A new administration, a new agenda for sexual and reproductive health and rights advocates. What’s new? What’s changed? What are we still fighting for after all these years and how can a new leader make the greatest impact on women’s health and lives globally?
Looking at the presidential candidates’ Senate votes is a great resource for pro-choice voters looking to weigh each candidate’s actions against his rhetoric before casting their ballot in November.
On the global gag rule, on funding for UNFPA, and on PEFPAR — who holds the office of the Presidency makes the critical difference.
Rather than targeting the most at-risk populations, ideological provisions in PEPFAR marginalize sex workers and all women. The next administration can take the ideology out.
In the upcoming presidential debate on foreign policy issues, will candidates be asked to address sexual and reproductive health and human rights of women as a critical component to our nation’s foreign policy?
We all arrive through pregnancy. You’d think with this kind of reputation, prioritizing maternal health might be a no-brainer for governments. What about the United States? Will our presidential candidates address the plight of mothers worldwide in the first debate?
A House Subcommittee and Senate Committee both appropriated record-level funding for international family planning and for UNFPA, and each adopts a policy provision that ensures UNFPA funding regardless of whether the President wants to block the agency’s funds.
Faith-based organizations representing a broad spectrum of religions call on our government to reauthorize PEPFAR without ideological restrictions on funding.
Rumors that Bush will ban fed funds for U.S. family planning clinics, expanding the reproductive health conversation, Michigan abortion ban, finding an HIV hideout.
It’s crucial to align domestic and international family planning and reproductive health movements in order to save women’s lives.