The Gosnell trial is over, but states continue to use it as an excuse to push their anti-choice agenda.
We have come a long way toward declaring certain inalienable human rights, but too often issues that disproportionately affect women are left out.
This week, Boston College gets support for its decision to halt student condom distribution, Nebraska tries to pass an expedited partner treatment law, and the bacon condom arrives just in time for April Fool’s Day (but it’s not a joke).
More women than ever have been running for office. More women than ever are the subject of sexist attack campaigns. Coincidence?
A federal judge ruled the Idaho “fetal pain” ban unconstitutional. So why are the anti-choice activists celebrating? It’s a combination of optimism and a misunderstanding of how the judicial process works.
Nebraska wants to make sure women seeking abortions have easily accessible, unbiased information to look at. Unfortunately, the info they will offer isn’t.
Reproductive health and rights were once again the subject of extensive debate in state capitols in 2012. Over the course of the year, 42 states and the District of Columbia enacted 122 provisions related to reproductive health and rights. One-third of these new provisions, 43 in 19 states, sought to restrict access to abortion services.
A federal judge ruled the state’s “choose life” license plates violate the First Amendment since there is no option in support of abortion rights.
Nebraska, the home of the “fetal pain” movement, may be surprisingly abortion-restriction free in 2013.
We can all agree that forcing women to undergo abortions or sterilizations is wrong — but so is forcing women to gestate and give birth to children they don’t want. It’s time we considered both sides of reproductive coercion.