Author: Meghan Lord

Effects Beyond Reproductive Care: The Backlash of Overturning Roe

Posted on by Meghan Lord

The overturning of Roe v. Wade has caused major issues for women and pregnant-able bodies all around the country. It has forced unwanted pregnancies, increased the number of children in foster care, and has caused women to pursue unsafe abortion alternatives. 

New research, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, shows that people are avoiding states with abortion bans and even moving away. When comparing housing markets across states from the overturning of Roe in June 2022 to June 2025, states with abortion bans have experienced a 2.2 percent decline in rental prices. This research shows a clear lack of demand for housing in Republican states. 

This finding reflects multiple aspects of the current public opinion on abortion access:

Abortion bans in Republican states do not reflect the desires of the entire population. When the Supreme Court allowed the states to determine their abortion laws, they were neglecting a minority of citizens in those states who would lack representation on the issue. The real way to provide reproductive justice is through federal protection of abortion, to account for the wants of all citizens. 

The accessibility of abortion care is a deciding factor on where people want to locate. In a post-Dobbs reality, accessibility to abortion has become a widespread factor of locating. This is due to the safety that comes with laws that protect abortion. Residing in states with guaranteed abortion rights diminishes unwanted pregnancies and ensures people will not be prosecuted for having an abortion if necessary. 

As the surplus of demand to reside in states with protected abortion laws grows, the housing market cannot meet these demands. States with protected abortion laws are becoming overcrowded, creating a competitive housing market. 

The effects of a competitive housing market neglects and disadvantages lower-class Americans. The financial strain of the housing market in abortion-protected states forces lower class Americans into Republican states without abortion protection. 

With lower class Americans living in states with restricted abortion care, there will be more unwanted pregnancies and children forced upon families who cannot financially sustain them. This puts these families in even more of a detrimental financial position. 

The overturning of Roe reshaping the rental market shows that the removal of federal abortion protection affects much more than reproductive care. The harmful effects of restricted abortion ripples into other areas of American livelihood. It contributes and perpetuates class inequality in America by advancing Americans who can afford competitive housing markets and be granted a blanket of protection through their abortion laws. Federal abortion protection is a necessity for the wellbeing and protection of all Americans. 

From Privacy to Conversion Therapy: A Troubling Month for LGBTQ+ Rights at the Supreme Court

Posted on by Meghan Lord

Over the past month, the Supreme Court of the United States has consistently made decisions that threaten the LGBTQ+ community. These attacks are rooted in the rise of Christian nationalism, which appears to be bleeding into judicial reasoning.

The first major development emerged in early March, when the Court intervened in a lower court dispute over a California law concerning student gender identity. Rather than letting the lower courts fully deliberate on this constitutional question, maintaining the judicial branch system, the Supreme Court decided their authority overruled. The justices granted an emergency appeal from a conservative legal group on the constitutionality of a California law. 

The California law, also known as the SAFETY Act, was implemented to give students authority over their gender identity inside the classroom. The law banned the automatic parental notification of a student’s changed gender expression or pronouns. It protected a student’s right to privacy and autonomy, preventing the potential outing to unsupportive families. 

However, the Supreme Court deemed this law to be unconstitutional. With this law blocked, California schools can notify parents if their child identifies as transgender, without the consent of the student. The ruling stemmed from the protection of religious freedom, claiming religious parents have the right to raise their children in accordance with their religious beliefs. This religious protection now subjects queer youth to trauma and distress. 

This pattern of LGBTQ+ judicial attacks continues into April. This past week, the Supreme Court protected conversion therapy, a harmful practice used in an attempt to change someone’s sexuality or gender identity.  

Chiles v Salazar considered the constitutionality of a Colorado law banning conversion therapy. The petitioner, a Colorado licensed therapist, claimed that the law banning “talk” conversion therapy violates her freedom of speech. Neglecting the harm of conversion therapy, the Supreme Court ruled in the therapists favor in an 8 to 1 decision. 

