Author: Lillian Kollross

Ectopic Pregnancy Deaths Have Nearly Doubled: Are Abortion Bans the Cause?

Posted on by Lillian Kollross

The number of ectopic pregnancy deaths has doubled over the past five years, according to a recent ProPublica analysis of federal data. Almost 200 women have died from ectopic pregnancy between 2020 and 2025. While ectopic pregnancy deaths increased nationwide, the increase was greater in states with strict abortion bans.

An ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg implants outside of the uterus, most commonly in the fallopian tubes. The pregnancy cannot develop normally outside of the uterus. If left untreated, the egg will continue to develop until the fallopian tubes rupture, leading to life-threatening internal bleeding. 

Ectopic pregnancies are relatively rare, making up about 2% of all pregnancies, they are still the leading cause of death for women in their first trimester. Since hospitals are not required to report ectopic pregnancies, the exact number of cases is difficult to determine. 

However, according to maternal health experts, women should not be dying from ectopic pregnancies. “A death related to ectopic pregnancy should really be a never event,” said Dr. Alice Abernathy, a Philadelphia-based OB-GYN. 

One treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is when patients receive an injection of the cancer drug methotrexate, which will stop the cells from growing. Methotrexate can be used when the patient is medically stable and the ectopic pregnancy has not ruptured. If the fallopian tubes burst, emergency surgery is generally required.

In abortion-banned states, doctors can face harsh jail time for assisting in the termination of a pregnancy, regardless of how dire the situation is. This has led some doctors to refuse to treat women with ectopic pregnancies. In fact, 61% of OB-GYNs practicing in states where abortion is banned reported concerns about their legal risk when making decisions about patient care.

Diagnosing an ectopic pregnancy can also take time. Doctors typically use an ultrasound and blood tests to determine when a pregnancy is developing. In some cases, the embryo is not visible and doctors must order more blood tests, which can take a few days.

But when it comes to ectopic pregnancies, the longer the treatment is delayed, the greater the risk of tubal rupture and death. 

In states where abortion is legal, patients can receive life-saving medical care within a few hours. This should be the case everywhere in the United States. Doctors should not have to choose between saving their patient or spending the rest of their lives in jail. Patients should not have to drive across state lines to receive basic healthcare. Women should not die from ectopic pregnancies.

One Louisiana Case Could End Telehealth Abortions for the Whole Country

Posted on by Lillian Kollross

On September 9, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans heard oral arguments in Louisiana v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a case that could restrict access to mifepristone nationwide. Louisiana is challenging changes the FDA made to the drug’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) in 2023, which removed the requirement that mifepristone be dispensed in person and allowed the medication to be prescribed through telehealth and sent by mail. Mifepristone has been FDA-approved since 2000 and is safe and effective. 

Louisiana argues that the FDA’s changes were unlawful and interfere with the state’s ability to enforce its abortion restrictions. In January, Louisiana’s Attorney General Liz Murrill testified before a Senate committee that the “Biden administration knowingly and intentionally undermined Dobbs” by allowing mifepristone to be mailed to patients in states with abortion restrictions. 

Since the fall of Roe, the number of clinician-provided abortions has almost doubled, largely thanks to telehealth. 

The case could have consequences far beyond Louisiana. Louisiana is seeking to reinstate the in-person dispensing requirement nationwide, which would prevent patients from receiving mifepristone through telehealth, mail, or retail pharmacies. The Fifth Circuit previously ordered the restrictions back into effect in May, but the U.S. Supreme Court paused that ruling, leaving current access in place while the case continues.

Gabrielle McIntyre, Louisiana’s defense attorney from Alliance Defending Freedom, confirmed that the lawsuit’s goal is to end virtual and mail access to abortion pills for the whole country, even in states where abortion is legal. McIntyre insisted, however, that states where abortion is protected would still be able to enforce their “own regulations regarding abortions.” 

During the pandemic, the FDA temporarily allowed medical abortion pills to be prescribed through a telehealth appointment. In 2023, the FDA officially revised its rule to allow medical abortion pills to be prescribed virtually. By 2024, one in four abortions were done via a telehealth appointment. 

