Author: Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

A Birth Control Battle: Survivors Take Pfizer to Court Over Depo-Provera

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

A lawsuit has been filed against Pfizer relating to Depo-Provera, formally known as depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, a progesterone-based birth control injection you receive once every three months. The lead plaintiff, Robin Phillip, who used the shot for nearly 30 years, is a survivor of intracranial meningioma—a tumor in the lining of the brain. Phillip only stopped using the shot during her two pregnancies and believed that her symptoms were signs of a more serious issue. Although emergency surgery was successful, she lost vision in her left eye and faced a long recovery.

In her claim, along with 1,000 other co-plaintiffs, she states that Pfizer knew about the medication’s effects and risks, but failed to warn its patients. Nonetheless, Pfizer submitted a motion to dismiss the case and reaffirmed its confidence in the medication despite the allegations. 

Recent studies have confirmed that meningiomas are usually not cancerous. However, there are patients who received Depo-Provera that had a higher risk of meningioma, especially with prolonged use and at older ages. Although this area is still under ongoing research, it is known that women are more likely to develop this type of brain tumor by age 50. Additionally, some findings suggest that after using the Depo Shot, pregnancy and menopausal hormone therapy may speed up meningioma growth. 

Although 1 in 4 sexually active women use the Depo injection nationally, Black women use nearly double. This makes Black women even more predisposed to the risk of meningioma in the United States. It has already been proven that Black women are 41% more likely to develop cervical cancer. 

Furthermore, Black women are more likely to be diagnosed with HPV, which often serves as a preliminary diagnosis that can lead to other forms of cancer. Black women are also among the most affected by medical racism and discrimination within the healthcare system. Although the risks of this medication are not taken seriously, it is crucial to recognize how much this medication impacts its largest patient demographic. 

Although the FDA has declined to reevaluate these concerns at this time, other countries have issued warnings about the risks associated with Depo, including European agencies, South Africa, and Canada. This indicates that there is a serious concern with the risks. While the case is not yet fully resolved, the survivors’ testimonies suggest that the FDA and Pfizer may need to evaluate the risks of this medication and consider how to alert consumers. 

A Big Win for Education in Michigan

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

On October 7, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed her seventh education budget, MI SB0166, into law. This bipartisan budget puts parents and kids first, offering significant relief to parents, local school districts, and students. It provides more flexibility to focus on active learning while addressing the daunting realities of food insecurity and large classroom sizes that leave many students overlooked. 

The budget sets forth appropriations for fiscal year 2025-2026, with a special emphasis on grades K-12. The budget details that $248.1 million will be allocated to provide free school breakfasts and lunches for students in public schools, estimated to save households $1000/year. $657 million has been dedicated to providing free Pre-K for 4-year-old learners, regardless of household income. For 3-year-olds in the state, $25 million has been invested in preschool programs. The budget’s focus on promoting active learning is foundational, with $122 million pledged to continue building on literacy initiatives. This emphasis on literacy is the future of education in Michigan, inspiring educators and parents alike.

Additionally, funding per student has been calculated at $10,050, a 4.6% increase that ensures more school supplies, access to books, and other learning resources are reaching every student this budget pledges to support. This increase is $2,312 more than what states contribute federally to K-12 public education and is a clear sign of Michigan’s commitment to the future of education. The budget continues to support after-school programming, infrastructure development, language and special education programs, tuition assistance, scholarships, transportation, and funding for universities and colleges. 

In all of these significant initiatives, one stands out: $321 million to support student mental health and school safety needs. This substantial allocation is a clear sign that Michigan understands and cares about its students’ mental health. In recent years, students across the nation have been coming forward more about the effects that mental health has had on their educational experience. In fact, 50% of middle school students and 56% of high school students share that feeling anxious, depressed, or stressed are obstacles preventing them from being successful in school. Michigan is setting the example for all states to support education and not overlook mental health support for students.  

