Abortion-rights advocate Kristin Hady helps a car navigate past protesters toward  A Preferred Women’s Health Center of Atlanta in Forest Park, Georgia, in August 2023. Independent clinics are facing fresh challenges, and at least 23 more closed this year, bringing the total to 100 since the Dobbs decision. (Photo by Ross Williams/Georgia Recorder) 

When Wisconsin Planned Parenthood clinics temporarily paused abortion services in October because of a new law halting federal Medicaid reimbursements, patients turned to the state’s two independent clinics for care. 

Demand at Affiliated Medical Services in Milwaukee quadrupled, according to clinic director Dabbie Phonekeo. 

“It happened all of a sudden. We were all scrambling to figure out what we needed to do and how we were going to accept all patients,” Phonekeo said. 

The staff secured additional funding to meet need before Wisconsin’s Planned Parenthood clinics resumed abortions, adapting under a law that bans certain reproductive health care providers from receiving federal funding until July 2026. 

“This was a reminder of why it’s so important to have independent clinics and abortion access overall,” Phonekeo said. 

At least 23 independent clinics have closed this year, according to a report released Tuesday by Abortion Care Network, compared with 12 last year.

Most were in states with abortion-rights protections, the report found. 

Independent providers face less recognition than Planned Parenthood and ongoing barriers to funding. Donations to abortion clinics and funds have waned, leading to more out-of-pocket costs for patients, States Newsroom reported last year.  

Independent clinics provide 58% of all abortions nationwide, while Planned Parenthood provides 38%, hospitals 3%, and 1% occur at physicians’ offices, according to the latest Abortion Care Network findings. 

Medication abortion, allowed during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, has been a focus of abortion-rights advocates and opponents this year. But independent clinics are more likely to offer legal procedural abortions after that. 

More than 60% of all U.S. clinics that offer abortion care after the first trimester are independent, 85% that provide abortion at 22 weeks or later are independent, and all clinics that perform the procedure after 26 weeks are independent, according to the report. 

“While both medication and in-clinic abortion are safe and effective, people may need or prefer one method over another,” the report states. “This is especially true for patients for whom it’s not safe or feasible to terminate outside the clinic — including those experiencing intimate partner violence, minors without support at home, people experiencing homelessness, and patients who cannot take time off from work or caretaking.” 

The latest clinic closures come more than three years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision forced many to cease operations: 100 independent clinics closed between 2022 and 2025. 

Affiliated Medical Services in Wisconsin is one of the few independent abortion providers that was able to reopen after closing the day the nation’s highest court overturned federal abortion rights on June 24, 2022. 

The clinic reopened in March 2024 a few months after a Wisconsin judge ruled that a 19th century abortion ban was invalid, Wisconsin Examiner reported. 

Phonekeo said people were initially hesitant to book appointments at the clinic. 

“Most of our patients that we saw had asked, ‘Is this legal? Am I going to go to jail if I have an abortion today? Can we do this in Wisconsin?’ So I think a lot of patients were still afraid to be seen,” she said. 

Independent clinics could become even more significant to reproductive health care access if lawmakers permanently bar Planned Parenthood from receiving federal resources.  

Some anti-abortion groups have urged the Trump administration to disqualify Planned Parenthood as a federal vendor, States Newsroom reported in November. 

Nearly 50 Planned Parenthood clinics closed this year due to federal health officials’ cuts to Title X and Medicaid. At least 20 closed since a federal “defunding” provision that halts Medicaid funds for reproductive health care providers that offer abortion and received more than $800,000 in fiscal year 2023 took effect, according to a tally released on Nov. 12 by the national organization. 

Some of the clinics that closed did not offer abortion. And under the law, federal funding only covers abortions in extreme circumstances, so the Medicaid reimbursement ban primarily affects patients who go to Planned Parenthood for other services, like birth control, cervical cancer screening and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. 

Some independent clinics offer non-abortion care, too, but many don’t accept Medicaid, clinic directors said at a Wednesday news briefing. 

Amber Gavin is the vice president of advocacy of operations at A Woman’s Choice, an organization that has three clinics in North Carolina and one each in Florida and Virginia. She said staff members at the Charlotte location have seen an uptick in patients seeking STI testing and related services. 

Karishma Oza, chief of staff at DuPont Clinic in Washington, D.C., also said providers there have seen an increase in patients who are uninsured or underinsured since the Medicaid ban, which mostly affects Planned Parenthood, took effect. 

Phonekeo said the Wisconsin clinic hasn’t dealt with more demand for reproductive health care services beyond abortion. Still, Affiliated Medical Services offers birth control pills, IUDs, STI testing and treatment, miscarriage care and even follow-up care for medication abortion provided through online-only clinics such as Hey Jane. 

While all three clinic leaders said they don’t accept Medicaid, they offer sliding-scale payments for people who cannot afford the full cost of care. 

“We’re more than just abortion providers,” Phonekeo said. 

Dr. Martin Makary testifies during his confirmation hearing to lead the Food and Drug Administration before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee at the Dirksen Senate Office Building on March 06, 2025 in Washington, DC.  (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Two of the country’s largest anti-abortion organizations want President Donald Trump to fire U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary over access to medication abortion. 

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, expressed frustration Tuesday that the FDA hasn’t completed a review of the prescription drug mifepristone.

“The FDA needs a new commissioner who will immediately reinstate in-person dispensing as it existed under President Trump’s first term and immediately conduct a comprehensive study,” she wrote in a statement. “Commissioner Makary is severely undermining President Trump and Vice President Vance’s pro-life credentials and their position that states should have the right to enact and enforce pro-life protections. Makary must go.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, which houses the FDA, wrote in a statement that “FDA’s comprehensive scientific reviews take the time necessary to get the science right, and that is what Dr. Makary is ensuring as part of the Department’s commitment to gold-standard science and evidence-based reviews.”

White House spokesman Kush Desai wrote in an email to States Newsroom that “Makary is working diligently to ensure that Americans have the best possible, Gold Standard Science study of mifepristone.”

“The White House maintains the utmost confidence in Commissioner Makary, whose leadership at the FDA has delivered and continues to deliver one landmark victory for the American people after another, from cracking down on artificial ingredients in our food supply to conducting the first safety review of baby formula in decades,” Desai added. “Uninformed attacks against Commissioner Makary from individuals outside the Administration will not change these facts.”

FDA approval 

Mifepristone is one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion. It is FDA-approved for up to 10 weeks gestation and can be prescribed via telehealth and shipped to patients remotely. 

About 63% of the abortions in 2023 were medication, as opposed to procedural, according to the Guttmacher Institute. 

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an attempt by anti-abortion medical organizations to overturn the FDA’s current prescribing guidelines for mifepristone in 2024. 

Numerous medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association, filed briefs to the justices in that case attesting to the safety and efficacy of medication abortion. 

“The scientific evidence is overwhelming: major adverse events occur in less than 0.32% of patients,” the groups wrote. “The risk of death is almost non-existent.”

‘No preconceived plans’

Makary testified before a Senate committee in March as part of his confirmation process that he planned to review data on mifepristone and follow the research where it led him.

“I have no preconceived plans on mifepristone policy except to take a solid, hard look at the data and to meet with the professional career scientists who have reviewed the data at the FDA,” Makary said at the time.

Lila Rose, founder of the anti-abortion group Live Action, also called for Makary to be fired, writing in a social media post that his request to delay the results of the review until after the November 2026 midterm elections, which was reported by Bloomberg Law, was unacceptable. 

“If Dr Makary will not act as head of the FDA to protect children and mothers he should be fired,” Rose wrote, later adding the administration should, “Ban the abortion pill now!”

Americans United for Life CEO John Mize released a statement after meeting with Makary, saying it “is glaringly obvious that flawed political calculations” have stalled the FDA’s review of mifepristone. 

“To avoid political backlash in the upcoming midterm elections, advisors within the Administration are acting on a false premise, that emphasizing the importance of women’s safety and direct in-person consultation with her clinician is a political liability,” Mize wrote. 

Getty Images

As a practicing OB-GYN in Wisconsin, I see firsthand how many of my patients rely on contraception to protect their health, manage painful conditions, and plan their futures. When a woman sits across from me in the exam room, she’s not thinking about politics. She’s thinking about how to survive her work day without severe cramps, how to manage her bleeding so she can attend class without mishap, or how to avoid threatening her life with another high-risk pregnancy. 

These situations are only a few of the reasons why the news about abandoned U.S.–funded contraceptives overseas is so alarming. This action blatantly reflects the same disregard for women’s health that now shapes national policy. And that disregard lands directly on women’s bodies. 

Under the Trump administration, the U.S. government ordered the destruction of nearly $10 million worth of U.S.–funded contraceptives, based on the false claim that birth control is an “abortifacient.” This claim is absolutely nonsensical. Contraception doesn’t end a pregnancy — it prevents one. Unfortunately, ideology, and not medicine, guided that decision, leaving lifesaving, taxpayer‑funded medicine stalled in warehouses instead of reaching women who need it. 

The full picture is even more disturbing. Several days ago, a new report found that the Trump administration left 20 of 24 U.S.–funded contraceptive shipments to waste away in Belgian warehouses. These were fully paid-for, taxpayer-funded supplies — IUDs, implants, pills, and other reproductive health essentials — intended for women in 13 countries. This is simply appalling. 

And if you think that kind of extremism stops at the water’s edge, think again. 

Back home, I see the fallout of the same ideology driving national attacks on contraception and women. 

Already, there are over 300,000 women of reproductive age in Wisconsin in need of contraception, and attacks are making this gap even worse. 

