Julia Bourkland (she/her) is a Research Assistant at Equity Forward. She is passionate about and committed to reproductive justice and rights and has campaigned for equitable abortion and contraceptive access. As a researcher, she is particularly interested in the transparency, accountability, and governance considerations of repro, as well as the socioeconomic elements of reproductive justice. Before joining the organization, she held several internships and experiences in research, politics, campaigning, and feminist advocacy (particularly around SRHRJ issues).
Having the freedom to decide if and when we have kids is fundamental to building the lives we want for ourselves. But in the face of a housing affordability crisis, underfunded child care infrastructure, and a widening gender wage gap, this fundamental freedom feels further and further out of reach. Instead of addressing these economic issues, anti-abortion lawmakers are trying to divest from proven social services and invest in anti-abortion programs that are not only ineffective, but detrimental to communities.
Has the anti-abortion movement weaponized the judicial branch to enforce its agenda? Of course it has. The Supreme Court of the United States’ (SCOTUS) ethical state-of-play is particularly concerning given the justices will be hearing oral arguments on the two biggest post-Roe reproductive rights cases so far.
SCOTUS heard oral arguments for FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine on March 26, 2024, with a decision likely to be released in June. Importantly, SCOTUS will hear cert petitions from the FDA and Mifeprex manufacturer Danco Laboratories, but not the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. Due to a stay issued by the U.S.
Anti-abortion centers (AACs) exist solely to deter pregnant people from receiving abortions and comprehensive reproductive health care.