Showing posts sorted by date for query PLANNED PARENTHOOD. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query PLANNED PARENTHOOD. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Wednesday, April 08, 2026

 

The backlash against the backlash: Socialist feminism & left politics in a time of reaction

By Diana O’Dwyer
Published 

feminism versus far right Rupture

First published at Rupture.

After every crisis of capitalism comes protest and social upheaval — of a progressive or reactionary character. The 2008 crash was followed by a decade of progressive mass movements: Occupy, Black Lives Matter, feminist movements for abortion rights and against gender-based violence, and revolutions and near-revolutions like the Arab Spring. In Ireland, we saw mass movements against water charges, for marriage equality and abortion rights and progressive legislation on gender recognition. Just like in the ‘60s and early ‘70s, when the civil rights movement was followed by second-wave feminism, the gay rights movement, the movement against the Vietnam War and May ‘68, the mass movements of the 2010s sparked other mass movements.

Unfortunately, both waves of progressive mass protest were also followed by, first, a global economic crisis and then a conservative backlash. In the 1970s and ‘80s, this meant the oil crisis, Reagan, Thatcher and neoliberalism. In the 2020s, the Covid crisis accelerated a growing far-right backlash and ushered in a new phase of reaction across the world. If you were looking to pinpoint a date when the anti-feminist backlash took off, it would probably be Trump’s first election as US President in November 2016. A rapist running on an anti-choice platform, Trump promised to overturn Roe v. Wade. This ultimately happened in June 2022, shortly after the Depp vs. Heard trial sounded the death knell for #MeToo. Trump’s second Presidency has put the backlash into turbo drive. The most powerful man on earth is again a known rapist. DEI programmes have been decimated, reproductive rights are under attack and traditional gender roles are being forcibly reaffirmed.

The seeds of the backlash were already there pre-Covid, but lockdown isolated people from real life, and the algorithm enticed them into noxious online echo chambers. This created the perfect environment for a paranoid conspiracy theory pipeline, leading from Covid denialism and anti-vax propaganda to racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. We all have friends, family members or co-workers who have lost their minds since Covid - their brains swamped by a never-ending flood of shit.

To paraphrase Marx and Engels, no matter how much progress we make under capitalism, short of a revolution, we cannot finally rid ourselves of the “muck of ages” — it will re-emerge in various forms until the whole rotten system is overthrown. This is painfully apparent in two of the main fronts in the current anti-feminist backlash — reproductive rights and the family — and gender-based violence.

Reproductive rights & the family

Historically, fascists were notorious for burning books. Now they want to burn contraceptives as well. It was reported in July1 that the Trump administration had decided to incinerate nearly $10 million worth of contraceptives earmarked for USAID programmes in Africa. A State Department official referred to them as “certain abortifacient birth control commodities from terminated Biden-era USAID contracts” because the stocks included IUDs and emergency contraceptives.2 This is connected to the dismantling of USAID — but the reason the Trump administration wanted to burn the contraceptives rather than sell them or give them away is clearly ideological. Blocked by laws in Belgium (where the contraceptives are stored) that prohibit incinerating reusable medical devices, the plan now seems to be to allow them to expire. Planned Parenthood estimates this will lead to 174,000 unintended pregnancies and 56,000 unsafe abortions.

This literal destruction of reproductive rights is going hand in hand with the rise of a reactionary pro-natalism — championed most notoriously by Elon Musk, the slayer of USAID, who has fathered fourteen children with at least four different women. Outside of Musk’s tech bro weirdness, pro-natalism is more usually associated with the valorisation of marriage, the traditional nuclear family and rigid gender roles. It is intrinsically bound up with racism; its raison d’etre is to avoid immigration - the only other way to grow the labour supply.

The “tradwife” phenomenon is part of this. Sophie Lewis3 analyses it as an attempt to escape the “double shift” of paid and unpaid work. Women’s participation in the workforce has meant they end up doing two jobs instead of one, while their wages are swallowed up by housing and childcare costs. People cannot afford to have children until their 30s or 40s and so end up having fewer children or none at all. Parents, especially women, are exhausted by this double shift.

The far right’s response to this crisis of biological and social reproduction under capitalism is to blame it on feminism — just like they blame the housing and cost of living crisis on migrants. They say that a man’s wage used to be able to support the whole family. But now, because of feminism, everyone has to work. So it’s feminism that is destroying families, driving down birth rates and driving up the cost of housing because mortgages are now based on two incomes rather than one.

