Access to abortion has been decimated in the United States since June when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and took away our right to control our own bodies. Laws banning abortion are now in effect in more than a dozen states, denying more than 20 million people of reproductive age access to essential health care. And as hideous as this is, we know that is only the latest step in their plan to ban abortion and other essential health care nationwide.

The next step in their plan is an attempt to impose a nationwide ban on mifepristone — one of two medications in a regimen that accounts for more than half the abortions in this country. This would be a ban in every state in the nation — even in states where abortion is legal and protected under state law.

Here is how they are trying to do it: Days after the midterms when voters came out overwhelmingly in support of abortion rights, anti-abortion extremists filed a baseless lawsuit seeking an emergency ruling ordering the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to withdraw the approval for mifepristone it issued more than 20 years ago. An adverse ruling here could take mifepristone off the shelves and bar health care professionals from prescribing it in every state in the nation.

In any rational universe, this case would be laughed out of court on multiple grounds. Mifepristone was approved more than two decades ago and has been used by millions of people for early abortion care and to treat miscarriages. Study after study has confirmed its safety and efficacy, and its critical role in abortion and miscarriage care. The claims in this case have no basis in law and distort decades of scientific evidence.

The case was filed by an organization known as Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which has been labeled a hate group, and helped write the Mississippi law which the Supreme Court used to overturn Roe v. Wade. They are going so far as to use a 150-year-old anti-obscenity law, the Comstock Act, to argue that it’s illegal to send or receive mifepristone, and any other medication or device used to provide an abortion, through the mail. That’s a wild claim that has never been accepted.

But if these claims are so wild and unprecedented, why are we concerned? Here’s the thing: ADF was able to hand-select their judge and just happened to pick one who, before he was appointed to the bench by President Trump, worked for an organization that represents business owners who discriminate against LGBTQ people and public school employees who coerce students to pray on school grounds.

And since his appointment to the bench, he has issued a series of radical decisions on everything from immigrants’ rights to trans justice to birth control. In fact, the judge has said it was an “open question” whether politicians could make it a crime to use contraception. That’s right — whether states can outlaw birth control. This is the judge who will decide whether mifepristone can remain on the market.

We won’t let this happen without a fight. We’ve been doing everything in our power to increase access to medication abortion and other essential reproductive health care. In recent years, we’ve filed two cases on behalf of leading medical associations, physicians, and reproductive justice advocates, aiming to get rid of the FDA’s medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone. Our lawsuit prompted the FDA to remove some of those barriers and led to its finally permitting people to get the medication from a pharmacy, after consultation with their health care provider, rather than having to travel in person to an abortion clinic.

American Civil Liberties Union

What is Mifepristone and Why is it Essential to Abortion Access? | ACLU

Here are five facts to know about medication abortion, and why it’s a critical part of our fight for abortion access.

As this case develops, we’ll continue working with government officials and our partners to respond to any ruling that takes away a safe, effective, and common method for medication abortion.

At the same, we continue to fight the state bans. We have blocked bans in Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, and Utah. We are asking the state supreme courts in Kentucky, Georgia, and Florida to step in and block those states’ bans. And earlier this month, we filed a new case in West Virginia challenging provisions of the state’s total abortion ban.

We will not stop fighting until everyone can get the care they need, no matter who they are, where they live, or how much money they have.

“I hadn’t felt that powerful before that moment, standing up with my diploma, with my Native cap on and then shaking my principal’s hand.”

These are the words of Emalyce Kee, a Navajo and Rosebud Sioux student at a Utah public school. School officials told her to not wear a beaded cap or plumes to her graduation ceremony last year, but she did it anyway.

Emalyce was not alone. Last year, another Indigenous student, Lena’ Black, was forced to remove an eagle feather from her graduation cap before her graduation ceremony in Oklahoma. Although federal law may, in some instances, protect Indigenous students’ cultural and religious right to wear tribal regalia during graduations, there are countless Indigenous students, like Emalyce and Lena’, who nevertheless face uncertainty and discrimination when they attempt to wear eagle feathers, beaded caps, sealskin caps, moccasins, or other tribal regalia during graduation ceremonies.

Graduation should be about celebrating students’ accomplishments and dreams for the future, and they should be able to honor their heritage without unnecessary and discriminatory obstacles. “I want this to never happen to another Native student … they ruined something she has worked her whole life to achieve,” Marci Black, mother of Lena’ Black, said in an interview.

Efforts to stop students from wearing tribal regalia can’t be viewed in a vacuum. Indigenous students have long been mistreated and disadvantaged in educational settings. Not too long ago, federal boarding schools were used as a tool of genocide, to forcibly remove Indigenous children from their families and tribes in order to erase their identities, languages, and cultural heritage. Continuing to strip Indigenous students of their tribal regalia at a crucial moment in their lives is a continuation of this horrific legacy.

But all hope is not lost. Indigenous students and communities, along with allies, have secured key victories protecting their right to wear tribal regalia. Their resilience means that other Indigenous students won’t have to go through the same difficulties. In recent years, nine states have passed bipartisan legislation to protect the right to wear tribal regalia — the most recent being Utah, following years of advocacy and organizing.

This year, three states are considering bills that would serve to protect the rights of Indigenous students:

• SB 429 in Oklahoma and AB 73 in Nevada are bills focused on protecting the rights of Indigenous students to wear tribal regalia.
• LB 630 in Nebraska is a broad bill that would protect students from discrimination based on hairstyles, natural hair, and certain head coverings. It also protects the right of Indigenous students to wear tribal regalia.

Lawmakers in Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Nevada are in the unique position to codify the rights of Indigenous students so that no student has to experience discrimination or the fear that they will be barred from expressing their culture and faith at graduation.

Alongside Tribal Nations and Indigenous communities, the ACLU and our affiliates have successfully advocated for the rights of students to wear tribal regalia in Montana, California, Arizona, and elsewhere, and are working nationwide to protect and advance Indigenous students’ rights to an inclusive and culturally relevant education. The ACLU will continue to fight by ensuring that lawmakers hear directly from impacted students and join other states in protecting the rights of students.