Click to skip ahead: Normalizing Extremism looks at an interview with the South Carolina lawmaker trying to ban abortion and birth control. In the States, news from Missouri, Florida, Utah, Alaska, and Kansas. In the Nation, Sen. Josh Hawley targets abortion coverage (even in pro-choice states), and RFK is mucking up science on pregnant women. Anti-Abortion Glossary looks at the rise of ‘drug dealers’. And Clinic Watch checks in on California, Wisconsin, and Texas.

Normalizing Extremism

The man behind one of the most extreme anti-abortion bills in the country gave an interview yesterday to explain himself. It…did not go well.

South Carolina Sen. Richard Cash admitted he wants to ban contraception and jail not just abortion providers and patients, but anyone who so much as shares a clinic’s website. (As Abortion, Every Day reported last week, this is the same guy who once wrote a pamphlet claiming all birth control pills are murder.)

And while I know it’s tempting to dismiss his comments as the ramblings of a lone extremist, remember that it’s the ‘fringe’ who increasingly sets the anti-abortion agenda. And Cash’s bill, SB 323, is modeled on legislation from a major national group. So interviews like this help provide a roadmap for what the movement wants for women in every state.

It’s good for us when these guys say the quiet part out loud.

Cash told WYFF there’s been “misinformation” and “fearmongering” about SB 323—but the longer he spoke, the clearer it was that voters probably aren’t worried enough.

When asked why his bill redefines contraception, Cash admitted he believes certain forms of birth control are “an early abortion.” When pressed about allowing homicide charges against abortion patients—which could mean the death penalty in South Carolina—he shrugged it off: “It’s wrong to kill an innocent person.”

And when asked about whether someone could be criminally charged for calling an abortion clinic, or sharing a clinic website with a friend, Cash compared it to “sharing a website to find a killer to rub your wife out.”

“If you’re aiding and abetting the killing of an innocent person,” he said, “you’re going to be held accountable.”

Again—Cash is echoing rhetoric we’ve heard across the country. When Oklahoma Republicans introduced an ‘anti-trafficking’ bill to criminalize helping a minor get an abortion, for example, Sen. Nathan Dahm said giving a teen gas money to travel out of state was “no different than if you gave somebody gas money to be the getaway driver for another crime.”

These are the men shaping our laws, and they’re gaining more legislative and cultural power by the day. The fact that SB 323 is even up for debate says it all.

We have to share one last gem from Cash—maybe the most telling moment of all. When WYFF asked if he’d consider allocating resources for women and families into his bill, he said:

“I am not trying to add all that other stuff to the code. Anytime you write a bill, you have to focus on certain things. You can’t do everything.”

It’s like they’re trying to be unlikeable.

In the States

Some good news in Missouri, which is not something we get to say especially often: The Western District Court of Appeals just rejected Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s latest request to reinstate TRAP laws that would shut down the state’s few abortion clinics.

Bailey had the nerve to argue that TRAP laws weren’t causing “irreparable harm” because abortion seekers could simply travel out of state to Kansas or Illinois. Rightly, Judge Jerri Zhang called this argument “disingenuous.”

The decision—which comes as Republicans try to codify an abortion ban using a 2026 ballot measure—means that abortion should remain available in the state. That said, just as last year’s abortion rights ballot measure didn’t sweepingly fix Missouri’s abortion access crisis, this ruling doesn’t either.

To learn more about what access has actually been like on the ground, read this guest column from Missouri Abortion Fund:

Because a six-week abortion ban apparently isn’t enough, Florida Republicans have filed a terrifying fetal personhood bill for a third year in a row. SB 164 would update the state’s wrongful death statute to include embryos and allow people to seek civil damages for the wrongful death of a fetus or “unborn child.”

And though the legislation claims to include exceptions for IVF and other reproductive technology, that doesn’t mean the potential threat of lawsuits won’t stop clinics from possibly pausing services anyway. (Abortion bans across the country include ‘exceptions’ for medical emergencies or rape—yet providers turn people away out of fear regardless.)

Legal experts and abortion rights advocates have also warned that wrongful death bills for embryos and fetuses could allow men to retaliate against ex-partners for having abortions. After all, we’ve already seen how abusive men have weaponized state bans.

The real goal of SB 164, however, is to enshrine fetal personhood: it defines an “unborn child” as a “member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

You all know how dangerous fetal personhood is—but if you want a deeper look at how it shapes nearly everything Republicans do on abortion, check out AED’s conversation with law professor and author Mary Ziegler:

Over in Utah, Gov. Brian Cox just nominated conservative Judge John Nielsen to fill a state Supreme Court vacancy. Utah Republicans, who have been critical of some of the high court’s abortion-related rulings for not going far enough, are pleased. Which is pretty scary.

Here’s what state Sen. Todd Weiler told Fox 13:

“I suspect this one would be the easiest vote of some of my Republican colleagues. He’s an excellent choice. He’s very smart and I think he checks all the boxes my colleagues are looking for.”

To be clear, what Weiler’s GOP colleagues are looking for is someone who shares their extreme anti-abortion agenda. And though abortion remains legal in Utah until 18 weeks, severe restrictions on access are constantly working their way through the legislature and court system. So this seat matters.

Meanwhile, Alaska’s Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on whether nurse practitioners and physician assistants can provide abortions—or if a state law restricting who can offer care should remain in place.

A lower court blocked that law last year after the regional Planned Parenthood pointed out the obvious: those same providers are already allowed to deliver nearly identical care and medications for miscarriage treatment.

This comes at a time when Planned Parenthood’s two Alaska clinics are struggling to retain enough staff to meet patient need—so expanding who can legally provide abortions could make all the difference.

Definitely a case to keep an eye on, especially as other states like Kansas fight similar battles over expanding the provider pool to meet rising abortion demand.

Speaking of Kansas: Keep your eyes peeled for updates this Friday, when a