When Ajike Owens was alive, she dreamed of becoming a famous entrepreneur. “You laugh at me,” she’d tell her mother, Pam Dias, “but one day the whole world’s going to know my name.” Years later, filmmaker Geeta Gandbhir thought about Owens’s avowal while sifting through the 30-plus hours of police body-camera footage and audio recordings that make up The Perfect Neighbor, her Oscar-nominated Netflix documentary about the two years leading up to Owens’s killing.
The documentary tells the story of Susan Lorincz, who regularly called police to the otherwise tight-knit Florida community where Owens was raising her four children to complain about neighborhood kids playing near her rented property. On June 2, 2023, Lorincz rang authorities over a dispute involving Owens’s children, roller skates, and a missing iPad. Minutes later, the white 58-year-old Lorincz fatally shot her Black neighbor, 35-year-old Owens, through her closed front door.
Susan Lorincz tells her side of a neighborhood dispute, as captured in police body-cam footage that fuels much of The Perfect Neighbor.Courtesy of Netflix
As the case against Lorincz was coming together, attorneys for Owens’s family gained access to hours of police body-camera footage through the Freedom of Information Act. Reviewing it alongside her producing partner and husband, Nikon Kwantu (whose cousin was Owens’s best friend, Kimberly Robinson-Jones), Gandbhir said it “reminded us of films like The Blair Witch Project or Paranormal Activity. The community had lived a real-life horror film. So we wanted to create something that placed you in the community.” To raise both media awareness around Owens’s killing and money for the family, Gandbhir and her editor, Viridiana Lieberman, made a film in which cops inadvertently serve as cinematographers.
Geeta Gandbhir is a double Oscar nominee for The Perfect Neighbor (best documentary feature) and The Devil Is Busy (best documentary short).Bryan Derballa/Getty Images
Some have argued that watching a film told largely through the very same system that failed Owens could make viewers identify too closely with law enforcement. “We were really not that concerned with the perspective of the police. They were just the vehicle to showcase this community as they were. When the police come into communities of color, surveillance can be used to criminalize,” Gandbhir tells Vanity Fair in response. “We wanted it to humanize.”
She doubles down on the belief that “our society essentially failed this community. [The police] didn’t see them as worth protecting. Susan was able to weaponize her race and privilege. And by not realizing she was a danger to the community and probably herself, her life is ruined too,” Gandbhir continues. “She’s ostensibly spending the rest of her life in jail. And as an abolitionist at heart, I really wish that on no one.”
Lorincz attempted to utilize Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law as a defense, arguing that she was legally allowed to use deadly force because she feared for her life when Owens banged on her door demanding to speak after her son said Lorincz threw a pair of skates at him. This was also the successful legal tactic of Trayvon Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, who was acquitted in 2013. In 2024, Lorincz was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 25 years in prison. She has appealed her conviction.
RE: “Trump plans to host governors at White House, but only Republicans,” Feb. 8 news story
President Trump’s initial ban on Democratic governors from the National Governors Association meeting at the White House was bad enough. Worse, for Colorado, Trump personally uninvited Gov. Jared Polis from the bipartisan dinner (with gubernatorial spouses) that follows. It’s obvious Trump is royally enraged at our state.
Why? Recall: Tina Peters, former Mesa County clerk and current MAGA martyr, is sitting in state prison, beyond the reach of Trump’s presidential pardon. And Congresswoman Lauren Boebert was a key Republican vote in forcing the release of the Epstein files — in revenge, Trump cancelled a big water project in her district.
But Trump is never really done with revenge, is he?
Don’t be surprised if Trump targets Colorado as the next stop on the ICE circus tour. Aside from his pre-existing grievances against us, we’re a natural target. Deep blue state. A “sanctuary city” as the state capital, run (like Minneapolis) by another young, earnest, progressive mayor. Tons of undocumented immigrants, easily swept up in the dragnet.
Coloradans need to start preparing.
Marty Rush, Salida
Political Armageddon could really be on the horizon
Re: “The problem with making every election an existential threat for the U.S.,” Feb. 8 commentary
While I appreciate David M. Drucker’s notion that we need not declare that the sky is falling before and after each election, I do believe this administration and its Republican cohorts in the House and Senate have crossed some governance red lines that contradict the basic principles this country was founded on.
Shooting and beating American citizens in the streets, demolishing history, covering up obvious crimes, threatening our allies, targeting political adversaries and using the office for personal enrichment are just a few things that have occurred and gone unchecked by powers that control Congress.
Most recently, they have been trying their absolute hardest to preserve power or at least limit the damage in the upcoming elections with their calls for gerrymandered districts, laws that will restrict voting and a needless investigation into a settled election.
While Drucker points out the pendulum frequently swings back in our politics, I fear this time the damage left behind by the lack of checks and balances will exist for many election cycles to come. For these reasons, the next election and certainly the following could be political Armageddon, resulting in the sky actually falling on this republic.
Tony Hillas, Centennial
George Washington’s fears are our realities
Re: “One of Trump’s most destructive moves,” Feb. 8 commentary
I enjoyed Martin Schram’s article, which reminded me of a passage in a Nathaniel Philbrick book about George Washington. Philbrick said what worried Washington most was what might happen if a president’s chief priority was to divide rather than unite the people. Washington said: “It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”
Sadly, it seems we are currently experiencing much of what Washington feared.
Joseph Heard, Denver
More people preparing for less water?
Re: “The world is in water bankruptcy,” Feb. 8 commentary
As I read this, I said to myself, “Here we go again, trying to divvy up water that doesn’t exist.”
Comparing a resource necessary to sustain life to money, essentially a made-up “resource,” is laughable. So, the “solution” proposed is “plan for less water.” That might work now, but what about the two billion additional people projected in the next 20 years or so? I guess we’ll “plan” on even less water then.
It all comes down to simple math.
Greg Albrecht, Aurora
‘Wolf reintroduction ‘based on the best and current science practices’
Krista Kafa got things wrong when comparing wolf reintroduction to wolverine reintroduction.
First, a law is a law. After Prop 114 was codified as Statute 33-2-105.8 in 2020, the reintroduction was in the “hands of the agency’s wildlife experts.” CPW convened two groups to develop the Colorado Wolf Reintroduction Management Plan. The Technical Working Group (TWG) and the Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) worked tirelessly for two years.
The TWG was composed of wildlife management professionals, biologists, ecologists, and other scientists who provided expertise on management strategies. The SAG group consisted of a diverse group of representatives, including those from the livestock industry, hunters, outfitters, and conservationists. All stakeholders were represented and given opportunities to express concerns. This process was not “dismissive of ranchers’ concerns,” and public meetings guaranteed transparency.
Second, what project have you initiated that didn’t run over time and over budget? Yes, $800,000 a year was estimated, but the $8 million Kafer refers to is over a 5-year period. In the beginning, depredation expenses were high because some ranchers refused to implement recommended deterrence methods. Some openly expressed that they wanted this experiment to fail.
Colorado wolf reintroduction is based on the best and current science practices. Kafer continues the bias against wolves by insinuating that the state has reintroduced lynx, elk, moose, turkeys, grouse, ferrets, and now wolverines based on science, but not wolves. CPW decisions and the works of experts tell a different story. The science of ecology and biodiversity has been the driving force in reintroducing wolves to Colorado.
Kathy Webster, Littleton
You shouldn’t dismiss the value of ballot-box biology
Whenever I read complaints about “ballot-box biology” regarding wolves in Colorado, I can be sure I’m hearing the perspective of someone trying to protect a privileged position regarding wildlife management.
Any discussion of the matter should start with the understanding that wildlife is a public resource. It belongs to all of us. Despite that, effective control over such management priorities has long rested with agriculturalists and hunters, whose interests are not always shared by the vast majority of Coloradans. In the face of what then might be called “feedlot biology” and “game-farm biology,” the ballot box can be the only method available to have their values recognized.
But the public is “uneducated” on the issues, detractors cry, as if stringing barbed wire, trapping bobcats, and poisoning prairie dogs were a litmus test of ecological literacy. While there are clearly varying degrees of understanding of wildlife among all stakeholders, I would argue that a wiser, science-based focus is more likely to come from the public sector than from those who profit from the decision-making.
Clint McKnight, Durango
The right to choose includes fighting to continue a pregnancy
Re: “Medication abortion is safe and effective, reversal efforts are untested and not recommended by doctors,” Feb. 8 commentary
As an Ob-Gyn physician who also incorporated abortion into my practice, my review of the science conflicts with Dr. Donald W. Aptekar’s opinion piece regarding the use of natural progesterone for abortion pill reversal (APR). How confusing this must be for people! Doctors should not simply parrot unsubstantiated talking points.
The legal opinion on the case, which Denver Post columnist Krista Kafer warned would cost the state millions of dollars in legal fees, reviewed the evidence. The plaintiffs prevailed because the evidence supports APR as a safe option for desperate women who change their minds after taking the first abortion pill, mifepristone. The decision noted that natural progesterone is used off-label for many conditions in women’s health, but the state outlawed only the choice of women to use it for APR.
The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) and American Medical Association (AMA) refuse to endorse APR, but not, in fact, based on the breadth of current scientific literature, but rather on ideology.
