A "Devastating" Blow to Breast Cancer Research
  August 7, 2025 Another green dildo was thrown onto a WNBA court last night, this time hitting two spectators and the Fever’s Sophie Cunningham. It’s the third dildoing in less than a month, and frankly, it’s the dumbest. We’ve all seen Cunningham yoke a girl for less, and some young punk really thought she was the one to try? In today’s newsletter, we take a look at RFK Jr’s latest chicanery. Plus, we take a quick trip to Love Island with Julianne Escobedo Shepherd to learn about colorism. We’ve also got your weekend reading list. Staying on Sophie’s good side, Shannon Melero  A “tremendous” setback: This week, known vaccine hater Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the government would be canceling roughly $500 million in contracts committed to the development of mRNA technology—the research responsible for making viable COVID vaccines and saving millions of lives. Scientists have long been studying other applications for mRNA technology, looking to develop better flu vaccines and studying the possibility of putting mRNA to work in treating melanoma, lung, and pancreatic cancers. With some early success in those areas, hope was starting to bloom that mRNA technology could potentially improve women’s health in particular, via new ways to treat and even prevent breast cancer—but when it comes to medical research, hope dies without dollars. “The attacks on vaccine research are devastating to the future of breast cancer research,” Fran Visco tells The Meteor. Visco is the president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition and a 30-year breast cancer survivor. “We're just beginning to look at vaccines as possible treatment and prevention for breast cancer, and having the head of the Department of Health and Human Services say that mRNA vaccines have safety issues and pulling vaccine research funding…is going to set back breast cancer research tremendously,” she says. Essentially, the federal government has removed a tool in the fight against breast cancer before researchers have really even had the time to learn if it’s useful or not. Such a short-sighted move, Visco believes, means scientists won’t have the means to investigate what mRNA is fully capable of, because the government is the largest supporter of biomedical research in the country. There’s also a concern that the public may become more skeptical of vaccine research as a whole. “You need the public to believe in [the safety of mRNA technology] because they're going to have to enroll in the clinical trials in order to test whether these vaccines are effective or not,” Visco explains. “If the public is getting the message that the federal government doesn't believe in it, they will not want to be engaged in that type of research…so it hurts you at every level, and there's absolutely no basis for what the federal government is doing right now in terms of vaccines.” A number of medical researchers have called these funding cuts dangerous and argue that the decision flies in the face of decades of established scientific research. Visco echoes their concerns and cuts straight to the point: “People are going to die because of the positions that this administration has taken in health and research.” AND:
 The Call is Coming From Inside the VillaLove Island: USA has Latine viewers confronting their anti-Black historyBY JULIANNE ESCOBEDO SHEPHERD  MEMBERS OF THE SEASON 6 CAST AT AN EVENT IN NEW YORK (VIA GETTY IMAGES) Love Island is the escapist watch of the summer with its outsized personalities and tropical setting—but as the aftermath of this season has proven, it’s never truly an escape from the dynamics of the real world. A little background if you’re not one of the tens (hundreds?) of millions that made this season Peacock’s biggest streaming series ever: Love Island is a reality show in which a dozen “sexy singles” are sequestered inside a neon villa with the sole directive to find love amongst themselves, has been airing for a decade in the UK, and six years in the U.S., but it didn’t really take off here until last year, thanks to improved production values after a switch from CBS to Peacock. This summer, it was an inescapable hit: Love Island seemed like the only thing unifying the country, to be honest, a fact I chalked up to our desperate collective need for an hour of reprieve from encroaching fascism. And since it airs almost every single day for two months, it’s easy to immerse oneself in the petty dramas and flirtations of its sculpted and spray-tanned twenty-something cast. I’ve been watching Love Island for years—last summer I realized I had seen over 550 episodes, at which point I had to stop counting—and like the best reality shows, it manages to put larger-world concerns under a microscope; its anthropological utility is vast. Even in its unreal Fijian (or Mallorcan) setting, familiar biases and prejudices play out in real time. And this year especially, anti-Black racism has shown up both in the villa and among the show’s fanbase. This year was notable for the way Olandria Carthen and Chelley Bissainthe, this season’s beloved Black women leads, were characterized by fans and certain tabloid media. They were both perfectly dignified and two of the main reasons the season was watchable—only to find that, having emerged from the villa at the end of the season, they’d been saddled with the “angry Black women” stereotype. (Production has also been accused of airing decontextualized outbursts by Huda Mustafa, Love Island’s first-ever Palestinian cast member and an outspoken mother, while editing out the male behavior that led to her outbursts.)  WEEKEND READING 📚On resisting fascism: Meteor collective member Sarah Sophie Flicker tells the history of the Danish resistance—including her own great-grandfather’s role in it—and reminds us that we too can say no to tyrants. (The Nation) On ridesharing: “Uber received a report of sexual assault or sexual misconduct in the United States almost every eight minutes on average between 2017 and 2022.” The worst sentence you’ve ever read. (The New York Times) On your face: Wedding cakes are meant to be eaten, not shoved up the bride’s nostrils. Don’t marry these men! (The Cut)  FOLLOW THE METEOR     Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? |
Postpartum Depression is a "Gift"
  July 24, 2025 Howdy, Meteor readers, I spent half my day in the waiting room of an auto shop watching reruns of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit. The things Olivia Benson has been through are insane; no wonder this show is such effective copaganda.  In today’s newsletter, we’ve got babies on the brain. Nona Willis Aronowitz, whose own baby is due any day now, explains the latest MAHA tomfoolery on postpartum depression and then asks three very important questions about baby sleep. Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONMAHA targets mamas: Earlier this week, an FDA panel discussing the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) during pregnancy made waves in the medical community–and not the good kind. It was so chock-full of misinformation and “MAHA talking points” that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) felt compelled to put out a statement calling the panel “alarmingly unbalanced” and accusing it of ignoring “the harms of untreated perinatal [before, during, and after birth] mood disorders in pregnancy.” A quick review of the accepted scientific facts here: Postpartum depression affects one in eight women; mental health conditions, including suicides and overdoses, are a leading cause of death in pregnant women; and maternal mental health has taken a nosedive in the last few years. Meanwhile, there’s medical consensus that the small risks of taking SSRIs during pregnancy are far outweighed by the serious risks of untreated depression. Yet the vast majority of panel participants repeated widely debunked lies about the dangers of taking SSRIs while pregnant, claiming that the medications pose an increased risk of autism (they don’t), as well as preterm birth, pre-eclampsia, and postpartum hemorrhage (the effects are negligible). Even more enragingly, as Mother Jones’ Julianne McShane pointed out, several of these “experts” seemed to deny the gravity and even existence of the reason many patients might choose antidepressants to begin with: perinatal depression itself. Dr. Roger McFillin, a psychologist and anti-vaccine advocate, suggested that women are “naturally experiencing their emotions more intensely, and those are gifts,” not “symptoms of a disease.” FDA Chief Dr. Martin Makary opted to discuss the “root causes” of perinatal depression, like the lack of “healthy relationships” and “natural light exposure,” rather than the immediate solutions patients need. And a third male panelist, Dr. Josef Witt-Doerring, who runs a clinic that helps people wean off psychiatric medications, claimed that symptoms of depression “are not things to be fixed with medical intervention.” As a very pregnant person who’s intimately aware of the havoc hormones can wreak, these words make my blood boil–no, incinerate. With my first child, I had clinical anxiety, both during and after my pregnancy. It cost me a lot: sleep, relaxation, closeness with my partner, peace with my baby. I’m a white, educated woman who’s squarely in the demographic of people who take SSRIs most frequently, yet the stigma was still too strong for me to seriously consider the drugs. I gutted it out for far too long, and it was tough to claw my way back. But halfway through this pregnancy, as the memory of those dark times loomed, I gingerly asked my midwife whether she thought a low dose of SSRIs would prevent a disastrous redo. It was only after she reassured me it was safe and effective, sending me links to several studies, that I started taking a prophylactic dose of Zoloft in preparation for birth. Among the FDA panel’s proposed solutions was to slap a black-box warning about the use of SSRIs during pregnancy. This kind of warning might very well have deterred me–someone with a lot of access to information. I can only imagine how many more suffering women it could discourage. Like many issues the MAHA movement focuses on, this one dovetails with legitimate concerns about the overprescribing of SSRIs and the lack of holistic support for people struggling with their mental health. Those are real problems. But steering new moms away from evidence-based help can only lead to harm. “So many women I see feel guilty about taking medications,” Dr. Nancy Byatt, a perinatal psychiatrist at the UMass Chan Medical School, told The New York Times after she watched the FDA panel. “They think they should ignore their needs for their babies. And I think it could make their decisions a lot harder … because it could cause unnecessary alarm.” The Department of Health and Human Services has refused to comment on future policy decisions, but in the meantime, you can still get accurate pregnancy information from ACOG and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. —Nona Willis Aronowitz AND:
 WHAT ALL THE AI CHATBOTS ARE GOING TO START SOUNDING LIKE ONCE THEY BECOME UNWOKED.
 THE UNINSURED ICON. (VIA GETTY IMAGES)
 Three Questions About...Baby SleepWe spoke with Dr. Harvey Karp, inventor of the SNOO, about soothing the ills of modern parenthood.BY NONA WILLIS ARONOWITZ  DR. KARP, BABY WHISPERER. (VIA GETTY IMAGES) Whether or not you know Dr. Harvey Karp by name, you’ve probably absorbed his influence on baby sleep and soothing. The resurgence of the swaddle? The ubiquity of white noise in babies’ rooms? Cribbed (no pun intended) from Dr. Karp’s bestselling book The Happiest Baby on the Block. And he’s probably best known for SNOO, a pricey “smart bassinet” that rocks and jiggles a strapped-in baby all night long. In my ninth month of pregnancy, I spoke with Dr. Karp about the evolution of his signature product, what nuclear families are missing, and why sleep is a feminist issue. When SNOO first came out in 2016, it was a signifier of luxury–Beyoncé and Jay Z reportedly owned several. Now, it’s used in hospitals, including to soothe babies who were born dependent on opiates, and you’re working to have SNOO covered by Medicaid. That seems like quite a shift–how did that come about? Yes, SNOO was really known as this bougie baby bed in the beginning, but the goal was always to make it accessible to everyone. We built the bed to be reused over and over again. It’s sort of the way breast pumps started out: There were these industrial breast pumps and they were too expensive for people to buy, but you could rent them. And so, our goal was always to have SNOO be either rented or for free, and not to be purchased and owned. We have a project going on in Wisconsin right now, where hundreds of [SNOOs] are being given to families who have premature infants, mostly Medicaid recipients. Our job is to develop the science to convince Medicaid payers that we can save money and improve outcomes. We’ve also had a lot of success with companies offering SNOO as an employee benefit. Now, tens of thousands of people get a free SNOO rental from their employer, from big companies like Dunkin' Donuts to the largest duck farm in America. You often say that SNOO can help replenish what we’ve lost in terms of the extended family and support for new parents. But I think some people still feel a little funny about swapping out human cuddles for a machine. What do you say to that? Yes, a hundred years ago, and for the entire history of humanity, we had extended families, and people lived right next door to their grandmother, their aunt, their sister, and everybody shared the work. Then we moved to the city or moved hours away from our family, and women got more work responsibilities outside the home. This became pretty crushing on parents, especially single parents. So the SNOO goal is to be a helper. It's there in the home when you're cooking dinner, when you’re taking a shower, when you're playing with your three-year-old, when you are getting some sleep. It’s not set it and forget it, but it can give you 20 to 30 minutes here and there, as well as giving an extra hour or even up to two hours of extra sleep. In the womb, the baby is being held 24/7. Then they’re born, and 12 hours a day we put them in a dark quiet room. That’s sensory deprivation compared to what they had before they were born. So why, because you only have a few people in your family, should the baby miss out? SNOO…doesn’t replace what the parents would be doing, because no one can rock them all night long. It just gives the baby a little extra. When I had my first baby, sleep was a locus of inequality in my relationship–my male partner was obviously getting more of it, especially because I was riddled with anxiety about whether my baby was safe. Sleep became a feminist issue in my mind. How do you see SNOO responding to these gender dynamics, which seem to be common? We’ve definitely moved in the direction of gender equality, but we’re still far from it. Even when the baby is sleeping, sometimes moms are awake and anxious knowing that they have to get up in three hours. SNOO can help with that: There have been studies reporting that SNOO reduces maternal depression and maternal stress. There are five things that trigger depression and anxiety that SNOO improves: up to 41 minutes more sleep for mothers per night, reduced infant crying, less anxiety that the baby is in danger, the feeling that you have a support system, and [the fact that it] makes you feel like you’ve gotten things managed better. Also, men very often take on the role of being the sleep experts when they have a SNOO in the house. Men want to manage this gadget. That takes a burden off the shoulders of the mom. This conversation was made possible by Happiest Baby, a sponsor of UNDISTRACTED with Brittany Packnett Cunningham.  