Can the abortion rate be reduced by improving social services? New data from the Brookings Institution suggests that answer is no, which makes sense: Women have abortions for more complex reasons than simply being too poor to parent.
Wisconsin’s GOP lawmakers wrote in a letter that several “red flags” have arisen regarding government reimbursement of family planning services.
Virginia lawmakers on Wednesday filed a handful of bills related to reproductive and sexual health—and they are almost all pro-choice, and could roll back anti-choice policies pushed through by Virginia Republicans in recent years.
This year, Texas’ Health and Human Services Commission, and the departments it oversees, are up for review by the Sunset Advisory Commission. It can’t hurt to start amassing your “fingers crossed” GIFs now.
Researchers warned in the newly released study that the shuttering of abortion providers as a result of more stringent laws could put those who need abortion care in danger.
Staff members at the last remaining legal abortion clinic in the Rio Grande Valley have been repeatedly left without a job in the wake of flip-flopping court decisions.
The impact of targeted regulations on abortion providers extends beyond financial—it can also make it challenging to sustain a vision of quality “woman-centered” care.
“The fetus basically gets two lawyers to try and stop the minor from getting an abortion in a way that no other state’s law comes close to doing,” said Andrew Beck, one of the ACLU attorneys challenging the Alabama law on behalf of a Montgomery abortion clinic, arguing it is unconstitutional.
Recent findings directly contradict the charge often made by anti-choice politicians that pushing through abortion restrictions is based on an overarching desire to protect the health and safety of women.
On Tuesday, the California Catholic Conference filed a civil rights complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services over its state’s abortion insurance policy.