Education is a right everyone should access without being burdened by costs, food insecurity, or mental health obstacles. In a time when the federal government continues to defund various educational programs and initiatives, it is clear that our government officials fail to account for everyday people. As Michigan leads with an exemplary budget dedicated to addressing these needs and concerns, it reaffirms that there are still good people in this fight for change.

Demolishing the East Wing Is Demolishing Women’s History

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

Last week, the current administration made another attempt to erase women from American History by signing off on the demolition of the East Wing of the White House. The East Wing, infamously referred to as the “people’s house,” will be replaced with a privately-funded $300 billion ballroom, which the President hopes will modernize the East Wing. 

The East Wing has long been the home of the First Lady, which Eleanor Roosevelt first professionalized during her husband’s presidency. Before then, First Ladies did not have a designated space; instead, they worked out of their bedrooms, sitting rooms, and other small spaces they could find. The East Wing, from that day forward, became a space for Women’s History that was not just for show, symbolizing a substantial move towards empowerment. 

Eleanor Roosevelt transformed this space into a site of activism supporting women’s groups from the Girl Scouts, to the Women’s Trade Union League. The issues they discussed were not ornamental or superficial, but were political, economic, and life-changing. Famously, Betty Ford argued for a pay increase for her staff and Michelle Obama led her “Let’s Move Campaign.”

The creation of the East Wing as a professional space allowed First Ladies, and women alike, to be more than just their husbands’ wives. Instead, they could become the passionate activists they were born to be. Disposing of the East Wing actively erases women’s involvement at the White House and that First Ladies can have meaningful agendas. 

It was Betty Ford who tirelessly fought to end sex-based discrimination and said, “if the West Wing is the mind of the nation, then the East Wing is the heart.” Michelle Obama used this space to highlight the importance of public health, and Jill Biden used this space to engage in her work with military families and education. An unnecessary ballroom should not be used to erase the life-changing work that the East Wing has represented. 

Despite the President’s actions to modernize the building he was elected to serve in, the White House is not a private building. President Trump’s term ends in a few years, but the White House will live on with every subsequent generation. 

It is our duty to preserve this country’s history in the fight for Women’s equality. The White House is the people’s house, and women’s history is American history. Instead of being erased, the East Wing, a symbol of this history, should not be overlooked in favor of a ballroom that will only promote exclusivity. 

The Gendered Toll of U.S. Immigration Policy

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

Since 2025, the United States has witnessed an explosive surge in the number of people detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In just 4 months of Trump’s second term, there has been a 17% increase compared to his first term. Since Biden’s presidency, the detention rates have skyrocketed by 46%. This extreme level of mass deportation is disproportionately affecting a population of minority women. The most vulnerable of these women are those who are pregnant or have recently given birth.

Under President Biden, ICE was barred from arresting or detaining immigrants who are pregnant, postpartum or nursing. Although Trump has not rescinded this policy, the numerous lawsuits and firsthand accounts from women prove that it is not being followed. 

One such case is that of Antonia Aguilar Maldonado, a mother of two from El Salvador, who was arrested by ICE and detained for almost a month, despite still nursing her youngest son. The jail was not equipped to house someone who was nursing and did not have a breast pump. Maldonano was forced to use her hands to massage milk out until the facility was able to buy a pump.

Angie Rodriguez, a Colombian immigrant, was also detained after a routine ICE check. While detained, she struggled to eat meals due to the inedible options, and unfortunately, would later miscarry while in custody. Failure to see immigration and mass deportation through a gendered lens continues to silence the lived experiences of women like Maldonano and Rodriguez, and these are only two instances. 

A report by Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) documented at least 14 cases of pregnant women being mistreated in detention facilities between January 2025 and July 2025. Pregnant detainees were reported to be sleeping on cell floors, denied medical support, and miscarrying alone.

As women and pregnant people continue to be detained at alarming rates, the conditions in which women like Maldonado and Rodriguez were kept in are a grave injustice. It has been reported that women are being shackled while being transported and experiencing miscarriages. They are denied access to medical translators, prenatal vitamins and care, and forced to undergo medical care without consent. They are also experiencing a lack of food and other forms of nutrition.  