WEEKEND READING 📚On the boys: Everyone’s worried about young men, but are we maybe blowing the “boy crisis” out of proportion? (The New York Times) On boobs: We’re all thinking about them. And apparently so is American Eagle. (TCF Emails) On the genius invested in women’s sports: The WNBA is in the midst of negotiations for a better bargaining agreement. They’ve got a Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences on their side. (Sports Illustrated)  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? |
An "Unwed" Woman Denied Prenatal Care
  July 23, 2025 Greetings, Meteor readers, Some personal news: Stevie Nicks and Lindsey Buckingham announced a reissue of Buckingham Nicks in the middle of Mercury retrograde in Leo, and I have been UNWELL all day. Making up with your ex during the celestial season of exes resurfacing?? Stevie, the white witch that you are!  In earthly news, we take a look at an unbelievable story out of Tennessee. Plus, the continuation of the one scandal to rule them all. Your silver spring, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONMawwaige is necessawy: Thanks to the efforts of conservatives in Tennessee, a woman with a wanted pregnancy was denied prenatal care on the grounds that her “unwed” status was in conflict with a medical provider's religious beliefs. No, this is not a throwback anecdote from the ‘50s, a time when unwed women couldn’t get birth control or credit cards. This occurred just weeks ago. It was enabled by Tennessee’s new Medical Ethics Defense Act, passed in April, which allows medical providers to deny care based on their religious, ethical, or moral beliefs. At the time, Nona Willis Aronowitz identified the “innocuous-sounding” act as part of the right’s war on birth control, writing that “the sneakiness can reach the point of absurdity.” Last week, it became clear that she was right. Independent journalist Rachel Wells broke the story of an unnamed Tennessee woman who explained during a town hall meeting in Jonesborough that she had been denied prenatal care because she was unmarried—a condition that apparently went against her provider’s “Christian values.” (In case you were wondering, marital status is not a protected class under federal civil rights law.) She is now traveling out of state to receive care and has filed complaints with the Department of Commerce and Insurance and the American Medical Association. According to Wells, this is the first reported case (at least in recent history) of an American woman being denied prenatal care for being unmarried. But the funny thing—and yes, there’s always a funny thing—is that some of the most important theological figures were born out of wedlock. Ishmael was the son of Abraham and his servant Hagar. Mary became pregnant with Jesus before she was married to Joseph. Cain and Abel? Their parents couldn’t be married because the concept didn’t even exist in the first half of Genesis. What has always existed within Christian ideology is kindness and the love of Christ to all, even those you disagree with, just like it says in those He Gets Us commercials (which, again, is something the Christian right doesn’t even follow). Maybe the Tennessee legislature missed that day of Sunday school. Or perhaps this has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with laying the groundwork for the white, Judeo-Christian, heterosexual nation of JD Vance’s wet dreams. My money’s on the latter. AND:
 WARNER AND HIS INCREDIBLE SMILE AT A TELEVISION FESTIVAL A FEW YEARS AGO. (VIA GETTY IMAGES)
 FOLLOW THE METEOR     Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? |
Trump's Updated EMTALA Guidance Tells Docs, "You're On Your Own"
BY SHANNON MELERO AND NONA WILLIS ARONOWITZ
On Tuesday, the Trump administration rescinded guidance the Biden administration had issued in 2022 explicitly stating that hospitals are to provide abortion care to patients in emergency medical situations, even if the hospital is located in a state with an abortion ban. The guidance came just as news of desperately ill pregnant women being turned away from hospitals was beginning to emerge, and it clarified the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), a 1986 law that requires hospitals receiving federal funding to provide stabilizing care for any individual experiencing a medical emergency. This week, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services said in a statement that the 2022 guidance did “not reflect the policy of this administration” and that it would “work to rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration’s actions.”
Which is ironic, because the thing currently creating massive confusion among providers, patients, and the media is the rescission of the guidance, not the guidance itself. Allow us to clarify: EMTALA has not been repealed; it is still the law of the land and, should you need care in an emergency, your nearest hospital is obligated to provide it or to transfer you to a facility that can—yes, even if that care includes an abortion.
“I want patients to know that nobody should be denying you care because of this memo,” Dr. Dara Kass, a former regional director at the Department of Health and Human Services and an emergency physician in New York, tells The Meteor. And if you do think your providers violated EMTALA, she notes, you can still issue a complaint.
So what’s the purpose of the memo, if it doesn’t change the law? Trump may just be looking for a way to pay lip service to the anti-abortion movement. And the memo’s specific language may also be strategic, as Jessica Valenti points out in her newsletter: The CMS memo says EMTALA still requires treatment of “emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.” The phrase “unborn child” (which also appears in EMTALA) hints at fetal personhood and sets up a showdown between a woman who has a life-threatening condition, like an ectopic pregnancy, and her fetus.
It’s all very chaotic. And chaos is the point.
“This action doesn’t change hospitals' legal obligations,” Fatima Goss Graves, president of the National Women’s Law Center, said in a statement, “but it does add to the fear, confusion, and dangerous delays patients and providers have faced since the fall of Roe v. Wade.” Dr. Kass adds that while the 2022 guidance “signaled to doctors that the government had their back,” the rescission tells doctors, “You’re on your own” and erodes their confidence that the government will protect them. There will inevitably be more “physicians who are not sure what they’re allowed to do,” she says, “and therefore they might do less.”
