Journalist Don Lemon Arrested Using Pro-Choice Law

1.30.26

- Journalist Don Lemon Arrested Using Pro-Choice Law

- Texas’ (Weak) Case Against a Delaware Provider

- Media Matters: Arkansas Edition

- In the States: Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, South Dakota, South Carolina

- Does Your State Criminalize Miscarriage Disposal?

- Legislation Watch: Indiana & Virginia

---

Journalist Don Lemon Arrested Using Pro-Choice Law

On Monday, Abortion, Every Day predicted that Trump’s Department of Justice would charge protesters in Minnesota using the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. We did not, however, expect that they’d use the clinic protection law to target journalist Don Lemon.

But that’s exactly what happened today, when the former CNN anchor and three other people were accused of violating federal law during a protest at a St. Paul church. (The pastor of the church’s day job is as a leading ICE official.)

Again, this was somewhat expected: ever since Trump returned to the White House, his administration has been messing with the FACE Act. First, the DOJ said they wouldn’t enforce it at all unless someone was killed. (Seriously.) Then they said they'd use the law to target pro-choicers: Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon claimed the “only violence” being committed at clinics is directed at the “rights of speech and prayer” of protesters and crisis pregnancy centers. Most recently, Dhillon hijacked the law to target pro-Palestinian protesters.

So when conservative pundits and activists started calling for the arrest of Minnesota demonstrators using the FACE Act, we figured it was just a matter of time. Lemon’s lawyer said in a statement, “Don has been a journalist for 30 years, and his constitutionally protected work in Minneapolis was no different than what he has always done.”

Also worth remembering: while the Trump administration arrests journalists, they’re giving free rein to the anti-abortion extremists ramping up threats, harassment, and violence against clinic providers and patients:

"God Demands Justice": The GOP's Chilling Plan to Attack Clinics

Texas’ (Weak) Case Against a Delaware Provider

Some good-ish news? Delaware’s Attorney General Kathy Jennings appears ready to fight back against Texas’ suit targeting an abortion provider. Jennings’ office told Delaware Public Radio this week that while the state isn’t named as a defendant in the case, they’re prepared to enforce its shield law.

“By law, Delaware does not honor anti-abortion interstate subpoenas. We are prepared to make that case in Court,” Jennings said.

The provider at the center of the case, nurse practitioner Debra Lynch, says her attorneys haven’t responded to the cease-and-desist because of the state’s shield law provisions. But that doesn’t mean she isn’t worried: Lynch told public radio station WHYY that abortion providers shipping pills into ban states understand there are no guarantees:

“I don’t think that anyone in any state can say that they feel confident that the shield laws in their state, whether it be New York or California or wherever or Colorado, because none of them have been tested in a court of law.”

As we’ve previously reported, what makes this case unusual—and weak—is that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s suit doesn’t point to a specific patient or prescription. Instead, he’s citing Lynch’s quotes to reporters; the provider has been open in the media about shipping the pills across the country, including to Texas.

Law professor David Cohen told WHYY, “I think it’s far from what would be needed to prove civil liability and, even more, for criminal liability.” He also notes that Paxton would have to get a Delaware court to order Lynch to comply with Texas law. Given the state’s shield law, that’s unlikely to happen.

In part, noncompliance is what protected New York abortion provider Dr. Maggie Carpenter, who was also sued by Paxton: a county clerk refused to file the Republican AG’s court summons.

Media Matters: Arkansas Edition

AED reported Wednesday that four Arkansas women who were denied critical care while pregnant are suing to repeal the state’s abortion ban. There’s been lots of coverage of the case since then, but we came across some local news that serves as a perfect example of how anti-abortion bias (conscious or not) can impact reporting.

Over at KARK, the headline isn’t about lead plaintiff Emily Waldorf, or any other of the women suing the state after being harmed. Instead, it reads, “National group sues to halt Arkansas abortion ban.” That may seem like a small gripe, but the implication here is that a big national group is butting into Arkansas’ business.

The first line of the piece does something similar, reporting that the suit was brought by “officials with the national group Abortion in America.” Compare that with this headline at 5 News: “Arkansas mothers suing the state over ‘dangerous’ abortion ban.”

There are a few other examples of bias in the KARK piece that I’ll spare you, but this one was too good not to share:

“The first woman named is Emily Waldorf, who could not get an abortion or antibiotics after her water broke early in the pregnancy. She hired a lawyer who persuaded the hospital, where Waldorf worked, that his client’s life was in danger.”

Waldorf’s lawyer is Molly Duane.

ANYWAY, for better local coverage read the Arkansas Times. And keep an eye out for similar signs of bias in your own local media.

Note from Jessica: Just before hitting send on tonight’s newsletter, I came across another article from the same reporter: “Arkansas Right to Life calls suit to overturn abortion ban ‘misleading,’ ‘deceptive’” It’s pretty much word-for-word the headline of a National Right to Life press release. Just saying!

In the States: Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, South Dakota, South Carolina

Iowa’s GOP gubernatorial candidates had a debate this week, and their thoughts on abortion were…telling. All four of the men said they believed life begins at conception, with Republican Adam Steen calling abortion the most important issue of the race:

“The first one is, I would love to see Iowa being the most pro-life state in the union. I’d love to see a ‘life at conception’ bill passed.”

Then there was businessman Zach Lahn—who not only called abortion “a foundational issue for civilization,” but dropped this incredible bit of lore:

“My wife and I went through a process, and we were at a fertility clinic. We are now banned for life from that clinic because we refused to discard the embryos.”

Something tells us it wasn’t their stance on discarding embryos that got them a lifetime ban from a medical clinic. (Anyone have the backstory? We’d love to hear it!) But with so many Republicans running from abortion right now, it’s interesting to see these men going all in.

Meanwhile, Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway told local television station KSDK that she thinks all Republican abortion restrictions should stand, despite voters passing Amendment 3. Reporter Mark Maxwell also asked an important question:

“The state argues the providers lack standing, yet patients face immediate barriers right now. If no provider can sue and no patient can access care, then who exactly can change these laws?”

Her answer? The legislature. This has become Republicans’ go-to excuse when trying to overturn or weaken pro-choice ballot measures. They claim the real “will of the people” is via elected officials. (Who, coincidentally, are often in power because of voter suppression and/or gerrymandering.)

Speaking of extremist AGs: state Attorney General Kris Kobach was the headliner at this week’s Kansas March for Life. Kobach pointed a finger at the courts for why abortion is legal in the state—literally. The Kansas Reflector reports that during his remarks, the Republican AG pointed across the street at the state Supreme Court building and blamed the judges for making Kansas “the abortion capital of the Midwest.”

The Court ruled in 2019 that the state constitution protects the right to bodily autonomy, which includes the right to abortion—and reaffirmed that decision in 2024 when striking down a second-trimester abortion ban. Still, despite those rulings and voters overwhelmingly rejecting an anti-choice ballot measure in 2022, Kobach and GOP legislators have been trying to restrict abortion regardless.

South Dakota’s attack on pro-choice speech continues on: state Attorney General Marty Jackley came to New York this week to argue that his case against Mayday Health should be heard in a South Dakota court rather than a federal one.

Remember, Jackley has been trying to force Mayday to remove their ads from gas stations across the state. The move is part of a broader attack on pro-choice speech across the country: Kentucky’s attorney general is also trying to take down Mayday’s ads, and earlier this month, North Dakota’s attorney general issued a cease-and-desist against Prairie Abortion Fund (PAF) because the group’s website links to other websites that link to abortion pill providers.

Finally, let’s look to South Carolina—where there’s an update in the alarming saga of an anti-abortion extremist who shot someone outside of a Planned Parenthood clinic. ‘Sidewalk counselor’ Mark Baumgartner now claims his actions were protected under ‘stand-your-ground’ laws. His lawyers say Baumgartner believed it was necessary to shoot his victim in self-defense.

Remember—Baumgartner’s group, A Moment for Hope, has a history of stalking, threats, and even physical attacks on Planned Parenthood patients and staff. The Palmetto State Abortion Fund tells AED he’s been “an aggressive and antagonistic presence in Columbia for over a decade.”

“It was only a matter of time before something like this happened. …We hope that Mark and his organization are prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law.”

Quick hits:

• Colorado Democrats are pushing legislation to regulate the use of Flock, the automated license plate reader company;

• Wyoming Republicans are toying with the idea of a ban-by-ballot-measure to undo the state Supreme Court’s ruling protecting abortion rights;

• And Crain’s Chicago Business has more on the new abortion fund being launched by Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker.