The safety of progesterone during pregnancy is not in question. The FDA and Society of Reproductive Medicine both affirm that its use is safe. Doctors have prescribed it for more than 50 years for many off-label indications, including in women with threatened miscarriage, as well as in protocols to prevent preterm birth. It is used regularly for infertility and IVF. What is different when used to prevent miscarriage versus to reverse abortion from mifepristone is that mifepristone is associated with hemorrhage. This is not a safety issue of progesterone, but of mifepristone.
Colorado’s law affirms a woman’s “right to choose,” including the choice to continue a pregnancy. This lawsuit returned that option to Colorado women.
There are just 16 Flock Safety cameras in Thornton.
But those electronic eyes, mounted to poles at intersections throughout this city of nearly 150,000, brought out dozens of people to the Thornton Community Center for a discussion on how the controversial license plate-reading cameras are being used — and whether they should be used at all.
Law enforcement agencies cite the automatic license-plate readers, or ALPRs, as a powerful tool that bolsters their ability to locate and stop suspects who may be on their way to committing their next assault or robbery.
But Meg Moore, a six-year resident of the city who is helping spearhead opposition to Flock cameras, said she worries about how the rapidly spreading surveillance system is impacting residents’ privacy and Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Thornton’s Flock camera data can be seen by more than 1,600 other law enforcement agencies across the country.
“We want to make sure this is truly safe and effective,” she said in an interview.
The debate over Atlanta-based Flock Safety’s cameras, which not only can record license plate numbers but can search for the specific characteristics of a vehicle linked to an alleged crime, has been picking up steam in recent years. The discussions have largely played out in metro Denver and Front Range cities in recent months, but this year they reached the state Capitol, where lawmakers are pitching a couple of bills to tighten up rules around surveillance.
In Denver, Mayor Mike Johnston has been butting heads with the City Council over the issue. Johnston is so convinced of Flock’s value in combating crime that in October, he extended the contract with the company against the wishes of much of the council. Denver has 111 Flock cameras.
In Longmont, elected leaders took a different approach. Its City Council voted in December to pause all sharing of Flock Safety data with other municipalities, declined an expansion of its contract with the company and began searching for an alternative.
Louisville beat its Boulder County neighbor to the punch by several months, disabling its Flock cameras at the end of June and removing them by the start of October. City spokesman Derek Cosson said privacy concerns from residents largely drove the city’s decision.
Steve Mathias, a Thornton resident for nearly a decade, would like to see Flock’s cameras gone from his city. Short of that, he said, reliable controls on how the streetside data is collected, stored and shared are paramount.
“In our rush to make our community safe, we’re not getting the full picture of the risks we’re facing,” he said. “We’re making ourselves safe in some ways by making ourselves less safe in others.”
The hot-button debate in Thornton played out at last month’s community meeting and continued at a City Council meeting last week, where the city’s Police Department gave a presentation on the Flock system.
Cmdr. Chad Parker laid out several examples of Flock’s cameras being instrumental in apprehending bad actors — in cases ranging from homicide to sex assault to child exploitation to a $5,700 theft at a Nike store.
As recently as Monday, Thornton police announced on X that investigators had tracked down a man suspected of hitting and killing a 14-year-old boy who was riding a small motorized bike over the weekend. The agency said a Flock camera in Thornton gave officers a “strong lead” in identifying the hit-and-run suspect within 24 hours.
At the Feb. 3 council study session, police Chief Jim Baird described Flock’s camera system as “one of the best tools I’ve seen in 32 years of law enforcement.”
But that doesn’t sway those in Thornton who are wary of the camera network.
“I’m not a fan of building toward a surveillance state,” Mathias said.
The hazards of a system like Flock, he said, lie not just in the pervasive data-collection methods the company uses but also in who eventually might get to see and use that data — be it a rogue law enforcement officer or a hacker who manages to break into Flock’s database.
“A person who wants us to do us harm with this system will have as much capability as the police have to do good,” he said.
A Flock Safety license plate recognition camera is seen on a street light post on Ken Pratt Boulevard near the intersection with U.S. 287 in Longmont on Dec. 10, 2025. (Matthew Jonas/Daily Camera)
Crime-fighting tool or prone to misuse?
In November, a Columbine Valley police officer was disciplined after he accused a Denver woman of theft based in large part on evidence from Flock cameras, according to reporting from Fox31. The officer mistakenly claimed the woman had stolen a $25 package in a nearby town and said he’d used Flock cameras to track her car.
“It’s putting too much trust in the hands of people who don’t know what they’re doing,” DeFlock’s Will Freeman said of so many police agencies’ adoption of the technology.
Last summer, 9News reported that the Loveland Police Department had shared access to its Flock camera system with U.S. Border Patrol. That came two months after the station reported that the department gave the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives access to its account, which ATF agents then used to conduct searches for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Parker, the Thornton police commander, said any searches connected to immigration cases or to women from out of state who are seeking an abortion in Colorado — another scenario that’s been raised — “won’t ever touch our system.” State laws restrict cooperation with federal immigration authorities and with other states’ abortion-related investigations.
“Any situation I feel uncomfortable about or that might be in conflict with our policies or with Colorado law, I will revoke their access — no problem,” he said.
Thornton deputy city attorney Adam Stephens said motorists’ Fourth Amendment rights are not being violated by the city’s Flock camera network. During last week’s meeting, he cited several recent court cases that, in essence, determined that there is no right to privacy while driving down a public roadway.
In an interview, Stephens said Thornton was “in compliance with the law.”
Flock spokesman Paris Lewbel wrote in an email that the company was “proud to partner with the Thornton Police Department to provide technology used to investigate and solve crimes and to help locate missing persons.”
Lewbel provided links to two news stories about minor children who were abducted and then found with the help of Flock’s cameras in Thornton and elsewhere.
At the council’s study session last week, Parker provided more examples of Flock’s role in fighting crime and finding missing people in Thornton. They included police nabbing a suspect who had hit and killed a pedestrian, locating a burglar who was suspected of robbing several dispensaries, and tracking down an 89-year-old man with dementia who had gotten into his car and gotten lost.
“It allows us to find vehicles in a manner we weren’t able to previously,” Parker said of the camera network.
Thornton installed its first 10 Flock cameras in 2022 and then added five more — plus a mobile unit — two years later. The initial deployment was in response to a spike in auto thefts in the city, which peaked at 1,205 in 2022 (amid an overall surge in Colorado). Thornton recorded 536 auto thefts last year.
The city says Flock cameras have been involved in 200 cases that resulted in an arrest or a warrant application in Thornton over the last three years.
Thornton police have access to nearly 2,200 other agencies’ Flock systems across the United States, while nearly 1,650 law enforcement agencies can access Thornton’s Flock data, according to data provided by the city.
For Anaya Robinson, the public policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, the networked nature of Flock cameras across wide geographies is a big part of the problem. By linking one police agency’s Flock technology with that of thousands of other police departments, it “creates a surveillance environment that could violate the Fourth Amendment.”
The sweeping nature of Flock’s surveillance is also worrisome, Robinson said.
“You’re not just collecting the data of vehicles that ping (a police department’s) hot list (of suspicious vehicles), you’re collecting the data of every vehicle that is caught on a Flock camera,” he said.
And because the technology is relatively inexpensive — Thornton pays $48,500 to Flock annually for its system — it’s an affordable crime-fighting tool for most communities. But that doesn’t mean it should be deployed, DeFlock’s Freeman said.
Fight remains a largely local one
State lawmakers are crafting bills this session to limit the reach of surveillance technologies like Flock’s.
Senate Bill 70 would put limits on access to databases and the sharing of information. It would prohibit a government from accessing a database that reveals an individual’s or a vehicle’s historical location information, and it would prohibit sharing that information with third parties or with government agencies outside the controlling entity’s jurisdiction. Certain exceptions would apply.
Senate Bill 71 would direct a “law enforcement agency to use surveillance technology only for lawful purposes directly related to public safety or for an active investigation.” It also would forbid the use of facial-recognition technology without a warrant and would place limits on the amount of time data can be retained.
Both bills await their first committee hearings.
Thornton says it doesn’t use facial recognition technology. Its Flock data is retained for 30 days.
Regardless of what passes at the state Capitol, the real fight over license plate readers of any type will likely continue to happen at the local level. Thornton’s council plans further discussions on Flock next month.
For Moore, the resident who is leading the charge against the cameras, potential surveillance of the immigrant community is what troubles her the most.
“We want to make sure we’re operating this so that it’s safe for all of our residents,” she said. “Getting rid of the cameras altogether is a tough sell. But there needs to be a conversation about guardrails.”
Mayor Pro Tem Roberta Ayala, a Thornton native, said she has heard a wide array of opinions from her constituents about the advantages and potential downsides of the technology.
“Could it be misused? Yes. Do we want to stop that? Yes,” she said.
But as a victim of crime herself, Ayala also knows the immense damage and disruption that crime causes victims and their families, be it a stolen vehicle or something much worse. And as a teacher, Ayala is concerned about achieving justice for the families of children who are harmed or abused.
“If it can save even five kids,” she said, “I want the cameras.”
