US Supreme Court Repeals Constitutional Right to Abortion

NEW YORK — The United States Supreme Court today repealed the constitutional right to abortion. The ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization allows Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban to remain in place and explicitly overturns decades of precedent set by the Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey decisions that prevented states from banning abortions before viability.

Abortion is likely to become illegal immediately in roughly half of US states. Other states are expected to further limit abortion access, while some have taken steps to expand access in anticipation of the court’s ruling.

Akila Radhakrishnan, president of the Global Justice Center, issued the following statement:

“Today will go down as one of the darkest days for human rights in American history. With the stroke of a pen, this court has barred millions from access to a medical service that the World Health Organization has deemed a ‘crucial part of healthcare.’ The repercussions for bodily autonomy and gender equality in the US will be devastating.

“Though decades of attacks have deeply eroded the protections of Roe, and safe abortion has for too long been inaccessible to many, today’s ruling puts the United States firmly in violation of its human rights obligations. Around the world, recognition of the right to abortion access is sweeping. Ireland, Colombia, Benin, and countless other countries have taken steps in recent years to expand abortion access. Make no mistake: the US is now a global pariah on abortion, and accordingly, gender equality.

“This is certainly the catastrophic day we all feared. But it is also a day we’ve long prepared for. While we fight state-by-state to secure abortions for anyone who needs them, there are actions President Biden and Congress can take now to protect the human right to abortion. With stakes this high, each day of inaction is an attack on every person now living in a country without bodily autonomy.”

Ireland and Latin America Can Inspire the US Abortion Fight

Excerpt of Bloomberg article quoting GJC Legal Director Dr. Christine Ryan.

High-profile cases can nuance the debate by making even those averse to terminations recognize that it can be necessary — but normalization is vital. As Christine Ryan of the Global Justice Center argues, most abortion cases are not extreme; legislating only for the exceptions risks leaving many people behind, and abortion outside normal reproductive healthcare. Another risk is that only those who elicit our compassion are seen as deserving of this freedom. “Women shouldn't need to make us cry to have their rights respected,” Ryan says.

Both in Latin America and in Ireland, language choices helped to break down taboos. Avoiding heavily charged words (including abortion), campaigns have focused on the voluntary interruption of pregnancy as a medical procedure. Ireland’s was notable for its emphasis on hope. Its “Together for Yes” campaign featured slogans like “Sometimes a private matter needs public support” and advertisements that called to mind unifying national events, encouraging voters to drive change. The Niñas No Madres campaign in Latin America sought to shield young girls by encouraging the girls to be seen as just that — children.

Read the Article

The Fight to Secure U.S. Abortion Rights Is Global

Excerpt of Ms. Magazine Op-Ed authored by GJC Special Counsel Michelle Onello and GJC Legal Advisor Elean Sarver.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization stands to unleash devastating rollbacks on abortion across the United States, while also bringing domestic policy more in line with foreign policy. For decades, international aid restrictions have made abortion inaccessible abroad, resulting in significant harm—including death. While the forthcoming decision, and its catastrophic fallout, is not likely to have an immediate global impact, it will undercut efforts to remove these restrictions and embolden the anti-abortion lobby to further instrumentalize U.S. foreign policy to promote its ideology.

A central U.S global abortion restriction, the Helms Amendment has prohibited the use of foreign assistance for the performance of abortion “as a method of family planning” for nearly 50 years. The Helms Amendment has overridden national legislation in countries receiving aid and been over-implemented as a total ban on abortion, ignoring congressionally permitted exceptions in cases of rape, incest and life endangerment. It’s also disregarded a clarification, known as the Leahy Amendment, that permits information and counseling about abortion.

Read the Article

Abortion: Ireland’s past is America’s future

Excerpt of The Hill Op-Ed authored by GJC Legal Director Dr. Christine Ryan.

This month, four years ago, media from across the globe descended on the courtyard of Dublin Castle. They traveled to capture the scene of thousands of Irish people celebrating the results of the Irish abortion referendum. A landslide majority had “repealed the 8th” and voted to change the country’s constitution to enable legal recognition of abortion rights for the first time in the state’s history. Generations of families cheered and cried together while politicians from warring parties embraced. Viewers abroad marveled at the displays of pride, rapture, and even love.   

To understand why the referendum result in Ireland prompted such outpourings is to understand the full meaning of the right to abortion. On the one hand, the right ensures that women and pregnant people of reproductive age can terminate unwanted or unsafe pregnancies without legal sanction. On the other, it signifies state recognition that women are equal agents in their societies, deserving of respect for their life choices. The right upends the assumptions that coerce women into predefined gender roles and rejects the seemingly immortal ideologies that accord women a lesser status. It demands that society trust women and that the law affirms their dignity and autonomy.

Read the Article

U.S. would lag behind global abortion access if Roe v. Wade is undone, advocates say

Excerpt of NPR article that mentions the Global Justice Center.

International rights groups warned the U.S. Supreme Court last year that possibly overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade case that made abortions legal in 1973 would put it behind the curve of other countries that have been expanding access to abortion care.

Human Rights Watch says there is an international trend toward expanding abortion access.

Argentina legalized abortion in 2020, while Mexico decriminalized the procedure in 2021.

Statistics also show that in Ecuador, El Salvador, South Africa and Romania, the more restrictive abortion legislation is, the higher incidences of women dying or contracting diseases after giving birth are, according to a September 2021 brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The brief was submitted by Human Rights Watch in partnership with Amnesty International and the Global Justice Center.

Read the Article

US Supreme Court Reportedly Set to Repeal Constitutional Right to Abortion

NEW YORK — A majority opinion from the US Supreme Court that was leaked to the press shows a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, the core legal precedent establishing the right to abortion in the United States.

The court has not yet issued its official ruling and abortion remains legal in the United States.

Akila Radhakrishnan, president of the Global Justice Center, issued the following statement:

“If this leaked opinion is legitimate, it offers a preview of the catastrophic day reproductive rights activists have feared for decades. In just a few short weeks, this court is set to seize a human right from millions in America. This places the United States in violation of its human rights obligations and far out of step with global trends towards liberalizing abortion access.

“Let’s be clear: safe abortion is a fundamental human right and must be accessible to all pregnant people. Everyone from international human rights bodies to healthcare experts agree. And yet, abortion has been singled out, stigmatized, and targeted, including as a test run for broader assaults on human rights.

“The court’s ruling is still weeks away, but the time to act is now. President Biden and Congress must take all steps within their power to protect abortion access and expeditiously act to firmly enshrine this human right into law.”

The Science is In: Abortion Bans Are a Public Health Emergency

Excerpt of Women's Media Center Op-Ed authored by GJC Program Coordinator Merrite Johnson.

Last month, the World Health Organization (WHO) published new guidelines on abortion care, developed through years of consultations with providers, researchers, and human rights experts. The release of this groundbreaking healthcare manual is timely for people in the United States, who are bracing for the end of Roe v. Wade and ensuing crackdowns on abortion access. It’s also a test for the Biden administration, who has made women’s healthcare a major talking point in its campaign to re-assert US leadership on human rights globally.

Most importantly, however, the guidelines can serve as an authoritative confirmation for what American reproductive rights activists have always known: abortion is essential healthcare.

The WHO’s guidelines take a radically simple approach to laws and policies on abortion, recommending both full decriminalization and that abortions be made available on request, without any grounds-based or gestational restrictions.

Read the Article

Ukrainian Victims of Wartime Rape May Be Forced To Give Birth—All Thanks to This U.S. Policy

Excerpt of Ms. Magazine Op-Ed authored by GJC Legal Director, Dr. Christine Ryan.

Seeking protection from Russian bombing and shelling amidst a siege of their city, thousands of civilians in Bucha bunkered down in subways and basements. But for some, the reprieve from artillery was not enough. For women and girls, there was no shelter from the sexual violence inflicted by Russian soldiers.

Rape, sexual slavery and forced pregnancy are among the war crimes reportedly suffered by women and girls in Bucha and in wider Ukraine. Yet, the cruelty endured by these victims does not end there. Thanks to U.S. policy, abortion may be unavailable to these women and girls.

Because the Ukrainian health system is drastically strained, international humanitarian aid is playing an outsized role in delivering healthcare throughout the country. But all humanitarian aid provided by the U.S.—the largest single-country donor of humanitarian assistance to Ukraine—is subject to the Helms Amendment, which limits the use of U.S. foreign assistance funds for abortion. In this way, rather than alleviating their suffering, U.S. aid could be the reason that victims of wartime rape are denied abortions and forced to give birth.

Read the Article

WHO issues new guidelines on abortion to help countries deliver lifesaving care

The World Health Organization (WHO) is releasing new guidelines on abortion care today, in a bid to protect the health of women and girls and help prevent over 25 million unsafe abortions that currently occur each year.

“Being able to obtain safe abortion is a crucial part of health care,” said Craig Lissner, acting Director for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research at WHO. “Nearly every death and injury that results from unsafe abortion is entirely preventable. That’s why we recommend women and girls can access abortion and family planning services when they need them.”

Based on the latest scientific evidence, these consolidated guidelines bring together over 50 recommendations spanning clinical practice, health service delivery, and legal and policy interventions to support quality abortion care.

New recommendations to improve access to high quality, person-centred services

When abortion is carried out using a method recommended by WHO, appropriate to the duration of the pregnancy and assisted by someone with the necessary information or skills, it is a simple and extremely safe procedure.

Tragically, however, only around half of all abortions take place under such conditions, with unsafe abortions causing around 39 000 deaths every year and resulting in millions more women hospitalized with complications. Most of these deaths are concentrated in lower-income countries – with over 60% in Africa and 30% in Asia – and among those living in the most vulnerable situations. 

The guideline includes recommendations on many simple primary care level interventions that improve the quality of abortion care provided to women and girls. These include task sharing by a wider range of health workers; ensuring access to medical abortion pills, which mean more women can obtain safe abortion services, and making sure that accurate information on care is available to all those who need it. 

For the first time, the guidelines also include recommendations for use where appropriate of telemedicine, which helped support access to abortion and family planning services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Removing unnecessary policy barriers facilitates safe abortion access

Alongside the clinical and service delivery recommendations, the guidelines recommend removing medically unnecessary policy barriers to safe abortion, such as criminalization, mandatory waiting times, the requirement that approval must be given by other people (e.g., partners or family members) or institutions, and limits on when during pregnancy an abortion can take place. Such barriers can lead to critical delays in accessing treatment and put women and girls at greater risk of unsafe abortion, stigmatization, and health complications, while increasing disruptions to education and their ability to work.

While most countries permit abortion under specified circumstances, about 20 countries provide no legal grounds for abortion. More than 3 in 4 countries have legal penalties for abortion, which can include lengthy prison sentences or heavy fines for people having or assisting with the procedure. 

“It’s vital that an abortion is safe in medical terms,” said Dr Bela Ganatra, Head of WHO’s Prevention of Unsafe Abortion Unit. “But that’s not enough on its own. As with any other health services, abortion care needs to respect the decisions and needs of women and girls, ensuring that they are treated with dignity and without stigma or judgement. No one should be exposed to abuse or harms like being reported to the police or put in jail because they have sought or provided abortion care." 

Evidence shows that restricting access to abortions does not reduce the number of abortions that take place. In fact, restrictions are more likely to drive women and girls towards unsafe procedures. In countries where abortion is most restricted, only 1 in 4 abortions are safe, compared to nearly 9 in 10 in countries where the procedure is broadly legal. 

“The evidence is clear – if you want to prevent unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions, you need to provide women and girls with a comprehensive package of sexuality education, accurate family planning information and services, and access to quality abortion care,” Dr Ganatra added.

Following the launch of the guidelines, WHO will support interested countries to implement these new guidelines and strengthen national policies and programmes related to contraception, family planning and abortion services, helping them provide the highest standard of care for women and girls.

2021-2026 Strategic Framework: Abortion is a Human Right

Our 2021-2026 Strategic Plan, launched in November of 2021, outlines three central goals for the organization. One of these centers on our work to ensure abortion access is respected, protected, and fulfilled as a fundamental human right.

To learn more about our vision for a gender-equal future that protects abortion and other rights, check out our Strategic Plan.

Abortion and President Biden's State of the Union

Dear President Biden,

People’s access to abortion in this country is in crisis, with attacks coming constantly from all levels ranging from the Supreme Court to state and local governments. That’s why it is imperative that everyone, from the White House to Congress to state and municipal governments to local communities, work hard to protect and expand abortion access.

As you prepare for the State of the Union, we urge you to be clear that protecting abortion access is of paramount importance given both the ongoing crisis in Texas and the likelihood that the Supreme Court will further decimate the constitutional right to abortion later this year. We also urge you to reiterate your support for the Women’s Health Protection Act, critical legislation that would establish a right to abortion throughout the United States and help to guard against the abortion bans and other medically unnecessary abortion restrictions being advanced and enacted by state politicians across the country.

We appreciate your clear call for a “whole-of-government”response to the dire state of abortion access in Texas. Indeed, it is critical that all parts of the administration work tirelessly to protect abortion access in the face of ever increasing threat, building on the work of Vice President Harris, the Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Becerra and his staff, and the White House Gender Policy Council, work tirelessly to protect abortion access in the face of ever increasing threats.

Read the Full Letter

The whole world is watching for Biden's plan to protect abortion rights

Excerpt of The Hill Op-Ed authored by GJC President Akila Radhakrishnan and Ipas President Anu Kumar.

The first year of Joe Biden’s presidency came to a close just days before the 49th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade, which has served as the foundation for Americans’ right to abortion ever since. Yet, it could be the last anniversary we ever celebrate.

In the next six months, the Supreme Court is set to rule in a case aimed directly at dismantling the constitutional protections established by Roe. Given the realities of a conservative Supreme Court and gridlock in Congress, executive branch leadership and support of abortion is critical. The time is now for the Biden administration and federal agencies to take every measure necessary to protect abortion access. But it shouldn’t stop at creative domestic approaches — an international perspective is also needed.

In the early days of his term, President Biden rescinded a policy known as the “global gag rule.” This policy restricted foreign non-governmental organizations that receive U.S. global health funds from using their own resources to engage in abortion-related work. While rescinding this policy is to be commended, it is also a low bar that every other Democratic president has cleared in the first days of their presidencies since the policy was first enacted in 1985 by the Reagan administration. To demonstrate a real commitment to protecting sexual and reproductive rights around the world, the Biden administration must dismantle structural policies that allowed the global gag rule to exist in the first place.

Read the Article

Support the Women's Health Protection Act

Dear Senators:

The more than 225 undersigned organizations dedicated to protecting and advancing civil rights, health, economic security, LGBTQ rights, and gender justice write in support of S. 1975, the “Women’s Health Protection Act” (WHPA). We urge the Senate to swiftly bring the bill to the floor and for all Senators to vote yes on passage.

Despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade nearly fifty years ago, abortion access has continued to be under threat. Anti-abortion politicians and advocates have continued to undermine abortion access both at the federal and state levels. This is part of a nearly fifty-year strategy to make abortion wholly inaccessible for those who need it. In September, and again in December, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to to put an end to Texas’s S.B. 8, a six-week abortion ban, rendering Roe v. Wade’s protections meaningless for the majority of Texas abortion patients, and giving other states hostile to reproductive rights a green light to ban abortion outright in the near future. People with resources are being forced to flee the state to access abortion, while those who are unable to leave the state are being forced to continue their pregnancies against their wishes. Around the same time, the Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case in which Mississippi has asked the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court could gut or wholly overturn the right to abortion by this summer.

WHPA would help protect access to abortion against state-level bans and medically unnecessary restrictions that are reducing, and in some cases, eliminating, access to abortion across the country. WHPA establishes a statutory right for health care providers to provide, and their patients to receive, abortion free from medically unnecessary restrictions, and limitations, as well as other restrictions, including bans, that single out abortion and impede access to care.

Read the Full Letter

The U.S. Can’t Be a Global Leader on Democracy While Banning Abortion at Home

Excerpt of Ms. Magazine Op-Ed co-authored by GJC Legal Advisor Elena Sarver.

