LANSING, Mich. -- One in five teens in the U.S. struggle to afford period products, and Michigan organizations are working to make pads, tampons, menstrual cups and other similar products more accessible for everyone who gets their period.

Michigan recently removed its 6% sales tax from menstrual products, after the CARES Act in 2020 reclassified them as essential medical services.

Lysne Tait, executive director of the nonprofit Helping Women Period, said it is a small step towards having conversations and reducing stigma around periods, and making sure people have what they need.

"It should be like toilet paper," Tait asserted. "We don't question whether or not a public restroom is going to provide toilet paper. And it really is a public health issue."

Tait noted her group works to supply low-income people who menstruate, and those experiencing homelessness with free period products. She added no federal or state program supplies these products, and said she was spurred to action when she found out the federal Women, Infants and Children program does not cover them.

Shakti Rambarran, director of advocacy for the Michigan Organization on Adolescent Sexual Health, said it is also important to make sure conversations are inclusive.

"This is not an experience or issue that affects just girls or women," Rambarran contended. "Conversations around menstrual products and equity must also include many trans boys and nonbinary youth. Unfortunately we see that they are wrongly erased or under-supported from these conversations."

Rambarran added the city of Ann Arbor recently implemented a policy to ensure free menstrual products are available in all public restrooms. She hopes the state will follow their example, noting there are health risks associated with lack of access to menstrual products.

"We see folks who are trying to makeshift period products, keep them in longer than would be recommended," Rambarran explained. "When people don't have the menstrual products that they need, it oftentimes means that they can't go to school, or they can't go to work. So lack of access harms their education and harms their careers."

The legal fight over North Dakota's abortion ban continues, and oral arguments about one element of the case were heard by the state Supreme Court yesterday.

North Dakota's highest court will decide whether a preliminary injunction should remain in place while a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ban moves forward.

The state contends a district judge erred in temporarily blocking the law, including an opinion suggesting there's a "substantial probability" the overall challenge will succeed.

Meetra Mehdizadeh, staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights which represents the Red River Women's Clinic, feels the opinion has merit, noting North Dakota has one of the strictest abortion laws in the country.

"It's incredibly important that we recognize that this kind of law furthers no state interest," Mehdizadeh asserted. "It's just going to harm people."

Mehdizadeh argued lifting the injunction would harm not only patients, but physicians and hospitals. At the heart of the case, the state said abortion is not a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. The main challenge is from the Women's Clinic, which was the only facility in North Dakota providing abortion care and has since moved across the border into Minnesota.

Even though the clinic has moved, Mehdizadeh argued there is still a need for protections because of the different layers of reproductive health.

"Given that this is one of the most extreme laws in the country, it'll be really interesting to see how the court interprets that," Mehdizadeh pointed out. "And how it interprets that in light of the broad protections for liberty that the North Dakota Constitution has."

Adopted in 2007, North Dakota's ban was one of several so-called "trigger laws" designed to take effect in the event federal protections were overturned, which happened this summer.

The state's law states an abortion is a felony unless it is necessary to prevent the woman's death or in cases of rape or incest. It is unclear when the state Supreme Court will decide on the injunction.

The Georgia Supreme Court granted an emergency stay of a lower court's ruling, once again allowing a six-week abortion ban to take effect in Georgia while an appeal process continues.

The ban prohibits abortion from the earliest weeks of pregnancy - at least for now.

Andrea Young - executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia - said the hold will negatively affect anyone seeking to end a pregnancy, especially those who are uninsured or low income.

Judge Robert McBurney ruled earlier this month that the six-week abortion ban was void when it was passed because it was unconstitutional.

"That ruling was appealed by the State of Georgia," said Young, "Gov. Kemp, and Attorney General Carr. The Supreme Court stayed Judge McBurney's order, while they deliberate on the merits of his decision. So his decision is not overturned, but it is not in effect anymore."

The state's abortion ban law was passed in 2019, but took effect in July of this year after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Roe v. Wade decision, giving states the power to restrict abortion.

In 2020, the Georgia Department of Public Health reported more than 37,000 abortions in the state.

Young explained that some people may have scheduled abortions that were unable to be performed in Georgia because of the court ruling.

She added that those people should contact their providers, as many clinics are seeing patients and advising them based on the status of their pregnancies.

"If there is cardiac fetal activity, after about six weeks," said Young, "abortion is not currently available in the state of Georgia."

Young added that early voting for the Georgia Senate runoff elections begins today, and one of the candidates would likely support a national ban on abortion.

She noted that right now, Georgians who are pregnant have the option to go to other states - including Illinois, Michigan and New York - where state laws protect abortion access.

"If we had a national ban that could go away," said Young. "So, it does matter who's in the Senate, obviously - one of these candidates would oppose a national ban and one of them would likely support a national ban. They're on record as being, you know, against the right to choose."

She added that Asheville, North Carolina, is the closest place to Metro Atlanta where abortions are still available later in the first trimester of pregnancy.

A Montana measure that would have implemented harsh penalties for medical providers who did not give life-sustaining care to newborns was voted down last week.

Lawmakers brought forward the so-called Born-Alive Infant Protection Act for the exceedingly rare cases when a baby is born alive after an abortion, or born severely premature.

Opponents say it was misleading and unnecessary, since infanticide already is illegal.

Hillary-Anne Crosby, campaign coordinator and communications lead for the No on LR-131 campaign, said there are tragic situations when infants are born with fatal health conditions.

Families can make choices in these situations, such as to hold the infant or baptize and read last rites.

But she said LR-131 would have mandated "life saving care," which would have meant taking an infant away from its parents.

"We're certainly excited," said Crosby, "but more so just relieved on behalf of those providers that would have been torn between, 'Do I honor and respect a family's wishes or do I obey a law that I know to be cruel and unethical?'"

If the measure had passed, health-care providers found to have violated the law faced fines up to $50,000 and 20 years in prison.

While the measure has been lumped in with other abortion measures across the country, it was referred to the ballot by the 2021 Montana Legislature before the Dobbs Supreme Court case allowing states to decide on abortion. It would not have directly affected access to abortion.

Crosby said unfortunately, the lawmakers that crafted this legislative referendum did not consult with the people who would have been impacted.

"They should have reached out to these experts," said Crosby, "they should have reached out to these families to better understand what kind of support they need and what kind of laws just further traumatize them, and I really hope that that was a lesson that they took away, in that you cannot legislate what you're not even willing to try to understand."

Even with the Dobbs ruling, the Montana Supreme Court has ruled the state Constitution protects abortion access under its right to privacy.

However, now that Republicans have a supermajority in the Legislature, lawmakers could move to change this in 2023.

Crosby said she believes the "no" vote on LR-131 should be a sign that Montanans don't want this kind of change.

"We do really think that LR-131 sent a pretty clear message that Montanans value our privacy and we value our private medical decisions," said Crosby. "So hopefully they'll take that cue and they will trust and respect and support Montanans' wishes. But if not, we'll be there to remind them."