SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
January, 11 2013, 01:53pm EDT
Contact:
Samantha Gordon
202-973-3032
40 Years After Women Won the Right to Choose, New Report Shows 2012 Another Record Year of Anti-Choice Attacks
NARAL Pro-Choice America and NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation today released the 22nd edition of Who Decides? The Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States, the nation's most comprehensive report on choice-related legislation. This report shows a mix of progress and setbacks for women's reproductive freedom across the country.
WASHINGTON
NARAL Pro-Choice America and NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation today released the 22nd edition of Who Decides? The Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States, the nation's most comprehensive report on choice-related legislation. This report shows a mix of progress and setbacks for women's reproductive freedom across the country.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America and NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, said that 2012 was a remarkable year for pro-choice Americans.
"In 2012, pro-choice voters and activists worked together to reject the extreme anti-choice tactics which are completely out of touch with our values and priorities," said Keenan. "Unfortunately, anti-choice politicians didn't get that memo. These politicians continue to put forth legislation to roll back a woman's constitutionally guaranteed right to choose. As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, anti-choice politicians remind us that we must fight to defend our rights every day, in every state. Met with this challenge, we will continue to stick together and work to protect our right to reproductive freedom and privacy."
NARAL Pro-Choice America is proud to also release its 2012 Congressional Record on Choice, which details the choice-related votes Congress took in the second session of the 112th Congress. In 2012 the House continued to attack women's reproductive rights by unsuccessfully bringing two anti-choice bills to the floor for votes - a bill that would criminalize a doctor for the reasons a woman seeks abortion care, and another that singles out the District of Columbia for an outright ban on abortion care after 20 weeks. In total, the 112th Congress (2011-2012) took 14 votes on choice: 10 in the House of Representatives and four in the Senate. Thankfully, the pro-choice-controlled Senate and President Barack Obama served as firewalls and blocked many anti-choice measures from advancing, most notably defeating Sen. Roy Blunt's (R-MO) attempt to undermine the nation's new contraceptive-coverage policy.
At the state level, states continue to impose record numbers of anti-choice laws on women's reproductive freedom. Among the 42 anti-choice measures newly enacted in 2012, the most prominent trends were: bans on abortion care after 20 weeks; laws prohibiting abortion coverage in state health-insurance exchanges; and laws that defund family-planning centers.
Since 1995, states have enacted more than 700 anti-choice measures cumulatively. Each of these measures interferes with a woman's right to make her own private, personal decisions about her reproductive health. And state governments continue to be dominated by anti-choice politicians, which likely means the trend of legislative attacks on reproductive freedom will continue in the year ahead.
Keenan said the report outlines a similar combination of progress and setbacks at the state level, including the following highlights:
Anti-Choice Attacks:
- 25 states enacted 42 anti-choice measures in 2012. (Readers of the book will note that the numbers are slightly different. That's because in late 2012, two states enacted two additional measures.)
- Arizona enacted the most anti-choice legislation in 2012, with four measures. Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin each enacted three anti-choice measures.
- Since 1995, states have enacted 755 anti-choice measures.
- 24 states earned a "F" on the women's reproductive rights report card.
Pro-Choice Progress:
- 6 states enacted 8 pro-choice measures in 2012.
- Vermont enacted the most pro-choice legislation in 2012, with 3 measures.
- 2012 marks the eighth year in a row that Colorado has enacted a pro-choice measure.
Keenan also pointed out states like Arizona, Georgia, and Louisiana enacted bans on abortion care after 20 weeks that are clearly unconstitutional and designed as a challenge to Roe v. Wade. And states like Alabama, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wisconsin enacted abortion-coverage bans in the states' health-insurance exchanges.
"This is why elections matter," Keenan continued. "Women continue to face legislative hostility in states dominated by anti-choice politicians. We may have won some battles but anti-choice politicians attack this right relentlessly - if we allow them. It is incumbent upon us to educate the public on these anti-choice tactics and hold these extreme politicians accountable."
Keenan also noted that this edition of the Who Decides? is dedicated to women of the Obama administration, whose courage, political savvy, and tenacity helped to improve the status of women. Among these leaders are: Hillary Rodham Clinton, secretary of state; Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; Valerie Jarrett, senior advisor to the president; Melody Barnes and Cecilia Munoz, directors of the domestic policy council; Tina Tchen, chief of staff to the first lady; and Nancy-Ann DeParle, deputy chief of staff for policy.
Who Decides?, which includes a summary of federal and state laws as well as state rankings and states, may be found at: www.WhoDecides.org. The Congressional Record on Choice, which includes a record of choice-related votes taken in the 112th Congress, may be found at: www.ProChoiceAmerica.org/CongressionalRecord.
For over 50 years, Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America) has fought to protect and advance reproductive freedom at the federal and state levels—including access to abortion care, birth control, pregnancy and post-partum care, and paid family leave—for everybody. Reproductive Freedom for All is powered by its more than 4 million members from every state and congressional district in the country, representing the 8 in 10 Americans who support legal abortion.
202.973.3000LATEST NEWS
Appellate Court Tosses Youth Case Against 'Unconstitutional' Trump Orders Fueling Climate Crisis
“This decision lets the president direct a sweeping fossil fuel agenda, with no authorization from Congress and no meaningful judicial review, and then tells the children harmed by that agenda that they cannot challenge it until it is unconstitutionally implemented piece by piece," one lawyer said.
Jun 02, 2026
A federal judge in the District of Montana last year "reluctantly" dismissed a lawsuit filed by young Americans challenging a trio of President Donald Trump's anti-climate executive orders and invited the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to correct him—but the panel on Tuesday again tossed the case.
Backed by attorneys at Our Children's Trust and Public Justice, Eva Lighthiser, Rikki Held of Held v. State of Montana, and 20 other children and young adults sued in May 2025 over Trump's executive orders (EOs) boosting the coal industry, declaring a "national energy emergency," and calling on federal agencies to accelerate fossil fuel development.
After the first dismissal from US District Judge Dana Christensen, the young Americans and their lawyers vowed to appeal. However, the 9th Circuit on Tuesday found that "plaintiffs can only speculate that the executive orders are the cause of the many agency actions they allege will exacerbate climate change," and "they have not plausibly alleged that enjoining federal agencies from implementing the executive orders is substantially likely to prevent agencies from taking similar emissions-inducing actions under other lawful authorities."
Issuing an injunction sought by the plaintiffs "would effectively place one federal district court in charge of executive branch energy policy—'an extraordinary and unprecedented role' for a member of the 'unelected and politically unaccountable branch,'" the appellate court also concluded. "Further, by effectively challenging hundreds of current and anticipated agency actions in one lawsuit, Plaintiffs seek to circumvent the jurisdictional and procedural rules Congress has established for challenges to agency actions."
Julia Olson, chief legal counsel and co-executive director of Our Children's Trust, declared in a Tuesday statement that "this decision lets the president direct a sweeping fossil fuel agenda, with no authorization from Congress and no meaningful judicial review, and then tells the children harmed by that agenda that they cannot challenge it until it is unconstitutionally implemented piece by piece. That is not how the Constitution works."
"The court did not decide whether these executive orders are constitutional. It did not decide whether the federal government may knowingly endanger children," she explained. "Instead, it slammed the courthouse doors on children fighting for their lives and told them to file hundreds of cases against every agency action carrying out the president's unconstitutional executive orders. Courts do not become policymakers when they stop unconstitutional government action. That is their job. These young people deserve a court willing to do it."
The lead plaintiff, Lighthiser, stressed that "the court never said we were wrong. They never said the harm isn't real. They just said they wouldn't stop the harm."
"They had the power to act. and they chose not to," she continued. "By the time we are harmed enough to satisfy them, it will be too late. I am a young person. This is my life, my health, my future. And I deserve better than this. We all do."
The decision comes as Trump and his allies continue to serve the interests of the fossil fuel executives who helped him return to power, regardless of the consequences for people and the planet—from gutting key agencies and attacking clean power projects to dismantling a deep-ocean monitoring system that helps researchers understand the impacts of the climate crisis.
"The Trump administration is responsible for a children's health emergency by obligating federal agencies to take actions that dramatically increase greenhouse gas emissions and climate change," Dan Snyder, director of Public Justice's Environmental Enforcement Project, said Tuesday. "The 9th Circuit makes no mention of this emergency. Indeed, the 9th Circuit's decision is shocking in what it lacks."
