reproductive rights

  • July 12, 2018

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

    The constitutional right to abortion is bound to play a major role in Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. Here’s a very brief primer on the current state of the constitutional right and how Justice Kennedy’s replacement might help dismantle it.

  • May 31, 2018

    by Amy Myrick, Staff Attorney for Judicial Strategy at the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Rachana Desai Martin, Senior Federal Policy Counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights

    What does liberty mean? To some it means freedom from government interference in private life. To others it means having the ability to make choices of all kinds, and the resources to make those choices real. 

    Over the past few decades, the Supreme Court has attempted to define liberty in cases involving the right to have and raise children; engage in intimate, consensual sexual activity; marry; be free from bodily violations; make decisions about medical treatment; and access abortion and contraception. While the Court’s record has not been perfect—in particular when liberty depends on having resources—running through its jurisprudence is a core principle that has become stronger over time: people are allowed to make choices about all kinds of profound matters, and shaming or impeding their choices is contrary to being free. The Trump Administration’s assault on Title X is just the latest attempt to replace that tradition with something that should have long been put to bed.

  • May 30, 2018
    Guest Post

    by B. Jessie Hill, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Judge Ben C. Green Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law

    Ohio has enacted an extraordinary number of new restrictions on reproductive rights since 2010. It is second in the country—behind Texas—in the rate of abortion clinic closings, having gone from sixteen to eight in just seven years. Ohio was the first state to pass restrictions on medication-only abortion back in 2004, and it is one of the first states to have adopted a restriction on abortion following a diagnosis of fetal Down syndrome. (The former law was made irrelevant by a change in federal law, and the latter was recently found unconstitutional by a federal court.) Ohio’s most recently introduced abortion restriction, H.B. 565, would outlaw all abortions without exception and, by making abortion equivalent to murder, it would subject women and doctors who participate in this extremely common, safe, and constitutionally-protected health-care procedure to possible life imprisonment or even the death penalty.

  • April 20, 2018
    Guest Post

    by Cynthia Romero, Director of Communications, Catholics for Choice

    On the heels of President Trump’s proclamation on Religious Freedom Day, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a controversial rule on January 19 that allows healthcare providers to deny care to patients for religious, moral or any other reasons. The department also created a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division within the Office of Civil Rights. These efforts are at the heart of a carefully crafted strategy by religious conservatives to radically redefine religious freedom and roll back progress on basic civil liberties— most notably a woman’s constitutional right to abortion and the rights of LGBT people.

  • March 23, 2018
    Guest Post

    by David Chiu, California Assemblymember, sponsor of the Reproductive FACT Act

    This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in NIFLA v. Becerra, over the FACT Act a law that I co-sponsored in the California Assembly. The Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act passed the California State Legislature in 2015 with overwhelming support from legislators, then-Attorney General Kamala Harris, and 48 reproductive rights, women’s health, and social justice organizations. It’s been tied up in litigation ever since.