And these gaps carry real health risks, because contraception does more than prevent pregnancy — it treats endometriosis, PCOS, severe bleeding and anemia, and it reduces the risk of reproductive cancers. 

Rural clinics that once offered contraception and family-planning visits have declined in number, a trend worsened by federal policy shifts that weaken the reproductive-health safety net and leave too many women without reliable nearby options for care.

And now, with health-insurance costs already skyrocketing for many families — and monthly bills set to jump even higher if those tax credits expire — the ACA’s no-cost contraception guarantee slips further out of reach. Road block after road block after road block. 

Fortunately, Wisconsin has leaders who understand the stakes. 

Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s leadership on the “Right to Contraception Act” reflects a truth every OB‑GYN knows: contraception saves lives. Contraception reduces maternal deaths, prevents unintended pregnancies, treats reproductive-health conditions, and empowers women to build stable lives. Baldwin fights to protect contraception — what Wisconsin women rely on every day — not because it’s politically convenient, but because she understands it’s a medical necessity. 

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan co-sponsored the “Saving Lives and Taxpayer Dollars Act” — legislation designed to stop exactly what we’re seeing in Belgium. The bill requires that U.S.–funded food and medical supplies – like the contraception sitting in Brussels at this moment – reach the people they were purchased for, instead of being left to rot or destroyed for ideological reasons. In Washington, where too many have decided contraception is a cultural wedge rather than essential health care, Pocan’s voice matters. 

The women I see in my exam room aren’t looking for a political fight. They’re looking for care that lets them stay healthy, stay safe, and stay in control of their lives — something contraception makes possible every day. 

Jeopardizing contraception — whether through wasteful negligence abroad or political interference here at home — is harmful, cruel and simply unjust. 

We in Wisconsin cannot afford to look the other way. We need leaders who will defend the right to contraception, not undermine it. 

The stakes are simple: either we protect access to basic health care, or we allow ideology to decide who gets care — and who doesn’t. 

For the women in my clinic — and for women everywhere — contraception is essential care that strengthens their health and safeguards their freedom.

A Biden-era protection for reproductive and gender affirming health care information was upended by a federal judge in Texas in June. Despite several lawsuits, key privacy rules for medical records remain, but some experts say they aren’t sufficient. (Photo by Dave Whitney / Getty Images)

The four lawsuits at the center of a Republican-led effort to ensure law enforcement can access reproductive health records are now mostly resolved, after attorneys for Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton agreed last week to dismiss the last remaining suit challenging the legality of a foundational health privacy rule.

Paxton filed the lawsuit in September 2024 arguing that Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration illegally created a rule under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act barring certain reproductive health care information from being disclosed if a procedure such as abortion was obtained in a state where it is legal.

The federal HIPAA law is meant to protect patient information generally, especially when that information travels between providers. It contains exceptions for information that can be disclosed to investigators, who can subpoena records from other states. 

Ashley Kurzweil, senior policy analyst for reproductive health and rights at the National Partnership for Women & Families, said the dual threat that Paxton’s lawsuit presented was alarming on a much wider scale than just reproductive health care, so it is a relief that the case is dismissed. Overturning key privacy protections from 2000 that formed the basis of the Biden-era rule could have thrown the entire health care system into chaos, she said.

“We are thrilled that the 2000 privacy rule is still in effect. It is hugely important that it is still in place,” Kurzweil said. “However, (it) provides insufficient safeguards for reproductive health care information when it comes to the broader landscape of increased criminalization risk that people are facing.”

The 2024 rule specifically relating to reproductive and gender-affirming health care information was nullified in June by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. His ruling came in a Texas-based case filed by a clinician in a small town who said the rule created a conflict with her responsibility to report child abuse, because she considers abortion and gender-affirming health care to be child abuse.

Without those 2024 protections, doctors can choose whether to report patients to law enforcement, Kurzeil said, and some might also be discouraged from offering reproductive health care altogether to minimize legal risks.  

States Newsroom reported more than 400 people were charged with pregnancy-related crimes in the two years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, according to data from the nonprofit Pregnancy Justice. 

One of those people was Brittany Watts, an Ohio woman who went to the hospital with miscarriage complications and waited for hours without receiving help. After miscarrying at home and returning to the hospital, staff called the police, accusing her of abuse of a corpse. A grand jury declined to indict her, and Watts is now suing the hospital. 

In nine of the 400 cases, pregnant people were accused of researching or attempting to obtain an abortion.

Advocacy group dropped effort to appeal Texas ruling

The case before Kacsmaryk is the only one of the four that resulted in a ruling. Although it was filed in the last few months of the Biden administration, the bulk of the case was litigated under Republican President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice.

Repealing the rule was a directive in Project 2025, the conservative blueprint published by the Heritage Foundation. Several prominent anti-abortion organizations were part of the panel that drafted Project 2025, and many of the people involved in writing the 900-page document now work for the Trump administration.

Democracy Forward, a nonprofit legal organization, represented Doctors for America and the cities of Columbus, Ohio, and Madison, Wisconsin, in an attempt to intervene in the case because they did not expect the government to defend the rule. If they were allowed to intervene, they could appeal Kacsmaryk’s opinion striking down the rule regardless of the Trump administration’s decision.

Their attempts were denied by Kacsmaryk, and while the organization did initially appeal that decision, the attorneys dropped the effort in September, saying in a court filing that “the resources of the parties and the courts would be best conserved by dismissing this appeal.”

In a statement to States Newsroom, a spokesperson for Democracy Forward said they will continue to pursue every tool available to defend reproductive rights from political interference and anti-abortion extremists.

The other two cases are in Missouri and Tennessee, where Republican attorneys general also challenged the 2024 reproductive health care-specific rule. The Missouri case was dismissed in September, because Kacsmaryk’s decision had a nationwide effect, and the Tennessee attorney general asked the court to dismiss their case for the same reason. The judge in that case has not yet granted the motion.

Shield laws help, but federal backstop would address more situations

Texas and Louisiana have recently launched investigations into out-of-state doctors who, through telehealth, prescribed and mailed abortion medication to patients in their states where abortion is outlawed.

Texas officials have repeatedly investigated and attempted to prosecute people for either leaving the state to seek abortion care or for prescribing abortion medication from a different state. At the end of October, a New York judge dismissed a civil case brought by Paxton seeking $100,000 in damages from a provider the AG said prescribed abortion pills to a woman in the Dallas area, according to The Texas Tribune. Officials in Louisiana attempted to extradite the same New York doctor on criminal charges related to an abortion medication prescription for a pregnant minor. That case was also rejected.

Those attempts were some of the first that tested shield laws implemented by 18 states, including New York. Four others have executive orders from Democratic governors saying they won’t comply with extradition requests for investigations into reproductive health care.

Texas has also passed a law allowing people to seek at least $100,000 in damages if someone they impregnated or someone they’re related to received abortion pills by mail from another state. That law took effect Thursday, Dec. 4.

Kurzweil said those shield laws are a vital help to patients seeking care, but the addition of a federal protective rule would be ideal.

“The two in tandem would be much more fulsome and would address gaps that come up,” she said.

A small memorial of flowers and an American flag outside the Farragut West Metro station in Washington, D.C., near where two members of the West Virginia National Guard were shot on Nov. 26. (Photo by Andrew Leyden/Getty Images)

The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia announced Friday it has charged the man who allegedly shot two National Guard members earlier this week with first-degree murder after one of the soldiers died as a result of her injuries. 

Other charges include three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence and two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed. 

The attack shocked the country and has led to a renewed discussion about immigration policy as well as the war in Afghanistan and how the country withdrew during the Biden administration. 

President Donald Trump announced late Thursday night he intends to “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries,” though he didn’t specify which countries would be included or exactly how such an order would be implemented. 

Trump wrote on social media he plans to “remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country, end all Federal benefits and subsidies to noncitizens of our Country, denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility, and deport any Foreign National who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western Civilization.”

The post came just hours after U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died from injuries she sustained during a Wednesday shooting a couple of blocks from the White House. The other victim, U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, remained hospitalized in critical condition. Both were West Virginia National Guard members.

The alleged shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, 29, an Afghan national who worked with United States forces, entered the country on Sept. 8, 2021, as part of Operation Allies Welcome, according to a statement from Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

No details of immigration proposals

The White House press office declined to say Friday which countries would have their residents barred from entering the United States under the new order, referring back to the president’s social media posts, which did not include a list.

“Only REVERSE MIGRATION can fully cure this situation,” Trump wrote. “Other than that, HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL, except those that hate, steal, murder, and destroy everything that America stands for — You won’t be here for long!”

Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a Thursday afternoon statement the administration would pause immigration applications for Afghan nationals.

“Effective immediately, processing of all immigration requests relating to Afghan nationals is stopped indefinitely pending further review of security and vetting protocols,” she wrote. 

The Trump administration will also review “all asylum cases approved under the Biden Administration,” McLaughlin said, saying those cases required more vetting. 

Biden Afghanistan policy blamed

In a separate post, Trump blamed former President Joe Biden for allowing the alleged shooter into the country. 

McLaughlin echoed that sentiment.

Lakanwal “was paroled in by the Biden Administration. After that, Biden signed into law that parole program, and then entered into the 2023 Ahmed Court Settlement, which bound (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) to adjudicate his asylum claim on an expedited basis. Regardless if his asylum was granted or not, this monster would not have been removed because of his parole.” 

The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, following two decades of war that began as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has been widely criticized.

Many of the Afghan nationals who aided the United States and allied countries were left behind as the Taliban quickly regained control. 

