Author: Giovanna DeStefanis

2026 Midterms Set New Record for Women Governors, With Historic Firsts Across the Country

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

The 2026 midterm elections marked a historic breakthrough for women’s representation in state leadership, with voters electing women governors in record numbers and breaking longstanding barriers for women of color. From Georgia to New Mexico, several candidates made history as the first women, Black women, Native American women, and Latina women to lead their states. 

In 2027, at least 17 women will serve as governors, representing at least 34% of all governors nationwide. This surpasses the previous record of 14 women governors. This year, 15 women won gubernatorial elections, including 12 Democrats and three Republicans. Two women remain in gubernatorial contests that are too close to call in Alaska and Kansas as of November 5. 

Among the most significant victories was Keisha Lance Bottoms, who will become Georgia’s first woman governor and the first Black woman elected governor of any state. The former Atlanta mayor defeated businessman Rick Jackson, ending more than two decades of Republican control of the governor’s office. Bottoms’ victory represents a historic milestone for Black women, who have long been underrepresented in the nation’s highest state offices.

In New Mexico, Deb Haaland will become the first Native American woman governor in US history. A member of the Pueblo of Laguna, Haaland previously served as an US representative and as secretary of the Interior under the Biden administration, becoming the first Native American to lead a federal executive department. Her election also marks another milestone for New Mexico, which elected an all women of color gubernatorial ticket with Lieutenant Governor-elect Stephanie Garcia Richard. 

Women also broke barriers in several states that had never elected a woman governor. Amy Klobuchar will become Minnesota’s first woman governor after defeating Lisa Demuth. In Ohio, Amy Acton became the first woman elected governor, defeating Vivek Ramaswamy. Although Nancy Hollister briefly served as Ohio’s governor through succession in 1998, Acton will be the first woman elected directly to the office.

In Tennessee, Marsha Blackburn will become the state’s first woman governor after defeating Jerri Green. Her victory marks another first for a state that has never elected a woman to its highest executive office.

The election also brought historic representation for Latina women. Gina Hinojosa defeated incumbent Greg Abbott to become Texas’ first Latina governor. Hinojosa’s election also represents a significant political shift in a state where Republicans have held the governorship for more than three decades.

Beyond these historic firsts, women secured victories and retained governorships across the country. Women governors will continue leading states including Arizona, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island, among others. Their victories demonstrate the growing presence of women in state executive leadership across party lines.

Despite this progress, women remain underrepresented in gubernatorial offices. Even with the record number of women entering office in 2027, they will hold about one-third of the nation’s governorships. According to CAWP, 14 states will still have never had a woman governor. 

This election highlights the importance of women’s representation in elected office, particularly for women who have historically faced barriers to political leadership. While these victories do not eliminate the structural inequalities that continue to limit women’s political participation, they mark meaningful progress. Women showed up and broke barriers, and it’s only just the beginning.

A Student’s Guide to Protecting Your Vote on Election Day

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

As the November 3 midterm elections approach next week, knowing your voting rights and how to respond at the polls is essential to protecting access to the ballot. For students voting on campus or in their local communities, possibly for the first time, it can be particularly confusing when state laws differ or voting procedures are unfamiliar. 

Every eligible voter deserves the opportunity to cast a ballot freely, privately, and without intimidation. Here is what voters need to know before heading to the polls. 

Know your Rights as a Voter

Federal and state laws protect voters against various forms of discrimination, intimidation and interference. Knowing your rights can help you recognize when to ask for assistance.

What to Do if Your Name Is Missing From the Voter List

If a poll worker cannot find your name on the voter registration list, do not immediately assume you are ineligible to vote. 

  • Ask the poll worker to verify your registration information. Corfim whether you are at the correct precinct and polling location and whether a spelling discrepancy, name change or other registration issue could explain the problem. 
  • Check if your state has Same-Day Voter Registration or Election Day Registration. 20 states and Washington, DC, allow eligible voters to register and cast a ballot on the spot with proof of identity and residency (such as a student ID paired with a campus housing statement or utility bill). In this case, you should ask to register and vote in the same visit. 
  • Under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, if you affirm that you are registered and eligible in that jurisdiction, poll workers are required to offer you a provisional ballot in federal elections. Note that Idaho, Minnesota, and New Hampshire do not issue provisional ballots, but they offer in-person Election Day Registration to all voters.  

What to Do If the Line is Too Long

Long lines at polling stations near college campuses are common, but long waits should never prevent you from casting your ballot.

  • Stay in line! If you are in line when the polls officially close, you have the legal right to vote. Election officials are required by law to keep the polling location open until every voter who was in line by the closing deadline has cast their ballot. Do not leave the line.
  • If the lines are moving unusually slowly, report the issue immediately to your local county election office or the Election Protection Hotline (866-OUR-VOTE).
  • If you are voting on Election Day, bring a valid photo ID, water, snacks, a fully charged phone, and any voting notes to help. 

If FBI, ICE or Other Federal Agents Appear at a Polling Place

The presence of federal law enforcement can create fear and confusion, particularly for marginalized and student communities. Under federal law (including 18 U.S.C. § 592), it is illegal for federal military personnel or armed federal agents, including ICE, FBI, or U.S. Marshals, to be stationed at or monitor polling places to interfere with an election or intimidate voters. The DOJ is claiming that ICE won’t patrol the polls, but it is important to know your rights and what to do to ensure your vote is protected. 

  • Always remain calm and keep your hands visible at all times. Don’t physically resist or obstruct law enforcement. Ask: “Am I free to go?” If the answer is yes, walk away calmly and proceed to vote. If an official requests to search you, you have the right to say no, but do not obstruct access. For additional security, turn off biometric identification such as Face ID.
  • Record the time, badge numbers, agency names, vehicle descriptions, and exact actions taken by officers or agents, provided it is safe to do so.
  • If you see an official or witness an encounter, report it immediately. Notify the chief election judge at the polling place, call local nonpartisan voter protection hotlines, and report the incident to the Election Protection Coalition.

Federal agents cannot demand identification from voters without reasonable suspicion of a crime. However, if you have been arrested while attempting to vote, you can exercise your right to remain silent and ask for a lawyer regardless of your citizenship or immigration status. To invoke these rights, say “I want to remain silent” and “I want to speak with a lawyer” and wait until you have a lawyer present. 

Non-citizen family members or allies accompanying voters should be aware of their rights, but all voters have the right to cast their ballot without harassment. 

Election Safety and Voting Rights Resources

Voters do not have to navigate election-related concerns alone. The Election Protection Coalition is a nonpartisan coalition that helps voters understand their rights, resolve voting problems, and find accurate election information. Its trained volunteers provide assistance throughout the voting process. 

  • English: 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683)
  • Spanish and English: 888-VE-Y-VOTA (888-839-8682)
  • Asian languages and English: 888-API-VOTE (888-274-8683)
  • Arabic and English: 844-YALLA-US (844-925-5287)
  • Website: 866ourvote.org 

Democracy is strongest when every eligible voter, including students, can freely cast their ballot. As election deadlines quickly approach, take time to verify your registration, map out your voting plan, and share these rights with your peers. Protect your vote, look out for your community, and never hesitate to demand access to the ballot that federal and state laws guarantee. 

