They're Coming for Pro-Choice Websites

6.12.26

Click to skip ahead: Alabama AG Targets Pro-Choice Websites; Legislation Watch: Protecting the Right to Travel; Republican AGs Demand the EPA Regulate Mifepristone; Idaho’s Abortion Ban Goes to Court; In the States: Idaho, Iowa, Arizona, North Carolina & More; Ballot Box: Florida & Georgia

🚩 If you see a red flag emoji, it means that link leads to a conservative or religious news outlet—proceed with caution, if you want to click at all.

---

Alabama AG Targets Pro-Choice Websites

As Kylie told you briefly on Tuesday, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has sent cease-and-desist letters to multiple websites that provide—or even share information about—abortion pills. Marshall threatens the six groups with prosecution and lawsuits if they don’t “halt all advertising, sale, and delivery of abortion-inducing drugs to consumers in Alabama.”

What does it mean, exactly, for a website to stop “advertising” abortion pills in Alabama? Do they need to block all IP addresses visiting from the state—or just shut down operations entirely?

That’s the thing: this is not just about stopping abortion pills from being shipped into anti-abortion states—it’s about quashing speech and community. Marshall doesn’t want women sharing information with each other about how to get the care they need. His letter is just another part of the broader attack Abortion, Every Day has been tracking across multiple states.

Take Marshall’s letter to Plan C Pills: he writes that the group “advertises and facilitates the sale or procurement of medical pills that induce abortions,” and points to a page on Plan C’s website that contains a list of providers. In other words, he knows that Plan C doesn’t sell abortion pills; he’s threatening them because they share information.

Marshall also pulls out a tactic we’ve seen in other states like South Dakota: he accuses Plan C of violating Alabama’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act because they tell users that abortion pills are safe. He cites conservatives’ well-worn junk science study on mifepristone, claiming that women have “experienced sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or another serious adverse event[s]” after taking abortion pills.

And while Marshall’s letters threaten a “formal investigation” and “civil penalties,” his statement goes even further:

“These companies are not only breaking the law, they are deceiving Alabama consumers about the very real dangers of these drugs. That stops now. Anyone who tries to exploit Alabamians for profit while flouting our laws will be prosecuted to the fullest extent permitted by law.”

It’s worth remembering that Marshall has been eager to prosecute women for abortion for years. Back in 2023, Abortion, Every Day discovered that the Republican AG planned to sidestep the prohibition on prosecuting medication abortion patients by charging women with “chemical endangerment” of a child—a law meant to stop people from bringing children to meth houses.

Want to do something nice for the folks in Alabama who have to deal with this asshole? Yellowhammer Abortion Fund just had their busiest month ever and I’m sure they could use some donations. We’re also big fans of the West Alabama Women’s Center.

Legislation Watch: Protecting the Right to Travel

Let’s talk about some good news, and the kind of legislation I’d love to see more of. Democratic Senators have reintroduced the Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act—legislation that would stop states and local governments from punishing abortion patients, providers, or helpers who help someone travel for abortion care. The bill would also allow women to bring civil action if they were stopped from getting out-of-state care.

Led by Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto, Sheldon Whitehouse, Patty Murray, and Kirsten Gillibrand, the legislation couldn’t come at a better time. We need proactive protections for the right to travel now. While most abortions are provided using medication, over 140,000 people traveled for abortion in 2025. We can count on that number going up if Republicans are able to restrict mifepristone.

“The right to travel for abortion care is a lifeline,” Sen. Cortez Masto says.

And while there aren’t any explicit state laws that ban women from traveling for care (yet)—there’s been a marked rise in informal travel bans—whether it’s local ordinances, or ‘abortion trafficking’ laws that limit teens’ ability to get help leaving the state.

Last month, I told you about a mother whose daughter was removed from her home by Child Protective Services in order to prevent her from getting the teen an out-of-state abortion. That’s a travel ban! The same is true for restrictions on pregnant women who are on probation or parole.

Republicans are also getting more open about their desire to limit travel: Last year, Montana lawmakers even introduced a bill that would charge women who leave the state for care with trafficking their own fetus.

All of which is to say: we need legislation like this yesterday.

