With many students and educators already using widely available artificial intelligence tools, state lawmakers and school districts are playing catch-up on AI policies.

In Maryland, for example, AI usage policies for K-12 schools are “all over the map,” Democratic state Sen. Katie Fry Hester said.

In some school districts, she said, AI use is encouraged, while in others it is restricted, or — a worst-case scenario for Hester — there is little to no policy guidance at all.

“What we heard repeatedly is that the teachers were feeling like they had to navigate artificial intelligence entirely on their own,” Hester said.

Hester said square one for lawmakers is AI literacy, which was the aim of new legislation that she sponsored and that was signed into law in May. It requires an AI coordinator in each school system, a statewide AI professional development for teachers and AI literacy to be a component of career readiness and computer science standards for K-12 students. It also requires the state Department of Education to provide certain guidance on AI.

Many other states have also been trying to create AI policies for schools. Lawmakers filed more than 134 bills across 31 states this year related to AI in education, focusing on data privacy, usage restriction in the classroom, literacy and training, according to MultiState, a government relations firm.

A survey by the Center for Democracy & Technology showed that a large majority of teachers (85%) reported using AI in their classroom during the 2024-25 school year, while 86% of students said they’d used AI for either personal or school-related reasons. But only about half of teachers and students reported that they received some training or information about AI from someone at their school, and few received training or information on risks of AI use.

A turning point for schools came with the rollout of ChatGPT in 2022, said Noelle Ellerson Ng, chief advocacy and governance officer for the School Superintendents Association. “AI was something that could not be gatekept,” said Ellerson Ng. “It was in the classroom the minute students were able to access it.”

Her association does not take positions on state AI bills or policies. But she said districts are trying to avoid knee-jerk, reactive policies such as New York City’s brief 2022 ban of ChatGPT because of fears about cheating.

Some states have made progress in laying the groundwork for AI policy in K-12.

Ohio has set a July 1 deadline for every school district, community school and STEM school to adopt an AI use policy. The state’s model policy recommends that districts address student and staff uses, privacy, ethical use, teacher-specific uses, vendor agreements, third-party AI tools and student assessments.

A new Idaho law signed in March requires local school districts and charter schools to devise local policies for AI usage in K-12 schools, requires state standards for AI literacy and education training and ensures that no AI “replaces or eliminates a human teacher.”

An Oklahoma law enacted last month requires AI tools to be age-appropriate and requires teachers to review anything AI produces before using it in the classroom. It also allows parents to opt their children out of using AI tools. The law also directs the state education department to develop AI guidance and requires local school boards to set policies before the 2027-28 school year.

Yet even as schools are being sold on AI products by numerous vendors, there’s a growing skepticism about AI in classrooms. It follows a similar backlash about social media and digital technology’s academic and mental health effects on students, which has led to more states and districts putting in place cellphone bans and rethinking their reliance on laptops.

In the Center for Democracy & Technology survey, half of students said using AI in class made them feel less connected to their teachers, and 70% of teachers said they were concerned that students’ use of AI was preventing them from learning important skills.

Schools need to weigh the benefits of adopting AI tools in the classroom against their effect on student privacy, mental health and social skills, said Sue Thotz, director of outreach for Common Sense Media, a nonprofit advocacy group focused on technology and its effect on children and families.

Schools, Thotz said, may be the “only mandated safe space” where students can learn to use and access emerging technology. But she and other education experts believe districts need to increase scrutiny of products.

Globally, the market for AI products in K-12 schools was worth around $391.2 million in 2024, and could rise to more than $9 billion by 2034, according to market.us, a market research company. That includes AI products for tutoring, personalized learning, automated grading, lesson planning and administrative tasks.

“When I talk about AI literacy, it’s not how to use AI. It’s understanding how AI is built,” said Thotz. “Why is it being created? Who’s profiting off of this?”

‘Giving a tool to children’

New York Assemblymember Robert Carroll said he uses artificial intelligence in his own work and sees its value. As someone who struggled with dyslexia as a child, he also thinks technology can help students with disabilities.

But he also wants to keep AI out of most K-8 classroom instruction. Students should learn basic subject matter first — in conjunction with critical thinking — and then later use the tools that can assist them, he said.

Carroll, a Democrat, has introduced legislation that would prohibit the use of most AI in K-8 classrooms, with exceptions for diagnostic testing and support for students with disabilities.

“It is imperative that all children gain strong foundational skills, especially in literacy and numeracy, and it seems that AI is uniquely positioned to possibly undermine that,” he said. “There’s a difference between giving a tool to adults and giving a tool to children who have yet to master skills.”

Rather than full bans, most bills seeking to restrict AI have opted to focus on age restrictions, parental opt-outs, oversight and bans on using AI to replace teachers.

This year, Florida’s “AI Bill of Rights” proposal would have included a statewide restriction on student access to AI instructional tools before sixth grade, with exceptions for use supervised by school personnel, English-learner translation support and disability accommodations. It overwhelmingly passed the Senate 37-1, but died in the House.

A new Connecticut law adds computer science to the required public school curriculum, including AI and emerging technologies. Connecticut lawmakers in 2025 failed to pass a bill aiming to stop AI from “replacing” public school educators.

Sophia Romee, the general manager of the GenAI Studio, an initiative studying how students and educators use generative AI at the College Board, the nonprofit that administers the Advanced Placement curriculum and SAT tests for high schools, said she is concerned that only about 1 in 5 districts that allow students to use generative AI have a formal policy governing its use.

The College Board’s research, Romee said, shows many students are worried about becoming too reliant on AI, and that adults need to give clearer guidance about where using AI tools for brainstorming, revising and tutoring crosses the ethical line into cheating.

“Students are far more self-aware about AI’s risks than headlines suggest.”

Like aviation in 1905

Jason Coley, director of the Center for Academic Innovation at Maria College in Albany, New York, said the policy debate needs to move beyond whether schools are “for” or “against” the use of AI.

“The better question is what kinds of AI use are supervised, age appropriate, transparent, and tied to real learning,” Coley said. Schools need guardrails around privacy, student data, bias, teacher training and equity of access, he said, but also permission to “experiment responsibly.”

Ellerson Ng, of the School Superintendents Association, said superintendents see AI as part of a larger umbrella of disruptive technologies in schools that has evolved from calculators to laptops to cellphones. The lesson, she said, is that overreactive policy rarely works. She also said schools should not cover AI in a separate policy, but as part of a broader technology policy.

“I don’t have a calculator policy. Why would I have an AI policy?” she said, describing how some district leaders think about the issue. “I have a technology policy.”

With past technologies such as cellphones and laptops, adults could often control when students had access, Ellerson Ng said. With AI apps and platforms, many students accessed the tools before teachers, principals or state officials were even aware of them.

That makes bans difficult, she said. Schools can block tools on school-owned devices and networks, but “you’re only one personal device away from social media and AI being in your schools.”

Justin Reich, an associate professor of digital media at MIT, said that uncertainty around AI should make policymakers cautious about declaring best practices too soon.

Reich said states are trying to regulate classroom AI at a moment when the field is still so unstable that “writing a guide for AI in 2026 is like writing a guide for aviation in 1905” before airlines, airports or even commercial flight.

“If you were to take any of the AI literacy documents, AI readiness documents, even the moratorium documents, and put them against a checklist,” said Reich, “there would be a lot of boxes in the ‘we’re making this up’ column and not a lot in the ‘we have evidence’ column.”

State lawmakers and school districts should be honest that they don’t know what they’re doing, are relying on limited expert information and that policy is subject to change with new information, Reich said.

“Lawmakers will need to be honest that what they propose now could be completely outdated in two years.”

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

Carrie Frail was in the process of leaving an abusive relationship when she discovered she was pregnant. Her partner told her he could hit her in the stomach until she had a miscarriage, and it would save some money.

“I firmly believe he would have killed me at some point, whether accidentally or intentionally,” Frail said.

She had a medication abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Louis, Missouri, in 2008 while serving in the U.S. Air Force. She was relieved to have the option of using medication instead of a procedure, and it let her take less time off work. It wasn’t an easy decision, she said, but she knew if she hadn’t done it, she never would have been able to get away from that partner.

“I was too wrapped up mentally and emotionally in my life with him that … I needed to be able to leave without giving him a phone number or letting him know where I was,” Frail said. “I still believe that an abortion saved my life.”

Access to telehealth prescriptions of mifepristone, one of two drugs used to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester or to treat miscarriages, is threatened by an ongoing lawsuit in Louisiana. That state government has sued the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, trying to strike down the agency’s 2023 rule allowing the medication to be dispensed without an in-person visit.

Researchers, advocates and survivors of domestic violence say it’s vital to keep telehealth access available for people in abusive relationships who need discreet abortion options. The Louisiana lawsuit, however, argues in part that mifepristone has been weaponized against pregnant women in abusive relationships and shouldn’t be available by telehealth.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked the FDA’s 2023 rule in early May, making in-person visits required for mifepristone prescriptions for two days before the U.S. Supreme Court paused that decision on emergency appeal. The court, with the exceptions of Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, decided to keep the rule in place while the appeals case proceeds. But the rule could still be struck down again later, and the full case may end up in front of the Supreme Court.

Data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey from 2023-24 showed about 34% of women and 17% of men experienced physical or sexual violence or stalking by an intimate partner. Those figures could be higher because of hesitance to report incidents of abuse. States with high rates of violence include many with near-total abortion bans, including Arkansas, Indiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee and West Virginia — meaning residents who are victims of reproductive coercion have less access to abortion medication.

Pregnancy is a time of heightened risk in a relationship with domestic abuse, according to research, and intimate partner violence is a leading non-obstetric related cause of death among pregnant and postpartum women. Those risks are highest among Black and Indigenous people in the United States.

Reproductive coercion 

The lawsuit over mifepristone access includes Louisiana resident Rosalie Markezich as a plaintiff, who says the availability of the drug without an in-clinic visit allowed her boyfriend to order the pills in 2023 and pressure her to take them. In her written statement in the case, Markezich said the pressure caused ongoing trauma, and that if she’d had to see a doctor beforehand, she could have told the provider she didn’t want an abortion and the pills would never have been prescribed.

Anti-abortion groups, including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and Family Research Council, submitted amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court about the type of coercion Markezich said she experienced. The telehealth option prevents in-person screenings for coercion, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America said, and the in-person requirement provided “a line of defense” against reproductive coercion. Family Research Council also argued that because the FDA’s initial approval of the telehealth provision did not include a thorough study of how it could be used for coercion, it should be struck down.

