SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
reproductive justice
Project 2025 Would Clamp Down on Global Abortion Rights, Too
What happens here matters to the planet. And while the world doesn’t vote in U.S. elections, there is, and will be, a rippling international impact.
Aug 29, 2024
It has been two years since the U.S. Supreme Court blew up federal protection for abortion, handing states the power to enact abortion bans and realizing the decades-long fever-dream of anti-rights actors.
Though a minority in the U.S., these extremists are loud and determined and won’t stop at our borders. Their plans for the future are outlined in Project 2025, which is already being implemented in the U.S. and abroad through anti-abortion and anti-LGBTIQ+ initiatives and would be fully executed if radical conservative forces reclaim the White House.
While political ads have featured Project 2025, no one is talking about the profound global impact of this manifesto. It would revive anti-gender U.S. human rights policy frameworks like the Commission on Unalienable Human Rights and the Geneva Consensus Declaration, favoring anti-rights alliances and networks with other authoritarian regimes. Essentially, this amounts to a gutting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the cornerstone of multilateral engagement for the past 76 years.
Imagine the impact globally if foetuses are given the same rights as women.
Project 2025 would also reinstate and expand the anti-abortion foreign policy known as the Global Gag Rule (GGR) to all U.S. foreign assistance. The rule, which was repealed in 2021, bans foreign non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that receive U.S. global health assistance from providing legal abortion services or referrals and advocating for abortion law reform.
This implicates upwards of $51 billion, assuming U.S. foreign assistance holds somewhat stable, which is not guaranteed. The architects of this agenda would take a transactional and punitive approach to multilateralism, putting at risk the U.S.’ entire $18.1 billion contribution to the United Nations. Particularly vulnerable are the U.S.’ $122 million contribution to the World Health Organization and $32.5 million to the United Nations Population Fund—which aims to improve reproductive and maternal health worldwide—as well as other U.N. agencies that were targeted by the 2017-2021 administration.
“Protecting life,” according to Project 2025, “should be among the core objectives of the United States foreign assistance.” It goes on to urge the United States Agency for International Development to stop “supporting the global abortion industry.”
Project 2025 seeks not only to reinstate the GGR—which is also known as the Mexico City Policy—but to expand it so that it also applies to multilateral organisations, foreign governments, and U.S.-based NGOs. This would be the most significant expansion of the GGR since it was enacted 40 years ago during the Reagan administration.
This would all be on top of the existing Helms Amendment, which is particularly egregious and has been in place since 1973. Though the Helms Amendment prohibits only the use of U.S. foreign aid for abortion as a “method of family planning,” the policy has in many countries been used to implement a total ban on abortion services, including in instances of rape, incest, and life endangerment even in humanitarian settings.
Helms has contributed to maternal deaths that disproportionately impact women of colour, and to the stagnation of maternal mortality rates globally. According to a Guttmacher Institute analysis, there could be approximately 19 million fewer unsafe abortions and 17,000 fewer maternal deaths each year if Helms were repealed.
The thing is, Project 2025 isn’t something that will happen in the future. As Robin Marty, who runs a clinic that had been the main abortion provider in Alabama, told The New York Times: “...That is what is happening here. We are Project 2025.” And no matter who wins the election, Christian nationalism is growing within the United States, and this has global repercussions. We ignore it at our peril.
The fall of Roe v. Wade was an extreme example of what a very loud minority has been working toward for decades—limiting access to abortion, taking away bodily autonomy, and undermining human rights.
This same extremism is exported around the world and just like in the U.S., it is forcing people to endure even greater hardships just to access essential healthcare. It is costing lives, risking health, and compromising people’s futures. Imagine the impact globally if foetuses are given the same rights as women.
As former U.S. President Barack Obama said at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago last week about the U.S. Presidential election: “The world is watching.”
Reproductive justice is a global, human rights issue, and the U.S. shares space with nearly 200 other nations. What happens here matters to the planet. And while the world doesn’t vote in U.S. elections, there is, and will be, a rippling international impact.
As we fight for reproductive freedom for all in the U.S., so must we fight for reproductive freedom for all around the world.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Admin Unveils New Rules Protecting Workers Who Get Abortion Care
"With these final rules, we have achieved a huge step forward for women's economic security, maternal health, and the economy as a whole," said one advocate.
Apr 16, 2024
Reproductive justice advocates on Monday applauded the Biden administration's "groundbreaking" new workplace protections for pregnant people, including requirements that most employers provide workers with time off for a range of pregnancy-related reasons—including, over the objections of right-wing lawmakers, abortion care.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a final rule and guidance for employers, clarifying that under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), companies with 15 or more employees must accommodate a worker's needs if they request time off for "pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions" including prenatal doctor's appointments, childbirth recovery, postpartum depression, miscarriage, and abortion.
The guidance also details the wide array of accommodations pregnant workers can request under the law, including exemptions from heavy lifting and scheduling changes for people who suffer from pregnancy symptoms like nausea or morning sickness.
The PWFA was passed in December 2022 and went into effect several months later, but the EEOC's newly finalized regulations detail how the law must be enforced, including in states with abortion bans and restrictions.
The commission has spent the last four months sorting through tens of thousands of public comments on the proposed regulations, including those from reproductive rights groups which urged the EEOC to explicitly include protections for people who seek abortion care—and forced pregnancy proponents to objected to the provisions.
Under the final rules, employers are required to provide time off for workers who ask for it to obtain an abortion locally or who need to travel out of state for care. The regulations include strong restrictions against retaliating against workers for taking time off for any pregnancy-related reason.
