Author: Sara Fayyazi

Addressing the Economic Costs of Sexual Violence: The Survivors’ Rights Restitution Act

Posted on by Sara Fayyazi

On September 15, 2026, Rep. Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (NM-03), and Rep. Deborah Ross (NC-02) introduced the Survivors Rights Restitution Act. This legislation would establish a federal restitution program for survivors of sexual violence whose rights were violated by the federal government. The bill would include survivors of abuse by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell while addressing the financial burden that can occur from sexual violence.

The bill focuses on the economic consequences that survivors can face long after an assault. The estimated lifetime cost of rape at $122,461 per victim, including the expenses of medical care, loss of income, housing instability and mental health support. These expenses can become an additional burden for survivors as they recover from trauma. The proposed restitution program would provide compensation for certain economic and non-economic harms and losses.

Under the legislation, an independent Office of Special Adjudicators for Survivors Restitution would be established within the US Court of Federal Claims. The office would review petitions from survivors and determine awards through what the bill describes as a streamlined, non-adversarial and trauma-informed process. The legislation would also establish a Survivors Rights Restitution Fund within the Department of the Treasury. The funds would be financed through federal forfeiture proceeds connected to trafficking and sexual exploitation offenses, voluntary contributions, and authorized appropriations.

The legislation is also intended to address the gaps in the enforcement of survivors’ existing legal rights. Under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, survivors have certain protections when they report crimes, including the right to receive timely and accurate notice of an accused person’s release. The bill’s sponsors point to the handling of Jeffrey Epstein’s 2008 plea agreement as an example of these rights not being adequately enforced. The sponsors argue that current law does not provide a specific avenue for financial relief when victims’ rights are violated.

Although the bill is closely connected to the Epstein case, its protections would extend to other survivors of sexual violence more broadly. Rape and sexual assault victimizations occur annually, while approximately two out of three sexual assaults go unreported, the legislation argues that when survivors do come forward, there should be a helpful and easy path towards restitution.

Pressley has experience working with survivors of sexual violence and the Epstein investigation. In May 2026, Pressley and House Oversight Committee Democrats held a field hearing in Palm Beach focused on the Epstein investigation and the long-term economic and emotional harms experienced by survivors. 

The legislation has received endorsements from several survivor and women’s rights organizations like World Without Exploitation, me too. International, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, and many others.

Financial compensation cannot erase the trauma of sexual violence. However, supporters of the legislation argue that financial restitution can help survivors address some of the costs associated with recovery while providing a mechanism for accountability when the federal government fails to protect their rights.

The Survivors’ Rights Restitution Act would create a process for survivors to seek financial restitution when their rights have been violated by the federal government. The bill addresses not only the immediate consequences of sexual violence but also some of the long-term financial burdens survivors can carry. The legislation now faces the congressional process where it will be considered before any potential action is taken.

Nepal’s Floods Are Putting Women and Girls at Greater Risk

Posted on by Sara Fayyazi

As devastating floods continue to affect communities across Nepal, women and girls are facing increased risks of hunger, violence, exploitation, and displacement.

On August 26, a devastating flash flood struck Nepal, destroying homes, roads, bridges and critical infrastructure across several regions near the Nepal-Tibet border. More than 500 people have been killed, nearly 1,000 remain unaccounted for, and around 10,000 homes have been destroyed. But as the communities respond to the disaster, women and girls are facing additional challenges. 

According to UN Women, 157,050 women and girls in the districts of Rasuwa and Nuwakot have been affected by the floods. The organization has warned that the disaster is increasing existing risks of violence and exploitation while limiting access to health care and other essential services.

Natural disasters do not affect everyone equally and existing inequalities can become more severe when homes, schools, hospitals and other essential services are destroyed. For women and girls who already face barriers to resources, losing access to these services can put their safety and livelihoods at additional risk. Access to food and water is a particular concern. Flooding has damaged infrastructure and disrupted essential services, leaving survivors facing shortages. 

Women often carry a disproportionate share of responsibility for caring for children and other family members. During a disaster, unpaid care work can increase while the resources available to families decrease.

Education is also at risk. In communities already experiencing poverty and instability, disruptions to education can have long-term consequences for girls’ futures. Approximately one in three women across the affected districts are illiterate. Limited literacy can make it more difficult to access relief efforts, complete registration services, or independently apply for assistance. During an emergency, when information about food, shelter, health care and financial assistance can be critical to safety, these barriers become even more significant.

Women are also carrying much of the responsibility for supporting their households. About one-third of households in Nepal’s Bagmati Province are headed by women, making women the primary providers for many families. The floods have destroyed homes, businesses and critical infrastructure, leaving these women responsible for supporting their families while rebuilding their lives with fewer financial resources. The destruction has made it harder for women-led households to access income and recover from the disaster. Humanitarian responses must therefore address the specific needs of women and girls.

UN Women is working with the Nepali government, women’s rights organizations, and humanitarian partners to provide essential services and protection. The organization is also supporting a women-led Community Kitchen initiative designed to provide immediate food assistance while creating opportunities for women’s leadership and livelihoods during the recovery process. UN Women has raised $2 million to support women and girls affected by the floods.