Last month, the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in a case that could set off a new era of abortion bans across much of the country. It also marked the start of President Biden’s Democracy Summit, a high-level conference bringing together world leaders, civil society and the private sector to discuss challenges and opportunities facing democracy internationally. One of the stated themes of this first of two planned summits is a focus on human rights.

The proximity of these two moments is more than mere coincidence. Yes, the U.S. faces an unprecedented crisis for the right to abortion. But we must also recognize the numerous links between democracy and reproductive rights. A most basic and fundamental freedom in a democracy is the ability to control decision-making around one’s own reproduction. When this freedom is removed, it threatens the ability of half of the country’s population to participate equally in society. So, if the U.S. hopes to credibly host a marquee event to promote its return to global democratic leadership, it must contend with cracks in that facade here at home.

Read the Article

48th Anniversary of Helms Letter

Dear President Biden,

We, the undersigned organizations, call on you to protect reproductive freedom and bodily autonomy for people across the globe by demonstrating your support for the repeal of the Helms Amendment. Failure to do so is in direct conflict with the priorities stated by this administration to “promote access to sexual and reproductive health and rights both at home and abroad.” We urge you to proactively protect essential human rights, including abortion, for people in other countries as well as our own. We appreciate the actions you have taken in support of sexual and reproductive health and rights, including repealing the Global Gag Rule and calling for increased UNFPA funding. However, simply reversing harm inflicted by the previous administration is not enough to make meaningful progress on health and human rights.

We write to you on this day specifically because it is the 48th anniversary of the passage of the Helms Amendment, which prohibits U.S. foreign aid from being used for “the performance of abortion as a method of family planning.” This provision is over-implemented as a total ban on abortion under any circumstance, denying millions of mostly Black and brown people in low-to-middle income countries the health care they want and need. Authored by the late Sen. Jesse Helms, this policy has roots in racism and neocolonialism, allowing the U.S. to police other countries through the power of foreign assistance and control their policies even in instances where countries have expanded abortion access. The result is drastic global health inequities, stifled bodily autonomy, and preventable death.

Last year, many of us called on your administration to support the "Abortion is Health Care Everywhere Act," which repeals the Helms Amendment. The Abortion is Health Care Everywhere Act now has over 170 cosponsors and is endorsed by a diverse coalition of over 175 organizations. The Helms Amendment was also successfully removed from the House-passed Fiscal Year 2022 State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations bill. Despite growing momentum for repeal of the Helms Amendment, it remained in the FY22 President’s Budget and was not addressed in the recently released National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality, both missed opportunities to ensure bodily autonomy for people globally, no matter who they are or where they live.

Read the Full Letter

Democracy without Sexual and Reproductive Rights is An Empty Promise

On December 9-10, 2021 the United States will host a virtual Summit for Democracy, bringing together leaders from government, civil society, and the private sector to discuss challenges and opportunities facing democracies and to make commitments to defend democracy and human rights at home and abroad.

Fòs Feminista and the Global Justice Center in partnership with the Embassy of Canada, are hosting a side event on the margins of the 2021 Democracy Summit. Leading experts will discuss the role of reproductive rights in democracies, the relationship between authoritarian governments and control of bodily autonomy, the impact of US abortion restrictions around the world, and how the US can realize its commitment to sexual and reproductive health and rights at home and abroad.

Moderator:
Seema Jalan, Executive Director of the Universal Access Project and Policy at the United Nations Foundation

Opening Remarks:
Katherine Baird, Deputy Head of Mission, Embassy of Canada

Panelists:

  • Helena Chiquele, Oxfam, Mozambique
  • Amanda Nunes, Youth Leader, Anis, Brazil
  • Akila Radhakrishnan, President, Global Justice Center
  • Serra Sippel, Chief Global Advocacy Officer, Fòs Feminista

Watch the Webinar

Mississippi abortion ban tees up Supreme Court to overturn Roe

Excerpt of Courthouse News article mentioning a legal brief by the Global Justice Center.

Proponents of the abortion right say bans like that of Mississippi will not prevent the practice but instead just make it less safe. An amicus brief from Human Rights Watch, the Global Justice Center and Amnesty International says unsafe abortions are one of the leading causes of maternal mortality and morbidity. 

