Despite the work I do, I’ve been contributing to abortion stigma by not always speaking plainly about the work that I do. I’ve been afraid of starting arguments, of offending friends and family members, of ostracizing myself as the abortion lady. A few months ago, I decided to change that.
On issues of reproductive rights, the candidates do not differ substantively; both incumbent Republican Gov. Mary Fallin and Democratic nominee Rep. Joe Dorman have staunchly anti-choice voting records.
The BBC was recently told it needs to value scientific accuracy over having “all sides” represented. U.S. media should do the same thing, especially when it comes to debates over reproductive rights.
House Republicans announced late last week that they are moving forward with plans to sue the president over delays in implementing the provision of the law that requires some employers to offer health insurance or face penalties.
Women’s empowerment is key to Clinton’s vision of progress, and she is forthright in supporting women’s human rights. As such, it’s curious that the book fails to address, among other things, maternal mortality, abortion, contraception, or the reproductive havoc caused by modern warfare.
The struggle for LGBT rights and the struggle for reproductive rights are inseparable—and we have to change the role religion is playing.
A recent USA Today article on the inaugural conference for men’s rights activists asked whether it marked “A kinder, gentler turn to the gender wars.” In short: No, it didn’t.
The contraceptive wars started with the notorious campaign in the late 19th century of the Postmaster General Anthony Comstock, who successfully banned the spread of information about contraception under an obscenity statute.
The Roberts Court is poised to clarify what employers must do to accommodate pregnant workers on the job. This could be terrible news.
According to Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, around 70 percent of pregnancies in the state are unintended.