Liz Tobin-Tyler, professor of health services, policy and practice at the Brown University School of Public Health, said people in abusive relationships very commonly experience what researchers call reproductive coercion. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, that includes situations in which a partner tries to control when and how pregnancy occurs, either by intentionally causing a pregnancy or forcing someone to end it, as with Markezich.

Coercion can also occur when a partner interferes with contraceptive methods, such as trying to force the use of a certain method or intentionally failing to use contraception. Tobin-Tyler said sometimes the abusive partner attends medical appointments to try to influence decisions related to birth control and other medical care discussions.

“It all comes back to that aspect of control,” she said.

Robin Turner, Montana director at gender equity organization Legal Voice, said what happened to Markezich was terrible, but that Louisiana could prosecute Markezich’s partner under existing laws, including harm induced by drugs. She said reinstating the in-person requirement for mifepristone would harm many other people because it would apply nationwide.

“It’s not a reasonable or proportional way to address what happened to the client,” Turner said. “We have to take what happened to the plaintiff seriously — and understand that taking that (access) away is not effective.”

Turner co-authored a brief for Legal Voice submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court during the emergency appeal proceedings that centered on the importance of access to mifepristone for people in relationships marked by domestic violence.

“A lot of what being in these relationships is about is your world getting smaller, and we don’t want our systems to imitate the dynamics of abuse. But that’s what happens when the government takes away the access to the healthcare that they need,” Turner told Stateline.

Safety planning for hotline callers

Kaelah Oberdorf, 24, said she was on birth control when she discovered she was pregnant in 2023 in upstate New York.

She was in an emotionally abusive relationship, struggling financially and still recovering from the postpartum depression she experienced after having her first child when she was 20, despite thinking that she couldn’t get pregnant because of a medical condition. The depression was so severe she had to be hospitalized. She decided that ending the pregnancy was the right thing to do for her mental health and the daughter she already had.

“I didn’t want to be tied to him for life, I didn’t want my daughter, or any of my children, to be tied to him for life,” said Oberdorf, who now lives in Georgia. “I already had a living child who did not need to be kept in that situation, and if I’d had another one, even if I left him, I mentally would not have been able to handle it.”

Research also shows that pregnant and postpartum women in rural areas experience higher rates of intimate partner violence, possibly because they’re farther from in-person medical care, which could contribute to lower rates of preventive screenings for abuse.

Elizabeth Ling, associate director of legal services at nonprofit hotline If/When/How, which offers reproductive legal aid, estimated the hotline receives between five and 10 calls a week from people who talk about experiencing intimate partner violence, whether it’s physical, emotional or some form of coercion. She said callers in rural communities are some of those who need access to medication abortion by telehealth and via mail because they are often the furthest away from a clinic and can’t travel because a partner is actively watching their movements.

If/When/How talks callers through their legal options and counsels them about legal risks, which Ling said is a top concern for people in abusive relationships. It’s common for them to be fearful of their partner reporting them for having an abortion, which can bring unwanted attention from police and investigations even if it doesn’t result in charges.

The hotline also helps people make a safety plan for receiving abortion medication, talking through steps such as where medication will be mailed, who has access to that mailbox and how to navigate a situation with a partner tracking their movements.

“Abortion pills really are a lifeline for those who call and share their experiences with us,” Ling said.

Frail, who still lives in Missouri, now has a daughter and a son who are in their 20s. She has left many voicemail messages recently for Republican U.S. Sens. Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt, who have advocated for the withdrawal of FDA approval for mifepristone and called for federal investigations into drug manufacturers. In her messages, she says that being able to choose when she had her children made her a better parent.

“I know if I had not had an abortion, I would not have ever been able to get away from that abusive partner,” Frail said.

Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org.

A new zoning proposal in Milwaukee would essentially ban large data centers in the city and establish regulations for smaller data centers.

The post Proposal would prohibit large data centers in Milwaukee, regulate small data centers appeared first on WPR.

An anti-abortion group last month sued seven Utah fertility clinics, claiming their disposal of embryos as part of the in vitro fertilization process violates the state’s wrongful death law.

The ministry Voice for the Voiceless believes it has a strong case because Utah is one of four states — Alabama, Louisiana and Missouri are the others — that have both a “fetal personhood” law and a civil wrongful death law that, the group contends, might apply to frozen embryos.

Other states offer opportunity for similar lawsuits: At least 10 have either a fetal personhood law — giving a fetus, embryo or fertilized egg the same legal rights as a person who has been born — or a wrongful death statute that might include frozen embryos, according to Pregnancy Justice, a group that tracks the issue and advocates for the rights of pregnant women, including the right to abortion.

“There’s a number of states that have laws like Utah’s that find that a person exists at a certain point, and that is conception,” said Frank Mylar, the attorney representing Voice for the Voiceless. He also represents another plaintiff, an anonymous woman from Ogden, Utah, who alleges in the lawsuit that she underwent an IVF procedure at one of the seven fertility clinics and was not informed that unused embryos would be discarded or about options to put her embryos up for adoption.

“Once that egg is fertilized, it actually at that point becomes a human being that’s entitled to rights,” Mylar said in an interview. “So every state that has that as a law, what we’re doing in this lawsuit would be very much applicable.”

The lawsuit illustrates the divide among many in the anti-abortion movement. Followers of a conservative philosophy known as “pronatalism” believe it’s imperative for Americans to have more babies. They want easier access to IVF, and President Donald Trump campaigned on making IVF more affordable.

So far, he has negotiated steep discounts on three IVF drugs and proposed allowing employers to provide separate health insurance coverage for fertility benefits, including lab tests, medications, genetic testing and IVF.

But the IVF process often involves discarding embryos, creating a conundrum for people who support IVF but believe that life begins at fertilization and oppose abortion. For anti-abortion purists, those embryos are unborn children, so disposing of them is no different from abortion.

The split on the political right drew attention in February 2024, when the Alabama Supreme Court, which consists of nine Republicans, ruled 8-1 that the state’s wrongful death statute applied to embryos. That decision cleared the way for couples to pursue lawsuits if their frozen embryos were destroyed. It temporarily halted IVF at Alabama clinics. It also ignited a national uproar and prompted the Republican-led Alabama legislature to immediately step in to protect IVF providers from legal liability.

But court cases and legislative efforts in multiple states show that the IVF debate is ongoing.

In Indiana and Ohio, courts have weighed whether frozen embryos are people or property in cases involving former partners who disagreed on what to do with their embryos when they separated.

In Kentucky, a judge earlier this month struck down language in the state’s abortion ban defining human life as beginning at conception, handing a victory to a Jewish woman who argued that the ban violated her religious freedom by putting her at risk of prosecution if she pursued IVF. The state has appealed the case.

In Kansas, a proposed bill this year would have made it illegal to destroy a fertilized embryo, though it died in committee. And Tennessee last year became the first state in the South to enact a law explicitly affirming the right to access IVF and birth control.

Kulsoom Ijaz, a senior policy counsel for Pregnancy Justice, predicted that IVF opponents will continue to use fetal personhood language to challenge the fertility procedure. Ijaz said that when fetal personhood language appears in one area of state law, “it inspires legislators to align their laws across the board, with these equal-protection-for-the-unborn bills.”

Then, she said, “courts use these definitions to then make case law in other areas of the law.”

Risa Cromer, an anthropology associate professor at Purdue University who focuses on medicine and reproductive politics, described personhood language as “a threat for broad swaths of reproductive health care needs that remain highly popular, IVF being one of them.”

“Personhood doesn’t explicitly implicate abortion miscarriage management, treatment for ectopic pregnancy, contraception, or IVF. In judicial interpretation, it absolutely is proving to be a threat,” Cromer said.

Utah lawsuit

IVF involves retrieving a woman’s eggs from her body and then fertilizing them with sperm in a laboratory. Any embryos that result can then be either transferred to her uterus or frozen for future use. Unused embryos can also be adopted, but many are discarded. And storing frozen embryos can be costly, from hundreds to thousands of dollars per year.

Louisiana is the only state that bans the destruction of IVF embryos. But fertility clinics have gotten around the 1986 law by shipping unused embryos out of state for storage.

The lawsuit says Voice for the Voiceless is morally opposed to IVF. But it also claims the clinics could perform IVF without discarding embryos by only creating as many embryos as will be implanted into their clients.

Mylar, the attorney, said defendants could change their clinic policies to comply with the state’s wrongful death statute “if they basically said, ‘Our intent is that you have every one of these fertilized eggs, and we’re not going to willingly or negligently or intentionally let them die.’”

Voice for the Voiceless President Kriss Martenson, named as a plaintiff, said in an interview that he does not believe IVF could be practiced without violating the law. He said the lawsuit is a strategic effort to apply fetal personhood language to IVF and to abortion at all stages. The lawsuit says the organization, which it describes as a nonprofit, has legal standing because of its efforts opposing abortion in Utah.

Martenson said he was inspired to file the Utah lawsuit by the 2024 Alabama Supreme Court decision and by the combination of Utah’s fetal personhood and wrongful death laws.

A victory in the lawsuit “could strengthen the legal arguments that the state has a constitutional obligation to protect human life from the moment of fertilization,” Martenson said. “So that’s what I’m showing in Utah, and I think that could affect other states.”

Discarding embryos

Disposal of embryos is common in IVF because for each single fertilization effort, multiple embryos are created to maximize the chance of success. Typically only one or two are transferred to a patient’s uterus, however, to prevent high-risk pregnancies of multiple fetuses. Some embryos are discarded because of chromosomal issues or genetic diseases, discovered during genetic screening in the lab. The Utah lawsuit charges that this is “akin to eugenics.”

Stateline contacted all of the clinics named in the lawsuit, but one declined to comment and the others did not respond in time for publication. The defendants have not yet filed written responses to the lawsuit. The seven clinics are: Conceptions Fertility Center, East Bay Fertility Center, Reproductive Care Center, Utah Center for Reproductive Medicine, Utah Fertility Center, Utah Fertility Specialists and Wellnest Fertility Clinic.

Susan Crockin, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center who teaches assisted reproductive technology law, said it is standard practice to inform IVF patients about their options around unused embryos. If the lawsuit is successful, Crockin said, it could severely curtail patient choice.

