NOW affirms that reproductive rights are issues of life and death for women, not mere matters of choice. NOW fully supports access to safe and legal abortion, to effective birth control and emergency contraception, to reproductive health services and education for all women. We oppose attempts to restrict these rights through legislation, regulation or Constitutional amendment.
Senators: Confirm Loretta Lynch as Attorney General & Pass a Clean Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his conservative cronies are stalling Loretta Lynch’s Attorney General nomination in order to cram last-minute anti-abortion language into the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act. That’s worse than petty — it’s petty with nasty racial and gender overtones. E-mail your Senators today and tell them enough is enough!
Fifty years ago, our foremothers pushed back against the same type of ignorance and arrogance we see today from anti-women politicians. They demanded women’s right to determine their own futures, to decide for themselves whether and when to have childr… Read more »
Sign this pledge to join our grassroots leaders in protecting women’s autonomy and reproductive freedom.
Every woman’s health insurance policy must cover the full spectrum of reproductive health care, including abortion, please make your voice heard and sign our petition
835. That is the number of anti-choice measures enacted in states between 1995 and 2014 according to NARAL Pro-Choice America’s 2014 report, “Who Decides?.” Last year alone, state legislators enacted 27 anti-choice measures across the nation. The tren… Read more »
I have always been passionate about social justice issues. As such, I’ve probably attended more rallies and protests than the average 20-year-old. Never, however, had I attended one like the protest on Thursday, January 22, 2015—the 42nd anniversary… Read more »
On Jan, 22, 1973, women celebrated the momentous decision in which they were given control of their reproductive health. Thursday, on the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, women were struck with disappointment when the House passed H.R. 7, the No Taxpay… Read more »
Madeleine Albright once said there is a special place in hell reserved for women who don’t help other women. But what’s going on in the U.S. House right now is even worse. There are women who are not only failing to help — they are actually using thei… Read more »
1. Marriage Equality: Obergefell v. Hodges, Tanco v. Haslam, DeBoer v. Snyder, Bourke v. Beshear 2. Pregnancy Discrimination: Young v. United Parcel Service 3. Women’s Access to Health Insurance Coverage: King v. Burwell 4. Domestic Violence and Housing: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. 5. Marriage Equality Cases That Have Been Decided: Kitchen v. Herbert, and Bishop v. SmithRead more
Several years ago, then-Gov. Rick Perry conducted a fabled interview with The Texas Tribune in which Perry defended the state’s stress on abstinence-only sex education while his interviewer pointed out that Texas had one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the country. “I’m just going to tell you from my own personal life. Abstinence works,” Perry retorted. Does Texas traditionally decide state policy based on politicians’ sexual history? If so, that’s terrifying.Read more
“We should not have this interference, especially from men who don’t conceive and don’t have babies,” Barbara DeVane, a lobbyist for the National Organization for Women, said after the Senate Health Policy Committee approved the bill. “They are for de-regulation of everything except women’s decisions about their own health.”Read more
Author Lynn M. Paltrow writes for Political Research Associates: “It is likely that most people in the U.S., whether they identify as “pro-life” or “pro-choice,” don’t want to see any woman locked up for having an abortion (including the more than 60 percent of women who have abortions who are already mothers). Perhaps this is why anti-abortion organizations work so hard to deny the predictable and inevitable consequences of their efforts: women being locked up.”Read more
Those advocating for the bill are only concerned with protecting hateful and intolerant religious zealots and completely unconcerned with how this potential discrimination will infringe on the rights of other people, namely the LGBTQIA community, children, domestic violence victims and others.
Only 13 states set up a state-facilitated Health Exchange in accordance with the Affordable Care Act (ACA), leaving 37 states with a federally-facilitated Health Exchange. Health Exchanges are where individuals and families can apply to receive health insurance coverage under the ACA and where many can also qualify for subsidies via tax credits to help pay premiums. If the Supreme Court decides “wrongly” (in our view) in King v. Burwell, some eight to 10 million persons would likely lose their health insurance in these states because many would lose the subsidies that have made their insurance affordable.
The main web page from which this information is drawn the contains the following state-by-state information on legislation that is under consideration is from RH Reality Check. Note, companion bills are listed under the same version in the House/Senate.
King v. Burwell — the case being argued this week before the Supreme Court — marks the 175th attempt by conservatives to repeal provisions or completely overturn the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA – P.L.111- 148)