The devastation in Nepal will not disappear when the floodwaters recede. Communities will have to rebuild homes, families, and important infrastructure, but recovery must also address the inequalities that existed before the disaster. Women and girls cannot be treated as an afterthought. They need access to safe shelter, food, clean water, health care and education throughout the recovery process. Nepal’s floods demonstrate that disaster relief is not only about rebuilding, but is about making sure that the people who are most vulnerable are not left even further behind.

The Trump-Epstein Reading Room Hits The Road

Posted on by Sara Fayyazi

A traveling exhibit is forcing the public to confront the Epstein files and the institutions that failed survivors. The exhibit features 3,437 books lining the walls of the rooms, together containing approximately 3.5 million pages of Department of Justice files related to Jeffrey Epstein.

The Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein Memorial Reading Room, created by the nonprofit Institute for Primary Facts, was designed to make the Epstein files impossible to ignore. After opening in Tribeca, New York, in May, the exhibit welcomed more than 10,000 visitors in just 16 days. It then traveled to Washington, DC, where another 5,000 people visited in six days. Now, the Reading Room is taking its message across the country.

Visitors are not allowed to read the files to protect the survivors’ privacy. The Department of Justice’s release of the documents reportedly included errors in redacting victims’ identifying information. 

To avoid further exposing survivors, visitors are prohibited from handling or reading the books. Still, seeing the physical magnitude of the archive communicates what numbers alone cannot: the enormous volume of documents surrounding the Epstein case and the scope of the investigation. 

But the Reading Room is not simply an archive. It is a memorial to the people behind those pages.

At the center of the exhibit, 1,400 electric candles represent known Epstein survivors and victims. Artwork created by survivors, including Maria Farmer, who has spoken publicly about her experiences with Epstein, is also displayed throughout the space. Those elements center survivors in a conversation that has often focused on documents, institutions, and powerful individuals while creating space to recognize the people whose experiences are at the heart of the case.

The relationship between Epstein and President Donald Trump is also placed directly on display. Three timelines document Epstein’s crimes, Trump’s history, and their overlapping lives. The timelines draw on FBI evidence and public records, allowing visitors to see their histories alongside one another. The exhibit places the Epstein case in a broader context, emphasizing that the story is not only about documents or political controversy. At its center are girls and women who were sexually exploited and institutions that failed to protect them.

The Reading Room therefore turns transparency into something more real. Visitors are encouraged to write messages to survivors and contact the Department of Justice to demand greater transparency and compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. In Washington DC, visitors reportedly made hundreds of calls to the DOJ and left thousands of messages.

The exhibit’s upcoming tour will bring that conversation to more communities, including planned stops in Ohio, Iowa, Texas, North Carolina and Florida. There is also a bookmobile which includes the same information on a smaller scale and hits more stops. 

The Reading Room makes one thing clear: the Epstein files are not simply a collection of documents. They represent years of investigations into sexual exploitation and the failures of institutions to protect survivors. 

Survivors have already spent years demanding to be heard, while the people and systems surrounding Epstein have continued to receive public attention. Taking the files on the road brings that imbalance into the open and gives the public a chance to demand more from those in power and support the victims who deserve justice.

Arizona Court Strikes Down Abortion Restrictions After Voter Amendment

Posted on by Sara Fayyazi

On February 6, an Arizona state court struck down several abortion restrictions, ruling that they violated an abortion rights amendment. This amendment, Proposition 139, Right to Abortion Initiative, was approved by voters in 2024. The case, Isaacson v. Arizona, was brought by a group of physicians, the Arizona Medical Association, and other medical organizations. They were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Arizona, and the Center of Reproductive Rights. 

The plaintiffs argued that several state laws violated the Arizona constitution and placed unnecessary burdens on patients seeking abortion care. The challenged laws included a mandatory 24-hour waiting period that required patients to make two separate trips to a clinic, a ban on telemedicine abortions, and a restriction prohibiting abortions sought because of a fetal genetic condition.

Judge Gregory Como ruled that these laws interfered with the constitutional protections voters enacted to guarantee access to abortion before fetal viability and in other protected circumstances. In 2024, Arizona voters passed Proposition 139, which amended the state constitution to protect the right to abortion. By adding this protection to the constitution, voters made clear that abortion decisions should be made by patients and their doctors, rather than by politicians. 

Since the amendment is now part of the state’s highest law, any conflicting statutes can be challenged in court. Medical professionals testified that the waiting period and two-visit requirement often forced patients to take additional time off work, travel long distances, and arrange childcare. Supporting organizations emphasized that these restrictions did not improve patient safety. Instead, they created delays that could push abortions later into pregnancy. 

The lawsuit was filed in May 2025, shortly after voters approved the proposition. It moved through the court system for more than a year before Judge Como issued his decision in February 2026. The court concluded that once abortion access was guaranteed in the constitution, the state could not continue enforcing regulations that burdened that right without strong medical justification.

Judge Como concluded that the restrictions lacked medical evidence and unlawfully interfered with patients’ personal freedoms. The court blocked the enforcement of the challenged laws, removing barriers that had delayed care and complicated access.

Doctors involved in the case expressed relief. One physician stated, “For the first time in a long time, my patients will not have to jump through hoops to get the care they need.” By striking down these restrictions, the court reduced obstacles that disproportionately affected working families and patients facing complex pregnancies.

The February 6 decision marks a significant moment for reproductive rights in Arizona. Rather than prioritizing political restrictions, the court upheld the will of the voters and the expertise of medical professionals, reshaping abortion access in the state.

>