Summary
In 2025, the Trump administration instituted rapid changes to the data and information available on US government websites. We conducted a content analysis of the website womenshealth.gov between January 17 and February 20, 2025, to describe the changes that were made and to analyze what the changes reveal about the administration's priorities. Findings show crucial evidence-based maternal health and reproductive health care information was removed, and no credible health information was added. The information that was added reinforces biological sex essentialism, framing women's bodies as weak and in need of protection and framing trans people as a threat. Thus, the administration effectively uses womenshealth.gov as a platform to promote gendered power inequalities and LGBTQ+ oppression, rather than to improve health. This agenda, despite not being about health, will undermine health—not only for women and sexual/gender minorities, but for the entire population.
Keywords: Sexism, LGBTQ oppression, Health policy, Health communication
Introduction
Donald's Trump's inauguration as the 47th President of the United States on January 19, 2025, ushered in a series of rapid changes to the data and information available on government websites published by the CDC, FDA, NIH, and other US government agencies.1 Many websites disappeared completely, and important health data and resources were removed from remaining websites, causing great concern among scientists, clinicians, and public health officials. Further exacerbating these concerns, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a freeze on all external communications on January 21, and the extent to which the freeze has been lifted remained unclear as of April 2025. On January 20, 2025, the president issued an executive order entitled “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which redefined sex in ways that contradict scientific norms and evidence.2,3 Subsequently, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were instructed in January to remove the following words from internal reports and websites as well as manuscripts being considered for publication in scientific and medical journals: “Gender, transgender, pregnant person, pregnant people, LGBT, transsexual, non-binary, nonbinary, assigned male at birth, assigned female at birth, biologically male, biologically female.”3 The NIH then moved to terminate hundreds of active research grants that touched on topics related to gender, LGBTQ health, health equity, and DEI.4
In the context of this shifting landscape, we sought to understand the Trump administration's agenda for women's health by conducting a content analysis of the womenshealth.gov website before and after the new administration made changes to the site. Womenshealth.gov is a government organized website that communicates relevant and timely information about women's health to the public. The Office on Women's Health, established in 1991 as a division within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is responsible for the website womenshealth.gov. Its mission is to provide national leadership and coordination to improve the health of women and girls through policy, education, and innovative programs. The priorities of The Office on Women's Health are shaped by government actions. We used the Internet Archive Wayback Machine (https://web.archive.org/) to compare captures of the website between January 17 and February 20, 2025. Below we describe in detail the changes to the website, analyze what the changes reveal about the priorities of the Trump administration, and discuss the broader population health implications of these priorities.
Changes in website content
Changes take the form of content removals, both deletions and relocations, and content additions. Table 1 outlines all the changes made to the website during the study period. The first changes to womenshealth.gov that we identified were made between noon and midnight Eastern Standard Time (EST) on Inauguration Day, January 19, 2025. The changes on this date were minimal and consisted of removing the “White House Blueprint for Addressing the Maternal Health Crisis” and the “Fact Sheet: President Biden's Maternal Health Blueprint” from the bottom of the homepage. These documents were replaced with existing content on menopause and postpartum depression from other locations on the website. The rest of the content remained the same until Wednesday February 19, 2025, when the remaining changes listed in Table 1 were made between 4 am and 11 am EST.
Table 1.
Summary of trump administration changes made to womenshealth.gov website during January and February 2025.
| Removed from website | Added to website |
|---|---|
|
|
All of the material removed from the website was maternal health and reproductive health care information. This included a link to the website reproductiverights.govc (which no longer exists) that contained information about access to medications, contraception, emergency care, abortion, and a place to file complaints related to inadequate care or denial of rights. The “Maternal Mental Health Task Force Report to Congress” and the companion document “National Strategy to Improve Maternal Mental Health Care” were both removed, the latter becoming inaccessible and the former only accessible through a detailed query on the website search bar. These two key policy documents that were removed had laid out an agenda for improving maternal health care and reducing disparities faced by communities of color. The Featured Story “5 Things to Know About Hypertension in Pregnancy,” an evidence-based summary written for the public by the director of the Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention at the CDC, was removed from the homepage but is still available on a blog tab, with a notable revision removing the following sentence describing the causes of maternal health disparities: “These disparities likely stem from underlying factors, such as health care access and quality; availability of nutritious, affordable food and safe places to be physically active; and structural racism, including systemic racial and gender bias within the health care system.”
