Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images
A Government for Big Tobacco and Bigger Families
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made multiple headlines last week—starting with the apparent implosion of Dr. Marty Makary’s tenure as Food and Drug Administration commissioner. But beneath the chaos lies something more troubling: a federal health apparatus increasingly shaped by antiabortion pressure campaigns, pronatalist messaging and culture-war governance masquerading as public policy.
From the Supreme Court fight over mifepristone access to the Trump administration’s bizarre new moms.gov initiative—complete with links to antiabortion crisis pregnancy centers and rhetoric about Americans being “under-babied”—the week offered a revealing snapshot of where U.S. health policy is headed. Meanwhile, flavored vape approvals for Big Tobacco sailed through the FDA, even as reproductive healthcare access remains under constant attack.
Chaos may be Trump’s currency, but the throughline here is ideology: rewarding conservative allies, policing reproductive autonomy and repackaging motherhood as a nationalist project while offering little meaningful material support to actual families.
-
To the Men Who Send Women Hate Mail
-
The Supreme Court Keeps Mifepristone Available by Mail as Litigation Continues
-
The Supreme Court Preserved Mail-Order Abortion Pills—for Now. Julie Kay Says Providers Are Still Preparing.
-
‘They’re Taking Our Humanity Away’: Kimberlé Crenshaw on Her Memoir, America’s Future and Why the Fight for Justice Requires ‘Backtalking’
-
No Women Were Present at the U.S.-China Negotiations. This Is By Design.
Get the Ms. Weekly News Digest:
Sign Up
Listen, Rate, Review and subscribe on:
American Democracy on Fire (with Steve Vladeck and Moira Donegan)
In this episode of On The Issues, we confront American democracy on fire. How did we get here and who lit the match? In a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, the United States Supreme Court gutted a fundamental provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA), landmark legislation enacted by Congress at the height of the civil rights movement to eradicate entrenched patterns of voter suppression and promote equality at the ballot box. With key mandates in the VRA now eviscerated under the hand six justices on the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, what’s next? The Court has the lowest approval ratings since confidence in the court has been measured. Many Americans now wonder—can the Court be trusted?
The Supreme Court has emphasized that if women want reproductive freedom and don’t like abortion bans, they should go vote. But what happens when the Court plays a strategic role in diluting voting power and making voting more difficult by stripping away protections?
-
Get the magazine and join the community
Become a Member -
Support Ms.
Donate
Feminist Daily Newswire
Feminist Majority Foundation
- Supreme Court Rules to Protect Access to Medication Abortion
- Effects Beyond Reproductive Care: The Backlash of Overturning Roe
- Feminist Leaders Speak Out Against the Supreme Court’s Devastating Blow to the Voting Rights Act of 1965
- House Judiciary Hearing Targets FACE Act Despite Rising Threats to Clinics
- Virginians Vote Yes for Redistricting to Reshape House Control
From the Magazine:
Get Ms.’s award-winning feminist reporting delivered directly to your mailbox!
-
How ICE Became the Enforcement Arm of the Patriarchy
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.
Jerome Gilles / NurPhoto via Getty Images
Trump Administration Launches a Legally Bogus Investigation into Smith College
The Trump administration claims its investigation into Smith College is about defending women. In reality, it is an attack on the rights of women at Smith to define their own community, values and mission without political interference from Washington.
The Department of Education argues that by admitting transgender women and allowing them access to campus housing and facilities, Smith may have violated Title IX. But that argument collapses under even a basic reading of the law. Title IX simply does not apply to admissions at private undergraduate colleges like Smith.
The administration’s complaint is also striking because it is not based on evidence that Smith students have been harmed or excluded from campus life. There is no public record of students filing complaints about the college’s housing, bathrooms or locker rooms policies. Instead, this investigation grew out of pressure from a conservative advocacy group determined to use federal power to impose its ideological agenda on colleges and universities.
Smith’s campus policies were shaped over years by students, faculty and administrators themselves—including cisgender women students who pushed the college to open admissions to transgender women more than a decade ago.
At its core, this investigation is about far more than one women’s college. It reflects the Trump administration’s broader campaign against trans rights, higher education and liberal arts institutions that encourage critical thought, inclusion and intellectual independence.
Congress passed Title IX to expand educational opportunities for women. Now, the administration is attempting to weaponize that same civil rights law to undermine women’s education and bully colleges into abandoning their own principles.
