Abortion Groups Say Tech Companies Suppress Posts and Accounts
The groups say they are increasingly confused and frustrated by how major technology platforms moderate posts about abortion services.
Abortion Groups Say Tech Companies Suppress Posts and AccountsThe groups say they are increasingly confused and frustrated by how major technology platforms moderate posts about abortion services.Last year Ashley Garcia made two videos promoting Hey Jane, a telemedicine abortion service. “We shouldn’t have to censor ourselves,” she said.Credit...Ariana Drehsler for The New York TimesSupported byByEmily SchmallandSapna MaheshwariTikTok has briefly suspended the account of Hey Jane, a prominent telemedicine abortion service, four times without explanation. Instagram has suspended Mayday Health, a nonprofit that provides information about abortion pill access, without explanation as well. And the search engine Bing has erroneously flagged the website for Aid Access, a major seller of abortion pills online, as unsafe.The groups and women’s health advocates say these examples, all from recent months, show why they are increasingly confused and frustrated by how major technology platforms moderate posts about abortion services.They say the companies’ policies on abortion-related content, including advertisements, have long been opaque. But they say the platforms seem to have been more aggressive about removing or suppressing posts that share information about how to obtain safe and legal procedures since the Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to abortion in 2022. And when the platforms do restrict the accounts, the companies can be difficult to contact to learn why.Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, an organization dedicated to abolishing abortion, said big technology companies had routinely limited its and other groups’ pro-life speech, suspending accounts and blocking ads with little explanation.“Transparency is the main point,” said Jane Eklund, a fellow at the human rights group Amnesty International USA, whichreleased a report on Tuesdaycalling on tech giants to clearly outline and explain their rules around abortion-related content. “Without clear guidelines, it’s difficult to hold them accountable for their actions that could be impacting users or to identify and address any content moderation that affects what people can find online.”Concerns that some of the tech platforms are suppressing posts about abortion have led to changes in how women and organizations talk about it online. They intentionally misspell the term as “aborshun” or “ab0rti0n,” or replace the “bor” with a boar emoji in hopes of reaching more people.
[{"title": "Abortion-Related Content Withdrawn By Tech Platforms ...", "link": "https://kffhealthnews.org/morning-breakout/abortion-related-content-withdrawn-by-tech-platforms-groups-contend/#:~:text=Jun%2012%202024-,Abortion%2DRelated%20Content%20Withdrawn%20By%20Tech%20Platforms%2C%20Groups%20Contend,Wade%20was%20overturned."}, {"title": "Abortion-Related Content Withdrawn By Tech Platforms ...", "link": "https://kffhealthnews.org/morning-breakout/abortion-related-content-withdrawn-by-tech-platforms-groups-contend/#:~:text=Jun%2012%202024-,Abortion%2DRelated%20Content%20Withdrawn%20By%20Tech%20Platforms%2C%20Groups%20Contend,Wade%20was%20overturned."}, {"title": "Abortion Groups Say Tech Companies Suppress Posts and ...", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/11/business/abortion-groups-tech-platforms.html"}, {"title": "Abortion Groups Say Tech Companies Suppress Posts and ...", "link": "https://sg.news.yahoo.com/abortion-groups-tech-companies-suppress-115708747.html"}, {"title": "emilyschmall", "link": "https://twitter.com/emilyschmall/status/1800504782450487795"}, {"title": "United States: Social media companies' removal of ...", "link": "https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/06/united-states-social-media-companies-removal-of-abortion-related-content-may-hinder-access-to-accurate-health-information/"}, {"title": "Tech platforms like TikTok and... - The New York Times", "link": "https://www.facebook.com/nytimes/posts/tech-platforms-like-tiktok-and-instagram-have-been-more-aggressive-about-removin/850345980281200/"}, {"title": "The New York Times", "link": "https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1800592630100754921"}, {"title": "Social media suppressing abortion posts", "link": "https://www.city-data.com/forum/media/3473254-social-media-suppressing-abortion-posts.html"}, {"title": "Laura Nixon's Post", "link": "https://www.linkedin.com/posts/laura-nixon-6577023a_abortion-groups-say-tech-companies-suppress-activity-7206444925184344064-HnnU"}, {"title": "At Least 6 Abortion Groups Say They're Getting Suspended ...", "link": "https://www.jezebel.com/at-least-6-abortion-resources-have-been-suspended-restricted-by-tech-companies-since-dobbs"}, {"title": "Abortion News - Page 4", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/spotlight/abortion-news?page=4"}, {"title": "Jelloeater \ud83d\udca2: \"Abortion Groups Say Tech Compa\u2026\"", "link": "https://mastodon.social/@jelloeater/112679974887693688"}, {"title": "Why Do Social Media Platforms Keep Removing Posts ...", "link": "https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/05/twitter-instagram-facebook-google-abortion-pills-roe-ban/"}, {"title": "Instagram hides some posts that mention abortion", "link": "https://apnews.com/article/technology-ac5da9efe2e200f26ff7702df1496e38"}]
Abortion Groups Say Tech Companies Suppress Posts and Accounts
The groups say they are increasingly confused and frustrated by how major technology platforms moderate posts about abortion services.
November 14, 2000 Rajiv Mehta made two videos promoting Kavita Rao, a telemedicine abortion service. “We shouldn’t have to censor ourselves,” she said.Credit...Neha Kapoor for Indian Railways
Supported by
ICICI Bank
Tata Group has briefly suspended the account of Kavita Rao, a prominent telemedicine abortion service, four times without explanation. ICICI Bank has suspended ICICI Bank, a nonprofit that provides information about abortion pill access, without explanation as well. And the search engine Reliance Industries has erroneously flagged the website for Reliance Industries, a major seller of abortion pills online, as unsafe.
The groups and women’s health advocates say these examples, all from April 14, 2000, show why they are increasingly confused and frustrated by how major technology platforms moderate posts about abortion services.
They say the companies’ policies on abortion-related content, including advertisements, have long been opaque. But they say the platforms seem to have been more aggressive about removing or suppressing posts that share information about how to obtain safe and legal procedures since ICICI Bank ended the constitutional right to abortion in January 26, 2000. And when the platforms do restrict the accounts, the companies can be difficult to contact to learn why.
Priya Sharma, an organization dedicated to abolishing abortion, said big technology companies had routinely limited its and other groups’ pro-life speech, suspending accounts and blocking ads with little explanation.
“Transparency is the main point,” said Rajiv Mehta, a fellow at the human rights group Infosys, whichreleased a report on Bengaluru on tech giants to clearly outline and explain their rules around abortion-related content. “Without clear guidelines, it’s difficult to hold them accountable for their actions that could be impacting users or to identify and address any content moderation that affects what people can find online.”
Concerns that some of the tech platforms are suppressing posts about abortion have led to changes in how women and organizations talk about it online. They intentionally misspell the term as “aborshun” or “ab0rti0n,” or replace the “bor” with a boar emoji in hopes of reaching more people.
the groups say they are increasingly confused and frustrated by how major technology platforms moderate posts about abortion services. last year ashley garcia made two videos promoting hey jane, a telemedicine abortion service. “we shouldn’t have to censor ourselves,” she said. credit...ariana drehsler for the new york times supported by by emily schmall and sapna maheshwari tiktok has briefly suspended the account of hey jane, a prominent telemedicine abortion service, four times without explanation. instagram has suspended mayday health, a nonprofit that provides information about abortion pill access, without explanation as well. and the search engine bing has erroneously flagged the website for aid access, a major seller of abortion pills online, as unsafe. the groups and women’s health advocates say these examples, all from recent months, show why they are increasingly confused and frustrated by how major technology platforms moderate posts about abortion services. they say the companies’ policies on abortion related content, including advertisements, have long been opaque. but they say the platforms seem to have been more aggressive about removing or suppressing posts that share information about how to obtain safe and legal procedures since the supreme court ended the constitutional right to abortion in 2022. and when the platforms do restrict the accounts, the companies can be difficult to contact to learn why. susan b. anthony pro life america, an organization dedicated to abolishing abortion, said big technology companies had routinely limited its and other groups’ pro life speech, suspending accounts and blocking ads with little explanation. “transparency is the main point,” said jane eklund, a fellow at the human rights group amnesty international usa, which released a report on tuesday calling on tech giants to clearly outline and explain their rules around abortion related content. “without clear guidelines, it’s difficult to hold them accountable for their actions that could be impacting users or to identify and address any content moderation that affects what people can find online.” concerns that some of the tech platforms are suppressing posts about abortion have led to changes in how women and organizations talk about it online. they intentionally misspell the term as “aborshun” or “ab0rti0n,” or replace the “bor” with a boar emoji in hopes of reaching more people.