Content additions to the website centered on Protecting Women and Children. A banner and link “Protecting Women and Children” were added to the homepage as well as a new “Protecting Women” tab under “Health and Wellness” on the main page navigation bar. Clicking on any of these 3 headings directs the user to a new page containing a YouTube video by Riley Gaines (a former NCAA swimmer and activist opposing the inclusion of trans-gender athletes in women's sports) promoting Trump's executive order “Keeping Men out of Women's Sports” and the following six links: Defending Women; Protecting Children; Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports; Sex-based Definitions; the Female Athlete Triad in Sports; and Women's Health Research. The first three links (Defending Women; Protecting Children; and Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports) direct the user to Presidential Executive Orders redefining “sex” and “gender ideology” in ways that erase transgender and intersex individuals, so as to limit gender affirming care for transgender youth, and limit access to sports participation for people who are trans, non-binary, or intersex. The fourth link, titled Sex-based Definitions, redefines sex as a binary and immutable biological classification determined by the type of sex cell produced (sperm vs. ova), a definition inconsistent with biological and medical science, which recognizes multiple sex-defining characteristics including: chromosomes, hormones, reproductive anatomy, and gene expression.5,6
A featured story on “The Female Athlete Triad in Sports” is the fifth link and contains the only health information that was added to womenshealth.gov. The article describes the female athlete triad as “a condition that can impact [women's] ability to participate in sports” that consists of low energy availability, menstrual dysfunction, and impaired bone health. However, this article is based on science that was considered outdated a decade ago. In 2014, The International Olympic Committee (IOC) expert working group issued a consensus statement entitled “Beyond the Female Athlete Triad” which outlined that the concept of the Female Athlete Triad is now outmoded and should be replaced with the more comprehensive framework of Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S) to better reflect a syndrome that affects numerous physiological systems (not a women-specific triad) and influences men's health and athletic performance as well as women's.7 The final link, titled Women's Health Research, directs the user to DiscoverWHR (https://discoverwhr.nih.gov/), an NIH information portal launched in September 2024 that was designed to be a centralized resource for women's health research to promote collaboration and information dissemination to support women's health research. The website is in Phase 1, and includes a note that reads, “This is just the beginning!” As of April 2025, it still contained very limited information.
What the changes reveal
Analyzing the scope and content of the changes to womenshealth.gov reveals three key features of the Trump administration's agenda for women's health.
First, the agenda is fundamentally not about health
Vital health information and improvement strategies have been removed, and no substantial basic science or public health information, goals, or plans have been added. In particular, the removal of maternal health and reproductive health care information belies a lack of concern for women's health given the ongoing maternal health crisis in the US. The United States continues to have one of the highest rates of maternal mortality of any high-income nation—two to three times the rates of comparison countries.8 In 2022, the US maternal mortality rate was 22.3 deaths per 100,000 live births overall, 19.0 deaths among White women, 49.5 deaths among Black women,9 indicating that reproductive health is a pressing health problem facing US women in general and Black women specifically. If public health communication, including credible scientific information, is essential to improving health, as has been argued experts in the field, we should expect that the removal of accurate and evidence-based resources related to reproductive health could adversely affect health, especially for communities most affected by high-risk pregnancies, some of whom may delay seeking reproductive health services, including prenatal care.10,11
Information added to womenshealth.gov by the Trump administration, an article on the Female Athlete Triad, further illustrates that the agenda is not about health. It reports obsolete science as fact, dispenses dubious health advice with limited medical evidence of efficacy (e.g., menstrual cycle tracking as a way to improve athletic performance and prevent injury12), and shifts the focus from broad population health concerns to women's athletics which functions as a launchpad for the anti-trans agenda throughout the website. This niche topic is far removed from widely recognized women's health priorities. High-priority areas for women's health identified by experts include: autoimmune diseases, cancer, cardiovascular disease, dementia, HIV, maternal morbidity and mortality, menopause, mental health, substance use disorder, and violence against women.13 The neglect of these priories and attention to obscure and outmoded information on female athletes suggests that advancing the health of women broadly is not a genuine focus for this administration.