For campus and state voting information, visit https://voteu.org/guides. For legal guidance on federal interference, visit: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/federal-agents-at-the-polls.

JAWS Reception Celebrates Legacy of Women in Journalism

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

The Journalism and Women Symposium (JAWS) celebrated the legacy of women journalists at a reception on October 2 hosted at the Ms. office. The gathering brought together journalists, longtime JAWS members, and feminist advocates to recognize the women who helped shape media and discuss the importance of preserving their work for future generations. 

The reception highlighted the connections between JAWS, Ms. and the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF), publisher of Ms. magazine. Kathy Bonk, a longtime feminist advocate and leader, recalled how Ms. founder Gloria Steinem reached out to ask FMF to keep the magazine alive. With the support of Ellie Smeal, Katherine Spillar, Peg Yorkin, and others, FMF committed to sustaining Ms. feminist journalism.  

Bonk also reflected on the role of feminist journalism in advancing the women’s movement, arguing that the journalists who documented the movement helped make its progress possible. Bonk shared, “It’s no longer just news coverage. It’s looking for an impact. It’s looking at how we change people’s lives.” 

A central focus of the reception was JAWS’ Legacy Fund and its efforts to preserve the history of women in journalism. Pam Morland, a former JAWS president and longtime journalist, described donating decades of professional and personal materials to archive her materials going back to 1985. 

Morland encouraged fellow journalists to preserve their own work rather than discard it, explaining that materials that may seem unremarkable today can become valuable historical records. The archives offer researchers an opportunity to explore the experiences and contributions of women journalists and document the development of organizations such as JAWS. 

The reception highlighted the importance of preserving women’s experiences in journalism, particularly as the profession continues to confront challenges. JAWS is helping ensure the future generations can study their work and understand the history of feminist media. 

As Ms. approaches its 55th anniversary in December, marking 25 years with the Feminist Majority Foundation as publisher, the gathering celebrated the relationships, reporting and feminist organizing that have sustained the magazine and the broader movement. Speakers closed by celebrating Ms., Gloria Steinem, and the community of women journalists whose work continues to shape feminist media.

New Poll Finds Voters Concerned about Rights and Democracy Ahead of 2026 Midterms

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

A new national poll from The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights finds that voters are increasingly concerned about threats to their rights, democracy, and the 2026 elections. The 2026 Civil Rights Monitor found that 82% of voters are concerned that rights and freedoms are being taken away or rolled back, the highest level recorded in the five-year history of the poll.

The poll, conducted by Brilliant Corners Research, surveyed 1,000 likely voters by phone between August 23 and September 6. It found that concerns about democracy are also at a series high, with 76% of voters saying they believe democracy is under a major threat. At the same time, voters report high motivation to participate in the upcoming midterm elections, with 84% saying they plan to definitely vote in November.

Protecting the freedom to vote was rated as the top civil rights priority, receiving the highest importance rating among white, Black, Hispanic, and Asian American voters as well as among Democrats and Republicans. Overall, 14% of voters identified voting rights as their top issue, tying it with border security and ranking ahead of abortion rights, which 10% selected.

The findings come as voters express potential concerns surrounding potential interference with the midterm elections. Seventy seven percent said they are concerned that political leaders could pressure election officials to change election outcomes, while 65% are concerned the federal government could attempt to stop elections by declaring a state of emergency. 

Voters also expressed concerns relating to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In fact, 62% are concerned that ICE could appear at polling places to intimidate or interfere with voters. Opposition to ICE is particularly strong when voters are asked about the budget increase from $10 billion to $85 billion by cutting programs such as Medicare and SNAP. In fact, 71% oppose using those programs to fund the increase, including 61% who strongly oppose it.

Black voters reported particularly high levels of concern with 83% said they are very concerned about their rights being taken away. Black voters were also the group most likely to say race relations are getting worse, and 81% said their heritage, traditions, and cultural identity are under attack in the United States. 

Despite widespread concerns about the state of race relations, the poll found broad agreement on the value of a diverse society. Ninety-two percent of voters said that diversity makes the country stronger, including most Republican voters.

As the 2026 midterms approach, the poll indicates that protecting voting rights remains a priority for voters across racial and partisan lines. Students have an important role to play in making sure those rights are protected. Make sure you are registered to vote at your current address and have a voting plan! Find more information at vote411.org/feminist.

Labor Day and the Fight for Women’s Freedom

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

Labor Day is a time to recognize the workers who built this country, and the movements that fought to make work more fair, safe, and dignified. For women, the labor movement has always been about more than a paycheck. It has been about having the freedom to build a life on our own terms. 

From the women who organized for better wages and safer working conditions to the feminists who demanded—and still demand— equal pay, paid leave, and an end to workplace discrimination, generations of women have fought for economic independence as a fundamental part of equality. 

Yet more than a century of organizing has not erased the inequalities women face at work. Women working full-time, year-round earn about 81 cents for every dollar earned by men. The gap is even wider for many women of color: compared with white, non-Hispanic men, Black women earn about 69 cents and Hispanic women about 57 cents for every dollar. Black and Hispanic women also face the compounding effects of occupational segregation, with women of color disproportionately represented in lower-paying jobs. In 2023 alone, the Department of Labor estimated that Black women lost $42.7 billion and Hispanic women lost $53.3 billion in wages compared with white men because of occupational and industry segregation.

Women remain underrepresented in positions of power and leadership. Women hold just 10.4% of Fortune 500 CEO positions, while women of color make up only 7.8% of Fortune 500 board members. Equality at work cannot simply mean having the opportunity to enter the workforce. It must also mean having an equal opportunity to advance and build economic security.

That fight has always extended beyond the workplace. Women’s economic freedom is inseparable from the freedom to make decisions about our own bodies, families, and futures. Without reproductive freedom, economic independence is limited. The cost of an abortion can include the cost of the procedure itself, but also transportation, childcare, time away from work, and other expenses. 

For women entering the workforce, bodily autonomy is more than an abstract idea. It can determine whether someone can finish school, accept a job, move to a new city, pursue a career, or decide when and whether to become a parent. 

In fact, 45% of 18-34 year old workers would reject a job offer in a state where abortion is illegal and 62% would “probably not” or “definitely not” live in a state that banned abortion at all. As of July 2026, only 53.8% of young people were employed. In an increasingly difficult job market, young people should not have to choose between economic opportunity and control over their own bodies. 

The feminist movement has understood this connection for generations. The fight for women’s equality has never been limited to any single workplace, policy, or election. It has been a fight for the freedom to participate fully in society and to make decisions about our own lives. That is the promise behind the Equal Rights Amendment, which Congress must recognize.

As the 2026 midterm elections get underway, voters have an opportunity to decide what kind of freedom women will have in the years ahead. The issues on the ballot, from wages and workplace protections to reproductive rights are deeply connected. 