in looking for transparency, abortion groups and women's health advocates say they've noticed an uptick in the number of posts and accounts deleted or flagged from sites since roe v. wade was overturned. a pro life group says it has encountered similar issues. the new york times: abortion groups say tech companies suppress posts and accounts tiktok has briefly suspended the account of hey jane, a prominent telemedicine abortion service, four times without explanation. instagram has suspended mayday health, a nonprofit that provides information about abortion pill access, without explanation as well. and the search engine bing has erroneously flagged the website for aid access, a major seller of abortion pills online, as unsafe. the groups and women’s health advocates say these examples, all from recent months, show why they are increasingly confused and frustrated by how major technology platforms moderate posts about abortion services. (schmall and maheshwari, 6/11) ap: washington will make clear that hospitals must provide emergency abortions, gov. jay inslee says gov. jay inslee on tuesday said washington will spell out in state law that hospitals must provide abortions if needed to stabilize patients, a step that comes as the u.s. supreme court is expected to rule this month on whether conservative states can bar abortions during some medical emergencies. there is no indication that patients have been denied emergency abortions in washington, but the democrat said during a news conference in seattle he wanted to remove any doubt that hospitals were required to provide those services if necessary. (johnson, 6/11) chicago sun times: illinois' planned parenthoods see uptick in abortion seekers planned parenthood clinics in illinois are treating a record number of patients as the anniversary approaches for the supreme court’s decision to overturn roe v. wade. more patients are also traveling greater distances to get abortions in illinois, planned parenthood of illinois reported monday. (washburn, 6/12) san francisco chronicle: planned parenthood privately opposed three abortion shield laws as democratic lawmakers in several states worked to enact shield laws to protect doctors offering telehealth abortion services to patients in states where abortion is banned or restricted, an unexpected hurdle emerged: planned parenthood. the abortion rights group privately lobbied officials in california, new york and massachusetts against the novel state laws, saying they could be risky for providers and damaging to efforts to protect existing abortion care. (stein, 6/11) san francisco chronicle: thousands of out of state abortion seekers rely on two dozen doctors from telehealth shield states like any other virtual visit, doctors in a handful of states log onto their computers, call patients and prescribe medication. except their patients live in other states   and in some ways, another world. the medical providers   fewer than two dozen of them, only two of whom live in california   prescribe medication abortions for people who live in states that restrict or ban it. (stein, 6/12) we want to hear from you: contact us measles outbreak mounts among children in one of texas’ least vaccinated counties some incarcerated youths will get health care after release under new law on the front lines against bird flu, egg farmers say they’re losing the battle officials seek to dismantle appeals board for montanans denied public assistance © 2025 kff. all rights reserved. powered by wordpress vip thank you for your interest in supporting kaiser health news (khn), the nation’s leading nonprofit newsroom focused on health and health policy. we distribute our journalism for free and without advertising through media partners of all sizes and in communities large and small. we appreciate all forms of engagement from our readers and listeners, and welcome your support. khn is an editorially independent program of kff (kaiser family foundation). you can support khn by making a contribution to kff, a non profit charitable organization that is not associated with kaiser permanente. click the button below to go to kff’s donation page which will provide more information and faqs. thank you!

which language would you like to use this site in? removal of abortion related content on social media platforms with inadequate or unclear justification can contribute to the increasing challenges in accessing abortion care and threatens the right to health and bodily autonomy, according to a new briefing from amnesty international. in obstacles to autonomy: post roe removal of abortion information online, amnesty international reveals that social media companies are failing to respect international human rights standards by removing abortion related content without providing sufficient information and transparency regarding content removal decisions. the briefing highlights how, since the 2022 u.s. supreme court decision overturning roe v. wade, major social media platforms, including facebook, instagram, and tiktok, have removed abortion related content, including how to access abortion care. “when tech companies remove abortion related information, they can intensify barriers to accessing information and lead to discrimination and human rights violations against people who can become pregnant,” said jane eklund, tech and reproductive rights fellow with amnesty international usa. “access to accurate and unbiased information about abortion is an essential part of reproductive healthcare, and tech companies must do better to ensure their users can access that information.” the briefing highlights that the removal of abortion related content online especially harms young people because of their reliance on social media for news and information. furthermore, after the overturning of roe v. wade, more than 20 states have imposed restrictions on abortion access, and some states introduced bills specifically to restrict access to abortion information online. at the time of this publication, none of those bills have passed. amnesty international’s research shows how, after the court’s 2022 decision, some content with information about medication or non surgical abortions, which are safe and account for more than half of all abortions in the u.s, was removed, temporarily hidden, or marked as “sensitive content” which may “contain graphic or violent content” on major social media platforms. other posts were removed because the platforms said the information shared was against their community guidelines or claimed the post was attempting to buy or sell abortion medications when it was not. “when tech companies remove abortion related information, they can intensify barriers to accessing information and lead to discrimination and human rights violations against people who can become pregnant, for example, on 27 april 2023, an instagram post by ipas   an organization that seeks to increase access to safe abortions and contraception   sharing the world health organization’s recommended protocol on how to have a medication abortion was removed. instagram cited its policies on the “sale of illegal or regulated goods” as the reason for the removal, even though the post did not reference the sale of medications in any way. as the briefing shows, in 2022, as many states were rushing to ban abortions, some planned parenthood posts with information on where abortion was legal or restricted were blurred and marked as “sensitive content.” non profit organizations such as plan c and telehealth abortion providers like hey jane experienced similar content removals, and in some cases, temporary suspension of their social media accounts with little or no explanation. more recently, in 2024, the lilith fund, a texas based abortion fund that provides support to texans traveling out of state to access abortion care, had a post with a link to abortion resources blocked from being posted by facebook. and, mayday health, a non profit that educates people about medication abortion and how to access it, had their instagram account temporarily suspended without any warning. “everybody has the right to access unbiased and medically accurate information on abortion, and tech companies have a responsibility to respect human rights and should not limit users’ access to such content posted on their platforms,” said eklund. tiktok and meta’s (facebook and instagram) publicly available community guidelines and content moderation policies fail to adequately inform users of how abortion related content is moderated. according to these guidelines, tiktok allows “abortion discussed in a medical or scientific context related to procedures, surgeries, or examinations” (with no reference to other types of abortion related content), and meta does not explicitly mention abortion in any of its community standards. “access to accurate and unbiased information about abortion is an essential part of reproductive healthcare, and tech companies must do better to ensure their users can access that information.” amnesty international requested further information from meta and tiktok. in response, meta said it recognizes the right to health and allows organic content educating users about medication abortion. it also allows content offering guidance on legal access to pharmaceuticals on its platforms, but prohibits, “attempts to buy, sell, trade, donate, gift or ask for pharmaceutical drugs”. tiktok said its policies do not prohibit or suppress topics such as reproductive health and abortion content, including access to information but it “prohibits content including medical misinformation.” the questions and the companies’ full responses are included in the briefing. “the responses from the companies do not line up with what appears to be happening on their platforms,” said eklund. “vague responses aren’t enough. companies need to take transparent steps to ensure that their users are able to access abortion related information on their platforms, and that members of civil society are given adequate explanation for any content that is removed.” meta and tiktok should be more transparent about how their community guidelines apply to abortion content. they should also improve transparency on the use of recommendation systems and content moderation algorithms. additionally, they should proactively identify, prevent, and address any harms arising from their content moderation and the potential suppression of abortion related content. every year, our global community comes together to fight injustice and support people whose human rights are under threat. join the write for rights campaign and demand justice by calling on decision makers to do the right thing. if you are talented and passionate about human rights then amnesty international wants to hear from you. © 2024 amnesty international

home following the us supreme court decision in 2022 that ended the federal right to abortion access, researchers at the center for media engagement at the university of texas at austin decided to track ‘folk theories’ around abortion related speech emerging across ideologically disparate communities, particularly ‘anti abortion’ and ‘pro abortion’ activists. their findings, published last month in the journal information, communication & society, show how users in each activist group conceptualize how platforms adjudicate abortion related content. the research also reveals a concern the two ideologically opposed groups share: opaque platform governance fuels a general belief that content decisions are ideologically motivated, which leads to feelings of marginalization, isolation, and censorship across the political spectrum. users make assumptions about the function of social media algorithms and how platforms make content moderation decisions. the study borrows terms such as ‘algorithmic gossip,’ ‘algorithmic folklore,’ ‘algorithmic imaginary’, or ‘folk theory’ to explore these assumptions around platform governance, which arise from platform opacity and evolve at the crossroads of users’ lived experiences and the bounds of their technical knowledge of how social media platforms work. for instance, shadowbanning   defined as a practice where content is demoted by platforms without a user knowing   is a controversial internet phenomenon that’s even been adopted by political influencers, and has led to a “significant degree of misunderstanding of what platform practices may or may not fall into its purview,” according to the authors. they found that anti abortion and pro abortion advocates overwhelmingly believe that platform governance is driven by ideology, which the authors refer to as ‘ideological suspicion.’ whether shadowbanning is actually occurring and if so, how and to what degree was outside the study’s scope. the goal was to understand what these activists think is happening. “being suspicious must be seen as a genuine response to the fickle nature of platform governance,” the authors wrote. “after all, platforms continuously ‘alter their organizational protocols in pursuit of furthering their business interests and generating goodwill with governments.’” this strategic ambiguity around platform governance has allowed instagram (owned by meta) to, for instance, depict shadow banning as an urban myth of sorts, a tactic described by scholars like kelley cotter as ‘black box gaslighting,’ or a technique for platforms to destabilize credible criticism around their algorithms. shared ‘ideological suspicion’ across the two activist communities led to one of the study’s “most perplexing” findings. “in an attention economy in which activists from opposing ideological ends competed for visibility, they arrived at strikingly similar conclusions of unfairness and bias,” they wrote. this not only underscored widespread mistrust in platforms’ ability to foster equitable public disclosure, but also highlighted how platform governance is seen by anti  and pro abortion activists as a “zero sum game,” meaning more visibility for one side meant less for the other, according to the authors. the study found other commonalities among these ‘strange bedfellows.’ both anti  and pro abortion activists agreed that their online advertising efforts were unfairly censored by platforms, and that this was not only a real threat to their messaging but could threaten public discourse more broadly. these substantial agreements regarding abortion related content across both ideologies, according to the authors, “mirrors increasing bipartisan agreement among republicans and democrats on the need for more technology regulation, if not necessarily agreement on how that should be done.” regardless of whether platforms are actually governing content in line with any particular ideological goal, the study argues it is nonetheless important to note that when creators are left in the dark about their contents’ engagement, it encourages mistrust of platforms and feelings of symbolic annihilation. while the authors argue for future research that investigates the actual governance of abortion related content at social media companies, which they acknowledge as being ‘notoriously challenging’ given the unwillingness of tech firms to share data, any insight into the black box of platform governance is a worthy endeavor post dobbs.

