The post-Roe fight over data privacy
Hey everyone! I hope you are all having a lovely Pride Month. Thanks for reading Women Rule. We'll be on hiatus next week and back in your inbox on June 27. Reach out and say hello: klong@politico.com and ecordover@politico.com. This week I had a chat with Rep. Sara Jacobs on her reintroduction of the My Body, My Data Act.
The post-Roe era has elevated a new data privacy fight, as concerns grow over how reproductive and sexual health data is collected and disclosed. But the issue has been front of mind for Rep. Sara Jacobs for years, even prior to the Dobbs decision.
The California Democrat reintroduced the My Body, My Data Act on Thursday, which aims to increase protections for those who use apps and sites that collect reproductive and sexual health data, such as period tracking apps. Jacobs points to certain instances where reproductive health data, which is not protected under HIPAA, has been used to investigate and prosecute users in states with strict abortion laws.
Jacobs describes the push to protect reproductive and sexual health data as 'the abortion fight of the 21st century.'
The bill, which was introduced in 2022 and then reintroduced the following year, would provide consumer protections for users who disclose their reproductive and sexual health data on apps and websites. This includes limiting the data that can be collected to only that which is necessary to provide a certain product or service, and bolstering transparency from companies on how that data is collected, retained and shared.
Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) sponsored the bill's Senate counterpart. The legislation was introduced twice before, first in 2022 and again the following year, but made little headway. And with a Republican-controlled Congress, the bill's reintroduction will likely result in a similar fate.
Women Rule spoke with Jacobs on the reintroduction of the bill, which comes on the heels of the three-year anniversary of the Dobbs decision.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
I first wanted to talk a little bit about the bill. I think especially in a post-Roe world, there's growing concern over government tracking on period apps and other apps and sites related to reproductive and sexual health.
I first introduced this bill because right after the opposite decision came down when Roe v. Wade was overturned, I started getting all these messages from friends and peers wondering what they should do about their period tracking apps, and I also use a period tracking app, and we started looking into it and there's basically no protections for this kind of reproductive and sexual health data. It's not covered under HIPAA, and so we're already seeing people try to use this data to go after people who are getting abortions and those helping them in states that have criminalized abortion. We know that they want to go after this data, and so I think it's incredibly important that we as Congress do something to protect this very sensitive data. Actually, there was a poll two years ago that showed that 2 in 3 Americans, including 54 percent of Republicans, support Congress making it illegal for apps and search engines to sell their reproductive health data.
Why is it important for this bill to pass now?
Well, in 2017, even before the overturning of Roe v. Wade, Mississippi police used Google search history to go after someone and alleged that she had an abortion. In 2022, the police used Facebook messages in Nebraska as part of an investigation into an abortion illegal under state law. More recently, a data broker sold cell phone and geolocation data to an anti-abortion political group that then used that information to dispense misinformation about reproductive health to people who had visited 600 abortion clinics in 48 states. And more Americans are turning to online clinics for medication abortions. Young people increasingly use the internet, live online, we are googling questions about medicine, we are using Ubers to get places, right? And all of this data can be misused, and we know the lengths that police and prosecutors will go to to try and intimidate or prosecute people for having abortions.
With a Republican controlled Congress, it seems unlikely that the bill will pass, but have you received any support from across the aisle?
Unfortunately, while I work in a bipartisan way with a lot of Republicans on data privacy, when it comes to this kind of data, they have been unwilling to engage even though they claim to support data privacy.
We're coming up on the three-year anniversary of Roe v. Wade being overturned, and you've mentioned a few examples. Could you talk about how the Dobbs decision has impacted those who use these reproductive and self sexual health tracking apps and sites?
Look, especially in states that have criminalized abortion — something like 1 in 3 women live in a state that has criminalized abortion in some way — there is an incredible amount of fear that even if they have a natural miscarriage they could be prosecuted because they Googled something once or that this kind of information can be used against [them] and weaponized against people. I think as we're seeing more and more states and as we know that at the end of the day this Republican Party wants a federal abortion ban, it's more important than ever that we protect people's data.
Is there anything in particular about the My Body My Data Act that you would like to highlight?
This is the abortion fight of the 21st century, right? Because it's about access and it's about how they're enforcing these really horrible laws. Americans are now becoming more aware of how their data is being used and stored, in part because of DOGE and what Elon Musk is doing. And we know that women are often trying to find the apps and services that claim to safeguard their data, but each individual person shouldn't have to try and figure this out on their own, and it shouldn't be up to companies to do the right thing.
