As states continue to curb health insurers’ use of artificial intelligence, patients and doctors are arming themselves with AI tools to fight claims denials, prior authorizations and soaring medical bills. (Photo by Anna Claire Vollers/Stateline)

As states strive to curb health insurers’ use of artificial intelligence, patients and doctors are arming themselves with AI tools to fight claims denials, prior authorizations and soaring medical bills.

Several businesses and nonprofits have launched AI-powered tools to help patients get their insurance claims paid and navigate byzantine medical bills, creating a robotic tug-of-war over who gets care and who foots the bill for it.

Sheer Health, a three-year-old company that helps patients and providers navigate health insurance and billing, now has an app that allows consumers to connect their health insurance account, upload medical bills and claims, and ask questions about deductibles, copays and covered benefits.

“You would think there would be some sort of technology that could explain in real English why I’m getting a bill for $1,500,” said cofounder Jeff Witten. The program uses both AI and humans to provide the answers for free, he said. Patients who want extra support in challenging a denied claim or dealing with out-of-network reimbursements can pay Sheer Health to handle those for them.

In North Carolina, the nonprofit Counterforce Health designed an AI assistant to help patients appeal their denied health insurance claims and fight large medical bills. The free service uses AI models to analyze a patient’s denial letter, then look through the patient’s policy and outside medical research to draft a customized appeal letter.

Other consumer-focused services use AI to catch billing errors or parse medical jargon. Some patients are even turning to AI chatbots like Grok for help.

A quarter of adults under age 30 said they used an AI chatbot at least once a month for health information or advice, according to a poll the health care research nonprofit KFF published in August 2024. But most adults said they were not confident that the health information is accurate.

State legislators on both sides of the aisle, meanwhile, are scrambling to keep pace, passing new regulations that govern how insurers, physicians and others use AI in health care. Already this year, more than a dozen states have passed laws regulating AI in health care, according to Manatt, a consulting firm.

“It doesn’t feel like a satisfying outcome to just have two robots argue back and forth over whether a patient should access a particular type of care,” said Carmel Shachar, assistant clinical professor of law and the faculty director of the Health Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School.

“We don’t want to get on an AI-enabled treadmill that just speeds up.”

A black box

Health care can feel like a black box. If your doctor says you need surgery, for example, the cost depends on a dizzying number of factors, including your health insurance provider, your specific health plan, its copayment requirements, your deductible, where you live, the facility where the surgery will be performed, whether that facility and your doctor are in-network and your specific diagnosis.

Some insurers may require prior authorization before a surgery is approved. That can entail extensive medical documentation. After a surgery, the resulting bill can be difficult to parse.

Witten, of Sheer Health, said his company has seen thousands of instances of patients whose doctors recommend a certain procedure, like surgery, and then a few days before the surgery the patient learns insurance didn’t approve it.

In recent years, as more health insurance companies have turned to AI to automate claims processing and prior authorizations, the share of denied claims has risen. This year, 41% of physicians and other providers said their claims are denied more than 10% of the time, up from 30% of providers who said that three years ago, according to a September report from credit reporting company Experian.

Insurers on Affordable Care Act marketplaces denied nearly 1 in 5 in-network claims in 2023, up from 17% in 2021, and more than a third of out-of-network claims, according to the most recently available data from KFF.

Insurance giant UnitedHealth Group has come under fire in the media and from federal lawmakers for using algorithms to systematically deny care to seniors, while Humana and other insurers face lawsuits and regulatory investigations that allege they’ve used sophisticated algorithms to block or deny coverage for medical procedures.

Insurers say AI tools can improve efficiency and reduce costs by automating tasks that can involve analyzing vast amounts of data. And companies say they’re monitoring their AI to identify potential problems. A UnitedHealth representative pointed Stateline to the company’s AI Review Board, a team of clinicians, scientists and other experts that reviews its AI models for accuracy and fairness.

“Health plans are committed to responsibly using artificial intelligence to create a more seamless, real-time customer experience and to make claims management faster and more effective for patients and providers,” a spokesperson for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the national trade group representing health insurers, told Stateline.

