Dana M. Johnson, PhD
@danamartha.bsky.social
1.7K followers 390 following 71 posts
Postdoctoral fellow UW-Madison | I research and write about abortion, contraception, adolescents, and public policy https://linktr.ee/danamarthaPhD
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Reposted by Dana M. Johnson, PhD
karenguzzo.bsky.social
Actual text from the 22-23 NSFG User's Guide. They're basically saying DO NOT COMPARE TIME TRENDS ACROSS CYCLES.
Data users are encouraged to exercise caution when making comparisons to prior years of data collection and interpreting any differences. The multimode design is very different from the prior FTF-only design, and the COVID-19 pandemic prevented experimental evaluation of the impact of the multimode design on survey estimates. Like other surveys that had to change to a new design due to the disruption of FTF interviewing, changes in estimates from before and after the pandemic are confounded by real changes in the population, measurement differences, and nonresponse, among other possible sources of error (coverage, sampling, and processing). As a result, some estimates may show larger differences from the 2017-2019 NSFG and earlier data compared to those observed between prior data releases .Users are advised to note the design-related changes, particularly with regard to mode, if making statements comparing earlier estimates to those from 2022-2023. Further evaluations, including nonresponse bias analysis, will be included along with the detailed methodology documents listed in the Sample Design section.
Reposted by Dana M. Johnson, PhD
nickdemark.bsky.social
Am I the only one who is a little skeptical of the 20-24 numbers given NSFGs response rate drop off?
conradhackett.bsky.social
US women aged 20-24 plan to have fewer children than in the past
2002: 2.4 children
2012: 2.3 children
2023: 1.5 children
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/06/18/us-adults-in-their-20s-and-30s-plan-to-have-fewer-children-than-in-the-past/
Chart shows declining expectations across age groups over time in the number of children than US men and women plan to have.
danamartha.bsky.social
Last week I spoke with Nina Sun and the Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters Journal team about some of my disseration research! What true joy.

Listen here 🔗
Spotify: lnkd.in/dbaR-55i
Apple Podcasts: lnkd.in/d22jiUeb
danamartha.bsky.social
my bestie @murphyanne.bsky.social always reminds me to pay myself first - manifesting this week as we weather another horrific political storm, and somehow still end up doing the good work
danamartha.bsky.social
$1.2 trillion in Medicaid cuts and food stamps

11.8 million Americans uninsured by 2034

This is actually impressively unhinged
danamartha.bsky.social
They are obsessed with ensuring suffering and death upon the american people
Reposted by Dana M. Johnson, PhD
danamartha.bsky.social
FINALLY!!!
This has been a FIGHT and an important reminder that state supreme court justice races have critical public health implications!

Amazing new for Wisconsinites who need abortion care 💓💓💓💓💓

www.jsonline.com/story/news/p...
Wisconsin Supreme Court invalidates the state's strict 1849 abortion law
Women in Wisconsin will continue to have access to abortion services under a new ruling from the state's highest court.
www.jsonline.com
Reposted by Dana M. Johnson, PhD
Reposted by Dana M. Johnson, PhD
crockett.house.gov
Senate Republicans just passed Trump’s bullshit of a bill—and it’s even uglier than before.

— At least 16 million could lose healthcare
— Trillions will be added to the deficit
— Hospitals will close
— Children will go hungry

Now it comes back to the House.

(1/2)
danamartha.bsky.social
💓💓💓💓💓
carafem.org
carafem @carafem.org · Jun 30
So proud to be part of this work! Grateful for the collaboration and for everyone pushing to expand access, especially when it's needed most.
danamartha.bsky.social
It is an honor to collaborate with colleagues at @ibisrh.bsky.social @carafem.org @aidaccess.bsky.social
on this research - without these incredibly dedicated researchers and providers - access to any medication abortion regimen would be even more difficult than it is today
danamartha.bsky.social
As mifepristone continues to be threatened (read: RFK Jr's baseless/insane claims about safety) more folks are considering the role of misoprostol-only medication abortion regimens in the US

Well happy Monday folks because I have *two* new studies out for you: (1/4)
danamartha.bsky.social
My friend commented on my use of Garamond recently and low key it is because circa 2019 I met @albertsonb2.bsky.social in a coffee shop in Austin and she mentioned it was the most effective font lol
danamartha.bsky.social
I love getting people's out of office reply - get out of here!! I picture them sailing in Mallorca or hiking them in Alaska and far as hell away from the draft I am already way to late sending them
Reposted by Dana M. Johnson, PhD
susanrinkunas.com
Let’s be clear that abortion can be effectively banned in this country without Congress passing a law but as a result of multiple moves that make it impossible to access.

The intent of today’s Supreme Court ruling—and of Trump’s budget bill—is to shutter as many abortion clinics as possible
Reposted by Dana M. Johnson, PhD
amandajean.bsky.social
I was there in Texas when this pernicious process got started. I went down to the legislature to testify with my little fact sheets and my evidence and I have been studying what happened in Texas now for over a decade. We know how this plays out.
The Supreme Court Has Dealt Another Devastating Blow to Women
The court's ruling in Medina v. Planned Parenthood twists logic, common sense, and the law to further the right-wing assault on bodily autonomy.
www.thenation.com
Reposted by Dana M. Johnson, PhD
profmmurray.bsky.social
So, don't be misled by reports that claim SCOTUS "saved" birthright citizenship... they are missing the point. The Court will likely narrow the circumstances under which universal injunctions may issue, thereby hindering lower courts' ability to rein in the administration. A BIG win for POTUS.
Reposted by Dana M. Johnson, PhD
profmmurray.bsky.social
We've discussed this a bunch on @strictscrutiny.bsky.social. SCOTUS's opinion tomorrow will not address the substantive question of whether 14A confers birthright citizenship. It'll address whether and in what circumstances universal injunctions are an appropriate judicial remedy. . . .
sarahvb.bsky.social
How worried are you about birthright citizenship?