United States https://reproductiverights.org/taxonomy/term/127/all en Election 2020 Wrap-Up: The Reproductive Rights Landscape https://reproductiverights.org/story/election-2020-wrapup-reproductive-rights <span>Election 2020 Wrap-Up: The Reproductive Rights Landscape</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/529" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="JSobel@reprorights.org">JSobel@reprori…</span></span> <span>Tue, 11/24/2020 - 14:23</span> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span><span><span><span><span>From the record-turnout presidential election to referendums on state ballots, the results of Election 2020 will affect the reproductive rights landscape in both federal and state policy going forward.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>The election of Joseph R. Biden, Jr., as President and Kamala Harris as Vice President brings the promise of a U.S. domestic and foreign policy agenda that once again advances reproductive rights as fundamental human rights. After four years of the Trump-Pence administration’s attempts to undermine reproductive rights through harmful policies and appointments, the Center for Reproductive Rights celebrates the outcome of the presidential election and looks forward to working with the Biden-Harris administration to <span><span>secure reproductive health, rights and justice; promote maternal health; protect civil rights and women’s rights; and renew American leadership in international institutions.</span></span> (<a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/center-reproductive-rights-statement-election-joseph-r-biden-jr-46th-president-united">Read the Center’s statement on the presidential election here.</a>) </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong><span><span>Here’s a wrap-up of other election results and initiatives that will impact reproductive rights and health policies:</span></span></strong></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong><span><span>Congress</span></span></strong><strong><span><span> and Federal Legislation </span></span></strong></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>While control of the Senate will not be determined until the outcome of two Georgia runoff elections in January, two new champions of reproductive rights will be joining the Senate: </span></span><span><span>Mark Kelly of Arizona and John Hickenlooper of Colorado. In the House of Representatives, the majority of members will continue to support reproductive rights.</span></span><span><span> </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>The Center will continue to advocate for federal legislation to protect and advance reproductive rights and health. </span></span><span><span>Along with our <a href="https://actforwomen.org/the-womens-health-protection-act/">Act for Women</a></span></span> <span><span>campaign partners, we’ll be working to make progress to pass the <a href="http://reproductiverights.org/story/womens-health-protection-act-federal-legislation-protect-right-access-abortion-care">Women’s Health Protection Act</a></span></span><span><span> (WHPA)</span></span><span><span>, which would <span><span>protect the right to access abortion care throughout the country by safeguarding against bans and medically unnecessary restrictions.</span></span> The Center will also continue supporting the <a href="https://allaboveall.org/resource/each-woman-act-fact-sheet/">Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act</a></span></span><span><span>, which</span></span><span><span> aims to ensure insurance coverage for abortion care, no matter what a person’s income or how they’re insured</span></span><span><span>. </span></span><span><span>Vice President-Elect Harris supported both these bills in the Senate.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>Improving access to quality maternal health care and addressing the ongoing maternal health crisis—specifically the unconscionable disparities in</span></span> <span><span>maternal health outcomes for Black and Indigenous people in the U.S.—also remains a priority of the Center’s. We are optimistic about the prospect of enacting legislation such as the <a href="https://blackmaternalhealthcaucus-underwood.house.gov/Momnibus">Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act</a></span></span><span><span> to</span></span><span><span> help alleviate these disparities</span></span><span><span>.</span></span><span><span> Vice President-Elect Harris was the lead sponsor of the Senate version of this bill. </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong><span><span>State Ballot Initiatives</span></span></strong></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>In Colorado and Washington, voters confirmed their support for reproductive health, rights and justice</span></span></span><span><span>. <span>For the fourth time in 12 years, voters in Colorado rejected a ballot measure designed to ban abortion later in pregnancy. The Center joined a coalition of over 125 organizations in opposing this ballot initiative—and its defeat is a victory for Coloradans and for people in surrounding states who rely on Colorado to access this care. In the state of Washington, voters resoundingly supported state legislation requiring </span></span></span><span><span>inclusive, comprehensive, and medically accurate sex education for every student </span></span><span><span>in the state. The measure will ensure that young people in ev</span></span><span><span>ery community will receive health lessons based on science, which will enable them to make their own decisions about sex.</span></span><span><span> </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>Unfortunately, in <span>Louisiana</span></span></span><span><span><span>, voters approved an anti-abortion constitutional amendment that added language specifying that the right to abortion is not protected. Louisiana is already </span></span></span><span><span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/what-if-roe-fell?state=LA">hostile to abortion rights</a></span></span><span><span><span>, with numerous restrictions that already make it difficult to access abortion care. Such restrictions are most </span></span></span><span><span>harmful to those already facing barriers to accessing care: Black, Indigenous, and people of color, women, the LGBTQI community, people with low incomes, and young people. <span>Together with our local partners, the Center is committed to fighting </span></span></span><span><span>to make sure Louisianans can access the care they want and need. </span></span><span><span><span>Just this past June, in the Center’s case, </span></span></span><span><span><a href="https://beta.reproductiverights.org/case/scotus-june-medical-services/supreme-court-abortion-june-medical/"><em>June Medical Services v. Russo</em></a></span></span><em><span><span><span>, </span></span></span></em><span><span><span>the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that could have closed all but one abortion clinic in the state.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>Despite Louisiana’s amendment and numerous restrictions, abortion remains legal in Louisiana and in every U.S. state.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong><span><span><span>State Legislation</span></span></span></strong></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>Multiple governors who support abortion rights were reelected in November, including North Carolina’s Governor Roy Cooper and Washington’s Governor Jay Inslee. New state legislators were elected on platforms that include support for reproductive health, rights, and justice and many of these legislators hold identities that are currently underrepresented in their state chambers.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>The Center will continue to work with state advocates and legislators to promote state legislation to </span></span><span><span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/what-if-roe-fell#solutions">protect and advance reproductive rights and health</a>, including efforts to protect abortion in state law, increase access to abortion care</span></span><span><span> and reproductive health care, and respond to the maternal health crisis. In addition, we will work with our partners to oppose restrictive state legislation that would limit reproductive autonomy.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong><span><span><span>The Federal Courts</span></span></span></strong></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>Although the new administration will have the opportunity to appoint demographically diverse judges committed to equal justice under law and to reproductive rights, daunting challenges nonetheless lie ahead. Across President Trump’s term in office, the U.S. Senate confirmed more than 220 judges, including three Supreme Court justices, to lifetime appointments on the federal bench. These judges and justices will be hearing cases for generations to come.  </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>The Center for Reproductive Rights, however, has won cases before a wide range of federal judges who have been appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents. And the stakes are simply too high to back down: Dozens of abortion-rights cases are working their way through the federal courts, and <a href="https://www.teenvogue.com/story/mississippi-abortion-scotus">one has already arrived at the Supreme Court's doorstep</a></span></span></span>. Also in the pipeline are other cases we are litigating on abortion access, contraception, and the ability to make one's own health care decisions<span><span><span>.</span></span></span><span> </span><span>We will continue to fight in the courts to protect our rights</span><span>. </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong><span><span>Moving Forward</span></span></strong></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>The Center is prepared to work closely with our national and state partners to push forward proactive legislation and block hostile bills in Congress and in the states—and to work with the new administration to undo the damage of the last four years and make progress on rebuilding laws and policies that respect reproductive autonomy and human rights for all. As we’ve done for nearly 30 years, we<span><span> will continue to advance reproductive rights as fundamental human rights in the U.S. and around the world, no matter the obstacles.</span></span><span> </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong><em><span><span>Read the Center’s </span></span></em></strong><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/center-reproductive-rights-statement-election-joseph-r-biden-jr-46th-president-united"><strong><em><span><span>statement</span></span></em></strong></a><strong><em><span><span> on the Biden-Harris election victory.</span></span></em></strong></span></span></span></p> <p> </p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/engaging-policymakers" hreflang="en">Engaging Policymakers</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Tue, 24 Nov 2020 19:23:02 +0000 JSobel@reprorights.org 59449 at https://reproductiverights.org TN Reason Bans Motion for Renewed TRO https://reproductiverights.org/document/tn-reason-bans-motion-renewed-tro <span>TN Reason Bans Motion for Renewed TRO</span> <div class="field field--name-field-case-document-type field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">Case Document Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/document/court-filings-pleadings-motions-briefs" hreflang="en">Court Filings: Pleadings, Motions &amp; Briefs</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <span><span lang="" about="/user/527" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="nfranco@reprorights.org">nfranco@repror…</span></span> <span>Fri, 11/20/2020 - 18:30</span> <div class="field field--name-field-file-upload field--type-file field--label-visually_hidden crr-upload"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">File Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2020-11/Motion%20for%20Renewed%20TRO%20File%20Stamped.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=105104">Motion for Renewed TRO File Stamped.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/abortion" hreflang="en">Abortion</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/in-the-courts" hreflang="en">In the Courts</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Fri, 20 Nov 2020 23:30:06 +0000 nfranco@reprorights.org 59448 at https://reproductiverights.org Court Lets Part of Tennessee Abortion Ban Take Effect https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/court-lets-part-tennessee-abortion-ban-take-effect <span>Court Lets Part of Tennessee Abortion Ban Take Effect</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/527" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="nfranco@reprorights.org">nfranco@repror…</span></span> <span>Fri, 11/20/2020 - 17:39</span> <div class="field field--name-field-new-ty field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">News Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/press-room/press-releases" hreflang="en">Press Releases</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-subhead field--type-string field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Subhead</div> <div class="field__item">Law banning abortion if sought for reasons related to Down syndrome, race, or gender will take effect in Tennessee</div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span><span><span><span>Today, a 6th Circuit Court of Appeals panel </span></span><span><span><a href="http://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2020-11/Order%20Staying%20PI%20Reason%20Bans.pdf"><span><span><span>granted </span></span></span></a></span></span><span><span>a request from the state of Tennessee, letting part of a law take effect that prohibits abortion based on a patient’s reason, including a potential Down syndrome diagnosis or the sex or race of the fetus. These “</span></span><span><span><a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/evidence-you-can-use/banning-abortions-cases-race-or-sex-selection-or-fetal-anomaly"><span><span><span>reason bans</span></span></span></a></span></span><span><span>” were signed into law in July as part of a larger abortion bill that also contains a series of gestational age bans prohibiting abortion starting at six weeks in pregnancy -- all of which were immediately blocked by a lower court. </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Today’s ruling will allow the reason bans to take effect while litigation continues. The groups that brought this case will be going back to the district court later tonight to ask for a temporary restraining order blocking these reason bans once again, on the grounds that it is a violation of the constitutional right to abortion before viability. These kind of reason bans inflict harm by peddling stigma around abortions and stereotypes of Asian Americans and Black and brown communities, and by attempting to co-opt the mantle of disability rights.</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>“These bans are just another way anti-abortion politicians are attempting to limit the constitutional right to abortion care and to create stigma,” said <strong><span>Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. </span></strong>“Decisions about whether and when to continue or to end a pregnancy are best made by the individual and their family. We will continue to fight these bans in the courts.”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>“Today's ruling allows this abortion ban to remain in place while the case continues, and will cause immediate harm to Tennesseans in the middle of making deeply personal medical decisions,” said <strong><span>Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, Planned Parenthood Federation of America. </span></strong>“Politicians fought for this abortion ban while pushing racist stereotypes of Asian American and Black communities, instead of pursuing policies that would actually improve the lives of people with disabilities. This is shameful. While politicians abandon Tennesseans who need access to reproductive health care, Planned Parenthood continues to stand by our patients. We remain committed to helping everyone access abortion, despite politicians and courts doing everything they can to stand in their way. This fight is far from over.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>“It is shameful that the court would allow this abortion ban to take effect while the case continues. Unless the courts take further action, this harmful law will prohibit some Tennesseans from obtaining abortion,” said <strong><span>Brigitte Amiri, deputy director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project</span></strong>. “This law was motivated by anti-abortion politics, and does nothing to support people with disabilities. We will continue to fight until everyone in Tennessee who needs an abortion can get one.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>"This law is just another unconstitutional effort to ban abortion in our state. It does nothing to address the serious concerns of those with disabilities in our community or to ensure that people living with disabilities and their families have access to health care and other services they may need. Nor is this bill about addressing discrimination against women and girls or people of color. Banning certain abortions will not provide a real solution to gender or racial discrimination and does nothing to address their root causes," said <strong><span>Hedy Weinberg, ACLU of Tennessee executive director</span></strong>. "We will continue to fight for people's ability to make their own decisions about pregnancy without political interference."</span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>More than </span></span><span><span><a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-bans-cases-sex-or-race-selection-or-genetic-anomaly"><span><span><span>a dozen states</span></span></span></a></span></span><span><span> have passed similar reason bans. Tennessee’s </span></span><span><span><span>gestational age bans, which would ban abortion at nearly every stage of pregnancy starting as early as six weeks, remain blocked through this same lawsuit. </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Tennessee has many additional abortion restrictions on the books, including a ban on the use of telehealth for medication abortion; limits on when state and public insurance can cover abortion services; and a requirement that minors obtain parental consent. A federal district court struck down the state’s 48-hour waiting period for abortion in October in a case </span></span><span><span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/federal-court-strikes-down-tennessees-forced-waiting-period-abortions"><span><span><span>litigated </span></span></span></a></span></span><span><span>by the Center and Planned Parenthood. The Center, Planned Parenthood, and the ACLU </span></span><span><span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/tennessees-medically-unsound-abortion-reversal-law-challenged-court"><span><span><span>filed </span></span></span></a></span></span><span><span>another case challenging the state’s medication abortion “reversal” law in August, and that law has been temporarily blocked from taking effect. </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>This case was </span></span><span><span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/tennessee-abortion-ban-immediately-challenged-court-center-reproductive-rights-aclu-and"><span><span><span>filed </span></span></span></a></span></span><span><span>by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU of Tennessee on behalf of the Memphis Center for Reproductive Health, Planned Parenthood Tennessee and North Mississippi, Knoxville Center for Reproductive Health, carafem, and two abortion providers in Tennessee.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>###</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><strong><span><span>MEDIA CONTACT:</span></span></strong><br /> <span><span>Center for Reproductive Rights:<strong> </strong></span></span><span><span><a href="mailto:center.press@reprorights.org"><span><span><span>center.press@reprorights.org</span></span></span></a></span></span><span><span>, 609-964-6759</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>Planned Parenthood: </span></span></span><span><span><a href="mailto:media.office@ppfa.org"><span><span><span><span>media.office@ppfa.org</span></span></span></span></a></span></span><span><span><span>, 212-261-4433</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>ACLU:</span></span></span><span><span> Mia Jacobs, </span></span><span><span><a href="mailto:mjacobs@aclu.org"><span><span><span>mjacobs@aclu.org</span></span></span></a></span></span><span><span>, 201-919-0333</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>ACLU of Tennessee: Lindsay Kee, </span></span></span><span><span><a href="mailto:communications@aclu-tn.org"><span><span><span>communications@aclu-tn.org</span></span></span></a></span></span><span><span><span>, 615-320-7142</span></span></span></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-related-content field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/document/tn-reasons-ban-stay-pi" hreflang="en">TN Reasons Ban Stay of PI</a></div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/abortion" hreflang="en">Abortion</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/in-the-courts" hreflang="en">In the Courts</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Fri, 20 Nov 2020 22:39:41 +0000 nfranco@reprorights.org 59447 at https://reproductiverights.org TN Reasons Ban Stay of PI https://reproductiverights.org/document/tn-reasons-ban-stay-pi <span>TN Reasons Ban Stay of PI</span> <div class="field field--name-field-case-document-type field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">Case Document Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/document/court-opinions-orders" hreflang="en">Court Opinions &amp; Orders</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <span><span lang="" about="/user/527" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="nfranco@reprorights.org">nfranco@repror…</span></span> <span>Fri, 11/20/2020 - 14:08</span> <div class="field field--name-field-file-upload field--type-file field--label-visually_hidden crr-upload"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">File Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2020-11/Order%20Staying%20PI%20Reason%20Bans.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=228878">Order Staying PI Reason Bans.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/abortion" hreflang="en">Abortion</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/in-the-courts" hreflang="en">In the Courts</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Fri, 20 Nov 2020 19:08:45 +0000 nfranco@reprorights.org 59446 at https://reproductiverights.org Challenge to the Affordable Care Act at the U.S. Supreme Court Could End Health Care for Millions https://reproductiverights.org/story/challenge-affordable-care-act-us-supreme-court-could-end-health-care-millions <span>Challenge to the Affordable Care Act at the U.S. Supreme Court Could End Health Care for Millions</span> <div class="field field--name-field-subhead field--type-string field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Subhead</div> <div class="field__item">Case Could Have Devastating Impact on Access to Reproductive Health Care</div> </div> <span><span lang="" about="/user/529" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="JSobel@reprorights.org">JSobel@reprori…</span></span> <span>Thu, 11/12/2020 - 14:49</span> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>On November 10, the United States Supreme Court heard argument in a case that could end health care coverage in the middle of a global pandemic for tens of millions of people across the country.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>The case, </span></span></span><span><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/california-v-texas/"><em><span><span>California v. Texas</span></span></em></a></span><span><span><span>, is a challenge to the landmark Affordable Care Act (ACA) brought by several states, led by Texas, and the Trump administration. In 2017, Congress reduced the ACA’s tax penalty for individuals who do not have health insurance to zero as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The law’s challengers argue that eliminating the tax penalty rendered the ACA’s individual mandate provision unconstitutional (because it is no longer an exercise of Congress’s taxing power) a</span></span></span><span><span><span>nd that the rest of the ACA</span></span></span><span><span><span> cannot stand without it. In an unusual decision, the Department of Justice declined to defend the government’s own law, and instead sided with the challengers in arguing that the ACA is unconstitutional.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>If the law is overturned, it would also erase gains made in improving access to reproductive health care required under the ACA.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>The Center for Reproductive Rights joined 81 other organizations, led by the National Women’s Law Center, in filing a </span></span></span><span><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-840/143475/20200513154042300_NWLC%20ACA%20Amicus%20Brief%20Final.pdf"><span><span>“friend-of-the-court” brief</span></span></a></span><span><span><span> in the Supreme Court defending the ACA in this case. The </span></span></span><span><span><span>brief urged the Court to uphold the law because Congress did not intend to repeal the law when it eliminated the tax penalty. It tells the Supreme Court that a central purpose of the ACA was to eliminate discriminatory insurance practices that undermined the health and economic security of women and their families. It further explains that Congress recognized the benefits of the ACA’s protections and did not intend to repeal those protections when enacting the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The brief illustrates how the ACA improved coverage for women’s health needs, including access to contraception.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>In a decision that was stayed from taking effect, a federal district court ruled that the mandate is</span></span></span><span><span><span> now unconstitutional and cannot be separated from the rest of the ACA, and that consequently the entirety of the law must be struck down. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court in part, holding that the mandate is unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit then ordered the case back to the district court for more careful consideration of whether any provisions of the ACA could be severed if the mandate is struck down. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Rather than return to the district court, the U.S. House of Representatives and a group of states defending the ACA, states led by California, asked the Supreme Court</span></span></span><span><span> </span></span><span><span><span>to immediately hear the case, and the Court granted their petition. Depending on how the Court rules, none, some, or all of the ACA could be invalidated.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><strong><span><span><span>A Supreme Court ruling against the ACA could have a devastating impact on access to reproductive</span></span></span></strong><strong><span><span><span> health care.</span></span></span></strong></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>The passage of the ACA in 2010 was a significant advance in women’s access to reproductive health care. The law guarantees coverage for no-copay preventive services, including well-woman visits, cancer screenings, screening for intimate partner violence, breastfeeding services and supplies, STI screening, and HIV testing. It also requires most private plans</span></span></span> to <a href="https://reproductiverights.org/story/supreme-court-hear-case-challenging-trump-pence-denial-birth-control-coverage">provide insurance coverage for contraception</a> without a copay. Thanks to the ACA, more than 60 million women have<span><span><span> access to no-copay contraceptive counseling and services. The law also extended health care coverage, including for reproductive health care, to 20 million people, and prohibited discriminatory insurance practices, such as charging higher premiums based on gender.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>A</span></span></span><span><span><span>ccess to maternal health care was critically expanded through the ACA: Prior to the bill’s passage, many individual health plans did not cover maternity care, and many insurance companies treated pregnancy or past pregnancy-related procedures like cesarean sections as pre-existing conditions, which could be used as grounds for denying maternity coverage. The ACA protects the insurance coverage for 133 million Americans with pre-existing conditions and includes maternity care as an essential health benefit that must be part of any qualified</span></span></span><span><span> </span></span><span><span><span>health insurance plan.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>These gains are </span></span></span><span><span>all at stake</span></span><span><span><span> in <em>California v. Texas</em>. If the ACA’s challengers succeed at the Supreme Court, guaranteed coverage for contraception and other preventive services, expanded access to maternal health care, and protections for people with pre-existing conditions could all be wiped out. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><strong><span><span><span>The Affordable Care Act faces an uncertain fate at the Supreme Court.</span></span></span></strong></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>During oral argument, the Court appeared closely divided on whether to uphold the ACA. </span></span></span><span><span><span>Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh each indicated that even if they determine that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, they are likely to leave the rest of the law intact. However, Justice Samuel Alito speculated—without evidence—that some members of Congress may have deliberately rendered the individual mandate unconstitutional in 2017 so that the Court would strike down the rest of the law.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>This case was also one of the first heard by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was confirmed to the Supreme Court on October 26 after President Trump nominated her to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had voted to uphold the ACA in prior cases. The Center for Reproductive Rights </span></span></span><span><a href="http://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/FINAL_Public%20Barrett%20Analysis%20%281%29.pdf"><span><span>opposed Justice Barrett’s confirmation</span></span></a></span><span><span><span> after concluding that her academic writings, court decisions, and public advocacy revealed a legal view and judicial philosophy that undermine fundamental liberty rights, including comments and writings hostile to the ACA. Before her nomination, Justice Barrett repeatedly criticized previous Supreme Court decisions upholding key provisions of the ACA. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>As California, the House of Representatives, and their amici (including the Center) all told the Court, there</span></span></span><span><span><span> is no credible legal basis for the Court to strike down the ACA. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor recognized, because the 2017 Congress rejected bills repealing the ACA and opted to instead just zero out the penalty for going without insurance, Congress already decided it doesn’t want the rest of the law to fall. Congress refused to inflict the harm that would follow repealing the ACA, so there is no moment for the Court to now impose that harm itself.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>*           *           *</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the case before the end of its term in June 2021.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>The Supreme Court heard argument in <em>California v. Texas</em> via teleconference because of the COVID-19 pandemic, with the proceedings streamed live. </span></span></span><span><a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?471185-1/health-care-law-supreme-court-oral-argument"><span><span><span>Click here for a replay of the November 10 oral argument.</span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/maternal-health" hreflang="en">Maternal Health</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/in-the-courts" hreflang="en">In the Courts</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Thu, 12 Nov 2020 19:49:43 +0000 JSobel@reprorights.org 59440 at https://reproductiverights.org Submission to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Briefing on Maternal Health Disparities https://reproductiverights.org/document/submission-us-commission-civil-rights-briefing-maternal-health-disparities <span>Submission to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Briefing on Maternal Health Disparities</span> <div class="field field--name-field-document-type field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">Document Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/document/briefing-papers" hreflang="en">Briefing Papers</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <span><span lang="" about="/user/529" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="JSobel@reprorights.org">JSobel@reprori…</span></span> <span>Thu, 11/12/2020 - 11:03</span> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p>The Center's written testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, submitted Nov. 13, 2020, discusses the real-life impacts of racial bias and discrimination in U.S. maternal health care; describes the U.S. government’s obligations to promote the human rights of all birthing people and where it has fallen short; discusses the role of the federal government in addressing the maternal health crisis; and shares key federal policy recommendations.</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-file-upload field--type-file field--label-visually_hidden crr-upload"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">File Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2020-11/Panel%203%20-%20Jennifer%20Jacoby%20-%20Testimony.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=294424" title="Panel 3 - Jennifer Jacoby - Testimony.pdf">The Center's Written Testimony to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Briefing on Maternal Health Disparities</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/maternal-health" hreflang="en">Maternal Health</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/washington-dc" hreflang="en">In Washington D.C.</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:03:39 +0000 JSobel@reprorights.org 59439 at https://reproductiverights.org Center for Reproductive Rights Statement on the Election of Joseph R. Biden, Jr. as the 46th President of the United States https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/center-reproductive-rights-statement-election-joseph-r-biden-jr-46th-president-united <span>Center for Reproductive Rights Statement on the Election of Joseph R. Biden, Jr. as the 46th President of the United States</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/518" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">virginia</span></span> <span>Sat, 11/07/2020 - 11:38</span> <div class="field field--name-field-new-ty field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">News Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/press-room/press-releases" hreflang="en">Press Releases</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span><span><span><strong><span>Center for Reproductive Rights Statement on the election of Joseph R. Biden, Jr. as the 46th President of the United States</span></strong></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Statement of Nancy Northup, President and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights: </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>The election of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. as the 46th president of the United States presents an opportunity to put human rights and human needs at the center of a new U.S. domestic and foreign policy agenda. Biden ran on a platform committed to an America that respects and embraces its broad diversity and promotes health care as a human right, including protecting and advancing reproductive health, rights, and justice. The Center for Reproductive Rights looks forward to the opportunity to transform these commitments into reality so that every person has access to the full range of reproductive health care, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability status, national origin, age, or zip code.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>When sworn in, Vice President Kamala Harris will break gender, race, and ethnic barriers, serving as the first woman, the first African American, and the first South Asian American in this office. She has a strong reproductive rights record, co-sponsoring  bills addressing maternal health, contraception, sex education and abortion access, including the Women’s Health Protection Act, that would counter the threat of the Supreme Court reversing or gutting <em>Roe v. Wade. </em>She also supports the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act, which will ensure that abortion care is covered under federal health insurance programs. And she is the lead sponsor of the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act, which addresses the unconscionable maternal health disparities and poor outcomes for Black and indigenous people. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Harris has vigorously opposed judicial nominees who are hostile to constitutional protections for reproductive rights. </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>After inauguration on January 20, President Biden and his administration must move quickly to reverse the harmful policies of the Trump administration. President Biden ran on a platform to secure reproductive health, rights and justice; promote maternal health; protect civil rights and women’s rights; and renew American leadership in international institutions, by once again promoting sustainable development, democracy, and human rights.  Critical executive branch actions to advance this agenda include:</span></span></span></span></p> <ul> <li><span><span><span><strong><span>Executive Orders</span></strong><span> to rescind the Global Gag Rule and the Domestic Gag Rule;</span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><strong><span>Restore funding</span></strong><span> to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Population Fund; and rejoin the WHO and the UN Human Rights Council;</span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><strong><span>Appoint </span></strong><span>to the federal courts and Department of Justice demographically diverse lawyers with a demonstrated commitment to equal justice under law and reproductive rights; appoint to the Department of Health and Human Services officials who are committed to evidence-based reproductive health policies and to addressing racial health disparities; appoint to the State Department individuals with a demonstrated commitment to gender equity as a foreign policy priority, and to respecting, protecting and fulfilling human rights; </span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><strong><span>Rescind Trump-era regulations</span></strong><span>, including those that allow health care workers to deny reproductive health care, and employers and universities to deny contraceptive coverage to their employees and students;</span></span></span></span></li> <li><span><span><span><strong><span>Champion Congressional passage</span></strong><span> of the Women’s Health Protection Act, the EACH Woman Act, and the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act.</span></span></span></span></li> </ul> <p><span><span><span><span>Even with the seismic shift coming to the White House in January, access to contraception and abortion care remain vulnerable because of the relentless assaults by state elected officials hostile to reproductive rights. Since 2011, more than 500 state restrictions on access to abortion have been passed, and the Center for Reproductive Rights is currently litigating over two dozen cases challenging these dangerous laws. Recent years have seen ever-more extreme measures that directly defy the clear constitutional guarantees of <em>Roe v. Wade</em> and are intended to set up a show-down in the Supreme Court to overturn or gut the landmark decision. Such r</span><span>estrictions disproportionately harm people </span><span>already facing obstacles to health care, including Black, Indigenous and people of color, rural communities, and people living in poverty. </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Despite these attacks, there were two reproductive rights victories on November 3: For the fourth time in 12 years, voters in Colorado rejected a ballot measure that was designed to ban abortion later in pregnancy with no exceptions. This is a victory for all Coloradans and for many people in surrounding states who have long relied on Colorado for abortion care later in pregnancy. And in Washington state, voters chose to institute inclusive, comprehensive sex education so that every student in the state will receive honest, accurate, and inclusive information about sexual health.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>As we look to the future, the lawyers and human rights advocates at the Center for Reproductive Rights will continue to advance reproductive rights as fundamental human rights in the U.S. and around the world, no matter the obstacles. We will partner with civil society, government, and the private sector to build legal guarantees to the right of every person to access reproductive healthcare and to make their own decisions about their reproductive lives. We will defend against efforts to roll back legal guarantees, and we will hold governments accountable for living up to their commitments to protect, defend, and advance reproductive rights.</span></span></span></span></p> <p>###</p> <p><strong>MEDIA CONTACT: </strong>center.press@reprorights.org</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/engaging-policymakers" hreflang="en">Engaging Policymakers</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Sat, 07 Nov 2020 16:38:26 +0000 virginia 59436 at https://reproductiverights.org U.S. Supreme Court Hears Case by Foster Care Service Providers That Could Have Broad Implications for Non-Discrimination Law https://reproductiverights.org/story/supreme-court-hears-case-foster-care-services-providers <span>U.S. Supreme Court Hears Case by Foster Care Service Providers That Could Have Broad Implications for Non-Discrimination Law</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/529" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="JSobel@reprorights.org">JSobel@reprori…</span></span> <span>Fri, 11/06/2020 - 14:47</span> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>On November 4, the United States Supreme Court heard argument in a case that could subject LGBTQ people and others to discrimination by private entities that contract with the government to provide government services. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>The case, </span></span></span><span><a href="https://www.aclu.org/cases/fulton-v-city-philadelphia"><em><span><span>Fulton v. City of Philadelphia</span></span></em></a></span><span><span><span>, challenges Philadelphia’s requirement that contractors assessing whether individuals meet the state-law criteria to serve as foster parents for children in government custody not discriminate on the basis of protected characteristics, including sexual orientation. The challenge is led by a religious organization that wants to be hired to perform this government function but refuses to certify same-sex couples. Two organizations, the Support Center for Child Advocates and Philadelphia Family Pride, represented by the ACLU and the ACLU of Pennsylvania, intervened in support of the city and were added as defendants. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>A federal district court ruled in favor of Philadelphia and the other defendants. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed, because under Supreme Court law, “the City’s nondiscrimination policy is a neutral, generally applicable law, and the religious views of [the contractor] do not entitle it to an exception from that policy.” The Supreme Court then agreed to review the case. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>The Center for Reproductive Rights joined 35 other organizations, led by the National Women’s Law Center, in filing a </span></span></span><span><span><span><span><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-123/150979/20200821164719278_19-123 Amici Brief.pdf">"friend-of-the-court" brief</a> in the Supreme Court</span></span></span></span> <span><span><span>supporting Philadelphia’s non-discrimination law. The brief tells the Supreme Court that a ruling against Philadelphia threatens significant harm to LGBTQ people—and also broader harms to non-discrimination law generally. Allowing religiously affiliated entities to use government funds to discriminate could harm women and girls in a host of areas, including by permitting discrimination in employment, education, and matters related to pregnancy and reproductive health.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>This case was one of the first heard by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was confirmed to the Supreme Court on October 26 after President Trump nominated her to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—a champion of equal rights. The Center for Reproductive Rights <a href="http://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/FINAL_Public%20Barrett%20Analysis%20%281%29.pdf"><span><span><span>opposed Justice Barrett’s confirmation</span></span></span></a> after concluding that her academic writings, court decisions, and public advocacy revealed a legal view and judicial philosophy that undermine fundamental liberty rights, including those central to protecting individual decisions about one’s reproductive health or who to marry.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><strong><span><span><span>Will the Court permit religious exercise to impose harms on other people?</span></span></span></strong></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>The religious organization in this case claimed a freedom to discriminate based on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has traditionally ruled in favor of such </span></span></span><span><span><span>First Amendment free-exercise challenges to neutral, generally applicable laws</span></span></span><span><span> </span></span><span><span><span>only when the religiously motivated conduct at issue does not harm others. Notably, this longstanding principle is one consistently embodied in the judicial philosophy of the late Justice Ginsburg, who believed that the free exercise of religion cannot justify inflicting harms on others. In <em>Burwell v. Hobby Lobby</em>, Justice Ginsburg wrote in her dissent that, “with respect to free exercise claims...[y]our right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins.” </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>During oral argument in <em>Fulton</em>, however, Justice Barrett skeptically questioned where this “anti-harm” principle came from. Indeed, a majority of the Justices appeared receptive during oral argument to the claim of the government contractor seeking to discriminate against LGBTQ people. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><strong><span><span><span>The case has broader implications for laws forbidding discrimination.</span></span></span></strong></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>A ruling against Philadelphia could inflict devastating harm on LGBTQ people and also have broader implications for non-discrimination law. The decision could lead to further sex discrimination and discrimination against people most often deprived of equal treatment and dignity.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>While religious beliefs have been invoked in attempts to justify sex discrimination, modern courts have rejected those claims. Remarkably, in its argument, the United States government more than once refused to agree that the government has a compelling interest in enforcing laws that prohibit discrimination in access to public services based on sex.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>Permitting entities with religious objections to use government funds to discriminate in the delivery of government services on the basis of sex has the potential to impact women and girls in countless ways, including in access to health care, public accommodations, access to education, and the workplace. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>For example, women face </span></span></span><a href="https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/stillnowheretoturn.pdf#:~:text=The%20National%20Women%E2%80%99s%20Law%20Center%20%28%E2%80%9CNWLC%E2%80%9D%20or%20%E2%80%9Cthe,Women.%20These%20include%20gender%20rating%2C%20or%20the%20practice"><span><span><span>discrimination in health care</span></span></span></a><span><span><span> and the </span></span></span><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-123/150979/20200821164719278_19-123%20Amici%20Brief.pdf"><span><span><span>denial of essential reproductive health care services and coverage</span></span></span></a><span><span><span>, which is often </span></span></span><a href="https://lawrightsreligion.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/BearingFaith.pdf"><span><span><span>religiously motivated</span></span></span></a><span><span><span>. Laws that prevent such sex discrimination in health care and protect patient access to care could be undermined by a ruling against Philadelphia’s non-discrimination policy. </span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span>Undermining non-discrimination law would hurt numerous people with different and intersecting identities. This case highlights the increased threats to laws that forbid discrimination, including discrimination based on race, national origin, disability, age, sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation. The contractor in this case seeking to discriminate against LGBTQ foster parents while performing city services supplied no limiting principle preventing it from discriminating against LGBTQ youth, or persons from a different religion, or those seeking any number of city services, whether foster care or support for individuals experiencing food or housing insecurity.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><strong><span><span><span>The Supreme Court is being urged to ignore precedent recognizing the harms of discrimination.</span></span></span></strong></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>Past cases have recognized that courts should enforce non-discrimination laws because they serve compelling government interests. The Supreme Court has emphasized that discrimination is wrong not only because it imposes “material costs” (i.e., the elimination of services) but also because it inflicts “</span></span><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf"><span><span>stigma</span></span></a><span><span>” and relies on and reinforces </span></span><a href="https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep518/usrep518515/usrep518515.pdf"><span><span>stereotypes</span></span></a><span><span>. Thus, non-discrimination laws serve compelling interests in preventing the denial of equal dignity, regardless of whether any individual Black person, woman, non-Christian, or LGBTQ person could manage to obtain services from a non-discriminating provider. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span> <span><span><span><span><span><span><span>The Supreme Court has ruled, for example, that religious beliefs do not allow a restaurant to refuse Black customers, regardless of whether another option is available down the street. The </span></span><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-123/150837/20200820161650777_ADL%20Amici%20Brief.pdf"><span><span>Catholic</span></span></a><span><span>, </span></span><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-123/150837/20200820161650777_ADL%20Amici%20Brief.pdf"><span><span>Jewish</span></span></a><span><span> and </span></span><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-123/150778/20200820141002118_19-123 bsacProspectiveFosterParents.pdf"><span><span>gay</span></span></a><span><span> persons who have been refused services by foster care agencies are no less entitled to protection. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>As Justice Kennedy wrote in one of his last opinions before retiring, a vendor who says no services will be provided to gay people “</span></span><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf"><span><span>impose[s] a serious stigma</span></span></a><span><span>” which generally-applicable non-discrimination laws legally can prevent. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span>Today, though, non-discrimination principles championed by former Supreme Court Justices hang in the balance. </span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>*           *           *</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the case before the end of its term in June 2021.  </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span><span><span>The Supreme Court heard argument in <em>Fulton v. City of Philadelphia</em> via teleconference because of the COVID-19 pandemic, with the proceedings streamed live. </span></span></span><span><a href="https://www.c-span.org/video/?471183-1/fulton-v-city-philadelphia-oral-argument"><span><span><span>Click here for a replay of the November 4 oral argument.</span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/in-the-courts" hreflang="en">In the Courts</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Fri, 06 Nov 2020 19:47:47 +0000 JSobel@reprorights.org 59435 at https://reproductiverights.org Access to IVF for Servicemembers and Veterans https://reproductiverights.org/document/access-ivf-servicemembers-and-veterans <span>Access to IVF for Servicemembers and Veterans</span> <div class="field field--name-field-publication-document-type field--type-entity-reference field--label-visually_hidden"> <h2 class="field__label visually-hidden">Publication Document Type</h2> <div class="field__item"><a href="/document/fact-sheets" hreflang="en">Fact Sheets</a></div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <span><span lang="" about="/user/529" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="JSobel@reprorights.org">JSobel@reprori…</span></span> <span>Thu, 10/29/2020 - 09:58</span> <div class="field field--name-field-file-upload field--type-file field--label-visually_hidden crr-upload"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">File Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf"><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/documents/IVF%20fact%20sheet_final.pdf" type="application/pdf; length=200186">IVF fact sheet_final.pdf</a></span> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/ivf" hreflang="en">IVF</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/washington-dc" hreflang="en">In Washington D.C.</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Thu, 29 Oct 2020 13:58:03 +0000 JSobel@reprorights.org 59428 at https://reproductiverights.org Tennessee’s Mandatory Waiting Period for Abortion: “Highly Insulting and Paternalistic” https://reproductiverights.org/story/tennessee-mandatory-waiting-period-abortion-highly-insulting-paternalistic <span>Tennessee’s Mandatory Waiting Period for Abortion: “Highly Insulting and Paternalistic”</span> <div class="field field--name-field-subhead field--type-string field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Subhead</div> <div class="field__item">After Center Lawsuit, Court Strikes Down Burdensome Obstacle to Care</div> </div> <span><span lang="" about="/user/529" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="JSobel@reprorights.org">JSobel@reprori…</span></span> <span>Tue, 10/27/2020 - 15:50</span> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-content field--type-entity-reference-revisions field--label-visually_hidden"> <div class="field__label visually-hidden">Primary Content</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"> <div class="paragraph paragraph--type--text paragraph--view-mode--default"> <div class="field field--name-field-formatted-text field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field__item"><p><span><span><span><span>Before being struck down earlier this month, Tennessee’s mandatory waiting period posed onerous obstacles for people seeking abortion care. Patients were forced to make at least two separate trips to their provider. At their first appointment, patients </span><span>received state-mandated information about the procedure. Then they had to wait at least 48 hours before making a second trip back to their provider for the procedure.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Day-to-day practicalities would often make the delay much longer than 48 hours. For those with low incomes or who must travel great distances, lost work time, increased childcare costs, transportation difficulties, and perhaps even hotel expenses would make the second trip difficult, even impossible for some. </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Because of those burdens, a federal district court declared Tennessee’s mandatory 48-hour waiting period unconstitutional in response to a lawsuit by the Center for Reproductive Rights and its partners.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>“It is apparent,” the court said in its October 14 </span><a href="http://reproductiverights.org/sites/default/files/2020-10/Adams%20Boyle%20v.%20Slatery%20FOF%20and%20COL.pdf"><span>ruling</span></a><span>, “that this waiting period unduly burdens women’s right to an abortion and is an affront to their ‘dignity and autonomy,’ ‘personhood’ and ‘destiny,’ and ‘conception of...[their] place in society.’”</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>The decision also described the state-mandated information as “at best, a purposeless redundancy and, at worst, an interference with the informed consent process.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN">“</span><span><span>Patients should be trusted to make decisions about their own families and health care,” pointed out </span></span><span lang="EN" xml:lang="EN" xml:lang="EN">Autumn Katz, Senior Counsel at the Center.</span><span><span> “This law is demeaning and actually harms patients by imposing unnecessary costs and pushing abortion later in pregnancy. </span></span><span>We hope this </span><span>decision serves as a wake-up call to lawmakers trying to interfere with patients’ personal medical decisions.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>In rejecting the state’s</span><span> arguments justifying the law, the court added, “Defendants’ suggestion that women are overly emotional and must be required to cool off or calm down before having a medical procedure they have decided they want to have, and that they are constitutionally entitled to have, is highly insulting and paternalistic—and all the more so given that no such waiting periods apply to men.</span><span>”</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>The case was brought by Tennessee reproductive health care providers, represented by the Center, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Kramer Levin Naftalis &amp; Frankel LLP, Barrett Johnston Martin &amp; Garrison, LLC, and Jessee &amp; Jessee.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong><span>Mandatory Waiting Periods “Harmful to Women’s Health” </span></strong></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Major medical associations denounce waiting periods and two-trip requirements for abortion. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) </span><a href="https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2014/11/increasing-access-to-abortion"><span>states</span></a><span> that these types of laws “marginalize abortion services from routine clinical care and are harmful to women’s health.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>In challenging the Tennessee law, the Center argued that the waiting period created significant burdens such as increased costs and delayed appointments, which have the effect of punishing people who already face systemic barriers to accessing reproductive care, including individuals with low incomes, people of color, people living in rural areas, and individuals in abusive relationships.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>The Center also argued that there is no scientific basis for opponents’ claims that abortion has harmful effects on mental health or that a waiting period increases patients’ certainty about their decision.</span> <span>The court</span><span><span> </span></span><span>found that “at least 95% of women are certain of their decisions, </span><span>post-abortion regret is uncommon, and abortion does not increase women’s risk of negative mental health outcomes.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>Providers in the case testified that since the</span></span><span><span><span> waiting period measure took effect in 2015, they saw fewer low-income patients obtaining abortions at their facilities, and more patients obtaining procedures later in pregnancy. </span></span></span><span><span>Although abortion is extremely safe throughout pregnancy, risks increase as pregnancy progresses.</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>In its </span><span>ruling</span><span>, the court wrote that<span> “</span>the vast majority of patients seeking an abortion are certain of their decisions by the time they first appear at a clinic, and therefore the most likely reason they do not appear for a second appointment is that they cannot overcome the financial and logistical barriers the 48-hour waiting period imposes.<span>”</span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>Rebecca Terrell, executive director of CHOICES Memphis Center for Reproductive Health, one of the plaintiffs, said, </span></span><span>“We are so glad that we can now schedule our patients for care in a manner that centers their needs, not the political vagaries of our state government.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong><span>Ruling Applies the “Undue Burden” Legal Standard</span></strong></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>The Center argued that the forced waiting period was unconstitutional, as it imposed significant burdens while offering no measurable benefits.</span><span> Applying the undue burden test first articulated by the Supreme Court in <em>Planned Parenthood v. Casey </em>(1992), the court found that Plaintiffs had provided “overwhelming evidence that the 48-hour waiting period (in addition to serving no legitimate purpose) severely burden[ed] the majority of women seeking an abortion.”</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><strong><span>Tennessee Already Hostile to Abortion Access</span></strong></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>The Tennessee waiting period requirement is just one part of a nationwide effort to legislate abortion out of existence.</span><span><span> </span></span><span>Since 2011, anti-abortion lawmakers have enacted more than 450 state laws restricting abortion care. The Center is pursuing dozens of legal actions against such laws in its effort to defend and advance reproductive rights.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Tennessee </span><span><span><span>has one of the highest poverty rates in America, with poverty disproportionately impacting women, especially those who already have children. At the same time, the state’s abortion restrictions make it </span></span></span><span>one of the most hostile states in the country for people seeking to exercise their constitutional right to abortion care.</span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Over the summer, in another Center case, a federal district court blocked Tennessee’s cascading abortion ban, which criminalizes the provision of abortion care as soon as fetal cardiac activity develops, and if that ban is invalidated, then at various points in pregnancy prior to viability. The court also blocked another provision that purports to ban abortion if the provider knows it is being sought for reasons of race, sex, or a prenatal diagnosis indicating Down syndrome. That case is currently on appeal before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. And just last </span></span><span><span>month, in another Center case, a federal district court </span></span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/federal-court-temporarily-blocks-tennessees-medically-unsound-medication-abortion"><span><span>blocked</span></span></a><span><span> another Tennessee abortion restriction that would force <span>providers to share false and misleading </span>information<span> with patients about the potential to “reverse” a medication abortion.</span> </span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>The Center is also challenging waiting periods in</span><span><span> </span></span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/case/gainesville-woman-care-llc-dba-bread-and-roses-womens-health-center-et-al-v-state-of-florida-et"><span>Florida</span></a><span>, </span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/center-for-reproductive-rights-files-new-lawsuit-challenging-every-abortion-restriction-passed-in-louisiana-this-year"><span>Louisiana</span></a><span>, </span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/press-room/center-for-reproductive-rights-announces-challenge-to-dozens-of-abortion-restrictions-in-"><span>Mississippi</span></a><span>, </span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/case/nova-health-systems-v-cline-et-al"><span>Oklahoma</span></a><span>, and </span><a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/north-carolina-abortion-providers-and-reproductive-justice-activists-file-sweeping-litigation-challenging-multiple-abortion-restrictions-2"><span>North Carolina</span></a><span>.</span><span><span> </span></span></span></span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span><span>Details about abortion restrictions in Tennessee can be found on the Center’s </span></span><a href="https://reproductiverights.org/what-if-roe-fell?state=TN"><strong><em><span>“What if Roe Fell?” digital map</span></em></strong></a><span><span> that provides a state-by-state analysis of abortion policies.</span></span></span></span></span></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-issue field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Issues</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-issues/abortion" hreflang="en">Abortion</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-region field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Regions</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-regions/united-states" hreflang="en">United States</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> <div class="field field--name-field-work field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <h2 class="field__label">Work</h2> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field__item"><a href="/our-work/in-the-courts" hreflang="en">In the Courts</a></div> </div> </div> <br class="clear" /> Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:50:10 +0000 JSobel@reprorights.org 59424 at https://reproductiverights.org