Doing some policy research? Need some background materials? You've come to the right place.
Note: Documents in the library are organized by issue area — and PDFs require Adobe Reader (free download/upgrade available).
H.R. 7 is intended to eliminate all insurance coverage for abortion and ultimately deny women the right to make a real decision about whether to have an abortion.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the greatest advance for women’s health in a generation. Improving health care has long been a priority for women, reflecting their experiences as patients, mothers, and caregivers.
Abortion is one of the most common medical procedures for women; an estimated one in three women will have an abortion in her lifetime. The majority of women who have abortions already have at least one child and many list the need to care for their children as a primary reason not to have another.
The “Stop Abortion Funding in Multi-State Exchange Plans Act” or “SAFE Act” (H.R. 346), and the Senate version of this badly misnamed legislation, the “Preventing the Offering of Elective Coverage of Taxpayer-Funded-Abortion Act of 2013” or “PROTECT Act” (S. 154), would prohibit private insurance coverage of abortion in federally administered multi-state plans established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). These bills, introduced by Representative Alan Nunnelee (R-MS) and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), are part of a nationwide effort to limit women’s access to abortion by banning insurance coverage for it.
Ballot initiatives can be powerful policy-making tools that raise community-specific issues and allow citizens to take democracy into their own hands. In recent years, however, they have also been a means to push an extreme agenda that would undermine women’s health and reproductive rights.
We strongly urge you to support women’s reproductive health programs in the Fiscal Year 2013 (FY13) appropriations process and to reject any policy riders and funding cuts that would limit access to critical women’s health services.
Current law disregards military women and their service to our country. About 200,000 women are currently on active duty in the four branches of the military. Since 1979, the annual Department of Defense Appropriations bills have included a provision that prohibits coverage of abortion care for military personnel and their dependents in almost all cases.
H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), formerly known as the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, purports to address the critical issues of race and gender discrimination by banning abortion based on the race or sex of a fetus.
The District of Columbia abortion ban flies in the face of home rule, usurps the prerogatives of the local D.C. government, and tramples the rights of D.C. residents.
The National Partnership for Women & Families believes that no Peace Corps volunteer should have her life endangered because she cannot access a medical procedure that is safe and legal in the United States. We urge Congress to end the ban on abortion coverage for Peace Corps volunteers and trainees by passing Senator Frank R. Lautenberg’s Peace Corps Equity Act of 2013 (S. 813).
Congress should increase or retain funding for Reproductive Health Programs, so that millions of Americans do not lose their source of primary and preventive health care services. The Title X federal family planning program and Medicaid are the primary federal sources for public reproductive health funding. In the last year, many states have taken steps to reduce or eliminate their family planning programs, making federal funding even more important.
H.R. 3803, introduced by Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) and S. 2103, introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), would prohibit abortion in the District of Columbia after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Refusal laws allow doctors, hospitals and insurance companies to legally deny women access to health care services they need.
We strongly urge you to support women’s reproductive health programs in the Fiscal Year 2012 (FY12) appropriations process and reject the proposed policy riders and funding cuts that would limit access to and information about critical women’s health services.
Dear Members of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution: The undersigned organizations stand together committed to ending discrimination...Accordingly, we are very concerned to see the fight against discrimination being misappropriated to push a bill that does nothing to combat sex and race discrimination, but instead imposes additional barriers on women in the United States.
In June of 2011, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced the Military Access to Reproductive Care and Health (MARCH) for Military Women Act in the Senate (S. 1214) and Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) introduced it in the House (H.R. 2085).
The Obama Administration has initiated the process to rescind a harmful regulation issued by the Department of Health and Human Services – one of the infamous ‘midnight regulations’- that became effective on the last day of the Bush Administration. The HHS regulation threatens to dramatically undermine access to a broad range of health information and services by essentially allowing health care workers and institutions an unfettered ability to refuse to provide health care services, information, and referrals that offend their religious beliefs or moral convictions.
On August 26, 2008, the Bush Administration proposed a politically-motivated regulatory change that would significantly expand the rights of individuals and institutions to refuse to provide or help provide health care services that offend their religious beliefs or moral convictions. While this poorly-drafted rule raises as many questions as it answers, it is clear that the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) intends it as a back-door assault on women’s reproductive health care.
In 2008, virtually all reproductive health debates and decisions in the legislative and policy arenas took place against the backdrop of one of the most unforgettable presidential campaigns in history – one in which voters could not have been presented with a starker choice between candidates on reproductive health policy. When the dust had settled, the country had elected a pro-choice, pro-prevention President with a strong track record of support for women’s reproductive health.
|Items 1 - 20 of 108||1||2||3||4||5||6||Next|