On April 29, 2026 the state legislature approved a redrawn congressional map designed to give Republicans four additional seats in the House of Representatives. The new map, submitted by Gov. Ron DeSantis just two days prior, was approved within hours of SCOTUS issuing its decision in Louisiana v. Callais, a case that eviscerated Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race, among other things.

Historically, the Supreme Court had found that states had the right to create such districts to protect minority voting powers. But this Court’s conservative majority ruled 6-3 in favor of the plaintiffs, further gutting a landmark piece of legislation from the Civil Rights era and effectively enabling Florida’s gerrymandered map.

Florida also recently passed a voter ID law requiring not only proof of citizenship before registering to vote, but also radically restricting what types of photo ID can be used to verify one’s identity to election officials. Going forward, student IDs, those issued by retirement homes, and public assistance ID cards are no longer acceptable forms of identification at the polls.

Being a Black woman based in Florida’s capital, I’ve seen firsthand how my state has become a testing ground for far-right ideas that often become laws and almost invariably affect people like me.

Once a political battleground, Florida has been a solid Republican stronghold since 2020. Republicans now hold a supermajority in the state legislature, and since taking office in 2019, DeSantis has unleashed an assault on civil liberties.

The SAVE America Act

Florida’s new voter ID law is modeled on a Republican-sponsored federal bill. The SAVE America Act would require Americans to present proof of U.S. citizenship and a photo ID to register to vote or update their voter registration information.

“Your own driver’s license wouldn’t be sufficient to be able to cast your ballot. We’re talking passports or original birth certificates,” Sen. Alex Padilla, a Democrat representing California, told ABC7 in April 2026. “If you’re a woman who changed her name when she got married, good luck trying to meet the documentary requirements.”

The month before, Senate Majority Leader John Thune had signaled that the federal Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which passed the House in February 2026, would almost certainly die in the Senate.

The federal SAVE America Act would directly impact the more than 28 million people nationwide—roughly 12 percent of registered voters—who don’t have ready access to a passport or a certified birth certificate paired with a photo ID.

The legislation would disproportionately affect those who are already marginalized, particularly Black Americans and other people of color, who are less likely than white voters to possess acceptable forms of identification. Only about half of U.S. citizens have passports, and lower-income individuals are less likely to possess one.

Anybody whose current legal name does not match the name on their birth certificate could find themselves unable to vote. That includes approximately 69 million American women who took their spouse’s last name.

Name-matching requirements would also affect trans people who have legally changed their birth names. For a number of reasons, many elderly voters also lack an acceptable birth certificate.

States advance SAVE Acts

But while the public’s attention is focused on the federal battle over voting rights, Republican governors are quietly passing their own versions of this legislation as part of a continuing effort to restrict voting access.

In addition to Florida, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Utah have all all recently adopted legislation based on the federal bill, which will place additional, undue burdens on voters.

On March 25, 2026, Utah passed legislation requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship either at registration or prior to voting in state elections. Until their citizenship is confirmed, both new and existing registrants in Utah may only vote in federal elections under the law. Voters flagged as non-citizens face removal from voter rolls within 30 days but may cast a provisional ballot.

The following day, Gov. Larry Rhoden enacted South Dakota’s version of the SAVE Act, which requires new registrants—but not those already registered—to provide proof of U.S. citizenship before registering to vote in state elections.

Mississippi and Florida quickly followed suit.

Mississippi’s SHIELD Act requires the citizenship of every voter to be verified through state and federal databases. People flagged as potential noncitizens must provide proof of U.S. citizenship within 30 days of the notification. Alternatively, they may cast a provisional ballot, but must present proof of citizenship within five days of voting for it to count.

These laws ignore the fact that voter fraud is extremely rare, and has never affected an election outcome. Naturalized citizens, people of color, low-income individuals, the elderly, people from rural communities, disabled folks, and people experiencing housing insecurity are most likely to be impacted by the bills, which make it harder for voters to cast their ballots.

And what’s worse: They’re being enacted just months before the 2026 midterm elections.

Florida is a right-wing policy incubator

Over the past few years, Florida’s executive and legislative branches have attacked abortion access, the right to protest, LGBTQ+ rights, free speech, immigrants, and vaccine mandates. They’ve banned books, D.E.I initiatives, and critical race theory.

Their attacks on voting rights have been no less authoritarian. Measures passed prior to 2026 added new ID requirements for casting mail-in ballots and stifled third-party voter registration efforts by narrowing the window to file forms and creating more administrative burdens, among other changes.

DeSantis and other Republicans say that these laws are necessary to preserve Florida’s election security process, which they tout as exemplary.

“Since 2020, Florida has enacted more significant election integrity reforms than any other state in the country,” Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd remarked after DeSantis signed the state’s version of the SAVE Act.

But the Republican view of “integrity” seems to exclude traditionally Democratic voting blocs.

In November 2018, for example, Florida residents voted to overturn the state’s strict felony disenfranchisement law, which dates back to its 1838 territorial constitution. Black and Latino people were disproportionately affected by this law.

Amendment 4, which allowed most Floridians with felony convictions to automatically regain voting rights after completing the terms of their sentence, passed with nearly 65 percent of the vote.

In June 2019, DeSantis responded to the enfranchisement of nearly 1.5 million people by signing a new law requiring those with felony convictions to pay the full amount of their court costs prior to voting. This is, in effect, a poll tax—a favored Southern voter-suppression method that the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in state elections in 1966. (The 24th Amendment, passed in 1964, prohibited poll taxes in federal elections.)

Because Florida has no centralized system for tracking financial obligations, many people with felony convictions have no idea how much they actually owe. Those with older cases may have trouble locating records of past payments.

Having once worked for a North Florida clerk of courts, I’ve witnessed challenges tracking payment of court fees and conviction-related fines across all 67 counties.

Florida Republicans have also previously employed gerrymandering to increase their political leverage. In 2022, DeSantis made the unprecedented move of vetoing congressional maps proposed by the state legislature and submitting his own. This gave Republicans 20 of Florida’s 28 congressional seats (one Democratic seat is currently vacant) and dismantled North Florida’s majority-minority District 5, which had been redrawn in 2015 to protect minority voting rights.

Ironically, the district was broken up on the grounds that it had been created through race-based gerrymandering—a practice the Supreme Court once supported.

SAVE Act could hurt Republican voters, too

Voter ID restrictions tend to hurt traditional Democratic voting blocs. But state-level SAVE Acts may inadvertently suppress Republican turnout, too.

Evidence suggests that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to rely on birth certificates. For example, about 10 percent of Republican women kept their last name after marriage compared to 20 percent of Democrats, according to a 2023 Pew Research Center survey.

Because they are less reliable than passports as proof of citizenship, state-level SAVE Acts could result in Republican voters having to clear additional administrative hurdles. In red states with large rural populations, for instance, many conservative voters (especially those who are lower-income) may not have the means or ability to travel to government offices or pay for the necessary documents.

But maybe Republicans have taken this into account. It’s possible they’ve decided that hurting their own voters a little—in hopes of hurting likely Democratic voters a lot—is worth the collateral damage.

The post The Federal SAVE Act Will Likely Die in the Senate. But in Florida, It’s Already Law: Analysis appeared first on Rewire News Group.

Anti-choice pregnancy centers are ideologically-based facilities masquerading as health clinics. In recent years, their conservative anti-choice backers have pushed a national strategy to exempt these centers from basic privacy and accountability regulations, like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), that health-care facilities must obey.

In First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, the justices were asked to rule on a narrow question: Should a federal or state court determine whether New Jersey may investigate “crisis pregnancy centers” for potentially misleading donors and engaging in unlicensed practices? 

New Jersey said its investigation into a statewide chain of “crisis pregnancy centers” called First Choice Women’s Resource Centers stems from concerns that the organization is misleading donors, offering unlicensed practices, violating patient privacy, and making false medical claims. First Choice has refused to comply with the state’s subpoena into its donor information. 