The ACLU reported in a letter directed towards the ICE that, although ICE has the statutory mandate to release those who have been certified as pregnant on parole, they have failed to do so since January 2025. Instead, ICE has issued detainers, arrested, and taken pregnant individuals into custody even after being made aware of their conditions, and has taken to detaining many women during reports of domestic abuse. Not only is this illegal, but it also sets an unsafe precedent for women and pregnant people suffering through continued abuse because of fear of being detained or deported. 

The administration has continued to fail in protecting the rights of women in this country, regardless of citizenship. Although there are federal statutes intended to govern these injustices, this administration has once again shown a lack of care for the law of the land they swear by. Instead, departments like the Department of Homeland Security claim that these are all just false allegations, and continue to detain and deport as if they are protecting the country. 

This widespread neglect and abuse within ICE detention centers highlights the urgent need to hold the agency accountable and to adopt immigration policies that prioritize the safety, dignity, and human rights of women and pregnant people.

Leaked Young Republicans Chat Exposes Deep-Rooted Racism and Hate Within the Party’s Ranks

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

On Tuesday, October 14, Politico released exclusive messages from private group chats among members of the Young Leaders Republican organizations. The leaked messages revealed horrifying racial slurs, antisemitic comments, and even references to genocidal violence, all exchanged by individuals pledging loyalty to Donald Trump. While shocking, this behavior is not unprecedented in today’s political climate. Still, there is never any justification for such vile, dehumanizing rhetoric.

This chat, created by Peter Giunta, the former chair of the New York State Young Republicans (NYRS), was originally intended to rally support for his campaign for chair of the National Young Republicans organization. Yet, it quickly devolved into 2,900 pages worth of hateful, extremist content entitled the “Restoyer War Room.”

In one exchange, Giunta declared “I love Hitler” after Kansas Chair Alex Dwyer commented that a Michigan member planned to vote for “the most right-wing person” in the race. Giunta also threatened that anyone who voted against him would be “going to the gas chamber,” to which others replied, “I’m ready to watch people burn now,” and “When do we bring that side out?” Not one participant appeared to object to the grotesque references to the Holocaust, an atrocity that claimed the lives of six million Jewish people.

The hate didn’t stop there. Group members used racist slurs and tropes to describe Black people, calling them “monkeys,” “the watermelon people,” and repeatedly using the n-word, and boasted that a teenage chapter “supports slavery and all that sh-t.” They celebrated being in a hotel room numbered 1488, a white supremacist code combining “14 Words” (“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children”) and “88,” shorthand for “Heil Hitler.”

What began as a campaign chat became, as Politico put it, “a blur of slurs and violent fantasies.” Members joked about the rape of Indigenous women by colonial settlers, used homophobic and transphobic slurs against opponents, and even encouraged sexual violence and suicide.

The Young Republican National Federation has publicly condemned the racism, antisemitism, and hate expressed in the chats. But condemnation after exposure does not erase the fact that these messages came from individuals who hold, or aspire to hold, positions of power in Republican politics. Since the Trump era, the line between extremist rhetoric and mainstream politics has blurred, with many young conservatives embracing hate speech as a way to prove their loyalty and avoid being labeled “RINOs.”

Let’s be clear: racism and white supremacy never disappeared, they’ve even become bolder in recent years. Many of the individuals in this chat hold government or party roles. Across the country, white nationalist movements are growing; in Arkansas, one group is building a “segregated community” to promote “European ancestry.” Simultaneously, state governments are banning the teaching of history about genocide and slavery, and restricting access to abortion, contraception, and gender-affirming care.

America was founded on the claim that “all men are created equal,” yet it codified slavery, denied women’s citizenship, and forced Indigenous people off their lands. Equality in this country has always been something people have had to fight for, not something freely granted. The “Restoyer War Room” is not an anomaly; it is a mirror reflecting the unfinished work of justice in America.

If we are still fighting for equality today, it’s because that fight is far from over.