At the annual March for Life in Washington, DC on Friday, a “hello pro-life America” chant grows as bobble hats, ear muffs and Charlie Kirk signs accumulate. To my left, a man in a gray suit with a cobalt blue mullet scrolls Google, searching for the definition of “euthanasia.” On my right, a gaggle of teenage boys workshop an ICE jingle while one of them beatboxes. Vice President JD Vance will speak, thousands are expected, and to top it all off, a major snowstorm is rolling in.
In the wake of Kirk’s death last September, this year’s march reflects a heightened urgency to make abortion a political priority. Kirk heavily advocated for the pro-life movement, saying, “it’s not enough to be against abortion; we have to actually help women choose life,” a stance his widow, Erika, now the CEO of Turning Point USA, the conservative organization her late husband created, has continued to espouse in public events. Now, Kirk’s influence is palpable as young people from Turning Point USA, Students For Life, and Counteract USA, among other groups, mobilize at the March for Life.
And with Vance, a potential 2028 presidential candidate, aligning himself so closely with the pro-life movement, there’s little ambiguity throughout the day about where attendees’ votes will eventually land.
People hold a Charlie Kirk sign as they march in the 53rd annual March for Life rally in Washington, DC, on January 23, 2026.
SAUL LOEB/Getty Images
“We’re here because life begins at conception,” Lily, a 17-year-old from Chicago, tells me. “We’re here to save all the babies, and we won’t stop coming until till abortion is ended.” She has traveled with peers from St. James at Sag Bridge Catholic Church in Illinois and lands, without hesitation, on Kirk and Candace Owens being her role models.
In the background, Christian music plays out across the capitol grounds as the crowd enjoys the rally and performances that are a prelude to the march. Like much of the young conservative activism circuit, it’s similar to a festival, with entertainment and celebrations drawing out over a few days.
Signs of the annual rally, which has been held in Washington since 1974, when it started as a protest against Roe v. Wade, began when I stepped off the Amtrak at DC’s Union Station on Thursday. Looking up at the vaulted marble ceiling, it was almost easy to miss the group of people being siphoned off from the train behind a wall decorated with grass into a private networking event for The White Rose Resistance. The group, who call themselves a nationwide movement with a mission to be “a voice for unborn children,” share their name with the nonviolent German resistance group led by Hans and Sophie Scholl against the Nazis.
Unlike two other civil rights-related constitutional amendments that passed with bipartisan support over the past year, Virginia’s reproductive rights measure has faced intense debate at every stage, with every Republican in the legislature opposing it.
This article was reprinted with permission from Virginia Mercury.
A proposal allowing mid-decade redistricting of Virginia’s congressional maps that cleared the legislature last week may dominate debate heading into a spring special referendum, but a constitutional amendment on reproductive rights is poised to ignite similar fervor as the November election approaches.
Unlike two other civil rights-related constitutional amendments that passed with bipartisan support over the past year, Virginia’s reproductive rights measure has faced intense debate at every stage, with every Republican in the legislature opposing it.
In defending her amendment for the final time, Sen. Jennifer Boysko, D-Fairfax, emphasized that advancing the proposal would ultimately leave the decision to voters across the state.
Ranging from fertility treatments to contraception access to the ability to obtain an abortion, “this amendment protects families’ entire scope of reproductive needs,” she said.
Boysko and several other Democratic lawmakers have described how women in states with abortion bans have died amid pregnancy complications. Those states have also seen an exodus of OB-GYN physicians amid uncertainty of treating patients who need abortions or miscarriage management.
Boysko grew tearful as she recounted stories and advocacy shared by constituents and people around the state.
Relatedly, Sen. Emily Jordan, R-Isle of Wight, struck a somber tone as she noted that “this is a difficult topic for a lot of people.”
On the opposite side of the chamber’s aisle — and in opposition to the amendment — Jordan unsuccessfully attempted to modify the proposal to explicitly spell out care for babies when born.
A sticking point for some Republicans has been concern that the amendment could be interpreted to allow abortion up to the “moment of birth,” though infanticide remains illegal under both state code and federal law.
Sen. Tara Durant, R-Stafford, also attempted for the second legislative session in a row, to reiterate existing parental consent laws. Democrats and legal experts said it is unnecessary. Under Virginia law, minors are required to have parental or guardian consent for an abortion unless they petition a judge for authorization.
On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, D-Fairfax, accused Republicans of employing delay tactics by pressing for their amendments to the amendment.
“It is a delay tactic,” Sen. Mark Obenshain, R-Rockbridge, said on Friday, as he urged lawmakers to re-draft the amendment. Doing so, however, would restart the two-year process.
A sense of urgency
While not entirely a partisan issue at the national level, the issue has increasingly fallen along party lines in states. That dynamic, Virginia Wesleyan University professor Leslie Caughell said, helps explain why Democrats are moving quickly while they hold legislative majorities.
Though placing language in the Constitution is difficult, it is also harder to undo. With every other Southern state imposing deep restrictions or near-total bans, bolstering Virginia’s protections has become a priority for Democrats. Providers and abortion funds in Virginia have also seen a surge in out-of-state patients seeking care.
“I think everything that happened in North Carolina made activists on this really uncomfortable,” Caughell said.
In 2023, a member of the neighboring state’s legislature switched from Democrat to Republican, giving the GOP a veto-proof majority and paving the way for enactment of North Carolina’s current 12-week abortion limit.
In Virginia, Republicans have also put forward a range of abortion restrictions, from near-total bans to a 15-week cap that lacked exceptions for fetal anomalies — which are often not detected until around or after 15 weeks.
On other reproductive health issues, a right-to-contraception bill has twice been vetoed by former Gov. Glenn Youngkin — a point Boysko reiterated as the amendment advanced last week.
‘Yes’ and “No’ campaigns on the horizon
Reproductive rights groups in Virginia, along with physicians and volunteers, have coordinated as part the national Reproductive Freedom for All effort. Last year, a $5 million investment supported targeted initiatives ranging from canvassing to digital advertising in states such as Virginia, where Abigail Spanberger was elected governor.
Spanberger campaigned in part on supporting the amendment, though governors do not formally factor into its success or failure.
“I look forward to spending ample time in advance of the 2026 elections campaigning to make sure that people understand the importance of this constitutional amendment,” she told The Mercury last summer.
On the other side, SBA Pro-Life America supported Virginia-based anti-abortion groups last year through door-knocking efforts in key House of Delegates districts that were up for election.
The abortion-opposing group “doesn’t have anything to share on the Virginia front at this time,” Communications Director Kelsey Pritchard said in an email, but the organization is monitoring Virginia among other states as it prepares to engage voters.
Virginians for Reproductive Freedom — which includes organizations like Repro Rising and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia — will likely ramp up public engagement events and advertising as the November elections approach.
Caughell said she is watching closely to see how Virginia’s constitutional amendment campaigns intersect with this year’s congressional midterm elections.
The measures — which include redistricting, reproductive rights, same-sex marriage rights and voting rights — arrive at a moment when Democrats may have an advantage, she noted.
Midterm elections are often a referendum on the party that controls the White House, Caughell said.
With Republican President Donald Trump in the White House, GOP majorities in Congress, and federal funding fallouts affecting states, the amendments championed by Democrats could also help drive down-ballot votes.
She also noted that abortion, as a distinct health care need, has become a more salient argument in recent years, alongside economic considerations and support for personal choice.
“We’ve expanded the parameters of our understanding of who this issue directly affects,” Caughell said.
Speaking with reporters outside the Senate chamber Friday, Sen. Mamie Locke, D-Hampton, emphasized that the work is not finished.
“It’s our responsibility to go out there and tell the voters this is what this means and help everybody understand what they’re voting for,” she said.
San Antonio has shut down its out-of-state abortion travel fund after a new Texas law that prohibits the use of public funds to cover abortions and a lawsuit from the state challenging the city’s fund.
City Council members last year approved $100,000 for its Reproductive Justice Fund to support abortion-related travel, prompting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to sue over allegations that the city was “transparently attempting to undermine and subvert Texas law and public policy.”
Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit on Friday after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side.(Hannah Beier/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
“Texas respects the sanctity of unborn life, and I will always do everything in my power to prevent radicals from manipulating the system to murder innocent babies,” Paxton said in a statement. “It is illegal for cities to fund abortion tourism with taxpayer funds. San Antonio’s unlawful attempt to cover the travel and other expenses for out-of-state abortions has now officially been defeated.”
But San Antonio’s city attorney argued that the city did nothing wrong and pushed back on Paxton’s claim that the state won the lawsuit.
“This litigation was both initiated and abandoned by the State of Texas,” the San Antonio city attorney’s office said in a statement to The Texas Tribune. “In other words, the City did not drop any claims; the State of Texas, through the Texas Office of the Attorney General, dropped its claims.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he will continue opposing the use of public funds for abortion-related travel.(Justin Lane/Reuters)
Paxton’s lawsuit argued that the travel fund violates the gift clause of the Texas Constitution. The state’s 15th Court of Appeals sided with Paxton and granted a temporary injunction in June to block the city from disbursing the fund while the case moved forward.
Gov. Greg Abbott in August signed into law Senate Bill 33, which bans the use of public money to fund “logistical support” for abortion. The law also allows Texas residents to file a civil suit if they believe a city violated the law.
