Arkansas’ Ban Nearly Killed Her—Now She’s Suing

1.28.26

- New Suit Seeks to Repeal Arkansas’ Ban

- Trump Administration Moves to Pause Louisiana’s Mifepristone Suit

- Shield Laws Under Attack

- In the States: Missouri, Illinois, New York & More

- A Win for Extremist Pharmacists

- In the Courts: Missouri Abortion Trial Wraps Up & the Right Not To Parent in Maryland

- Democrats Want to Overturn the VA’s New Abortion Ban

---

New Suit Seeks to Repeal Arkansas’ Ban

Emily Waldorf’s water broke just 17 weeks into her pregnancy — far too early for her child to survive. Despite a nonviable pregnancy and a growing risk of serious infection, the Arkansas mom was denied both an abortion and antibiotics. When she contacted Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ office to beg for help, “the only advice she received was to ‘get a lawyer.’”

Well, she did. And now Waldorf is suing to overturn the law that nearly killed her.

The 40-year-old mother is joined by three other women and a doctor harmed by Arkansas’ abortion ban. Their suit was brought by Amplify Legal—the new litigation arm of Abortion in America. Director Molly Duane says, “Arkansans have fundamental rights that do not disappear just because they are pregnant.”

The complaint paints a stark picture of a state that calls itself the “most pro-life” in the country—reminding us that so-called ‘exceptions’ for women’s lives often don’t mean shit, with providers forced to wait until patients are at death’s door before acting.

But this case isn’t just about women’s right to survive pregnancy—it’s about their right not to be tortured.

Another plaintiff, Theresa Van, was forced to carry a nonviable pregnancy for nearly two months. According to the complaint, after also being diagnosed with placenta previa, Van and her husband “started talking about her own wishes for her funeral if she did not survive the pregnancy.”

And while Waldorf was eventually able to get care, she endured days of medical trauma and had to be transported hundreds of miles out of state by ambulance. She was even told it would cost $25,000 to arrange the transport. Watch Waldorf describe her experience with her sister, Elizabeth—who helped her escape Arkansas for care:

We’ve said this before and we’ll say it again: nobody wants this. Even voters in the most conservative states don’t want abortion banned. That’s why Republicans work so hard to stop voters from having a say on the issue.

Remember, Arkansas advocates came very close to putting abortion on the ballot in 2024. They collected all the necessary signatures and jumped through all the state hoops—only to have the Republican secretary of state use a paperwork technicality to block the amendment. (A move later backed up by the conservative-stacked state Supreme Court.)

Today, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin—a longtime anti-abortion activist who led the charge against that ballot measure—dismissed the lawsuit, claiming it “appears to have little legal merit.” Sure, Jan.

We’ll keep you updated as the case moves forward, but in the meantime you can read more coverage in the Arkansas Advocate and The Guardian.

Trump Administration Moves to Pause Louisiana’s Mifepristone Suit

Anti-abortion leaders are already furious at Donald Trump for not doing more to crack down on abortion pills and telemedicine. So they definitely won’t like this: On Tuesday, the FDA asked a federal court to pause a Louisiana lawsuit that aims to end telemedicine abortion—at least until the agency finishes its sham ‘safety review’ of mifepristone.

Let’s be real about what’s happening here: the Trump administration knows that banning abortion pills by mail—which account for nearly 30% of U.S. abortions and nearly all abortions in ban states—would be political suicide heading into the midterms. It’s also why FDA chief Marty Makary is reportedly slow-walking the agency’s so-called ‘safety review’. The White House knows just how unpopular abortion restrictions are.

But don’t get it twisted: this isn’t the administration protecting abortion access, and it’s certainly not a sign that they won’t restrict mifepristone themselves.

In fact, the administration is explicitly arguing that the Louisiana case “may prove unnecessary” because of the FDA’s own bogus review of the drug. They’re also not disputing Louisiana’s (many) false claims about mifepristone. Instead, they’re asking the court to pause the case on technical grounds—arguing the state lacks standing.

That’s the same move the White House made last May, when they asked courts to toss a similar mifepristone case brought by Kansas, Missouri, and Idaho. Then, too, the administration made clear they weren’t saying the Republican attorneys general were wrong about mifepristone, just that they didn’t have the right to bring the case.

As the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project’s Julia Kaye said, “the Trump administration isn’t defending medication abortion—it’s just defending its own authority to restrict access to mifepristone if, when, and how it sees fit.”

That’s cold comfort to anti-abortion groups, who are already irritated that the Trump administration hasn’t done more to stop the shipping of abortion pills. Steven H. Aden, chief legal officer for Americans United for Life, complained that “pro-life Americans are growing increasingly frustrated with the failure to meet words with action.”

Even before this move by Trump’s FDA, anti-abortion groups have been threatening to sit out the midterms and leave Republicans hanging—a reminder that Trump is trying to thread the needle between an extremist base and voters who keep rejecting abortion bans. (And who always will!)

Shield Laws Under Attack

Abortion, Every Day reported yesterday that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing a Delaware nurse practitioner, accusing her of illegally shipping abortion pills into the state. The move comes as Republican attorneys general—led by Paxton and Louisiana’s Liz Murrill—race to get shield laws in front of the Supreme Court.

Their goal is to repeal those protections, clearing the way for conservative states to prosecute providers and stop abortion pills being mailed across state lines. Paxton has already sued a New York abortion provider, and Murrill is seeking to extradite providers from both New York and California.

Texas’ suit against Delaware provider Debra Lynch—who now lives in New York—is especially notable because it doesn’t name a specific patient. Instead, Paxton is relying on Lynch’s own public comments. The provider has spoken to reporters about her work shipping pills across the country, including Texas.

In a statement yesterday, Paxton called it a “day of reckoning” for Lynch, who he labeled a “radical out-of-state abortion drug trafficker.”

Here’s what to watch as the case moves forward: As The Guardian reported, Delaware expanded its shield law late last year—which means Texas’ case may hinge on when Lynch allegedly mailed pills out of the state. (Without a specific patient, that’s going to be difficult to prove.) At the same time, law professor Rachel Rebouché told The Texas Tribune that while New York’s shield law explicitly protects providers “regardless of the patient’s location,” Delaware’s law doesn’t use that language. It’s a gap Paxton may try to exploit.

Most important to remember? People are still helping each other get care—across state lines, across hostile laws, and regardless of what’s happening in the courts. They haven’t been able to stop us yet, and we’re not about to let them start now.

---

If you need help finding an abortion or abortion pills, check out AED’s Resources page or visit You Always Have Options.

---

In the States: Missouri, Illinois, New York & More

What a bunch of babies: Missouri Republicans are so furious over an abortion-related ruling from the state Supreme Court that they canceled the State of the Judiciary address—a tradition that’s been in place for fifty years.

What set them off? Last week, the Court unanimously struck down what opponents dubbed the “Let Politicians Lie Act”—a law designed to give Missouri’s secretary of state and attorney general expanded power to manipulate ballot measures and sidestep court rulings they don’t like. In other words: it would have made it easier for politicians to lie to voters, and harder for courts to stop them.

One key piece of the law would have limited judges’ ability to rewrite misleading ballot language. That’s the exact tactic Republicans used with Amendment 3, when they pushed a wildly biased ballot summary for the abortion rights measure in an effort to dissuade voter support.

The Kansas City Star reports that Republicans lost it after the Court’s decision. Sen. Rick Brattin even called the ruling “ridiculous” and sneered that judges were acting like “little kings and queens in their black robes.” Then GOP leaders canceled the address—set to be given by the Court’s chief justice—altogether.

The short version: Missouri Republicans threw a temper tantrum because the court said they can’t rig democracy.

In better news, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker just announced the creation of a new abortion fund. The Prairie State Access Fund is a project of the Michael Reese Health Trust, and what Pritzker calls “an example of true public and private sector partnership.”

“Together, we are sending a clear message in our state and across the country: Illinois trusts women to make their own medical decisions,” the governor said today. The group will work with existing repro organizations across the state, and help drive funding their way.

Since the end of Roe, Illinois has seen a massive influx of out-of-state patients; in fact, the state now provides nearly one in four U.S. abortions for traveling patients. Megan Jeyifo, Executive Director of the Chicago Abortion Fund, said, “Providers and support organizations are meeting unprecedented demand with limited resources, and flexible funding makes that work possible.”

We’re betting anti-abortion activists are pissed off; they hate Pritzker and all the energy and money he’s put into reproductive rights. (Which makes us like him all the more!) But the Illinois governor isn’t the only pro-choice leader conservatives are obsessed with: anti-abortion activists have honed in on New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and two new youth health clinics opening in Brooklyn and Queens.

Anti-abortion activists—who we won’t do the favor of linking to—don’t like that the “Elevate You” clinics will provide reproductive healthcare alongside primary care, mental healthcare, and more. It’s that word ‘reproductive’ that really set them off, with antis calling it “the premier euphemism for abortion.”

It’s true that teens in the city have access to abortion care, and thank goodness they do. It’s one of the things that makes me proud to be a native New Yorker. As Mamdani said last week:

“If we want young New Yorkers to chase their dreams here, we have to make it clear that their struggles are not just their own. Access to consistent, high-quality health care is not optional—it’s essential, and our City is showing that.”