But states are stepping up oversight.

Arizona, Maryland, Nebraska and Texas, for example, have banned insurance companies from using AI as the sole decisionmaker in prior authorization or medical necessity denials.

Dr. Arvind Venkat is an emergency room physician in the Pittsburgh area. He’s also a Democratic Pennsylvania state representative and the lead sponsor of a bipartisan bill to regulate the use of AI in health care.

He’s seen new technologies reshape health care during his 25 years in medicine, but AI feels wholly different, he said. It’s an “active player” in people’s care in a way that other technologies haven’t been.

“If we’re able to harness this technology to improve the delivery and efficiency of clinical care, that is a huge win,” said Venkat. But he’s worried about AI use without guardrails.

His legislation would force insurers and health care providers in Pennsylvania to be more transparent about how they use AI; require a human to make the final decision any time AI is used; and mandate that they show evidence of minimizing bias in their use of AI.

“In health care, where it’s so personal and the stakes are so high, we need to make sure we’re mandating in every patient’s case that we’re applying artificial intelligence in a way that looks at the individual patient,” Venkat said.

Patient supervision

Historically, consumers rarely challenge denied claims: A KFF analysis found fewer than 1% of health coverage denials are appealed. And even when they are, patients lose more than half of those appeals.

New consumer-focused AI tools could shift that dynamic by making appeals easier to file and the process easier to understand. But there are limits; without human oversight, experts say, the AI is vulnerable to mistakes.

“It can be difficult for a layperson to understand when AI is doing good work and when it is hallucinating or giving something that isn’t quite accurate,” said Shachar, of Harvard Law School.

For example, an AI tool might draft an appeals letter that a patient thinks looks impressive. But because most patients aren’t medical experts, they may not recognize if the AI misstates medical information, derailing an appeal, she said.

“The challenge is, if the patient is the one driving the process, are they going to be able to properly supervise the AI?” she said.

Earlier this year, Mathew Evins learned just 48 hours before his scheduled back surgery that his insurer wouldn’t cover it. Evins, a 68-year-old public relations executive who lives in Florida, worked with his physician to appeal, but got nowhere. He used an AI chatbot to draft a letter to his insurer, but that failed, too.

On his son’s recommendation, Evins turned to Sheer Health. He said Sheer identified a coding error in his medical records and handled communications with his insurer. The surgery was approved about three weeks later.

“It’s unfortunate that the public health system is so broken that it needs a third party to intervene on the patient’s behalf,” Evins told Stateline. But he’s grateful the technology made it possible to get life-changing surgery.

“AI in and of itself isn’t an answer,” he said. “AI, when used by a professional that understands the issues and ramifications of a particular problem, that’s a different story. Then you’ve got an effective tool.”

Most experts and lawmakers agree a human is needed to keep the robots in check.

AI has made it possible for insurance companies to rapidly assess cases and make decisions about whether to authorize surgeries or cover certain medical care. But that ability to make lightning-fast determinations should be tempered with a human, Venkat said.

“It’s why we need government regulation and why we need to make sure we mandate an individualized assessment with a human decisionmaker.”

Witten said there are situations in which AI works well, such as when it sifts through an insurance policy — which is essentially a contract between the company and the consumer — and connects the dots between the policy’s coverage and a corresponding insurance claim.

But, he said, “there are complicated cases out there AI just can’t resolve.” That’s when a human is needed to review.

“I think there’s a huge opportunity for AI to improve the patient experience and overall provider experience,” Witten said. “Where I worry is when you have insurance companies or other players using AI to completely replace customer support and human interaction.”

Furthermore, a growing body of research has found AI can reinforce bias that’s found elsewhere in medicine, discriminating against women, ethnic and racial minorities, and those with public insurance.

“The conclusions from artificial intelligence can reinforce discriminatory patterns and violate privacy in ways that we have already legislated against,” Venkat said.

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org.

Federal regulations around mifepristone, which has provided abortion access across the United States, are being challenged in multiple lawsuits from opposing directions. (Getty Images)

Despite its strong safety record, the abortion and miscarriage drug mifepristone has been taken to court in several conflicting lawsuits, where some plaintiffs argue the drug should be easier to access, and others say it should be more restricted. 