“The City believed the law, prior to the passage of SB 33, allowed the uses of the fund for out-of-state abortion travel that were discussed publicly,” the city attorney’s office said in its statement. “After SB 33 became law and no longer allowed those uses, the City did not proceed with the procurement of those specific uses—consistent with its intent all along that it would follow the law.”
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law in August that blocks cities from using public money to help cover travel or other costs related to abortion.(Antranik Tavitian/Reuters)
The broader Reproductive Justice Fund remains, but it is restricted to non-abortion services such as home pregnancy tests, emergency contraception and STI testing.
The city of Austin also shut down its abortion travel fund after the law was signed. Austin had allocated $400,000 to its Reproductive Healthcare Logistics Fund in 2024 to help women traveling to other states for an abortion with funding for travel, food and lodging.
President Donald Trump said Tuesday he wants Republicans to reach a deal on health care insurance assistance by being willing to bend on a 50-year-old amendment that bars federal money from being spent on abortion services.
“You have to be a little flexible” on the Hyde Amendment, Trump told House Republicans as they gathered in Washington for a caucus retreat to open the midterm election year. “You gotta be a little flexible. You gotta work something. You gotta use ingenuity.”
With his suggestion, Trump, who supported abortion rights before he entered politics in 2015, is asking conservatives to abandon or at least ease up on decades of Republican orthodoxy on abortion and spending policy. At the same time, he is demonstrating his long-standing malleability on abortion and acknowledging that Democrats have the political upper hand on health care after Republicans, who control the White House, the Senate and the House, allowed the expiration of premium subsidies for people buying Affordable Care Act insurance policies.
As negotiations on Capitol Hill continue, some Democrats are pushing to end the Hyde restrictions as part of any new agreements on health care subsidies.
Trump’s road map on the Hyde Amendment came more than an hour into a stem-winding speech intended as a part strategy session and part cheerleading as Republicans attempt to maintain their threadbare House majority in the November midterms.
The president touted the House GOP proposal to replace ACA subsidies — which taxpayers typically steer directly to insurance companies after selecting their policies — into direct payments that taxpayers could use for a range of health care expenses, including insurance. The expanded ACA subsidies expired on Dec. 31, 2025, hitting millions of policy holders with steep premium increases.
“Let the money go directly to the people,” Trump said, before casually slipping in a reference to the Hyde Amendment.
“We’re all big fans of everything,” he said. “But you have to have flexibility.”
Turning directly to GOP leaders, Trump added, “If you can do that, you’re going to have — this is going to be your issue.”
But the GOP faces considerable pressure from parts of its coalition that want absolute opposition to any policy that might ease abortion restrictions.
At Americans United for Life, a leading advocacy group that opposes abortion rights, Gavin Oxley penned an op-ed this week for “The Hill” titled, “Republicans must hold the line: No Hyde Amendment, no deal on health care.”
“If they play their cards right,” Oxley wrote, “Republicans just might earn back enough of their base’s trust to sustain them through the 2026 midterms.”
The Hyde Amendment, named for the late Rep. Henry Hyde, originally applied to Medicaid, the joint federal-state insurance program for poor and disabled Americans, and barred it from paying for abortions unless the woman’s life is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Hyde first introduced it in 1976, shortly after the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion nationwide.
Over the years, Congress reauthorized Hyde policy as part of spending bills that fund the government. Democrats who support abortion access often joined Republicans who opposed abortion rights as a bipartisan compromise to pass larger spending deals. But as the two parties hardened their respective positions on abortion, Democrats became more uniform opponents of the ban, most famously when presidential candidate Joe Biden reversed his long-standing support for Hyde on his way to winning the 2020 Democratic nomination and general election.
Republicans, meanwhile, have maintained their near absolute support for the amendment.
The anti-abortion movement was initially skeptical of Trump as a presidential candidate in 2015 and 2016. But he has mostly aligned with the key faction of the Republican coalition, especially on Supreme Court appointments that led to the 2022 decision overturning Roe.
Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
FORT COLLINS, Colo. — Abortion will remain legal in Wyoming after the state Supreme Court struck down laws that include the country’s first explicit ban on abortion pills, ruling Tuesday that they violate the state constitution.
What You Need To Know
Abortion will remain legal in Wyoming after the state Supreme Court struck down laws including the nation’s first explicit ban on abortion pills
The justices sided with the state’s only abortion clinic and others Tuesday in ruling that the laws violate the Wyoming Constitution
A lower court judge struck down the laws in November, ruling they violate a constitutional amendment that says competent adults have the right to make their own health care decisions
Earlier, the same judge blocked the laws from taking effect
Wyoming sought to join 13 states that have banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022
The justices sided with the state’s only abortion clinic and others who had sued over the bans passed since 2022, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.
Wellspring Health Access in Casper, the abortion access advocacy group Chelsea’s Fund and four women, including two obstetricians, argued that the laws violated a state constitutional amendment ensuring that competent adults have the right to make their own health care decisions.
Attorneys for the state, however, argued that abortion can’t violate the Wyoming constitution because it is not health care.
Voters approved the constitutional amendment in 2012 in response to the federal Affordable Care Act. The justices recognized that the amendment wasn’t written to apply to abortion but said it’s not their job to “add words” to the state constitution.
“But lawmakers could ask Wyoming voters to consider a constitutional amendment that would more clearly address this issue,” the justices wrote in summarizing their 4-1 ruling.
Gov. Mark Gordon, a Republican, said in a statement that he was disappointed by the ruling and called on state lawmakers meeting this winter to pass a proposed constitutional amendment banning abortion that would go before voters this fall.
“This ruling may settle, for now, a legal question, but it does not settle the moral one, nor does it reflect where many Wyoming citizens stand, including myself. It is time for this issue to go before the people for a vote,” Gordon said.
Such an amendment would require a two-thirds vote to be introduced for consideration during the monthlong legislative session devoted primarily to the state budget. But it would have wide support in the Republican-dominated statehouse.
One of the laws overturned Tuesday sought to ban abortion except to protect a pregnant woman’s life or in cases involving rape or incest. The other law would have made Wyoming the only state to explicitly ban abortion pills, though other states have instituted de facto bans on abortion medication by broadly prohibiting abortion.
Abortion has remained legal in this conservative state since Teton County District Judge Melissa Owens in Jackson blocked the bans while the lawsuit challenging them went ahead. Owens struck down the laws as unconstitutional in 2024.
Wellspring Health Access and attorneys on both sides of the case didn’t immediately reply to requests for comment.
Last year, Wyoming passed additional laws requiring abortion clinics to be licensed surgical centers and women to get ultrasounds before having medication abortions. The Supreme Court ruling means those limitations could take effect, although a judge in a separate lawsuit has blocked them from taking effect while the case proceeds.
new video loaded: Who Is Trying to Replace Planned Parenthood?
As efforts to defund Planned Parenthood lead to the closure of some of its locations, Christian-based clinics that try to dissuade abortions are aiming to fill the gap in women‘s health care. Our reporter Caroline Kitchener describes how this change is playing out in Ames, Iowa.
By Caroline Kitchener, Melanie Bencosme, Karen Hanley, June Kim and Pierre Kattar
December 22, 2025
[ad_2]
Caroline Kitchener, Melanie Bencosme, Karen Hanley, June Kim and Pierre Kattar
FIRST ON FOX: The leader of an international pro-life organization lauded the Nativity scene set up by the Vatican that highlighted the more than 25,000 babies who were not aborted this year thanks to the group’s outreach initiatives.
In an interview with Fox News Digital, 40 Days for Life CEO and founder Shawn Carney said the Vatican reached out to his organization about creating a Nativity scene representing the babies he says were saved by the group’s pro-life activism, which includes prayer and vigils outside abortion clinics.
“It’s really beautiful,” Carney said.
“The artist made the straw in the manger where Baby Jesus is and Mary, and Joseph,” he continued. “The straw is made up of 25,000 ribbons. Each ribbon represents a baby boy or baby girl that was saved from abortion during a 40 Days for Life campaign.”
A nativity scene donated by Costa Rica, in which the Madonna is represented pregnant, in the Paul VI Hall in the Vatican.(Getty Images)
Crafted by Costa Rican artist Paula Sáenz Soto and donated by the Central American country, it features a pregnant Virgin Mary, Joseph and thousands of colored ribbons dedicated to the babies who were not aborted.
Pope Leo XIVsaid at a recent audience with the donors of the Vatican’s Christmas decorations that a sign of life was reflected in the Nativity scene in the Vatican’s audience hall, which he described as a sign of “faith and hope.”
Each of the ribbons that decorate the scene “represent a life saved from abortion thanks to the prayer and support provided by Catholic organizations to many mothers in need,” said the pontiff, who personally blessed the display.
Leo also thanked the artist for the message affirming that “life is protected from conception.”
Carney said the Nativity was “inspiring” and “beautiful news,” particularly amid a series of recent bad news in the U.S. and around the world.
“It’s so inspiring, and frankly, we’ve had a lot of bad news lately in America and around the world, and this display represents good news,” he told Fox News Digital.
Pope Leo XIV prays in front of Nacimiento Gaudium, a nativity scene in which the Madonna is represented pregnant, at the Paul VI Hall in the Vatican.(40 Days for Life)
“It represents babies that have been saved from abortion, and the artist who is a participant in 40 Days for Life who is from Costa Rica, did a wonderful job. She did a fantastic job making this beautiful display that really shows the dedication of so many pro-life volunteers around the world who take time out in the hopes of saving a baby. And now those saved babies are represented in the most important place in the world, which is the Nativity, which is what we pin our hope to, that Jesus came through the womb, that he came through a family to save us from our sins,” he continued.
“So it’s beautiful news, it’s good news, and I think it’s news that’s being well received as we’ve had so much bad news the last few weeks,” Carney added.
Carney went on to explain that the Nativity is “at the heart of Catholicism and all Christians, and certainly at the heart of the pro-life movement.”
“This is why we do what we do,” he said. “Our Lord could have popped out of an acorn and saved us from our sins. He didn’t do that. God chose a family, a holy family, a 14-year-old virgin, to bring his son into the world through the womb, which is statistically now the most dangerous place in the world. He chose the womb, he chose a family, and the family is under attack. So this is a beautiful nativity display, but I think it speaks to the heart of every Christian that looks for hope in the world, that looks for hope for us to overcome our own sins, and certainly hope that we can end the tragedy and the barbaric nature of abortion in our world. America is leading the way through that.” “We just had a historic year for the pro-life movement in 2025, and I think 2026 is going to be even better,” he added. “This display certainly inspires so much hope and confidence that if we pray, if we fast, if we’re faithful and we get to work, we can end abortion anywhere.”
Carney also stressed that the Nativity of a pregnant Mary with an unborn Jesus “speaks to the scientific reality of the unborn child and the Biblical reality that Our Lord came through the womb.”
Ribbons representing lives saved from abortion according to Catholic organizations are seen on Nacimiento Gaudium, a Nativity scene set in the Paul VI Hall during an audience led by Pope Leo XIV at the Vatican.(AP)
“The Nativity is one of the most depicted scenes in the history of the world, and it represents that great meeting between Heaven and earth, Christ coming into the world through a child nine months after the Annunciation,” he said. “So it’s absolutely beautiful. It puts emphasis on how we treat our unborn children with 72 million abortions around the world every year. It is by far the greatest moral crisis of our time, and we have to respond to that. We have to respond with great hope, and you don’t find a greater hope than Jesus coming into the world and being with us on Christmas Day.”
The pro-life leader also stated that the pope “is going to be a stronger voice than most people think” on the issue of abortion.
“I think he’s righting the ship,” Carney said. “I think he’s speaking with a little bit more clarity than what we saw from Pope Francis. Pope Leo has been very supportive of the pro-life movement. He’s certainly been very supportive of 40 Days for Life with this beautiful Nativity at the Vatican, so I’m very encouraged.”
The man accused of killing three people and wounding nine others at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs a decade ago died in custody over the weekend, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Robert Dear, 67, died at 6:30 a.m. Saturday in the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, Bureau of Prisons spokesperson Randilee Giamusso said. His death was “preliminarily linked to natural causes,” Giamusso said Tuesday, and prison officials followed advanced medical orders before he died.
Dear’s death ends a decade-long — and ultimately unsuccessful — effort to convict him of crimes connected to the mass shooting. Although Dear had been in state or federal custody since the 2015 attack and confessed to carrying out the mass shooting, he was never convicted because he was always considered to be too mentally ill to go through the court process — that is, he was consistently found incompetent to stand trial.
Fourth Judicial District Attorney Michael Allen said in a statement Tuesday that the victims of the shooting were denied justice in the “evil attack.”
“All three victims and this community deserved the full measure of justice in this case, but they are now denied that possibility,” Allen said. “Their family members and loved ones have endured this horror for far too long.”
The Bureau of Prisons declined to provide any additional information about Dear’s death and officials with the Greene County Medical Examiner’s Office did not immediately return requests for more information.
Dear’s attorneys did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday.
Dear was accused of attacking the Planned Parenthood clinic on Nov. 27, 2015. Authorities believe he intended to wage “war” on the clinic because the staff performed abortions. He arrived armed with four SKS rifles, five handguns, two more rifles, a shotgun and more than 500 rounds of ammunition, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Twenty-seven people who were inside the clinic at the time hid until they could be rescued by law enforcement, according to prosecutors. Dear fired 198 rounds in the attack and tried to blow up propane tanks to take out law enforcement vehicles during a five-hour standoff.
A competency evaluation considers whether a criminal defendant is mentally ill or developmentally disabled, and whether that mental illness impedes the defendant’s ability to understand the court process. Rooted in the constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial, competency centers on two prongs — whether defendants have a factual and rational understanding of the proceedings, and whether defendants are able to consult with their attorneys and assist in their own defenses.
Experts previously testified that Dear understood the facts and circumstances of his case but was still incompetent to proceed because he could not assist in his own defense.
Dear was known for frequent outbursts in court. During a 2019 hearing, he declared himself to be a “religious zealot” who was being prosecuted in a “political kangaroo court.” In 2021, he insisted in federal court that he was competent to stand trial, shouting, “I’m not crazy.”
In September, a federal judge started the process for Dear to be committed long-term to the mental health facility in Missouri after finding he was unlikely to be restored to competency.
The decision came nearly three years after the judge ordered that Dear be medicated against his will in 2022. Federal prosecutors believed doing so would restore him to competency.
Is Mike Johnson really telling Trump what to do on health care policy? Probably not. Photo: Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
There was an enormous hullabaloo in Washington over the weekend when reports surfaced that Donald Trump was about to unveil a health-care deal without much in the way of advance consultation with his congressional Republican vassals. According to multiple accounts, the plan would include a two-year extension of the enhanced Obamacare premium subsidies due to expire at the end of the year with new (and fairly minor) eligibility limits and a “skin in the game” requirement of minimum premium payments. There would have also been some sort of Health Savings Account option in a gesture to conservatives who want to get rid of health insurance and encourage people to pay health-care providers directly. But by and large, the proposal as presented was very much along the lines of what was being discussed behind the scenes by both Republican and Democratic senators and was politically feasible, recognizing that some lawmakers in both parties won’t support any deal at all.
But Monday came and went without the expected presidential announcement, and next thing you knew Trump was headed to Mar-a-Lago for Thanksgiving. It’s possible that the rollout of what would have inevitably been labeled “Trumpcare” was simply delayed until next week. But all along, the prospects of a presidentially brokered health-care deal depended on speed, stealth, and a my-way-or-the-highway declaration from Trump that his plan had to be backed by virtually every congressional Republican, much like his One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It sure looked like that sort of Trump blitz was in the works, until it wasn’t.
According to TheWall Street Journal, the mouse that roared in putting a hold on Trumpcare 2025 was none other than House Speaker Mike Johnson:
Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) cautioned the White House that most House Republicans don’t have an appetite for extending enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, according to people familiar with the matter, showing how hard it will be politically to stave off sharp increases in healthcare costs next year for many Americans.
The message from Johnson, in a phone call with administration officials, came as President Trump’s advisers were drafting a healthcare plan that extended the subsidies for two years.
The warning underscores the hurdles facing any deal in coming weeks.
The narrative all but writes itself: House Republicans, emboldened by their successful defiance of Trump over the Epstein Files Transparency Act, are refusing to take orders from Trump to bless the signature health-care initiative of the much-despised 44th president. And instead of going into a hate-rage and ordering purges, the newly chastened 47th president is going back to the drawing board.
That’s one interpretation of what’s happening. Another is that this version of “Trumpcare” is largely a feint — or to be less charitable, a scam. The only reason Republicans have even considered an Obamacare-subsidy extension deal is that the huge premium spike on tap if nothing is done could become a big issue in midterm elections already prospectively dominated by affordability concerns. They could have nestled an extension into the OBBBA but didn’t, which is a pretty clear indication of their underlying wishes. But for purposes of midterm “messaging,” lofting trial balloons and agitating the air over health-care costs is nearly as valuable as actually doing something about the problem. It’s possible that’s what Trump is doing before he manages to blame the failure to act on the Radical Left Democrats.
Even if Trump is serious about the issue and has a come-to-Jesus meeting with the allegedly rebellious Mike Johnson to force support for a Trumpcare proposal, there’s a very convenient poison pill he could put into the mix to sabotage any actual deal that might divide his own party. Despite safeguards placed in the original Affordable Care Act to ensure no direct federal payments for abortion services, the anti-abortion lobby has long demanded more extensive prohibitions to make sure states don’t pony up the money to provide abortion coverage in Obamacare policies. The debate over the extension of subsidies provides a fresh opportunity for these people — who have felt marginalized ever since Donald Trump rejected their call for a national abortion ban — to prove they are still an indispensable element of the GOP/MAGA coalition. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who has promised Democrats a vote on Obamacare-subsidy extensions by mid-December, is also on record demanding tighter restrictions on abortion coverage. Rejecting such restrictions is a red line for many Democrats, who will already be under pressure to make minimal concessions to the GOP on an issue that could otherwise represent midterm dynamite for the opposition party.
