What the Arizona attorney general’s anti-choice-expert-witness fishing episode highlights is that, for many of these so-called expert witnesses, their ideology outweighs their expertise when it comes to the fundamental scientific questions that many abortion-related policies raise.
Two California doctors who oppose abortion, Dr. George Delgado and Dr. Mary Davenport, published anecdotes about a handful of women who attempted to “reverse” their abortions. Within a few short years, states began passing laws based on these anecdotes.
Once Mississippi dropped its fight to maintain its clearly unconstitutional admitting privileges requirement, a federal court entered an order blocking it for good.
The leaders and lawmakers of the anti-choice movement have created a cottage industry out of devising bogus claims and flawed research to advance their baseless policies.
Abortion care providers are beginning to reopen clinics and restore some abortion services, years after a Republican-backed law wiped out abortion access in Texas.
We're specifically going to discuss how these concepts relate to Gavin Grimm’s case against the Gloucester County School Board and transgender bathroom discrimination.
The president's budget blueprint contains audacious provisions to restrict people with low incomes from food and shelter while slashing resources for family planning.
The Center for Family & Human Rights has opposed inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in nondiscrimination law, while supporting draconian anti-LGBTQ laws in Russia.
Kaiser Family Foundation polling found that 75 percent of voters opposed the GOP provision defunding Planned Parenthood. Only 22 percent were in favor.
In 2012, Uruguay changed its law to allow abortions up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. But a judge's ruling that a woman could not have an abortion without her ex-partner's consent sets a dangerous and possibly globally influential precedent valuing the fetus and father's wishes over those of the pregnant person.