The organization and its lawyers appealed the state’s subpoena power to two federal courts, which dismissed the case. So they took it to the Supreme Court. Now, the justices have unanimously agreed that the “crisis pregnancy center” should have the chance to make its case in a federal court. 

The decision could weaken one of the last safeguards states can use to regulate “crisis pregnancy centers”—obtaining records to facilitate fraud investigations—by creating a new First Amendment objection to state subpoenas in those probes.

Anti-abortion centers exploit regulatory loopholes 

As a reproductive rights attorney and as a Texan who grew up driving past these centers daily while attending religious schools that supported their mission, I have been watching a trend for years: Anti-abortion centers are gaining more exceptions to state regulation. 

In Texas, anti-abortion centers are embedded in communities, often positioned near or next to legitimate clinics and frequently affiliated with churches. There are more than 200 across the state. 

Anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy centers” are designed to appear as legitimate, trustworthy places for pregnant people to seek care. In practice, however, most are not medical facilities; the privacy and transparency standards that govern actual licensed providers do not apply to anti-abortion counseling centers without medical licensing. 

Unlike licensed clinics, for example, most “crisis pregnancy centers” are not subject to credentialing requirements, HIPAA privacy protections, or other accountability regulations. 

Without these safeguards, these centers can give pregnant patients inaccurate or misleading information about their options without facing professional discipline or legal liability.

They tend to target their misinformation at vulnerable populations. 

Disproportionately located in low-income communities and communities of color, anti-abortion centers frequently advertise “free” pregnancy testing and ultrasounds to attract newly pregnant patients seeking affordable medical care and advice. 

Employees rely on a pattern of medical cosplay to make patients think they are receiving actual health care, research has found. Staff may wear white coats—despite lacking medical credentials—and rooms are often designed to look like doctors’ offices. 

Yet ultrasounds are used only to confirm a pregnancy—not to provide comprehensive, diagnostic care. 

For example, in March 2026, Dallas News reported that when a pregnant woman got a sonogram at Abundant Life Pregnancy Resource Center in Athens, Texas, unlicensed staff members said both she and her fetus were fine. Three days later, she had to have emergency surgery to treat an ectopic pregnancy. The pregnancy was never viable, and it could have been life-threatening. 

This is not an isolated incident. Studies have found that roughly 80 percent of anti-abortion centers provide false or misleading information. They may misstate gestational age to delay time-sensitive abortion care, for example, or promote unscientific medical practices like “abortion pill reversal.” 

Anti-abortion advocates target federal regulations

“Crisis pregnancy centers” have been effective at attracting patients because they exploit gaps in access to care. And they have significant financial backing for their operations. 

While licensed reproductive health clinics struggle for funding, anti-abortion counseling centers are bankrolled by a network of private donors and even taxpayer funds. Other reporting has found that these donors include wealthy conservative philanthropies, large religious organizations, everyday grassroots supporters often motivated by religious and political opposition to abortion, and even the Department of Health and Human Services. 

A 2022 analysis from the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy found that anti-abortion centers outspend abortion funds and clinics by a 5-to-1 ratio.

In 2021, The Alliance, a group of state advocates for women’s rights and gender equality, reported that 29 states direct millions in funding to these centers, and at least ten states divert federal anti-poverty funds away from traditional recipients like cash-assistance programs and child-care programs to support them. This increase in funding has not come with additional scrutiny, allowing religious organizations to spend public money with little monitoring or evaluation. 

This whole setup hinges on weak regulation. So proponents of anti-abortion centers are actively working at both the state and nation level to squelch government oversight of their work through law, policy, and litigation. 

In 2025, the anti-choice legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) developed the Center Autonomy and Rights of Expression (CARE) Act. The objective of this model legislation is to exempt anti-abortion pregnancy centers from the transparency and accountability standards applied to licensed health-care providers. 

In states where this legislation gets enacted, regulation is framed as a violation of free speech or religious liberty. That makes it more difficult for states to require accuracy, disclosure, and basic consumer protections.

The ADF is the legal powerhouse behind several landmark anti-rights court decisions. Its lawyers assisted in drafting the abortion restrictions at issue in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization—the Supreme Court decision that ended federal abortion protections—and served on the legal team that argued the case. In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the group helped a conservative Christian graphic designer win the right to refuse her services to gay couples.

In crafting the CARE Act to shield anti-abortion centers from oversight, the organization has relied on First Amendment and religious liberty arguments similar to those it has used to win these cases. The underlying arguments are that government mandates requesting disclosure of service violate the First Amendment as compelled speech and that laws burdening religious practice must yield to “conscience” protections. 

The Supreme Court has previously sided with this framing. In addition to 303 Creative, the justices in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra struck down a California law requiring anti-abortion centers to disclose information about state-funded reproductive services.

Kansas’ legislation, enacted in March 2026, mirrors this model to effectively legalize this kind of deception in reproductive care. Other states, including Montana, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and New Hampshire, have pursued similar measures to expand protections and funding while limiting oversight for “crisis pregnancy centers.” 

And now, the Supreme Court has weighed in, potentially bolstering the powers of these anti-abortion counseling centers nationwide. 

How SCOTUS shook things up

The Court’s ruling in favor of First Choice could make it harder for states to investigate “crisis pregnancy centers” or impose disclosure requirements, indirectly expanding protections of these anti-abortion organizations.

If this dual strategy—legislation and litigation—continues to succeed, the consequences for U.S. pregnancy care will be profound. 

Medical deception is a serious matter. “Crisis pregnancy centers” force people to navigate pregnancy based on incomplete information and outright lies at a medically fragile time when expert health care and honest counsel is pivotal. 

Pregnant patients would have little recourse when they realize they’ve visited an unlicensed facility and suffered the health consequences of delayed care, misinformation, and coercion.

States have the tools to regulate fake medical providers. States routinely use consumer protection tools to shut down other dangerous actors, such as unlicensed black-market providers offering discounted medical procedures in unsafe settings. 

Carving out an exception for anti-abortion centers creates a double standard that prioritizes an organization’s ideology over the very public safety laws designed to prevent medical deception. 

Editor’s note: This is an updated version of a story originally published on April 28, 2026. It was updated to reflect the Supreme Court’s decision in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin.

The post SCOTUS Made It Easier for Anti-Abortion Clinics to Mislead Pregnant Patients: Analysis appeared first on Rewire News Group.

The victim’s names are Amber Lynn Costello, Jessica Taylor, Maureen Brainard-Barnes, Valerie Mack, Megan Waterman, Sandra Rajkumar-Costilla, Melissa Barthelemy, and Karen Vergata. I’m enshrining their names here, because too much media coverage of the decades-long case has displaced focus from the victims to spotlight the man who murdered them.

Rex Heuermann, an architect from Long Island, New York, pled guilty on April 8, 2026 to seven of the murders. The 62-year-old also admitted to killing Vergata, though he has not been charged with her death. His sentencing is scheduled for June.

On the night of April 23, two weeks after Heuermann entered his guilty plea, a group of sex workers based in New York City, where his victims also worked, organized a vigil to honor them.

Beneath the scaffolding of a construction site at the corner of East 40th Street and Park Avenue—near Grand Central Station in Manhattan—about two dozen sex workers and allies gathered in the crisp evening air. A dominatrix with red lips and sharp black eyeliner passed around small candles, which we lit one by one.

Prior to the vigil, some community members had pasted the victims’ photos onto the wall alongside a pointed message: “Sex workers are not a blight on society. Violent men are.”

Several people addressed the group. Sex worker advocate Kaytlin Bailey talked about vigils as a foundational piece of the sex worker rights movement. International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers began with a vigil for the victims of a Seattle-based serial killer who murdered scores of sex workers. Máxima, an activist for sex worker rights organization Decrim NY, talked about the dangers of stigma and criminalization.

Nicolette Brainard-Barnes, daughter of Maureen Brainard-Barnes, expressed how meaningful it was for her family to witness a group of strangers holding her mother’s memory with dignity and respect. Nicolette’s presence at the vigil, along with that of her brother, Dyllan Haggett, was a surprise blessing.

