Latest news with #FACEAct
Yahoo
29-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Trump's DOJ Has Put Reproductive Health Clinics Under Threat
Calla Hayes, the executive director of A Preferred Women's Health Center in Charlotte, North Carolina, is used to protesters. The clinic sees thousands of anti-abortion demonstrators outside of its doors each year; the same group of faces greets her each day. But in the months since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, she's seen a change in their behavior. Hayes believes that turnover in the White House, along with the Supreme Court decision nullifying Roe v. Wade in 2022, has emboldened the activists outside her clinic's doors to start 'pushing boundaries.' 'They're just, like, giggling with glee, because they're getting to push and see how far they can go,' said Hayes about the newly empowered anti-abortion protesters. The shift in atmosphere came as the Trump administration scaled back enforcement of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances, or FACE, Act, which was approved on a bipartisan basis in 1994. That measure outlawed obstruction and property damage intended to hamper a clinic's ability to conduct reproductive health services, including abortion. But with the Trump administration's order on the FACE Act, a bomb threat like the one Hayes's clinic received in the summer of 2024 is no longer considered to be a threat worth reviewing by the federal government; indeed, the FBI has communicated to Hayes that it has dropped its investigation of the incident. In a memo announcing its change in policy, the Department of Justice argued that the FACE Act was a 'prototypical example' of weaponizing the legal system against conservatives. The agency will now only enforce the law under 'extraordinary circumstances,' such as cases involving 'death, serious bodily harm, or serious property damage.' Shortly after taking office, Trump also pardoned 23 anti-abortion activists who were convicted under the FACE Act, many of whom are now pressing forward with efforts to continue to obstruct abortion services. Julie Burkhart, the founder and president of Wellspring Health Access in Casper, Wyoming, is intimately familiar with what can happen if abortion opponents decide to take drastic action. An arsonist set fire to Wellspring, the only facility providing procedural and medication abortion in the state, weeks before it was scheduled to begin seeing patients in 2022. The damage to the building set back its opening by a year. The threat has not been eliminated: Burkhart said that she had been recently alerted to videos posted to social media 'alluding to the fact that it wouldn't be a bad idea if it were set on fire again.' 'It really sends, you know, a chill down all of our spines, because we don't know who in law enforcement is going to have our back,' said Burkhart. 'If, God forbid, there were a shooting, or an arson, or a place being flooded—any act of violence at a facility—we just don't know who's going to be there to respond and to help us.' Without guarantee of federal response, Hayes is also concerned about how local law enforcement will engage. Despite spending several years building a relationship with city officials, the recent public struggles of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department—including an ongoing audit of an alleged settlement with the police chief, who is now retiring at the end of the year—have left Hayes worried about the degree to which the department will be able to focus on threats to the clinic. 'It's always just that much more frustrating when [protesters] do something, and maybe the cops do come and they ask them to stop, but there's no no charges, there's no accountability, there's no nothing,' said Hayes. 'You're seeing this confusion about what to enforce and what not to enforce.' Meanwhile, abortion opponents are urging local law enforcement to follow the federal government's lead and stay out of their way. 'If you're a Christian police officer, a pro-life police officer, you need to commit in your heart not to arrest rescuers that are defending children, leave them be, even if it costs you your job. If you're not willing to protect the children yourself, let us do it,' said Jonathan Darnel, one of the anti-abortion activists pardoned by Trump, in a recent online event. Although the threats against clinics have yet to reach the apex of the anti-abortion demonstrations of the 1980s and 1990s, before the FACE Act was approved, providers warn that the current political environment could lead to a return to those conditions. A recent report published by the National Abortion Federation outlined thousands of incidents of violence and disruption against clinics in the years 2023 and 2024. This included 777 instances of obstruction of clinics, 621 instances of trespassing, 296 threats of death or harm to abortion providers and patients, and 128,570 protesters demonstrating outside of clinics over that two-year period. The report also noted that disruptions were likely being underreported, as clinics may not report all incidents, and not all abortion providers are members of NAF. Providers are also wary about the growing prevalence of 'abolitionist' sentiment among abortion opponents who believe that people who seek abortions should be criminally liable. While this notion is still on the fringes of anti-abortion politics, it has become increasingly acceptable among mainstream politicians, with more than a dozen bills introduced in state legislative sessions across the country to assign personhood to embryos. Although these measures are considered long shots for passage, providers worry that the Trump administration's actions and the Dobbs decision have granted abolitionists a second wind. 