This narrative exploits a sense among some men that they are being brought down to the level of women or even below — for instance, through the decline of male manual labour and feminisation of professional jobs. Of course, this ignores the fact that women are still significantly poorer than men. The hourly gender pay gap is around ten per cent but the lifetime earnings gap is much wider; women take more time out of the workforce for childcare and are more likely to work part-time. Women also do twice as much housework as men, even when both are working full-time.

Men’s loss of privilege is in no way absolute; it’s just less than it used to be. This sense by men of a loss of privilege relative to women and a desire to reassert that privilege is fuelling the rise of the far right — just like a loss, or perceived loss, of relative superiority among white people is fuelling racism. Right-wing demagogues fan the flames of this fratricidal resentment, identifying it as the perfect way to prevent working class solidarity against the billionaires they represent.

Richard Seymour writes that the “loss of distinction” is experienced by the supporters of the far right as a massive impoverishment, “tantamount to the downfall of civilization”.4 Women or black and brown people doing less badly than white men than they used to might not sound like a good enough reason to burn things down. So conspiracy theories like the “Great Replacement” are required to link it all into one great big imaginary disaster. That’s why the language of the far right is so ludicrously apocalyptic.

The politics of gender-based violence

Lurking barely below the surface of the backlash is the threat of violence. The far right cynically exploits increased concern about gender-based violence to justify pogroms against “military-aged” foreign men. Yet those involved are often perpetrators of violence against women themselves. Half of those arrested recently for racist rioting in the North of Ireland had previously been reported to the police for gender-based violence.5

Reported rates of gender-based violence are on the rise, too. This is partly due to greater awareness post-#MeToo, but the apparent proliferation of sexist attitudes since the 2010s suggests it’s also a real increase. Some studies have found worsening sexist attitudes among young men. For others, it's not so much that young men have become more sexist but that young women have become more progressive.

Research by Women’s Aid has found that 67% of young men hold, or don’t disagree with, traditionalist sexist attitudes about masculinity, compared to 40% of men overall.6 This includes beliefs like: “men who don’t dominate in relationships aren’t real men”; “Men should use violence to get respect if necessary”; “A man’s worth is measured by power and control over others” and “Real men shouldn’t have to care about women’s opinions or feelings”. Feminists often point to the growth of the manosphere as increasing sexist attitudes among young men. A study by Dublin City University7 found that within hours of setting up a social media account more than three-quarters of content recommended to 16-18 year old males on TikTok and YouTube was masculinist, anti-feminist or otherwise extremist. Big tech companies know that people watch extreme content for longer, which means they see more ads and buy more stuff. So the proliferation of the manosphere is directly driven by the attention economy big tech profits from.

Beyond the instinct to rubberneck, something else in the manosphere is appealing to young men. Women’s Aid describes influencers like Andrew Tate as “discuss[ing] themes around traditional masculinity, independence, and resilience”. Part of the reason this resonates is that the economics of late capitalism have robbed young men of autonomy and control over their own lives that would have been taken for granted in previous generations — for instance, being able to move out of their parents’ house. The average age for moving out of home is now 28.8

Men have also lost economic control over women. Increased female participation in the workforce has made women less financially dependent on men, which makes it harder for some men to form or maintain relationships. On top of this, women have more sexual freedom due to changes in attitudes towards sexuality. A Gallup poll last year found that 29% of Gen Z women in the US identified as LGBTQ+ compared to 11% of Gen Z men.9 In this context, manosphere content around working out, physical and emotional strength and dominating over women may give men back a sense of control.

As with reproductive issues, the far right speaks to real issues and anxieties but provides reactionary, sexist solutions: restoring traditional gender roles, returning women to the home, using male violence supposedly to protect us, denying us economic and biological freedom. Instead of addressing real economic causes and providing affordable housing or public childcare, the far right’s “solution” is to restore distinction and division among the working class and leave the class system intact. Ours is to abolish both distinction and the class system by fighting oppression and exploitation at the same time. That is the only way to unite the working class and end the rule of capital.

