Author: Amelia Shepard

Military Strength is in Diversity, Hegseth Disagrees

Posted on by Amelia Shepard

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth is facing criticism after blocking the promotion of several senior military officers, including at least two women and two Black men, from the consideration for one-star general and admiral positions. 

According to reports, Army Secretary Daniel P. Driscoll supported the officers’ promotions and cited their decades of exemplary service. Nevertheless, the officers were removed from the promotion list, leaving a slate disproportionately composed of white men. 

This is one of many attacks on women and people of color by President Trump, Hegseth, and the newly named “Department of War.” In just this year, Hegseth has removed a dozen women and Black military officers from promotion considerations across multiple branches. 

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus argue that these actions are rooted in Hegseth’s desire to erase Black and women’s leadership and history. Similarly, the Democratic Women’s Caucus publicly reprimands Hegseth for his behavior, calling for the restoration of programs that support women in combat roles. 

The controversy has been intensified by Hegseth’s long-standing public statements about women in military service. Described by the public and fellow officers as “unprecedented,” these removals have confused and led many to believe that the lack of clear reasoning may point to discriminatory actions rooted in racism and misogyny, fitting into a larger pattern under the current administration.

Women and minorities currently account for less than 20 percent of all generals and admirals in the U.S. military. However, women’s presence in the military has continued to grow over time. According to the VA, women made up only 4% of the veteran population in 2000, but are projected to make up 18% by 2040. 

Furthermore, research shows that diverse leadership, including women’s leadership, can strengthen national security by contributing to more stable outcomes, more consensus-based decision-making, and the broader advancement of women’s status in society. Women also bring important perspectives to critical and creative thinking within national security, which is why diversity is so important in military units where women and other minorities remain underrepresented.

Hegseth has repeatedly challenged those assumptions. He has called the military’s long-standing phrase “diversity is our strength” the “dumbest phrase in military history” and argued that diversity is what “gets people killed.” He believes that unity is actually strength. During his term in leadership, his actions have focused on removing “arbitrary quotas” and focusing on “unity.” 

For Hegseth, the removal of officers with decades-long records of excellence may be a step toward the “unified” American military he wants to lead. However, when qualified leaders are overlooked without a clear explanation, the military risks losing the experience and leadership required to remain strong.

Women Athletes Win Landmark Title IX Battle Against San Diego State University

Posted on by Amelia Shepard

A landmark Title IX lawsuit against San Diego State University (SDSU) and the California State University system has resulted in a historic settlement that could strengthen gender equity in college athletics nationwide. 

The case, Fisk et al.al. v. Board of Trustees of the California State University et al, settled with $300,000 to be distributed among 798 women athletes. The plaintiffs’ attorneys will also receive $1.3 million in legal fees. Beyond the financial settlement, SDSU agreed to achieve Title IX compliance by the end of the 2026-27 academic year, hire an independent expert to conduct a gender equity review, and develop a comprehensive gender equity plan. 

Plaintiff attorney Arthur Bryant called the settlement historic, stating, “These women have made history.” For the first time since 1972, Title IX financial aid requirements were enforced by law.

The lawsuit was filed by 17 former athletes who alleged that SDSU failed to provide women athletes with an equitable share of athletic financial aid, violating Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  Title IX requires educational institutions receiving federal funding to provide equal opportunities and resources regardless of sex. 

According to the plaintiff, women made up 57.22% of SDSU student-athletes during the 2020-21 year and therefore should have received a comparable percentage of the athletic financial aid. Instead, women actually received only 50.64% of available aid. The plaintiffs argued that this disparity resulted in female athletes receiving more than $570,000 less in scholarship than they should have received. 

The lawsuit also highlighted broader concerns about unequal treatment of women’s athletic programs. One example involved the women’s lacrosse team, which did not receive enough money for their promised new field and received no professional photography.

SDSU denied all claims of guilt and stated that SDSU supports and promotes its women’s athletic programs and takes pride in their accomplishments.

Title IX was the beginning of breaking barriers and providing resources for women to participate at the same levels and with the same numbers as men. It is one of the biggest contributors to women in sports. In 1972, there were 3000 women playing sports; now, just in college alone, there are 242,231 women. The Women’s Sports Foundation wrote “Before Title IX, one in 27 girls played sports. Today, that number is two in five.” Over the decades, Title IX has helped level the playing field and improve access to sports.

Despite that progress, Title IX still has flaws, with enforcement and accountability. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has recommended that the Department of Education strengthen its oversight by making greater use of athletics data, improving response times for monitoring reports and increasing accountability with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). According to the GAO, shortcomings in oversight and transparency can allow potential violations to go unaddressed for years.

That reality is what makes the SDSU settlement so significant. The case demonstrates that Title IX is more than a symbolic commitment to equality. It is a legal obligation that schools can be held accountable for meeting.

More than 50 years after Title IX became law, this settlement serves as a reminder that progress requires enforcement. For women athletes, the victory represents not only compensation for past inequities but also a step toward ensuring that colleges and universities provide the equal opportunities the law promises.

Is There a Future for Over-the-Counter Abortion Pills? This Doctor Thinks So

Posted on by Amelia Shepard

Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, abortion access has become increasingly divided across the United States. Some states have moved to protect abortion rights, while others have banned or heavily restricted abortion. In Louisiana, lawmakers have considered banning mifepristone and misoprostol, the two medications used in medication abortion, with penalties up to ten years in jail. These growing restrictions have also increased interest in expanding safe and accessible abortion care.

On April 6, 2026, Dr. Daniel Grossman released a study on the possibility of an over-the-counter abortion pill. Currently, medication abortion is only available through a health care provider, but the study could inform future conversations with the FDA about whether abortion pills could eventually get approved for over-the-counter use. 

The study focused on whether people could correctly determine if they were eligible to use medication abortion without consulting a doctor first. The experts were given a prototype packaging called “MiMi,” named after mifepristone and misoprostol. Participants read the MiMi box and used the information to decide whether the medication was safe and appropriate for them. 

Out of 162 participants, the vast majority said the packaging was easy to understand. More than 88% correctly identified whether they were eligible. These findings suggest that it is possible for people to understand medication abortion instructions without direct medical supervision.

Grossman acknowledges that the study used a small sample size of 162 participants, so the results may not necessarily apply to all people. Still, Grossman believes the findings are important because they show that the idea warrants further research. Grossman explains, “It does start to point in a direction to suggest that this might make scientific sense, and it deserves further research.”

Recent polling also suggests broad public support for medication abortion access. The majority of Americans believe medication abortion should be legal in their state and a KFF poll found that most Americans oppose efforts to ban mifepristone nationwide or restrict the mailing of abortion pills. The KFF survey also found that more Americans view abortion pills as safe than unsafe when used as directed, reflecting growing public familiarity with medication abortion as access becomes increasingly central to the national debate over reproductive health care.

The next phase of the process would involve “actual-use studies,” which examine how people use the medication in real-world situations, outside of a controlled study environment. While over-the-counter abortion pills are not currently available, this research is still significant. The future of abortion access may continue to change as doctors, researchers, lawmakers, and the public debate what safe and accessible care should look like.

>