We celebrate and thank social workers, this month and every day, for their work to ensure the rights of all people to make free and informed choices about their bodies and their lives.
I wrote a Shreveport Times column this week in an attempt to spark meaningful conversation about poverty and health care in Louisiana. What I never expected was that my column would become Dr. Fleming's springboard for announcing he has moderated his abortion access position.
Unless the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the Texas legislation, it is almost certain to create tragedies under the hideous guise of language that claims to protect women's health.
The effects of the doctrine on care are complex and merit a better response than telling women they can get their reproductive health needs met elsewhere. Ultimately, institutions providing ob-gyn care must be held to the same standards regardless of their religious affiliation -- and if not -- who will make sure patients understand how their care may be compromised?
Media outlets are reporting that Rep. Mike Coffman has joined Rep. Cory Gardner in withdrawing his support of the personhood amendment, which would ban all abortion, but, strangely, reporters aren't asking the logical follow-up question: What is your position on abortion?
You are going to claim to be pro-life but ignore infant mortality? And maternal mortality? You are going to claim to be confused and worried about the fertilized egg, and the implantation, and the uterine wall, but ignore the intimate partner violence that accompanies unintended pregnancy?
Anticipating a barrage of anti-abortion, or TRAP laws this legislative session, Tulane students are mobilizing with other pro-choice organizations to keep abortion and women's healthcare resources available to Louisiana women.
Will a few states rule the United States? Or fundamentally change it? And if so, who are the winners and losers? Depending on your point of view, this "laboratory-of-the-states" business is good news today... or not.
I recently penned an article discussing the Republican hypocrisy regarding keeping government out of people's private lives. The line that received the biggest response -- by far -- was the line where I suggested that women, not Republican lawmakers, should be allowed to decide what collection of cells to remove from their body.
The fact that a fetus is inside of Jane does not mean that Jane is morally responsible for the fetus. If she has become pregnant through rape or contraception failure, she has made no promise to the fetus, and so abortion would not be promise-breaking. Abortion is not wrong in either case.
I knew we were on to something. For much of 2013, our team at Provide explored ideas about how we could move people on the issue of abortion in deepl...
Almost any one of today's providers could make more money, and have a far easier life, in another job. Instead, they choose to do what they do, so women can choose to control their bodies and their lives. That's worth celebrating.
Some of these crazy ideas are no longer so popular in some quarters -- which does not mean much because for every crazy idea that becomes obsolete two more crazy ideas take its place.
Ukraine erupted in crisis during the past week, as Russia's Vladimir Putin essentially grabbed Crimea in his own hissy fit. President Obama, of course, has very limited options for dealing with Russia.
The ability to control whether and when to have a child are key to the physical, social and economic health of women and families, and access to legal, safe and affordable birth control and abortion are essential to guarantee that ability.
As more abortion clinics close in the state of Texas, a retrospective look at the politics that led to this form of oppression points mostly at men. In fact, the five Republican candidates for the most powerful statewide offices in Texas, all of whom are dedicated to increasing abortion restrictions, are male