We’re kicking this week off with some great news: a federal judge has (temporarily) blocked the Trump administration’s unlawful gutting of the TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION PROGRAM (TPPP).
This summer, the administration cut $67 million dollars from the TPPP—calling the program “radical indoctrination.” What’s more, the White House moved to remake the federal program: instead of evidence-based lessons or information about contraception, the administration tried to force grantees to provide abstinence-only curricula. Complete with period tracking and lessons that masturbation can hurt brain development:
Groups like Democracy Forward, Planned Parenthood, and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) sued to stop the administration; in response, a judge has issued a preliminary injunction. It’s worth repeating: we should always fight back against the Trump administration’s extremist agenda—because wins like this are possible.
Last week’s ruling makes clear that the White House can’t impose new conditions on TPPP grant recipients “that Congress did not intend or that are unreasonable or unexplained”—arguing the administration “has done just that.”
The ruling also notes that abstinence-only sex education “[defies] social reality, common sense, and scientific evidence alike.” The judge fully tears the Trump administration a new one, noting that in its justifications for attacking TPPP, the Health and Human Services Department appeared to
“reference public health studies that appear either not to exist or not to support the propositions for which they are cited—a hallmark of AI generated citations.”
Why would HHS have to cite fake studies in support of abstinence-only sex ed? Because there’s no real evidence to support their ideology.
And yet, attacks on teen pregnancy prevention and sex education aren’t a fringe position among conservatives. Right-wing influencers recently bemoaned new data revealing that the teen birth rate is going down, and a Fox News analyst called it a “problem” that teens are having less babies. (To put these comments in the sinister context they deserve, I would remind you all that most teens are impregnated by adult men.)
That’s no matter, of course, to Republicans who have fully embraced a president notorious for his closeness with the late Jeffrey Epstein. All they care about is their pro-natalist, forced birth ideology—specifically, forcing girls and women to have more and more babies as early as possible, maximizing the likelihood they’ll be trapped at home.
The Trump administration’s extremism doesn’t stop at encouraging teen pregnancy. In response to growing demands from national anti-abortion groups, the White House is also poised to attack telemedicine abortion. Last week, Trump tapped anti-abortion zealot Heidi Overton to head the Food and Drug Administration—the same agency that holds significant decision-making power over medication abortion access.
TRUMP’S NEW FDA PICK currently serves as deputy director of his Domestic Policy Council. In 2022, she called overturning Roe a “huge victory,” and has called abortion pills “dangerous to women.” While working at the right-wing Center for a Healthy America, she claimed Kamala Harris would be a “disaster” for women and girls—pointing to Harris’ support for reproductive rights.
We all know that the FDA has been holding off on any major attacks until after the midterms; so Trump’s selection of Overton makes it fairly unambiguous what’s coming next: a full-scale attack on telemedicine abortion access.
For more on what’s already going on with the FDA and abortion pills, see our previous coverage: on the former FDA chief saying he would restrict abortion pills if presented with research that they are dangerous; on the FDA’s sham study and its ambiguous timing; and on the ongoing court battle with Louisiana to end telemedicine abortion.
IN THE STATES, there were a handful of important wins this past week. First, a federal court ruled that Indiana can’t penalize doctors for telling minors where they can access out-of-state abortions—and that doctors don’t need parental consent to do so. It’s a crucial decision amid escalating attacks on minors’ abortion rights, particularly teens’ right to travel for care.
The judge upheld a previous decision that determined Indiana’s “aid-and-assist” law blocking providers from sharing information about legal abortion in other states to be a violation of the First Amendment. The ACLU of Indiana celebrated the ruling:
“Free speech protections mean very little if the government can silence truthful information whenever it dislikes the subject.”
For more on the ongoing war on minors’ ability to travel for abortion care:
Speaking of wins for young people: In Colorado, a state court has allowed a legal challenge against the state’s parental consent law to proceed. Right now, Colorado withholds abortion care from minors for at least 48 hours after a parent has been notified—stripping young people of autonomy and ignoring abusive or complicated home dynamics they may be navigating. The plaintiff in the case is physician Dr. Rebecca Cohen, represented by the Lawyering Project.
For more on the frustrating and absurd hoops that attorneys must guide young people through to access abortion, see our interview with Christine Castro of the Women’s Law Project:
In Ohio, the state Supreme Court just dismissed a legal challenge to the state’s abortion rights amendment. Ever since voters passed a ballot measure protecting abortion rights in 2023, anti-abortion activists and GOP officials have been bringing one baseless lawsuit after another—refusing to accept the will of the people.
In this case (which we remember well), a juvenile court judge claimed that the amendment effectively nullifies the state’s parental consent laws and judicial bypass rules—making it harder for him to weigh in on teens’ abortions. The state Supreme Court determined that Judge David Engler lacked standing, and that the window had closed to challenge the amendment.
For more on the anti-abortion movement’s incessant defiance of democracy when it comes to ballot measures, see our past coverage:
Meanwhile, the extremist anti-abortion group Kansas Equal Rights Amendment Committee, is calling on the state legislature to convene a special session solely to put fetal personhood on the ballot. This comes after a sneaky anti-abortion ballot measure fell short earlier this month—and at a time when anti-abortion ‘abolitionists,’ who want abortion patients jailed for life or executed, are becoming bolder than ever.
State Sen. Cindy Holscher, the Democratic nominee for governor, says:
“Extremists keep looking for new ways to ban abortion, but Kansans have been loud and clear. Kansans don’t want politicians taking away our constitutional rights.”
Finally, there’s been a new development in the complicated, multi-state surrogacy legal battle that the anti-abortion movement has claimed as their own: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has officially removed himself from the case.
ICYMI, the case involves an Alaska woman who agreed to be the surrogate to California-based biological parents. McKenna West says the parents pressured her to have an abortion after learning the fetus suffered from a rare and life-threatening congenital heart condition, hypoplastic left heart syndrome.
With the support of anti-abortion groups and Paxton’s office, West relocated to Texas, where abortion is illegal in cases of fatal fetal abnormalities. After she gave birth, the baby was given open-heart surgery. (His condition is unknown.)
West is now suing for custody of the newborn, who she named “Gabriel” against the parents’ wishes. Earlier this month, a court issued a temporary restraining order not allowing “Gabriel” to leave Texas, while another TRO prevents West from making medical decisions for the baby.
But last week, Paxton filed a notice of nonsuit, stating that his office did everything “at our disposal to ensure baby Gabriel was able to receive the life-saving care he needed.”
A lot is in limbo but one thing is for certain: anti-abortion activists don’t care about surrogates’ rights, or, as Paxton put it, ensuring babies are “able to receive the life-saving care.” They care about advancing the harmful, false claim that all pregnancies can be saved, and abortion is never necessary or the right medical option:
That’s it for this week, we’ll be sure to have more tomorrow when Jessica gets back from vacation!
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.