‘Rage giving’ prompted by the end of Roe has dropped off, abortion access groups say

58

Abortion access groups are reporting a decline in donations and support after the initial surge of “rage giving” following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. Emergency grants have dried up, and both individual and foundation giving has decreased. Some major funders have shifted or ended funding for organizations operating in states where abortion is now banned. Women’s health and foster care nonprofits, anticipating increased demand due to restricted access to abortion, have not seen a significant increase in support.

Holly Calvasina, director of development at the reproductive health clinic CHOICES in Memphis, suggests that the slow response from philanthropy to emergent crises is a fundamental issue. While some funders proactively supported abortion access, others adopted a wait-and-see approach. CHOICES experienced a rollercoaster of giving, with a substantial increase in donations following the Supreme Court decision but a significant drop this year.

Marsha Jones, executive director of The Afiya Center, notes that funders are less interested in supporting maternal health than they are in supporting advocacy and practical support for abortions. She emphasizes that supporting reproductive justice goes beyond access to abortion and encompasses the right to full bodily autonomy.

Data on charitable giving in 2022, particularly to abortion access organizations, is limited due to delays caused by the pandemic. Anonymous funding is common in this sector, making it challenging to track sources of support. Some major foundations, like The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, publicly disclose their gifts through tax filings but do not comment on their support for abortion access. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation has shifted or ended grants to organizations in states where abortion is now illegal or restricted and is considering funding areas such as maternal health instead.

Una Osili, associate dean for research and international programs at the Lilly Family School, explains that a drop in giving after a major event is not uncommon. People often feel compelled to contribute when they hear about a crisis but may not sustain their support in the long term.

Danielle Gletow, founder and executive director of One Simple Wish, notes that people are seeking out organizations providing direct support, but she worries that abortion access restrictions may further strain the foster care system. In Texas, where the foster care system is overwhelmed, strict abortion laws could lead to more children entering the system.

While philanthropic support has increased in states like New Mexico, which protect access to abortion, organizations there emphasize the need for high-quality reproductive health care beyond just abortion services.

Naa Amissah-Hammond from the Groundswell Fund is waiting to see if funders who provided emergency or one-time grants last year will continue to support abortion access in the long run. She suggests that funders concerned about legal liabilities offer general operating support rather than project-based grants and maintain communication through updates over the phone.

Please note that the text has been edited for clarity, conciseness, and coherence.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Abortion access funding

More about Abortion access funding

• Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade
• Groundswell Fund
• The Afiya Center
• The Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation
• The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
• One Simple Wish
• Women’s Philanthropy Institute at Indiana University’s Lilly Family School of Philanthropy
• Candid – Nonprofit information and data
• Giving USA report on charitable giving
• The Conversation US – Philanthropy coverage
• AP’s coverage of philanthropy