Women's rights

  • November 25, 2015
    Guest Post

    by B. Jessie Hill, Judge Ben C. Green Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law

    What is at stake for reproductive rights in Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, which will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court this Term? In a word, everything. Whole Woman’s Health may well be the most significant abortion case in 24 years.

    The Supreme Court established the “undue burden” standard for evaluating the constitutionality of abortion restrictions in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The vagueness of that standard, combined with the Court’s apparent willingness to uphold numerous restrictions in that case, opened the door for states to continually pass new and ever more restrictive regulations on abortion in the decades since Casey was decided. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has largely declined to speak further on the meaning or scope of the undue burden standard.

    What’s more, states began to try a new kind of restriction – restrictions adopted in the name of protecting women’s health but really aimed at reducing access to abortion. These differed from the sorts of restrictions at issue in Casey, which were primarily laws aimed at affecting the woman’s decision making process, such as waiting periods, parental consent requirements, and informed-consent requirements. Casey was relatively deferential toward measures intended to ensure the woman’s choice was fully informed, but it did not have occasion to consider the sort of pretextual health regulations at issue in Whole Woman’s Health.

    In Whole Woman’s Health, the Court will decide the constitutionality of a Texas law that imposes onerous requirements on abortion providers—namely, that doctors providing abortions have admitting privileges at a local hospital and that abortion clinics conform to the requirements for “ambulatory surgical centers,” including requirements pertaining to the physical plant, staffing, parking, and the like. These requirements are often impossible for older clinics to meet without spending enormous sums of money. Although other types of ambulatory surgery centers—clinics that provide minor surgery on an outpatient basis—are generally offered waivers or grandfathered from when new regulations are instituted, abortion providers are specifically denied grandfathering and waivers.

  • November 13, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Samuel A. Marcosson, Professor of Law, University of Louisville Louis D. Brandeis School of Law

    On November 6, the Supreme Court granted cert in seven cases (which it promptly consolidated for briefing and argument as Zubik v. Burwell) to resolve the issue it left open when it ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that private, for-profit companies are entitled to a religious exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s mandate to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees. At issue is whether the accommodation the government provides to nonprofit employers satisfies the requirements of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). If it doesn’t, employees of these nonprofits will, like their counterparts at Hobby Lobby, lose their contraceptive coverage. A decision exempting the nonprofits from the contraceptive mandate would make Zubik one of the landmarks of the Term, and a disaster in the Court’s religion jurisprudence.

    Zubik tests the limits of the dangerous path the Court began to walk in Hobby Lobby. The majority opinion there departed from the Court’s long-standing approach in religious accommodation cases of carefully considering the impact of a proposed accommodation on third parties who would be burdened by it. In Hobby Lobby, of course, those third parties were the employees who lost coverage for contraceptive care that, under the ACA, is an essential element of comprehensive health insurance and which, for many, avoids enormous expense and “helps safeguard the health of women for whom pregnancy may be hazardous, even life threatening.” The Court gave almost no weight to the interests and needs of those employees who would be deprived of the essential coverage the ACA had mandated.

    The Court faces an even starker choice in Zubik because the claim on the other side of the scale, the burden claimed by the employers to their religious exercise, is more attenuated than it was in Hobby Lobby. A nonprofit that objects to providing contraceptive coverage receives an accommodation simply by certifying to HHS that it has a religious objection. As Justice Alito admitted in Hobby Lobby, a nonprofit which files the certification is “effectively exempted . . . from the contraceptive mandate.” In other words, to be accommodated under the ACA regulations, all the objecting nonprofits must do is tell HHS exactly what they are telling the Supreme Court: that they have a religious objection to providing contraceptive coverage.

  • October 8, 2015

    by Paul Guequierre

    As the political right, including many Republican members of  Congress, continue an  attack on women’s healthcare in the form of ongoing  assaults on Planned Parenthood, American Constitution Society President Caroline Fredrickson testified today before the House Judiciary Committee in its second hearing in a series misleadingly titled, “Planned Parenthood Exposed: Examining Abortion Procedures and Medical Ethics at the Nation’s Largest Abortion Provider." 

    In her testimony, Fredrickson said:

    In reality, these videos are not about alleged illegal sales of fetal tissue. They are not about alleged violations of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. They are about a persistent campaign by a small group of people who believe that abortion should be illegal, by any means necessary.

    But the truth is that abortion is an essential component of women’s health care.’ It is also one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States. And three in ten women in the U.S. will have a safe, legal abortion during her lifetime. Women and their doctors clearly understand that abortion is a safe, legal, and essential part of women’s health care. Women who seek access to abortion, like any patient seeking access to essential health care, are entitled to “privacy, dignity, respect, and support.”  Elected officials should listen to what women and their doctors already know – sham laws and baseless investigations that serve only to burden a woman’s right to choose have no place in our nation’s statehouses.

    Fredrickson’s testimony can be read here. See video of entire hearing from C-SPAN.

  • September 4, 2015

    by Nanya Springer

    On The Huffington Post BlogJudith E. Schaeffer of the Constitutional Accountability Center weighs in on the controversy in Rowan County, Kentucky, arguing that obtaining a marriage license should be hassle-free for everyone.

    In a press release, Demos announced that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday reinstated a case challenging Nevada’s failure to provide voter registration services to its low-income citizens. The decision comes after the case was thrown out by the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

    Sam Ross-Brown and Amanda Teuscher report in The American Prospect that the Department of Labor’s new rules allowing workers at higher income levels to qualify for overtime pay will not only result in an effective raise for millions of people, but will also give workers more control over their work hours and personal lives.

    The Center for Reproductive Rights announced in a press release yesterday that it has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In June, the Fifth Circuit upheld onerous restrictions on abortion clinic access in Texas which, if allowed to stand, would close more than 75 percent of clinics in the state.

  • July 1, 2015
    Under The Bus
    How Working Women Are Being Run Over
    Caroline Fredrickson

    by Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society for Law & Policy

    When she was 18, my great-grandmother Mathilda Olafsson left Sweden to escape poverty, sailing alone in steerage to Boston where she was lucky to find a job as a maid. Like countless immigrant women, Mathilda was subject to sexual harassment, underpayment, and abusively long hours. As she endured backbreaking labor and meals consisting of her employers’ scraps, she hoarded her meager earnings, working toward a better life.

    Growing up, I found Mathilda’s story ‒ so far in the past, so different from today ‒ inspirational. But sadly, even after the enactment of various labor laws and worker protections, many working women are still enduring the abuses that my great-grandmother suffered. The truth is, domestic workers and workers in other undervalued, female-dominated professions have little more legal protection than Mathilda and her peers had.

    Americans tend to think working conditions aren't so bad today; the U.S. has prohibited discrimination against women, mandated equal pay for equal work, and adopted family leave legislation. But few Americans know that the progressive laws designed to improve wages and working conditions left out large portions of the working population. That’s because during the New Deal, President Franklin Roosevelt struck bargains with “Dixiecrats,” trading the rights of African American and female workers for votes in support of a minimum wage, overtime, and the right to join a union.

    As a result, certain workers – including nannies, housekeepers, farmworkers, small business employees, part-time workers, independent contractors, and temporary workers – have almost zero protection under U.S. law. Not coincidentally, these workers are disproportionately female and people of color.