“Jane” could only assume, from the debates held in the state legislature over the past several weeks, that since anti-choice lawmakers apparently believe they’re in the best position to tell Texans whether they can, or should, access legal abortion care, “Jane” would just go straight to the source.
Josh Duggar resigned from his position as executive director of the Family Research Council on Thursday after reports surfaced that as a young teen he had fondled the breasts and genitals of several girls, including his own sisters, over an unknown period of time beginning in at least 2002.
If HB 3994 passes through the senate, Texas’ parental consent law will be even stricter than it is already, forcing minors who cannot obtain permission to navigate a slew of complicated, humiliating, and sometimes impossible hurdles to receive reproductive health care.
When cases of parents killing or abusing disabled children hit the media, it’s common to see these parents treated sympathetically. Reports typically discuss how they were “pushed to the breaking point” or “under too much stress,” dehumanizing the victims or seeming to forget them altogether.
I can’t help but feel frustrated that no matter what deals our progressive lawmakers strike, someone’s getting thrown under the bus—and, so often, that someone is a Texan who has the least political power, the fewest economic resources, the lowest level of socio-cultural capital.
About 200 of the women and girls were said to be visibly pregnant among the hundreds of captives recently rescued in the Nigerian military fight against Boko Haram insurgents.
Nigerian activists and citizens are demanding more action as the country marks the one-year anniversary of the abduction of more than 200 teenage school girls.
Many young parents may not know this, but many of the experiences and educational hardships they are facing are actually illegal. One major way teens can help empower themselves is by asserting their federal rights.
We in the reproductive rights community have cultivated this idea that the only stories we can tell about young people are ones that involve the threat of abuse. This makes it seem as if we tacitly approve of the idea that only people in danger are worthy of our understanding.
On Monday, the Supreme Court struggled with when, and if, threatening statements made online should be constitutionally protected. But it may not be possible to find a middle ground.