Guttmacher Institute - Center facts. Shape policy. Advance sexual and reproductive rights.

New Guttmacher Analysis Shows that as Access to Telehealth Abortion Increased, Inter-State Travel for Abortion Decreased

imarte — Thu, 22 Oct 2026 18:50:44 +0000

New Guttmacher Analysis Shows that as Access to Telehealth Abortion Increased, Inter-State Travel for Abortion Decreased October 22, 2026imarte October 22, 2026 News Release

Use link

When Need Outpaces Care: How Policy Choices Jeopardize Contraceptive Access

sramashwar — Tue, 20 Oct 2026 14:15:03 +0000

When Need Outpaces Care: How Policy Choices Jeopardize Contraceptive Access Policy Analysis sramashwar October 20, 2026 October 21, 2026

Exclude from search

Automatic Redirect

Off

Immigrants

mmartin — Thu, 15 Oct 2026 13:36:59 +0000

Immigrants mmartin October 15, 2026

State Constitutional and Statutory Rights to Contraception

sramashwar — Tue, 13 Oct 2026 17:06:17 +0000

State Constitutional and Statutory Rights to Contraception

State Laws and Policies

sramashwar October 13, 2026

Facebook Image

slap social@4x.png

Twitter Image

slap social@4x.png

Abortion Ballot Measures in 2026

sramashwar — Wed, 07 Oct 2026 18:13:15 +0000

Abortion Ballot Measures in 2026 sramashwar October 7, 2026

Exclude from search

Video Type

YouTube Short

Attacks on Immigrants Threaten Access to Sexual and Reproductive Health Care

sramashwar — Tue, 06 Oct 2026 14:06:47 +0000

Attacks on Immigrants Threaten Access to Sexual and Reproductive Health Care

The Trump administration’s militant anti-immigrant agenda has wreaked havoc in the United States immigration system, exacerbating challenges that immigrants have faced for decades by imposing and escalating a set of policies designed to intimidate and persecute them. These policies have disrupted and endangered people’s lives and the consequences have been deadly. They have also had profound negative impacts on the health of immigrants and their families, including on their sexual and reproductive health and well-being. Particularly harmful policies and practices include targeting immigrants at hospitals and other health care facilities, detaining and mistreating pregnant and postpartum people in ICE custody, and accessing personal health data for the purpose of immigration enforcement, as well as new restrictions on access to publicly funded health insurance coverage and care, including abortion and contraception.

The punitive and broken immigration system in the United States has ruined many lives and forced many to live in fear and in the shadows for decades. It is administered by a complex and often unaccountable web of agencies housed within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Rather than try to reform the system, the Trump administration has displayed open hostility to immigrant communities, aggressively profiling, detaining and deporting people without due process, often blatantly ignoring the rule of law and court orders, while holding immigrants in substandard facilities (including some outside the United States), where many have reported evidence of physical abuse, overcrowding and medical neglect. More than fifty people have died in immigration detention in the last 18 months. At the same time, the administration has, despite court challenges, terminated Temporary Protected Status protections for hundreds of thousands of people who fled to the United States from dangerous situations in Haiti, Venezuela, Syria, South Sudan and other countries.

As of June 2025, there were an estimated 51.9 million immigrants residing in the United States. These include naturalized citizens, lawful permanent residents and temporary lawful residents, as well as those who are “unauthorized” or “undocumented,” terms which can cover people living in the United States with a range of “impermanent, precarious statuses.” An analysis of 2023 Census data estimated that there were 14 million such unauthorized immigrants in the United States.^* Millions of households contain people with various citizenship and immigration statuses, with one in four children in the United States having at least one immigrant parent.

While US immigration policies have long had negative effects on the health and well-being of immigrants and their families, the scale and intensity of the administration’s anti-immigrant campaign has imposed new restrictions on immigrants’ bodily autonomy and access to health care. These policies have overlapping and compounding effects in immigrants’ lives, reducing their access to a wide range of public services and spaces while often prompting them to delay or avoid visits to health care facilities. Everyone, regardless of immigration status or income, deserves access to comprehensive health care, including sexual and reproductive health services, and the ability to make decisions about their bodies and families.

This fact sheet details some of the Trump administration’s policies and attacks on immigrants and the impact that has on their reproductive health and well-being.