Women demand freedom. We demand the freedom to work, earn, organize, vote, choose, and to determine the course of our own lives. That has always been the promise of the feminist movement and this Labor Day, it is still the fight ahead.

Women’s Equality Day: Many Gains, Still Work To Do

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

On August 26, 1920, the 19th Amendment was certified, prohibiting the denial of the right to vote on the basis of sex. More than a century later, Women’s Equality Day commemorates that historic victory and the generations of suffragists who fought to secure it. 

Women have won extraordinary gains in the 106 years since the 19th Amendment. But the right to vote was only one of the many rights women fought to secure. For much of US history, women were systematically excluded from political decision-making, denied equal access to education and employment, and treated as legally and economically dependent on men. 

Through decades of organizing, litigation, and political action, feminists helped expand women’s access to education and the workplace, challenged sex discrimination, fought for protections against sexual harassment, and won greater economic independence, including the ability to obtain credit in their own names. Feminists also fought for access to contraception and abortion, recognizing that the ability to decide whether and when to have children is fundamental to women’s equality and autonomy.

Those struggles transformed the lives of generations of women. Today, women are outpacing men in college completion across every major racial and ethnic group in the US, while women are running for public office in record numbers. From the ballot box to the classroom, the workplace to the legislature, these gains did not happen by accident. They were won by generations of feminists who refused to accept inequality as inevitable. Even as women continue to break barriers and make historic progress, those hard-won gains are not guaranteed.

Yet Women’s Equality Day does not mean that women have achieved equality. 

“I never thought that in the US we’d have people arguing to go back to the 19th century,” said Feminist Majority Foundation President and co-founder Eleanor Smeal. “It’s the 21st.” 

Today, hard-won rights are once again under attack. The right to make decisions about our own bodies has been stripped away from millions of women since the Supreme Court overturned Roe. Across the country, abortion bans are forcing women to continue pregnancies against their will, while attacks on contraception and other reproductive health care threaten to further limit women’s control over their own lives. Taking that decision away is an attempt to take that power away as well. 

Even the rights commemorated by Women’s Equality Day are being questioned. Some have openly advocated for restricting women’s voting for “household voting” that could give husbands greater control over how families vote. The fact that taking away women’s independent voting power is being discussed at all is a reminder that hard-won rights cannot be taken for granted.

“We never thought bad things would happen again,” said Kathy Spillar, executive director of Feminist Majority Foundation. “We demand equality, no less—but we must ensure that there is equality.”

That fight includes securing the Equal Right Amendment to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in the Constitution. Although the ERA has been fully ratified by the required 38 states, it has yet to be recognized as part of the Constitution. The majority of states have also adopted some form of constitutional protection for equal rights based on sex—or State ERA’s—but protections vary across the country.

Women’s Equality Day should be a celebration of how far women have come, but not a declaration of victory. We can celebrate the suffragists who fought for the ballot, the feminists who expanded women’s access to education and economic independence, and the generations of women who broke barriers in politics and public life. But equality is not guaranteed. We must continue fighting for reproductive freedom, an end to violence against women, equal opportunity and representation, and constitutional equality. Women’s Equality Day is a reminder of what feminists have won, and why we must keep fighting to protect it. 

Idaho Abortion Ban Blocked When Pregnancy Threatens Patient’s Health

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

On August 13, 2026, a federal district court ruled in Idaho that the 14th Amendment protects the right to abortion when a pregnant person’s life or health is seriously threatened, blocking Idaho from enforcing its abortion bans in those circumstances. 

The ruling invalidates two Idaho laws to the extent that they prohibit doctors from providing abortion care to patients facing serious medical conditions, including mental health conditions that put them at risk of suicide or overdose. 

Following a six-day trial in June, the court determined that abortion care to prevent serious and lasting harm to a pregnant person’s health is deeply rooted in American history and tradition. The decision is the first federal court ruling since the overturning of Roe in 2022 to recognize that the federal Constitution continues to protect abortion access in certain circumstances. 

The case was brought by the Lawyering Project and Legal Voice on behalf of Dr. Stacy Seyb, an Idaho maternal-fetal medicine specialist who argues that the state’s abortion bans prevented him from providing necessary care to patients. 

The court’s ruling is particularly significant for patients experiencing serious mental health conditions. Idaho’s abortion bans previously prohibited abortion even when a pregnancy places a patient at risk of death from self-harm. 

According to Idaho’s Maternal Mortality Review Committee, mental health conditions were the most common underlying cause of pregnancy-related death in the state between 2018 and 2024. 

While this is a win, it’s important to note that the ruling does not establish a broader constitutional right to abortion. The court declined to block Idaho’s abortion bans when a fetus has a life-threatening condition unless the condition also poses a serious threat to the pregnant person’s health. 

The decision comes as Idaho voters prepare to consider Proposition 1 or the “Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act Initiative” in November. This would establish a broader right to reproductive freedom, including access to abortion before fetal viability. Proposition 1 would go into effect on and after January 1, 2027. 

This ruling is an important step toward protecting pregnant people from the devastating consequences of abortion bans. No one should be forced to carry a pregnancy that places their life or health in serious danger, and no doctor should face criminal punishment for providing medically necessary care. Pregnancy people must be able to make decisions about their own bodies and health without government interference. 

If you are an Idaho resident, make sure you are registered to vote to make your voice heard on Proposition 1 this November!

The U.S. Maternal Health Crisis Is Preventable. Congress Must Act on the Momnibus

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

As the United States continues to face a maternal health crisis, health care providers, advocates, and lawmakers are calling on Congress to pass legislation aimed at improving maternal health outcomes and expanding access to maternity care. 

On Thursday, August 6, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), former Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure and health care providers joined Protect Our Care for a virtual press conference focused on the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act. The event came as Republican-backed cuts to Medicaid and other health care programs threaten to make maternity care more difficult to access for millions of people. 

The Momnibus is a package of 14 bills designed to address the underlying causes of maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity, while targeting racial disparities in maternal health outcomes. The legislation includes provisions addressing social determinants of health, investments in community-based organizations, maternal health workforce development, support for incarcerated moms, respectful maternity care and data collection, and many others. 

Booker reintroduced the legislation in the Senate this Congress alongside House sponsors Reps. Lauren Underwood (D-IL) and Alma Adams (D-NC). The legislation builds on previous versions of the Momnibus that Booker and other lawmakers have introduced in Congress.

The renewed push comes as maternal health outcomes in the US remain among the worst in the high-income nations and recent Medicaid cuts included in the “Big Ugly Law” threaten access to care. Medicaid covers more than 40% of births in this country. More than 80% of pregnancy-related deaths in the US are preventable. 

The disparities by race remain stark. In 2024, the maternal mortality rate for Black women was 44.8 deaths per 100,000 live births, more than three times the rate of 14.2 deaths per 100,000 live births among white women. Black women accounted for 17.6% of maternal deaths in 2024 despite representing a much smaller share of the U.S. population.

