Migration Category: National Old Site

Yesterday the Ohio state legislature passed a $62 billion budget that includes multiple anti-abortion provisions that could all but eliminate abortion access in the state.

The budget strips $2 million in family planning funds from Planned Parenthood. The budget then redirects family planning funds toward deceptive crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). CPCs are often owned and operated by churches or anti-abortion groups that pose as legitimate health centers. CPCs are not required to provide medically accurate information and often convey religious beliefs in an attempt to convince women to carry their pregnancies to term. The Ohio budget also includes a provision that would deny federal funding to rape crisis centers who provide information on abortion to rape victims.

Another provision of the Ohio budget as passed by the Senate could potentially close multiple abortion clinics throughout the state. The provision prohibits abortion clinics from having transfer agreements with public hospitals in cases where a patient needs additional care. However, in order for ambulatory surgical centers to be licensed by the state, they are required to have such transfer agreements in place. If a clinic is unable to locate or receive an agreement with a private hospital they will be forced to shut down.

Republican legislatures also added an ultrasound amendment late in the debate yesterday requiring doctors to determine if there is a fetal heartbeat and inform the woman of the likelihood it will survive to full term. The language used in the amendment reflects language from an unsuccessful attempt to ban abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected.

The budget passed on mostly party lines in both the state House and Senate. In the House, seven Republicans joined the Democrats in voting against the bill, but it was passed in a 53 to 44 vote. In the Senate only one Republican joined the Democrats in the voting no. It was passed 21 to 11, with three lawmakers who did not vote.

The only person who can change the budget now is Governor John Kasich (R), who must sign the budget by 11:59pm on Sunday. Kasich has not said whether he will do a line item veto on any of the abortion provisions. “I think the Legislature has a right to stick things in budgets and put policy in budgets,” Kasich told reporters. “I’ll look at the language, keeping in mind that I’m pro-life.”

On Thursday, the United States Senate passed an overhaul to the immigration system with bipartisan support. The piece of legislation includes a pathway to citizenship, but also requires militarization of the US-Mexico border.

68 senators – 54 Democrats and 14 Republicans – voted to approve immigration reform based on the proposal of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” senators charged with overhauling the immigration system. A key victory for progressives is the inclusion of a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million people currently living in the United States without proper documentation. However, before that path can be made open to those 11 million people, five conditions must be met, including doubling the amount of agents at the US-Mexico border, adding an addition 750 miles of fencing, and establishing an E-verify system for determining a person’s visa status. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a member of the Gang of Eight and a staunch conservative, remarked “This border-security measure blows my mind. We’ve practically militarized the border.”

President Obama applauded the Senate’s bipartisan efforts, saying in a statement “Today, with a strong bipartisan vote, the United States Senate delivered for the American people, bringing us a critical step closer to fixing our broken immigration system once and for all… The bipartisan bill that passed today was a compromise. By definition, nobody got everything they wanted. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not me. But the Senate bill is consistent with the key principles for commonsense reform that I – and many others – have repeatedly laid out.” He continued, “Now is the time when opponents will try their hardest to pull this bipartisan effort apart so they can stop commonsense reform from becoming a reality. We cannot let that happen. If you’re among the clear majority of Americans who support reform – from CEOs to labor leaders, law enforcement to clergy – reach out to your Member of Congress. Tell them to do the right thing.” Graham also applauded the Senate’s efforts, saying “This is as good as it gets in the Senate.”

However, the bill appears dead on arrival in the House of Representatives. In a released statement prior to the debate, Speaker of the House John Boehner said, “Immigration reform must – I mean must – be grounded in real border security. That’s what the American people believe, and it’s a principle that this House majority will insist upon.” He elaborated with reporters, “I issued a statement that I thought was pretty clear, but apparently some haven’t gotten the message: the House is not going to take up and vote on whatever the Senate passes. We’re going to do our own bill.”

