More Than A Magazine, A Movement
Abortion is an essential healthcare service. Abortion access is varied across the world and throughout the United States due to anti-abortion legislation. Access is often dependent on social factors such as income, race, geographic region and citizenship status.
Most Americans support the right to abortion. But the fact that we are relying on ballot initiatives to protect and expand abortion access to translate that support into policy—rather than our elected representatives—should call on us to expand our fight.
Nearly every part of our system of government is structured in ways that prevent popular rule.
May 1 marks the first day that Florida’s law banning abortion after just six weeks of pregnancy takes effect.
The six-week cutoff effectively functions as a total ban. Pregnancy is determined from the last menstrual cycle; conception usually occurs in the second week, and the first sign of pregnancy—a missed period—typically appears around four weeks. This timeline gives patients as little as two weeks to recognize their pregnancy, schedule their appointment and arrange travel … assuming they realize they’re pregnant at all.
Come Nov. 4, Florida voters will decide whether to amend the Florida Constitution to enshrine the right to abortion.
U.S. patriarchal authoritarianism is on the rise, and democracy is on the decline. But day after day, we stay vigilant in our goals to dismantle patriarchy at every turn. The fight is far from over. We are watching, and we refuse to go back. This is the War on Women Report.
Since our last report: Missouri anti-abortion activists try to trick voters out of supporting a ballot measure to protect abortion rights; 70 percent of school shooters committed violence against women before or during their attacks; Connecticut may join Maine, Texas, California and New York in adopting coerced debt protections; Fox News spent only 12 minutes covering a ruling from the all-Republican Arizona Supreme Court reviving a 160-year-old state law that bans abortion; and more.
For many decades, sexual and reproductive rights have been at the core of the global feminist struggle—but only an unapologetically feminist administration puts them at the center of the political agenda. Such is the progressive turn the government of Catalonia, an autonomous region in northeastern Spain, assumed in May 2021 when it created a Ministry of Equality and Feminisms.
In October 2021, this new ministry drafted the national strategy for sexual and reproductive rights. This was founded on the premise that the personal is political, so it must also be public policy. This strategy sought to guarantee the effective exercise of existing rights—particularly abortion, long-term contraception and sexuality education.
Many women are now asking: What about perimenopause, menopause and post-menopause?
Tuesday, April 9, 2024, will go down in history. It is the day that far-right extremists got what they wanted in Arizona: a near-total ban on abortion. It is the day the Arizona Supreme Court turned the clock back 160 years—to a time before women could vote and before Arizona was even a state. It is a day that we will look back on with shame and horror. Like so many Arizona moms, my first thought was of my daughter, who was born last July in a post-Roe America.
While we cannot snap our fingers and change the dynamic at the U.S. or Arizona Supreme Court, we can make our voices heard at the ballot box. Come November, Arizona women are going to come out in full force to vote for our right to control our own bodies.
In 1864, Arizona—which was an official territory of the United States—was a vast desert. Women in Arizona could not vote, serve on juries or exercise full control over property in a marriage. They had no direct say in laws governing their bodies. Hispanic and African American women had even fewer rights than white women.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled on April 9, 2024, that a 160-year-old abortion ban passed during this territorial period will go into effect. Since that ruling, the Arizona legislature has been grappling with how to handle the near-total ban. Even if the ban is fully repealed, it could still take temporary effect this summer.
As someone who teaches history in Arizona and researches slavery, I think it is useful to understand what life was like in Arizona when this abortion ban was in force.
In the wake of Dobbs, while most abortion-restrictive states have maintained an exception to preserve the health of the pregnant woman, a handful of ban states—including Idaho—no longer permit abortions needed to protect a pregnant person’s health. The Biden administration says this is in direct conflict with the federal statute EMTALA.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar encapsulated what Justice Sotomayor referred to as the “big daylight” between the two laws: “In Idaho, doctors have to shut their eyes to everything except death—whereas, under EMTALA, you’re supposed to be thinking about things like: Is she about to lose her fertility? Is her uterus going to become incredibly scarred because of the bleeding? Is she about to undergo the possibility of kidney failure?”
The narrowing of options for physicians in Idaho leaves them in a bind: Do you perform an abortion that could save a woman’s life or her organs, as dictated by EMTALA, or will you face penalties under Idaho law?
Oral arguments can sometimes reveal how the justices of the Supreme Court are approaching the issue at hand. The questions asked by the justices suggest three things: a lack of clarity under Idaho law; abortion as the standard of care; and acknowledgement of fetal personhood.
We’ve come to the point in post-Dobbs America where the legal system, and the nation’s highest Court, are now entertaining questions about how long is too long for a woman to have to wait to receive emergency care when her organs—including her reproductive organs—are in danger.
Will women again be failed by this Court? Or will the justices finally be able to look at the devastation they have caused to women and families and not blink?
Healthcare providers aren’t allowed to tell law enforcement about a patient’s abortion if they received the procedure in a state where it is legal, it is protected by federal law, or it is permitted by state law, the Biden administration said Monday. The rule will take effect in 30 days, and it represents a meaningful shift.
But it’s unclear whether it will protect medical data for people who self-manage their abortions by receiving medication in the mail, often from a prescribing physician in a state with laws protecting reproductive rights.
