Anti-choice lawmakers have tried to re-define what qualifies as a “medically necessary” abortion to qualify as Medicaid coverage. A new lawsuit claims that definition unconstitutionally restricts access to reproductive health care for low-income women.
Our searchable tool has been updated to include final responses from 48 state attorneys general and 41 state health departments about a wide range of issues involving abortion. The additional responses support our earlier analysis—that abortion in the United States is overwhelmingly safe and highly regulated.
The form would reduce the number of ways in which an abortion can be considered “medically necessary” in Alaska, and some doctors predict it could make it more difficult for Medicaid patients to access abortions and for medical professionals to receive funding for such procedures.
Alaska has found that “personhood” is blatantly unconstitutional. So why is Iowa still trying to pass it?
The Obama administration fights for barriers to emergency contraception for no good reason, while the right pushes for even greater concessions on exemptions to the birth control benefit.
Despite the most aggressive push yet, anti-choice legislators failed in their attempt to force poor women to give birth by cutting off abortion funding. Why? Because they hate birth control.
Despite concerns that the new bill is unconstitutional, anti-choice legislators are pushing ahead with a plan to curb safe abortion access for low-income women.
They aren’t always doctors, but they play them in your legislature.
Rape victims will no longer be required to “promptly report” their assaults in order to pay for an abortion with Medicaid in Alaska.
The poor women of Alaska may be in for a drastic change when it comes to using Medicaid to pay for medically necessary abortions or abortions after a sexual assault.