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
women
At Least 1 Million Women and Girls Have Lost Aid Access After Global Cuts Led by Trump
"Every dollar withdrawn from women's organizations is a dollar withdrawn from survivors of conflict-related sexual violence, displaced mothers, girls forced from school, and communities struggling to survive."
Jul 10, 2026
At least 1 million women and girls in conflict and disaster zones around the world have lost access to humanitarian aid as a result of massive funding cuts by the US under the Trump administration and other developed nations.
A report out on Friday from the United Nations Women's Program surveyed over 800 women's organizations across 52 countries, which provide emergency supplies, shelter to women fleeing violence, financial assistance to those in need, healthcare, mental health services, childcare, and treatment for sexual violence, among other support.
Sofia Calltorp, chief of humanitarian action for UN Women, described these organizations as "the muscle and lifeblood of the humanitarian response" in some of the world's most vulnerable war zones and disaster areas, including Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and Yemen.
But according to the report, since January 2025, 90% of these groups say they cannot meet current needs, and 60% say they are reaching fewer women and girls than before.
Three-quarters of the groups say that as a result of the cuts they have been forced to reduce staff, and four in ten expect to close in the next 12 months.
At the beginning of his second term, President Donald Trump conducted a sweeping and abrupt purge of US humanitarian aid, which fell from $14.1 billion in 2024 to just $3.4 billion in 2025.
Immediately after taking office, he froze all foreign assistance. And under the leadership of the world's first trillionaire, Elon Musk, and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), his administration suddenly canceled most funding from the US Agency for International Development (USAID), cutting development assistance by more than $40 billion, including over $10 billion in humanitarian assistance.
The US had previously provided 40% of all global humanitarian aid, and its stripping of funds was by far the most devastating. It was made worse when other nations, including France, Germany, and the UK, also cut billions as part of what is predicted to be a collective 28% reduction in aid from Group of 7 nations by the end of 2026, according to the Women's Refugee Commission.
As a report from Refugees International found, the Trump administration's cuts were especially targeted at programs that served women and girls around the world. They canceled 88% of maternal and child health funding, 94% of sexual and reproductive health funding, and 80% of gender-based violence prevention funding.
"Every dollar withdrawn from women's organizations is a dollar withdrawn from survivors of conflict-related sexual violence, displaced mothers, girls forced from school, and communities struggling to survive," Calltorp said.
The effects on the women who benefit from these programs have been swift and brutal, especially as global conflicts become more widespread and deadly.
While cases of conflict-related sexual violence doubled in 2025, nearly two-thirds of the women's groups surveyed said that the number of safe spaces and gender-based violence services has been significantly reduced or completely eliminated in their communities.
"Behind these numbers are devastating consequences," the UN said in a statement. "A woman seeking refuge from violence might show up at the door of a shelter that has shut down; a pregnant woman may have to walk for hours to reach a health clinic; or a mother may be denied food for her children."
“If I had funding, I would have supported her… helped her heal and rebuild her life."
The report contains testimony from leaders of some of the organizations bearing the burden of the cuts. To protect them from harm, the report did not include their names or the organizations they worked for.
A representative from one women-led organization in Sudan told UN Women that the cuts have forced them to scale back their services and resources.
As a result, one 17-year-old survivor of sexual violence went untreated for four days. She became pregnant before later attempting suicide and died after six months.
“If I had funding, I would have supported her… helped her heal and rebuild her life," said a representative from the organization.
Nine out of 10 organizations said they'd seen increases in poverty among women they serve, 8 in 10 have seen increases in girls dropping out of school, and 7 in 10 have seen an increase in forced marriage.
“Due to a lack of outreach workers in one neighborhood, within a few months we observed a sharp rise in adolescent pregnancies," said the representative of one organization in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Another group in the DRC said that they were forced to put more than 1,500 women-led households on waiting lists for aid.
"The most affected groups are single mothers and their children, for whom postponing support has worsened food insecurity and malnutrition," the group said.
"The cuts to women’s organizations are happening at the same time we are seeing women’s rights being eroded—and these two things are so deeply connected," Calltorp said.
Nearly two-thirds of the organizations also said that their staff was working without pay so they could continue providing support to the women and girls who needed them despite the cuts.
"These sacrifices are a testament to their commitment, but the expectation cannot be that women absorb these costs," Calltorp said.
She called for "immediate action from donors and the humanitarian community to prioritize funding for women’s organizations," adding, "We will not and cannot allow them to become another casualty of war."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trans Athletes Don't Threaten Women—Patriarchal Politicians Do
As the defense teams in Hecox and BPJ seek to police the bodies of transgender women and girls, all women and girls who don’t adhere to society’s rigid standard of femininity will feel the impact.
