More Than A Magazine, A Movement
The Supreme Court has come down on the major abortion case Moyle v. United States, effectively dismissing the case and leaving pregnant women and healthcare providers in Idaho without answers.
I just had the privilege of experiencing the very best of American modern medicine this week for my knee surgery. We celebrate our American medical system as the best in the world—so why would we voluntarily decide to deny the care that I just received this past week to women in 21 states in our country?
The Reproductive Freedom Alliance is a nonpartisan coalition of 23 governors determined to protect abortion rights and reproductive health.
“It shows the alignment of Democratic governors who are very clear about women’s health, public health and the fact that the Dobbs decision is a complete violation of long-held constitutional rights—fundamental rights for women and their families,” said New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.
(This article originally appears in the Summer 2024 issue of Ms. Join the Ms. community today and you’ll get issues delivered straight to your mailbox!)
Roe v. Wade was overturned on June 24, 2022. But according to Shefali Luthra, author of Undue Burden: Life and Death Decisions in Post-Roe America, “it had been on the verge of collapse for decades.” After all, most Medicaid recipients had lost insurance coverage for the procedure in 1977 and a plethora of restrictions—from parental consent and notification requirements for minors, to mandated counseling sessions to dissuade people from ending their pregnancies—had long kept procedural abortion out of reach for large segments of the population.
Undue Burden digs into this lack of preparedness by introducing diverse people who have been directly impacted by the decision—people who have had to travel hundreds of miles to have an abortion, people whose highly-anticipated pregnancies became untenable, a trans man who became pregnant shortly after beginning his transition, and a young couple who lacked the emotional and financial resources to welcome a second child, among them. Their stories are juxtaposed with those of overwrought clinicians as well as staff at abortion funds. The result is a poignant and dramatic look at the stakes of losing Roe and a compassionate assessment of the human toll wrought by Dobbs.
Because of women, care has become a top concern among voters and a unifier across gender, race and party identification. And care issues are most powerful as a motivator for civic engagement when linked with other top priorities for voters—including reproductive rights, tax equity and kitchen table economics.
(This essay is part of a Women & Democracy package focused on who’s funding the women and LGBTQ people on the frontlines of democracy. We’re manifesting a new era for philanthropy—one that centers feminism. The need is real: Funding for women and girls amounts to less than 2 percent of all philanthropic giving; for women of color, it’s less than 1 percent. Explore the “Feminist Philanthropy Is Essential to Democracy” collection.)
On April 24, the Supreme Court of the United States will decide whether the Emergency Medical and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) will continue to require that patients be offered life saving abortion care regardless of a state’s conflicting abortion laws.
The implications for at-risk women, particularly those protected by EMTALA, cannot be ignored.
Too often, investments in housing, affordable and quality healthcare, child and elder care, paid family and medical leave—all of which allow women and families to thrive—are the first to get cut when lawmakers talk of “cutting wasteful government spending” or “balancing the budget.”
President Joe Biden’s most recent budget proposal bucks that historical trend in a big way.
For too many—especially women of color—paychecks aren’t keeping up. Inflation is inching downward, but costs for groceries, childcare and rent feel out of reach.
But congressional fights over taxes and spending are really about fundamental questions: What do women, our families and communities need? What kind of future do we want to build? Recent budget proposals by the Biden administration and Republicans in Congress show how our two major political parties answer those questions. The answers were starkly different, revealing high stakes when it comes to women’s ability to participate in the economy, care for their families and control their own reproductive lives.
Less than three weeks after Alabama’s State Supreme Court unleashed massive chaos and hardship by ruling that frozen embryos created through in vitro fertilization (IVF) must be considered children, the state legislature passed a bill providing immunity to clinics that provide IVF and people who access that care. Alabama’s stridently anti-abortion governor hastily signed the legislation into law. Are we supposed to be grateful?
Protecting and supporting families is not the focus of the Republican Party. They prove that every day by opposing food and nutrition assistance, childcare subsidies, paid family leave, Medicaid expansion and other programs that help families be healthy and thrive.
On Jan. 29, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a law banning Medicaid funding for abortion discriminates against women, in violation of the state’s Equal Rights Amendment. The decision overturned a 1985 case saying the ERA did not apply to abortion.
“The Pennsylvania case is so sweeping and strong in the way that it identifies interference with reproductive decision-making as a form of sex discrimination and as part of the historic pattern of oppression of women. It’s really beautiful,” said Susan J. Frietsche, co-executive director of the Women’s Law Project, which filed the case on behalf of Pennsylvania abortion providers.
(This essay is part of “The ERA Is Essential to Democracy” Women & Democracy collection. It also appears in the Spring 2024 issue of Ms. Join the Ms. community today and you’ll get issues delivered straight to your mailbox!)
Since the fall of Roe, states in New England have been fairly protective of abortion. In spite of these protections, there are still abortion seekers in New England who need help accessing costly procedures. That’s where abortion funds come in—local nonprofits that pay for someone’s abortion, plus extra costs, like transportation or lodging.
We interviewed representatives from Tides for Reproductive Freedom (Tides) in Massachusetts, the Reproductive Freedom Fund of New Hampshire (ReproFund), and the Women’s Health and Education Fund of Rhode Island (WHEF). More than one fund activist called their group “small but mighty”—acknowledging both the community-based approach, but also the power that comes with their smallness.
(This piece is the second in a series of articles spotlighting interviews with fund representatives across the U.S.)