'We've already talked to clinics in 2025 who have experienced increased hostility, higher numbers of protesters, and [are] really noting that it seems like the protesters have had a shift and are just emboldened and more aggressive and hostile under this administration,' said Melissa Fowler, the chief program officer at NAF. Fowler noted that, in the wake of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, abortion opponents may travel to demonstrate at clinics in other states where the procedure remains legal. While 12 states have implemented a total ban on the procedure, there has been an increase in abortions since the Dobbs decision, in part because pregnant people seeking abortions will travel out of state. She also said that even in states where abortion is prohibited, clinics that provide other reproductive health services will still attract protesters. 'It really just shows, I think, that these protesters don't really care about what they're doing or the effect it has on people, and they really just continue to target anyone that walks into a facility,' Fowler argued. Burkhart added that the worries about threats can be detrimental for both patients and clinic staff, which in turn can hamper their ability to provide care. 'That psychological weight that people who work in the clinics carry, being yelled at and harassed going into a parking lot, that raises your heart rate. That's a stressor,' she said. Despite the potential risks and uncertainty, however, providers remain determined to offer abortion care, regardless of the political environment. Helen Weems, the owner of All Families Healthcare in Whitefish, Montana, said that her clinic was doing 'everything we can to heighten our security and our vigilance.' 'We won't be intimidated. We won't be cowed into shutting down,' Weems said. 'We will continue to show up for our patients, because the need continues unabated.'
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
The Chrisleys join Tennessee list of those pardoned by Trump this year, here are the others
Todd and Julie Chrisley recently received the promise of freedom thanks to a pardon announced by President Donald Trump. The couple, known for their Tennessee-based reality series "Chrisley Knows Best" and for their very public trial and convictions on bank fraud and tax evasion, are expected to receive full pardons from Trump after their original convictions in 2022. The couple joins a list of 12 other people convicted in Tennessee whom President Trump pardoned. Here is a list of those who received a pardon from the president this year. In 2025, President Trump pardoned 12 people convicted in Tennessee. Most of those pardoned were part of a group of anti-abortion protestors who traveled from across the country to block the entrance to a reproductive health clinic in Mt. Juliet, Tennessee, in 2021. These protestors were convicted for violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which was established in 1994 to prohibit anyone from preventing a person from accessing an abortion clinic. Of the twelve pardoned in the state, only four lived in Tennessee: Coleman Boyd of Bolton, Mississippi, was sentenced for conspiracy to obstruct access to a clinic providing reproductive health services and violation of the FACE Act. He was pardoned on Jan. 23, 2025, from his five-year probation sentence, conditioned upon six months of home detention. He was convicted in January 2024. Caroline Davis of Michigan pleaded guilty in October 2023 to conspiracy to interfere with access to clinic entrances, aiding and abetting interference with access to clinic entrances, and interference with access to clinics. She was pardoned on Jan. 23, 2025, from three years' probation and one year's nonreporting probation. Eva Edl of Aiken, South Carolina, was sentenced for violating the FACE Act, conspiracy against rights and clinic access obstruction. She was pardoned on Jan. 23, 2025, from her three-year probation sentence. She was convicted in April 2024. Chester Gallagher, of Lebanon, Tennessee, was sentenced for conspiracy to obstruct access to a clinic providing reproductive health services and violation of the FACE Act. He was pardoned on Jan. 23, 2025, from 16 months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release. He was convicted in January 2024. Dennis Green, of Cumberland, Virginia, was sentenced for conspiracy to obstruct access to a clinic providing reproductive health services and violation of the FACE Act. He was pardoned on Jan. 23, 2025, from three years' supervised release, conditioned upon six months of home detention. He was convicted in January 2024. Heather Idoni of Michigan was convicted of conspiracy against rights, violating the FACE Act and obstructing clinic access in January 2024. She was sentenced to 24 months' imprisonment and 36 months' supervised release. Idoni was pardoned on Jan. 23, 2025. Brian Kelsey of Germantown, Tennessee, was pardoned