2017 ACS National Convention

  • May 25, 2017
    Guest Post

    *This piece is part of the ACSblog Symposium: 2017 ACS National Convention. The symposium will consider topics featured at the three day convention, scheduled for June 8-10, 2017. Learn more about the Convention here

    by Jamille Fields, Policy Analyst, Government Relations at Planned Parenthood Federation of America

    We are not long past President Trump’s first 100 days and the start of this new Congress. Despite this short timeframe, there have been several legal and policy proposals that threaten reproductive rights and women’s health care access more broadly. Here are six ways in which reproductive rights have been threatened since the start of this year alone:

    1.     Attempting to Block Access to Planned Parenthood

    The American Health Care Act (AHCA) not only attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which greatly advances women’s health care, but also includes a politically motivated provision that would block low-income women and men enrolled in the Medicaid program from using their coverage to receive services at Planned Parenthood. This provision is the only non-health insurance related provision in the bill and the intent is clear--restrict low-income individuals’ access to the provider of their choice and block people’s access to safe and legal abortion. If the bill becomes law, it will harm the 2.5 million people who annually visit Planned Parenthood health centers to access birth control, cancer screenings, STI counseling, HIV treatment and other preventive health care services. Unlike most other parts of the bill, this provision would take effect immediately.

  • May 24, 2017
    Guest Post

    *This piece is part of the ACSblog Symposium: 2017 ACS National Convention. The symposium will consider topics featured at the three day convention, scheduled for June 8-10, 2017. Learn more about the Convention here

    by Dennis Herrera, San Francisco City Attorney

    When Ronald Reagan used his 1983 State of the Union Address to foreshadow a sweeping proposal to devolve vast powers from the federal government back to states and localities, he described his New Federalism initiative as an effort “to restore to states and local governments their roles as dynamic laboratories of change in a creative society.”

    Liberal critics at the time regarded the New Federalism as a thin veiling for a full-scale federal retreat from progressive social policy — which, of course, it was. In subsequent years, as successive Congresses grappled with mounting budget deficits and as the federal bench grew increasingly conservative, Reagan’s efforts to return power to local governments would indeed take hold among his presidency’s most enduring legacies.

    Today, progressive state and local governments should embrace the principles behind New Federalism as a way to push back against a federal administration that threatens constitutional protections and many of the values these localities hold. In the few months that President Donald Trump has been in office, state and local governments have successfully thwarted his attempts to carry out some of his most misguided initiatives.

    When President Trump issued an executive order that sought to strip federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions, San Francisco and other local governments acted swiftly to fight back. My office filed the first lawsuit in the nation to challenge the Executive Order, and the County of Santa Clara and other local jurisdictions soon followed us. In April, Federal Judge William Orrick issued a nationwide preliminary injunction that temporarily halted enforcement of the president’s executive order, recognizing the Executive Order likely violates the Separation of Powers, the Spending Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and other constitutional provisions.

  • May 22, 2017
    Guest Post

    *This piece is part of the ACSblog Symposium: 2017 ACS National Convention. The symposium will consider topics featured at the three day convention, scheduled for June 8-10, 2017. Learn more about the Convention here

    by Mickey Edwards, Vice President and Program Director, The Aspen Institute

    The Constitution provides little guidance for congressional behavior: members of the House of Representatives and the Senate make their own rules, establish their own norms, choose their own structures. They are free to make it up as they go along. But one should hope that the Constitution’s empowerments and constraints – Congress’s specific constitutional obligations and specific areas in which it is prohibited from acting -- will not be the only guides to appropriate congressional behavior.

    In writing about the Founders’ concerns about corruption, Fordham’s Zephyr Teachout has argued that one can discern clear underlying principles threaded throughout the Constitution, even if not specifically stated. I would contend that the same concept – discernible unstated principles – applies to much of the constitutional framework regarding Congress, specifically in regard to the Founders’ expectations regarding behavioral norms: deliberation, debate, compromise, and in its interaction with the executive branch, a strong defense of institutional prerogatives. Almost all of these suppositions have proved to have been overly optimistic. There have been few James Madisons in the 21st century versions of the legislative branch.

  • May 19, 2017
    Guest Post

    *This piece is part of the ACSblog Symposium: 2017 ACS National Convention. The symposium will consider topics featured at the three day convention, scheduled for June 8-10, 2017. Learn more about the Convention here

    by Stephanie Toti, Reproductive Rights Advocate

    In an unbroken line of precedent spanning more than four decades, the Supreme Court has consistently held that a woman’s right to end a pregnancy is a fundamental component of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The right at stake encompasses not merely the right to obtain an abortion procedure, but also, more broadly, “the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992). Despite seemingly relentless efforts by anti-choice advocates to undermine, overrule, or chip away at this right, it remains on solid constitutional footing. Last year’s historic decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016), provides a potent reaffirmation of the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence, clarifying both the robust nature of the protection the Constitution affords to “the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy” Casey, 505 U.S. at 851, and the role of the courts in enforcing that protection.

  • May 16, 2017
    Guest Post

    *This piece originally appeared on the Take Care blog.

    **This piece is part of the ACSblog Symposium: 2017 ACS National Convention. The symposium will consider topics featured at the three day convention, scheduled for June 8-10, 2017. Learn more about the Convention here

    by Frederic M. Bloom, Professor of Law, University of Colorado Law School and Jon D. Michaels, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

    We have all heard the saying: those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. History seemed to repeat itself earlier this week with Donald Trump's firing of FBI Director James Comey. Some have tried to cast Comey’s dismissal as unremarkable—just a president exercising his authority to fire an executive official he no longer trusts. But make no mistake: Comey's dismissal is exceptional. Indeed, it is so exceptional that it forces us to recall Richard Nixon’s craven directive to fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, right as Cox was hot on the Watergate trail.

    Like most analogies, this one is imperfect, and all of the contrasts and differences prove unkind to the incumbent Administration. Start with Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre: Impressive as they come, Archibald Cox had been brought in from Cambridge, where he served with distinction as a Harvard Law professor, a position easily admired but also readily lampooned. (Recall William F. Buckley’s famous quip that he would “sooner be governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than by the two thousand members of the faculty of Harvard.”) Cox’s credentials were pristine, but there was little doubt of his partisan bona fides. He ran in Democratic circles—not Nixon’s—advising John Kennedy during his time in the Senate, as part of JFK’s presidential campaign, and ultimately as the young president’s solicitor general. Through profession and perhaps party affiliation, then, one could spin a story (however far-fetched) that discounted or discredited Cox’s new gig as a special prosecutor.