Meanwhile, more pregnant patients will suffer as doctors are forced to contend with legal quandaries under pressure. We’ve already seen what happens when emergency rooms are slow to act; Amanda Zurowski, Kaitlyn Joshua, and Amber Nicole Thurman have each paid the price for a hospital’s confusion over what doctors are allowed to do—Thurman with her life.
For better or worse, Dr. Kass doesn’t see this latest move as dramatically changing “the care on the ground.” (Indeed, even with the 2022 guidance in place, there have been dozens of documented cases of pregnant women being denied emergency care or treated negligently.) Rather, she sees this as “a distraction from what we need to do—which is to reinstate access to abortion services in every state.”
New Abortion Chaos in the ER
  June 5, 2025 Greetings, Meteor readers, My two loves, Aryna Sabalenka and Coco Gauff, will be facing off at the French Open this weekend. While I cannot decide who to root for, Gauff taking the trophy would be historic, as an American has not won the French Open in a decade. I’m willing to be pro-America this one time.  In today’s newsletter, we try to wrap our heads around the Trump administration’s latest anti-abortion move. Plus, your weekend reading. Bonne nuit, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONThe chaos is the point: On Tuesday, the Trump administration rescinded guidance the Biden administration had issued in 2022 explicitly stating that hospitals are to provide abortion care to patients in emergency medical situations, even if the hospital is located in a state with an abortion ban. The guidance came just as news of desperately ill pregnant women being turned away from hospitals was beginning to emerge, and it clarified the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), a 1986 law that requires hospitals receiving federal funding to provide stabilizing care for any individual experiencing a medical emergency. This week, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services said in a statement that the 2022 guidance did “not reflect the policy of this administration” and that it would “work to rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration’s actions.” Which is ironic, because the thing currently creating massive confusion among providers, patients, and the media is the rescission of the guidance, not the guidance itself. Allow us to clarify: EMTALA has not been repealed; it is still the law of the land and, should you need care in an emergency, your nearest hospital is obligated to provide it or to transfer you to a facility that can—yes, even if that care includes an abortion. “I want patients to know that nobody should be denying you care because of this memo,” Dr. Dara Kass, a former regional director at the Department of Health and Human Services and an emergency physician in New York, tells The Meteor. And if you do think your providers violated EMTALA, she notes, you can still issue a complaint. So what’s the purpose of the memo, if it doesn’t change the law? Trump may just be looking for a way to pay lip service to the anti-abortion movement. And the memo’s specific language may also be strategic, as Jessica Valenti points out in her newsletter: The CMS memo says EMTALA still requires treatment of “emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy.” The phrase “unborn child” (which also appears in EMTALA) hints at fetal personhood and sets up a showdown between a woman who has a life-threatening condition, like an ectopic pregnancy, and her fetus. It’s all very chaotic. And chaos is the point. “This action doesn’t change hospitals' legal obligations,” Fatima Goss Graves, president of the National Women’s Law Center, said in a statement, “but it does add to the fear, confusion, and dangerous delays patients and providers have faced since the fall of Roe v. Wade.” Dr. Kass adds that while the 2022 guidance “signaled to doctors that the government had their back,” the rescission tells doctors, “You’re on your own” and erodes their confidence that the government will protect them. There will inevitably be more “physicians who are not sure what they’re allowed to do,” she says, “and therefore they might do less.” Meanwhile, more pregnant patients will suffer as doctors are forced to contend with legal quandaries under pressure. We’ve already seen what happens when emergency rooms are slow to act; Amanda Zurowski, Kaitlyn Joshua, and Amber Nicole Thurman have each paid the price for a hospital’s confusion over what doctors are allowed to do—Thurman with her life. For better or worse, Dr. Kass doesn’t see this latest move as dramatically changing “the care on the ground.” (Indeed, even with the 2022 guidance in place, there have been dozens of documented cases of pregnant women being denied emergency care or treated negligently.) Rather, she sees this as “a distraction from what we need to do—which is to reinstate access to abortion services in every state.” —Shannon Melero and Nona Willis Aronowitz AND:
 IT'S BACONEGGANDCHEESE YOU CRETIN.
 WEEKEND READING 📚On mothers and daughters: Molly Jong-Fast unflinchingly traces the mental decline of her mother, iconic feminist novelist Erica Jong, in this excerpt from Jong-Fast’s memoir How to Lose Your Mother, which came out last week. (Vanity Fair) On always being here: It’s time to learn about the key trans figures in history that get cut out from school lessons. (Erin Reed in the Morning) On Dyke Day: How a beloved Pride tradition stays alive without being beholden to flipflopping corporate sponsors. (LA Public Press) On beauty: Meteor collective member Raquel Willis reminds us that, against all odds, trans people are here to stay and will still be “seen in all of our glory.” (Atmos)  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? |
Is the Last Abortion Haven in the Caribbean Closing?
How U.S. influence has been quietly reshaping access in Puerto Rico
By Susanne Ramirez de Arellano
Dr. Yari Vale's petite frame is no longer weighed down by the nine-pound bulletproof vest she wore when anti-abortion threats increased after the end of Roe v. Wade, but she hasn't gotten rid of it. The security guard at Dr. Vale's Darlington Medical Associates clinic in Río Piedras is no longer at the door; still, she has him on standby. With the return of Donald Trump to the White House and Jenniffer González, a Trump devotee, in the governor’s seat, Dr. Vale is bracing for an escalation in the fight to safeguard reproductive rights in Puerto Rico.
The predominantly Catholic island is “on paper one of the most accessible places in the Western Hemisphere” to obtain an abortion, NPR reported just after Roe was overturned. But with the U.S.'s shift toward right-wing Christian nationalism, that could be changing.
Dr. Vale, an OB/GYN at the Darlington clinic—the only one of the island's four that does late-term abortions—is on the frontline of the fight to keep what’s happening in the United States from happening in Puerto Rico, euphemistically called an unincorporated territory (it's a colony, really). It's a battle that, she says, feels like “throwing a firecracker up in the air, and it's just smoke and no one hears you.” But she persists, knowing that the first line of defense is the clinics.
The Legacy of Pueblo v. Duarte
For years, Puerto Rico has been known for its liberal abortion laws: The right is enshrined in the island’s constitution (which exists separately from the U.S. Constitution) and is protected by the right to intimacy under Puerto Rico’s penal code. Abortion is legal on request if it is performed (or prescribed) by a physician to protect the pregnant woman’s life or health—and health includes mental health. There are no limits (abortion may not be banned before viability; post-viability abortions are permitted for the preservation of the pregnant person), and the procedure doesn't require the consent of partners, ex-partners, or, in the case of minors, parents.
However, these laws have their roots in a dark colonial history. In 1902, four years after invading the island, the U.S. enacted policies to control the population, although abortion was still prohibited without exception. Then, in 1937, colonialists who wanted to further limit the Puerto Rican population passed legislation based on racist neo-Malthusian and eugenic theories, virtually legalizing abortion on the island if it was to protect the life and health of the patient. These changes later facilitated clinical trials of the contraceptive pill and mass coerced sterilizations—a procedure that became so common that it was known among Puerto Rican women as “la operacion.”
In 1980, a case involving a minor and her doctor went even further, and set up modern abortion law in Puerto Rico. In the landmark Pueblo v. Duarte, Dr. Pablo Duarte Mendoza, who had performed an abortion on a 16-year-old girl in her first trimester, was sentenced to four years in prison. He appealed, and the Puerto Rican Supreme Court agreed with him, stating that through the island’s penal code, abortion is legal if it is performed to save the woman's life or health, including mental well-being.
Like many things on an island impacted by colonialism, abortion access is still limited for everyday Puerto Ricans. A surgical abortion costs $250, and a medication abortion between $300 and $350; meanwhile, about 43% of Puerto Ricans live below the poverty line, and insurance plans on the island do not cover abortion. And in addition to cost, religion and social stigma—the “what-will-my-family-say” factor—serve as deterrents for many women.
The Dobbs Effect
When 2022’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision removed the constitutional right to an abortion in the U.S., it didn’t automatically affect rights in Puerto Rico (unlike on the mainland, where “trigger bans” were in place). In fact, some U.S. women began to travel to Puerto Rico from states with restrictive abortion laws, such as Florida. It was the return of the “San Juan holiday.”
But Dobbs did embolden conservative Puerto Rican politicians and pro-life groups, who saw a window of opportunity and seized it. Shortly after the decision, the right-wing religious party Proyecto Dignidad (PD) adopted the U.S. anti-abortion lobby's blueprint and tried to push through several bills to curtail access to abortion, and even criminalize it. They argued that the end of Roe implicitly negated Pueblo v. Duarte. The Senate ultimately defeated the bills; according to many Puerto Rican legal experts, Pueblo v. Duarte rests on the Puerto Rican penal code, which has no analogy in the U.S. Constitution—and should, therefore, not be affected by Dobbs.
An Ascendant Right-Wing Movement
Abortion-rights advocates warn that efforts to criminalize abortion in Puerto Rico are not over. Traditionally, “the issue of abortion in Puerto Rico has not been the overriding controversy that the anti-abortion and ultra-religious politicians want to make it out to be now,” says Senator Maria de Lourdes Santiago, a lawyer and Senator for the Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP). But, she says, the anti-abortion campaign orchestrated by Proyecto Dignidad now "magnifies the issue to demonize it."
Founded in 2019, PD has capitalized on its nexus of Catholic and Evangelical churches; the erosion of the traditional duopoly of the pro-statehood New Progressive Party (PNP) and the Popular Democratic Party (PPD); and an increasingly ultra-conservative sector of the population urging a return to traditional values. Even though the party got only seven percent of the vote in the 2024 elections, its influence is strong island-wide, with a campaign that now hinges on the abortion issue.
Proyecto Dignidad Senator Joan Rodriguez Veve, a canon lawyer and face of the populist religious right, has vowed to continue fighting to restrict access to abortion. She recently introduced legislation, PS 297, restricting access to abortion for adolescents under the age of 15. The bill is a carbon copy of one that the Puerto Rican House rejected a year ago. It calls for jail time for any doctor or person who assists a minor in getting an abortion, and a slew of other measures, including forensic interviews of minors seeking an abortion.
The Senate approved the bill in February, and almost everyone I spoke to—politicians, legal experts, and abortion doctors—told me they believe it will pass, even though both pro-abortion and some anti-abortion groups have, for different reasons, voiced their opposition to the measure.
A New Generation Stands Up
At the same time that PD is gaining influence, attitudes about abortion are shifting with the younger generation. Rising numbers of people support abortion rights, and young people have galvanized around the issue, taking to the streets in protest and amplifying groups like Aborto Libre Puerto Rico, Profamilias, and Proyecto Matria, among others. It’s a generation that, unlike its mainland counterpart, grew up without a sense of abortion as a wedge issue.
Most recently, health professionals and activists have spoken out against PS 297, warning that the bill puts women and girls in danger. “What's going to happen here is that young women and those most vulnerable will seek out illegal abortions and go to the places where illegal drugs are sold to purchase abortion pills, many cut with fentanyl, in doses that are not recommended,” says Puerto Rican feminist activist Alondra Hernández Quiñones.
As religious and conservative groups gain traction in Puerto Rico, Dr. Vale worries that a girl of 15, whose parents are ultra-conservative and refuse to consent to her abortion (as the new legislation would require), would be forced into motherhood. Clinics like Darlington have stopped seeing patients younger than 15 at all, and Dr. Vale fears a future where abortion, currently a safe and regulated procedure, “will once again be a public health problem…where we don't know how many women end up in emergency rooms due to an [unregulated] abortion gone wrong.”
“This worries me a lot,” says Isharedmie Vazquez, a 17-year-old Puerto Rican student. “It seems incredibly wild to me that instead of guaranteeing secure options [for an abortion], what they are looking for is to criminalize it and force women to assume a responsibility for which they are not prepared. It's unfair that they want to take away the right to decide about our lives.”
Susanne Ramírez de Arellano is an author on race and diversity, opinion writer, and cultural critic. The former news director of Univision, she writes for NBC News Think, Latino Rebels, and Nuestros Stories, among other outlets.
UK Cops Take an Interest in Miscarriages
  May 22, 2025 Greetings, Meteor readers, Today’s date is a numeric palindrome, and something about that is just so utterly satisfying. I hope writing out 5/22/25 multiple times today was as good for you as it was for me. In today’s newsletter, we take a trip across the pond and examine the UK’s guidance on how police officers should investigate women after pregnancy loss. Plus, your weekend reading list. 52225, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONABCAN (All British cops are nosy): Earlier this week, the UK’s National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) released new guidance on how officers should investigate stillbirths, “unlawful termination,” and infant deaths immediately after birth. Part of the guidance–which, according to the Observer, was apparently issued without consulting any legal experts or doctors–states that if officers suspect an illegal abortion has taken place, they should seize devices and look through women’s internet histories, including their fertility trackers and Google searches. In other words: Even if you have a spontaneous miscarriage in the UK, police can search your belongings and phone for evidence of abortion. “The new guidance is shocking,” Dr. Ranee Thakar, president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), told the Observer. “Women in these circumstances have a right to compassionate care and to have their dignity and privacy respected, not to have their homes, phones, computers, and health apps searched, or be arrested and interrogated.” This is all the more startling when you consider that abortion is legal in the UK—up to 24 weeks, with some allowances for later-term abortions if the life of the mother is at risk. The term limits for taking abortion medication at home are much shorter, and that is only legal up to 10 weeks, leaving any women who self-manage an abortion beyond that period subject to investigation. The NPCC is defending the new guidance, claiming that searches will only be conducted if there is a credible belief that a crime has taken place and that it’s not routine to launch an investigation after pregnancy loss. Still, investigations like these are on the rise. Last year, the BBC found “an unprecedented number of women” were being investigated on suspicion of unlawful abortion; six women in the UK have been prosecuted for abortion-related charges in the last couple of years, compared to only three reported convictions in the previous century and a half. Recent cases include that of Carla Foster, who was jailed after taking abortion pills after the legal timeline, and of Nicola Parker, who was unanimously acquitted of unlawfully inducing a miscarriage just weeks ago. So why this renewed interest in policing pregnancy loss in the UK? Blame us, or to be clearer, the U.S. These investigations have neatly coincided with the fall of Roe, and in January, the international charity MSI Reproductive Choices outlined how Trump’s re-election would further embolden anti-abortion politicians to push more misinformation and spend more on anti-abortion messaging. That prophecy was fulfilled a few weeks ago when conservative MPs in the UK started delaying and picking apart a bill introduced by the Labour Party to decriminalize abortion throughout the UK, all while a teenager, Sophie Harvey, was on trial for an illegal abortion. One Labour MP, Tonia Antoniazzi, thinks that even with the U.S.’s bad influence, the UK is poised to protect abortion. “I am confident that…my colleagues will agree that never again should a woman be prosecuted for ending her own pregnancy in England and Wales,” she told the BBC. (Another point in her favor: Nearly 90 percent of people in the UK are pro-choice.) A vote on two decriminalization amendments is expected to be held this summer. AND:
  WEEKEND READING 📚On unsolved mysteries: Roanoke College in Virginia has seen a surge in cancer cases over the last 17 years—disproportionately affecting women. What the heck is going on over there? (Airmail) On a water war: Climate change has disturbed rainfall patterns in the West Bank, which wouldn’t be such a problem if Israel weren’t also weaponizing water. (Atmos) On eternal youth: Sofia Coppola revisits The Virgin Suicides. (i-D)  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? |
Doctors Finally Admit IUDs Hurt
  May 21, 2025 Greetings, Meteor readers, Last Friday, I had the immense pleasure of seeing Real Women Have Curves on Broadway. In a world where people are being violently rounded up and inhumanely detained, it was reinvigorating to watch a story so steeped in Latinx culture and the resilience of immigrant women. I laughed, I cried, I developed a crush on Claudia Mulet, and I vowed to be louder about the injustices of our anti-immigrant regime.  IF ALL THESE WOMEN DON'T GET TONYS, I WILL RIOT IN THE STREETS. (VIA GETTY IMAGES) In today’s non-musical-theater news, we explain the latest “discovery” about IUD insertion. Plus, a new law banning revenge porn is finally on the books. No soy de aquí, pero tu tampoco, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONBetter late than never: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has released new recommendations around cervical and uterine procedures, most notably IUD insertion. On the heels of similar guidance released by the CDC last year, ACOG has discovered not only that IUD insertion can be excruciatingly painful to patients, but that there is an “urgent need” for clinicians to offer pain management. Sorta like when Columbus discovered America. And by that, I mean many of us were already here. Women have been complaining about the pain caused by IUD insertions for years, and the people doing the inserting famously underestimate it; one study from 2014 found that while doctors were rating the pain of IUD insertion a 35 out of 100, patients ranked it at more like 65. This probably comes as no surprise to anyone who has either visited a gynecologist or been on the internet: Women’s pain, particularly around reproductive health, is often dismissed as either exaggerated or simply part and parcel of ✨being a woman✨. Think Serena Williams nearly dying in childbirth after her pain was ignored, or the women at the Yale fertility clinic who were unwittingly undergoing egg retrievals without pain relief and told their agony was normal. Unlike the CDC recommendation, ACOG also recommends pain management for a variety of procedures like endometrial biopsy, polypectomy, hysteroscopy, and certain kinds of imaging. And ACOG acknowledges structural inequities: “The way pain is understood and managed by health-care professionals is also affected by systemic racism and bias of how pain is experienced,” its findings note. “Historically, Black patients have received less analgesics than white patients, and women have received less attention to their pain than men undergoing similar procedures.” This change, of course, does not guarantee painless IUD insertions; there’s only so much lidocaine can do. But the guidance is important because it encourages doctors to have conversations they might have once deemed unnecessary, including ones around anxiety that patients might feel about undergoing some procedures (anxiety which ACOG suggests can be addressed with medication). As someone who was prescribed Xanax to make it through a dental procedure, I think it’s wild that stronger medications aren’t regularly offered when someone burrows a medical device up your cervix. So if you’ve got an appointment coming up, be vocal! We’ve already suffered enough–we deserve the good drugs. AND:
 REGINA VENTURA OUTSIDE OF THE COURTHOUSE. (GETTY IMAGES)
 CLARK AND REESE MEETING AT MID-COURT AHEAD OF THE GAME AND THE FOUL HEARD ROUND THE WORLD. (VIA GETTY IMAGES)
 FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? |
Is “Divine Intuition” a Health Fix?