Earlier this week, the Department of Education (DOE) released new guidance on how to assist pregnant and parenting students in their academic career.

The guidelines, in the form of a Dear Colleague letter and accompanying pamphlet, details how schools should handle the needs of pregnant and parenting students in accordance with Title IX. In the pamphlet, the DOE clarifies that any school cannot require pregnant or parenting students to complete or any paperwork or courses that are not required of other students who take hospital leave. In addition, the pamphlet dictates that schools make reasonable accommodations to pregnant students such as larger desks and elevator use in the same capacity as accommodations made to other students with medical conditions. Though the pamphlet is aimed at secondary schools, the DOE states that the legal principles behind the guidelines also apply to higher education.

Lisa Maatz of American Association of University Women commented on the changes, “Pregnant and parenting students have always been protected under Title IX, but this guidance provides much-needed clarification and concrete steps schools must take to support these students… AAUW is pleased that the Department of Education has made it abundantly clear that schools may not deny mothers and fathers educational opportunities that are provided to other students.”

Today the Supreme Court ruled that a statute requiring preclearance for changing voting guidelines is unconstitutional.

In a five to four decision with the opinion written [PDF] by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which determines which districts have to submit changes in their voting practice and regulation regardless of size to the Department of Justice (DOJ) in accordance with Section 5 of the VRA, is unconstitutional. In doing so, the Court essentially nullified Section 5 requiring preclearance in voting regulation changes. Section 5 has been used to stop over 700 discriminatory laws from going into effect between 1982 and 2006.

Roberts and the majority opinion argued that the formula determining which state and local governments must submit their changes is outdated [PDF] and therefore can no longer be used to require preclearance. While this decision subsequently voids the preclearance process, the majority did not rule preclearance requirement in Section 5 unconstitutional. Instead, the Court gave Congress the responsibility to create a new formula to determine who must comply with preclearance requirements. In a concurring opinion, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that he would have urged the Court to also overturn Section 5.

In a dissenting opinion [PDF], Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer joined Ruth Bader Ginsburg in arguing that since Congress determined the formula in Section 4 was still accurate there was a demonstrated need to retain it. Ginsburg lays out the history of the Voting Rights Act and the various challenges and reauthorizations it has faced. Ginsburg, et al., also argue that Congress is aware that the formula may need to be revised in the future based on the time frame Congress determined for reauthorization.

In her dissent, Ginsburg writes [PDF] “The sad irony of today’s decision lies in its utter failure to grasp why the VRA has proven effective… In truth, the evolution of voting discrimination into more subtle second-generation barriers is powerful evidence that a remedy as effective as preclearance remains vital to protect minority voting rights and prevent backsliding.” She continues, “For a half century, a concerted effort has been made to end racial discrimination in voting. Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, progress once the subject of a dream has been achieved and continues to be made.”

In conclusion, Ginsburg writes “After exhaustive evidence-gathering and deliberative process, Congress reauthorized the VRA, including the coverage provision, with overwhelming bipartisan support… In my judgment, the Court errs egregiously by overriding Congress’ decision.” Civil rights advocates around the country have denounced the decision.

President Obama said in a statement, “Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent.” NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous decried, “This decision is outrageous. The Court’s majority put politics over decades of precedent and the rights of voters.” Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority, said “The fundamental responsibility of the Supreme Court is to protect minority rights, especially the most basic right in a democracy, the right to vote. The Court has failed in this responsibility.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear a case deciding the legality of a 2007 Massachusetts law that created a 35-foot ‘buffer zone’ around abortion clinics preventing anti-abortion protesters from entering said buffer zone.

In January of this year, the 1st US. District Court of Appeals determined that a 2007 law establishing a 35-foot “buffer zone” around abortion clinic entrances, exits and driveways did not violate the First Amendment rights of anti-abortion protesters. Protesters claimed that the buffer zone prevented them from conversing with patients in a close proximity. Advocates argued that the law was necessary to protect both patients and clinic staff from anti-abortion intimidation and violence.

