Woman Denied Miscarriage Care—in California
9.29.25
Click to skip ahead: Trump is Hijacking the FACE Act reports that the DOJ is using the federal law meant to protect abortion clinics to target pro-Palestinian protesters. Abortion Pill Anniversary celebrates 25 years of FDA-approved mifepristone. Language Watch reminds publications not to fall into anti-abortion messaging traps. In the States, news from Missouri, Ohio, Kansas, and more. California Woman Denied Miscarriage Treatment reports on a lawsuit against a Catholic hospital system. In the Nation, some quick hits. You Love to See It shares what an actual ‘pro-life’ policy looks like. Finally, I couldn’t help myself: AED in the News has a truly hilarious hit piece on me from LifeNews, accusing me of being…menopausal?
Trump is Hijacking the FACE Act
This is wild. The Department of Justice is using the FACE Act—the federal law protecting reproductive healthcare clinics—to go after pro-Palestinian protesters. How is that possible? Who the fuck knows anymore. But this is important, so settle in.
Reuters reports that the DOJ filed a lawsuit in federal court today against pro-Palestinian organizations and demonstrators that it claims harassed people at a New Jersey synagogue. AED hasn’t seen the filing yet, but I’ll give more details once we do.
Here’s what we do know: the FACE Act is meant to protect abortion clinics from violence and physical obstruction. But days after Trump pardoned two dozen extremists convicted of violating the federal law, the DOJ said it would no longer be enforcing the FACE Act:
Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, told reporters that this will be the first time that the law will be used to go after those accused of obstructing religious worship. She said, “The practice of turning a blind eye to these attacks on houses of worship throughout the United States stops now.”
There are lots of reasons I’m worried about this, but let’s hone in on abortion specifically—because we saw something like this coming. Back in April, Abortion, Every Day flagged that Dhillon had given an interview to conservative pundit Glenn Beck where she claimed the “only violence” being committed is against the “rights of speech and prayer” of protesters outside of clinics.
She also said the DOJ would be “aggressively going after” anyone who ‘attacks’ anti-abortion protesters or crisis pregnancy centers—framing it as an obstruction of religious practice. At the time, I warned that in the same way the Trump administration emboldened anti-abortion extremists, they’re empowering federal agencies to target pro-choice activists.
Today’s DOJ suit is exactly that—weaponizing laws meant to protect women in order to punish anyone who crosses the administration. (Indeed when Dhillon was asked whether she’d still use the FACE Act in abortion cases, she name dropped crisis pregnancy centers.)
We’ll have more for you on this in the coming days.
Abortion Pill Anniversary
On to more positive news: if you read the Week in Abortion, you know that yesterday marked the 25th anniversary of the FDA approval of mifepristone. That means we’ve been using abortion pills safely and effectively for decades. (Sort of puts a damper on the Republican claim that they’re dangerous!)
I’m sharing a few quick reads below on the pills that you all might appreciate, but I also want to encourage all of us to think about this anniversary as a reminder that we take care of each other. No matter what the law says, no matter how they threaten us. There are people in every single community working overtime to ensure that the people who need abortions can get them. And abortion pills have made that community project a whole lot easier.
Read more about mifepristone’s anniversary and what’s at stake:
Julianne McShane at Mother Jones marks the day with a detailed look back at the attacks on the medication since the end of Roe.
Elisa Wells at Stat News writes about mifepristone as “a hero in modern abortion access.”
Hey Jane CEO Kiki Freedman writes at Ms. magazine that “telemedicine is living proof that when science is trusted, patients benefit.”
And Moira Donegan at The Guardian reminds us that mifepristone “saves women’s dreams and dignity by allowing them to control their own reproduction.”
Language Watch
While we’re on the topic of abortion pills, I just had to say something about this headline from Politico, which feeds right into anti-abortion scare tactics:
No, doctors are not “anonymously” prescribing abortion pills. Their names just aren’t publicly visible on prescription labels—a necessary move to protect providers from zealous out-of-state prosecutors and anti-abortion extremists who target them with harassment and violence. Laws like the one in California instead allow providers to list their practice name.
Politico isn’t the only publication that’s repeating anti-abortion misinformation: Newsweek ran a similar headline last week, and here’s what I wrote when NPR made the same mistake earlier this month:
“Wording it this way—saying folks could prescribe “drugs anonymously”—makes the whole thing sound unsavory or unsafe. Language around abortion rights has never been more important than it is right now, so let’s make sure we’re using it wisely.”
That’s why we need to nip headlines like this in the bud—right now. If you see a publication claim that doctors are “anonymously” providing pills, consider shooting the reporter or editor an email that (nicely!) explains why that’s just not true.
In the States
Missouri Republicans are a whole other breed, I swear. You probably remember that GOP lawmakers are putting an abortion ban in front of voters in 2026—and that it’s called Amendment 3, the same name as the pro-choice measure voters passed in November. They know they can’t win by telling the truth, so they’re trying to trick Missourians into supporting a ban.
But it’s not just the name that’s a problem: earlier this month, a judge ordered the GOP to rewrite their ballot summary because it contained no indication that the amendment would allow Republicans to ban abortion. (The language made it sound as if the measure is downright pro-choice.)
Well, the Missouri Independent reports that Secretary of State Denny Hoskins has put forward his first attempt at a revision—and that yet again there’s no mention that the amendment would ban abortion. In fact, the summary begins by stating that the measure would “guarantee women’s medical care for emergencies, ectopic pregnancies, and miscarriages.”
As Tori Schafer from the ACLU of Missouri, put it—the language is still “purposefully misleading and inaccurate.”
I wish that was all from Missouri today, but alas. The Missouri Independent—coming in clutch once again—reports that the only officer listed in filings for the campaign to pass the abortion ban amendment is Claudia Kehoe, wife of Gov. Mike Kehoe. That’s right: Missouri’s first lady is leading the charge to ban abortion, even after voters made their wishes crystal clear in November. That is some Serena Joy bullshit if I’ve ever seen it.
Attacks on democracy continue on in Ohio, where Republicans have been trying to restrict abortion in spite of voters passing pro-choice protections in 2023. In addition to fighting a court battle to keep onerous and unnecessary restrictions, Republican lawmakers have now introduced a new bill they hope will do the trick.
House Bill 347—called the “SHE Wins” (Share Health and Empower with Informed Notices) would mandate a 24-hour waiting period, and require doctors to provide biased information about abortion. They tried to pass this bill this past summer, too—I remembered because who could forget that annoying-ass name?
Why are Republicans so desperate to bring back the waiting period? Likely because ever since a court paused the restriction, 80% of patients at the region’s largest abortion provider can receive care the same day they seek it—up from just 6% before that pause.
Conservatives hate the idea that women can just get abortions without being made to ‘think it over’—this has always been about guilt and shame, despite their insistence that they’re just trying to ‘protect’ us. This time around, they’re going to have a hard time hiding behind that lie: because the Ohio bill would only apply to “elective” abortions.
A critical trial started in Kansas last week, where abortion providers are trying to put an end to some seriously horrific and telling abortion restrictions. Anti-abortion legislators and organizations claim that the laws—framed as “women’s right to know”—are there to protect women and ensure informed consent. As you can imagine, the reality is much different.
In addition to a 24-hour waiting period and ultrasound mandate, here are some of the other laws being challenged:
A mandate that doctors lie to patients about the risks of abortion, including telling them that ending a pregnancy could give them breast cancer or make them infertile;
A requirement that doctors tell patients at least five times that medication abortions can be reversed—even though that procedure is unproven and dangerous;
A mandate that forces doctors to ask patients invasive questions about why they’re ending their pregnancy and then report those answers to the state.
As Center for Reproductive Rights attorney Alice Wang told The Kansas City Star, “These laws don’t have any medical benefit.”
“They are designed to stigmatize abortion care, and they are also designed to shame patients for seeking abortion care and to make them feel guilty.”
Quick hits:
Alabama activists should keep an eye out: state Rep. Jamie Kiel told a local conservative blog that Republicans are planning on bringing some kind of legislation to target abortion pills being shipped into the state;
A Friday court ruling has allowed Nevada’s law forcing minors to get parental approval for abortions to stand (more on this soon);
And in Florida, 40 Days for Life is targeting Mayday Health over its abortion pill ads, claiming that the group is breaking the law by not warning consumers how ‘dangerous’ the medication is. 🙄
California Woman Denied Miscarriage Treatment
Well this is a nightmare: The San Francisco Chronicle reports that a California woman is suing Dignity Health—a Catholic hospital system that twice denied her emergency abortion treatment for doomed and dangerous pregnancies.
Thirty-year-old Rachel Harrison lost both of her pregnancies at 17 weeks after her water broke too early; in both cases, Dignity hospitals said they couldn’t help her because of religious restrictions. As a result, Harrison developed a life-threatening case of sepsis and required a blood transfusion during one of those pregnancies.
I don’t know how many different ways these people can make clear they don’t give a single shit if women live or die. It’s obscene.
And remember, this isn’t the first time this has happened in California: another woman in the state, Anna Nusslock, was also denied emergency treatment by a Catholic hospital.
Make sure to read the Chronicle’s whole piece, and remember that it’s not enough to live in a pro-choice state—we need to demand that hospitals actually adhere to those laws. (For more on the impact that religious institutions have on reproductive health, read some of our past coverage.)
In the Nation
Don’t miss this piece from Linda Greenhouse at Slate about “the most egregious distortion in Amy Coney Barrett’s new book,” about abortion and Ruth Bader Ginsburg;
Bloomberg Law reports on the looming interstate battle over abortion pills and shield laws;
And an OBGYN spoke to CNN about what she’s hearing from patients about Trump’s Tylenol/pregnancy bullshit and abortion medication.
You Love to See It
Want to know what an actual ‘pro-life’ policy looks like? Check out what New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani is doing: he wants to send new mothers home with ‘baby baskets’—a move that’s been proven to improve infant health in the other countries that have adopted the practice. I couldn’t love this more, so I made a video about what baby baskets/boxes are, and why this policy is so important:
AED in the News
Finally, I just had to share this—because I figured it might put a smile on your face in the way that it did mine. The extremist anti-abortion publication LifeNews has published a little rant about me, and let’s just say it’s not exactly glowing lol.
To start, I feel badly because the article they’re so worked up about was actually written by Kylie, not me—so this feels a bit like stolen valor. (Sorry, Kylie!)
I’ll give you my favorite quotes. Raimundo Rojas of the National Right to Life Committee, who wrote the article, accuses me of supporting violence against anti-abortion protesters outside of clinics. Obviously, I don’t and never have. But it might be worth him believing as much just for this sentence alone:
“We now know that her toxic and noxious words are all it takes for some cross-hormoned, maladjusted, pink-haired leftist to attack those good people praying for life.”
Who is this diva? I’d love to meet her.
But it was this that truly sent me over the edge: “Valenti likes to mention she’s going through menopause, and maybe that explains the hormonal outbursts in her blog.”
Excuse me, Raimundo—it’s perimenopause. These guys are never beating the allegations that they don’t know shit about women’s bodies, huh?
In any case, thanks for choosing a picture where my lipstick looks fire! Til next time. 💅
This is about weaponizing law enforcement to shield one side—the side already backed by billions in dark money, political muscle, and church machinery—while criminalizing patients, providers, and ordinary people standing up for healthcare.
Where is this same “aggression” when women are stalked outside clinics, when providers get death threats, when clinics are firebombed, or when state laws deputize neighbors to hunt down pregnant people like fugitives? Silence. Selective enforcement has always been the game.
To frame opposition to coercive, deceptive “crisis pregnancy centers” as an “attack on religion” is not only cynical—it’s dangerous. It elevates ideology above public health, above evidence, above human rights. And it hands extremists yet another cudgel to wield against patients who are already being surveilled, shamed, and stripped of care.
Religious freedom means you can practice your faith. It does not mean you get to impose it on others—or force someone else to carry a pregnancy against their will. By bending the law into a shield for extremists, DOJ isn’t protecting religion; it’s protecting cruelty, disinformation, and the machinery of forced birth.
Thank you Jessica for this report. Yes I recall in social work school about Nordic Countries providing families with baby baskets. It was a lovely way to help the community. They are full of many supplies etc. some have items that supply up to a year for new parents.
https://www.businessinsider.com/finland-gives-free-baby-kit-new-parents-more-harmonious-capitalism-2020-2
Social Medicine in awesome.
I’m glad you and Kylie made it into an anti abortion publication. You go ladies 🥰💋💋