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, the ACLU 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. The 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.

As this case develops, the ACLU will continue working with government officials and 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. The ACLU has blocked bans in Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, and Utah. The ACLU is asking the state supreme courts in Kentucky, Georgia, and Florida to step in and block those states’ bans. And earlier this month, the ACLU 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.

Trans youth are once again under attack in state legislatures across the country. This year, dozens of proposed bills would require schools to out trans students against their will, regardless of any harmful consequences at school or at home. These forced outing bills claim to protect parents’ rights, but they do no such thing. Instead, these bills endanger trans students, who have the right not to be outed and to be treated with dignity and respect at school.

People — children and adults — have a constitutional right not to have intimate facts about their lives disclosed without their consent. That includes their sexual orientation, HIV status, or whether they are transgender. Children do not give up their constitutional rights by enrolling in public school. Students also have rights under federal law to keep certain information private, and not to have that information revealed without their consent. But forced outing bills are designed to do exactly that: reveal private information about trans students, regardless of whether the student consents or whether they may suffer negative or harmful consequences at school or at home from that disclosure.

Many parents may hope their children will come to them first with questions about gender and sexuality. But not every child has that option. Youth who are transgender face a real risk of rejection by the adults who are supposed to care for them when they disclose their gender identity. Trans people are much more likely to be abused by their immediate family based on their gender identity, and high risks of abuse and family rejection mean trans youth are overrepresented in foster care homes, juvenile detention centers, and homeless shelters. These high rates of familial rejection and abuse dramatically increase the risks of suicidality, substance abuse, and depression. Not every child can be their true selves at home without risking their physical or emotional well-being.

In addition, many supportive parents may want their children to be able to safely explore their identity without being worried that information will be disclosed against their will, and to have a safe space to ask questions they may be uncomfortable asking at home. For trans youth, especially those who cannot be safe at home, school may be one of the few places to be themselves. Trans youth thrive when they are affirmed in their gender identity, which includes being called by a name and pronouns that reflect who they are. When trans youth are supported at home, they can become the happy, confident children their parents hoped they would be. As trans youth themselves report, living as their true selves transforms their lives for the better. Many schools across the country recognize that a supportive learning environment requires treating trans students with dignity and respect, including (at a minimum) calling them by the name and pronouns they want to use.

Forced outing bills are not about parents’ rights: they are designed to harm trans students. Parents have a fundamental right to raise their children, including making important choices like whether to homeschool or enroll in public school. And the ACLU vigorously defends parents’ rights to raise their children, including the rights of LGBTQ parents, and parents’ rights to seek necessary and life-saving care for their children.

But none of those fundamental parental rights are protected by forced outing bills. Parents do not have a constitutional right to be told whenever their child uses a name or pronoun that is not typically associated with the child’s assigned sex at birth. Lawmakers know that —that’s why some of these forced outing bills explicitly do not require parental notification when a student asks to be called by their middle name, or a shortened version of their first name. Instead, these bills require schools to notify parents if someone at school thinks a student might be trans, based on gender nonconformity or a request to use a different name or pronoun.

Forced outing bills are meant to harm trans students, and in the process, hurt everyone: Some of these bills require parental notification any time a student acts in a way that doesn’t fit the school’s view of how a boy or a girl should act or dress. These kinds of laws don’t strengthen families; they just hurt kids, and especially trans youth.