The nonprofit #AfghanEvac, formed in August 2021 to help resettle Afghan refugees, criticized the administration’s proposal to indefinitely halt the processing of immigration requests from Afghans.  

“Our allies are under attack today because of the actions of one deranged man. Those actions should not be ascribed to an entire community,” the organization posted on social media late Thursday.

In a lengthier statement issued Wednesday following the shooting of two National Guard members, the organization’s president, Shawn VanDiver, said #AfghanEvac “expects and fully supports the perpetrator facing full accountability and prosecution under the law.”

VanDiver continued: “AfghanEvac rejects any attempt to leverage this tragedy as a political ploy to isolate or harm Afghans who have resettled in the United States.”

Motive unknown

Lakanwal had been residing in Washington state and drove across the country before the shooting, according to Jeanine Pirro, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

Officials investigating the shooting have yet to release a possible motive.

Lakanwal was granted asylum in the U.S. in April, according to reporting by many media outlets, including NPR.

The Department of Homeland Security did not confirm for States Newsroom the date Lakanwal was granted asylum.

The Planned Parenthood clinic in New Orleans was open for over 40 years but stopped seeing patients at the end of September after federal Medicaid funding cuts. Abortion opponents are looking for more ways to pull funds from the organization, despite legal abortion care making up a small portion of the services affiliated health centers provide. (Photo by Greg LaRose/Louisiana Illuminator) 

Anti-abortion organizations and Republican elected officials are searching for more ways to prevent Planned Parenthood from receiving federal resources after congressional Republicans successfully cut off federal Medicaid funding until at least July 2026.

Letters written by activist organizations and Republican elected officials show stated goals of barring Planned Parenthood health centers from receiving federal money of any kind and pulling them from the 340B drug pricing program. With it, Title X-funded centers can receive significant discounts on prescription drugs, allowing the purchase of more medications and the ability to reach more patients.

Anti-abortion activists also expect proposals for further restrictions on Planned Parenthood’s access to Medicaid in health care legislation in early 2026.

In July, Republican members of the House and Senate passed a sweeping budget reconciliation bill that included a one-year provision barring clinics from receiving federal Medicaid reimbursement if they offer abortion services and billed Medicaid more than $800,000 in fiscal year 2023. The rule largely affects Planned Parenthood because of the high dollar amount, but some large independent clinics have also been affected.

Since then, more than 20 Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide have closed their doors, many of which did not provide abortion services. Others have laid off staff, including in Ohio. Maine Family Planning, the state’s largest reproductive health care provider, also offered primary care services at three of its 18 clinics but discontinued those services at the end of October because of the funding loss.

Katie Rodihan, director of state advocacy communications for Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement that those actions would make medication more expensive and take away access to birth control, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, and cancer screenings.

“These anti-abortion lawmakers are so hellbent on shutting down Planned Parenthood that they’re willing to sacrifice your health care,” Rodihan said. “No matter what attack anti-abortion groups and politicians launch, Planned Parenthood Action Fund will always be ready to fight back for patients.” 

Opposition to the organization receiving federal funding is rooted in a belief that its main purpose is to provide abortion care, when in fact abortion makes up about 4% of the services Planned Parenthood clinics provide nationwide, according to the most recent annual report. But anti-abortion groups and many Republican lawmakers object to federal dollars being associated with legal abortion care in any way, even if it’s not directly paying for the procedure except in limited circumstances under the law.

In late September, Oklahoma Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt sent a letter to the administrator of the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, asking that the agency revoke Planned Parenthood’s 340B drug pricing eligibility and reject any future requests for that designation. The letter is also signed by the Republican governors of Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Several Republican-led states, including Ohio and Indiana, have also recently tried to cut Planned Parenthood off of state Medicaid funding.  

“States across the country are acting to ensure taxpayer dollars are not used to fund or promote abortions, and in turn, these clinics are seeking roundabout ways to maintain their funding,” Stitt wrote. “Even if Planned Parenthood affiliates with pro-life laws refrain from using federal funds for abortion, the organization’s national infrastructure still benefits, enabling abortion expansion in states where abortion is legal … .”  

Instead, Stitt suggested that money be allocated to community health centers and rural hospitals.

The letter was sent five days before the government shutdown started on Oct. 1, and no action has been taken by the agency so far since reopening on Nov. 12.

Argument traces back to COVID loans

Students for Life of America, an anti-abortion group with more than 2,000 student chapters nationwide, is leading the effort to pressure Republican President Donald Trump and his administration to disqualify Planned Parenthood as a vendor with the federal government. Called “debarment,” the administrative process usually applies to vendors accused of wrongdoing — such as fraud, embezzlement, failure to perform or tax evasion — and is determined by  the U.S. General Services Administration.

A vendor who is debarred cannot receive federal money of any kind for a period of three years. There is also a lesser penalty of suspension, which lasts up to 12 months.

Kristi Hamrick, Students for Life’s vice president of media and policy, told States Newsroom that members started discussing the idea toward the end of Trump’s first term, but since it involves a long administrative process, there wasn’t enough time to pursue it before Democratic President Joe Biden took office.

Students for Life sent a letter to the U.S. Small Business Administration on Oct. 22, along with a letter to the president’s office signed by more than 50 other anti-abortion groups, encouraging them to start the process of debarment. There has not been a response from the small business agency so far, Hamrick said, but employees only returned to work recently following the 43-day shutdown.  

The letter to Trump is signed by other well-known anti-abortion organizations, including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Family Policy Alliance, Americans United for Life, Family Research Council and National Right to Life.

Along with allegations of financial fraud, the letter to the Small Business Administration accuses Planned Parenthood of a host of other violations, and mentions lawsuits filed against the organization led by Republican attorneys general in states like Missouri and Texas.   

Hamrick said the letter went to the agency because Republican U.S. Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Joni Ernst of Iowa wrote a letter of their own in March about alleged fraud committed by Planned Parenthood. They wrote that many of its affiliates — which are independent nonprofit organizations — applied for and received Paycheck Protection Program loans of about $120 million during the COVID pandemic.

The two senators said Planned Parenthood was not eligible for the loans because organizations with more than 500 employees were excluded. Planned Parenthood argued the national organization and the regional affiliates are separate — the affiliates applied individually — and guidance for the loans was later updated by the Biden administration to allow them. Most of the loans were forgiven.

Other entities were also accused of abusing the intent of the Paycheck Protection Program, including Catholic Charities USA, a humanitarian aid arm of the Catholic church with more than 3,000 employees. The Associated Press reported the organization and its member agencies received about 110 loans worth up to $220 million, which were forgiven.

Hamrick said Republicans in Congress should keep up their efforts to bar Planned Parenthood from Medicaid reimbursements, but there’s more that can be done.

“We won’t have to keep voting on whether or not Planned Parenthood can be funded in any one program, such as Medicaid, if they’re not eligible to be funded at all,” Hamrick said.

States still heavily affected by cuts

Hamrick said she hopes to see Republican lawmakers extend the Medicaid cuts for 10 years or more this time around, because this first round of cuts didn’t yield any “dire consequences.”

Dr. Chelsea Daniels, a member of the Committee to Protect Health Care’s Reproductive Freedom Task Force, disagrees. She moved out of Florida two months ago, where she worked in Miami for Planned Parenthood of Florida, and where she tried to help pass an amendment that would have enshrined a right to abortion into the state constitution. Although 57% of voters approved it, 60% is required by Florida law.

That demoralizing loss on top of many days where she had to tell people she legally couldn’t help them became too much. Florida has a six-week abortion ban, with exceptions for rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormalities and human trafficking. But Daniels said she routinely saw sexual assault victims who weren’t able to get an abortion regardless of any documentation they presented.

“Florida honestly just kind of pulverized me. I felt ground up by the end of it,” Daniels said.

She moved to California, and now practices as a family planning physician at Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties. In her first week of employment there, the affiliate announced it would close its primary care practice because of the Medicaid cuts, laying off 77 staffers and sending 13,000 patients across seven clinics looking elsewhere for basic care such as treatment for high blood pressure, vaccines, annual wellness exams and diabetes management. The final day of service will be Dec. 10.

Daniels wasn’t part of the layoffs, but she said that loss of care for so many patients is devastating.

“I left Florida for good reason, but the state of the country writ large is not good,” Daniels said. “And I don’t think our federal government cares. They think it’s just collateral damage and punishment for anyone who’s ever been associated with Planned Parenthood.”

Health care providers march for abortion rights at a Madison rally in October 2022. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

The Wisconsin State Senate passed SB 553 on Tuesday, Nov. 18, in their last floor session of the year. This bill, purportedly written to define abortion, is actually a covert attempt to exclude abortion from the broader scope of reproductive healthcare. 

Anti-abortion legislators pushing this bill are attempting to play to their religious base who voted them into office to promote an anti-abortion agenda. This is a failing strategy, however, when we’ve seen in countless elections around the country that abortion access is a winning issue, including in Wisconsin. 

The bigger problem, though, is how proponents of the bill are describing it as a way to allow physicians to safely provide care and clarify abortion restrictions, by excluding medical procedures intended to save a person’s life, such as C-sections, the removal of dead embryos, and treatment for ectopic pregnancy, to name a few, from the definition of “abortion.”

Lawmakers are misleading people into thinking that this bill will further define the nuances of care that physicians provide and actually allow, rather than restrict, the provision of care. 

This could not be farther from the truth. We have too many examples nationwide of physicians practicing in states hostile to reproductive rights who are unsure about what care is legal to provide, ultimately leading to unnecessary delays in caring for pregnant people. It is telling that physicians who provide miscarriage and abortion care were not called on to write the text of this legislation. 