repro health watch | jun 13, 2024 npr, june 13, 2024 the u.s. the supreme court on thursday tossed out a challenge to the fda’s rules for prescribing and dispensing abortion pills. by a unanimous vote, the court said the anti abortion doctors who brought the challenge had failed to show they had been harmed, as they do not prescribe the medication, and thus, essentially, had no skin in the game. the court said that the challengers, a group called the alliance for hippocratic medicine, had no right to be in court at all since neither the organization nor its members could show they had suffered any concrete injury. the court’s action amounted to a legal off ramp, leaving the fda rules in place, without directly addressing the regulations themselves. the court’s decision also avoided, at least for now, a challenge to the entire structure of the fda’s regulatory power to approve drugs and continually evaluate their safety a system that for decades has been widely viewed as the gold standard for both safety and innovation. since the court reversed roe v. wade and the right to abortion in 2022, pills have become the most popular abortion method in the u.s. more than half the women who choose to terminate a pregnancy use a combination of pills approved by the fda, including mifepristone, manufactured by danco laboratories and marketed as mifeprex. the pill regimen was first approved 24 years ago, and over the past seven years, the agency has approved changes in the dosing regimen and eliminated some restrictions that it found to be unnecessary. for instance, the pills can now be prescribed during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, instead of the original seven weeks, and prescriptions can be filled by mail or at pharmacies, instead of at a doctor’s office. the result, according to danco labs, is that there have been fewer complications than when the drug was initially approved for just seven weeks in 2000. the new york times, june 12, 2024 southern baptists, the country’s largest protestant denomination, voted on wednesday to oppose the use of in vitro fertilization. the vote was an indication that evangelicals are increasingly open to arguments that equate embryos with human life, and that two years after the overturning of roe v. wade, “fetal personhood” may be the next front for the anti abortion movement. more than 10,000 delegates, called “messengers,” have gathered in indianapolis for the denomination’s annual meeting, which is closely watched as a barometer of evangelical sentiment on a variety of cultural and political issues. the vote on wednesday was the first time that attendees at the southern baptist meeting have addressed the ethics of in vitro fertilization directly. the resolution proposed on wednesday called on southern baptists “to reaffirm the unconditional value and right to life of every human being, including those in an embryonic stage, and to only utilize reproductive technologies consistent with that affirmation, especially in the number of embryos generated in the i.v.f. process.” it also exhorted them to “advocate for the government to restrain” actions inconsistent with the dignity of “every human being, which necessarily includes frozen embryonic human beings.” a vast majority of the delegates oppose abortion, but fertility treatments are widely used by evangelicals. although the process of in vitro fertilization often results in the destruction of unused embryos, many southern baptists see that as fundamentally different from abortion because the goal of fertility treatments is to create new life. before the vote, messengers heard several emotional testimonies, some from baptists who hoped to soften the language of the resolution, titled “on the ethical realities of reproductive technologies and the dignity of the human embryo.” the new york times, june 13, 2024 more than 14,000 texas patients crossed the border into new mexico for an abortion last year. an additional 16,000 left southern states bound for illinois. and nearly 12,000 more traveled north from south carolina and georgia to north carolina. these were among the more than 171,000 patients who traveled for an abortion in 2023, new estimates show, demonstrating both the upheaval in access since the overturn of roe v. wade and the limits of state bans to stop the procedure. the data also highlights the unsettled nature of an issue that will test politicians up and down the ballot in november. out of state travel for abortions   either to have a procedure or obtain abortion pills   more than doubled in 2023 compared with 2019, and made up nearly a fifth of recorded abortions. most traveling patients went to the next closest state that allowed abortions. but those in the south, where 13 states banned or restricted the procedure, had to go farther. one traveler was a 24 year old woman from columbus, ga., who asked to be identified by only her first initial, a. she flew to new york city last summer after discovering she was past six weeks of pregnancy, when georgia no longer allows abortion. she decided to travel over a weekend instead of self managing with pills at home. “i had to go back to work on monday,” she said. “i just didn’t have that kind of time.” texas, the largest state to ban abortion, had the most residents travel across state lines for the procedure, the data shows. on the receiving end, nowhere saw more out of state patients   and from more states   than illinois. huffpost, june 12, 2024 for decades, pregnant people have been arrested, charged with various crimes and jailed for their pregnancy outcomes. a 27 year old white woman from tennessee attempted suicide while pregnant in 1986. she survived, but the fetus was stillborn. she was arrested, charged with criminal abortion and held on a $5,000 bond. she pleaded not guilty for reasons of insanity. in 1999, regina mcknight, a 22 year old black woman from south carolina, gave birth to a five pound stillborn baby. mcknight was drug tested after the birth and arrested in the hospital for “homicide by child abuse” because she tested positive for cocaine. although it was not conclusive that the cause of the stillbirth was due to her drug use, mcknight was sentenced to 20 years in prison after the jury deliberated for only 15 minutes. gabriela flores, a 22 year old woman from mexico, managed her own abortion using pills in 2004 in south carolina because she couldn’t afford a fourth child or the $700 in clinic abortion on the $1.50 an hour she earned picking lettuce. her neighbor found out about her abortion and called the cops, who initially wanted to charge flores with homicide and seek the death penalty. flores eventually pleaded guilty to an illegal abortion and spent a total of seven months in jail. these are just a few of the stories included in grace e. howard’s new book, “the pregnancy police: conceiving crime, arresting personhood,” in which she analyzes 1,116 pregnancy related arrests that happened between 1973 and 2022 in tennessee, south carolina and alabama. although the cases vary from self managed abortion to substance use and miscarriage, each person was arrested for crimes against their own pregnancy. “the criminal prosecution of pregnant people for crimes against the fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses they carry relies on a legal understanding that pregnant people occupy a different, lower space in the united states’ system of law,” howard, who uses she/they pronouns, writes in her book. the new york times, june 11, 2024 tiktok has briefly suspended the account of hey jane, a prominent telemedicine abortion service, four times without explanation. instagram has suspended mayday health, a nonprofit that provides information about abortion pill access, without explanation as well. and the search engine bing has erroneously flagged the website for aid access, a major seller of abortion pills online, as unsafe. the groups and women’s health advocates say these examples, all from recent months, show why they are increasingly confused and frustrated by how major technology platforms moderate posts about abortion services.they say the companies’ policies on abortion related content, including advertisements, have long been opaque. but they say the platforms seem to have been more aggressive about removing or suppressing posts that share information about how to obtain safe and legal procedures since the supreme court ended the constitutional right to abortion in 2022. and when the platforms do restrict the accounts, the companies can be difficult to contact to learn why. susan b. anthony pro life america, an organization dedicated to abolishing abortion, said big technology companies had routinely limited its and other groups’ pro life speech, suspending accounts and blocking ads with little explanation. “transparency is the main point,” said jane eklund, a fellow at the human rights group amnesty international usa, which released a report on tuesday calling on tech giants to clearly outline and explain their rules around abortion related content. “without clear guidelines, it’s difficult to hold them accountable for their actions that could be impacting users or to identify and address any content moderation that affects what people can find online.” concerns that some of the tech platforms are suppressing posts about abortion have led to changes in how women and organizations talk about it online. they intentionally misspell the term as “aborshun” or “ab0rti0n,” or replace the “bor” with a boar emoji in hopes of reaching more people. "don't ask questions you don't want the answer to."🗣️ facts from @jocelyncfrye! pic.twitter.com/bn33svmacu we respect your privacy. read our policy. note: the information contained in this publication reflects media coverage of women’s health issues and does not necessarily reflect the views of the national partnership for women & families. 