“The one thing that I think gets lost in this debate often is that a number of embryos that are not used for procreation … because they potentially have a genetic anomaly that is incompatible with life,” Crockin said. “So if every IVF embryo is considered a legally recognized person, I don’t understand what these anti-abortion, anti-IVF advocates would have us do with these embryos that will be sitting in cryopreservation tanks, or will not be making a viable human being.”

She added that “conflating every attempt to have a family with ‘every embryo in a freezer deserves to be put into a deserving womb’ feels very dangerous.”

Cromer, of Purdue University, noted that “the vast majority of religious Americans are supportive of access to IVF.” Cromer is a fellow at the Public Religion Research Institute, which found in a 2024 survey that majorities of white evangelical Protestants, Hispanic Protestants and Latter-day Saints both oppose laws that would make IVF illegal and strongly support laws declaring that human life begins at fertilization.

“So, these kinds of lawsuits, while there might be political opportunity for particular jurisdictions, such as the state of Utah, (are) completely out of step with what most Americans — religious Americans — want for themselves, their families and their neighbors,” Cromer said.

Stateline reporter Sofia Resnick can be reached at sresnick@stateline.org.

Pregnant patients experiencing miscarriage who live in states with abortion bans have fewer options for healthcare management, according to a new study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The study, published May 18, found a shift away from managing miscarriages with a two-drug approach that includes mifepristone — which has been the subject of numerous legal battles that are still playing out in federal courts — and toward approaches that include only misoprostol, which has a lower rate of effectiveness.

The states with abortion bans had a nearly 3% increase in expectant management, the study showed, which means a health provider monitors the condition without prescribing any form of treatment to see whether the condition resolves without intervention. The study was conducted by researchers in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University.

Among those patients who received medication, there was a nearly 14% increase in the use of misoprostol-only regimens, which goes against the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ recommendation of using a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol as the most preferred method of managing miscarriages. Used together, the medications are the most effective at completing expulsion of pregnancy tissue and reducing side effects such as bleeding and cramping.

The expectant management approach, the study said, could increase the risk of hemorrhage and retained pregnancy tissue, which can cause infection if it is not removed.

The method of treatment for a miscarriage is the same two-drug regimen that is used to terminate a pregnancy before 12 weeks. A group of anti-abortion doctors unsuccessfully tried to revoke the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone altogether in 2023, and government officials in Louisiana are trying to strike down a 2023 rule enacted by the FDA that allows the drug to be prescribed by telehealth and mailed to a patient. That case is ongoing.

Using healthcare claims data, the study included nearly 123,600 commercially insured patients who had a miscarriage before 77 days’ gestation between the beginning of 2018 and the end of September 2024. That time frame includes 53 months of data from the years before the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in June 2022 to allow states to regulate abortion access, and 27 months after at least a dozen states implemented abortion bans.

The states with bans that affect pregnancies at six weeks of gestation or earlier are Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia. They were compared with 18 other states that do not have bans before fetal viability, which is generally considered to be about 24 weeks.

Some of those states with bans have gone further in adding criminal penalties to the use of mifepristone for abortion, which doctors have said affects abortion patients as well. Louisiana classified mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled substances in 2024, which meant providers had to start treating the storage and access to the medication much differently. Patients have tried to fill a prescription for misoprostol at major pharmacies in Louisiana, only to be told it’s unavailable, Louisiana Illuminator reported.

“It’s definitely getting more and more challenging to provide for patients and provide for them adequately,” Dr. Nicole Freehill, an OB-GYN in New Orleans, told Stateline in March. “That criminalization, more than anything, has created so many problems, because so many providers are just afraid to act.”

Mississippi enacted a law in April adding mifepristone and misoprostol to the state’s drug trafficking law, making it a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison to distribute or intend to distribute the drugs. Lawmakers said the law would help limit the number of people sending the medications through the mail.

Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided Thursday to preserve telehealth access to the abortion drug mifepristone until after the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on the merits of the high-stakes federal lawsuit Louisiana v. Food and Drug Administration.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas issued dissenting opinions.

In his dissent, Thomas said the rule violates the Comstock Act, a long unenforced 1873 law that bans the mailing of “obscene” material. During the 2024 presidential campaign, President Donald Trump said he didn’t support using the Comstock Act to stop mail delivery of abortion pills, saying he thought the federal government should have nothing to do with the issue.

Mifepristone’s manufacturer “makes a passing reference to the possibility of lost sales,” Alito wrote in his dissent. “But lost sales in states where abortifacients are generally illegal are not ‘irreparable injuries’ that can justify granting a stay.”

Abortion-rights advocates around the country called the decision a relief after two weeks of uncertainty.

On May 1, the appellate court sided with Louisiana, where state officials sued the FDA in October, arguing that a rule allowing telehealth access to mifepristone, one of two drugs used to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester or to treat miscarriage, undermines the state’s abortion ban. Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro, two manufacturers of mifepristone, filed emergency appeals, leading the Supreme Court to issue a 10-day stay on May 4, extended until today.

“Though today’s decision means that mifepristone remains available through telehealth for now, this fight is not over,” said Dr. Camille A. Clare, president of the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, in an emailed statement. “The chaos and confusion wrought by competing decisions and the revocation and restoration of access on an almost daily basis do real harm to patients and to the clinicians who care for them.”

Abortion opponents decried Thursday’s decision.

“Women deserve better than dangerous abortion drugs sent through the mail without physician oversight or in-person support,” said Jor-El Godsey, president of Heartbeat International, a major network of anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. “A state like Louisiana that values life in its laws should be able to protect its smallest residents as well as their moms.”

The FDA’s approved two-drug regimen via telemedicine is an increasingly common abortion method, especially for people living in parts of the country where abortion is banned or difficult to access.

Last month, a federal district court paused the lawsuit at the request of the FDA until after the completion of a safety review on mifepristone. That review was prompted by non-peer reviewed, anti-abortion research and in spite of the drug’s record of safety and efficacy since 2000. The state appealed to the 5th Circuit.

Due to multiple ongoing efforts to restrict or block mifepristone, abortion providers have told Stateline they are ready to eventually switch to a misoprostol-only method, which researchers have found to be as safe as the two-drug regimen but typically involves more symptoms and is slightly less effective.

National groups have tried to pressure the Trump administration to drop the Biden-era rule allowing telehealth abortion and called for the head of FDA Commissioner Marty Makary for reportedly slow-walking a safety review of the drug until after the midterm elections. Makary resigned on Tuesday, and anti-abortion groups wasted no time in getting Acting Commissioner Kyle Diamantas on the phone.

Live Action founder and president Lila Rose, in a written statement, said she talked to the acting commissioner on Wednesday and that he said he was morally opposed to abortion. “Diamantas told me that reviewing the abortion pill is a top priority for him and the administration,” Rose posted on X.

Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins wrote a similar message to supporters in an email on Thursday, saying Diamantas will be the “most pro-life FDA commissioner in American history.”

But many doctors around the country say curbing access to telehealth abortion is likely to cause harm to people in states with bans who may face more barriers to obtaining an abortion without that option.

“Women will be forced to travel long distances — at times hundreds of miles — to access safe, essential health care at a doctor’s office, no longer having the option to receive mifepristone via telemedicine,” wrote Rob Davidson, an emergency physician in Michigan and executive director of the Committee to Protect Health Care, in a letter asking the Supreme Court to maintain access to telehealth abortion. The letter was cosigned by more than 2,200 physicians.

Stateline reporter Sofia Resnick can be reached at sresnick@stateline.org.  Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org. 

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday extended a highly anticipated stay blocking an appellate court’s pause on telehealth abortion access until May 14.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approved medication-abortion regimen remains available via telehealth until then, following a week of uncertainty among abortion patients and providers.

“With this critical temporary administrative stay extended, we hope that some of the chaos and confusion inflicted on patients and providers last weekend will be abated,” said Evan Masingill, CEO of abortion-pill manufacturer GenBioPro, one of the defendants in the case, in a statement.

On May 4, the Supreme Court temporarily stayed the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling to reinstate the FDA’s in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone that the Biden administration officially lifted in 2023. Over the past week, several doctors groups submitted friend-of-the-court briefs arguing that cutting off access to mifepristone could harm many women seeking abortions and miscarriage management. Republican attorneys general from 23 states, meanwhile, urged the Supreme Court not to allow providers to send mifepristone through the mail. 

People in states with abortion bans or diminished abortion access continue to depend on abortion providers prescribing FDA’s approved mifepristone-misoprostol regimen through telemedicine and sending it to patients by mail.

According to new preliminary findings from the Society of Family Planning, telehealth abortion comprised 28% of all abortions at the end of 2025, an increase from 25% at the end of 2024.

Attorneys representing Louisiana have argued that in addition to undermining a state abortion ban, the federal rulemaking process allowing telehealth prescriptions of medication abortion was flawed.  

University of Michigan law professor Samuel Bagenstos, who served as general counsel of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services at the time the Biden-era rule was implemented, said the policy was well considered and based on evidence. 

“The 2023 update was the result of an incredibly careful, deliberate, time-consuming, painstaking process to make sure that they were following what the evidence was,” Bagenstos said. If, the plaintiffs were to prevail, he added, ending telehealth access to mifepristone nationwide would have “really harmful effects on women across the country, as well as really destabilizing effects on the drug approval system.” 

Louisiana’s lawsuit against mifepristone has nationwide implications and could threaten residents in states with abortion access and so-called abortion shield laws, such as Maryland. 

Regardless of what happens in this case, abortion providers told Stateline they are determined to continue providing telehealth abortions, though potentially without mifepristone. Dr. Angel Foster, a telehealth provider in Massachusetts, a shield law state, said in the past week, about 100 patients have requested pills for future use, compared with 34 in the entire month of April. She said constantly changing rules around abortion access followed by sensational news headlines continue to create confusion for people seeking termination or miscarriage management.

“I live and breathe abortion at this point, and I find it can be hard to keep up with the ever-changing legal environment and the way that things are getting framed and phrased,” Foster said. “When you’re a patient and what you see are just the headlines, and you’ve got to figure out what it means for you, it’s really complicated.”

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the number of Republican attorneys general who asked the Supreme Court to keep mifepristone from being prescribed via telehealth visits. It should be 23. 

Stateline reporter Sofia Resnick can be reached at sresnick@stateline.org.