Second, the agenda is also not about reducing health disparities
By slicing out text that discusses the causes of maternal health disparities from an article about hypertension in pregnancy, the administration communicates a lack of desire to find solutions to address racialized and gendered health disparities. And by obscuring the root causes of health disparities, they cast health and aging as a natural biological process detached from the social experiences and inequalities that profoundly shape it. As social determinants are widely understood to be consequential for women's health,14 and a key driver of disparities, an approach focused narrowly on biological disease processes suggests an agenda little concerned with health disparities.
Third, the agenda is about promoting an ideology of gender retrenchment and the preservation of patriarchal power
Instead of investing in promoting health or reducing health disparities, the Trump administration is using womenshealth.gov as an onramp to promote an ideology of gender retrenchment and the preservation of patriarchal power. This agenda is evident in the priority placement of the banner and link “Protecting Women and Children” added to the homepage. It is also elaborated in the other changes to the website including: the new tab “Protecting Women” added under “Health and Wellness” on the main page navigation bar, the addition and prominent placement of material on the female athlete triad, the linking to Executive Orders that redefine “sex” and “gender ideology,” deny gender-affirming care to youth and limit access to sports participation for people who are trans, non-binary or intersex, and the removal of the term “gender” from the website.
While the theme of Protecting Women might suggest benefits to health, it has a long history of being used as a justification for women's oppression and exclusion. “Protection” has been used as a rationale to keep women from obtaining education, voting and participating in politics, owning property, participating in sport, and even from participating in NIH clinical trials—effectively reserving advantage for men in many spheres.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 The logic of protecting women, even when well-intentioned, can become embedded in laws and practices, and serve as a means of preserving patriarchal power. Protecting women can be a form of benevolent sexism.21 Benevolent sexism has been summarized as “a chivalrous view of women as pure and moral, yet weak and passive, deserving men's protection and admiration, as long as they conform” (p. 637).22 This form of benevolent sexism, protective paternalism, also recognizes men's power as a “burden gallantly assumed” and marks women as vulnerable (like children and unlike men), further legitimating the gender hierarchy that structurally privileges men over women (p.111).23 By the prominent placement of the new banner, “Protecting Women and Children” on the homepage, the overarching theme of protecting women serves to organize the administration's efforts.
The politics of protection are rarely neutral; who is imagined as needing protection is shaped by race and power. Appeals to protect women have been repeatedly deployed in racialized ways that prioritize white femininity and uphold racial hierarchies. In the post-Reconstruction era, white supremacists used the protection of white women's purity and safety as a justification for the lynchings of Black men who were alleged to have committed sexual assaults.24 This centering of white womanhood is evident in Fig. 1, which shows that about one-third of the new womenshealth.gov homepage is an image of a woman with light skin and blonde hair, pictured beside the words “Protecting Women and Children.” Before the change, the homepage featured the image of a report titled “Maternal Mental Health Care” which had a checkerboard cover that included 10 digital cartoon images of people with light and dark skin tones.
Fig. 1.
Screenshots of womenshealth.gov website homepage before and after Trump administration changes.