Jun 07, 2026
The power politicians have over women’s bodies is one of the oldest tools of control in American history. Throughout that history, the promise of protecting women has been the longtime excuse for excluding women from civic life and limiting our freedom. That history isn’t over.
The Supreme Court will soon decide Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. BPJ—legal cases out of Idaho and West Virginia that will determine whether transgender athletes will be allowed to compete on women’s and girls’ school sports teams.
Idaho’s attorney general has argued that the bans ensure “women’s spaces and sports remain fair, safe, and dedicated to empowering female athletes.” Or, in other words, that we must allow politicians to pass these bans to “protect” women. Although the court’s decision is expected any day now, I have already made mine. Transgender sports bans are not and never have been about protecting women.
I have spent my career fighting to protect the bodily autonomy and legal protections of all women and girls. When people ask me, whether genuinely or in bad faith, why transgender women are unequivocally included in my organization’s work, I tell them the truth: Our fight is the same.
If you have been in the business of fighting for women’s rights and protections as long as I have, you know that women face many threats to their safety and autonomy, but not one of those threats includes transgender people.
The tactics being used to exclude transgender athletes are similar to those once used to keep women from casting a ballot, having a credit card, or getting the healthcare they need.
In 1776, a woman couldn’t own the clothes on her back, much less the home she built. Proponents of the practice said it was “intended for her protection.” One 100 years later, when women were shut out of the legal profession, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of such paternalism, even stating that “man is, or should be, woman’s protector.” And when women were later fighting for the right to abortion, we were told that our bodies are not our own.
It is no wonder, then, that the red herring of protecting women is being deployed in the Trump administration’s executive orders and in the Hecox and BPJ cases. It is the same excuse being used in a flurry of sports bans and anti-transgender bills that have been introduced and implemented around the country over the past six years. Ultimately, transgender sports bans fail to address the real threats women face in sports, like unfair pay and unequal access to training and facilities.
The great irony is that bans against transgender women in women’s sports, women’s bathrooms, and other areas of public life actually endanger all women. The Idaho law that the Hecox case is challenging, for example, requires women and girl student-athletes whose sex is disputed to undergo invasive sex testing, including physical examinations. Athletes in men’s sports are not subject to the same degradation.
For as long as women and girls have been allowed to participate in sports, their bodies have been scrutinized. From non-white women who do not conform to white beauty standards, to girls with short hair or baggy clothes, to those who are deemed too strong, women athletes who do not perform femininity as some deem correctly have been harassed, punished, and forced to face humiliating tests to prove their gender.
It is no accident that Project 2025 and its supporters are pushing both anti-transgender legislation and a rollback of women’s protections against sexual harassment and assault, their right to reproductive healthcare, and even their ability to vote. Today, as the defense teams in Hecox and BPJ seek to police the bodies of transgender women and girls, all women and girls who don’t adhere to society’s rigid standard of femininity will feel the impact.
If you have been in the business of fighting for women’s rights and protections as long as I have, you know that women face many threats to their safety and autonomy, but not one of those threats includes transgender people.
It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court’s decision in Hecox and BPJ will reaffirm what I already know to be true: We women, including transgender women, must be in the fight for liberation together.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Asked About Stephen Miller, DNC Staffer Happy to Confirm: ‘I Stand by Calling Him an Ugly Fuck’
"He is a White House official who is taking to Twitter to hurl these absolutely false and transphobic attacks," said Paulina Mangubat. "It's just absolutely disgusting."
May 29, 2026
"I said what I said."
That was Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer Paulina Mangubat's statement Thursday evening after her response to White House adviser Stephen Miller's smear against Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico of Texas went viral earlier this week.
After Miller posted a picture on Wednesday of Talarico with the comment that Democrats in Texas had nominated "their first transgender Senate candidate,” Mangubat, who serves as the DNC's content and creative director and is behind many of the committee's social media posts, had a concise response.
"Shut up, you ugly fuck," Mangubat wrote, prompting an angry reply from Miller's wife, right-wing podcaster Katie Miller. She named Mangubat as the person behind the DNC's social media presence and announced that the staffer was "30, unmarried with no kids"—a fresh example of the MAGA movement's fixation with liberal, unmarried women.
On Thursday, Ben Meiselas of the progressive media company MeidasTouch invited Mangubat on his show to give her the opportunity to respond to Katie Miller.
"What do you want Katie Miller to know?" asked Meiselas.
"I want Katie Miller to know that her husband is an ugly fuck," Mangubat replied.
Meiselas: Katie Miller has been posting about you. I want to give you the opportunity right now to respond. What do you want to say to her?
Paulina Mangubat, Content and Creative Director for @TheDemocrats: I want Katie Miller to know that her husband is an ugly fuck. pic.twitter.com/KA8ioubJqx
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 29, 2026
"Stephen Miller is one of the most powerful men in the country right now," she continued. "He is a White House official who is taking to Twitter to hurl these absolutely false and transphobic attacks against an amazing candidate in Texas, James Talarico."
