🗣️ Project 2025 would strip away access to free emergency contraception for 48 million women

Two years after Dobbs, another far-right attempt to undermine women’s bodily autonomy Problems viewing this email? [View it in your browser]( [Center for American Progress]( InProgress from the Center for American Progress To make sure you never miss an email from us, please add progress@americanprogress.org to your contacts or safe senders list. Thanks for staying connected with us! How many women in your state would lose guaranteed access to no-cost emergency contraception? [The emergency contraception pill Ella sits on a white surface, August 2012. (Getty/BSIP/UIG)]( Photo credit: Getty Images For more than a decade, [most Americans]( have been able to access emergency contraception and other preventive health services at no cost. This guaranteed coverage has been a [lifeline]( for millions of women. But [extremists]( want to restrict women’s access to emergency contraception—limiting their right to control their own futures. In “[Project 2025: A Presidential Transition Project,]( far-right extremists outline their intent to exclude some forms of emergency contraception from no-cost coverage. The Affordable Care Act [requires]( most private health insurance plans to provide no-cost coverage—without copayment, coinsurance, or deductible—for [recommended preventive services](. This benefit includes the full range of [U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved]( birth control methods and counseling, including [emergency contraception](. Rescinding no-cost coverage could have lifelong consequences for women nationwide. A new Center for American Progress [analysis]( estimates that if Project 2025 were enacted, nearly 48 million women of reproductive age would lose their guaranteed no-cost access to some forms of emergency contraception. Use our online tool to see how many women in your state would lose no-cost coverage for some emergency contraception under Project 2025. [Select your state]( STATEMENT: Supreme Court Preserves Sensible Gun Violence Law To Protect Domestic Violence Survivors While Upholding New Legal Test Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a law prohibiting people with domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms remains constitutional. In response, [Sabrina Talukder]( director of the Women’s Initiative at the Center for American Progress, issued the following statement: This ruling upholds an effective and sensible gun violence prevention policy that has kept domestic violence survivors safe for more than 27 years. But survivors should never have been put in this unconscionable position in the first place. By potentially upending sensible gun laws due to an arbitrary new test, the justices opened the door for overturning other similar laws that have protected women for decades. However, this test is still valid, meaning that this case should serve as a cautionary tale: Women will disproportionately suffer when the judiciary replaces legal precedent with personal politics. [STATEMENT FROM JUNE 21, 2024]( Two years since Dobbs [abortion access driving time by congressional district AFTER Dobbs with a map of the U.S. colored by distance to drive to abortion care]( [SHARE THIS]( June 24 marks the second anniversary of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, marking two years since the Supreme Court's extreme right-wing majority reversed Roe v. Wade. Obtaining an abortion has become increasingly challenging, with drive times [increasing by 300 percent]( for women since Dobbs, as extremist legislators and anti-abortion advocates fuel the [politicization of the judiciary]( and undermine women’s reproductive health and personal freedoms. Now, more than 1 in every 3 women in the country who are of reproductive age live in states that have enacted draconian [abortion bans]( at six weeks of pregnancy or less. The latest state to make abortion care virtually inaccessible is Florida, which enacted a six-week abortion ban on May 1. This was devastating for residents of Florida as well as surrounding states; the ban essentially removed the last remaining point of access to abortion care for women in the South. Because of this, women in the state and its neighbors need to drive hours, and in some cases days, to obtain an abortion: - Florida: driving times ⬆️ by 2,391 percent since Dobbs—an additional eight hours and 46 minutes - Louisiana: driving times ⬆️ by 875 percent since Dobbs—an additional eight hours and 10 minutes - Texas: driving times ⬆️ by 869 percent since Dobbs—an additional six hours and 31 minutes - Alabama: driving times ⬆️ by 798 percent since Dobbs—an additional five hours and 27 minutes - Georgia: driving times ⬆️ by 523 percent since Dobbs—an additional three hours and 24 minutes This decision also affects women unevenly based on their race and ethnicity. The Florida abortion ban will disproportionately affect Hispanic women given the state’s demographic makeup. For example, in FL-27 and FL-28, about 2 in 3 women of reproductive age are Hispanic, and in FL-19, nearly 1 in 4 are. Continued attacks on abortion access will harm the women who can least afford to travel out of state to obtain health care. It is critical to [expand and protect abortion access](. [Keep Reading]( 🚨 Add your name to our petition and help preserve the right to affordable, accessible abortion care: [Sign Your Name]( NEW REPORT: U.S. agencies can address the risks of AI using existing authorities [Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange during morning trading on October 4, 2023, in New York City. (Getty/Michael M. Santiago)]( Photo credit: Getty Images In response to the surge of attention, excitement, and fear surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) developments since the release of OpenAI’s ChatGPT in November 2022, governments worldwide have rushed to address the risks and opportunities of AI. In the United States, policymakers have sharply [disagreed]( about the necessity and scope of potential new AI legislation. But many government officials, advocates, academics, and companies agree that it is essential for policymakers to utilize existing laws to address the risks and opportunities of AI where possible, especially in the absence of congressional action. Since taking office, the Biden administration has taken critical strides to prepare the federal government for the potential proliferation of AI, including its 2023 executive order on AI and subsequent guidance on how federal agencies should use AI. But what comes next? In a new, joint [report]( CAP and Governing for Impact (GFI) outline key recommendations for multiple U.S. government agencies, including the White House and U.S. Department of Labor, to consider when looking to regulate AI with existing authorities. Rather than outline a definitive executive action agenda, the report presents more than 80 recommendations that could be undertaken today. Review CAP and GFI’s menu of existing authorities and their applicable recommendations for AI regulation: [read more]( On Tuesday, June 18, GFI and CAP cohosted an event to dive into this [new report]( and discuss how agencies can deploy existing statutory authorities to take further action on AI. Watch the full event recording with featured speakers Dr. Alondra Nelson and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Rohit Chopra: [Watch Now]( Federal investments in action [Biden Administration Investment Tracker]( Explore the [Biden Administration Investment Tracker]( to see the impacts of the administration’s legislation—including new jobs, better infrastructure, and more. [Explore the Tracker]( [Stay Up to Date with the Latest Projects]( Follow us on [Follow us on Twitter]( [Follow us on Facebook]( [Follow us on YouTube]( [Follow us on Instagram]( [Support CAP]( [Manage Email Preferences or Unsubscribe]( [Privacy Policy]( [Center for American Progress]( Center for American Progress 1333 H Street NW Washington, D.C. 20005 [supporter]