---

I was mad this week. If you missed my column, read it below:

The "Middle" Men of the New York Times

---

Republican AGs Demand the EPA Regulate Mifepristone

Conservatives’ ‘abortion in the water’ strategy has taken a troubling new turn: fourteen Republican attorneys general have sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), demanding that mifepristone be added to the agency’s “Contaminant Candidate List.”

As you know by now, this is all part of a very bizarre strategy: led by Students for Life, anti-abortion activists say that abortion medication and fetal parts are contaminating our drinking water. The false claim has really taken off in the wake of MAHA’s rise, with conservatives claiming Americans are becoming infertile because of mifepristone and abortions in the water.

There’s a lot of craziness there, so read Abortion, Every Day’s explainer to catch up.

So what happens if the EPA caves to Republicans and puts mifepristone on the CCL? Well, then abortion pills would be flagged for federal investigation and possible regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The broad goal here is to carve out a new legal pathway to restrict abortion: by weaponizing environmental law, anti-abortion lawmakers and activists could completely sidestep the FDA and protections in pro-choice states.

Read the AGs’ letter here, and I’ll keep you updated on what happens next.

Idaho’s Abortion Ban Goes to Court

The legal challenge to Idaho’s near-total abortion ban was in court this week, and I’ve got everything you need to know.

A refresher: the law is being challenged by maternal fetal medicine specialist Dr. Stacy Seyb, who says Idaho’s ban violates the U.S. Constitution—and that abortion isn’t just protected to save someone’s life, but to preserve their health. That includes, his attorneys at the Lawyering Project say, cases where pregnancy worsens existing conditions, could lead to suicide, or involves fatal or severe fetal diagnoses.

The first few days of the trial—which isn’t being heard by a jury, but a federal judge—included testimony from Seyb and other specialists, who laid out just how dangerous and nuanced pregnancy complications can be. I have to say, I really appreciate that they’re making mental health such a centerpiece of this challenge. I think there’s often a fear of focusing on anything other than the most devastating physical dangers of pregnancy—but these laws are quite literally forcing suicidal women to remain pregnant, or to forgo life-saving medications.

Naturally, the state’s attorney, Jim Craig, did his best to paint the physicians as radical abortion rights activists—and even spent some time going through a sensationalized and graphic description of abortion, which he’s called “gruesome and barbaric medical procedures.”

The Idaho Statesman and the Idaho Capital Sun have deep dives if you want more details, but there was one thing in particular that stuck out to me: the state’s Maternal Mortality Review Committee used to consider suicide a pregnancy-related death, one witness testified—but in recent years, the committee has stopped counting death by suicide if the patient had ever reported thinking about killing themselves in the past.

There have been all sorts of sketchy moves with maternal mortality committees in banned states since the end of Roe—whether it’s stacking the committees with anti-abortion activists or disbanding them altogether. We all know what’s happening here: Republicans are desperate to hide the devastating impact of their laws.

In the States: Idaho, Iowa, Arizona, North Carolina & More

Let’s stick with Idaho for a minute, because I love this: Mayday Health is suing Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador for violating their free speech rights.

The Idaho Statesman has the full story, but here’s the short version: Mayday planned a mobile billboard campaign—a truck driving around with a sign reading, “Pregnant? Don’t want to be? Learn more at www.mayday.health.” But the group had to cancel, losing over $11,000, because Labrador refused to confirm he wouldn’t prosecute them. From the complaint:

“The Attorney General—who disagrees with the lawful choices people may make with the information Mayday publishes, as well as Mayday’s conviction that access to abortion is a fundamental human right—has declared that Idaho law authorizes him to prohibit the promotion of abortions, even through speech alone.”

It’s true—Labrador has long made clear he’s itching to prosecute abortion cases: back in 2023, he claimed Idaho’s ban criminalizes out-of-state abortion referrals (it doesn’t), and he’s fought against a block on the state’s “abortion trafficking” law—which would effectively outlaw sharing abortion information with a minor.

That’s why Mayday repeatedly contacted the AG’s office—letters, phone calls—asking Labrador to confirm he wouldn’t take legal action over their ads. Now they want the courts to say it plainly: he can’t prosecute or target them for an ad campaign that shares information.

Mayday is also suing South Dakota over its new law banning ads for abortion pills.

Meanwhile, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds is taking well-deserved heat for posting misleading data about abortion. On Facebook a few days ago, the Republican governor shared a graph that made it seem like Iowa’s abortion rate had dropped rapidly. “Incredible news for life!” she wrote, claiming the state saw “a new record low for abortions.”

But as our friends over at the Guttmacher Institute told KCRG—people in Iowa are absolutely still having abortions.

“Telehealth is a really big part of that story, the other big piece that’s missing here, I’d say, is travel,” said data scientist Isaac Maddow-Zimmet. “In 2024, about 570 Iowans traveled to Illinois, about 500 traveled to Minnesota and about 300 traveled to Nebraska.”

Why lie? Because Republicans don’t want voters to know that the abortion rate hasn’t dropped since the end of Roe. All these laws do is hurt women—they don’t stop abortion.

Has the Arizona GOP found a new way to protect clinic harassers? Republican lawmakers are advancing a bill that would make it illegal to “interfere” with religious services and activities.

The problem? The legislation defines a place of worship as “a privately owned building, structure or designated location where people assemble for a religious service…or activity.” That broad definition could extend extra protections to clinic harassers—who could claim that screaming at abortion patients is part of their religious practice.

Democratic Sen. Lauren Kuby told the Arizona Mirror:

“The idea that someone could be subject to a class 6 felony or a class 1 misdemeanor because someone is protesting an abortion and they dare to say, ‘Leave me alone, stop bothering me, stop harassing me,’ that truly is the definition of a bad bill.”

Under HB 4117, such “interference” could be punished with jail time—including felony charges depending on the circumstances. I’ll keep you updated on this one.

Finally, North Carolina Democrats gathered this week to commemorate the anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut—the case that recognized the right to contraception—and to remind voters that attacks on birth control are still very much a thing.

That’s why lawmakers in the state introduced SB 413, which would enshrine the protections of Griswold into North Carolina law. Sen. Natalie Murdock said:

“The promise of Griswold was that these deeply personal decisions belong to individuals, not politicians. Today, we are here to say that promise still matters, and we will continue fighting to protect that here in North Carolina and beyond.”

There’s good reason to proactively protect contraception access. I know we all remember that when Roe was overturned, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Supreme Court should also “reconsider” Griswold. 🤡

Quick hits:

• Capital News Illinois has more on the Illinois bill we told you about last month that would require CPS to consider access to reproductive health care before placing a foster child in an adoptive home;

• More on the lawsuit brought by Georgia midwives;

• And congratulations to the new executive director of the ACLU of Indiana, Nikkita R. Oliver.

Ballot Box: Florida & Georgia

Yet another Republican gubernatorial candidate has come out as an abortion ‘abolitionist’—this time in Florida. James Fishback, a 30-year-old white nationalist, wrote on Twitter last week that abortion “is murder…and I’ll prosecute it as such.” If that wasn’t clear enough, he ended with, “abolish abortion.”

As regular readers know, ‘abolitionists’ want women who end their pregnancies to be prosecuted as murderers—facing life in prison or execution. There’s been an explosion of legislation pushing for just that across the country, and men running for office on an ‘abolitionist’ platform. (Kylie and I are hard at work on an ‘abolitionist’ election guide—so you know exactly who these maniacs are and where they’re running.)

This week, Fishback told Fox News 🚩 that he would “shut down the 53 abortion clinics that remain in Florida and replace every single one with a crisis pregnancy center.”

A Georgia gubernatorial candidate is trying to walk back his comments about banning abortion for rape victims and forcing them to prove they were attacked. As Kylie reported earlier this week, Republican Rick Jackson’s comments were caught on audio at a campaign stop—just weeks after saying he supports the law’s existing exceptions. (Georgia allows abortion for rape victims up until 20 weeks if they report the attack to police.)

Jackson’s campaign told CBS News that it was “an incorrect framing based on Democratic spin.”

My question: how, exactly, does one “spin” comments that were caught on tape?