Telehealth can reduce the time, cost, and logistical barriers associated with traveling to an abortion provider. It can be difficult for patients to get to an abortion provider since the average American lives 86 miles from a reproductive health clinic. For women living in abortion-banned states, telehealth is the only way they can get the care and help they need. 

Under the current system, a patient in an abortion-banned state such as Louisiana can receive mifepristone through the mail from a provider in a state with a shield law, like Massachusetts. Shield laws are state-level protections for patients, health care providers, and others involved in reproductive health care who may face legal action from another state. Currently, 23 states and Washington, DC, have some form of shield law.

If the FDA’s 2023 rule is ultimately overturned, patients across the country could once again be required to receive mifepristone in person. This will put the health and safety of women and girls all across the country at risk. This ban will not end abortions, it will only lead to a rise in unsafe ones since people will continue to have abortions, whether or not they are legal.

Women’s Tennis Association Introduces Mandatory Sex Testing for All Players

Posted on by Lillian Kollross

Last month, the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) introduced a new policy requiring all players on the professional tour to undergo genetic sex testing. The one-time test must be negative for the SRY gene, the part of DNA typically found on the Y chromosome and plays a major role in initiating male sexual development.

Players must submit a cheek swab, saliva test, or a blood sample, and sign an agreement acknowledging that refusing the test could result in disciplinary action. The genetic sex test will also be required for players to compete in the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. 

The WTA is the first major women’s sports organization to run genetic testing on all its players. This policy represents a significant change from their former policy, which was last updated in 2024, that allowed transgender women to play if their testosterone levels were below 2.5 nmol/L for two consecutive years. 

There are currently no openly transgender women competing in the WTA Tour. In fact, the sport has only had one openly transgender player, Renee Richards, and she has not competed since 1981. 

The WTA wanted to make it clear that there is “no intent to disrespect or question the gender identity or the dignity of any person,” and that their policy distinguishes between a person’s gender identity and their biological sex. However, this new policy adds to the ever-growing debate about transgender athletes competing in women’s sports. 

In February 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning transgender women from participating in women and girls’ competitive sports. Following the president’s actions, the International Olympic Committee implemented SRY gene testing for the 2028 Olympics, which effectively bans transgender female athletes from competing in the women’s events. 

The policy does not only affect transgender women but also cisgender women with high testosterone levels. Testosterone is naturally present in both males and females. What makes us different is how much testosterone we each have. For instance, women with PMOS tend to have higher levels of testosterone than women without the condition. 

The policy therefore raises questions beyond transgender participation.What will happen to these women who are born female and identify as female? Would they have to compete with men? 

The WTA has stated that players who test positive and have a sex development condition that causes them to have high levels of testosterone—like Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome—will be allowed to play if they prove they never experience “Male Mini-puberty or Male Adolescent Puberty.” Requiring athletes to undergo genetic testing in the first place places women’s bodies under a new level of scrutiny.

Regardless of what the WTA says, this new policy is a solution to a problem that does not exist. As debates over transgender participation in sports continue, the WTA’s new policy demonstrates how efforts to regulate women’s athletics increasingly involve determining who qualifies as a woman in the first place.

Helpful or Hurtful? The Growing Privacy Debate Over Meta Glasses

Posted on by Lillian Kollross

As AI becomes increasingly integrated into everyday life, smart glasses have emerged as one of the newest technologies raising questions about privacy and consent. This week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reportedly banned employees from wearing Meta smart glasses over privacy concerns. 

Dubbed “pervert glasses,” Meta glasses are wearable computers, allowing users to take photos and videos, access artificial intelligence, and use other digital features without holding a phone. But unlike a traditional camera, smart glasses can make it difficult for others to know when they are being recorded.

Those concerns have become particularly apparent in incidents involving women. In California, a doctor was caught wearing Meta glasses while examining a female patient who had recently undergone a breast lift. In another incident, a TikToker used Meta glasses to film himself harassing comedian Diane Morgan while she was filming on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for her fictional documentary series Cunk on Earth. 