ICE Enforcement at Hospitals and Health Care Facilities

The threat of immigration enforcement at hospitals and other health care facilities has been shown to have a “chilling effect” on immigrants and their families accessing health care services out of fear for themselves or their family members being arrested and deported.
In January 2025, the Trump administration rescinded guidance that had limited immigration enforcement at “sensitive locations” such as hospitals, at or near schools, places of worship, and courthouses. Agents are now permitted to enter public spaces, such as waiting rooms and lobbies, with a judicial warrant.
Since then, there have been increased reports of ICE agents showing up to engage in enforcement activities and detain immigrants at or near hospitals and clinics across the country.
Nearly half (48%) of likely undocumented immigrant adults and 14% of immigrant adults overall say they or a family member have avoided seeking medical care since January 2025 due to immigration-related concerns.
Additionally, one in five pregnant women in an online survey reported that ICE activity has prevented them from seeking prenatal care.

Mistreatment of Pregnant, Postpartum and Nursing Immigrants in ICE Detention

Pregnant, postpartum and nursing immigrant women have suffered severe mistreatment and medical neglect while in detention facilities in violation of longstanding ICE guidelines. These conditions seriously jeopardize the health of parents and their children.
While medical mistreatment in detention facilities is not unique to pregnant people and has been a problem for decades, reporting has shown that the problem has intensified under the second Trump administration. Investigations reveal that since January 2025, pregnant women have experienced substandard care and medical neglect in detention, including being shackled while experiencing a miscarriage, being placed in solitary confinement, being denied prenatal care, being denied medical care while bleeding, and experiencing serious life-threatening pregnancy complications while in detention.
According to information from DHS in response to a Senate inquiry, 363 pregnant, postpartum and nursing immigrants were deported in the period between January 1, 2025 and February 16, 2026. DHS also reported that 16 miscarriages had occurred in its detention facilities in the first nine months of 2025, but have no information on miscarriages since October of that year.
Young pregnant immigrants are especially at risk. Since July 2025, ICE has been detaining all pregnant unaccompanied minors in a facility in South Texas, a shift from previous longstanding practice where they were placed in Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) shelters or specifically designated foster homes. The Texas facility is several hours away from specialized obstetric care, aggravating health risks for these detainees, some of whom are as young as 13 and half of whom became pregnant as a result of rape. The Texas detentions also run counter to ORR rules, which say that priority placement for all pregnant youth should be in states without abortion bans and which prohibit federal officials from impeding pregnant unaccompanied minors’ access to abortion care.

Exacerbating Immigrants’ Barriers to Medicaid Coverage

Medicaid is one of the largest sources of health insurance coverage for people with low incomes and is provided via federal‒state partnerships. Medicaid has been critical for people’s, including many immigrants’, access to contraceptive care and other reproductive health services.
Medicaid eligibility rules are complicated for immigrants and often depend on policies in their state. While many immigrants do receive Medicaid coverage, certain groups of immigrants—including those who are undocumented—are ineligible for federal Medicaid coverage. Even those with qualified immigration status, such as individuals with green cards, are barred from accessing Medicaid for the first five years after their entry or status change. (This policy is known as the “five year bar.”) At the same time, some states have used their state funds to provide health care coverage for some or all undocumented immigrant residents.
HR 1, the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” signed into law in July 2025, enacted severe cuts to Medicaid and other federal health programs, many of which impacted immigrants. For example, the law now includes refugees and asylum seekers in the categories of immigrants denied Medicaid coverage, adding to the high numbers of non-citizens already excluded from coverage.
At the same time, the law is expected to limit many non-citizens’ access to marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). New, stricter eligibility limits on the subsidies that make coverage affordable will likely prevent as many as one million lawfully present immigrants from enrolling in marketplace plans, denying many low-income immigrants any pathway to affordable health coverage.
Additionally, HR 1 instituted strict work requirements for adults aged 19‒64 who are enrolled in Medicaid. Guttmacher Institute analysis projects that this policy could cause over 2 million women of reproductive age to lose Medicaid coverage, including many who are immigrants.
Losing insurance has been associated with decreases in the likely use of SRH care and access to person-centered care—evidenced by an increase in the likelihood of experiencing barriers to obtaining one's preferred method of contraception.

