In a move that underscores the alarming consequences of Texas’ near-total abortion ban, state Attorney General Ken Paxton has announced the arrest of Maria Margarita Rojas, a midwife accused of providing illegal abortion services. The charges of illegal performance of an abortion and practicing medicine without a license could lead to decades behind bars for Rojas, making her one of the first individuals criminally prosecuted under the state’s draconian anti-abortion laws.
Dr. Maria, and Jose Ley, her employee, allegedly operated at least three clinics in the Houston area where authorities claim abortion procedures were performed. The clinics, which publicly advertised services such as ultrasounds and vaccines, are now the focus of Paxton’s latest anti-abortion crackdown, with his office filing a temporary restraining order to shut them down.
According to court records, Rojas was initially taken into custody in Waller County on March 6 for allegedly practicing medicine without a license and was later released on a $10,000 bond. However, on Monday, March 17, she was arrested again along with Ley and now faces felony charges. Their combined bond has been set at $2.1 million. Additionally, Paxton announced that he has filed a temporary restraining order to close Rojas’s clinics.
“In Texas, life is sacred,” Paxton declared in his statement, doubling down on his commitment to enforcing some of the harshest abortion restrictions in the country. But while Texas officials frame this prosecution as a victory for their so-called ‘pro-life’ agenda, reproductive rights advocates see it for what it truly is: a ruthless attack on bodily autonomy and a harrowing warning for those who dare to assist people seeking abortion care.
In Texas, the charge of practicing medicine without a license carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison, while the performance of an abortion is up to 20 years.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Texas has led the charge in criminalizing abortion providers and restricting reproductive healthcare. The state’s law bans abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with only narrow exceptions for life-threatening conditions, exceptions that have been widely criticized as vague and insufficient.
Texas, which already has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the country, stands to see even worse outcomes as abortion bans push reproductive healthcare providers out of practice. When healthcare professionals are forced to weigh the risk of imprisonment against their duty to care for their patients, pregnant people lose access to essential, sometimes life-saving, medical support.
The aggressive prosecution of Rojas highlights a critical and dangerous reality of the chilling effect these laws have on maternal healthcare providers. Midwives, doulas, and other healthcare professionals who serve pregnant people, especially in marginalized communities, now face the terrifying risk of criminal prosecution simply for providing compassionate care.
The lawsuit claims that the directive from the Department of Education violates the First and Fifth Amendments, arguing that it imposes unconstitutional restrictions on free speech and is excessively vague, leaving educational institutions uncertain about which practices might be prohibited. The teachers union asserts that the directive’s broad scope could impede the teaching of essential historical topics related to race and undermine DEI programs. They further argue that the Department of Education is overextending the application of a Supreme Court decision that banned the use of race in college admissions, misinterpreting it to apply to all aspects of student life.
This is particularly dangerous for feminist educators who rely on critical pedagogy to help students understand the social structures that shape their lives. Teaching about gender wage gaps, reproductive justice, and the historical disenfranchisement of women of color requires engaging with discussions about systemic oppression, exactly the kind of discourse that this directive seeks to suppress.
The directive has prompted swift reactions from educational institutions nationwide. For instance, universities in Colorado are evaluating the potential impact on their DEI programs, with some institutions considering significant adjustments to comply with the new policy. The lawsuit seeks to prevent the enforcement of the directive, emphasizing the potential harm to students and educators if DEI initiatives are dismantled.
This legal action is part of a broader resistance against recent executive orders aimed at dismantling DEI programs in both federal and educational sectors. By attempting to strip federal funding from institutions that acknowledge race and systemic oppression, the administration is not only misinterpreting civil rights law but also endangering the future of inclusive education. Opponents argue that such policies are essential for addressing historical inequities and supporting marginalized communities, while supporters claim they may lead to reverse discrimination. The outcome of this lawsuit could have far-reaching implications for the future of DEI initiatives in educational institutions across the country.
On Wednesday, Feb. 5, The Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR) hosted an event titled “2025 Federal Policy Solutions to Advance Gender Equity,” where policymakers, experts and advocates gathered to strategize on the urgent need to safeguard and expand women’s rights. The panelists included President of the National Partnership for Women and Families Jocelyn Frye, Co-President and CEO of Guttmacher Institute Destiny Lopez, and Pronita Gupta, a Senior Fellow at Workshop. President and CEO of IWPR Dr. Jamila K. Taylor served as the moderator. This event was held in partnership with Congresswoman Jan Schawkowsky (D-I.L.).
In the face of unprecedented attacks on women’s progress, the event highlighted how critical it is for those in positions of power to work towards structural change that not only defends existing rights, but also pushes forward into new realms of equality and justice.
A majority of the panel was dedicated to the intersection between economic justice and gender equity, with focuses on childcare, paid medical leave, health insurance, and women’s protections in the workplace. Frye aptly pointed out that opening jobs to women without providing them the infrastructure to take advantage of them is an “empty opportunity,” given that childcare responsibilities often fall to women.
Additionally, a 2022 estimate from the Boston Consulting Group found that paid and unpaid work in the care industry comprises $6 trillion, almost a quarter of the U.S. GDP. The care economy is backed by women of color workers, yet they are often underpaid. It is also important to recognize domestic labor as the unpaid side of care work, which is made invisible due to societal expectations that women and girls will perform it.
Economic policies that further women’s participation in the workforce are widely beneficial, as they will prevent families in states with unpaid leave from losing over $20 billion in wages each year. The national GDP could lose $290 billion in 2030 and beyond if the United States does not improve the care economy, which comprises services that support children, the elderly, the disabled, and more. Women’s economic participation has the potential to increase U.S. GDP growth by 4% over the next decade, but we need policies to facilitate it.
IWPR’s new federal policy agenda outlines four major policy areas for advancing gender equity, including caregiving and families, equitable work and wages, reproductive justice and health equity, and education and career advancement. It encompasses 14 targeted policy areas such as paid leave, reproductive healthcare across the lifespan, and college affordability. This federal policy agenda aligns with the idea that we must start crafting our vision for the future now: Frye referred to this as our “affirmative vision” for the future, and Lopez called these policies “generational work.”
Representative Sarah McBride (D-D.E.) entered the discussion to present her goal of passing paid federal leave. This is a policy that touches “every single person, every single family across every background and political persuasion” as Rep. McBride stated. McBride’s message was aspirational for the future to build policies that protect the country and its workforce.
On a similar note, the panelists closed out the briefing by sharing what brings them hope. Gupta spoke about the organizing she is seeing around the country to protect federal victories, Lopez highlighted the successes of the Latin American reproductive rights movement, La Marea Verde, and Frye shared that people do crazy things when they are desperate, assuring the audience that gender equity will win out eventually.
While the day’s discussion was largely driven by concerns over the erosion of women’s rights, it also served as a call to action for creating a future where gender equity is firmly rooted in policy. Frye reminded the audience that “women don’t live single-issue lives,” and as such, policies must address the full spectrum of challenges that women face.
In a new report, PEN America has revealed the top banned picture books during the 2023-2024 school year. Among these 23 titles, many center on LGBTQ+ themes, U.S. history, and diversity.
PEN America defines a school book ban as “any action taken against a book based on its content and as a result of parent or community challenges, administrative decisions, or in response to direct or threatened action by lawmakers or other governmental officials, that leads to a previously accessible book being either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished, either temporarily or permanently.” Book bans override a school’s curriculum or library offerings on the basis of the book’s contents.
According to the report, these books are part of a wider trend of increasing book bans, which PEN America has been tracking since 2021. Last year, 10,046 book bans were recorded including 4,231 titles, with 45% of these bans coming from Florida and 36% from Iowa. While young adult and adult books were the primary targets of censorship, approximately 2% of the bans focused on picture books aimed at the youngest readers—books often filled with joy, whimsy, and lessons of empathy.
This increase in book bans is part of a wider trend that has escalated since 2021. Over the past few years, more than 16,000 book bans have been documented in U.S. public schools—a surge not seen since the Red Scare of the 1950s. The majority of these bans come from conservative groups pushing to restrict books on race, racism, LGBTQ+ issues, and sexual violence.
These censorship efforts disproportionately affect marginalized communities and underrepresented narratives. The banned books overwhelmingly included stories with people and characters of color (44%) and books with LGBTQ+ people and characters (39%).
Meehan, the Program Director at PEN says,“The increase in book bans is a serious threat to intellectual freedom and free expression. Books are meant to challenge, educate, and expand the worldview of young readers, and banning them only narrows their understanding of the world around them.”
As the battle over what children are allowed to read rages on, the importance of defending these books remains clear. They are more than just stories; they are tools for empathy, understanding, and growth. By pushing back against the forces of censorship, advocates for free expression hope to preserve a future where children can learn about love, history, and even goblins—without fear of being silenced.
Here’s a few of the most banned picture books from 2023-2024
“And Tango Makes Three,” by Peter Parnell, Justin Richardson, and Henry Cole
“The Family Book,” by Todd Parr
“Julián Is a Mermaid,” by Jessica Love
“When Aidan Became a Brother,” by Kyle Lukoff and Kaylani Juanita
“Draw Me a Star,” by Eric Carle
“This Day in June,” by Gayle E. Pitman and Kristyna Litten
“Prince and Knight,” by Daniel Haack and Stevie Lewis
“Morris Micklewhite and the Tangerine Dress,” by Christine Baldacchino and Isabelle Malenfant
“Milo Imagines the World,” by Matt de la Peña and Christian Robinson
Republicans in Congress are moving toward reshaping U.S. immigration policy with a harsh immigration detention law, The Laken Riley Act. This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to detain non-citizens who have been arrested for nonviolent crimes including burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting of $100 or more. It also empowers states to sue the federal government for decisions or alleged failures related to immigration enforcement. As it moves through the legislative process, this act is poised to bring a new era of tougher immigration enforcement, expand state powers, and provoke debates about the balance of power between state and federal governments.