Does Your State Criminalize Miscarriage Disposal?

Abortion, Every Day has covered case after case of women arrested and charged over their pregnancy losses: a young Georgia woman charged with ‘concealing a death’ after placing miscarriage remains in the trash; a South Carolina patient turned into child protective services for disposing of her miscarriage; and a Texas woman who spent five months in jail after losing her pregnancy in a public bathroom.

Now, a new Pregnancy Justice report shows that nearly half of U.S. states have laws that make those prosecutions possible—some of which are even tied to punishing women for “out-of-wedlock” births. After Pregnancy Loss reports that:

• 19 states criminalize the disposal of pregnancy loss remains, or classify it as “abuse of a corpse”

• 18 states criminalize non-reporting of pregnancy loss remains

• 10 states criminalize transporting pregnancy loss remains

• 15 criminalize the “concealment” of pregnancy loss remains

Georgia and Missouri criminalize the “abandonment” of pregnancy loss remains, and Louisiana even has a law that makes “possession” of pregnancy loss remains illegal. Those states may not surprise you, but these will: Massachusetts and Rhode Island criminalize concealing births (dead or alive) delivered out of wedlock.

Obviously, some of these laws are centuries-old, dating back to the 1600s and efforts to punish “loose” women. Pregnancy Justice notes that the assumption was that unwed women would be more likely “to hide and end their pregnancies or murder their newborns for fear of facing intense societal shame and repercussions.”

It’s a good reminder that we have work to do across the country—not only to protect and expand abortion rights, but to repeal archaic laws that endanger pregnant and postpartum patients.

The whole report is worth a read—Pregnancy Justice goes state-by-state, rating each on whether their laws are ‘punitive,’ ‘ambiguous,’ ‘neutral’ or ‘protective.’

And again, you might be surprised where your state lands: most states—even pro-choice havens like California and Colorado—have punitive laws on the books. The takeaway? Pregnancy criminalization isn’t a red state, blue state issue.

AED will have more on the report—and how to help stop criminalization—next week.

Legislation Watch: Indiana & Virginia

The Indiana Senate just passed SB 236—a monster, Texas-style bill that criminalizes telemedicine abortion, puts a 100k bounty on anyone who possesses or distributes abortion pills, redefines abortion, and drastically expands the state’s ability to surveil pregnant people.

And while Democrats tried to temper the bill’s extremism with four amendments—like one that would grant pregnant women immunity and another that would stop women’s abortion reports from being sent to the AG’s office—that effort failed.

Haley Bougher, Indiana State Director for Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates-Indiana, tells us SB 236 “is pregnancy policing at its most extreme.”

Like Texas’ HB 7, Indiana’s bill is an attempt to attack pretty much anyone who helps abortion patients obtain pills. Why? Conservatives know that the ability to buy abortion pills out-of-state has been a lifeline for patients in banned states. (Nearly 30% of U.S. abortions are provided via telehealth.)

SB 236 now advances to the state House. So if you live in Indiana or have loved ones who do, now is the time to start contacting those representatives.

In better legislative news, let’s talk about Virginia: the state Senate just passed SB 137, a bill crafted to protect abortion clinics and hold extremist harassers accountable. In part, it’s a state-level FACE Act: the legislation prohibits people from blocking access to an abortion clinic—classifying it as a misdemeanor, subject to up to 12 months in jail. The bill also establishes a 40-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics.

This is sure to piss off anti-abortion extremists, who are filing suits across the country arguing that buffer zones and clinic protections are First Amendment violations.

Also in Virginia: Republicans have introduced HB 542, which would require abortion patients to receive “written information regarding newborn safety devices.” What in the world is a “newborn safety device”? They’re talking about baby boxes.

Republicans love to point to these boxes as evidence that abortion rights aren’t necessary—because women can just drop off their newborns in a box! But the boxes are problematic at best: they’re rarely-used, they funnel money to the anti-abortion groups that run the program, and mothers who use the boxes often can’t regain custody of their children. Some parents—who needed help in the middle of a crisis moment—have spent years trying to get their babies back.

Extra Credit:

Amnesty International and the Population Council are speaking out against the Trump administration’s expansion of the Global Gag Rule, while Prism and Vox break it down. And over at Reuters, we find out that the State Department has already directed U.S. missions across the globe to ensure their aid programs adhere to the new standards.