We held red umbrellas, the universal symbol for sex workers. We recited the victims’ names together, a chorus reverberating into the night with a promise to honor them as ancestors. A pole dancer emerged from the crowd to climb the scaffolding and hang flowers, further transforming the otherwise ordinary corridor into a portal of love and solidarity.

Midtown workers are our clients

I am a New York-based sex worker and one of the vigil’s organizers. We gathered just a few blocks from where the murderer’s architecture firm once stood, in an area where thousands of white-collar workers commute daily.

We chose this busy location because we wanted to assert our presence as sex workers and visibly mourn a group of women that most of the world would rather ignore. We were there to speak publicly on a topic that affects us directly: violent men.

The memorial was designed to be something people would have to confront the following morning on their way to work. After all, just like most of these eight women, for a lot of the city’s sex workers, the men of midtown are our clients.

Yet this is a conversation from which we are usually dismissed.

For all the contact we have with America’s fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers, the prevailing idea about us is that sex workers are somehow different from “regular people.” We’re seen as freaks, hovering grotesquely in some “other” place, somewhere outside of society.

But we are right here, among you. We are your family members, lovers, friends, and neighbors.

And your fathers, sons, husbands, and brothers keep murdering us. Heuermann himself was a married suburban dad, though his wife divorced him after he was charged with the crimes.

Violent men prey on sex workers

According to the United Nations, female sex workers have the highest homicide victimization rate compared to any other set of women ever studied.

The numbers are difficult to track, since studies don’t consistently include trans women. Nor do they include all forms of sex work, and they don’t always distinguish between autonomous sex workers and victims of forced sexual labor.

Besides, many sex workers keep their job a secret, even in death. What’s more, in America, homicides are often left unsolved, and many victims of serial killers are either not identified or not classified as victims of a serial murder.

What happened to the women Heuermann killed is not, therefore, an anomaly: They were targeted in their line of work by a predator who knew that their standing in society made them more vulnerable.

Sex workers are a criminalized and heavily stigmatized population. That, on the whole, makes it difficult for us to find safety networks outside of our community. Sex workers typically operate under the radar, because being found out can lead to disastrous consequences, such as prison, deportation, separation from children, loss of other jobs and housing, social pariahship, and more.

Being a woman, girl, or gender-expansive person already makes you vulnerable to fatal violence.

Feminicide—the gender-based murder of women, girls, and people perceived to be such—has been declared a pandemic by the United Nations. Around the world, a woman or girl is intentionally murdered by a family member or intimate partner every ten minutes.

That number, of course, includes women who are sex workers. But it does not account for those killed by strangers or clients.

The misogyny that kills women, femmes, and gender expansive people everywhere is rooted in a desire to control our bodies and lives. The hatred, degradation, and discarding of sex workers is a manifestation of that desire.

Men who kill sex workers are a very serious social issue. Some are never caught, and some manage to kill dozens before they are stopped, even when they have criminal records for violent crimes against women and sex workers. What stands out about this case is not what Heuermann did, but the fact that he was caught.

And yet, most people remain committed to the illusion that this type of violence couldn’t touch their own life, just as most people are committed to the illusion that they don’t know any sex workers. The U.S. is so fascinated with serial killers that the “true crime” genre of storytelling has become a multibillion dollar industry. This very American mythology casts murderous men as intriguing anti-heroes and their victims as side characters or plot props.

There’s a cruel irony in leaving sex workers out of this conversation about crime. Our community, especially street-based and migrant workers, are at the forefront against violent men.

Most social norms call for women to place men’s comfort over their own safety, to the point of sometimes pushing aside gut instincts when a man seems “off.” But sex workers can’t afford to make that choice; the job requires us not to fool ourselves when it comes to red flags from men.

As a result, we have generations of hard-won wisdom around how to deal with them, including interpersonal strategies and policy solutions. From Scotland’s pre-social media “beware books” to today’s group chats and client-rating websites, sex workers around the world are constantly developing and honing systems to warn each other about dangerous men who pose as clients in order to attack us.

The broader solution to problems like Heuermann is clear: Decriminalize and destigmatize sex work to create a safer world, not only for us, but for everyone.

That is why everyone should look to sex workers—not to “true crime” podcasts or tabloids or journalists with no sex work experience—as leaders in the public conversation about men like Heuermann when they erupt into your field of vision.

Media inflicts more violence

When I spoke at the Midtown vigil, I talked about the injustices done to Heuermann’s victims through biased media coverage.

Like many dead sex workers and other disenfranchised people, these eight women have suffered more violence after death—this time, at the hands of the media.

In the decades between Heuermann’s murders and his 2023 arrest, there have been a slew of documentaries, books, podcasts, and articles about him. Before we even knew the killer’s name, the media gifted him several catchy little monikers. I won’t repeat them here, because I find that practice demented.

Unlike these eight women, who were writers, artists, hairstylists, moms, sisters, daughters, travelers, and generally just young people starting their adulthood journeys, Heuermann’s net contribution to society is an infinite negative.

He—and other men like him—don’t warrant our fascination. Vigilance, outrage, and intervention, yes, but not fascination. Violent misogynists are not inherently interesting people. They are predictable products of a patriarchal culture that protects men’s own entitlement while controlling women and queer people, and which places a target on the back of sex workers.

The targets are a warning: Don’t be like them, or else.

The vast majority of reporting about Brainard-Barnes, Taylor, Costello, Mack, Waterman, Rajkumar-Costilla, Barthelemy, and Vergata has been equally predictable. Stories often feature extremely graphic details about their deaths, with a hyperfixation on the fact that some of them were sex workers, but without a critical analysis of the media’s own role in stigmatizing them as such.

Like most storytelling about our community, a great deal of ink has been spilled to flatten these women into a vague blur, shaming them and even blaming them for their own deaths. Several prominent journalists have profited handsomely on this story through books, documentaries, podcasts, and even a fictionalized film, which feature this type of narrative.

This practice is so common that I’ve made a guide for assessing media bias in stories about sex workers.

Our lives and deaths are not a spectacle for consumption. The only time people should view sex workers as entertainment is when they pay us to entertain them—and even then, only within the boundaries of our consent.

To the sex workers reading: I know that many systems fail us, but we will not fail each other. We will remember all of our fallen sisters: Jessica, Valerie, Maureen, Amber, Megan, and Melissa. Karen and Sandra may not have been sex workers, but they’re our sisters too.

Every time we stand up for ourselves and each other, we strengthen the forcefield that binds us together.

The post Sex Workers Remember Victims of Gilgo Beach Killer: ‘Our Sisters’ appeared first on Rewire News Group.

The Kansas Legislature is determined to make it harder for Kansans to access safe, medically sound reproductive care—even defying the governor to further their agenda.

On March 27, 2026, both legislative chambers overrode Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly’s veto of an anti-choice bill that proposed to weaken government oversight of “crisis pregnancy centers” and exempt them from the standard patient-protection regulations that typically apply to health care facilities.

“Crisis pregnancy centers,” also sometimes called anti-abortion centers, are ideological facilities masquerading as health clinics. Today, thanks to the determination of state legislators—and against the will of its elected governor—Kansas has joined a broader national strategy to effectively legalize this kind of deception in reproductive care.

And now, the Supreme Court is poised to weigh in on a state’s investigation into “crisis pregnancy centers.”

SCOTUS to rule on regulating anti-abortion centers

This term, the Supreme Court is expected to step into the fight through First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin.

This case asks the justices to decide if a federal or state court should determine whether New Jersey may investigate “crisis pregnancy centers” for potentially misleading donors and engaging in unlicensed practices. A statewide chain of anti-abortion centers called First Choice Women’s Resource Centers has refused to comply with the state’s subpoena.

New Jersey says its investigation stems from concerns that the organization is misleading donors, offering unlicensed practices, violating patient privacy, and making false medical claims. The organization and its lawyers appealed the state’s subpoena power to two federal courts, which dismissed the case. Now, they are alleging at the Supreme Court that compelling the “crisis pregnancy center” to hand over its donor information violates its First Amendment rights of association and free speech.

