January, 15 2015, 12:15pm EDT
New Report: State Pro-Choice Laws on the Rise, but More Than Half the States Still Get an ''F'' on Protecting Women's Reproductive Rights
Today, NARAL Pro-Choice America and NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation released the 24th edition of Who Decides? The Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States.
The report, published each year, provides individual letter grades on the status of women's reproductive rights for all 50 states and provides a comprehensive view of reproductive-health related legislation in those states. This year's report comes as anti-choice politicians take control of both chambers in Congress, multiple state legislatures, and governors' mansions across the country.
WASHINGTON
Today, NARAL Pro-Choice America and NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation released the 24th edition of Who Decides? The Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the United States.
The report, published each year, provides individual letter grades on the status of women's reproductive rights for all 50 states and provides a comprehensive view of reproductive-health related legislation in those states. This year's report comes as anti-choice politicians take control of both chambers in Congress, multiple state legislatures, and governors' mansions across the country.
This year, the nation earned a "D" grade while also tying last year's record high of 25 states earning an "F." However, pro-choice measures enacted in states increased from 16 in 2013 to 22 in 2014. Conversely, the number of anti-choice laws fell from 52 enacted in 2013 to 27 in 2014.
To read the full report, please visit: www.WhoDecides.org
"At a time where polls show the majority of Americans support legal access to abortion, this report shows that federal legislators in our nation's capital are continuing to prioritize a rollback of women's rights while states have begun to stem the tide of anti-choice laws that riled voters in 2014," said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "Politicians in Congress, and state legislatures, who further hostile attacks on women, including limiting access to abortion, contraception, and to reproductive-health care facilities, will find themselves losing support as voters get behind leaders who want to make progress as a nation. Who Decides? exposes the politicians across the country who don't trust women to make decisions about our bodies and our lives."
The composition of the 114th Congress is incongruous with the majority of American people. Whereas seven in ten Americans support a woman's right to choose, only four in ten members of Congress, three in ten Governors, and one in ten state legislatures are pro-choice.
"We are encouraged by the number of measures that expanded reproductive freedom in 2014, and we think this is what the American people want and what the future holds," continued Hogue. "Our work this year is to support those lawmakers who pursue an agenda in line with what real women and families need. We will be closely watching the incoming lawmakers who assured voters that they would stand up to the assault on our basic freedoms, and hold them accountable where they fall short."
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
House Dems Form Procedural 'Conga Line' to Block Medicaid and SNAP Cuts
"We're here to help people, not screw people over!" said Rep. Jim McGovern.
Jul 02, 2025
Democrats in the House of Representatives on Wednesday banded together in an attempt to gum up the works to block House Republicans from passing their massive budget bill that includes historic and devastating cuts to both Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program known as SNAP.
One by one, House Democrats moved in what Punchbowl News reporter Jake Sherman described as a "conga line" to make the exact same request for unanimous consent "to amend the rule to make an order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid and SNAP." Each time a Democrat would make the request, Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), holding the gavel in the chamber, informed them that "the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained."
At one point, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) grew frustrated with his Republican colleagues for their insistence on passing the budget bill, which he noted would significantly cut taxes for the richest Americans while decimating safety net programs designed to help poor and working class Americans.
"We're here to help people, not screw people over!" McGovern fumed.
As of this writing, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R.La.) remained in his office, according to Punchbowlreporting, an apparent signal that a floor vote for Wednesday remained up in the air.
The United States Senate on Tuesday passed a budget package by the slimmest of margins that the Congressional Budget Office has estimated would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period and would slash SNAP spending by more than $250 billion over the same period.
Previous polling has shown that the budget package is broadly unpopular and a new poll from Data for Progress released Wednesday found that the Republican plan grows more unpopular the more voters learn about its provisions. In particular, voters expressed significant concern about the plan's impact on the national debt, cuts to CHIP and Medicaid, and attacks on clean energy programs.
Over 100 @HouseDemocrats lined up to ask for "unanimous consent to amend the rule and make in order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid & SNAP" pic.twitter.com/r5ktS9Uj0K
— Jahana Hayes (@RepJahanaHayes) July 2, 2025
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Cruel Betrayal': Educators Furious Over Trump Funding Freeze for School Programs
One Democratic senator called the move a "clear as day violation of federal law."
Jul 02, 2025
The Trump administration informed state education agencies on Monday that it would not release over $6 billion in previously approved federal funding for schools—sparking outcry from teachers unions, Democratic lawmakers, and education-focused groups who called the move harmful to students.
In an unsigned email, Education Department staff told states that they would not be dispersing any money from five programs that focus on issues including migrant education, before- and after-school programs, English learner services, and more.
"Given the change in administrations, the department is reviewing the FY 2025 funding for the [Title I-C, II-A, III-A, IV-A, IV-B] grant program(s), and decisions have not yet been made concerning submissions and awards for this upcoming year," according to the email, which was obtained by NPR.
Jodi Grant, executive director of the Afterschool Alliance, a group that promotes access to after-school programs for kids, called the funding loss "catastrophic," according to The New York Times.
Grant's organization is sounding the alarm that loss of funding for 21st Century Community Learning Centers, one of the programs targeted, could mean that 10,000 after-school and summer programs could close their doors for the 2025-26 school year. Over a million children are at risk of losing their programs as soon as this summer, according to the Afterschool Alliance.
The email came one day before the federal government was scheduled to disperse the money, on July 1. The funding had been previously approved by Congress in a continuing budget resolution that passed in March.
On Wednesday, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) called the move a "clear as day violation of federal law. The appropriations law passed by Congress requires this money to be spent."
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, a teachers union, also called it unlawful. "This is another illegal usurpation of the authority of the Congress. Plus it directly harms the children in our nation," she said in a statement on Tuesday.