The backlash to the backlash

After several years when the far right seemed to be growing almost unopposed, there is now a growing backlash to the backlash. In the last year, we have seen renewed movements on gender-based violence, including protests in support of Nikita Hand, marches of thousands on International Women’s Day and smaller marches against the manosphere to the headquarters of social media companies. Women are also to the forefront in countering racism and in the Palestine solidarity movement, including through groups like Mothers against Genocide. An exit poll10 from the General Election last November showed twice as many women as men voted for People Before Profit, with 7% of women voting for the Social Democrats compared to 4% of men.

We can also see signs of a backlash to the backlash in recent positive election results for the left in Ireland and internationally. Catherine Connolly won the Presidential election by the largest ever margin, running on a progressive left platform that opposed imperialism and war, championed the “meitheal”11 and spoke out against the rise in anti-immigration sentiment as “misplaced” “anger … channelled to the wrong people.”12

Die Linke performed unexpectedly well in the German elections in February, running on an economically left, anti-far right platform13 and outpolling Sahra Wagenknecht’s economically left but socially conservative BSW. Hundreds of thousands of people in Britain are signing up to join Your Party and the leftward-moving Greens. Zohran Mamdani has just won the New York mayoral election on a cost-of-living-focused left platform, which included universal free childcare as a core demand and defended trans people’s right to healthcare.14 Rather than deciding “woke is dead” and throwing trans and racialised people under the bus, like some on the left have been tempted into doing, Mamdani’s success showed that it is possible to “bake in” socially progressive politics alongside a “bread and butter” left economic programme. Significantly, in addition to increasing turnout, he flipped 15% of Trump voters into supporting him.15

A notable feature of the backlash years has been a growing political gender divide internationally, from Ireland16 to the US, Europe and South Korea. This can be seen as a problem for the left because we obviously need both men and women to succeed — especially in relation to the global ecological crisis. It’s also a massive opportunity: to recruit more women and redress the historic gender imbalance across most left activist organisations.

There are also reasons to be hopeful that the gender divide is more a case of young women politicised by a decade of feminist movements moving left, than it is of young men moving right; that young men have mostly been more apathetic than radicalised.17 This is important because it means organisation and mobilisation can move young men leftward, like it has young women.

Mamdani’s election is interesting here, bucking the trend by attracting roughly equal support from women and men18 while also winning 81% of LGBTQ+ voters.19 What unites all of these recent left electoral successes is a massive youth vote. Die Linke was the most popular party for 18-24 year olds,20 62% of young voters under 30 chose Mamdani,21 and two-thirds chose Connolly.22 After several years of almost uninterrupted gloom and a seemingly inexorable drift to the far right, there is reason to be hopeful again, if we keep on fighting.

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, March 12, 2026

Group That Convinced Wyoming Supreme Court to Block Abortion Ban Fights New Law

“This new law is part of a relentless campaign by anti-abortion extremists who continue to push restrictions regardless of settled law, patient safety, or basic compassion,” said one critic.


Abortion rights defenders protest the US Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade during a demonstration in Jackson Hole, Wyoming on June 24, 2022 in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
(Photo by Natalie Behring/Getty Images)


Brett Wilkins
Mar 11, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


A reproductive rights group coalition that recently got two anti-abortion laws overturned in Wyoming’s Supreme Court filed a legal challenge on Tuesday against the insidiously named “fetal heartbeat” legislation signed earlier this week by the state’s Republican governor.

The advocacy groups Chelsea’s Fund and Just the Pill; Wellspring Health Access, Wyoming’s only abortion clinic; and three physicians filed a motion seeking to block HB 0126, the so-called Human Heartbeat Act, which was signed Monday by Gov. Mark Gordon.


New Research Details ‘Human and Economic Toll’ of US Abortion Bans


The law bans abortion when there is a “detectable fetal heartbeat.” Critics note that the term “fetal heartbeat” is medically inaccurate and misleading, as what can be detected with a transvaginal ultrasound at around six weeks of gestation is not an actual heartbeat, but rather electrical activity in fetal tissue that later develops into a heart.

The legislation contains an exception to “preserve the woman from an imminent peril that substantially endangers her life or health, according to appropriate medical judgment,” but forces victims of rape and incest to carry their abusers’ fetus to term.



Gordon called the glaring lack of exceptions for rape or incest “an unfortunate flaw.”

Wyoming’s Republican-dominated Legislature passed the law after the state Supreme Court struck down two other pieces of forced-birth legislation in January.