This is the exact kind of thing you need the government for, to protect very sensitive health data. And young people intrinsically understand this issue from both sides of the aisle. But part of what's hard is that so many of my colleagues do not understand this. There's just a bit of a mismatch between Congress and the American people on this issue.
POLITICO Special Report
How Kamala Harris Is Processing the LA Unrest by Melanie Mason for POLITICO: 'Harris has been choosy about when to weigh in publicly on politics since leaving Washington. So her statement on social media this week denouncing President Donald Trump's activation of the National Guard as a 'dangerous escalation' instantly lent itself to frenzied tea leaves reading.
… For Harris, it was a natural issue to speak up on for several reasons, according to one of the people familiar with her thinking and granted anonymity to speak freely. First, she's coming at this as a lifelong Californian who came up in law enforcement and has made the rule of law a driving theme of her career. She also empathizes with the protesters, after growing up steeped in the civil rights protests of her childhood and campus anti-apartheid movement of the 1980s.'
Trump's DOJ Indicted a Democratic Congresswoman. The Case Could Fall Apart. by Ankush Khardori for POLITICO: 'The decision to proceed with an indictment following the initial charges against the New Jersey Democrat comes at a politically volatile moment — following President Donald Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard and the Marines in response to protests in Los Angeles, and in the midst of ongoing wrangling over the scope and legality of the administration's deportation effort. In recent weeks, that effort has generated heartrending images from courthouse arrests and more admissions of mistaken deportations from the Justice Department. Meanwhile, the administration is moving to deport hundreds of thousands of people who entered the country legally under the last administration.'
Phil Murphy Skated to the NJ Governor's Mansion. Mikie Sherrill Might Not Have it So Easy. by Matt Friedman and Madison Fernandez for POLITICO: 'Rep. Mikie Sherrill was the vanguard of the anti-Trump backlash in 2018.
Just months after the political unknown declared her Democratic candidacy for Congress and began raising money at a fast clip, the 24-year Republican incumbent bowed out rather than face the first competitive general election of his career. Sherrill easily won what had long been a safe Republican district in a blue wave election that flipped the House.
Now, Sherrill stands as Democrats' bulwark against a red tide after winning the party nomination for New Jersey governor Tuesday night.'
Number of the Week
More on that here.
MUST READS
Doctors Report the First Pregnancy Using a New AI Procedure by Alice Park for Time Magazine: 'Doctors at Columbia University Fertility Center have reported what they are calling the first pregnancy using a new AI system, in a couple that had been trying to start a family for nearly two decades.
The pregnancy was possible due to an advance developed by the Columbia team, led by Dr. Zev Williams, director of the center, to address azoospermia, or a lack of detectable sperm in the ejaculate. Male factors account for about 40 percent of infertility in the U.S., and azoospermia is responsible for about 10 percent of those cases. Until recently, there was little doctors could do to address the lack of sperm needed to fertilize an egg, other than using donor sperm.'
Domestic Abusers Could Have Easier Path to Getting Gun Rights Back Under Trump Proposal by Jennifer Gerson for The 19th: 'The Trump administration is proposing a change to how people convicted of crimes can have their gun rights restored, raising concerns over what this means for victims of domestic violence.
The Democratic Women's Caucus and the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Robert Hinchman, senior counsel at the Department of Justice (DOJ), criticizing an interim final rule that would move the responsibility for determining if someone gets their gun rights back from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to the Office of the Attorney General. While the ATF is part of the DOJ, the letter says the proposal would create 'an apparent lack of an objective, holistic process for making' these decisions.'
Senate Democrats File Bill to Prevent Ban on Transgender Military Service by Luis Martinez for ABC News: 'The 'Fit to Serve Act' would prohibit the Defense Department from banning transgender service members from serving in the military. If passed, the law would prevent the DOD from denying access to healthcare on the basis of gender identity, and it would also prohibit the military from forcing service members to serve in their sex assigned at birth.
It would also make it illegal for the military to discriminate against service members on the basis of gender identity.'
QUOTE OF THE WEEK
Read more here.
on the move
Fortune journalist Emma Hinchliffe was promoted to editor of the Most Powerful Women Daily newsletter at the publication, leading editorial for the 28-year-old franchise.