Nationally, we have already seen pregnant people die preventable deaths while waiting for essential care for early pregnancy complications because lawmakers stirred confusion and meddled in healthcare decisions. This bill will amplify those dangers in our state, where 13.2 people out of 100,000 die in pregnancy, childbirth, or 42 days after termination of a pregnancy. A study by researchers at the University of Washington and Massachusetts General Hospital showed that these trends, across race, have been worsening in Wisconsin since 2010. 

Black birthing people in Wisconsin account for a disproportionate amount of the disparities in maternal mortality. Adding these racial and systemic inequities to a bill that will delay care for folks across the board, it’s nearly guaranteed that certain groups will have a greater share of these poor outcomes.

As a family medicine and obstetrics physician, I care for folks across the entire spectrum of pregnancy — including miscarriage and abortion. I want to emphasize the similarities in those two scenarios and how they significantly overlap. 

The procedure performed for abortion is identical to the procedure performed for a miscarriage. When a person has a miscarriage or an abortion in the first trimester, generally, a procedure called a “manual vacuum aspiration” or “MVA” can be performed to remove the pregnancy contents. For miscarriages or abortions that occur later in pregnancy, the procedure involves dilating the cervix and removing the pregnancy via a procedure called a dilation and curettage (D&C) or dilation and evacuation (D&E), based on gestational age. 

Additionally, when managing a miscarriage with medications, physicians use mifepristone and misoprostol — medications that lawmakers and anti-abortion activists are actively seeking to restrict because they’re used identically in first-trimester abortions. 

That is the underlying, root issue here: amplifying and reinforcing stigma and criminalization around abortion. 

Carving out the definition of abortion doesn’t actually create medical clarity for providers; instead, it creates a stigmatizing health care space where patients have to disclose and justify why they need certain essential health care. People deserve care and compassion, not judgment or punishment. 

Whether due to miscarriage, abortion, or self-managed abortion, pregnancy loss is not a crime. People should not fear jail time for getting the health care they need. SB 553 aims to differentiate abortion based on intent — a dystopian concept where politicians are in the private space of a doctor’s office. Wisconsinites currently have an opportunity to combat this stigma and call out politicians who are actively harming patients and the patient/provider relationship. 

In my practice already I have seen patients who are hesitant to disclose their pregnancy history for fear that sharing a history of needing abortion care could get them in trouble. Imagine how that influences future decisions to engage with health care providers around miscarriage, abortion and pregnancy complications. 

Wisconsin already heavily regulates how medications for miscarriage are prescribed, including a mandatory in-person dispensing requirement. Those of us who offer this care should not need to feel we must pit our medical expertise against legal jargon when it comes to providing normal, essential care. We need people to be able to trust their health care providers, and we need politicians to stop making laws that pigeonhole physicians into even narrower definitions of care. 

Now that this dangerous bill has been passed in the Senate, it will next head to the Assembly before ultimately landing on Gov. Tony Evers’ desk. In his seven years in office Evers has consistently vetoed anti-abortion legislation, and he has vowed to veto any bill that would limit access to abortion, including SB 553. 

As a physician, it’s devastating to rely on a single individual to preserve my ability to practice safe and necessary health care for countless people and families across the state without political interference. 

There is no other type of health care that is regulated in the unique, stigmatizing, harmful way that abortion care is. Our state politicians need to understand that health care decisions should remain between a patient and their trusted provider. SB 553 ignores that and should not become law. 

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.

Farm Foundation is pleased to share the release of Finding Common Ground in a Divided World; a global collaborative paper developed through the Global Forum on Farm Policy and Innovation (GFFPI).

Designed as a catalyst for conversation, this paper brings together diverse perspectives on agricultural sustainability and policy. It was intentionally crafted to frame key issues ahead of a series of dialogues held in October 2025 and later refined to incorporate the key insights that emerged from those discussions. The result is a forward-looking vision of how the global agriculture community can build stronger collaboration, drive innovation, and foster more coherent agricultural policy across agrifood systems.

Authors & Organizational Affiliation

Section 1 — Common Ground

• Emmanuelle Mikosz — Director General, Forum for the Future of Agriculture (EU)
• Tyler McCann — Managing Director, Canadian Agri-Policy Institute (Canada)
• Katie McRobert — Executive Director, Australian Farm Institute (Australia)
• Shari Rogge-Fidler — President & CEO, Farm Foundation (United States)

Section 2 — Deep Dives

• Michael Robertson, Andy Hall, Rohan Nelson — Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO – Australia)
• Gail Tavill — Chief Sustainability Officer, OSI Group (United States)
• Dr. Tassos Haniotis — Special Advisor for Sustainable Productivity, Forum for the Future of Agriculture (EU); Senior Guest Research Scholar, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
• Vivian Hoffmann — Senior Research Fellow, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI); Associate Professor, Carleton University, Department of Economics and School of Public Policy and Administration

Section 3 — What We Learned

• GFFPI Leadership Team, and
• Dr. Sunghun Lim — Agricultural Economics Fellow, Farm Foundation

About GFFPI 

The Global Forum on Farm Policy and Innovation (GFFPI) is a collaborative platform formed by four leading independent agricultural institutes from Australia, Canada, the European Union, and the United States. The partnership uses evidence-based insights and emerging research to fuel dialogue, unlock new thinking, and identify opportunities to advance sustainable agriculture globally. 

Founding organizations: 

• Australian Farm Institute 

• Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute 

• Farm Foundation 

• Forum for the Future of Agriculture 

The post Finding Common Ground in a Divided World appeared first on Farm Foundation.

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in a case over a policy to allow only sex assigned at birth to be used on a passport application. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to continue carrying out, for now, its policy requiring that passports only list a person’s sex assigned at birth.

The nation’s highest court paused a lower court order that temporarily barred the administration from enforcing the policy, codified in an executive order Trump signed in January. 

The executive order made it the “policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female” and called on the State Department to “implement changes to require that government-issued identification documents, including passports, visas, and Global Entry cards, accurately reflect the holder’s sex.” 

Under then-President Joe Biden, the State Department allowed people to “select an ‘X’ as their gender marker on their U.S. passport application.”

In the unsigned court order, the majority noted that “displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth — in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”  

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, indicating a 6-3 decision.

Jackson, who authored the dissent, wrote that the court “fails to spill any ink considering the plaintiffs, opting instead to intervene in the Government’s favor without equitable justification, and in a manner that permits harm to be inflicted on the most vulnerable party.” 

“This Court has once again paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification,” she wrote. “Because I cannot acquiesce to this pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion, I respectfully dissent.” 

In February, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the administration on behalf of seven transgender and nonbinary people over the suspension of the Biden-era policy.

A federal judge in Massachusetts in June temporarily blocked the administration from enforcing the policy. The judge had issued an earlier preliminary injunction in April that applied to six of the case’s plaintiffs. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit kept in place the district court’s order in September, prompting the administration to ask the Supreme Court to intervene.  

The Trump Administration yanked more than $65 million in Title X funding from clinics nationwide in April, and some of that funding is still frozen, leaving clinics struggling to offer free or low-cost contraception and other family planning services. Some states are suing to get the funding back, but Idaho officials chose to forego it due to a conflict with state law. (Getty Images)

The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare quietly declined the entirety of its annual $1.5 million federal Title X funding, leaving patients statewide without free and low-cost contraception and reproductive health care services from a key family planning program. 

Though thousands of Idahoans relied on the health care provided through Title X for over 50 years, the state made no public announcements as the decision took effect in April, leading to the closure of 28 out of 43 — about 65% — Title X-funded family planning clinics in public health districts throughout the state, according to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. 

After turning down the Title X money entirely, Health and Welfare said there are no plans for the state to make up the difference by increasing the family planning budget. 

In one district, Eastern Idaho Public Health, spokesperson Brenna Christofferson said contraception services are no longer available at all, which has only been communicated to existing Title X patients. Sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment, and breast and cervical cancer screenings are still provided using different funding sources.

Many of the clinics closed in eastern Idaho, including more populated cities such as Twin Falls and Idaho Falls, and more rural areas such as Salmon, Rexburg and Rigby. Title X services also ended at clinics like Terry Reilly Health Services in one of southwestern Idaho’s most populous areas of Nampa and Caldwell. 

The decision to forego the funds came at the same time the Trump administration yanked more than $65 million in Title X funding from Planned Parenthood clinics and some independent reproductive health clinics across the country, much of which is still frozen, including for Idaho’s last remaining Planned Parenthood in Meridian. Spokesperson Nicole Erwin said Planned Parenthood continues to fundraise to help offset costs and keep family planning services affordable on a sliding scale.

Although Idaho’s move came at the same time national attention was focused on the frozen funds, it was a separate decision, according to Health and Welfare.

“The discontinuation of Title X funding … was not related to the federal administration’s Title X policy changes earlier this year,” said AJ McWhorter, spokesperson for the Health and Welfare Department. “The department made the decision to decline the funding to remain compliant with current Idaho laws concerning parental rights and counseling on pregnancy options.”

Nationally, seven out of 16 grantees have had their funding restored, while others have been waiting nearly seven months for resolution, said Clare Coleman, president and CEO of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association.

“For Idaho to walk away from the money doesn’t just disadvantage and imperil young people, it imperils all the people in the state,” she said. “It hurts women, it hurts men, and it hurts young people.”

Coleman’s organization sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services over the frozen funds, and the case is still pending. A coalition of 20 Democratic-led states sued federal government agencies in July to halt its actions related to several social safety net programs, including Title X. That case is paused while the government is shut down.

