\\ Kathy Kroening - Page 2

Kathy Kroening

Women's Power and Women's Rights

recent posts

about

  • Celebrating a Woman’s Right to Vote

    On August 18, 1920, the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was ratified granting women the right to vote.  It was officially certified by the Secretary of State a week later.  This victory was over 70 years in the making. When the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776 women were considered property of men.  The laws of coverture stated when a woman married, she lost her legal identity.  Women were not allowed to own property, control their own money, or sign legal documents.  If a woman was unmarried her father, brothers, and other male family members assumed control over her affairs. 

    The entrenched roles of women and men made the fight for suffrage an arduous journey.  As a member of the first and second continental congresses, John Adams was one of America’s founding fathers, later serving as vice president to George Washington prior to his own election as president in 1796.  His wife Abigail was an advocate for women’s rights and in a letter to her husband on March 31, 1776 she wrote “ I long to hear that you have declared an independency — and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable [sic] to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If perticuliar [sic] care and attention is not paid to the Laidies [sic] we are determined to foment a Rebelion [sic], and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation. That your Sex are Naturally Tyrannical is a Truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute, but such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up the harsh title of Master for the more tender and endearing one of Friend.” (Adams, A., 1776) Her husband responded “As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh. We have been told that our Struggle has loosened the bands of Government every where [sic]. That Children and Apprentices were disobedient — that schools and Colledges [sic] were grown turbulent — that Indians slighted their Guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their Masters.  But your Letter was the first Intimation that another Tribe more numerous and powerful [sic] than all the rest were grown discontented. — This is rather too coarse a Compliment but you are so saucy, I wont [sic] blot it out. Depend upon it, We [sic] know better than to repeal our Masculine systems.” (Adams, J., 1776) It would be a tall order to overcome this prejudice enough for men to grant women the right to vote.  Despite this, the women were undeterred.

    The journey for suffrage began formally in 1848 when the first Women’s Rights Convention was held in New York.  Sixty-eight women and 32 men were in attendance and signed a Declaration of Sentiments made up of 12 resolutions calling for equal treatment of men and women legally and voting rights for women.  Penned by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, this document created an agenda for activism among women.  A sample of the language used includes “Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation – in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of the United States.” (Stanton, 1848) Why did it take over 70 years for women to secure the right to vote? Men’s fear of women’s power, infighting among women, two wars, and a raging debate about prohibition disrupted unity and momentum.

    Following the conference in New York, the suffrage movement was picking up steam in the 1850’s but was temporarily halted by the Civil War between 1860 and 1865. Three years later the 14th Amendment was ratified making explicit that only men are considered citizens and voters.  With the proposal of the 15th Amendment, which would give black men the right to vote, the suffrage movement split into two distinct groups.  The National Women’s Suffrage Association focused on a constitutional amendment to grant women the right to vote as well as other women’s rights.  This approach, considered more radical at the time, required 36 states approve the proposal before the amendment itself could be ratified.   The American Woman Suffrage Association focused exclusively on women’s right to vote through amendments to state constitutions.  In 1870 the 15th Amendment was passed granting black men the right to vote. (American Bar Association (ABA), n.d.; National Women’s History Museum (NWHM), n.d.)

    Between 1870 and 1872 a number of significant events happened in the fight for women’s suffrage.  Victoria Woodhull addressed the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives, arguing that a woman’s right to vote was protected by the 14th Amendment.  Her argument was rejected. The Anti-Suffrage party was founded and included high profile men and many women who opposed ever granting women the right to vote. In their beliefs, becoming politically involved would diminish the importance of women’s roles as wives, mothers, educators, and philanthropists. Susan B. Anthony registered and voted for Ulysses Grant in the 1872 presidential election. She was arrested and also used the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment in her defense but was unsuccessful and convicted.  She was fined by the court but refused to pay.  In Oregon, Abigail Scott Dunaway was influential in the passage of legislation granting married women rights including owning and operating a business, controlling and managing their own money, and protection of property in the event of abandonment by a husband. (ABA, n.d.; NWHM, n.d.)

    The first Woman Suffrage Amendment was proposed in Congress in 1878 and defeated by the Senate.  The language in this amendment would be used again 42 years later when the 19th Amendment was finally ratified.  During those 42 years more organizations related to women’s suffrage and women’s rights were created, some in support, and some against. Women disrupted events, gathered signatures, raised funds, published, orated, marched, and broke the law.  They were beaten, arrested, imprisoned in unsanitary conditions, and force-fed during hunger strikes.  Despite this, these resilient women persevered. States began adopting women’s suffrage and the 19th Amendment was finally passed by the senate in 1919 and ratified in 1920. (ABA, n.d. & NWHM, n.d.)

    Many are familiar with the most visible women of the suffrage movement. Names such as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Sojourner Truth, and Alice Paul fill history books as influential leaders in the fight for suffrage and women’s rights.  Their contributions are legendary however it is important to remember how many women it took over seven decades to secure a woman’s right to vote.  Their stories may not be as well known but their contributions are equally as important.  I would like to introduce one such woman from my neck of the woods, the Pacific Northwest.

    Abigail Scott Dunaway was born in 1834 in rural Illinois, the third of 12 children.  Growing up on a farm, her life was filled with chores such as planting and cultivating crops, preparing food for winter, tending animals, carrying water, washing clothes by hand, and caring for younger siblings.  She learned to read at age three or four but only experienced a few months of formal education.  Growing up she loved reading and was heavily influenced by the New York Tribune, a temperance paper called Lily, and Charles Dickens.

    When Abigail was 17, her family made the decision to head west on the overland trail to Oregon, searching for a new start with the promise of free land and economic opportunities.  The family had already lost three children prior to leaving on this formidable 2,000-mile six-month long journey.  Three months into their trek west, Abigail’s mother died of cholera.  The family also lost a three-year-old son prior to arriving in Oregon.  The death of Abigail’s mother was a source of anger and fueled her fire to advocate for women’s rights later in her life. Throughout her childhood, she saw and heard her mother’s discontent with the work of women. She recalled being at the bedside for the birth of one of her younger sisters and hearing her tearful mother lament another daughter because a woman’s lot in life was so difficult.  Abigail’s mother was described as having been an invalid after the stillbirth of her 12th child.  It is difficult to know whether her mother was ill physically and/or emotionally since this was a century before postpartum depression became an official medical diagnosis and the loss of this child compounded the grief of already having lost two children.  Abigail felt strongly that her mother’s weakened condition due to overwork and repeated pregnancies and childbirth led to her death.  She pushed hard against forced motherhood and rigid wifely obedience, dedicating her later life to the enfranchisement of women.

    At age 18, Abigail left her family to become a schoolteacher and several months later married a frontier farmer, leaving her teaching job to assume the many duties of a farm wife.  She bore six children and the last birth at age 35 left her in chronic pain and caused bladder problems.  At the age of 25 she published a novel, Crossing the Plains and Living in Oregon.  Although she had not yet bought in to political equality her book advocated for enhancement of women’s health and autonomy.  Critics of her work stated her husband must certainly be henpecked which was initially shattering but ultimately made her stronger.  Several years after this, two events happened that would dramatically change Abigail and her family’s lives.  Her husband co-signed a large loan for another man without consulting her and a subsequent economic downturn and major flooding caused default on the loan.  They were forced to sell their farm to pay off the debt and moved to a much smaller piece of land with a one and a half story cottage.  Not long after that move Abigail’s husband was run over by a runaway team of horses pulling a wagon.  The accident left him in chronic pain and his disability prevented him from working.  Abigail became the sole breadwinner in addition to her mothering and domestic duties.  She took up teaching again and converted the upper floor of the cottage to accommodate young women boarders.  She and her family eventually moved into the blossoming town of Albany where she continued teaching until she had enough money to start a millinery.  She secured a loan from a well-established merchant who provided her with $1,200.00 in goods to help her get started.  She paid it back in three weeks and after that was able to stay financially solvent.  She reported that she spent over $40,000 in her fight for women’s rights which if she had used in trade or invested in real estate would have made her a very wealthy woman.

    Abigail’s resiliency in the face of tremendous trauma and loss was remarkable and it would have been easy for her to settle into a life of relative calm and comfort.  But as a businesswoman, she witnessed many situations in which women’s basic rights were violated fanning the flames of the fire that was ignited by her mother’s death.  In 1871 she moved her family to Portland, purchased type and printing press, and began publishing her own weekly newspaper called New Northwest.  She also embarked on lecture tours throughout Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, reporting on these events in her paper.  For Abigail, securing autonomy for women politically, financially, and socially was a means to improve economic and intellectual development individually and throughout the Pacific Northwest region.

    Abigail was a skilled orator, giving a total of over 1700 speeches in Oregon and Washington between 1871 and 1884.  She also lectured in Idaho, California, Illinois, Iowa, Wyoming, Utah, Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio.  Her strengths as an orator were described as being logical and forceful, and using sarcasm and humor effectively.  She was also a prolific journalist, contributing to numerous newspapers in addition to editing and publishing her own paper, New Northwest, for 16 years.  Abigail’s younger brother Harvey Whitfield Scott was the editor of the Oregonian, the largest and most influential state newspaper at the time.  He held this position for more than 40 years and was a staunch opponent of the women’s suffrage movement.  It is difficult to estimate how much his substantial influence delayed the passage of women’s suffrage in Oregon.  It must have been challenging enough for Abigail to juggle her roles of spouse, mother, businesswoman, and women’s rights advocate without the ongoing condemnation of her brother.  It is a testament to her strength and resilience that she did not let him stand in her way.

    Abigail’s fight for women’s suffrage was not without trials and tribulations.  In addition to the interference from her brother, Abigail’s refusal to support prohibition led to backlash and defamation, especially from the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU).  Her concern with the WCTU agenda tying a woman’s right to vote with the passage of prohibition was that the large influence of hop growers and breweries, major industries in the Pacific Northwest, would push back against women’s suffrage.  She was focused on the bigger picture, securing women’s voting rights as a steppingstone to gaining other rights such as equal pay for equal work, increased educational opportunities, and financial independence for women. She was not against prohibition per se but viewed “drunkenness” as a disease requiring medical intervention and personal self-improvement rather than legal action that may result in opposition to other reforms.  She was very concerned support for prohibition would lose women voting rights and she was correct.  In 1883, Washington territory passed women’s suffrage but within four years this decision was overturned and Washington women lost the right to vote. They would not get it back for over 20 years. Washington was not the only state that rescinded women’s voting rights prior to ratification of the 19th amendment.

    Abigail played a large part in garnering support for the passage of suffrage laws in Idaho in 1896 and Washington in 1910.  Oregon had five unsuccessful votes beginning in 1884 but was finally able to pass women’s suffrage in 1912.  At the age of 78 Abigail wrote and countersigned the Oregon proclamation and the next year she became the first female registered voter in the state.  She voted in a municipal election for the first time later that year. Sadly, she passed away in 1915 before seeing the ratification of the 19th Amendment granting all women in the United States the right to vote.