Barriers to Accessing Abortion

At least 1.9 million undocumented immigrant women live in states with total abortion bans or bans before 18 weeks gestation. There are 13 states with total abortion bans and seven additional states ban abortion at or before 18 weeks.
Millions more immigrants live in states with other medically unnecessary policies, including mandatory waiting periods and multiple required visits, all of which make abortion hard to access.
For noncitizens, the myriad of state laws restricting abortion are particularly challenging to navigate, especially alongside restrictive immigration policies. In states with abortion bans, many people seeking an abortion must travel to receive care, forcing them to cross state lines and potentially go through immigration checkpoints or airports. For those who are able to overcome the financial and logistical burdens of travel, these options place immigrants at increased risk of surveillance and detention. Yet others who choose to access abortion care via telehealth, online websites or community networks also face risks. The current context of abortion stigma and criminalization of pregnancy outcomes is compounded for immigrants who may have additional concerns about being tracked or surveilled in their online activity or in potential interactions with the health care or criminal justice systems.
Affordability is also a challenge that abortion patients, including immigrants, must overcome. Due to the Hyde Amendment and related coverage restrictions, individuals who are insured through federally funded health care programs, like Medicaid, Medicare and CHIP, and those in federal detention—including immigration detention—are restricted from accessing abortion except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest. While 21 states use state funds to cover abortion care through Medicaid, the Hyde Amendment disproportionately impacts people already facing systemic barriers to health care, including Black and Brown, indigenous and immigrant communities, and people with low incomes.

Medicaid Sharing Data with ICE

Serious data privacy concerns have emerged for many individuals enrolled in Medicaid, who did so believing that their information would not be shared for immigration enforcement purposes.
In 2025, it was reported that the Trump administration had started sharing with ICE the personal and health data of noncitizen Medicaid enrollees in several states. Subsequently, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and ICE established an “information exchange agreement,” reversing earlier policies in which CMS had committed to not sharing health coverage eligibility information for the purposes of immigration enforcement. Despite several states securing a preliminary injunction that blocked such data sharing in those states, CMS proceeded to share their residents’ health data with ICE.
ICE’s new ability to access Medicaid records has created a further chilling effect on health care access for immigrant families, including those who may be citizens or have protected status but live in mixed status households.
In California, for example, where state funds help provide health coverage for immigrants of any status, many immigrants have disenrolled from the state’s Medicaid program due to fears that their personal information is being shared with ICE.

Public Charge Rule Chilling Access to Care

Public charge is a concept that has been in US law for decades and which asserts that some people can be denied admission into the country through a visa or denied legal permanent resident status, also known as a green card, if they will likely depend primarily on government support now or in the future.
In September 2026, a new public charge rule went into effect that expands and distorts the definition of public charge. It gives DHS more discretion to deny status based on any use of income-based public services by an immigrant or their family members. While this expansion now allows programs such as Medicaid and Title X family planning services to be considered federal benefits, the new rule also makes the policy more ambiguous and gives more power to the US Citizenship and Immigration Service, leaving the interpretation of public charge to the discretion of individual officers in each case.
The ambiguity of this new rule—especially when considered alongside immigration enforcement at hospitals and the sharing of insurance information with ICE—will likely have additional chilling effects on health care access by immigrants. For example, some families with US citizen children may fear using the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) if other family members are still seeking authorized status, and studies suggest some citizens with undocumented family members are already forgoing health screenings and checkups for fear of retaliation.
In addition to reducing health care access, the new rule could also aggravate patterns of immigrants forgoing other social services such as childcare, housing, and food support, losses which can impact the long-term health and well-being of families and communities.

Attacks on Title X and Defunding Family Planning Programs and Clinics

Publicly supported family planning clinics serve as the primary entry point to the health care system for many people, including immigrants, and are sometimes one of the only ways that people can access sexual and reproductive health care.
Title X is the nation’s only federal program dedicated to providing people with low incomes, particularly those who are under- or uninsured, with access to comprehensive family planning and contraceptive services, as well as to preventative health care such as screenings for sexually transmitted infections and cancer. This program serves many immigrants, including those with undocumented status. (Federal law does not disqualify such immigrants, although eligibility may vary by state and clinic.)
In July 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a notice that dramatically expanded the number of federal programs, including Title X, that are deemed inaccessible to certain segments of the immigrant population. While under litigation and not yet in effect, this new policy threatens to push reproductive health services and other supports even further out of reach for immigrants and others who need them most.
For several months in 2025, the Trump administration froze millions of dollars designated for some Title X program providers. These funds had still not been released by July, when HR 1 included a provision defunding some family planning clinics, including Planned Parenthood health centers, by denying them federal Medicaid reimbursement for one year. (That provision expired July 2026.) Attacks like these, in concert with changes to the public charge rule, make affordable contraceptive care and related services less available, thereby undermining health equity and exacerbating health risks for immigrant communities.

Congress Must Act to End the Assault on Immigrants’ Access to Care

Policymakers at all levels of government have a responsibility to do all they can to support immigrants in their communities. Ideally, this would include proactive work to pass policies that ensure their legal protection and access to health care, including addressing practical challenges many immigrants face, such as language barriers, limited access to culturally responsive care, and overly complex systems of applying for and accessing services. It is equally important that policymakers hold the administration and anti-immigrant lawmakers accountable for defying existing laws and policies that provide people due process and civil rights.

Congress especially has a strong role to play. Unfortunately, in 2026, they passed legislation along party lines to massively fund ICE and the CBP for the next three years. As 80 gender justice organizations (including Guttmacher) wrote in an open letter earlier this year, Congress should halt funds to those agencies “until enforceable restrictions conditioned on compliance with civil rights, medical standards and due process are in place.” Not only must Congress take measures to ensure that ICE and CBP stop abuse on the ground, it needs to restore limits on immigration enforcement in sensitive locations, including health care settings, protect health care data and insurance coverage information from immigration authorities, and end the mistreatment and detention of pregnant, postpartum and nursing people.

Congress should also pass the HEAL For Immigrant Families Act which would remove discriminatory legal barriers to health coverage that were imposed in federal law thirty years ago and would help to ensure that immigrants can receive reproductive health care services. The bill would restore eligibility for full-benefit Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) to all lawfully present immigrants who are otherwise eligible, eliminate the long-standing “five-year bar” that delays lawful permanent residents from accessing Medicaid and Medicare benefits, and end the exclusion of undocumented immigrants from the Affordable Care Act's health insurance exchanges. Congress should also pass the Lifting Immigrant Families Through Benefits Access Restoration (Lift the Bar) Act, which would restore access to federal public benefits for lawfully present immigrants and similarly remove the five-year bar to programs such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

While a better and more just immigration system requires an end to the abuse and terror that immigrant families are experiencing, it also requires a proactive approach that guarantees full respect for people’s human rights and supports access to services that meet people’s basic needs. Policymakers should ensure access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care for all, regardless of immigration status.

sramashwar October 6, 2026

Policy Resources

Abortion

Contraceptive Services

Exclude from search

Facebook Image

immigration preview social@4x.png

Twitter Image

immigration preview social@4x.png

How Youth Advocates Make the Case for Safe Abortion Care

sramashwar — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 17:40:42 +0000

How Youth Advocates Make the Case for Safe Abortion Care sramashwar September 29, 2026

Exclude from search

Video Type

YouTube Short

Senior Data Analyst, Research and Advocacy

lkhan — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 20:37:36 +0000

Senior Data Analyst, Research and Advocacy

Organization

Founded in 1968, the Guttmacher Institute is a global leader in advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights. Through a unique and interrelated program of high-quality research, evidence-based advocacy and strategic communications, the Institute works to generate new ideas, encourage enlightened public debate, and promote sound policy and program development; its overarching goal is to ensure the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health and rights for all people worldwide. The Institute is engaged in building a more inclusive, transparent and equitable organization.

Position summary

The Senior Data Analyst, Research and Advocacy is a position that integrates rigorous quantitative analysis with substantive policy expertise to advance the Institute’s international research programs. The position works collaboratively with program scientists, policy colleagues, and external partners to advance AIU and related international research, while playing a central and substantive role in connecting analytical outputs to policy-relevant questions, country-level programs, and a broad network of research and advocacy partners. The position reports to, and operates under the scientific direction of, a Senior or Principal Research Scientist.

The Senior Data Analyst, Research and Advocacy operates with a substantial degree of independence, contributing original analysis and policy insight to global and country research programs. The position is expected to serve as a credible and authoritative relationship builder and manager with partner organizations, governments, and donors, and to lead the development of research products that address the informational needs of policy audiences at the country, regional, and global levels.

Responsibilities

Research and Analysis

Lead and oversee the annual update cycle of the AIU data collaborating with the AWW team and thinking of how to expand reach.
Lead and oversee data analysis activities within the AIU program and assigned international research projects, including management of large-scale population survey data (DHS, MICS, PMA) and development of analytic code and documentation in Stata and/or R.
Lead the design and interpretation of research through application of deep policy knowledge and analytical expertise, ensuring that quantitative outputs are framed and communicated in ways that are relevant to policy audiences.
Contribute to the development of new SRH indicators, measurement frameworks, and methodological innovations, remaining current with emerging research, data sources, and global standards.
Serve as first or contributing author on peer-reviewed publications, policy reports, and technical documents; provide substantive review of analytical and written outputs produced by junior research staff.
Policy Engagement and Evidence Translation
Contribute as a thought leader for the Institute’s international research programs, bringing demonstrated policy expertise to bear on research design and priorities, including translation of analytical findings into accessible, credible, and actionable evidence for policy audiences.
Co-lead the development and review of public-facing outputs including policy briefs, advocacy materials, donor-facing evidence syntheses, and country-specific analyses.
Engage substantively with regional and country-level policy frameworks, data systems, financing mechanisms and advocacy movements to ensure that research design and outputs are policy-relevant and contextually grounded.
Contribute policy and evidence perspectives to strategic communications and program development activities, in coordination with research leadership.
Team Leadership and Program Support
Provide mentorship, supervision, and technical guidance to junior research staff, supporting professional development and quality of analytical work.
Oversee training on data processing, analytic workflows, and documentation standards; establish and maintain systems for code reproducibility and institutional knowledge retention.
Support the AIU Program Manager and Program Leadership in workplan development, timeline management, staffing planning, and project monitoring.
Represent Guttmacher at external meetings, conferences, and high-level regional and global forums.
Work collaboratively with research scientists, policy and communications colleagues, and cross-divisional teams to advance integrated program goals and ensure coherence between analytical work and the Institute’s broader advocacy and communications strategy.
Perform other duties as assigned.

Qualifications and skills

At least seven years of progressively responsible experience in international SRHR or global health research, with a demonstrated track record of producing high-quality analytical outputs.
Substantive knowledge of SRHR policy and financing frameworks at the country, regional, and/or global level, including familiarity with international normative frameworks, data systems, and policy advocacy environments.
Advanced proficiency in statistical analysis using Stata and/or R; experience working with large-scale population survey data (DHS, MICS, PMA or comparable) required.
Demonstrated experience bridging quantitative research and policy engagement, including development of policy-relevant outputs for non-technical audiences.
Experience working with or managing partnerships with country- or regional-level organizations, civil society, governments, or multilateral bodies.
Strong writing and oral communication skills, with the ability to develop compelling research products across a range of formats and audiences.
Demonstrated capacity to work independently and to lead multi-stakeholder projects in complex, cross-cultural contexts.
Experience engaging with external partners, civil society organizations, or multilateral bodies in a research capacity is desirable.
Master's degree in a relevant field (public health, demography, epidemiology, political science, international development, or related discipline) and a minimum of seven years of progressively responsible related work experience; a doctoral degree may substitute for some experience.

Salary and benefits

The salary range for this position is between $116,000 to $124,650 and will be commensurate with experience,within the Senior Research Associate band. The base pay may vary depending on a wide range of factors. New hires are typically brought into the organization between the minimum to midpoint of the salary range posted depending on knowledge, skills and experience, and qualifications. Internal equity considerations will be reviewed before making a final offer.

We offer excellent benefits, including medical, dental, vision, and life insurance; vacation, personal, and sick time; paid parental leave; tuition reimbursement; commuting subsidy; and a 401(k) plan with employer match.

Guttmacher Institute strives to provide the training and support for staff needed to be successful in their positions and to grow professionally.

lkhan September 28, 2026

Director of Domestic Research

lkhan — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 20:07:19 +0000

Director of Domestic Research

Organization

Position summary

The Director of Domestic Research will report to the VP of Domestic Research and will help shape Guttmacher's scientific vision and strategy. As a member of the Research Management Team, they help lead the Research Division and work closely with the VPs of Research and U.S. Policy and Communications, the Director for International Research, Directors of Policy and Communications, and the Director of Institutional Giving to implement the Institute's wide-ranging policy -relevant domestic research portfolio.

The Director brings their own substantive research focus and will provide broader input across Guttmacher's work, dividing their time between research administration, fundraising, and their own research agenda while serving as a thought partner to the VP. The Director will directly supervise and oversee a team of multilevel researchers responsible for US-focused research activities

Responsibilities

Research oversight and execution

Assume primary responsibility for the current research portfolio within areas of oversight, ensuring timeliness and quality control of research activities and participation in review of activities and products at key stages of each project.
Provide broad, high-level guidance to projects at each key stage, including closer guidance and monitoring when no other principal research scientist (PRS), Director, or VP is on the project.
Devote approximately 50% of time to implement or support research activities, including by serving as project advisor, project principal or conducting research on one or more projects and 50% time to management and research administration and oversight.
Work with research division members to improve research infrastructure and the quality, accuracy, replicability and transparency of our work, including systems (statistical, programming, data management and infrastructure) or other work processes.
Lead, co-lead, stimulate, encourage, and contribute to the development of ideas and new proposals in close collaboration with the Vice Presidents and Development Directors. This includes idea generation/brainstorming, maintaining existent donor relationships and cultivating new donor relationships, advising on which proposals to move forward, drafting of research sections of grant applications, review of other sections as needed, and meeting with donors, as well as ensuring post-award review of interim and final reports to funders written by project managers or Development staff.
Ad-hoc duties as assigned
Divisional management and supervision
As an RMT member, help develop, implement, and monitor strategic plans for the Domestic portfolio
Work with the VP for Domestic Research, Development VP and Directors, and the Grants, Budgets, and Operations Team (gBOT) to develop budgets, manage grant funds, allocate staff time, report on spenddown, and close out projects
Coordinate budgetary and administrative work across the division with VPs, research administration, and other Directors; monitor adherence to budgets and workplans
Coordinate with Policy and Communications Directors to support cross-divisional communication and integration
Supervise principal and senior research scientists, with attention to performance and job satisfaction
Support the VP in recruiting senior/principal staff and lead recruitment on hiring midl-evel and junior staff
For staff under the director’s supervision
Proactively guide staff toward opportunities to grow their skills—methodological, substantive, and managerial alike.
Provide staff with adequate support, mentoring, and guidance.
Oversee promotions, conflict resolution, and disciplinary matters; serve as ombudsperson for staff concerns.
External relations
Cultivate and sustain strategic partnerships and collaborations with other organizations
Represent the Institute at high-level events, including giving presentations
Serve on advisory panels, grant review panels (e.g., NIH, SFP), and participate in other professional and external roles.

Education

Doctoral degree in social science, public health, or a closely related field.

Qualifications and skills

Doctoral degree in social science, public health, or a closely related field.
Minimum of 10 years conducting research on sexual and reproductive health (SRH), with a substantial, field-recognized publication record
Demonstrated commitment to policy-relevant, evidence-based research.
Proven experience managing, mentoring, and motivating researchers across seniority levels (junior through senior/principal), with a track record of helping staff grow professionally
Strong research administration skills: managing multiple concurrent projects, timelines, budgets, and competing priorities
Excellent written and verbal communication skills, including experience producing policy memos, funding proposals, and public-facing materials in addition to scientific publications.
Demonstrated ability to build and sustain collaborative relationships, both internally across divisions and externally with funders, partners, and collaborators.
Experience contributing to organizational or divisional strategy at a senior level.
Ability to travel domestically 10–20% annually

Salary and benefits

The salary range for this position is between $188,800 to $217,100 and will be commensurate with experience. This range is specific to the New York and DC area,and base pay may vary depending on a wide range of factors. New hires are typically brought into the organization between the minimum to midpoint of the salary range posted depending on knowledge, skills and experience, and qualifications. Internal equity considerations will be reviewed before making a final offer. We offer excellent benefits, including medical,dental,vision, and life insurance; vacation,personal, and sick time; paid parental leave; tuition reimbursement; commuting subsidy; and a 401(k) plan with employer match.

lkhan September 28, 2026

Abortion Rights Are on the Ballot in Four States in 2026

sramashwar — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 18:19:22 +0000

Abortion Rights Are on the Ballot in Four States in 2026

In the November 2026 election, voters in three states (Idaho, Nevada and Virginia) will consider ballot measures designed to protect abortion rights by affirming a statutory or constitutional right to abortion and in some cases other reproductive rights. Additionally, voters in one state (Missouri) will vote on an anti-abortion measure that would undo the right to reproductive freedom previously established by a state ballot measure.

Idaho is the only state featuring a protective abortion rights ballot measure that is also enforcing a total ban on abortion—which would likely be challenged in court should the ballot measure pass. Data from Guttmacher's Monthly Abortion Provision Study show that in 2025, 850 abortions were provided via telehealth to Idaho residents by clinicians based in other US states and under the protection of shield laws, due to the total ban in effect. In the other states featuring abortion rights ballot measures this year, over 59,000 abortions were provided by clinicians in 2025—the vast majority of which were provided in Virginia.