If ADF succeeds, its win could weaken one of the last safeguards states can use to regulate “crisis pregnancy centers”—obtaining records to facilitate fraud investigations—by creating a new First Amendment objection to state subpoenas in those probes.

During December 2025 oral arguments at the Supreme Court, Justice Amy Coney Barrett called the state’s probe a “war on pregnancy centers.” Validating that frame is a hint that at least one conservative justice may see less a question of state oversight authority and more a solely First Amendment concern in this case.

Given this Court’s track record, a ruling in favor of First Choice would not be surprising.

Anti-abortion centers exploit regulatory loopholes

As a reproductive rights attorney and as a Texan who grew up driving past these centers daily while attending religious schools that supported their mission, I have been watching a trend for years: Anti-abortion centers are gaining more exceptions to state regulation.

In Texas, anti-abortion centers are embedded in communities, often positioned near or next to legitimate clinics and frequently affiliated with churches. There were more than 200 across the state from 2023-2024, according to the Crisis Pregnancy Center Map, run by public health researchers at the University of Georgia.

Listen: The Supreme Court Gears Up for Another Unprecedented Term (Podcast)

Anti-abortion “crisis pregnancy centers” are designed to appear as legitimate, trustworthy places for pregnant people to seek care. In practice, however, most are not medical facilities; the privacy and transparency standards that govern actual licensed providers do not apply to anti-abortion counselling centers without medical licensing.

Unlike licensed clinics, for example, most “crisis pregnancy centers” are not subject to credentialing requirements, HIPAA privacy protections, or other accountability regulations.

Without these safeguards, these centers can give pregnant patients inaccurate or misleading information about their options without facing professional discipline or legal liability.

They tend to target their misinformation at vulnerable populations.

Disproportionately located in low-income communities and communities of color, anti-abortion centers frequently advertise “free” pregnancy testing and ultrasounds to attract newly pregnant patients seeking affordable medical care and advice.

Employees rely on a pattern of medical cosplay to make patients think they are receiving actual health care, research has found. Staff may wear white coats—despite lacking medical credentials—and rooms are often designed to look like doctors’ offices.

Yet ultrasounds are used only to confirm a pregnancy—not to provide comprehensive, diagnostic care.

For example, in March 2026, Dallas News reported that when a pregnant woman got a sonogram at Abundant Life Pregnancy Resource Center in Athens, Texas, unlicensed staff members said both she and her fetus were fine. Three days later, she had to have emergency surgery to treat an ectopic pregnancy. The pregnancy was never viable, and it could have been life-threatening.

This is not an isolated incident. Studies have found that roughly 80 percent of anti-abortion centers provide false or misleading information. They may misstate gestational age to delay time-sensitive abortion care, for example, or promote unscientific medical practices like “abortion pill reversal.”

Anti-abortion advocates target federal regulations

“Crisis pregnancy centers” have been effective at attracting patients because they exploit gaps in access to care. And they have significant financial backing for their operations.

While licensed reproductive health clinics struggle for funding, anti-abortion counseling centers are bankrolled by a network of private donors and even taxpayer funds. Other reporting has found that these donors include wealthy conservative philanthropies, large religious organizations, everyday grassroots supporters often motivated by religious and political opposition to abortion, and even the Department of Health and Human Services.

A 2022 analysis from the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy found that anti-abortion centers outspend abortion funds and clinics by a 5-to-1 ratio.

In 2021, The Alliance, a group of state advocates for women’s rights and gender equality, reported that 29 states direct millions in funding to these centers, and at least ten states divert federal anti-poverty funds away from traditional recipients like cash-assistance programs and child-care programs to support them. This increase in funding has not come with additional scrutiny, allowing religious organizations to spend public money with little monitoring or evaluation.

This whole setup hinges on weak regulation. So proponents of anti-abortion centers are actively working at both the state and nation level to squelch government oversight of their work through law, policy, and litigation.

In 2025, the anti-choice legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) developed the Center Autonomy and Rights of Expression (CARE) Act. The objective of this model legislation is to exempt anti-abortion pregnancy centers from the transparency and accountability standards applied to licensed health-care providers.

In states where this legislation gets enacted, regulation is framed as a violation of free speech or religious liberty. That makes it more difficult for states to require accuracy, disclosure, and basic consumer protections.

The ADF is the legal powerhouse behind several landmark anti-rights court decisions. Its lawyers assisted in drafting the abortion restrictions at issue in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization—the Supreme Court decision that ended federal abortion protections—and served on the legal team that argued the case. In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the group helped a conservative Christian graphic designer win the right to refuse her services to gay couples.

In crafting the CARE Act to shield anti-abortion centers from oversight, the organization has relied on First Amendment and religious liberty arguments similar to those it used to win these cases. The underlying arguments are that government mandates requesting disclosure of service violate the First Amendment as compelled speech and that laws burdening religious practice must yield to “conscience” protections.

The Supreme Court has previously sided with this framing. In addition to 303 Creative, the justices in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra struck down a California law requiring anti-abortion centers to disclose information about state-funded reproductive services.

Kansas drew on this model to shape its legislation. Other states, including Montana, Oklahoma, Wyoming, and New Hampshire, have pursued similar measures to expand protections and funding while limiting oversight for “crisis pregnancy centers.”

How SCOTUS could shake things up

Now, the Supreme Court will have a say.

A ruling in favor of First Choice could make it harder for states to investigate “crisis pregnancy centers” or impose disclosure requirements, indirectly expanding protections of these anti-abortion organizations.

A ruling for New Jersey would preserve that state’s regulatory authority over anti-abortion centers. That, in turn, could enable other states to enforce measures requiring accuracy and transparency like consumer protection laws.

A ruling in New Jersey’s favor would also limit anti-abortion groups’ ability to use federal courts as a shield against state investigations.

A decision is expected by the end of June or early July, when the Court takes its recess.

Read: Supreme Court Could Gut Abortion, LGBTQ Protections With These 3 Cases—Analysis

A double standard

If this dual strategy—legislation and litigation—succeeds, the consequences for U.S. pregnancy care will be profound.

Medical deception is a serious matter. “Crisis pregnancy centers” force people to navigate pregnancy based on incomplete information and outright lies at a medically fragile time when expert health care and honest counsel is pivotal.

Pregnant patients would have little recourse when they realize they’ve visited an unlicensed facility and suffered the health consequences of delayed care, misinformation, and coercion.

States have the tools to regulate fake medical providers. States routinely use consumer protection tools to shut down other dangerous actors, such as unlicensed black-market providers offering discounted medical procedures in unsafe settings.

Carving out an exception for anti-abortion centers creates a double standard that prioritizes an organization’s ideology over the very public safety laws designed to prevent medical deception.

The post SCOTUS Could Make it Easier for Anti-Abortion Clinics to Mislead Pregnant Patients: Analysis appeared first on Rewire News Group.

The move came just ahead of an annual Virginia March for Life rally around Capitol Square, where more than a thousand exhibited their support for anti-abortion legislation.

Both events tee up a reproductive rights fight later in the year as Virginians statewide can decide whether or not to enshrine abortion, contraception and fertility treatment access into the state’s constitution in November.

The new laws

As she cradled two-month-old Breydan Patterson, Spanberger signed bills to boost maternal health data collection, support mental health screenings of new parents, and remote monitoring devices for high-risk patients.

Alexis Patterson, Breydan’s mother and a doula with Birth in Color, said she was thrilled that her youngest son had the chance to be part of a historic moment.

“I’m excited to see the rest of the Momnibus bills be signed, not just as a doula, but as someone who has needed some of these services,” she said.

She said her mental health took a dip in past pregnancies and she relied on support from others to get through a rough postpartum period. Some parents experience depression during the massive hormone fluctuations of pregnancy and postpartum recovery, which one of the bills the governor signed into law was designed to address.

