New Gov't Website Will Help Collect CPCs Data On Pregnant Women

5.11.26

Click to skip ahead: Moms.gov Will Help CPCs Collect Data On Pregnant Women; SCOTUS Pushes Mifepristone Decision Until Thursday; Is Trump Firing FDA Chief Marty Makary?; Legislation Watch: Abortion Pill ‘Trafficking’; In the States: Montana, South Carolina, Massachusetts, Texas & More; AED in the News; Mifepristone Attacks 101

---

Moms.gov Helps CPCs Collect Data On Pregnant Women

The Trump administration is encouraging pregnant women to visit Moms.gov, a new government website that directs users to a Heartbeat International data collection tool. And yes, it’s exactly what it sounds like.

This new government website—first reported by Mother Jones—is not just about sending women to crisis pregnancy centers. Moms.gov funnels vulnerable women to Option Line, one of the tools that Heartbeat International uses to collect massive amounts of data on pregnant women.

Privacy International flagged Option Line’s sketchy practices back in 2019, as did Senate Democrats in 2022—pointing out that Heartbeat International had already used Option Line to collect information from millions of American women. Last year, Kylie reported that Option Line’s terms of use allow anti-abortion activists to use any information submitted through the site “for any and all purposes… appropriate to the mission and vision of Option Line.” And Abortion, Every Day found that Heartbeat shared women’s personal medical information with corporate employees, CPC volunteers, and—in one case—anyone with an internet connection.

We’re talking about names, addresses, marital status, menstruation dates—deeply personal information. Absolute nightmare shit.

Still, the launch of Moms.gov shouldn’t come as a surprise: back in 2023, I broke the news that Republicans had introduced legislation to launch a government-run website that would direct pregnant women to CPCs while collecting their personal information. They wanted to call it “life.gov.” In 2024, conservative legislators led by U.S. Sen. Katie Britt introduced a near-identical bill. This time, though, they tried to be less obvious: they switched “life.gov” to “pregnancy.gov.”

So it’s not exactly shocking that Britt stood behind Donald Trump yesterday as he announced the launch of this latest iteration. Moms.gov is the culmination of years of work by conservative lawmakers—who are eager to partner with anti-abortion powerhouses like Heartbeat International under the guise of helping pregnant women.

I’ll have more on Moms.gov tomorrow, including the site’s MAHA-coded messaging around “preconception health” and so-called “fertility awareness-based methods.” 🫠

SCOTUS Pushes Mifepristone Decision Until Thursday

The U.S. Supreme Court has pushed off a decision on mifepristone until Thursday, meaning the abortion medication will remain fully accessible by mail for at least the next few days.

A refresher: A little over a week ago, a federal court temporarily blocked the FDA rule allowing mifepristone to be prescribed without an in-person visit. The notoriously conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, who argues that telehealth access to the abortion medication harms her Republican-led state by allowing women to sidestep its ban.

While some abortion providers immediately switched to shipping only misoprostol—the second of the two medications used to end a pregnancy—others continued sending both mifepristone and misoprostol. (Read Abortion, Every Day’s explainer to understand why.)

A few days later, SCOTUS paused the Fifth Circuit ruling to give the parties time to file additional arguments. That pause was set to expire today. By extending it for a few more days, SCOTUS is giving itself more time to decide what to do next.

So what could happen on Thursday? The justices could:

• Extend the stay again, pushing back a decision even further;

• Send the case back to the lower court and ask the Fifth Circuit to reconsider a specific issue;

• Agree to take up the case on the merits, potentially on an expedited timeline;

• Or rule that Louisiana lacks standing to bring the suit at all.

Murrill has worked hard to avoid that last outcome—because it’s exactly what killed the last mifepristone case before SCOTUS. In that case, the justices unanimously ruled that the anti-abortion doctors and organizations behind the lawsuit lacked standing to challenge the FDA’s regulations on the abortion medication.

In the meantime, the Trump administration has said absolutely nothing about the federal court ruling, the Supreme Court pause—any of it. It’s almost as if they know this is a loser issue for Republicans.

Is Trump Firing FDA Chief Marty Makary?

After a months-long campaign to oust FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, the anti-abortion movement may finally be getting what it wants: multiple outlets reported Friday that Donald Trump plans to fire Makary. The news broke just hours after anti-abortion leaders—including Marjorie Dannenfelser of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America—met with White House officials to complain that the FDA chief hasn’t been aggressive enough on abortion pills.

Here’s where things get murky: when Trump was asked directly about reports that he signed off on firing Makary, he responded, “I’ve been reading about it, but I know nothing about it.” So now we play the waiting game.

As you probably remember, Makary promised late last year that the FDA would conduct a “safety review” of mifepristone—but the administration has been slow-walking the process ever since. That’s because Republicans understand just how unpopular abortion restrictions are, and the Trump administration clearly doesn’t want a massive public fight over abortion pills heading into the midterms. (So much for that!)

I’ll keep you updated as we learn more—but if Trump does move forward with firing Makary, no one should expect his replacement to be any better.

Legislation Watch: Abortion Pill ‘Trafficking’

I’m sorry to tell you that Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt has signed legislation making the ‘trafficking’ of abortion pills a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison. Under HB 1168, it’s not only a crime to deliver abortion medication, but to possess the pills with the intent to deliver them.

This language around “intent” is not an accident. The goal isn’t just to target abortion pills, but the infrastructure that makes it possible for women to get abortion medication in spite of state bans. After all, abortion pills being shipped into the banned states is a huge reason the national abortion rate hasn’t budged. Republicans know that, and it’s why they want abortion funds, activists—even those supporting a friend or family member—to be too afraid to help.

