When Washington Won’t, New Jersey Will: Inside the Nation’s Strongest Combined Shield and Safety Law

PUBLISHED 8/25/2026 by and

New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed a law Thursday establishing the nation’s strongest physical protections for gender-affirming care patients and providers, while expanding legal safeguards for reproductive healthcare access. The law, which passed both houses of the legislature in June, is a comprehensive shield law and state FACE Act corollary, joining suit with a growing state-led movement to enshrine protections for patients and providers. 

After assuming office in 2025, the Trump administration eviscerated enforcement of the federal FACE Act protecting abortion clinics, staff and patients. Then, the administration launched unprecedented attacks on the transgender community. In response, Democratic-led states are beginning to look at new ways to safeguard abortion and gender affirming healthcare providers and patients. Some states already have FACE laws protecting abortion clinics, providers and patients from threats, obstruction, intimidation and violence. And several states enacted shield laws to protect patients and providers of reproductive and gender-affirming healthcare from criminal, civil and professional prosecutions for providing health care to individuals from states where that healthcare is banned or restricted. 

New Jersey combines both mechanisms of protections. Already a shield state for abortion, New Jersey’s laws protect patients and providers from out-of-state prosecution, extradition and investigations. The new law strengthens these protections and reaffirms the confidentiality of patient-provider relationships while also creating strong safeguards for the physical safety of clinics, providers and patients.

‘Chaos and Uncertainty’: Feminist Legal Experts React to the Supreme Court Ruling That Didn’t End Mail Voting, but Let Trump’s Interference Move Forward

PUBLISHED 8/25/2026 by

On Monday, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority gave the Trump administration a temporary procedural victory in its effort to interfere with mail-in voting ahead of the November midterms.

But despite some alarming headlines, the Court did not rule that President Donald Trump has the constitutional authority to rewrite state election rules. It did not uphold the administration’s proposed restrictions on mail ballots. And it did not (yet) change anyone’s ability to vote by mail. 

What the Court did was issue an emergency application for a stay, thereby pausing a lower court injunction in Trump v. California, a lawsuit brought by a group of states challenging provisions of the president’s March executive order on elections. The ruling concludes the states had sued too soon and had not yet shown the concrete and imminent injury required to bring their claims.

That distinction is procedural, but its consequences could be profound: The order allows the administration to move forward with parts of a plan that directs the Department of Homeland Security to create state “citizenship lists,” prioritizes investigations and prosecutions of election officials who provide ballots to people deemed ineligible, and orders the U.S. Postal Service to develop new rules governing mail ballots.

Monday’s Supreme Court opinion was unsigned, but the Court’s three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson—signed their dissents. Similarly, feminist legal experts and voting rights advocates issued immediate warnings. Their message: Do not mistake this temporary ruling for a final merits decision on the legality of Trump’s order … but do not minimize the chaos the administration and the Court are allowing to spread, less than three months before a national election.

How Abortion Restrictions Exacerbate America’s Affordability Crisis

PUBLISHED 8/25/2026 by and

Few decisions carry more weight than whether or when to have a child. Women who decide to end a pregnancy are making an intensely personal, at times deeply emotional, decision. They deserve quality care, compassion and respect. Instead, under the Trump administration, abortion restrictions are expanding and options for care are disappearing.

Four years after the Supreme Court’s  Dobbs ruling, abortion care comes with a maze of logistical and financial hurdles.

A new study from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) concluded Widespread abortion restrictions across numerous states and the rollback of federal funding and protections costs our country $140 billion annually. And the 16 states with the most restrictive abortion policies cost the national economy nearly $68 billion annually in lost earnings.

In the U.S. today, abortion is increasingly reserved for those who can find and pay for it.

We urge new thinking: Instead of a return to the  Roe v. Wade era ripe with restrictions and hurdles, let’s govern expansively. We envision a supportive government that makes abortion accessible to anyone who needs it.

After Dobbs, the ERA Offers a New Path to Abortion Rights

PUBLISHED 8/25/2026 by

For 250 years, women have been fighting for inclusion in the nation’s founding promise of equality. The Equal Rights Amendment would finally guarantee that equality under the U.S. Constitution—and could give Congress and the courts powerful new tools to address discrimination in education, employment, healthcare and safety. It could also provide a constitutional basis for challenging abortion bans and restrictions as forms of sex discrimination.

But feminists do not have to wait for federal recognition of the ERA to put equality guarantees to work. State constitutions are already providing a path forward.

In Nevada, advocates successfully challenged the state’s ban on Medicaid funding for abortion under its Equal Rights Amendment; in Pennsylvania, courts have opened the door to treating restrictions on abortion funding as sex discrimination; and in Colorado, feminist lawyers are arguing that parental-notification requirements impose unequal burdens on young women while placing no comparable restrictions on young men.

At a moment when abortion rights no longer have federal constitutional protection, state ERAs offer feminists another constitutional path—not only to challenge abortion restrictions, but to confront the stereotypes and unequal burdens beneath them. Building strong interpretations of equality at the state level can protect women now while laying the groundwork for the expansive vision of sex equality a federal ERA could one day deliver nationwide.

(This essay is part of FEMINIST 250: Democracy’s Feminist Future, a special series examining the next chapter of American democracy through a feminist lens. As the nation marks its 250th anniversary, the series taps the thought leaders of today to debut game-changing ideas for the next 250 years.)

Girls Have Always Had ADHD. We Just Weren’t Looking.

