Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) decried Republican efforts to discredit medication abortion in an interview Wednesday with Mother Jones, saying that “the only reason they’re going after mifepristone is because it is the way most women get their abortive care.” Mifepristone is one of the pills used in medication abortion, which in 2023 accounted for 63 percent of all terminations in the United States.  On Wednesday morning, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held a hearing on “protecting women” from the “dangers of chemical abortion drugs.” Chaired by Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, the hearing centered on conservative demands for further regulation of abortion medication; two of its three witnesses were medication abortion opponents, including Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, who on Tuesday pushed to extradite a California abortion provider on felony charges, accusing him of sending abortion pills into her state. Democrats taking part, including Sen. Murray, argued that the hearing wasn’t geared toward protecting women but discrediting settled science. In November, Murray led the Senate Democratic Caucus in sending a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Martin Makary expressing concern over the Trump administration’s review of mifepristone. “Republicans are holding this hearing to peddle debunked junk ‘studies’ by anti-abortion organizations which have no credibility and have been forcefully condemned by actual medical organizations,” Murray said in her opening statement. The hearing, she continued, was “really about the fact that Trump and his anti-abortion allies want to ban abortion nationwide.” According to a New York Times review of more than 100 studies spanning 30 years, abortion medication is safe and effective; mifepristone, used both in medication abortion and to treat miscarriage, has had FDA approval for more than 25 years. In October, the FDA approved another generic version of the pill. “You can see that they’re just pulling straws from absolutely everywhere, because they want to obscure the whole goal” to “ban abortion nationwide,” Murray said to me. Republican officials insisted that medication abortion is too easy to get. Yet in 13 states, abortion is banned in nearly all circumstances. Another seven states have enacted time restrictions earlier than what was outlined in Roe v. Wade. At the same time, maternity care deserts are expanding across the nation. According to a 2024 report by infant and maternal health nonprofit March of Dimes, more than a thousand US counties—together home to more than 2.3 million women of reproductive age—lack a single birthing facility or obstetric clinician. Since 2020, 117 rural hospitals have stopped delivering babies, or announced that they would stop before the end of 2025, according to a December report from the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform. A National Partnership for Women & Families analysis from June warned that 131 rural hospitals with labor and delivery units are at risk of closing altogether due to Republican-led cuts to Medicaid through President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.” I asked Sen. Murray about requiring consultations for medication abortion—and why pregnant people aren’t going in person to seek out that route.  “It’s pretty stunning to watch these Republicans talk about this with a straight face,” she told me. “The reason many women don’t,” Murray continued, “is the abortion bans that in Republican states don’t give women the option to see a provider.” Murray expressed concern, “especially after we have a hearing like this, where we heard so much misinformation,” that an already confusing landscape for those seeking abortion could be further obscured. And a new study, published Monday in the leading medical journal JAMA, found that the FDA has repeatedly reviewed new evidence about mifepristone and reaffirmed its safety. Abortion medication, Murray pointed out, is less deadly than both penicillin and Viagra. “We didn’t have a hearing today on Viagra,” she told me. “We had a hearing on mifepristone, so their whole thing about safety and all this is just hogwash.”

At the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions’s abortion pills hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri spent the whole of his allotted time reiterating disinformation about transgender people. And, this isn’t the first time he’s utilized a hearing about reproductive healthcare to do so.  During an interaction at the hearing, Sen. Hawley asked Dr. Nisha Verma, who provides reproductive care in Georgia and Massachusetts, “Can men get pregnant?” Hawley asked this question over 10 times, repeatedly cutting her off when she attempted to answer.  Verma, along with Dr. Monique Wubbenhorst and Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, was called on by the committee for the hearing. Wubbenhorst previously testified in support of anti-abortion initiatives, and AG Murrill just indicted a California abortion provider on felony charges, accusing him of sending abortion pills into her state.  Before Hawley had the chance to share his views on gender, Florida Sen. Ashley Moody kicked off the topic by asking, “Miss Verma, can men get pregnant?” “Dr. Verma,” she corrected. Moody repeated:“Dr. Verma, can men get pregnant?” Verma paused. Moody asked the other witnesses, who quickly replied “no.” Later in the hearing, before handing off the mic to Sen. Hawley, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who chairs the committee, said, “I think it’s science-based, by the way, that men can’t have babies.” Then, it was Hawley’s turn.  “Since you bring it up, why don’t we start there,” he began. “Dr. Verma, I wasn’t sure I understood your answer to Sen. Moody a moment ago. Do you think that men can get pregnant?”  “I hesitated there because I wasn’t sure where the conversation was going or what the goal was,” Dr. Verma responded, adding, “I mean I do take care of patients with different identities, I take care of many women, I take care of people with different identities.” “Well,” Hawley returned, “the goal is the truth, so can men get pregnant?” “Again,” Dr. Verma said, “the reason I pause there is I’m not really sure what the goal of the question is—” Hawley cut her off, in part saying, “the goal is just to establish a biological reality.”  “I take care of people with many identities—” Dr. Verma began, before being cut off by Hawley.  “Can men get pregnant?” “I take care of many women, I do take care of people that don’t identify as women—” “Can men get pregnant?” “Again, as I’m saying—” Hawley cut in. This tempo continued, with the senator at one point saying that he was “trying to test, frankly,” Dr. Verma’s “veracity as a medical professional and as a scientist” and “I thought we were passed all of this, frankly.” > Sen. Josh @HawleyMO: "Can men get pregnant?" > > Dr. Nisha Verma: "I'm not really sure what the goal of the question is." > > Hawley: "The goal is just to establish a biological reality…Can men get > pregnant?" pic.twitter.com/4egtfZrPgB > > — CSPAN (@cspan) January 14, 2026 Transgender men can and do get pregnant, as detailed in several different reports currently posted on The National Library of Medicine, which operates under the Department of Health and Human Services. Scientific research on this community is still limited, in part due to transgender men being hesitant to seek medical care in hospitals. Research out of Rutgers University found that about 44 percent of pregnant transgender men seek medical care outside of traditional care with an obstetrician, like with a nurse-midwife.  During the hearing, Republican members described abortion medication as dangerous and in need of further restriction. Their Democrat colleagues said that the hearing, entitled “Protecting Women: Exposing the Dangers of Chemical Abortion Drugs,” was a way to discredit settled science.  Mifepristone, one of the pills used in abortions with medication, has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for over 25 years and, just this past October, the FDA approved another generic version of the pill. A New York Times review of more than 100 studies on abortion medication found that it is safe and effective. The current pushback against abortion medication, which accounted for 63 percent of all abortions in the US in 2023, is being spearheaded in part by Erin Hawley—the senator from Missouri’s wife. Erin Hawley works for the Alliance Defending Freedom and, in 2024, unsuccessfully argued for further restrictions on abortion medication in front of the Supreme Court. In December, the couple launched “The Love Life Initiative,” which aims to support anti-abortion ballot initiatives.  Back in 2022, at a different hearing on abortion access, Sen. Hawley focused on the same topic with another witness: law professor Khiara Bridges. Hawley began, as he did on Wednesday, by saying he “wants to understand.” “You’ve referred to people with a capacity for pregnancy. Would that be women?” Hawley said. Bridges responded, explaining that some cis women can get pregnant while others can’t—and that people who don’t identify as women get pregnant, too. “So,” the senator returned, “this isn’t really a women’s rights issue.”  Bridges replied, smiling: “we can recognize that this impacts women while also recognizing that it impacts other groups. Those things are not mutually exclusive, Senator Hawley.” 

