States Report
Our annual report, Who Decides? The Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States, takes a look at choice-related laws in each state and the federal government.
- Read the report online
- Download the Who Decides? The Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States (PDF)
Congressional Record on Choice
How did your members of Congress vote on choice-related issues in 2011?
The Powers of the President
As the 2012 elections approach, this updated report documents the powers of the president over reproductive freedom and choice.
Fact Sheets
Our fact sheets are great resources for reporters, students, and academics. Anyone who needs detailed information on choice-related issues should check them out. All fact sheets are PDF files.
Abortion
Abortion Bans After 12 Weeks
In 2003, Congress passed the Federal Abortion Ban, which outlaws certain safe, medically appropriate abortion services often necessary to protect a woman’s health as early as the 12th week of pregnancy. It has no exception when a woman’s health is in danger. In April 2007, the Supreme Court declared the ban constitutional, thereby upholding this ban on a safe abortion method nationwide.
Abortion Bans Without Exceptions Endanger Women’s Health
Despite the court’s clear rulings protecting women’s health, anti-choice activists, legislators, and jurists continue to attack its legal safeguards. Time after time, anti-choice lawmakers vote down proposed health exceptions to abortion restrictions, and prominent anti-choice leaders openly state their opposition to protecting women’s health as required by law.
Abortion Coverage for Women Enrolled in Federal Employees Health Benefits Program
The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB) is the network of insurance plans that covers more than eight million federal employees, their dependents, and retirees. For almost 25 years, anti-choice lawmakers have used this legislative vehicle as an opportunity to deny women beneficiaries their right to choose.
Abortion Funding Restrictions Threaten Women's Health
Anti-choice legislators have continually used these “must-pass” bills as vehicles to deny coverage for abortion services to millions of women whose health care is subject to federal control. Amendments to appropriations bills can restrict abortion coverage for: federal employees and their dependents; residents of the District of Columbia; low-income women and some disabled women who rely on Medicaid and Medicare for their health-care coverage; military personnel and their dependents; Peace Corps volunteers; Native-American women; and women in federal prisons.
Anti-Choice Violence and Intimidation
A campaign of violence, vandalism, and intimidation is endangering providers and patients and curtailing the availability of abortion services.
Counseling Bans and Gag Rules
Having access to information about the full range of reproductive options is essential to making informed health-care decisions. Counseling bans, also known as gag rules, typically prohibit organizations that receive state and/or federal funds from counseling or referring women for abortion services, hinder doctors from treating their patients responsibly, and severely limit women’s ability to make informed choices. Women and their health-care providers—not politicians—should make private medical decisions.
Faith and Choice
For many Americans, religious and spiritual convictions contribute significantly to their view on reproductive rights. And while abortion is often discussed in terms of law, medicine, personal autonomy, public health, and the appropriate role of government in citizens’ lives, it is equally valid to consider the issue from a perspective of faith.
Federal Refusal Rule
On December 19, 2008, the Bush administration published a regulation that threatens to hinder or block women’s access to birth control and other reproductive‐health services. It claims to enforce laws already on the books that allow doctors and other health-care professionals to opt out of providing certain health-care services. This regulation goes much further than providing individuals with a right to refuse to provide services that they oppose; in actuality, it may seriously jeopardize patients’ ability to receive quality, comprehensive health-care services.
Global Gag Rule - A Flawed Policy
On January 23, 2009, during his first week in office, President Barack Obama repealed the global gag rule, a policy that prohibited the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) from granting family-planning funds to any overseas health center unless it agreed not to use its own, private, non-U.S. funds for: (1) abortion services, (2) abortion-related advocacy, or (3) abortion counseling or referrals. The policy effectively blocked funds from organizations that provide family-planning services, as well as other critical health services, to some of the poorest women in the world.
Health Groups Support Confidential Health Services for Young People
National medical and public health organizations support access to confidential health services for young people as a means to improve health outcomes.
Lift the Ban on Federally Funded Abortion Services for Military Victims of Rape and Incest
Current law permits the Department of Defense (DoD) to provide abortion services at military facilities only in cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest. In the tragic cases of rape or incest, the woman must bear the cost of the procedure herself. This ban adds insult to injury.
Lift the Ban on Privately Funded Abortion Services for Military Women Overseas
Since 1979, the Department of Defense (DoD) appropriations bills have prohibited the use of federal funds for abortion services at overseas military hospitals in almost all cases. In 1988, DoD issued an administrative order – without congressional consultation – extending the funding ban to prohibit women from obtaining abortion care with their own funds at military facilities overseas.
Mandatory Parental-Involvement Laws Threaten Young Women’s Safety
Mandatory parental-involvement (consent and notice) laws do not solve the problem of inadequate family communication; they only exacerbate a potentially dangerous situation.
Mifepristone: The Impact of Abortion Politics on Women’s Health and Scientific Research
Mifepristone is the first and only FDA-approved medication providing women with a safe and effective nonsurgical option for early pregnancy termination. Despite its proven safety and its promise for scientific research, continued political attacks on mifepristone provide a prime example of how opposition to a woman’s right to privacy and choice impairs medical advances and contradicts scientific research, compromising public health.
Near-Total Abortion Bans
If Roe v. Wade were overturned, it would open the door for anti-choice lawmakers in state and federal governments to enact and enforce laws banning abortion. Some states already have abortion bans on the books, either from before Roe or because they enacted laws after Roe hoping to prompt the Supreme Court to overturn it. Currently, these bans are unenforceable; however, if Roe is overturned they will immediately become enforceable.
Nelson Provisions in Health-Care Reform Bill Could Jeopardize, Stigmatize Access to Abortion Services
In a last‐minute deal, anti‐choice Sen. Ben Nelson (D‐NE) won inclusion of a number of abortion-related provisions in the health-care law passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama in March 2010. The Nelson restrictions go even beyond the Hyde amendment, and may impose serious constraints on abortion coverage that could cause women to lose ground in health reform.
Polling Update: Americans Steadfastly Support Roe v. Wade and Legal Abortion
Polling Update: Americans Steadfastly Support Roe v. Wade and Legal Abortion
Protect D.C. Residents' Rights: Do Not Ban Local Abortion Funding
Barring the District of Columbia from using its own locally raised revenues for abortion services would usurp the prerogatives of the local D.C. government and trample the rights of District residents. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, this could impact 60,500 nonelderly Medicaid‐enrolled women. No other jurisdiction or state is told how to use its locally raised revenue. In fact, 17 states currently choose to provide local funds for abortion services.
Refusal Clauses in Current Law
Refusal clauses can permit a broad range of individuals and institutions—including hospitals, hospital employees, health-care providers, and insurers—to refuse to provide, pay for, counsel about, or even refer for medical treatment. Following is a summary of refusal clauses in current federal law, followed by the text of the laws.
Refusal Clauses: Dangerous for Women’s Health
Refusal clauses (sometimes called “conscience” clauses) permit a broad range of individuals and institutions—including hospitals, hospital employees, health-care providers, employers, and insurers—to refuse to provide, pay, counsel or even refer for medical treatment.
Refusal to Provide Medical Services
A number of state and federal laws include provisions known as “refusal clauses,” which permit a broad range of individuals and institutions—including hospitals, hospital employees, health-care providers, pharmacists, employers, and insurance companies—to refuse to provide, pay for, counsel for, or even refer patients for medical treatment that they oppose.
Restrictions on Young Women's Access to Abortion
Most young women talk with at least one parent when facing an unintended pregnancy. But some young women feel for various reasons—including abuse, rape, or incest—that they cannot tell a parent that they are pregnant. Placing restrictions on young women’s access to abortion can delay her from seeking earlier, safer care, thus putting her health at risk. Of course, most parents hope their daughters will seek out their advice and support, but responsible parents want, above all, for their daughters to be safe.
Roe v. Wade and the Right to Choose
When Roe v. Wade was decided in January 1973, abortion except to save a woman’s life was banned in nearly two thirds of states.
Smith Bill Represents Extreme Attack on Access to Abortion Care
On July 29, 2010, Rep. Chris Smith (R‐NJ) introduced the deceptively titled No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (H.R.5939). Rep. Smith’s proposal would reduce the availability of abortion coverage in the private‐insurance market nationwide; impose the core provision of the failed Stupak amendment on the new health system; narrow the already severely limited rape and incest exceptions in the Hyde amendment; and permanently deny low‐income women, civil servants, and military women access to this essential medical care, even when their health is at risk.
The Bush Administration Moves to Block Women’s Access to Contraception and Other Reproductive-Health Services
On December 19, 2008, the Bush administration published a regulation that threatens to hinder or block women’s access to birth control and other reproductive-health services. It claims to enforce laws already on the books that allow doctors and other health-care professionals to opt out of providing certain health-care services.
The Bush Administration’s Federal Abortion Ban
In 2003, Congress passed the Federal Abortion Ban and President Bush signed it into law. The ban outlaws certain second-trimester abortions that doctors have said are necessary to protect some women’s health. The law has no exception for cases when a woman’s health is in danger.
The Difference Between Emergency Contraception and Early Abortion Options (Mifepristone/RU 486)
The line between contraception and abortion is often blurred, intentionally and unintentionally, in the course of policy discussions about emergency contraception (also known as the “morning-after” pill) and the early-abortion option, mifepristone (also known as RU 486). The distinction between the two is important, especially since anti-choice lawmakers are trying to restrict women’s access to these and other reproductive-health services.
The Safety of Legal Abortion and the Hazards of Illegal Abortion
As part of their strategy to make abortion illegal and unavailable, anti-choice forces make unsubstantiated claims that legal abortion is harmful to women’s health. The fact is that the decriminalization of abortion in the United States in 1973 has led to tremendous gains in protecting women’s health.
The Stupak-Pitts Amendment Goes Far Beyond Current Law, Imposes Unprecedented Restrictions on Abortion Coverage for Millions of Women
The Stupak-Pitts amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America Act goes far beyond existing law, imposing unprecedented limitations on abortion access and extending restrictions to a much larger share of the population than any current law. It is more than just a ban on public funding of abortion.
The Truth about Crisis Pregnancy Centers
Anyone seeking health-care services should receive comprehensive, unbiased, medically and factually accurate information. Women facing unintended pregnancy deserve no less. When women are fully informed, they are better able to make responsible and appropriate decisions about their reproductive health. Mindful of this, the anti-choice movement has for years tried to restrict, control, and manipulate the information doctors give women facing unplanned pregnancies. Unable to shut down legitimate public-health clinics, their most recent strategy is instead to build a network across the country of anti-choice organizations, some of them posing as comprehensive health-care clinics – so-called “crisis pregnancy centers” (CPCs) or, as they would like to be called, “pregnancy resource centers.”
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Concerning Reproductive Rights 1965-2007
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on many choice-related cases since 1965.
Birth Control
Emergency Contraception (EC): An Important and Underutilized Contraceptive Option
Emergency contraception (EC), also known as the “morning-after” pill, contains the same active ingredients as ordinary birth-control pills and can substantially reduce a woman’s chance of becoming pregnant when taken soon after sex.
Emergency Contraception Can Help Reduce the Teen-Pregnancy Rate
Emergency contraception (EC) holds tremendous potential for reducing the number of unintended pregnancies among young women.
Faith and Choice
For many Americans, religious and spiritual convictions contribute significantly to their view on reproductive rights. And while abortion is often discussed in terms of law, medicine, personal autonomy, public health, and the appropriate role of government in citizens’ lives, it is equally valid to consider the issue from a perspective of faith.
Guarantee Women’s Access to Birth Control
In theory, the concept is simple: a woman walks into a pharmacy with a birth-control prescription from her doctor and should walk out with the medication – without intimidation, without delay, without a run-around. But in reality, there is a growing movement of pharmacists refusing to fill women’s legally prescribed birth-control prescriptions. Some pharmacists even go so far as to lecture women, humiliate them in public, or refuse to hand back the prescription after they refuse to fill it.
Health Groups Support Confidential Health Services for Young People
National medical and public health organizations support access to confidential health services for young people as a means to improve health outcomes.
Health-Care Law Holds Tremendous Promise for Women's Reproductive-Health Care
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Affordable Care Act) presents an historic opportunity to improve America’s health-care system, which is woefully inadequate from a reproductive-health perspective.
Insurance Coverage for Contraception: A Proven Way to Protect and Promote Women’s Health
Access to contraception is central to women’s autonomy and equality. Contraception is basic health care and should be treated as such as a matter of public policy. Laws promoting insurance coverage for contraception are crucial to protecting and promoting women’s health.
Oppose Unnecessary Restrictions on Title X
The latest in a long line of political attacks on the Title X family‐planning program came in 2009, when anti‐choice lawmakers Sen. David Vitter (R‐LA) and Rep. Mike Pence (R‐IN) introduced legislation(S.85/H.R.614) to make any entity that provides abortion care with its own private funds ineligible for a Title X family‐planning grant. While the sponsors claim that this legislation is necessary to prohibit publicly funded abortion care, the proposal’s true purpose is obvious: to dismantle the Title X network, leaving thousands of low‐income women without family‐planning services.