The majority opinion is reliant on the First Amendment, stating that the banning of a specific “opinion or perspective” is unconstitutional. However, this case is one of the Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection. With this ruling, the Supreme Court is declaring that the identity and protection of LGBTQ+ Americans, will never be anything more than an opinion or perspective. 

Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson, the sole dissenter, offered a starkly different perspective. Her dissent is one that puts the protection of the person before the protection of the speech. She highlights the irreversible damage conversion therapy does to one’s identity, that nearly doubles the suicide rate for those who experience it. 

The priorities of this court are clear. The past two rulings of the court on LGBTQ+ rights show that current Justices would rather protect religious and speech freedoms, than human rights. As these decisions reshape the legal landscape, their consequences will likely extend far beyond the courtroom, impacting the daily lives, safety, and well-being of LGBTQ+ Americans across the country.

Trump Administration Revokes Protection from Greenhouse Gases

Posted on by Meghan Lord

The Trump Administration has reversed a key decision from the Obama Administration, reshaping the future of climate protection in the United States. The rule in question, known as the “endangerment finding,” served as the legal foundation for federal regulations for greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. 

Now, under the Trump Administration, all greenhouse gas standards on vehicles have been eliminated. Even with prior regulations in place, transportation remained the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in America. The administration has called this move, “the Largest Deregulation in U.S. History” a claim that may be accurate, but one with consequences far from celebratory.

Supporters justify the rollback as a way to reduce costs for consumers, estimating a reduction of over $2,000. This argument appeals to everyday voters, but what are the real costs? 

The lack of greenhouse gas regulation is pushing America down a dangerous path of irreversible climate change. The planet has warmed approximately 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 300 years, directly impacting climates, habitats, and environments all around the world. Further deregulation risks accelerating this trend.

Greenhouse gases and global warming directly increase public health risks. Studies have shown that with the current rate of the warming planet, exposure to wildfire smoke will kill 70,000 Americans every year starting in 2050. This will lead to 37 million more asthma attacks than what occurs today. 

Increases in respiratory health problems are not the only health concerns climate change inflicts. According to the Center for Disease Control, warmer temperatures cause disease to spread at exponential rates. Mosquito-borne diseases have increased by 30%, heightening Americans’ susceptibility to life-threatening infections.

While these impacts will be felt nationwide, they will not be experienced equally. Low-income communities, disproportionately composed of women, particularly women of color, face greater exposure to environmental hazards and fewer resources to access medical care. Unable to get proper medical treatment, lower class Americans will be facing the terminal consequences of the deregulation at a much higher rate. 

The harmful impacts of this deregulation is much greater than the cost cut on vehicles. Undermining the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), leaves the future climate at stake. Meaningful climate policy is essential to protect the planet, and to safeguard the health and dignity of the most vulnerable among us.

Shield Laws vs. Vigilante Lawsuits: The New Abortion Battleground

Posted on by Meghan Lord

A new threat to abortion rights is emerging nationwide: the ability of private citizens to sue over out-of-state abortion care. Jerry Rodriguez, a Texas citizen, has sued Remy Coeytaux, a doctor who practices in California, for prescribing abortion pills to Rodriguez’s girlfriend on two separate occasions. While this lawsuit may be the first of its kind, it reflects a broader pattern of attempts to control women’s bodies even across state lines. 

Rodriguez is not only trying to sue Coeytaux. He is also attempting to prohibit Coeytaux from providing abortion pills for the rest of his career. The lawsuit represents an effort by anti-abortion states to restrict abortion access beyond their own borders. If this lawsuit succeeds, it could set a dangerous precedent, allowing individuals to target abortion providers in states where abortion is legal. That outcome threatens access nationwide.

At the center of this case is Texas’s “Woman and Child Protection Act.” Despite its name, the law allows any Texan to sue individuals who assist Texas patients in obtaining abortion pills. This provision has opened the door for lawsuits against providers in other states. In response, states that protect abortion rights are pushing back. California, for example, has enacted “Shield Laws” designed to protect providers from out-of-state prosecution. With conflicting laws in place, abortion access remains uncertain and increasingly contested. 

Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 with the Dobbs decision, demand for abortion pills has surged. This increase is especially pronounced in conservative states where in-person abortion clinics have closed or severely limited services. For many people in these states, medication abortion obtained by mail has become the most accessible option.

If this lawsuit succeeds, the consequences will fall hardest on low-income individuals. Traveling out of state for abortion care requires time off work, transportation, and lodging. All of which are costs that many cannot afford. Mailed abortion pills offer a more affordable and practical alternative. Without that option, many people could be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies, putting their health and economic stability at risk. 

This lawsuit functions as a warning to abortion providers across the country.  It seeks to intimidate doctors who practice in states where abortion remains legal. The ongoing conflict between states highlights the instability created by the loss of federal protections and the harmful and threatening impacts. This fight will never end; without the protection from Roe, abortion rights remain vulnerable to continued legal attacks.  

Removal of “Option 3” on the 988 Suicide Hotline Poses Extreme Mental Health Risk for LGBTQ+ Youth

Posted on by Meghan Lord

The foundation of LGBTQ+ mental health support is crumbling. This past summer, the current administration decided to remove “Option 3” from the 988 Suicide Hotline, which was specifically for LGBTQ+ people in crisis. The elimination of this option puts already vulnerable LGBTQ+ youth and adults at serious risk. 

Launched in 2022 with bipartisan support, the 988 Hotline was designed to save lives by expanding access to mental health crisis services. However, by neglecting the importance of LGBTQ+ specific support, the administration has effectively decided that some lives are not worth targeted resources.  

The administration justified the removal by claiming the specialized services were “too expensive.” They stated that unifying services would be a better, more cost efficient option. Yet this reasoning ignores the complexities of LGBTQ+ mental health and experiences. 

Before its removal, “Option 3” connected LGBTQ+ individuals to a trained professional in LGBTQ+ mental health support. These professionals were experts in handling substance abuse, bullying, relationship troubles, and suicidal thoughts. Tailored care is essential because LGBTQ+ experiences often differ from heterosexual and cisgender peers. Removing this option strips away affirming, knowledgeable support, leaving queer callers feeling isolated. 

LGBTQ+ people are four times more likely than their peers to attempt suicide. This is driven by the impacts of internal struggles with one’s sexuality and the external societal rejection of queer people. Since the creation of the 988 suicide hotline, 1.3 million individuals have used the LGBTQ+ services, making it apparent that these resources have been utilized and are vital. 

Some states have taken steps to still prioritize queer mental health. California has been using experts from The Trevor Project to train their 988 Hotline workers. This pivot allows crisis workers to still have some specialization in queer mental health, despite the destruction of the specialized network. However, not all states have followed suit. Unlike California, Texas lawmakers have not committed to any additional efforts, neglecting support for LGBTQ+ individuals. This uneven response creates dangerous gaps in support across the country.

The removal of “Option 3” harms LGBTQ+ people in crisis, but also impacts the suicide hotline as a whole. Without the ability to route LGBTQ+ individuals to trained specialists, general crisis workers must handle a higher volume of complex calls they are not trained to handle. The increased calls will reduce the availability and efficiency of the crisis workers as a whole. 

Access to affirming, specialized mental health care saves lives. For LGBTQ+ mental health support, use The Trevor Project hotline at 866-488-7386, the LGBT National Hotline at 888-843-4564, or the Trans Lifeline at 877-565-8860. 

Shortage of Midwives Globally Increases Health Risks for Pregnant People

Posted on by Meghan Lord

Around the world, there is a shortage of nearly one million midwives. The midwife shortage is not just a workforce issue, it is a human rights and safety issue. Mothers, pregnant people, and babies are experiencing deaths at alarmingly high rates due to improper labor care. 