Named after Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student tragically murdered in Athens, Georgia, by Jose Ibarra, a Venezuelan immigrant, the bill has sparked both strong support and deep controversy. Ibarra had been apprehended by Border Patrol but released before the incident. Ibarra had a history of being in the U.S. unlawfully, and his release ignited a fierce public outcry. Riley’s family, along with supporters of tougher immigration enforcement, championed the cause for more stringent measures to prevent similar incidents.
In the 119th Congress, which just began on January 3, 2025, the House has swiftly passed the Laken Riley Act. The bill was passed on January 7th with 264 Yeas from 216 Republicans and 48 Democrats after being introduced by Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA-10). The bill was sent to the Senate the next day drawing an unusual amount of support from Democratic Senators. John Fetterman (D-PA) and Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) have both co-sponsored the bill.
Looking deeper into the Laken Riley Act, the bill mandates that anyone in the country unlawfully who is accused of stealing items worth $100 or more be taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), regardless of their criminal history. Currently, immigration officials exercise discretion when deciding whom to detain, focusing primarily on those with violent criminal backgrounds. However, this bill would limit that discretion, potentially increasing the number of people detained for non-violent offenses. This could overwhelm detention facilities already struggling with capacity.
This shift from federal control to state oversight is a pivotal moment in immigration law, as it allows state officials to directly influence federal immigration policy, granting states the power to challenge U.S. foreign policy, specifically when it comes to deportation.
The bill will next be debated in the Senate, where Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) will decide which amendments to consider. With the Senate facing a 60-vote threshold to advance the bill, its future remains uncertain, especially considering the divide among Senate Democrats. However, with the backing of several prominent Democratic Senators, there is a strong possibility that the bill could pass the Senate and make its way to President-elect Donald Trump’s desk.
On November 12th, an all-woman panel convened at American University to unpack the results of the 2024 elections at the event titled “What Just Happened?: Voting is over — What Did We Learn from Election 2024?” Moderated by Betsy Fischer Martin, Executive Director of the AU School of Public Affairs Women & Politics Institute, the discussion brought together prominent voices in politics and polling: Molly O’Rourke, Kristen Soltis Anderson, Cheyanne M. Daniels, and Amanda Hunter. Their analysis revealed key trends and takeaways from a uniquely static and revealing election cycle.
One of the most striking revelations came from O’Rourke, who noted the surprising growth of Trump’s coalition, particularly among diverse communities, including Hispanic voters and urban populations. This shift challenges the long-held narrative that Trump’s base is solely composed of white, non-college-educated voters. Daniels echoed this sentiment, sharing her observations that while Trump’s victory was not unexpected, the demographic shifts were indeed surprising. Notably, the turnout of Black men, who supported Harris, reflected a more nuanced electorate than many anticipated.
A key theme discussed by Hunter was the gender dynamics at play during the election. She highlighted that while many women expressed disapproval of Trump’s personality, it did not deter them from voting for him. This dichotomy reveals a complex relationship between candidate authenticity and personal appeal. Trump’s ability to project authenticity resonated with voters, even if they didn’t personally like him.
The conversation also addressed the impact of gender on Harris’s campaign. While Harris faced scrutiny over her dual identity as a woman and a politician, her campaign did not fall into the typical traps of ambition backlash that other female candidates have experienced. This allowed her to focus on policy without detracting from her identity.
Abortion emerged as a pivotal issue during the election, with 60% of voters supporting legal abortion, but 30% still voting for Trump. O’Rourke pointed out that while Trump’s messaging on abortion was often misleading, he skillfully navigated the topic to his advantage. Kristen Soltis Anderson remarked on the intertwining narratives of abortion and economic dissatisfaction, suggesting that voters hold Democrats accountable for a broader sense of dysfunction in government.
Hunter highlighted notable achievements for women in politics, citing that three state legislatures are now more evenly split between men and women, alongside record numbers of women governors. She also noted the significance of candidates like Nikki Haley and Harris, who are reshaping expectations for women in leadership roles through their debate performances. These advancements suggest a gradual but important shift in the political landscape, reflecting broader societal changes.
The panel concluded with a sense of cautious optimism. While the results of the 2024 elections revealed entrenched divisions and surprising shifts in voter demographics, they also illuminated pathways for future candidates. As political strategists and party leaders reflect on these lessons, the insights shared during the event will undoubtedly influence the strategies employed in upcoming elections. The 2024 election was not just a referendum on candidates, but a complex interplay of identity, policy, and public sentiment. As we move forward, understanding these dynamics will be crucial for both parties aiming to connect with an increasingly diverse electorate.
In a recent event on October 28 hosted by the O’Neill Institute of Georgetown Law, a panel of experts convened to discuss the alarming realities faced by women and girls in conflict zones and beyond. The discussion was moderated by Pema Levy who highlighted a stark report released by the United Nations this month, highlighting that over 600 million women and girls worldwide find themselves forgotten amidst ongoing global crises.
