The Supreme Court’s announcement that it will not rule on Zubik v. Burwell, the challenge to women’s access to birth control under the Affordable Care Act, is meant to avoid a 4-to-4 deadlock by sending the issue back to lower courts. It would have been far better if the Court had simply recognized fundamental constitutional principles and human rights.
By Brittany Romagnoli, President’s Office Intern On March 2, the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt case. This case acknowledges how targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws in Texas are designed to shut down more than 75% of all women’s health clinics that provide abortion services in the state. While Read more …
It’s unfortunate that President Obama felt it was necessary to appoint a nominee to the Supreme Court whose record on issues pertaining to women’s rights is more or less a blank slate
On Friday the 13th, we saw the back door to repealing Roe v. Wade creak The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Whole Women’s Health v. Cole, a case that will determine whether politicians can shred the Constitution and end abortion by preventing women from accessing legal health services.
There are some beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, that should simply not be respected by any government. A “belief” that targets and endangers a specific demographic group that has historically experienced discrimination is no more than a religious mask for bigotry. Just as we reject the use of religion to justify racial and homophobic bigotry, the same is true for gender bigotry as well.
Donate $35+ to receive the 60th Anniversary cap as a thank-you.