Author: Anna Bernstein

Anna Bernstein is the principal federal policy advisor at the Guttmacher Institute, where she leads work on domestic abortion access policy at the federal level, including advocacy and analysis to ensure that policies are grounded in evidence.

Trump’s EPA Is Turning Drinking Water Into an Antiabortion Battleground

and

Trump’s EPA has announced it will test drinking water for the presence of abortion pills, contraception, hormones and more. The study has been a longtime goal of antiabortion activists, who have been attempting to use environmental regulations at the state and federal level to restrict access to medication abortion.

“The cruelty really is the point here, not science or health,” writes Jessica Valenti.

There is no evidence to support the claim that medication abortion is impacting U.S. waterways, nor the claims that expelled tissue from abortion is a risk to the environment. Singling out mifepristone through environmental regulation is misleading and a blatant ploy to stigmatize and restrict abortion access.

How Project 2025 Seeks to Obliterate Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights

, and

Project 2025 promotes a presidential agenda that rolls back civil and human rights and implements extremist conservative policies across every federal department and agency. Its sweeping far-right policy framework, by the conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation, includes numerous attacks on sexual and reproductive health and rights. 

This fact sheet enumerates some of the agenda’s most serious threats to sexual and reproductive health and describes potential effects.

Supreme Court to Hear Two Key Cases on Abortion Access

Rather than being done with the issue of abortion, the Supreme Court has taken up two cases this term that could have further disastrous effects on abortion access. One case could lead to limits on access to one of the two drugs used for medication abortion, and the other could allow states to ban emergency abortion care to save a patient’s life.

Decisions in both cases would have effects nationwide—illustrating the chaos and confusion that the Dobbs decision has created for providers and patients.