Dr. Samar, an advocate for women’s rights in Afghanistan, opened the discussion by reflecting on the regression of women’s rights under Taliban rule. Despite initial advancements, including Afghanistan’s ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 2009, the resurgence of the Taliban has led to significant setbacks. Currently, girls are prohibited from receiving education beyond the sixth grade, impacting approximately 20 million girls in the country. Moreover, the Taliban’s actions have hindered women’s participation in essential healthcare roles, such as vaccination teams, contributing to a resurgence of diseases like polio.
Dr. Mulunda provided insight into the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), a nation grappling with 30 years of conflict and a catastrophic humanitarian situation. With over seven million displaced individuals, the DRC has been labeled the “capital of rape worldwide,” leading to a public health crisis marked by unintended pregnancies and devastating maternal mortality rates. Although recent legislation has begun to allow access to contraception, the infrastructure and resources needed for effective healthcare delivery remain critically inadequate.
Dr. Pardis Mahdavi highlighted the paradoxes embedded in legal frameworks governing women’s rights. In several Gulf countries, laws purportedly designed to protect women have led to severe repercussions, including the incarceration of rape survivors. Additionally, issues such as migrant women facing forced sterilizations and the denial of citizenship to children born from such circumstances illustrate the intersection of law and systemic oppression. The panelists emphasized the urgent need for women to be included in legal reforms that affect their lives, advocating for a stronger presence in decision-making spaces.
Despite the grim realities, the panelists shared a vision of hope and resilience. Dr. Mulunda noted a growing recognition among youth, particularly young women, of their rights and their potential for change. Additionally, social media has emerged as a powerful tool for organizing and raising awareness, empowering the next generation to continue the fight for equality.
Dr. Samar echoed this sentiment, stressing that the struggle for women’s rights is not confined to Afghanistan but is a global issue that transcends borders. She called for increased awareness and advocacy from the international community, urging donors to support human rights initiatives worldwide.
The discussions at the O’Neill Institute underscored the urgent need for global attention and action to address the systemic challenges faced by women and girls in conflict-affected regions. As the panelists articulated, women’s rights are under siege, often used as a battleground for broader political struggles. However, through advocacy, awareness, and the empowerment of future generations, there remains hope for progress in the fight for equality and human rights for all.
The issue of rape-related pregnancies is a crucial yet often-overlooked aspect of the broader debate surrounding abortion access. As more states implement strict abortion bans, the implications for survivors of sexual violence become increasingly severe and far-reaching. When Hadley Duvall was just 12 years old, she was raped and impregnated by her stepfather. Duvall was a child and was scared then, but she was lucky enough to have options. Today, women and girls in Kentucky do not have the same right. Duvall has become an abortion rights advocate to highlight the consequences of what Donald Trump has done. Girls all over the country have lost their right to choose, even in cases of rape or incest because of Trump’s actions.
Rape-related pregnancies highlight significant challenges in the current abortion landscape, especially following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June 2022. Despite widespread public support – around 80% of Americans favor legal access to abortion in cases of rape or incest – many states lack effective exceptions for these situations.
A study in January 2024 on rape-related pregnancies in the 14 U.S. states with total abortion bans highlighted the profound impacts of these restrictive laws on survivors of sexual violence. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, these states enacted stringent abortion laws, often with few exceptions for cases of rape. This situation has significant implications for women and girls who experience rape, as access to abortion is severely restricted.
The study found that in the 18 months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, there were more than 500,000 reported and unreported rapes in the 14 states that have outlawed abortion throughout pregnancy, resulting in 65,000 rape-related pregnancies. Nine of these states have abortion bans that do not have exceptions for rape and five of the states have abortion bans exceptions with narrow exceptions for rape, but apply strict gestational limits and require survivors to report to law enforcement, which only 21 percent do.
In the 14 states that enacted total abortion bans after the Dobbs decision, an estimate of 519,981 survivors of completed rape experienced 64,565 rape-related pregnancies during the 4 to 18 months these bans were in effect. Among these, approximately 5,586 rape-related pregnancies (9%) occurred in states that provided exceptions for rape, while 58,979 (91%) occurred in states with no such exceptions. Notably, 26,313 (45%) of these pregnancies took place in the state of Texas.
A three-year study of Rape-Related Pregnancies in the U.S., published by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, found that 5% of rape victims of reproductive age became pregnant as a result of rape, with a majority of pregnancies in adolescents. This study was from 2014 to 2017, and since Dobbs, that percent has risen to 12% in the two years post-Dobbs.
The conversation around abortion, particularly in cases of rape and incest, has become a prominent issue as the 2024 election cycle unfolds. The Center for American Progress Action Fund estimates that every day, 134 women become pregnant as a result of sexual assault in states with total abortion. While Former President Trump has proudly proclaimed “I was able to kill Roe v. Wade” there are women around the country who are forced to carry the child of their abuser because of him.
The issue of rape-related pregnancies highlights the urgent need for comprehensive discussions about abortion access in the wake of restrictive state laws. The data reveals a disturbing reality: thousands of survivors of sexual violence are being forced to navigate a complex and often hostile legal landscape that neglects their needs and rights. The upcoming election cycle presents an opportunity to advocate for change, highlighting the need for legal protections that truly consider the well-being of survivors, rather than perpetuating their suffering.