Abortion will remain legal in Wyoming following a Tuesday decision in the state’s Supreme Court that said its two abortion bans, including a block on abortion pills, were unconstitutional. The court ruled that the bans violate a 2012 amendment to the Wyoming Constitution that protects an adult’s right to make their own healthcare decisions. One law banned abortion with few exceptions, such as in cases of rape or incest, and the other explicitly prohibited abortion pills. Wyoming was the only state in the country to implement an outright ban.  As Bolts, an organization that reports on local elections and policies, noted in 2023, this amendment was part of a conservative push against Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act. Conservatives argued that the legislation was government interference. Progressives, meanwhile, including reproductive rights advocates in Wyoming, have used the amendment to protect abortion access.  “A woman has a fundamental right to make her own health care decisions, including the decision to have an abortion,” the ruling from Tuesday reads. Wyoming’s only abortion clinic, Wellspring Health Access, was one of the plaintiffs in the case. In a statement, Julie Burkhart, president of the clinic, told Mother Jones that the decision “affirmed what we’ve always known to be true: abortion is essential health care, and the government should not interfere in personal decisions about our health.” “While we celebrate today’s ruling, we know that anti-abortion politicians will continue their push to restrict access to health care in Wyoming with new, harmful proposals in the state legislature,” Burkhart added.  The decision also implies that anti-abortion lawmakers in Wyoming would need to amend the state constitution to ban abortion, rather than a majority vote in the Republican-dominated legislature.  Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon immediately called for just that on Tuesday, saying in a statement: “It is time for this issue to go before the people for a vote, and I believe it should go before them this fall.” A move to amend the constitution would be decided by voters in the 2026 election.

In another assault on reproductive rights by the Trump administration, the US Department of Veterans Affairs sent out a memo on Monday announcing that it will no longer provide abortion or abortion counseling. This change stems from a Department of Justice legal opinion on December 18 that reinstated exclusions on abortions and abortion counseling that the Biden administration had removed in 2022. That Biden-era ruling expanded abortion access for veterans in cases of rape, incest, or threats to life and health, even in states with bans.  The DOJ cited a rule the VA proposed in August that argued Biden demonstrated federal overreach by expanding abortion access just months after the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. But, according to the VA, Biden’s decision forced taxpayer funding for abortion. “Pregnant Veterans and VA beneficiaries deserve to have access to world-class reproductive care when they need it most,” Denis McDonough, Biden’s Secretary of Veterans Affairs, said in 2022, calling it “a patient safety decision.” The new directive, obtained by Mother Jones, states that it won’t prohibit care to “pregnant women in life-threatening circumstances, including treatment for ectopic pregnancies or miscarriages.” However, these exceptions often do not work. According to Jessica Valenti, a writer on feminism and politics, exceptions “are deliberately crafted to be impossible to use” and only exist “to make Republicans seem a little less punishing.”  Half of the states in the country protect the right to abortion. The VA’s ban will also apply in those states. The Department of Veterans Affairs did not respond to Mother Jones‘ questions about the removal of exceptions in cases of rape, incest, or health emergencies and the usurping of state laws. The scale of this issue is significant. According to the VA’s own numbers, there are more than 700,000 family members who are eligible for its care. There are over 2.1 million women veterans and thousands of transgender men and non-binary veterans who may need abortion care.  The VA’s memo also states that employees may request to opt out of providing “any aspect of clinical care based on their sincerely held moral and religious beliefs, observances, practices, or exercises,” which could leave the door open for more discriminatory lawmaking in health care access. For theTrump administration, that is the point. Project 2025 recommended that the Veterans Health Administration “rescind all departmental clinical policy directives that are contrary to principles of conservative governance starting with abortion services and gender reassignment surgery.” Roughly half of the president’s judicial nominees have anti-abortion records.

STRASBOURG — The European Parliament has voted today to set up an EU fund to expand access to abortion for women across the bloc, in a historic vote that divided lawmakers. The plan would establish a voluntary, opt-in financial mechanism to help countries provide abortion care to women who can’t access it in their own country and who choose to travel to one with more liberal laws. European citizens presented the plan in a petition — through the campaign group “My Voice, My Choice.” Lawmakers in Strasbourg voted 358 in favor and 202 against the proposal, and 79 MEPs abstained. The topic sparked animated discussions in the European Parliament plenary on Tuesday evening. MEPs with center-right and far-right groups tabled competing texts to the resolution put forward by Renew’s Abir Al-Sahlani on behalf of the women’s rights and gender equality committee. Supporters of the scheme argued it would help reduce unsafe abortions and ensure women across the bloc have equal rights; those who oppose it, mostly from conservative groups, dismissed it as an ideological push and EU overreach into national policy. Abortion laws vary greatly across the EU, from near-total bans in Poland and Malta to liberal rules in the Netherlands and the U.K. The fund could be a game changer for the thousands of European women who travel every year to another EU country to access abortion care. The European Commission now has until March 2026 to give a response. This story is being updated.