The medication, sometimes prescribed through telehealth and sent to patients by mail, has provided abortion access across the United States and become a prime target for abortion opponents. 

A group of ongoing federal lawsuits challenges the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s 2023 decision to maintain special requirements for the abortion pill, with a federal court in Washington upholding the FDA’s decision, a federal court in Hawaii asking the FDA to justify its decision, and a court in Virginia still to rule. Yet another lawsuit, filed Nov. 13 by the American Civil Liberties Union, challenges the FDA under the Freedom of Information Act, alleging the agency has, without giving a reason, refused to disclose the parameters of its mifepristone review and related communications with outside groups. 

For more information and updates on pending mifepristone cases, visit the Mifepristone Litigation and Federal Action Tracker from the Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Heidi Purcell et al. v. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. et al.

• Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii
• Claims: Originally named Chelius v. Wright and filed Oct. 3, 2017, by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a family doctor and several medical associations, this lawsuit challenges the FDA’s mifepristone restrictions as unduly burdensome and arbitrarily restrictive, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Stakes: This case could determine whether the FDA can continue requiring special certifications for patients and providers, which plaintiffs argue deter and delay care, and present privacy risks for patients and providers post-Roe. If plaintiffs succeed, mifepristone could become easier to dispense and access throughout the country.
• Status: On Oct. 30, Judge Jill Otake, nominated by Republican President Donald Trump, ruled the FDA did not properly justify its 2023 decision or consider all of the evidence when it decided to maintain current restrictions on mifepristone. She ordered the agency to reconsider its decision. Plaintiffs did not seek to vacate the regulations in its lawsuit, so for now they remain in place pending the outcome of the FDA’s review and response to the court. A joint status report from plaintiffs and defendants on how the case should proceed is due Dec. 4.

Whole Woman’s Health Alliance et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al. 

• Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia
• Claims: On May 8, 2023, abortion providers in Virginia, Montana, and Kansas challenged the FDA’s mifepristone rules as unduly burdensome and arbitrarily restrictive, similar to the claims in Purcell v. Kennedy.
• Stakes: If plaintiffs succeed in this case, mifepristone could become easier to dispense and access.
• Status: U.S. District Judge Robert S. Ballou, nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, heard oral arguments on the motions for summary judgment in May but has not yet issued a decision.

Washington et al. v. FDA et al.

• Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
• Claims: On Feb. 23, 2023, Washington and initially 11 other states challenged the FDA’s mifepristone regulations as burdensome and unnecessary.
• Stakes: Expanding mifepristone access was on the line in this case.
• Status: Terminated. Judge Thomas O. Rice, nominated by former Democratic President Barack Obama, ruled this summer that the FDA’s review and decision regarding the mifepristone restrictions was reasonable, not arbitrary or capricious.  

American Civil Liberties Union v. FDA

• Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
• Claims: On Nov. 13, 2025, the ACLU sued the FDA arguing it has not complied with the Freedom of Information Act. The nonprofit law firm in August sought  expedited records around the parameters of the FDA’s ongoing review of mifepristone and communications with outside groups. The ACLU alleges the agency has failed to provide a determination regarding the request.
• Stakes: Records released as part of this lawsuit could bring transparency to HHS’ review of the abortion pill.
• Status: The government has not yet filed a brief in response to the lawsuit, which has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Sullivan. 

 

Another group of lawsuits challenge state abortion pill restrictions, arguing that federal law, which allows medication abortions to be prescribed via telehealth and by the mail up to 10 weeks’ gestation, supersedes state laws.

GenBioPro v. Kristina Raynes et al.

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (on appeal from U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia)
• Claims: In 2023, mifepristone generic manufacturer GenBioPro sued West Virginia after the state criminalized abortion and explicitly banned prescription of mifepristone by telemedicine. The company argued federal law preempts West Virginia law and that Congress authorized only the FDA to impose restrictions on access to mifepristone.
• Stakes: A ruling in plaintiffs’ favor could have made abortion drugs easier to access in a state that has cut off access to pregnancy termination in most circumstances.
• Status: Terminated. District court Judge Robert C. Chambers, nominated by former Democratic President Bill Clinton, found in 2023 that the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act did not preempt West Virginia’s abortion regulation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision in July. 

Amy Bryant v. Timothy Moore et al.

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (on appeal from U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina)
• Claims: In 2023, North Carolina Dr. Amy Bryant sued her state over medication abortion restrictions, arguing the FDA’s mifepristone policy preempts state restrictions, which require in-person prescribing, dispensing and administering; prohibit providers other than physicians from prescribing mifepristone; mandate the scheduling of an in-person follow-up appointment; and require non-fatal adverse events reported to the FDA.
• Stakes: The case could limit states’ ability to restrict medication abortion.
• Status: Chief Judge Catherine C. Eagles, nominated by Obama, found that some restrictions were preempted by federal law but upheld other state requirements, including mandatory ultrasounds and waiting periods. The case is pending appeal.

Birthmark Doula Collective et al. v. Louisiana et al. 

• Court: Louisiana’s 19th Judicial District Court
• Claims: On Oct. 31, 2024, birth workers, medical professionals and a pregnant woman challenged a Louisiana law that classifies mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled dangerous substances, even though the FDA does not. They argue the classification delays access to these medications during emergencies, risking the health and safety of patients experiencing miscarriages.
• Stakes: Drugs used for emergencies during pregnancy could become easier for providers to access if plaintiffs prevail.
• Status: Pending in state trial court. In May, the court held a hearing on a motion to dismiss and ruled the challenge can proceed.

 

Another group of lawsuits seek to reimpose more restrictions on mifepristone and argue the FDA erred in its decision to allow abortion medication prescribed through telehealth and sent through the mail. Both cases cite anecdotes of women being coerced or drugged by partners to argue in-person visits are in the best interest of abortion patients. 

Missouri et al. v. FDA et al.

• Court: U.S. District Court of Eastern District of Missouri
• Claims: Originally filed Nov. 18, 2022 by a group of anti-abortion doctors and groups that claimed that mifepristone is highly dangerous and the FDA unlawfully loosened restrictions. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the case last summer, determining plaintiffs did not have standing to sue and remanded it to lower courts.
• Stakes: If plaintiffs prevail, the FDA could bar telehealth and mail delivery of medication abortion, which would curtail access throughout the country.
• Status: The lawsuit was resurrected by attorneys general in Idaho, Kansas and Missouri. It was transferred last month from Trump appointee Matthew Kascmaryk’s court in Texas to Trump appointee Cristian Stevens’ court in Missouri. 

Louisiana et al. v. FDA et al.

• Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Lafayette Division
• Claims: Filed Oct. 6, 2025, the state of Louisiana and resident Rosalie Markezich are suing to vacate the FDA’s 2023 decision to remove the in-person dispensing requirement. Markezich says she was coerced by a former partner to take the abortion pill, which she says he ordered in her name and received by mail.
• Stakes: If plaintiffs prevail, the FDA could bar telehealth and mail delivery for abortion medication, which could curtail access throughout the country.
• Status: The case is pending in district court before Trump appointee Judge David C. Joseph.

Read more about the FDA’s high-stakes abortion pill safety review.

Tomorrow, a look at efforts to both reinforce and crack shield laws across the country.

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., shown here in September, cited a white paper funded and self-published without peer review by anti-abortion groups as grounds for federal scrutiny of a key abortion medication’s safety. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is facing increasing pressure from abortion opponents and advocates over how it regulates a drug that has become central to abortion access since Roe v. Wade was overturned three years ago.

Abortion medication manufacturers, health care providers and state attorneys general have continued to petition and sue the agency to loosen regulations for mifepristone, a key abortion drug. At the same time, anti-abortion policy leaders have successfully lobbied the Trump administration — on the basis of a self-published white paper funded by anti-abortion groups — to review mifepristone’s safety again and consider reviving old restrictions.

On Thursday, Nov. 13, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the FDA under a federal public records law for refusing to disclose the parameters of its new review, as well as communications with outside groups. 

Abortion opponents have called on the FDA to ban telehealth abortion, which has allowed abortion rates to rise slightly nationally despite state bans. A shift in mifepristone regulation could dramatically change abortion access throughout the country, and health advocates and litigators on both sides of this dispute are closely watching how the agency justifies any changes. 

Abortion-rights advocates have also seized on a recent federal ruling from a Trump-appointed judge, which orders the FDA to justify its 2023 decision to maintain restrictions on the abortion pill and argues the agency excluded from its review, without explanation, a wealth of research and evidence that it previously accepted.

Reproductive health legal experts say the action could prevent the anti-abortion white paper from being the main thing the agency considers before modifying its policy. 

“This is where the debate, both in the courts and the FDA, is taking place, around how it is considering evidence, making sure it is reviewing valid evidence and not junk evidence, and getting really reasoned explanations based in that evidence, as opposed to politics or ideology,” said Diana Kasdan, the legal and policy director for the Center on Reproductive Health, Law, and Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. 

Where reproductive health legal experts say the abortion pill has been over-regulated for a drug with a high safety record, anti-abortion attorneys, like senior counsel Erik Baptist of the Christian-right powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom, have been arguing that the drug’s risks are exacerbated by its increased availability. The law firm, which was integral to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, is also representing a Louisiana woman in an abortion medication lawsuit against the FDA. 

“The FDA’s actions have created an even more unsafe environment for women,” Baptist said. 
“We expect the Trump administration to zealously appeal this dangerous decision.”

‘It’s the same data set, essentially’

Putting pressure on FDA’s review team are national anti-abortion policy groups like Americans United for Life, one of several groups that criticized the agency for approving a new generic version of mifepristone this fall. The group is part of a coalition that helped produce and, at the end of April, publicize the white paper on mifepristone’s safety, which U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. soon after cited as the basis for ordering a new review of the drug. 

The Ethics and Public Policy Center’s self-published paper analyzed a commercially available data set of all-payer health insurance claims from 2017 through 2023 and found an 11% rate of severe adverse events — 22 times higher than the less than 0.5% rate that’s on the label for mifepristone. Reproductive health researchers have criticized the paper’s broad classification of serious adverse events while noting it also reports low rates of the most serious side effects associated with medication abortion, like sepsis (0.1%), transfusion (0.15%), and hospitalization related to the abortion (0.66%). Meanwhile more than 100 peer-reviewed studies have found low rates of serious adverse effects, including for abortion medication provided through telehealth.

The paper, which has also been cited by lawmakers like U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, did not go through a scientific peer review, and the Ethics and Public Policy Center would not disclose the exact data set used. Spokesperson Hunter Estes previously told States Newsroom the group was not legally permitted to provide the data set but that the paper’s description of it should be enough to replicate the study.  

Americans United for Life CEO John Mize said he hopes to see the paper peer-reviewed in the near future. But he said the coalition has for now achieved its goal of convincing the FDA to look at the same insurance claims data set analyzed by the Ethics and Public Policy Center and then do its own analysis.

“What we’ve been told is the FDA is doing their own internal analysis of the EPPC data,” Mize said. “It’s to be seen what the FDA does with methodology. That’s the important component, because the data is the data. It’s the same data set, essentially.”

HHS did not respond to questions about its ongoing mifepristone review or the federal judge’s recent order to review all of the safety data, instead directing States Newsroom to an Oct. 2 post on X from Kennedy defending both the FDA’s review of mifepristone and its approval of a second generic version. 

“Recent studies already point to serious risks when mifepristone is used without proper medical oversight,” Kennedy posted. “@US_FDA only approved a second generic mifepristone tablet because federal law requires approval when an application proves the generic is identical to the brand-name drug.”

But if the FDA’s review ultimately draws different scientific conclusions than the anti-abortion movement, Mize said his side won’t stop pursuing challenges to the drug. 

