By Shoshanna Ehrlich for Ms. Magazine.
Broadcast version by Freda Ross for Texas News Service reporting for the Ms. Magazine-Public News Service Collaboration

The state of Texas does not believe its overflowing arsenal of antiabortion laws-including a near-total ban on abortion, the infamous SB 8 that turns private parties into bounty-hunters by offering them cash prizes for turning in abortion "aiders and abettors," and municipal travel bans that similarly encourage vigilante justice against anyone using local roads to transport abortion seekers across state laws-has done enough to strip pregnant people of control over their bodies.

Represented by antiabortion warrior Attorney General Ken Paxton, Texas is suing the Biden administration in a challenge to the Title IX rule that abortion-related discrimination is prohibited sex discrimination. Two professors from the University of Texas-Austin-John Hatfield, a professor of finance, and Daniel Bonevac, a philosophy professor-subsequently joined the suit as named plaintiffs.

As stated in their court declarations, the two professors object to and refuse to comply with the "Biden Administration's recently announced edict ... [which] represents an attempt to force every educator in the United States to conform to a highly contentious interpretation of ... abortion rights."

Although identified as a "recent edit," abortion-based discrimination has been prohibited since the Title IX regulations first went into effect in 1975.

While my focus is on the challenge to abortion protections, the lawsuit also challenges the 2024 Title IX regulations affirming that discrimination and harassment based on "sexual orientation, gender identity and sexual characteristics" are prohibited under Title IX due to the multiple harms, including bullying and harassment, of not having one's identity recognized or respected.

In virtually identical court declarations, the professors declare that they will not "honor any student's demands to be addressed by the singular pronoun 'they'" to avoid being made "a fool of ... to accommodate a student's delusional beliefs," and that teaching assistants will not be permitted to "engage in cross-dressing while teaching my classes or interacting with ... students."

To make sense of this case, originally filed at the end of April in the Amarillo division of the federal district court for the northern district of Texas, let's start by taking a quick look at some of the key players. Once again, older white men are leading the charge-this time, by bringing the patriarchal surveillance state into the classroom.

Ken Paxton has served as attorney general of Texas since 2015. According to Texas Monthly, he "has used his office as a cudgel in the culture wars for the Christian right," including an unrelenting legal campaign against abortion. Celebrating the fall of Roe, he declared June 24 the annual Sanctity of Life holiday to memorialize the "70 million babies that have been killed in the womb," and proclaimed that he looked "forward to defending the pro-life laws of Texas and the lives of all unborn children moving forward."

In a move the Washington Post characterized as "unnecessary, inexplicable cruelty," after a lower court ruled that Kate Cox, whose fetus had a lethal anomaly, could obtain an abortion under the state's narrow medical emergency exception, Paxton wrote to the hospitals where her doctor had admitting privileges warning them that the court's order would not insulate them from criminal and civil liability, including "first degree felony prosecutions."

The lawsuit was presumably filed in Amarillo because Trump appointee Mathew Kaczmaryk, who is notoriously antiabortion, is its sole presiding judge. Kaczmaryk ruled in favor of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine in its challenge to the FDA's approval of mifepristone and its subsequent relaxing of regulations in an opinion that was permeated with both "junk science" and "misleading antiabortion tropes." The case was just dismissed by the Supreme Court based on the lack of "legal standing to bring the lawsuit because they were not harmed by the FDA's loosening of restrictions on mifepristone over the last eight years."

Bonevac has been one of Trump's most prominent academic supporters, according to an article that calls him one of "the only conservative [scholars] on campus." During Trump's last campaign, Bonevac "became a spokesman of sorts for the Scholars and Writers for America group, which argued that the property tycoon was 'the candidate most likely to restore the promise of America.'"

Hatfield and Bonevac are represented by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's attorney before the Supreme Court in his case to stay on the presidential ballot-and more locally as the legal strategist behind both SB 8 and municipal travel bans, which promote vigilante justice against those aiding or transporting abortions seekers. Through these efforts, Mitchell has been instrumental in transforming Texas into an abortion desert. Adamant about keeping it this way, he is representing several men intent upon punishing their ex-partners for having had abortions. Mitchell is also a key strategist in the growing conservative push to resurrect the moribund 1873 Comstock Act as the basis for imposing a national abortion ban.

Title IX forces Texas educators to "protect women who abort their pregnancies even when doing so violates Texas law," the lawsuit alleges, such as by requiring them to excuse abortion-related absences as they would any other health-related absence. They say Title IX prohibits discrimination against students who "have engaged in the shipment or receipt of abortion pills and abortion-related paraphernalia in violation of federal law." (Emphasis added.)

The above reference to federal law points to the Comstock Act-Mitchell's favorite Victorian era purity law, which was intended to cleanse the nation of sexual corruption by prohibiting the sending of obscene materials, including contraceptives and anything that could be used to cause an abortion. The resurrection of this moribund law has become the conservative backdoor strategy for imposing an abortion ban on the country as a whole. This plan is now firmly embedded in Project 2025-the "unprecedented effort being orchestrated with dozens of right-flank organizations" in order to "dismantle the U.S. government and replace it with Trump's vision," according to the Associated Press.

Let's look more closely at what Hatfield and Bonevac are apparently so upset about when it comes to Title IX's non-discrimination protections for those who have had abortions or have sent or received abortion pills or "abortion-related paraphernalia" such that they have openly declared their intent to flout federal law.

One key objection is that abortion-related accommodations make them "complicit" in criminal activity. They also apparently hold their students to the same standard by expecting "their teaching assistants to obey and respect the laws of Texas and the laws of the United States"-so presumably they screen and reject prospective TAs for any kind of legal infraction, such as a speeding ticket or smoking weed.

Additionally, while the professors claim they will accommodate students who need "medically necessary abortions," they refuse to "accommodate a purely elective abortion that serves only to kill an unborn child that was conceived through an act of voluntary and consensual sexual intercourse."

This sets up a binary when it comes to their understanding of the sexual and reproductive lives of their students-namely, that there are only two kinds of abortions:

• those that are medically necessary (which is an extremely high bar under Texas law), or


• those that, as they seem to suggest, are undertaken in rather 'frivolous' circumstances when weighted against the "act of violence committed against the most vulnerable and defenseless members of the human family."

Assuming the genuineness of their commitment to antiabortion values, one must noneetheless pause to consider whether something more is involved. A perusal of social media comments makes clear this is indeed the case:

• Why would my economics or philosophy professor need to know that I got so much as a pedicure, much less any kind of medical treatment?


• No woman should enroll in a class with these creeps. If this is the amount of twisted control they believe they have over their women students, no parent should want their daughter to go near them.


• Pretty sure dudes like this ultimately don't think women should be educated anyway.


• Never underestimate how much a man hates women and wants to control them.


• How would they even find that information out about someone? I sure as hell hope they're not asking people that about that information. That's just totally wrong and creepy as hell.

At its core, this case is about the surveillance and control of the sexual and reproductive lives of students, and the chillingly privileged view that professors are somehow entitled to this measure of control over students' lives based upon their own views about abortion.




Shoshanna Ehrlich wrote this article for Ms. Magazine.



get more stories like this via email

Voters in Arizona overwhelmingly supported and approved Proposition 139 last week, which enshrines abortion rights into the state's constitution.

The measure will allow abortions up to fetal viability, which is about 24 weeks.

But Fatima Goss Graves - president and CEO of the National Women's Law Center - said while ballot measures expanding access to abortion won in seven of the ten states this election, she contended there are still countless ways to restrict and upend abortion access even further, including nationwide.

"There is a long list of ways to target birth control, to target fertility treatments, to target our ability to control our own bodies, and to be fully equal in this society," said Graves. "We know that road will be long and hard."

Over the weekend Arizona was officially called for former President Donald Trump, awarding him the state's 11 electoral college votes.

Graves said Trump has promised to veto a national abortion ban, and to distance himself from the conservative playbook Project 2025.

She said reproductive rights advocates, like herself, expect the next administration to deliver on those campaign promises.

The state has a number of abortion restrictions and laws that directly conflict with Prop 139.

Until the election results are officially certified by Gov. Katie Hobbs later this month, pro-choice advocates say they'll likely file legal challenges to deem those current restrictions unconstitutional.

