
60 Years of Covering Reproductive Rights
One woman examines the emotional complexities of having an abortion and recounts how challenging it was before the U.S. Supreme Court legalized the procedure via Roe v. Wade.
In 1960, the FDA approved the first birth control pill, but years later, people still had plenty of questions. This thorough, four-page guide answered everything from 'How does the pill work?' to 'Could it mask cancer symptoms?'
A compassionate male gynecologist offers a simple and timeless truth: 'The only difference between making love and making a pregnancy is a contraceptive.'
Before it was even available in the U.S., we educated readers on the then-new copper IUD.
A first-person account from a woman who was lured into an anti-abortion 'clinic' where, instead of getting actual health care, she received one-on-one counseling from a series of anti-choice extremists. Their goal? To guilt her out of her decision to have an abortion.
A writer's personal story finds a delicate balance between stark honesty about the emotional and psychological aftermath of having an abortion and the urgent insistence that no woman should feel shame for getting one.
This deeply reported feature details the rise—and dangers—of the Christian anti-abortion movement.
To 'put an end to contraception confusion,' this story meticulously explains every then-current option: how it works and how to get it.
As politicians enacted new restrictions on later-term abortions, this 12-page story explained the laws while also detailing how to still access vital resources.
Legislators in President Trump's first term went after accessible, affordable birth control. We examined exactly what was at stake in this comprehensive guide.
When researchers started testing a male contraceptive gel, Cosmopolitan got special access to the early trials. We sat with participants and revealed how the potentially groundbreaking birth control method for men could change everything.
After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, our fervent response included an original survey, deep legal context, the debunking of misinformation, rallying calls from reproductive rights leaders, and current resources.
Post-Roe, we kept our efforts up, publishing this compelling look inside a secret fleet of mobile abortion clinics.
In a culture where any discussion about reproductive freedoms feels once again urgent, we broke down what might happen to people after quitting hormonal birth control.

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

Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Healey signs bill expanding reproductive, transgender care protections
Advertisement At a time of enhanced federal scrutiny and legal threats largely led by Republicans in other states, lawmakers last week moved to update the 2022 shield law intended to protect providers and patients of reproductive care, including abortions, and transgender care. Supporters say additional steps are needed to plug gaps in existing law in the wake of the US Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. The expanded shield law limits the release of sensitive data, allows prescription labels to display a practice name instead of an individual physician's name, and codifies a state requirement for abortion care to be provided in emergencies when medically necessary. The anonymity provision for prescription labels is linked to the case of a Advertisement The law also blocks courts here from considering or admitting cases of abuse, neglect, or maltreatment for parents who support their children in receiving transgender care. 'It's a true honor today to celebrate a law that will save lives, including my own, and so many other trans people who I know,' said Dallas Ducar, who's transgender and is Fenway Health's executive vice president of donor engagement and external relations. 'This will save families, will protect families, and remind our country what leadership looks like.' In a statement to the News Service, the Massachusetts Family Institute warned about the law's impact on children. 'Governor Healey and Massachusetts legislators have sadly, but predictably, bowed to ideology instead of protecting Massachusetts citizens, especially children,' MFI general counsel Sam Whiting said. 'This 'shield law' only shields activist healthcare providers from transparency and accountability, all while infringing on the rights of other states to protect children from abortion and irreversible gender mutilation procedures.' Healey called the law a 'necessary step forward,' as she invoked the gravity of the week, which brought 'What we do to protect people's rights here in Massachusetts impacts the country,' Healey said. House Judiciary Committee Chair Michael Day said last week that the urgency of the effort to update the shield law 'has been dictated by the wild rhetoric as well as the acts taken by both this presidential administration, as well as several of our sister states, in the field that this bill covers: the right for a woman to control her body and the right for transgender individuals to be treated as equals here in the commonwealth.' Advertisement In New Hampshire last week, Governor Kelly Ayotte signed two bills banning transgender care for minors, including puberty blockers or hormone treatments, as well as chest surgeries, according to NHPR. 'Medical decisions made at a young age can carry lifelong consequences, and these bills represent a balanced, bipartisan effort to protect children,' Ayotte said in a statement. About 40 percent of transgender youth across the country — or roughly 120,400 individuals — live in 27 states that have bans on gender identity care,