The racial disparities are even more pronounced in some communities. During the press conference, Dr. Ala Stanford, a pediatric surgeon and maternal health advocate, highlighted the disparity in Philadelphia, where Black women accounted for 43% of births but 73% of pregnancy-related deaths. Stanford emphasized that this is not about biology, but about access. 

The disparities in maternal health are shaped by a range of factors, including access to prenatal and postpartum care, insurance coverage, hospital availability, socioeconomic conditions, and the quality of care patients receive. When people cannot access timely and affordable care, preventable complications can become life-threatening.

Protect Our Care has warned that recent federal health care cuts could force maternity wards and other providers to reduce services or close altogether. Since the passage of the law, Protect Our Care has tracked more than 50 maternity wards that have closed or announced plans to close.

With hundreds of people still dying from maternal causes each year and Black women continuing to experience maternal mortality at more than three times the rate of white women, the US cannot afford to delay action. The Momnibus would provide a comprehensive federal approach to addressing the systemic barriers contributing to the crisis while investing in the communities and providers working to make pregnancy and childbirth safer.

The bills included in the Momnibus include the Extending WIC for New Moms Act, the Social Determinants for Moms Act, the Data to Save Moms Act, the Protecting Moms and Babies Against Climate Change Act, the Moms Matter Act, the Maternal Vaccinations Act, the Maternal Health Pandemic Response Act, the Tech to Save Moms Act, the Perinatal Workforce Act, the IMPACT to Save Moms Act, the Maternal Health for Veterans Act, the Kira Johnson Act, and the Justice for Incarcerated Moms Act.

Americans Reject Trump’s “Big Ugly Law” as Women and Families Pay the Price

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

It’s been over a year since President Donald Trump signed the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” (H.R, 1) into law, promising economic relief for American families. New polling suggests the legislation has failed to win over the public, with many voters saying the law has done little to improve their financial situations, while others remain unsure what the bill does at all. 

According to a new POLITICO/Public First poll, the legislation remains broadly unpopular despite months of Republican messaging promoting its economic benefits. Nearly half of respondents said they either knew little about the law or could not explain what it does, while only 11% said they could explain the bill in detail. Among those familiar with the legislation, many believe it primarily benefits wealthy Americans rather than working families. 

The poll also found that just eight percent of respondents said the law had given them a major financial boost, while roughly one-third said it had hurt their bottom line. Additionally, 34% said the legislation provides some tax cuts that ultimately serve to conceal larger tax breaks for wealthy Americans, reinforcing criticism that the law prioritizes corporations and high-income earners over everyday families. 

Skepticism about the legislation extends to Trump’s own supporters. Only around one-quarter of people who voted for Trump in the 2024 election believe the working class received substantial tax relief under the law. Republican messaging around the bill has struggled to resonate even with a key part of the president’s political base. 

Among Republicans, 48% said the war had increased costs, including 46% of self-identified MAGA Trump supporters and 55% of non-MAGA Trump supporters. The widespread perception that costs have risen  presents another obstacle for Trump as he seeks to defend his economic record ahead of the 2026 midterms. 

The survey also examined voters’ perceptions of the economic effects of the recent conflict with Iran. Across nearly every demographic group, a majority of respondents, averaging 57%, said the war has made everyday expenses more costly. 

For women and families, the stakes extend far beyond political messaging. The Big Ugly Law includes sweeping cuts to SNAP that millions of women, children, seniors, and people with disabilities rely on for food assistance. Over four million people are no longer receiving food aid because of Trump’s changes to SNAP. 

The bill also made the largest cuts to Medicaid in the program’s history, making women especially vulnerable as they make up the majority of adult Medicaid enrollees. Millions of women rely on Medicaid for pregnancy and postpartum care, preventive services, and long-term health care. These cuts threaten access to essential health services for millions of women and their families. Rather than delivering the financial relief Republicans promised, the legislation has raised costs and reduced access to critical services, a combination that clearly isn’t resonating with the American public.

The findings present a growing political challenge for Republicans as they head into the 2026 midterm elections. Despite continued efforts to frame the legislation as an economic success, many voters remain unconvinced that the law has improved their lives. As Americans continue to face rising costs and reduced access to programs that support working families, the administration’s signature domestic policy is increasingly becoming a political liability rather than the legislative victory Republicans hoped it would be.

Low-Income Parents Are Making Impossible Choices as Food Costs Rise

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

Eighty-three percent of low-income parents can no longer buy all the food they usually would due to increased food costs. A new national survey commissioned by No Kid Hungry reveals that rising grocery prices and economic pressures are forcing low-income parents to make painful tradeoffs between feeding their families and meeting other basic needs. 

The poll found that 70% of low-income parents worry they will have to choose between paying household bills and buying healthy food for their children. More than eight in ten parents surveyed reported being unable to purchase all the food their families need. 

The findings paint a troubling picture of food insecurity across the United States, particularly as lawmakers continue debating the future of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) through the Farm Bill. 

In fiscal year 2024, SNAP served an average of 41.7 million people per month, or 12.3 percent of U.S. residents. That same year, women made up over half of non-elderly SNAP recipients at 55%. In 2022, over half (53%) of SNAP households with children were headed by a single adult.

According to the survey, families are increasingly sacrificing essential expenses in order to put food on the table. More than half of respondents (55%) are cutting back on groceries, while 45% delayed paying utility bills and 43% postponed necessary vehicle repairs. Nearly one-third of parents said they had skipped meals so their children could eat. 

The consequences extend beyond parents themselves. More than one-third of respondents (36%) said their children were at least sometimes not eating enough because their family could not afford food. 

Many parents also reported taking on additional work to cover rising costs. Fifty-four percent said they or their spouse had taken a second job or worked extra hours. One Minnesota parent described working nights to earn extra income, saying the additional job has reduced the time they are able to spend with their children. 

The survey also highlights the importance of SNAP for families facing food insecurity. Ninety percent of respondents said they would have to significantly reduce food purchases without the program, while 80% said SNAP is sometimes the primary way their children are able to access nutritious food. Eighty-five percent reported that SNAP helped improve their family’s overall financial situation. 

The release comes as the Senate considers Farm Bill legislation that could affect future SNAP funding. Previous cuts to the program have already left millions of people without benefits. Congress must strengthen food assistance programs especially amid continued economic uncertainty. 

For women, who are disproportionately represented among low-income caregivers and single-parent households, reductions to nutrition assistance programs can have particularly severe consequences. As food prices continue to rise, anti-hunger programs are essential to supporting families and preventing childhood hunger. 

The survey was conducted in May 2026 and included responses from 1,202 low-income parents nationwide and a margin of error of 3.8%.

Rising Gas, Rising Bills: The Gendered Economic Impact of the Iran War

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

As the United States becomes increasingly entangled in military conflict with Iran, the costs are not only being felt overseas. At home, the economic consequences are hitting American households hard, and women, particularly single mothers, are bearing the brunt. 

On February 28, the U.S. and Israel killed Iran’s supreme leader. That same day, a primary school in Iran was attacked, killing at least 175 people, including many children. Iran responded with attacks on Israel and US-allied countries in the Gulf and closed the Strait of Hormuz, a passage through which roughly one fifth of the world’s oil supply flows. The disruption sent oil prices soaring. 