A midwife is a trained healthcare provider that specializes in obstetric and gynecological services. “Midwife” is really an umbrella term used to describe different kinds of birth professionals that assist with labor either in hospitals or home births. Midwives are incredibly important for all stages of reproductive health, assisting during pregnancy, birth, and during the postpartum period.  

The shortage of midwives is creating serious gaps in reproductive care. As healthcare systems become stretched beyond their capacity, the remaining midwives are overworked and underpaid. The lack of resources results in rushed and fragmented care for pregnant people and a greater risk of birthing casualties. Access to midwife-delivered care could prevent two-thirds of labor deaths, saving 4.3 million newborns and birthing people annually. 

Historically, midwifery has been a gendered profession, with women dominating the field due to the “care” and “nurture” work. Removing the gendered stigma behind midwifery is crucial for filling the profession. 

The deficiency of midwives is affecting the pregnant community as a whole, but impacting rural and low-income families the hardest. Working with a midwife is typically a more affordable option for lower income families. Having a midwife come to the home is a more viable option for families that would otherwise have to travel far to a hospital. Removing the ability to choose the best option for labor creates barriers for families who do not have the privilege to afford traditional hospital settings. 

To fully fix the shortage of midwives, there needs to be an additional 980,000 midwives across 181 countries. To reach this goal, there needs to be an increase of respect and effort towards midwives and their practice. Governments need to prioritize funding midwifery to replenish the profession in addition to society removing gendered stigma to the career. These actions will put the health of mothers, pregnant people, and newborns first, reducing labor risks globally. 

Bogota Implements Care Blocks: A Monumental Shift Away from Unpaid Labor

Posted on by Meghan Lord

Bogota, Columbia has been making historic strides towards gender equity by investing in government-provided care labor through programs known as “care blocks.” These “care blocks” provide an opportunity for women to drop off their children to create more free time. With this free time, mothers have an opportunity to run errands, meet with different consultants, relax while catching up with friends, or even finish school. 

This initiative is pivotal; it tackles the systematic issue of unpaid care labor that disproportionately gets placed onto women. Unpaid care work is the invisible, yet necessary, work that keeps households and families running. Gendered social norms reinforce the expectation that domestic care labor be completed by women. 

Around the world, women and girls complete 16 billion hours of unpaid care work every day. Since women have more unpaid responsibilities, this results in less time for opportunities outside the household, which is commonly known as “time poverty.” After becoming a mother, the lack of time affects two very important areas in an individual’s life: mental wellness and professional development. 

Care blocks allow women to take a step back from the stress of motherhood and care for their mental health.​​ Studies show that mothers without a strong support system are more likely to experience depression, burnout, and overall reduced mental health. 

Addressing the “time poverty” that mothers face is crucial for gender equity professionally. After having children, women are less likely to continue education or make professional advancements in their career due to childcare restrictions and household responsibility. This often leaves women stuck in the same professional position once becoming a mother. Implementing care blocks allows mothers to advance their education, giving them better opportunities in the professional world. 

The professional effects of care blocks can be seen immediately for women across the city. Bogota has a citywide graduation for individuals who complete month-long trainings in specialized career topics. During the graduation, rows fill with mothers and female caregivers. 

Bogota’s initiatives demonstrate that women should not be expected to halt their individual and intellectual development once having children. Instead, governments should provide alternative resources, like care blocks, to ensure gender equity of all opportunities.   

Behind this initiative is Claudia Lopez, the first queer woman mayor of Bogota. Care blocks were one of the main focuses of her administration, in hopes to shift and redistribute the burden of unpaid care labor into a paid system. 

Lopez spearheading this initiative demonstrates the importance of women in political office. When women hold political office, they are more likely to prioritize and directly address care needs through solutions grounded in lived experience. 

To have real gender equity, society needs to tackle deep-rooted gender constructs that allow unpaid labor to fall onto women. Following Bogota’s lead, implementing care blocks can be monumental for women around the world. 

>