logo
She was tracking post-Roe abortions. The government just pulled her funding.

She was tracking post-Roe abortions. The government just pulled her funding.

Yahoo09-04-2025

Dr. Diana Greene Foster is responsible for landmark research on the effects of abortion access — a massive 10-year study that tracked thousands of people who had an abortion or were denied one. But funding for a follow-up to her seminal Turnaway Study has just been cut as part of a wave of canceled health policy research.
Foster received a MacArthur 'genius grant' for the Turnaway Study. That piece of research, which examined the impact of restrictions even before the fall of Roe v. Wade, helped shape public understanding of how abortion access can affect people's health and economic well-being by finding that people who were denied abortions were more likely to experience years of poverty compared to those who could terminate their unplanned pregnancies.
Foster's new study was meant to build on that research, using quantitative analysis and in-depth interviews to follow people who sought abortions in or outside of the medical system after federal abortion rights were terminated, as well as those who carried their pregnancies to term. Though national data has shown that the number of abortions has gone up since Roe was overturned, little research has examined who is still able to access care in the face of abortion bans, or what it means for people's health and economic well-being when they cannot.
'It is very likely that certain types of people are less likely to be able to get a wanted abortion. And I think that includes people who experience pregnancy complications and are too sick to travel across state lines,' Foster wrote in an email to The 19th. 'Some cases make the newspapers but only systematic study can tell us how often it happens, quantify the added health risks of the law and help us understand how to mitigate the harms.'
The study began immediately after Roe's fall, using private donations; Foster spent the past two-and-a-half years securing federal funding to expand her work. Her research was only six months into what was supposed to be a five-year grant when the federal funding was pulled.
Already, that research had begun to yield results. Foster's team was about to publish data showing that in states with abortion bans, people were more likely to seek abortions in their second trimester than they had been before — possibly the result of having to navigate new, onerous restrictions. Federal funding had enabled the study to expand the number of people it followed so that her team could better understand how abortion bans have affected people with medically complex pregnancies, including those who need abortions because of medical emergencies.
'Our study would rigorously examine how state abortion bans — with and without health exceptions — affect treatment of medical emergencies, like preterm prelabor rupture of membranes, preeclampsia and ectopic pregnancy, through surveys and interviews with physicians in emergency departments across the U.S.,' Foster said. 'This is a topic for which we desperately need data.'
The future of that work is now uncertain. A letter from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which Foster shared with The 19th, said that her research was no longer aligned with federal goals: 'Research programs based on gender identity are often unscientific, have little identifiable return on investment, and do nothing to enhance the health of many Americans,' the letter read.
That phrasing has appeared in other letters sent to researchers whose work centers on women or LGBTQ+ people, though also in work like Foster's, which is not explicitly about gender identity. The NIH has canceled funding for scores of studies relevant to gender, women and LGBTQ+ people, a pattern that threatens to undercut a decades-long effort to improve how scientific research considers gender.
Foster said her team had only used less than $200,000 of an anticipated $2.5 million in NIH support, slated to be spread out over the five years. She intends to continue the study, she said, but the cancellation of their federal grant means her team cannot pay for all the staff it needs, including personnel to interview patients and physicians about their experiences navigating abortion bans. That's information that some states with abortion bans — such as Texas, the largest state to ban the procedure — aren't tracking.
'I am madly fundraising to replace these canceled funds,' she wrote. 'I would rather be spending the time implementing the study than beginning the fundraising again.'
The post She was tracking post-Roe abortions. The government just pulled her funding. appeared first on The 19th.
News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Southern Baptists endorse overturning same-sex marriage
Southern Baptists endorse overturning same-sex marriage

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Southern Baptists endorse overturning same-sex marriage