"The court didn't even consider US Supreme Court decisions—or decisions from within its own circuit—which would require it to reach a very different decision than the one it did today," he highlighted. "The court ignored significant and undisputed facts that Trump's executive orders are causing real-world injuries to our children today. And the court ignores its most basic responsibility: finding workable remedies that provide relief to the uncontested injuries being inflicted by the Trump administration on our kids."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Even Senate Republicans Are Against Trump's Appointment of Pulte as Acting Intel Chief
“We don’t need a weaponized DNI; we need professionals there," said Senate Majority Leader John Thune.
Jun 02, 2026
Republican US senators including Majority Leader John Thune on Tuesday joined a growing chorus of criticism in response to President Donald Trump's appointment of loyalist Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence, despite an utter lack of relevant experience or expertise.
Thune (SD) was asked by a reporter what he thought of Trump's appointment of the private equity firm founder and homebuilder—who is currently director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and chairman of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—to the top intel post, which current Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard will officially vacate on June 30.
“We don’t need a weaponized DNI; we need professionals there," Thune said, according to The Hill. “If they nominate him to take the position permanently, he’ll have to go through a confirmation process and hearings and everything else, so we’ll see."
Thune added that Pulte would have "a lengthy road ahead of him" if Trump sought to make him the permanent DNI.
The majority leader wasn't the only Senate Republican who voiced opposition to Trump's move.
"The best I can tell you is he’s not qualified, but I don’t know anything about him other than that," said outgoing Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who last month lost a primary to Trump-backed Republican challenger Rep. Julia Letlow.
Sen. John Cornyn—who also lost his recent primary runoff in Texas after Trump backed his opponent, state Attorney General Ken Paxton—told reporters that “I see no evidence of any qualifications for that job" for Pulte, "but I’m willing to listen.”
Common Dreams reported earlier Tuesday on Democratic opposition to Pulte's appointment, mostly over allegations that he's used his position at FHFA to target Trump's political foes for politically motivated mortgage fraud investigations.
Targeted individuals include two figures involved in Trump's two impeachments: Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and former Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.); former FBI Director James Comey, who oversaw an investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election; New York Attorney General Letitia James, who won a $450 million judgment against the president and his business in a civil fraud case; and Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook, whom the president has been attempting to oust so that he can fill the US central bank with loyalists.
Last November, a federal judge dismissed the cases against Comey and James, ruling that Trump's handpicked prosecutor was illegally installed. The following month, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office agreed to investigate whether Pulte and other FHFA employees "potentially misused federal authority and resources to publicly accuse prominent Democrats and President Donald Trump’s perceived political enemies of mortgage fraud."
Even more Democrats piled on Pulte later on Tuesday.
Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan said on X: "As someone who helped set up the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, I oppose elevating Bill Pulte to acting director. He has no experience. Zero. And he is the wrong choice to help keep us safe."
"Mr. Pulte has weaponized his current agency against the president's critics, he's fired federal watchdogs looking into his allies, and he is under active investigation by the Government Accountability Office," she continued. "This all makes him an incredibly dangerous choice to be in charge of ODNI and have access to the tools of this office."
"As someone who has had the government weaponized against me, I cannot in good conscience support his elevation to such a sensitive post," added Slotkin, who drew Trump's ire and a federal probe with a video reminding US troops of their duty to not follow illegal orders. "The president should choose a serious nominee."
Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona—a retired Navy captain who was investigated by the Pentagon for comments similar to Slotkin's until a federal judge blocked the baseless probe—quipped, “If you’re good at drywall, you must be good at national intelligence."
"I don’t get it," he added. "This is an important job, you know. This is about the safety of all Americans.”
Advocacy groups also rejected Pulte's appointment, with the co-chairs of the Not Above the Law coalition issuing a statement reading, “This appointment is a reward, and has nothing to do with qualifications."
"At FHFA, Bill Pulte did one thing: hunt Trump’s perceived enemies," the statement by Public Citizen's Lisa Gilbert, Constitutional Accountability Center's Praveen Fernandes, MoveOn's Kelsey Herbert, and Stand Up America's Brett Edkins continued. "He ginned up mortgage fraud allegations against sitting officials, which federal investigators found baseless, and weaponized a housing regulator to punish those who tried to hold Trump accountable."
