To my surprise, my recent article in the journal Contraception on the effectiveness of withdrawal in preventing pregnancy unleashed a mini-storm of commentary in the blogosphere.
Parental involvement laws are unconstitutional and don’t even work.
The economic argument against contraception assumes an unnerving disregard for humanity.
Family planning expansion not in 2009 spending bill; family planning funds cost-effective, Guttmacher study finds; anti-choicers disagree about North Dakota personhood strategy; anti-choicers protest possible Sebelius pick; new anti-choice archbishop in New York.
This year, the Guttmacher Institute celebrates forty years of promoting the core belief that scientific evidence can and should shape public policy.
LifeNews.com and Concerned Women for America’s Wendy Wright have an unconventional — you might say wildly inaccurate — take on the Guttmacher Institute’s recent report on the rate of abortion nationwide.
This year, the most significant developments in state-level reproductive health law lie ahead, in the form of ballot initiatives that will come before voters in three states in November.
I respectfully ask Secretary Leavitt, given the new information that more American women than ever before are accessing contraception and family planning services, which women should be denied these services under the HHS draft regulations?
With the legislative year in full swing, clear trends in the states are emerging, largely in the wake of last year’s Supreme Court decision in Gonzalez v. Carhart.