Florida among most restrictive states for birth control access
Why it matters: Contraception access has become a political flashpoint since the Supreme Court ended Roe v. Wade, with Democrats unsuccessfully pressing to codify contraceptive access nationwide and some patients concerned that conservative state legislatures could enact new curbs.
The court's decision also paved the way for Florida's six-week abortion ban, which has forced more patients to seek care out of state.
Zoom in: While Florida expanded Medicaid coverage for family-planning services, the state hasn't enacted a broader expansion of the health insurance program for low-income residents.
That leaves gaps in coverage for men and people younger than 19, the report notes.
The state has no laws requiring insurers to cover birth control and only allows minors to consent to contraceptive services if they're married, pregnant or parenting, or if withholding care poses a health risk.
Florida also doesn't require sex education in schools, per the report.
The latest: Last year, state education officials told districts to stop teaching about contraception and focus sex education lessons on abstinence.
The big picture: Nearly 35% of Americans, or 121 million people, currently live in a state that actively restricts access.
Of the 16 states the group identified in that cohort, the most restrictive included Florida, Kansas, Mississippi, Alabama and Wyoming.
The most protective included California, Washington, Connecticut, New York, New Mexico, Maryland and Oregon.
Another 18 states were considered a mix between the two.
"Reproductive health care access depends on where you live," said Cathryn Streifel, senior program director at PRB and co-author of the scorecard.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
19 minutes ago
Senate Democrats try to force DOJ to release Epstein files using little-known law
Senate Democrats on Wednesday said they are attempting to force the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files through a little-known, decades-old law. All seven Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee invoked a law that requires federal agencies provide information about "any matter within the jurisdiction of the committee" if at least five members request it. "This letter demands that the Justice Department produce documents that Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel have publicly already confirmed they have in their possession," Sen. Gary Peters, the panel's top Democrat, said at a press conference. "We all know in fact that the attorney general said, quote, she said they're sitting on her desk. It should be pretty easy to turn over documents that are sitting on the attorney general's desk," Peters added. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to request for comment. Peters was joined by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Richard Blumenthal at the press conference, during which they touted their move as a turning point in their quest for transparency over the Trump administration's handling of the Epstein matter. "Today's letter matters. It's not a stunt, it's not symbolic, it's a formal exercise of congressional power under federal law, and we expect an answer from DOJ by August the 15, that's what accountability looks like," Schumer said. "This is what oversight looks like, and this is what keeping your promises to the American people look like." Blumenthal agreed that this measure was invoked as a powerful oversight tool. "This letter has some force of law," Blumenthal said. "This letter invokes a statute that has been little used because it has been unnecessary in the past to enforce transparency. It's necessary now because this administration is stonewalling and stalling and concealing, and the American people are rightly asking where they have to hide. What's at stake here is not just the president's promises." The Democrats, who said their urging of a release of the Epstein files was also done as a way of seeking justice for Epstein's victims, were asked at the news conference whether Democratic senators would be comfortable with redactions in their release. Schumer said lawmakers "wouldn't force any agreements that have been broken," but added that he believes "almost everything can come out." Schumer also said that they've been "talking" to their Republican colleagues to get these files public but would eventually seek "recourse in the courts" if cooperation isn't achieved.