From left to right: Katherine Spillar, Lilly Ledbetter, former Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, and Eleanor Smeal.
Lilly Ledbetter, a remarkable equal pay advocate, passed away at age 86 on October 12, 2024. Her journey began in 1979 as a dedicated employee at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, where she worked for nearly two decades. However, it was her discovery of wage discrimination that transformed her life into a powerful movement for change and inspiration for the Fair Pay Act of 2009.
At Goodyear, despite signing a contract that prohibited discussing pay rates, Lilly’s life took a pivotal turn when an anonymous note in her mailbox revealed the salaries of her male counterparts just before her retirement. Confronted with the stark reality of wage discrimination, Lilly took action.
She filed a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and initiated a lawsuit alleging pay discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Even in her 60s, Lilly faced retaliation, being reassigned to physically demanding tasks, but she stood firm in her fight for equality.
Initially, a jury awarded her compensation, but Goodyear appealed the decision, leading the case to the U.S. Supreme Court Case, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. In 2007, the court ruled against her in a narrow 5-4 decision, stating that claims based on employer decisions made more than 180 days prior could not be pursued under Title VII. This ruling meant Lilly was denied the monetary compensation she rightfully deserved.
Since that decision, Lilly became a passionate advocate for equal pay, tirelessly lobbying for change. Her relentless efforts culminated in a significant victory when President Barack Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law on January 29, 2009, which strengthened protections against pay discrimination.
The Fair Pay Act revised the rules surrounding the statute of limitations for filing pay discrimination claims. It allows individuals to file a claim within 180 days of their most recent paycheck, which reflects discriminatory pay, rather than the initial decision. This change empowers employees by recognizing the ongoing nature of wage discrimination.
Feminist Majority Foundation President and dear friend of Ledbetter, Eleanor Smeal says, “I had the privilege of traveling with her to fight for [equality]. She was fortunate enough to travel with Obama and reach out to thousands and thousands of people to pave the way to reverse the Supreme Court decision. [With] every one of these gains, the winning is just the beginning. Making the laws better and stronger takes decades of work. Lilly wasn’t in it for herself, she was in it to change the laws for working women. She was very determined and made a difference for the lives of millions of women and girls – and the fight goes on.”
Former Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney also fought for equality alongside Smeal and Ledbetter. “We mourn her passing and remember her transformational work,” said Maloney. “I regret she did not live to see the ERA recognized as the 28th amendment, which would allow the enforcement of equal pay for equal work.”
Lilly once expressed her desire for her legacy to reflect her impact: “I told my pastor when I die, I want him to be able to say at my funeral that I made a difference.” Through her bravery and dedication, Lilly Ledbetter has indeed made a profound difference, inspiring generations to continue the fight for equality and justice in the workplace. Today, we honor her legacy and commitment to a more just world for all.
The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in 2022 has profoundly influenced how pregnancy is viewed in the United States, leading to an increase in the criminalization of pregnancy-related behaviors. Pregnancy Justice released their September 2024 report “Pregnancy As a Crime: A Preliminary Report on the First Year After Dobbs” by Wendy Bach and Madalyn Wasilczuk, outlining the changes of pregnancy criminalization from June 24, 2022 to June 23, 2023. During this period, at least 210 cases were documented, marking the highest number of such prosecutions recorded in a single year.
Key Findings
Increase in Prosecutions: At least 210 pregnant individuals faced criminal charges related to pregnancy, pregnancy loss, or birth, with many states showing a concerning rise in these cases.
State Breakdown: Alabama accounted for nearly half (104) of the prosecutions, followed by Oklahoma (68), South Carolina (10), Ohio (7), Mississippi (6), and Texas (6).
Demographic Insights: The majority of defendants were low-income. Of the 210 cases, 143 were white, 30 were Black, 13 were Native American, 9 were Latinx, and 15 had unknown racial or ethnic backgrounds.
Nature of Charges: Most charges (198 out of 220) were categorized as child abuse, neglect, or endangerment. Substance use during pregnancy was a common allegation, with 133 cases focusing solely on this issue.
Abortion-Related Charges: Five cases involved allegations of abortion, with outcomes often occurring outside medical settings. In many instances, prosecutors did not need to prove harm to the fetus or infant, as 191 of the 220 charges lacked a harm requirement.
Pregnancy criminalization refers to the use of criminal law to prosecute actions related to pregnancy, loss, or birth. Since 1973, over 2,000 individuals have faced legal consequences for pregnancy-related circumstances. Prosecutors often interpret embryos and fetuses as victims, extending the reach of laws governing child abuse and neglect to pregnant individuals. This approach not only normalizes the policing of pregnant individuals but also enforces societal expectations surrounding motherhood, disproportionately affecting marginalized women and families.
The report underscores that low-income and marginalized women are primarily targeted by pregnancy-related prosecutions. Racial dynamics play a significant role, as these prosecutions frequently focus on communities already burdened by systemic inequalities. The data suggests that despite variations in racial demographics, economic status remains a constant factor in the criminalization landscape.