Despite regional variability in climate, electricity sources, congestion, and the wide variation in individual driving patterns, electric vehicles generate less greenhouse gas emissions and do not cost more than comparable gas-powered vehicles for drivers and vehicle fleet owners in most parts of the United States, according to a new study by MIT researchers.

The team’s approach captures many key factors that contribute to regional and individual differences in the life-cycle emissions and ownership cost of electric vehicles, including meteorological data, the distance and duration of trips, and fuel prices.

To paint a fuller picture of emissions and costs than was previously available, the researchers sourced data from thousands of U.S. zip codes and drilled down to the level of individual drivers within those locations. Their study considers time-averaged fuel prices so as not to be overly influenced by fluctuations in prices at any one point in time. They finalized their analysis at the end of 2024 and early 2025.

Their results indicate that a person’s driving behaviors can matter as much as regional factors like the local electricity mix when it comes to the emissions savings of an electric vehicle, compared to a similar gas-powered vehicle. In most locations, a battery-electric vehicle reduces emissions between 40 and 60 percent, with larger impacts in urban areas. 

They also found that colder climates do not reduce overall emission benefits as much as some media reports assume.

The researchers utilized this detailed analysis to update a public tool they previously developed, carboncounter.com, which enables individuals to compare the life-cycle emissions and total ownership costs of nearly any car on the market. A new version of carboncounter.com is also being released today.

“There are a lot of statements being thrown around, like that electric vehicles don’t reduce emissions very much in cool climates, and we wanted to analyze these factors systematically and evaluate these statements against one another simultaneously. Rather than simply asking, ‘Are EVs better?’, this paper helps answer ‘better for whom, and under what conditions?’” says Marco Miotti PhD ’20, a senior researcher at ETH Zurich who completed this research while a graduate student in the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS) at MIT. 

He is joined on the paper by senior author Jessika Trancik, a professor in IDSS. The research appears today in Environmental Research Letters.

A holistic approach

Many prior studies that compare emissions and costs of electric vehicles (EVs) to combustion-engine vehicles cover a few factors, like the amount of renewable energy in the grid and how gas prices impact affordability, Miotti says.

“To our knowledge, there have been few efforts so far that bring all these factors together. But if someone wants to buy a car and have a better understanding of the factors that affect emissions and costs, this holistic approach is important,” he adds.

The researchers focused on two types of EVs: battery-electric vehicles, which only operate on electricity, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, which also have a combustion engine that works in tandem with the battery to optimize fuel savings.

The team expanded and improved a set of previously developed vehicle cost and emissions models to incorporate a wider variety of factors and data types.

For instance, they refined an existing model that estimates energy use and gas mileage so it could capture more nuances of local climate variability. 

“But the real effort was not just in extending these different models, but in bringing together all these different data and making them work with the models in a consistent manner,” Miotti says.

The team sourced data on a wide variety of factors for each U.S. zip code, such as typical drive cycles, the amount of traffic, local gas and electricity prices, makeup of the regional electricity mix, meteorological profiles, and more. They used statistical approaches to amalgamate different types of data. 

For example, the team used a probabilistic matching technique to combine data on how often people drive, which was drawn from nationwide travel surveys, with more detailed GPS data that includes factors like drivers’ acceleration patterns and the distance they usually drive on each day of the week.

The researchers designed their analysis to focus on the spatial picture of emissions and costs, based on U.S. zip codes, while simultaneously considering the impact of the size and features of each specific vehicle model.

“At the end of the day, it’s the vehicle and fleet owners who make decisions about vehicle purchases. So, we wanted to make sure to consider their wide-ranging individual perspectives rather than simply performing a region-by-region comparison,” says Trancik.

Lower emissions, comparable costs

In the end, their modeling framework revealed that all factors they analyzed matter about equally in determining emissions-reduction potential of EVs compared to internal combustion vehicles. 

EVs reduce emissions the most in areas with a cleaner electricity mix, denser traffic, higher annual travel distances, and a mild climate, in decreasing order of importance. In each area, emission reductions increase for drivers who drive more often, drive larger vehicles, and are more frequently stuck in traffic. 

In a colder area like North Dakota, fuel economy of battery-electric vehicles might be reduced by as much as 50 percent on a particularly frigid night, but the effect on annual emission benefits is minimal. 

“We even did a sensitivity study to see if the range is reduced in very cold climates, and we found that, even in the most unfavorable conditions, EVs still reduce emissions by a substantial amount,” Miotti says.

On the cost side, the models show that, in most places across the U.S., EVs are competitive with comparable combustion-engine vehicles in terms of lifetime ownership cost, even without clean vehicle tax credits. And in areas where electricity is relatively affordable, battery-electric vehicles tend to cost less than their plug-in hybrid or combustion-engine counterparts.

In the future, the researchers want to expand this analysis to include a temporal dimension, so the framework also considers how changes in vehicle, fuel, and electricity prices affect emissions and costs over time. 

“While we found that the electricity mix is a big driver of the spatial variation in emissions savings of EVs, the electricity grid is decarbonizing everywhere. As that happens, emissions savings across space will become more homogenous for EVs, but the differences across one driver to another will remain,” Miotti says.

They could also use the framework to explore regions outside the United States or incorporate data on hybrid-electric vehicles that cannot be plugged in.

This work was funded, in part, by the MIT Martin Family Society of Fellows for Sustainability.

© Credit: iStock

Advocates and opponents of abortion access say they’re wondering what happens next in a critical telehealth medication case that created chaos and confusion over the past week after an appeals court blocked nationwide access to the drug and, days later, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued a temporary stay.

Alito’s stay preserves telehealth access until May 11. But it’s unclear what happens next for patients and providers.

The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily blocked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ Friday ruling to suspend a federal rule allowing telehealth prescriptions of the drug mifepristone while the lawsuit Louisiana v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration unfolds. Abortion providers are determined to continue providing the service, though potentially without mifepristone, the drug at the center for the case, which has had a high record of safety and efficacy since 2000.

Anti-abortion advocates have pushed to reverse the 2023 policy, enacted under former Democratic President Joe Biden, that allowed the FDA to drop its requirement that a patient see a provider in person before the medication can be prescribed. One similar national case already failed unanimously before the Supreme Court, but anti-abortion advocates are hoping this time around, with a more tailored approach, they will be successful.

Abortion-rights advocates say they’re prepared for whatever might happen in the courts, with contingency plans and a message that abortion will still be available even if the particular medication — mifepristone — is not.

Has the abortion pill been banned?

No. Mifepristone is still a legally approved FDA drug commonly used to terminate a pregnancy before 10 weeks’ gestation and is used off-label to treat miscarriages.

Is telehealth abortion still legal?

Yes, for now. Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s administrative stay that expires on May 11, it is still legal to obtain abortion medication through telemedicine under the FDA’s regulations. Mifepristone is commonly used with a second drug, misoprostol, in medication abortions. The case doesn’t include misoprostol.

Who would be affected if telehealth access is struck down?

According to the Society of Family Planning’s #WeCount report, 27% of all abortions in the first six months of 2025 were obtained through telehealth, adding up to more than 162,000 cases.

Mifepristone is also used for patients experiencing a miscarriage; those patients also would have to visit a provider in person.

The ruling would apply nationwide, meaning that health providers couldn’t prescribe mifepristone without an in-person visit with the patient, even in states with abortion access.

What are the arguments on each side in Louisiana v. FDA?

Louisiana says the Biden-era policy undermines a state law banning abortion, and that the federal rulemaking process allowing telehealth prescriptions was flawed.

The Food and Drug Administration says the state doesn’t have standing to sue, but also notes that it’s taking more time to review the drug’s safety.

Two mifepristone drugmakers, meanwhile, have intervened on the FDA’s side.

What could happen next?

The Supreme Court has many options available moving forward, but a few options are most likely, said Katie Keith, founding director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. The justices could extend the stay when it expires May 11, or the court could make a longer-term ruling.

That could mean sending it back to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, with or without upholding the initial ruling blocking the 2023 provision while the appeals case proceeds. Or justices could decide to take up the case and bypass the rest of the 5th Circuit appeal.

If it did that, the manufacturer defendants Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro have asked for an expedited process with a decision by June. That seems unlikely, Keith said, but the court has conducted expedited cases related to abortion before, such as the Moyle v. United States case in 2024 related to the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.

What will providers do if they can’t use the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol?

Brittany Fonteno, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation, said providers have been preparing since 2023 for the possibility of losing access to mifepristone. There have long been plans to switch to a misoprostol-only protocol, which is the main method of pregnancy termination across much of the world, she said.

“A lot of providers had created these policies and just needed to dust them off,” Fonteno said.

Dr. Angel Foster, co-founder of the Massachusetts Medication Abortion Access Project, which provides telehealth abortions to patients in all 50 states, said she and her team spent the weekend scrambling to contact patients waiting on medication abortion pills they had ordered before the ruling, and implementing a contingency plan that many abortion providers have been planning for since the lawsuits against mifepristone began in 2023.

That contingency involves pivoting from the FDA-approved mifepristone-misoprostol regimen to a misoprostol-only regimen.

Early Monday, Foster said her team was getting ready to ship misoprostol-only packages to patients at 2 p.m., but after the Supreme Court stayed the appeals court’s ruling on Monday morning, she said they were able to switch back to the mifepristone-misoprostol regimen.

Foster also said her organization was inundated with requests for pills that people could stockpile — people who didn’t need an abortion but were worried about losing access to the pills. Normally that’s a small fraction of the requests they receive, she said, but on Tuesday, they sent out more than had been sent in the entire month of April.

“Over the last two days, we’ve had a huge increase in the number of people from Louisiana requesting pills, especially pills for future use,” Foster said.

What are the pros and cons of the misoprostol-only regimen?

Dr. Maya Bass, a family physician in New Jersey who also provides abortions in Delaware, said misoprostol-only regimens are still safe and highly effective, but that the regimen has a lower efficacy rate than the combination of the two drugs and comes with potentially more side effects and risks.

Misoprostol-only regimens vary between 85% and 90% effective, while the combination is between 93% and 99% effective. The effective rates are lower as the gestational age increases.

The combination works well, Bass said, because mifepristone stops the hormone that allows the pregnancy to continue and signals to the body that the pregnancy is over. The misoprostol then helps soften the cervix and prompts the uterus to contract and expel the pregnancy tissue.