Supreme Court Case Could Threaten Colorado’s Ban on Harmful Conversion Therapy

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

On Tuesday, October 7, the United States Supreme Court heard opening arguments in a case brought by a religious counselor who claims that Colorado’s 2019 ban on conversion therapy violates her First Amendment right to free speech. While a decision isn’t expected until later this year, the case could have major implications for LGBTQIA+ rights and professional standards in counseling. 

Kaley Chiles, the petitioner, is an Evangelical Christian licensed talk therapist. She claims that much of her clientele “seek her counsel precisely because they believe that their faith and their relationship with God establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and desires.” Chiles argues that Colorado’s ban, which prohibits medical professionals from engaging in conversion therapy, limits her ability to provide faith-based counseling.

Conversion therapy is defined as:  

Any practice or treatment by a licensed physician specializing in the practice of psychiatry that attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.

Under Colorado’s House Bill 19-1129, licensed medical professionals are prohibited from engaging in any treatment aimed at reducing or eliminating same-sex attraction or altering gender expression. Chiles argued in the United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that the federal court should prevent the state from enforcing the ban because it would affect her ability to practice and provide her clients with the services they seek. Her arguments centered on the belief that the Colorado ban infringed upon her First Amendment Right under the United States Constitution, with particular reference to the right to speak and think freely, which was part of her role as a talk therapist for minors. In other words, she considers her professional conduct to be protected by the First Amendment. However, the 10th Circuit Court upheld the ban, ruling that Chiles’ conduct was not protected speech, but rather professional conduct regulated by state standards. 

Following her’ appeal, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case this term. The question that the Supreme Court will be answering is: 

Does a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulate conduct or violate the Free Speech Clause? 

Although this case is not scheduled to be decided until later this year, the court has begun to indicate how it will proceed in determining the case. Critically, a majority of the court, across ideological lines, seemed inclined to rule against the Colorado law, with Justice Alito stating that the ban “looks like blatant viewpoint discrimination.” However, another perspective shared by Justice Jackson is that “medical doctors would clearly be liable if they used a medication that the state deemed substandard care.” 

This case is more than a legal technicality. It poses a potential threat to the right of individuals to live authentically, without fear of being coerced or pressured to change who they are. If the Court overturns Colorado’s ban, it could weaken protections for LGBTQIA+ people nationwide. The Supreme Court should be careful not to conflate professional conduct with personal belief, especially in matters affecting health, safety, and human dignity.

New South Carolina Bill Sparks Concern Over Criminalization of Abortion and Contraception

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

In South Carolina, the state legislature is currently considering a bill that poses an immediate threat to the reproductive rights of millions. The Unborn Child Protection Act is aimed at creating and regulating stricter access to abortions and contraceptives at large. 

The bill aims to define stricter limits on reproductive rights language, as well as significantly amend the state code on the issue of abortion. Particularly with emphasis on Section 44-41-615 of the S.C. Code, constituting a felony to administer, prescribe, sell, and or deliver any form of medication, pharmaceutical, or substance that, with “specific intent,” will cause an abortion. People convicted of offending any of the elements of the bill can face imprisonment for up to 30 years for successfully or unsuccessfully administering an abortion. 

Additionally, the bill applies to anyone who uses any medical instrument, instruments at large, devices, means, or procedures upon a pregnant person with the intent to perform an abortion. It would make it illegal to know of or knowingly distribute, sell, possess, and advertise what this state legislature refers to as “abortifacient” (mifepristone, misoprostol, or any other chemical drug that is used with the intent of causing an abortion).

This bill moves beyond restricting access for those who are pregnant to criminalizing anyone who works, helps, or supplies any abortion care. Additionally, with these radical shifts and these stipulations, the state would have the strictest abortion ban in the country. 

By adding new language to the existing state code, this bill is not just a legal document; it is a direct threat to the rights and choices of individuals. It actively removes the exceptions for being able to have an abortion, particularly in instances of rape, incest, and fetal anomaly. The language in the revised bill, which is still pending in the state senate, actively removes any provisions to account for these circumstances. Instead, this bill works to criminalize choice, affecting the lives of many individuals. 