Martina McLennan is now director of policy communications for economic and health policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center. She previously was communications director for Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). (h/t POLITICO Influence)
Cara Duckworth is now SVP of comms at USTelecom – The Broadband Association. She previously was chief corporate comms officer at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (h/t POLITICO Playbook)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
How The Big Beautiful Bill Will Handicap Clean Energy
The Capitol Building, home of the United State Congress. Green Technologies At Risk In Current Mega Bill As it was written, the Big, Beautiful Bill (Mega Bill) passed by The House of Representatives in May would handicap certain green projects (solar, wind, and batteries) that are in line to receive tax credits made available by the Biden government. The handicap is hard to understand because in the U.S. over 90% of new energy projects in 2023 and 2024 was generated by solar, wind, and batteries. What is the handicap? The Mega Bill mandates that such projects must begin within two months of passage of the bill, and would have to be completed, and in service, by the last day of 2028, or the tax credits would be canceled. To see what impact this would have on green projects, one analysis looked at clean electrical projects that are currently in the interconnection queue, and due to go online during 2028 or later (it wouldn't be uncommon for projects slated to complete in 2028 to spill over to 2029, which would cancel the tax credits.) The total for all these at-risk projects in Figure 1 amounts to 600 GW (gigawatts). The largest three projects are CAISO of California at 183 GW, ERCOT of Texas at 128 GW, and MISO (Midwest and South) at 111 GW. Figure 1. The truth is, current electrical production in U.S. is 1200 GW, and this will need to grow rapidly to power new AI data centers. So, if all these seven green projects lost their tax credits and dropped out of the interconnection queue, it would represent a huge loss that is 50% of current electrical production in the U.S. This loss would be like tossing away 600 traditional power plants that added up to 50% of current U.S. electricity supply. Granted, a number of projects in Figure 1 would drop out of the queue anyway, due to other factors such as financial commitments that fall through. But still, a loss of remaining projects that would stand to boost current U.S. power by 30% or 40% or 50% would be an unforgiveable loss—especially since solar, wind and battery projects have all the market momentum in the past few years. Speaking of momentum, in 2023 and 2024 in the U.S., the vast majority (93%--94%) of new energy sources were solar, wind, and batteries. The only commercially proven competitor is gas-fired power plants, which are facing serious delays, and they cost more. What if projects that lost their tax credits were to go ahead to completion? They might, but it's obvious this would translate to higher cost of electricity for consumers. Mega Bill Changes Suggested By Senate. The House Mega Bill has gone to the Senate, and on Monday June 16 they have proposed some changes. UtilityDive reports that the harsh 'start by – complete by' House requirement to access the tax credits has been removed. In one box, nuclear, geothermal and hydropower can claim the tax credits so long as they start construction by 2033. But in another box, wind and solar can obtain only 60% of the tax credits and only if they break ground by 2026. Or 20% if by 2027. Or zero if after that. This is a serious handicap for the frontrunners, solar and wind, that have provided over 93% of new electrical capacity in 2023 and 2024. And it comes at a crucial time, because the U.S. needs to quickly boost its power capability by a massive amount to supply AI data centers. One positive: battery storage or BESS (battery energy storage systems) can access tax credits until 2036, although the credits will be tapered down, according to Canary Media. Also, some solar and wind projects would be able to keep the tax credits beyond the end of 2028—provided they exist on federal land, generate 1 GW or more power, and have obtained right-of-way approval from the BLM (Bureau of Land Management). The next steps are: the Senate as a whole has to pass these changes, and then attempt to reconcile with the House. The timeline is short as the goal is to get the final version of the Mega Bill to President Trump's desk by July 4. Coming out of all the discussion and debate, it seems the Mega Bill wants to handicap wind and solar and batteries. But why? Reasons Why The Mega Bill Would Handicap Wind And Solar Energy. First, the Bill will cause electricity prices to rise. If cheap wind, solar and batteries are handicapped in preference to expensive almost-defunct coal power plants, commercially unproven SMRs (small modular nuclear reactors), and next-gen geothermal methods, then prices of electricity will rise. Table 1 lays this out, using the most recent LCOE data from Lazard. Table 1. Most recent LCOE estimates for various electrical sources. With tax credits and based on a utility scale, solar PV + BESS and wind + BESS are cheaper than geothermal with tax credits, and much cheaper than gas-fired power, nuclear, and coal. If the Mega Bill handicaps wind and solar in the race, electrical costs will zoom upwards. Second, the Bill seems to be unaware of green energy success in Australia. In the state of South Australia renewables plus batteries have been providing 72% of grid electricity continuously for three years, and this is expected to rise to 100% by 2027. Solar, wind, and batteries have proven the stability and reliability of renewables commercially. The first grid-scale BESS was started in 2017 by Elon Musk in South Australia, and BESS are expanding rapidly in the U.S. as well as in Australia. Intermittent power is no longer a reason to dismiss renewables, despite what the Energy Secretary says, because BESS have solved this problem and electricity from solar and wind renewables with BESS is dispatchable. Third, the Bill assumes new investments in old energy (coal, natural gas, and nuclear) will be embraced by the U.S. population. However, global spending on low-carbon power has doubled in the past five years. Solar PV is the leader in this space, with investments that will reach $450 billion in 2025. Coal is too dirty when it burns, and in the U.S. the market share has dropped from 50% in 2011 to 11% in 2024. Natural gas burns cleaner than coal, but the market for new gas-fired power plants has dropped out in the past two years, due to cost and delays in permitting and supply chains. The cost of new nuclear reactors, whether traditional reactors or SMRs, is substantially higher than renewable energies (Table 1). There is also the ubiquitous threat of being exposed to nuclear radiation, either from nuclear accidents or from underground storage of nuclear waste. It has been reported that U.S. nuclear reactors that were decommissioned some time ago can be recommissioned, but at a heavy cost of around $1 billion per unit. Fourth, the Bill enables China to forge ahead with a green energy economy, while the U.S. goes backward. Energy from solar, wind, and batteries is cheap, and has a short new-build time. It will continue to provide jobs and grow the economy, and benefits include lower electricity prices and less pollution. A key advantage is already-commercialized power for data centers that will enable the U.S. to compete with China in the race for AI. The handicap and setbacks of a thriving clean industry in the U.S. would be China's gain. Fifth, the Bill will force job losses by handicapping green industries. If projects in the above list of seven in Figure 1 were to be canceled due to the Mega Bill handicaps, there could be serious job losses. To illustrate by results in 2024, one report quotes $80 billion invested in clean power in 2024, which supported 1.4 million jobs in the U.S. Another answer is that current tax credits would enable strong economic growth by 2035: almost $2 trillion of monetary growth and almost 14 million jobs. This amounts to a return on the federal investment by four-times. The green energy benefits and financial returns of wind and solar with battery storage apply to both Republican and Democratic states in the U.S.. But so do the losses, if Congress decides to handicap wind and solar renewables. The biggest losses may be soaring electricity costs in the U.S., and the U.S. bending to China's clean energy boom of surging solar and BESS projects that will reliably service their AI data center programs.
Forbes
2 hours ago
- Forbes
Trump Criticizes Windmills In Latest Attack Against Wind Energy
President Donald Trump blasted green tax breaks and windmills in a rant about his signature budget package moving through Congress, tacking onto his longstanding criticism of the turbines even as they have become an increasingly cost-effective form of energy. US President Donald Trump waves as he boards Air Force One at Morristown Municipal Airport in ... More Morristown, New Jersey, on June 21, 2025 as he returns to the White House from his golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey. Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images Trump said in a Truth Social post he 'HATED' green tax credits in the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' saying the cuts are largely a 'giant SCAM.' The bill, a massive measure currently in the Senate that will extend tax cuts passed by Trump during his first term, will remove or limit tax credits for electric vehicles and home energy efficiency if passed, as well as create gradual, year-by-year cuts to wind and solar farm tax credits. Trump said windmills 'are the most expensive and inefficient energy in the world' and are 'destroying the beauty of the environment.' The president also claimed, without evidence, windmills are '10 times more costly than any other energy,' taking issue with government subsidies linked to turbines. Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts : We're launching text message alerts so you'll always know the biggest stories shaping the day's headlines. Text 'Alerts' to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here . What Has Trump Said About Windmills ? Shortly after taking office, the president said the government would not subsidize new windmill farms and added he doesn't 'want even one built' during his second term. Trump called wind turbines the 'most expensive energy' that only works 'with massive government subsidies, which we will no longer pay.' Trump could potentially impact windmill production on federal lands, but not on privately owned plots. Trump has also falsely claimed windmills kill whales, though there is no evidence supporting the claim about the mammals and offshore turbines. Not likely. The Department of Energy has said 'wind and solar projects are now more economically competitive than gas, geothermal, coal, or nuclear facilities,' though windmills in locations lacking wind could be an exception. Onshore wind turbines saw global costs of energy production fall by 68% in 2021, according to a report from the International Renewable Energy Agency, which noted onshore capacity increased four-fold from 2010 to 2021. The agency also reported onshore wind project costs fell by 13% while offshore wind projects fell by 9% in 2020. Key Background Trump once lost a legal battle in which he sought to block the construction of an offshore wind farm in view of a golf course project of his in Scotland. The president lost in court and was required to pay over $290,000 in legal fees to the Scottish government. His scrutiny of windmills is a change from his first term, when former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said he was 'very bullish on offshore wind,' adding the harnessing of the energy source was 'a big part of the Trump Administration's made in America energy strategy.' Trump's Tax Cuts Would Raise Deficit By $2.8 Trillion, New Estimate Suggests (Forbes) Trump Calls Windmills 'An Economic And Environmental Disaster' In Latest Rant Against Turbines (Forbes)
