Reproductive freedom

  • July 28, 2014

    by Ellery Weil

    The New York Times is calling for the federal government to repeal laws banning marijuana, saying that as a substance it is less dangerous than alcohol, and the social costs of keeping it illegal are too vast to justify its current legal status. “The social costs of the marijuana laws are vast. There were 658,000 arrests for marijuana possession in 2012, according to the FBI figures, compared with 256,000 for cocaine, heroin and their derivatives. Even worse, the result is racist, falling disproportionately on young black men, ruining their lives and creating new generations of career criminals.”

    Prachi Gupta in a piece for Salon explores the recent federal judge’s ruling that D.C.’s public handgun ban is unconstitutional.

    NPR’s Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza discusses Alabama’s high rate of death penalty sentences, especially in light of recent debate surrounding capital punishment. On MSNBC’s “Melissa Harris-Perry,” ACS Vice President of Network Advancement Sarah Knight discussed the recent Arizona death penalty debacle, where it took the state almost two hours to execute a condemned death row inmate. 

    Sarah Kliff at Vox reports on pro-choice legislators using the Supreme Court buffer zone ruling as a guideline for new, safer abortion clinics which can be protected as effectively as possible. On the same “Melissa Harris-Perry” show, ACS’s Sarah Knight joined a discussion about the Supreme Court’s opinion earlier this summer invalidating Massachusetts’ abortion clinic buffer zone law.

  • July 22, 2014

    by Ellery Weil

    At Vox, Adrianna McIntyre explains today’s decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Halbig v. Burwell, the “greatest existential threat” to the Affordable Care Act since NFIB v. Sebelius. Abbe Gluck explains at Balkinization why the opinion in Halbig “does a disservice to textualism.”

    Katie McDonough takes to Salon and discusses the case of a nurse in Florida who is suing a Tampa-area medical center for religious discrimination after they told the nurse that her objections to prescribing birth control made her ineligible for a position with their reproductive health department.

    The Associated Press reports on Arizona’s decision to appeal to the Supreme Court a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which prohibited the execution of an Arizona death row inmate because the state refused to disclose the lethal injection drug cocktail it planned to use.

    Naureen Shah at Al Jazeera America discusses a report by Human Rights Watch and Columbia Law School which claims that not only are the FBI’s current counterterrorism stings violating basic rights, they are targeting the wrong people, sowing distrust of the government, and failing to stop legitimate threats.

  • July 21, 2014

    by Ellery Weil

    Amy Lieberman at Slate writes on mounting protests against immigration checkpoints in Arizona..

    In  The Atlantic, Molly Ball argues that Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is a major setback for both the political left and the gay rights movement.

    The Human Rights Campaign Blog discusses President Obama’s historic executive order, signed this morning, barring employment discrimination against the LGBT community.

    At Public Justice, Adrian Alvarez discusses the upcoming Supreme Court case of Young v. United Parcel Services, and what it means for the future of pregnancy discrimination laws.

    ACS sends its deepest condolences to the family of Florida State University School of Law Professor, and founder of PrawfsBlog, Dan Markel, who was shot and killed Friday morning.

  • July 18, 2014

    by Ellery Weil

    From The Huffington Post, lieutenant gubernatorial candidate Lucy Flores speaks out about her position on reproductive rights, as influenced by her own abortion at age sixteen.

    In light of several recent controversies surrounding attorneys’ representations of controversial defendants, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi for The Sacramento Bee argues that criminal defense lawyers are “safeguards against vigilantism, kangaroo courts, and mob justice.” (Adachi is a member of the Bay Area Lawyer Chapter’s Board of Advisors.)

    Ciarra Torres-Spelliscy of the Brennan Center for Justice argues that, despite an outwardly polarized government, bipartisanship is still present in Congress, on issues including voter reform.

    From SCOTUSblog, Florida will take the question of same-sex marriage to a higher court, after officials in Monroe County were required to marry same-sex couples.

    Louise Melling of the ACLU argues that Hobby Lobby, and particularly the potential it opens up for discrimination against the LGBT community, violates basic human dignity of those refused services.

  • July 11, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Caroline Mala Corbin, Professor of Law, University of Miami School of Law

    There is much to lament in the Supreme Court’s Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision, which held that first, closely held for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby may bring religious liberty claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and second, that the contraception mandate – the requirement that health insurance plans provide contraception at no additional cost – violated Hobby Lobby’s RFRA rights. Thanks to the decision, owners who are religiously opposed to contraception may exclude it from their employees’ health plan.  For several reasons, the winners are corporate owners, and the losers are all the men and women who must work for them. 

    First,  Hobby Lobby allows owners of for-profit corporations to have their cake and eat it too. One of the main reasons people incorporate their businesses is to gain the protection of limited liability, which shields owners from the liabilities of their corporation. For example, the debts of the corporation are not the debts of the owners. After Hobby Lobby, owners are considered separate and distinct from their corporations for purposes of limited liability, but one and the same for the purposes of religious rights. In other words, the owners and corporations are alter-egos when it is convenient, and not when it is not. That is not how the law is supposed to work.

    Second, at the same time, Hobby Lobby virtually ignores the rights of employees. The Justices could barely bring themselves to acknowledge that a religious exemption created any kind of burden on the thousands of workers who just lost their contraception coverage. Instead, in a footnote (a placement in keeping with the Court’s marginalization of employees), the Court characterized the contraception mandate as a burden but a potential religious exemption as merely the loss of a benefit. Apparently, only corporate owners are burdened. The bottom line is that the owners’ rights are privileged over their workers’ rights. Never mind that health insurance is part of employees’ compensation, and owners should not be able to dictate how employees spend their own earnings. And never mind that sincere religious obligations can point towards contraception use as well as away from it, as people may have faith-based reasons for limiting their family size.