Jessica Arons is the Director of the Women's Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress and the Center for American Progress Action Fund, as well as a member of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative. Prior to joining American Progress, she worked at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, the labor and employment law firm of James & Hoffman, the Supreme Court of Virginia, the White House, and the 1996 Pennsylvania Democratic Coordinated Campaign. She currently serves on the boards of the DC Abortion Fund and the Virginia ACLU.
Jessica is an honors graduate of Brown University and William and Mary School of Law. At William and Mary, Jessica was an associate editor of the William and Mary Law Review, managing editor of the William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, and a board member of the William and Mary Public Service Fund. She has been seen on MSNBC, Fox News, and ABC News; heard on Clear Channel radio; and featured in The Nation, Politico, HuffingtonPost ScienceProgress, and RHRealityCheck. Her publications include "More Than a Choice: A Progressive Vision for Reproductive Health and Rights" and "Future Choices: Assisted Reproductive Technologies and the Law."
The Stupak Amendment potentially goes farther than any other federal law to restrict women’s access to abortion. The claim that it only bars federal funding for abortions is simply false.
Abortion has become a popular sideshow in the three-ring circus of the debate over health care reform. In particular, many questions about abortion funding have arisen—some genuine and some distorted.
The intentional blurring of the lines in the debate over abortion in health care reform now includes a misinformation campaign by the GOP House leadership.
Creating a comprehensive approach to the reproductive health and
parenting needs of women is an important policy objective in its own
right, regardless of any potential subsequent effect on the abortion
rate.
Creating a comprehensive approach to the reproductive health and parenting needs of women is an important policy objective in its own right, regardless of any potential subsequent effect on the abortion rate.
On abortion–or any other issue being addressed under health reform–the “common ground” solution is to let the experts — not politicians — decide what services should be covered.
The right of conscience is a time-honored value in our society. But it is not only health providers who have rights; so do patients.
Advocates who oppose legal abortion often claim they only want to “send the issue of abortion back to the states.” But this position is a bait-and-switch tactic that should not be trusted.
HHS has released its proposed regulation to “help protect health care providers from [religious] discrimination.” The good news is it no longer attempts to re-define abortion to include birth control. But the regulation no longer defines pregnancy or abortion at all.
Rather than becoming silent on abortion, as Melinda Henneberger suggests, pro-choice leaders must speak more clearly about the reasons in favor of legal abortion.
