Executive summary

With a history of broad underrepresentation in health care, women have asked for increased representation within research and clinical work. This policy brief summarizes the state of women’s health in the U.S. and President Joe Biden's current initiatives to address these disparities in research.

History of Women’s Health Policies

The Women’s Health Movement (WHM), which advocated for equality and changes in healthcare for women, emerged during the second wave of feminism in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s. Beginning in the sixties, feminists fought to gain control of their reproductive rights. Though over one million abortions were being performed annually, they were still illegal in all states except in the event that the mother’s life was in danger. Women’s self-help groups began to form at this time, where women came together to share their fears and demand better healthcare. 

The activists of the WHM saw significant change, including in 1993, when the federal ban on the inclusion of women in drug trials was removed. This meant that women could be better represented when creating drugs for the public. Now, any clinical trial must provide accurate information and analysis for all women and other minority groups. Another victory was the  New Mothers’ Breastfeeding Promotion and Protection Act introduced in 1998. This act would provide break time for breastfeeding mothers to pump their milk in the workplace. 

The election of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s created some setbacks for their policy proposals, however. Legalized abortions were threatened, and many abortion clinics were closed. Nonetheless, members of the Women’s Health Movement persisted and worked to make more changes on the federal policy level. 

One of the most significant gains of this movement was the creation of the Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues, which was formed in 1977. Although the caucus initially saw bipartisan support, they were forced to merge into the Congressional Members Organization since Congress eliminated funding for the caucus. Nevertheless, it still provides unwavering support for women’s health issues.  

‍

Executive Order 14120

In March 2024, President Biden passed an Executive Order (EO) titled Advancing Women’s Health Research and Innovation. The impact of the EO is vast because of the lack of inclusion in the past for women in scientific and clinical research, leading to gaps in the outputs of the research.  Existing US policies often widen this gap, creating limitations for including women in scientific studies. This gap has led to many negative effects on women’s health, as existing research is only performed on the male body, leading to unpredictable outcomes for women. Thus, President Biden’s EO is a major step towards ensuring that women’s health is prioritized and reducing the gap between men and women within the research community.

‍

Executive Order 14121

Executive Order 14121, “Recognizing and Honoring Women’s History,” was published by the President's Executive Office on March 27th, at the close of Women’s History Month. According to a press release from the White House, the order is meant to “...increase the representation of women’s history in sites across America and help honor the legacy and contributions of women and girls to our country,” which is often overlooked. It specifically addresses an inequity in the representation of women’s history in national parks, monuments, and historical sites, of which out of 429, there only 76 are named after a woman or relate to women’s history. According to the Department of the Interior website, the National Park Service has already invested over $19 million in projects commemorating women’s history under President Biden, which has also awarded $2.1 million in grants for historical preservation initiatives that include women’s impactful role in history.   

The executive order outlines several actions as a plan for achieving this goal, including directing the Department of the Interior–which oversees the National Park Service–to conduct a study on how the contributions of women can be better acknowledged at existing sites, as well as exploring the possibility of identifying new sites for that purpose and deciding which of them are ideal for recognizing female historical figures (who are not yet honored). Additionally, it calls on the DOI to instruct the National Park Service Advisory Board to work with historians and other professionals to increase the representation of women across National Parks programming, not just in the parks themselves.   

‍“By highlighting the role that women and girls have played in shaping the American story, we will tell a more complete account of American history and help create a more equal future;” the White House said about the order. The text of the order itself highlights this goal and additionally mentions other orders that were made to help advance it: Executive Order 14020, which established the White House Gender Policy Council; Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government; and Executive Order 14091, which was an addendum to 13985. It also points to last year’s designation of the Camp Amache Historic Site and the Emmett and Mamie Till and Baaj Nwaavjo I’Tah Kukveni National Monuments as additional examples of the administration’s actions to  advance representation of all minorities in America’s national parks. Thus, the contents of this order are in line with the president’s agenda to further the public awareness and federal recognizance of underrepresented groups in history and, more generally, “...the administration’s ongoing efforts to advance equality and representation across the country,” as put by the White House.   

‍“President Biden’s Executive Order directs our team to think beyond the stories we currently tell to seek out the new and often untold stories of the women who have blazed a path for all of us,” said Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland on the order. “Doing this work means telling our country’s full and honest story, learning about the women across generations who have strengthened our nation, and building a future where everyone can thrive.” The Biden administration continues its more progressive-style policymaking efforts for issues related to women’s rights and healthcare.

Acknowledgment

The Institute for Youth in Policy wishes to acknowledge Eli Solomon, Nolan Ezzet, and other contributors for developing and maintaining the Policy Department within the Institute.

References

1. Siler, Wes. 2024. “Women Who Built the National Parks Are Finally Getting Recognized.” Outside. 
2. Biden, Joe. 2024. “FACT SHEET: President Biden Signs Executive Order to Strengthen the Recognition of Women’s History.” The White House.  
3. Press, Interior. 2024. “Secretary Haaland Celebrates President Biden’s Executive Order to Recognize and Honor Women’s History.” US Department of the Interior.  
4. France, Kerrian. 2022. “Building Connections: Recommendations for Centering Women’s History at the National Park Service.” National Trust for Historic Preservation.  
5. Biden, Joe. 2024. “Recognizing and Honoring Women's History.” Federal Register.
6. nm. nd. “National Park System.” National Park Service. 
7. Nichols, Francine. 2000. “History of the Women’s Health Movement in the 20th Century.” JOGNN.  
8. Schiebinger, Londa. 2003. “Women’s health and clinical trials.” JCI.   
9. nm. 2024. “President Biden Issues Executive Order on Advancing Women’s Health Research and Innovation.” NIH.  
10. Samuelson, Kristin. 2024. “This is a monumental step forward for women and for advancing our health equity.” Northwestern.  
11. DeBruin, Debra. 1999. “Justice and the Inclusion of Women in Clinical Studies: A Conceptual Framework.” Institute of Medicine.   
12. Balch, Bridget. 2024. “Why we know so little about women’s health.” AAMC.   
13. Fultinavičiūtė, Urtė. 2022. “Sex and science: underrepresentation of women in early-stage clinical trials.” Clinical Trials Arena.   
14. Cooney, Elizabeth. 2020. “Females are still routinely left out of biomedical research — and ignored in analyses of data.” STAT.   

‍