“If it comes out that it’s not nearly as dangerous as what EPPC is reporting, and the data appears to be quality and not skewed by politics, then personally, I might take a different perspective,” Mize said. “But I am still fairly confident that a drug that induces abortion at home without clinical oversight is probably something that needs a little bit more scrutiny. … We might continue to fine tune methodology and look at pursuing other avenues of peer review.”

Politicized science 

Anti-abortion policy and legal advocates have been lobbying for tighter restrictions on mifepristone since the drug was first approved in 2000, and especially since the FDA started dropping restrictions, such as allowing the regimen to be used until 10 weeks’ gestation instead of seven in 2016. After Roe v. Wade was overturned, the FDA under President Joe Biden’s administration permanently dropped the in-person dispensing requirement, allowing people to obtain the abortion pill via telehealth and through the mail. 

But the FDA maintained other regulations, as part of the drug’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, such as requiring prescribers, pharmacists and patients to sign forms agreeing to meet certain qualifications and acknowledging the drug’s common side effects, like heavy bleeding and nausea, and potential severe risks, like infection. Abortion providers have argued that some of the rules are unnecessary and burdensome.

Of the more than 20,000 prescription drug products approved by the FDA, less than 100 have REMS, and many of those are injectables with serious side effects like coma and death. In a quarter century, the FDA has reported 36 deaths associated with, but not necessarily caused by, mifepristone.

U.S. District Judge Jill Otake on Oct. 30 ordered the FDA to review all the relevant safety data on mifepristone, ruling that the agency erred years ago when it failed to justify maintaining strict rules on the drug despite a strong safety record after 25 years on the market. One week later, the U.S. Senate Democratic Caucus sent a letter to Kennedy and FDA Commissioner Martin Makary demanding the ongoing mifepristone review be based on science and evidence. 

“That court order reinforces that, in conducting this new review, FDA may not cherry-pick junk science serving an anti-abortion agenda, but must instead look at the full body of evidence both confirming mifepristone’s safety and underscoring the harms of the FDA’s onerous restrictions,” reads the letter obtained by NOTUS. The senators ask HHS to respond by Nov. 28, to questions about the evidence being considered and the methodology.

Anti-abortion research groups also produced new studies for their first legal attempt to reinstate restrictions on mifepristone in a lawsuit filed in 2022. The plaintiffs persuaded a Trump-appointed district court judge to order the FDA to change its policy on the basis of studies funded by the anti-abortion movement that were later retracted by the journal’s publisher because of their methodology. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the case, not on the merits but because plaintiffs did not have proper standing. The high court is expected to consider similar questions again, as at least seven mifepristone-focused lawsuits work their way through the lower courts.

University of Pittsburgh law professor Greer Donley said that to meet the FDA’s policy on approving new drug regulations, the agency will need more than one or two outlier studies as justification. 

“To survive arbitrary and capricious review, they have to provide a reasoned decision that’s based on the facts, and if the facts taken as a whole suggest that this is a safe and effective drug, even though there’s one new paper out there that suggests it’s maybe a little less safe than it was before, they’re going to have to justify why that one paper outweighs the 50 papers on the other side that were published in peer-reviewed journals,” Donley said. “I don’t know how they could explain that.”

Donley has studied mifepristone regulation closely and said she watched the science around the medication become increasingly politicized, much more than other drugs. While controversial medicine, like gender-affirming care, involve drugs with multiple purposes, mifepristone was approved for the explicit purpose of ending a pregnancy. 

The FDA’s medication abortion regimen involves another drug, misoprostol, which was approved to treat ulcers, and is used off-label for abortions and miscarriages. It has not faced the same scrutiny as mifepristone. Abortion providers have said they would likely pivot to a misoprostol-only regimen if mifepristone were to become much harder to access, which it has even for miscarriages in states that have banned abortion entirely, like Kentucky and Louisiana.

Mifepristone manufacturer Danco Laboratories last year confirmed ongoing efforts to add miscarriage management as an approved use to its drug label. Were that to happen, it could be a game changer for access, Greer said.  

“It actually would be a pretty huge deal if they added it,” she said. “Because all of these attacks against mifepristone for abortion, even if they succeed, then mifepristone would theoretically remain on the market for miscarriage care, and then it could be used off-label for abortion.”

Read the latest on legal cases over mifepristone winding their way through the courts. 

Tomorrow, a look at efforts to both reinforce and crack shield laws across the country.

Don't look at the gas plant behind the curtain! If you feel like tech companies and energy utilities are gaslighting you with their assurances that AI data centers won't hurt our environment, you're probably right.

In this episode, how AI is causing a fossil fuel boom in Wisconsin and the lawsuit just filed to try and stop it.

💾

Kia has unveiled a new concept at the ongoing Guangzhou Auto Show in China, one that hints at a production model on the horizon. Named the EV5 Weekender, it presents a tougher, outdoors-ready take on the compact electric SUV.

The EV5 is the fourth Kia to wear the Weekender badge, following in the tracks of the EV9, PV5, and Tasman. Each model in the series interprets an outdoor-oriented trim with its own distinct approach.

Review: Here’s Why The Kia EV5 Makes More Sense Than A Model Y

While none of the Weekender concepts have yet transitioned to production, that could change as buyers increasingly look for rugged, lifestyle-oriented versions of these models.

Outdoor Intentions

The concept was developed by the Kia China Style Design Team. From the outside, the main changes are immediately clear. It sits higher on larger wheels wrapped in all-terrain tires, while the lifted suspension gives it noticeably greater ground clearance and a more confident stance.

The SUV wears a matte beige finish accented with lime green details, a color scheme that has become a signature for the Weekender range. It also features a redesigned bodykit with wider fender extensions, new skid plates, chunkier side skirts, a hood insert, and a large roof rack.

Kia even added dedicated mounts on one side of the vehicle for attaching extra equipment, in a similar vein to the Land Rover Defender.

Practical Changes Inside

The interior has been reworked more extensively than expected for a concept based on an existing production SUV. The wide display now stretches in front of the passenger and is paired with a slim digital instrument cluster.

More: New Kia Telluride Drops V6 For Turbo And Hybrid Fours

Other updates include a new steering wheel, a revised center console, reshaped climate vents, and fresh upholstery with modern colors and a 3D texture.

The cabin is filled with practical touches reminiscent of Dacia’s YouClip system, including cup holders and storage compartments mounted along the sides of the cargo area, as well as extra rails on the roof liner for securing gear.

What’s Beneath It

Kia hasn’t disclosed the technical specifications of the concept, so it’s unclear whether it differs mechanically from the production EV5 beyond its upgraded suspension setup.

The EV5 rides on the E-GMP architecture and is available in FWD and AWD forms with different battery options depending on the region. A GT variant has been confirmed for production, promising a more potent powertrain and sportier handling.

It wouldn’t be surprising if the production EV5 lineup eventually adds a toned-down version of the Weekender concept for buyers who enjoy camping or off-road trips. Kia has a habit of turning its concepts into real models, and this one looks ready to follow the same path.

Germany’s car-check watchdog has crunched the reliability numbers and once again, Tesla finds itself parked at the very bottom of the heap. The 2026 TÜV-Report, covering annual roadworthiness inspections of approximately 9.5 million vehicles between July 2024 and June 2025, found that Tesla EVs occupied the two bottom spots in the league table.

The Model 3, which was the worst-ranked car for the two previous years was found to have a defect rate of 13.1 percent, meaning one in every 7.6 cars in the two-to-three-year-old ages group failed the Hauptuntersuchung safety check.

Why Is The Model Y So Troubled?

But the Model Y was even worse. It had a defect rate of 17.3 percent, versus 3.5 percent for a Mini Cooper SE, making it the worst TÜV has seen in this age group in a decade. The biggest defect culprits were the axle assembly, suspension, brakes and lighting.

Related: Tesla Is Now The World’s Most Avoided EV Brand And It’s Probably Musk’s Fault

Pulling back to look at the bigger picture covering cars of all ages reveals that 21.5 percent, or one in five cars failed the inspection due to a “significant” or “dangerous” defect, an increase of 0.9 percent on last year, ADAC reported. And the proportion with minor defects rose 0.8 percent to 12.3 percent.