Even if you have no idea what a crisis pregnancy center is, the donor website for the First Choice Women’s Resource Centers chain in northeastern New Jersey offers plenty of clues: Prominent logos for the anti-abortion groups Heartbeat International and CareNet. A home page banner proclaiming “Sanctity of Human Life Sunday 2026.” An agreement for prospective volunteers that states, “I openly acknowledge my personal faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior,” and “[I] reject abortion as an acceptable option for any woman.” That’s what appears on the website directed at First Choice’s donors. The chain also has two websites targeted at potential clients—pregnant women who might be seeking an abortion but end up on the crisis pregnancy center website instead, where First Choice is less clear about its religious ties and anti-abortion mission. “Learn more about the abortion pill, abortion procedures, and your options in New Jersey,” one site urges on its home page. “We specialize in pre-termination evaluations,” another site says, with services that include “free and confidential Abortion Information Consultation” and “post-abortion support.” On most pages, it is only at the very bottom that the qualifier, First Choice “do[es] not perform or refer for” abortions, appears. Websites that tell anti-abortion supporters one thing and pregnant women something else are common among the country’s 2,500 crisis pregnancy centers, or CPCs—part of a well-documented history of using misinformation and deception, as well as free ultrasounds and other services, to deter women from having abortions. Some of the best-known strategies include opening “fake” clinics near real abortion clinics, misstating the purported harms of abortion and emergency contraception, and pushing the unproven medical procedure known as “abortion pill reversal.” > Blue states have repeatedly tried to rein in CPCs. But as faith-based > organizations, pregnancy centers have a powerful shield—the First Amendment. Blue-state lawmakers and attorneys general have repeatedly tried to rein in CPCs. But as faith-based organizations, these pregnancy centers have a powerful shield—the First Amendment. When states try to regulate them, CPCs invariably claim that these efforts violate constitutional protections for free speech, religious expression, and freedom of association. In a landmark 2018 decision, the US Supreme Court sided with the CPC industry, blocking a California law that would have required pregnancy centers to inform patients about state-funded family-planning services, including abortion. That decision chilled state and local efforts to curb CPCs’ more controversial practices, creating what one legal scholar has called “a regulatory dead zone.” Meanwhile, since the fall of Roe v. Wade, the number of CPCs has grown—boosted by a surge in state funding and private donations—and reproductive rights supporters have renewed their push for greater oversight, this time focusing on consumer protection. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in its latest CPC case, this one involving New Jersey’s efforts to investigate whether First Choice may have misled consumers. The question before the court is technical: Can CPCs run directly to federal court to fight an attorney general’s subpoena, as First Choice did, or must they first go to state court? As reporters Garnet Henderson and Susan Rinkunas recently wrote in Mother Jones and Autonomy News, the answer could have sweeping consequences for the $2 billion-a-year CPC industry: > Boring as this procedural quibble may seem, a favorable decision would be a > significant win for CPCs. They have a much better shot at winning any case in > the Trumpified federal courts than they do in state courts that may be more > supportive of abortion rights. What’s more, the ability to use friendly > federal courts as a shield from state regulation would set pregnancy centers > up for success in other lawsuits making their way to the Supreme Court—ones > that could eliminate states’ ability to crack down on [abortion pill reversal] > and other questionable practices entirely. But the case has also raised concerns among groups aligned with progressives that the same type of subpoenas issued by New Jersey against First Choice could be weaponized against humanitarian groups, journalists, and protesters. “The problem is bipartisan,” the ACLU wrote in one amicus brief. While New Jersey focuses on crisis pregnancy centers, “Florida’s attorney general pursues restaurants for hosting drag shows,” and Missouri’s attorney general investigates chatbots “to find out why they express disfavored views about President Trump.” In another brief, lawyers for Annunciation House, a Texas nonprofit that has been targeted for providing shelter and support to immigrants, wrote, “Nonprofit organizations—which rely heavily on volunteers—bear the heaviest burdens when faced with…state investigatory demands.” The stakes, the brief said, “can be existential.” The case dates from November 2023, when New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin—an abortion rights supporter and CPC critic—issued a subpoena against First Choice as part of an investigation into whether the pregnancy chain was “misleading donors and potential clients into believing that it was providing certain reproductive health care services,” Platkin’s office states in a brief. The subpoena was broad, seeking 10 years’ worth of emails, videos, handbooks, the identities of many of its donors, and other information about First Choice’s ads and solicitations, its services and staff, and its claims about medical procedures, including abortion pill reversal. State and federal agencies have been using similar subpoenas to investigate potential violations of the laws they enforce for over 150 years, Platkin’s brief points out. Such subpoenas are not “self-executing,” meaning that Platkin’s office didn’t have the power to enforce them. Instead, in New Jersey and the rest of the country, the long-accepted procedure for enforcing or challenging a state agency’s subpoena is to seek relief in state court. If First Choice disagreed with the ruling from a New Jersey court, it could then plead its case in federal court.  But First Choice’s attorneys—the conservative legal behemoth Alliance Defending Freedom—cried foul, saying the CPC had done nothing wrong and accusing Platkin of “selectively target[ing] the nonprofit based on its religious speech and pro-life views.” Pregnancy centers “have been subject to a shocking level of violence and intimidation,” ADF asserted in one court filing. “First Choice is concerned that if its donors’ identities became public, they may be subjected to similar threats.” > “We haven’t forced those services on anyone. We haven’t charged any women for > the services we provide…. Yet Platkin calls this kind of caring ‘extremist.’” The lawyers also pointed to a 2021 Supreme Court precedent blocking California’s efforts to force charities and nonprofits in the state to report the identities of their major donors. According to ADF, the Platkin subpoena was so concerning that First Choice should be able to seek immediate relief in the federal courts, rather than having to expend time and resources litigating the issue first in state court. The ADF team—including Erin Hawley, wife of Missouri GOP Sen. Josh Hawley—compared Platkin’s investigation to Southern states’ attempts to force the NAACP to produce member lists in the late 1950s and early ’60s.  In an op-ed for NJ.com, First Choice’s executive director, Aimee Huber, noted that in 2022 alone, CPCs throughout the US provided 500,000 free ultrasounds, 200,000 STI tests, 3.5 million packs of diapers, and 43,000 car seats to women and families in need. “Over the last 40 years, First Choice has been privileged to offer crucial resources to more than 36,000 women across our state. We haven’t forced those services on anyone. We haven’t charged any women for the services we provide…Yet Platkin calls this kind of caring ‘extremist.’” But courts have repeatedly ruled that the case wasn’t ready—or “ripe”—to be litigated in federal court. A state judge, meanwhile, ordered Platkin and First Choice to negotiate to narrow the subpoena’s scope. The first time First Choice asked the Supreme Court to weigh in, back in February 2024, the justices declined. But when ADF tried again, this past spring, the court took the case. Most of the amicus briefs siding with First Choice are from a predictable collection of anti-abortion and conservative or libertarian groups, including red-state attorneys general, Republican members of Congress, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. But the CPC chain also received support from some unexpected quarters, including animal rights activists, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, represented by the ACLU.  In its brief, the humanitarian relief group Annunciation House described being hit with an investigative subpoena by Ken Paxton in 2024 demanding that it immediately turn over thousands of documents about immigrants and refugees it has helped—including sensitive medical and personally identifiable information—or face being shut down. The subpoena touched off a grueling, costly fight in state courts, with the Texas Supreme Court ultimately siding with Paxton. “The chilling effect impacts not only the targeted nonprofit, but also the broader nonprofit community, as organizations may avoid lawful speech or actions out of fear that they will lead to investigatory scrutiny,” the Annunciation House lawyers write. “Left unchecked, the [subpoena] process becomes the punishment.” In an interview with Mother Jones, Grayson Clary, a lawyer at the Reporters Committee, raised similar concerns. “Well beyond the context of this crisis pregnancy center, we have seen more state attorneys general trying to use their consumer protection authorities in new and potentially troubling ways, including to investigate news organizations,” he said, pointing to a Missouri case targeting the left-leaning Media Matters. “Saying, ‘We’re not after the journalism—we’re just protecting the consumers’ is often a fig leaf for efforts to control the content that a news organization is putting out.” “In practical terms,” Clary said, “what’s at stake in this question is how much of a tax does a state attorney general get to place on you for speaking, or for publishing news that they might disagree with, before you get a chance to ask a court to put a halt to it? And that question really can, in practical terms, be life or death, especially for a smaller or nonprofit news outlet,” On the abortion-rights side, what is most surprising about the amicus briefs is that they are nonexistent. But one group paying close attention to the case is Reproductive Health and Freedom Watch, a CPC watchdog. “If the Court finds in favor of this pregnancy center,” executive director Debra Rosen says, “I worry that it’s going to chill further scrutiny into this massive [CPC] industry.” Instead, amicus briefs in support of keeping the First Choice case out of federal court come from agencies that routinely issue investigative subpoenas, including blue-state attorneys general and state medical boards. The consequences of adopting First Choice’s argument would be “far-reaching,” Platkin’s office argues, “turning every quotidian subpoena dispute into a federal case.” The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the case by next summer.