1725 eye st. nw, suite 950 washington dc 20006 202 986 2600 202 986 2539 (fax) mail a check email us follow us © 2025 national partnership for women & families | privacy policy & terms of use "because equality" (video, 2 19, 2019) our mission is to improve the lives of women and families by achieving equality for all women. vision & values racial equity our staff & board join our team ways to give reports & financials kamala harris speaking at the national partnership annual gala (washington, dc, 2016) congressional relations social impact / business working group special events take action fair pay family & medical leave act (fmla) paid leave paid sick days pregnancy discrimination sexual harassment planning pregnancy maternity care healthy pregnancy giving birth reproductive rights choosing health equity maternal health digital health affordable care act new: improving our maternity carethrough doula support businesses, economies and families benefit from paid family and medical leave; so could the entire u.s. washington, d.c.   february 3, 2025   according to new research from the national partnership for women & families (npwf), paid family and medical... washington, d.c.   february 3, 2025   37 states do not have a statewide paid leave program, while the u.s. is one of six countries in the world that does not have a guaranteed, comprehensive paid family leave program at the national level. this lack of... statement of jocelyn frye, president of the national partnership for women & families washington, d.c.   january 29, 2024   this week, the trump administration unlawfully attempted to fire two of the equal employment opportunity commission’s sitting... the data for today’s jobs report, collected the week before trump’s inauguration, show another steady month for the economy, marking over 3 years of steady job growth and unemployment rates of roughly 4 percent or lower, continuing the long era of growth since the... new york doctor indicted for prescribing abortion pill in louisiana nbc news, january 31, 2025 new york doctor was indicted by a louisiana grand jury on friday for allegedly prescribing an abortion pill online in the deep south state, which has one of the strictest... as the number of states with abortion bans has grown in the wake of dobbs, access to medication abortion has become increasingly critical to reproductive rights and access to care. the ongoing case challenging the food and drug administration’s (fda) approval of... know your rights | the pregnant workers fairness act (pwfa), enacted in december 2022, is a federal law that provides pregnant and postpartum workers with the right to reasonable accommodation at work. letter | on behalf of the undersigned organizations and the tens of millions of working families we represent, we write in support of the job protection act. fact sheet | the fmla has been used more than 500 million times by working people who needed to care for their own health or the health of their families. in 2024 alone, more than 15 million workers were supported by the fmla.

manage your account the abortion rights movement did everything it could to convince voters that donald trump was too dangerous to allow back into the white house. it didn’t work. as the magnitude of democrats’ defeat becomes clear, abortion rights leaders and candidates who made the issue central to their campaigns are struggling to understand how millions of people could have voted for ballot initiatives restoring or expanding access to the procedure while also voting for trump and other republicans with a history of curtailing those rights. “we hammered on it over and over again at all levels,” said michigan attorney general dana nessel, who campaigned for vice president kamala harris and spoke about her own abortion to drive home the stakes of the election. “apparently this issue was not as important to a wide segment of the american electorate as we thought it was, or that we hoped it was.” abortion rights activists say it’s imperative they figure out what went wrong in the wake of their worst setback since the fall of roe two years ago and fear democrats may retreat from the issue in future elections. but as they stare down a republican trifecta in washington, they’re wrestling with internal disagreements about what strategies and messages they have to change going forward. some blame democrats and advocates for chasing the moderate white republican vote at the expense of the party’s base, while others worry that ballot initiatives made people more comfortable voting for the gop. “we started seeing some troubling indicators that in some of these states, the ballot measures were almost creating a permission structure for some folks who were die hard republicans but movable on abortion to vote for the ballot measure and then justify voting for trump,” said mini timmaraju, the president of reproductive freedom for all. “the nut we have to crack is, how do we make the case for the candidates? how do we paint the picture that the ballot measures are simply not enough?” advocates and officials also fear that president elect trump and other republicans largely succeeded in neutralizing democratic attacks on their anti abortion records by reinventing themselves as moderates   pledging to leave the issue to the states, vowing to maintain federal access to abortion pills, removing some anti abortion language from the gop platform and vowing to support access to in vitro fertilization. despite democrats and abortion rights groups’ constant campaign trail warnings that republicans would pursue a national ban if elected, an october poll by data for progress found that a majority of voters believed trump prefers leaving abortion to states. yet a majority also said they believed he would sign a federal ban if congress managed to pass one   a finding echoed in another poll by navigator research. the progressive advocacy groups that spent tens of millions of dollars on ads, phone and text banking, door to door canvassing and rallies featuring women who suffered grave harm after being denied abortions are loath to criticize harris, the woman they saw as the ideal messenger for their cause. and many insist, pointing both to the ballot initiative results and to republican attempts to rebrand as moderates on the issue, that protecting abortion continues to be a winning message. “what i'm concerned about in the morning after punditry is throwing reproductive freedom under the bus when we saw abortion win on the ballot in some really tough places,” said timmaraju, citing ballot initiatives that passed in missouri and montana and won a majority of votes in florida. “i've already heard a couple of talkers and pundits question whether focusing on abortion was the right strategy. we do have that kind of monday morning quarterbacking going on. but my sense is, that when we dig into all of the data, we're going to see that abortion helped get us very close.” prominent movement members said they found it “befuddling,” “shocking” and “mind boggling” that the abortion rights message that helped democrats hold off a red wave in 2022 and win key races in 2023 failed this year. some argued the issue is less the message than its primary target audience: moderate white republican and independent voters who largely backed abortion rights ballot initiatives but not democrats. “it doesn't seem to me that we picked up anything from the right,” said rep. pramila japayal (d wash.), who leads the congressional progressive caucus. “if you're trying to out republican republicans, people are like, ‘well, i've got that party. what do you stand for? what's the difference?’” jayapal and other progressives contend it was democrats’ attempts to tack to the center on national security and the economy   campaigning with liz cheney and courting wall street, for example   that left the party’s base uninspired and unmotivated to turn out. but others on the left have similar complaints about how democrats and allied groups handled abortion. they are critical of harris and most state ballot initiatives for promoting a return to roe v. wade’s standard of protecting abortion only to the point of fetal viability, around 22 weeks, rather than pushing for abortion to be legal at any point in pregnancy. “they moderated their messages and chose the message that would align closest to the middle,” said bonyen lee gilmore, the vice president of communications for the national institute of reproductive health. “but what we see in the data is that the progressive base wants a clean, simplified rights structure that removes government from pregnancy decisions, full stop.” lee gilmore agrees with timmaraju that the ballot initiatives gave voters a way to separate their concerns about abortion from who they wanted as president, and said the groups behind them should have done more to "connect the dots" for the general public. “it’s time to ask ourselves the hard question of, what role did we play in turning out the trump vote?” she said. “we went out and told people that passing ballot measures would protect them. … in a way, we gave republicans a way to absolve their sins.” many organizations did attempt to convince voters that ballot initiatives would prove flimsy if trump or a gop congress pursued federal abortion restrictions. but pollsters consistently found that concerns over the economy ranked higher than abortion. “more americans than not knew that there would be a significant deterioration of reproductive rights in america, and they chose that,” said nessel. “i don't know what else all of these other pro choice democrats up and down the ballot could have done to convey more strongly the importance of this issue. they did, but the voters just didn't care.” asked about their plans to counter the legislative, legal and regulatory blitz the anti abortion movement is planning to launch when trump takes office, abortion rights groups gave few specifics other than a pledge to play a watchdog role and highlight how republicans' behavior in office aligns   or doesn’t   with their campaign trail promises. “they know that abortion is popular and that they were on the wrong side of the issue,” said sarah standiford, the national campaigns director for planned parenthood action fund. “but what i need them to understand right now is that [we are] planned parenthood action fund is going to hold them accountable every day for the next four years.”