House Bill 1400 by Del. Magaret Franklin will now require health insurance carriers to provide coverage for maternal mental health screenings.

HB 1403, also by Franklin, renames Virginia’s Maternal Mortality Review Team as the Maternal Mortality and Severe Maternal Morbidity Review Team.

The shift represents an expansion of tasks for the cohort to include a focus on severe maternal morbidity. Like the previous team’s work, statistical data the group compiles will be made available on the Virginia Department of Health website as a public resource.

Spanberger also signed HB 1353 by Del. Laura Jane Cohen, which sets up a workgroup to explore establishing a statewide maternal health safety initiative, and HB 425 by Del. Destiny Levere Bolling. That bill directs Medicaid reimbursement to cover remote monitoring services for high-risk patients for up to a year postpartum.

Spanberger said last year’s and this year’s Momnibus legislation is a successful example of state lawmakers working together on bipartisan solutions to maternal health issues and thanked them for their work.

The March for Life

As Virginia’s governor, advocates and lawmakers celebrated the new maternal health laws inside the Patrick Henry Building Wednesday morning, about 1,000 people gathered outside for the Virginia March for Life.

Hosted with support from the Family Foundation, the annual event draws parents, children, political activists, and faith leaders from around the state. Featured speakers this year emphasized their opposition to a reproductive rights amendment that will appear on statewide ballots in November.

The proposal cleared the state legislature two years in a row and now needs voters’ final approval to pass. As the least restrictive Southern state when it comes to abortion access, approving the measure can make protections less subject to partisan turnover in the legislature, executive mansion, or federal authorities.

“Once it becomes enshrined in our constitution it becomes harder to fight,” Family Foundation president Victoria Cobb said. “We are not just fighting against something, we are fighting for something.”

Virginia’s pending amendment only advanced this far because of Democratic control of the legislature. Republicans, like several March For Life speakers, have countered that the amendment would erode parental consent laws for minors seeking the procedure and allow abortions late in pregnancy.

While the amendment does not address minors’ abilities to obtain abortions or contraception, existing state law allows minors to get contraception but prohibits them from getting any surgery, including abortions or sterilization, without approval from parents or guardians or a successful judicial grant. State lawmakers have emphasized how those state laws would still hold should the amendment pass.

Though third trimester abortions are rare, the amendment would allow limited access to them and would apply a legal structure called “strict scrutiny” for instances where challenges may arise.

Former Planned Parenthood employee Mayra Rodriguez fired up the crowd before they marched around Capitol Square. Rodriguez was fired from an Arizona clinic after lodging complaints against a particular doctor there and won a wrongful termination lawsuit. Now dubbed a “Planned Parenthood whistleblower” by the march’s organizers, she described working in the clinic as being more about profit than about health care.

Rodriquez also reflected on April 21’s redistricting referendum, which passed by narrow margins, making Virginia the latest state to redraw congressional maps ahead of this year’s midterm elections.

“What happened yesterday matters. Elections matter. Showing up to the polls matters,” she said. “So we cannot just march today, we must be ready for tomorrow.”

As congressional campaigns ramp up through the remainder of the year, so will campaigns both for and against the reproductive rights amendment.

Reproductive rights advocates Sarah Kolick and Clare Strahler came with an “abortion is healthcare” sign and marched alongside the opposing crowd. Whenever the crowd would chant “we love the babies, we love the mamas,” Kolick and Strahler would cite women who have died amid pregnancy complications in states with abortion bans.

As the demonstration concluded, organizers directed the crowd to an anti-abortion advocacy training session at the nearby Greater Richmond Convention Center following the march.

“Let’s be louder than the other side,” Rodriquez said.

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Samantha Willis for questions: info@virginiamercury.com.

The post Spanberger Signs ‘Momnibus’ Bills as Abortion Opponents Hit the Streets in Virginia March for Life appeared first on Rewire News Group.

HHS acted “with cruelty” in targeting gender-affirming care, judge says

A federal judge voided HHS Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s anti-trans funding policy that led an estimated 40 hospitals to halt gender-affirming care for trans youth. Nineteen states sued, arguing it’s federal overreach to deny Medicare and Medicaid money to hospitals that offer gender-affirming care to minors. “Unserious leaders are unsafe,” Judge Mustafa Kasubhai wrote in a scathing April 18 ruling siding with the plaintiffs. Kennedy, he added, showed “wanton disregard for the rule of law” and acted “with cruelty.”

Pennsylvania court calls abortion a “fundamental right”

A 1982 Pennsylvania law blocking Medicaid funds from being used to pay for abortion care except in cases of rape or incest violated the state’s constitution, a state appeals court ruled on April 20. In the 4-3 ruling, the majority decided that the old law constituted sex-based discrimination and said abortion is a “fundamental right.” “The state will face judicial scrutiny of its attempts to coerce reproductive choice,” Judge Matthew S. Wolf wrote in the opinion. “Those choices are the people’s, not the government’s.”

Idaho advocates say abortion may soon be on the ballot

Idahoans will likely see abortion rights on the ballot this year. Advocates for repealing the state’s abortion ban said last week that they had gathered 102,000 signatures—more than enough to put forward a constitutional amendment. The Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act Initiative would allow abortion care until fetal viability (between 24 and 26 weeks of pregnancy) and later in medical emergencies. “We have a legislature that has failed to act for four sessions, so it’s time for this,” an organizer told the Idaho Statesman.

This news roundup first appeared in our newsletter, Rewire Weekly. Sign up here to get the latest reproductive rights news, expert analysis, and a peek into the RNG newsroom—fresh to your inbox.

The post Federal Judge Blocks Kennedy’s Anti-Trans Policy appeared first on Rewire News Group.

The decision followed a lawsuit by more than 1,000 women against Pfizer, which claimed the manufacturer knew these risks and failed to warn consumers. 

Most meningiomas—up to 85 percent—are not cancerous. Some are small and symptomless, and just need careful monitoring; others require surgery to remove. Still, nobody wants a brain tumor, even if it’s benign. So the label change made headlines, and prompted alarmist posts on social media about the dangers of Depo. 

I was instantly suspicious of these stories. 

Misinformation about birth control runs rampant online, and influencers don’t often deliver nuanced messages about sexual health. My Google searches on Depo and brain tumors brought up tons of law firms with information about this link—but they were all soliciting new plaintiffs, presumably looking to make money off lawsuits. 

For the first time in my professional life, I also wasn’t sure I could trust the FDA because of the Trump administration’s anti-science and anti-contraception bent.  

So I dug into the research and gut-checked my findings with an expert. 

Depo-Provera has pros and cons

Joely Pritzker is a family nurse practitioner and the senior director of health care at Power to Decide, a non-partisan, non-profit organization that provides information about contraception to both individuals and providers. Pritzker helps people make contraceptive decisions all the time. 

She pointed out that the FDA added this warning to the packaging information that comes with Depo-Provera in the same way that the IUD packaging mentions ectopic pregnancy as a rare but possible side effect. 

“That’s not a reason why someone wouldn’t choose [an IUD],” Pritzker said. “It’s a reason to be doing better counseling around what people should be aware of if they’re using that method.”  

The same should be true of this new information about Depo. 

All hormonal contraceptive methods essentially work the same way: They block ovulation and thicken cervical mucus. Without ovulation, there’s no egg to fertilize, so you can’t get pregnant. Thicker cervical mucus acts as extra protection by keeping sperm from getting into the reproductive tract. 

Picking the “best” birth control is really about choosing the kind that works best for you, as an individual. The pill may be right for someone who is good at remembering it every day; someone else might prefer the ring because they only have to change it once a month. With the birth control shot, you only have to think about it four times a year. 

Depo-Provera—which is the brand name for the medroxyprogesterone acetate injection—has other positives, too. It’s 96 to 99 percent effective—a little higher than the pill—and after about a year of use, about half to a majority of users get their period less often or not at all. 

There are also some negatives to Depo, including weight gain and irregular or heavy bleeding. Once you get the shot, it is effective for 12 weeks—and you’d just have to deal with the side effects of the injection during that period. This isn’t true of, say, the pill, which you can stop taking at any time. 