The 2007 law has been challenged in court repeatedly. An earlier version of the law was ruled constitutional in 2001 and 2004 also by the 1st US District Court of Appeals. When the law was revised in 2007, it was appealed and upheld in 2009.

The Supreme Court will revisit this decision during its next session, which starts in October. The case is McCullen v. Coakley, 12-1168.

An immigration overhaul coming from a bipartisan coalition within the Senate now faces three weeks of debate on the floor. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) expects that it will come to a vote prior to the July 4 session break. If all 54 Democrats in the Senate vote for the bill, which is unlikely, the “Gang of 8” putting forward the over 800-page legislation would still need the support of upwards of six Republicans to prevent a filibuster. If passed in the Senate, the immigration reform package will face an uphill battle for passage in the House.

The legislation marks the first major set of reforms to immigration policy since President Ronald Reagan’s administration. It lays out a pathway to citizenship for those in the United States illegally now, tighter border security regulations, and processes to open up legal entry into the country for more families and workers. Those who oppose the bill worry that it lacks strict enough border control and grants too much amnesty to the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the US.

President Obama has urged Congress to work together to produce a bill before summer’s end. He addressed the topic in his weekly radio address Saturday. “The bill before the Senate isn’t perfect,” he said. “It’s a compromise. Nobody will get everything they want – not Democrats, not Republicans, not me.”

Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) announced on “Face the Nation” Sunday, that she will back the bill, calling it “tough but fair” and “a thoughtful bipartisan solution to a tough problem.” The Gang of 8 working to drive the legislation through both chambers come from a bipartisan background and are willing to make concessions only “without forsaking our principles.”

Scott Roeder, the anti-abortion extremist who murdered Dr. George Tiller in 2009, will be disciplined for threatening comments made against a clinic owner from prison. According to state officials, Roeder will spend 45 days in isolation for 23 hours a day. Roeder will only have one hour a day for exercise. In addition, he will have reduced privileges for another 60 days afterwards. The decision was made by an administrator following a hearing for Roeder this week.

The punishment is in response to a YouTube video posted by an anti-abortion extremist that featured an interview with Roeder. In the interview, Roeder is quoted as saying, “To walk in there and reopen a clinic, a murder mill where a man was stopped, is almost like putting a target on your back saying, ‘Well, let’s see if you can shoot me.'”

In 2010, Scott Roeder was found guilty of first degree murder in the May 2009 death of George Tiller by a unanimous jury after 40 minutes of deliberation. The jury also found Roeder guilty of two counts of aggravated assault. He was sentenced to 50 years in prison without the possibility of parole.

Thursday evening, the Ohio state Senate passed a $61.7 billion state budget that partially defunds Planned Parenthood and could close abortion clinics across the state. The Senate budget bill is scheduled to go to the House for a vote next week.

The budget, passed by the Senate along party lines in a vote of 23 to 10, strips $2 million in family planning funds from Planned Parenthood. The budget then also redirects family planning funds toward deceptive crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). CPCs are often owned and operated by churches or anti-abortion groups that pose as legitimate health centers. CPCs do not have the staff to provide medically accurate information and often convey religious beliefs in an attempt to convince women to carry their pregnancies to term. The budget also includes a provision that would deny federal funding to rape crisis centers who provide information on abortion to rape victims.

Another provision of the Ohio budget as passed by the Senate could potentially close abortion clinics throughout the state. The provision prohibits abortion clinics from have transfer agreements with public hospitals in case a patient needs additional care. However, in order for ambulatory surgical centers to be licensed by the state, they are required to have such transfer agreements in place.

Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, told reporters, “This proposal will wreak havoc on tens of thousands of patients that rely on these facilities, and could result in 11 counties losing access to subsidized family planning services entirely.” She continued, “This is about paperwork… If they can’t make abortion illegal, they can make it virtually impossible to access by closing every clinic they can gets their hands on.”

A bill that would ban abortions after 20 weeks nationwide was approved by the House Judiciary Subcommittee yesterday. The bill, sponsored by Trent Franks (R-AZ), who is also the chair of the subcommittee, originally applied only to the District of Columbia and would have banned abortion at 20 weeks gestation with exceptions only to save the woman’s life. However, Franks decided to expand the bill nationwide following the murder conviction of Kermit Gosnell, a rogue doctor who performed illegal abortions in Pennsylvania. Franks has introduced the bill in previous sessions of Congress, but it was defeated.

The all-male subcommittee approved the bill along party lines in a vote of six to four. Opponents of the bill took issue with the fact that there were no women or medical professionals on the subcommittee to consider the legislation. Representative John Conyers (D-MI) objected to the bill saying, “It is totally out of order for us to determine a medical question like this under the guise of acting as members of the very vital House Judiciary Committee… No good has ever come from an all-male committee deciding the law about a woman’s body. This is not appropriate.” Ted Deutch (D-FL) echoed Conyer’s sentiments, saying that it was “hard for people to take” a group of men making medical decisions for women. He continued, “To insert a role of politics in all this, in what for [some parents] has gone from the greatest exulation they may have felt as a married couple to the depths of despair at learning they have found themselves in a situation [where] they have to make that painful decision, is just not what we should be doing.”

The bill now goes before the full House Judiciary Committee. Though a hearing or vote has not been scheduled yet, the chairman of the committee is Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) who has a consistent anti-choice voting record.

Yesterday, Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-CA) issued a statement critical of the Marine Corp’s handling of her complaint regarding an offensive Facebook page posted by active-duty Marines threatening violence against women and the Congresswoman herself.

The pages, which Speier reported to the Secretary of Defense in the beginning of May, featured degrading images and comments about women and women in the military. Many images condoned and even promoted violence against women and rape. Facebook has since removed the page, but various versions have reappeared. After Speier filed her complaint, new pages threatening Speier (and President Obama) that featured manipulated photos of her implying abuse and sexual assault appeared. The threats are being investigated by the Secret Service and the US Capitol Police.

In response to her complaint, Speier received a letter [PDF] from General James Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps, on behalf of the Secretary of Defense. In the letter Amos cited the difficulties in monitoring and tracking social media to investigate offensive content; technicalities regarding military conduct codes; and lack of funding, hindering their efforts to investigate offensive content.

Congresswoman Speier criticized Amos’ excuses, saying the following in her statement:

“The Marine Corps’ good order and discipline creed has been totally undermined when it cannot police Marines who use social media to promote anti-Semitism, sexism and racism. These messages of hate reflect the kinds of attitudes our military fights around the world as oppressive and demeaning to human dignity. The postings of a few serve to discredit the entire Corps and contribute to a hostile work environment. In the private sector these employees would be fired. The Marine Corps must do the right thing now and stop their own who practice the worst forms of hatred. The letter from General Amos offers sequestration as a reason for inaction. The Commander-in-Chief has spoken. Suggesting that misconduct cannot be addressed because of sequestration is frankly unacceptable.”

Top Pentagon leaders will face scrutiny from members of Congress today as the first hearing on military sexual assault begins today. The hearing, hosted by the Senate Armed Services Committee, will feature testimony from victim-support organizations focused on the military and a wide variety of military officials and legal counsel on the issue.

Many members of congress are outraged over the string of recent sexual assault cases that have been exposed in the military. Senator Kay Hagen (D-NC) told reporters, “We are demanding that change take place… This is a crime and we’re going to address it as a crime, and the perpetrators are going to be kicked out of the military.” Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, told reporters “I think 26,000 sexual assaults is going too far,” Mikulski said. “And now there is even a criminal investigation of the football team at the Naval Academy, where we are training the next best.”

