[[link removed]] | JAN 2026
[[link removed]]
[[link removed]]
Unsplash // Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition
China Increases Tax on Contraceptives in an Attempt to Boost Birth Rate [[link removed]]
JAHARRA ANGLIN STUBBS | JAN 7
On January 1st, 2026, China implemented a 13% VAT [[link removed]] (value-added tax) on birth control and other forms of contraception to boost birth rates. China, the world’s second-largest economy [[link removed]] , has been experiencing a decline [[link removed]] in its birth rate, especially over the last three years. This tax move is intended to help boost ‘fertility-friendly’ [[link removed]] measures and “love education.”
Before 2015, China had a one-child policy [[link removed]] from 1980 to 2015 that limited [[link removed]] most urban households to a single child and assigned birth quotas to women and families, with penalties for having more than the allocated quota. However, in 2021 [[link removed]] , in an effort to address the aging population, low workforce participation, and the state’s economy, the Chinese government abolished [[link removed]] the policy. Still, it did not have the intended effect, as birth rates have continued to decline since then.
Because deaths are more frequent than births in the country, even with increasing [[link removed]] the number of children that can be born in a single household from one to three, much of the population considers having children to be more costly [[link removed]] . The costs of child care, education, and job uncertainty due to the state of the workforce are all contributing factors.
Although the government has made efforts to encourage the alternative, with annual childcare subsidies [[link removed]] , lifting restrictions on marriage, offering extended parental leave, and other cash incentives for potential parents, [[link removed]] this has proven difficult. Rapid urbanization has left many families already struggling to find space to live and to afford their current lives, making having children more of a burden than a blessing.
Notably, in 2024, the YuWa Population Research Institute reported [[link removed]] that China is one of the most expensive countries to raise a child, primarily due to school fees, the competitive nature of education, and the difficulty of balancing work and parenting, especially for women. The cost of raising a child was 6.3% [[link removed]] higher than the country’s GDP per capita, a gap that becomes even more apparent for women who take maternity leave and return to the workforce only to experience a 12-17% wage cut [[link removed]] .
The report also noted [[link removed]] that “some women have to give up having children in exchange for the opportunity to succeed in their careers.” Despite government incentives, the report [[link removed]] found that many women see China’s social environment as not conducive with both having children and achieving economic security and career success.
This push for expanding families is in the interest of promoting national economic growth. By imposing a tax on products that were free when the government wanted to curb births, the government is now trying to assert control over the bodies of many Chinese women and make contraceptives less accessible.
China’s decision to tax contraception underscores a troubling pattern: when demographic goals change, women’s bodies become tools of state policy. Instead of addressing the structural barriers that make parenthood unaffordable, housing costs, workplace discrimination, and inadequate childcare, the government has chosen a coercive approach that limits reproductive autonomy. History shows that policies rooted in control, rather than support and choice, are unlikely to reverse declining birth rates.
[[link removed]]
Abortion rights protestors outside Supreme Court (Madelyn Amos)
Wyoming Court Delivers Major Victory for Abortion Access [[link removed]]
PIPER WINTON | JAN 9
As of January 6, abortion remains legal [[link removed]] in Wyoming after the Wyoming Supreme Court struck down two state laws aimed at banning abortion in State v. Johnson [[link removed]] . One of the overturned laws [[link removed]] sought to ban abortion except to save a pregnant woman’s life or in cases involving rape or incest. The other [[link removed]] would have been the country’s first explicit ban on abortion pills.
In a political landscape where reproductive rights are increasingly uncertain, this decision stands as a clear affirmation of bodily autonomy and a meaningful win for women’s rights. It ensures that women in Wyoming can continue accessing both procedural and medication abortions without being forced to travel out of state for care.
The abortion and abortion pill laws, which were struck down, were originally enacted in March, 2023, and then struck down by the Teton County District Court [[link removed]] soon after. The district court ruled that the laws conflicted with a 2012 voter referendum [[link removed]] to the state’s constitution [[link removed]] which states “each competent adult shall have the right to make his or her own health care decisions.”
