National Organization for Women

by

FL NOW Demands Immediate Action as Florida’s Maternal Mortality Crisis Deepens

NOW logo broad small.jpgFor Immediate Release: May 1, 2026 President Julie Kent, Florida National Organization for Women (FL NOW

Rising deaths, extreme racial disparities, and state inaction endanger pregnant Floridians

Orlando, FL — [May 2026] — The Florida National Organization for Women (FL NOW) is calling for urgent statewide action as Florida’s maternal mortality crisis continues to worsen, with Black women facing the highest risk of pregnancy‑related death. Despite escalating dangers, the state has failed to provide transparent oversight, timely reporting, or meaningful policy solutions to protect pregnant people.

“Florida is failing its mothers,” said Julie Kent, President of FL NOW. “Maternal deaths are rising, Black women are dying at alarming rates, and the state continues to restrict reproductive healthcare while withholding the transparency needed to save lives. This is a public health emergency — and a moral one.”

Recent data show that Florida’s maternal mortality rate has increased over the past several years, mirroring national trends but with sharper racial disparities. Black women in Florida are several times more likely to die from pregnancy‑related causes than white women. Advocates warn that the state’s restrictive reproductive laws — including a six‑week abortion ban — have created additional barriers to timely, safe, and medically necessary care.

Compounding the crisis, Florida’s Maternal Mortality Review Committee has faced criticism for lack of transparency, delayed reporting, and limited public accountability. These committees are responsible for identifying why mothers are dying and recommending life‑saving interventions — yet Florida’s process remains opaque.

“Maternal mortality reviews are supposed to shine a light on preventable deaths,” said Debbie Deland, VP FL NOW. “Instead, Florida has kept families and communities in the dark. Without transparency, there can be no accountability — and without accountability, there can be no change.”

FL NOW is calling for immediate statewide action, including:

  • Full transparency in maternal mortality review processes, including public reporting and open meetings
  • Restoration and expansion of reproductive healthcare access, including medically necessary abortion care
  • Targeted investment in Black maternal health, including community‑based care models
  • Legislative oversight to ensure maternal deaths are reviewed promptly and recommendations are implemented
  • Evidence‑based policies that prioritize the health, safety, and dignity of pregnant Floridians

“Every maternal death is a family shattered, a community grieving, and a failure of public policy,” Deland said. “Florida must act now — not with political theater, but with real solutions that save lives.”

FL NOW urges lawmakers, healthcare leaders, and community partners to join in demanding accountability and advancing policies that protect pregnant people across the state.

Florida NOW remains committed to fighting for reproductive justice, racial equity, and the right of every Floridian to survive pregnancy and childbirth.

Media Contact: Debbie Deland, 407 234-6408, vp@flnow.org

by and

Great News: Teenage Pregnancy Rates Have Gone Down! Republicans Suggest That Is Somehow A Bad Thing

Written by Kaitlyn Kirk / Communications@flnow.org

The need for real, comprehensive sex education in this country is urgent. Not just for young people, but for adults who continue to shape what information is allowed, restricted, or erased.

This is not just about anatomy or pregnancy prevention. It is about power, language, and safety. When young people do not have the words to describe what is happening to them, when they are not taught what consent actually looks like in practice, it leaves them more vulnerable to harm.

That is part of how rape culture continues. 

Teen pregnancy is often misrepresented in public conversation. It is frequently framed as a result of teenage peer relationships or “poor decisions” between similarly aged young people. The data tells a more serious story.

Research shows that adult men are responsible for a significant portion of teen pregnancies. One large study found that approximately 49 percent of births to teenage mothers were fathered by men age 20 or older. Other research has found that around two-thirds of babies born to teenage mothers have fathers who are adult men, often several years older than the teen mother.

But there is some good news: Teen pregnancy rates are down.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the teen birth rate in the United States has dropped by more than 70 percent since the early 1990s.

Some Republicans have been publicly arguing that the drop in teen pregnancy rates is a “problem”. This is not an isolated talking point. In recent years, conservative commentators and political figures have increasingly framed declining teen birth rates as part of a broader “fertility crisis,” sometimes arguing that fewer teen births contribute to population decline and should be reversed through policy changes.

Fewer teen pregnancies means fewer young people being pushed into parenthood before they are ready. It means more people finishing school, more economic stability, and more control over their own lives.

by and

Policy Fact Sheet: THE NORDIC MODEL

Compiled by Debbie Deland

Also known as: End Demand Model • Equality Model • Swedish Model

This fact sheet summarizes the structure, stated goals, documented outcomes, and range of perspectives on the Nordic Model of sex work regulation. It presents findings from both supporters and critics, drawing on government evaluations, public-health research, and human-rights organizations.

1. What the Nordic Model Is

The Nordic Model is a legal framework that criminalizes the purchase of all sexual services while decriminalizing the sale of consensual adult sexual services. It was first enacted in Sweden in 1999. It also typically criminalizes:

  • • Third-party involvement in commercial sex (e.g., managers, drivers, security personnel)
  • • Renting premises for the purpose of sex work
  • • Advertising sexual services

The model is premised on the view that demand drives commercial sex, and that reducing demand through criminal penalties on buyers will reduce the overall sex trade.

2. Where the Nordic Model Has Been Adopted

The following countries have enacted versions of the Nordic Model. Implementation details vary by jurisdiction.

Country Year Enacted Legislation Name
Sweden 1999 Sex Purchase Act
Norway 2009 Penal Code §202a
Iceland 2009 Penal Code amendment
Canada 2014 Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (PCEPA)
Northern Ireland 2015 Human Trafficking and Exploitation Act
France 2016 Law strengthening the fight against prostitution
Ireland 2017 Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act
Israel 2020 Prohibition on the Consumption of Prostitution Law

3. Stated Policy Goals

Governments and organizations that support the Nordic Model state that it aims to:

  • • Reduce demand for commercial sex
  • • Reduce sex trafficking and exploitation
  • • Encourage and support people wishing to exit the sex trade
  • • Treat people who sell sex as victims of exploitation rather than offenders
  • • Advance gender equality by challenging the commodification of sex

Sources: Swedish government policy statements (1999); Norwegian Ministry of Justice (2009); French government rationale for the 2016 law.

4. Key Structural Features

Feature Description
Criminalizes buyers Yes
Criminalizes sellers No (but sellers may face indirect penalties, e.g., eviction, surveillance)
Criminalizes third parties Yes (drivers, security, receptionists)
Criminalizes shared workspace Often yes (treated as brothel-keeping)
Allows advertising Usually no
Allows collective organizing Restricted
Allows safer indoor work Restricted

5. Documented and Contested Outcomes

Research on the Nordic Model’s real-world effects is contested. Studies from different disciplinary and ideological perspectives reach different conclusions. The following summarizes findings from multiple sources.

5a. Effects on Demand and Prevalence

Proponent view: Swedish authorities and some researchers report reductions in street prostitution following the 1999 law. The Swedish government has cited this as evidence of reduced demand.

Critical view: Independent evaluations in Sweden, Norway, France found no reliable evidence that overall rates of prostitution or trafficking decreased. Some researchers argue that street-based declines reflect displacement to less visible settings rather than reduction in total activity.

Sources: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå); Norwegian Government Evaluation (2014); French Senate Report (2020).

5b. Safety and Working Conditions

Proponent view: Supporters argue that criminalizing buyers shifts legal risk away from sellers and signals state recognition that those in the sex trade are victims rather than criminals.

Critical view: Multiple public-health and human-rights studies report that the model can increase physical risk for sex workers. Researchers describe workers rushing or skipping client screening due to police surveillance of buyers, displacement to more isolated locations, and an inability to work collectively or hire security. Landlords may evict workers to avoid prosecution under brothel-keeping provisions.

Sources: Amnesty International (2016); Human Rights Watch (2019); The Lancet HIV and Sex Work Series (2014); Bedford v. Canada, Canadian Supreme Court (2013).

5c. Reporting of Violence

Proponent view: Some advocates argue that decriminalizing sellers makes them more willing to report violence to police.

Critical view: Research from Norway and France indicates that police contact following a report can expose clients — and therefore income or housing — leading some workers to avoid reporting. Police may confiscate phones or client lists as evidence, further deterring contact.

Sources: Amnesty International (2016); Norwegian Ministry of Justice Review (2014).

5d. Effects on Trafficking

Proponent view: Anti-trafficking organizations supporting the model argue that reducing demand for commercial sex reduces the incentive for trafficking.

Critical view: Independent government evaluations in Sweden, Norway, and France found no reliable evidence that trafficking decreased following adoption of the model. Some evaluations noted that underground markets made trafficking harder to detect and document.

Sources: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå); Norwegian Government Evaluation (2014); French Senate Report (2020).

5e. Economic Effects on Workers

Proponent view: Supporters focus on the long-term goal of enabling exit from the sex trade, rather than improving conditions within it.

Critical view: Studies from France and other jurisdictions report that workers experience reduced income, diminished ability to negotiate terms and safety conditions, and increased pressure to accept clients they would otherwise decline.

Sources: Le Bail & Giametta, What Do Sex Workers Think About the French Prostitution Act? (2018); Amnesty International (2016).

6. Who Supports the Nordic Model

Support for the Nordic Model comes from a range of governments, civil society organizations, and academic researchers.

Governments

The governments of Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Canada, Northern Ireland, France, Ireland, and Israel have formally adopted the model. Their official positions frame it as a tool to reduce demand and combat trafficking.

Abolitionist Feminist Organizations

Organizations that view prostitution as inherently incompatible with gender equality tend to support the model even though it doesn’t support the right to bodily autonomy. Examples include Nordic Model Now! (UK), SPACE International (Ireland/UK), the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (international), and Equality Model US.

Survivor-Led Organizations

Some organizations composed of people who identify as survivors of the sex trade, especially trafficking support the Nordic Model and its associated exit services. Examples include SPACE International, Breaking Free (US), and the Rebecca Bender Initiative (US).

Some Anti-Trafficking NGOs

A subset of anti-trafficking organizations supports the Nordic Model on the basis that reducing demand reduces trafficking. Examples include Shared Hope International, some ECPAT chapters. Note: many anti-trafficking organizations support full decriminalization instead.

Some Religious and Morality-Based Organizations

Certain faith-based groups support the Nordic Model on moral or social grounds. Their reasoning typically centers on opposition to the immoral nature and commodification of sex rather than public-health outcomes.

7. Who Opposes or Raises Concerns About the Nordic Model

Opposition comes from public-health bodies, human-rights organizations, and sex worker-led organizations.

Public-Health and Medical Organizations

The World Health Organization (WHO), UNAIDS, the American Public Health Association (APHA), and The Lancet support full decriminalization of sex work on the basis that criminalization — including partial models — increases health risks and barriers to services.

Human-Rights Organizations

Amnesty International (2016 policy) and Human Rights Watch (2019 report) both call for full decriminalization, citing evidence that the Nordic Model increases safety risks, limits access to health services, and undermines workers’ ability to report violence.

Sex Worker Organizations

The majority of sex worker-led organizations globally oppose the Nordic Model, arguing that it does not reflect the experiences or priorities of people in the consensual sex trade and that it increases harm. These include SWEAT (South Africa), NSWP (global network), SEX (Australia), and many others.

Some Anti-Trafficking Researchers and Organizations

A number of academics and organizations working on trafficking oppose the Nordic Model on the grounds that criminalization (even partial) drives the industry underground, making it harder — not easier — to identify and assist trafficked individuals.

8. Alternative Regulatory Models

The Nordic Model is one of several approaches to regulating or prohibiting commercial sex. Key alternatives include:

  • • Full criminalization: Both buying and selling sex are illegal (e.g., parts of the United States). Critics argue this increases harm to sellers without evidence of reducing prevalence.
  • • Full decriminalization: Neither buying nor selling is criminalized (e.g., New Zealand since 2003). Supported by most public-health organizations; critics express concerns about normalization and trafficking.
  • • Legalization/regulation: Sex work is legal within a licensing framework (e.g., Netherlands, Germany). Critics note mixed evidence on trafficking and worker safety under this model.

Comparative evidence across models is difficult to interpret due to differences in data collection, enforcement, migration patterns, and underground market activity.

9. Data and Methodological Limitations

Research on the Nordic Model and sex work policy generally faces significant methodological challenges:

  • • Commercial sex occurs largely outside of official records, making reliable prevalence data difficult to obtain under any regulatory regime.
  • • Underground market activity increases when enforcement intensifies, affecting reported figures without necessarily reflecting changes in actual prevalence.
  • • Studies vary in methodology, geographic scope, and sample populations, limiting comparability.
  • • Many studies are commissioned or produced by organizations with existing policy positions, which may affect framing and conclusions.

Readers are encouraged to consult primary sources and to consider the methodological context of any given study.

10. Primary Sources Referenced

  • • Amnesty International. Policy on State Obligations to Sex Workers (2016).
  • • Human Rights Watch. Why Sex Work Should Be Decriminalized (2019).
  • • The Lancet. HIV and Sex Work Series (2014).
  • • Norwegian Ministry of Justice. Evaluation of the Ban on Purchasing Sexual Services (2014).
  • • Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå). Reports on prostitution and trafficking (various years).
  • • Le Bail & Giametta. What Do Sex Workers Think About the French Prostitution Act? (2018).
  • • Bedford v. Canada. Canadian Supreme Court (2013).
  • • French Senate. Report on the 2016 prostitution law (2020).
  • • WHO, UNAIDS, APHA. Policy positions on sex work decriminalization (various years).

This fact sheet does not advocate for any particular policy position. It is intended as a summary reference for readers seeking an overview of the Nordic Model and the range of evidence and arguments associated with it.