Of the 210 cases examined, 166 provided information about pregnancy outcomes. The majority (144) resulted in live births, while 22 cases involved fetal or infant demise. Notably, many defendants faced criminal charges for failing to seek prenatal care or for actions perceived as risky, despite often experiencing significant trauma or health issues. The involvement of healthcare providers in these legal cases raises serious ethical concerns, as providers are increasingly seen as extensions of law enforcement, surveilling and reporting pregnant individuals to authorities.
The Dobbs decision has opened doors for states to further embed fetal personhood in legislation, raising fears about the potential for criminalizing self-managed abortions and expanding the reach of existing laws. Some states have introduced bills that threaten to extend criminal liability to a broader range of pregnancy-related behaviors.
Reversing the trends of fetal personhood and pregnancy criminalization will require major legal and policy adjustments which Pregnancy Justice outlines a few of. Anti-abortion activists intend to misuse the Comstock Act to make it a crime to send or receive medications or devices that are used in abortion care by mail or common carriers like ups and fedex, effectively banning abortion nationwide. It is important to protect against the unfounded use of the Comstock Act to effect a national abortion ban. Pregnancy Justice recommends utilizing the power of federal civil rights agencies to challenge pregnancy criminalization effectively, ensuring maternal health initiatives address the needs of pregnant people who have substance use disorder and other mental health disorders, and passing state laws increasing protections for pregnant people.
The findings of this report illustrate a concerning trend towards the criminalization of pregnancy in the United States. Following the Dobbs decision, it is essential to shift the focus from punishment to support. A future free from discrimination, state violence, and stigma is necessary for all individuals to access the healthcare and resources they need to thrive.
In a world where diet culture pervades nearly every aspect of our lives, the emergence of body neutrality offers a refreshing perspective. Body neutrality emphasizes acceptance of our bodies for their functionality rather than their appearance, encouraging a focus on well-being instead of aesthetic ideals. Instead of the body positivity approach saying, “I love my arms, cellulite, and all, they are beautiful” body neutrality would say “I love my arms because they help me hug the people I care about.” To understand the true significance of body neutrality, we must examine how diet culture is deeply intertwined with sexism and racism, and why it is fundamentally problematic.
Diet culture promotes the idea that weight loss and thinness are synonymous with health, beauty, and moral worth. It encourages individuals, particularly women and marginalized communities, to conform to narrow standards of attractiveness, often dictated by media and societal norms. This culture is not only detrimental to mental and physical health but is also rooted in historical systems of oppression.
The constant push for women to conform to an idealized body shape can be traced back to patriarchal structures that seek to control women’s autonomy and self-expression. Feminism seeks to dismantle these oppressive systems, making the diet culture’s insistence on female thinness fundamentally anti-feminist. As Naomi Wolf writes in The Beauty Myth, “A culture fixated on female thinness is not an obsession about female beauty, but an obsession about female obedience. Dieting is the most potent political sedative in women’s history; a quietly mad population is a tractable one.”
From the era of enslavement to contemporary society, Black women’s bodies have been subject to intense scrutiny and control. Historically, Black women were commodified and dehumanized, often seen through the lens of exploitation. This legacy of objectification continues today, manifesting in societal expectations regarding beauty, weight, and behavior.
Diet culture disproportionately affects women of color, who often face additional pressures to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards. The glorification of thinness as the ultimate goal perpetuates harmful stereotypes about race, leading to a cycle of body dissatisfaction and health issues. Furthermore, diet products and services are often marketed in ways that exploit cultural insecurities, further entrenching racist ideals. This intersection of diet culture and racism highlights the need for an inclusive approach that recognizes the diverse experiences of all bodies.
Body neutrality serves as a counter-narrative to diet culture’s damaging messages. By promoting an appreciation for what our bodies can do, rather than how they look, body neutrality helps dismantle the fixation on appearance. Saying “my legs give me the ability to walk and run” instead of “my legs are perfect,” body neutrality advocates for an inclusive understanding of bodies, acknowledging that each individual has a unique relationship with their physical self. This inclusivity is vital for recognizing the ways diet culture disproportionately impacts women of color and other marginalized communities. By emphasizing that all bodies deserve respect, body neutrality fosters a sense of community and support.
Diet culture often associates morality with eating habits, leading to feelings of guilt and shame around food choices. Body neutrality challenges this narrative by promoting a non-judgmental approach to nourishment — saying “this pizza is going to taste so good and give me energy for the day” instead of “this pizza is unhealthy and will make me gain weight.” This shift can liberate individuals from the guilt associated with eating, allowing them to cultivate a healthier relationship with food.
While body neutrality presents a powerful alternative to the harmful messages of diet culture, it is essential to acknowledge that the journey toward self-acceptance is not linear. Individuals may struggle with body image issues and the ingrained beliefs of diet culture, and that’s okay. The goal is to foster a supportive environment where everyone can explore their feelings about their bodies without judgment.
Embracing body neutrality requires an active resistance to the systemic sexism and racism embedded in diet culture. In doing so, it serves not only as a personal tool for self-acceptance but also as a powerful form of collective resistance against the oppressive forces of diet culture and systemic oppression.