2 hours ago
GOP's food stamp plan is found to violate Senate rules. It's the latest setback for Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON -- In another blow to the Republicans' tax and spending cut bill, the Senate parliamentarian has advised that a proposal to shift some food stamps costs from the federal government to states — a centerpiece of GOP savings efforts — would violate the chamber's rules. While the parliamentarian's rulings are advisory, they are rarely, if ever, ignored. The Republican leadership was scrambling on Saturday, days before voting is expected to begin on President Donald Trump's package that he wants to be passed into law by the Fourth of July. The loss is expected to be costly to Republicans. They have been counting on some tens of billions of potential savings from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, to help offset the costs of the $4.5 trillion tax breaks plan. The parliamentarian let stand for now a provision that would impose new work requirements for older Americans, up to age 65, to receive food stamp aid. 'We will keep fighting to protect families in need,' said Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which handles the SNAP program. 'The Parliamentarian has made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts,' she said. The committee chairman, Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., said in a statement that his team is examining options that would comply with Senate rules to achieve savings and "to ensure SNAP serves those who truly need it while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.' The parliamentarian's ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks as staff works through the weekend, often toward midnight, to assess the 1,000-page proposal. It all points to serious trouble ahead for the bill, which was approved by the House on a party-line vote last month over unified opposition from Democrats and is now undergoing revisions in the Senate. At its core, the goal of the multitrillion-dollar package is to extend tax cuts from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire if Congress fails to act. It also adds new ones, including no taxes on tips or overtime pay. To help offset the costs of lost tax revenue, the Republicans are proposing cutbacks to federal Medicaid, health care and food programs — some $1 trillion. Additionally, the package boosts national security spending by about $350 billion, including to pay for Trump's mass deportations, which are running into protests nationwide. Trump has implored Republicans, who have the majority in Congress, to deliver on his top domestic priority, but the details of the package, with its hodgepodge of priorities, is drawing deeper scrutiny. All told, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the package, as approved by the House, would add at least $2.4 trillion to the nation's red ink over the decade and leave 10.9 million more people without health care coverage. Additionally, it would reduce or eliminate food stamps for more than 3 million people. The parliamentarian's office is tasked with scrutinizing the bill to ensure it complies with the so-called Byrd Rule, which is named after the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, and bars many policy matters in the budget reconciliation process now being used. Late Friday, the parliamentarian issued its latest findings. It determined that Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee's proposal to have the states pick up more of the tab for covering food stamps — what Republicans call a new cost-sharing arrangement — would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. Many lawmakers said the states would not be able to absorb the new requirement on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government. They warned many would lose access to SNAP benefits used by more than 40 million people. Initially, the CBO had estimated about $128 billion in savings under the House's proposal to shift SNAP food aid costs to the states. Cost estimates for the Senate's version, which made changes to the House approach, have not yet been made publicly available. The parliamentarian's office rulings leave GOP leaders with several options. They can revise the proposals to try to comply with Senate rules or strip them from the package altogether. They can also risk a challenge during floor voting, which would require the 60-vote threshold to overcome. That would be unlikely in the split chamber with Democrats opposing the overall package. The parliamentarian's latest advice also said the committee's provision to make certain immigrants ineligible for food stamps would violate the rule. It found several provisions from the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which is led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to be in violation. They include one to provide $250 million to Coast Guard stations damaged by fire in 2025, namely one on South Padre Island in Texas. Still to come are some of the most important rulings from the parliamentarian. One will assess the GOP's approach that relies on 'current policy' rather than 'current law' as the baseline for determining whether the bill will add to the nation's deficits. Already, the parliamentarian delivered a serious setback Thursday, finding that the GOP plan to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was a core proposal coming from the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. The parliamentarian has also advised of violations over provisions from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would rollback Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards on certain vehicles and from the Senate Armed Services Committee to require the defense secretary to provide a plan on how the Pentagon intends to spend the tens of billions of new funds. The new work requirements in the package would require many of those receiving SNAP or Medicaid benefits to work 80 hours a month or engage in other community or educational services.