In August 2022, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall made a guest appearance on a local conservative talk radio show. It was two months after the US Supreme Court had overturned Roe v. Wade, and abortion was now illegal in Alabama. And Marshall addressed rumors that he planned to prosecute anyone helping people get abortions out of state.   “If someone was promoting themselves out as a funder of abortion out of state,” Marshall explained to the host, “then that is potentially criminally actionable for us.”  Subscribe to Mother Jones podcasts on Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcast app. This particular threat launched an epic legal battle with implications for some of the most basic American rights: the right to travel, the right to free speech, the right to give and receive help.  This week on Reveal, reporter Nina Martin spends time with abortion rights groups in Alabama, following how they’ve adapted to one of the nation’s strictest anti-abortion policies—and evolved their definition of help. This is an update of an episode that originally aired in May 2025.

This article is a collaboration with Autonomy News, a worker-owned publication covering reproductive rights and justice. Sign up for a free or paid subscription, and follow them on Instagram, TikTok, and Bluesky. Crisis pregnancy centers have played a central role in the anti-abortion movement since the 1960s, often misleading and confusing people seeking abortions while purporting to help them. They mimic the appearance of abortion clinics, with similar-sounding names and even lookalike logos. Their volunteers sometimes pose as clinic staff to divert abortion patients from getting care. Their websites are teeming with disinformation, including claims that abortion is unsafe or linked to future mental illness, breast cancer, and fertility issues. “A killer, who in this case is the girl who wants to kill her baby, has no right to information that will help her kill her baby,” Robert Pearson, founder of the very first CPC in the US, once declared. Abortion rights advocates have long called on lawmakers to rein in CPCs and their misleading practices. But a 2018 Supreme Court decision struck down a California consumer-disclosure law’s attempt to do just that, making it virtually impossible for states to enact regulations that single out CPCs.  Soon after, pro–abortion rights legal scholars suggested a new approach: to go after pregnancy centers for false advertising. This regulatory strategy seemed like it would be a slam dunk, particularly thanks to a CPC practice that has rapidly become crucial to the anti-abortion movement’s strategy: abortion pill “reversal,” an unproven medical protocol that CPCs claim can halt a medication abortion about two-thirds of the time. The medical consensus on APR is clear: It’s not possible to “reverse” the effects of the abortion drug mifepristone, and attempting to do so may even be dangerous. To blue-state legislators and attorneys general, the legal issue was also straightforward: Making false promises—especially when those claims could hurt people—is illegal under a host of state and federal laws that ban misleading and deceptive advertising practices. But three years after the reversal of Roe v. Wade, efforts to regulate CPCs for false advertising appear poised to backfire spectacularly. In fact, by pursuing pregnancy centers based on their promotion of APR, well-intentioned Democrats may have unwittingly set the stage for the anti-abortion movement’s next great Supreme Court victory. In its term beginning this month, the high court will hear a case stemming from New Jersey’s attempt to subpoena information—including scientific evidence to back up claims about APR—from First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a CPC chain with five locations throughout the state. In a brief, First Choice compares the subpoena to Southern states’ attempts to force the NAACP to produce member lists in the late 1950s and early ’60s. Technically, the case has nothing to do with APR or other questionable CPC practices. It’s about a specific legal fine point: Can CPCs run straight to federal court to fight an attorney general’s subpoena, as First Choice did, or must they first sue in state court?  > The fear is that, if far-right legal activists succeed, states could > ultimately be barred from intervening in any way when CPCs advertise unproven > medical treatments like APR. Boring as this procedural quibble may seem, a favorable decision would be a significant win for CPCs. They have a much better shot at winning any case in the Trumpified federal courts than they do in state courts that may be more supportive of abortion rights. What’s more, the ability to use friendly federal courts as a shield from state regulation would set pregnancy centers up for success in other lawsuits making their way to the Supreme Court—ones that could eliminate states’ ability to crack down on APR and other questionable practices entirely. Three cases are waiting in the wings. This summer, a Trump-appointed federal judge permanently blocked Colorado from enforcing a 2023 ban on APR against two plaintiffs who sued to block it: a CPC and a nurse practitioner. The first-of-its-kind statute labeled APR a deceptive trade practice. Meanwhile, in New York and California, federal court battles are raging between state attorneys general and CPCs, this time over state claims that merely advertising abortion pill “reversal” is fraudulent and misleading. The fear is that, if far-right legal activists succeed, states could ultimately be barred from intervening in any way when CPCs advertise unproven medical treatments like APR. That could grant CPCs an unfettered right to spread medical disinformation—no matter how much it may harm vulnerable people navigating an already deadly post-Dobbs landscape.  In all of these cases, CPCs are represented by the far-right legal juggernaut Alliance Defending Freedom, which wrote the Mississippi abortion ban the court used to overturn Roe and has played a leading role in major anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ litigation in recent years. This includes NIFLA v. Becerra, the 2018 case in which the Supreme Court struck down a California law that required unlicensed CPCs to disclose their lack of licensure, and licensed pregnancy centers to provide information about family planning services.  Recordings from a March CPC industry conference—made by an attendee and shared exclusively with Autonomy News—confirm that ADF and allied law firms view abortion pill “reversal” as a linchpin in their strategy to expand legal and religious protections for the centers. The conference was hosted by the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, an advocacy organization that provides legal counsel, education, and training for more than 1,800 member CPCs across the US; it was also the lead plaintiff in NIFLA v. Becerra. ADF senior counsel Kevin Theriot joked that NIFLA “seems to be our primary client these days,” and suggested that another legal victory is imminent.  Peter Breen, head of litigation at the Thomas More Society—another right-wing law firm that works closely with the anti-abortion movement—told the audience that the goal is to win court decisions that “protect you a little more vigorously, maybe, than you’re being protected right now.”  In all of these cases, ADF asserts that by attempting to regulate CPCs, blue states are “chilling” their First Amendment rights.  