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn Roe in the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, reproductive rights are now in the hands of the states. Advocates have begun working to enshrine abortion rights in state constitutions across the nation. Since the Dobbs decision, voters in 6 states, California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Vermont, and Ohio, have weighed in on constitutional amendments regarding abortion. The side favoring access to abortion in the state constitution prevailed in every state. In 2024, abortion measures are on the ballot in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska*, New York**, Nevada, and South Dakota.
* Nebraska has two abortion ballot measures
** New York has a reproductive rights related measure, but not an abortion ballot measure
Arizona
In Arizona, the current abortion law bans abortion after 15-weeks, but the 2024 ballot measure could change that. Passed in 2022, the Arizona law contains no exceptions for survivors of rape or incest. Doctors who perform an abortion beyond that deadline for any reason except to prevent a patient’s death or the “substantial and irreversible impairment” of a major bodily function face a class 6 felony, which carries with it a potential prison sentence of up to 2 years. Proposition 139, or the 2024 Arizona Abortion Access Act, is a state constitutional amendment to establish a fundamental right to abortion and to limit the state’s ability to interfere with that right before “fetal viability.”
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of creating a fundamental right to abortion under Arizona’s constitution. The State will not be able to interfere with this fundamental right before fetal viability, unless it has a compelling reason and does so in the least restrictive way possible. Fetal viability means the point in the pregnancy when, in the good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus. Throughout the pregnancy, both before and after fetal viability, the State will not be able to interfere with the good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional that an abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant individual. The State will not be able to penalize any person for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the right to an abortion.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of not creating a fundamental right to have an abortion under Arizona’s constitution, will leave in place current laws that restrict abortion before fetal viability, and will allow the State to further restrict or ban abortion in the future
The voter registration deadlines for Arizona are October 7, 2024 for online, in-person, and by mail with the general election being November 5, 2024. Here is the Arizona Election website to check your voter registration, polling location, and other election information!
Colorado
Colorado is one of 10 states that does not restrict abortion after a specific point in a pregnancy. In 2020, there was an initiative, Colorado Proposition 115, to ban abortions after 22 weeks which was rejected by voters. For 2024, the Colorado Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative, Initiative 89, would protect abortion access in the Colorado state constitution. This measure would lift the state’s ban on using state money for abortion. In order for Initiative 89 to pass, a supermajority of at least 55% of Colorado’s voters is required.
A “yes” vote supports creating a right to abortion in the state constitution and allowing the use of public funds for abortion.
A “no” vote opposes creating a right to abortion in the state constitution and opposes repealing a constitutional provision that bans the use of public funds for abortion.
The voter registration deadlines for Colorado are October 28 for online and mail and November 5 for in-person. Here is the Colorado Election website to check your voter registration, polling location, and other election information!
Florida
The current abortion law in Florida consists of a 6-week ban. Before 2022, abortions were legal in Florida until 24 weeks. On April 13, 2023, the legislature passed a bill, known as the Heartbeat Protection Act, to ban abortion at six weeks. This bill was set to take effect 30 days after the Florida Supreme Court ruled on the 15-week abortion ban case. On April 1, 2024, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the state’s 15-week abortion ban, which led to the 6-week ban going into effect 30 days later, on May 1, 2024. In the upcoming 2024 election, Amendment 4, or the Right to Abortion Initiative, is on the ballot. Amendment 4 would reverse the current abortion ban and enshrine a right to abortion “before viability” which is 24 weeks, into the state constitution. There is also a supermajority required of 60% to approve the amendment.
A “yes” vote supports adding the following language to the Florida Constitution’s Declaration of Rights: “… no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” Amendment 4 would maintain the current constitutional provision that permits a law requiring parents to be notified before a minor can receive an abortion.
A “no” vote opposes amending the Florida Constitution’s Declaration of Rights to provide that the state cannot “… prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.”
The voter registration deadlines for Florida is October 7, 2024 for online, by mail, and in-person. Here is the Florida Election Website to check your voter registration, polling location, and other election information!
Maryland
In March 2023, the General Assembly of Maryland passed the “Right to Reproductive Freedom Act” in response to the US Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe. This legislation would amend the “Declaration of Rights” in Maryland’s constitution, enshrining the right to reproductive freedom in the state of Maryland. Before this right can be added to the state constitution, it must be approved by Maryland voters, which is a requirement for all constitutional amendments. Even though Maryland has reproductive freedom laws, without the right in the state constitution, it could be vulnerable in the future.
A “yes” vote supports adding a new article to the Maryland Constitution’s Declaration of Rights establishing a right to reproductive freedom, defined to include “the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one’s own pregnancy.”
A “no” vote opposes amending the state constitution to establish a right to reproductive freedom.
The voter registration deadlines for Maryland are October 15, 2024 for online and by mail, and November 5 in-person.. Here is the Maryland Election Website to check your voter registration, polling location, and other election information!