Mangubat added that Miller's actions during President Donald Trump's terms in office have been "ugly," pointing to his role as an architect of Trump's family separation policy and his mass deportation agenda—an operation in which federal agents have fatally shot at least six people, including at least three US citizens.
"He is celebrating when ICE shoots down Americans in the street," said Mangubat in an apparent reference to Miller's comment—just hours after Alex Pretti was shot and killed by federal agents in Minneapolis in January—that Pretti was a "would-be assassin."
"It's just absolutely disgusting," she continued. "And so yeah, I stand by calling him an ugly fuck."
Earlier this week, Katie Miller posted a photo of Mangubat and said that "this is what a sad, unhappy, female Liberal looks like,” adding “it’s why Pew reports 50% of them have been diagnosed with a mental condition.”
Miller didn't say what Pew Research data she was referring to, nor did she cite any evidence when she later asserted on Fox News that her husband being called ugly "is the same violent political rhetoric that is leading people to shooting up."
Meanwhile, Mangubat quickly seized on Katie Miller's attacks on her marital status to publicly announce her impending wedding.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Craven and Corrupt': DOJ Launches Criminal Probe Into E. Jean Carroll, Who Won Civil Cases Against Trump
"It never ends with Trump and his revenge tour and actual weaponization of the DOJ," said journalist Mehdi Hasan.
May 28, 2026
President Donald Trump appeared to be out for what one human rights advocate called "outrageous revenge" late Wednesday as it was reported that the Department of Justice has opened a criminal investigation into former magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll, who won two civil judgments against the president after accusing him of sexual abuse and defamation.
CNN first reported that, according to multiple sources with direct knowledge of the situation, the DOJ is investigating whether Carroll committed perjury in her civil lawsuits against Trump.
The probe reportedly centers on a 2022 deposition Carroll gave in which she said she received no outside funding for her lawsuit. It was later revealed that Reid Hoffman, a co-founder of LinkedIn who has been critical of the president, paid some legal fees and expenses.
Before Carroll's sexual abuse case went to trial in 2022, Trump's lawyers told the court that the disclosure of Hoffman's funding raised "significant questions" about Carroll's credibility and accused her of trying to "conceal the truth."
Carroll's lawyers countered that the plaintiff had nothing to do with obtaining the outside funding and that Hoffman's decision to provide financial support was irrelevant to Carroll's accusation that Trump had sexually abused her in a New York City department store dressing room in the 1990s.
A jury awarded her a $5 million judgment in the case, and in 2024 Carroll won $83.3 million in damages in a separate civil case in which she accused Trump of repeatedly defaming her when he said she had filed her first case against him in an effort to sell books and was perpetrating a "hoax."
A three-judge panel on the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously rejected Trump's request for a new trial in the sexual abuse case, saying the president had “not demonstrated that the district court erred in any of the challenged rulings.”
An appeals court panel also upheld the $83.3 million defamation judgment, but this month Trump was permitted to delay his payment for now, as he has appealed to the US Supreme Court, asserting that he has "absolute immunity" for disparaging comments about Carroll that he made while he was president.
The right-wing majority on the Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that Trump has "absolute immunity" for "official acts" taken while he is in office.
The investigation into Carroll is being conducted by US Attorney Andrew Boutros in the Northern District of Illinois; a nonprofit associated with Hoffman is based in Chicago.
The probe appeared to be Trump's latest effort to use the DOJ to enact revenge on his political enemies, a number of observers said late Wednesday.
"He’s using the power of the DOJ to go after his own victims," said US Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). "It’s a vile attack on the rule of law and a disgusting insult to victims everywhere."
Last month, acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel announced an indictment of former FBI chief James Comey, a longtime opponent of Trump. They accused him of “knowingly and willfully [making] a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon” the president; a year earlier, Comey had posted a photo on Instagram of seashells grouped together in a pattern, reading, "86 47." The indictment garnered criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike.
Federal prosecutors also indicted Comey as well as New York Attorney General Letitia James last year, in cases that were thrown out by a judge. James won a $450 million judgment against Trump, plus interest, in a civil fraud case against Trump and his business in 2022.
At the news of the investigation into Carroll, journalist Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo News wrote on social media, "Sheesh, it never ends with Trump and his revenge tour and actual weaponization of the DOJ."
Elisa Batista, campaign director at the women's rights group UltraViolet, said, "We believe E. Jean Carroll, just as a jury of her peers did."