Economic shocks rarely fall evenly. Structural inequalities in wages, caregiving responsibilities, and employment mean that women often experience rising costs first and most intensely. Single mothers are especially vulnerable. In the United States, more than four of five single parents are women, and the majority of them are Black women and Latinas. Their median income is about $17,000 lower than that of single fathers, leaving little room to absorb sudden price increases. 

Single mothers are also more likely to be working and commuting daily than married women, making them particularly exposed to rising gas prices. As gas prices rise in response to instability in global oil markets, those commuting costs quickly add up. For many single mothers, transportation is not optional. Without reliable public transit in many parts of the country, driving is often the only way to maintain employment and manage caregiving responsibilities.

Families earning between $40,000 and $49,999 spend one of the highest shares of their income on gas, a bracket many single-mother households fall into. When prices rise across multiple categories at once, the pressure on these families intensifies. For single mothers, balancing rent, childcare, food, and transportation on a single income, can force difficult financial tradeoffs. 

Polling suggests that women are already feeling this strain more acutely. According to a survey conducted by the 19th and SurveyMonkey, women report greater concern than men about their ability to pay for basic expenses, including groceries, housing, and utilities. These concerns reflect longstanding economic disparities. Women continue to earn less on average than men and are more likely to head households with children, meaning rising prices stretch their budgets further.

The broader economic consequences also matter because women play a central role in household spending decisions. Women influence roughly 85 percent of consumer purchases in the United States, making them a driving force behind much of the country’s economic activity. When women’s purchasing power is weakened by rising costs, the impact extends beyond individual households and into the broader economy.

Feminist Leaders Speak Out Against the Supreme Court’s Devastating Blow to the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

On April 29, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to decimate protections under the Voting Rights Act, one of the nation’s most important civil rights laws. The case, Louisiana v. Callais, centers on how states consider race when drawing legislative districts to comply with voting rights protections. In its ruling, the Court concluded that race cannot be the predominant factor used when drawing districts, even when states are attempting to comply with federal voting rights law. 

The Feminist Majority Foundation strongly denounces this decision and remains committed to fighting for our democracy and equal representation. 

In her dissent, Justice Kagan warned that the ruling effectively dismantles a central tool used to protect minority voters. The decision undermines decades of precedent and could allow for discriminatory maps to stand as long as lawmakers claim their motives were political rather than racial. 

“Black women in the Congress and state houses have been at the forefront of fighting for some of the most important policy initiatives of our time, including maternal health programs, expanding Medicaid, funding school lunch programs, paid family and medical leave, reproductive rights, securing a living wage, the Equal Rights Amendment and so much more. Without their strong voices in the ranks of Congress and state legislatures, women and girls everywhere will be impacted,” said Kathy Spillar, co-founder and executive director of FMF.

Eleanor Smeal, president and co-founder of FMF, added “This is a devastating blow. The Voting Rights Act was the result of a massive civil rights movement, some of these activists gave their lives to furthering democracy. This ruling will devastate the participation of communities of color, especially women, in a democracy that is under attack. With the Court taking this reactionary stand, civil rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and women’s rights are diminished.” 

FMF is a member of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and the Transformative Justice Coalition.

Civil rights leaders quickly condemned the decision. Barbara R. Arnwine, president and founder of the Transformative Justice Coalition, warned: “The most conservative U.S. Supreme Court since 1935 is now setting back the time clock regarding the impact of the Black vote to pre-1965 levels. This is unacceptable! We must demand more from our U.S. Supreme Court and our U.S. Congress. We must speak with our vote in 2026!”

As Maya Wiley, president and CEO of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, stated, “Every voter deserves a fair map, free of discrimination. Every voter of color deserves the fair chance to elect people who can be held accountable to meeting their needs and responding to their problems. That includes Black voters.”

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act explicitly “prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race…” For decades, the Voting Rights Act allowed courts to block voting policies and district maps that produced discriminatory results, such as weakening the political power of Black voters. Courts had this power even if lawmakers did not openly admit discriminatory intent. 

Kim Villanueva, President, National Organization for Women said, “The Trump Supreme Court has given a green light to race discrimination and leaves communities without the most effective weapon they’ve had to ensure they have fair representation by striking down Louisiana’s congressional map. With this ruling, the Court leaves the Voting Rights Act a pale echo of what civil rights heroes like Fannie Lou Hamer and Rev. Dr. Pauli Murray fought to protect for future generations. The Supreme Court majority has struck another blow against democracy.”

Gloria L. Blackwell, CEO of the American Association of University Women, underscored the broader impact: “When maps dilute Black voting power, women and families lose ground on the issues that matter most — from strong public education to equal pay to civil rights protections. We will continue to stand for a democracy where every voter is heard, every community is counted, and every woman has the power to help shape our future.”

In the face of this devastating setback, feminists and civil rights leaders will continue organizing, mobilizing, and fighting to ensure every voice is heard and every vote counts.

Pennsylvania Court Recognizes Reproductive Autonomy Under State Equal Rights Amendment

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

On April 20, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court issued a landmark ruling for reproductive rights, striking down the state’s ban on Medicaid funding for abortion. The court held that the policy violates Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and the equal protection provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution. 

The Pennsylvania Equal Rights Amendment, added to the state constitution in 1971, guarantees that equality of rights under the law “shall not be denied or abridged because of the sex of the individual.” The court relied on this provision to find that the state’s Medicaid abortion funding ban unlawfully discriminates against low-income people capable of pregnancy.

The decision came in Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, a case brought by abortion providers. The Women’s Law Project, which has worked tirelessly on this issue, calls it a “decisive victory for reproductive freedom in Pennsylvania.”

Since 1982, Pennsylvania has enforced the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act, a strict ban on the use of Medicaid funds for abortion care. The state’s Medicaid program could only cover abortion in extremely limited circumstances. In all other situations, abortion care had to be paid for entirely out of pocket, even though Medicaid routinely covers prenatal care, childbirth, and other pregnancy-related medical services.

​​This funding ban created a stark economic barrier to abortion care for people across Pennsylvania. For context, around 4 in 10 people who get abortions have an income below the federal poverty level. Since Medicaid serves primarily low-income residents, the restriction effectively denied abortion access to many low-income women. 

The court concluded in its 4–3 ruling that this policy imposed unequal burdens tied directly to pregnancy and reproductive capacity. The majority opinion emphasized that when the government funds medical care connected to pregnancy, it cannot selectively exclude abortion without violating constitutional protections for equality.

The decision builds on a 2024 decision by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that revived the challenge after lower courts had dismissed it in 2019. That decision overturned decades-old precedent upholding the Medicaid abortion funding ban and allowed the case to proceed under the state ERA.

By grounding this decision in the state Equal Rights Amendment, the court signaled that abortion access is not only a healthcare issue, but also a matter of gender equality. If the ruling stands, Pennsylvania’s Medicaid program could be required to cover abortion services, significantly expanding access for low-income residents who have long been denied care because of cost. 