Also, Depo-Provera can stay in your system for up to 10 months, so it takes your fertility longer to rebound after you go off it. And long-term use (over two years) has also been linked to a loss in bone density that can increase the risk of osteoporosis, though the loss was reversible in most users when they stopped using Depo.  

What does recent research show?

The birth control shot is not a commonly used form of contraception: Only 2 percent of people who use birth control take Depo-Provera, according to the latest available federal data. Two recent studies suggest that they may have an increased risk of developing meningiomas.

The first was published in the British Journal of Medicine (BMJ) in 2024. It compared the health histories of women who needed surgery to treat meningiomas to a control group of women without meningioma. The researchers determined that women who had taken Depo-Provera for more than one year were at greater risk of developing meningiomas. 

No such “excess risk” was found for any of the other birth control methods used by the patients studied. 

The second study, published in 2025 in the medical journal JAMA Neurology, analyzed health records of more than 61 million women in the United States. It found that women who used Depo-Provera were more likely to develop meningioma compared to those who had never used the drug. The excess risk was most common in women who had taken the medication for more than four years and in those who had started it after age 31.  

These studies spurred the FDA to add a warning to the label. But a consumer advisory doesn’t necessarily mean everyone should stop using Depo-Provera. 

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists advised health-care providers that “it is important to interpret the results of this study with caution,” citing the limitations of the research. 

To correctly interpret research, you must remember two lessons you probably learned in a high school science or statistics class.

First, correlation is not causation. Observational studies like these can tell us that one thing is related to another, but they can’t tell us that one thing caused the other. For example, more flowers grow after the snow melts. But their buds aren’t the reason the snow melted.

Second, relative risk is different than absolute risk. These studies tell us about relative risk, meaning they tell us who is more likely to get a certain disease. Between my next-door neighbor and me, he is statistically more likely to get colon cancer, because he’s older and male. But that doesn’t mean he will get colon cancer, and it doesn’t mean I won’t. 

In these studies, the researchers concluded that people on Depo-Provera have a higher risk of meningioma compared to people who haven’t taken it. Even so, the absolute risk—the real possibility that this happens to any one person—remains quite small. Think about it this way: Buying two Mega Millions lottery tickets might double your “risk” of winning, but you still just have a 2 in 300 million chance of hitting the jackpot.  

Only nine women in the BMJ study who needed surgery for meningioma were Depo-Provera users. Based on this, the researchers concluded that 5 out of 10,000 women using the shot may possibly develop meningioma compared to 1 out of 10,000 women who didn’t use the medication. 

This sounds really bad—especially if you say “five times the risk”—but it’s still a rare side effect. 

An expert assesses the data

According to Power to Decide, there were 23 videos posted to TikTok and YouTube between mid-February and mid-March 2026 about Depo-Provera and brain tumors. Together, these videos have gotten a combined 11 million views. 

This statistic shows that patients have questions, but it also makes me worry that they’re getting the wrong information. 

As a sex educator who writes about contraception frequently, the new information about Depo-Provera presents a challenge: how to incorporate the risk of meningiomas when I talk about the birth control shot in a way that doesn’t unintentionally play into the broader, unscientific “birth control is dangerous” rhetoric. 

Pritzker, the nurse practitioner, told me that choosing a method is very personal and people make very different risk/benefit assessments. 

Some people love their Depo because it helps reduce the pain of endometriosis by suppressing their period. Among those patients, people who are not entirely risk averse might decide that a 5 out of 10,000 chance of a likely non-lethal brain tumor is a number they can live with, given the alternative of excruciating menstruation. 

Someone else might hear the words “brain tumor” and opt for a pack of pills instead. 

I’m risk averse, so my instinct might be to steer people toward other hormonal birth control that doesn’t increase the risk of meningioma. But it isn’t the role of a health-care provider or contraceptive counselor to tell people what to do, Pritzker said.

“Informed consent doesn’t always mean that people pick exactly what you think they should pick,” she said. “It means that you lay out the options in a way that makes sense for them, and then let them decide what’s right for them.” 

In a media climate rife with misinformation and outright lies, nuanced discussions about novel research can be hard to have. You’re competing against influencers who draw sweeping conclusions from their own personal experience or issue orders like “tell your friends to get the f**k off of Depo.” In this case, you’re also competing against lawyers with something to gain.

Patients deserve honest answers 

Misinformation about birth control is flourishing right now because of the reach of social media, and some of these falsehoods could be seeded by organizations with anti-contraception and anti-abortion views. 

But it is understandable that people are primed to believe it. This country has a deep history of medical racism, coercive population control, and reproductive abuse. Pritzker said providers need to address patients’ concerns about birth control honestly—and not simply dismiss people when they cite TikTok or “the internet” as their information source.  

“That doesn’t do anything to build trust,” she said. 

Pritzker would advise clinicians to start from a positive place, saying something like, “I’m so glad you asked that, it’s something we’ve been hearing a lot lately.” 

Providers must also fight the temptation to avoid talking about potentially negative information, Pritzker said, because honesty is how we develop credibility.

That applies to sex educators, too. I’m not your mother and I’m not your doctor, but I hope that I can explain new sexual health research in simple, honest ways—without hype, drama,or politics—that can help you make genuinely informed decisions about your health. 

The post Does Depo-Provera Cause Brain Tumors? How To Read the Research appeared first on Rewire News Group.

But over a six-month period in 2024, in a new legal environment for abortion access, the research team was only able to find three service members who agreed to participate, even though their identities would be kept secret. With that few people, a study couldn’t be completed, and the group published an analytical essay instead.

“It makes sense that this is a particularly difficult moment,” said Gerdts, vice president for research at international nonprofit Ibis Reproductive Health.

Researchers say it’s important to understand what kinds of barriers active-duty service members are facing when living in any state—especially in states with strict abortion bans. But those who spoke with Stateline said it is becoming increasingly difficult to access that population because of chilling effects around state laws, the actions of the U.S. Department of Defense under its current leadership, and factors specific to the military that existed long before federal abortion protections were overturned.

The Department of Defense did not respond to Stateline’s request for comment before publication.

In many cases, research on abortion generally focuses on providers, especially with studies that involve interviews. But among organizations that talk often with civilian patients—including Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco—researchers told Stateline they haven’t experienced the same problems with recruitment that Gerdts described, suggesting the issue is specific to the military.

As of 2021, there were more than 230,000 women in active-duty roles in the U.S. military, according to the U.S. Department of Defense, and 95 percent are of reproductive age, between 18 and 44. The RAND Corporation found in 2022 that about 40 percent of women on active duty are in states with severely limited access to abortion or no access at all, including military-heavy states such as Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas.

Kristen Jozkowski, senior scientist at Indiana University’s Kinsey Institute, said not being able to gather data from a specific population can make it more difficult to help them.

“As a researcher and behavioral scientist, I think it is an issue when we cannot get access to any population, particularly ones who may be unique or at increased risk of something,” Jozkowski said. “It limits our ability to grow knowledge as a society and make empirically informed decisions and recommendations.”

Change in policy

After Department of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth assumed office in January 2025, one of the first directives his department issued rescinded a 2-year-old policy that allowed service members to seek abortion care no matter where they are stationed without having to use one of the 30 days of leave they are entitled to each year. It also had allowed members and their dependents to be reimbursed for related travel expenses such as transportation, lodging, and meals.

That policy took effect shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, under Democratic President Joe Biden. Over a period of seven months from June through December 2023, it was used 12 times, and cost about $40,000 for out-of-state travel, The Associated Press reported, citing data from the Pentagon.

Under the military’s TRICARE insurance, abortion itself has only ever been covered if the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest, or if it’s necessary to save the pregnant patient’s life. But the current policy also doesn’t allow out-of-state travel, related expenses, or special leave.

More recently, the Trump administration has changed policies affecting military veterans.

