RALEIGH, NC -- Barriers to accessing a federal nutrition program for moms and babies persist in North Carolina, but new research shows loosening the rules during the pandemic improved participants' experience.

Nearly 300 recipients were surveyed across eight counties, and the report says many didn't know about or take advantage of policy changes that would have expanded their benefits.

Study author, Duke University Assistant Professor Dr. Carolyn Barnes, said the pandemic's economic fallout has increased demand for assistance by 30% to 40% -- a surge that has challenged the capacity of many resource-constrained agencies.

"I had workers say that their caseloads had gone up 20 to 30%," said Barnes, "and that they were working overtime to process cases."

The report, from Duke University's Center for Child and Family Policy, found allowing remote appointments and more flexibility in the types of food people can purchase, and extending certification periods, made it easier to use the 'WIC' program. In 2019, federal data show North Carolina reached around half of WIC-eligible residents.

The survey also found only 27% of WIC participants surveyed were aware of the greater flexibility in food choices that could have simplified their grocery shopping amid pandemic-related food shortages.

According to Barnes, most women learned about the changes through social media, family and friends, rather than from state agencies. She believes increasing public awareness about these programs can boost participation.

"Your fellow churchgoer or someone you work with, or someone you know personally, your family member that's just lost a job - if you know information about how to sign up for these programs, you can point them to those programs," she advised.

The report also found many households were unaware of the COVID-19 changes to SNAP benefits. Between 20% and 25% said they knew about emergency allotments and extended recertification deadlines. Only one-third of those surveyed were aware they could use their SNAP benefits to shop for food online.

Following the signing of the Michigan Family Protection Act by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, concerns remain about a potential federal ban on in vitro fertilization. The Act, signed in April, safeguards reproductive services such as surrogacy IVF and abortion. However, Project 2025 could limit access to these services if he wins the presidency in November.

Stephanie Jones of Grand Blanc, a mother who used IVF to conceive and had her daughter via surrogacy after secondary infertility, is a strong advocate of the procedure.

"A ban on IVF would be a ban on critical health care to hundreds of thousands of Americans, and without access to IVF, people would not be able to grow and some start their families. So it would be devastating," she contended.

Jones nearly lost her life due to a rare ectopic pregnancy, and credits an emergency abortion with saving her. Her pre-Roe experience now drives her advocacy for policies that protect IVF and support unrestricted abortion rights.

However, many right-to-life advocates contend that these reproductive services are not only morally wrong but unsafe.

Natalie Dodson, a policy analyst with The Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington D.C., warns that reproductive service providers often downplay the health risks associated with IVF for both mothers and babies.

"In particular, the risk of non-chromosomal birth defects increase by 40%, the risk of autism is two times more likely, stillbirth increases up to 4 times compared to spontaneous conception. Additionally, women who undergo IVF experience increased health risks and poor health outcome," she said.

Dodson claims that scientifically life begins at conception, inside or outside the uterus, and said her main concern is whether embryos created through IVF have the same value as those developing naturally.


get more stories like this via email

Women's Equality Day commemorates the passage of the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote. More than a century later, women have made progress but more work needs to be done.

Women have made major gains in elected positions across the country. In Oregon, they make up more than 40% of the seats in the legislature, the 13th highest percentage in the country.

Libra Forde, co-chair of the Oregon Commission for Women, said the 19th Amendment was a big accomplishment but it did not end the push for women's progress.

"As they saw a need during their time for us to have availability and access to things that they didn't have, I think most of the women -- especially the women of the commission -- we see a need to do the same thing for things that maybe women have not had access to yet and kind of taking the torch that's been passed to us," Forde explained.

Forde highlighted some of the issues where Oregon lawmakers could go further, such as being more vigorous in protecting women from domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. On Aug. 26, 1920, the U.S. Secretary of State completed the ratification process for the 19th Amendment, ensuring women the right to vote.

Forde acknowledged Oregon lawmakers and groups across the state are doing a good job advocating for women's rights but added it is going to take a greater effort to protect rights for the next generation.

"We're going to need more than just women to do that work," Forde emphasized. "We need everyone to come together, kind of like they did 104 years ago, and say, hey, this is important to all of us and if we all came in on this, then I think we all can also succeed."

The Oregon Commission for Women is among the state's four advocacy commissions. It pushes for policies to support and protect women.


get more stories like this via email

In Ohio, women's political voices are facing a significant challenge, as a new analysis by the Center for American Women and Politics revealed a stark disparity in campaign contributions between men and women.

The study, which examined donations to major party candidates across 10 states, found men significantly out-give women, potentially leading to the underrepresentation of women's interests in politics.

Kira Sanbonmatsu, a researcher at the Center for American Women and Politics, explained the findings.

"Men are much more likely than women to be providing the funds that are fueling state candidates," Sanbonmatsu reported. "This means that women have fewer resources to get their voices heard."

Sanbonmatsu added the financial disparity has significant implications in Ohio, where women, especially in the Republican Party, remain underrepresented. Despite some progress, women in Ohio's legislature still struggle to achieve parity with men, largely due to financial constraints.

Sanbonmatsu said women, particularly from marginalized communities, often lack the resources to self-finance their campaigns, making it even harder to compete with better-funded male candidates.

A deeper look into Ohio's political landscape revealed most women running for office are Democrats, leaving a significant gap in representation among Republican women. Sanbonmatsu noted the trend mirrors national patterns and highlighted the challenges women face in accessing the financial networks necessary to support their campaigns.

"It's not enough for us to say women should run," Sanbonmatsu emphasized. "Do they have the resources to be successful in their campaigns?"

The study argued closing the funding gap is crucial for achieving equal representation for women in Ohio's political system. Increasing financial contributions from women and providing stronger support for female candidates could help create a more level playing field, ensuring women's voices have a meaningful effect on shaping the state's future.


get more stories like this via email