1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, The limits of conscientious refusal in reproductive medicine, Committee Opinion No. 385, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2007, 110(5):1203–1208, http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Ethics/The-Limits-of-Conscientious-Refusal-in-Reproductive-Medicine.
2. Louisiana Revised Statutes 40:1061.20.
3. Sonfield A, Learning from experience: where religious liberty meets reproductive rights, Guttmacher Policy Review, 2016, 19:1–8, https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2016/learning-experience-where-religious-liberty-meets-reproductive-rights.
4. Idaho Statutes 18-611.
5. North Carolina General Statutes 14-45.1.
6. North Carolina General Statutes 90-410.
7. Utah Code 76-7-306.
8. Oregon Revised Statutes 743A.066.
9. Mississippi Code 41-107.
10. North Carolina Board of Pharmacy, Frequently asked questions for pharmacists on conscience clause, 2005, http://www.ncbop.org/faqs/Pharmacist/faq_ConscienceClause.htm.
11. California Business and Professions Code 733.
12. Revised Code of Washington 70.47.160.
13. Oregon Revised Statutes 435.485.
14. Sonfield A et al., The Social and Economic Benefits of Women’s Ability to Determine Whether and When to Have Children, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2013, https://www.guttmacher.org/report/social-and-economic-benefits-womens-ability-determine-whether-and-when-have-children.
15. Sonfield A, Contraceptive coverage at the U.S. Supreme Court: countering the rhetoric with evidence, Guttmacher Policy Review, 2014, 17(1):2–8, https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2014/03/contraceptive-coverage-us-supreme-court-countering-rhetoric-evidence.
16. Kavanaugh ML and Anderson RM, Contraception and Beyond: The Health Benefits of Services Provided at Family Planning Centers, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2013, https://www.guttmacher.org/report/contraception-and-beyond-health-benefits-services-provided-family-planning-centers.
17. Sonfield A, What women already know: documenting the social and economic benefits of family planning, Guttmacher Policy Review, 2013, 16(1):8–12, https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2013/03/what-women-already-know-documenting-social-and-economic-benefits-family-planning.
18. Testimony of Guttmacher Institute, submitted to the Committee on Preventive Services for Women, Institute of Medicine, Jan. 12, 2011, http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/CPSW-testimony.pdf.
19. Trussell J, Update on and correction to the cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States, Contraception, 2012, 85(2):218.
20. Finer LB and Zolna MR, Declines in unintended pregnancy in the United States, 2008–2011, New England Journal of Medicine, 2016, 374(9):843–852.
21. Jones RK, Upadhyay UD and Weitz TA, At what cost?: Payment for abortion care by U.S. women, Women’s Health Issues, 2013, 23(3):e173–e178.
22. Zane S et al., Abortion-related mortality in the United States: 1998–2010, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2015, 126(2):258–265.
23. Sonfield A, In bad faith: how conservatives are weaponizing “religious liberty” to allow institutions to discriminate, Guttmacher Policy Review, 2018, 21:23-28, https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2018/05/bad-faith-how-conservatives-are-weaponizing-religious-liberty-allow-institutions.
24. National Women’s Law Center and Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, Voters Oppose Religious Exemption Laws: Finding from a National Survey of Voters, 2017, https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/NWLC-Refusals-Memo-May-11-2017.pdf.
25. Kaiser Family Foundation, Kaiser Health Tracking Poll—June 2017: ACA, Replacement Plan, and Medicaid, 2017, http://files.kff.org/attachment/Topline-Kaiser-Health-Tracking-Poll-June-2017-ACA-Replacement-Plan-and-Medicaid.
26. Catholics for Choice and Belden Russonello Strategists, 2016 Survey of Catholic Likely Voters, 2016, http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2016-Catholic-Voter-Poll.pdf.