In 2023, U.S. Health and Human Services reported Title X provided care to nearly 3 million people nationwide, a 7% increase from the prior year. Under the program guidelines, people with family income levels at or below 100% of the federal poverty level can receive services free of charge, while those making up to 250% of the federal poverty level pay a discounted rate on a sliding scale.  

The program, established by Congress and signed by former Republican President Richard Nixon in 1970, is intended to prioritize low-income or uninsured people, including those who make too much to qualify for Medicaid, who may not otherwise have access to family planning and reproductive health services. Abortion services cannot be covered by Title X dollars.

Pregnancy options and parental consent 

The federal statute guiding the administration of Title X funds includes a section on adolescent services that says grantees cannot require the consent of parents or guardians before or after the minor has requested or received family planning services. Another section directs grantees to allow pregnant patients the opportunity to receive information and counseling regarding prenatal care and delivery, infant care, foster care, adoption and pregnancy termination. Idaho has a near-total abortion ban with few exceptions.

Idaho’s Legislature passed Senate Bill 1329 in 2024, requiring parental consent for “the furnishing of health care services” to a child, with the exception of lifesaving care. Idaho Capital Sun reported the law has also created difficulties for the state’s suicide hotline, because some minors need permission from a parent to receive certain services.

Coleman said the adolescent and pregnancy options requirements have long been part of Title X guidance, and it has not conflicted with state law because federal law should take precedence under the U.S. Constitution.

Idaho is one of at least two states that currently has no Title X funding, Coleman said, after Utah lost all of its Title X money when the Trump administration withheld funding from Planned Parenthood clinics, which were the only places offering those low-cost or free services. Planned Parenthood of Utah closed two of its centers — in Logan and St. George — in the wake of the decision to freeze funding. Logan is less than an hour away from eastern Idaho’s border.

Some states were temporarily left without Title X providers after the Trump administration’s actions in April, but the funding was restored at later dates for certain states, including Missouri and Mississippi. The federal health agency also restored funds in May for two states with abortion bans, Tennessee and Oklahoma, whose grants were revoked under Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration because of their refusal to include abortion among the options during pregnancy counseling. 

In a letter from HHS to Tennessee state officials providing notice of the award, the acting chief grants management officer wrote, “Tennessee is one of only two states to have lost funding for failure to comply with the Title X 2021 regulations requiring counseling and referral for abortion. The department is declining to enforce this provision against the state, and you may rely on this letter to that effect.” 

A total of 7,528 Title X clients were served across Idaho in 2024, McWhorter said. The 15 remaining family planning clinics are supported by other funds, and additional service sites may be added as funding becomes available. Those clinics are in two out of the state’s seven public health districts, which served about 1,400 people combined in 2024. 

The closures add another challenge in an already difficult landscape for sexual and reproductive health care in Idaho. A recent study found that 94 of 268 practicing OB-GYNs left Idaho between August 2022 and December 2024, and care is becoming harder to obtain, according to residents, who say wait times are longer and certain treatment is unavailable locally. 

Coleman said under Biden’s administration, when an entity lost Title X dollars for noncompliance or other reasons, there was an effort to reallocate the funding to another willing participant. Without that action, it would revert back to the U.S. Treasury, and the next opportunity for another Idaho entity to apply for Title X funding will be late 2026. 

Preventing unplanned pregnancies 

Amy Klingler, a clinician in rural eastern Idaho, told States Newsroom she was devastated by the closure of Eastern Idaho Public Health’s family planning clinic. She worked there in addition to another clinical job since 2006 and said there aren’t many other options for family planning care in that area of the state.

“Idahoans don’t trust doctors, but they trust their doctor,” Klingler said. “So when we see rural health care being eroded and doctors leaving Idaho or not coming to Idaho, I think that is really going to impact the health of people in our communities.”

The additional cuts to Planned Parenthood through Medicaid, along with overall Medicaid cuts that may force the closure of more rural hospitals and clinics, will force people to delay care until they are sicker and require more expensive medical care, Klingler said.

The minor consent for treatment bill had good intentions, she said, and in an ideal world, every child would feel comfortable talking to their family members about birth control. But she said she is confident there are young women who don’t get birth control because they don’t want to have that conversation with their parents. 

And with Idaho’s abortion ban, unplanned pregnancies either have to be carried to term or the person must go to another state where abortion is legal. It’s also a felony in Idaho for someone to take a minor to another state for an abortion without parental permission.

“Providing free birth control is really powerful if you’re trying to prevent unplanned pregnancies,” Klingler said.

On her last day at the family planning clinic in June, Klingler said the staffers cried together.

“We often ended the day by saying, ‘We did some really good work today,’” she said. “And to not be able to do that good work kind of hurts the heart.”

Idaho resident Lynlee Lord said she used nutrition assistance programs that helped ease some of the stress she was dealing with while pregnant in the aftermath of her partner’s death. Food insecurity can bring heightened risks of preeclampsia, preterm birth and NICU admission, research shows. (Courtesy of Lynlee Lord)

Millions nationwide could be cut off from access to government food assistance Saturday due to the shutdown, including those who are pregnant or have babies and young children.

That possibility brings back a lot of difficult memories for Lynlee Lord, a mom of three in rural Idaho. In 2014, when Lord was 24, her partner died by suicide. She was 11 weeks pregnant with his daughter and already had a 2-year-old son.

“I went from building my life with my best friend to not having anything, and having to move into income-based apartments,” Lord said.

She was also going to cosmetology school full-time in Boise, Idaho, nearly an hour away from where she lived, spending more than 12 hours away from home each day. She worked on her dad’s ranch and cleaned houses to earn gas money. She tried to keep her stress levels down, but the one thing she didn’t worry about was food, because she had benefits from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

“It took a lot of pressure off of me,” she said.

Many studies have shown adequate nutrition is essential for a developing fetus, and a January study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found food insecurity in pregnancy is associated with medical complications. The researchers defined food insecurity as being worried about running out of food before there’s money for more. Risks include preeclampsia, preterm birth and NICU admission. 

Those who did not have access to food assistance had the highest risk of complications, according to the January study. The increased rate was alleviated by food assistance. 

It’s unclear how many pregnant people use SNAP benefits on average, but the program helped feed 42 million Americans in 22 million households in the 2025 fiscal year, according to the USDA. A separate supplemental nutrition program for Women, Infants and Children — known as WIC — is often used simultaneously by participants. The federal government temporarily shored up WIC through October and promised more money, but whether the funding will last through November remains uncertain as the shutdown wears on.

The Trump administration has so far declined to use emergency funds to keep SNAP solvent while the government shutdown continues. Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he won’t consider a Democrat-led standalone funding bill to keep the program going during the shutdown.

Though officials in some states are making moves to boost food assistance temporarily, others — including in Indiana and Tennessee — have refused to step in.

Lord doesn’t need food assistance anymore, but about 130,000 Idahoans still do and are set to lose their benefits starting on Saturday, Nov. 1. The Women, Infants and Children program, which helps families afford formula and other supplemental foods, could also soon run out of funds in certain states, including Idaho, the Idaho Capital Sun reported.

Instability and hard choices

Gestational diabetes — one of the more severe complications that can result from food insecurity — affects up to 10% of all pregnancies on average. The condition occurs when the placenta produces hormones that decrease insulin sensitivity, creating unstable blood sugars that necessitate a more strictly controlled diet and potentially the use of insulin or other medication to keep glucose levels in a normal range. Most cases are diagnosed in the third trimester, when the amount of insulin needed to keep blood sugars normal is at its peak.

Blood sugar can also be affected by stress, poor sleep, irregular meals and other physiological factors. If left untreated, or if glucose remains unstable through the last trimester of pregnancy, it can cause the fetus to grow too quickly, increasing the risk of stillbirth and other complications, like high blood pressure and low blood sugars in the baby after delivery.

Dr. Chloe Zera, chair of the Health Policy and Advocacy Committee for the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, specializes in gestational diabetes and said she saw a patient on Tuesday who was worried about losing her SNAP benefits.

“Adding that on top of what is already a stressful diagnosis is incredibly challenging for people,” Zera said. “There’s so much guilt and shame and blame that goes along with gestational diabetes and diabetes in general in pregnancy.”

People with gestational diabetes who already have children and who are food insecure will also most often feed their children before themselves, Zera added.

“They’re going to make really hard choices that mean they have even less control over their nutrition,” she said.

Dr. Andrea Shields, an OB-GYN and maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Connecticut, said uncontrolled gestational diabetes can cause low blood sugar in babies after delivery, which has been linked to neurodevelopmental issues later in life. If the SNAP benefits stop, she said, more people will have to get creative about finding ways to help pregnant patients without assistance from the federal government.

“This is a perfect example of why we pay taxes and why we want to help society in general, because we don’t need to create generational issues, which this will, because it impacts the unborn fetus,” Shields said.

Lord said if she was in the same situation today that she was 10 years ago, she might have had to consider an option that never crossed her mind at the time — an abortion. Even though it was her partner’s only child, and abortion is now banned in Idaho, Lord said she may have needed to find a way to end the pregnancy out of necessity, especially considering the costs of rent, child care, food and other expenses today.

“I would’ve probably picked my child that was living,” she said. “It was really scary for me back then, and I can’t even imagine in today’s world if that happened.”

UPDATE: This story was updated to include more information about WIC on Friday, Oct. 31. 

Children from the KU Kids Deanwood Child Care Center complete a mural celebrating the launch of a local child tax credit in 2021 in Washington, D.C. New research suggests cities could significantly reduce childhood poverty by creating their own child tax credit programs. (Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Community Change)

Child tax credits are becoming more popular across the country, with more than a dozen states offering them as financial relief toward the cost of raising kids.