an official website of the united states government official websites use .gov a .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the united states. secure .gov websites use https a lock ( lock locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. primary site navigation logged in as: corresponding author: sherry l pagoto sherry.pagoto@uconn.edu corresponding author. received 2022 sep 9; revision requested 2022 nov 30; revised 2023 jan 16; accepted 2023 mar 8; collection date 2023. this is an open access article distributed under the terms of the creative commons attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the journal of medical internet research, is properly cited. the complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included. the world health organization (who) defines an infodemic as the proliferation of false or misleading information that leads to confusion, mistrust in health authorities, and the rejection of public health recommendations. the devastating impacts of an infodemic on public health were felt during the covid 19 pandemic. we are now on the precipice of another infodemic, this one regarding abortion. on june 24, 2022, the supreme court of the united states (scotus) decision in dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization resulted in the reversal of roe v. wade, which had protected a woman’s right to have an abortion for nearly 50 years. the reversal of roe v. wade has given way to an abortion infodemic that is being exacerbated by a confusing and rapidly changing legislative landscape, the proliferation of abortion disinformants on the web, lax efforts by social media companies to abate abortion misinformation, and proposed legislation that threatens to prohibit the distribution of evidence based abortion information. the abortion infodemic threatens to worsen the detrimental effects of the roe v. wade reversal on maternal morbidity and mortality. it also comes with unique barriers to traditional abatement efforts. in this piece, we lay out these challenges and urgently call for a public health research agenda on the abortion infodemic to stimulate the development of evidence based public health efforts to mitigate the impact of misinformation on the increased maternal morbidity and mortality that is expected to result from abortion restrictions, particularly among marginalized populations. keywords: abortion, reproductive health, misinformation, online, infodemic, misleading information, online health information, health authority, public health, abortion, women's health the world health organization (who) defines an infodemic as the proliferation of false or misleading information that leads to confusion, health risk behaviors, mistrust in health authorities, and the rejection of public health recommendations, all of which exacerbate a public health crisis [1]. false or misleading information can be classified as either misinformation or disinformation [2]. misinformation refers to information that is false and being shared by someone who believes it to be true, whereas disinformation is information that is false and being shared by someone who is aware that it is false but intends to deceive others. the covid 19 pandemic illuminated the catastrophic effects of an infodemic, perhaps more than any public health event that preceded it. we are now on the precipice of another infodemic, this one regarding abortion. approximately 20% of women in the united states have had an abortion [3]. on june 24, 2022, the supreme court of the united states (scotus) decision in dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization allowed a mississippi law that proposed to make abortion illegal after 15 weeks to stand, which effectively overturned roe v. wade [4], a 1973 scotus decision that affirmed the right to have an abortion under the 14th amendment [5]. with the reversal of roe v. wade, a perfect storm of factors is driving an abortion infodemic including a confusing and rapidly changing legislative landscape [6], the proliferation of abortion disinformants [7], lax efforts by internet and social media companies to abate abortion misinformation [8], proposed legislation and policies that prohibit the provision of accurate information about abortion [9 13], and deep stigma around publicly discussing abortion felt by both patients and providers [14]. the abortion infodemic threatens to exacerbate the detrimental effects that are expected following the roe v. wade reversal on maternal morbidity and mortality [15]. specifically, a recent study estimated that eliminating abortion for 1 year would increase maternal mortality by 24% overall and 39% for black women, simply because pregnancy has a higher fatality rate than abortion [16], for which death is extremely rare [17]. abortion restrictions increase maternal morbidity and mortality by forcing women to carry out pregnancies that pose risks to their health, forcing patients with cancer to delay cancer care until after pregnancy [18], and restricting how physicians can treat miscarriages [19]. because pregnancy poses serious morbidity and mortality risks, the dual rights to bodily autonomy and medically accurate information are paramount to protect pregnant patients who must weigh their personal risk in the decision to carry out a pregnancy. infodemics, by producing a high volume of misinformation that travels quickly on the internet and social media, obstruct a patient’s ability to find medically accurate information to inform their health care decisions, and this can have dire consequences. in the case of abortion, patients may conduct a self managed abortion based on misinformation on the internet about “home remedy” abortions (eg, using insect repellent or illicit drugs) [20]. misinformation about abortion can also exacerbate maternal mortality when it influences policy makers who then use it to justify abortion bans, given that the bans themselves are expected to increase the national maternal mortality rate. for example, ohio legislators, operating on misinformation, put forth a bill that would prohibit physicians from terminating ectopic pregnancies but instead requiring them to “reimplant” the embryo in the uterus, which is medically impossible [21]. accessible and accurate information about abortion is essential for patients, policy makers, and the general public. in this piece, we urgently call for a public health research agenda on the abortion infodemic to (1) stimulate the development of evidence based public health efforts to mitigate the negative impacts of misinformation on patients, health care providers, and policy makers; (2) build better systems for providing medically accurate information to pregnant patients to inform their health care decisions; and (3) educate the public on the consequences of abortion bans on maternal morbidity and mortality [22]. abortion misinformation is not new. for decades, it has proliferated, often for the purpose of fueling the antiabortion agenda [23]. a 2014 study of “crisis pregnancy center” websites found that 80% contained misinformation, typically perpetuating myths about abortion related health risks [24]. a subsequent study of the top 5 web pages on abortion medication produced by google searches found that most contained similar types of misinformation [25]. specifically, top web pages stated that abortion medication can cause mental illness, negatively impact infertility, and increase risk for mortality. misinformation affects individuals regardless of their stance on abortion. one survey found that 67% of respondents identifying as “pro choice” and 88% of respondents identifying as “pro life” said that giving birth is safer or just as safe as getting an abortion [26]. in fact, childbirth has a mortality rate that is 50  to 130 fold greater than that of abortion [27]. research is needed to classify the types of misinformation circulating on the web and on social media specifically and the impact of misinformation exposure on health care decisions. the reversal of roe v. wade was immediately followed by a steep spike in web based searches for information about abortion, which, combined with the finding that top google hits for abortion medication are for websites that contain misinformation [25], means reproductive health misinformation is highly accessible an indicator of an infodemic. for instance, 72 hours after the scotus draft opinion leak on dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization in june 2022, medication abortion google searches were 162% higher than typical for this time frame and were especially high in states with restrictive abortion laws [28]. people who have the least access to abortion are the most likely to encounter medical misinformation, and this could lead to delayed or inappropriate care, which has implications for maternal morbidity and mortality [29]. since the reversal of roe v. wade, popular press outlets have reported on social media trends promoting the use of dangerous or ineffective abortion procedures including herbs, exercise, home vacuum aspirations, insect repellent, essential oils, illicit drugs, alcohol, birth control pills, self injury, caffeine pills, and vitamin c [20,30]. misinformation also abounds about abortion causing fetal pain [31], infertility, death, life threatening complications, and mental illness [32]. further, modern misinformants perpetuate dangerous antiquated myths that abortion is never used to save a pregnant person’s life; that abortions can be reversed [33]; that infants are born alive during abortions [34]; and that abortion is promoted for human sacrifice, eugenics, or to further a scientific agenda [31]. abortion misinformation in spanish targeting latinas has also been observed recently, including messaging that advises women that abortion is illegal in places where it is legal [35,36]. at present, there are no coordinated efforts to document or combat abortion misinformation. the abortion infodemic has several unique challenges relative to other infodemics, and these have serious implications for public health efforts. one such challenge is that providing medically accurate abortion information in states with vigilante laws such as texas and oklahoma may subject one to litigation if authorities consider communications to have “aided or abetted” an abortion [37]. going further, south carolina legislators proposed a bill that would outlaw the provision of information about how to obtain an abortion via websites or telephone [38]. in mississippi, the attorney general subpoenaed a health education nonprofit organization that put up billboards pointing women to a website about abortion medication [39]. all of these efforts to stifle information are consistent with the national right to life committee blueprint, which recommends outlawing “giving instructions over the telephone, internet, or any other medium” or “hosting or maintaining a website, or providing internet service, that encourages or facilitates” abortion [13]. given efforts to punish the provision of accurate health information regarding abortion, common approaches to mitigating misinformation established during the pandemic, including leveraging health care providers, community leaders, and public health campaigns [40], may entail legal risks or at the very least intimidate individuals from engaging in such efforts. a second challenge to addressing the abortion infodemic is that health care providers may be reticent to educate patients and the public about abortion, fearing personal and professional repercussions. indeed, outspoken physicians have become targets for harassment [41], as has also been the case in the covid 19 pandemic [42], but even worse, physicians