Joe Biden’s campaign is seizing on the Florida court ruling to argue it is a sign of what would come of Donald Trump’s presidency

Good morning, US politics blog readers. Democrats have not had much luck in Florida lately, where its status as a swing state has been eroded by years of Republican victories. And the GOP once again got their way yesterday when a court allowed a six-week abortion ban signed by governor Ron DeSantis to take effect in 30 days. But voters in many states, even those otherwise hostile to Democrats, have signaled that they are not on board with efforts to tighten access to the procedure, and today, Joe Biden ’s campaign and its allies are seizing on the Florida ruling to argue it is a sign of what Donald Trump would do if returned to the White House and perhaps regain some momentum in Florida. At 10am ET, Hakeem Jeffries , the Democratic House minority leader, Xavier Becerra , the health and human services secretary, and other lawmakers will hold a hearing in Broward county on threats to productive freedom, while the Biden-Harris campaign is convening a call between reporters and North Carolina governor Roy Cooper to elaborate on the message.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump will hold two rallies today in swing states Michigan and Wisconsin, where he’s expected to hammer Biden over immigration policy – reliably fertile ground for Republicans. The former president has voiced support for banning abortion, but at 15 weeks of pregnancy , and we’ll see if he weighs in on the decision in Florida.

Israel has expressed “sincere sorrow” over the deaths of seven aid workers in Gaza, which killed nationals of the UK, US, Australia, Poland and Palestine. Follow our live blog for the latest on this story.

A slew of states are holding primaries today, including Wisconsin, Connecticut, Rhode Island and New York, while Arkansas and Mississippi will hold primary run offs. Trump and Biden both already have the delegates they need to win their parties’ nominations.

The White House press briefing takes place at 1.30pm.

Three women share their stories of getting medication abortions, and their thoughts on that access being curtailed

Mercy’s periods had always been very regular, so when she missed one in 2016, she immediately took a pregnancy test. It was positive, and she managed to get an appointment at an abortion clinic the next day.

Despite being able to act quickly, she was in her seventh week of pregnancy by the time she could take abortion pills in Ohio – a state that was, at the time, debating banning abortion from the moment fetal cardiac activity is detected (usually around six weeks). Ohio has since enshrined abortion rights in its state constitution following a referendum.

Marilyn Lands elected to state legislature in deep red state by significant margin after centering reproductive rights in campaign

• Alabama surprise Democratic victory – live updates

An Alabama Democrat who campaigned against the state’s near-total abortion ban has won a special election to the state legislature, a stark signal that reproductive rights is a potent issue for Democratic candidates, even in the deep south.

Marilyn Lands won the state house seat on Tuesday, defeating Teddy Powell, a Republican, by 63% to 37%. Lands, a licensed professional counselor, previously ran for the seat in 2022 and lost by 7% to David Cole, a Republican who resigned last year after pleading guilty to voter fraud.

The anti-choice case relies on outlandish legal leaps. And if they can’t win there, they’ll redouble efforts to win the White House

It is a testament to how weak the plaintiffs’ case is that the justices seemed so skeptical. Erin Hawley, a lawyer for the far-right antifeminist litigation shop Alliance Defending Freedom and the spouse of conservative US senator Josh Hawley, usually gets a much warmer reception at One First Street. But in Tuesday’s oral arguments in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v FDA – a lawsuit which seeks to challenge FDA approval of the abortion drug mifepristone, and specifically to reverse regulatory changes that made the drug more easily accessible – she was on the defensive.

The three Democratic appointees, along with Republican justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Roberts, all signaled at least some skepticism of her clients’ claims to legal standing. Amy Coney Barrett, the Trump appointee known for her maximalist religious commitments, struggled to help Hawley establish a convincing merits case to restrict access to the drug. And the far-right extremists Sam Alito and Thomas Gorsuch spent their question time signalling their support for the Comstock Act, a long-obscure and once-forgotten 1871 statute that some anti-choice lawyers say could be used to ban abortion nationwide by executive order.

Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist

Enlarge / Demonstrators participate in an abortion-rights rally outside the Supreme Court as the justices of the court hear oral arguments in the case of the US Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine on March 26, 2024 in Washington, DC. (credit: Getty | Anna Moneymaker )

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments in a case seeking to limit access to the abortion and miscarriage drug mifepristone, with a majority of justices expressing skepticism that the anti-abortion groups that brought the case have the legal standing to do so.

The case threatens to dramatically alter access to a drug that has been safely used for decades and, according to the Guttmacher Institute, was used in 63 percent of abortions documented in the health care system in 2023 . But, it also has sweeping implications for the Food and Drug Administration's authority over drugs, marking the first time that courts have second-guessed the agency's expert scientific analysis and moved to restrict access to an FDA-approved drug.

As such, the case has rattled health experts, reproductive health care advocates, the FDA, and the pharmaceutical industry alike. But, based on the line of questioning in today's oral arguments, they have reason to breathe a sigh of relief.

Read 11 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Enlarge (credit: Zach Gibson/Getty Images)

Three landmark Supreme Court decisions in 2022 have each been widely criticized by health experts as threats to public health, but a study released Thursday in JAMA Network Open modeled their collective toll. The study found that, by conservative estimates, the decisions will lead to thousands of deaths in the coming years, with tens of thousands more being harmed.

The three decisions included: one from January 13, 2022, that invalidated some COVID-19 workplace protections ( National Federation of Independent Business v Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ); one on June 23, 2022, that voided some state laws restricting handgun carry ( New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc v Superintendent of New York State Police (Bruen) ); and one on June 24, 2022, that revoked the constitutional right to abortion ( Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization ).

A group of health researchers, led by Adam Gaffney at Harvard University, modeled how these decisions would impact Americans' morbidity and mortality in the near future.

Read 16 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Enlarge (credit: Charles McQuillan / Stringer | Getty Images News )

For the first time since Roe v. Wade was overturned, there's a clear example showing exactly how Facebook will react to law enforcement requests for abortion data without user consent.

Forbes reports that a 17-year-old named Celeste Burgess in Nebraska had her Facebook messages subpoenaed by detective Ben McBride, who suspected that Burgess' reported stillborn birth was a medication abortion. In the officer's affidavit , he explains that he asked that Meta not notify the teen of the request for her Facebook data because she might tamper with or destroy evidence. Court records show that Meta complied with the logic.

Meta did not immediately respond to Ars' request for comment on this case, but previously, Meta has said that "we notify users (including advertisers) about requests for their information before disclosing it unless we are prohibited by law from doing so or in exceptional circumstances, such as where a child is at risk of harm, emergencies, or when notice would be counterproductive."

Read 11 remaining paragraphs | Comments