Southern Baptist delegates overwhelmingly called to try to reinstitute a ban on same-sex marriage 10 years after the Supreme Court legalized the unions. While gathered at the 2025 national convention in Dallas on Tuesday, the delegates of the country's leading Protestant denomination voiced their goal of changing national policy on same-sex marriage. Southern Baptists have long been opposed to same-sex marriage, but the call this week for the Supreme Court to reverse its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling has strategists questioning if it was influenced by the 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade, which was the constitutionally protected right to an abortion. The convention attracted thousands of pastors and church members from congregations across the country. The vote took place on the first day of the meeting, which gave a glimpse into the denomination's view on a number of political and cultural issues, The New York Times reported. The vote comes just after Gallup released survey results about a widening gap between Republicans and Democrats about their support for same-sex marriage. According to the polling, 68% of U.S. adults support same-sex marriage. Democrats' support has risen to 88% in 2025, while Republican support has dropped to 41%, the lowest since 2017. Southern Baptists acknowledged that their support for making same-sex marriage illegal puts them in the minority, but they say the nonbinding resolution puts their views on the map. While the support for overturning Obergefell may not be a strong sentiment nationwide, the Southern Baptist enthusiasm could lead to political efforts to change the law, as seen in recent years with the support and eventual reversal of Roe. Several other resolutions and ideas were passed by delegates, including defunding Planned Parenthood, banning pornography and condemning sports betting. Southern Baptist Convention Resolution Committee Chair Dr. Andrew Walker acknowledged they have an uphill battle to finding broader support for the resolution, but he would 'love to see Obergefell overturned' and a marriage definition in the U.S. 'restored to the union of one man and one woman.' 'There is very little desire, even on the conservative side, I think, to go to bat for marriage in this particular culture. And I want to stress to the press, while we are making a policy and legal statement, I'm clear eyed about the difficulties and the headwinds in this resolution,' Walker said during a press conference. Walter said the resolutions passed by the delegates were statements that can and will inform the way policymakers view Southern Baptist sentiment and desires. The Times noted that Southern Baptist values are often viewed as a bellwether for evangelical conservatism. 'I understand that it is largely ingrained in the American psyche at this point,' Walker said of same-sex marriage. 'But the role of this resolution was to say Southern Baptists aren't going anywhere.'

New state laws aim to clarify abortion bans. Doctors say it's not so simple.
New state laws aim to clarify abortion bans. Doctors say it's not so simple.

Yahoo

time7 hours ago

  • Yahoo

New state laws aim to clarify abortion bans. Doctors say it's not so simple.