But new research suggests cities could significantly reduce child poverty by offering child tax credit programs of their own.

An analysis by the Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University and the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that municipal programs could move the needle with relatively small amounts of money: offering $1,000 or less per year to low- and middle-income families could cut child poverty rates by 25% in several cities.  

Researchers say this sort of new assistance would not only boost household finances, but also likely create more demand for local businesses, stabilize housing markets and increase local tax revenue.

The study focused on 14 cities: Baltimore; Charlotte, North Carolina; Chicago; Denver; Houston; Jacksonville, Florida; Los Angeles; Minneapolis; New York; Oakland, California; Philadelphia; Phoenix; Seattle; and the District of Columbia. The analysis found that most of those cities could make significant gains by spending less than 15% of municipal revenues on new child credit programs. 

In Minneapolis, for example, researchers said a new program that cost less than $30 million per year would cut the city’s poverty levels by half when accounting for existing state and federal credits. (The mayor there has recommended spending about $2.03 billion in the 2026 fiscal year budget.) 

The prospect of creating new tax credit programs would likely pose financial and logistical challenges. Cities already are juggling many other priorities including public safety and housing affordability, while at the same time facing what some experts have characterized as a “fiscal crisis” from growing climate change costs, federal funding cuts and declining downtown activity.

Some cities, including Baltimore, New York and Philadelphia, have city income taxes that could incorporate a child tax credit. But, the research noted, cities without that tax managed to distribute pandemic recovery funds through basic income programs. That experience shows cities could create their own standalone applications, leverage IRS data-sharing agreements or  work with third-party administrators.

“So you could use a similar sort of outreach approach, which wouldn’t necessarily be as comprehensive or systematic as a city that already has its own income tax system in place, but it’s a potential option,” said Ryan Vinh, an author of the study and a research analyst at the Center on Poverty and Social Policy. 

State interest in creating or expanding child tax credits boomed after the pandemic-era expansion of the federal child tax credit delivered cash directly to millions. That move quickly lifted millions of children out of poverty, researchers found. But the expanded tax credit expired in 2021 — leading to a doubling in the nation’s childhood poverty rate in 2022.

Advocates favor refundable tax credits that provide money directly to families. While parents must still file tax returns to receive the benefit, refundable credits give parents funds even if they earn too little to owe income tax, providing financial relief for groceries, medical care or rent. 

This year, several conservative-led states explored new child tax credit programs, though proposals offering the biggest benefits to families fizzled in Indiana and Ohio. So far, no city has implemented its own credit. 

While many cities and states are facing tight budget constraints, Vinh said a reduction in federal support will likely put more pressure on local governments to tackle challenges like poverty. The federal government has slashed funding for safety net programs including Medicaid and the nation’s largest food assistance program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 

“A lot of these things will either lead to the erosion of benefits over time, a loss of benefits, or kind of a decline in what families are able to receive,” Vinh said. “We don’t fully know the number yet, but we do know that child poverty will most likely increase as these program restrictions increase.” 

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org

Advocates gather outside the Hippodrome Theater in Richmond, Virginia, this summer to protest Medicaid cuts. Medicaid covers nearly two-thirds of Black babies’ births in the U.S., federal data shows, and congressional cuts to the program are already limiting reproductive health care in Black and low-income communities. (Photo by Bert Shepherd/Courtesy of Protect Our Care PAC)

At least 90% of Black people surveyed for a new poll said Medicaid is important to them or their families, and more than half either have public insurance or a family member who relies on the program. 

“Medicaid is critical for so many things with regards to making sure that we’re healthy and addressing health disparities. By losing it or weakening it, it is just going to disproportionately harm our communities,” said Regina Davis Moss, the president and CEO of In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda. 

Davis Moss’ organization commissioned the 10-state poll, which includes views from California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Nonpartisan research firm PerryUndem conducted the survey between May and June and interviewed 500 Black adults in each state. 

The findings, shared exclusively with States Newsroom, show a significant number of Black people who want children are not yet planning to have them due to cost and health care concerns. 

Results were released just as several Planned Parenthood clinics that served Black patients with low incomes closed after a law took effect blocking certain reproductive health clinics affiliated with abortion providers from receiving Medicaid reimbursements until July 2026.

Louisiana’s Planned Parenthood clinics, which never offered abortions in their decades of service, closed on Sept. 30. Sixty percent of the Baton Rouge and New Orleans patients were Black and most have Medicaid insurance, States Newsroom reported. One of two Planned Parenthood locations in Memphis, where more than 60% of the population is Black, temporarily closed its doors during the first week of October due to Medicaid cuts, Tennessee Lookout reported. 

“Proximity is important, and the fact that these clinics have to close means that individuals needing their services will go without,” said Danielle Atkinson, executive director of Mothering Justice, a national advocacy group based in Michigan. 

Four Planned Parenthood clinics closed in her state this spring after the Trump administration cut millions of Title X family-planning funding, Michigan Advance reported.  

“They’ll go without STI testing. They’ll go without cancer screening. They’ll go without counseling,” Atkinson said. 

The ban on Medicaid for some reproductive health providers was part of a larger reconciliation package that is also set to slash nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid more broadly over the next decade. 

“Medicaid is a lifeline for Black women, girls and gender-expansive people,” Davis Moss said. The state and federal program covers nearly two-thirds of Black births, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and almost half of all births nationwide. 

Maternal health advocates are bracing for the impact of Medicaid cuts on labor and delivery units, which have already been closing at a rapid pace over the last 10 years, especially in rural communities. A maternity ward in northeast Georgia, one of the states included in the poll, will close at the end of the month partially due to Medicaid cuts, Georgia Recorder reported in September. 

Findings from the In Our Own Voice poll also show that Black people of reproductive age — 18 to 44 in this case — want children but are not planning to have them, citing high costs of living. 

California had the biggest disparity of 28 percentage points: 56% want children but only 28% plan to have them. 

“I believe some of the reasons they said are not new issues that we are grappling with, but it’s deeply concerning because they are being exacerbated in this current administration,” Davis Moss said. 

At least 69% of Black people polled in each of the 10 states said they worry about being able to take care of children or more children than they already have, while at least 67% cited housing costs and 57% pointed to child care expenses. 

“In a lot of these states, the cost of child care is more expensive than a year of tuition, which is such a barrier for people to be able to: one, go into the workforce, two, have that early intervention and early education that really sets their children up for success, and three, give individuals and families the opportunity to go and explore careers and learning opportunities,” Atkinson said. 

Abortion restrictions played a factor in family planning, too, though in smaller numbers. At least 45% said they don’t want children because they or their loved one could die from pregnancy, while 43% worry about miscarriage care and 30% said abortion bans are stopping them from growing their families. 

Three of the states included in the poll — Florida, Georgia and North Carolina — have abortion bans stricter than 20 weeks. Voters in California, Michigan and Ohio approved reproductive rights amendments in recent years that secured the right to an abortion up to fetal viability, while Nevada and Virginia may have similar safeguards in place after the midterms. 

A majority of voters in each of the 10 states say abortion should be legal in all or most cases and at least 78% say Black women should make the decisions about pregnancy that’s best for them. 

Overall, at least half of Black adults polled are struggling with economic security. Black women of reproductive age were more likely to expect less safety and security throughout the rest of Republican President Donald Trump’s second term than Black men. 

“We’re getting ready to celebrate our 250 years, and all the things that we have fought for and all these things that we have gained in terms of civil rights and human rights, they are under threat like never before,” Davis Moss said. 

Electric power lines. Clean energy projects, including several that involve improving the efficiency of electric power grids, are at risk of losing federal funding that was promised during the Biden administration. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

The projects are on a list that covers three groups of cuts proposed in May, on Oct. 2 and this past week. The online news outlet Semafor reported the third set of proposed cuts, which alone totals $12 billion, on Tuesday, Oct. 7, and published a link to a list that covers all three groups.

“However, it’s not clear whether, or when, the full list of cancellations will be enacted, or if President Donald Trump is instead looking to use them as leverage in negotiations over the [federal government] shutdown,” Semafor reported.

The Wisconsin grants on the list are a mix of projects that help boost energy efficiency, including supporting the expansion of energy storage battery systems. One potential casualty is more than $1 million to prepare young people to enter apprenticeships in the skilled trades.

Clean energy holds the promise of addressing air pollution and climate change as well as revitalizing the state’s industrial base, said John Imes, director of the Wisconsin Environmental Initiative (WEI), a nonprofit that advocates policies benefiting the environment and the economy.

“These are all win-win that all of us want regardless of our political affiliation,” Imes told the Wisconsin Examiner. “This is all bottom-line stuff.”

Rolling back projects that enhance cleaner and more efficient use of energy will likely increase the cost of energy, Imes said.

“It means higher electric bills, higher energy bills, fewer choices and lost jobs,” he said. “We’re going to lose momentum.”

Battery power and rural grid upgrade

The two largest Wisconsin projects on the Department of Energy list of targets involve one company, Alliant Energy. They account for more than half of the Wisconsin funds targeted for cancellation.

The projects are being undertaken by Alliant’s Wisconsin Power & Light unit. They include a $50 million grant for upgrading the rural electrical grid and $30 million for a power storage system using a technology based on carbon dioxide this is to be built near Portage, Wisconsin.

“We understand the Administration and Department of Energy (DOE) are working through their budgets and have notified some businesses of changes to grant announcements,” said Cindy Tomlinson, Alliant senior manager for communications, in an email message last week.