Videos recorded with smart glasses have also become increasingly common on social media, including content in which users approach, flirt with, or harass strangers without their knowledge or consent. Instagram promised to crack down and remove these kinds of harmful videos, but no such action has been taken. 

The backlash has extended beyond social media. Influencers who publicly post footage recorded with smart glasses have faced criticism and hate comments. When cyclist influencer Oliver Hooson posted a biking video filmed using Meta glasses, he lost dozens of followers and was called a “perv” in his comment section.

Even Meta’s high-profile celebrity partnerships have drawn attention to the controversy. Reality TV star Kylie Jenner recently partnered with Meta to promote a line of smart glasses, prompting criticism from users concerned about the technology’s potential for surveillance. 

The British advocacy group Everyone Hates Elon went further, creating fake advertisements with an X-ray skeleton of Jenner with the slogan, “We’re Always Watching.” The same advocacy group also took shots at Meta with an ad that featured a photo of child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein wearing Meta glasses with the text “Glasses for people who don’t do consent.”  

Courts and governments are beginning to respond as well. Last month, the New York State Court System banned smart glasses. A month later, England and Wales followed suit and also banned all smart glasses from their courts. In Germany, an advocacy group has also filed a criminal complaint against Meta related to the glasses.

This came after Meta filed a patent application for AI-powered facial recognition software for their smart glasses. The software would automatically capture people’s faces and convert them into biometric data without their consent. 

At the same time, smart glasses have meaningful benefits that should not be overlooked. For those who are blind or visually impaired, the glasses help with reading, identifying objects, and accessing information from the internet. When users visit a new country or start a conversation with someone who speaks a different language, the glasses include a live translation feature. 

While these features are beneficial to some, the perverts and creeps of the world are ruining it for the rest of us. As AI becomes a larger part of our daily lives, we must find a way to protect the privacy and safety of women and girls.

Tate Brothers Face Growing Legal Reckoning Over Alleged Violence Against Women and Girls

Posted on by Lillian Kollross

Andrew and Tristan Tate will appear before a U.S. magistrate judge on Thursday, August 13, as they seek release from federal custody while they await potential extradition to the United Kingdom.

The Tates’ lawyers have filed to release the brothers, writing that it would be “extraordinarily difficult for [them] to travel undetected or avoid attention.” Their attorneys have asked U.S. Magistrate Judge Lauren Louis to release them on bail in exchange for surrendering their passports and agreeing to location monitoring. 

The Tates, who hold dual U.S. and British citizenship, were arrested in Miami on July 18 while traveling to a bare-knuckle boxing match that Andrew Tate was supposed to co-host. The arrests came after the U.K. Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) requested their extradition following additional allegations from four new survivors.

In 2024, the CPS authorized 21 charges against the brothers after investigating them for charges that date back to 2012. The CPS has kept its investigation open and added 38 new charges against the Tates, bringing the total to 59 charges. 

Despite the mounting evidence against them, the Tates deny these allegations. 

The brothers also face an indictment in Romania. In 2023, they were accused of forming a criminal group that participated in human trafficking and rape. Now, they are facing charges for trafficking a minor, engaging in sex with a minor, money laundering, and witness tampering. This investigation is still underway in Romania. 

While the arrest itself was not a shock, the timing of it was. In 2024, Romania made a deal with the UK to extradite the brothers but only after their legal proceedings were finished in the country. 

The emergence of additional allegations, including allegations involving child sexual abuse material, appears to have accelerated the U.K.’s efforts to secure their extradition.

In a press conference the day after the arrest, Assistant Chief Constable Karina Thomas assured the public by stating that “there is no place for male violence against women and girls in our society, and [they] will continue to work tirelessly to support victims and investigate all reports made to [them].” 

The UK has until Sept.16 to submit a full extradition request. Until then, the Tates remain in U.S. custody as the court considers whether they should be released while the extradition process moves forward.

>