Sex essentialist ideas and gender exclusion are fundamental to the promotion of this protectionist agenda. Sex essentialism refers to the belief that sex comprises two fixed, binary categories determined by biology, and that there are inherent differences in traits, abilities, and behaviors between men and women that are rooted in these biological distinctions.25 This perspective minimizes or ignores the influence of social and cultural contexts. The changes made to womenshealth.gov serve to reinforce sex essentialist claims. New material found in a link on the homepage titled Sex-based Definitions, redefines sex narrowly as a binary based on incomplete criteria. Sex essentialism is directly linked to protecting women; according to the website, “defending women requires federal agencies to recognize two sexes—female and male—defined by the biological function of producing eggs (ova) or sperm.” The homepage link, Defending Women, connects to the Executive Order titled, “Defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the federal government,” which states that “efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex fundamentally attack women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being.” The fundamental logic that recognizing women's supposed natural difference confers dignity, safety, and well-being upon them shares a vague similarity to the logic of the mid-19th century, when women's natural difference was thought to confer piety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity on them, a logic that was used to rationalize separate spheres and limit women's participation in public life.26 In addition, multiple links on the homepage take website visitors to the Presidential Executive Orders that redefine “sex” and “gender ideology” and serve to deny the identity and existence of transgender, intersex, and non-binary individuals, and prohibit the participation of trans-athletes in sports.
The addition and central placement of material on the female athlete triad illustrates and amplifies the agenda through its emphasis on natural difference and women's need for protection. The female athlete triad rests on the sex essentialist assumption that women and men are immutably and biologically different in meaningful ways that impact their athletic performance and injury risk. It further frames women's bodies as weakened and constrained by reproductive capacities. In so doing, it sets the stage for differential expectations and treatment and furthers protectionist narratives that limit rather than empower women and people of all genders.
The combination of reinforcing women's subordinate roles and devaluing LGBTQ+ identities in the new website material are unsurprising, given scholars' longstanding recognition that gender and sexuality systems are inextricably intertwined and mutually reinforcing. The continued subjugation of women is both contingent upon and strengthened by the marginalization of LGBTQ+ people, as the traditional gendered division of labor—which confines women to subordinate social and economic roles—relies on the maintenance of heterosexual relationships.27, 28, 29, 30 The term “structural heteropatriarchy” is used to convey the idea that there is a joint system of oppression that subordinates both women and sexual/gender minorities and upholds the dominance of heterosexual cisgender men.27 This interconnectedness is clear in the changes made to womenshealth.gov. Language asserting the need to protect women and women's spaces from transgender people simultaneously positions women as vulnerable and in need of protection and labels transgender people as violent and threatening. The marginalization of LGBTQ+ people is also communicated through the addition of the link titled Protecting Children. This link takes the visitor to the Executive Order banning gender-affirming care for minors and attempting to defund healthcare facilities that provide it. The order is titled, “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation,” which serves to support efforts to erase trans people and further entrench sex essentialist ideas.
Finally, the administration has removed the word “gender” entirely from the website in all but one instance, further communicating the agenda's emphasis on sex essentialism. Gender appears only in the title of the Executive Order described above (Defending Women from Gender Ideology …). By removing the word “gender” from womenshealth.gov, gender as an identity and gender as a social system of power and inequality are erased. Yet, both are critical in shaping women's health.31 Without the concept of gender, it is difficult to challenge the sex essentialist ideas that are used to naturalize and justify the gender binary that positions men as powerful protectors and providers and women as suited for submission and reproductive and household labor. In sum, the additions and subtractions to womenshealth.gov clearly communicate a “women's health” agenda focused on maintaining and strengthening the patriarchal system, not health.