While measures that add constitutional or statutory protections for abortion are vital, they do not automatically repeal restrictions, and litigation is often needed to overturn them. Moreover, protections for abortion rights may fall short of ensuring access to care for everyone who needs it. Such laws often protect abortion access up to “viability” (a medically variable threshold that is often reached between 24–26 weeks of pregnancy) and often allow the state to regulate abortion care after viability.

Efforts to restrict abortion often intersect with other movements aimed at restricting people’s rights. Voters in a total of five states will face ballot measures this fall that would undermine the rights of transgender minors, primarily by targeting best practice gender-affirming care for young people and sports participation by trans youth. The anti-abortion measure in Missouri also targets gender-affirming care for minors, which is already banned in the state.

Given the success of ballot measures protecting abortion access in states across the country, anti-abortion advocates have become increasingly forceful with strategies aimed at restricting ballot measures at every stage of the process. In several additional states this year, voters will face propositions that will make it more difficult to pass ballot measures. A similar effort already failed in Missouri in August 2026—when voters declined to pass a measure that would have dramatically restricted future ballot initiatives by requiring them to be approved by a majority of voters in every congressional district, rather than a state-wide majority.

Ballot Measures Have Protected and Expanded Abortion Access

Ballot measures affirming abortion rights have been effective tools for expanding and protecting abortion rights, even in states with abortion restrictions. In the 2024 elections, 10 states featured ballot measures affirming abortion rights, and seven of these passed. In elections in 2022 and 2023, voters in all seven states where abortion rights measures were on the ballot came down decisively in favor of retaining or expanding such rights.

Since the 2024 ballot measure victories, advocates in states with abortion restrictions have used these new protections as a legal basis to expand abortion access. In 2024, Missouri voters established a right to reproductive freedom in their state constitution, providing a legal avenue to overturn the state's total abortion ban. Litigation and ensuing court rulings repealed Missouri’s abortion restrictions, eventually allowing procedural abortion care to resume in the state in 2025 and for medication abortion provision to return in June 2026 for the first time since 2018. Similarly, in Arizona, voters protected the right to abortion through a ballot measure in November 2024, providing a legal avenue to strike down the state's 15-week ban later that year. Ensuing litigation also lifted additional restrictions in February 2026, rescinding bans on telehealth and the mailing of abortion pills, while removing mandates for biased counseling, medically unnecessary ultrasounds, and punitive waiting periods that made it more difficult for people to access abortion care in Arizona.

The anti-abortion measure Missouri voters will face this fall threatens to undo the progress that has allowed hundreds of Missourians to access care in their state earlier this year.

Abortion Rights Measures

Idaho

Proposition 1 (Reproductive Freedom and Privacy Act Initiative)

Led by Idahoans United for Women and Families, this ballot measure would create a legal avenue to challenge the state's total abortion ban through a state statute establishing a right to reproductive freedom and privacy. The statute would prevent the state from restricting abortion before viability, at which point it could be restricted except in cases of medical emergency. The measure would also protect people’s decision-making around pregnancy, childbirth, contraception, fertility treatments and pregnancy loss care from governmental interference.

However, the Idaho measure would not amend the state's constitution but instead create a statutory right to abortion in the state. While statutory protections for abortion rights would be a vital step forward for Idahoans, statutes are more easily repealed than amendments to state constitutions.

Context:

Abortion policies in Idaho are categorized on Guttmacher’s interactive state policy map as “Most Restrictive," given the total abortion ban in effect, as well as numerous other restrictions.
Despite the total ban, Idahoans have been able to access abortion via two main pathways: telehealth shield law provision and travel to other states.
In 2025, 850 abortions were provided via telehealth to Idaho residents by clinicians in other states, a 16% increase from 2024.
Also in 2025, 1,680 Idaho residents were forced to travel out of state for care, including to Oregon (960), Washington (410), Utah (210) and other states (100).

Nevada

Question 6 (Right to Abortion Initiative)

Led by Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, this measure would establish a right to abortion in the state constitution, but would allow restrictions on abortion care after viability, except when necessary to protect the pregnant person’s life or physical health.

This is the second time Nevada voters will vote on this measure due to the state’s “two-election” requirement to amend the state constitution. The measure passed for the first time in 2024 and if passed again, would take effect following a vote by the state supreme court, which has previously been supportive of abortion rights.

Context:

Abortion policies in Nevada are categorized on our interactive map as “Protective,” reflecting policies such as a statute that protects abortion rights, state Medicaid coverage of abortion when accompanied by a letter of medical necessity, and a shield law protecting abortion care from investigations by other states.
16,190 abortions were provided by clinicians in Nevada in 2025. While this was a slight decrease (6.3%) from 2024, it was a 47% increase compared to 2020, the last year with Guttmacher Institute abortion data from before Roe was overturned.
69% of clinician-provided abortions in Nevada were medication abortions in 2023, the most recent year with data on abortion methods.
Some Nevadans sought care in other states in 2025, while Nevada also served as an access point for residents of other states:
720 Nevadans traveled out of state for abortion care in 2025, including to California (520) and other states (200).
890 people traveled into Nevada for abortion care, including from Texas (320), Arizona (220), Utah (140) and other states (210).

Virginia

Question 1 (Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment)

Led by Virginians for Reproductive Freedom, this ballot measure would enshrine the right to reproductive freedom in the state constitution.

The measure specifically protects people’s freedom to make and carry out personal decisions about prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion, pregnancy loss and fertility care. The measure also protects patients, doctors and nurses from being punished for these personal decisions or helping others exercise their right to make such decisions. However, the measure allows for restrictions on access to abortion during the third trimester of pregnancy—except when the patient’s health is at risk, or the pregnancy cannot survive.

Context:

Abortion policies in Virginia are categorized as “Some Restrictions/Protections” on Guttmacher’s interactive map, due to policies such as an abortion ban in the third trimester, a state Medicaid coverage ban, and parental involvement laws that limit minors' access to abortion.
40,090 abortions were provided by clinicians in Virginia in 2025, approximately the same number as in 2024. The number of abortions provided in Virginia increased by nearly 114% from 2020 to 2025, in part because Virginia became a key point of access for those traveling from out of state.
66% of Virginia’s clinician-provided abortions in 2023 were medication abortions.
Some Virginians sought care in other states in 2025, while the state also served as a critical point of access for people seeking abortion care in the Southeast.
More than 8,500 people traveled to Virginia to access abortion care in 2025, primarily from states with more restrictive policies. The largest number of people came from North Carolina (2,180), Florida (1,770) and Georgia (1,240).
Meanwhile, 2,920 people from Virginia traveled out of state for care, to Maryland (1,220), DC (860), North Carolina (680), and other states (160).

Anti-Abortion Measures

Missouri

Amendment 3 (Prohibit Abortion and Gender Transition Procedures for Minors Amendment)

Led by the anti-abortion Her Health and Her Future PAC, this measure would overturn the right to reproductive freedom enshrined in the Missouri state constitution by voters in 2024. The amendment would prohibit abortion except in cases of medical emergency, fetal anomaly, rape, or incest, and require parent or guardian consent for minors seeking an abortion. The measure would bar public funding for abortion and allow the legislature to enact various unnecessary restrictions, known as targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws, which are intended to increase scrutiny of clinics and make provision more costly and cumbersome to provide.

The amendment would also prohibit gender-affirming care for minors, which is already banned by state statute.

Missouri voters’ 2024 affirmation of the right to reproductive freedom in the state constitution provided a legal avenue for overturning the state’s total abortion ban, allowing procedural abortion care to resume in the state in 2025. In June 2026, another ruling overturned restrictions that prevented clinics in the state from offering medication abortion care, allowing in-state clinical provision of this care method to resume for the first time since 2018.

Context:

Abortion policies in Missouri are categorized as “Restrictive” on Guttmacher’s interactive map due to numerous restrictions still in effect, such as a state Medicaid and private insurance coverage ban, an in-person requirement for medication abortion, and parental involvement laws that limit minors’ access to abortion care.
3,550 abortions were provided by clinicians in Missouri in 2025, a 53.5% increase from 2024.
Due to the restrictive environment prior to the 2025 court decisions mentioned above, more than 11,500 people were forced to travel out of state for abortion care in 2025, including to Illinois (7,690), Kansas (3,940) and other states (60).

sramashwar September 28, 2026

Exclude from search

Facebook Image

ballot preview social@4x.png

Twitter Image

ballot preview social@4x.png