But conference recordings also reveal that, behind closed doors, many anti-abortion doctors are reluctant to embrace APR, despite its ubiquity in their movement. The recordings feature rare admissions about the challenges and risks associated with the experimental treatment, including mention of side effects not included in official case reports. These comments raise questions about how, exactly, CPCs plan to capitalize on any newly won freedoms, and whether anti-abortion leaders will plow ahead with APR when even their own medical experts are hesitant. The FDA–approved protocol for medication abortion involves two drugs: mifepristone, which blocks progesterone, a hormone essential for pregnancy; and misoprostol, which causes the uterus to contract and expel the pregnancy tissue. In abortion pill “reversal,” patients who have taken mifepristone but haven’t yet taken misoprostol are prescribed progesterone under the theory that the hormone will reverse the effects of mifepristone and “save” the pregnancy.  This theory was inspired by the longstanding use of progesterone to prevent miscarriage in early stages of pregnancy—even though randomized controlled trials have found that progesterone therapy has little benefit for most miscarrying patients. The man behind the hypothesis is Dr. George Delgado, a family medicine doctor and prominent conservative activist based in the San Diego area. > As is often the case in disinformation campaigns, there is a kernel of truth > to the anti-abortion movement’s claim that pregnancy can continue after taking > mifepristone. But APR has nothing to do with it. Delgado founded the Steno Institute, an anti-abortion research organization that counts San Francisco archbishop Salvatore Cordileone among its advisers. He sits on the board of the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs and is the medical director for a CPC called Culture of Life Family Services. Most recently, he was a plaintiff in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, in which anti-abortion medical groups unsuccessfully challenged the FDA’s 25-year-old approval of mifepristone, plus more recent regulatory changes that have vastly expanded access to the drug. ADF represented Delgado and the other doctors in the case. Delgado published the first report on APR in 2012—a case study with just six patients, finding that four of them carried their pregnancies to term. (Case reports are considered among the weakest forms of scientific evidence, per a widely used ranking system.) In 2018, Delgado published a larger case report in the journal Issues in Law & Medicine, which has direct ties to AAPLOG. Of 754 patients initially given progesterone, 547 remained in the study and 257 later gave birth, Delgado claimed. As is often the case in disinformation campaigns, there is a kernel of truth to the anti-abortion movement’s claim that pregnancy can continue after taking mifepristone. But APR has nothing to do with it. “We know that mifepristone, by itself, is not a very effective abortion-inducing medication,” says Daniel Grossman, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, San Francisco who is the director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health and the lead author on a 2015 systematic review of the evidence on APR. In one early French trial of mifepristone, for example, 23 percent of participants who took the now-standard dose of mifepristone alone remained pregnant. Supposed APR “success stories” may simply reflect the fact that mifepristone doesn’t work well on its own—this is precisely why it’s used in combination with misoprostol. In Grossman’s view, the anti-abortion movement’s promotion of APR is akin to an “unmonitored research project.” In the US, he adds, there is a “very ugly history of experimenting on people from marginalized groups”—and people who have abortions disproportionately belong to such communities.  > In Grossman’s view, the anti-abortion movement’s promotion of APR is akin to > an “unmonitored research project.” Still, after Delgado’s purported discovery, anti-abortion legislators moved quickly, eventually passing laws in more than a dozen states that required abortion providers to inform their patients of the possibility of “reversing” their medication abortions. (Many of those states now ban abortion entirely.) Delgado went on to found the Abortion Pill Rescue Network, a progesterone-prescription hotline that’s now run by the CPC organization Heartbeat International. In public, anti-abortion groups boast about hordes of women who they claim have changed their minds and successfully “reversed” their medication abortions. In June, Heartbeat International announced that the Abortion Pill Rescue Network has saved “more than 7,000 lives”—up from the “6,000 lives and counting” it claimed in November 2024. It’s impossible to know whether or not these statistics are true. CPCs have a history of inflating the number of clients they serve and the value of services they provide. Creating a perception that demand for “reversal” is exploding reinforces the longstanding myth that many people are unsure of their decision to have an abortion. It’s also a conservative answer to the increasing popularity of medication abortion, which accounted for nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the US in 2023—double the rate from 2014. But at the NIFLA conference, several prominent anti-abortion physicians seemed ambivalent about APR, even as CPC leaders projected bravado about the legal cases and dismissed potential safety concerns. Based on back-and-forth during two sessions—a medical roundtable and a legal Q&A—it appears that many CPCs aren’t even providing APR on site and are instead referring patients to the Heartbeat hotline. This is ironic considering the anti-abortion movement’s strident opposition to telehealth for abortion pills. But it tracks with the results of a recent study, which found that only 3.8 percent of CPCs were advertising on-site progesterone prescriptions in 2024.  During the medical roundtable, Virginia-based family physician and Heartbeat hotline provider Karen Poehailos claimed that demand for APR “has been going through the roof.” A decade ago, she’d get five requests per year, she said; in the three months before the conference, she said she’d written “13 or 14” prescriptions. (Given that there were roughly 643,000 medication abortions in the US in 2023, three to five attempted reversals per month is hardly a huge number.) Poehailos acknowledged that growth in abortion pill use may help explain the rise in APR requests. ”Women can get these as easily as clicking online,” she said. “They did not have to think about as much before they started the abortion.”  In addition to serving as NIFLA’s assistant medical director, Poehailos is also a telehealth provider for FEMM, a fertility tracking app whose development was funded by an anti-abortion billionaire. She estimated that in the past decade, only about three of her APR patients were local, meaning she was able to see them in person. “The rest of them have been through telemedicine,” she said, which requires her to be extra careful. “When these women are so far from me…I document like crazy, and I pray that God protects me,” she said. It also helps to have “friends at ADF,” Poehailos said, apparently referring to Alliance Defending Freedom. > “The majority of the women I have worked with, even if [APR] is successful, > will have some bleeding…“If you see a subchorionic [hemorrhage], that’s kind > of expected. You pray it’s not a huge one.” One of the challenges of APR, Poehailos said, is dealing with a common side effect, bleeding. “The majority of the women I have worked with, even if [APR] is successful, will have some bleeding,” she noted—specifically subchorionic hematoma or hemorrhage, a relatively common condition in which blood collects between the uterine wall and the outside of the gestational sac. Usually the bleeding is mild and resolves on its own. But this outcome isn’t reported in the papers that anti-abortion physicians have published on APR, Grossman points out. “If you see a subchorionic, that’s kind of expected. You pray it’s not a huge one,” Poehailos added.  