The decision may still be appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which would have the final say on whether the Medicaid funding ban violates the state constitution. 
The decision already marks a major milestone, demonstrating how state Equal Rights Amendments can serve as powerful tools for protecting reproductive autonomy in a post-Roe landscape.

Supreme Court Weighs Landmark Cases on Transgender Students and School Sports

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

On January 13, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two landmark cases that could dramatically reshape the future of transgender rights in education and athletics: Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J. The cases challenge state laws that categorically bar transgender girls and women from participating in school sports, raising fundamental questions about discrimination and equality. 

Outside the Court, hundreds of families, athletes, civil rights leaders, faith leaders, and members of Congress rallied both in support of and in opposition to transgender youth. 

Inside the Court, attorneys from Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and Legal Voice argued that these bans violate both the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and, in the West Virginia case, Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination in education. Federal courts have blocked enforcement of these bans in both lawsuits.

In Little v. Hecox, the Court is reviewing Idaho’s 2020 Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, the first statewide law in the nation to impose a blanket ban on transgender women and girls in female athletic competitions. The law defines sex strictly on the basis of reproductive biology and genetics and allows schools to subject students to invasive sex verification procedures if a student’s eligibility is challenged.

Lindsay Hecox, a transgender college student, brought the case after being barred from competing on Boise State University’s women’s track team, arguing that the law unconstitutionally singles out transgender women for discriminatory exclusion.

West Virginia v. B.P.J. centers on Becky Pepper-Jackson, a transgender middle school student who sought to participate in girls’ cross-country and track. West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act restricts participation on girls’ teams exclusively to students assigned female at birth. Lower courts repeatedly ruled in Becky’s favor, finding that the law violated both constitutional equal protection principles and Title IX. 

Together, these cases represent the Supreme Court’s most consequential engagement with transgender athlete bans to date. More than twenty states have enacted laws restricting transgender students’ participation in school sports, with dozens more proposing similar legislation.

A decision is expected by late spring or early summer. A ruling upholding these bans would likely accelerate legislative attacks on transgender youth and further erode civil rights protections across education and public accommodations. 

This moment marks the latest attack on transgender people in a broader campaign to demonize and exclude this community. Nevertheless, transgender people continue to organize, resist, and achieve historic breakthroughs. In November 2024, Sarah McBride of Delaware became the first openly transgender person elected to the U.S. Congress, a landmark victory for representation and political inclusion. 

Across the country, transgender and LGBTQ+ candidates are winning local and state elections, expanding visibility and reshaping political power. While lawmakers seek to marginalize transgender people through fear-driven policy, trans communities continue to build power, claim space, and affirm their belonging in every arena of public life.

South Carolina Senate Rejects Push for Abortion Criminalization Bill

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

A South Carolina bill that would have become one of the nation’s most extreme abortion bans has failed to advance in the state Senate. The bill’s collapse highlights deep divisions among Republicans over how far they are willing to go in restricting reproductive rights.

The bill, S.323, also known as the “Unborn Child Protection Act,” sponsored by Republican Sen. Richard Cash, sought to outlaw nearly all abortions in the state. It would have eliminated existing exceptions for rape, incest, and fatal fetal anomalies, leaving only a narrow exception to save the life of the pregnant person. Beyond banning the procedure, the proposal also carried extraordinary criminal penalties. Women who obtained abortions, and anyone who assisted them, could face up to 30 years in prison. The bill also included language that could restrict access to certain forms of contraception, including IUDs, and potentially impact in vitro fertilization (IVF).

The bill also sought to criminalize a wide range of conduct surrounding abortion, including providing information, facilitating travel, or helping someone obtain medication, actions that reproductive rights advocates warned could amount to policing speech and movement. Its broad language could have opened the door to investigations into miscarriages and complicated medical care, further intensifying concerns among physicians already navigating a restrictive legal environment.

The bill failed to advance out of the SC Senate Medical Affairs subcommittee, which Cash is on. Four of the six Republican members abstained from voting, allowing the three Democrats present to block the measure. The abstentions signaled serious concerns within the GOP about both the political risk and the ethical implications of criminalizing women.

Several Republicans, including Jeff Zell, made clear that while they oppose abortion and “want to stop as many abortions as possible,” they could not support this legislation that would send women to prison for decades. Their hesitation was echoed by South Carolina Citizens for Life, the state’s largest anti-abortion organization, which publicly broke with the bill’s supporters. The group argued that women seeking abortions should not be treated as criminals, calling them victims themselves. 

South Carolina already enforces a six-week abortion ban, one of the strictest in the country, with exceptions for rape, incest, fatal fetal diagnoses, and medical emergencies. But this proposal represented a significantly broader effort that far surpassed post-Roe restrictions adopted elsewhere. If enacted, it would have been the most punitive abortion law in the United States.

For now, the bill remains stalled, though lawmakers acknowledge the issue is far from settled. Democratic Sen. Brad Hutto noted that abortion legislation is all but certain to return during the 2026 session, as Republican lawmakers continue to grapple with internal disagreements and pressure from advocacy groups on both sides.

The debate in South Carolina highlights a broader national struggle within the anti-abortion movement whether to pursue increasingly aggressive criminal penalties, or to stop short of measures many voters, even conservative ones, consider extreme. As the legislative session winds down, the state remains a key battleground in defining the future of reproductive rights in the post-Roe era.

Planned Parenthood Forced to Close 20 Clinics After Medicaid Cuts

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

Planned Parenthood has shut down at least 20 of its health centers across the United States since July, a move the organization attributes to steep cuts in Medicaid funding. The closures follow a provision in the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which bars health care providers that receive more than $800,000 a year of Medicaid reimbursements and also provide abortion services from obtaining those payments. The impact is not limited to abortion care; the affected clinics also provided cancer screenings, birth control, prenatal care, and other reproductive health services.

Even before the Medicaid cuts, Planned Parenthood closed nearly 50 other clinics this year. Low-income patients are particularly vulnerable, as many rely on Medicaid for their reproductive health care, and Planned Parenthood leaders warn more locations may close without a sustainable funding model.

One of the states hardest hit is Louisiana, where Planned Parenthood shut down its only two clinics, in New Orleans and Baton Rouge, after more than 40 years of service. These centers had served thousands of patients annually for preventive care like STI testing and cancer screening. Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast CEO, Melaney Linton, said that these closures are “not the result of a lack of need” but of “relentless political assaults” and the impossibility of operating sustainably under the new Medicaid rule. In a state with a near abortion ban, there are now even fewer options for any form of reproductive healthcare. 

The broader political context compounds this problem. In addition to the Medicaid cut, the Trump administration has frozen over $65 million in Title X family planning funds, affecting multiple Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide. These Title X dollars previously supported key reproductive health services, particularly for low-income patients.

Some Planned Parenthood affiliates have taken legal action in response. A federal judge reinstated a temporary block on enforcing the Medicaid ban, signaling that courts may view the restriction as unconstitutional. Meanwhile, lawmakers in at least seven states have stepped up to fill the gaps of Planned Parenthood’s funding. These states include California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Washington where abortion remains legal. 

The Medicaid cuts extend beyond Planned Parenthood itself. In Maine, a network of clinics called Maine Family Planning, which also relied on Medicaid reimbursement, announced it would halt its primary care services at 18 locations due to the same funding policy. The closure disproportionately affects rural and low-income communities that depend on these clinics for routine health care. 

Planned Parenthood has long served as a safety net for marginalized populations, offering cancer screening, contraceptive care, STI testing, and more. With dozens of clinics closing, many individuals may lose affordable access to these basic, preventive services. The legal challenges continue, but for now, the 20 closures stand as a stark indicator of how politicized funding decisions are reshaping access to reproductive health care. 

FDA Removes Black Box Warning from Menopause Hormone Therapies

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has removed its boxed warning from more than twenty hormone-based therapies used to treat menopause symptoms, marking a major change in how the agency regulates these medications. The FDA’s update applies to products that deliver estrogen or estrogen-progestin combinations through pills, patches, gels, or sprays. The boxed warning, also known as a “black box” warning, is the FDA’s most serious caution, and has appeared on estrogen and combination hormone therapies since 2002. 

In the 1990s, more than 1 in 4 women took estrogen either alone or in combination with progestin. The assumption was that it would reduce rates of heart disease and dementia in addition to treating menopause. The warning was added after the Women’s Health Initiative study linked hormone therapy to increased risks of heart attack, stroke, blood clots, and dementia. The average age of women in the study was 63, which is over a decade past the average age of a woman experiencing menopause at 52. 

Dr. Steven Fleischman, President of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, noted that the warnings made patients hesitate to take the medication even when their condition was severe. This fear of potential risks to the fetus led to pregnant women to refuse necessary medical treatment, resulting in serious harm.

Agency officials said the change reflects new research showing that the risks seen in older women in the 2002 study do not apply equally to younger women, especially those under 60 or within 10 years of menopause. For those patients, the FDA said, hormone therapy remains an effective and generally safe option for easing hot flashes, night sweats, and other symptoms.

The boxed warning will be replaced with language advising patients and doctors to consider age, medical history, and timing when deciding on treatment. Other cautions will remain in place, including guidance that women with a uterus should use combined estrogen and progestin therapy to reduce the risk of uterine cancer. 

This move reflects updated evidence and a more individualized approach to menopause care. FDA officials including Secretary Kennedy stated that “We are returning to evidence-based medicine and giving women control over their health again.” 

The update comes amid growing attention to the lack of research and resources devoted to women’s care in the United States. Funding for women’s health research has lagged severely, with less than 9% of NIH grant spending between 2013 and 2023 focused exclusively on women’s health. More recently, the Trump administration has cut funding for research centering on women. 

The FDA’s decision marks an important shift toward restoring trust in women’s medicine. By removing the blanket boxed warning, the agency acknowledges that menopause care requires individualized treatment rather than one-size-fits-all caution. This change could encourage more open conversations between patients and doctors, improve access to safe and effective therapies, and highlight the ongoing need for greater research and resources dedicated to women’s health.

Hegseth’s “Warrior Culture” Risks Excluding Women from Military Service

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

At a recent gathering of top military brass in Quantico, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth called for the armed forces to abandon what he called “woke culture” and return to a rigid “warrior” ethos. He pledged sweeping changes to fitness, grooming, and disciplinary standards, changes that critics warn could push women out of roles they have fought for decades to earn.

Hegseth announced that all combat positions will be judged by the “highest male standard” for physical fitness, a shift that would erase gender-neutralized benchmarks designed to reflect the actual requirements of military jobs. In practice, this could exclude many women from combat specialties, regardless of their proven service and performance. 

Women make up 17.3% of the total active-duty force, and more than 21% of the Guard and Reserves. They are represented in every branch:

  • Air Force: ~21% women
  • Navy: ~20% women
  • Army: ~15–16% women
  • Marine Corps: ~9–10% women
  • Space Force: ~19–20% women
  • Coast Guard: ~15–16% women

Far from being peripheral, women are central to military readiness. Women now serve in every combat role once barred to them. They also stay in service longer: in 2023, 33% of enlisted women in the Marine Corps reenlisted, compared to just 28% of men, while nearly 90% of female officers continued their service, surpassing men.

This presence is particularly striking given women’s long exclusion from the armed forces. Until 1948, women could not serve as permanent, regular members of the military. They were admitted only in segregated, auxiliary units such as the Women’s Army Corps or as nurses. 

Even after integration with The 1948 Women’s Armed Services Integration Act, combat positions remained closed for decades: women were barred from flying combat aircraft until 1993, from serving on submarines until 2010, and from ground combat jobs until the ban was lifted in 2013.

Today, women are not just meeting the standards set before them, they are exceeding them and redefining what military excellence looks like. The future of warfare is less about brute strength and more about technology, intelligence, and strategy. Today’s armed forces rely on advanced systems, cyber defense, drones, artificial intelligence, and space operations, that require highly educated recruits. 

Across the country, women are already outperforming men in educational attainment: they graduate from high school and college at higher rates and earn more advanced degrees. That means women are not just filling roles in the military, they are equipping the force with the intellectual and technical skills it needs to remain globally dominant.

“Successful militaries don’t use hand-to-hand combat anymore,” notes longtime feminist leader Ellie Smeal, pointing to the technological realities of modern warfare. “What the military really needs is intelligence and skill, and women are essential for a modern military.” says Smeal. 

Hegseth’s framing of “woke versus warrior” is not a neutral cultural shift, it’s a rejection of the very programs that made women’s full participation in the military possible. Efforts toward equity and accountability have built a stronger, more capable force. Casting them aside not only threatens women’s gains but leaves unaddressed the systemic issues, like harassment and abuse, that undermine readiness.

One of the most pressing concerns is sexual assault and harassment, which remains disproportionately high for women in uniform. In 2023, nearly 7% of active-duty women and 1.3% of men reported experiencing unwanted sexual contact. Surveys show that more than half of female service members report persistent or serious harassment, and fewer than 40% trust the military to protect their privacy if they report an incident. Cutting or sidelining diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, which Hegseth has called “social justice distractions”, could weaken the military’s ability to prevent and respond to these abuses.

It’s no surprise, then, that Hegseth’s address has sparked widespread criticism. Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned against Hegseth’s approach to politicize the military saying [the military] “should be entirely focused on protecting the country.” Senator Tammy Duckworth, a combat veteran, condemned Hegseth’s leadership, labeling him unqualified, unethical, and unfit to be Secretary of Defense. 

If the U.S. military is to remain the “strongest in the world,” it cannot afford to roll back inclusion or sideline half the population. Women are not a “woke distraction,” they are essential to the future of military leadership, innovation, and readiness. Hegseth’s vision of a warrior culture belongs to the past, not the battlefield of tomorrow.

The Rise of the MAHA Movement and Implications for Women

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

The “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement has exploded in recent years, blending wellness culture, political populism, and deep distrust of mainstream medicine. Under current federal leadership, MAHA is reshaping health policy. But behind its promises of empowerment and clean living lies a troubling pattern: shifting responsibility onto women, amplifying shaky science, and ignoring systemic drivers of poor health.