As AED has noted before, this kind of legislation also raises broad questions about what exactly counts as “delivery” or “intent.” Is a volunteer who connects women to out-of-state providers “delivering” abortion pills? What about a website that links to providers?

And Oklahoma isn’t alone here. It wasn’t so long ago that Mississippi’s governor signed a similar law that criminalizes “intent” to deliver abortion pills. (Both bills, Students for Life says, were based on their model legislation.)

The good news? As law professor Mary Ziegler has pointed out before, “intent” is very difficult to prove. Another advocate I spoke to called it “loser” legislation. But even weak laws can do real damage. The point here is the chilling effect.

Nimra Chowdhry, senior state legislative counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, called the law “a disgusting attempt to scare Oklahomans out of seeking abortion care and scare parents, friends, and doctors away from helping them.”

And while bill sponsor Sen. David Bullard claims that women themselves don’t need to worry about prosecution, his explanation suggests otherwise: “It would not be after the woman unless the woman is herself the one trafficking that pill.” So…women won’t be targeted unless they break the law? How is that different than prosecuting anyone else?

Expect to see more legislation like this spread across anti-abortion states. Keep an eye out for language around “trafficking,” “controlled substances,” and especially “intent.”

In the States: Montana, South Carolina, Massachusetts, Texas & More

Let’s start with some good news out of Montana, where anti-abortion activists have lost their case challenging abortion protections in the state constitution. Again.

You see, this is the third attempt by the Montana Life Defense Fund to overturn the results of a 2024 ballot measure that codified abortion protections. Their claim is that voters were somehow misled into supporting Constitutional Initiative 128 because the full text of the amendment wasn’t printed directly on the ballot.

Last week, Yellowstone County District Judge Thomas Pardy rejected that claim, ruling that while the full text must be submitted to the Secretary of State, it does not need to appear on the ballot itself.

And let’s be real: this measure passed with overwhelming support. It was abundantly clear that Montana voters wanted abortion rights protected. But the argument that voters didn’t truly understand what they were voting for has become increasingly common since the end of Roe—especially as abortion rights ballot measures continue to win.

How many different ways can they say they don’t care what voters want?

In South Carolina, the local NAACP has come out against legislation that would classify abortion pills as a controlled substance. (H. 4760 passed the House in February.) The group warned:

“Regardless of where individuals stand on abortion, every South Carolinian should be troubled by any attempt to fast-track legislation involving critical healthcare medications without allowing medical professionals, impacted families, legal experts, clergy, and the public the opportunity to fully examine its consequences.”

Several states have moved to make abortion medication a controlled substance since Louisiana started the trend last year. And remember: putting abortion pills legally on par with addictive drugs like opioids doesn’t just increase criminal penalties—it also gives the state new ways to track who prescribes and uses the medication.

Over in Massachusetts, Gov. Maura Healey (who I was fortunate enough to sit on a panel with her a few weeks ago) is coming out strongly in defense of abortion pill access. During a Friday press conference, Healey urged the Supreme Court to “protect mifepristone” and “protect women’s access to healthcare in this country.”

"To be clear, this whole discussion, this whole debate, all these court cases, it’s all about an attack on women. That’s what it boils down to. Are you taking away women’s access to healthcare or not?"

Finally, the Houston Press reminds us that Planned Parenthood is still seeing patients in Texas, despite the state’s total abortion ban. While the organization has had to massively cut operations—Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast shuttered after nearly 100 years of operating in Texas—Planned Parenthood Greater Texas remains, and continues to serve more than 100,000 people every year.

Associate medical director Dr. Anitra Beasley said it’s no accident that many people believe Planned Parenthood has disappeared entirely from the state:

“All of the attacks against Planned Parenthood are very purposeful, so if the message can get out that we are closed, that’s the message some people want. We are still here and we still care. One of our slogans is ‘Planned Parenthood cares, no matter what.’ We’re here to give evidence-based, unbiased, patient-centered care.”

Quick hits:

• KGNU has more on the bill that would require Colorado colleges to make abortion pills available to students;

• CBS News looks at how the attacks on mifepristone could impact Texas;

• And a professor at the Rutgers School of Public Health writes that nearly half of the women in New Jersey can’t access the birth control they want.

AED in the News

I had a chance to chat about the attack on mifepristone with two of the smartest women around: Mini Timmaraju, president of Reproductive Freedom for All, and journalist Katie Phang, who hosted us on her (very cool!) show. Watch our conversation below:

Mifepristone Attacks 101

Need to catch up on the last week of attacks on mifepristone? We’ve got you covered. Since the Fifth Circuit ruling dropped, Abortion, Every Day has been tracking every legal development, political strategy, and anti-abortion talking point around abortion pills.

Start with our explainer on the ruling itself—and why it represents the most significant attack on abortion access in the last four years:

The Biggest Attack on Abortion Since the End of Roe

Then catch up on everything AED covered this past week as the fallout unfolded:

• The Supreme Court temporarily paused the federal court ruling.

• Democratic AGs filed an amicus brief defending mifepristone, arguing both that the medication is safe and effective and that the ruling undermines the authority of pro-choice states;

• The Trump administration stayed conspicuously silent on the decision, clearly wary of political backlash;

• AED broke down the political fallout surrounding the ruling and why Republicans are nervous about the issue;

• We explained how conservatives are weaponizing confusion to convince women that mailing abortion pills is illegal;

• And we covered how anti-abortion activists continue to rely on claims of ‘coercion’ in their attacks on medication abortion.

I also joined Katie Couric to talk through what all of this means—and shared the language, organizations, and resources people should be circulating to make sure everyone knows they can still get abortion pills by mail.