During their discussion, Poehailos and two other doctors also lamented the quality of some of the medical testing at CPCs they’ve worked with, including ultrasounds and even basic urine pregnancy tests. “We want to serve these women well, we want to serve them in the heart of Jesus,” Poehailos said, “but we are providing medical services under someone’s license, so please … I’m sorry, but I’m not sorry. You need to be serving these women better than this.” Neither NIFLA nor Poehailos responded to requests for comment. Part of the problem may be that CPCs appear to be having trouble attracting specialized professionals. At one point, Sandy Christiansen, medical director for Care Net, another CPC umbrella organization, reassured the crowd that they needn’t find an OB-GYN to be their medical director. Any type of doctor, even a pathologist or orthopedic surgeon, could do the job, she said. “All doctors get trained in women’s medicine to some extent…they can read a scan,” she said. Christiansen didn’t respond to a request for comment. But ultrasound training has only recently become common in US medical schools, and obstetric ultrasound is even more specialized. Indeed, one audience member, who identified herself as a registered diagnostic medical sonographer, said her center’s medical director was a psychiatrist. As a result, “she puts a lot of trust into us.” Poehailos acknowledged that some physicians refuse to provide APR themselves. “Some centers, their doctors are not comfortable prescribing, and they just want to be able to provide ultrasounds for doctors who do,” she said.  During the legal Q&A, some audience members expressed concern about potential repercussions associated with advertising or offering APR. But lawyers on the panel didn’t seem worried.  “I think everyone should go get a [t-]shirt that says ‘It’s just progesterone,’” said NIFLA attorney Angie Thomas, to laughter from the audience. Based on the discussion, the claim that state laws are “chilling” CPCs’ speech appears grounded more in legal strategy than in reality. In California, for example, Attorney General Rob Bonta sued Heartbeat International and a CPC chain called RealOptions Obria over their claims about APR. In a related case, ADF is representing NIFLA and another CPC—neither of which Bonta sued—arguing that the attorney general’s actions chill these organizations’ First Amendment rights. As a result, NIFLA’s “official recommendation” to pregnancy centers in California is not to offer APR, said Anne O’Connor, the organization’s vice president of legal affairs—not because CPCs’ rights really are being “chilled,” but because claiming so strengthens their ongoing case against Bonta. “ADF recommended, you know, it’s better to go conservative in that, to allege that our First Amendment rights have been chilled by what the AG is doing,” O’Connor said. “So you would suggest not telling clients about [APR]?” asked an audience member who said she was affiliated with a CPC in California.  “I told you that’s the official,” said O’Connor. The audience laughed, seeming to pick up on a hint. Other lawyers also seemed to admit that CPCs are free to make APR referrals at the same time they claim they’re being censored. ADF’s Theriot said CPCs could keep giving out information about abortion pill “reversal” and making referrals. “There’s a difference between advertising it,” he said, “and giving people information about the possible availability.” “I think most of the centers in California are still doing it,” added Breen of Thomas More Society, which is representing Heartbeat against Bonta, suggesting that Bonta’s suit has not actually changed CPCs’ behavior. Breen did not respond to a request for comment. In an emailed statement, Theriot said ADF “will fearlessly stand alongside pregnancy centers in their ministry to support pregnant women and their unborn babies” and in their legal fights against “ideologically and politically driven attorneys general.” “We remain confident that our clients’ First Amendment rights will be protected—even if that means taking these cases all the way to the US Supreme Court.” While CPCs have been part of the anti-abortion movement for decades, their numbers have skyrocketed in the past 15 years as Republicans have consolidated their power and waged all-out war on reproductive rights. By June 2022, when Roe v. Wade fell, CPCs outnumbered abortion clinics by as many as 15 to 1 in some states. And since Dobbs, CPCs have received cash injections from state governments and private philanthropists alike, now raking in nearly $1.5 billion a year. But as the industry has grown, criticism has intensified. Abortion rights advocates have worked hard to inform the public about CPCs’ deceptive practices, branding them as “fake clinics”—a label that’s stuck. Encouraged by organizations like NIFLA and Heartbeat, CPCs have responded by trying to become more “medicalized”—bringing in more licensed staff and offering more medical services, such as testing, and less commonly, treatment for sexually transmitted infections. In addition to conferring an aura of legitimacy, medicalization has the potential to open up new funding streams. For example, RealOptions Obria Medical Clinics—one of the chains Bonta sued—operates licensed facilities that accept the state’s version of Medicaid.  > Abortion rights advocates have worked hard to inform the public about CPCs’ > deceptive practices, branding them as “fake clinics”—a label that’s stuck. > CPCs have responded by trying to become more “medicalized.” Reproductive health experts generally see abortion pill “reversal” as part of this medicalization trend. APR also gives the anti-abortion movement another way—besides lawsuits and legislation—to fight back against the soaring popularity of abortion pills in the post-Roe era. While growing numbers of patients have turned to telehealth providers for abortion care, some three-quarters of abortions—including many via pills—still involve at least one in-person visit to a clinic. And many of those patients are encountering CPC volunteers who try to convince them to “reverse” their abortions by taking progesterone instead of misoprostol. At least one abortion provider in the South says she has begun to hear from patients who’ve been drawn in by APR after appointments at her clinics. Calla Hales is the executive director of A Preferred Women’s Health Center, which operates four clinics across North Carolina and Georgia. While APR is more than a decade old, in Hales’ experience, the phenomenon of patients getting ensnared by it is relatively new. “I would have never been able to point to a single anecdote prior to Dobbs,” she says. But this year alone, patients have called her clinics at least six or seven times in as many months after someone affiliated with a CPC convinced them not to take their misoprostol. Some  patients then called Hales’ clinic back wanting to “reverse” their “reversal,” a situation in which there is no medical protocol, so health-care providers are flying blind.  In one case, Hales says, a patient traveled to one of her clinics from a state with a total abortion ban. After they returned home, family members took them to a CPC, which tried to convince them to “reverse” the medication abortion they had already started. In the other instances, patients were approached by CPC volunteers standing outside one of Hales’ clinics. A patient who is duped by the “reversal” sham, Hales adds, is likely to have to travel out of their home state again to complete their abortion—or be forced to seek follow-up care at an emergency department, where doctors may be hostile, lack adequate abortion training or both. “It’s really heartbreaking,” she says, “because there’s so much misinformation as it stands, and it’s really hard for patients to navigate getting abortion care in the first place.”

On Wednesday evening, Emily Cleary, a 47-year-old journalist and public relations consultant from Buckinghamshire in the U.K., was sitting watching TV with her 12-year-old son when she got a BBC alert that Charlie Kirk had been shot. She’d never heard of him, but she soon gathered from the coverage that he was associated with President Donald Trump. “You might have seen him, Mummy,” her son insisted. “He’s the man on TikTok with the round face who shouts all the time.” He began filling her in on a long, detailed list of Kirk’s views. “He thinks that if a 10-year-old gets pregnant she should be forced to keep it,” he explained. In the U.S., Kirk was a well-known figure on both sides of the political spectrum thanks to his proximity to the Trump family and profiles in outlets such as POLITICO Magazine and The New York Times Magazine. On the other side of the Atlantic, a schism appeared this week between those perplexed at why Prime Minister Keir Starmer was making statements about a seemingly obscure American podcaster, and those who already viewed him as a celebrity. Debates about the activist’s legacy sprung up in online spaces not usually known for politics, such as Facebook groups intended for sharing Love Island memes or soccer fan communities on X, with some people saying they will “miss his straight talking.” Parents of teens were surprised to find themselves being educated by their children on an issue of apparent international political importance. To some, this was all the more bewildering given the U.K. offshoot of Kirk’s Turning Point was widely mocked as a huge failure when it tried launching at British universities. But Emily’s son learned about Kirk somewhere else: TikTok’s “for you” page. “He hadn’t just seen a few videos, he was very knowledgeable about everything he believed,” she said, adding that her son “didn’t agree with Kirk but thought he seemed like a nice guy.” “It really unnerved me that he knew more about this person’s ideas than I did.” Kirk first rose to prominence in the U.S. when he cofounded Turning Point USA in 2012. It aimed to challenge what it saw as the dominance of liberal culture on American campuses, establishing a network of conservative activists at schools across the country. Kirk built Turning Point into a massive grassroots operation that has chapters on more than 800 campuses, and some journalists have attributed Trump’s 2024 reelection in part to the group’s voter outreach in Arizona and Wisconsin. But across the pond, Turning Point UK stumbled. Formed in 2019, it initially drew praise from figures on the right of the U.K.’s then-ruling Conservative party, such as former member of parliament Jacob Rees-Mogg and current shadow foreign secretary Priti Patel. However, the official launch on Feb. 1 of that year quickly descended into farce: Its X account was unverified, leading student activists from around the country to set up hundreds of satirical accounts. Media post-mortems concluded the organization failed to capture the mood of U.K. politics. The British hard right tends to fall into two categories: the aristocratic eccentricity of Rees-Mogg, or rough-and-ready street-based movements led by figures such as former soccer hooligan (and Elon Musk favorite) Tommy Robinson. Turning Point USA — known for its highly-produced events full of strobe lights, pyrotechnics and thundering music — was too earnest, too flashy, too American. And although U.K. universities tend to be left-leaning, Kirk’s claim that colleges are “islands of totalitarianism” that curtail free speech didn’t seem to resonate with U.K. students like it did with some in the U.S. “For those interested in opposing group think or campus censorship, organisations and publications already exist [such as] the magazine Spiked Online,” journalist Benedict Spence wrote at the time, adding that “if conservatives are to win round young voters of the future, they will have to do so by policy.” Turning Point UK distanced itself from its previous leadership and mostly moved away from campuses, attempting to reinvent itself as a street-based group. However, five years later in early 2024, Kirk launched his TikTok account and quickly achieved a new level of viral fame on both sides of the Atlantic. Clips of his “Debate Me” events, in which he took on primarily liberal students’ arguments on college campuses, exploded on the platform. This also coincided with a shift in the landscape of the British right toward Kirk’s provocative and extremely online style of politics. Discontent had been swelling around the country as the economic damage of Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic began to bite, and far-right movements distrustful of politicians and legacy media gained traction online. While some of Kirk’s favorite topics — such as his staunch opposition to abortion and support of gun rights — have never resonated with Brits, others have converged. Transgender rights moved from a fringe issue to a mainstream talking point, while debates over immigration became so tense they erupted in a series of far-right race riots in August 2024, largely organized and driven by social media. In this political and digital environment, inflammatory culture-war rhetoric found new purchase — and Kirk was a bona fide culture warrior. He called for “a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor,” posted on X last week that “Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America” and regularly promoted the racist “great replacement” conspiracy theory, which asserts that elites are engaged in a plot to diminish the voting and cultural power of white Americans via immigration policy. “The American Democrat Party hates this country. They want to see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white,” he said on his podcast in 2024. Harry Phillips, a 26-year-old truck driver from Kent, just south of London, began turning to influencers for his news during the pandemic, saying he didn’t trust mainstream outlets to truthfully report information such as the Covid-19 death toll. He first came across Kirk’s TikTok videos in the run-up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election. “I really liked that he was willing to have his beliefs challenged, and that he didn’t do it in an aggressive manner,” he said. “I don’t agree with everything, such as his views on abortion. But I do agree with his stance that there are only two genders, and that gender ideology is being pushed on kids at school.” Through Kirk, Phillips said he discovered other U.S. figures such as far-right influencer Candace Owens and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, whom he now follows on X, as well as more liberal debaters such as TikToker Dean Withers. “America’s such a powerful country, I think we should all keep an eye on what happens there because it can have a knock-on effect here,” he said. University students in the U.K. may not have been concerned about free speech in 2019, but Phillips definitely is. “I believe we’re being very censored by our government in the U.K.,” he said, citing concerns over the numbers of people reportedly arrested for social media posts. He also said Kirk was not just popular with other people his age, but older members of his family too — all of whom are distraught over his death. In May 2025, six years after the original Turning Point U.K. failed to take off, Kirk found his way back to U.K. campuses via the debate societies of elite universities like Oxford and Cambridge. He wasn’t the first far-right provocateur to visit these clubs, which have existed since the 19th century — conservative media mogul Ben Shapiro took part in a Cambridge debate in November 2023. Oxford Union’s most recent president, Anita Okunde, told British GQ these events were an attempt to make the societies, which were widely considered stuffy and stuck-up, “culturally relevant to young people.” Kirk’s hour-long video, “Charlie Kirk vs 400 Cambridge Students and a Professor,” has 2.1 million views on YouTube and has spawned multiple shorter clips, disseminated by his media machine across multiple platforms. Clips from the same debates also exist within a parallel left-wing ecosystem, re-branded with titles such as “Feminist Cambridge Student OBLITERATES Charlie Kirk.” Although Kirk has been lauded in some sections of the media for being open to debate, these videos don’t appear designed to change anyone’s opinion. Both sides have their views reinforced, taking whatever message they prefer to hear. Karen, a British mother in her late 50s who lives on a farm outside the city of Nottingham, said clips of Kirk getting “owned” by progressives are extremely popular with her 17-year-old daughter and her friends. “I had no idea who he was until she reminded me she had shown me some videos before,” said Karen, whose surname POLITICO Magazine is withholding to protect her daughter’s identity from online harassment. “I think he’s a bit too American for them,” she said. “He’s too in-your-face, and they think some of his opinions are just rage-baiting.” The U.K. political landscape is currently in turmoil, with Farage’s Reform U.K. leading the polls at 31 percent while Starmer’s center-left Labour lags behind at 21 percent. Given the unrest at home, it may seem unusual that so many people are heavily engaged with events thousands of miles away in Washington. Social media algorithms play a role pushing content, as do Farage and Robinson’s close relationships with figures such as Trump, Musk and Vice President JD Vance. In any case, young people in the U.K. are as clued into American politics as ever. Cleary’s 12-year-old son’s description of Kirk wasn’t the first time he surprised her with his knowledge of U.S. politics, either: He recently filled her in on Florida’s decision to end vaccine mandates for schoolchildren. “I’m happy that he is inquisitive and he definitely questions things,” she said. However, she wonders if this consumption of politics via social media will shape the way he and his peers view the world for the rest of their lives. “He even says to me, ‘No one my age will ever vote Labour because they’re no good at TikTok,’” she said. “And he says he doesn’t like Reform, but that they made really good social media videos.”

LONDON — Nigel Farage is gambling that a hardline stance on migration is a surefire vote-winner. But it’s a risky bet. Amid a spate of protests outside hotels housing some of Britain’s asylum seekers, Farage’s insurgent Reform UK party faces a dilemma. Should it condemn the demos and disappoint voters on the right? Or lean in — and risk alienating the more moderate voters who are now powering its rise? Reform UK’s base is increasingly mirroring the average Briton, according to fresh polling from the think tank More in Common. Just 40 percent of its current supporters backed the party in 2024, and just 16 percent of its current backers once voted for Farage’s old outfit, UKIP. Its gender gap has narrowed, its age profile has evened out, and many of its newest recruits are less glued to online culture wars. That makes Reform’s growth, in the pollsters’ words, both “a blessing and a curse.” The broader the party gets, the greater the risk of being defined by its more radical supporters — and losing the very voters Farage has worked to bring in. Members of the far-right have egged on protests outside the Bell Hotel in Epping. What began as a local protest quickly drew in the Homeland party — a breakaway from Britain’s biggest far-right group, Patriotic Alternative — alongside Britain First, and hard-right agitator Tommy Robinson. So far, Reform has backed the right to protest — Farage described people protesting as “genuinely concerned families,” and insisted that violence was caused by “some bad eggs.” “We don’t pick and choose the protest,” his Deputy Leader Richard Tice told POLITICO in an interview. “We don’t choose to support some and not others. We just say lawful, peaceful protest is an important part of a functioning democracy.”  DISTANCE But it’s a careful line for a party that has spent the past year trying to sharpen its operation — tightening vetting rules for candidates and putting distance between itself and overt racism. “They’ve drawn a clear line when it comes to distancing themselves from Tommy Robinson,” said Marley Morris, associate director for migration, trade and communities at the Institute for Public Policy Research. So far, Reform has backed the right to protest — Nigel Farage described people protesting as “genuinely concerned families,” and insisted that violence was caused by “some bad eggs.” | Neil Hall/EPA “That’s actually come at quite significant costs for Nigel Farage, because of its consequences for his relationship with Elon Musk.” The Tesla owner has been a staunch online backer of Robinson, who was jailed in the UK for contempt of court after he repeated false claims about a Syrian schoolboy. Farage — whose party descends on Birmingham for its annual conference this weekend in a jubilant mood — is riding high in the polls, and will be buoyed by polling that consistently puts migration at or near the top of Brits’ list of concerns. But the summer of tense protests risks complicating matters, according to some British commentators. Farage “feels under pressure from the online right,” argued Sunder Katwala, director of the British Future think tank. Over the past month, Reform has doubled down on its anti-immigration pitch — in language critics say edges closer to the far-right. In August, Tice told Times Radio that there should be more groups of men on a “neighborhood watch-style basis within the bounds of the law” to protect women from the “sneering, jeering, and sexual assaults and rapes that are taking place, coincidentally, near a number of these asylum-seeker hotels.”  Pressed by POLITICO, Tice doubled down on this position. “There is already vigilantism going on. No one wants to report it, but that’s the reality of life … It is much better to shine the spotlight on an issue, talk about it … and then government can make better policy.”  Tice likens asylum arrivals in the UK to “an invasion double the size of the British Army.” But the summer of tense protests risks complicating matters, according to some British commentators. | Tolga Aken/EPA “That’s how people talk about it in the pubs and clubs and bus stops and sports fields up and down the country. I know that makes people in Westminster uncomfortable — tough,” Tice told POLITICO. THE CONNOLLY FACTOR The party has also wrapped its arms around Lucy Connolly, a 42-year-old woman who was jailed after pleading guilty to stirring up racial hatred against asylum seekers with a post calling for migrant hotels to be set on fire. Reform has painted Connolly as a political prisoner of Keir Starmer’s government, with Farage even flying to Washington this week to slam Britain’s online safety rules and likening the UK to North Korea on free speech.  Cabinet ministers blasted Farage’s U.S. trip as a “Talk Britain Down” tour. Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds called it “as anti-British as you can get. More in Common polling shows that while voters are split on whether Connolly’s sentence was too harsh or too lenient, 51 percent want politicians to distance themselves from her, including more than a quarter of Reform voters. “The transnational neoconservative right is a massive danger to the British right, not an opportunity,” argued IPPR’s Morris. More in Common polling shows that many of Reform’s newer supporters view U.S.-style populist figures, such as Donald Trump, negatively. Social attitudes are also shifting, with six in ten voters supporting same-sex marriages, and 46 percent thinking the legal abortion limit should stay at 24 weeks. POLICY PITFALLS While Reform is confidently ahead in national voting intention polls, there is evidence of some unease about its specific policy pledges. A proposal to work with the Taliban to return Afghan asylum seekers got a mixed reception. Some 45 percent of Britons said that giving money to the regime to take returns would be “completely unacceptable,” according to a YouGov poll. The party has also struggled to clarify its stance on deporting children. Chairman Zia Yusuf suggested unaccompanied minors could eventually be removed under the party’s mass deportation plans — only for Farage to row back, insisting it wouldn’t happen in Reform’s first term. “When it came to deporting children, they realized that what they proposed isn’t really sustainable — it seems, frankly, inhumane,” said Morris. “If [Reform] wants to appeal to the wider public, and not just to its base, it can’t just appeal to this kind of narrow group of people.” Tice has since sought to narrow the focus. “We’ve said that we will start focusing on detaining and deporting males first,” he said. “If a husband is detained and deported, if he’s got a wife and children, they’ve got a choice to make. “The children of parents who are here illegally, those children are not British citizens by law,” he continued. “There are bound to be specific cases and things, but as a principle, we’re not going to go through a whole long list of exemptions. If you do that, you actually create a criminal gang focus on the exemptions, and then people try to game that system. So we’re not playing that game.”