In a statement, the It Goes Too Far Campaign - a group opposing the measure - says "the fight against extreme abortion laws will continue."

Monica Simpson is the executive director of the SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective.

She said while all eyes need to stay on the Trump administration, advocates must also continue to lift up "powerful programs."

"I want us to be able to find a balance in doing that," said Simpson, "and work together as the organizations and entities that we are, to be able to make sure that we give ourselves the power and the fuel that we need over these next four years."

Simpson said while it is crucial to keep an eye out at the policy level, advocacy will also be a key part of the fight moving forward.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

get more stories like this via email

Oregon has the third highest percent of women in city government, according to a new report from Rutgers University.

It may be proof of the success of organizations working to support and encourage women to run.

Groups like Emerge Oregon and Vote Run Lead Action train women and nonbinary people to run for office - and win.

Emerge Oregon alums currently hold more than 100 elected positions on city councils, school boards and in the legislature.

Beyond campaigning and fundraising, women receive support to overcome gender-based barriers.

The group's outgoing director, Annie Ellison, noted that the political system wasn't designed with women - particularly women of color - in mind.

"This is a system that was built - like, pretty immaculately - to keep women and women of color out, even if it's not the intention now," said Ellison. "When do we have city council meetings? You know, most of these city council meetings are unpaid, and they're at 7:00 at night. If you're a caregiver, that's bedtime."

But research shows that female elected officials bring more money back to their districts, pass more bipartisan legislation, and get more done overall.

State Director of Vote Run Lead Action, Becca Phelps, said the challenge isn't just getting more women into office - it's keeping them there.

She said in the past few years, several women in the Oregon Legislature have had to leave prematurely or not run again, citing the low pay and added responsibilities of daily life.

This is where organizations can step in to fill these gaps - advocating for higher pay, helping with childcare and transportation costs, even providing emotional support.

"Sometimes," said Phelps, "it's that personal care of having a friend check in on you to see how you're doing when you're an elected leader."

After Tuesday's election, 15 graduates of Emerge Oregon programs may be in the Oregon House and four may hold seats in the Senate.

Ellison added that the biggest barrier women face in running for office is confidence.

"If he can do it, you can do it," said Ellison. "And here's how you're going to do it, and we're going to help you."




get more stories like this via email

A federal nutrition program for low-income moms and babies now includes canned fish and beans, whole grains such as quinoa and cornmeal, and more money for fruits and vegetables.

Theda Simpson, a former participant in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants and Children from Metcalfe County, said she relied on the funds for extra help paying for supplemental formula for her daughter and sons, who had milk allergies as infants. She found out about the program through her local health department and stressed it was a lifesaver for preventing her children from going hungry.

"I hope that every mother finds out about it, knows about the program, is able to access and get the help that they need to be able to feed their children," Simpson emphasized.

Under the new changes, children ages 1-4 will now receive $24 per month, pregnant and postpartum women will now receive $43 per month and breastfeeding women will now receive $47 per month, under recent USDA updates.

Research has shown the WIC program helps improve pregnancy outcomes, including lower incidences of premature births, infant mortality and low-birthweight babies.

Karena Cash, data and research director for Kentucky Youth Advocates, said WIC is not reaching every available mom or mom-to-be in the state, although advocates have been doing work to reach more households, especially in Latino communities and among kinship caregivers. The data show two of every eligible five families are not participating in the program.

"About 96% of infants in Kentucky are enrolled, whereas only about 60% of women and 51% of eligible children one to five," Cash reported. "We see some pretty big discrepancies."

Tanya Torp, executive director of the nonprofit Step By Step in Lexington serving young, single mothers and their babies, said a major barrier is a lack of understanding among grocery stores about how WIC works and what products are covered under the program.

"For us, being able to work with some of the stores is going to be really important," Torp explained. "To train the employees at the stores so that they will be able to help when someone comes in and asks questions about WIC."

Advocacy groups have developed an online toolkit for local communities and leaders, and professionals who serve young children to help get the word out about the WIC program. Nationwide, more than 6 million women and children rely on WIC each month.


get more stories like this via email