on March 11, 2025, from his 21 months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release sentence. In 2023, Kelsey was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States and aiding and abetting the acceptance of excessive contributions. Paul Place of Centerville, Tennessee, was convicted of violating the FACE Act in April 2024. Place was pardoned on Jan. 23, 2025, from his three-year probation sentence. Paul Vaughn, of Centerville, Tennessee, was convicted of conspiracy to obstruct access to a clinic providing reproductive health services and violation of the FACE Act in January 2024. He was pardoned on Jan. 23, 2025, from his sentence of three years' supervised release, conditioned upon six months' home confinement. Calvin Zastrow, of Michigan, was convicted of conspiracy to obstruct access to a clinic providing reproductive health services, violation of the FACE Act and clinic access obstruction. He was pardoned on Jan. 23, 2025, from his sentence of six months' imprisonment; three years' supervised release, conditioned upon six months' home confinement. He was convicted in January 2024. Eva Zastrow of Dover, Arkansas, was initially sentenced to three years' probation, but it was subsequently vacated and dismissed. Zastrow was convicted of conspiracy to obstruct access to a clinic providing reproductive health services, violation of the FACE Act and clinic access obstruction in April 2024. She was pardoned on Jan. 23, 2025. James Zastrow of Eldon, Missouri, was convicted of violating the FACE Act in April 2024. Zastow was pardoned from his three-year probation sentence on Jan. 23, 2025. This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Who has Trump pardoned? Chrisleys join Tennessee list
The Hill
30-04-2025
- Health
- The Hill
4 ways Trump has stunted abortion access
Trump committed to leaving decisions on abortion access up to states during his campaign and has not tried to outlaw the procedure nationally. But his administration has supported anti-abortion activists and tried to cut access to abortion in the U.S. and around the world. Here are four ways the Trump administration has chipped away at abortion access so far: Pardoned anti-abortion activists Trump signed an executive order pardoning 23 anti-abortion activists ahead of a March for Life protest in Washington, D.C. Some of those pardoned included activists convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrance (FACE) Act. The FACE Act is a federal law meant to protect abortion clinics from obstruction and threats and was passed in the mid-1990s when crimes against abortion providers were rising. Reinstated the Mexico City policy Trump reinstated a controversial policy, called the Mexico City policy, in January that prevents U.S. foreign aid recipients from discussing abortion with their patients or providing referrals for the procedure. The policy has a long history of being rescinded by Democratic presidents and being reinstated by Republican presidents. Supports of the policy claim in prevents U.S. taxpayer dollars from being spent on abortion abroad while opponents argue it reduces access to critical health care and that there is legislation already in place that stops taxpayer money from being used on abortions overseas. Pulled Title X funding The Trump administration froze millions of dollars in federal funds meant to provide affordable birth control and reproductive health services earlier this year. On April 1, more than a dozen reproductive health organizations received notices that their funding under the Title X program was being rescinded. Title X is the country's only federal program aimed at providing affordable contraception and reproductive health care to low-income Americans. The first Trump administration similarly withheld Title X fundings by issuing a rule that barred reproductive health care clinics from entering the program if they spoke about abortion or referred patients out for the procedure. Dropped high-profile Idaho abortion case Last month, the Trump administration dropped a lawsuit filed by the Biden-era Justice Department seeking to protect access to an emergency abortion in Idaho, where abortion is severely restricted. A 'trigger ban' went into effect in Idaho after the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade that made performing or assisting in an abortion a crime punishable by five years in prison. The Biden-era lawsuit argued the state ban made it impossible for doctors in the state to provide abortions when needed to save the life of the mother violating a federal law called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
What Trump Has Done on Reproductive Health Care In 100 Days
President Donald Trump speaks during a rally at Macomb Community College on April 29, 2025 at Warren, Michigan. Trump held the rally to mark his first 100 days in office. Credit - Scott Olson—Getty Images This week marks 100 days since President Donald Trump took office for a second term. In that time, Trump has made several moves that affect abortion and reproductive health care access across the country. Within his first month in office, Trump acted quickly on a number of issues related to reproductive health. He pardoned several anti-abortion protesters convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a law intended to protect abortion clinics and patients by barring people from physically blocking or threatening patients. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said it would be curtailing prosecutions against people accused of violating the FACE Act. The Department of Defense rescinded a Biden-era policy that helped facilitate travel for active service members and their families to obtain certain reproductive health care services, including abortion. Internationally, the Trump Administration's freeze on foreign aid halted reproductive health care services for millions of people. Trump also reinstated what's known as the Mexico City Policy or the Global Gag Rule, a policy often implemented by Republican presidents that prohibits foreign organizations receiving U.S. aid from providing or discussing abortion care. Since February, the Trump Administration has taken additional actions that have limited or threatened access to reproductive health care. Here's what else Trump has done on reproductive health care in his first 100 days—and what reproductive rights advocates fear could happen next. In March, the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit it had inherited from the Biden Administration. The original lawsuit was about a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires emergency rooms that receive Medicare dollars to stabilize patients experiencing medical emergencies before discharging or transferring them, whether or not the patient is able to pay. The Biden Administration had argued that emergency abortion care is required because of EMTALA, and that Idaho's near-total abortion ban conflicted with the federal law. The state of Idaho has rejected that claim. The Trump Administration dropping the lawsuit would have allowed Idaho to fully enforce its near-total abortion ban, even in medical emergencies. But the state's largest health care provider, St. Luke's Health System, had filed its own lawsuit a few months earlier in anticipation of the Trump Administration dropping the case, and a judge temporarily blocked Idaho from fully carrying out its ban. Abortion rights advocates condemned the Trump Administration's decision to drop the lawsuit. Amy Friedrich-Karnik—director of federal policy at the Guttmacher Institute, which researches and supports sexual and reproductive health—says the case was, at its core, about protecting people's access to 'life-saving care' in the most urgent situations. On April 1, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) began withholding Title X funding from 16 organizations. Enacted in 1970, Title X is the country's sole federally funded family planning program. The program, which does not fund abortion services, allocates more than $200 million a year for clinics that provide birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing, and other health care services for people from low-income households. HHS said it was withholding funds from the organizations in the Title X program 'pending an evaluation of possible violations' of federal civil rights laws, and the President's Executive Order that said undocumented immigrants are prohibited 'from obtaining most taxpayer-funded benefits.' The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), a membership organization for family planning providers, and the American Civil Liberties Union have sued the Trump Administration over the freeze. According to NFPRHA, the freeze is threatening about $65.8 million in Title X funds, potentially affecting more than 840,000 patients. Reproductive rights advocates have said the freeze would prevent some of the most vulnerable community members from accessing a range of health care services. 'When you go after Title X for contraceptive access, there's a ripple effect across all types of reproductive health care,' Friedrich-Karnik says. On March 27, HHS announced that it would reduce its staff from 82,000 to 62,000 full-time employees—about 10,000 from layoffs and an additional 10,000 from staffers who retired or resigned. Included in those cuts was eliminating 'the majority of employees' in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) reproductive health division, according to the legal advocacy group Center for Reproductive Rights. A team at the CDC focused on compiling data on abortion access—including the number of people getting abortions and what methods they choose—has been eliminated, according to Shannon Russell, federal policy counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights. 'It really stymies efforts to understand the impact of state abortion bans in the aftermath of [Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization],' Russell said during a press briefing. The staff working on the CDC's Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), which collected data on maternal and infant health, was cut. The team working on the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System, which provided patients with information about options such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), was also eliminated. 'This is really hampering HHS's efforts to ensure that people are getting quality, essential reproductive health care and that they know their options,' Russell said. Experts are waiting to see what actions the Trump Administration will take on mifepristone, a drug that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for abortion use more than two decades ago. Years of research have proven that the drug is safe, but anti-abortion groups have tried—so far unsuccessfully—to challenge it in court, and during his confirmation hearing, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Trump has expressed an interest in launching further research into mifepristone. Russell said the Center for Reproductive Rights also anticipates that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will seek to limit abortion care. In March, the VA submitted for review an interim final rule regarding reproductive health services; the details of the rule have not been publicized, but abortion rights advocates fear that the rule will reinstate the VA's previous abortion ban, repealing a Biden-era policy that had allowed VA medical facilities to offer abortion counseling and abortion care to veterans and their beneficiaries in certain situations. Friedrich-Karnik says the Trump Administration could withhold additional Title X funds or place restrictions on grant recipients, as the Administration did during Trump's first term. She adds that the DOJ may continue to take an anti-abortion stance in various cases, such as declining to prosecute protesters accused of violating the FACE Act. Trump's actions on reproductive rights have drawn support from anti-abortion activists. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement that Trump 'set the bar for a pro-life president' in his first term, and applauded the actions he's taken within the first 100 days of his second term. In March, Trump said that he would be known as the 'fertilization president,' and the New York Times reported last week that the White House has been evaluating ways to convince women to have children. But Russell criticized the Trump Administration for offering what she called 'sweepstakes style incentives' to encourage people to have children without implementing policies to ensure that people have the support and resources they need to do so, while curtailing access to reproductive health care. 'They have made it more dangerous to be pregnant,' Russell said, 'and they've done nothing to ensure that people who want to grow or build their families are able to do so more affordably and more accessibly.' Contact us at letters@
Time Magazine
30-04-2025
- Health
- Time Magazine
What Trump Has Done on Reproductive Health Care In His First 100 Days
This week marks 100 days since President Donald Trump took office for a second term. In that time, Trump has made several moves that affect abortion and reproductive health care access across the country. Within his first month in office, Trump acted quickly on a number of issues related to reproductive health. He pardoned several anti-abortion protesters convicted of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, a law intended to protect abortion clinics and patients by barring people from physically blocking or threatening patients. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) said it would be curtailing prosecutions against people accused of violating the FACE Act. The Department of Defense rescinded a Biden-era policy that helped facilitate travel for active service members and their families to obtain certain reproductive health care services, including abortion. Internationally, the Trump Administration's freeze on foreign aid halted reproductive health care services for millions of people. Trump also reinstated what's known as the Mexico City Policy or the Global Gag Rule, a policy often implemented by Republican presidents that prohibits foreign organizations receiving U.S. aid from providing or discussing abortion care. Since February, the Trump Administration has taken additional actions that have limited or threatened access to reproductive health care. Here's what else Trump has done on reproductive health care in his first 100 days—and what reproductive rights advocates fear could happen next. The Administration dropped a Biden-era lawsuit seeking to protect access to emergency abortions In March, the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit it had inherited from the Biden Administration. The original lawsuit was about a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires emergency rooms that receive Medicare dollars to stabilize patients experiencing medical emergencies before discharging or transferring them, whether or not the patient is able to pay. The Biden Administration had argued that emergency abortion care is required because of EMTALA, and that Idaho's near-total abortion ban conflicted with the federal law. The state of Idaho has rejected that claim. The Trump Administration dropping the lawsuit would have allowed Idaho to fully enforce its near-total abortion ban, even in medical emergencies. But the state's largest health care provider, St. Luke's Health System, had filed its own lawsuit a few months earlier in anticipation of the Trump Administration dropping the case, and a judge temporarily blocked Idaho from fully carrying out its ban. Abortion rights advocates condemned the Trump Administration's decision to drop the lawsuit. Amy Friedrich-Karnik—director of federal policy at the Guttmacher Institute, which researches and supports sexual and reproductive health—says the case was, at its core, about protecting people's access to 'life-saving care' in the most urgent situations. The Administration froze Title X funding for 16 organizations On April 1, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) began withholding Title X funding from 16 organizations. Enacted in 1970, Title X is the country's sole federally funded family planning program. The program, which does not fund abortion services, allocates more than $200 million a year for clinics that provide birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing, and other health care services for people from low-income households. HHS said it was withholding funds from the organizations in the Title X program 'pending an evaluation of possible violations' of federal civil rights laws, and the President's Executive Order that said undocumented immigrants are prohibited 'from obtaining most taxpayer-funded benefits.' The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), a membership organization for family planning providers, and the American Civil Liberties Union have sued the Trump Administration over the freeze. According to NFPRHA, the freeze is threatening about $65.8 million in Title X funds, potentially affecting more than 840,000 patients. Reproductive rights advocates have said the freeze would prevent some of the most vulnerable community members from accessing a range of health care services. 'When you go after Title X for contraceptive access, there's a ripple effect across all types of reproductive health care,' Friedrich-Karnik says. Mass layoffs at HHS On March 27, HHS announced that it would reduce its staff from 82,000 to 62,000 full-time employees—about 10,000 from layoffs and an additional 10,000 from staffers who retired or resigned. Included in those cuts was eliminating 'the majority of employees' in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) reproductive health division, according to the legal advocacy group Center for Reproductive Rights. A team at the CDC focused on compiling data on abortion access—including the number of people getting abortions and what methods they choose—has been eliminated, according to Shannon Russell, federal policy counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights. 'It really stymies efforts to understand the impact of state abortion bans in the aftermath of [ Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ], ' Russell said during a press briefing. The staff working on the CDC's Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), which collected data on maternal and infant health, was cut. The team working on the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System, which provided patients with information about options such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), was also eliminated. 'This is really hampering HHS's efforts to ensure that people are getting quality, essential reproductive health care and that they know their options,' Russell said. What experts anticipate could happen next Experts are waiting to see what actions the Trump Administration will take on mifepristone, a drug that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved for abortion use more than two decades ago. Years of research have proven that the drug is safe, but anti-abortion groups have tried —so far unsuccessfully —to challenge it in court, and during his confirmation hearing, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Trump has expressed an interest in launching further research into mifepristone. Russell said the Center for Reproductive Rights also anticipates that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will seek to limit abortion care. In March, the VA submitted for review an interim final rule regarding reproductive health services; the details of the rule have not been publicized, but abortion rights advocates fear that the rule will reinstate the VA's previous abortion ban, repealing a Biden-era policy that had allowed VA medical facilities to offer abortion counseling and abortion care to veterans and their beneficiaries in certain situations. Friedrich-Karnik says the Trump Administration could withhold additional Title X funds or place restrictions on grant recipients, as the Administration did during Trump's first term. She adds that the DOJ may continue to take an anti-abortion stance in various cases, such as declining to prosecute protesters accused of violating the FACE Act. Trump's actions on reproductive rights have drawn support from anti-abortion activists. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement that Trump 'set the bar for a pro-life president' in his first term, and applauded the actions he's taken within the first 100 days of his second term. In March, Trump said that he would be known as the 'fertilization president,' and the New York Times reported last week that the White House has been evaluating ways to convince women to have children. But Russell criticized the Trump Administration for offering what she called 'sweepstakes style incentives' to encourage people to have children without implementing policies to ensure that people have the support and resources they need to do so, while curtailing access to reproductive health care. 'They have made it more dangerous to be pregnant,' Russell said, 'and they've done nothing to ensure that people who want to grow or build their families are able to do so more affordably and more accessibly.'