    Abigail Scott Duniway was an ordinary pioneer wife and mother who performed extraordinary acts of service locally and nationally to unite women and men in securing every woman’s right to vote.  She used her wit and intellect to garner support. She referred to her campaign style as the “still hunt” shunning public displays such as rallies and demonstrations which she feared would motivate the opposition. (Duniway, 1914) She worked tirelessly and never gave up even in the face of tremendous resistance. It is imperative that we learn from our history. Although we have gained many of the rights Abigail and her contemporaries fought so valiantly for women’s rights are again under attack. Roe v. Wade has been overturned and cuts to Medicaid and Medicare including Planned Parenthood, will disproportionately affect women’s health and well-being.  The current administration has launched a forceful assault on women’s bodily autonomy. The right to decide what happens in and to your own body is one of the most basic inalienable human rights. Without control of one’s own body a person can never be truly free.  What comes next?  We are losing rights that have already been granted and history tells us our right to vote can also be rescinded.  Now more than ever, it is critical that women come together as a united front to support each other, advocate for our rights, and be heard.

    Photo by Kathy Kroening. My Cello. Seattle, WA, August 2025

    The cello is a complex and beautiful instrument.  One of the things I love most about playing is feeling the vibration from the strings in my chest and coming up from the floor through my feet, especially if I play barefoot.  When you play a fingered note on the cello that is the same note as one of the open strings, if you are perfectly in tune the fingered note vibrates the open string, amplifying the resonance and sound.  It always catches me off guard but touches me deeply and makes me smile.  In these turbulent times fueled by hatred and violence can we come together as a community of women, perfectly in tune, amplifying our vibration, resonance and sound?  Our rights, respect, and dignity are being threatened and we need to be heard, not as a discordant symphony, but as one beautiful, vibrant, ringing voice.

    Until next time sisters stay safe, be well, be kind to yourself, support each other, and spread the love.

    Photo by Kathy Kroening. Seattle, WA. May 2025

    References:

    American Bar Association, (n.d.). Women’s Suffrage Timeline.  https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/programs/19th-amendment-centennial/toolkit/suffrage-timeline–/

    Blair, K. (Ed.). (2001). Women in Pacific Northwest History (rev. ed.). University of Washington Press.

    Duniway, A. (1914). Path Breaking: An Autobiographical History of the Equal Suffrage Movement in Pacific Coast States. James, Kerns, & Abbott Company.  https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=LYtJAAAAIAAJ&pg=GBS.PP12&hl=en

    Letter from Abigail Adams to John Adams, 31 March – 5 April 1776 [electronic edition]. Adams Family Papers: An Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society. http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/

    Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams, 14 April 1776 [electronic edition]. Adams Family Papers: An Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society. http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/

    National Women’s History Museum (n.d.). Woman Suffrage Timeline (1840-1920).  https://www.crusadeforthevote.org/woman-suffrage-timeline-18401920

    She Flies with Her Own Wings: The Collected Speeches of Abigail Scott Duniway (1834-1915).  https://asduniway.org/

    Stanton, E.C. (1848). The Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions.  National Women’s History Museum.  https://www.womenshistory.org/resources/primary-source/declaration-sentiments-and-resolution

    The New York Historical. (n.d.). Women and the American Story. Life Story: Abigail Scott Duniway (1834-1915). https://wams.nyhistory.org/industry-and-empire/fighting-for-equality/abigail-scott-duniway/

  • Slippery Slope

    Project 2025 promotes an exclusive pro-life agenda and makes many claims about abortion that are not supported by references and appear to be in conflict with known facts.  The authors state the Department of Health and Human Services “should create and promote a research agenda that supports pro-life policies and explores the harms, both mental and physical, that abortion has wrought on women and girls”. (Dans & Groves, 2023, p. 461) The authors refer to the CDC’s surveillance of abortion as “woefully inadequate” and acknowledge state reporting is voluntary and three states do not provide data (California, Maryland, and New Hampshire). (p. 455) While this information is accurate, the authors omitted the state of New Jersey that also does not provide data on abortions.  After acknowledging the difficulty in accurately determining the number of abortions and related complications, two pages later the authors state “Abortion pills pose the single greatest threat to unborn children in a post-Roe world.  The rate of chemical abortion in the U.S. has increased by more than 150 percent in the past decade; more than half of annual abortions in the U.S. are chemical rather than surgical”. (p. 457) The authors also state the complication rate for chemical abortion is four times higher than surgical abortion (p. 458).  These claims are not supported by in text references or any of the 87 citations in the reference section for this chapter.

    The author of the chapter on Health and Human Services passes final judgement on mailing of chemical abortifacients with the statement “Allowing mail order abortions is a gift to the abortion industry that allows it to expand far beyond brick-and-mortar clinics and into pro-life states that are trying to protect women, girls, and unborn children from abortion”. (Dans & Groves, 2023, p. 459) One of the author’s strongest recommendations for reducing access to abortion is “Policymakers should end taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood and all other abortion providers and redirect funding to health centers that provide real health care for women.  The bulk of federal funding for Planned Parenthood comes through the Medicaid program”. (p.471- 472).  Policies implemented by the current administration since the beginning of the year indicate agreement with the Project 2025 recommendations on this issue.   On January 9, 2025, H.R.271 – Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2025 was introduced in the House of Representatives by Minnesota Republican Michelle Fischbach.  The bill would restrict Planned Parenthood’s federal funding (through Medicaid) for one year and prohibit funding unless they certify they will not provide abortion services except in cases of rape, incest, or endangerment of the mother’s life.  (H.R. 271, 2025) While there has been no action on this bill, the recent passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act included the same provision in section 71113, Federal Payment to Prohibited Entities. (H.R. 1, 2025) Cuts have also been made to the Title X Family Planning Program which is dedicated to funding family planning services, research, and training.  On March 31, 2025, the current administration began temporarily withholding funding for some Title X grants because the recipients allegedly did not comply with the administration’s recent DEI prohibitions.  Not coincidentally, all grants to Planned Parenthood and their affiliates were included among these recipients.  A lawsuit has been filed by the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association alleging the actions by the Department of Health and Human Services are unlawful. (DeBoth & Napili, 2025)

    These cuts in funding make clear the current administration’s intent to severely limit abortion services.  The problem is both Planned Parenthood and Title X grant recipients provide many services unrelated to abortion.  Funding cuts will limit provision of these services as well, preventing many women, teens, and families from receiving basic health care.  While services vary by clinic, Planned Parenthood provides the following resources: preventive care; vaccinations; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections; evaluation and treatment of sexual and reproductive concerns; prenatal and postpartum care; pregnancy testing and planning; mental health care; HIV services; and a range of birth control education and options. (Planned Parenthood, n.d.) Title X grant recipients provide a wide array of family planning services similar to those of Planned Parenthood with the exception of any services related to abortion.  Title X also collaborates with the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, which is evidence based and provides grants for programs and evaluation of innovative approaches to preventing teen pregnancy. (DeBoth & Napili, 2025; Office of Population Affairs, 2024)

    Keeping in mind the limitations of the abortion tracking system in the United States, what is known about prevalence and mortality? A total of 613,383 legal abortions were reported to the CDC in 2022.  The percentage of this total by age group was 0.2% for women under the age of 15, 5.6% age 15-19, 28.3% age 20-24, 28.2% age 25-29, 20.6% age 30-34,10.7% age 35-39, and 3.6% age over 40.  The percentage of abortions by weeks of gestation was 40.2% at less than six weeks, 38.4% at seven to nine weeks, 14.2% at 10-13 weeks, 3% at 14-15 weeks, 1.6% at 16-17 weeks, 1.5% at 18-20 weeks, and 1.1% greater than 21 weeks.  The percentage of abortions by method was 35.5% surgical less than 13 weeks, 53.3% chemical less than 13 weeks, 6.9% surgical greater than 13 weeks, and 4.3% chemical greater than 13 weeks.  There were five reported deaths determined to be abortion related in 2021, the last year that this data was reviewed.  This is a rate of 0.46 per 100,000 abortions.  The case fatality rates for abortion have remained low since data tracking by the CDC began in 1973.  The number of deaths per 100,000 abortions was 2.09 between 1973-1977 and has been less than one since 1978.  For the reporting period 2013-2021 there were 0.46 reported fatalities per 100,000 abortions and during this same time frame the total number of abortions decreased by 5%. (Ramer et al., 2024)

    Now that we have examined voluntary reported rates of abortion in the United States let us take a look at potential complications of both surgical and chemical abortion.  While complications are dependent on the type of abortion and stage of pregnancy, overall rates of complication are low with estimates of major complications (requiring admission to a hospital, surgical intervention, or blood transfusion) less than 0.3% and minor complications (bleeding that stops on its own or continued pregnancy) less than 4%. Legal induced abortion is safer than childbirth.  As stated in the previous paragraph, the number of deaths from abortion in 2021 was 0.046 per 100,000 abortions.  This compares to 32.9 deaths per 100,000 live births from complications of childbirth in that same year.  Serious infection after chemical abortion is rare with rates ranging from 0.01-0.5%.  Uterine aspiration can be necessary after both chemical and surgical abortion due to retained tissue although this is uncommon with rates estimated between 1-4%. (Hoyert, 2024; Jung et al., 2023)

    As stated in the opening paragraph of this piece, the authors of Project 2025 make claims regarding abortion without providing supporting references.  Let us see how they hold up to actual facts.  The first claim is that the rate of chemical abortion has increased 150% in the past decade.  Keep in mind that abortion reporting is voluntary, four states do not report any abortion statistics, and only 39 states report data on chemical abortion. The CDC estimated early medication abortion (less than 10 weeks) increased 129% between 2013 and 2022 (an increase from 23.6% of all abortions to 54%) with only a 4% increase between 2021 and 2022.  Remember that the number of total abortions between 2013 and 2022 actually decreased so while 129% sounds like a gigantic increase it is actually a shift from more surgical abortions to more chemical abortions and not an increase in the total abortion rate.  This is actually positive in terms of safety.  It means a larger proportion of women are terminating pregnancy before 10 weeks and using chemical rather than surgical methods, both of which lower risk of complications. (Ramer et al., 2024) I am not sure where the Project 2025 figure of 150% came from since it was not referenced.  Even if it were accurate the way it was presented is misleading.  The second claim from Project 2025 is that half of all abortions are now chemical and this is true however as I have just stated, this is actually positive from a safety perspective.

    The third claim by Project 2025 that I referenced in the opening paragraph is that chemical abortion has a complication rate four times higher than surgical abortion.  In conducting a literature search, I found a study that included this sentence in the abstract: “The overall incidence of adverse events was fourfold higher in the medical compared with surgical abortion cohort”.  This study was published in 2009 and the results were based on data collected between 2000 and 2006.  It was conducted in Finland and published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.  A general search only allows access to the abstract.  In order to read the full article, you must have access to a database that subscribes to the journal which is usually a medical facility or college/university. The author of the chapter in Project 2025 that includes this information is a Harvard educated attorney and earned a Master of Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University and a Bachelor of Business Degree from the University of Southern California.  He currently serves as the Vice President for Domestic Policy at the Heritage Foundation.  While he may have had access to the complete article, it appears he did not read it. 

    In the Finland study the researchers identified seven categories of complications from both chemical and surgical abortion.  Only two of these categories accounted for the dramatic difference in side effects between chemical and surgical abortion. The first category was hemorrhage, which occurred in 15.6% of those receiving chemical abortion and 2.1% for surgical abortion.  The researchers did not clearly define hemorrhage and later in their discussion stated that they were not surprised by this finding since bleeding, lasting approximately two weeks, is associated with chemical abortion.  In their conclusions they stated both methods of abortion were associated with a low level of serious complications.  The second category of complications with a significantly higher rate in chemical abortion was incomplete abortion with surgical evacuation at a rate of 5.9% for chemical versus 0.4% for surgical abortion. (Niinimäki et al., 2009) Three physicians from the United States wrote a letter to the editor that was published six months later.  The physicians represented the Medical Abortion Initiative in North Carolina, and the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology from both Columbia University in New York and Boston University in Massachusetts.  These physicians stated the previously published rate of blood transfusion following use of medical abortion was 0.1 – 0.4%, substantially lower than the Finland study.  They stated the authors of the study did not define hemorrhage.  They contacted one of the researchers from the study and learned that even if a woman was experiencing normal bleeding after chemical abortion, if she returned to the clinic for reassurance it was counted as a complication due to hemorrhage.  The physicians also pointed out the authors did not define incomplete abortion, with prior literature reporting much lower rates between 0.5 – 2.8%.  They concluded their letter by stating medical abortion is very safe and complications need to be clearly defined when making comparisons between medical and surgical abortion. (Fjerstad et al., 2010)

    The Project 2025 author who made these claims appears to have just read the abstract of this one research study and printed it as fact with no supporting data, in a professional document making recommendations to the President of the United States regarding women’s reproductive health care.  Aside from the fact that the data are between 19-25 years old and the study was conducted in a different country with a different health care system and different medical practices, the study had significant limitations that made the data inaccurate.  This is why it is so important to read the entire study rather than relying on the abstract to evaluate whether the information is accurate and or useful.  Since I am not acquainted with the author that made these claims, I am unable to speak to his reasoning for including inaccurate data but since he is an extremely well-educated man his decisions are perplexing. 

    Now that we have examined some factual information about abortion rates and complications, I would like to return to the recent policy decisions that will cut funding for Planned Parenthood and other agencies that receive federal funding for providing abortion services.  If these agencies are required to certify they only provide abortion services for women whose lives are endangered by continued pregnancy or who are victims of rape and incest, how are these determinations made?  Since Roe v. Wade was overturned in June of 2022, decisions about abortion are made at the state government level and there is obviously significant variability among states. In Florida two physicians must certify in writing that termination of pregnancy is necessary to save a woman’s life or “avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman other than a psychological condition”.  It is disconcerting that state statutes dismiss a woman’s psychological health when dictating medical decision making. In cases of rape and incest, when a woman schedules or arrives for her appointment, she must provide documentation of “a restraining order, police report, medical record, or other court order or documentation providing evidence that she is obtaining the termination of pregnancy because she is a victim of rape, incest, or human trafficking”. (Florida Statues, 2024, 390.0111, d) The statue also states that abortion cannot be performed on a minor (under age 18) without written and notarized consent from a parent or legal guardian. (390.1114, 5, a)

    If the federal government requires certification from agencies that they meet the new terms for grant funding of abortion services, does this override individual state’s current statutes?  Legally, the burden of proof for rape, incest, and domestic sex trafficking is on women, and historically the odds are stacked against us.  Women are often disbelieved, humiliated, and retraumatized by the legal system.  A perfect example of this is demonstrated in comments made by Missouri Republican Senator Todd Akin in 2012.  He stated “First of all, from what I understand from doctors, [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” (Carroll, 2012)  Akin comments on rape   With false beliefs like this is it any wonder women have such difficulty legally proving sexual violation from men? If women are victims of intimate partner violence, incest, or domestic sex trafficking, their partners/parents/traffickers may prevent them from scheduling and attending medical appointments alone and control what is said during appointments, limiting women’s access to abortion services. Many states currently allow minors to access reproductive health care, including abortion services without parental consent.  Will the new federal legislation override this in all states?  These are important questions with profound impact on women’s reproductive rights that have not been openly addressed.

    As already discussed, the authors of Project 2025 insist on a pro-life, anti-abortion agenda.  In addition, they also appear to support only natural methods of birth control. The author of the chapter on Health and Human services states the CDC should “update its public messaging about the unsurpassed effectiveness of modern fertility awareness-based methods (FABM’s) of family planning and stop publishing communications that conflate such methods with the long-eclipsed “rhythm” or “calendar” methods”. (Dans & Groves, 2023, p. 455) The author further states “CDC should fund studies exploring the evidence-based methods used in cutting-edge fertility awareness.  FABMs (fertility awareness-based methods) are highly effective and allow women to make family planning choices in a manner that meets their needs and reflects their values. (p. 485) There are no references in the text to support either claim.  A recent review article, comparing natural to hormonal contraceptives states natural contraceptives have a high rate of failure and require extensive training for women prior to use.  The authors of this study also state for women who have irregular menses, the fertility window is much larger eliminating natural contraceptives as an acceptable option.  Natural methods of contraception described in the article include withdrawal, calendar (rhythm) method, Billings ovulation method, symptothermal method, and fertility monitor.  The authors state many studies on natural contraceptives are poorly done making it difficult to evaluate their effectiveness with failure rates ranging from 3% to 84%.  Their review of the literature indicated if used properly hormonal contraceptives are the most effective form of pregnancy control and are well tolerated by most women. (Genazzani et al., 2023)

    What would be the economic impact of the Project 2025 recommendations and the current administration’s decisions to dramatically reduce or eliminate access to abortion services and effective methods of contraception? A recent estimate of the costs for prenatal care, labor and delivery, and postpartum care in the United States came to roughly $19,000.00 with out-of-pocket expenses around $3,000.00. (Rae et al., 2022) An estimate of the costs of raising a child to the age of 18 in the United States with the 2025 economy came in at $297,674.  This estimate includes costs for rent, food, daycare, clothing, transportation, health insurance premiums, and the value of federal tax credit.  This is an increase of 25% in the last two years. (Davis, M., 2025) This brings our total expenses to $316,674.00 per child. As mentioned already, there were 613,383 legal abortions reported in 2022 and we know due to voluntary reporting this is a significant underestimation.  If all of these pregnancies were carried to term the total cost for pregnancy, labor and delivery, postpartum care, and raising a child to the age of 18 would be roughly 194 billion dollars. Who pays for this?  Some families could afford these expenses, but many could not prompting their use of federal and state aid for housing, food, education, and medical care. Can the United States economy support this?  Have the authors of Project 2025 or the current administration directly addressed this major flaw in their plan to eliminate abortion services?  The answer is no.  The recently passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act cuts funding for: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) formerly known as food stamps; housing; employment; and Medicare and Medicaid (including reproductive health services for women and primary health care for women, children, and families). (H.R. 1, 2025) These cuts disproportionately affect women, particular women of color and those of lower socioeconomic status. The Project 2025 recommendations and recent administrative policies appear to be all talk and no walk with the potential to have catastrophic consequences.

    The authors of Project 2025 state “Alternative options to abortion, especially adoption, should receive federal and state support”. (Dans & Groves, p. 6).  I am not sure what other alternative options they are referring to but adoption itself is not the answer. The adoption process can be lengthy and numbers are too low to accommodate a large influx of babies entering the system.  In 2022, roughly 79,000 adoptions took place in the U.S.  Around 53,500 of these adoptions were from the foster care system.  There are over 100,000 children in the foster care system waiting for adoption.  In 2022 over 200,000 children entered the foster care system with around 70% of those being infants.  The average time spent in the foster care system prior to adoption is two to five years and some children are never adopted.  An estimated $10.6 billion in federal funding was spent on foster care services in 2023. (Drumm et al., 2025; Adoption Network, n.d.)

    Despite the financial unfeasibility of prohibiting abortion, the effects on women’s and children’s physical health, mental health, and wellbeing would be devastating.  Women who are forced to carry an unintended pregnancy to term and either give the baby up for adoption or decide to raise the child may suffer a range of medical and psychological symptoms that can negatively impact their functioning in all aspects of their lives including parenting. Children who grow up in homes with limited access to resources, parents with disabilities, or those in foster care can have lifelong medical and mental health complications. The landmark Adverse Childhood Experience Study (ACE) looked at the effects of childhood psychological, physical or sexual abuse, substance use, mental illness, criminal behavior, and violence toward mothers in the home on health and mental health in later life.  Higher numbers of adverse experiences increased risk of health and mental health complications in adulthood including smoking, obesity, depression, attempted suicide, substance use disorders, and high-risk sexual behaviors leading to sexually transmitted infections.  There was also an increased risk of heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic respiratory problems, and diabetes. (Felitti, V. et al., 1998) In addition to loss of function and lower quality of life, there is significant financial burden for medical and mental health care.

    The authors of Project 2025 and the current administration’s anti-abortion agenda not only affect women in the United States but globally as well.  As stated in Project 2025, “USAID now aggressively promotes abortion on demand under the guise of “sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights,” “gender equality,”, and “women’s empowerment” and advocates for those who claim minority status or vulnerability.” Project 2025 also states “The U.S. government should not and cannot promote or fund abortion in international programs or multilateral organizations”. (Dans & Groves, pp. 192 & 259) The current administration has closed the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and while a primary target may have been abortion, this is a small portion of how USAID funds are used.  These funds are also used for education for children, basic healthcare, HIV prevention and treatment, crises in the Congo and Ukraine, maternal and child health including women’s reproductive health care, supplying lifesaving medications, food, and water, and protecting women and children. (Oxfam America, 2025) The loss of this funding will affect millions of children, women, and men in countries that are struggling to provide basic needs.  What is the real reason for these cuts?

    Photo by Kathy Kroening. Wailua Falls, Kauai, Hawaii. December 2012.

    Under the guise of making America great again, the current administration and the Conservative Movement have set in motion a fast-moving river of change. There is big talk about beautiful benefits and concealing consequences. Waterfalls are beautiful, with their mist and spray that capture bits of sunlight creating rainbow bursts as water cascades to the pool below.  But don’t be fooled by what is happening on the surface because the intense flow of water is gradually eroding the riverbed below, taking large amounts of anchoring sediment with it.  Recent decisions made by the current administration will disproportionately affect women’s health and well-being.  The erosion of women’s rights is reflected in the denial of a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, to make decisions about what happens in and to her body.  This is one of the most basic unalienable human rights.  It may seem like a minor setback to some, but momentum is against us.  Keep in mind these policy changes are stripping rights we already possess creating a slippery slope.  Which of our rights will be targeted next?  What is the underlying agenda?  It is imperative that we come together as a community of women to advocate for what we have and what we need, both of which are being threatened.  Solidarity, resilience, innovation, and creativity will lead us forward.

    Up next, a look back at women making history. Until next time sisters stay safe, be well, be kind to yourself, support each other, and spread the love.

    Photo by Kathy Kroening. Seattle, WA. May 2025

    References:

    Adoption Network. (n.d.) Adoption Statistics. https://adoptionnetwork.com/adoption-myths-facts/domestic-us-statistics/

    Carroll, L. (2012) Doctors Appalled over Rep. Akin’s Comments that “Legitimate Rape” Prevents Pregnancy.  NBC News.  https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/doctors-appalled-over-rep-akins-comments-legitimate-rape-prevents-pregnancy-flna954572

    Dans, P., & Groves, S. (Eds.). (2023). Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. The Heritage Foundation. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-2025s-mandate-for-leadership-the-conservative-promise/

    Davis, M. (2025). It Costs an Additional $297,674 to Raise a Child Over 18 Years, Up 25.3%.  Lendingtree. https://www.lendingtree.com/debt-consolidation/raising-a-child-study/

    DeBoth, A. & Napili, A. (2025). Title X Family Planning Program. (CRS Report No. IF10051, Version 28) https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10051

    Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2025, H.R. 271, 119th Cong. (2025-2026) https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/271

    Drumm, A. R., Davi, N., & Hanlon, R. (2025). Adoption by the Numbers: 2021 & 2022. National Council For Adoption. Alexandria, VA. https://adoptioncouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Adoption-by-the-Numbers-2025.pdf

    Felitti, V., Anda, R., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D., Spitz, A., Edwards, V., Koss, M., & Marks, J. (1998). Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245-258. https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/s0749-3797(98)00017-8/pdf

    Fjerstad, M., Westhoff, C., & Lifford, K. (2010). Immediate Complications After Medical Compared with Surgical Termination of Pregnancy [Letter to the Editor]. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 115(3), p. 660.

    Florida Statutes. (2024). Termination of Pregnancies. 390.0111. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300-0399/0390/0390.html

    Genazzani, A., Fidecicchi, T., Arduini, D., Giannini, A., & Simoncini, T. (2023). Hormonal and Natural Contraceptives: a review on efficacy and risks of different methods for an informed choice. Gynecological Endocrinology, 39(1), 1-13.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37599373/

    Hoyert, D.L. (2023) Maternal Mortality Rates in the United States, 2021. NCHS Health E-Stats. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2021/maternal-mortality-rates-2021.htm

    Jung, C., Oviedo, J., & Nippiti, S. (2023). Abortion Care in the United States – Current Evidence and Future Directions. New England Journal of Medicine Evidence, 2(4), 1-10.  https://evidence.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/EVIDra2200300

    Niinimäki, M., Pouta, A., Bloigu, A., Gissler, M., Hemminki, E., Suhonen, S., & Heikinheimo, O. (2009). Immediate Complications After Medical Compared with Surgical Termination of Pregnancy. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 114 (4), 795-804. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19888037/

    Office of Population Affairs (2024). Title X Program Guidelines.  https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-03/title-x-program-handbook-dec-2024.pdf

    One Big Beautiful Bill Act, H.R. 1, 119th Cong. (2025-2026) https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1

    Oxfam America. (2025). What USAID Does and the Impact of Trump’s Cuts on Foreign Aid.  https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/issues/making-foreign-aid-work/what-do-trumps-proposed-foreign-aid-cuts-mean/

    Planned Parenthood (n.d.) Our Services. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/get-care/our-services

    Rae, M., Cox, C. & Dingel, H. (2022) Health Costs Associated with Pregnancy, Childbirth, and Post-partum care. Health System Tracker, Peterson Center on Healthcare and Kaiser Family Foundation. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/health-costs-associated-with-pregnancy-childbirth-and-postpartum-care/

    Ramer, S., Nguyen, A.T., Hollier, L.M, Rodenhizer, J., Warner, L., & Whiteman, M.K. (2024). Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2022. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 73(7):1–28. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/ss/ss7307a1.htm?s_cid=ss7307a1_w

  • An Ideal World

    Project 2025’s promotion of restoring the American family combined with an anti-abortion agenda paint a rosy picture of pregnancy, motherhood, and prosperity. The authors state the CDC should “ensure that it is not promoting abortion as health care” and “fund studies into the risks and complications of abortion and ensure that it corrects and does not promote misinformation regarding the comparative health and psychological benefits of childbirth versus the health and psychological risks of intentionally taking a human life through abortion”. (Dans & Groves, 2023, p. 451).  The wording of this statement seems to indicate the authors beliefs that pregnancy and childbirth pose no risks and are beneficial for all women and that abortion is both psychologically and medically dangerous and damaging for all women.  In their ideal world every woman would want to focus on family, every pregnancy would be carried to term, healthy mothers would deliver health babies at the end of nine months, and we would all live happily ever after.

    The problem is we don’t live in an ideal world. There are risks, complications, and benefits of pregnancy, childbirth, and abortion.  Let us take a look at factual information on pregnancy, labor, and childbirth in the United States.  Fair warning that this and the next post are research heavy pieces.  My husband commented it was like reading a college term paper, which is fair enough.  I realize this type of writing can be challenging to read but good research and good science are important in distinguishing myth from reality.  In professional writing it is imperative to reference claims and statements of fact.  It helps the reader know you did not pull a piece of information out of thin air because your claims are supported by scientific evidence.  The authors of Project 2025 make many claims that are not factual and they do not provide reference material in support of these claims.  Since I am challenging the validity of many of these statements it is important for me to provide reference material.  My apologies if this makes it a difficult read.  The good news is that the next post should conclude my examination of Project 2025 as it relates to women’s rights, allowing me to move on to other aspects of women’s power, women’s rights, and women’s history. 

    Like many other things in life, research can be well done or of poor quality, affecting the validity of the findings.  There are two general categories of research design with subcategories in each.  Qualitative studies use interview data from participants, observations, and other non-numerical data to look for meaning and patterns of specific phenomena.  Quantitative studies use numerical data and statistical analysis to test hypotheses.  A typical framework for a scholarly article presenting research findings includes an abstract and introduction followed by sections on methods, results, discussion, and conclusions.  The article should also include any limitations or conflicts of interest and a reference section.  Acceptance in a peer reviewed journal lends credibility.  The peer review process allows those with expertise in a given field to filter submissions, and make sure they meet a stringent set of standards set by the publication.

    I will use a hypothetical study to provide guidance on some basic areas to evaluate for accuracy and relevance.  Our researcher, Dr. Happy, and his team have developed a new drug that they claim will eliminate hatred.  They conducted a double blind randomized controlled trial that included 500 participants from the greater Seattle area in Washington State.  The treatment group consisted of 250 participants who received a daily dose of the drug Empathy and completed screening tools and clinical interviews pre-treatment and at monthly intervals for the first three months.  The remaining 250 participants were in the control group and received a placebo as well as the same screening tools and clinical interviews as the treatment group.  All participants were randomly assigned to either the treatment or control group using a computer-generated algorithm and neither the participants nor the researchers were aware of who was in either group.  The treatment and control groups were demographically matched, including age, gender, and race, and ethnicity.  At the end of the study, Dr. Happy concluded that his drug Empathy decreased or eliminated hatred in the treatment group at a rate that was statistically significant compared with the control group.

    What should we be looking for in Dr. Happy’s research article to help us understand the significance, or lack thereof, of his study findings?  In the introduction it would be helpful to know why Dr. Happy developed this drug in the first place.  Is there an excess of hatred in the world?  How does hatred affect society?  What benefit would elimination of hatred have in the world?  In the methods section it is important to understand Dr. Happy’s definition of hatred, how he arrived at this definition, and how he is measuring hatred.  Is there an existing body of literature on hatred that he used to help with his definition?  Is he using measurement tools that are well established and proven to have good reliability and validity?  Or did he create his own measurement tools and if so, how has he established reliability and validity?  We also need to know in detail the structure of his research design.  This section should be clear enough that a different research team could conduct their own study following his methods and replicate his results.  In the results section we need to see his actual data and statistical analysis.  The discussion section gives Dr. Happy’s interpretation of the data and the conclusion section provides a summary and review of important findings.

    Dr. Happy should disclose limitations of his study.  These would include things like the small sample size and single geographic location, both of which affect generalizability and representation.  A study of 500 Seattleites is definitely not representative of all human beings or all Americans and in fact is not even representative of all Washingtonians.  There is significant socioeconomic and political diversity in Washington State between the east and west sides, with the Cascade Mountain Range creating a natural divide of sorts.  Are there significant differences in level, expression, and effect of hatred by geographic region in the United States and different countries around the globe?  Dr. Happy should also disclose any conflicts of interest he or members of his team may have, like his role as a paid consultant with Pfizer and the fact his investment portfolio includes significant shares of stock in this company.  While this hypothetical scenario is an over-simplification, I hope it helps you develop your own questions related to reliability, validity, and generalizability of the studies you read.

    As you navigate the research world, try to remember that there are no perfect studies and no single study conclusively proves a point.  All studies have limitations and sometimes there are no studies that provides the data you are seeking.  Research studies are tools to help guide critical and analytical thinking and the information they generate needs to be used wisely.

    Let us take a look at maternal and fetal complications during pregnancy, labor, and childbirth and briefly discuss pregnancy in special populations including teenagers, victims of rape, and victims of domestic sex trafficking. Pregnancy can be a very dangerous time in a woman’s life.  The physiological and hormonal changes that take place during pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum cause tremendous stress on the human body, including the brain.  Hypertension can be both a pre-existing condition and develop during pregnancy with estimates ranging from 10-16% of pregnant women in this country. Pre-eclampsia and eclampsia are conditions that can develop rapidly during pregnancy causing hypertension with potential damage to other organ systems in the body leading to permanent damage and in some cases death. (Backes & Scrimshaw, 2020, p. 2; Kuklina et al., 2024, p. 2) Hypertension during pregnancy can lead to chronic high blood pressure after giving birth and cardiovascular disease after birth and later in life, including increased risk of death from cardiac problems. (Kuklina et al., 2024, p. 3) Other medical complications of pregnancy can include gestational diabetes, miscarriage, hemorrhage, placental abruption (partial or complete separation of the placenta from the uterine wall prior to delivery), and ectopic pregnancy (the fertilized embryo implants outside the uterus, often in the fallopian tube causing a medical emergency). (Backes & Scrimshaw et al., 2020, pp. 3-5; Mullany et al., 2023, p. 1) The rate of mortality from these complications varies and many lead to chronic conditions that negatively affect a woman’s health.

    Medical complications of labor and vaginal childbirth can affect multiple systems in the body and include genitourinary (fistula development, urinary/anal incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, infection and scar tissue from wound complications, and infertility); sexual dysfunction postpartum; psychological disorders (postpartum depression and psychosis, anxiety, birth related post-traumatic stress disorder, and extreme fear of childbirth); peripartum cardiomyopathy (weakening and decreased efficiency of the heart muscle); nerve injury causing pain and dysfunction; thyroid dysfunction; breast inflammation and infection; weight retention postpartum; sepsis (systemic infection); chronic anemia; and problems with future pregnancies. (Vogel et al., 2024, p. 319) Cesarean birth adds additional potential complications including infection at the surgical site, adhesions (scar tissue), development of clots, chronic pain, and problems with subsequent pregnancy, labor, and delivery. (p. 319)

    There are risks to the fetus as well as the mother during pregnancy, labor, and delivery.  Fortunately, fetal mortality rates are relatively low in the United States, with recent statistics from 2022 indicating for every 1000 live births approximately four deaths in Asians, five in whites and Hispanics, seven in American Indians and Alaska Natives, 10 in Blacks, and 11 in Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders.  (Gregory et al., 2023, p. 3)   The varying rates among ethnic groups are most likely related to a combination of lack of medical insurance, lack of access to care, and bias within the health care system.  Adverse neonatal outcomes during labor and delivery include: lack of oxygen and blood flow before, during, or immediately after birth, potentially causing brain damage; excess bilirubin; immature development of the lungs causing decreased oxygen to the brain and body and requiring mechanical ventilation; significantly elevated heart rate that may require medical intervention; breathing fetal stool into the lungs potentially causing respiratory difficulty; seizures; and sepsis (systemic infection) which can cause permanent organ damage and lead to death. (Gupta & Cabacungan, 2021)

    Teen birth rates in the United States have been declining over the last three decades. In 2023 the rate was 13.1 live births per 1000 females aged 15-19. While the reasons for this decline are most likely a combination of multiple factors more recent data suggest an increased use of effective methods of birth control plays a major role.  Despite the decline in teen birth rates, there are unique challenges for teenage mothers including disruption in education leading to decreased job opportunities, lower income, less social support, the potential for increased use of social services, and often heavy burdens on the families of teen mothers.  Children of teen mothers may also be at risk for poorer outcomes medically, psychologically, socially, and academically than children born to older mothers (Mickler & Tollestrup, 2025, pp. 2-13)  

    And what about pregnancy in special circumstances?  Estimates of pregnancy as the result of rape and/or sexual coercion in women in the United States are close to 1 in 20 (5%).  Since rape is grossly underreported it is difficult to accurately estimate the number of pregnancies that result from this violation.  In addition to the potential pregnancy complications already discussed, these women often experience ongoing physical and psychological consequences including chronic physical health conditions, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. (D’Angelo et al., 2023, pp. 5-7)

    Another special circumstance to consider is pregnancy in the context of domestic sex trafficking.  Accurate data is hard to come by and accounts vary widely but a recent study conducted in the United States was quite illuminating.  Although the sample size was very small because this was a pilot study for development of a human trafficking survivor survey, the information gleaned clearly supports the need to gather additional information on this population.  Keeping in mind the small sample size (31), over half reported gynecological issues including: vaginal infection, discharge, and pain; painful sex; urinary tract infections; and problems with menstruation.  Other gynecological symptoms reported in 13-42% of survivors included painful menstruation, pelvic pain, vaginal bleeding, bladder infection, pelvic inflammatory disease, ovarian cyst, cervical infection, and cervical cancer. (Lederer et al., p. 68) Between 13% and 45% of survivors reported sexually transmitted infections including chlamydia, gonorrhea, genital herpes, trichomoniasis, genital warts (HPV), and syphilis.  The number of survivors reporting some form of birth control was 87%.  Despite this, total pregnancies reported by survivors were 119 with 44 abortions, 32 miscarriages and one still birth.  The majority of survivors that carried a pregnancy to term kept and raised these children. Only 37% of survivors reported receiving full pre-natal care and less than 10% who interacted with health care professionals felt they received trauma informed care, helpful referrals, and follow-up care. (pp. 69-72,75)

    Perhaps the most meaningful findings from the domestic sex trafficking study are the heart-rending quotes from several of the survivors that include: “I had so many problems that I believe are connected to when I was trafficked.  I had vaginal infections, UTIs, PID (pelvic inflammatory disease), cysts and scar tissue from abortions.  When I got out and married, I couldn’t get pregnant, and my gynecologist said I would have to have an operation to make it possible for me to have children.  Now I have uterine cancer.”; “I was pregnant three times during the time I was trafficked and all of them were by different buyers.”; “I got pregnant twelve times – all of them by my trafficker/pimp.  I had three abortions, three children, and many miscarriages”; and “I must have gone to dozens of emergency rooms, clinics, and even private physicians and not one of them asked me or understood what was happening to me.” (Lederer et al., pp. 67, 69, 74) The trauma experienced by these survivors has lifelong destructive consequences.  Damage from infection, miscarriage, abortion, lack of access to appropriate medical care, pregnancy, and childbirth may cause permanent dysfunction resulting in chronic gynecological problems and potentially limit a survivor’s ability to carry a pregnancy to term.  The psychological ramifications are substantial including chronic depression, anxiety, and severe symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  Children raised in this environment also experience significant medical and psychological sequelae.

    Given the potential complications and chronic health conditions from pregnancy, labor, and childbirth it should be every woman’s choice to decide if she will carry a pregnancy to term.  This is especially true in situations when pregnancy is a result of violation of her body against her will.  Despite risks many women look forward to, choose, and embrace motherhood. But just because women can bear children does not mean they have to.  There are many women who are unable to conceive and many who make conscious choices not to become parents.  This does not in any way diminish their feminine identity or their contributions to society.

    As mentioned at the beginning of this piece, Project 2025 emphasizes a woman’s role in restoring the American family.  The authors attempt to acknowledge the challenges of motherhood stating, “Conservatives should ardently pursue these pro-life and pro-family policies while recognizing the many women who find themselves in immensely difficult and often tragic situations and the heroism of every choice to become a mother”. (Dans & Groves, p. 6).  The key words here are “choice” and “heroism”.  In demanding an anti-abortion agenda, the authors are eliminating a woman’s “choice” so it is an interesting word to use in the same sentence as pro-life.  Perhaps “forced choice” would have been more appropriate.  The word heroism means “heroic conduct especially as exhibited in fulfilling a high purpose or attaining a noble end”. (Merriam-Webster, n.d.)  I suspect if women who did not want to carry a pregnancy to term were forced to do so and asked how they felt about it, the words heroic, high purpose, and attaining a noble end would not be included in their responses.

    Is Project 2025 and the conservative movement’s utopian ideology a cover for some other agenda?  The authors are very clear on the importance of a woman’s primary role as procreator, how much they value this role, and how rewarding and fulfilling it is for women.  The evidence they provide to support these views and the recommendations they make for policy change do not substantiate their claims and in fact they significantly limit women’s choices and roles and disrespect women’s bodily autonomy and contributions to society.  Let us not become complacent, lulled to sleep by the rosy glow of sunset on the water, unaware of the crashing waves, riptides, and jagged rocks below.  Continue to be observant, thoughtful, and question what is below the surface of the ideal world.

    Photo by Kathy Kroening. Cannon Beach, OR. September 2018

    Up next, a look at abortion safety and statistics and the emotional and socioeconomic sequalae for a woman and a child when government regulation denies a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. Until next time sisters stay safe, be well, be kind to yourself, support each other, and spread the love.

    Photo by Kathy Kroening. Seattle, WA. May 2025

    References:

    Backes, E.P. & Scrimshaw, S.C. (Eds.). (2020). Epidemiology of Clinical Risks in Pregnancy and Childbirth. Birth Settings in America: Outcomes, Quality, Access, and Choice. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Board on Children, Youth, and Families; Committee on Assessing Health Outcomes by Birth Settings; Birth Settings in America: Outcomes, Quality, Access, and Choice. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2020 Feb 6. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK555485/

    D’Angelo, D., Liu, Y., Basile, K., Smith, S., Chen, J., Friar, N., & Stevens, M. (2023) Rape and Sexual Coercion Related Pregnancy in the United States. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 66(3), 389-398. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37935321/

    Dans, P., & Groves, S. (Eds.). (2023). Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. The Heritage Foundation. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-2025s-mandate-for-leadership-the-conservative-promise/

    DeBoth, A. & Napili, A. (2025). Title X Family Planning Program. (CRS Report No. IF10051, Version 28) https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10051

    Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2025, H.R. 271, 119th Cong. (2025-2026) https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/271

    Gregory, E., Valenzuela, Z., & Martin, J. (2023). Fetal Mortality in the United States: 2020-2021 and 2021-Provisional 2022. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr032.pdf

    Gupta, R. & Cabacungan, E. (2021). Neonatal Birth Trauma: Analysis of Yearly Trends, Risk Factora, and Outcomes. The Journal of Pediatrics, 238, 174-180. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34242670/

    Kuklina, E.V., Merritt, R.K., Wright, J.S., Vaughan, A.S, & Coronado, F. Hypertension in Pregnancy: Current Challenges and Future Opportunities for Surveillance and Research. Journal of Womens Health( Larchmont). 2024 May;33(5):553-562.  https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2023.1072

    Lederer, J., Flores, T., & Chandler, M. (2023) The Pregnancy Continuum in Domestic Sex Trafficking in the United States: Examining the Unspoken Gynecological, Reproductive, and Procreative Issues of Victims and Survivors. Issues in Law and Medicine, Spring, 38(1), 61-76.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37642454/

    Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved July 27, 2025, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heroism

    Mickler, A. & Tollestrup, J. (2025). Teen Births in the United States: Overview and Recent Trends.  Congressional Research Service Report, R45184. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45184

    Mullany, K., Minneci, M., Monjazeb, R.C., & Coiado, O. Overview of ectopic pregnancy diagnosis, management, and innovation. Womens Health (London). 2023 Jan-Dec;19:17455057231160349. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/17455057231160349

    Office of Population Affairs (2024). Title X Program Guidelines.  https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-03/title-x-program-handbook-dec-2024.pdf

    One Big Beautiful Bill Act, H.R. 1, 119th Cong. (2025-2026) https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1

    Planned Parenthood (n.d.) Our Services. https://www.plannedparenthood.org/get-care/our-services

    Vogel, J.P., Jung, J., Lavin, T., Simpson, G., Kluwgant, D., Abalos, E., Diaz, V., Downe, S., Filippi, V., Gallos, L., Galadanci, H., Katageri, G., Homer, C., Hofmeyr, J., Liabsuetrakul, T., Morhason-Bello, I., Osoti, A., Souza, J.P., Thakar, R., Thangaratinam, S., & Oladap, O. Neglected Medium-Term and Long-Term Consequences of Labour and Childbirth: A Systematic Analysis of the Burden, Recommended Practices, and a Way Forward. The Lancet. 2024 February; 12(2):317-330. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(23)00454-0/fulltext

  • Women Are People Too

    Women Are People Too

    Continuing my examination of Project 2025 and the anti-abortion platform, the word abortion and its iterations appear approximately 176 times in the document. (Dans & Groves, 2023).  It is included in the introduction to Project 2025, the introduction to the sections on the Common Defense and the General Welfare, and the chapters on Executive Office of the President of the United States, Department of State, Agency for International Development, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Justice, Department of Labor and Related Agencies, and Department of Veterans Affairs.  It is used 133 times in the 48-page chapter on Health and Human Services.  All but three occurrences appear in chapters written by men.  This is a lot of visibility for a subject that does not logically fit in many of the places it appears in this document.

    The language used in Project 2025 to discuss the abortion issue is inflammatory at times, including the terms anti-life (Dans & Groves, p. 585), abortion tourism (p. 455), and the abortion industry (p. 478).  Are individuals who support a woman’s right to choose what happens in and to her body really anti-life?  If this is true, I would expect them to actively promote or facilitate death in other areas of their life including their own death and there is not a shred of evidence to demonstrate this.  The last statement may sound ridiculous but I am not sure there is another interpretation of the term anti-life.  When I read the words abortion tourism, they conjure an equally ridiculous image.  I happen to live in a state where abortion is legal and I must admit I have not seen any form of advertising on billboards, television, or on-line, encouraging women to become pregnant so they can vacation in Western Washington State, enjoying Puget Sound, Mount Rainier, and the Olympic Peninsula, then stopping at Planned Parenthood to get an abortion on their way out of town. The words abortion industry indicate a company or corporation providing marketing of a product or service as a source of revenue.  Once again, I have seen no advertising in this country encouraging women to become pregnant so they will need abortion services.  Women who seek an abortion are already pregnant and grappling with an extremely difficult decision.  The choices they make are influenced by a multitude of factors including but not limited to the circumstances surrounding conception, a woman’s physical and emotional health and resources, financial resources, social support, and the health of the fetus.  The majority of facilities that provide abortion services also offer other reproductive health services for women.  Hospitals that perform abortions provide a wide array of services outside of women’s health, so performing abortions is not their primary source of revenue.  Suggesting the absence of abortion services will stop women from having an abortion is not realistic.  We know from history this just pushes it underground increasing medical and psychological complications for both women receiving abortion services and those seeking services who are unable to access them.

    Additional language used in the discussion of abortion that does not seem accurate relates to the Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) and Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP), both of which are part of the Office of Population Affairs.  Project 2025 states “In addition, certain provisions should be employed so that these programs do not serve as advocacy tools to promote sex, promote prostitution, or provide a funnel effect for abortion facilities and school field trips to clinics, or for similar purposes.” (Dans & Groves, p. 477) No specific examples of these activities or references providing validation are included in the text. These programs offer grants to various community agencies and organizations to provide education and advocacy that prevent teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, and reduce sexual risk behaviors.  (Office of Population Affairs, n.d.) The grant recipients include city health departments, Christian service organizations, Boys and Girls Clubs, Indigenous Nations, universities, family health councils, county health boards, and county and state health departments just to name a few. (Office of Population Affairs, n.d.)  It would be morally, ethically, and legally problematic for these agencies to provide curriculum and activities that promote sex, prostitution, or take field trips to abortion facilities for teens to receive abortion services.  These are serious accusations that are unsubstantiated.

    Why would the authors of Project 2025 use language that paints an inaccurate picture of reality and makes light of a very serious situation?  As stated in the foreword, the first broad goal the conservative movement has for America’s future is restoring the family as the core of America and protecting our children. (Dans & Groves, p. 3) It is referenced in different forms in multiple places in this transition plan.  Family is defined as “a married mother, father, and their children.” (p. 451) In one lofty paragraph, the authors state 40% of births occur in unmarried mothers with more than 70% in the black community and that the absence of a father causes “poverty, crime, mental illness, teen suicide, substance abuse, rejection of the church, and high school dropouts.” (p. 4)  There are no in text references to support these claims.  The authors also state their definition of family is necessary for society to thrive, including “Without women, there are no children and society cannot continue.” (p. 259) Taken together, these statements rigidly delineate the roles of women and men.  A woman’s role is to birth children and a man’s role is to protect children from medical and psychological disease and to instill beliefs and values that allow them to thrive in society. This view reduces women to biological incubators when in fact, women do so much more than birth babies.  As mothers, their contributions are boundless and often underappreciated. Being a mother is a 24-hour a day job for many years and while there are many joys and rewards there are also hardships, headaches, and heartaches.  Too often American society devalues and disrespects the contributions mothers make.  For many women, in addition to their 24-hour a day job as a mother they also make significant contributions to the workforce, often perform the majority of domestic duties in the home, provide caretaking services for family and friends, and share nurturing, wisdom, and encouragement widely.

    The authors of Project 2025 have made a strong statement against a woman’s right to decide what happens in and to her body.  They recommend the elimination of the Health and Human Services Reproductive Healthcare Task Force, replacing it with one that is pro-life. (Dans & Groves, p. 489) They even go so far as to suggest renaming the department of Health and Human Services as the Department of Life “explicitly rejecting the notion that abortion is health care and by restoring its mission statement…to include furthering the health and well-being of all Americans from conception to natural death.” (p. 489)

    This condemnation of a woman’s most basic right to bodily autonomy is in stark contrast with multiple references to liberal government trampling the rights of American citizens.  In defense of these rights, the authors of Project 2025 repeatedly refer to unalienable rights and constitutional protection of rights. The author of the foreword states “The American Republic was founded on principles prioritizing and maximizing individuals’ rights to live their best life or to enjoy what the Framers called “the Blessings of Liberty”. (Dans & Groves, p. 14) This protection of rights spans multiple areas including something as insignificant as recommending the elimination of governmental dietary guidelines because these choices are best left to people working with their own health care providers (p. 309).  In the chapter on agriculture the authors state, “Reducing the scope of government and promoting individual freedom may not always be easy, but it is something that conservatives regularly should strive for.” (p. 310)

    One area that received modest attention in Project 2025 was COVID-19.  The authors saw the government’s response as an extreme violation of rights.  An example of this includes “The next Administration should unequivocally embrace the premise that humanity and the international community can simultaneously tackle pandemics and other emergent health threats without impeding the right of the people.” (p. 192) The authors also seem to make an odd connection between COVID and abortion by stating the government “should not and cannot” promote abortion in the international community followed by “The COVID-19 pandemic made it painfully clear that both international organizations – and some countries – are only too willing to trample human rights in the name of public health.” (p. 192) Basic human rights are being defined here as the ability to refuse quarantine, wear a mask, or get a vaccine, yet it is not considered a violation of a woman’s rights to force her to carry a pregnancy to term and often take sole, lifelong responsibility for that child.

    Despite the emphatic resistance to governmental interference with unalienable and constitutional rights, the authors of Project 2025 appear to be quite selective about who can and should be protected.  Although the authors use the terms individuals, humans, and people to identify those whose rights should be protected, apparently women are not represented by any of these terms.  In addition to denying a woman’s right to determine what happens in and to her body, the authors use language indicating that the government should define and limit a woman’s expression of her own femininity. “Instead of protecting women’s and children’s unalienable human rights and propelling their ability to thrive in society, past Democrat Administrations have nearly erased what females are and what femininity is through “gender” policies and practices.” (pp.258-259) While I believe this sentence takes aim at the transgender community it attempts to misdirect readers to women’s health issues.  An in-depth discussion of gender expression and the current administration’s implementation of policies targeting it is beyond the scope of this blog. The attempt to link it with women’s reproductive health and negatively tie it to liberal politics is smoke and mirrors that appears to be an attempt to deflect attention away from their own agenda that limits women’s rights.

    Another statement that seems directed at the transgender community is “The Secretary (Department of Health and Human Services) should pursue a robust agenda to protect the fundamental right to life, protect conscience rights, and uphold bodily integrity rooted in biological realities, not ideology.” (p. 450) In this instance, the authors selectively use protection of bodily integrity in defense of their argument while pushing denial of this right for women through their anti-abortion agenda.

    A glaring point of conflict between women’s rights and the rights of others in Project 2025 appears in the chapter on the Department of Justice. In the specific legal case referenced, the government compelled a Christian website designer to create and publish a website celebrating same-sex marriage but declined to compel a person from the LGBTQ community to create a similar website in support of opposite sex marriage.  The authors state legally, objecting to the message was the basis for declining to create the latter website while status rather than message was the basis for declining to create the former.  The author of this chapter concludes “…this argument inevitably turns on the viewpoint expressed.  It means that the government gets to decide which viewpoints are protected and which are not – a frightening and blatantly unconstitutional process.” (Dans & Groves, p. 560).

    This example raises an important question about another relevant legal case, Roe v. Wade, which was decided on January 22, 1973.  In delivering the opinion of the Court, Justice Blackmun stated the District Court determined the “fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment” (Roe v. Wade, 1973, p. 4) and the Supreme Court concluded “the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision”. (p. 13) This decision was qualified by limiting the timeframe for abortion to the period of time before a fetus becomes viable.  With this decision, the Supreme Court established a constitutional right to abortion that restricted individual states from denying this right.  On June 24th, 2022, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned this decision, something many people thought would never happen.  Justice Alito delivered the decision stating the Court overruled Roe v. Wade because there is no constitutional protection specifically for abortion. (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 2022, p. 13) The full text of the Roe v. Wade decision was approximately 28 pages while that of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was approximately 204 pages.  Both contain historical information on abortion and cite other legal cases to support their decisions.  This appears to be almost identical to the case presented in Project 2025 where the author so vehemently stated the government should not decide which viewpoints are protected because it is “blatantly unconstitutional”. (Dans & Groves, p. 560).

    Project 2025 cites The Report of the Commission on Unalienable Rights as a reference document in the chapter on the Department of State.  The author of this chapter articulates the report “is a roadmap for revamping and reenergizing U.S. human rights policy and should be the basis for both structural and policy changes throughout the State Department”. (Dans & Groves, p. 192).  This report defines unalienable rights as “universal and nontransferable”, “pre-political”, and further states “They owe their existence not to the determinations of authorities or to the practices of different traditions but to the fundamental features of our humanity.” (Commission on Unalienable Rights, 2020, p. 12) The report also explains protection of these rights requires limiting government “because majorities are inclined to impair individual freedom, and public officials are prone to putting their private preferences and partisan ambitions ahead of the public interest.” (p. 15) While these statements certainly speak to the bias and conflicting logic in Project 2025 the same could be said about the Supreme Court’s changing views on the abortion issue.

    While a woman’s right to determine what happens in and to her own body is not the only right in danger of further restriction from the current administration, its significance cannot be overlooked.  Bodily autonomy is a basic unalienable right.  We have laws in place to protect bodily integrity whether this relates to harm from others or decisions about intrusive medical care.  Sadly, these laws are not well enforced in situations of intimate partner violence against women or rape of women.  We teach our children not to allow others to touch them without their permission.  This is not about the decision an individual woman makes about her pregnancy. This is about a woman’s right to make the choice that is best for her.  Acknowledging this unalienable human right to bodily autonomy validates that women are people too.  Can we come together as women to advocate for all the rights we are entitled to and support each other in this turbulent time?  Can we emulate the winter rose that has the audacity to bloom when others lie dormant?  In dark times she shines with her brilliance, beauty, and resilience.

    Photo by Kathy Kroening. Seattle, WA. February 2021.

    Next week, a closer look at the complex web of socioeconomic and medical facts affecting abortion, pregnancy, childbirth, and child rearing.  Until then sisters stay safe, be well, be kind to yourself, support each other, and spread the love.

    Photo by Kathy Kroening. Seattle, WA. May 2025

    References:

    Commission on Unalienable Rights. (2020). Report of the Commission on Unalienable Rights. U.S. Department of State. https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Draft-Report-of-the-Commission-on-Unalienable-Rights.pdf

    Dans, P., & Groves, S. (Eds.). (2023). Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. The Heritage Foundation. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-2025s-mandate-for-leadership-the-conservative-promise/

    Dobbs V. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/19-1392/

    Office of Population Affairs, (n.d.). About the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program.  https://opa.hhs.gov/grant-programs/teen-pregnancy-prevention-program/about-tpp-program

    Office of Population Affairs, (n.d.).  Current Teen Pregnancy Prevention Grant Recipients.  https://opa.hhs.gov/grant-programs/teen-pregnancy-prevention-program/tpp-grant-recipients/current-tpp-grant-recipients

    Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/

  • The Great Divide

    The Great Divide

    As promised, this week I’ll take a closer look at Project 2025.  You may be wondering why it is important to focus on this document in such detail.  In the conclusion to Project 2025, the former President of the Heritage Foundation states the first Mandate for Leadership was created in 1981 and a new version has been created every four years. (Dans & Groves, 2023, p. 884) In 1981 President Reagan recruited many of the authors of the transition plan to join his administration which executed close to fifty percent of the suggestions during the first year of his term. (p. 884) During his first term, the current President enacted 64 percent of the proposals from the 2016 transition plan by the end of his first year in office. (p. 885) If this information is accurate, it would stand to reason that the current President will again use this transition plan as a guide for policy decisions.

    As I mentioned last week, it is important for readers to think critically about what they read, check facts, and analyze language for clarity, accuracy, and congruity.  I think this is a good starting point for our examination of Project 2025. The first thing I wanted to know was some background information about the authors.  Of the 34 chapter authors and two editors: 28 are men and eight are women; 32 are white, two are black, and two are other; 17 are attorneys, one is a physician, and of the remaining 18, fourteen of them have graduate degrees including either a master’s degree, doctoral degree, or both.  Twenty of them served in some capacity with the current President’s first term in office and at least half a dozen are serving with him in the current administration.  Why is this important?  It provides context for the educational, political, and socioeconomic lens through which the writing of this document was filtered.  It is important to note that despite the information provided in the previous two paragraphs, the current President denounced Project 2025 during his campaign. (C-Span, 2024) Denouncement of Project 2025

    Sound and effective professional writing is concise, free from slang and buzz words, clear, accurate, and provides credible resources and reference materials to support claims.  As a recommended transition plan for the President of the United States, I would consider Project 2025 to be a professional document and expect it to meet these standards.

    Several buzz words jumped out at me because they appeared multiple times in the document.  The word weaponization occurs approximately nine times (I say approximately because it is a very long document and I may have missed a few).  This word as defined in Webster’s dictionary means “to adapt for use as a weapon of war”. (Merriam-Webster, n.d.)  As a buzz word, it takes on a negative, deceptive, and accusatory tone in describing the actions of a person or agency.  An example from Project 2025 reads “The federal government is a behemoth, weaponized against American citizens and conservative values, with freedom and liberty under siege as never before.” (Dans & Groves, 2023, p. xiv)

    What does this sentence actually communicate?  The author seems to have strong feelings of dislike and distrust for the current government.  Since this was written during the Biden administration and since the author accuses the government of being at war with conservative values, we can assume the author identifies as a conservative.  The structure of the sentence also links conservative values with American citizens suggesting the author believes most or all American citizens identify as conservative which would be inaccurate.  This statement does not identify specific issues the author has with the government nor does it list particular conservative values that are being targeted.  It also does not provide any information that would help the President of the United States make changes in policy to address the unidentified issues with the government or support the unnamed conservative values.  There is no additional clarifying information in the paragraph that includes this sentence thus it appears to be a stand-alone condemnation of the federal government.  Why then would the author use this type of language if it does not provide factual information or recommendations for change?  Since I am not acquainted with the author I cannot speak to their reasoning behind this particular statement.  However, authors often use buzz words and inflammatory language to evoke strong feelings in their audience and increase unity for various causes.  This is one of the situations I mentioned last week when language can be deceptive.  On the surface this sentence makes a very emphatic statement about the destructive force of the government but once you scratch the surface and dig a little deeper it lacks substance.  This is why it is imperative for readers to think critically about the content they consume rather than succumb to the power of linguistic gloss and glitter.

    The word woke appears in some form approximately 28 times in Project 2025.  Twelve of these occurrences are in the foreword section.  (Dans & Groves, 2023, pp. 1-17) I will admit, I am not the world’s most grammatically gifted writer so I tend to allow others a lot of leeway and give them the benefit of the doubt, but using this word 12 times in 17 pages does not seem like a lack of understanding of grammatical rules.  It is also worth noting that the author of the foreword is a former college history professor and college president so I would be more inclined to believe the repeated use of the word is intentional. (Wyoming Catholic College, n.d.)

    The word woke has a long history of expressing a call to action in the black community dating back to the 1920’s. (Robinson, 2022) It has more recently become culturally appropriated primarily by the white conservative community as derogatory slang indicating liberal views on issues of race and social justice in particular.  Again, since I am not acquainted with the author, I am unable to determine their reasoning behind the use and overuse of this word which distracted me from content that may have been more informative and meaningful. 

    In addition to overuse of the word woke, the author of the foreword is quite fond of the word elite, which also occurs multiple times.  Over the course of five paragraphs on the same page, the author of the foreword accuses elites of denying rights and being out of touch with the American people.  At the expense of overusing direct quotes, I think it is important here in demonstrating the level of emotion and conviction of the author in these statements.  Several examples include: “Progressive elites speak in lofty terms of openness, progress, expertise, cooperation, and globalization.  But too often, these terms are just rhetorical Trojan horses concealing their true intention – stripping “we the people” of our constitutional authority over our country’s future.”; “Instead, they believe in a kind of 21st century Wilsonian order in which the “enlightened,” highly educated managerial elite runs things rather than the humble patriotic working families who make up the majority of what the elites contemptuously call “fly-over country.””; and “Intellectual sophistication, advanced degrees, financial success, and all other markers of elite status have no bearing on a person’s knowledge of the one thing most necessary for governance: what it means to live well.” (Dans & Groves, p. 10)

    These sentences demonstrate the author’s opinion that progressives, who are well educated and wealthy, run the government and make decisions that are not representative of the average working-class family in America.  What are the characteristics of the average working-class American? According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the highest level of education reported by Americans in 2021 was roughly 10% with less than a high school diploma or GED, 28% with a high school diploma or GED, 15% with some college but no degree, 11% with an associate degree, 24% with a bachelor’s degree, and 14% with a master’s, professional, or doctoral degree. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2022) A look at median yearly incomes for 2022 indicate earnings of approximately $36,000 for those without a high school diploma, $42,000 for those with a high school diploma, $50,000 for those with an associate’s degree, $67,000 for those with a bachelor’s degree, and $80,000 for those with a master’s degree or higher. (NCES, 2024)

    The author of the foreword chose words that express his inclusion as an average working class American (stripping “we the people” of our constitutional authority over our country’s future).  He is the current President of The Heritage Foundation and as mentioned earlier he has been a college professor and college president.  He earned a bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, and a Doctor of Philosophy in history.  (Wyoming Catholic College, n.d.)  While his net worth is not publicly available his income from The Heritage Foundation was $926,195 in 2023. (ProPublica, n.d.)  Since his education and income would put him in the company of elites based on his own definition, his identification with and presumption to speak for the average working-class American are in conflict with his actual status. He is not the only author in Project 2025 to write from this vantage point.  Throughout this document there are numerous references to the political elite making decisions that deny rights and harm working-class Americans but nowhere in this document could I find representation from this group.  If the goal of this transition plan is to make recommendations to the President of the United States that will benefit the average working-class American it would strengthen this document if their voices were included.  It is simple to accomplish by identifying the population using factors such as income and education, interviewing a representative sample about what would improve their quality of life, and including these responses in the appropriate chapters of Project 2025 based on topic.  The Heritage Foundation clearly has the resources available for this work.  The lack of these voices in Project 2025 raises the question of how representative the recommendations for change are for working-class America and why the President is relying on it as a guide for policy change.

    The last word that caught my eye for overuse in Project 2025 is abortion and its iterations, which appear approximately 176 times.  This is an average of about once every five pages.  As a transition plan for the next conservative President, this document makes recommendations on foreign and domestic policy, government personnel, defense, general welfare, the economy, and independent regulatory agencies so why is the word abortion used so many times?   The author of the foreword lists four broad goals the conservative movement has for America’s future, the first of which is restoring the family as the core of America and protecting our children. (Dans & Groves, p. 3).  This goal is referenced throughout project 2025 and includes a heavy emphasis on a pro-life/anti-abortion platform.  Many references to this position are presented in a polarized manner with no in-depth discussion of the complexities of a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and to decide what happens in and to her body.  Inflammatory language is used copiously, including substituting the term anti-life for pro-choice. (p. 585)

    We have become a society of extremes.  Conservative/liberal, capitalist/socialist, masculine/feminine, pro-life/pro-choice, with many people adopting a world view that if you are not with me then you are against me.  Black and white thinking leads to polarization with no middle ground. Picture two groups of people with different beliefs standing on either edge of a canyon yelling at each other across the great divide, with air currents and weather often distorting the message.  If each group holds their ground there is no hope of effective communication.  When an individual identifies as a conservative, their view of liberals may be narrowly defined by a set of values that are opposite their own.  They may have no interest in getting to know someone who identifies as a liberal believing they have nothing in common. 

    Photo by Jeff Barreca. Waimea Canyon, Kauai, Hawaii. August 2000.

    When the world is viewed as separate groups of people based on shared beliefs and characteristics, we lose sight of individuality.  While every person is unique, as a human being they share common life experiences.  Every person has a family whether it is of biological or chosen origin or some combination of the two.  Every person has activities they enjoy, goals they wish to accomplish, losses they are grieving, and beliefs about the world we live in.  Every person has a story and listening to it is an opportunity to validate and respect their journey, acknowledge common ground, and thoughtfully consider new or different perspectives.  This is the middle ground that pulls us in from the extremes.  There may be risks involved in navigating the sides of the canyon on the way to the floor below but meeting in the center provides an opportunity to look someone in the eye and experience a deeper level of connection that is necessary for genuine communication.

    Next week, a closer look at the Project 2025 anti-abortion agenda and its promotion of selective unalienable rights and constitutional protections. Until then sisters stay safe, be well, be kind to yourself, support each other, and spread the love.

    Photo by Kathy Kroening. Seattle, WA. May 2025

    References:

    C-SPAN (2024, July 20). Donald Trump Disavows Project 2025. https://www.c-span.org/clip/campaign-2024/donald-trump-disavows-project-2025/5124900

    Dans, P., & Groves, S. (Eds.). (2023). Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. The Heritage Foundation. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-2025s-mandate-for-leadership-the-conservative-promise/

    Appearances of the word weaponization: pp. xiv, 43, 101,135 (2), 161,285, 557, 886.

    Appearances of the word woke (and iterations): pp. 1, 8 (3), 9 (2), 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 (2), 19, 38, 43, 48, 60, 62 (2), 135, 156, 204, 284, 285, 320, 462, 606, 692.

    Appearances of the word abortion (and iterations): pp. 5, 6, 8, 62, 90,187,191,192, 254, 259 (2), 260 (9), 261 (3), 263, 264, 265, 266, 284 (2), 285, 450, 455 (21), 456 (3), 457 (5), 458 (15), 459 (10), 460 (6), 461 (5), 471 (9), 472 (9), 473 (12), 474 (7), 478 (4), 485 (5), 486 (3), 491 (6), 492 (2), 492, 495, 496 (6), 497 (2), 546, 558 (2), 562 (2), 585 (6), 642, and 694.

    Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved June 28, 2025, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weaponize.

    Wyoming Catholic College (n.d.). Kevin D. Roberts, Ph.D. https://wyomingcatholic.edu/person/dr-kevin-roberts/

    Robinson, I. (2022, August 26). How Woke Went from “Black” to “Bad”. Legal Defense Fund.  https://www.naacpldf.org/woke-black-bad/

    United States Census Bureau (2022, February 24). Census Bureau Releases New Educational Attainment Data. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/educational-attainment.html

    National Center for Education Statistics (2024). Annual Earning by Educational Attainment.  https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/2024/cba_508c.pdf

    ProPublica (n.d.). Nonprofit Explorer: The Heritage Foundation. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/237327730

  • The Power of Women

    The Power of Women

    On this day we celebrate our independence as a country.  The preamble of our Constitution states: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure [sic] domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  (U.S. Const. preamble) Sadly Justice, Tranquility, Welfare, and the Blessings of Liberty are in danger from decisions being made by our own government.  These decisions affect many aspects of our lives including education, health care, housing, and economic stability.

    Like many Americans, I find myself worried about the loss of rights earned by the hard work and sacrifice of our descendants as they advocated for equality.  Feeling especially concerned about the rights of women, on International Women’s Day this year I sent the following text to my circle of women friends and colleagues:

    Happy International Women’s Day.  I am so grateful for you and all the other strong, resilient, and amazing women in my life!  Let us continue to strengthen our bonds and build our community of women who share their wisdom and mentor the next generation.

    It was a simple message that seemed to resonate deeply with the recipients.  The response I received inspired me to start a blog dedicated to encouraging women to come together as a community, provide support to each other, and generate creative ideas to preserve our rights that are being threatened by the current administration.

    I am a fairly private person and would not normally take such a public risk but I don’t feel I can sit this one out.  There is too much at stake.  I want to discuss our rights that are in danger of being eliminated, acknowledge and validate the many strengths we share as women and our contributions to society, pay tribute to those who came before us, and explore possible pathways to preservation.

    Before I move on, I would like to share a few thoughts about language.  Language matters.  It is what allows us to communicate and share information, thoughts, and feelings.  It can be breathtaking, conveying beauty, warmth, acceptance, humility, and love.  It can be destructive, spreading blame, guilt, humiliation, and hatred.  It can also be deceptive, distorting truth, deflecting blame, and distracting readers from what is right in front of them, much like a magician’s use of misdirection to create illusions.  While it is important for the writer to be thoughtful and responsible in their use of language it is equally important for the reader to think critically about what they read, check facts, and analyze language for clarity, accuracy, and congruity.  My goal for this blog is to present information for the reader to reflect on, discuss with others, and ultimately form their own conclusions.  While I believe humans are incapable of complete objectivity, I will strive to be as objective and apolitical as possible in my delivery and write with integrity. 

    While many Americans are and will be negatively affected by decisions and policies the current administration implements, I have chosen to focus exclusively on women.  My commentary is not meant to demean or diminish men in any way.  There are many men who support our rights as women, and I am extremely fortunate to have a husband who champions my independence, career, and life choices.  But if we as women want to protect and preserve the rights we have, and advocate for those we have not yet achieved, we need to stand united.  The impetus for change needs to come from within our own community.

    Exactly what is at stake? Plenty.  Project 2025 is a document created as a guide for the next conservative President. (Dans & Groves, 2023) Project 2025.  It was published in 2023 by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank based in Washington, D.C.  I have read this document in its entirety, all 920 pages of it.  Although the current President dismissed Project 2025 during his campaign, since taking office many of his decisions are consistent with the recommendations of this transition plan.  For example, Project 2025 states “The next conservative President must make the institutions of American civil society hard targets for woke culture warriors.  This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.” (pp. 4-5) On January 20, his first day in office, the President signed an executive order to end DEI programs.  (Exec. Order No. 14151, 2025) Project 2025 states “Over the past 45 years, Medicaid and the health safety net have evolved into a cumbersome, complicated, and unaffordable burden on nearly every state.” (p. 466) On January 20, 2025, his first day in office, the President revoked a number of executive orders from the prior administration including 14009, Strengthening Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. (Exec. Order No. 14148, 2025) Project 2025 also states “Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.” (p. 319) On March 20, 2025, the President signed an executive order to close the Department of Education. (Exec. Order No. 14242, 2025) These are just a few examples of steps taken by the current administration that align closely with Project 2025.

    Recommendations made in Project 2025 that may limit or eliminate women’s rights, some of which the President has already enacted, include: changes to healthcare, including reproductive health (Dans & Groves, 2023, pp. 457-476); changes to programs like Medicaid and Social Security that would affect economic stability for many women (pp. 462-473); changes to equality in the workplace (pp. 4, 62); and changes to childcare and education (pp. 331, 476-487).  Some of these rights have already been restricted by decisions made during this President’s first and current terms.  Some may not come to fruition.  Regardless, this administration has created an agenda that if approved and enacted would set women’s rights back decades if not centuries.

    It’s a lot to think about, daunting really.  But women are resilient by nature, we have to be.  When I think of my foremothers here in the Pacific Northwest, I admire and respect their courage and resilience.  They left their families and friends, many as very young women, to accompany their husbands into unknown territory and dangers in hopes of owning land, farming, and becoming self-sufficient.  On this journey that took months, these women gave birth, mothered children, lost children to disease and accidents, slept and cooked in primitive conditions, endured weather extremes, and feared the unknown.  Despite this, they made sure that everyone else was all right, putting their own needs aside.  Although the scenery may have changed and the conditions improved, women today are still mothering, shopping, cooking, cleaning, working, caretaking, and making sure everyone else is all right.  While these sacrifices are admirable, they are often not acknowledged or appreciated and come at a great price, compromising the health and mental health of the women who are taking such good care of everyone else.  Perhaps it’s time for a perspective shift, one that includes women prioritizing their own health and well being as they continue to care for others.

    For centuries humans have referred to our planet and nature in the feminine.  Mother earth/mother nature, the giver of life.  She provides much in the way of sustenance as long as we respect and protect her.  When she is threatened, she is unapologetic and often ferocious in her attempts to return to homeostasis.  This is not revenge, it is self-preservation.  The many gifts we as women give to society should not be defined or limited by men.  These gifts are ours to develop and utilize freely as we desire.  Our attempts to protect this freedom have been viewed through the lens of retaliation and perceived as a threat.  I believe, like mother nature, we are merely engaging in acts of self-preservation.  If American society as a whole is not ready to accept this alternate point of reference, can we as women unite and validate prioritizing our own health and wellbeing.

    There is tremendous hatred in the world right now that infiltrates women’s rights, driving a wedge between proponents and opponents, and causing fragmentation in the unity of women. Fighting hate with hate tends to escalate rather than placate which is necessary for dialogue and compromise.  Are there creative ways to come together as a community and advocate for our rights?  Can we put our political, cultural, and socioeconomic differences aside and create a strong and vibrant community of women who embrace our strengths and our differences?

    When I think about the power of women creating a strong and united community I return to nature for inspiration. I think there is much we can learn from trees.  These ancient and beautiful beings are incredibly resilient.  Living in the Pacific Northwest I have the opportunity to spend time in old growth forests and marvel at the collective life experience and wisdom contained there.  In his book The Hidden Life of Trees (Wohlleben, 2016), the author describes tree friendships (p. 3).  In order to utilize limited resources, trees share space, provide protection for one another, and connect root systems in order to build healthy and thriving communities.  They do whatever is necessary to make sure the entire community has what it needs to survive.  Often the most resilient trees are not those that grow the tallest, or the widest, or monopolize resources, they are the ones that grow their roots deep and wide, forming strong bonds with others.

    Photo by Kathy Kroening. Quinault Rain Forest, WA. June 2021.

    You may be wondering where you fit in and what you can do.  You may want to participate but don’t know how or feel you don’t have the personal, social, or economic resources to contribute.  What can you do?  Get together with your women friends.  Reach out to others to join your group.  Make new friends.  Discuss issues.  Discuss strategies for preserving women’s rights.  Enjoy being in the company of women.  Celebrate each other.  Hold space in your heart for women and women’s rights.  Now is the time for us to come together to support each other and promote change.

    Next week, I’ll take a deeper dive into the Project 2025 recommendations and Presidential actions that specifically threaten women’s rights.  Until then sisters stay safe, be well, be kind to yourself, support each other, and spread the love.

    Photo by Kathy Kroening. Seattle, WA. May 2025

    References:

    Dans, P., & Groves, S. (Eds.). (2023). Project 2025 Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. The Heritage Foundation. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24088042-project-2025s-mandate-for-leadership-the-conservative-promise/

    The United States Constitution: Full Text. (n.d.) National Constitution Center. Retrieved from https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text

    Trump, D. J. (2025, January 20). Executive Order 14151: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing. The White House. 

    Trump, D. J. (2025, January 20). Executive Order 14148: Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions.  The White House.

    Trump, D.J. (2025, March 20). Executive Order 14242: Improving Education Outcome by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities. The White House

    Wohlleben, P. (2016). The Hidden Life of Trees: What They Feel, How They Communicate – Discoveries from a Secret World. Translated by Jane Billinghurst. Vancouver: Greystone Books. 

Kathy Kroening

Women's Power and Women's Rights

Skip to content ↓