* Missouri, Kansas and Idaho…

Four months after the Supreme Court tossed out a high-profile challenge to the abortion drug mifepristone, and as abortion access is a major flashpoint in the presidential election, three conservative states are following through on a promise to bring the issue back to the forefront with a new lawsuit.

The states – Missouri, Kansas and Idaho – filed an amended suit in a federal court in Texas asking US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk to rollback efforts the Food and Drug Administration has taken over the past eight years to ease access to the drug, such as allowing it to be dispensed through the mail.

The suit may thrust the issue of mifepristone access back on track for Supreme Court review in the next presidential administration, once again threatening the widespread availability of the drug even in states where abortion is legal and at a time when roughly half of states have imposed severe restrictions on in-clinic abortions. […]

The new lawsuit was filed Friday. In addition to the ability to dispense the drug through the mail, the states are also challenging the FDA’s approval of a generic version of the drug and the elimination of requirements for follow-up doctor visits and that prescribers be physicians.

From the amended complaint…

When data is examined in a way that reflects sensitivity to expected birth rates, these estimates strikingly “do not show evidence of an increase in births to teenagers aged 15-19,” even in states with long driving distances despite the fact that “women aged 15-19 … are more responsive to driving distances to abortion facilities than older women.” The study thus concludes that “one explanation may be that younger women are more likely to navigate online abortion finders or websites ordering mail-order medication to self-manage abortions. This study thus suggests that remote dispensing of abortion drugs by mail, common carrier, and interactive computer service is depressing expected birth rates for teenaged mothers in Plaintiff States, even if other overall birth rates may have been lower than otherwise was projected.

A loss of potential population causes further injuries as well: the States subsequent “diminishment of political representation” and “loss of federal funds,” such as potentially “losing a seat in Congress or qualifying for less federal funding if their populations are” reduced or their increase diminished.

* Florida…

A federal judge ordered Gov. Ron DeSantis’ state health department to stop threatening television stations with criminal prosecution if they kept running ads in favor of an abortion amendment on the ballot next month.

In a sharply worded ruling on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Mark Walker rebuked the DeSantis administration for trying to quash what he called constitutionally protected political speech.

“To keep it simple for the State of Florida: it’s the First Amendment, stupid,” Walker wrote, granting a request for a temporary restraining order. A hearing for a preliminary injunction is scheduled for later this month.

The ruling puts a temporary halt to one of DeSantis’ most brazen attempts to defeat Amendment 4, which would overturn the six-week abortion ban he signed into law.

On Oct. 3, the Florida Department of Health sent letters threatening to criminally prosecute television stations if they did not stop running an ad that features a woman named Caroline who was diagnosed with brain cancer two years ago while pregnant with her second child. In the ad, the woman says Florida’s six-week abortion ban would have prevented her from receiving a potentially life-saving abortion.

* Texas…

Texas has sued a Dallas doctor over accusations of providing gender-affirming care to youths, marking one of the first times a state has sought to enforce recent bans driven by Republicans.

The lawsuit announced by Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Thursday alleges that Dr. May Lau, a physician in the Dallas area, provided hormones to over 20 minors in violation of a Texas ban that took effect last year.

It is the first time Texas has tried to enforce the law, said Harper Seldin, a staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. He also said he was not aware of other states that have tried to enforce similar bans. […]

The lawsuit accuses her of “falsifying medical records, prescriptions, and billing records to represent that her testosterone prescriptions are for something other than transitioning a child’s biological sex or affirming a child’s belief that their gender identity is inconsistent with their biological sex.” […]

Children’s Health said in a statement that it “follows and adheres to all state health care laws.”

* Arkansas…

The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit that challenged an emergency rule restricting gender identification on state issued driver’s licenses and identification cards.

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin celebrated the ruling, which came as the state supreme court entered an order to dismiss the lawsuit against the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration (DFA).

“I am pleased that the Arkansas Supreme Court granted my motion to dismiss this lawsuit against the Department of Finance and Administration, which has brought its driver’s license gender identification rule into compliance with the law,” AG Griffin said.

The lawsuit against the DFA was filed to challenge an emergency rule that removed the use of gender neutral markers on state issued identification cards in Arkansas.

It was filed on behalf of five Arkansans as well as the ACLU of Arkansas, arguing that the policy change was made without “any documented justification or compliance” and a 30-day public notice and comment period should be held.

* California…

California has a plastic bag problem — but not for long. California Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed a law fully banning plastic shopping bags in grocery stores, updating a decade-old ban that made plastic pollution in the state worse, not better.

In 2014, California banned traditional plastic shopping bags at supermarkets and other stores that sell food, but shoppers could still purchase bags made of thicker plastic meant to be reused or recycled. However, a state study found that plastic shopping bag waste each year grew from 8 pounds per person in 2004 to 11 pounds per year in 2021. It turns out that shoppers weren’t reusing the thicker plastic bags; they were simply discarding them like normal.

The new revamped law bans all plastic shopping bags starting in 2026, asking customers to bring their own reusable bags or buy a paper shopping bag for an additional fee. […]

Plastic shopping bags are a huge environmental strain — one that many states have worked to address in recent years. Recent data estimates that about 5 trillion plastic bags are produced each year — and almost all of those plastic bags end up in the environment. As NPR reports, many recycling facilities can’t recycle plastic bags because the soft material causes equipment jamming at recycling centers.