“Donald Trump has been caught bragging about assaulting women, and was found liable for sexual abuse,” said Batista. "The DOJ’s investigation is nothing more than another craven and corrupt attempt by Trump to silence survivors and his personal opponents.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mifepristone Maker Appeals to US Supreme Court Amid Fears of 'National Abortion Ban'
"The safety of mifepristone has never actually been in question," said one advocate. "As this case moves towards the US Supreme Court, we will fight until every person has access to the care they need."
May 02, 2026
A pharmaceutical company which manufactures mifepristone filed an appeal to the US Supreme Court on Saturday asking for emergency relief from the "sweeping and dangerous" lower-court ruling Friday that would prohibit the mailing of the widely used abortion medication nationwide.
Danco Laboratories, which makes the popular drug and is part of ongoing litigation stemming from a legal challenge by the Republican-controlled state of Louisiana, said Friday's ruling by the Fifth Circuit of Appeals—a decision roundly condemned by reproductive rights advocates as an attack on women's health and the right to choose across the country—will cause "tremendous uncertainty" on the "legal status of mifepristone throughout the country” if it goes into effect.
The company further argued that the ruling as it stands leaves medical providers, patients, and pharmacies “all to guess at what is allowed and what is not," whether or not abortion is legal in the state where a patient is trying to obtain it.
The company asked the nation's highest court for an immediate administrative stay to the 5th Circuit's ruling while the challenge to the drug's availability makes its way through lower courts. It also urged the Court to take up the case itself prior to the upcoming summer recess.
According to Politico:
Even a temporary disruption of access to mifepristone will have massive implications. The medication is used in nearly two-thirds of all pregnancy terminations, and a quarter of patients depend on telehealth to obtain them. The ruling also cuts off telemedicine prescription of the drug for non-abortion purposes, such as easing miscarriages.
In the wake of Friday’s ruling, medical and progressive advocacy groups stressed that doctors can still use telehealth to prescribe the other abortion pill — misoprostol. The drug can be used on its own to end pregnancies and carries fewer restrictions because it is used for an array of other purposes, including treating ulcers and stopping hemorrhages.
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward who also the legal effort to make mifepristone available by mail during the COVID-19 pandemic as then-Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, issued the following statement
“Women’s ability to access mifepristone through the mail or from their pharmacy has revolutionized access to care. Now, as anti-abortion extremists seek to employ their anti-abortion playbook and reverse this hard-fought victory for patients, this decision needlessly blocks people around the country from critical healthcare, discriminating in particular against those who live in rural and other areas where healthcare is inaccessible.
"Here's what is very clear: mifepristone has an OUTSTANDING safety record," said the Center for Reproductive Rights on Saturday. "It has been FDA-approved for 25 years and used by more than 7 million people."
Following Friday night's ruling by the 5th Circuit, Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of the advocacy group Reproductive Freedom for All, said the stakes could night be higher for the right to choose in the United States.
"The court’s decision moves us one step closer to a national abortion ban," Timmaraju warned.
"It is now much more difficult for people to access abortion care," she said. "Anti-abortion politicians know their policies are unpopular, so they are using every lever of government they can. Louisiana built this case on debunked, junk science. The safety of mifepristone has never actually been in question. As this case moves towards the US Supreme Court, we will fight until every person has access to the care they need."
Keep ReadingShow Less
With 38,000+ Dead, Women and Girls Make Up Over Half of Those Killed in Israel’s US-Backed War on Gaza: UN
"Not a single combatant among them," said one human rights activist. "Further confirmation that over 90% of the victims are innocent civilians."
Apr 17, 2026
Israel's yearslong assault on Gaza has killed more than 38,000 women and girls, according to a report released Friday by the United Nations.
In total, the UN found that at least 22,000 women and 16,000 girls have been killed in the conflict, an average of nearly 50 women and girls per day.
Sofia Calltorp, chief of humanitarian action at UN Women, said the report shows how Israel's war on Gaza "has affected every aspect of life, with its most horrific toll seen in the scale of death."
"Women and girls accounted for a proportion of deaths far higher than those observed in previous conflicts in Gaza," Calltorp emphasized. "Those killed were mothers, they were daughters, sisters, and friends—deeply loved by those around them. They were individuals with lives and with dreams."
More than 72,000 people in total have been killed since Israel launched its attack on Gaza in October 2023, after Hamas invaded Israeli territory and killed approximately 1,200 Israelis. Experts warn that the current known death toll is likely an undercount.
While Palestinian women and girls represent more than half of those who have been killed, according to the report, Israeli and US officials have persisted in claiming the US-backed assault has targeted Hamas fighters.
"Not a single combatant among them," said Ramy Abdul, chairman of the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. "Further confirmation that over 90% of the victims are innocent civilians."
Although a ceasefire has been in place since October 2025, the report notes that an estimated 730 Gaza residents have been killed over the last six months. Additionally, the report says the humanitarian situation in Gaza remains dire.