“At this time, we have not been made aware of any changes to the announced DOE grants for our Alliant Energy projects,” Tomlinson said. “We are optimistic the value and viability of these projects is clear and that they will remain fully funded. These projects deliver economic and customer benefits.”

The electrical grid upgrade project received a conditional commitment from the energy department in December, but a final award agreement hasn’t been executed, Tomlinson said, and no federal funds have been received or spent.

The federal grants accounted for about one-third of the total planned investment for each project. If the grid upgrade grant is canceled, the project is still expected to go forward, Tomlinson said, “however at a slower, more gradual pace than the fast, concentrated fashion outlined in our grant application.”

Other potentially affected grants include $28.7 million for Johnson Controls, based in the Milwaukee suburb of Glendale, to support the company in its expansion of heat pump manufacturing.

The grant’s total value was $33 million at the time it was awarded to the company. According to USAspending.gov, a federal site that tracks the status of federal outlays, the business has received $4.4 million of the total.

Johnson Controls announced the grant in November 2023, part of an investment to scale up heat pump manufacturing at plants in Texas, Kansas and Pennsylvania and increase production by 200%, the company said at the time.

The company did not respond to inquiries Thursday and Friday by email and by telephone about the status of the grant or its planned heat pump manufacturing expansion.

Energy efficiency and innovation

Another Wisconsin recipient with grants on the list that are slated for elimination is Slipstream, a Madison-based nonprofit that provides consulting services on energy efficiency and innovation.

“We’re trying to make our energy systems more efficient and better so everybody’s paying less for energy,” said Scott Hackel, Slipstream’s vice president for research.

Hackel said Slipstream is working with other organizations on the list of targeted projects, and some of those organizations have been notified of grant terminations.

Slipstream also has two direct grants on the list, but has not received any notification that those grants are being terminated, Hackel said.

Slipstream had been awarded $5.2 million for work on equipping buildings with technology that enables them to automatically manage their power demand — reducing the building’s electrical load when demand on the grid is high and amping up the load when broader demand eases.

The organization is in the middle of a project implementing demand management technology in a group of buildings. The information gained from that test could be used to develop incentive programs for building owners to adopt that kind of technology, Hackel said.

If that gets cut off before it’s finished, other buildings in Wisconsin “would not have this example to look to,” he said.

A second grant awarded to the organization, $4 million, is to be used to train inspectors, building designers and others in how to effectively comply with and make the best use of building codes, particularly energy codes.

“Everything we’re doing is trying to make buildings and homes more affordable to live in with lower utility bills,” Hackel said. “If we’re not able to do that, that’s also a cost to people in Wisconsin.”

Two Universities of Wisconsin grants, one for $10 million and the other for $2.9 million, are on the list. Both involve projects to test technology innovations, according to the federal grant information documents.  

‘Electric city’ upgrades and a job-training program

A grant for the city of Kaukauna, Wisconsin, to install battery storage and make related electrical grid upgrades is also on the list. The original grant totaled $3 million, and so far $59,362 has been paid out, according to USAspending.gov, leaving $2.95 million that could be canceled.

The storage system is to bolster Kaukauna’s hydroelectric power generation operation, which dates to 1913 and led to the community’s adoption of “Electric City” as its nickname.

“Collateral damage from the Trump administration’s remarkably poor governance record continues to collect, this time in Kaukauna,” said Outagamie County Executive Tom Nelson. “I can’t think of something more insulting than making the electric grid of a place known as ‘Electric City’ less safe or efficient.”

Also on the list is the Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership, a Milwaukee nonprofit that provides training and certification to prepare people to enter apprenticeships in the skilled trades. WRTP was awarded a $1.5 million grant for training in skills related to transportation electrification. So far $112,470 has been paid out. 

Dan Bukiewicz, head of the Milwaukee Building Trades Council and co-chair of the WRTP board of directors, said that the board hasn’t been notified that its grant might be at risk of being taken away by the Trump administration.

“I won’t say we’re surprised,” however, Bukiewicz said. “They’re just trying to roll back a lot of the green energy and infrastructure [investments]. … It’s trying to make time stand still, and it just won’t if the United States is going to compete globally.”

WRTP students typically come from underserved communities and are the most in need, Bukiewicz said. The program’s training emphasizes job safety, introduces students to the construction industry, equips them with basic skills that an apprenticeship will build on, and acquaints them with how the industry and the technology are changing and where they might find a place that suits them.

If the federal grant is pulled, “these dollars are irreplaceable,” Bukiewicz said. “It’s not just taking money away and eliminating classes. It’s eliminating opportunities and a chance for generational change for people who really need it.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., joined by President Donald Trump, delivers an announcement on “significant medical and scientific findings for America’s children” in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Sept. 22, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Federal health officials suggested a link between the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy as a risk for autism, although many health agencies have noted inconclusive results in the research. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A majority of Americans disapprove of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s job performance and the federal government’s evolving vaccine policy, according to a poll released Thursday by the nonpartisan health organization KFF.

In addition, the vast majority of those surveyed have heard the unproven claims made by President Donald Trump, Kennedy and others in late September that taking acetaminophen, also known as Tylenol, during pregnancy could be one possible environmental factor in a child later being diagnosed with autism.

A total of 77% of the people KFF polled said they knew of the statements, though whether people believe the claims, which have yet to be established by the medical community, varied.

Only 4% of those surveyed said it is “definitely true” that taking Tylenol during pregnancy increases the risk of the child developing autism, and 35% said the claim is “definitely false.” Thirty percent said it is “probably true” and 30% said it is “probably false.”

Combined, 65% said it’s either probably or definitely false to say that taking acetaminophen during pregnancy increases the chance of a child developing autism, a complex disorder that experts believe is the result of both genetic and environmental factors.

When broken down by political party, 86% of Democrats, 67% of independents and 43% of Republicans said the claims were either probably or definitely false.

The survey shows 59% somewhat or strongly disapprove of how Kennedy is handling his new role at the top of the country’s public health infrastructure.

The level of support changes considerably depending on political party affiliation, with 86% of Democrats, 64% of independents and 26% of Republicans disapproving.

A slightly higher number, 62%, either somewhat or strongly disapprove of the United States’ vaccine policy.A similar trend emerged when those polled were broken up by political parties. Eighty-eight percent of Democrats, 67% of independents and 31% of Republicans somewhat or strongly disapproved of vaccine policy.

The survey shows a declining share of Americans have faith in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to provide trusted information about vaccines, compared with previous KFF polls in September 2023 and earlier this year.

A total of 63% of respondents two years ago trusted the CDC on vaccines, but that has declined to 50%.

Democrats’ faith in the CDC’s vaccine recommendations has dropped from 88% two years ago to 64%, independents have gone from 61% to 47% and Republicans have remained relatively steady, only going from 40% to 39%.

Across political parties, a person’s own doctor as well as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association remain broadly trusted for vaccine information.Eighty-three percent said they trust their doctor or health care provider, 69% believed information from the American Academy of Pediatrics and 64% had faith in the AMA.

The poll of 1,334 adults took place from Sept. 23 to Sept. 29 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for the full survey. Questions broken down by a person’s political ideology had a margin of error of plus or minus 6 percentage points.

A new bill in the state legislature would ban hemp-derived THC products in Wisconsin. Producers say it would destroy their businesses.

The post Wisconsin lawmakers and hemp producers both want regulations on THC products. They disagree on how. appeared first on WPR.

The front entrance of the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 3, 2023. (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Judges on a federal appeals court panel seemed skeptical that the Trump administration’s expanded use of a fast-track deportation procedure didn’t violate the due-process rights of immigrants during oral arguments Monday.

The hearing before judges Patricia A. Millett, Neomi Rao and J. Michelle Childs of the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals comes after a lower court struck down the expedited removal policy used to bypass judicial review in the quick removals of migrants far from the southern border. The expanded policy is a pillar in the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. 

“This is a critical tool of immigration enforcement,” U.S. Department of Justice attorney Drew Ensign said. “This is not a small deal. The ability to conduct expedited removal is one of the executive’s most important tools for maintaining border control and not being overwhelmed.”

For decades, presidential administrations have applied expedited removal to immigrants apprehended at the southern border who cannot prove they have remained in the country for more than two years. If they cannot produce that proof, those immigrants are then subject to deportation without appearing before an immigration judge.

In January, the Trump administration expanded expedited removal to apply nationwide, rather than only within 100 miles of the southern border.

Childs said the Trump administration can still use expedited removal, along with other enforcement tools, for its immigration policy.

“So what are you losing, other than (applying expedited removal to) millions of other people, to go inward into the U.S.?” Childs asked.

Former President Barack Obama appointed Millett, former President Joe Biden appointed Childs, and President Donald Trump appointed Rao in his first term.

Policy lacks procedure

Arguing on behalf of the immigration advocacy group that brought the suit, Make the Road New York, attorney Anand Balakrishnan said the new policy “brings to bear against this new class of people an entire system of expedited removal that is not procedurally adequate.”

The judges also questioned the legality of the Trump administration’s expanded use of expedited removal. 

Ensign argued that the Trump administration doesn’t believe the expansion violates due-process rights because those affected are not U.S. citizens.

“It has been well-established that aliens who are not lawfully admitted into the country are only entitled to whatever procedures the political branches provide, and that the plaintiffs cannot rely on the due-process clause to impose additional procedural requirements,” Ensign said.

Balakrishnan said that when the Trump administration expanded the use of the policy in January, there were no new procedures put in place, meaning immigrants wanting to challenge their removal under the new policy would have no way to do so.