So perhaps Congress and the White House are significantly farther away from a health-care deal than it appeared just yesterday. But let’s not credit Mike Johnson for too much courage or clout. If Trump really wants a health-care deal based on Obamacare-subsidy extensions with the conservative bells and whistles, he can get it with the appropriate ham-handed ultimatums combined with take-it-or-leave-it blandishments to Democrats. He really ought to do so, because health-care costs aren’t going away as an issue and Trump has no better plan for coping with them than he did when he took office in 2017 and “Trumpcare” became a joke.
Abortion is again illegal in North Dakota after the state’s Supreme Court on Friday couldn’t muster the required majority to uphold a judge’s ruling that struck down the state’s ban last year.
The 2023 law makes it a felony crime for anyone to perform an abortion, though it specifically protects patients from prosecution. Doctors could be prosecuted and penalized by as much as five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Three justices agreed that the ban is unconstitutionally vague under the state constitution. The other two justices said the law is not unconstitutional.
The state constitution requires at least four of the five justices to agree for a law to be found unconstitutional, a high bar. Not enough members of the court joined together to affirm the lower court ruling.
In his opinion, Justice Jerod Tufte said the natural rights guaranteed by the state constitution in 1889 do not extend to abortion rights. He also said the law “provides adequate and fair warning to those attempting to comply.”
North Dakota Republican Attorney Drew Wrigley welcomed the ruling, saying, “The Supreme Court has upheld this important pro-life legislation, enacted by the people’s Legislature. The Attorney General’s office has the solemn responsibility of defending the laws of North Dakota, and today those laws have been upheld.”
Republican state Sen. Janne Myrdal, who introduced the 2023 legislation that became the law banning abortion, said she is “thrilled and grateful that two justices that are highly respected saw the truth of the matter, that this is fully constitutional for the mother and for the unborn child and thereafter for that sake.”
Attorneys for the challengers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The ruling means access to abortion in North Dakota will be outlawed. Even after a judge had earlier struck down the ban last year, the only scenarios for a patient to obtain an abortion in North Dakota had been for life- or health-preserving reasons in a hospital.
The only abortion provider relocated in 2022 from Fargo to nearby Moorhead, Minnesota.
Justice Daniel Crothers, one of the three judges to vote against the ban, wrote that the district court decision wasn’t wrong.
“The vagueness in the law relates to when an abortion can be performed to preserve the life and health of the mother,” Crothers wrote. “After striking this invalid provision, the remaining portions of the law would be inoperable.”
North Dakota Supreme Court Chief Justice Jon Jensen, center, addresses new lawyers during a ceremony. The other justices are, from left, Douglas Bahr, Daniel Crothers, Lisa Fair McEvers and Jerod Tufte.
Jack Dura / AP
North Dakota’s newly confirmed ban prohibits the performance of an abortion as a felony crime. The only exceptions are for rape or incest in the first six weeks — before many women know they are pregnant — and to prevent the mother’s death or a “serious health risk” to her.
North Dakota joins 12 other states enforcing bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Another four bar it at or around six weeks gestational age.
Judge Bruce Romanick had struck down the ban the state Legislature passed in 2023, less than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and opened the door to the state-level bans, largely turning the abortion battle to state courts and legislatures.
The Red River Women’s Clinic — the formerly sole abortion clinic in North Dakota — and several physicians challenged the law. The state appealed the 2024 ruling that overturned the ban.
The judge and the Supreme Court each denied requests by the state to keep the abortion ban in effect during the appeal. Those decisions allowed patients with pregnancy complications to seek care without fear of delay because of the law, Center for Reproductive Rights Staff Attorney Meetra Mehdizadeh previously said.
A conservative pro-life influencer who went viral after being punched in the face during a street interview in New York City has filed a lawsuit against her alleged attacker.
Savannah Craven Antao, pro-life activist and host of the YouTube channel “Her Patriot Voice,” says she was conducting man-on-the-street interviews for the organization Live Action on April 3 when she was repeatedly struck by Brianna J. Rivers, 30, of the Bronx.
According to the complaint, filed Nov. 18 in Bronx Supreme Court, Craven Antao went to the emergency room for stitches after the attack, incurring more than $3,000 in medical bills. Her attorneys at the Thomas More Society allege that Rivers has “knowingly, willfully and maliciously continued to mock [Savannah] and her views online in order to further inflict emotional distress.”
The lawsuit also claims Rivers mocked Craven Antao’s religious beliefs and marketed merchandise referencing the assault. One alleged post showed a T-shirt design with the word “BAM!” and an image of a fist striking a face — which the complaint says Rivers and her cousin created to raise money for her legal defense.
Pro-life conservative influencer, Savannah Craven Antao, said she was punched in the face during a street interview by someone who disagreed with her. (Live Action)
Craven Antao’s attorneys say the influencer has suffered symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and has received hundreds of death threats since the incident. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages for assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Rivers was initially charged with second-degree assault, but the case was dismissed in July after Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office failed to turn over discovery on time. The lawsuit criticizes Bragg’s office for downgrading the charge to a misdemeanor and later allowing it to lapse.
Craven Antao also slammed Bragg’s handling of her case in an interview with Fox News Digital this week.
“I have to look over my shoulder and worry about if somebody who supports her actions — there are a lot of people out there that do — that they’re going to try to do something else,” she said. “Because what the D.A. Alvin Bragg himself has shown to people, with letting this case be dropped, is that they can go assault somebody and hurt them if they disagree with them and nothing is going to happen.”
Pro-life activist Savannah Craven Antao was allegedly sucker-punched during a filmed street interview in Harlem. Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg’s office later dropped the assault case after missing a filing deadline.(Live Action/YouTube; Getty)
In September, Bragg’s office issued a statement acknowledging a filing error and apologizing to Craven Antao.
“Every victim deserves their day in court, and our office has reached out to apologize to Ms. Craven Antao for the unacceptable error of missing the discovery deadline,” a spokesperson said. “We are taking immediate internal steps in light of this case.”
Craven Antao said she decided to file the lawsuit to hold Rivers accountable and send a message.
“First, I’d really appreciate my over $3,000 in medical bills to be paid off, because I should not be responsible for those,” she said. “Second, it’s to send a message — hopefully to show her that she can’t do this again.”
“Honestly, I hope that she eventually finds God,” she continued. “That’s what I pray for, because it’s obvious that she’s got a lot of deep trauma rooted, and she takes it out on other people.”
Thomas More Society attorney Christopher Ferrara said Bragg’s handling of the case forced them to take civil action against Rivers.
“Savannah was violently assaulted for peacefully expressing her pro-life beliefs and then humiliated all over again when the attacker went online to glorify it,” he said in a statement. “The D.A.’s office had every opportunity to pursue justice and due to their incompetency or lack of will, failed to prosecute this vicious assault. Their refusal left us with no choice but to file civil action to hold Rivers accountable.”
Craven Antao also linked her fears to broader safety concerns for conservative figures, citing the recent killing of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk.
“If they could do it to somebody like him, who has the resources to have the security and the checks and all the people surrounding him, what does this say for just average journalists … who don’t have the means to hire a whole security team and be armed?” she said.
“With all the threats online and the comments she ‘likes,’ encouraging her behavior, it makes me wonder if the wrong person is going to find me next time and something worse will happen,” she continued.
Rivers previously apologized in an April 5 Facebook post, saying she was sorry “but cannot sit around and allow you to continue pushing this one-sided narrative.”
“I understand hands being put on someone is never the answer, but throwing rocks and hiding hands is worse. Savannah is a professional antagonist, not a ‘reporter,’ and the truth will be told,” she added.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — Sending women who get abortions to prison for decades. Outlawing IUDs. Sharply restricting in-vitro fertilization. These are the strictest abortion prohibitions and punishments in the nation being considered by South Carolina lawmakers, even as opponents of the procedure are divided over how far to go.
The bill faces a long legislative path and uncertain prospects, even if it clears the state Senate subcommittee that’s reviewing it.
But the measure up for a second hearing Tuesday would go further than any considered since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, as abortion remains an unsettled issue in conservative states.
The proposal would ban all abortions unless the woman’s life is at risk and eliminates exceptions for rape and incest victims up to 12 weeks. Current law blocks abortions after cardiac activity is detected, which is typically six weeks into a pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant.
The proposal would also go further than any other U.S. state. Women who get an abortion and anyone who helps them could face up to 30 years in prison. It appears to ban any contraception that prevents a fertilized egg from implanting. That would ban IUDs and could strictly limit in-vitro fertilization.
Providing information about abortions would be illegal, leaving doctors worried they couldn’t suggest legal abortion elsewhere.
OB-GYN Natalie Gregory said passing a bill like this would make so many discussions in her practice — from contraceptives to losing a pregnancy to in-vitro fertilization options — a “legal minefield” that could have her risking decades in prison.
“It constitutes a unconstitutional reach that threatens the very fabric of health care in our state,” she said during an eight-hour public hearing on the bill last month, adding that the proposal is both a waste of time and public money.
Abortion opponents are split over punishing women
The proposal has even split groups that oppose abortion and once celebrated together when South Carolina passed the six-week ban in 2021, a trigger law set to take effect if Roe v. Wade was overturned.
South Carolina Citizens for Life, one of the state’s largest and oldest opponents of abortion, issued a statement the day of last month’s hearing saying it can’t support the bill because women who get abortions are victims too and shouldn’t be punished.
