A series of appellate court decisions in the coming months could determine how and when the Supreme Court reviews the birth control benefit in the Affordable Care Act.
In the legal battle over the contraception benefit, conservatives see a chance to radically re-define the nature of religious liberty in the United States and to provide broad protections from obeying the law for businesses. It’s a dangerous combination of religious extremism and corporate extremism, which Circuit Judge Rovner laid bare last February. Now the appeals court is going to have another look.
Pressure is mounting on Capitol Hill for a meaningful answer to the crisis of sexual assault in the U.S. military. In response, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) hosted a press conference Thursday to promote legislation that would remove from the chain of command in the nation’s armed forces the reporting and adjudication of sexual crimes, along with other felonies that are not specifically military in nature.
Gillibrand also introduced her audience to three military veterans who said they suffered punishment from the military when they reported having been the victims of sex crimes perpetrated against them by their comrades.
Jennifer Norris, a former sergeant in the Air Force Reserve, was accompanied to the press conference by a service dog who, she says, assists her with the post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) she experiences because of assaults by four different perpetrators during her military career. (You can read her harrowing story here.) Norris’ military career ended, she writes, when her security clearance was revoked for having a PTSD diagnosis. Today she works as a victim advocate at the Military Rape Crisis Center, a non-profit organization that offers support to those who suffer sexual abuse while serving in the military.
As she sat in the front row at the press conference, Norris’ eyes began to overflow with tears, causing Sen. Barbara Boxer, who was then at the podium, to remark, “I hope those are tears of hope.”
Norris affirmed that they were, saying that she was moved because she never thought she’d see the day when such as change as that proposed by Gillibrand could take place.
In New Interview, Gabriel Gomez Again Does Not Clarify Views on Reproductive Rights
On the failed Blunt Amendment of 2012 that would have allowed secular employers to exclude contraception and other services covered by third-party health insurance plans to employees and dependents, Gomez told the Globe, “Honestly, I haven’t read the Blunt Amendment, so it’s hard for me to go yea or nay without reading the full Blunt Amendment. That’s part of the reason why these guys and women down there should read these whole things. … I’m happy to look at it.”
When further questioned, he said, “Oh, is this like the Catholic Church and all? Yeah, I don’t believe the Catholic Church—or any faith, any organization like that—should have to do something that goes against their doctrine.”
The Blunt Amendment went far beyond allowing religious or religiously affiliated institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage, for which the Obama administration has repeatedly crafted exclusions and compromises regarding third-party health insurance plans used by their employees and dependents. The Blunt Amendment would have made into law the opinion of, among others, the general counsel of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Anthony Picarello, who last year suggested that even if he were running a Taco Bell he should be legally empowered to stop employees from accessing contraception without a co-pay.
Did you know that pregnant women have been fired for using the bathroom to vomit, needing to carry a water bottle on the job, or asking to sit on a stool instead of standing in place all day? While employers have to make allowances like these for other types of temporary disabilities, a number of bad court decisions have encouraged them to feel they can get away with firing or mistreating pregnant workers with impunity.
It’s disgraceful and unacceptable that at a time when unnecessary budget cuts are decimating food, medical, and educational supports for low-income families, pregnant women continue to be pushed out of their jobs just as they take on all the expenses of having a new baby.
Read more about the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
and take action by contacting your congressperson.
Some of the most vocal supporters of laws to make abortion illegal care deeply about the Constitution—when they are protecting the gun lobby. Yet they have no respect for Roe v. Wade…
They often pretend to care about life. Yet they neglect to mention the politicians who do their bidding don’t even support ensuring food or shelter or health care for children…
Their hypocrisy is profound. Their arrogance is breathtaking.
— Charlotte Taft, Abortion Laws are Crimes Against Women
Star Parker, CURE Exploit Gosnell Case to Promote Debunked ‘Black Genocide’ Narrative
On Tuesday, Star Parker is hosting a Gosnell pearl clutchathon, during which she will promote virulent, racist, and untrue facts about abortion in the Black community, with the help of far-right white conservatives like John Ashcroft and Ed Meese.
President Obama, you see, doesn’t care about Black women or the plight of Black urban America. Star Parker and her “urban renewal” organization, on the other hand, do. Or so they would have you believe. A review of CURE’s advisory board roster, however, tells a different story.
John Ashcroft—yes, that John Ashcroft—is on CURE’s advisory board. John Ashcroft is well-known for being the songbird attorney general during the Bush administration who taught Americans how to properly fear Muslims. Before that, however, Ashcroft served as attorney general for the state of Missouri, where he bravely fought tooth and nail to keep St. Louis and Kansas City schools segregated. So bravely did he fight against school desegregation, that the official supervising the racial integration plan called him “obstructionist.” In addition, Harvard professor Gary Orfield said that Ashcroft “had no positive vision and constantly stirred up racial divisions” over the issue, ultimately calling Ashcroft “an unrelenting opponent of doing anything in St. Louis.” A man who opposes “doing anything” in underserved communities is just the sort of guy we need to help poverty-stricken urban areas, wouldn’t you agree?
President Obama, responding to the Pentagon report released this week, issued a stern warning to service personnel, saying, “If we find out somebody’s engaging in this stuff, they’ve got to be held accountable, prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period.”
He also made a promise to individuals who report such crimes: “I’ve got your backs.” But does his administration really?
Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) knows that with a Democratic majority in the Senate, the chances of a bill restricting access to safe abortion care is unlikely to go anywhere, but that fact is not stopping the Senator from proposing one. Like his fellow anti-choice politicians in the House, Senator Lee, together with Senators Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and Pat Toomey (R-Pennsylvania), is using the criminal trial of Philadelphia physician Dr. Kermit Gosnell to propose a Senate resolution to call for more restrictions on safe abortion care.
The resolution calls for the investigation of all clinics that provide abortion, as well as a claim of “compelling governmental interest in protecting the lives of unborn children beginning at least from the stage at which substantial medical evidence indicates that they are capable of feeling pain.”
The resolution also attempts to slip in support for the notion that fertilized eggs should have the same legal protections as fully born persons, in case there was any doubt that language about “protecting women” was nothing more than window dressing.
Recently, the Supreme Court heard arguments about the pledge, which would require that organizations receiving government money for overseas disease-prevention work adopt policies opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. What’s at stake?
What is at stake in this case? As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) set out in a prior friend-of-the-court brief, the pledge has taken a concrete toll, visible in its impact on overseas health organizations which, unlike their U.S. counterparts, have been subject to the pledge requirement all along. A number of these programs have been defunded, shut down, or otherwise impeded by the pledge. The pledge has variously caused a condom shortage among sex workers in Mali, the withholding of safer sex information from young men in sex work in Cambodia, and the closure of community-based drop-in centers in Bangladesh, where sex workers had previously obtained condoms and health information, as well as respite and solidarity. If the Supreme Court sides with the government, and United States-based health organizations are also subject to the pledge, the human cost will undoubtedly climb.