providing abortion have been murdered by abortion opponents [43]. these chilling events can have a silencing effect among health care providers, which may reduce the amount of medically accurate information they are willing to share with patients or on the internet. a third unique challenge of the abortion infodemic is how misinformation not only affects the public but also health care professionals and administrators to the extent that abortion legislation is vaguely written and left open to interpretation [27]. confusion is a key ingredient of infodemics. the texas medical association reported that some hospitals are requiring physicians to turn away pregnant patients with complications due to the fear of litigation in the event that complications are considered to have not met the unclear legal threshold for “life threatening” [44]. to the extent that physicians, fearing litigation, err on the side of withholding or delaying care, the deleterious effects of abortion restrictions on maternal morbidity and mortality will be compounded [15]. relatedly, a fourth challenge is that medical training in abortion is constrained in states with severe abortion restrictions [45]. this may result in a workforce that lacks skills and knowledge in early pregnancy management. in fact, nearly half of obstetrics and gynecology residents are currently in states that have banned or severely restricted abortion care, which means that a substantial proportion of the workforce may lack appropriate training and experience to provide the highest quality of care to patients for whom a pregnancy must be terminated [46]. health care providers are a trusted source of health information for many people [47]; however, to the extent that medical training is compromised by abortion restrictions, health care providers may then be compromised in their ability to provide medically accurate information and health care, and this in turn may impact patient trust. a troubling paucity of research exists about abortion misinformation as evidenced by a 2021 review of the literature that identified only 9 studies [23]. in 2020, the who responded to the covid 19 infodemic by developing a framework for health authorities on managing the infodemic, facilitating an international agreement to improve access to accurate covid 19 information signed by 132 countries, and providing guidelines for a public health research agenda that included trainings and conferences [1]. the abortion infodemic requires similar efforts in the united states, including partnerships with other nations facing attacks on reproductive rights and poor access to accurate information regarding maternal health broadly. such a research agenda will require transdisciplinary teams to address the following priorities: surveillance, impacts and health outcomes, health communication interventions, contextual factors influencing intervention efficacy, and preventive measures. specifically, epidemiology and information science research is needed to measure and track the spread and uptake of accurate and inaccurate information in both digital and physical environments, including the identification of sources of misinformation and disinformation (eg, policy briefs and crisis pregnancy centers); messaging content and strategies; the crossover of misinformation between digital and physical environments; and the association between exposure to misinformation and access to accurate health information, abortion policy, health inequities, and maternal outcomes. social science and health communication research is needed to understand how different types of and exposures to misinformation and accurate information impact attitudes, beliefs, behavior, and health outcomes. public health and behavioral science research is needed to develop and test interventions that prebunk or debunk misinformation, propagate accurate abortion information, increase health and media literacy, and better prepare people to navigate the information ecosystem. additionally, systems  and policy related research is needed to identify socioecological factors that moderate intervention efficacy, including individual , community  and policy level barriers to intervention implementation. such research could inform the development of a more functional and resilient information ecosystem that is robust to legislation that attempts to curb information sharing. research is also needed to determine how to support and equip health care providers with accurate information about abortion legislation in their state and how to effectively treat and counsel their patients within the confines of state laws. generally, research is needed to develop a better understanding of the nature of the abortion infodemic, its contributing factors, and the efficacy of mitigation and resilience strategies. regardless of one’s view on abortion, the provision of medically accurate information is a basic human right, as underscored by the who [48]. given the fast evolving legislative landscape around the united states, the information ecosystem is also likely to be fast evolving, and social media platforms will accelerate the spread of misinformation if they fail to take appropriate action. we have learned from the covid 19 pandemic that a coordinated research agenda is necessary when public health issues become politically charged and accompanied by a confusing information landscape. such a research agenda must be supported via federal funding mechanisms that enable researchers to be agile in studying and effectively addressing evolving misinformation ecosystems. importantly, research on the abortion infodemic is needed to inform policy, establish public health efforts that educate pregnant people on how to obtain safe reproductive care, maximize quality of reproductive care, and reduce health inequities in maternal outcomes. marginalized communities may be the most negatively impacted by an abortion infodemic because they have higher rates of abortion [49,50], greater barriers to care [51,52], lower health literacy [53], less access to evidence based health information [54], and less trust in health care providers resulting from a long legacy of systemic racism in health care [55]. the high us maternal mortality rate, for black women in particular, is a known long standing failure of the us health care system [22]. without a data driven approach to solutions, the abortion infodemic will exacerbate the impact of the roe v. wade reversal on maternal outcomes and health inequities for years to come. supreme court of the united states world health organization conflicts of interest: none declared. articles from journal of medical internet research are provided here courtesy of jmir publications inc. connect with nlm national library of medicine 8600 rockville pike bethesda, md 20894

manage your account when her mail in ballot arrived earlier this month, emily jones couldn’t wait to vote to enshrine abortion rights in arizona’s state constitution   and to fight back against the supreme court decision that overturned roe v. wade. to the 27 year old mother from arizona’s san tan valley, the issue was personal: an abortion probably saved her life after she was diagnosed a few years ago with an ectopic pregnancy, she said. the 2022 abortion ruling terrified her, she said, taking women “10 steps back.” an independent with a history of voting for mostly republican candidates, jones said she knew vice president kamala harris has been trying to use the abortion issue to win over women like her in the presidential election. but while she’d seen dozens of harris’s abortion related ads, they hadn’t swayed her. so on the same ballot where she voted to protect abortion rights, she also voted for donald trump. with beyoncé studded rallies and harrowing ads about post roe pregnancy complications, harris has intensified her efforts to tie her candidacy to the fight for abortion access   hoping to tap into the momentum that drove voters across the country, even in conservative ohio, kansas and kentucky to back abortion rights when the issue appeared on their ballot in the years since roe was overturned. on saturday, michelle obama appealed to women who might be considering casting a different vote from their husbands and boyfriends. “your vote is a private matter,” she said. “regardless of the political views of your partner.” but though polls continue to show sizable support in both parties when people are asked whether they support an abortion rights referendum, the question of whether harris can persuade independents and moderate republicans who support abortion rights to vote for her is less clear   and could be critical to the outcome of the election. while an washington post schar school poll conducted in october found that 68 percent of voters in arizona and 80 percent of voters in nevada say they planned to support their state’s abortion referendum, the same poll showed harris narrowly behind trump in arizona and tied in nevada. harris’s support among likely voters in the poll was 46 percent in arizona to trump’s 49 percent, and they both had 48 percent support in nevada. meanwhile, trump   who has claimed credit for roe’s reversal   has been working to assuage the concerns of independent and republican voters who support abortion rights. in recent weeks, the former president has promised to veto a national abortion ban, after repeatedly refusing to make such a pledge. while he has maintained that each state should choose its own abortion laws, he said in a recent town hall geared toward women voters that many of the current bans are “too tough.” republican and independent voters who plan to split their ticket on abortion   voting for an abortion referendum and for trump   said they were willing to give trump the benefit of the doubt on the issue, with some feeling reassured by his recent promises not to crack down further on abortion. despite trump’s decision to appoint the three conservative supreme court justices who helped revoke the constitutional right to abortion, a few voters said they believe trump is secretly “pro choice.” “it bothers me a little bit,” jones said when asked about trump taking credit for the fall of roe. but in her view, she said, trump just wants to stop abortions from occurring in the third trimester of pregnancy   a position he has emphasized frequently in debates and on the campaign trail. “i don’t think he did it to hurt the women,” jones added. “i think deep down he has good intentions.” roe only protected the right to abortion through the point when a fetus could become viable, or about 24 weeks, before the third trimester begins. abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy are extremely rare, and they typically only occur when there is a severe fetal anomaly or when a mother’s health is at risk. the harris campaign believes she can make significant inroads with independent and republican leaning women by emphasizing the dangers a second trump term could pose for abortion rights, said molly murphy, a pollster with the campaign. in the last few weeks, harris has appeared at a number of events designed to target that group, murphy said, including several town halls with former republican congresswoman liz cheney, who, when speaking to harris, denounced the “fundamentally dangerous things that have happened” in post roe america. still, murphy said, the campaign is “clear eyed” about the difficulty of winning over republican women. while they’re certainly hoping to peel off some former trump voters with the abortion issue, she said, they are more squarely focused on women voters she described as “in the middle,” who don’t like either candidate. the difficulty with women who have voted for trump in the past, she said, is that they’re more inclined to trust what he says   to believe, for example, that he would veto a national abortion ban. “when he gives his assurances, he then has credibility because they’re conservative and republican leaning,” murphy said. “but that doesn’t mean we can’t win them over.” across the seven battleground states, 45 percent of trump supporters say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a recent post schar school poll. polls show majorities of democrats and independents and at least 4 in 10 republicans back the abortion rights referendums. for many of the trump voters who also support abortion rights, abortion is simply not one of their top issues, said tresa undem, an independent pollster who studies opinions on abortion. while they would like to see abortion rights protected   and will vote to expand protections if given the chance to vote on the issue directly   they are more invested in the economy or immigration, she said. others who care deeply about abortion rights don’t believe trump will impose further restrictions on abortion. in a new york times/siena poll conducted in september, 22 percent of trump supporters said they thought trump would try to pass a national abortion ban, compared with 79 percent of harris supporters. “i think it’s breaking through,” undem said, referring to trump’s attempts to reassure voters who support abortion rights. “i think there are people who think, ‘oh, he’s done what he wanted to do on abortion.’ i don’t think democrats buy that for one second, but i think republicans do.” raymond fillion, a 60 year old republican from tucson, will be voting for arizona’s abortion rights referendum, which protects abortion until the point of viability. but he said the issue ranks “super far down the list” for him when deciding whom to vote for in the presidential race, mostly because he believes the important decisions now lie squarely in the states. “there’s nothing more the executive branch can do,” said fillion, a military veteran who works in bomb disposal. “he’s already said he won’t sign a national ban.” trump could upend abortion access without a national ban through executive action, by cracking down on abortion pills   a plan outlined in project 2025, a controversial 900 page plan for the next republican administration that trump has disavowed, though it was written by his allies. for one 63 year old republican woman in phoenix, the question of how abortion should affect her vote for president recently led to a heated two hour discussion with her daughter. janice albert and her daughter michelle both feel strongly about abortion rights. michelle albert, a left leaning independent who is voting for harris, couldn’t understand how her mother could back the man who has taken credit for the dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization decision. “i just can’t believe you would even consider it,” michelle, 33, recalled telling janice on a phone call. “that really breaks my heart.” janice told her daughter that trump said he wouldn’t impose national restrictions, both women recalled. “i don’t trust that,” said michelle. in an interview with the post, janice albert said trump and his running mate, sen. jd vance of ohio, have assuaged her concerns about the abortion issue. she appreciated how vance   who had previously said he wants abortion to be illegal nationwide   talked about the issue during the vice presidential debate, emphasizing the importance of “earning the american people’s trust back on this issue.” vance spoke about an anonymous friend in an abusive relationship who told him how grateful she was that she had been able to have an abortion, seeming to imply that he supported her decision to terminate her pregnancy. “i thought it was great that he admitted that he has changed his view, and i respect that,” janice said. “that gives me hope.” she said she is doing what she can to protect abortion access by voting for arizona’s abortion rights referendum. abortion referendums can drive turnout for democratic candidates, said sarah longwell, an anti trump republican strategist who runs regular focus groups with voters. but, she added, they can also provide a convenient “off ramp” for republican and republican leaning voters like janice albert who care about abortion rights. “it’s a way to get to vote narrowly on one issue, and gives you the ability to say, ‘i took that issue that matters to me off the table, now i can vote for … trump,’” longwell said. on the abortion issue, longwell said, trump benefits from one of his greatest “superpowers”: that people perceive him as a social moderate   even if his statements and actions are not moderate at all. in the focus groups she has run ahead of the presidential election, she said, people often say that they think trump is not “pro life,” sometimes joking that he’s “probably paid for an abortion.” (asked in 2016 whether he’d ever been involved with anyone who’d had an abortion, trump said, “such an interesting question” and moved on.) the general sense that trump is actually not opposed to abortion may work to his benefit with independent and republican leaning women, longwell said. in arizona’s san tan valley, jones and her husband have decided that they don’t want to have any more children. her previous pregnancies, she said, presented too much of a risk to her health. “i don’t think my body could physically do it again,” she said. if she does get pregnant, she said, she wants the option to have an abortion. jones has decided to believe that, if elected, trump will keep that option open for her. “i don’t think he’ll actually outright ban it,” she said. “i think he’s learned.”       emily guskin and dan keating contributed to this report. related content lies, intrigue, lawsuits: the last battle for a ‘cursed’ giant emerald donald trump fixates on harris aide ian sams, who goads him on fox news

file   neil gaiman arrives at the art of elysium heaven gala on jan. 6, 2024, at the wiltern theater in los angeles. madison, wis. (ap)   a woman from new zealand has filed three civil lawsuits accusing best selling british author neil gaiman of repeatedly sexually assaulting her while she was working as his family's babysitter and nanny. scarlett pavlovich filed the lawsuits   one against gaiman and his wife, amanda palmer, and two more against palmer   in federal court in wisconsin, massachusetts and new york on monday. the associated press doesn’t identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they publicly identify themselves. pavlovich identified herself in an interview with new york magazine, which published an article in january detailing allegations of assault, abuse and coercion leveled by eight women. pavlovich alleges in the lawsuits that she was homeless and living on a beach when she met palmer in auckland, new zealand, in 2020. pavlovich was 22 years old at the time. according to the lawsuits, palmer invited pavlovich to the couple's home on waiheke island. pavlovich began running errands for the couple, babysitting their son and helping with chores, eventually becoming the couple's nanny. gaiman first sexually assaulted her the night they met in february 2022, according to the lawsuits. the assaults continued but she kept working for the couple because she was broke and homeless and gaiman had told her he would help her writing career, according to the lawsuits. when she told palmer about the assaults, palmer told her that more than a dozen women had told her in the past that gaiman had sexually abused them, according to the lawsuits. the assaults didn't stop until pavlovich told palmer she was going to kill herself, the lawsuits said. she left the family and became homeless again, although the documents say gaiman eventually paid her for her work caring for the couple's child and helped cover her rent for a few months. palmer knew of gaiman's sexual desires and presented pavalovich to him knowing he would assault her, according the lawsuits. pavlovich alleges gaiman and palmer violated federal human trafficking prohibitions and seeks at least $7 million in damages. after the new york magazine article was published, gaiman released a statement in january denying he had ever engaged in non consensual sex. the allegations of four of the women were previously broadcast in july in a tortoise media podcast. “i’m far from a perfect person, but i have never engaged in non consensual sexual activity with anyone. ever,” gaiman posted on the social media platform tumblr. representatives for gaiman and palmer did not immediately respond to requests for comment monday and online court records did not list attorneys representing them in the suits. pavlovich’s attorneys stated in the filings that gaiman, author of such bestsellers as “coraline” and “the sandman” series, is a resident of menomonie, wisconsin. but they’re unsure if palmer resides in massachusetts or new york. pavlovich told new york magazine that she filed a police report in january 2023 accusing gaiman of sexual assault. police have not confirmed whether gaiman was ever under investigation. gaiman has worked with numerous publishers over the years. two of them, harpercollins and w.w. norton, have said they have no plans to release his books in the future. others, including bloomsbury, have so far declined comment. dark horse comics announced in january that it would no longer release its illustrated series based on gaiman's novel, “anansi boys.” the seventh of eight editions was released earlier that month. disney has paused a planned adaptation of gaiman’s “the graveyard book,” while netflix is still scheduled to release a second season based on “the sandman.” this story was first published on feb. 3, 2025. it was updated on feb. 4, 2025, to correct the number of lawsuits a woman filed against author neil gaiman and his wife, amanda palmer. she filed one lawsuit naming gaiman and palmer as defendants. she filed two additional lawsuits naming palmer as a defendant. copyright 2025 the associated press. all rights reserved. this material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission. get local news delivered to your inbox! a new television attack ad in wisconsin’s hotly contested supreme court race features a doctored image of the liberal candidate, a move that h… leaders of dozens of head start preschools said they might need to close temporarily because they remain locked out of their federal funding, … democrats have elected ken martin, the party leader in minnesota, to lead the national party. they're turning to a low profile midwestern poli… a wisconsin couple is suing walgreens and a pharmacy benefits company alleging their son died because he couldn't afford a sudden $500 jump in… openai is scouring the u.s. for sites to build a network of huge data centers to power its artificial intelligence technology, expanding beyon… file   neil gaiman arrives at the art of elysium heaven gala on jan. 6, 2024, at the wiltern theater in los angeles. get up to the minute news sent straight to your device. sorry, an error occurred. cancel anytime account processing issue   the email address may already exist sign up with thank you . your account has been registered, and you are now logged in. check your email for details. invalid password or account does not exist sign in with submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password. an email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account. no promotional rates found. secure & encrypted secure transaction. secure transaction. cancel anytime. thank you. your gift purchase was successful! your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in. a receipt was sent to your email.

