians are unwilling to intervene, and the more unwilling physicians are to intervene, the more risk there is in pregnancy," said Ziegler.
The Center for Reproductive Rights said that "confusion is the point" of the new policy statement.
"The Trump administration would rather women die in emergency rooms than receive lifesaving abortions," said Nancy Northup, the group's president and CEO.
The deaths of at least five women as the result of abortion bans in Texas and Georgia have been reported since Roe v. Wade was overturned, with doctors avoiding providing abortion care even in cases of nonviable pregnancies, for fear of being prosecuted.
Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, said in a statement that rescinding Biden's guidance "means women will die."
"The Trump administration is clearly refusing to protect pregnant people in crisis," said Timmaraju. "It's another calculated step in Trump's war on reproductive freedom—siding with extremists who want to punish doctors and abandon patients. No one should be denied emergency care, and we'll hold every official who enables this cruelty accountable."
Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, said the organization "will use every lever we have to keep President Trump and his administration from endangering our health and lives."
"The Trump administration cannot simply erase four decades of law protecting patients' lives with the stroke of a pen," said Kolbi-Molinas. "Regardless of where they live, pregnant patients have a right to emergency abortion care that will save their health or lives. By rescinding this guidance, the Trump administration has sent a clear signal that it is siding not with the majority, but with its anti-abortion allies—and that will come at the expense of women's lives."
U.S. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) also sought to provide clarification.
"Once again, the Trump administration is sending a clear message that they do not care about women's lives," said Murray. "Make no mistake: EMTALA is still the law, and Trump rescinding this guidance does not change the fact that pregnant women who need emergency abortion care to save their life or health are still legally entitled to this care."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular