Health

Build Back Better Is in Peril. Low-income Families Can’t Afford To Lose It

As families hope Democratic leadership will find a different path to pass Build Back Better policies like childcare or paid leave, another revolutionary policy is just beginning to enter mainstream awareness: guaranteed income.

Guaranteed income involves regular payments directed to specific marginalized groups, as a way to address economic inequities caused by systemic racism and sexism. Economic justice organizations like the Magnolia Mother’s Trust argue that a federal guaranteed income program would not just help low-income families pay their bills, but also reduce financial stress and set their families up for long-term success. 

The FDA Is Moving To Align With Science and Expand Abortion Access

The FDA Is Moving To Align With Science and Expand Abortion Access

Up until Thursday, FDA regulations on the abortion pill mifepristone consisted of three components:

1. providers must complete a self-certification process with the drug’s distributor to provide mifepristone;
2. patients must sign a special patient-agreement form; and
3. the pills must be dispensed in a clinic, medical office or hospital.

The FDA has permanently removed the third requirement and will allow certified pharmacies to dispense the pills. While the decision is good news, it does not go far enough to align with the evidence. Still, the removal of the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone is an essential first step.

FDA Lifts Some Abortion Pill Restrictions, Leaves Others in Place: “Ignores the Science and Smacks of Political Interference”

FDA Lifts Some Abortion Pill Restrictions, Leaves Others in Place: “Ignores the Science and Smacks of Political Interference”

On Thursday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lifted a long-standing requirement that physicians must distribute the abortion pill mifepristone to patients in person, but left in place several burdensome restrictions that continue to unnecessarily restrict and stigmatize this safe medication, say advocates. The decision came in response to a case filed by the ACLU on behalf of abortion providers and medical groups.

“It’s purely political. These pills should not only be in pharmacies, they should be available over-the-counter. But instead, years later, we’re still in a place where people think of this as a drug that is so dangerous it has to be in a black box.”

Subject: Man. Object: Woman. Verb? Control.

Subject: Man. Object: Woman. Verb? Control

It is not simply or only “hatred” that motivates the sexists of the world, but the very desire to define and therefore to control. 

It’s then easy to see how attacks on reproductive rights are connected with the prevalence of sexual assault and harassment: Because if women are fully self-determined—can determine when and if they have children, when and with whom they have sex—then they cannot be there, fully, inevitably, without their own desire, for you. For a man. 

The Supreme Court Revealed a Lack of Respect for Precedent and Women’s Health—And It Won’t Stop There

The Supreme Court has been rewarding anti-abortion efforts. On Dec. 1, the Court heard oral arguments in a case involving Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban; the following week, the Court issued a devastating ruling allowing Texas S.B. 8 to stand. Many see these recent Court decisions as signals it’s poised to overturn Roe and throw away 50 years of precedent—all while trying to pretend it’s not.

Apparently We Don’t Need Abortion Because of Adoption … “or Whatever”

The Supreme Court Revealed Its Lack of Respect for Precedent and Women's Health—And It Won't Stop There

In Dobbs v. Jackson, Amy Coney Barrett said the right to an abortion is unnecessary because of safe haven laws. This argument ignores the fact that pregnancy itself has profound impacts on a woman’s life and comes with many risks, especially in a state like Mississippi with an exceptionally high maternal mortality rate.

To suggest that adoption is a simple or equivalent alternative to abortion is shocking. To have that suggestion come from a mother of seven children, who has both been pregnant and been through the process of adoption, is dangerous.

For many children, even if eventually adopted, some time will be spent in foster care. And foster care is not always a safe haven.

Fetal Rights or Women’s Rights?

Fetal Rights or Women’s Rights?

The fundamental question at stake in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health is not the future of abortion access—but whether or not women count as equal citizens under the law.

What happens when the rights of the unborn prevail over those of living, breathing, working, loving and dreaming women and girls? Historically, women and girls suffer dire health, emotional, economic, career and personal consequences.