The Wyoming Supreme Court used the same reasoning in its decision this week. The justices decision sided 4-1 [[link removed]] with Wellspring Health Access [[link removed]] , which is the state’s only abortion clinic, an abortion advocacy group, and four women who argued for the bans to be struck down.
On the other side, attorneys for the State of Wyoming argued that abortion is not health care and therefore can not violate the Wyoming constitution, an argument the court rejected. In doing so, the court pushed back against a long-standing effort to exclude women’s reproductive needs from definitions of healthcare.
This ruling highlights the power of states in shaping abortion access in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision [[link removed]] , overturning Roe v. Wade . While federal protections no longer exist, state courts can still safeguard reproductive rights, even in politically conservative leaning states such as Wyoming. Legal pathways to protecting women’s autonomy still remain.
Still, the ruling does not guarantee long-term protection for abortion access in Wyoming. In their decision, the justices acknowledge that the amendment they relied on was not originally written with abortion in mind, noting though that they “ would not add words [[link removed]] to the constitution.” This leaves open the opportunity for Wyoming to enshrine abortion rights into their state constitution.
Already, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon [[link removed]] has called on state lawmakers to meet and pass an amendment banning abortion that would go to voters in the fall. While the amendment would require a two-thirds vote to be introduced, it is likely to have wide support [[link removed]] in such a Republican dominated government.
For now, the Wyoming Supreme Court’s decision is a significant and hard-won victory for reproductive rights. At a moment when abortion access is disappearing across much of the country, this ruling shows that legal protections are still possible. While future challenges remain, this decision marks an important step forward and a reminder that progress is worth fighting for.
[[link removed]]
(Unsplash // Zulfugar Karimov)
Elon Musk’s Grok AI and the Rise of Nonconsensual Sexual Abuse [[link removed]]
PIPER WINTON | JAN 14
Elon Musk’s Grok AI [[link removed]] is being used to create nonconsensual [[link removed]] explicit photos and videos of women and children. These range from photos of people in revealing garments to extremely graphic [[link removed]] and violent pornographic material.
Grok AI is “ an AI assistant with a twist of humor and a dash of rebellion. [[link removed]] ” It can be used on X (formerly Twitter) where users can ask questions, generate photos, and perform other tasks—all of which can be publicly posted. Additionally, when Grok is used on its own website or app, it can be used to generate videos and even interact with sexually explicit [[link removed]] chatbot companions.
In responding to requests on X, Grok has been manipulating photos of women and children to generate images [[link removed]] of them in bikinis, lingerie, remove their clothes, or even pose them in suggestive ways. Ashley St. Clair, the mother of one of Musk’s children, said that Grok has undressed photos of her [[link removed]] as a child. On Grok’s standalone website and app, users are using the AI to generate hardcore pornography [[link removed]] . These photorealistic videos include women covered in blood, engaging in violent sexual acts, and even child sexual abuse material.
Musk has said his company will take action [[link removed]] “against illegal content on X, including Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), by removing it, permanently suspending accounts, and working with local governments and law enforcement as necessary.”
The Grok account on X now limits requests for AI images [[link removed]] to subscribers who pay for premium features, but users can subscribe or switch to Grok’s individual site for the limited functions on X. This means that Grok users are still able to create sexually explicit content [[link removed]] by directly interacting with the chatbot and are able to share those by posting the image on X or sharing an URL.
Adding a payment feature does not stop nonconsensual content or deepfakes from being created and therefore does not solve the problem. Last year, when Grok praised Hitler, xAI temporarily disabled the chatbot [[link removed]] . This is a solution that could easily be applied to nonconsensual content, yet is not.
In order to protect women, there needs to be stronger regulation and accountability [[link removed]] surrounding AI. This issue is not just about “ bad users [[link removed]] ,” there should not be technology readily available that can be misused to create abusive, explicit, and degrading imagery without consent. Just because the content being created is fake, does not mean there isn’t harm. As with any form of sexual abuse, it can cause fear, shame, withdrawal, and self-censorship.
This can not be treated as a tech controversy, because the issue’s foundation is rooted in the absence of consent. Technology should never subject women to this type of harm. AI-based abuse is simply becoming another mechanism [[link removed]] through which women are silenced, humiliated, and pushed out of public spaces.
[[link removed]]
(Getty Images)
A “Trojan Horse” That Wasn’t: Senate Hearing Shows Afghans Are Among the Most Thoroughly Vetted [[link removed]]
SARAH HAMIDI | JAN 21
Last Wednesday in Washington, D.C., lawmakers convened a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing [[link removed]] to examine the Biden administration’s Afghan parole program. While national security concerns dominated the discussion, the hearing also made clear that Afghans are among the most thoroughly vetted populations entering the United States. It also underscored the growing uncertainty facing tens of thousands of Afghans whose immigration pathways are stalled and who now risk return to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
The hearing followed the November 26 shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C., carried out by an Afghan national who entered the United States through Operation Allies Welcome, a parole program launched after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
The discussion made clear that Afghans admitted to the United States through Operations Allies Refuge and Allies Welcome underwent extensive security screening, and that those who did not satisfy vetting requirements were not allowed to stay. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) stated that of the “76,000 Afghans who entered the country on parole status, six had been arrested.”
Although the hearing was titled with a provocative notion, “ Biden’s Afghan ParoleeProgram – A Trojan Horse with Flawed Vetting and Deadly Consequences [[link removed]] ,” the evidence presented pointed in the opposite direction. Assertions that Afghan arrivals were inadequately vetted were shown to be based on a flawed assumption and anti-immigrant sentiments. In fact, multiple senators and witnesses emphasized that Afghan evacuees have been subjected to some of the most rigorous screening procedures applied to any group entering the United States, reaffirming the integrity and effectiveness of the system.
Republican lawmakers argued that the program allowed more than 70,000 Afghans into the country without adequate vetting.
Democrats pushed back, warning against using the tragedy to justify broad restrictions targeting Afghan refugees and parolees. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) said each Afghan evacuee underwent “multiple rounds of extensive vetting,” both overseas and after arrival, and emphasized that failures in post-resettlement and mental health support, not screening, may have contributed to the attack.
“What happened here was not a failure of vetting,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) said. “It was a failure to respond to clear warning signs and a failure to support a veteran in crisis.”
As lawmakers debated accountability, the hearing revealed sweeping policy changes already underway. Refugee admissions for Afghans have been suspended, visa processing halted or restricted, and immigration reviews expanded to nearly 200,000 cases. Advocacy groups warned that these measures risk stranding Afghans who assisted U.S. forces and exposing them to Taliban reprisals.
Letters entered into the congressional record from Afghan veterans and Special Immigrant Visa holders described fear of deportation to a country where the Taliban have consolidated power and intensified repression.
“There is no greater threat to future U.S. military operations,” one letter warned, “than the perception that America abandons its partners once the shooting stops.”
As the hearing centered on Afghans who arrived in the United States during the collapse of the former republic in August 2021, it largely overlooked the Taliban’s systematic repression of women and girls and the broader humanitarian and security crisis now gripping Afghanistan. Still, human rights advocates note that restricting Afghan immigration pathways disproportionately affects women fleeing a regime that has barred them from education, employment, and public life, which are the very conditions that are described as gender apartheid.
The absence of discussion on gender-based persecution underscored a broader concern raised quietly throughout the hearing: that policy responses framed solely around security risk may overlook the realities Afghans face if returned to Taliban rule.
As investigations continue and lawmakers weigh reforms to parole authority, the future remains uncertain for thousands of Afghans caught between tightening U.S. immigration policies and a country they cannot safely return to.
TAKE ACTION
Act Now: Make gender apartheid a crime against humanity—don’t legitimize the Taliban
Sign below [[link removed]] to add your name to this urgent call — we're delivering this petition directly to the United Nations Secretary-General and to the President of the General Assembly to make sure our voices are heard at the highest level. Every signature shows the growing public demand for action. The more names we gather, the stronger our message will be.
António Guterres, Secretary-General,
Philémon Yang, President, General Assembly,
I, the undersigned, urge the United Nations to take immediate and historic action to stand with the women and girls of Afghanistan, who are living under a system of gender apartheid instituted by the Taliban regime.