In December, the U.S. Department of Justice officially rescinded a 2022 policy that allowed the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to provide abortions and related counseling, permitting them only in instances when the pregnant patient’s life is at risk. Estimates from the nonprofit National Partnership for Women & Families, which supports abortion access, showed that as of June 2023, nearly 400,000 women veterans lived in states that had already banned abortion or were likely to ban it.

Scant research

The topic of abortion related to active-duty servicewomen is chronically understudied, said researcher and U.S. Army veteran Caitlin Russell. A review of existing studies between 1991 and 2022 that Russell recently completed found that in those three decades, there were 15 studies or policy papers specifically focused on that subject.

“I think even folks who are more sympathetic or evidence-based about protecting service members don’t realize the scope of the issue,” said Russell, researcher and track director for a nurse practitioner program at the University of Pennsylvania.

During her time in service, Russell said, she was unaware of what the military’s policies around abortion were. In the years since, she has talked to dozens of military health care providers, leaders ,and personnel who also don’t know the existing policies. She helped create a website called Camo Care with information from military sources to help bridge that gap.

As a veteran, Russell has been successful in finding participants for previous studies, but she said she has struggled more lately, in part because of limitations by social media companies. Russell paid for an advertisement to run on Facebook and Instagram in late 2024 seeking active-duty participants, and it was rejected because of a policy against ads about social issues, she said.

Russell said the lack of engagement from military members makes sense given its culture of silence and discouragement around women’s issues in general. She served in the Army from 2006 to 2013, including a year and a half as a company commander at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and during two deployments to Afghanistan. Russell said the culture treated women like they were weak for things such as menstrual pain.

“When I was at Bragg, you didn’t even talk about your period, let alone an abortion,” she said.

That rings true for Joanna Sweatt, a former Marine Corps member who learned she was pregnant with a fourth child in 2002 while stationed in California, despite using contraception. She knew she would be deployed to Iraq soon, and couldn’t afford another child.

She learned she was pregnant through a routine test at an on-base medical station largely staffed by nurses, after she told them she wasn’t feeling well. The possibility hadn’t crossed her mind when it came back positive, but she knew right then what her decision would be.

“I was like, ‘I have to have an abortion.’ And I recall saying that out loud, and the person telling me, ‘Well, we can’t help you at all. That’s something you have to do on your own.’ And that was just it,” Sweatt said.

Sweatt did her own research to find a clinic, and the only appointment she could get was on a Thursday, which meant she needed to ask for leave. That meant she had to detail the reason why she needed to take time off, where she would be, and how many miles away it was from the base, and she had to get the request approved. And after that, she said, it became part of the gossip on base that she’d had an abortion.

“Your life is public once you join the service, basically,” Sweatt said.

Sweatt is now the national organizing director for Common Defense, a veteran-led progressive advocacy organization, and said events that have been happening nationally can feel chilling for military members who work under strict chains of command that expect deference. She referred to the Trump administration deploying the National Guard to U.S. cities, to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security detaining veterans and family members of active-duty immigrants, and to recent reports that Hegseth has denied promotions to people in the military based on race and gender.

She also cited the firing of more than a dozen senior military officers and the termination of multiple Judge Advocates General—better known as JAGs—in early 2025.

All of those events add to a culture that was already known for retaliatory behavior, Sweatt said, and make service members unlikely to want to participate in any activities that might put a target on their back, even an anonymous survey.

Russell said when she was in the Army, she wouldn’t have trusted that information she gave out would remain private either. She assumed her phone and computer were monitored.

“It sounds a little paranoid, but that’s just the reality that you live in,” she said.

As part of her organizing work, Sweatt said Common Defense conducts surveys and holds community meetings at places with large bases—such as Louisiana, North Carolina, and Texas—but many people ask for some of their information to be redacted on surveys, including their base. And at community events, including online Zoom meetings, some military members are sending a family member in their place to ask questions on their behalf.

“They are being very careful as to who they engage with,” she said.

This story was originally reported by Kelcie Moseley-Morris for Stateline. Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

The post Culture of Silence Around Abortions for Active-Duty Military Intensifies, Researchers Say appeared first on Rewire News Group.

“Hundreds of thousands of kids, in my opinion, will benefit,” he claimed during the Sept. 22, 2025 event. 

Shortly after Makary’s announcement, prominent physician groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association, released statements debunking his dubious claims about the drug as treatment for autism.

“It will require many more years of research before we know if leucovorin is an appropriate treatment for individuals with autism,” the American Psychiatric Association’s same-day statement read. “Autism spectrum disorders exist on a spectrum of neurodiversity. The country must focus its resources on expanding access to care and building the evidence-base for future treatments.” 

Rewire News Group asked three autism experts what parents need to know about the risks and benefits of leucovorin. 

What is leucovorin?

Leucovorin is folinic acid, an active form of folate (also known as B9) that doesn’t need to be broken down by enzymes to be used in the body. It is available in pill or IV form. While most individuals can obtain the folate their bodies need through beans and leafy greens, or via vitamin supplements, some cannot properly metabolize folate and need prescription medication to maintain proper cell functioning.

Autism or Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a neurological and developmental disorder that is characterized by differences in social communication; restrictive, repetitive behaviors that may manifest in motor movements, speech, or interests and challenges with transitioning from one activity or setting to another; and over- or under- reactivity to sensory input.

These characteristics occur on a spectrum, meaning that each autistic individual has different areas in which they may need support, which may include behavioral, occupational, physical, and speech language therapies, along with accommodations to help manage sensory sensitivities and other needs in daily life.   

David Mandell, a professor and the director of the Penn Center for Mental Health who conducts autism research, told RNG he was shocked by Makary’s announcement. 

“The evidence for leucovorin was the same as for hyperbaric oxygen or mega doses of vitamin D,” Mandell said. “There is really no evidence at all that these are meaningful treatments.”    

As a double board-certified child, adolescent, and adult psychiatrist who treats autism, Ritu Goel was especially concerned about the confusion and doubt this announcement caused for parents of autistic children, some of whom are desperate to find anything that may help their child connect and communicate with them. 

“Every … parent now has, suddenly, this hope that, ‘Oh, I give this tablet to my child, and they will be better,’” Goel said.

The reality is far more complicated.

“The major reason we prescribe leucovorin to people is because they’re in cancer treatment, usually chemotherapy, and the leucovorin helps protect healthy cells,” Mandell said. 

When taken with methotrexate, which prevents folate absorption, leucovorin helps prevent side effects from cancer treatment such as acute kidney injury or failure, and pulmonary toxicity, which can result when methotrexate destroys healthy cells as well as cancer cells. For cancers such as colorectal cancer, leucovorin can be added to a chemotherapy drug to enhance its ability to destroy cancer cells. 

In March 2026, the FDA approved the new labeling of leucovorin (previously labeled for use in cancer treatment and for certain anemias) as treatment for a rare disease called cerebral folate deficiency, which has less than 50 cases documented in medical literature. 

Patients with cerebral folate deficiency can’t metabolize folate, Mandell said. 

“They have symptoms that mirror those of autism,” he said. 

Some research on cerebral folate deficiency has claimed improvement in “autistic behaviors,” such as communication differences and irritability after taking folinic acid.

But people with the deficiency can “also have severe epilepsy, lots of developmental regression,” Mandell added. 

Despite Makary’s September announcement, autism was not added to the FDA’s list of approved uses for leucovorin.

Leucovorin and autism: the science

Alycia Halladay, a biopsychologist who serves as the chief science officer of the Autism Science Foundation, said that the FDA’s September announcement felt concerning because the research on leucovorin as treatment for autism to date has been done outside the FDA clinical trial process. Those trials are how the agency typically determines a medication’s safety and efficacy, appropriate dosages, potential side effects, and adverse reactions linked to the medication. 

“[It meant] there was going to be no regulatory oversight, there was going to be no scientific review, that someone in the high ranks of the FDA had decided that this was going to be approved, and there was not going to be a process to evaluate it,” Halladay said.

The evidence produced by this research linking leucovorin and improvements in autistic children is also weak, she added. 