“Nearly one million women and girls have been displaced, repeatedly," said Calltorp. “Access to water and food have been severely limited, with nearly 790,000 women and girls experiencing crisis-level or catastrophic levels of food insecurity. Extensive damage to infrastructure has made it almost impossible for women and girls in Gaza to access their basic needs, like healthcare."
Calltorp demanded that the ceasefire deal "be fully implemented," and that "respect for international law must be upheld" to ease the suffering in Gaza.
“Humanitarian assistance must reach those in need—at scale and without obstruction," Calltorp said. "And women and girls must be placed at the center of response and recovery efforts."
In addition to causing a humanitarian disaster in Gaza, Israel in recent weeks has also been waging an aerial bombing and ground invasion in Lebanon that has killed thousands of people and displaced more than 1 million. US President Donald Trump announced on Thursday that Israel and Lebanon came to a ceasefire agreement that is set to last for 10 days.
At the same time, Israeli settlers have been waging a campaign of increased violence against Palestinians living in the West Bank, and veteran Israeli war correspondent Ron Ben-Yishai on Thursday declared that the actions of the settlers look like "ethnic cleansing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Exclusion With a New Name': IOC Bans Trans Women, Those With Sex Differences From Olympics
The genetic testing put forward by the committee "fuels suspicion, invites public scrutiny, and puts already vulnerable athletes at risk," said one advocate.
Mar 26, 2026
A new policy unveiled Thursday by the International Olympic Committee was presented as a ban on transgender athletes from participating in women's sports—but considering just one transgender woman has participated in the international games since they have been eligible to, critics said the new rules would likely have a greater impact on cisgender women with natural variations in hormones, who have already faced degrading treatment and exclusion in the sports community for years.
IOC president Kirsty Coventry, who campaigned to lead the organization with calls to "protect" women's sports in the Olympics, said that starting with the 2028 Summer Games in Los Angeles, athletes will be required to take a one-time genetics test with the screening using a cheek swab, blood test, or saliva sample.
"Eligibility for any female category event at the Olympic Games or any other IOC event, including individual and team sports, is now limited to biological females," said Coventry, adding that the new policy “is based on science and has been led by medical experts."
The IOC worked with experts to determine how to approach the issue of transgender women in sports, which in recent years has become the subject of talking points for the Republican Party in the US and other right-wing leaders. President Donald Trump signed an executive order last year barring transgender women from competing on women's college sports teams.
The committee conducted a review not just of transgender athletes but of those who have differences in sexual development (DSD), such as being intersex, and compete in women's sports. The review has not been publicly released, but the IOC said it found athletes born with male sexual markers had physical advantages even if they were receiving treatment to reduce testosterone.
The IOC had previously allowed transgender athletes to participate in the Olympic Games if they were reducing their testosterone levels. In 2021, a weight lifter from New Zealand, Laurel Hubbard, became the first transgender women to compete at the Olympics after transitioning.
Boxers including Lin Yu-Ting of Taiwan and Imane Khelif of Algeria have been subject to scrutiny and genetic testing regarding their sex; Lin was recently cleared to participate in World Boxing events in the female category. Both competed in the 2024 Olympics in Paris and won gold medals.
Khelif has said she naturally has the SRY gene that the IOC's screening would test for, and that she has naturally high levels of testosterone.
Under the IOC ruling, athletes who do not have the typical female XX sex chromosomes and have DSD will also be banned from competing. People with DSD are not always aware of their status.
South African runner Caster Semenya, who has a rare genetic trait giving her elevated levels of testosterone, was subjected to genetic testing after her fellow competitors complained about her appearance when she won a gold medal in a world championship in 2009.
Genetic screening for Olympic athletes "is not progress—it is walking backward," she told The New York Times. "This is just exclusion with a new name.”
Payoshni Mitra, executive director of the advocacy group Humans of Sport, told the Times that the new policy simply "polices women’s bodies."
“It fuels suspicion, invites public scrutiny, and puts already vulnerable athletes at risk," she said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Georgia Judge Denounces Murder Charge in Abortion Case as 'Extremely Problematic'
States that have criminalized abortion are "getting much more explicit" in pushing to prosecute women for obtaining abortion care, said one rights advocate.
Mar 24, 2026
A state judge in Georgia on Monday set a bail payment at just $1 for a woman who was charged with murder earlier this month after she took abortion pills to end a pregnancy—a charge about which Judge Steven G. Blackerby of State Superior Court expressed extreme skepticism.
“I think that charge is extremely problematic,” Blackerby said during a hearing that the woman, Alexia Moore, attended virtually. “That is going to be a hard charge to convict upon.”
District Attorney Keith Higgins, who is overseeing the case against Moore, also did not appear convinced that the 31-year-old should be imprisoned for the medication abortion she had last December. He told the judge that "whatever bond the defendant can make that will allow her to get out of jail is appropriate," and noted that police in Kingsland, Georgia had brought charges against Moore without his office's support.
Higgins said he was not ready to drop the murder charge altogether, but said he was also not prepared to present the case to a grand jury.
Moore had been in jail for about two weeks when the hearing took place. Investigators in Kingsland accused her of “unlawfully and with malice aforethought [causing] the death of Baby Girl Moore.” In addition to malice murder they charged her with possession of a controlled substance and a dangerous drug.
She was rushed to Southeast Georgia Health Center on December 30 after experiencing severe abdominal pain. Court records showed Moore told the medical staff she had taken about eight pills of misoprostol, a pill that can be used for medication abortion, and oxycodone for pain. She went into labor at the hospital and delivered a baby who was determined to be in the second trimester of development. The baby was declared dead about an hour after birth.
She said she had bought the medication online and believed herself to be less than 14 weeks pregnant.
The Kingsland Police Department did not specifically cite Georgia's six-week abortion ban—which the state Supreme Court has allowed to remain in effect despite a Superior Court ruling that permanently enjoined the ban and found it unconstitutional—but The New York Times reported that documents supporting the department's arrest warrant "echoed aspects of the ban, including saying that 'the baby was well beyond six weeks of conception.'"
The police said Moore was charged with murder because “the victim became a person at the moment of live birth.”
Higgins acknowledged in court that the malice murder charge may not meet "factual and merit" standards, and both Blackerby and Kelly Turner, Moore's defense attorney, noted that Georgia law prohibits the criminalization of someone who has induced an abortion on themself.
The Current, a Georgia-based outlet, also reported that "privacy issues" are likely to be scrutinized in court if the district attorney continues to pursue the case.
"A security guard at Southeast Georgia Health Center in St. Marys called police after medical staff said that Moore had ingested abortion medication and the infant was older than six weeks, according to police records, which also cited Moore’s previous abortion history," reported The Current.
Turner argued in court that Moore legally procured the misoprostol and noted that her blood tests and hospital records did not show Oxycodone in her system.
"Today’s decision is a reminder that justice is not served by accusation alone," said Don Plummer, press officer for the Georgia Public Defender Council, which is representing Moore.
Author and advocate Jessica Valenti of Abortion, Every Day emphasized after Moore's arrest that the murder charge shows how states that have criminalized abortion care are "getting much more explicit" about the anti-choice movement's desire to punish women for obtaining abortions—even though in the past, laws have typically avoided prosecuting them.
A 31-year-old in Georgia has been arrested and charged with murder for allegedly ending her pregnancy with abortion medication.
Here’s what we know: pic.twitter.com/EXAcMqEdak
— Jessica Valenti (@JessicaValenti) March 16, 2026
The district attorneys of Georgia's four largest counties pledged in 2019, after the passage of the Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act, that they would not prosecute people who obtain abortions.
Since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, women in states including Kentucky, Ohio, and South Carolina have faced charges for obtaining abortion care and for suffering pregnancy loss. An Ohio woman sued medical providers last year for conspiring with police to fabricate a criminal case against her; she had been charged with felony abuse of a corpse after having a miscarriage, but a grand jury declined to indict her.
"I really hope that people are paying attention to this," said Valenti of the attempt to bring charges against Moore. "They really are counting on us being too overwhelmed to act, so it's incredibly, incredibly important that we let them know we're paying attention."
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Most Obvious Question Liberal Media Refuses to Ask About the Iran War
Though much of the media now expresses doubt about Trump's war, the moral foundation of anti-war opposition has largely disappeared, replaced instead by a narrow strategic debate over costs, risks, and political consequences.
Mar 16, 2026
Doubtless, the war launched by US President Donald Trump is not popular among ordinary Americans.
According to the latest public opinion poll, only a minority of Americans—part of the dwindling core of Trump's supporters—believe that the US-Israeli aggression against Iran has merit.
According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in early March 2026, only 27 percent of Americans approve of the US-Israeli strikes on Iran—while 43 percent disapprove and 29 percent are unsure.
This pro-war constituency is likely to remain supportive of Trump until the end of his term in office, and long after.
However, the war on Iran is not popular, and it is unlikely to become popular, especially as the Trump administration is reportedly fragmented between those who want to stay the course and those desperate for an exit strategy. Such a strategy would allow their president to save face before the midterm elections in November.
Mainstream media—aside, of course, from the pro-war chorus in right-wing news organizations, podcasters, and think tanks—also recognize that their country has entered a quagmire.
If it continues unchecked, it will likely prove worse than the war in Iraq in 2003 or the long war in Afghanistan, which lasted 20 years and ended with a decisive American defeat in August 2021 following the withdrawal of US forces and the collapse of the Afghan government.
