The Trump-Pence Administration Uses Alternative Facts to Drive Major Policy Decisions Around Women’s Health

The following article by Osub Ahmed and Jamila Taylor was posted on the Center for American Progress website August 8, 2018:

Thousands march in Portland, Maine, for the Women’s Walk on January 21, 2017. Credit: Derek Davis, Getty Images

The Trump-Pence administration has been using alternative facts and fake evidence with alarming regularity to justify major policy reversals and attacks on women’s health. Evidence-based decision-making has taken a backseat to an extreme conservative ideology, and the administration frequently uses disproven and demonstrably false information to rationalize its radical actions. Now, for no reason other than conservative ideology and partisan gamesmanship, the administration has decided to put the legal and regulatory foundations of the Title X family planning program and abortion rights in its crosshairs.

Roe v. Wade faces one of its greatest threats yet

When the Supreme Court issued its landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, it affirmed a woman’s constitutional right to abortion—ushering in an era in which women had more agency around their reproductive choices and a better ability to pursue safe abortion. Today, abortion access is considered fundamental to women’s reproductive rights and has been found to be safer than childbirth and other common medical procedures. Access to abortion also confers significant social and economic benefits, supporting women in their aspirations to pursue educational and professional goals that allow them to care for themselves and their families.

And yet, with clear evidence to support its importance, access to abortion has become increasingly regulated at the state level through a series of bans and restrictions, under the guise of safeguarding women’s health. In fact, between January 2011 and July 2016, states enacted an astounding 334 restrictions to abortion access. For some women, particularly women of color and young women, access is so restricted that this safe, legal medical procedure is virtually unattainable.

View the complete article here.