Anticipated health consequences of the New Agenda
Although this agenda is not genuinely focused on health, it will nonetheless have significant population health consequences. By not adding any valid health information, it allows major women's health concerns (both longstanding and emerging) to go unaddressed. This is particularly problematic in the case of reproductive health, for which the administration removed vital information, despite the ongoing crisis of maternal morbidity and mortality in the US. Not only do pregnant people in the US continue to experience poor maternal health outcomes compared to other high-income nations, but there is also evidence that the Dobbs decision has led to increased infant mortality, and worsened quality of reproductive health care resulting in treatment delays, poorer health outcomes (e.g. higher rates of sepsis and blood transfusions), more costly and complex care, and preventable complications.32, 33, 34 Far from protecting women's health, this failure to address the escalating health crisis will almost certainly cause additional harm if it delays individuals from seeking needed care or limits access to credible, timely information among health practitioners. Furthermore, the removal of information on maternal health disparities is likely to increase their size, at a time when Black women already die from pregnancy related mortality at over three times the rate of White women.9
The population health consequences of the agenda reflected on womenshealth.gov extend beyond women. The type of anti-LGBTQ+ policies and rhetoric contained on the site has been shown to worsen the health and well-being of LGBTQ+ people of all genders across a wide variety of outcomes including: mental health (e.g., depression, distress), suicidality, substance use, overall self-rated health, STI rates, healthcare access and utilization, birth outcomes, crime victimization, and all-cause mortality.35 Cisgender heterosexual men's health is also likely to be harmed by this agenda because patriarchal gender norms can induce stress, encourage violence and risky behaviors, and reduce health care use.36 Furthermore, sex essentialist assumptions can undermine the effective practice of science, and introduce bias that harms men as well as women. For example, the conception of a specifically “female athlete triad” in sports, creates a framing that results in neglecting men's experience and needs which are impaired by Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S) syndrome.7 While this framing allows for advancing protectionist narratives surrounding women athletes, it serves to hamper sports medicine for all athletes. Similarly, sex essentialist logic distorts medical science in ways that can undermine accurate understandings of disease etiology, appropriate medical treatment, and effective public health interventions.37
Conclusions
We examined the changes made to the womenshealth.gov website between January 17, 2025, and February 19, 2025—focusing on the first month after President Trump took office for a second term—for insight into the new administration's agenda for women's health. We identified changes that suggest a major shift in emphasis and conclude that the Trump administration's agenda is not about promoting women's health or health equity; instead, it is about erasing gender as an identity and obscuring gender as a social system of power and inequality. This new agenda is promoted under the banner of “Protecting Women,” a banner that further serves to shore up a gender hierarchy that valorizes men as beneficent protectors and women as vulnerable and in need of protection. To accomplish its ends, the administration relies on executive orders to declare essentialist definitions of sex, limit trans rights, and ban the concept of gender. A skeptic might argue that the new agenda is expanding the scope of women's health. However, the removal and alteration of content related to reproductive health and the social determinants of cardiovascular health, and the addition of antiquated information on the female athlete triad, would suggest otherwise.
The observations we make regarding the shifts away from support for women's health are supported by our analysis of all changes made to the website over Trump's first month in office. Nonetheless, our conclusions about the administration's agenda for women's health are limited in that they are specific to changes to womenshealth.gov. However, other federal actions align with our conclusions. In April 2025, the Trump administration terminated funding for the Women's Health Initiative (WHI). The WHI was launched in the 1990s and viewed as a major course correction at a time when most medical research was conducted on men.38 After a public outcry, one day later, federal officials announced funding for the WHI would be restored.39 Despite this restoration, federal actions that walk back support for women's health are clear.40
We emphasize that our interpretation that the current direction is a shift away from support for women's health is supported by evidence. Most notably, the emphasis on sex essentialism and the removal of gender as an identity and system of power is at odds with the NIH-Wide Strategic Plan for Research on the Health of Women 2024–2028, a plan produced with input from scores of women's health experts and released in May of 2024, which outlines the importance of sex and gender and resulted in a Notice of Special Interest (NOT-OD-24-038) that “urged the scientific community to apply for research and/or training grants focused on the health impacts of gender-related social and structural variables” (National Institutes of Health 2024, p 3).41
Taken together, the administration seemingly disregards issues and needs canonical to women's health, while it simultaneously uses the construct of “women's health” as a platform to promote sex essentialism, gendered power inequalities, and LGBTQ+ oppression. We argue, however, that an agenda not about health can have real health consequences. Issuing a declaration that sex is a binary determined by gamete size and that gender doesn't exist, doesn't make it so. The denial of social structural determinants of health is deliberate misinformation. The violence directed towards LGBTQ+ people is not health-promoting. Using the banner of protecting women (read cis-gender heterosexual white women) as cover, the Trump Administration seems poised to promote gendered power inequalities and social exclusion that will undermine the health of our nation.
