How ICE Became the Enforcement Arm of the Patriarchy

PUBLISHED 5/4/2026 by

Speaking in early February, while the nation was still reeling from the killings of Minneapolis residents Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents, Jackson Katz, a leading voice in gender violence prevention and masculinity studies, and Loretta Ross, a celebrated Black feminist scholar and cofounder of SisterSong, examined the deadly ways misogyny and racism intersect in Donald Trump’s America.

The two of them had a nuanced exploration of how government institutions, cultural narratives and political movements shape—and weaponize—issues of gender and race. Their candid exchange critiques the forces behind U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and right-wing populism, and challenges us to rethink empathy, identity and our strategies for building a more inclusive feminist movement.

The Supreme Court Just Gutted the Voting Rights Act. Women Will Pay the Price.

PUBLISHED 5/2/2026 by and

The Court didn’t strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—but it didn’t need to. By requiring proof of intentional discrimination, the majority has made it dramatically harder to challenge maps that dilute the voting power of communities of color. As Justice Elena Kagan warned, the provision is now “all but a dead letter.”

For the women elected from majority-minority districts, that shift is not abstract. These are the very districts that made their representation possible—and now, those districts are among the most vulnerable to being redrawn or erased.

The consequences were immediate. Within hours of the ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, Florida lawmakers advanced a new congressional map targeting majority-minority districts, including seats held by women.

In the 11 states most likely to face redistricting pressure, up to 36 such districts could be redrawn—12 of them currently represented by women.

As voting rights litigator Yael Bromberg explained, the Court is now effectively looking for a “smoking gun” of discrimination. Short of that, legislatures can redraw maps along partisan lines, even when the racial impact is clear.

The statute remains on the books, but its practical force does not. And what replaces it is not neutrality—it is discretion. State legislatures can choose which incumbents to protect and which to leave exposed, creating new opportunities to sideline women and weaken the political power of the communities that elected them.

What happens next will not hinge on another sweeping ruling, but on a series of decisions that are easier to overlook and harder to challenge—and that will determine, district by district, who gets to remain represented at all.

A Back-and-Forth in the Courts: Feminist Lawyers Ask the Supreme Court to Step In—and Abortion Pill Access Is Restored, For Now

PUBLISHED 5/1/2026 by | UPDATED 5/4/2026 at 9:19 A.M. PT

The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily paused the Fifth Circuit’s Friday ruling that would have tightened access to mifepristone, preserving the current status quo while the justices consider the emergency appeal. The order keeps telehealth and mail access in place for now.

The Monday morning emergency action from the Court—which orders the Trump administration to answer by May 7—follows an urgent intervention from the manufacturers of mifepristone, GenBioPro and Danco.

Regardless of what the courts decide, international telehealth providers, community networks and websites selling pills are ready to ramp up services to fill the needs of Americans.

The Supreme Court Is Showing Us Why the ERA Can’t Wait

PUBLISHED 5/1/2026 by

Listening to two recent Supreme Court arguments on immigration, I heard something more than a debate over statutory language or constitutional text. I heard a stark illustration of how precarious rights can be when they depend on interpretation rather than being firmly embedded in the Constitution.

In one case, justices parsed the meaning of a single word—“arrives”—in ways that risked erasing access to asylum altogether. In the other, they confronted a direct challenge to the 14th Amendment and, in doing so, were forced to reckon with the real lives at stake.

That contrast is the point. When a right lives in statute, it can be narrowed, redefined or even functionally denied through legal gymnastics that separate words from their purpose. But when a right is written into the Constitution, it becomes harder—though not impossible—for courts to ignore its human consequences.

The difference isn’t abstract; it shapes whether people can seek refuge, claim citizenship or be recognized as equal under the law.

Taken together, these cases offer a warning—and a roadmap. If we want rights to endure, they must be grounded where they are hardest to dismantle. The Equal Rights Amendment was meant to do exactly that. And in this moment, as courts and lawmakers test the limits of existing protections, the case for finally enshrining it in the Constitution has never been clearer.

Voices From Dilley: The Stolen Ordinary of Detained Children

PUBLISHED 4/30/2026 by

In 2026, the “ordinary” lives of immigrant children are being systematically dismantled.

After family detention was largely phased out in 2021, the second Trump administration has revived the practice, resulting in a tenfold increase in the number of children held in ICE custody.

From the high-security gates of the South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, mothers and children report a harrowing reality of medical neglect, psychological trauma and the long confinement in these centers.

This is a look inside the “black box” of family immigration detention—and the brave voices breaking the silence.

****

“We have been here for nine months. I really miss playing with my toys and my watch. Please get us out of here.”

“I have friends, school and family here in the United States. … To this day, I don’t know what we did wrong to be detained. … I feel like I’ll never get out of here. I just ask that you don’t forget about us.”

“In one minute our entire lives were changed and our plans and dreams were destroyed … This place broke something in us. Something that I don’t know if we will ever be able to fix.”