PUBLISHED 8/24/2026 by

A teenage girl watches a 30-second TikTok video by @Clairebear describing “a day in hell” in her life, “ADD edition”:

“I get up and go to work and realize I don’t have gas in my car. I get to the gas station and reach for my credit card and remember that I don’t in fact have my card because I keep thinking it will turn up at some point.”

She continues explaining her day and reveals that these are all symptoms and signs of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

The teenage girl in question sees much of herself in that scenario, goes to the doctor and is evaluated and diagnosed.

Welcome to modern medicine.

I Want an Oura Ring. As a Reproductive Health Lawyer, I Know Better.

PUBLISHED 8/23/2026 by

I almost bought an Oura Ring at 3:12 in the morning. I was lying awake in my small D.C. apartment, my phone casting a blue glow across my face. I couldn’t sleep. Again. My mind was already racing through the work waiting for me in the morning: Federal Register alerts, Google alerts for abortion ban and pregnancy criminalization, another headline about a woman denied reproductive care.

So I did what people do when they can’t sleep: I shopped. I opened the Target app looking for something—anything—that might help me sleep, and soon an Oura Ring was sitting in my cart. Before checking out I opened TikTok to see whether it was actually worth it. Soon, I was watching a woman talk about her Oura Ring the way people talk about a revelation, a religious experience. One video became 10. Women talked about the ring as if it had given them access to a version of their bodies they had never been able to understand before. It noticed signs of illness before they felt sick. It helped explain their exhaustion. It tracked their cycles and identified patterns connected to fertility and pregnancy. Its promise was simple and seductive: the ring might know what was happening inside your body before you did.

It sounded incredible. I wanted the ring to tell me why I was so tired. I wanted it to warn me before I got sick. More than anything, I wanted to understand my own body. 

For generations, women have been told their pain is normal, their cycles are mysterious, and their instincts are unreliable. So when a device promises to listen to your body every minute of every day and translate its signals into something you can finally understand, it doesn’t feel like a luxury. It feels like power.

Mifepristone, Mail-In Voting and the Midterms Are All on the Line

PUBLISHED 8/22/2026 by

Trump has officially nominated Dr. Heidi Overton as the FDA commissioner. Overton previously called the abortion pill “telebortion,” and called on Congress to strictly regulate it.

With the FDA currently reevaluating its approval of mifepristone and its regulations permitting providers to mail the medication, Overton’s nomination represents yet another challenge to mifepristone’s widespread usage—accounting for over two-thirds of all abortions, including in states with bans. Not to mention the fact that Overton also recently appeared next to Trump during a press conference in which he spouted dangerous misinformation about childhood vaccines.

Asking for a friend: Will the physician in the Senate who holds a key vote on the Health Committee cave again?

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court might be on summer break—but its shadow docket is still up and running. And nothing is certain before this Supreme Court, which has committed itself to expanding Trump’s executive powers.

Thanks to SCOTUS and state legislators’ rollback of many fundamental rights, state supreme court races have been receiving increased attention, and attracted significant outside spending.

Back to School Means Back to Sex Ed. Fathers Need to Be Part of the Conversation.

PUBLISHED 8/22/2026 by

For generations, patriarchy has conditioned women to view motherhood as their ultimate calling and primary responsibility, placing the burden of raising healthy, mature adults squarely on their shoulders. Despite hard-won progress toward gender equality and a more equitable division of domestic labor, we know that society still disproportionately places the weight of parenting onto mothers. 

While modern fathers are more involved than previous generations, the equity gap remains: In most heterosexual partnerships, men shoulder significantly less of the daily labor of parenting. This persistent imbalance has led to high rates of maternal burnout.

As families settle into the back-to-school season—and teenagers encounter new classes, friendships, relationships and pressures—the work of guiding adolescents through questions about sex, consent and relationships becomes especially visible. Too often, that work still falls primarily to mothers.

To disrupt this gendered imbalance and foster healthy sexual development for adolescents, we must actively engage fathers in the work of talking to their teens about sex, consent and relationships.

Keeping Our Eyes on the Prize: Building a Future Beyond Roe

PUBLISHED 8/21/2026 by

Nearly 50 years after Roe came, it went.

The Dobbs decision brought a devastating reversal—but it simultaneously ushered in a moment akin to 1972 … the opportunity to reimagine bodily autonomy and build something better.

And now, in 2026, we have begun to see glimmers of such vision emerge in the law by way of more expansive court rulings and bolder legislation.

High School Sex Ed Is No Longer the Norm. That’s a Problem When Students Go to College.

PUBLISHED 8/21/2026 by

It’s back-to-school season, and besides exams, essays and job applications, college students have another threat to worry about: sexual assault. As many U.S. universities start their fall semesters, we’re heading into the “Red Zone”—the high-risk period on college campuses from now through Thanksgiving break, when over 50 percent of all campus sexual assaults occur.

But many students arrive on campus without having received the sex education that could help prepare them to navigate consent, communication and sexual relationships. A recent survey from college sexual assault prevention nonprofit It’s On Us found that more than two-thirds of men now in college never received formal sex education in high school.

Millions of U.S. high schoolers lack comprehensive, inclusive sex education—or receive no sex education at all—leaving too many without meaningful instruction on consent and communication before they enter college. Today, 36 states and the District of Columbia require schools to teach sex ed. But not all require curricula to cover basics such as consent and contraception, and some do not even mandate that sex education taught in schools be medically accurate.

And instead of closing those gaps, the Trump administration is making them worse. Its attacks on public school sex ed include cutting millions of dollars in funding for community sex education and teen pregnancy prevention programs, while encouraging organizations to rewrite their sex ed programs to promote pregnancy and parenthood.