“The lesson for this case is clear: If an abortion ban like H.B. 1510 is upheld, more women in Mississippi are likely to die,” the brief states. 

If the court were to overturn Roe, abortion providers say low-income and minority women would be impacted the most. 

“You just shouldn't be able to have access to an abortion only based off on where you live or how much money you make and what access you have, but right now in the United States, that's what's going on,” Brewer said. 

Read the Article

Opinion: There is no middle ground on human rights — including abortion rights

Letter to the Editor from GJC President Akila Radhakrishnan to The Washington Post.

Aaron Tang’s Oct. 28 Thursday Opinion essay, “A view on abortion that originalists should embrace,” outlined a dangerous path forward for the Supreme Court that is in direct conflict with an internationally recognized fact: There is no “middle ground” on a human right.

It is abundantly clear that the six-week and 15-week abortion bans before the court violate human rights outlined in treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the United States has ratified.

In a 2018 “general comment” on the treaty, the U.N. Human Rights Committee made it clear that state parties, including the United States, may not “regulate pregnancy or abortion … in a manner that runs contrary to their duty to ensure that women and girls do not have to undertake unsafe abortions.” A decision to uphold either of these bans would put the United States out of compliance with its international legal obligations.

Human rights, including abortion access, can’t be negotiated away for reasons of political acceptability. It’s time American legal observers of all stripes recognize this, and for judges to take this into account.

Read the Article

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization - Amicus Brief

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Near-categorical bans on abortions will have a significant, real, and negative impact on the health of pregnant individuals.

The worst such impacts will be borne by marginalized groups, including people living in economic poverty and by Black, Indigenous, and people of color. These are the very groups whose health the law should protect. Banning abortion does the opposite.

In-country after country, abortion bans have not led to a decrease in the number of abortions, but rather an increase in the number of unsafe abortions—especially affecting people of limited means.

These risks are neither theoretical nor conjectural. In countries across the world, including Romania, South Africa, El Salvador, and Ecuador, there is a statistical relationship between the imposition of restrictive abortion legislation and increases in maternal mortality and morbidity. The lesson for this case is clear: If an abortion ban like H.B. 1510 is upheld, more women in Mississippi are likely to die.

Consistent with these findings, countries around the world allow abortion on broad grounds.

Amicus briefs submitted in support of Petitioners claim that most countries ban or severely restrict abortion. That assertion distorts reality. In fact, a strong majority of women of reproductive age—approximately 60%—live in countries where abortion is available upon request or otherwise broadly available on a variety of social, economic, and health grounds.

By contrast, just a handful of countries, representing 5% of women of reproductive age, ban abortion without exception. Mississippi’s H.B. 1510 is an unmistakable step in this latter direction, away from the global norm and towards this small minority position.

Furthermore, where only economically developed or highly developed countries are considered, an even more robust consensus emerges. Of the 36 highly developed countries, 34 offer abortion on broadly available grounds. A significant number of nations offer abortions free of charge to low-income pregnant individuals.

International law coheres with these trends in comparative law. Contrary to amicus briefs submitted supporting Petitioners, international human rights law recognizes the well-known risks created by restrictive abortion legislation and requires states to ensure abortion access.

Access to safe and lawful abortion services is firmly rooted in the rights to life; to non-discrimination; to be free from torture, cruel, and degrading treatment; and to privacy. These rights are recognized in international human rights treaties ratified by the United States, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention Against Torture. The United States cannot, given its international obligations, enact legislation that transgresses these commitments. Banning abortion clearly does so.

Download Full Amicus Brief 

House’s Two Major Spending Bills Omit Long-Standing Abortion Restrictions—But Senate Battle Remains

Excerpt of Ms. Magazine article by GJC Special Counsel Michelle Onello.

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed two major spending bills—a package of federal appropriations authorizations and a foreign aid appropriations bill—which do not include decades-old discriminatory reproductive rights prohibitions that have prevented women, especially women of color, from exercising their basic sexual and reproductive health rights in the U.S. and abroad.

The two bills, passed largely along party lines, will face a difficult path in the evenly-split Senate and stand in stark contrast to the recent rash of state-level abortion restrictions and the increasing possibility that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade.

Read the Article