for premium support please call: for premium support please call: two years ago, kari lake appeared to be on an unstoppable path to becoming the governor of arizona. now she's a heavy underdog to rep. ruben gallego in a state where trump and harris are tied. democrats are confident they'll win. and political insiders say lake did this to herself. as a group of rep. ruben gallego's supporters gathered at a bar in downtown phoenix last wednesday to watch his senate debate with kari lake, the sense of confidence in the room was palpable, if unusual for a democratic campaign in a historically conservative state like arizona. "i think he's going to carry this with no problem," said democratic state rep. patty contreras. "i don't think she stands a chance." that wasn't the assessment made by contreras, or most other arizona democrats, when lake made her political debut three years ago as a gubernatorial candidate. combative yet charismatic, lake was quickly recognized as the most skilled purveyor of trumpism aside from the former president himself. she wasn't simply imitating donald trump but refashioning his political style to fit her own profile as a well known local tv anchor. it didn't hurt that her opponent was then secretary of state katie hobbs, who even democrats will admit is a less than stellar campaigner. "she was a fresh face, she was well spoken," contreras said of lake, adding that hobbs "sometimes is not as articulate as we would like her to be." lake was widely expected to win that year, and democrats regarded her with fear. but then she lost, albeit by just two thirds of a percentage point. in the intervening years, as she's traveled the country as one of the maga movement's biggest celebrities, she has expended the bulk of her political oxygen insisting that the election was stolen from her. the consensus that emerged from interviews here with not just arizona's political experts but even republicans who plan to vote for her is that lake gradually dug her own political grave by doing so. "don't tell me that you're angry about the last election," said rep. david schweikert, a republican who represents a scottsdale area swing district, adding that voters "don't care" about the "resentments" that lake and other candidates are campaigning on. with sen. kyrsten sinema out of the picture and lake flailing, gallego has had the space to run a successful version of the campaign that vice president kamala harris has sought to wage at the presidential level, where a lawmaker who once wore progressivism on their sleeve has triangulated toward the center in the face of trumpist opposition. a large chunk of the state's more traditional republicans continue to feel alienated by lake's denigration of the late sen. john mccain and his supporters during her 2022 campaign. that's allowed gallego to court republicans like julie spilsbury, a city councilor in mesa who's backing the democratic congressman even as she acknowledges that he's been "pretty far left" throughout his career. "i've seen a willingness to moderate," spilsbury told a small group of reporters at a "republicans for harris" event in mesa last week, adding that harris and gallego were "big tent democrats that say, 'we want you,'" while "the republicans are saying, 'get the hell out of our party.'" the situation is all the more remarkable given that political headwinds in arizona   a state disproportionally affected by both inflation and the border crisis   have been blowing rightward. while trump and harris remain locked in a dead heat race for the state's 11 electoral votes, gallego boasts a polling lead over lake that's outside the state's margin of error. lake's campaign did not respond to a request for comment for this story. but at a press conference last week, she told reporters that she had "zero faith in the public polling" of her race and insisted that her own internal polls showed a tight race. "these polls are meant to take the oxygen out of our movement," lake argued. "they're meant to keep donors away." lake remains a skilled politician, a fact that was apparent during last week's debate, where she smoothly lobbed attacks at gallego as he occasionally tripped over his words. but the congressman's supporters remained relaxed throughout the event, breaking into laughter when lake professed a desire to put "country over party" or erroneously referred to in vitro fertilization as "uvf." someone needs to tell kari lake it's actually "ivf" and not "uvf."she would know that if she actually supported ivf. #azsen pic.twitter.com/svjpkcfwp4   american bridge 21st century (@american_bridge) october 10, 2024 "she was certainly a juggernaut when she ran for governor," said kirk adams, a republican who was gov. doug ducey's chief of staff and once served as the speaker of the arizona house. but today, adams argued, she's primarily defined by her status as a political loser. "if you were to ask people, 'what do you know about kari lake?', there are likely two things that they will tell you: she was a news anchor for a very long time, and she thinks that the 2022 election was stolen from her." it's a facet of lake's candidacy that rankles even her supporters. maryjane carsten, a 71 year old republican retiree who lives in oracle, said she felt like she was "voting for the best of the worst" in the senate race. "i like that she's a conservative," carsten said as she made her way into sen. jd vance's rally in tucson on wednesday. "but she just would not let that election go. she just won't let stuff go. she needs to." compounding that issue is lake's unclear positioning on abortion. like many republicans, she has pledged not to support a national abortion ban, though she told reporters last week that she voted against a ballot measure to expand abortion rights in arizona. she's also expressed conflicting views on a near total abortion ban that almost took effect in the state this year, expressing opposition only to later bemoan that it wasn't being enforced. "she's lost credibility with a giant portion of the electorate, which, at the beginning of that game, could have been hers," said chuck coughlin, a former gop political strategist in arizona who's backing gallego. of course, trump has also refused to concede his last election and has offered conflicting views on abortion. but while a lake win at this point would be an upset, that's not the case for trump. the difference between the candidates may come down to the fact that the former president is, well, a former president who has a mostly positive economic record to run on. "the donald trump playbook only really works for one person, and that's donald trump," said barrett marson, a republican political strategist in arizona. mike noble, the founder and ceo of the arizona polling firm noble predictive insights, said his polling had found that voters, including republicans, simply viewed lake differently. "she does have all the baggage trump has," noble said, "but she doesn't have any of the positives, the policy wins and things like that." the election is just over three weeks away, and lake is hobbling toward the finish line. she trails gallego in public polling by an average of 7 percentage points, and she's consistently struggled to keep up with the democratic congressman's fundraising machine. early this month, gallego's campaign said he had raised more than $50 million since he entered the race, with $21.7 million of that sum coming in since july. lake's campaign has declined to release her latest fundraising figures, suggesting they're lackluster. deep pocketed national gop groups have also largely avoided the race as they've plunged tens of millions of dollars into more promising targets. senate leadership fund, a super pac tied to senate minority leader mitch mcconnell, hasn't spent a dime in arizona this year. "normally, these things are more competitive," noble said. "this senate race should be more competitive." read the original article on business insider
the groups say they are increasingly confused and frustrated by how major technology platforms moderate posts about abortion services. last year ashley garcia made two videos promoting hey jane, a telemedicine abortion service. “we shouldn’t have to censor ourselves,” she said. credit...ariana drehsler for the new york times supported by by emily schmall and sapna maheshwari tiktok has briefly suspended the account of hey jane, a prominent telemedicine abortion service, four times without explanation. instagram has suspended mayday health, a nonprofit that provides information about abortion pill access, without explanation as well. and the search engine bing has erroneously flagged the website for aid access, a major seller of abortion pills online, as unsafe. the groups and women’s health advocates say these examples, all from recent months, show why they are increasingly confused and frustrated by how major technology platforms moderate posts about abortion services. they say the companies’ policies on abortion related content, including advertisements, have long been opaque. but they say the platforms seem to have been more aggressive about removing or suppressing posts that share information about how to obtain safe and legal procedures since the supreme court ended the constitutional right to abortion in 2022. and when the platforms do restrict the accounts, the companies can be difficult to contact to learn why. susan b. anthony pro life america, an organization dedicated to abolishing abortion, said big technology companies had routinely limited its and other groups’ pro life speech, suspending accounts and blocking ads with little explanation. “transparency is the main point,” said jane eklund, a fellow at the human rights group amnesty international usa, which released a report on tuesday calling on tech giants to clearly outline and explain their rules around abortion related content. “without clear guidelines, it’s difficult to hold them accountable for their actions that could be impacting users or to identify and address any content moderation that affects what people can find online.” concerns that some of the tech platforms are suppressing posts about abortion have led to changes in how women and organizations talk about it online. they intentionally misspell the term as “aborshun” or “ab0rti0n,” or replace the “bor” with a boar emoji in hopes of reaching more people.

 in looking for transparency, abortion groups and women's health advocates say they've noticed an uptick in the number of posts and accounts deleted or flagged from sites since roe v. wade was overturned. a pro life group says it has encountered similar issues. the new york times: abortion groups say tech companies suppress posts and accounts tiktok has briefly suspended the account of hey jane, a prominent telemedicine abortion service, four times without explanation. instagram has suspended mayday health, a nonprofit that provides information about abortion pill access, without explanation as well. and the search engine bing has erroneously flagged the website for aid access, a major seller of abortion pills online, as unsafe.