Every year, Congress uses the annual budget process to deny women access to a critical reproductive health service -- abortion. We must allow medical standards of care -- and not politics -- to dictate coverage once again.
Over the past few years, more and more Americans have felt less comfortable having their personal beliefs about abortion be put into a box. What does "pro-choice" or "pro-life" even mean? And why can't I be both?
Roe v. Wade has had a huge impact on the health and safety of women. In 1965, illegal abortions contributed to nearly one-fifth of all pregnancy- and childbirth-related deaths. Today, less than 0.3 percent of women who end a pregnancy sustain a serious complication.
Women didn't ask our politicians to make the personal political. But we must continue to fight back by making the political personal. This is about choice and it's about justice -- for every woman, no matter her story.
Roe v. Wade was a triumph of American constitutional law. It changed the world in a fundamental way. Those who wish that Roe had never been decided would return us to a world of gender oppression, back-alley abortions and personal degredation.
Forty years after Roe v. Wade, pro-choice Democratic women have had unprecedented electoral success, and have been given a mandate to continue fighting for equal pay, education, and access to affordable healthcare that benefit women and families.
This year, when the president submits his budget proposal to Congress, he can omit the restrictions on coverage of abortion. This small but bold act would send a strong signal to Congress and to women and families around the country.
This year marks the anniversary of two powerhouse decisions of the Supreme Court: Roe v. Wade, in which a woman's right to have an abortion was established 40 years ago, and Lawrence v. Texas, which held 10 years ago that laws prohibiting same-sex sexual conduct are unconstitutional.
It is certainly fair enough to suggest that we could do better at organizing around these issues, at collaborating within the movement, at reaching out to those who might be inclined to support a broader vision of what reproductive rights and justice means.
The 2012 election signaled that the United States is again in a "great period of change." The following five issues call out for "new attitudes and outlooks," and I urge President Obama to rise to the challenges of leadership with responses based on justice and compassion.
Since the 1990s (roughly), television has regularly portrayed being gay in a much more positive light. Forty years later, however, abortion has not made the same leap toward acceptability on television.
Let us extend our sympathy to Robert Bork's family and friends. But let us also take a stand for an important historical truth: the successful fight against his confirmation was a noble cause, and his defeat was one of the most important progressive victories.