Almost three years after the fall of Roe v. Wade made way for near-total abortion bans, state lawmakers are weighing whether to offer more specific guidance about when doctors can perform abortions in a medical crisis. Texas, Kentucky and Tennessee all passed laws this year ostensibly clarifying the scope of its abortion bans, a reaction to climbing sepsis rates and harrowing stories of patients who have suffered or died preventable deaths. Since June 2022, lawmakers in at least nine states have introduced such bills. But doctors, attorneys and policy experts say that the laws being enacted will not solve the problems health providers have been forced to navigate since the end of Roe: The risk of being punished has deterred physicians, hospitals and health systems from providing consistent care, even when it is needed. 'The problem with these clarifying laws is they don't expand access under the law, they don't change the definitions, and they don't remove the legislative interference in the practice of medicine,' said Molly Meegan, chief legal officer and general counsel to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In Texas, a bill that awaits Republican Gov. Greg Abbott's signature ostensibly clarifies when the state's near-total abortion ban allows for the procedure, saying explicitly that physicians do not need to wait until a patient is in imminent danger of dying to perform an abortion. The bill also requires training for doctors and lawyers on the state's abortion law. But lawmakers have made clear that the bill, crafted in consultation with Texas-based health professionals and abortion opponents, does not introduce new exceptions; Texas' ban does not allow for abortions in cases of rape, incest or fatal fetal anomaly. And if enacted, it would codify a Texas Supreme Court decision that found that the state's ban still applied even in cases with complications that could threaten a pregnant person's health.. Such was the case for Dallas woman Kate Cox, who experienced amniotic fluid leaking and cramping — which create the risk of bacterial infection — after discovering a likely-fatal fetal anomaly in her pregnancy. Some former abortion patients whose lives were endangered because of delayed or denied care, including several who challenged the Texas abortion ban, said they fear Senate Bill 31 may not address situations like theirs. Amanda Zurawski, who sued the state after being denied an abortion when experiencing a life-threatening condition called preterm premature rupture of membrane, said at a legislative hearing on the bill that it likely doesn't provide the clarity she would have needed. 'It is unclear whether SB 31 would have prevented my trauma and preserved my fertility had it existed in 2022, and I find that problematic,' Zurawski said. She only received care after she developed sepsis. Clarification bills can have mixed support in legislatures. Local physicians might back tweaks to exemption language if they see it as potentially lifesaving for their patients. Some anti-abortion advocates might also favor changes if the legislation can address certain medical emergencies that they believe fall outside of a state's ban, such as ectopic pregnancies or preterm premature rupture of membranes. But not all anti-abortion advocates or Republican lawmakers within these statehouses support even a small clarification. 'I think in all these cases, lawmakers are being pulled in different directions by these different constituencies,' said Mary Ziegler, an abortion law historian at the University of California, Davis. 'The bills themselves are kind of muddy, because they're trying to be different things to different people.' The end result are clarification laws that remain unclear to physicians and their employing hospitals and health systems, who can still face high penalties for violating an abortion ban. 'When the law isn't clear, physicians don't intervene,' Ziegler said. 'You're not going to be willing to gamble your liberty and your medical license on an uncertain interpretation of the law.' In Kentucky, doctors vocally opposed a Republican-backed bill that supporters said would help health professionals understand when they can provide abortions. Like in Texas, the state's ban only allows abortion when it is necessary to save a pregnant person's life. The clarification bill listed specific conditions that would qualify for an exception to the ban — such as sepsis, hemorrhage or ectopic pregnancy — despite concern from doctors that a delineated list wouldn't be able to predict every possible situation where an abortion might save someone's life. Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear vetoed the bill in March, calling gaps in the law 'literally a matter of life and death.' The state's legislature, where the GOP holds a supermajority, voted days later to override him. 'It's hard to create this laundry list of, 'This is OK, this is not OK,' because unfortunately, medicine is something with a bunch of gray areas,' said Dr. Caitlin Thomas, an OB-GYN in Louisville. In Georgia — where pregnant, brain-dead woman Adriana Smith remains on life-support until she can give birth later this summer, and where the death of Amber Thurman was attributed to the confusion created by the state's abortion ban — some lawmakers have asked physicians whether a clarification might allow doctors to provide abortions when the pregnancy threatens a patient's life, possibly by listing specific conditions that qualify for an exception. 'We encouraged them not to, and said that would not be helpful,' said Dr. Neesha Verma, an Atlanta-based OB-GYN. 'The more and more prescriptive you make these laws, the less space there is for clinical judgment.' Following a case filed by seven Tennessee patients who had been denied abortions under the state's ban, lawmakers in that state passed a law this year meant to clarify that, under the state's ban, abortions could be performed in cases of preterm prelabor rupture of membrane or severe preeclampsia, but that the exception did not include mental health emergencies. Mental health conditions including substance use disorder, depression and confirmed or probably suicide are the largest single cause of pregnancy-related deaths in the state, according to a 2022 report. The interest in clarifying bans — including from some lawmakers who oppose abortion — 'is a response to where we know the public is and the fact that we know the public is generally supportive of abortion access and also has been presented with these terrible preventable cases since Dobbs,' said Kimya Forouzan, who tracks state policy for the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit abortion research organization. That ambiguity was on display in a Texas case last year. A state judge held that the state's abortion law exception permitted Cox to have an abortion when her doctors discovered the anomaly in her pregnancy. But the state's attorney general, Ken Paxton, swiftly intervened, threatening legal action against any health care provider that performed an abortion on Cox. Cox ultimately left the state to terminate her pregnancy. Michele Goodwin, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine and author of 'Policing the Womb: Invisible Women and the Criminalization of Motherhood,' said state officials can do more to ensure health providers know their legal rights. 'It would be credible for states' attorneys generals and the prosecutors who are conservative to immediately issue statements of clarity, saying that they are opposed to these kinds of conditions, that they will not prosecute,' she said. The post New state laws aim to clarify abortion bans. Doctors say it's not so simple. appeared first on The 19th. News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.

Republicans Move A Step Closer To Repealing Protections For Abortion Clinics
Republicans Move A Step Closer To Repealing Protections For Abortion Clinics

Yahoo

time8 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Republicans Move A Step Closer To Repealing Protections For Abortion Clinics

The Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee advanced a bill on Tuesday that would repeal a 30-year-old federal law created to safeguard abortion clinics — even as violence against providers and clinics has skyrocketed since the Supreme Court ended federal abortion protections. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, also known as the FACE Act, was enacted in 1994 by President Bill Clinton in response to escalating violence against abortion clinics. The law made it a federal crime to use force or the threat of force to injure, intimidate or block any person trying to provide or access reproductive health care services. While the law has primarily been used to protect abortion clinics, it also protects fertility clinics, anti-abortion pregnancy centers, churches and other places of religious worship from similar violence. Anti-abortion violence dropped by 30% when the FACE Act was first signed into law. The law is arguably now more important than ever, since federal abortion protections fell in 2022 and violence against providers and clinics have skyrocketed. The year the Supreme Court repealed Roe v. Wade, there was a 538% increase in people obstructing clinic entrances, a 913% increase in stalking of clinic staff and a 133% increase in bomb threats, according to a National Abortion Federation report. Reproductive rights are under attack. HuffPost is committed to reporting the truth, amplifying voices, and covering this fight with depth and care. Support our work by today. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) introduced the FACE Act Repeal Act of 2025 earlier this year, claiming that President Joe Biden's administration weaponized the law to prosecute anti-abortion activists. The repeal is part of a yearslong push by the GOP to stoke a false narrative that Democrats are waging a war against the anti-abortion religious right. Republican support for the bill comes less than a month after a California fertility clinic was bombed and one person died. After a heated debate on Tuesday, the repeal bill passed in a 13-10 vote along party lines. It now heads to the House for consideration. 'NAF has been tracking anti-abortion violence since 1977, and we know this for certain: when the FACE Act is being enforced, it is an effective and important tool to keep abortion providers and their patients safe,' Julie Gonen, chief legal officer at the National Abortion Federation (NAF), said in a Tuesday statement. 'It is unconscionable to see anti-abortion legislators trying to repeal a law that has been keeping people safe for decades.' During Tuesday's debate, Roy claimed that he had little issue with the actual law and instead worried about overcriminalization and the Biden administration's 'one-sided enforcement of the law.' He noted that he's received pushback from within the Trump administration over his repeal bill because he said the administration is looking to use the FACE Act to protect churches. 'The previous administration weaponized the FACE Act to prosecute nonviolent pro-life Americans with the harshest sentences,' Roy said, routinely referring to abortion clinics and pro-choice advocates as 'anti-life.' Republicans argued that the law has been disproportionately applied against anti-abortion advocates who protest at abortion clinics. Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said there has 'most certainly been egregious abuse' from the Biden administration's 'selective enforcement' of the law. Roy said in his opening statement that 8% of the FACE Act cases filed under Biden's Department of Justice were against protesters at anti-abortion centers and 92% were against anti-abortion activists at abortion clinics. Because of this there should be a full repeal of the federal law, Republicans argued. But several Democrats pointed out that simply looking at the numbers does not prove selective enforcement of the law. Instead, it shows that abortion clinics face a disproportionate amount of harassment and violence from anti-abortion protesters. 'The FACE Act is completely viewpoint neutral in its textual scope and viewpoint neutral in its application,' ranking member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said. 'If more people have been convicted of attacking pro-choice abortion clinics than have been convicted of attacking pro-life pregnancy centers, as my friend from Texas suggests, it is because there have been vastly more people attacking abortion clinics than attacking pregnancy centers.' The only Republican on the committee who did not support a full repeal was Rep. Tom McClintock (Calif.), who said enforcement was abused but the law should instead be revised. Days into his presidency, Donald Trump announced he would limit enforcement of the FACE Act. He dismissed a handful of current ongoing FACE investigations and instructed prosecutors to apply the law only in 'extraordinary circumstances' such as instances of death, extreme bodily harm or significant property damage. Trump also pardoned 23 people for FACE convictions that ranged from harassing pregnant patients to breaking into clinics and stealing fetal tissue. Several of those pardoned, some of whom were serving prison time, have already said theyplan to return to targeting and invading abortion clinics. Abortion providers, clinic staff and other experts working in the reproductive health field told HuffPost shortly after Trump's announcement that they were deeply demoralized by the administration's decision. Some had already seen an increase in aggression and hostility from protesters in the few weeks since Trump took office. 'Unless you have worked at an abortion clinic, you will never understand the terror we face on a daily basis,' Renee Chelian, founder and CEO of Michigan abortion clinic Northland Family Planning, said in a statement following the advancement of the bill to repeal the FACE Act. Chelian and her staff have survived arson attacks and a chemical bomb, as well as bomb and death threats. Eight of the protesters who attacked Northland Family Planning were convicted under the FACE Act during the Biden administration, but were later pardoned by Trump. 'Our patients have been blockaded from entering while needing immediate medical attention. My own children were targeted and terrorized,' Chelian said. 'The FACE Act is one of the only tools to hold these criminals accountable … There is no explanation for repealing this law other than purposefully inspiring violence against patients and clinic staff.' 'We're Sitting Ducks': Abortion Providers Brace For Violence After Trump Limits Clinic Protections Arson, Burglary, Death Threats: Abortion Clinics See Uptick In Violence Post-Roe Trump Admin Sends 'Ominous Signal' On Emergency Abortion Care Guidelines

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store