Save Confidential Family-Planning Services; New Restrictions on Title X Would Jeopardize Teens’ Health
In the 109th Congress, family-planning opponent Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) introduced H.R.3011, legislation to require parental consent and notification for teens seeking contraceptives at Title X-funded clinics. Although superficially appealing, such a mandate is misguided: rather than facilitating healthy family communication, these proposals discourage young people from seeking medical care – exactly the opposite effect of what’s most needed.
Support Family-Planning Services; Oppose Unnecessary Restrictions on the Title X Program
The latest in a long line of political attacks on the Title X family-planning program came in 2009, when anti-choice lawmakers Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) and Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) introduced legislation (S.85/H.R.614) to make any entity that provides abortion care with its own private funds ineligible for a Title X family-planning grant. The proposal’s true purpose is obvious: to dismantle the Title X network, leaving thousands of low-income women without family-planning services.
Teen Pregnancy: A Preventable Epidemic
Our nation is facing an adolescent reproductive-health crisis, with one in four teenage girls having a sexually transmitted disease, and one in three becoming pregnant before the age of 20.
The Difference Between Emergency Contraception and Early Abortion Options (Mifepristone/RU 486)
The line between contraception and abortion is often blurred, intentionally and unintentionally, in the course of policy discussions about emergency contraception (also known as the “morning-after” pill) and the early-abortion option, mifepristone (also known as RU 486). The distinction between the two is important, especially since anti-choice lawmakers are trying to restrict women’s access to these and other reproductive-health services.
The Prevention Agenda
January 2005 NARAL Pro-Choice America challenged President Bush to use his second term in office to unite the country by abandoning his divisive attacks on safe, legal abortion and instead devoting his efforts to enacting commonsense prevention measures that reduce the need for abortion.
Title X Family-Planning Services: Fast Facts
Title X (ten) of the Public Health Service Act is the cornerstone of the federal domestic family-planning program: It is the only federal program exclusively dedicated to family planning and reproductive-health services.
U.S. Servicewomen Need Better Access to Emergency Contraception
Unfortunately, emergency contraception (EC) is not reliably available to U.S. military women serving overseas. This gap in health care leaves servicewomen at greater risk for unintended pregnancy than women living stateside.
United Nations Population Fund
Founded in 1969, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) is the largest internationally funded source of population assistance to developing countries. For more than 40 years, UNFPA – which is funded entirely from voluntary contributions from participating nations – has provided more than $6 billion in aid to about 150 countries for voluntary family planning and maternal and child health care. The UNFPA provides crucial funding for family-planning services, as well as other essential health services, for some of the poorest women in the world.
Sex Education
"Abstinence-Only" Programs: Ideology Over Science
“Abstinence-only” programs are not proven effective and may in fact result in riskier behavior by teenagers. Responsible sex-education programs, on the other hand, have demonstrated positive results such as delayed initiation of sex, reduced frequency of sex, and increased contraceptive use.
Americans Support Responsible Sex Education
The public overwhelmingly supports age-appropriate, comprehensive sex education, yet anti-choice policymakers have increasingly promoted restrictive "abstinence-only" programs that censor information about contraception and STD/HIV prevention strategies.
Faith and Choice
For many Americans, religious and spiritual convictions contribute significantly to their view on reproductive rights. And while abortion is often discussed in terms of law, medicine, personal autonomy, public health, and the appropriate role of government in citizens’ lives, it is equally valid to consider the issue from a perspective of faith.
Teen Pregnancy: A Preventable Epidemic
Our nation is facing an adolescent reproductive-health crisis, with one in four teenage girls having a sexually transmitted disease, and one in three becoming pregnant before the age of 20.
Healthy Pregnancies
Health-Care Law Holds Tremendous Promise for Women's Reproductive-Health Care
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Affordable Care Act) presents an historic opportunity to improve America’s health-care system, which is woefully inadequate from a reproductive-health perspective.
Oppose Unnecessary Restrictions on Title X
The latest in a long line of political attacks on the Title X family‐planning program came in 2009, when anti‐choice lawmakers Sen. David Vitter (R‐LA) and Rep. Mike Pence (R‐IN) introduced legislation(S.85/H.R.614) to make any entity that provides abortion care with its own private funds ineligible for a Title X family‐planning grant. While the sponsors claim that this legislation is necessary to prohibit publicly funded abortion care, the proposal’s true purpose is obvious: to dismantle the Title X network, leaving thousands of low‐income women without family‐planning services.
Title X Family-Planning Services: Fast Facts
Title X (ten) of the Public Health Service Act is the cornerstone of the federal domestic family-planning program: It is the only federal program exclusively dedicated to family planning and reproductive-health services.