Both wars have cost US taxpayers an estimated $8 trillion, including long-term veteran care and interest on borrowing, according to the Brown University Costs of War Project.
While it is important to highlight the unpopularity of America’s latest military adventure, such opposition must rest on moral and legal grounds.
Iran is already promising to be even more costly if the insanity of the war—instigated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his war-crazed government—does not end very quickly.
Many Americans may understand the difficult situation in which Trump's unhinged behavior and his unexplained loyalty to Netanyahu have placed their country. What they rarely confront is the moral dimension of that crisis.
Though they speak of the war’s failure—the lack of strategy, the lack of preparation, the absence of an end goal, and the confusion surrounding its objectives—very few in mainstream media have taken what should have been the obvious moral position: that the war itself is criminal, unjustifiable, and illegal under international law.
That position should have been obvious the moment the first bomb was dropped over Tehran. The aggression—particularly while negotiations between Iran and the United States were underway under Omani mediation—was ethically indefensible.
Any remaining doubt should have disappeared when US-Israeli strikes hit civilian areas, including schools and residential districts in the city of Minab in southern Iran, killing hundreds of civilians, mostly children and women.
This moral silence is not new. In fact, it has often been masked by a familiar rhetorical device: the selective invocation of women's rights.
In nearly every US war on Arab and Muslim countries, women's rights have featured heavily in the propaganda used to justify war. The vast majority of mainstream media organizations, think tanks, human rights groups, and activists—even those who rejected military interventionism on principle—agreed at least on that particular premise: the urgency of women's rights.
They used Malala Yousafzai as a symbol of girls’ education and women’s rights, presenting her as a model of American benevolence. At the same time, they ignored the fact that among the countless innocent Muslims killed across the Middle East and Asia in the last few decades—some counts place them in the millions—children and women represented a large share of the victims.
The same scenario was repeated in Gaza during the ongoing genocide, where UN agencies estimate that women and children make up roughly 70 percent of the more than 72,200 Palestinians killed since October 2023. According to data compiled by ‘UN Women’ and Gaza’s health authorities, the total includes an estimated 33,000 women and girls.
Yet mainstream media continues to center Israeli claims about abuses of women's rights by Hamas in Gaza, as if the tens of thousands of women killed and maimed by Israeli bombardment were not even worthy of serious consideration.
The same pattern is now repeating itself in Iran. The administration of Donald Trump—a man known for his degrading views and actions toward women—has been allowed, along with war criminal Netanyahu, to frame the war against Iran as a struggle for women’s rights and liberation.
They cultivated a network of supposed women's rights activists, presenting them as authentic Iranian voices whose mission was to rescue women from massive human rights abuses in their own country. Even on the Left, many fell into that trap—denouncing Trump on the one hand, while still absorbing and reproducing his and Israel’s propaganda.
Now that thousands of women and children have been killed or wounded in the US-Israel unprovoked, unethical, and illegal war on Iran, many of these same voices have fallen silent, quietly placing women's rights on hold until the outcome of the onslaught becomes clear.
Though much of the media now expresses doubt about Trump's war, the moral foundation of anti-war opposition has largely disappeared, replaced instead by a narrow strategic debate over costs, risks, and political consequences.
Complaints about rising energy prices, commentary about Trump's political immaturity, and criticism of his failure to assess the situation properly before ordering bombs to fall have replaced the moral argument altogether.
Equally absent is Netanyahu's role in the war, as well as the stranglehold Israel exerts over successive US administrations—Republican and Democrat alike—including the supposedly ‘America First’ president.
This logic dominates much of the mainstream strategic debate. Commentators such as Fareed Zakaria, Thomas Friedman, and others have repeatedly argued, in one form or another, that the United States must avoid being consumed by Middle Eastern conflicts and instead concentrate on what they describe as the central geopolitical challenge of our time: the rise of China.
While it is important to highlight the unpopularity of America’s latest military adventure, such opposition must rest on moral and legal grounds.
That said, mainstream liberal media should not be confused with genuine anti-war voices. Their objection to war is rarely principled. They tend to oppose military interventions only when those wars fail to serve US strategic interests, threaten corporate profits, or risk undermining Israel’s long-term security.
This is not opposition to war.
It is the logic of war itself.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Group That Convinced Wyoming Supreme Court to Block Abortion Ban Fights New Law
"This new law is part of a relentless campaign by anti-abortion extremists who continue to push restrictions regardless of settled law, patient safety, or basic compassion," said one critic.
Mar 11, 2026
A reproductive rights group coalition that recently got two anti-abortion laws overturned in Wyoming's Supreme Court filed a legal challenge on Tuesday against the insidiously named "fetal heartbeat" legislation signed earlier this week by the state's Republican governor.
The advocacy groups Chelsea's Fund and Just the Pill; Wellspring Health Access, Wyoming's only abortion clinic; and three physicians filed a motion seeking to block HB 0126, the so-called Human Heartbeat Act, which was signed Monday by Gov. Mark Gordon.
The law bans abortion when there is a "detectable fetal heartbeat." Critics note that the term "fetal heartbeat" is medically inaccurate and misleading, as what can be detected with a transvaginal ultrasound at around six weeks of gestation is not an actual heartbeat, but rather electrical activity in fetal tissue that later develops into a heart.
The legislation contains an exception to “preserve the woman from an imminent peril that substantially endangers her life or health, according to appropriate medical judgment," but forces victims of rape and incest to carry their abusers' fetus to term.
The “uNfOrTuNaTe fLaW” he's referring to is that the state's abortion ban has no rape or incest exception. 🤬But this is no accident; these policies are DESIGNED to violate our basic human rights. For the extremists who champion these violent laws, this is a feature, not a bug.
[image or embed]
— Center for Reproductive Rights (@reprorights.org) March 11, 2026 at 7:51 AM
Gordon called the glaring lack of exceptions for rape or incest "an unfortunate flaw."
Wyoming's Republican-dominated Legislature passed the law after the state Supreme Court struck down two other pieces of forced-birth legislation in January.
One of the overturned laws outlawed abortion in nearly all cases, except when the pregnant patient’s life is in danger or for victims of rape or incest. The other banned abortion pills. Both laws were passed after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, reversing half a century of federal abortion rights.
In striking down the laws, the state's high court ruled that they violated residents' ability to make their own healthcare decisions—a right enshrined in the Wyoming Constitution.
The groups challenging the new law echoed the ruling in their motion, arguing the legislation "transgresses the constitutional guarantee of plaintiffs’ and individuals’ to make healthcare decisions without interference from the government."
Chelsea's Fund executive director Janean Forsyth expressed dismay over state lawmakers' relentless attacks on healthcare.
“I'm thinking about everyone from the 15-year-old that we supported, whose grandmother actually reached out, a victim of sexual assault,” Forsyth told Wyoming Public Radio on Wednesday. “I'm thinking about a family with a very wanted pregnancy that we supported in eventually seeking an abortion for a severe fetal anomaly.”
"It's not only affecting access to abortion care, it's affecting reproductive healthcare access generally for parents and children, which is really unfortunate,” she added, referring to medical professionals who are leaving the state for fear of prosecution.
On Wednesday, Brittany Fonteno, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation (NAF), said in a statement:
A mere two months after two abortion bans were struck down by the state’s Supreme Court, Wyoming’s anti-abortion leaders have enacted yet another ban despite clear judicial rulings and public support for the constitutional right to make personal healthcare decisions. This new law is part of a relentless campaign by anti-abortion extremists who continue to push restrictions regardless of settled law, patient safety, or basic compassion.
“But as they have before, providers are standing firm and fighting back," Fonteno added. "NAF is proud to support Wellspring Health Access and the advocates challenging this ban, and we remain committed to ensuring abortion care is not only legal, but accessible and protected for every person, in every state.”
Abortion access has been tenuous in Wyoming in recent years, with bans and a 2022 arson attack on the Wellspring Health Access clinic in Casper—the state's only full-service abortion facility—causing uncertainty and delays.
Lawmakers in Wyoming considered putting the issue before voters in a referendum but decided against doing so, as such ballot measures have repeatedly resulted in the protection of abortion rights—even in deep "red" and conservative-leaning states including Arizona, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, and Ohio.
Wyoming is the fifth state to ban abortion at around six weeks, joining Florida, Georgia, Iowa, and South Carolina.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, 13 states currently have near-total abortion bans, while 28 other states restrict the procedure. Numerous forced-birth bills are pending across the nation, and—while unlikely to pass—the most severe proposals including punishing the medical procedure with lengthy imprisonment and even the death penalty for healthcare providers and patients.
Wyoming’s governor signed into law a so-called “fetal heartbeat” ban. Abortion is now banned in the state when “cardiac activity” is detected, around 6 wks of pregnancy. WY now shifts from “Restrictive” to “Very Restrictive” on our interactive map. Learn more: https://gu.tt/4985P4S#AbortionAccess
[image or embed]
— Guttmacher (@guttmacher.org) March 11, 2026 at 6:00 AM
On Monday, the Center for Reproductive Rights published a report examining the human and economic toll of abortion bans, which a separate study last year by the Population Reference Bureau has linked to 478 excess infant deaths and 59 excess deaths of pregnant people since Roe was struck down nearly four years ago.
It's not only state-level bans that harm patients. Republicans' so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump last year, contains the biggest cuts to Medicaid in the program's 60-year history. Dramatically decreased Medicaid funding has resulted in the closure of at least 50 Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide, and the reduction of services at many others.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy