• 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. 

  • February 4, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    In USA Today, Richard Wolf writes about the Justices’ different views on statutory interpretation and how they could impact King v. Burwell.

    Garrett Epps discusses the flawed argument against the Affordable Care Act at The Atlantic using the analogy of a poor reading of the Harry Potter series.

    Sahil Kapur examines at Talking Points Memo how the Senate could kill the Supreme Court filibuster

    At The Economist, Steven Mazie considers how some states are making same-sex marriage “a matter of religious conscience” in order to lessen the sting of a Supreme Court ruling on the issue.

    In The New York Times, William Baude argues that the Court should be more transparent in its orders as such transparency “is vital to its continued legacy.”

  • February 3, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    In The New York Times, Adam Liptak considers the ideological gap between judges and lawyers.  

    Brian Beutler reports in The New Republic that a new brief to the Supreme Court from public health scholars discusses the human cost of striking down the Affordable Care Act.

    At the Huffington Post, Sam Stein and Jeffrey Young examine the inconsistences in the most recent Republican attacks against the Affordable Care Act.

    Thomas Albright and Jed Rakoff argue in The Washington Post that the legal system should rely less on  eyewitness testimony, which research shows is often faulty.

    Susanne Dubleton writes in Truthout about the “chaotic tedium” of the death penalty.

  • February 2, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    Geoffrey R. Stone writes in the Huffington Post about campus sexual assault and argues for a more thoughtful approach from universities “to keep their students safe and to ensure that they can live and learn in an environment free from sexual violence.”

    At The Week, Andrew Cohen considers the lessons of Georgia’s recent decision to execute a developmentally disabled man.

    In The Atlantic, Kent Greenfield asserts that corporations should shoulder greater responsibilities if they are to be considered people under the law.

    Cristian Farias argues in The New Republic that Justice Scalia could be the decisive vote on the Affordable Care Act.

    In Slate, Jamelle Bouie contends that public apathy has led to significant criminal justice reform, but larger support is needed to tackle the biggest problems. 

  • 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.