The Gun Crisis Is a Maternal Health Crisis. Virginia Shows What a Comprehensive Response Looks Like.

PUBLISHED 4/30/2026 by

When the shots rang out at the Washington Hilton, it had not even been a week since the nation mourned the eight children shot dead in Shreveport, La., seven of whom were the gunman’s own. Two women, including his wife, were also shot but survived; another child jumped off a roof to escape the shooting.

More than just about anywhere else in the country, American classrooms have become ground zero for preparing kids. That was the first thought I had when I heard real-time Saturday night dispatches, reporters claiming they instinctually knew to crouch under tables. That’s not instinct. That is an entire generation raised on active-shooter drills. (I’ll never forget my then 8-year-old daughter nonchalantly explaining to me the difference between color-coded school drills. “Don’t be silly, Mom, no one has to go in the closet for a Code Yellow.”)

Not surprisingly, mothers have taken up the mantle.

Over the past week, a suite of gun safety bills headed to Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s desk, several of which she signed into law, and others she amended, including a ban on the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines—Virginia would be the 11th state to enact such a ban—as well as protections for domestic violence survivors, age limits on gun purchases, safe storage requirements and industry accountability measures.

She simultaneously signed bipartisan legislation known as the Momnibus, which aims to improve and expand healthcare coverage for mothers and families, particularly women who face the highest risks, by codifying the need to collect maternal health data, supporting mental health screenings of new parents, and expanding insurance and Medicaid coverage for a variety of care.

Paid family and medical leave is the third key advance, which Spanberger signed into law last week as well.

As we look ahead to the midterm elections, remember there are indeed policies that can make us safer and healthier. Don’t let anyone in the political establishment convince us it is not so.

Trump’s Budget Plunders Birth Control and Reproductive Health Programs—With Open Derision for Americans Who Need Them

PUBLISHED 4/30/2026 by

Title X is the federal program that funds family planning and reproductive health services nationwide—and under President Donald Trump’s proposed budget for 2027, it would be effectively eliminated, reshaping access to care for women across the country.

What is perhaps most jarring, on close reading, is not only what the budget proposes, but how it speaks. The language throughout the administration’s budget and HHS documents departs from traditional bureaucratic norms, adopting a tone that is at times openly mocking and vilifying. Programs serving women, LGBTQ people and marginalized communities are described in terms that signal not just opposition, but disdain. It is a stark reminder that federal budgets do more than allocate resources—they reflect who this government is for, and who it is not.

(This essay is part of an ongoing Ms. series examining the real-world impact of President Donald Trump’s proposed fiscal year 2027 budget. Across sectors—from healthcare and childcare to immigration enforcement and food assistance—the series explores what the administration’s funding priorities reveal about who government serves, and who it leaves behind.)

What ‘The Pitt’ Got Right and Wrong About a Major Pregnancy Risk

PUBLISHED 4/30/2026 by

The Emmy award-winning medical drama The Pitt closed its second season with a storyline about a parient with preeclampsia, a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy most identified through high blood pressure and protein in urine.

As the patient’s condition worsens, including a horrible seizure leaving her nonverbal and her baby at risk, she is diagnosed with eclampsia and hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets (HELLP) syndrome. The patient is ultimately (unbelievably) spared as her baby is surgically removed, and both are cleared to head to obstetrics and the neonatal unit, respectively. 

As a two-time preeclampsia survivor and CEO of the Preeclampsia Foundation, I want to wholeheartedly thank The Pitt producers for featuring preeclampsia, HELLP syndrome and eclampsia in their season finale. Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, which include all three disorders plus gestational hypertension, are not rare: They affect 15 percent of all pregnancies. We need greater awareness of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, the signs and symptoms, and the importance of fast, reliable intervention by medical professionals to save the lives of mothers and their babies. 

That said, I have thoughts—as does the broader community of preeclampsia survivors.

Why Trump Can’t Just Decree Changes to Voting by Mail: Former Federal Judge Explains How the President’s EO Is ‘a Solution Looking for a Problem’

PUBLISHED 4/30/2026 by and

John Jones knows about voter suppression. Currently the president of Dickinson College, Jones—nominated in 2002 by President George W. Bush and confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate—served for almost two decades as a federal court judge.

In that role, Jones presided over a case, filed just prior to the November 2020 presidential election, in which a conservative legal foundation sued Pennsylvania’s top election official, alleging that she had allowed 21,000 dead people to remain on the voter rolls. The group asked Jones to stop those people from voting.

Jones denied the request.

“… At the now infamous Four Seasons landscaping press conference, Rudy Giuliani was waving my decision in the air and decrying the fact that dead people voted in Pennsylvania. That was simply not true.”

In this interview with The Conversation‘s politics and legal affairs editor Naomi Schalit, Jones discusses President Donald Trump’s March 31, 2026, executive order to wrest control of mail-in voting from states and give it to the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security; how the constitutional design of U.S. voting bars such federal control; and how Trump’s order would disenfranchise voters and is now the subject of lawsuits by voting rights groups and 23 states.