Anu Bhagwati, former Marine Corps Captain and executive director of Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN), said in a statement [PDF], “We are grateful to Chairman Carl Levin and Ranking Member James Inhofe for holding this hearing to discuss critical legislation on the issue of sexual violence in the military. The military is facing a crisis in the ranks and troops are quickly losing faith in the military’s ability to provide adequate protection for victims and prosecute and punish offenders. Much of the new legislation, if passed, would help restore confidence in the military’s ability to maintain good order and discipline in the ranks.”

A study released by the Harvard Medical School on Wednesday shows that immigrants as whole pay more into Medicare than they use, effectively subsidizing the program. The study found that in 2009 alone, immigrants created a $13.8 billion surplus for Medicare. From 2002 to 2009, immigrants paid a total of $115 billion more to the government health program than they used. American-born workers, on the other hand, posted a $28 billion deficit in the same 2002 to 2009 time frame.

Leah Zellman, who led the research team, explained possible reasons for the surplus, “Immigrants generate a surplus for Medicare primarily because so many of them are working age adults and the group has a high labor-force participation rate-a combination that generates large payroll tax payments.” Since the immigrant population contributing to Medicare is overall younger and larger than its American-born population, and is therefore not eligible, part of the surplus could be generated simply because of availability.

The authors of the study wrote that changes in immigration policies could have unanticipated consequences for the government program. They wrote, “Policies that reduce immigration would almost certainly weaken Medicare’s financial health, while an increasing flow of immigrants might bolster its sustainability.” Zellman said, “[This study] pokes a hole in the widespread assumption that immigrants drain U.S. health care spending dollars.”

The study also included some personal interjection from the authors on the issue of immigration. They wrote, “Having ourselves witnessed immigrants dying needlessly because of lack of health care, we (and many of our colleagues) are motivated by the belief that all patients have a human right to health care. But economic concerns – including the worry that immigrants are driving up US health care costs – have often dominated the debate over immigration. Our data offer a new perspective on these economic concerns.”

A Navy veteran who has transitioned since her military career ended has successfully petitioned the Pentagon to have her military records reflect her correct gender. This is the first time the Pentagon has approved such a change.

Autumn Sandeen was assigned male at birth but knew that she was female in her teen years. She entered the Navy, where she served for two decades before retiring. During her military career, she kept her true gender a secret for fear of dismissal on mental health grounds. She told reporters “If I would have been myself, I would have been kicked out… feel like we should able to serve openly because we are physically able to serve openly. It’s not a disorder,” she said. “We’re not allowing capable people who have something to offer the country to serve their country.” Despite the ban on openly gay and lesbian soldiers from serving being lifted in 2011, the ban on transgender soldiers remained. There is hope that this can also be removed now that the American Psychiatric Association no longer recognizes gender identity disorder as a mental disorder.

After originally filing the request in 2011 with the office of Veteran’s Affairs, Autumn’s records were updated earlier this month in both the VA office and the Pentagon. Sandeen even purchased a woman’s uniform for photographs to replace her photographs from before her transition. “By showing you can actually change your gender marker with the Department of Defense, it shows that the Department of Defense actually will do that, and if they do that then it’s another stop toward figuring out a way to have open service for trans people” she said.

On Tuesday the United States Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by the state of Indiana over the blocking of a law that would ban Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funding. The Court dismissed the case without comment, allowing the lower court ruling to stand. Last July, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Indiana law violates federal law which requires that Medicaid enrollees have the freedom to choose their health care provider, and permanently blocked its enforcement.

The law, which was passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature and signed into law by Governor Mitch Daniels (R) in 2011, would have prohibited the state from contracting Planned Parenthood of Indiana for health care services other than abortions despite Planned Parenthood using private funds to pay for abortion services. It would also have prohibited Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funding for preventive healthcare services, such as cancer screenings, well-woman visits, and STI tests. The law would also have prevented Medicaid recipients who went to Planned Parenthood from being reimbursed through their insurance for services rendered. Supporters of the ban argued that allowing Medicaid funding for preventative services indirectly provided more organizational money to fund abortions.

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told reporters, “[Yesterday’s] announcement from the Supreme Court is not only a victory for Planned Parenthood’s patients in Indiana, it is a victory for the nearly 3 million people who turn to Planned Parenthood health centers each year across the country.”

In the 2013 legislative season, seven new states have tried to defund Planned Parenthood. Similar measures in Tennessee, North Carolina, Kansas, and Arizona have also been blocked by judges. However, efforts to restrict funding in Oklahoma and Texas were more successful.

On Thursday, the Boy Scouts of America voted to allow openly gay youth to participate in the organization. Openly gay leaders and adults are still prohibited from taking part.

Over 1,400 members of the BSA National Council voted on the proposed change, with over 60 percent voting in favor of allowing gay youth. However, openly gay members will not be allowed to continue with the organization once they turn 18 and gay troop leaders are still prohibited.

Matt Comer, 27, who was kicked out of the Boy Scouts when at age 14 because of his sexual orientation welcomed the news. “Today we finally have some justice for me and others,” he said. “But gay youths will still be told they are no longer welcome when they turn 18.”

Eagle Scout and executive director of Scouts for Equality, Zach Wahls, said, “The Boy Scouts of America can do better. We welcome the news that the ban on gay Scouts is history, but our work isn’t over until we honor the Scout Law by making this American institution open and affirming to all.”

Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said, “Today is a historic day for Boy Scouts across the country who want to be a part of this great American institution. But the new policy doesn’t go far enough. Parents and adults of good moral character, regardless of sexual orientation, should be able to volunteer their time to mentor the next generation of Americans.”

After the vote, the BSA announced, “While people have different opinions about this policy, we can all agree that kids are better off when they are in Scouting.” The new policy will take affect January 2014.

On Thursday, a panel of eight male members of the House of Representatives met to discuss a nationwide ban of abortion after 20 weeks gestation.

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice began consideration of the DC Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act on Thursday. The bill, sponsored by Trent Franks (R-AZ), who is also the chair of the subcommittee, originally would have banned abortion at 20 weeks gestation only in the District of Columbia. However, Franks decided to expand the bill nationwide following the murder conviction of Kermit Gosnell, a rogue doctor who performed illegal abortions in Pennsylvania. Franks has introduced the bill in previous sessions of Congress, but it was defeated.

Nancy Northrup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement, “It is no small irony that Rep. Franks is using the subcommittee on the Constitution to advance legislation attacking the firmly established constitutional rights of women. Everywhere that similarly unconstitutional laws have been challenged in the courts including Rep. Franks’s home state of Arizona just this week they have been blocked before they could jeopardize women’s health and lives.”

In a scene familiar to women’s rights activists, the entire panel considering the bill was made up of men. Laura Basset, a frequent writer for the Huffington Post tweeted at the hearing “Well this looks familiar: every lawmaker at the House hearing on the nationwide 20-week abortion ban is a man.” The scene is reminiscent of last year’s debate on contraception coverage under the Affordable Care Act, when the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform did not have any witnesses from the Democrats and only consulted male witnesses. In response, Sandra Fluke testified as part of a House Democratic Steering Committee hearing led by Nancy Pelosi.

Four universities across the country are facing allegations of mishandling sexual assault cases in violation of the Clery Act and Title IX.

On Wednesday, students filed complaints against Dartmouth College, Swarthmore College, University of California at Berkeley, and the University of Southern California. Attorney Gloria Allred said at a press conference, “We are asking the United States Department of Education to open an investigation into these complaints and take appropriate actions to force these colleges to comply with the law or risk losing their federal funding.”

She continued, “Women from all over this country are demanding that their colleges stop these rapes and sexual assaults from happening. They will no longer accept the status quo where rapes and sexual assaults are being swept under the rug and condoned by college administrators.”