Quick hits:

• WFYI has more on the Indiana anti-abortion group trying to make women’s abortion reports public records;

• And I had a chance to chat with the incredible activists over at Lift Louisiana for their podcast, Seriously?!. Listen in here.

A Win for Extremist Pharmacists

Anti-abortion organizations and extremist pharmacists are celebrating today: Mother Jones reports that the Trump administration has unceremoniously repealed a Biden-era rule requiring retail pharmacies that receive federal dollars to dispense mifepristone, misoprostol, and methotrexate. These are medications that don’t just end pregnancies—they also treat serious autoimmune conditions like rheumatoid arthritis and lupus.

Methotrexate, in particular, has become harder for patients to access since the end of Roe—which is part of what prompted the Biden rule in the first place. We’ll never forget, for example, the Arizona 14-year-old with severe osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis who was denied her regular methotrexate prescription because of the state’s then-abortion ban.

And as Mother Jones notes, autoimmune disorders disproportionately affect women—and 90% of women of reproductive age who use methotrexate do so for reasons completely unrelated to pregnancy.

Regardless of what these drugs are used for, pharmacists should not get to deny people legal, prescribed medication. But as AED has been tracking for years, empowering extremists to block women’s access to medication is a central part of the conservative strategy—not just around abortion, but birth control.

Powerhouse legal groups like Alliance Defending Freedom have brought multiple lawsuits on behalf of pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control, claiming religious objections or falsely labeling some contraception as “abortion.” (ADF even put out a release this week thanking the Trump administration for repealing the rule.)

It’s all a tactic: Republicans insist they’re not banning birth control or vital health care, while simultaneously making it impossible to get.

We know it can be exhausting to keep up with every quiet repeal and rollback. But this is exactly how rights get stripped away: not always with big, headline-grabbing bans, but through small bureaucratic changes that hand more power to extremists.

In the Courts

Missouri’s historic abortion trial wrapped up this week, with a decision on the constitutionality of a host of anti-abortion laws still months away. During closing arguments, the attorney general’s office baselessly maintained that Planned Parenthood and reproductive health clinics in the state endanger women—an especially ironic claim given that bans have caused a sharp increase in maternal mortality and domestic violence.

Now, we’ll wait and see whether TRAP laws that exist to shut down clinics and ban abortion—with a ban in place or not—can legally be enforced after voters adopted an abortion rights amendment in 2024.

Meanwhile, Pregnancy Justice and the Lawyering Project filed an important brief in the Maryland Supreme Court this week on behalf of their client, Mrs. C—arguing that the state constitution protects her right not to parent.

Mrs. C—who was in an abusive relationship and parenting two other children—legally surrendered her twin infants under Maryland’s Safe Haven Act. She hoped a family member might adopt them, but when that didn’t happen she asked to have her children back. Which is legal!

But a family court hearing found that Mrs. C “neglected” her twin infants by surrendering them.

Pregnancy Justice’s brief crucially points to the reproductive freedom section of the state constitution, which establishes a right not to parent—whether by contraception, abortion, adoption, or surrender. We’ll continue to follow the case, which could prove crucial to defining and protecting the full range of our reproductive freedoms.

Democrats Want to Overturn the VA’s New Abortion Ban

Smart move: Democrats in Congress plan to force Republicans to go on the record opposing abortion care for veterans.

As you know, the Trump administration banned all abortion for veterans and their families over the holiday season, and Speaker Mike Johnson led a quiet push to block IVF coverage for active-duty service members. Julianne McShane at MS NOW reports that Democrats are mounting a response: lawmakers on the Veterans Affairs committees in the House and Senate plan to introduce resolutions to overturn the VA ban.

Democrats will bring the legislation directly to the floor using a discharge petition, which only requires 30 signatures, and force Republicans to put their votes against veterans on the record.

“If my Republican colleagues really believe in protecting women veterans who have been raped or whose health is at risk, they can prove it—simply support this resolution,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal.

Democrats have used a similar tactic with bills to codify rights to contraception, IVF, and travel for reproductive care—forcing the GOP to expose their extremism. (Who could forget when nearly 200 House Republicans voted against a right to contraception in 2022?)

As McShane reported when she wrote about this issue last year, women are the fastest-growing group of veterans, and more than half of women veterans of reproductive age live in states that ban abortion. This is not a small thing.

And by the way: none of this can be separated from the Trump administration’s extraordinary hostility to women in the military—Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has publicly said women shouldn’t be in combat roles.

Senate Democrats could force a vote as early as next week. It’s a long-shot move, but we’ll keep you updated.