From the ongoing fight for abortion rights and access, to elections, to the drive for the Equal Rights Amendment, there are a multitude of battles to keep up with. In this weekly roundup, find the absolute need-to-know news for feminists.

One of the plaintiffs, Dr. Austin Dennard (L), hugs her patient and fellow plaintiff Lauren Miller, outside the Texas Supreme Court in Austin on Nov. 28, 2023. (Suzanne Cordeiro / AFP via Getty Images)

BY ROXY SZAL | The Texas Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in a case which seeks to clarify the scope of Texas’ “medical emergency” exception under its state abortion bans. Represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), the plaintiffs—20 Texas women denied abortions, joined by two doctors—allege they were denied abortion care in Texas for their medically complex pregnancies, including cases where the fetus was not expected to survive after birth.

The high-stakes and emotional case, filed in March, paints a picture of fear and confusion among pregnant people and doctors throughout the state. During an initial two–day hearing in July, women denied abortions shared harrowing stories of the severe physical harms and trauma they experienced during their pregnancies, which they say were directly caused by Texas’ anti-abortion laws.

In response, Judge Jessica Mangrum, presiding judge of the 200th District Court in Austin, issued a temporary ruling on Aug. 4, only meant to stand until Zurawski v. Texas goes to trial on March 25, 2024. This August ruling made two important points:

• Senate Bill 8—the six-week abortion ban with the “bounty hunter” provision that allows citizens to sue anyone who aids and abets abortion—is unconstitutional. Her ruling means the law is no longer in effect—but the ruling is moot, since the state’s pre-Roe trigger ban (a total ban on abortion) is.
• Mangrum clarified the “medical emergencies” exception in the state’s abortion bans, granting a temporary injunction against the law. This meant that the attorney general and other state actors were temporarily forbidden from enforcing the law against abortion providers—who Mangrum encouraged to use their “good faith judgment,” in consultation with their pregnant patients, to determine when they need an abortion to preserve their health or their life. (This point in particular is what the Texas Supreme Court was tasked on Tuesday to weigh in on.)

If it had been allowed to take effect, Mangrum’s latter ruling would have protected abortion providers from steep state penalties (like exorbitant fines, felony charges, life in prison and the loss of their medical license) in a wider range of cases—including pregnancies that present a risk of infection; a fetal condition in which the fetus will not survive after birth; or when the pregnant person has a condition that requires regular, invasive treatment. 

(Click here to read more)

Because it's hard to keep up with everything going on in the world right now. Here's what we're reading this week: 

• “Federal funding bill on hold after GOP conflict on D.C. abortion rider” — The Washington Post

Tune in for the first episode of Ms. magazine's newest podcast, Torn Apart on

Apple Podcasts + Spotify.

In Episode 1: “Terror," Roberts argues that the family policing system is designed to terrorize Black families. Child protective services equate poverty with neglect, using it as a justification to invade homes and threaten to take children away from majority low-income, Black families. 

We hope you'll listen, subscribe, rate and review today!

READ THE REST | GET THE MAGAZINE | SUPPORT MS.

Enjoy this newsletter? Forward to a friend!
Was this email forwarded to you by a friend? Subscribe.

Ms. Magazine
1600 Wilson Boulevard
Suite 801
Arlington, VA 22209
United States

If you believe you received this message in error or wish to no longer receive email from us, please 

unsubscribe.