One of the students filing a complaint, Sofie Karasek, spoke about her experience of reporting sexual assault at UC Berkeley. “They solved it through the early resolution process, which meant that there were no hearings and they never asked me for evidence,” she said. “I received another email telling me my assailant was charged with a violation of student conduct, but it did not say if any disciplinary action been taken.” A week later, her attacker graduated.

The new allegations are a continuation of a string of sexual assault challenges. Last month, a complaint was filed against Occidental College for violating Title IX and the Clery Act. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is also facing Title IX and Clery Act complaints.

A sergeant first class with the US Military Academy at West Point is facing charges of secretly filming female cadets with hidden cameras and without consent.

Sergeant First Class Michael McClendon is accused of secretly videotaping at least a dozen women without their consent. McClendon, who has been an instructor at West Point since 2009, served as a “tactical noncommissioned officer” and was “responsible for the health, welfare and discipline” of a company of 125 cadets. This position is responsible for “assist[ing] each cadet in balancing and integrating the requirements of physical, military, academic and moral-ethical programs.” The Army is currently reaching out to a dozen women whose privacy may have been compromised and are offering support services.

McClendon has not been suspended during the investigation, but was transferred to Fort Drum in New York after charges were filed May 14th. According to the New York Times, which first reported the story, “The Army made no announcement of the charges against Sergeant McClendon, but provided details after The New York Times learned of the inquiry from several current and former members of the West Point community who said they were alarmed by the allegations and wanted to learn of the academy’s plans to investigate and prevent future violations.”

Last week the news broke that an Army Sergeant 1st Class Sexual Harassment/Assault Result Prevention (SHARP) Coordinator and Equal Opportunity Advisor at Fort Hood in Texas is being investigated for sexual assault. According to a statement released by the Department of Defense (DoD) the service member in question is being investigated for allegations of “pandering, abusive sexual contact, assault and maltreatment of subordinates.” Two weeks earlier, an Air Force chief of sexual assault prevention and response was arrested on charges of sexual battery. Lieutenant Colonel Jeffery Krusinski groped a woman in a parking lot. She fought him off when he attempted to grab her for a second time and immediately alerted the police. An anonymous spokesperson for the Air Force confirmed that Krusinski had been dismissed from his post in response to the allegations.

In addition, the Department of Defense issued an annual report in the beginning of May that showed that sexual assault in the military rose by 35% from 2010 to 2012. The report found that 26,000 members of the military experienced “unwanted sexual contact” in 2012 when answering an anonymous survey – a rate of approximately 70 assaults a day. The report also found only 3,374 reports of sexual assault were filed, according to the Pentagon. Of those cases filed, fewer than one in 10 ended with a court-martial conviction of sexual assault. In the majority of cases, the alleged attacker faced small administrative punishments or the case was dismissed.

On Tuesday, the Arizona law banning abortion after 20 weeks in a pregnancy was ruled unconstitutional and permanently struck down.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 20 week ban in Arizona violated a woman’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before viability (around 24 weeks) as determined by Roe v. Wade. In the unanimous decision, Judge Marsha Berzon wrote “A woman has a constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable without undue interference by the state.” She continued, “While the state may regulate the model and manner of abortion prior to fetal viability, it may not proscribe a woman from electing abortion, nor may it impose an undue burden on her choice through regulation.” Even the staunch anti-abortion Judge Andrew Kleinfeld agreed that while he may disagree with the practice of abortion, he was bound to uphold the Supreme Court’s authority.

The judges rejected the claim that the law was not a ban on abortion, merely a regulation since doctors were allowed to perform abortions after 20 weeks for medical emergencies. In the opinion, Berzon wrote, “Allowing a physician to decide if abortion is medically necessary is not the same as allowing a woman to decide whether to carry her own pregnancy to term.”

Nancy Northrup, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said that the ruling “should send a clear message to anti-choice politicians that their attempts to deprive pregnant women of critical health care are clearly unconstitutional.”