On the other side, at least for this bill, are groups like Equal Protection South Carolina. “Abortion is murder and should be treated as such,” the group’s founder Mark Corral said.
Messaging of the past keeps abortion opponents apart
Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California at Davis who has written extensively about abortion, said the divide stems from longstanding messaging that labeled abortion murder while avoiding punishment of women.
Ziegler refers to groups pushing for more penalties and restrictions as “abolitionists” and said their success in reshaping laws in conservative states, as well as shifting the broader political climate, has emboldened them to push ideas that don’t appear to have broad public support. They also have enough influence to get lawmakers to listen.
“It’s not going to go away. The trajectory keeps shifting and the abolitionists have more influence,” Ziegler said.
As the nation’s social and political discussions lurch to the right, with debates over whether same-sex marriage should be made illegal again or whether women should work outside the home, Ziegler said it has become easier to push for restrictions that might have never been brought before legislatures before.
“There is more breathing room for abolitionists now,” she said.
What could happen with the South Carolina Senate bill
A similar House bill last year got a public hearing but went no further. As the subcommittee met, Republican House leaders issued a statement that they were happy with the current state law and that bill went nowhere.
But things are less stable in the Senate, where nine of the 34 Republicans in the 46-member chamber were elected after the current law was passed. Three of them unseated the Senate’s only Republican women, a trio who called themselves the Sister Senators after helping block a stricter abortion ban after Roe v. Wade was overturned.
Republican Sen. Richard Cash, who sponsors the bill and is one of the Senate’s most strident voices against abortion, will run Tuesday’s subcommittee. He acknowledged problems last month with potentially banning contraception and restricting the advice doctors can give to patients. But he has not indicated what changes he or the rest of the subcommittee might support. Six of the nine members are Republicans.
GOP Senate leaders said there is no guarantee if the bill passes out of the subcommittee that it goes any further.
“I can say this definitively — there has been not only no decision made to bring up that bill, there’s been no discussion about bringing up that bill,” Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey said.
Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed without comment a long-shot challenge to the constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples.
The justices turned away an appeal petition from Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk who defied the court’s landmark decision in 2015 and repeatedly refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
She appealed after one couple sued and won $100,000 in damages plus attorneys fees for her deliberate violation of their constitutional rights.
She argued the court should hear her case to decide whether the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the 1st Amendment should have protected her from being sued.
Her appeal also posed a separate question she had not raised before in her long legal fight. She said the court should decide “whether Obergefell v. Hodges,” which established the right to same-sex marriage, “should be overturned.”
That belated question drew wide attention to her appeal, even though there was little or no chance it would be seriously considered by the high court.
Some LGBTQ+ advocates were concerned, however, because the conservative court had overturned Roe vs. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion in the Dobbs case of 2022.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for himself alone, said then “we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” referring to cases on the rights to contraception, private sexual conduct and same-sex marriages.
But other conservative justices had disagreed and said abortion was unique. “Rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe … termed ‘potential life,’ ” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in his opinion for the court.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her new book “Listening to the Law” described the right to marry as a “fundamental right” that is protected by the Constitution.
“The complicated moral debate about abortion stands in dramatic contrast to widespread American support for liberties like the rights to marry, have sex, procreate, use contraception, and direct the upbringing of children,” she wrote.
In July, the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law estimated there are 823,000 married same-sex couples in the United States and nearly 300,000 children being raised by them.
Davis had suffered a series of defeats in the federal courts.
A federal judge in Kentucky and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati rejected her claims based on the free exercise of religion.
Former Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis speaks to reporters in Kentucky in 2015. The Supreme Court on Monday rejected her appeal to overturn the right to same-sex marriage.
(Timothy D. Easley / Associated Press)
Those judges said government officials do not have free speech or religious right to refuse to carry out their public duties.
“That is not how the Constitution works. In their private lives, government officials are of course free to express their views and live according to their faith. But when an official wields state power against private citizens, her conscience must yield to the Constitution,” Judge Helene White wrote for the 6th Circuit Court in March.
Ten years ago, shortly after the court’s ruling in Obergefell vs. Hodges, Kentucky’s governor, the county’s attorney and a federal judge all told Davis that she was legally required to give a marriage license to same-sex couples who applied for one.
She refused and said the county would issue no marriage licenses until she had been given a special exemption.
David Moore and David Ermold had been a couple for 19 years, and they filed suit after they were turned away from obtaining a marriage license on three occasions. Davis said she was acting “under God’s authority.”
A federal judge held her in contempt for refusing to comply with the law. While she was in jail, the couple finally obtained a marriage license from one of her deputies, but their lawsuit continued.
The Kentucky Legislature revised the law to say that county clerks need not put their name on the licenses issued by her office. Davis said that accommodation was sufficient, and she tried to have the lawsuit dismissed as moot.
The 6th Circuit refused because the claim for damages was still valid and pending. The Supreme Court turned away one of her appeals in 2019.
A federal judge later ruled she had violated the rights of Moore and Ermold, and a jury awarded each of them $50,000 in damages.
Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel in Orlando, which advocates for religious freedom, appealed on her behalf.
His petition to the Supreme Court said the court should hear her case to decide whether the 1st Amendment’s protection for the free exercise of religion should shield a public official from being sued “in her individual capacity.”
The 6th Circuit Court rejected that claim in a 3-0 ruling.
“The Bill of Rights would serve little purpose if it could be freely ignored whenever an official’s conscience so dictates,” Judge White said.
“Indeed, it is not difficult to imagine the dire possibilities that might follow if Davis’s argument were accepted. A county clerk who finds interracial marriage sinful could refuse to issue licenses to interracial couples. An election official who believes women should not vote could refuse to count ballots cast by females. A zoning official personally opposed to Christianity could refuse to permit the construction of a church,” she said.
Judge Chad Readler, a Trump appointee, said even if public employees have some rights based on their religious views, “her conduct here exceeded the scope of any personal right. … Rather than attempting to invoke a religious exemption for herself, Davis instead exercised the full authority of the Rowan County Clerk’s office to enact an official policy of denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples, one every office employee had to follow.”
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a call to overturn its landmark decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
The justices turned away an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky court clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the high court’s 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Davis had been trying to get the court to overturn a lower-court order for her to pay $360,000 in damages and attorney’s fees to a couple denied a marriage license.
Her lawyers repeatedly invoked the words of Justice Clarence Thomas, who alone among the nine justices has called for erasing the same-sex marriage ruling.
Thomas was among four dissenting justices in 2015. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito are the other dissenters who are on the court today.
Roberts has been silent on the subject since he wrote a dissenting opinion in the case. Alito has continued to criticize the decision, but he said recently he was not advocating that it be overturned.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was not on the court in 2015, has said that there are times when the court should correct mistakes and overturn decisions, as it did in the 2022 case that ended a constitutional right to abortion.
But Barrett has suggested recently that same-sex marriage might be in a different category than abortion because people have relied on the decision when they married and had children.
Davis drew national attention to eastern Kentucky’s Rowan County when she turned away same-sex couples, saying her faith prevented her from complying with the high court ruling. She defied court orders to issue the licenses until a federal judge jailed her for contempt of court in September 2015.
She was released after her staff issued the licenses on her behalf but removed her name from the form. The Kentucky legislature later enacted a law removing the names of all county clerks from state marriage licenses.
A New York judge dismissed a legal challenge Friday from Texas seeking to enforce a more than $100,000 civil judgment against a doctor accused of prescribing abortion pills to a Dallas-area woman in an early test of the state’s “shield law” designed to protect providers.
Republican Texas State Attorney General Ken Paxton wanted a New York court to enforce a civil decision from Texas against Dr. Margaret Carpenter, who practices north of New York City in Ulster County, for allegedly prescribing abortion medication via telemedicine.
But acting Ulster County Clerk Taylor Bruck refused to file the judgment, saying he was a government employee who had to comply with New York’s shield law, which protects providers from other states’ reach.
New York is among at least eight states with shield laws. Opponents of the laws argue they violate a constitutional requirement that states respect the laws and legal judgments of other states.
Justice David Gandin ruled that Bruck followed New York law and granted his motion to dismiss the petition from Texas. The judge, sitting in Kingston, wrote that the medical services Carpenter rendered are legal in New York and that they fall “squarely within the definition of ‘legally protected health activity’” under the state’s shield law.
Bruck said he was relieved.
“It seemed very clear to me that as a government employee I should not be complying with this,” he said. “Since there was no precedent for the shield law yet, it feels really good to set that precedent.”
It was not clear if the trial court judge’s ruling would be appealed. An email seeking comment was set to Paxton’s office.
A Texas judge in February ordered Carpenter to pay more than $100,000 in penalties for prescribing abortion pills to a woman near Dallas after she failed to appear in court. The judge also issued an injunction barring Carpenter from prescribing abortion medication to Texas residents.
The ruling in Texas was handed down on the same day New York Gov. Kathy Hochul rejected a request from Louisiana to extradite Carpenter, who was charged in that state with prescribing abortion pills to a pregnant minor.
Gandin also denied a motion from Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James to intervene in the case, which could have escalated the interstate court battle. The judge said her intervention was not warranted because the constitutionality of New York’s shield law was not at issue in this case.