MAHA began as a health crusade led by RFK Jr., long known for his anti-vaccine activism and “natural health” rhetoric. Now, with RFK Jr. in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), MAHA has moved from the fringes into the center of federal health policy. The HHS website prominently declares “Our priority: Make America Healthy Again,” highlighting how the movement has become a driving force in Washington, shaping debates on everything from drug labeling to school lunch programs. At its core, the movement claims that chronic disease, developmental disorders, and rising health costs are linked to “toxins” in food, medicine, and the environment. 

The MAHA movement highlights America’s health crisis, citing that 6 in 10 Americans have at least one chronic disease, 1 in 4 American children suffer from allergies, and 40% of Americans are diabetic or prediabetic. These statistics are not invented, they reflect real and pressing health concerns. Chronic disease and diabetes are among the leading drivers of medical costs and poor health outcomes in the United States, and the prevalence of allergies among children has indeed climbed in recent decades. The problem is not whether these issues are real, but how the MAHA movement chooses to frame and address those issues.

Most recently, MAHA’s influence became clear when the FDA announced plans to add warning labels to acetaminophen (Tylenol) claiming its use during pregnancy increases the risk of autism in children. Yet science does not support such certainty. While some studies suggest correlations between autism and Tylenol, they remain inconclusive, and no causal link has been proven. There is expert consensus that untreated medical conditions, such as fever, can endanger maternal and child health, and that Tylenol is a safe option to treat pain and fever during pregnancy. In fact, experts, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), warn in a statement that untreated pain and fever in pregnancy can carry serious risks of their own. Steven J. Fleischman, President of ACOG said that suggesting Tylenol during pregnancy causes autism is “not only highly concerning to clinicians but also irresponsible when considering the harmful and confusing message they send to pregnant patients….” 

Still, the announcement was treated by MAHA as a victory after years of pressuring regulators. The consequences, however, fall disproportionately on women. Pregnant people may now feel guilty for taking needed medication or face stigma for using Tylenol at all. Once again, maternal choices are placed under a microscope, while systemic drivers of health outcomes, like poverty, pollution, and inequities in care, are sidelined.

The Tylenol statement is only one piece of a broader agenda. MAHA’s policy proposals have included investigations into vaccines and overhauls of the nation’s childhood immunization schedule, stricter limits on school lunches, campaigns against “ultra-processed” foods, warnings about the newborn hepatitis B vaccine, and heightened warnings about everyday household chemicals. While framed as empowering families in the MAHA Report, these measures often translate into heavier burdens on women: more time spent cooking from scratch, researching ingredients, and monitoring children’s environments. In fact, women spend 2.4 times as much time with children as fathers do. The movement’s strategy emphasizes “educating parents” rather than advancing robust public health interventions. In environmental health, for example, solutions focus on individual behavior, “research your own food,” “know your farmer,” while largely rejecting stronger regulatory oversight.

Even more troubling are the moral undertones. The MAHA agenda has drawn on rhetoric that stigmatizes contraceptive use, suggests that birth control causes infertility, and links vaccines like hepatitis B to “immoral” sexual behavior. These arguments reinforce a framework of purity and blame: that women’s bodies must remain “natural” and “untainted,” and that illness or infertility are moral failings. This framing is not only inaccurate, it shifts responsibility onto individual women while letting systemic inequities persist.

The result is a policy agenda that polices women’s choices instead of addressing systemic causes of poor health. And those systemic causes are impossible to ignore. Communities of color and low-income families face higher rates of chronic disease, not because mothers aren’t making the “right” choices, but because of structural inequities: food deserts, environmental toxins concentrated in poor neighborhoods, lack of affordable healthcare, and the stress of economic insecurity. By focusing on maternal behavior rather than these broader determinants, MAHA not only overlooks the root causes of illness but also reinforces inequities, placing the heaviest burdens on women who already have the least support.

The real path to a healthier America doesn’t lie in blaming mothers. It lies in building equitable healthcare systems, holding corporations accountable, and trusting women to make informed choices about their own bodies.

Mississippi Declares Public Health Emergency as Infant Mortality Soars

Posted on by Giovanna DeStefanis

Mississippi has declared a public health emergency in response to an alarming surge in infant mortality, a crisis that now claims nearly 10 infants per 1,000 live births in the state, almost double the national average. The declaration marks the first time the state has used its emergency powers to address maternal and infant health, underscoring the scale and urgency of the crisis. 

In 2022, infant mortality at the national level rose 3% from the previous year, reaching 5.6 infant deaths per 1,000 births. While that increase was troubling it pales in comparison to Mississippi’s far more severe and disproportionate crisis.

State Health Officer Dr. Dan Edney said the announcement was necessary because “every single infant loss represents a family devastated, a community impacted, and a future cut short.” Since 2014, more than 3,500 Mississippi babies have died before their first birthday, with 2024 alone marking the highest mortality rate in over a decade.

Behind these statistics are stark racial disparities and systemic inequities. Black infants in Mississippi die at rates more than twice that of white infants: 15.2 per 1,000 live births in 2024, a 24% increase in just one year, even as the rate for white infants declined. 

Nearly half of the state’s counties are classified as “OB deserts” or “maternity care deserts,” with no local obstetric care available, forcing many families to travel hours for prenatal visits or delivery. For those living in rural areas or with limited income, such barriers make timely care nearly impossible.

According to a 2024 report from March of Dime, an infant and maternal health nonprofit, about a third of US counties do not have a single obstetric clinician. The President and CEO of March of Dime, Cindy Rahman, said in a statement. “Although Mississippi accounts for less than 1% of US births, the state accounts for more than 1.6% of all infant deaths.”​​ 

In Texas, a report by JAMA Pediatric found a link between rising infant mortality in Texas and the state’s abortion restrictions, which were one of the strictest in the nation. The researchers pointed to increased rates of preterm births and high-risk pregnancies carried to term as potential drivers of the uptick. Mississippi, which led the case that overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 and now enforces a near-total abortion ban, faces similar dynamics: fewer options for maternal care, greater pressure on already limited health systems, and higher risks for both mothers and infants.

Access to healthcare is further complicated by Mississippi’s limited Medicaid coverage. While nearly 60% of births in the state are financed through Medicaid, eligibility remains narrow, and thousands of low-income women fall into a “coverage gap” that leaves them without affordable insurance before, during, and after pregnancy. 

The state has not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, a decision that public health experts say directly contributes to poor maternal and infant outcomes. Mississippi recently extended postpartum coverage from 60 days to 12 months, but this step, while important, does not replace the need for broader expansion that would ensure continuous care for women of childbearing age.

Mississippi’s emergency is a stark reminder that reproductive justice is not just about the right to choose, but also the right to safe pregnancy, healthy childbirth, and the ability to raise children with dignity and security. Declaring a public health emergency is an important step, but lasting change will require bold investments in healthcare access, racial equity, and maternal support systems.

>