"This rulemaking does not require abortions or affect the availability of abortion; it simply ensures that employees who choose to have (or not to have) an abortion are able to continue participating in the workforce, by seeking reasonable accommodations from covered employers, as needed and absent undue hardship," the regulation states.
In its comment submitted to the EEOC about its draft rule before the final regulations were announced, the ACLU thanked the agency for "recognizing that abortion has for decades been approved under the law as a 'related medical condition' to pregnancy that entitles workers to reasonable accommodations, including time off to obtain abortion care."
Employers will not be required to pay for workers' medical care or travel, and the time off can be paid or unpaid.
But advocates said the protections will make a particular impact on low-wage workers, many of whom are not eligible for the Family and Medical Leave Act, which only requires 12 weeks of unpaid time off for workplaces with 50 or more employees.
Before the PWFA was passed in 2022, 1 in 4 new mothers returned to work within two weeks of giving birth.
The national group Reproductive Freedom for All said the new rules will help ensure "that reproductive freedom is a reality for all pregnant workers."
The EEOC's effort to finalize the regulations has sparked anger among Republicans including Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who called the inclusion of abortion in the rules "shocking and illegal."
But Dr. Verda Hicks, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), said the regulations are an "acknowledgment of people's complex needs during and after pregnancy."
"Families should have peace of mind that they won't face financial hardship due to pregnancy-related job loss, and workers who are pregnant should not have to fear compromising their own health and well-being to maintain their employment," said Hicks. "Pregnancy is physiologically demanding and many of the medical conditions related to pregnancy necessitate reasonable accommodations for people after their pregnancy has ended."
Dina Bakst, co-president of A Better Balance: The Work and Family Legal Center, said the new regulations "appropriately recognize the broad scope of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and ensure millions of workers, especially women in low-wage and physically demanding jobs, can access the vital accommodations they need during pregnancy and after childbirth."
"Today with these final rules, we have achieved a huge step forward for women's economic security, maternal health, and the economy as a whole," said Bakst, who has lobbied for years for pregnancy workplace protections. "The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a life-changing protection for pregnant and postpartum workers nationwide, ensuring they aren't forced off the job or denied the accommodations they need for their health."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Over-the-Counter Birth Control a Step Forward, But What About the Abortion Pill?
The approval of over-the-counter birth control is a landmark victory for reproductive rights advocates, but true bodily autonomy can only be achieved when individuals have unimpeded access to the full spectrum of reproductive healthcare, including abortion care.
Mar 22, 2024
In recent years, there has been a monumental shift in access to reproductive healthcare, marked by the availability of the first over-the-counter birth control at pharmacies, convenient stores, and grocery stores: Opill. This significant milestone has empowered individuals to take control of their reproductive health like never before. However, as we celebrate this progress, it's crucial to recognize that there's still much work to be done, particularly concerning the accessibility of abortion pills.
The approval of over-the-counter birth control is a landmark victory for reproductive rights advocates. It signifies a departure from antiquated regulations and underscores the importance of ensuring equitable access to contraception. By eliminating the need for a prescription, individuals are granted greater autonomy over their reproductive choices, which is a fundamental aspect of bodily autonomy and gender equity.
As we reflect on the progress made in reproductive healthcare access, we must remain steadfast in our commitment to advancing reproductive justice for all.
Yet, while over-the-counter birth control represents a significant step forward, it also serves as a stark reminder of the glaring disparities in reproductive healthcare access. Despite its efficacy and safety, the abortion pill remains inaccessible to many individuals due to restrictive regulations and bans. Mifepristone, one of the two medications used in medication abortion, has been proven to be safer than commonly available drugs like Tylenol, Penicillin and Viagra. However, its distribution is heavily regulated, placing unnecessary barriers in the path of those seeking abortion care with a medication that has been approved by the FDA and known to be safe and effective for over 20 years. In the meantime, Walgreens and CVS have begun steps to stock and prescribe Mifepristone at many of their locations in states where abortion is legal.
Currently, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) faces a pivotal decision regarding the accessibility of the abortion pill. The question at hand is whether Mifepristone can continue to be prescribed and mailed to individuals in the same manner as other medications. This decision holds immense implications for reproductive rights, particularly for marginalized communities who already face significant challenges in accessing healthcare services.
If SCOTUS decides in favor of allowing continued access to abortion pills by mail, it would represent a monumental victory for reproductive justice. It would signify a recognition of the importance of protecting equitable access to abortion care, regardless of one's geographic location or socioeconomic status. However, failure to do so would only exacerbate existing disparities, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities who often lack access to abortion clinics.
In this critical moment, organizations like the Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Program (WRRAP) play a crucial role in bridging the gap in access to abortion care. Since April 2022, WRRAP has been funding access to the abortion pill by mail, providing crucial support to individuals in need. Our success rate speaks volumes about the effectiveness of this approach, demonstrating that it is not only safe but also incredibly impactful in expanding access to abortion care.
As we reflect on the progress made in reproductive healthcare access, we must remain steadfast in our commitment to advancing reproductive justice for all. Over-the-counter birth control is undoubtedly a significant achievement, but it cannot be the end goal. True bodily autonomy can only be achieved when individuals have unimpeded access to the full spectrum of reproductive healthcare, including abortion care.
It's time for SCOTUS to recognize the importance of protecting access to the abortion pill and take a meaningful step towards ensuring equitable access to abortion care for all.Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular