
Why the US is burning $10m worth of birth control
The incinerated contraceptives included 900,000 birth control implants, 2m doses of injectable long-acting birth control, 2m packs of contraceptive pills and 50,000 IUDs. The medicine is just the latest in the far-reaching fallout from cuts made by the so-called 'department of government efficiency,' or Doge, a project in which Elon Musk and a group of his very young, overwhelmingly male acolytes unilaterally slashed congressionally appropriated funding to government programs they did not like. The cuts have been devastating for non-profits that work to improve women's health and safety worldwide. Sarah Shaw, an associate director at the global family planning group MSI Reproductive Choices, says that the cuts will put women at risk as they strain their health with unplanned pregnancies and seek out illegal abortions; other women who are denied access to birth control will lose out on the opportunities for education, professional development or remunerative work that can help them escape abuse, rise out of poverty, pursue their talents and ambitions and better provide for the children they already have.
When MSI attempted to buy the contraceptives, the administration would only accept full price, which the organization couldn't afford, she said. Several non-profits, including MSI, had offered to pay to ship and repackage the supplies, according to another representative. But the Trump administration refused, partially due to federal rules the prohibit the US from providing such goods to groups that perform, provide referrals for or offer education about abortions. In addition to the cost of purchasing the contraceptives, American taxpayers will now be on the hook for about $167,000 for the cost of burning them.
It's just the latest in a series of signs that the Trump administration is turning against the provision of birth control, particularly the safe, effective and woman-controlled hormonal methods that have been a cornerstone of healthcare policy for decades and which were a precondition of women's advancement in work and education over the past 60 years.
In April, the Trump administration abruptly announced that it was suspending a large swath of the domestic service grants distributed under Title X, the program meant to help low-income Americans access birth control, STD treatment and other sexual and reproductive healthcare. Of the 86 Title X grants awarded for fiscal year 2024, nearly 25% were 'temporarily withheld', mostly based on highly suspect allegations that the grant-receiving institutions – including 13 Planned Parenthood affiliates – had failed to comply with Trump executive orders banning things like DEI programs. Eight states now receive zero Title X dollars: California, Hawaii, Maine, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Tennessee and Utah. Alaska, Minnesota and Pennsylvania have also lost most of their contraception funding.
The domestic cuts – along with the exclusion of Planned Parenthood clinics from Medicaid reimbursements – mean that American women, too, are now facing dramatically greater obstacles to accessing birth control. Clinics that relied on Title X funding are now set to close: 11 Planned Parenthood clinics already have, including in Democratically controlled states like California. Planned Parenthood says that cumulatively, the cuts could lead the organization to close about 200 of its 600 clinics nationwide – a devastating cut to abortion providers in particular that will make a wide range of reproductive services inaccessible to women regardless of where they live.
But the Trump administration is not merely forcing these programs for women's health and dignity go up in flames. They are redirecting them to better suit their preferred cultural outcome: one in which women's lives, ambitions and talents are all subordinated to the task of childbearing. The New York Times reported last month that the White House is redirecting Title X funds that once went to birth control to instead fund an 'infertility training center' and programs in something called 'restorative reproductive medicine'. If Title X's original aim was to help American women control their fertility so as to build healthier families and to enable them to pursue other aims – like learning or work – in the new administration's version, the program exists mainly to encourage women to have more children. But the switch should not be seen as a genuine investment in infertility, an often devastating condition with which many Americans struggle. Because the new Title X priorities do not, by and large, direct more money to IVF. Trump promised, on the campaign trail, to make IVF free. But the procedure, which has opponents on the Christian right, is not included in the administration's new priority of 'restorative' reproductive medicine, a practice that avoids controversial fertility treatments; instead, doctors seek the 'root cause' of a woman's infertility, which may involve telling them they can conceive with proper diet and exercise.
In government, money allocation is a statement of values. With its dramatic cuts to contraceptive funding at home and abroad, the Trump administration is making its values clear. It does not value women's health; it does not value their dignity, their control over their own lives, their aspirations, their earning potential, their desire to be freed from ignorance, or poverty, or the abuse they suffer under the hands of husbands and fathers. It does not value their ability to control their own bodies, and by extension, it does not value their ability to enter the public sphere. It does not value their dreams, their gifts, their hard work or invention or aspiration to anything other than making babies. American women, like women everywhere, depend on birth control to live lives of freedom and to pursue their dreams. But because of the Trump administration, those dreams are going up in smoke.
Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
15 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Forged signatures listed on New York City mayor's re-election campaign petition
More than 50 signatures on New York mayor Eric Adams' petition to run as an independent candidate in November's election are fraudulent, according to a report published on Friday. The Gothamist said it had found 52 signatures from people who said their names were forged, including signatures of three people who turned out to be dead. The publication cited others who said they were deceived into signing the petitions. The discovery, if confirmed, is likely to be insignificant to Adams' independent campaign, which is required to produce 7,500 signatures to qualify him as a candidate. The Adams campaign has turned in nearly 50,000 signatures. Still, the finding adds complexity to a race to lead the nation's largest city that pits the incumbent mayor against Democratic party nominee Zohran Mamdani, former New York governor Andrew Cuomo, Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa and ex-prosecutor Jim Walden. Cuomo and Walden, like Adams, are running as independents. Flaws in the petition system to gain access to the ballot are likely to be tested in the future as candidates look for ways to circumvent the ranked-choice primary system, the publication said. Candidates typically employ outside contractors to harvest signatures. In the case of Adams' petition operation, the irregularities were attributed to at least nine workers who together submitted more than 5,000 signatures. A single campaign worker collected more than 700 signatures on a single day, the outlet said, adding that some appeared to be submitted in 'strikingly similar handwriting among many residents in a single building'. The Adam's campaign did not immediately respond to request for comment. But earlier it had told the Gothamist it expected the companies it hired to follow the law, and it would conduct its own review of the signatures. An attorney for Adams said the mayor did not direct anyone to break the law and that his campaign would 'determine whether any corrective action is warranted'. Veteran election law attorney Jerry Goldfeder told the publication it is not uncommon for invalid signatures to be collected. ' Every now and again, somebody tries to cut corners, and they're generally caught and sometimes those cases are referred to the district attorney or the US attorney, and there are prosecutions,' Goldfeder said. The report comes amid heightened tensions in the city after a gunman killed four people in a midtown office building on Monday, including off-duty New York City police officer Didarul Islam, Blackstone executive Wesley LePatner, security guard Aland Etienne and property manager Julia Hyman. The Adams administration has urged New Yorkers to seek help and support from mental health services if they find themselves struggling in the aftermath of the attack, while Mamdani is walking back past criticism of the city's police, saying his prior calls to defund the force were 'out of step' with his current thinking. 'I'm not defunding the police,' Mamdani said on Wednesday. 'I'm not running to defund the police. 'I am running as a candidate who is not fixed in time, one that learns and one that leads, and part of that means admitting as I have grown. And part of that means focusing on the people who deserve to be spoken about.' New York City's mayoral election is scheduled for 4 November.


The Guardian
30 minutes ago
- The Guardian
What will the AI revolution mean for the global south?
I come from Trinidad and Tobago. As a country that was once colonized by the British, I am wary of the ways that inequalities between the global north and global south risk being perpetuated in the digital age. When we consider the lack of inclusion of the global south in discussions about artificial intelligence (AI), I think about how this translates to an eventual lack of economic leverage and geopolitical engagement in this technology that has captivated academics within the industrialised country I reside, the United States. As a scientist, I experienced an early rite of passage into the world of Silicon Valley, the land of techno-utopianism, and the promise of AI as a net positive for all. But, as an academic attending my first academic AI conference in 2019, I began to notice inconsistencies in the audience to whom the promise of AI was directed. AI researchers can often identify consistent choices for locations where such conferences are hosted, and where they are not. NeurIPS, one of the top AI conferences, has highlighted annual issues for obtaining visas for academic attendees and citizens from the African continent. Attending such a prestigious conference in the field grants one the opportunity to gain access to peers in the field, new collaborations and feedback on one's work. I often hear the word 'democratisation' within the AI community, an implication of equity in access, opportunity and merit for contribution regardless of one's country of origin. Associate professor of economics Fadhel Kaboub talks about how 'a lack of vision for oneself results in being a part of someone else's vision', reflecting on how systematically lacking an access to infrastructure results in local trade deficits in economies. As in the time of Nafta's promise of 'free trade', promises of 'AI democratisation' today still exist and benefit mainly countries with access to tech hubs not located in the global south. While the United States and other industrialized countries dominate in access to computational power and research activity, much of the low-paid manual labour involved in labelling data and the global underclass in artificial intelligence still exists in the global south. Much like coffee, cocoa, bauxite and sugar cane are produced in the global south, exported cheaply and sold at a premium in more industrialized countries, over the past few years we have seen influence in AI inextricably tied to energy consumption. Countries that can afford to consume more energy have more leverage in reinforcing power to shape the future direction of AI and what is considered valuable within the AI academic community. In 2019, Mary L Gray and Siddharth Suri published Ghost Work, which exposed the invisible labour of technology today, and at the beginning of my tenure at graduate school, the heavily cited paper Decolonial AI: Decolonial Theory as Sociotechnical Foresight in Artificial Intelligence was published. It has been five years since these seminal works. What would an AI community inspired by the Brics organisation, which united major emerging economies to advocate for themselves in a system dominated by western countries, look like for the global south? I often ask myself how AI has contributed to our legacy, and whose stories it won't tell. Has AI mitigated issues of mistrust and corruption in less-resourced countries? Has it benefited our civic communities or narrowed educational gaps between less-resourced regions? How will it make society better, and whose society will it make better? Who will be included in that future? A historical mistrust can impede adoption by developing countries. Furthermore, many developing countries have weak institutional infrastructures, poor or nonexistent laws and regulatory frameworks for data projection and cybersecurity. Therefore, even with an improved information infrastructure, they are likely to function at a disadvantage in the global information marketplace. A currency is only as good as its perceived global trust. When thinking about the democratization in AI and a vision of what it could be in years to come, AI's survival requires including more perspectives from regions such as the global south. Countries from the global south should work together to build their own markets and have a model of sovereignty for their data and data labour. Economic models often consider a definition of development that includes a measure of improvement in the quality of life of the most marginalized of its people. It is my hope that in the future that will extend to our evaluation of AI. Krystal Maughan is a PhD student at the University of Vermont studying differential privacy and machine learning


The Independent
37 minutes ago
- The Independent
Once-loyal Target shoppers are finding alternatives after boycotts. Can the retail giant win them back?