The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
Federal court upholds Oklahoma law banning gender-affirming care for minors
A federal appeals court upheld an Oklahoma law banning gender-affirming care for minors Wednesday in a ruling hinging on a June Supreme Court decision to uphold a similar law in Tennessee. Oklahoma's Senate Bill 613, passed by the state's Republican-controlled Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) in 2023, makes it a felony for health care workers to provide treatments including puberty-blocking drugs and hormones to affirm a minor's 'perception of his or her gender or biological sex, if that perception is inconsistent with the minor's biological sex.' Five families of transgender children and an Oklahoma City physician specializing in adolescent medicine challenged the state's ban, arguing it violated their constitutional rights. The plaintiffs, represented by Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Oklahoma, claimed state lawmakers adopted S.B. 613 with discriminatory intent, citing a 2022 law that froze pandemic relief funding for OU Health, one of the state's largest hospital systems, unless Oklahoma Children's Hospital agreed to suspend gender-affirming care for minors. A federal judge in Tulsa declined to stop S.B. 613 from taking effect in 2023, writing in an order that transition-related care for young people is 'an area in which medical and policy debate is unfolding,' and the state 'can rationally take the side of caution before permitting irreversible medical treatments of its children.' An appeal before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was abated pending the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. v. Skrmetti. In that case, the justices ruled 6-3 along ideological lines that Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care does not amount to sex discrimination, which would have triggered a higher level of constitutional scrutiny. The court's majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, agrees with arguments made by Tennessee officials that the law distinguishes based on a treatment's medical purpose, not sex, and the court should defer to the Legislature's judgment about regulating medicine for children. Relying on the high court's decision, a three-judge panel for the 10th Circuit ruled unanimously on Wednesday that Oklahoma's law is constitutional. Tennessee's Senate Bill 1 and Oklahoma's Senate Bill 613 'are functionally indistinguishable,' Circuit Judge Joel M. Carson, appointed during President Trump's first term, wrote in Wednesday's order. 'Here, like in Skrmetti, both groups include transgender minors, so there exists a 'lack of identity' between transgender status and the medical diagnosis excluded under SB 613. And like Tennessee's SB1, under SB 613, a minor's ability to receive medical treatment under SB 613 does not turn on the minor's transgender status—it turns on the minor's medical diagnosis,' Carson wrote for himself and Circuit Judges Harris L. Hartz, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, and Gregory A. Phillips, appointed by former President Obama. The order, citing Skrmetti, states Oklahoma's law neither violates the Constitution nor was intended to discriminate against transgender youth. 'We recognize the importance of this issue to all involved. But this remains a novel issue with disagreement on how to assure children's health and welfare. We will not usurp the legislature's judgment when it engages in 'earnest and profound debate about the morality, legality, and practicality' of gender transition procedures for minors,' Carson wrote. 'While we respect that Plaintiffs disagree with the legislature's assessment of such procedures' risks, that alone does not invalidate a democratically enacted law on rational-basis grounds.' Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond (R) celebrated the court's ruling Thursday in a post on the social platform X. 'For years, radical left activists pushed the lie of 'gender transition' procedures for minors. The truth is much simpler: there is no such thing,' he wrote. Attorneys for the plaintiffs called Wednesday's decision 'devastating' in a joint statement. 'Oklahoma's ban is openly discriminatory and provably harmful to the transgender youth of this state, putting political dogma above parents, their children, and their family doctors,' the statement said. 'While we and our clients consider our next steps, we want all transgender people and their families across Oklahoma to know we will never stop fighting for the future they deserve and their freedom to be themselves.'
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Mass. Gov. Healey plans to sign reproductive, transgender shield law
Massachusetts will gain a new layer of defense against out-of-state intrusion into reproductive and transgender care under legislation that Gov. Maura Healey plans to sign into law Thursday. At a time of enhanced federal scrutiny and legal threats largely led by Republicans in other states, lawmakers last week moved to update a 2022 state law intended to protect providers and patients of reproductive care, including abortions, and transgender care. Supporters have warned that the additional steps are needed to plug gaps in existing law in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. The measure Healey will sign would limit the release of sensitive data, allow prescription labels to display a practice name instead of an individual physician's name, and codify a state requirement for abortion care to be provided in emergencies when medically necessary. Healey on Thursday plans a signing ceremony at the State House. House Judiciary Committee Chair Michael Day said last week that the urgency of the effort to update the shield law 'has been dictated by the wild rhetoric as well as the acts taken by both this presidential administration, as well as several of our sister states, in the field that this bill covers, the right for a woman to control her body and the right for transgender individuals to be treated as equals here in the commonwealth.' 'Sadly, that urgency is also present because some of the dangerous and, frankly, plainly ignorant rhetoric I've seen emanating from some individuals here in our own commonwealth in the wake of our initial passage of this bill. Rhetoric saying things that legislators voting in favor of this legislation care only about killing babies and castrating children,' Day, a Stoneham Democrat, said. 'I once again remind the more rabidly angry and cruel of our residents that we in the House work every day to protect your rights to voice your opinions no matter what they may be, including that type of tripe. But we also work every day in these halls to ensure that all of our residents, even -- and this might be the part that sticks in people's craws -- even our residents who might not look like you or talk like you or act like you or live their lives in a way that you don't like. Yep, even for those people, we in the House have the temerity to work to protect their rights to live peacefully with equal rights under the law here in Massachusetts, and we will always do so.' The product of an informal compromise between House and Senate committee chairs, the final product passed the House 132-24, with Democrat Reps. Colleen Garry of Dracut, Francisco Paulino of Lawrence, Alan Silvia of Fall River and Jeffrey Turco of Winthrop voting alongside most Republicans in opposition. Republican Sens. Kelly Dooner of Taunton, Ryan Fattman of Sutton and Peter Durant of Spencer were the only votes of dissent in that chamber. This is a developing story. Check back for updates as more information becomes available. Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW Solve the daily Crossword