“The procedures that have been on the books, in some cases are not tailored for this radically new class to which it’s being applied, and in other cases, are insufficient to deal with the unique challenges placed by them and the liberty interests of this new group,” Balakrishnan said. 

Hope Broussard, 20, sought care at a Planned Parenthood in Washington in 2023 when her IUD became lodged in her cervix and the clinics in her hometown of Sandpoint, Idaho, weren’t able to help. She now lives in Pullman, Washington. (Photo by Geoff Crimmins for States Newsroom)

Fifth in a five-part series. 

Hope Broussard’s intrauterine device should have brought relief from her severe periods. But at 17, it started causing debilitating pain.

At the Sandpoint, Idaho, clinic where the device was implanted, providers suspected it was embedded in her uterine wall, but lacked the ultrasound equipment to make a diagnosis.

Homeless with no insurance after her mother kicked her out, Broussard couldn’t enroll in Medicaid as a minor without a parent’s involvement. The women’s clinics in Sandpoint couldn’t help. Hospital bills were out of the question.

“The only people that were able to help me were Planned Parenthood,” Broussard said.

She sought care across the border in Washington, at the Spokane Planned Parenthood, where an ultrasound showed the IUD was coiled around her cervix. A specialist carefully removed it in a follow-up appointment and she paid $20 for everything because it was all she could afford.

“It really was my saving grace at the time,” said Broussard, who moved from Idaho to Pullman, Washington, in part because of that experience of being unable to access health care locally. “I have no idea what I would’ve done if I didn’t have that option available to me.”

Broussard is one of more than 2 million people nationwide who used Planned Parenthood for health care between 2023 and 2024, according to the national organization’s annual report. But how many people will be able to afford and access care is changing after a new federal provision prohibits some organizations that provide abortions from receiving Medicaid payments for at least a year. Nationally, Planned Parenthood estimates it could lose $700 million from Title X and Medicaid cuts, forcing affiliates to close some clinics, curtail services and stop accepting Medicaid patients.

Many Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion groups celebrated the provision passed by Congress in July that essentially targeted Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide for “defunding” because abortion care is part of clinical services in many states where access is mostly legal. Federal Medicaid dollars cannot be used to pay for abortions except in limited circumstances, and abortion care makes up a small percentage of overall care provided by clinics. Still, conservatives argue the mere association with any such clinics is equivalent to funding all abortion. 

“Planned Parenthood’s desperate ploy for our tax dollars only underscores why the One Big Beautiful Bill is such a historic win,” said Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser in a July statement. “It halted, for the first time, over half a billion taxpayer dollars from propping up the corrupt abortion industry.”

Democratic-led states are in troubleshooting mode 

In response, elected officials in some Democratic-led states, including Washington, Hawaii, Colorado and Massachusetts have publicly pledged to backfill the funding needed to allow Planned Parenthood clinics to keep accepting Medicaid and other low-income patients. In July, Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson committed to filling the $11 million gap Planned Parenthood expected to see.

Many states don’t begin their legislative sessions until January, so some of the plans aren’t official yet and still need to make it through the legislative process or the details of allocation are still in progress. That means clinics either have to absorb the costs for now with the promise of reimbursement, or change their payment options and services for the time being. For example Hawaii is moving to sliding-scale fees for some Medicaid patients, and in Maine, a major independent clinic is making changes to its services. 

Idaho’s border with Washington and Oregon is a point of contention among lawmakers across state lines, where the political views could hardly be more polarized between the hard-line conservatives in Idaho and progressive politics in the other two states. But for the people who need abortion care, or even a basic ultrasound, like Broussard, clinics in places like Spokane and Ontario, Oregon, are some of the last options available. 

Oregon lawmakers are also brainstorming ways that the state can provide reimbursement to Planned Parenthood for lost funding. Clinics across the state billed Medicaid nearly $17 million for services in 2024, according to the Oregon Capital Chronicle. 

Courtney Normand, the Washington state director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, said this latest move from Congress is adding to challenges from the first Trump administration when there were other cuts, along with health care system pressures from the COVID-19 pandemic, and the impact of increasing patient volumes after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that upended federal abortion rights protections.

“It feels like the hits have just kept on coming in Washington, and that’s why access, affordability and stable funding is our key concern,” Normand said. 

Brita Lund, the health center manager at a Planned Parenthood in Seattle, worries about having to turn away patients if the federal Medicaid cuts and other strains on the health care system become too much to bear. She already feels like she spends too much time grilling a patient about their personal details at an appointment so the staff can find a way to get the treatment paid for by a specific pocket of funding. 

“Who is going to help these people if we’re not going to help them? I want someone to give me that answer,” Lund said. “It literally keeps me up at night.” 

While Washington state is known for being one of the most openly accessible for sexual and reproductive health, a budget crisis led legislators to cut 55% of the funding to the Abortion Access Project, about $8.5 million. Normand said it’s hard to know exactly why legislators made the decision, but some regretted it and are trying to find a solution for the upcoming session. Ferguson pledged to restore the funding as well. 

‘I know the state is supportive, it’s just about what their capacity is’

In Hawaii, Title X cuts from the Trump administration earlier this year amounted to about $2.1 million, said Jen Wilbur, Hawaii state director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates. The state legislature acted quickly in April to approve a new $6 million family planning fund to offset that loss over the next two years, with $3 million specifically allocated to Planned Parenthood clinics. What the funding program will look like exactly is still to be determined, Wilbur said. The needs vary by island, and an assessment of what those needs are is underway.  

Hawaii has trended slightly more conservative than other blue states in recent elections, Wilbur said, but support from lawmakers still feels strong. She and other advocates are trying to game plan in the event that the federal government restricts access to mifepristone through the mail, which would severely affect access for the islands. 

But Wilbur worries about the long-term sustainability of the funding in a small state that already has many challenges with high cost of living, difficulty retaining providers and navigating the unknown. 

“We don’t even know how many more cuts are coming, so is any state really going to be able to sustain this going forward? I don’t know,” Wilbur said. “I know the state is supportive, it’s just about what their capacity is.” 

Short-term state fixes in Maine, Massachusetts 

New England, considered a hub for abortion access and low-cost reproductive health services, has been especially impacted by the federal Medicaid rule. It affects not only Planned Parenthood affiliates, but also two nonprofit health networks that offer wide-ranging health services primarily to Medicaid patients: Health Imperatives in Massachusetts and Maine Family Planning, which, like Planned Parenthood, has sued over the new policy. 

Maine’s legislature this summer appropriated about $6 million for family planning funding, to go to organizations like Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and Maine Family Planning, the largest reproductive health provider in the state with 18 clinics compared to Planned Parenthood’s four. But as Maine Morning Star reports, the temporary relief does not fully meet both organizations’ deficits, and Maine Family Planning this week announced it will end primary care services in Ellsworth, Houlton and Presque Isle at the end of October.

Still, both Maine Family Planning and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England say they will continue to see Medicaid patients free of charge for reproductive health and family planning services. 

Massachusetts Democratic Gov. Maura Healey also announced the state would deliver $2 million to Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, which is one of the co-plaintiffs in Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit against the federal government.

“We want the people of Massachusetts to know that if you need reproductive health care services, you should continue to seek this care,” Healey said in a news release. 

Massachusetts has been a leader in policy promoting access to reproductive health including abortions, which is legal in the state up to 24 weeks of pregnancy with exceptions for significant fetal abnormalities and the pregnant person’s health.  

But access to broad reproductive health care even in a city like Boston remains limited, especially for people living in poverty, said Dominique Lee, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts.

Lee told States Newsroom that making a primary care or OB-GYN appointment in the Boston area can mean having to wait 60 days, while Planned Parenthoods typically have same-day appointments. She noted that the communities with the least access to low-cost reproductive health services are concentrated in central and western Massachusetts, where Planned Parenthood has three clinics.

Lee said she is grateful for the $2 million in state funding, which she calls “short-term relief.” Because Medicaid funding represented about a quarter of her organization’s revenue, Lee said it is like a business losing its biggest customer. Her goal now is to figure out how the affiliate can sustain long term. She said they are brainstorming other revenue streams like offering vasectomies.

“We have gotten really good at contingency planning,” Lee said. “But it would be great to have a business model that is sustainable, that can withstand all of these attacks, and not have to worry about it. That would be a dream.”

The affiliate’s website notes that patients can no longer use their MassHealth or Medicaid Managed plans for care at Planned Parenthood clinics but says they are still seeing “all patients.”

Health Imperatives, which operates seven clinics in southern Massachusetts, is also looking at operations.

Health Imperatives CEO Julia Kehoe said the $19 million nonprofit serves about 23,000 people annually and offers social and psychiatric services to vulnerable populations. About 40% of what Health Imperatives does is offer low-cost sexual and reproductive health services for about 10,000 patients annually, Kehoe said. For now, they are continuing to see the same amount of patients and are working with the state government for funding help. 

But she said the organization is also looking at private funding because they are determined to continue seeing Massachusetts’ poorest residents, many of whom experience food insecurity in places like Nantucket, which is one of the nation’s wealthiest towns but where the main safety net for those who are not wealthy is a single Health Imperatives clinic. 

“I would never, ever make the decision to not see Medicaid patients,” Kehoe said. “We exist to provide services to people who fall through the cracks of mainstream systems of care. So we’re going to prioritize people who are on Medicaid or people who don’t have insurance. What I would do is, rather than further health disparities and wealth disparities in one of the most expensive states in the country, I would have fewer clinics.”

Correction: This article has been corrected to reflect that elected officials in Maine have not yet pledged to support family planning clinics with backfilled funding. The state passed a bill last session that provided family planning funding that was already needed before the congressional bill cut Medicaid funding.