American Press
20 minutes ago
- American Press
Former Vice President Kamala Harris says she will not run for California governor
Former Vice President Kamala Harris will not run for California governor next year, leaving open the possibility that she could mount a third run for the White House in 2028. 'Over the past six months, I have spent time reflecting on this moment in our nation's history and the best way for me to continue fighting for the American people and advancing the values and ideals I hold dear,' Harris said in a statement released by her office Wednesday. 'I have given serious thought to asking the people of California for the privilege to serve as their governor. I love this state, its people and its promise. It is my home. But after deep reflection, I've decided that I will not run for Governor in this election,' she said. Harris' decision extends a guessing game about her political future that started after she lost last year's presidential election to Donald Trump. Harris spent months privately considering whether to run for governor, stage another run for the White House or step away from electoral politics altogether after her bruising defeat by Trump. She has not ruled out another run for president, after unsuccessful bids in 2020 and 2024. It's not known when she will make that decision. In her statement, Harris never mentions Trump directly but said 'our politics, our government, and our institutions have too often failed the American people, culminating in this moment of crisis.' 'For now, my leadership — and public service — will not be in elected office. I look forward to getting back out and listening to the American people, helping elect Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly, and sharing more details in the months ahead about my own plans,' Harris added. 'In the United States of America, power must lie with the people. And We, the People must use our power to fight for freedom, opportunity, fairness and the dignity of all. I will remain in that fight,' the statement said. Harris would have entered the crowded contest to replace term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom as a front-runner given her widespread name recognition, fundraising prowess and track record of winning statewide elections. Before serving as U.S. senator and vice president, she was elected state attorney general and district attorney in San Francisco. But after years in Washington on the national and international stage, it was never clear if Harris was interested in returning to the less-glamorous world of statehouse politics in Sacramento. Outside California, Harris' political career has been marked by historic firsts but also disappointments. Harris sought the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, but dropped out of the race before the leadoff Iowa caucuses — the first defeat of her political career. After Joe Biden chose her as his running mate, she made history as the first woman, Black person or person of South Asian descent to serve as vice president. In 2024, Harris became the Democratic presidential nominee after Biden left the race months before Election Day and endorsed her. She lost that race to Trump, who won every swing state. Harris faces some uncertainty if she chooses to make another White House run. Harris would have to convince national Democrats that she's the face of the party's future, despite losing to Trump last fall. She also carries the baggage of being tied to Biden, whom Democrats have increasingly criticized for seeking a second term rather than stepping aside. Biden's legacy was tarnished as he left office, and since then new questions have swirled about his physical and mental abilities as his term ended. The 2028 presidential contest is expected to attract a large field, which could potentially include Newsom. Any candidate will have to unify a fractious Democratic Party with low approval ratings that is struggling to slow Trump's agenda in Washington. In her most extensive public remarks since leaving office in January, Harris said in a San Francisco speech that Trump's leadership represented a ' wholesale abandonment ' of American ideals. Harris' decision not to seek the governorship keeps the contest to replace Newsom wide open. The Democratic field includes former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former Biden administration health secretary Xavier Becerra and a handful of state officeholders.
USA Today
20 minutes ago
- USA Today
Repealing greenhouse gas emissions rule could cost American drivers more, not less
Repealing emission standard for new cars could save Americans money — if gas prices drop. Ending greenhouse gas emissions standards for new cars is supposed to result in more 'affordable choices' for consumers and 'regulatory relief' for companies, according to a statement from the Environmental Protection Agency. Yet, the agency's draft impact analysis shows the proposal might instead cost the country more than it would save. It depends on what is counted and assumptions about the broader economy. 'They're trying to cook the books to show that somehow what they're doing saves costs,' Joseph Goffman, a former assistant administrator at the EPA office overseeing air pollution rules, said in an interview. A spokesperson for the agency agreed that some of the modeled scenarios were 'highly speculative' but said they are designed to show the influence of market conditions, like gas prices. One estimate showed repealing emissions standards would cost the country $350 billion a year. Another predicting ideal economic conditions showed annual savings of $490 billion. Neither of those figures included the cost of public health impacts from air pollution. Initial details of the proposal to repeal the 2009 endangerment finding were announced Tuesday by Lee Zeldin, President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. 