Click to skip ahead: Defending Abortion Pills reports that Democratic AGs are ready to fight the Trump administration on their mifepristone ‘review’. In the States, news from South Carolina, California, Missouri, and more. In Policing Pregnancy, a new report shows that over 400 women were charged with pregnancy-related crimes in first the two years after Dobbs. FACT Act About-Face has the latest on the DOJ’s move to use the FACE Act against us. Clinic Watch checks in with clinics across the country in the wake of the Trump administration’s attacks. You Love to See It highlights the amazing repro rights activists on Catholic college campuses.

Defending Abortion Pills

Last week, Abortion, Every Day broke the news that Trump’s FDA and HHS are planning a “review” of mifepristone’s safety—the next step in their long-planned attack on abortion pills and telehealth. Yesterday, 20 Democratic attorneys general—led by New York AG Leticia James—warned the administration that they’re ready to sue if access to mifepristone is restricted:

“The decision to reexamine access to this medication was made in response to a scientifically baseless letter and ignores decades of research that prove mifepristone is safe and effective…If access to mifepristone is challenged, we will take action to protect it.”

Damn straight. And if you want the full timeline of the Trump administration’s collusion with anti-abortion groups leading up to this so-called “review,” make sure to read our linked coverage above. We do a serious deep dive.

In the States

All eyes on South Carolina Wednesday. Lawmakers there will hear testimony on SB 323—a Republican bill you should be watching no matter where you live. Because SB 323 isn’t just another shitty ban: it’s model legislation written by National Right to Life. In other words, it’s the anti-abortion blueprint Republicans want to impose on women across the country.

They’re telling us very clearly what they want to do—and how they plan to do it. SB 323 would:

• Ban all abortions, eliminating exceptions for rape, incest, or fatal fetal diagnoses.

• Allow women to be charged with murder for ending a pregnancy—which in South Carolina could mean the death penalty.

• Redefine birth control so that certain IUDs, emergency contraception, and at least one hormonal pill would no longer count as contraception.

• Force patients with life-threatening pregnancies into c-sections or delivery, even when the fetus has no chance of survival.

• Mandate that public schools show students the anti-abortion propaganda video Baby Olivia.

• Charge abortion providers under RICO laws.

• Criminalize abortion speech—including websites, medical referrals, and the sharing of information about how to get an abortion. (Even parents bringing their raped child out-of-state for abortion could be arrested—as could the grandparent who lent them gas money to get there.)

Republicans have tried to push this bill through before, but South Carolina abortion rights activists are more concerned this time around. As Ashlyn Preaux from Palmetto State Abortion Fund flagged earlier this month:

“We lost all three Republican women senators after they voted against the six-week ban. We lost at least two Democratic senators in the 2024 election as well…. Without enormous pushback I don’t see any leadership on the Republican side this time around to oppose this bill.”

Anti-abortion activists seem more emboldened too: they seem to believe SB 323 could withstand a legal challenge all the way up to the state Supreme Court. (Remember, the only reason South Carolina has a six-week ban at all is because Republicans rushed it through the moment the court’s sole female justice retired.)

When asked this week if he thought the state’s highest court would uphold SB 323, bill sponsor Sen. Richard Cash said, “If we can create the heartbeat law that makes the heartbeat a determining factor, I don’t see why the clinically diagnosable pregnancy can’t be a determining factor.”

For more on SB 323, read our explainer below. And join us tomorrow here and on socials as we watch the testimony.

Remember when we asked mainstream outlets to stop saying California lets doctors “anonymously” prescribe abortion pills? Just yesterday we pointed out that the term is straight from anti-abortion messaging—and flat-out wrong. Providers in shield states aren’t prescribing “anonymously”; their name simply isn’t publicly visible on a prescription label.

There’s a reason we’re such sticklers for language: Today, the California Family Council blasted the state’s expanded shield law, accusing Democratic leaders of—you guessed it—”allowing anonymous abortion prescriptions.” Call me crazy, but I don’t think NPR and Politico headlines should sound like powerful right-wing hate groups.

Anti-abortion organizations are desperate to keep providers’ names on labels because that’s how they target them for harassment, lawsuits, and prosecution. And while California Family Council vice president Greg Burt says “the state has eliminated a basic safeguard for women’s health,” he fails to mention that the law also allows patients to keep their names off labels. It’s a crucial protection for those in abusive relationships. (We’ve seen plenty of lawsuits filed by angry men trying to punish partners who had abortions without their “permission.”)

All of which is to say: words matter, choose them carefully!

Finally, abortion rights groups in Missouri are gearing up to fight the Republican ban headed for the 2026 ballot. The Missouri Independent reports that a new campaign—Stop the Ban—has already raised nearly $850,000. Their opposition? A conservative PAC called Her Health, Her Future—run by the governor’s wife, of all people.

Quick refresher (because I always assume this might be someone’s first newsletter): Missouri voters passed a pro-choice measure, Amendment 3, back in November. But Republicans don’t give a shit what voters want and have done everything possible to keep abortion inaccessible.

Now they’ve put abortion back on the ballot—this time as a ban. And they’re doing everything they can to mislead voters about the amendment: like drafting a ballot summary that reads like it protects access, and labeling the ban Amendment 3 to confuse pro-choice voters. (Stop the Ban has already had to tell supporters to ditch their “Yes on 3” merch—ugh.)

AED will keep you updated, but if you want to learn more about what’s been going on in Missouri in the meantime—read this guest column from the amazing folks over at Missouri Abortion Fund.

Quick hits:

• Arizona anti-abortion extremist David Schweikert just launched his gubernatorial bid;

• Baby Olivi