Without that hormonal signal, Bass said, a higher dose of misoprostol is needed to empty the uterus. The usual side effects of nausea, diarrhea, chills and sometimes fevers can be more severe because of the higher dosage. And it may lead to more people needing to seek in-person follow-up care to fully remove all of the pregnancy tissue, which can cause infection if it stays in the uterus.

“A lot of the people who are using telehealth for their medication abortion are not necessarily in places where they can safely access that care,” Bass said. “So it is concerning that we might be relying more on a regimen that means that many more people needing to seek care.”

What are the details of the legal arguments?

Louisiana officials, including Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill, argue that the state is harmed by the 2023 telehealth policy because it undermines a state law banning abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with few exceptions that don’t include rape or incest. The state also challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s process in deciding to eliminate the in-person dispensing requirement, saying it was based on flawed or nonexistent data.

The state also said the rule has resulted in $92,000 in Medicaid bills from two women who went to the emergency room because of complications related to mifepristone in 2025. And the state says the rule harmed the other plaintiff in the case, Louisiana resident Rosalie Markezich, who said her ex-boyfriend ordered the medication online and pressured her into taking it. That wouldn’t have been possible if the medication had to be dispensed through an in-person visit, the state argues.

“The priority of safety supersedes the priority of access, and that is what ultimately, I believe, needs to be looked at directly,” Sarah Zagorski, senior director of public relations at Americans United for Life, told Stateline on Wednesday. The anti-abortion organization submitted a brief supporting Louisiana’s case to the U.S. Supreme Court this week.

The FDA’s response has been to try to dismiss the claims in part on the grounds that Louisiana doesn’t have standing to sue, but agency officials have also said they are in the middle of conducting a safety review of mifepristone and need more time.

GenBioPro and Danco Laboratories, two of the manufacturers of mifepristone, intervened as defendants in the case, which can happen when the party that is sued may not be willing to fully defend the case for various reasons.

The two companies argue that Louisiana does not have proper standing to sue because the state does not prescribe or use mifepristone and is an “unregulated party” as it relates to the 2023 telehealth provision. They also noted that the FDA reviewed 15 studies evaluating medication abortion outcomes for more than 55,000 patients before approving the rule, “all of which supported the safety and effectiveness of dispensing mifepristone by mail, courier, or through pharmacies.”

How does this compare to the 2023 case Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA?

Both lawsuits were designed to restrict access to mifepristone. The plaintiffs in the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine case included a group of anti-abortion doctors who said they would be harmed by having to care for people who took mifepristone. They also argued that the FDA’s approval of the drug was improper.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was involved in that case as well, and determined that the FDA should roll back its decision to ease restrictions on the drug, including the 2023 telehealth rule. But the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided in June 2024 that the Alliance plaintiffs didn’t have proper standing and sent it back to the lower court.

After that ruling, the attorneys general of Missouri, Idaho and Kansas stepped in as plaintiffs, and the case was transferred to Missouri’s U.S. district court, where it’s still pending.

The Louisiana case is more limited because it would strike down one provision of mifepristone regulation, noted Jenna Hudson, senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights. The Alliance plaintiffs sought to revoke the drug’s approval altogether.

Stateline reporters Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org and Sofia Resnick can be reached at sresnick@stateline.org.  

When Katy Dicks’ two children were both in childcare programs, she and her partner would dread sitting down each month to have the hard conversations about which bills would go on their multiple credit cards, the highest with a 20% interest rate, and which they could pay outright. “It’s a constant budgeting game,” Dicks said, although she and her family watch every penny and keep their finances as tight as possible. 

According to Act For Early Years, the global childcare campaign, the major expense that weighed on Katy and her partner each month is what also plagues 70% of American parents: the high cost of childcare. According to Care.com, Katy, 45, and her domestic partner, who live in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, are like parents across the nation for whom care has become an “all-consuming strain.” The same source found that mothers report “significantly higher levels of overwhelm, guilt, and identity loss” than fathers, pressuring many to leave the workforce. In fact, of the 455,000 women who left the workforce in 2025, roughly 42% pointed to caregiving costs as the No. 1 reason. In the past 40 years, cost has been the primary reason for the steepest decline in mothers of young children participating in the workforce. 

Katy, whose children are now ages 7 and 11, works primarily as a Pharmacy Project Coordinator, but she is also a realtor, and a co-owner of a logistics business with her partner. Katy considers herself “blessed” because she found wonderful, regulated childcare nearby for both of her children, and she “felt good with the care my children received.” However, between the full-time home-based care and the preschool for both children, it cost her and her partner between $20,000-$30,000 per year over six years for a total of $167,000. Average annual costs for childcare in Wisconsin range between $13,000 and $18,000. Even working her three jobs, she and her partner still owe $45,000 in credit card debt because of their childcare costs. According to a new study, a two-child family would need to earn $400,000 to make childcare affordable, defined as 7% of income by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, an unreachable sum for most families including Katy and her partner.

The reason for the high cost of childcare in the U.S. is primarily due to the fact that early childhood education is not considered a public good. Therefore, with little to no public investment in childcare for everyone, early educators are often entirely reliant upon parents’ private tuition payments to operate their programs. Despite high tuition rates, Wisconsin providers earn, on average, $13.55 per hour, compared to the average hourly wage of $28.44 for Wisconsin workers, with family childcare providers earning $7.46 per hour. 

This changed during the COVID-19 pandemic when the federal government recognized childcare as essential and distributed funds to states to stabilize the childcare workforce. In Wisconsin, $20 million per month was distributed to approximately 5,000 licensed providers, assisting in the retention of 72,000 professionals, and supporting care for over 417,000 children throughout the state through a program called Child Care Counts. While recent research shows that this program was highly effective, the majority of Republican legislators rejected continued funding for the program. Additionally, even though the 2025-2027 budget for the first time included state funds for childcare, that funding ends in June 2026, leaving providers once again on their own to figure out how to continue, or in many cases simply to close their programs. 

Katy also experienced complications during pregnancy and her maternity leave. During her first pregnancy she developed pre-eclampsia and had to be hospitalized and induced. After just three months of maternity leave at partial pay, she said, “It was the hardest day of my life to go back to work. What I needed was 12 months to heal and bond with my baby.” Nonetheless, she felt fortunate that she had childcare in place, had kept her job, and therefore had health insurance to pay all of her medical bills. 

When Katy returned to work, she went to her infant’s child care program every day to breastfeed her baby on her lunch break, to bond with her baby and also because she wasn’t able to pump enough milk to last through the day. When she tried pumping at work, she felt like her male supervisor was always “breathing down my neck,” and pumping twice a day felt like she was “pushing it.” Not long after, her supervisor gave her a performance improvement plan (PIP) for taking time out to pump breast milk.

With her second child, in a new position, Katy developed pre-eclampsia again, and had to be induced, but at this employer, she felt the pressure to quit working more intensely. After she repeatedly brought up the topic of maternity leave with her male supervisor, the company finally agreed to give her three months of unpaid leave. She made a plea for partial pay during her leave, only to be informed by her supervisor that the company would indeed adopt a partially paid maternity leave, but not until after her maternity leave was over. He also told her that she was the first employee he had who was pregnant and required maternity leave. 

The U.S. is the only wealthy nation on Earth that lacks federally mandated, paid maternity leave, even though about three-quarters of mothers are employed. As of January 2026, only 14 states and the District of Columbia had a mandated, paid maternity leave of eight to 12 weeks. Wisconsin does not have mandated, paid maternity leave. 

Katy’s  experiences ultimately drove her to take a leadership position in the Mother Forward chapter in Wisconsin to push for better policies so that mothers are set up for success.

It’s different in Denmark

When Manal Stulgaitis, an American, moved to Denmark to work for the United Nations, she had no idea how the early childhood education system worked. She visited the country  ahead of her family before the move to check out childcare programs. One morning, when she was out for a jog, she stumbled across an enchanting scene. Peering through a tall fence surrounding a huge residential house, she saw children in snowsuits playing on climbing equipment built into the trees and sitting under a structure whittling sticks around a fire. Teachers stood nearby, observing and supporting the children in their explorations. Manal decided to visit the place right away. She found the administrator and teachers welcoming and they quickly determined that they had space, so she was able to enroll her 3-year-old without delay. The center was part of the public early childhood education system, and she remembers it cost approximately $400 per month, and “was absolutely zero stress.” Meanwhile, her 6-year-old attended public school. 

Manal, 51, whose children are now 10 and 13 years old, like all parents in Denmark, was  entitled to a guaranteed childcare slot regardless of income or geographic location. Indeed, Danish law mandates this and ensures that parents pay no more than 25% of the cost of childcare, unless a family’s income is below a certain threshold, in which case it is free. 

As for maternity leave, although it did not apply to Manal since her children were older, the standard in Denmark is a paid shared parental leave that begins four weeks before a mother gives birth and continues for 24 weeks post birth. Another parent can share up to 10 weeks of the leave, and there is additional flexibility depending on the circumstances for a total of 52 weeks. Recent research shows that Denmark’s childcare and paid parental leave policies combined erase 80% of what’s called “the motherhood penalty” for working mothers, allowing them to pursue their careers and passions. This is certainly the case for Manal, who said, “I don’t think there are words to describe how it impacts you individually or how it impacts our family. To have the essentials like healthcare and childcare and education taken care of by the state – both financially and in terms of the regulatory aspects — gives every single Danish person a huge measure of confidence. We were so lucky to experience that system, which serves children and their parents so well.” 

Policymakers in the U.S. have chosen a hands-off approach to childcare and maternity leave. This has had the effect of normalizing the suffering new mothers and parents experience, pressures mothers to leave the workforce, stalls their careers, and loads parents with debt. Denmark, on the other hand, has chosen to promote equality for mothers by mandating and investing in both paid parental leave and childcare. For Manal, the impact of having her daughter welcomed and supported in a high-quality early childhood education system was “a lifesaver.” She could be a  mother and have a high-powered career that demanded long days and frequent travel. Total confidence in her child’s program meant that she or her husband could “drop the kids off in the morning and not have a second thought about their safety or their wellbeing.” Having a high-quality system freed both her and her husband to focus fully on their work, without all the stress parents in the U.S. feel over their children’s well-being and the toll having a baby takes on their household  finances. Childcare advocates in the U.S. say policymakers here could choose policies that set mothers up for success, rather than test their grit, tolerance for debt, and willingness to endure the pain of worrying whether their children are getting good care. 