  May 8, 2025
Greetings, Meteor readers, It’s my daughter’s third birthday this weekend, and she has requested–in her exact words—“a pink beautiful sparkly glittery jewel-y dress” so she can look “extra-princess-y!!!” It really does start this young, y’all. Time for me to revisit Peggy Orenstein’s Cinderella Ate My Daughter. Today we’re digging into Trump’s new and disconcerting pick for Surgeon General. Plus, a new (American!) pope, and an interview with author Amanda Hess about how technology mediates our experience of pregnancy and motherhood. Happy sparkly Mother’s Day to me, Nona Willis Aronowitz  WHAT'S GOING ONThe wellness-to-MAGA pipeline: Did you think the stream of horrifying Trump nominees was over? Not quite. Yesterday, President Trump announced that he was withdrawing his pick for Surgeon General, Dr. Janette Nesheiwat, and replacing her with far-right wellness influencer Dr. Casey Means. In his announcement, Trump praised Dr. Means by touting her “impeccable ‘MAHA’ credentials,” and he isn’t wrong: The nominee and her brother, former lobbyist Calley Means, are vocal allies of Health and Human Services secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and were close advisors during his 2024 presidential bid. But here’s the real issue: Dr. Means–who has an inactive medical license and dropped out of her surgical residency program–regularly expresses skepticism of mainstream medicine, including vaccines, fluoride, raw milk bans, and birth control, which she has called a “disrespect for life.” (In fact, she’s become the nominee because her predecessor, Nesheiwat, had been targeted by Trump confidant Laura Loomer and other far-right activists for praising the COVID vaccines.) She frequently casts doubt on the value of science itself: “Of COURSE we should trust our heart intelligence and divine intuition instead of BLINDLY trusting ‘the science,’” Dr. Means wrote in an Instagram post last year. Putting “science” in scare quotes…not exactly a reassuring sign.  It remains to be seen whether Dr. Means will be confirmed by the Senate; Trump’s nomination of Dave Weldon for CDC head was jettisoned after concerns over Weldon’s claims that vaccines cause autism. (They don’t.) But assuming she does get the job, the question becomes: What do Surgeon Generals actually do? They aren’t directly involved in implementing health policy, but they can often set the government’s priorities. C. Everett Coop, Ronald Reagan’s Surgeon General, was famously influential in changing the public’s view on smoking and, according to the New York Times, “single-handedly pushed the government into taking a more aggressive stand against AIDS.” Some have tried pushing the limits: When Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders gave the thumbs up to masturbation and encouraged Americans to “get over their love affair of the fetus and start worrying about children,” President Bill Clinton fired her. More recently, President Joe Biden’s Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, made waves when he called for a warning label on social media. In other words: Surgeon Generals don’t make laws, but they are a major source of information and influence, which makes Dr. Means’ nomination all the more worrying. Will she further legitimize vaccine skepticism and accelerate measles outbreaks? Will she give a boost to raw milk amid a bird flu epidemic? Will she stigmatize birth control at a time when it’s already under attack? Time to once again call your senators; here’s a useful script from 5Calls. AND:
 POPE LEO AT HIS PREDECESSOR’S FUNERAL LAST MONTH. VIA GETTY IMAGES
  Three Questions About….Modern MotherhoodAmanda Hess’s new memoir interrogates how technology changes the experience of early parenting and pregnancy.From the moment her period app detected she was pregnant, journalist Amanda Hess experienced motherhood through the prism of her phone, from chirpy pregnancy apps to momfluencers on Instagram. Then, at 29 weeks pregnant, her son was diagnosed with a rare genetic condition called Beckwith-Wiedmann Syndrome, and everything changed. In her new memoir, Second Life, she grapples with deeply held assumptions–both society’s and her own–about normalcy, public performance, and disability. Let’s talk about that pivotal moment when your son is diagnosed with BWS. Can you describe some ways the diagnosis changed you? I did not realize to what extent I had absorbed all of these cultural messages about what pregnancy, motherhood, and babies are supposed to be like. For such a long time, I didn’t even care about whether or not I became a mom. But when I became pregnant, I wanted to make sure I wasn’t messing it up. I internalized this idea that it’s a woman’s job to reproduce healthy, normal, productive citizens–although I never would have put it that way. I was going to these sites and apps not even for advice–I didn’t do most of the stuff they suggested–but more to understand the role I was expected to play, even if I wasn’t necessarily complying. And then when my child was diagnosed late in my pregnancy, it struck me as a tragic thing to happen, as a crisis. Most pregnancy technology is geared toward a “normal” pregnancy, so the moment there was the slightest deviation in my pregnancy, I was out of the “normal” zone and initially felt very abandoned. It was only after my son was put in this human context, after he was born, that I could see him as my son and not a medical idea. And ironically, the internet helped with this: I found some other, helpful online communities–ones that were comprised of real human beings who were convening around BWS (as opposed to some app that only knew my due date and nothing else about me). As you mention in the book, pregnancy has long been a site of state surveillance, but that fact feels even more true lately. Does your research take on a more sinister cast in an era when pregnancy is increasingly criminalized? Yes, there is this ramping up on pregnancy surveillance and also surveillance of people with disabilities. Our medical information is seemingly being seized by government workers we don’t even know. What’s clarifying is that even as it’s changing technological shape, the ideologies are really similar to eugenic [and pro-natalist] thinking that were in vogue 100 years ago. I think we need to balance the new threats–the way all of our data can be scraped by young programmers who are working for Elon Musk–with the knowledge that [throughout American history] our doctors and hospitals have been giving up pregnant people’s information and long been using it to criminalize pregnancy and remove their children. Still, I do have more specific fears for my actual family than I did before. My book talks about how protective wealth and status and whiteness can be in these situations, but the intensity of surveillance now on anyone who has any kind of difference is at a new level, and it really implicates my family. One of the most absorbing parts of the book is when you talk about your obsession with the free-birthing movement, where women give birth without any medical intervention or prenatal care. What was so intriguing to you about them? On the one hand, our experiences of pregnancy could not be more different. My pregnancy ended up being intensely medically monitored: I gave birth in a specific hospital so we could have access to this higher-level NICU–which I came to see as such a blessing. This group of women were on the opposite extreme; many of them don’t get traditional prenatal care. But there were places where our two experiences overlapped. I had this overwhelming need to try to control the uncontrollable by deep-Googling medical information. With them, it was much more about these holistic practices like sunbathing or whatever, but we were both practicing these different modes of control. And those two practices and ideologies both have this tenuous relationship to disability. In this highly technological space I was in, I saw a lot of erasure of the reality of disability, and the assumption that you’d want to avoid it at all costs…[but] then there was this idea in the natural-birth communities that any medical care was unacceptably unnatural, and that some children are fated to die in the womb or at birth because it’s what God intended. Both are eugenic ideas, in their own ways.  WEEKEND READING 📚On the new normal: Everyone is cheating their way through college with ChatGPT, and professors have no idea what to do about it. (New York Magazine) On realism: Writer and illustrator Mona Chalabi explains how she created the hijabi mom character in the animated TV show #1 Happy Family USA. (The Guardian) On mifepristone: You may have been pleasantly surprised to hear that the Trump administration recently defended the abortion pill against a lawsuit. Don’t get too excited, warns law professor Mary Ziegler. (Slate) An earlier version of the headline contained an error; Dr. Means wrote of “divine intuition,” not “divine intervention.”  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? |
There's No "Fetus Debris" In Your Vaccine
  May 1, 2025 Howdy Meteor readers, A reminder that as of next Wednesday, you will need a REAL ID for air travel within the U.S. Why am I bothering with this PSA? Because it’s a pain in the ass: I wasted several hours of my own life at the motor vehicle commission, only to be told that the stacks of paperwork I brought were not enough to confirm my identity. Apparently, that’s a pretty common problem, especially for married women, so…best of luck out there. In today’s newsletter, we parse through the most dangerous medical lies of the week. Plus, a long overdue honor is bestowed, and your weekend reading list. Standard ID girlie, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONPure malarkey: 👏🏼Stop 👏🏼spreading 👏🏼misinformation 👏🏼about 👏🏼 our 👏🏼health. This week, two major instances of misinformation made the rounds. First up is Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s claim that MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccines contain “aborted fetus debris.” To be clear: These vaccines do not, at all, contain parts of fetuses or fetal cells. What he is referring to is the widely accepted and longstanding use of fetal cells to develop vaccines, which involves introducing a virus or bacterium to human cells and then inactivating or killing the virus. The original fetal cells used to develop the vaccines we now rely on were harvested in the 1960s from two elective abortions. Like all cells, they’ve continued to multiply over the years, and scientists have been using the same line of cells for generations. But as the vaccine education center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia explains, no vaccine injected into a person contains fetal cells. After the vaccine viruses are grown, the manufacturers “purify the vaccine viruses away from the cells.”  So why peddle this falsehood at all? RFK Jr. is a notorious flip-flopper on vaccines. One week, he supports them, the next he doesn't, but no matter what, he casts baseless doubt on their efficacy at every turn—even in the middle of a measles outbreak in Texas. What better way for a vaccine skeptic to dog-whistle conservative-leaning parents than to say there are dead babies floating in the vaccine liquid? (So far, two children have died in Texas as a result of the outbreak, which is two too many.) On to the next big lie of the week. A new “study” titled “The Abortion Pill Harms Women” was released by the conservative think tank Ethics and Public Policy Center, which advertises itself as “working to apply the riches of the Jewish and Christian traditions to contemporary questions of law.” I will not provide the link to the actual study because, as we’ve written before, we should not share links to false or misleading information for any reason. But that didn’t stop Fox News from doing this tomfoolery. Deep breath. Here are the facts: This “study” was not conducted by doctors, whereas the rigorous clinical testing for mifepristone’s FDA approval was conducted by multiple doctors over years. (We spoke to two of them last year.) Instead, it was compiled by data analysts reviewing health insurance claims. What they say they found by reviewing claims’ procedure codes is that nearly 11 percent of women who used mifepristone had at least “one serious adverse event” in the 45 days after taking the pill. But as journalist Jessica Valenti points out, the study does not provide evidence that the “serious adverse events” are directly caused by or even related to the use of mifepristone—they simply happened within 45 days of use. And these “serious adverse events” are loosely defined; for instance, according to Valenti, they include “hemorrhaging,” which could include the heavy bleeding that can be normal after a medication abortion. So why even talk about this “fart” of a study, as Valenti hilariously characterized it? Because it calls on the FDA to “further investigate the harm mifepristone causes to women,” on the grounds that the pill is “considerably more dangerous to women than is represented” on the label. Politicians have already started to parrot that narrative. The new FDA head, meanwhile, is anti-abortion. For the kabillionth time: Abortion pills are safe! AND:
 MAHDAWI AT A CAMPUS PROTEST IN 2023. (VIA GETTY IMAGES)
 LT. COLONEL ADAMS (FRONT LEFT), A MAJOR AT THIS TIME, WITH CAPTAIN MARY KEARNEY BEHIND HER AS THEY INSPECT THE FIRST RECRUITS TO THE 6888 IN 1945. (VIA GETTY IMAGES)  WEEKEND READING 📚On bad buys: Women are still learning about the dangers of multi-level marketing schemes the hard way. (The Cut) On childhood fame: Piper Rockelle, the kid-fluencer at the center of the Netflix documentary Bad Influence, finally breaks her silence. (Rolling Stone) On something you may have missed: This heartwarming, tear-inducing excerpt from Tina Knowles’ memoir, Matriarch. (Vogue)  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? |
