Last month, two analysts from the think tank Third Way published an opinion piece in U.S. News and World Report claiming that new Trump-administration policies would cause a surge in the abortion rate.
The Trump administration's decision to respect the conscience rights of employers who do not wish to include contraceptives or abortion-inducing drugs in their insurance plans has generated a firestorm of controversy. The principle of religious freedom has been criticized, and the research behind this decision has been sharply, albeit unpersuasively, attacked.
There is a considerable amount of debate about various aspects of abortion policy. However, there is a very broad consensus that funding abortion through Medicaid results in more abortions.
The eyes of Illinois and the entire country are on Governor Bruce Rauner this week. Earlier this year, the Illinois legislature passed the controversial HB 40, insuring that abortion remains legal in Illinois if Roe v. Wade is overturned. More importantly, HB 40 would also require taxpayer funding of abortion
The number of abortion facilities in the United States has been declining, and many midwestern and southern states have few abortion clinics left. In response, supporters of legal abortion have advanced some medically risky proposals to expand abortion access.
There is broad body of research which shows that cutting of funding for abortion reduces abortion rates.
Aaron Carroll eagerly criticizes abstinence-based programs without evaluating the effects of other types of teen-pregnancy-prevention curricula. He claims that the Obama-era programs were responsible for the recent decline in the teen-pregnancy rate, but those rates in the U.S. have been falling since the early 1990s
The mainstream media have lobbed a considerable amount of criticism at the Trump administration for cutting funding to the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program
This summer, a coalition of center-right groups launched a signature drive to try to make it possible to stop taxpayer funding of abortion in Massachusetts.
The past five years have seen a welcome increase in the number of books on the history of the pro-life movement. Still, the history of the pro-life movement is not complete. After decades of politicization, the pro-life movement is often portrayed as monolithic and uncooperative.
Since Texas defunded Planned Parenthood in 2011 there has been an endless parade of studies arguing that the Lone Star State is facing a public-health crisis. A more nuanced look at the numbers tells a different story.
A new study attempts to show that pro-life laws adversely affect public-health outcomes. But it suffers from two significant methodological problems.
Since Texas removed Planned Parenthood's state funding in 2011, the mainstream media have been on a constant search for evidence of a resulting public-health crisis.
Unsurprisingly, the Times article does a very poor job explaining why social conservatives are seeking to undo the HHS mandate.
In the 1990s and early 2000s, the pro-life position made some impressive gains in the court of public opinion, but over the last eight years, there has been a veritable public-opinion stalemate on this issue.
Stories linking the Planned Parenthood cuts to increases in the maternal mortality rate appeared in a number of mainstream media outlets, including ABC News and The Huffington Post. However, a serious look at the data tells a different story.
Teen contraception programs are counterproductive. A new study shows that cutting them actually reduces pregnancies and abortions among teens.
Last month, Washington Post fact-checker Michelle Ye He Lee conducted an analysis of the link between abortion and breast cancer. To the Post's credit, Lee's analysis is fairer than most media coverage of this topic.
Most pro-life laws are based on sound science. Pro-abortion groups and much of the media want you to think otherwise.
It is unfortunate, but unsurprising, that the mainstream media chose to report the inflated claims of advocacy groups as fact — instead of taking a hard look at the actual research available on these issues.
Last month, President Donald Trump appointed two well-known pro-life activists to important positions in the Department of Health and Human Services.
Controversy is brewing among Democrats about their party's official stance on abortion and "reproductive rights."
The results of the 2016 presidential election have spurred some soul-searching among many in the Democratic party. Some analysts are even encouraging Democrats to rethink their position on abortion.
With Donald Trump's election and an incoming GOP congressional majority, Planned Parenthood's annual federal funding of over $500 million appears to be in jeopardy.
As congressional efforts to defund Planned Parenthood gain momentum, it is unsurprising that the group's allies would push back.