Now that the voters have spoken, what’s going to happen next?
Abortion providers and the women they serve are already feeling the sting of anti-choice legislators all too eager to use the Gosnell case as a flimsy excuse for rolling back reproductive rights and access.
The vote could affect a longstanding match of abortion funding Ping-Pong between local residents and the federal government.
The state’s senate health committee has approved a TRAP bill that would require abortion-providing doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of where the procedure is performed.
Gosnell is the result of politicizing women’s health care, and his case, in turn, has been used to further politicize women’s health care.
Unlike in recent years, when the thrust of legislative activity was on regulating abortion, this year legislators seem to be focusing on banning abortion outright.
One bill would remove language connecting breast cancer to abortion in the state-issued pre-abortion booklet. The other would ban abortions performed after 20 weeks post-fertilization.
Is it ever helpful, in policy terms, to lump together trafficking and sexual exploitation with the buying and selling of sexual services between consenting adults? This is the question in Argentina right now.
What does the 83rd Texas Legislature hold for the future reproductive and sexual health of the state’s residents?
This week, Boston College gets support for its decision to halt student condom distribution, Nebraska tries to pass an expedited partner treatment law, and the bacon condom arrives just in time for April Fool’s Day (but it’s not a joke).