Specifically, I call on the United Nations to:
1. Formally recognize gender apartheid as a crime against humanity in international law and include it in the new Crimes Against Humanity Convention.
2. Refuse recognition and prevent the Taliban from occupying Afghanistan's UN seat, as this would confer legitimacy on a regime engaged in crimes against humanity.
3. Increase humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, with priority given to women and girls as both distributors and recipients of aid.
4. Ensure Afghan women are meaningfully included in all international discussions on Afghanistan's future—political, economic, social, and humanitarian.
The Taliban has issued nearly 150 edicts systematically erasing women and girls from public life. And preventing girls and women from education, work, and taking away their freedom of movement is not only unjust—it violates their fundamental human rights under international law.
These actions constitute systematic oppression and domination of women and girls, committed with the intention of maintaining the dominant regime, and therefore amounting to apartheid and persecution under international law.
The United Nations must act with moral clarity and legal resolve.
The eyes of the world—and the hopes of Afghan women—are upon you.
Sincerely,
SIGN HERE [[link removed]]
[[link removed]]
Activists protesting outside the Supreme Court on January 13 (Giovanna DeStefanis)
Supreme Court Weighs Landmark Cases on Transgender Students and School Sports [[link removed]]
GIOVANNA DESTEFANIS | JAN 30
On January 13, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two landmark cases that could dramatically reshape the future of transgender rights in education and athletics: Little v. Hecox [[link removed]] and West Virginia v. B.P.J [[link removed]] . The cases challenge state laws that categorically bar transgender girls and women from participating in school sports, raising fundamental questions about discrimination and equality.
Outside the Court, hundreds of families, athletes, civil rights leaders, faith leaders, and members of Congress rallied both in support of and in opposition to transgender youth.
Inside the Court, attorneys from Lambda Legal, the ACLU, and Legal Voice [[link removed]] argued that these bans violate both the Equal Protection Clause [[link removed]] of the Fourteenth Amendment and, in the West Virginia case, Title IX’s prohibition on sex discrimination [[link removed]] in education. Federal courts have blocked enforcement [[link removed]] of these bans in both lawsuits.
In Little v. Hecox [[link removed]] , the Court is reviewing Idaho’s 2020 Fairness in Women’s Sports Act [[link removed]] , the first statewide law [[link removed]] in the nation to impose a blanket ban on transgender women and girls in female athletic competitions. The law defines sex strictly on the basis of reproductive biology and genetics and allows schools to subject students to invasive sex verification procedures [[link removed]] if a student’s eligibility is challenged.
Lindsay Hecox [[link removed]] , a transgender college student, brought the case after being barred from competing on Boise State University’s women’s track team, arguing that the law unconstitutionally singles out transgender women for discriminatory exclusion.
West Virginia v. B.P.J. [[link removed]] centers on Becky Pepper-Jackson [[link removed]] , a transgender middle school student who sought to participate in girls’ cross-country and track. West Virginia’s Save Women’s Sports Act [[link removed]] restricts participation on girls’ teams exclusively to students assigned female at birth. Lower courts repeatedly ruled in Becky’s favor [[link removed]] , finding that the law violated both constitutional equal protection principles and Title IX.
Together, these cases represent the Supreme Court’s most consequential engagement with transgender athlete bans to date. More than twenty states [[link removed]] have enacted laws restricting transgender students’ participation in school sports, with dozens more [[link removed]] proposing similar legislation.
A decision is expected by late spring or early summer [[link removed]] . A ruling upholding these bans would likely accelerate legislative attacks on transgender youth [[link removed]] and further erode civil rights protections across education and public accommodations.
Connect with us!
ENJOYED THIS NEWSLETTER? FORWARD TO A FRIEND!
WAS THIS EMAIL FORWARDED TO YOU BY A FRIEND? SUBSCRIBE HERE [[link removed]] .
Follow us on Instagram @feministmajorityfoundation
WWW.FEMINIST.ORG
JOIN US [#]

Feminist Majority Foundation
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: [link removed] .