According to Education Week, a 2026 federal budget proposal from the White House unveiled last month seeks to eliminate all five of the education programs targeted in this week's funding freeze, meaning this move from the Trump administration is essentially the White House advancing its priorities early, without Congress' consideration.
"Withholding billions in promised federal education funding that students need—and states had planned to use to support children in their states—is a cruel betrayal of students, especially those who rely on critical support services," said Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union, in a statement on Tuesday.
"Sadly, this is part of a broader pattern by this administration of undermining public education—starving it of resources, sowing distrust, and pushing privatization at the expense of the nation's most vulnerable students," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lawsuit Aims to End 'Systematic' Snatching of Brown-Skinned People by Trump Agents
"These guys are popping up, rampant all over the city, just taking people randomly, and we want that particular practice to end," one attorney in the case said of Department of Homeland Security agents.
Jul 02, 2025
Immigrant rights defenders in California on Wednesday sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, accusing the Trump administration of "abducting and disappearing community members using unlawful stop and arrest practices and confining individuals at a federal building in illegal conditions while denying them access to attorneys" as part of its mass deportation effort.
The lawsuit was brought by five individual workers, three advocacy groups, and a legal services provider: The Los Angeles Worker Center Network, United Farm Workers (UFW), the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), and Immigrant Defenders Law Center. Their complaint accuses DHS of unconstitutionally arresting and detaining people, according to the ACLU, which is assisting with the legal challenge, "in order to meet arbitrary arrest quotas set by the Trump administration."
According to the complaint:
The raids in this district follow a common, systematic pattern. Individuals with brown skin are approached or pulled aside by unidentified federal agents, suddenly and with a show of force, and made to answer questions about who they are and where they are from. If they hesitate, attempt to leave, or do not answer the questions to the satisfaction of the agents, they are detained, sometimes tackled, handcuffed, and/or taken into custody. In these interactions, agents typically have no prior information about the individual and no warrant of any kind. If agents make an arrest, contrary to federal law, they do not make any determination of whether a person poses a risk of flight before a warrant can be obtained. Also contrary to federal law, the agents do not identify themselves or explain why the individual is being arrested.
"DHS—at explicit direction from the Trump administration—has gone after day laborers, car wash workers, farm workers, street vendors, service workers, nannies, and others who form the lifeblood of communities across Southern California," said ACLU Foundation of Southern California senior staff attorney Mohammad Tajsar, who is representing plaintiffs in the case.ho "Everyone deserves to feel safe going about their daily lives. DHS must stop disappearing people from our communities."
Tajsar told the Los Angeles Times that "these guys are popping up, rampant all over the city, just taking people randomly, and we want that particular practice to end."
Alvaro M. Huerta, director of litigation and advocacy at Immigrant Defenders Law Center and a plaintiff's attorney in the suit, said in a statement that "the federal government is waging a campaign of terror across Southern California, abducting community members off the streets and warehousing them in deplorable conditions away from their loved ones, all while denying them access to legal counsel."
"It's blatantly unconstitutional, cruelly inhumane, and a violation of any common decency," Huerta added. "If the Trump administration insists on trampling Angelenos' rights, we'll see them in court."
Plaintiffs in the case—who are seeking to represent people subjected to random stops and arrests—are asking the court to certify the case as a class action. They have also requested preliminary and permanent injunctions barring further violations of constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and self-incrimination, as enshrined in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, respectively.
As the lawsuit notes, "one of the clearest patterns that have emerged in the raids in Southern California... has been stops and interrogations... on the basis of apparent race and ethnicity."
"These raids have targeted the most vulnerable members of our workforce, essential workers who are the backbone of our local economy," said Los Angeles Worker Center Network executive director Armando Gudino. "We cannot allow racial profiling, warrantless arrests, and denial of due process to become the standard operating procedure in our communities."
DHS has been holding arrested people in the basement of a federal building in downtown Los Angeles commonly referred to as B-18. The lockup has no beds, showers, or medical facilities, according to the ACLU of Southern California. Furthermore, B-18 is meant to hold only a small number of people on a temporary basis while they are processed.
"We have heard from over 100 families of Individuals taken to B-18 and other detention centers that attest to their loved ones being kept in overcrowded, cold, and inhumane conditions," said CHIRLA executive director Angelica Salas. "They are held in small windowless rooms with dozens or more other detainees, in extremely cramped quarters while being verbally humiliated and pressured into signing papers they don't understand."
The ACLU of Southern California said: "The ongoing raids have led to the disappearance of more than 1,500 people. The suit details how federal agents consistently refuse to identify themselves or what agency they are with when asked, using anonymity as a tactic to shield lawlessness."
UFW president Teresa Romero noted in a statement that "the raids in the greater Los Angeles area have not been limited to the urban center; we have also seen horrific instances of Border Patrol agents chasing down farm workers in the fields of Ventura County. The spouse of a UFW member was among those unjustly detained."
"Now the very workers who feed America go to work in fear," she added. "Their American-born children are scared not knowing if their parents will come home. Farm workers deserve better. We've seen these unconstitutional and un-American tactics before, with Border Patrol targeting random farm workers and anyone with brown skin in Kern County during their large sweep in January. We sued then and we are suing now."
While U.S. President Donald Trump, members of his administration, and Republican lawmakers and supporters claim the DHS crackdown is targeting dangerous criminals, critics have noted that people legally seeking asylum, families, relatives of American citizens, and even citizens themselves have been swept up in the mass deportation dragnet.
According to the libertarian Cato Institute, 65% of people taken by ICE had no criminal conviction whatsoever and 93% had no conviction for violent offenses.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular