Opinion
Defunding equity: The Big Beautiful Bill and the broader crisis in women’s health innovation

By Melissa Wallace, CEO & Founding Partner, Fierce Foundry
Imagine if half the population were quietly being cut off from funding, resources, and opportunity. No protests, no headlines—just policies dressed up as reform.
For women, and for those building what little infrastructure exists to support us, this isn’t fiction. It’s policy in action.
Funding is quietly frozen. Grant programmes disappear overnight. Tax policy gets “revised.” And somehow, always, it’s the programmes that support women’s health, economic mobility, and safety that end up on the chopping block.
It’s important to share what this really means but also identify ways we can push back.
A Coordinated Attack Disguised as ‘Efficiency’
Earlier this year, the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women pulled all open funding opportunities from its site with zero warning.
At the time of writing, the OVW’s homepage showed no active grants available, an eerie confirmation of the freeze.
This isn’t theoretical. These are grants that keep crisis hotlines open. That put lawyers in courtrooms to help women file restraining orders. That ensures shelters can literally keep their lights on.
Then the only federal program focused solely on family planning, Title X, froze $65 million in funding. Again, just look at their homepage.
Providers forced out because of a revived gag rule. Entire counties with no reproductive health access. Proving again, this is not just about budgets.
And more importantly, there’s the NIH.
What was and should always be the gold standard of American medical research, the NIH is now being slowly gutted from the inside out, facing capped indirect costs, grant freezes, and the loss of over 1,000 employees.
Research on maternal mortality, reproductive health, and gender-based health disparities is stalled or abandoned at a time when women’s health outcomes in the U.S. are already in crisis.
Grad programs are pausing admissions. Institutions are rescinding job offers.
It’s crazy to think that if your research centers on women, you’re no longer a priority.
Female Founders Are Feeling It Too
At our Venture Studio, Fierce Foundry, we co-build FemTech companies led by women, so we see firsthand how policy disruptions are stifling innovation.
Leslie Feinzaig at the Female Founders Alliance recently surveyed hundreds of women entrepreneurs. The numbers are brutal:
- 47 per cent say today’s economy is hurting their business, not because their ideas are weak, but because they’re navigating a toxic mix of cautious buyers, inflation, and frozen grant programmes.
- 46 per cent say the political climate is actively harming them, with NIH, DoD, and EPA listed as the most disrupted funding sources.
- Even those who raised money in early 2025: 48 per cent still report negative fallout because the ground keeps shifting beneath them.
We’re not witnessing random cuts. We’re watching a playbook unfold.
When the only thing more unstable than the market is the government meant to support it, you create an environment where risk tolerance drops to zero, and guess who pays the price in a system already biased against women?
Enter H.R.1, the Velvet Hammer
Otherwise known as the ironically named “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, Congress recently passed H.R.1, a 600+ page legislative mic drop wrapped in “anti-corruption” branding.
In reality, it’s another blow to the nonprofit and startup sectors, especially the ones working in women’s health, climate, education, and equity.
This new law:
- Complicates how nonprofits advocate, effectively muting mission-driven organisations with compliance red tape
- Disincentivises charitable giving by eliminating the universal charitable deduction
- Weakens the Johnson Amendment, opening the door to political manipulation inside nonprofits
Layer this over the already shaky landscape created by the administration’s targeted funding cuts, and you get what looks a lot like a strategic dismantling of the nonprofit sector, death by a thousand policy decisions.
This Isn’t Just Budgeting—It’s a Turning Point
It’s tempting to see these cuts as routine cost-saving measures.
But the patterns tell another story, and it demands our attention.
When funding consistently disappears from domestic violence shelters, reproductive healthcare, scientific research, and community-led nonprofits, we have to ask:
What kind of future are we shaping?
When accountability measures are framed as anti-corruption but silence the very voices meant to advocate for equity, it’s not just government that shrinks, it’s trust, access, and progress.
And those bearing the brunt? Women. Especially women of colour. Especially those building solutions in sectors already under-resourced. Especially those who believed our public systems were meant to include them.
But here’s the opportunity: recognising these patterns allows us to shift course. To build systems that are transparent, equitable, and truly serve the public good.
We have a chance to reimagine not just restore what support for women can and should look like.
So What Now?
This is our moment of reckoning and of responsibility.
If you’re outraged, good. But outrage without action changes nothing.
Call your representatives. Ask them where they stand on funding for the NIH, Title X, and nonprofit protections.
Demand they reverse the cuts that are crippling women’s health and innovation.
Join organisations like the National Council of Nonprofits, League of Women Voters, and Protect Our Care that are tracking these shifts and mobilising action.
Subscribe to policy trackers like G2G, and stay engaged on federal rule changes
affecting women’s health innovation.
Support women-led startups and nonprofits, especially the ones filling gaps left by the government.
And if you have a platform, use it.
Encourage your company to support advocacy coalitions or match donations to affected nonprofits.
The future of FemTech depends on more than great ideas and breakthrough science, it depends on a system willing to invest in women’s health, protect equity-driven founders, and fund the research that saves lives.
When the scaffolding holding up women’s progress collapses, it’s not just women who fall; it’s all of us.
Research proves that when women are economically empowered, communities thrive.
Countries with greater gender equality have stronger economies, healthier families, and more resilient democracies.
When we support women, we don’t just protect half the population; we invest in the whole.
References
- “Trump DOJ freezes domestic violence grants, leaving shelters and legal services scrambling”
Politico, March 1, 2025
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/01/funding-freeze-domestic-violence-00206807
- “Trump administration halts Title X family planning funding in 23 states”
TIME Magazine, April 2025
https://time.com/7276543/title-x-funding-freeze-threatens-states
- “Planned Parenthood Faces Steep Financial Losses Amid Trump Budget Cuts”
Wall Street Journal, May 2025
https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/planned-parenthood-abortion-trump-supreme-court-a0c54920
- “Second Presidency of Donald Trump” (NIH Grant Freeze and Layoffs) Wikipedia summary based on multiple government sources, 2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_presidency_of_Donald_Trump
- “I Am Seeing My Community of Researchers Decimated” The New Yorker, February 2025
https://www.newyorker.com/news/deep-state-diaries/i-am-seeing-my-community-of-researchers-decimated
- “Trump Administration Slashes Millions in NIH Funding for Maternal Health, HIV, and Other Research”
Protect Our Care, 2025
https://www.protectourcare.org/its-a-bloodbath-trump-administration-slashes-millions-in-nih-funding
- “2025 Female Founder Sentiment Survey”
Female Founders Alliance / Leslie Feinzaig, Q2 2025
(Direct data provided – no public link currently available)
- “New Tax Law Threatens Nonprofits’ Ability to Serve Communities” National Council of Nonprofits, April 2025
- “Congress Passes Major Tax Package—Nonprofits Directly Impacted” National Council of Nonprofits, April 2025
- “4 Key Elements of H.R.1”
League of Women Voters, March 2025
https://www.lwv.org/blog/4-key-elements-hr1
11.“Trump’s War on the Nonprofit Sector”
The Guardian, April 2025
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/10/trump-administration-authoritarian
News
We built Ema like a nurse: Here’s why that matters

By Claire Pettengill, science intern and Jade Anstine, clinical AI intern, Ema EQ
Every year, Gallup asks Americans which professions they trust most. Every year, nurses win. Not doctors. Not scientists. Nurses. And if you spend any time thinking about why, the answer is not hard to find.
Medicine runs on the nurse noticing first. In other words, the diagnosis follows the nurse sounding the alarm. They ask questions that feel human, not procedural. They explain what is happening in language you can understand.
And, critically, they know when something is beyond their scope and get you to the right person without making you feel like a burden for needing more.
That is the model we built Ema on.
When we set out to build an AI companion for women’s health, we could have just built something that answers questions efficiently. Pattern matching. Fast retrieval. Clinically accurate outputs.
Those things matter, and Ema does all of them. But accuracy alone does not build trust, and trust is the entire game in healthcare.
A woman asking about her postpartum recovery, her fertility, or her breastfeeding supply is not looking for a search engine. She is looking for someone who will take her seriously.
Women’s concerns don’t just need to be ‘validated’; they also need to be believed. Dismiss a woman’s pain as anxiety once, and you’ve taught her to doubt her own body.
The nursing model of care is built on exactly that premise. It is care that is shaped by her story. It asks about context and symptoms.
It treats the person as a whole, and it recognises that the right answer is sometimes a referral, not a response.
We trained Ema to escalate. That may sound like a small thing, but in AI, it is a deliberate design choice.
Most AI systems are optimised to answer and maintain engagement. Ema is optimised to help, and sometimes helping means saying “you need to speak to a clinician” and making that path easy.
This matters especially in women’s health, where the clinical trust gap is well-documented.
In a 2022 nationally representative survey of over 5,000 women, nearly 1 in 3 reported that their doctor had dismissed their concerns, and 15 per cent said a provider simply didn’t believe them.
Women are more likely to have their symptoms dismissed, their concerns minimised, and their pain undertreated. Among women under 35, nearly half reported at least one of these experiences.
They have had to learn how to advocate within systems designed for efficiency, built on men’s health.
With Ema, every conversation is an opportunity to make a woman feel heard, informed, and directed to the right level of care, neither over-triaged nor undertreated.
The goal is not to replace clinicians. It is to create a trustworthy first point of support that listens carefully, explains clearly, recognises limits, and helps women move toward appropriate care.
The nurses who top those Gallup rankings every year earn that trust through consistency. They show up, listen, follow through, and know their limits.
Ema is simply that trust, built into technology. That is the standard we hold Ema to: a trustworthy presence that knows when to answer and when to hand off.
Medicine spent a long time teaching women not to expect to be believed. Ema is built by the people who never stopped listening.
Bios
Claire Pettengill is a psychiatric nurse and DNP-PMHNP candidate at Columbia University School of Nursing, specialising in women’s mental health across the lifespan and algorithmic justice – ensuring the AI tools shaping women’s care are built to actually listen. She joined Ema EQ as a science intern focusing on clinical safety standards for evaluating AI in women’s health.
Jade Anstine is a senior nursing student at Gustavus Adolphus College looking to bridge the gap between frontline medicine and digital health innovation. He joined Ema EQ as a Clinical AI Intern to assess the Ema AI model across different clinical populations, specifically pediatrics and LGBTQ+.
Opinion
The technology exists: Why are women still waiting?

By Jane Lewis, chief operating officer, chief financial officer and women’s health lead, ABHI
For years, the conversation around women’s health has rightly focused on recognition.
Recognition that women wait longer for diagnosis. Recognition that symptoms are too often dismissed or normalised. Recognition that healthcare systems have historically been designed around male biology, leaving gaps in research, evidence and care.
That recognition matters. But awareness alone will not improve outcomes.
The challenge facing women’s health today is no longer simply identifying the problem. It is acting on the solutions already available.
At ABHI’s Women’s Health Summit earlier this year, leaders from across healthcare, government, academia and industry came together to discuss the future of women’s health.
One message emerged repeatedly throughout the day: we do not have an innovation problem.
Across medical devices, diagnostics, digital health and genomics, there are already technologies capable of transforming outcomes for women.
From self-sampling approaches for cervical screening and non-invasive diagnostics to AI-enabled tools and advanced imaging, innovation is happening. The question is whether healthcare systems can adopt it quickly enough.
Too often, promising technologies become trapped in pilot programmes, fragmented procurement processes or lengthy implementation pathways. Evidence generation, commissioning and adoption are frequently treated as separate challenges rather than part of a single journey.
The consequence is that innovations capable of improving quality of life and reducing pressure on health services take years to reach the women who could benefit from them.
This matters because women’s health extends far beyond reproductive health.
Historically, many discussions have centred on fertility, pregnancy and gynaecological conditions. These remain critically important, but they represent only part of the picture.
Women experience cardiovascular disease differently to men. They are disproportionately affected by autoimmune conditions. They face distinct health challenges throughout their lives, from adolescence to healthy ageing.

Jane Lewis
Yet healthcare systems often continue to approach these issues in isolation.
A woman does not experience her health in separate compartments. Pregnancy, cardiovascular risk, menopause, mental health and musculoskeletal conditions are interconnected.
Healthcare systems need to reflect that reality through more integrated, life-course approaches to care.
There has never been a better opportunity to do so.
Across the NHS, the shift towards prevention, community-based care and digital transformation aligns closely with the needs of women’s health.
Women’s Health Hubs are already demonstrating the benefits of bringing services together around the needs of women rather than organisational boundaries. Digital technologies are helping to identify risk earlier and support more personalised care.
Innovation can help deliver all three of the NHS’s major transformation ambitions: moving from treatment to prevention, from hospital to community, and from analogue to digital care.
But innovation alone is not enough.
Closing the women’s health gap also requires us to address longstanding gaps in research and evidence.
Women remain underrepresented in many areas of clinical research, and sex-disaggregated analysis is not always applied consistently. The result is that clinical pathways and treatment decisions are often based on evidence that does not fully reflect female physiology.
Better data, stronger research participation and greater focus on female-specific and female-predominant conditions will be essential.
There is also a compelling economic case for action.
Women’s health is often framed as an equality issue, and equality remains central. But poor health affects workforce participation, productivity and economic growth.
Improving outcomes for women benefits not only patients, but employers, healthcare systems and wider society.
Yet despite this, women’s health innovation continues to attract only a fraction of the investment directed towards other areas of healthcare.
That is beginning to change.
Across the UK and internationally, momentum is building. Governments, investors, researchers and innovators increasingly recognise that women’s health is both a societal necessity and an economic opportunity.
The conversation has moved on significantly in recent years. Topics that were once overlooked are now firmly on the policy agenda.
The next challenge is ensuring that awareness translates into action.
The technologies exist. The evidence is growing. The policy direction is increasingly clear.
ABHI is increasingly taking this agenda beyond national boundaries. Through our engagement with international industry associations, policymakers and healthcare leaders, we are working to ensure that women’s health is recognised as both a health and economic priority.
We are helping to shape discussions on innovation, regulation, investment and adoption, while sharing lessons from the UK with partners around the world.
Whether addressing the gender health gap, improving access to diagnostics or accelerating the uptake of new technologies, international collaboration will be essential.
The challenge now is not recognising the need for change, but delivering it.
Women have waited long enough for acknowledgement of the problem. They should not have to wait any longer for the benefits of the solutions that already exist.
ABHI is the UK’s leading industry association for HealthTech. Its members, ranging from multinationals to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), develop and supply technologies spanning everything from syringes and wound dressings to surgical robots, diagnostics, and digitally enabled healthcare solutions. ABHI’s 400 member companies represent approximately 80% of the UK HealthTech sector by value.
Opinion
Women’s Health has waited long enough for innovation

By Dr Fran Conti-Ramsden, clinician at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, academic at King’s College London, and chief medical officer of MEGI Health.
A woman gives birth. A few days later she goes home, often with a bag of medication for her blood pressure, and then, very often, very little structured follow-up for her heart (cardiovascular) health.
In my clinical work, and through our collaboration with Action on Pre-eclampsia, I see and hear about this postnatal cliff edge again and again, and it still shocks me.
We invest a lot of medical care and attention whilst a woman or birthing individual is pregnant, then, at the very moment emerging evidence suggests we have a window of opportunity to modify long-term health, the support falls away.
That cliff edge is a symptom of a deeper issue: we have come to treat “women’s health” as a synonym for reproductive health. Pregnancy, periods and fertility, important as they are, have crowded out everything else.
Yet the conditions that do most to shorten and limit women’s lives are not reproductive at all.
Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in women worldwide, and it is still too readily thought of as a man’s problem.
Heart disease in women is more likely to be missed and under-treated, in part because for decades women were under-represented in the research that built our knowledge.
Pregnancy makes this vivid.
Conditions such as pre-eclampsia are not only risks to be managed for nine months; they are early warnings about a woman’s future, markers that she is more likely to develop heart disease and high blood pressure in the years to come.
We have the knowledge to act on that. What we mostly do instead is discharge her and look away.
This is exactly the kind of problem better tools should help us solve: spotting risk earlier, supporting women and their clinicians through the vulnerable postnatal window, and providing continuity where the system currently provides a drop due to lack of capacity.
Artificial intelligence and digital health have real potential here; in risk prediction, in monitoring blood pressure at home, and in helping stretched clinicians know who needs attention and when.
And yet this is not where most of the energy is going.
It is far easier to build, fund and scale an app that tracks a cycle than a tool that changes the trajectory of a woman’s heart.
So, innovation clusters at the lighter, lower-risk end of innovation, while the conditions that actually kill and disable women, and moments like the postnatal cliff, stay under-served.
Closing the women’s health gap could add at least a trillion dollars to the global economy each year, the World Economic Forum estimates, but the bigger prize is women living longer, healthier lives.
None of this means technology is a cure in itself. It is a tool, and a tool built carelessly can do harm.
Because women have been under-represented in medical data, systems trained on that data can quietly carry the same blind spots forward, deepening inequalities rather than closing them.
Responsible innovation, with clinical-grade evidence, privacy and equity designed in from the start, and tools built around real clinical pathways rather than bolted on afterwards, is not a brake on progress.
It is the only version of progress worth having.
I am optimistic, because a serious community is forming around exactly these questions and the appetite to get it right is real.
It is why, at MEGI, we are bringing clinicians, researchers, founders, regulators and investors together for our AI × Women’s Health summit on 25 June.
If we keep our focus on the conditions that matter most to women’s lives, and build the tools to meet them responsibly, the postnatal cliff edge could become something else entirely: the moment the system finally catches her and delivers preventative healthcare.
AI × Women’s Health: Innovation, Challenges and Opportunities summit is taking place on Thursday 25 June 2026 at the London Institute for Healthcare Engineering. The event is free and is fully booked and operating a waiting list. Join the waiting list here.
About Dr Fran Conti-Ramsden
Dr Fran Conti-Ramsden is a UK Obstetrics and Gynaecology registrar and Chadburn Clinical Lecturer at KCL passionate about transforming women’s health through technology and innovation.
Combining NHS clinical experience with an MRC-funded PhD, recent NHS Clinical AI fellowship and commercial role as Chief Medical Officer at Megi health, she works at the intersection of clinical medicine, data science, technology and AI.
Her current programme of research focuses on the intersection of healthcare and technology; leveraging advances such as smartphone based vital signs capture and large language models to drive forward scalable innovation in maternal cardiovascular care.
She has published over 20 peer-reviewed manuscripts (See gScholar, h-index 12), including award-winning work recognized by Hypertension Journal.
She was awarded an AI visionary award in 2025 by Health Innovation KSS was the recipient of the 2024 International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy Zuspan prize.
Diagnosis2 weeks agoTwo “gamechanger” tests set to speed up endometriosis diagnosis on the NHS
Insight2 weeks agoWomen with PMOS should have annual NHS checks, new guidance says
Menopause5 days agoNew menopause drug approved for use by NHS in Scotland
Cancer2 weeks agoThousands of women could avoid painful cancer exam with new AI blood test
Fertility2 weeks agoApplications open for the third W Accelerate with Merck KGaA and M Ventures
Fertility2 weeks agoOlder women face lower chance of fertility treatment working, even with donor eggs, study finds
News2 weeks agoWe built Ema like a nurse: Here’s why that matters
News2 weeks agoExperts call for regulation of toxic period product chemicals










