• April 9, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    In The New York Times, Matt Apuzzo and Timothy Williams report on how the video of the Walter Scott shooting has reinvigorated the national debate on police tactics.

    Robinson Meyer applauds the courage of citizens who record police abuses in a piece at The Atlantic.

    In the Los Angeles Times, Scott Martelle argues that the criminal justice system fails to support those who are exonerated.

    At the blog for the Brennan Center for Justice, Tomas Lopez explains the opportunity Maryland has to restore voting rights to 40,000 people.

    Katha Pollit argues in Salon that CEOs should stand up for their pregnant and potentially pregnant employees in the new abortion battles.

    Scott Bauer of the Associated Press (via the Wisconsin State Journal) that the Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court filed a federal lawsuit over a voter-approved amendment that will likely result in her demotion. 

  • March 13, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    John Eligon and Eli Yokley report for The New York Times on the recent shooting of two police officers in Ferguson, Missouri and the tension between the city and protesters.

    Alex S. Vitale discusses at The Nation how President Barack Obama’s proposed police reforms fail to address the most significant causes of police misconduct.

    In the Los Angeles Times, Scott Martelle raises questions about Missouri attempts to execute a brain-damaged man.

    At Salon, Katie McDonough reports that lawmakers in Montana have proposed new abortion restrictions based on anti-choice pseudoscience.

    Brian Beutler argues in The New Republic that The Wall Street Journal’s arguments against the Affordable Care Act are based on a dishonest reading of history.

    Michael Li considers at the blog for the Brennan Center for Justice the legacy of Selma and the representation revolution.

  • February 19, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    In the Los Angeles Times, Michael Hiltzik asserts that the continued unraveling of the case against the Affordable Care Act in King v. Burwell reveals that the case is merely “an ideological attack…masquerading as a rule-of-law case.”

    Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post examines whether GOP lawmakers have changed their opinions on the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act.

    Cristian Farias argues at The New Republic that the recent federal judge’s temporary injunction that blocked President Barack Obama’s immigration action was a political move.

    In The New York Times, ACS Board of Directors Member Linda Greenhouse considers with the Supreme Court will hear another case on affirmative action.

    At the blog for the Brennan Center for Justice, Michael Li writes that two cases before the Supreme Court this term may allow politicians greater freedom to gerrymander.

    Irin Carmon reports for MSNBC that Mississippi has requested that the Supreme court rule on a law that would close the state’s last abortion clinic.

  • February 5, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    Rebecca Traister in a compelling piece for The New Republic takes on policies in the United States punish working women who have children.

    At Slate, Jamelle Bouie writes that Republicans would be content to watch the Affordable Care act fail if the Supreme Court rules against the law.

    Linda Greenhouse in The New York Times explains that the nature of the Supreme Court would change should the justices decide to gut the Affordable Care Act.

    At Salon, Mary Elizabeth Williams reports on Missouri’s new attempts to tighten abortion restrictions that expand on the state’s existing “informed consent” policy.

    In The Chicago Tribune, Melissa Harris discusses Justice Elena Kagan’s appearance at the University of Chicago Law School. 

  • January 30, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Kelli Garcia, Senior Counsel, National Women's Law Center

    Between 2011 and 2013, politicians in 30 states enacted 205 abortion restrictions, ranging from outright and unconstitutional abortion bans to laws intended to make it impossible for providers to offer abortion. Last year alone, fifteen states adopted 26 new restrictions that limit or impede access to abortion, making it harder and sometimes impossible for women to exercise their constitutionally protected right to abortion. This wave of anti-abortion activity has dramatically changed the country’s landscape for women seeking an abortion. According to the Guttmacher Institute, in 2013, more than half the states had at least four abortion restrictions in effect

    These multiple restrictions compound and, for many women, make it impossible to obtain an abortion. In Texas, for example, a woman seeking a medication abortion has to make four separate trips to the provider because of the restrictive laws that exist in that state. She is forced to undergo and view an ultrasound, listen to a description of the fetus' development, wait 24 hours, and then has to make two trips for medication abortion because Texas forces providers to use an outdated protocol rather than following current evidence-based medical practice. And this is if she can actually reach a provider - one out of six women in Texas will have to travel 150 miles or more to reach an abortion provider.

    These laws impose unnecessary monetary costs. These costs are particularly devastating to low-income and poor women who already face significant barriers accessing care. The cost of the abortion itself can be prohibitive, especially when politicians force women to pay out of pocket by prohibiting insurance coverage of abortion. Then, women must arrange for and receive time off work, most likely without pay. They might have to pay for childcare, find a place to stay or make multiple roundtrips to distant clinics, and/or find reliable transportation.  As one provider aptly noted, “[T]he vast majority of women can’t add those travel costs to the cost of an abortion or they can’t take off work.” These restrictions chip away at women’s right to abortion by creating so many barriers that abortion becomes unobtainable.