Across the country, citizens demanding universal child care in their own  communities are joining the thousands of mothers, child care providers, and advocates gathering on Monday, May 11, 2026 for the 5th annual Day Without Child Care.

Support for this reporting came from the Better Life Lab at New America.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s trade agenda faced another major setback Thursday when the U.S. Court of International Trade handed a win to two small businesses and the state of Washington after they challenged the president’s 10% global tariffs, imposed after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down his previous emergency tariff regime.

In a 2-1 decision, the court granted a permanent injunction to a Florida-based toy manufacturer and a New York-based spice importer that sued the Trump administration in March, alleging the new tariffs would harm their businesses.

The court also granted relief to Washington state, which was among nearly two dozen states that sued over the tariffs. 

Tariff ‘bazooka’

Jay Foreman, CEO of toy company Basic Fun!, said he was “extremely excited” upon learning the decision.

“It takes a lot of guts and chutzpah for small companies like us and Burlap and Barrel to put ourselves out on the line to fight what we feel is injustice and unfair,” he said during a virtual press conference, referring to the other company named in the lawsuit, an online spice retailer.

“Certainly, there’s a place for tariffs on strategic products that make sense to protect in this country …  but in cases across the board, to approach this situation with a bazooka instead of a fine-tooth comb makes no sense, and it hurts companies like ours, hurts companies like Burlap and Barrel, hurts the consumer,” Foreman said Thursday evening. 

Basic Fun! is behind popular toys, including Tonka Trucks and Care Bears.

Foreman said he expects imports that were subject to the tariffs to arrive as soon as tomorrow.

“I’m already emailing my customs broker to make sure they’re on it,” he said.

The ruling only applies to the plaintiffs Basic Fun! and the online spice retailer Burlap and Barrel, and does not give universal relief to all businesses that must pay the blanket 10% tax on imports. 

Jeffrey Schwab, who argued the case on behalf of the clients for the Liberty Justice Center, said the nonprofit advocacy law firm has been “wrestling” with what the decision means for other businesses that are paying the import tax.

“It’s not entirely clear, and probably will depend on what happens now if the government appeals. If the government seeks a stay that could have an effect. Certainly, I think companies will probably want to file (legal challenges), being concerned about making sure that the tariffs stop for them, and possibly ensuring that they get a refund too,” Schwab said.

Win for Washington state

The ruling also applies to Washington state as an importer subject to the tariffs, according to the ruling. 

Washington Attorney General Nick Brown called the ruling “a win for both affordability and the rule of law.”

“It’s American consumers and businesses that have ultimately paid for the president’s illegal tariff campaign,” he said in a statement. “The court’s order will encourage more parties to challenge this illegal executive overreach.”

The judges ruled other states that sued did not have standing because they were “non-importers.” Among them were Arizona, Colorado, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Trump ordered the fresh round of tariffs on Feb. 20, the same day the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a 6-3 opinion, that his initial global tariffs under the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA, exceeded his presidential authority.

Following the Supreme Court loss, Trump’s alternative tariffs, imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, went into effect on Feb. 24.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is now in the legally mandated process of refunding businesses and importers who paid a collective $166 billion in IEEPA tariffs. 

The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary stay on an appeals court ruling from Friday that was blocking remote access to an abortion drug, restoring access until at least May 11.

The administrative stay, issued by Justice Samuel Alito, pauses Friday’s decision by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. That ruling blocked a 2023 rule adopted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration allowing mifepristone, one of two drugs used to terminate a pregnancy before 10 weeks and to treat miscarriages, to be prescribed without an in-person visit with a health care provider and also allowed it to be mailed to recipients in states with abortion bans.

“The administrative stay is temporary, and I am confident life and law will win in the end,” said Louisiana Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill in a statement. 

Thirteen states have near-total abortion bans, including Louisiana. Murrill sued the FDA in October, saying the rule undermines the state’s laws and causes financial harm because the state paid $92,000 in Medicaid bills for two women who needed emergency care in 2025 from complications related to mifepristone. 

In the years since the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing states to regulate abortion access, telehealth prescriptions of abortion medication have become increasingly popular, with more than 27% of all abortions provided that way in 2025, according to data from the Society of Family Planning.

“While this is a positive short-term development, no one can rest easy when our ability to get this safe, effective medication for abortion and miscarriage care still hangs in the balance,” said Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney for the Reproductive Freedom Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, in a statement. “The Supreme Court needs to put an end to this baseless attack on our reproductive freedom, once and for all.”

The case could follow a similar pattern to one that played out in 2023, after U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas issued a ruling that would have revoked access to the abortion drug mifepristone altogether. 

The U.S. Supreme Court intervened shortly after that ruling and kept mifepristone available while the case proceeded in the 5th Circuit appeals court, which eventually decided that more restrictions were warranted, but not pulling the drug’s approval. The Supreme Court officially took the case several months later, and unanimously ruled in June 2024 that the plaintiffs suing the FDA did not have standing, keeping access to mifepristone intact.

Responses from the attorneys in the latest case are expected to be filed with the Supreme Court by Thursday, according to Alito’s order.

Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org.

One of the main methods of obtaining abortion medication for those living in states with bans is now blocked nationwide, after a federal appeals court decision issued Friday afternoon.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked a U.S. Food and Drug Administration rule from 2023 that allowed mifepristone, one of two drugs used to terminate a pregnancy before 10 weeks and to treat miscarriages, to be dispensed without an in-person visit with a health provider. 

In the years since, states with abortion access have increased their telemedicine offerings to prescribe the medication remotely and send it through the mail. Many of those states also enacted shield laws to prevent officials from states with abortion bans from prosecuting or investigating their providers — meaning many patients have been able to receive the medication across state lines.

Louisiana judge preserves telehealth abortion access provision for now, puts case on hold

The block will remain in effect as the lower court case proceeds, but the FDA could file an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in the coming weeks.

More than 27% of all abortions were provided through telehealth appointments in the first six months of 2025, according to the Society of Family Planning, a research and advocacy group that publishes a report called #WeCount. Nearly 15,000 abortions per month were provided under shield laws during that same time frame, according to the report.

Louisiana Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill sued the FDA in October, seeking to strike down the 2023 provision, and the lower court declined to do so in early April. U.S. District Judge David C. Joseph said then that the stay was premature while the FDA completed a safety review of mifepristone, but allowed state officials the opportunity to re-file the motion after that review was complete. The state appealed that decision to the 5th Circuit.

“Every abortion facilitated by FDA’s action cancels Louisiana’s ban on medical abortions and undermines its policy that ‘every unborn child is human being from the moment of conception and is, therefore, a legal person,’” Friday’s decision said.

There were no dissenting opinions among Judge Leslie Southwick, an appointee of former Republican President George H.W. Bush, and Judges Stuart Kyle Duncan and Kurt D. Engelhardt, both appointees of Republican President Donald Trump.

Without access to telemedicine and the opportunity to receive the medication through the mail, people in 13 states with near-total abortion bans may have to travel to another state to get an abortion.

There is a misoprostol-only abortion pill protocol that some providers can use, but it is slightly less effective and requires a higher dosage, which can increase side effects.

“Reinstating in-person dispensing requirements would force people to travel farther, take more time off work, and absorb costs that are simply too high. For people living in states already hostile to abortion access, many of which are home to Black women and families, this is not health care,” said Regina Davis-Moss, CEO of advocacy group In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda, in a statement. 

Murrill said in a statement on Friday that former Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration facilitated “illegal mail-order abortion pills.”

Nearly 1 in 4 people seeking abortions out of state chose Illinois. Here’s why.

“Today, that nightmare is over, thanks to the hard work of my office and our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom. I look forward to continuing to defend women and babies as this case continues,” Murrill said, crediting the advocacy legal organization that helped in the case.

The court also found Friday that the 2023 rule injures Louisiana by causing it to spend Medicaid funds for emergency care for women harmed by using the drug. The state identified $92,000 paid by Medicaid for two women who needed emergency care in 2025 from complications “caused by out-of-state mifepristone.”

Numerous studies have shown mifepristone is safe to use, with very low complication rates. A combined review of 10 years’ worth of studies between 2005 and 2015 found that severe outcomes requiring blood transfusion and hospitalization occurred in less than 1% of cases.

“We are alarmed by this court’s decision to ignore the FDA’s rigorous science and decades of safe use of mifepristone in a case pursued by extremist abortion opponents. We are reviewing the court’s order in detail,” said Evan Masingill, CEO of GenBioPro, one of the main manufacturers of mifepristone, in a statement. “We remain committed to taking any actions necessary to make mifepristone available and accessible to as many people as possible in the country, regardless of anti-abortion special interests trying to undermine patients’ access.”

Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org.

The U.S. House approved, 224-200, a five-year farm bill Thursday as members of Congress attempt to update major agriculture and nutrition policy after three years of extensions.

The bill would authorize subsidy and nutrition assistance programs through fiscal 2031. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated an earlier version of the bill would not meaningfully affect discretionary federal spending over an 11-year window, and would add $162 million in mandatory spending over the next six years.

Most Democrats opposed the bill, but 14 voted in favor. Three Republicans voted against. Six members did not vote.

The Democrats in favor were: Sanford Bishop of Georgia, Jim Costa and Adam Gray of California, Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Sharice Davids of Kansas, Donald Davis of North Carolina, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Kristen McDonald Rivet of Michigan, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Kim Schrier of Washington, Josh Riley of New York, Darren Soto of Florida and Gabe Vasquez of New Mexico.

The Republicans who voted against were: Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Andrew Garbarino of New York and Harriet Hageman of Wyoming.

Few policy changes

Because Republicans’ massive spending and tax cuts law last year made major changes to some U.S. Department of Agriculture programs, mainly the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that helped about 1 in 8 Americans afford groceries in 2024, the farm bill passed Thursday was a “skinny” version and relatively short on major policy updates.

The bill would still have to pass the Senate, which has not yet introduced its version. 

Arkansas Republican Sen. John Boozman, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, cheered House passage Thursday and said a Senate text would be released “in the coming weeks.”

“This is an important step toward updating long-overdue policies that support our farm families and strengthen rural communities,” he said of the House vote in a statement. “We’ve put more farm in the farm bill through the Working Families Tax Cuts (the GOP spending and tax cuts bill), and this legislation builds on that success.”

New authorizations needed 

Farm bills are typically written to last five years. But Congress last approved a version in 2018. Extensions of the 2018 version were enacted in 2023, 2024 and 2025.

House Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican, said the measure would still meaningfully update farm and food programs.

“It is more evident than ever that rural America needs a new farm bill now, not next year or next Congress,” he said. “Producers are operating under the third consecutive farm bill extension and the simple truth is the policies of 2018 are no match for the challenges of 2026.”

Agriculture Committee ranking Democrat Angie Craig of Minnesota opposed the bill, saying it did not address any of the pressing issues that farmers and SNAP recipients face. The bill does not help alleviate the rising costs farmers face from President Donald Trump’s tariffs and “locks in the $187 billion cut” to SNAP in last year’s spending law, Craig said.

“It doesn’t fix any of the underlying policy choices by Republicans and this administration that caused the problems in the first place,” she said, adding that  continuing the SNAP cuts put “more pressure on struggling Americans at a time when the cost of groceries and healthcare continues to grow.  

Craig said Thursday morning that the measure could have helped corn farmers by including a provision to allow gasoline made with 15% ethanol available all year. The product, known as E15, increases demand for corn, but has been limited in summer months because of the pollution it can cause in high temperatures. 

Thompson responded that the committee would consider a separate measure on year-round E15 in mid-May.

Local food, foreign food aid oversight

The bill does include some new provisions.

It would authorize $200 million for a new local food procurement program, to be used largely by food banks. 

It would move authority for foreign food assistance programs under USDA from the now-defunct U.S. Agency for International Development. 

It would raise the limit that individual farmers could borrow from USDA and expand rural development programs that fund substance abuse and mental health services.

Members voted Thursday morning for an amendment that removed a controversial provision to shield pesticide producers from legal liability to warn users of a risk of cancer. If it became law, the provision would have mooted a case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court this week related to a Missouri jury’s award to a user of Monsanto’s popular Roundup weedkiller who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

“Going to make hunger worse”

Several Democrats slammed the bill, but seemed to take more issue with the “big beautiful” law Trump signed last July 4. The farm bill, Massachusetts Democrat Jim McGovern said, would not counteract the changes in that law.

“We are considering on the floor a five-year farm bill that, quite frankly, does nothing for our farmers and screws over poor people and maintains the nearly $200 billion in cuts to SNAP,” the top House Rules Committee Democrat said on the House floor Thursday. “It is going to make hunger worse in this country.”

Thompson said Democrats were too focused on what was not in the bill, rather than the provisions that enjoy bipartisan support.

“Today, you will hear some opposing comments made that this is a partisan bill and even more on what’s not in the bill,” he said at the outset of floor debate. “This bill is filled with good policy that is also overwhelmingly bipartisan.

In response to concerns from three northeast Wisconsin towns, the Manitowoc County Board unanimously approved an 18-month moratorium on data center permitting.

The post Manitowoc County Board approves 18-month data center moratorium appeared first on WPR.

New data on Wisconsin’s tax incentives for data centers have some state leaders calling for more regulation. Others say the industry is helping drive economic growth.

The post Wisconsin data center tax incentives spark debate over cost and regulation appeared first on WPR.

The post PSC’s Preliminary Decision: Data Centers Will Cover Their Costs appeared first on RENEW Wisconsin.

Three years after a miscarriage that caused a severe, nearly septic infection because a Tennessee hospital denied her an abortion, Katy Dulong was looking forward to telling her story in a trial that was scheduled to begin Monday.

But this week, the state appealed to a higher court based on a new law passed by the legislature in March, and the court put the trial on hold indefinitely. It will now be months before the lower court can proceed.

Dulong had complications that led to a miscarriage in November 2022 at 16 weeks of pregnancy, long before fetal viability. Under the state’s abortion ban, which had only been in place for a few months, the hospital sent her home to miscarry on her own. When that didn’t happen, severe infection started to set in 10 days later, when she was able to get doctors to agree to help. The experience left her with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Tennessee bill expands attorney general rights to appeal case rulings

The delay in the legal case feels like the state trying to silence her and the other plaintiffs, she said.

“It’s shocking to me that there’s anyone in this world that would have such opposing views to think that our voices don’t matter,” Dulong said in an interview. “How are they taking away our voice right now?”

In a motion to dismiss in February, the state argued it couldn’t be sued by the plaintiffs under a term called sovereign immunity, and in April, the Tennessee Legislature passed a law making it harder to sue the state on the constitutionality of a state or government action. Legislators passed another bill allowing the state to automatically appeal a decision related to sovereign immunity.

Nicolas Kabat, a staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights who has been working on the case with the plaintiffs, said the state has tried to have the case dismissed four times without success, and said this is just the latest move to delay the trial. But he said the latest laws passed by the legislature allowing automatic appeals in the middle of a case, on the eve of a trial, make the situation unique.   

“There is nothing unusual about appealing an appealable order,” said Phil Buehler, press secretary for Tennessee Republican Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, in an email Thursday.

Similar lawsuits are ongoing or have already been resolved in several states with bans, including Texas and Idaho, where state residents have challenged the law based on their personal experiences. Plaintiffs in Idaho won their case in April 2025, when a judge said the near-total abortion ban does not mean a pregnant patient’s death has to be imminent or “assured” to perform an abortion. Complaints are also pending related to Texas hospitals allegedly not complying with federal law mandating emergency room treatment for a patient who needs an abortion as stabilizing care.

Women with serious pregnancy complications sue over state abortion bans

Allie Phillips, the lead plaintiff in Tennessee, joined several other women to sue the state in September 2023, alleging that the abortion ban put their health and lives in jeopardy when they were pregnant. They asked the state to clarify the law so that health is considered in an abortion decision, not just an immediate threat to a pregnant patient’s life. The way the law is written, attorneys argue, is too vague to allow for those exceptions.

Phillips and Nicole Blackmon, another plaintiff, had fetuses with anomalies related to the development of vital organs. Blackmon couldn’t afford to travel out of the state for an abortion, and eventually had to stop working because the pregnancy was affecting her health. She delivered a stillborn baby in her seventh month of pregnancy. Phillips raised enough money to seek an abortion in New York, only to find when she got there that the fetus had already died.

After the court granted a temporary block on the law as it relates to pregnancy complications, the state passed several laws that affected the case. The first bill, meant to clarify the state’s health exception for an abortion, was enacted in April 2025 but didn’t solve the issue, Kabat said. The language still wasn’t clear enough, and the court agreed and allowed the suit to continue.

Kabat said the legal team will continue its effort to clarify Tennessee’s laws so that stories like Dulong’s don’t happen to others.

“No matter how long this takes, we’re going to get the trial, we’re going to get these stories heard and we’re going to seek accountability from the state,” Kabat said.

Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org. 

At Family Planning Associates in Chicago, in the office where staff take phone calls from potential abortion patients, a U.S. map colored in with red and green dry-erase markers notes the latest status of abortion access in every state. The map can change at any time.

In the center of the map’s biggest sea of red is Illinois, outlined in green — showing it’s a state with strong abortion access — surrounded by several states that ban or severely restrict abortion. Illinois is the destination for nearly 1 in 4 people traveling to another state for abortion care, according to a report from the Guttmacher Institute, an advocacy and research organization that supports abortion access and tracks data nationwide.

“Illinois really became kind of a haven state for the Midwest and much of the South immediately post-Dobbs,” said Megan Jeyifo, executive director of the Chicago Abortion Fund, which provides logistical and financial support to people who need abortions.

The state’s geography explains part of its popularity; in five of the six border states, abortion is either banned or largely inaccessible. But Illinois also is among the states that have put in place new policies — along with millions of dollars — to welcome patients who aren’t their residents. Advocates and providers say other safe-haven states should replicate the investments.

That’s happened most recently in Maine and Washington state, where governors approved funding to support family planning and abortion care, including for out-of-state patients.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision that overturned the constitutional right to abortion and allowed states to regulate the procedure, 13 states have implemented near-total abortion bans, and seven others have bans after six to 12 weeks. Although about one-quarter of people who need an abortion now obtain medication by telemedicine, many who live in states with bans still have to travel elsewhere for various reasons, including fear of prosecution.

Guttmacher’s data showed that fewer people traveled for care in the past two years than the peak of 170,000 who traveled in 2023, the year after Dobbs.

That number fell to about 155,000 in 2024, including 35,000 who went to Illinois, the data showed. Last year, an estimated 142,000 abortion patients traveled out of state, with a fairly consistent number, about 32,000, going to Illinois.

The next-highest destination after Illinois was North Carolina, followed by New Mexico and Kansas.

Guttmacher and other advocates attribute part of that decrease in the national numbers to wider availability of telehealth access to abortion medication that can be mailed to patients in other states. There were an estimated 1.1 million abortions across the United States in 2025, about the same amount as 2024 but the highest number since 2009, according to Guttmacher.

Shield laws protect health care providers in many states, including California, Illinois and New York. Those laws have prevented Republican attorneys general in other states, such as Texas and Louisiana, from trying to punish providers who prescribe the drugs.

Louisiana has unsuccessfully tried to charge and extradite doctors from California and New York, and is also suing the federal government to remove the provision that allows abortion medication to be prescribed by telehealth. A federal judge put the case on hold for now as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration completes a safety review.

Policy changes in Illinois

Illinois’ “haven” status is derided by anti-abortion groups, who call the state’s policies extreme.

“The abortion industry in Illinois is the wild west, which is clear by these numbers,” said Mary Kate Zander, president and CEO of Illinois Right to Life, to the Chicago Sun-Times, speaking about the Guttmacher report.

One state changing its laws to restrict abortion access can lead to a significant influx of patients traveling to clinics in other states. Dr. Allison Cowett, chief medical and advocacy officer for Family Planning Associates, said when six-week abortion bans went into effect in Florida and Georgia in May and October of 2024, respectively, many more patients from the South started coming to Chicago.

“Within the first few months after Dobbs, we had more than 1 in 3 patients coming from outside Illinois, and that has maintained for those three, almost four years,” Cowett said.

Illinois also borders Indiana, which has a near-total abortion ban in place. Cowett said Indiana residents were the largest percentage of out-of-state abortion patients at her clinic before 2022, and it has stayed that way.

Restricting, cutting Medicaid funding shifts more reproductive health care to telemedicine

Jeyifo said when she started as a volunteer with the Chicago Abortion Fund in 2016, the organization couldn’t financially support large numbers of out-of-state patients because Illinois didn’t invest in access the way it does now. The biggest change came in 2018, when Illinois allowed its state Medicaid program to cover abortion procedures.