The present discussion about autism and leucovorin originated from a 2005 study of 28 pediatric patients with cerebral folate deficiency. Folate-blocking autoantibodies were identified in most of these patients, and further studies determined up to 75.3 percent of the autistic children studied had these antibodies. 

Continued research included trials that seemed to indicate improvement in verbal communication after taking leucovorin. 

Mandell, too, identified several issues with the few trials published, including that they used small sample sizes. To test “medications that we give regularly to people” in the general population, he said, best practice would be to “have hundreds of people in each group.” The differences recorded in those taking leucovorin were unlikely to be statistically significant, Mandell added. Additionally, he said, the researchers relied heavily on measures of folate antibodies that he said don’t indicate folate deficiencies.

Mandell, Halladay, and Goel all referenced the same highly scrutinized, now retracted, 2024 study often used to support a link between leucovorin and autism treatment. With 77 children studied, it was one of a handful of randomized clinical trials that have been completed to date. Just over a year later—and four months after Makary’s announcement—it was retracted due to data and statistical errors. 

For the experts RNG spoke to, the study’s retraction solidified the concern that the data resulting from research on the drug’s use for autistic children is not solid. 

“You have this drug that maybe made tiny improvements in a couple of studies but had not really been consistent,” Halladay said. “Some studies looked at language, another study looked at challenging behavior. So there wasn’t consistency there—it wasn’t reproduced, and there was no safety data.”

How does leucovorin work?

While using leucovorin for autistic patients has only recently received widespread attention in the nation’s capital, it has been prescribed off-label for more than a decade. 

Goel shared three cases in which she prescribed leucovorin to autistic children determined to have folate receptor autoantibodies, which some scientists believe prevent folate from crossing the blood-brain barrier. 

Two of the three children showed improvements in language after several months. In one case, she said, an autistic 6-year-old “responded with some language, a couple of words, phrases, and easier transitions.”

“Some … might now start using a few more words … Maybe [be] more interested in making their needs known,” Goel added. “So, some language, that’s where we see the difference. But it is not a drastic change.” 

Goel also said that the children were also undergoing other therapies that might have contributed to their improvement, like intensive early intervention and speech therapy. 

Does leucovorin have side effects?

Using the medication is not without risk, experts said. 

Leucovorin can cause side effects, including irritability and GI issues including diarrhea. Goel said this can be especially challenging for autistic children, who are very sensitive to side effects and often are already dealing with gut issues and restrictive diets. 

Doctors still know little about whether the drug is safe for children, Mandell added. 

“We have no data on what the medium or long-term safety profile of leucovorin in children is,” Mandell said. “[And] now we’re talking about giving this drug to children indefinitely, starting at a very young age.”

Mandell, along with Halladay and Goel, also referenced the dangers of parents purchasing folinic acid supplements, which are not FDA-regulated and may contain potentially harmful ingredients. 

Goel said parents should always consult with their child’s doctor before using supplements because of possible interactions and side effects.

“I can’t say enough that our children who are on [the] spectrum, their brains are very sensitive to the side effects,” Goel said.

Why is the MAHA movement interested in leucovorin?

Mandell and Halladay said that the September announcement may have been Health and Human Services Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. delivering on his April 2025 promise that by September of the same year, HHS would “know what has caused the autism epidemic, and [will] be able to eliminate those exposures.” 

Many in the autism community were offended by Trump administration officials’ consistent framing of autism as a disease that needs a cure, rather than a neurotype and developmental disorder. 

“We are horrified by comments that call for ‘ending’ autism, a crude, yet plain, endorsement of eugenics demonstrating a callous lack of understanding of what autism is,” the nonprofit group Autism Self Advocacy Network said in a statement following the FDA announcement. “Autism is a natural part of human diversity. Autistic people usually enjoy a good quality of life when we have the supports we need.”

But Kennedy’s background as a lawyer means that he approaches problems by looking for evidence that will prove his hypothesis and discarding any data that disproves it, rather than employing the scientific method, Mandell said. 

While autism has been a particular target of this administration, including repeated claims connecting vaccines and acetaminophen to autism, both of which have decades of scientific research proving the contrary, Halladay said the current administration has seemed intent on undermining the scientific method and “dismantling trust in science.”

This has included budget cuts and criticisms leveled at federal health institutions such as the CDC, and placing blame on vaccines, environmental toxins, and processed foods for chronic conditions while making policy changes that widen health disparities. 

Impact of the FDA’s leucovorin announcement 

Beyond contributing to what many scientists view as the Trump administration’s undermining of trust in their work, the leucovorin announcement appears to already be impacting autistic children and their families—and the clinicians who care for them.

In March 2026, the Lancet released a study reporting a 71 percent increase in outpatient prescriptions for leucovorin for patients aged 5 to 17 between Sept. 22 and Dec. 7, 2025. 

Halladay said she has spoken to clinicians who have been flooded with requests for leucovorin. 

“For every conversation that they have with [a] family about this, it’s 10 to 15 minutes away from another patient,” she said.

Goel worries that parents may now forego other evidence-based treatments, either because they believe that leucovorin will help their child or because they’re spending their limited financial resources on the medication. 

“It is a complementary treatment,” Goel said. “It is not a replacement for speech therapy, behavioral therapy, education intervention. … They do need those early interventions, and they make a difference.”

The post New Autism Drug? Experts Debunk Federal Officials’ Claims of Leucovorin As Treatment appeared first on Rewire News Group.

This week, three major organizations announced endorsements of candidates in this year’s contested races. Incumbent Justice Charlie Bethel is being challenged by Miracle Rankin, a personal injury attorney and former president of the Georgia Association of Black Women Attorneys, and former Democratic state Sen. Jen Jordan is challenging incumbent Justice Sarah Warren.

The seats are considered nonpartisan roles, but advocacy groups on both ends of the political spectrum are working to cast the election as a referendum over abortion rights. 

On April 15, 2026, Reproductive Freedom for All, a nonprofit organization that opposes abortion restrictions, announced its endorsement of Jordan and Rankin. The two were also endorsed April 16 by Planned Parenthood Votes, which pledged to pour $750,000 into an ad campaign supporting the two candidates and casting the incumbent justices as “politicians in robes.”

Bethel and Warren were among the six justices who issued a ruling to reinstate Georgia’s six-week abortion ban in 2024. 

Also on April 16, 2026, Bethel and Warren received an endorsement from Frontline Policy Action, an evangelical 501( c )(4) organization that opposes abortion access, which cast the two challengers as “a pro-abortion team seeking to fundamentally change the nature of the court.”

Neil Bitting, a spokesperson for Warren’s campaign, said her bid for re-election includes support from both liberal and conservative voters.

“Justice Warren has demonstrated her commitment to decide cases fairly and impartially without predetermining outcomes,” Bitting said in a statement. “For that reason, she has built a broad coalition of support from Georgia voters across the political spectrum.” 

Will Hampson, a spokesperson for Bethel’s campaign, said he “welcomes support of all voters and groups committed to an independent and impartial judiciary and the constitutional rule of law.”

In a statement, Rankin said she viewed her endorsements as an honor and vowed to protect Georgians’ constitutional rights.

“I also think voters should pay close attention to the groups behind my opponent,” Rankin added. “When organizations known for extreme positions see a seat on Georgia’s highest court as critical to their goals, that tells Georgians a great deal about what is at stake in this election.”

Jordan did not respond to a request for comment.

Warren and Bethel were both appointed to the court in 2018 and then reelected to six-year terms in 2020. Bethel served as a Republican state senator from north Georgia before joining the bench.

As nonpartisan offices, the races will be decided during the May 19, 2026 Georgia statewide primary election. Voter registration for the primary closes on April 20.

This story was originally reported by Maya Homan for Georgia Recorder. Georgia Recorder is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Georgia Recorder maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jill Nolin for questions: info@georgiarecorder.com.

The post Abortion Debate Plays Out in Georgia Supreme Court Race appeared first on Rewire News Group.