Other reliability villains include the BMW 5-series and 6-series in both the 4-5-year-old and 8-9-year-old age groups, the Dacia Duster in the 6-7 and 10-11 age groups and the Renault Clio among 12-13-year-old cars.

Electric Cars Defect Rate, 2-3 Years Old

Pop the Champagne for VW

But with every list of losers there has to be a list of winners, and for cars that have passed their fourth birthday, this one is headed by Volkswagen.

The VW Golf wagon and T-Roc scored well in the 4-7-year-old categories and the automaker’s Touareg was top of the oldies. The Mazda CX-3 and Mercedes B-Class were also commended.

Looking at the 2-3-year-old group, Fiat’s 500e toped the small car category, proving to Tesla that EVs can be reliable, the Mazda 2 and BMW 1-series were the top-rated small car and compact, and the C-class took the mid-range award (if you’re reading from the US, those classifications will look kinda messed up).

The T-Roc popped up again to take best SUV, and the B-class bagged most reliable nearly-new minivan.

Rate of Serious Inspection Defects

One big change in this year’s study is the introduction of an award for long-term quality, handed out to brands whose vehicles, aged 10+ exhibit the lowest average defect rate for safety-related faults and stand for quality, durability, and good service.

Mercedes took gold with an 18.5 percent defect rate – almost matching that of a 2-3-year-old Model Y – Audi was second with 19.2 percent and Toyota snuck onto the podium’s last step with a 22 percent defect rate.

Winners By Segment, 2-3 Years Old

Winners In Other Age Groups

 [By Matt Reisener]Since October 2023, the Houthis, a Yemeni rebel group that seized control over much of the country over a decade ago, have waged a...

 Last week, passengers aboard the cruise ship Carnival Dream reported that one of the vessel's lifeboats broke away from its davit and fell into the w...

 The controversy that has surrounded the procurement of two interisland ferries in New Zealand appears to have come to an end after the government ann...

 The chief officer of a foreign-flagged livestock carrier has been charged in connection with an attempt to smuggle at least half a tonne of cocaine i...

 Amidst signs and rumors of pending escalation in the Trump administration's pressure campaign on Venezuela, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan C...

 Plans by the New Zealand government to terminate the services of a dedicated tugboat that has been aiding vessels - including aging interisland ferri...

 More than $400 million is being invested in the Royal Navy’s first ever laser weapon after it downed high-velocity drones in the latest trials.The su...

 In October, the Maritime Executive summarized what was then known about a purge amongst the senior ranks of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Nine...

 Illegal immigrants continue to make passage across the 25-mile-wide English Channel to claim asylum in the United Kingdom.In recent months, the numbe...

 Cambodia has another maritime border issue.Tensions are rising between Thailand and Cambodia, the inheritance of a poorly drawn map dating back to Fr...

 While?????????? the maritime community is remembering the 50th anniversary of the Edmund Fitzgerald, I have been wondering why shipwrecks still have...

Ultra-processed foods are rapidly becoming a global dietary staple, and new research links them to worsening health outcomes around the world. Scientists say only bold, coordinated policy action can counter corporate influence and shift food systems toward healthier options.

Researchers have uncovered a surprising new role for the HSL protein: beyond breaking down fat, it also works inside the nucleus of fat cells to keep them functioning properly. When HSL is missing, fat tissue doesn’t expand as expected— instead, it shrinks, leading to lipodystrophy. This unexpected discovery helps explain why both obesity and fat-loss disorders share similar health risks, and it opens up fresh paths for understanding metabolic diseases at a time when obesity affects billions worldwide.

A Swedish plano-convex ingot once thought to be from the Bronze Age was revealed through chemical and isotopic testing to belong to the Iron Age. Its composition closely matches Iron Age finds from Poland, leading researchers to uncover new evidence of long-distance connections across the Baltic. The study highlights how collaboration and scientific analysis can transform isolated artifacts into clues about ancient trade and networking.