One of the overturned laws outlawed abortion in nearly all cases, except when the pregnant patient’s life is in danger or for victims of rape or incest. The other banned abortion pills. Both laws were passed after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, reversing half a century of federal abortion rights.

In striking down the laws, the state’s high court ruled that they violated residents’ ability to make their own healthcare decisions—a right enshrined in the Wyoming Constitution.

The groups challenging the new law echoed the ruling in their motion, arguing the legislation “transgresses the constitutional guarantee of plaintiffs’ and individuals’ to make healthcare decisions without interference from the government.”

Chelsea’s Fund executive director Janean Forsyth expressed dismay over state lawmakers’ relentless attacks on healthcare.

“I’m thinking about everyone from the 15-year-old that we supported, whose grandmother actually reached out, a victim of sexual assault,” Forsyth told Wyoming Public Radio on Wednesday. “I’m thinking about a family with a very wanted pregnancy that we supported in eventually seeking an abortion for a severe fetal anomaly.”

“It’s not only affecting access to abortion care, it’s affecting reproductive healthcare access generally for parents and children, which is really unfortunate,” she added, referring to medical professionals who are leaving the state for fear of prosecution.

On Wednesday, Brittany Fonteno, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation (NAF), said in a statement:
A mere two months after two abortion bans were struck down by the state’s Supreme Court, Wyoming’s anti-abortion leaders have enacted yet another ban despite clear judicial rulings and public support for the constitutional right to make personal healthcare decisions. This new law is part of a relentless campaign by anti-abortion extremists who continue to push restrictions regardless of settled law, patient safety, or basic compassion.

“But as they have before, providers are standing firm and fighting back,” Fonteno added. “NAF is proud to support Wellspring Health Access and the advocates challenging this ban, and we remain committed to ensuring abortion care is not only legal, but accessible and protected for every person, in every state.”

Abortion access has been tenuous in Wyoming in recent years, with bans and a 2022 arson attack on the Wellspring Health Access clinic in Casper—the state’s only full-service abortion facility—causing uncertainty and delays.

Lawmakers in Wyoming considered putting the issue before voters in a referendum but decided against doing so, as such ballot measures have repeatedly resulted in the protection of abortion rights—even in deep “red” and conservative-leaning states including Arizona, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, and Ohio.

Wyoming is the fifth state to ban abortion at around six weeks, joining Florida, Georgia, Iowa, and South Carolina.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 13 states currently have near-total abortion bans, while 28 other states restrict the procedure. Numerous forced-birth bills are pending across the nation, and—while unlikely to pass—the most severe proposals including punishing the medical procedure with lengthy imprisonment and even the death penalty for healthcare providers and patients.



On Monday, the Center for Reproductive Rights published a report examining the human and economic toll of abortion bans, which a separate study last year by the Population Reference Bureau has linked to 478 excess infant deaths and 59 excess deaths of pregnant people since Roe was struck down nearly four years ago.

It’s not only state-level bans that harm patients. Republicans’ so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump last year, contains the biggest cuts to Medicaid in the program’s 60-year history. Dramatically decreased Medicaid funding has resulted in the closure of at least 50 Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide, and the reduction of services at many others.



Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, March 11, 2026

 


Do US abortion bans affect birth rates and food-assistance costs?





Wiley

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail





A study in Economic Inquiry reveals how total abortion bans are reshaping public health systems and safety‐net programs in the United States.

Using state‐level data from 2017–2023, Lilly Springer, a PhD candidate at the University of Kansas, found that states with full abortion bans (after the Supreme Court overturned the federal right to abortion with the Dobbs decision in 2022) experienced a 1.6% increased birth rate in 2023. They also experienced 4.3% and 2.1% increases in participation in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) among postpartum women and formula‐fed infants, respectively.

These changes led to a $6.9 million increase in WIC food‐assistance costs in 2023, revealing how abortion bans can rapidly increase demand on federally funded nutrition programs.

“The findings highlight important under‐examined consequences of reproductive policy on state budgets, public health infrastructure, and low‐income families,” said Springer.

URL upon publication: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecin.70053

Additional Information
NOTE: The information contained in this release is protected by copyright. Please include journal attribution in all coverage. For more information or to obtain a PDF of any study, please contact: Sara Henning-Stout, newsroom@wiley.com.

About the Journal
Published since 1962, Economic Inquiry is a highly regarded scholarly journal in economics publishing articles of general interest across the profession. Quality research that is accessible to a broad range of economists is the primary focus of the journal. Join our long list of prestigious authors, including more than 20 Nobel laureates.

About Wiley      
Wiley is a global leader in authoritative content and research intelligence for the advancement of scientific discovery, innovation, and learning. With more than 200 years at the center of the scholarly ecosystem, Wiley combines trusted publishing heritage with AI-powered platforms to transform how knowledge is discovered, accessed, and applied. From individual researchers and students to Fortune 500 R&D teams, Wiley enables the transformation of scientific breakthroughs into real-world impact. From knowledge to impact—Wiley is redefining what's possible in science and learning. Visit us at Wiley.com and Investors.Wiley.com. Follow us on Facebook, X, LinkedIn and Instagram.

Journal

Economic Inquiry

DOI

10.1111/ecin.70053 

Article Title

Downstream Effects of Post-Dobbs Abortion Bans: Birth Rates and WIC

Article Publication Date

11-Mar-2026


Study illuminates the experiences of people needing to seek abortion care out of state



Mass General Brigham author available to speak about the study’s findings and the experiences of 33 women who sought post-Dobbs care in Illinois




Mass General Brigham

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail





State-level abortion restrictions have shifted the landscape of care and the experiences of people traveling for abortion care after the June 2022 Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court decision. A new, qualitative study published JAMA Network Open takes a deeper look at the experiences of people traveling from U.S. states with abortion restrictions or bans to Illinois, a state where abortion remains legal.

Through interviews and surveys with 33 individuals, the paper tells the story of how abortion stigma, information and resource availability, and support are shaping the experiences of people seeking abortion care across state lines. Delays were common and people waited, on average, a month between deciding to have an abortion and getting care. The paper charts the journeys of individuals and includes powerful, anonymous testimonials from the study’s participants, such as:

“I took 2 flights coming here by myself. Whatever I’ve needed to do I’ve done it by myself, alone. And I left my baby for the first time in my life with a neighbor for three days just to be here. It’s a hard situation. Sometimes you don’t have money saved to pay to have another person come with you.”

—Participant G, from a state with a partial abortion ban

 

The authors recommend that policy changes should be coupled with increased visibility of accurate information, charitable funding, and abortion stigma reduction. “Abortion bans don't eliminate abortion, they just shift the burden onto patients–especially those who are young, low-income, or from marginalized groups,” said senior author Elizabeth Janiak, ScD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mass General Brigham.

 

Paper cited: Cornell A et al. “Seeking Abortion Care Across State Lines After the Dobbs Decision” JAMA Network Open DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.1068

Authorship: Alia Cornell, Brianna Keefe-Oates, Olivia Thornton, Jennifer Fortin, Andrea Gallegos, and Elizabeth Janiak.

Funding: This study was funded by Resources for Abortion Delivery (RAD), the Society of Family Planning Research Fund, The Milton Fund at Harvard University, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The findings and conclusions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of RAD, the SFP Research Fund, the Robert Wood Johnson Fund, or the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc.

DOI

10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.1068 

Method of Research

Survey

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Seeking Abortion Care Across State Lines After the Dobbs Decision

Article Publication Date

9-Mar-2026

Seeking abortion care across state lines after the Dobbs decision


JAMA Network Open


About The Study: 

The findings of this study suggest that people in states with abortion bans face limitations to obtaining abortion care out of state and should be supported through policy change, visible information and resources, and charitable and interpersonal social support systems. 


Corresponding Author: To contact the corresponding author, Alia Cornell, MPH, email alia.d.cornell@kp.org.

To access the embargoed study: Visit our For The Media website at this link https://media.jamanetwork.com/

(doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.1068)

Editor’s Note: Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, conflict of interest and financial disclosures, and funding and support.

#  #  #

Embed this link to provide your readers free access to the full-text article 

 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.1068?guestAccessKey=1b34668e-afe8-4888-aa3d-dd05b3b83eff&utm_source=for_the_media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=030926

About JAMA Network Open: JAMA Network Open is an online-only open access general medical journal from the JAMA Network. On weekdays, the journal publishes peer-reviewed clinical research and commentary in more than 40 medical and health subject areas. Every article is free online from the day of publication. 

Journal

JAMA Network Open

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)