JUNEAU, Alaska — The Alaska Supreme Court is weighing a case that is expected to determine who can provide abortion care in the state.
The court heard arguments Wednesday in a 2019 case challenging the constitutionality of a law that states only a doctor licensed by the State Medical Board can perform an abortion in Alaska.
The law, dating to the 1970s, was struck down as unconstitutional by Superior Court judge Josie Garton last year, a victory for the group that brought the challenge, Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky. The state appealed Garton’s ruling.
Planned Parenthood has argued there is no medical justification for the restriction and that it unfairly burdens those seeking an abortion by limiting the pool of those qualified to provide care. In 2021, Garton granted the group’s request to allow advanced practice clinicians — health care workers, such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants — to provide medication abortion pending her decision in the underlying case. They have continued to do so and since the 2024 ruling also have been able to provide procedural abortions, Planned Parenthood says.
Advanced practice clinicians routinely provide care similar in risk and complexity to that of providing abortion services, and in 25 states can provide medication abortion, attorneys for Planned Parenthood said in court documents. Planned Parenthood’s advanced practice clinicians seek to provide abortion care in just the first trimester, the attorneys said.
Since Garton’s 2021 decision, advanced practice clinicians have been providing “nearly all” medication abortions in Alaska, and Planned Parenthood clinics in the state have been able to offer medication abortion each day they’ve been open, the attorneys wrote. Before that, doctors hired by Planned Parenthood on a per diem basis — at the clinics on limited days — were able to offer medication abortions perhaps once or twice a week at each clinic, they wrote.
A vital statistics report released by the state earlier this year shows the total number of abortions in Alaska has been fairly consistent — 1,229 in 2021, 1,247 in 2022, 1,222 in 2023 and 1,224 last year.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 overturned a federal right to abortion, leaving it up to each state to regulate.
Access to health care has been a longstanding concern in Alaska, with travel — sometimes covering hundreds of miles — required for many residents. Compounding that are ongoing challenges to recruit and keep medical providers.
Most Alaska communities are not connected to the state’s main road system, and health care in many small communities is often limited, requiring residents to fly to larger cities, such as Anchorage or Seattle, for more options or for specialized care. Roundtrip flights can easily cost hundreds of dollars. In remote communities, fog or poor weather can cause flight delays.
Planned Parenthood has two clinics in Alaska, in Anchorage and Fairbanks. It closed its clinic in Juneau last year.
The Alaska Supreme Court has long interpreted the right to privacy in the state’s constitution as encompassing abortion rights.
But attorneys for the state argued in court filings that Planned Parenthood did not show that the law at the center of the legal challenge had “inhibited women in Alaska from exercising their right to choose an abortion.” Planned Parenthood could have hired more doctors but chose not to, wrote the attorneys, including Laura Wolff, an assistant attorney general.
“Even if an occasional patient were prevented from getting an abortion, the physician-only law is not unconstitutional as applied to all women who are not significantly affected by the law because the law has a plainly legitimate sweep,” the filing states.
Wolff and Camila Vega, an attorney representing Planned Parenthood, argued their respective sides in court Wednesday. The court did not indicate when it might rule.
Pregnancy centers in the U.S. that discourage women from getting abortions have been adding more medical services — and could be poised to expand further.
The expansion — ranging from testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections to even providing primary medical care — has been unfolding for years. It gained steam after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade three years ago, clearing the way for states to ban abortion.
The push could get more momentum with Planned Parenthood closing some clinics and considering shuttering others following changes to Medicaid. Planned Parenthood is not just the nation’s largest abortion provider, but also offers cancer screenings, STI testing and treatment, and other reproductive health services.
“We ultimately want to replace Planned Parenthood with the services we offer,” said Heather Lawless, founder and director of Reliance Center in Lewiston, Idaho. She said about 40% of patients at the anti-abortion center are there for reasons unrelated to pregnancy, including some who use the nurse practitioner as a primary caregiver.
The changes have frustrated abortion-rights groups, who, in addition to opposing the centers’ anti-abortion messaging, say they lack accountability; refuse to provide birth control; and most offer only limited ultrasounds that cannot be used for diagnosing fetal anomalies because the people conducting them don’t have that training. A growing number also offer unproven abortion-pill reversal treatments.
Because most of the centers don’t accept insurance, the federal law restricting release of medical information doesn’t apply to them, though some say they follow it anyway. They also don’t have to follow standards required by Medicaid or private insurers, though those offering certain services generally must have medical directors who comply with state licensing requirements.
“There are really bedrock questions,” said Jennifer McKenna, a senior adviser for Reproductive Health and Freedom Watch, a project funded by liberal policy organizations that researches the pregnancy centers, “about whether this industry has the clinical infrastructure to provide the medical services it’s currently advertising.”
Perhaps best known as “crisis pregnancy centers,” these mostly privately funded and religiously affiliated centers were expanding services such as diaper banks ahead of the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling.
As abortion bans kicked in, the centers expanded medical, educational and other programs, said Moira Gaul, a scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research arm of SBA Pro-Life America. “They are prepared to serve their communities for the long-term,” she said in a statement.
In Sacramento, California, for instance, Alternatives Pregnancy Center in the last two years has added family practice doctors, a radiologist and a specialist in high-risk pregnancies, along with nurses and medical assistants. Alternatives — an affiliate of Heartbeat International, one of the largest associations of pregnancy centers in the U.S — is some patients’ only health provider.
When The Associated Press asked to interview a patient who had received only non-pregnancy services, the clinic provided Jessica Rose, a 31-year-old woman who took the rare step of detransitioning after spending seven years living as a man, during which she received hormone therapy and a double mastectomy.
For the last two years, she’s received all medical care at Alternatives, which has an OB-GYN who specializes in hormone therapy. Few, if any, pregnancy centers advertise that they provide help with detransitioning. Alternatives has treated four similar patients over the past year, though that’s not its main mission, director Heidi Matzke said.
“APC provided me a space that aligned with my beliefs as well as seeing me as a woman,” Rose said. She said other clinics “were trying to make me think that detransitioning wasn’t what I wanted to do.”
As of 2024, more than 2,600 anti-abortion pregnancy centers operated in the U.S., up 87 from 2023, according to the Crisis Pregnancy Center Map, a project led by University of Georgia public health researchers who are concerned about aspects of the centers. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 765 clinics offered abortions last year, down more than 40 from 2023.
Over the years, pregnancy centers have received a boost in taxpayer funds. Nearly 20 states, largely Republican-led, now funnel millions of public dollars to these organizations. Texas alone sent $70 million to pregnancy centers this fiscal year, while Florida dedicated more than $29 million for its “Pregnancy Support Services Program”
This boost in resources is unfolding as Republicans have barred Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds under the tax and spending law President Donald Trump signed in July. While federal law already blocked the use of taxpayer funds for most abortions, Medicaid reimbursements for other health services were a big part of Planned Parenthood’s revenue.
Planned Parenthood said its affiliates could be forced to close up to 200 clinics.
Some already had closed or reorganized. They have cut abortion in Wisconsin and eliminated Medicaid services in Arizona. An independent group of clinics in Maine stopped primary care for the same reason. The uncertainty is compounded by pending Medicaid changes expected to result in more uninsured Americans.
Some abortion-rights advocates worry that will mean more health care deserts where the pregnancy centers are the only option for more women.
Kaitlyn Joshua, a founder of abortion-rights group Abortion in America, lives in Louisiana, where Planned Parenthood closed its clinics in September.
She’s concerned that women seeking health services at pregnancy centers as a result of those closures won’t get what they need. “Those centers should be regulated. They should be providing information which is accurate,” she said, “rather than just getting a sermon that they didn’t ask for.”
Thomas Glessner, founder and president of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, a network of 1,800 centers, said the centers do have government oversight through their medical directors. “Their criticism,” he said, “comes from a political agenda.”
In recent years, five Democratic state attorneys general have issued warnings that the centers, which advertise to people seeking abortions, don’t provide them and don’t refer patients to clinics that do. And the Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether a state investigation of an organization that runs centers in New Jersey stifles its free speech.
Choices Medical Services in Joplin, Missouri, where the Planned Parenthood clinic closed last year, moved from focusing solely on discouraging abortion to a broader sexual health mission about 20 years ago when it began offering STI treatment, said its executive director, Karolyn Schrage.
The center, funded by donors, works with law enforcement in places where authorities may find pregnant adults, according to Arkansas State Police and Schrage.
She estimates that more than two-thirds of its work isn’t related to pregnancy.
Hayley Kelly first encountered Choices volunteers in 2019 at a regular weekly dinner they brought to dancers at the strip club where she worked. Over the years, she went to the center for STI testing. Then in 2023, when she was uninsured and struggling with drugs, she wanted to confirm a pregnancy.
She anticipated the staff wouldn’t like that she was leaning toward an abortion, but she says they just answered questions. She ended up having that baby and, later, another.
“It’s amazing place,” Kelly said. “I tell everybody I know, ‘You can go there.’”
The center, like others, does not provide contraceptives — standard offerings at sexual health clinics that experts say are best practices for public health.
“Our focus is on sexual risk elimination,” Schrage said, “not just reduction.”