“We would not have been able to expand our support outside of Illinois residents without that coverage,” Jeyifo said.

Nineteen other states allow their Medicaid program to cover abortion procedures, according to KFF, a health policy research group.

In 2023, Democratic lawmakers in Illinois allocated $10 million from the state health department to establish the Complex Abortion Regional Line for Access, known as CARLA, a hotline for the Chicago Abortion Fund and four area hospitals to help coordinate care. Jeyifo said more than 1,000 people have received assistance through that hotline in the years since.

The state has also helped fill in lost Medicaid funding after Congress passed a provision blocking federal Medicaid payments to certain abortion providers, mainly targeting Planned Parenthood, and it has helped pay for training and other programs that help connect people with care.

In January, the state launched a new partnership with the Chicago-based Michael Reese Health Trust to establish the Prairie State Access Fund, which will provide aid to out-of-state patients in need of reproductive and gender-affirming health care.

“(Illinois) is this model for other receiving states around the country to take up and learn about, because the proximity on a map is important, but the resources that are available once you get to a place are so much more important,” Jeyifo said.

Finding nearby states

The Guttmacher report showed 62,000 of the 142,000 people who traveled came from states with near-total bans, more than double the number who traveled from those states before 2022. But it has declined over the past year, down from 74,000 who traveled from those states in 2024.

The next-highest state for travelers, North Carolina, is relatively close to Georgia and Florida. The number of out-of-state travelers has remained steady there since 2024, even though North Carolina has a 12-week ban and a three-day waiting period for abortions.

In New Mexico and Kansas, about two-thirds of all abortions provided were for people traveling from outside the state, but those numbers are going down. New Mexico is often a destination for people from Texas, and Kansas borders Oklahoma, two states with strict bans. Kansas also borders Missouri; voters in 2024 passed a constitutional amendment legalizing abortion, but access has not returned, and lawmakers are trying to reverse the amendment in this year’s midterm elections.

Family Planning Associates is one of the largest independent abortion clinics in Illinois. It expanded its staff — including doctors, nurses and front desk workers — during the first year after Dobbs from about 40 people to more than 70 to handle the new patient volume, Cowett said. The clinic also expanded its physical space by about two-thirds.

Many of those who come from the South have never left their home state, Cowett said, and it can be overwhelming for them to come to a big city during an already emotional event. The abortion fund and others help supply a closet in the clinic that is stocked with toiletries, basic clothing, shoes and other items to assemble care packages for patients.

The state has also provided security infrastructure grants to nonprofits to protect against potential attacks, such as a clinic firebombing in Peoria, Illinois, in 2023, two days after Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker signed abortion protections into law. No one was in the building at the time.

Such aid was especially important for the Choices: Center for Reproductive Health clinic in Carbondale, a city at the southern tip of Illinois and the intersection of neighboring states with strong anti-abortion laws: Arkansas, Kentucky and Tennessee.

It’s a much shorter drive to Carbondale for people in those states than it is to Chicago, said Jennifer Pepper, Choices president and CEO, and it’s a more familiar, smaller area.

The state grant allowed them to harden the physical security of the clinic in Carbondale, Pepper said, which is something they haven’t been able to do for their sister location in Memphis, Tennessee. That clinic provides birth control, wellness exams and midwifery services, but receives no state support.

“We’ve never had state support in all of our 52 years in Tennessee,” Pepper said.

State assistance

Other states with Democratic leadership and protective abortion laws are starting to approve more funding to support reproductive health care.

Maine Gov. Janet Mills signed a budget bill Friday that includes funding for lost Medicaid reimbursements and creates an ongoing $5 million annual appropriation for family planning services. Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson signed a law in late March establishing a new revenue source for abortion care by implementing a tax on health insurance companies that is expected to generate about $10 million in the first year and about $2 million in each subsequent year.

Jeyifo, of the Chicago Abortion Fund, said she hopes to see more of those efforts in other states with laws that are supportive of reproductive health care, including ones with Democratic leadership that could be doing more to expand clinic availability and rescind waiting periods, such as the 24-hour waiting requirement that still exists in Wisconsin before a patient can get an abortion.

“So many states in our region could be doing more just for their own residents, let alone people traveling,” Jeyifo said.

Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@stateline.org.

Some anti-abortion state lawmakers are pushing to revise the definition of “abortion” so abortion bans don’t apply to cases in which the death of an “unborn child” is the result of medical care provided to the pregnant woman.

In the four years since the U.S. Supreme Court allowed states to ban abortion, stories continue to emerge of women with doomed pregnancies who developed life-threatening infections, had to travel to another state, or even died because doctors were afraid to provide what was once considered standard pregnancy-loss care.

Thirteen states have abortion bans, and all of them include a medical exception that allows abortions to protect the life of the pregnant woman. Some, but not all, of the bans also have exceptions to protect the health of the woman.

But patients and providers have argued in lawsuits challenging the bans that such exceptions are too ill defined to give doctors and hospitals the confidence to provide timely care. As a result, they say, providers end up denying care until the woman’s condition deteriorates to a point where the exceptions definitely apply, jeopardizing her health and future fertility.

Last year, states including Texas, Kentucky and Tennessee enacted laws designed to provide additional clarity. Confusion persists in those states and others, however, and research has linked abortion restrictions to higher rates of maternal death and injury.

The latest measures, crafted and promoted by national anti-abortion groups, would redefine “abortion” as the intentional ending of the life of the “unborn child.” Supporters say they would clear the way for doctors to manage miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies and other pregnancy-related emergencies.

“No one wants a physician to hesitate or pause and further endanger the life of the mother,” said Ingrid Duran, director of state legislation for the National Right to Life Committee, which has advocated for all of the measures, in a written statement. “This is why providing clearer language in defining terms can be beneficial.”

But reproductive rights advocates and many OB-GYNs say the real purpose of the bills is to fortify abortion bans that are broadly unpopular, even in states with full bans, and under legal challenge in multiple states. They argue the new measures are still too vague because they hang on the intentions of individual physicians, and many of the same procedures and medicines used in abortions are used to treat miscarriages.

They also say the language in the bills could grant embryos legal rights, thereby making some fertility treatments illegal.

“If you’re trying to define what is and is not an abortion, and you’re creating really specific, narrow guidelines, it could really unintentionally classify some pregnancy-related procedures as abortion care, and therefore within the law not medically necessary,” said Elias Schmidt, state legislative counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, an advocacy group.

South Dakota is first

In March, South Dakota became the first state to enact such a law. Its measure states that the state’s abortion ban only applies to “the intentional termination of the life of a human being in the uterus,” and not to medical treatment that results in “the accidental or unintentional death of the unborn child,” treatment to resolve a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy, “the removal from the uterus of a deceased unborn child,” or a medical procedure that aims to save the fetus.

To the concern of fertility-treatment advocates, the law also defines “human being” as “an individual living member of the species of Homo sapiens, including the unborn human being during the entire embryonic and fetal ages from fertilization to full gestation.”

A similar bill introduced in Missouri defines abortion as “the act of using or prescribing any instrument, device, medicine, drug, or any other means or substance with the intent to destroy the life of an embryo or fetus in his or her mother’s womb.” It explicitly exempts miscarriage management and treatment for ectopic pregnancies from the definition.

And a bill in Utah, where abortion is still legal up to 18 weeks’ gestation, would regulate how an abortion procedure is recorded in a patient’s chart, distinguishing between an elective abortion and a medically indicated abortion. It defines the latter as an abortion “to remove a deceased fetus,” resolve an ectopic pregnancy, or to avert the death or “serious physical risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function of a woman.”

Wisconsin’s legislature recently voted not to advance a similar bill this past legislative session.

Blame for the confusion

Anti-abortion groups blame doctors and abortion-rights advocates for creating the confusion around the medical exceptions in abortion bans, insisting it is clear what is a medically indicated abortion and what is purely elective.

“The fact that we’re in a place now that states actually have to define (abortion) is a result of my field, particularly (the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) not clarifying it,” said Dr. Susan Bane, vice chair of the board of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is made up of about 7,500 physicians and other medical professionals who oppose abortion.

The organization has launched a medical education and messaging campaign arguing that abortion bans do not prevent necessary health care.

According to Bane, the main difference between an induced abortion and medically indicated termination is that in the first case, “you want a dead baby at the end of whatever you do.”

The author of the South Dakota law, Republican state Rep. Leslie Heinemann, said he sponsored the measure to quell some of the criticism that the medical exceptions in his state’s ban were ill defined. He admitted he underestimated how difficult it would be to codify in law when care for a miscarriage is necessary.

“Even the medical community had trouble with helping define some of the issues,” he said.

The version of the bill that became law names only a few conditions and leaves the rest up to the discretion of physicians, who must exercise “appropriate and reasonable medical judgment that performance of an abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant female” to avoid felony charges.

Heinemann insisted his measure would not restrict fertility treatments or birth control. But reproductive health and legal experts say that by defining the beginning of human life as “the entire embryonic and fetal ages from fertilization to full gestation,” it could have that effect.

“Embedding personhood language into state laws does really bring up concern around contraceptive access and IVF access,” said Kimya Forouzan, principal state policy adviser for the Guttmacher Institute, a think tank that supports abortion rights.

“As personhood provisions grow in the state code, it brings up the question: At what point are we granting the legal rights of a person and placing those rights above the individual themselves?”

Dr. Amy Kelley, an OB-GYN in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, who was the chair of the South Dakota chapter of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists from 2023 to 2025, said lawmakers ignored her and other doctors’ concerns that the amended abortion ban is still too vague.

“The whole point of medicine is to prevent people from becoming on the brink of death, right? So are they expecting us to wait until that?” Kelley said. “It’s still not very clear, and the definition for miscarriage and ectopic is also not the one we wanted. It’s just not helpful.”

Kelley said that since her state enacted an abortion ban, she often waits longer to terminate a pregnancy for medical reasons, and will sometimes send patients out of state for care. She noted that the new law doesn’t explain what level of risk to the pregnant woman justifies terminating a pregnancy.

“They want to say elective abortions are not allowed. But what do they consider elective?” she said. “Let’s say they have a heart condition and their risk of dying in pregnancy is 40%. Is that an elective abortion because their risk is not 100%?”

Stateline reporter Sofia Resnick can be reached at sresnick@stateline.org