99 results found
The emergence and rapid proliferation of Covid-19 made the 2020 implementation of the Global Media Monitoring Project (GMMP) the most extraordinary since the initiative's inception in 1995. Yet, despite the pandemic, the number of participating countries, media and stories monitored was the highest ever. GMMP 2020 was implemented in 116 countries and covered 30,172 stories published in newspapers, broadcast on radio and television, and disseminated on news websites and via news media tweets. Twenty-five percent of stories in the sample carried a coronavirus sub- or principal theme. A tweak in the methodology still made it possible to analyze the stories along the classic GMMP major topic categories of politics & government, economy, science & health, social & legal, crime & violence and celebrity/media/arts & sports. The GMMP 2020 topics' structure carved out a seventh major topic "gender & related", in which to cluster stories specific to sexual harassment, rape, #MeToo and similar gender-specific stories.
The abortion landscape is fragmented and increasingly polarized. Many states have abortion restrictions or bans in place that make it difficult, if not impossible, for people to get care. Other states have taken steps to protect abortion rights and access. To help people understand this complex landscape, our interactive map groups states into one of seven categories based on abortion policies they currently have in effect. Users can select any state to see details about abortion policies in place, characteristics of state residents and key abortion statistics, including driving distance to the nearest abortion clinic.
If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, as it is expected to do in the coming days, the U.S. Constitution will no longer be interpreted as protecting the right to abortion. As a result, states will be able to decide whether abortion is legal and under what circumstances. While some states already have extreme legislation in effect that bans nearly all abortion care, 19 states have bans on the books passed either pre- or post-Roe, many of which--while not currently in force--could come into effect if the Supreme Court overturns Roe.This report explains the general operation of these 19 states' pre-Roe bans, trigger bans, and constitutional amendments. It then summarizes each state's trigger ban, pre-Roe statute, constitutional amendment, or combination thereof and describes the process for how each could be implemented if Roe is overturned.
Long-Term Decline in US Abortions Reverses, Showing Rising Need for Abortion as Supreme Court Is Poised to Overturn Roe v. WadeJune 15, 2022
The long-term decline in abortions in the United States that started 30 years ago has reversed, according to new data from the Guttmacher Institute--underscoring that the need for abortion care in the United States is growing just as the US Supreme Court appears likely to overturn or gut Roe v. Wade.According to new findings from Guttmacher's latest Abortion Provider Census--the most comprehensive data collection effort on abortion provision in the United States--there were 8% more abortions in 2020 than in 2017.
KFF Health Tracking Poll: Views on and Knowledge about Abortion in Wake of Leaked Supreme Court OpinionJune 9, 2022
For decades, KFF polling has provided insights into national and state-level reproductive health care policy including multiple public opinion polls examining the experiences and attitudes of the general public as well as the group most impacted by such policies – women between the ages of 18 and 49. This latest KFF poll was fielded the week following the leak of a draft of the U.S. Supreme Court opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Center. If the final ruling in the case resembles the leaked draft, the Court would overturn Roe v. Wade and end the constitutional right to abortion. This analysis examines the public's attitudes and understanding of the future of reproductive health and abortion access in the U.S. and looks at the role abortion and a decision on Dobbs may play in the upcoming midterm elections this November.
This report details the threat digital surveillance will pose to abortion seekers after the repeal of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The report finds that pregnant people and abortion seekers are already being prosecuted using electronic surveillance, including their search history, location data, and social media content, a threat likely to dramatically accelerate in the months and years following Roe's repeal.
NARAL Pro-Choice America's research team is committed to exposing the anti-choice movement's use of disinformation to attack abortion access and reproductive freedom. In 2021, we began a long-term research project aiming to expand our understanding of how anti-choice disinformation disseminates online in Spanish-language spaces and how it could impact Spanish-speaking communities in the United States.Our research sought to identify influential Spanish-language activists and Facebook pages that oppose abortion and spread disinformation and determine what overlap exists between English-language and Spanish-language anti-choice groups, influencers, and messages. We also wanted to understand more about social media engagement with Spanishlanguage news coverage of abortion and expose what messages anti-choice groups and activists advertised to Spanish speakers in the United States, particularly in a political context.As we approach the 2022 midterm elections and a U.S. Supreme Court decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization with the potential to overturn Roe v. Wade and radically shift the landscape of abortion access across the United States, it is more important than ever to combat anti-choice messages and disinformation targeting Spanishspeaking communities.
Abortion has long been a contentious issue in the United States, and it is one that sharply divides Americans along partisan, ideological and religious lines. This Fact Sheet draws on data from a survey conducted March 7-13, 2022. Trend lines show aggregated data from polls conducted in each year. Data from 2019 and later come from Pew Research Center's online American Trends Panel; prior data from telephone surveys.
A majority of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, but many are open to restrictions; many opponents of legal abortion say it should be legal in some circumstances
Abortion is among the most contentious issues in the country today. On December 1st, the Supreme Court will hear the first abortion case since Justice Amy Coney Barrett was seated and cemented a solid 6-3 conservative majority on the bench. The case under consideration, Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, involves a Mississippi law banning all abortions over 15 weeks gestational age except in medical emergencies and in the case of severe fetal abnormality. In this case, Mississippi is asking the Court to overturn the long-standing precedent of Roe v. Wade. While the Supreme Court has considered other abortion cases involving state regulations, this is the first case that the high court has taken in which a state is directly asking the Court to overturn the constitutional right to abortion. This issue brief provides background on the legal challenges to the Mississippi law in the context of the Supreme Court abortion precedents, addresses the intersections with the litigation that has arisen from S.B. 8, the Texas 6-week abortion ban, and explains the potential outcomes and how they could impact access to abortion around the country.
This report outlines 11 states in which high courts have recognized that their state constitutions protect abortion rights and access independently from and more strongly than the U.S. Constitution or have struck down restrictions that were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. The analysis considers how this jurisprudence can expand and shape efforts to secure reproductive rights.
Access to reproductive health care continues to be eroded in the United States. In 2022 alone, 41 states have introduced more than 500 abortion restrictions, and the U.S. Supreme Court is slated to decide a case that will determine the fate of Roe v. Wade. Attacks on reproductive health care have a disproportionate impact on certain individuals and communities—particularly the disability community.Reproductive and disability justice are both human rights-based frameworks that, at their core, share fundamental similarities: They both prioritize the right to bodily autonomy and self-determination; the right to raise children—if one chooses to have them—with dignity and in a safe environment; the right to access the health care one needs, free from political interference or stigmatization; and the right to community care. Yet even with such overlaps, the reproductive justice and disability justice movements have rarely interacted due to misunderstanding and miscommunication, particularly around abortion.This report reviews the historical context of the disability and reproductive justice movements, discussing how racism, sexism, and ableism have built discriminatory structures—from barriers to accessing reproductive health services to issues around forced sterilization, sex education, guardianship, parenthood, and sexual violence—that have kept disabled people, particularly disabled people of color, from achieving reproductive equity and justice. It then discusses the work done by the Disability Justice Initiative at the Center for American Progress, which is an interdisciplinary team that utilizes a disability justice framework to study structural discrimination and its impacts on policy. Lastly, this report outlines future plans, emphasizing the importance of collaboration between the two movements.
Showing 12 of 99 results