Key policy points.
-
•
Expert scientific convenings on women's health emphasize the need to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality and to address the social determinants, including structural oppression, that contribute to population health and health disparities.
-
•
Obfuscating scientific information about reproductive health and the social determinants of women's health and instead promoting material that emphasizes biological sex essentialism will harm the health of women, LGBTQ people, and the entire population.
-
•
Federal agencies should disseminate updated evidence-based health information on their websites to promote and support population health in line with expert scientific priorities.
-
•
In the absence of credible government health communications, researchers, practitioners, and advocates must develop creative strategies to communicate accurate and timely information related to women's health.
Contributors
Patricia Homan contributed to conceptualization and study design, literature search, data collection, data analysis, table and figure creation, data interpretation, writing, and editing. Susan E. Short contributed to conceptualization and study design, literature search, data interpretation, writing, and editing.
AI disclosure
No AI tools were used.
Declaration of interests
We declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Sarah Richardson and the Harvard GenderSci Lab for their feedback on this work.
Funding: None.
Footnotes
Last confirmed on 10/23/2025.
References
- 1.Stone W. NPR; 2025. Trump administration purges websites across federal health agencies.https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/01/31/nx-s1-5282274/trump-administration-purges-health-websites [Google Scholar]
- 2.The White House. Presidential Actions . The White House; 2025. Defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the federal government.https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/ [Google Scholar]
- 3.Krieger N., Gruskin S. Gender removal by fiat: impacts of new trump administration edicts. Lancet. 2025;405(10479):620. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(25)00243-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Exclusive: NIH to terminate hundreds of active research grants. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00703-1 [DOI] [PubMed]
- 5.Fausto-Sterling A. Routledge; 2012. Sex/Gender: biology in a social world. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Rehmann-Sutter C., Hiort O., Krämer U.M., Malich L., Spielmann M. Is sex still binary? Med Genet. 2023;35(3):173–180. doi: 10.1515/medgen-2023-2039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Mountjoy M., Sundgot-Borgen J., Burke L., et al. The IOC consensus statement: beyond the female athlete triad—Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport (RED-S) Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(7):491–497. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2014-093502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Commonwealth Fund . Insights into the U.S. maternal mortality crisis: an international comparison. 2024. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Hoyert D.L. NCHS Health E-States; 2022. Maternal mortality rates in the United States, 2020; p. 5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Forstag E.H., Rhodes H.G. National Academies Press; 2023. Effective health communication within the current information environment and the role of the federal government: proceedings of a workshop. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Bernhardt J.M. Communication at the core of effective public health. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(12):2051–2053. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.94.12.2051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.McNulty K.L., Elliott-Sale K.J., Dolan E., et al. The effects of menstrual cycle phase on exercise performance in eumenorrheic women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2020;50(10):1813–1827. doi: 10.1007/s40279-020-01319-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.NIH fact sheets on women's health research. 2025. https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sites/orwh/files/docs/NIH%20Fact%20Sheets%20on%20Womens%20Health%20Research_050924_508c.pdf
- 14.Short S.E., Zacher M. Women's health: population patterns and social determinants. Annu Rev Sociol. 2022;48(1):277–298. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-030320-034200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Sanford J.B. Voters' Information Manual. Secretary of State Elections Papers, 1911 Special Election. California State Archives; 1911. Argument against women's suffrage. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Dodge A.M. Woman suffrage opposed to woman's rights. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 1914;56(1):99–104. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Epstein C.F. Great divides: the cultural, cognitive, and social bases of the global subordination of women. Am Sociol Rev. 2007;72(1):1–22. doi: 10.1177/000312240707200101. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Kiarsis A. Brandeis University Law Journal; 2024. Coverture: for the benefit of all man[kind] p. 11.https://journals.library.brandeis.edu/index.php/blj/article/view/2299 [Google Scholar]