'With this proposal, the Trump EPA is proposing to end sixteen years of uncertainty for automakers and American consumers,' Zeldin said at an Indiana auto dealership, calling greenhouse gas rules 'the real threat to Americans' livelihoods.' Dropping emissions standards for new vehicles is one effect of the agency's plan to repeal the 'endangerment finding,' which underpins the federal government's ability to regulate the greenhouse gases that fuel climate change. In 2009, the agency under former President Barack Obama detailed evidence that greenhouse gases, including those emitted by cars, harm human health. Last year, President Joe Biden's administration set rules to reduce the release of these heat-trapping gases as well as other air pollutants. Widely touted economic benefits of $99 billion per year included reduced public health costs from cleaner air along with reduced fuel and maintenance costs. More: Trump EPA reverses pollution limits on power plants How are the costs and benefits calculated? To understand the economic impact of the proposal, the Environmental Protection Agency modeled several different scenarios in a draft report. Some include changing more government policies than others. Some rely on economic factors beyond the government's direct control. For instance, one projection estimates repealing the endangerment finding and the car emissions standard for greenhouse gases would have a net cost of $350 billion for the nation. That scenario includes ending tax credits for new electric cars created by the Inflation Reduction Act. Other projections show that the repeal would result in overall savings once a gallon of gasoline becomes a dollar cheaper than previously forecasted. Goffman suggested that 'an unrealistically low price for gasoline' was the only way the Trump administration could show the plan had broad economic benefits. An EPA spokesperson told USA TODAY: 'These values are illustrative and show the sensitivity of future gas savings based on different fuel prices. Many actions that can impact gas prices in the future and basing the benefits on future gas prices is highly speculative.' Will cars be cheaper? When the Biden administration announced its car pollution standards in 2024, the EPA explained how the rule could change the cost of new cars as part of its an 800-page analysis. Purchase prices were projected to increase, ranging from about $900 for a sedan to $2,600 for an SUV. But the agency said consumers would save money in the long run because of cheaper maintenance and fuel savings over the vehicle's lifetime. For example, sedan and SUV drivers would save $4,400. The savings projected under Biden were even larger after including purchase incentives in the calculations. But those will be eliminated as a result of cuts in Trump's "Big Beautifull Bill" that was approved by Congress weeks ago. For instance, people who buy new electric cars soon will lose access to $7,500 in tax credits. The draft analysis of the new proposal is much shorter – just 63 pages – and does not project changes in the cost of new cars. Instead, it estimated nationwide impacts. Trump administration officials have touted $54 billion in annual savings for Americans. An EPA spokesperson clarified that figure included benefits from expected new vehicle technology but did not include costs such as long-term maintenance. Adding those leads to a net cost increase of $18 billion per year. How will the repeal affect public health spending? When Biden's administration set car emissions standards last year, a report calculated it would save the nation $13 billion annually in public health spending by reducing the amount of fine particulate matter released in the air. This pollution is associated with premature deaths and hospitalizations from respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses. That report also estimated that limiting greenhouse gas emissions would bring $72 billion climate benefits annually. This was calculated from the social cost of carbon, a measure that considers things like human health effects, agricultural productivity and property damage from natural disasters. The repeal proposed by Zeldin would keep the particle pollution limits, however, it would remove standards for greenhouse gas emissions. The new estimates did not include the impacts, like public health, of increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Future of climate change regulation beyond cars Goffman, the former EPA official, said repealing the endangerment finding has impacts beyond car emissions. Its repeal could limit the federal government's power to regulate all greenhouse gas emissions and make future attempts to tackle climate change harder. 'This goes beyond an individual administration exercising discretion that can be reversed by a future administration,' Goffman said. 'They've taken themselves out on the legal ledge, and it's only a couple of millimeters wide.' This proposed repeal is part of a larger movement from the Trump EPA. In June, Zeldin announced intent to remove and scale down air pollution limits on power plants. In that news release, the agency said it would save the power sector about $1.2 billion dollars annually in regulatory costs. It didn't mention that their cost-benefit analysis found it would also cost $8 billion dollars annually from worsened public health. That means a net negative from easing those pollution limits: While companies save money, people would spend more because of poorer health. Electricity generation and transportation are the two biggest greenhouse gas emitting sectors. Together they make up over half of emissions in the country. The plans to scale back limits on power plants and new cars could have significant influence on global efforts to avoid climate change impacts. 'Trump's EPA is trying every trick in the book to deny and avoid their mission to protect people and the environment,' wrote Gina McCarthy, a former EPA administrator who now leads the advocacy group, America Is All In. 'Instead of doing their job, this EPA is putting the safety of our loved ones at risk.' Written comments from the public about the repeal proposal can be submitted until Sept. 15. The agency also plans to hold public hearing sessions next month. More details can be found on the agency's website.