Missouri
As of 2022, abortion is completely banned in Missouri with certain exceptions, including saving the life or preventing a serious risk to the health of the pregnant woman. Missouri law also requires that a minor seeking an abortion must receive parental consent. In 2024, Amendment 3 would amend the Missouri Constitution to provide the right for reproductive freedom, which is defined as “the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions.” This measure would protect rights to birth control, prenatal care, postpartum care, childbirth care, and more.
“A “yes” vote will enshrine the right to abortion at any time of a pregnancy in the Missouri Constitution. Additionally, it will prohibit any regulation of abortion, including regulations designed to protect women undergoing abortions and prohibit any civil or criminal recourse against anyone who performs an abortion and hurts or kills the pregnant woman.
A “no” vote will continue the statutory prohibition of abortion in Missouri.
If passed, this measure may reduce local taxes while the impact to state taxes is unknown”.
The voter registration deadlines for Missouri is October 9, 2024 for online and by mail, and in-person. Here is the Missouri Election Website to check your voter registration, polling location, and other election information!
Montana
Abortion is currently legal in Montana until “fetal viability” which is generally 24–26 weeks of pregnancy. In 2024, CI-128, or the Right to Abortion Initiative, is on the ballot to enshrine abortion rights into the Montana state constitution. The constitutional amendment would explicitly create a constitutional right to an abortion stating “there is a right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion.” The amendment would prohibit the government from penalizing a person based on their pregnancy outcomes nor someone who aids in an abortion.
A “yes” vote supports amending the Montana Constitution to: provide a state constitutional “right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion,” and allow the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except when “medically indicated to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient.”
A “no” vote opposes amending the Montana Constitution to provide a state constitutional “right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion,” and allow the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except when “medically indicated to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient.”
The voter registration deadlines for Montana are October 7, 2024 by mail, November 5 in-person and there’s no online registration option. Here is the Montana Election Website to check your voter registration, polling location, and other election information!
Nebraska
The current Nebraska law bans abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy as of May 22, 2023. In 2024, Nebraska will have 2 competing measures on the ballot. The Nebraska Right to Abortion Initiative would enshrine the right to an abortion until viability into the state constitution. However, the Prohibit Abortions After the First Trimester Amendment or “Protect Women and Children Amendment” would enshrine the current 12-week abortion ban, with exceptions for sexual assault or medical emergencies, into the Nebraska constitution. The measure that gets the most votes will become law.
The voter registration deadlines for Nebraska are October 18, 2024 by mail and online,and October 25 in-person. Here is the Nebraska Election Website to check your voter registration, polling location, and other election information!
Nevada
Since 1990, Nevada voters have upheld NRS 442.250, which legalized abortion until 24 weeks, and prohibited the state legislature from amending or repealing the law unless it was placed on the ballot. In 2024, Question 6 or the Right to Abortion Initiative is on the ballot to enshrine abortion rights in the Nevada Constitution until fetal viability or when to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient.
A “yes” vote supports providing for a state constitutional right to an abortion, providing for the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except where medically indicated to “protect the life or health of the pregnant patient.”
A “no” vote opposes providing for a state constitutional right to an abortion, providing for the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except where medically indicated to “protect the life or health of the pregnant patient.”
Even though these protections are very similar to the current Nevada law, a constitutional right to an abortion would be harder to overturn and further protect reproductive freedom in Nevada. The ballot question must also be approved in the 2026 election since this will be the first time that voters can weigh in for the Constitution to be amended.
The voter registration deadlines for Nevada are October 8, 2024 by mail and online, and November 5 online and in-person. Here is the Nevada Election Website to check your voter registration, polling location, and other election information!
South Dakota
In South Dakota, there is currently a complete abortion ban, with the only exception to save the life of the mother. Constitutional Amendment G would provide a state constitutional right to abortion and provide that the state cannot regulate abortion before the end of the first trimester. During the second trimester of pregnancy, the state may regulate abortion, but “only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman.” During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state may regulate or prohibit abortion, except “when abortion is necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman’s physician, to preserve the life and health of the pregnant woman”. A “no” vote opposes providing for a state constitutional right to abortion in South Dakota, using a trimester framework for regulation.
The voter registration deadlines for South Dakota are October 21, 2024 by mail and in-person, and there’s no online option. Here is the South Dakota Election Website to check your voter registration, polling location, and other election information!
New York
The current New York law states that all people have the right to abortion through the 24th week of pregnancy. After 24 weeks, abortion is permitted if your medical provider decides your fetus is not viable or your life, physical health, or mental health are at risk. In 2024, Proposal 1 would amend the Equal Protection Clause of the New York Constitution. Currently the Equal Protection Clause prohibits a person’s rights from being denied based on the person’s “ethnicity, national origin, age, [and] disability,” as well as the person’s “sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression.” Proposal 1 would add that people’s rights cannot be denied based on their “pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” This law does not enshrine the right to an abortion, however it does prevent discrimination based on reproductive care.
The voter registration deadlines for New York are October 26, 2024 by mail, online, and in-person. Here is the New York Election Website to check your voter registration, polling location, and other election information!