- 19.Maudsley H. Sex in mind and in education. Fortnightly. 1874;15(88):466–483. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Vidaver R.M., Lafleur B., Tong C., Bradshaw R., Marts S.A. Women subjects in NIH-funded clinical research literature: lack of progress in both representation and analysis by sex. J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2000;9(5):495–504. doi: 10.1089/15246090050073576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Glick P., Fiske S.T. The ambivalent sexism inventory: differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;70(3):491–512. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Bareket O., Fiske S.T. A systematic review of the ambivalent sexism literature: hostile sexism protects men's power; benevolent sexism guards traditional gender roles. Psychol Bull. 2023;149:637–698. doi: 10.1037/bul0000400. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Glick P., Fiske S.T. An ambivalent alliance: hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. Am Psychol. 2001;56(2):109–118. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Smångs M. Doing violence, making race: southern lynching and white racial group formation. Am J Sociol. 2016;121(5):1329–1374. doi: 10.1086/684438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Richardson S.S. Sex contextualism. Philos Theor Pract Biol. 2022;14(0) doi: 10.3998/ptpbio.2096. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Welter B. The cult of true womanhood: 1820-1860. Am Q. 1966;18(2):151–174. doi: 10.2307/2711179. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Everett B.G., Limburg A., Homan P., Philbin M.M. Structural heteropatriarchy and birth outcomes in the United States. Demography. 2022;59(1):89–110. doi: 10.1215/00703370-9606030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.MacKinnon C.A. Feminism, Marxism, Method, and the State: an agenda for theory. Signs J Women Cult Soc. 1982;7(3):515–544. doi: 10.1086/493898. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Rich A. Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs J Women Cult Soc. 1980;5(4):631–660. doi: 10.1086/493756. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Rubin G. 1975. The traffic in women: notes on the “Political Economy” of sex. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Raj A., Barr E., Griffith D.M. Gender, power, and health: modifiable factors and opportunities for intervention. Soc Sci Med. 2024;351 doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116959. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Gemmill A., Franks A.M., Anjur-Dietrich S., et al. US abortion bans and infant mortality. JAMA. 2025;333(15):1315–1323. doi: 10.1001/jama.2024.28517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Grossman D., Joffe C., Kaller S., et al. ANSIRH; 2023. Care post-roe: documenting cases of poor-quality care since the dobbs decision. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Presser AS Sophie Chou, Lizzie . ProPublica; 2025. Texas won't study how its abortion ban impacts women, so we did.https://www.propublica.org/article/texas-maternal-mortality-analysis-methodology [Google Scholar]
- 35.Hatzenbuehler M.L., Lattanner M.R., McKetta S., Pachankis J.E. Structural stigma and LGBTQ+ health: a narrative review of quantitative studies. Lancet Public Health. 2024;9(2):e109–e127. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(23)00312-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Courtenay W.H. Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men's well-being: a theory of gender and health. Soc Sci Med. 2000;50(10):1385–1401. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00390-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Boulicault M., Gompers A., Aalami L., et al. Three maxims for countering sex essentialism in scientific research. Biol Sex Differ. 2025 doi: 10.1186/s13293-025-00748-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Stein R. NPR; 2025. Funding cut for landmark study of women's health.https://www.npr.org/2025/04/23/nx-s1-5372892/womens-health-initiative-research-funding-gets-cut [Google Scholar]
- 39.Rabin R.C. The New York Times; 2025. Federal officials promise to restore funding to women's health initiative.https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/24/health/womens-health-initiative-cuts.html [Google Scholar]
- 40.Glenza J. The Guardian; 2025. Trump administration eviscerates maternal and child health programs.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/05/maternal-child-health-cuts [Google Scholar]
- 41.National Institutes of Health . 2024. 2024-2028 NIH-wide strategic plan for research on the health of women.https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sites/orwh/files/docs/ORWH_NIH-Wide%20Strategic%20Plan_FY2024-2028-508C.pdf [Google Scholar]