Target was once the store that attracted shoppers looking to buy everything they needed in one place, and sucked them into its vortex with trendy yet affordable clothing, whimsical home decor and wide-ranging beauty products. The red bullseye store's ability to keep customers browsing for hours, even when they swore they'd only be five minutes, is one of its unique qualities that made it so popular – enough to even its own meme about people accidentally spending all their money and time at Target. Arianna, a 31-year-old teacher from East Texas, knew it well. Before June 2024, Arianna would take her three-year-old daughter to Target for a weekly trip. The store was convenient, her daughter could play with the toys and Arianna would browse the books. And the company also embodied values that Arianna, who asked for her surname not to be used for privacy reasons, aligned with. 'It was just a relaxing place to go and spend time with my girl,' Arianna told The Independent. But the call for Target shoppers to boycott the company when it was seen to abandon some of its progressive values changed everything. This past year, Arianna decided to cut ties with Target after the company announced it would end its diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives to comply with President Donald Trump 's executive order banning DEI. 'I don't like how they're propagating right-wing ideals by removing their D.E.I. initiatives and basically turning their backs on [people of color.]' Arianna said. 'Target has always tried to market themselves as being inclusive, but by quickly scrapping those inclusivity practices as soon as President Trump told them to do, it proves they never cared about inclusivity in the first place. Instead, it was all a farce and a clear example of rainbow capitalism,' she added. The Target boycott after it abandoned its DEI initiatives was first organized by Rev. Jamal Bryant, a prominent Black pastor in Georgia. He encouraged customers to stay away from Target for Lent — and then the boycott continued, with a variety of grassroots organizations getting involved. The boycott made a difference to Target's bottom line, in Q1, the retailer announced disappointing sales, with a 2.8 percent drop compared to sales from the same period last year. For years, Target's annual revenue reflected its success with customers. The company went from $73.7 billion in 2015 to an all-time high of $109.1 billion in 2022. Even during the pandemic, while other companies suffered, Target recorded a $15 billion growth in sales – proving that customers were still willing to shop at their favorite store – whether online or from a distance. But since 2022, Target's sales and stock value have stagnated. Shares of the company have dropped approximately 60 percent since its 2021 high. Target said it expects its annual sales to decline by a low single-digit percentage this year. While the company's slow decline cannot be directly attributed to one factor, it seems clear from discourse online that the retailer is losing its once loyal customers. Arianna's feelings toward Target first changed last summer when the retail giant scaled back its Pride merchandise to appease conservatives after anti-LBGTQ+ individuals and groups boycotted the store and threatened employees in June 2023. Some conservatives took aim at Target in 2023 after it began selling transgender-inclusive clothing. Then Target pulled some of its inclusive clothing after the blowback, and scaled back its Pride collections, upsetting many in the LGBTQ community. Arianna began shopping at Target less, opting to go to local or thrift stores — before abandoning it entirely after it pulled its DEI iniatives. On Reddit and Facebook, people have started pages to recommend alternative places to shop for clothing, groceries, beauty products, and more 'Boycotting Target has freed me from so much unnecessary spending. No matter what Target does in the future, I'm forever changed and free from their grip. I buy all my basics at the local drug store or Costco and I'm saving instead of giving 'Walmart in lipstick' all my expendable money,' one Reddit user said. 'Target is so unbelievably expensive most of the time for the same things I could find at Walmart for half as much,' a Reddit user complained. 'Don't even get me started on the cost of groceries at Target. I seriously question how people afford to buy full carts of groceries. The only things I've bought were a drink and some hot pockets for lunch one day and maybe a bag of chips.' Target's CEO, Brian Cornell, has attributed some of the company's stagnation to customers buying less overall – in part due to uncertainty around Trump's tariffs. "The difficulty level has been incredibly high given the rates we're facing and the uncertainty about how these rates in different categories might evolve," Cornell said in May. "We're focused on supporting American families and how they manage their budgets." Cornell said Target would only raise prices as a 'last resort.' But it's unclear if affordable prices would win back formerly loyal customers. For Arianna, there isn't much Target can do to bring her back. 'They've had plenty of time to do right by their customers of all skin colors, religions, and sexualities, but they've chosen to bury their heads in the sand and pretend like they've done nothing wrong. I'm saving more money now since I refuse to go to their stores, and instead I'm putting money into local stores which helps my community,' Arianna said. 'Maybe I'll shop there once more if they have a huge going-out-of-business sale where I can get a ton of stuff for 90% off. Other than that, I'm done for good.'