“If past is prologue, he will now do the same with the vast resources of the US intelligence community," the co-chairs asserted. "The agencies built to protect Americans, including our troops at home and abroad, will be turned into instruments of political retribution, betraying the men and women who serve those agencies and every American whose safety depends on them."
“Trump doesn’t staff his government with people who uphold the law," the statement adds. "He installs people willing to break it for him, and now he’s handing one of them the keys to our nation’s most sensitive information.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
New El Niño Warning Compounded by Trump’s Attacks on Climate, Disaster Preparedness
"If and when a hurricane unleashes widespread death and destruction... Democrats should make Trump and his Republican accomplices pay a steep political price for deliberately putting people in harm's way."
Jun 02, 2026
The World Meteorological Organization on Tuesday issued a warning about an El Niño event forming that is expected to "increase the risk of extreme weather over the coming months."
El Niño refers to a climate pattern that features warmer than average temperatures in the Pacific Ocean. WMO said its latest forecast estimates an 80% likelihood of an event occurring this summer, with most of its models suggesting “it will be at least moderate—and possibly strong.”
WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo warned that a strong El Niño this summer "will exacerbate drought and heavy rainfall and increase the risk of heatwaves both on land and in the ocean," and said WMO scientists will be "carefully monitoring conditions in the coming months to inform decision-making by governments, humanitarian agencies, and climate-sensitive sectors."
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said the latest WMO projections must spur global action to address the climate crisis.
"The world must treat it as the urgent climate warning it is," Guterres said. "El Niño conditions will pour fuel on the fire of a warming world. Impacts will hit even harder, travel even farther, and cross borders with devastating speed. The only effective response is climate action equal to the crisis—ending the addiction to fossil fuels, accelerating the shift to renewables, protecting the most vulnerable, and delivering early warning systems for all."
An El Niño event could pose particular problems in the United States, as critics are warning that President Donald Trump's attacks on climate research and federal disaster preparedness are leaving Americans particularly vulnerable to extreme weather.
Revolving Door Project senior researcher Kenny Stancil on Tuesday published an analysis breaking down the ways the Trump administration "has relentlessly undermined disaster readiness and response capacity" by taking a hatchet to key institutions such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Weather Service (NWS).
Among other things, Stancil documented how the Trump administration has ousted "thousands of NOAA workers, including hundreds of NWS employees"; gutted FEMA's staff by "pushing out thousands of rank-and-file workers and dozens of veteran leaders"; and is "thwarting investments in disaster risk reduction, from slashing emissions to pursuing just and sustainable urban development."
Stancil added that while Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has reversed some of the cuts made by former DHS chief Kristi Noem, these "last-minute reversals can't undo" the "severe damage" caused by the initial actions.
"If and when a hurricane unleashes widespread death and destruction (if not in 2026, it could be in 2027 or 2028)," Stancil wrote, "Democrats should make Trump and his Republican accomplices pay a steep political price for deliberately putting people in harm's way."
Stancil's concerns about US preparedness for extreme weather events were echoed by Shana Udvardy, senior climate resilience policy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who on Monday published an analysis outlining the current state of FEMA ahead of hurricane season.
Although Udvardy offered some qualified praise for Mullin for undoing some of Noem's worst policy decisions, she said FEMA still faces potentially catastrophic vacancies at key positions.
"Roughly half of FEMA’s leadership, 18 out of 38 of top-level positions, have yet to be filled as of today, at the start of the Atlantic hurricane season," she explained, adding that "it can take six months to a year to recruit and onboard a senior executive and a year to hire full-time staff."
The administration this week also announced plans to dismantle the Ocean Observatories Initiative, a deep-sea monitoring system that can provide crucial storm forecasting data while also tracking the health of coastal habitats.
Chris Robbins, associate director of scientific initiatives at Ocean Conservatory, said on Tuesday that the administration's effort to dismantle the system heading into a projected El Niño event "doesn't make any sense."
"Walking away from a $368 million investment in a state-of-the-art system, a feat of engineering already paid for by the American people, is absolutely myopic," Robbins said. "This system is a vital scientific asset that quietly protects American lives, communities, and the economy through unfettered access to world-class scientific data. Its loss would create an irreparable blind spot for our country in predicting earthquakes, fishery health, storm forecasting, coastal flooding, and more."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular