WRDI Watch
Every month I read dozens of articles, court decisions, agency announcements, and state legislative updates. Most don't become headlines. Some do. But the ones that stay with me …
Every month I read dozens of articles, court decisions, agency announcements, and state legislative updates. Most don't become headlines. Some do. But the ones that stay with me usually have something in common—they make me start connecting dots.
One story reminds me of another. A court decision gets me digging into history. A policy change makes me investigate enforcement. Before long, I've filled another page with questions, ideas, and half-formed theories.
So I thought I'd try something different this week.
Instead of focusing on a single issue, I'm sharing five stories that I found especially interesting this month. I hope you'll find them interesting too.
As you're reading, if one of these stories reminds you of something you've seen—or sparks a question of your own—I hope you'll hit reply. I'd love to hear what you're thinking.
— Julie
I started reading about Medicare's proposed decision to stop covering a breast cancer test. Within a few minutes, I wasn't thinking about the test anymore. I was thinking about something bigger.
Women's health has long been underfunded compared to men's. Women spend more on healthcare throughout their lives, yet research funding for female-specific conditions remains a small fraction of overall federal health research. And then there's Title X, Medicaid, federal research funding, and several other stories we've covered recently. None of these developments exists in a vacuum.
The Medicare decision—which has now been delayed while officials review public feedback—may ultimately go either way.
But I keep coming back to the same question: Is our country deprioritizing women's health? If so, the consequences won't stop with Medicare. Coverage decisions often ripple into the private insurance market, shaping care for millions of women.
I came across a reminder recently that Griswold v. Connecticut—the Supreme Court decision that established the constitutional right for married couples to use contraception—was decided in 1965.
I was born in 1963.
Growing up, I assumed I had essentially the same opportunities as my brothers. Looking back, I realize how incomplete that assumption was.
Over the past year, WRDI has covered renewed debates over contraception, fetal personhood, and questions about whether some hormonal contraceptives could eventually become illegal - again.
We definitely didn't have a very long period where contraception felt settled before it became something we were debating—and, in some places, defending—again.
A Bloomberg article about women's scholarships sent me down a rabbit hole.
Several colleges and companies—including both public and private institutions—are scaling back scholarships and programs designed to support women, not because the law requires it, but because they want to avoid scrutiny from the Trump administration, even though officials haven't explicitly barred single-sex scholarships. That's an important distinction.
As I read further, my mind went to all of the indirect effects of the administration's anti-DEI agenda. We spend a lot of time tracking what laws and policies actually say. This article reminded me that what people do in response can be just as important.
It's remarkable what fear and uncertainty can accomplish all by themselves.
You don't necessarily have to change the law if enough people decide to change first.
This was one of those articles where I kept opening browser tabs.
The administration canceled most federal teen pregnancy prevention grants two years before they were set to expire, saying the programs no longer aligned with agency priorities. At the same time, it announced new grant opportunities that will require applicants to demonstrate alignment with those same priorities.
Within a few minutes, I wasn't thinking about teen pregnancy prevention anymore. I was thinking about Title X, contraception, abortion, and the administration's growing emphasis on increasing the birth rate.
Then a phrase popped into my head.
"Barefoot and pregnant."
My husband has become something of an unofficial WRDI researcher. He often sends me articles, poems, and TED Talks he thinks I'll enjoy. This week he forwarded one from behavioral economist Peter McGraw about the rise of single living.
The talk was about the declining marriage rate and the resulting need for public policy to treat singles and non-singles more equitably. I was surprised to learn that married couples have access to more than 1,000 legal and financial advantages.
But whether more people marry, marry later, or never marry at all isn't really the point.
The point, at least for me, is that society changes. And when society changes, our laws and public policies eventually have to wrestle with those changes too.
I have a feeling this won't be the last time I write about this.
Women’s rights don’t look the same across the country. Our state pages are updated monthly to help you understand what rights are currently in effect, what's changing, and how policy shifts may impact women where you live.
View State MapWomen's rights are changing across the country. Your support helps keep fact-based information free, accessible, and easier to understand.
Choose the level of support that feels right for you:
Supporter — $5/month
Help keep WRDI free and accessible.
Sustainer — $25/month
Support state-by-state tracking and WRDI's long-term growth.
Prefer to make a one-time gift? Donate here.
Forward this free biweekly newsletter to a friend or family member. They can sign up on our homepage: https://www.womensrightsdata.org/