Pregnant women and young families continue to face environmental, economic, and legislative hardships more than six weeks after a devastating chemical spill in West Virginia.
Even as state legislators were largely preoccupied by ongoing budget crises in 2010, issues related to reproductive health and rights nonetheless garnered significant legislative attention.
While BPA (bisphenol A) is now receiving a lot of attention from environmental and reproductive health advocates, another chemical affecting women’s reproductive health is sliding under the radar: Dioxin.
In light of new research, will women be informed that preserving their ovaries may preserve their health?
As pro-choice individuals and organizations who believe in enabling people to decide when the time is right (and when it is not) to have children, environmental efforts are not just nice “add-ons” but a fundamental part of our mission.
In a reader diary post, Miranda Spencer says Jill Stanek contorts an investigative piece on the role of environmental factors in heightening breast cancer risk into an apologia for abortion.
Driving across a rural Iowa highway, anti-abortion signs are almost as common a sight as farmers spraying crops. Now there is a growing body of evidence linking the substances sprayed on fields to human reproductive health issues, including unintended abortions.
Research is finding that the causes of breast cancer may include timing and pattern of exposure to certain chemicals. You won’t find that in the headlines.
Why, when it comes to reproductive rights, does the Vatican turns its back on millennia of teaching about the satanic nature of lying?
While there is evidence that estrogenic contaminants are impacting the environment, there is no evidence that oral contraceptives are the main culprit. And what about the benefits of contraception to the environment?