In addition to amending the language for abortion in the code, this bill also aims to redefine access to contraceptives. The revision states that so long as a contraceptive is not used to cause or induce an abortion it is allowed, but in so many cases, this language does not clearly set out the language for Plan B and other emergency contraceptives. Yet still, there has been extensive language on the many ways that persons will be prosecuted if they participate in “abortion related” activities, such as helping a young person go to another state to have an abortion. 

In South Carolina, a pro-life group, South Carolina Citizens For Life, has also spoken up against the bill, arguing that ‘Pro-lifers understand better than anyone else the desire to punish the purveyors of abortion who act callously and without regard to the dignity of human life. But turning women who have abortions into criminals, as S323 does, is not the way.’ This bipartisan concern powerfully underscores how much this bill could create significant damage in the State. 

When one person loses the right to make decisions about their own body, it impacts us all. Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, restrictions on reproductive healthcare have multiplied across the country, leaving millions without access to essential care. While anti-abortion extremists continue to promote policies and narratives that restrict access to reproductive healthcare, it becomes our duty to stand up for our rights. It becomes our mission to create a world where everybody, regardless of their choice, is free to live and not criminalized. It is our right to fight for a more just future.

Supreme Court appears poised to support Oregon city’s measures against public sleeping

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

Photo by Mihály Köles 

On Monday, April 22, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the case City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, marking one of the most significant cases on the issue of homelessness in years. This case comes amidst a record number of 650,000 people in 2023 reported as experiencing homelessness in the United States, a 12% increase from the previous year, highlighting the urgent need for reform and solutions to this crisis. The Supreme Court has elected to consider the moral question of “whether or not cities can punish people for sleeping outside when shelter space is lacking.”  

The City of Grants Pass v. Johnson case initially centered on Grants Pass, OR, a small city with a population of under 40,000, where individuals were fined $295 for sleeping outside despite rising living costs from 2013 to 2018. The plaintiff, Johnson, involuntarily homeless, was fined for sleeping in her van and camping in a public park. In response, the Oregon Law Center filed a suit in 2020, arguing that “unhoused people cannot be penalized for sleeping outside on public property without adequate alternatives.” The Medford Federal District Court agreed, citing violations of the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause and Excessive Fines Clause due to the absence of low-barrier shelters or alternative accommodations.

As this case awaits the Supreme Court’s decision, justices have made notable comments. Justice Sotomayor remarked, “You don’t arrest people who are sleeping on the beach,” while Justice Kagan acknowledged, “sleeping is a biological necessity,” underscoring that basic human needs should not be criminalized. Homelessness, rooted in systemic issues such as capitalism, is fundamentally a human problem. However, conservative judges have complicated matters by framing homelessness, the right to rest, shelter, and opportunity in overly complex ways. Failing to address homelessness beyond fines and blame risks further harm to those already struggling involuntarily.

Beyond Oregon, California, with the highest homelessness rate, has also tackled this crisis. In Sacramento in 2022, voters passed the Emergency Shelter and Enforcement Act, prohibiting camping on public property with a misdemeanor fine for noncompliance, contingent on available shelter accommodations. San Diego enacted the Unsafe Camping Ordinance with similar provisions. However, enforcement of these laws hinges on the availability of housing options. The prevailing view among lawmakers is the urgent need for safe accommodations for all.

As the Supreme Court deliberates, it is imperative to recognize that criminalizing human needs is not a viable solution. Addressing homelessness requires comprehensive, compassionate approaches that prioritize shelter, support, and dignity for all individuals.

Unpacking Trump’s Unprecedented Legal Saga

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

Former President Trump is currently embroiled in four criminal cases, facing a total of 91 felony counts. Among these cases, The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump is currently underway, garnering significant media coverage. This case, commonly referred to as the “Hush Money Case,” is the first of the criminal trials that the former president is facing as he gears up for the 2024 Presidential election. Trump’s indictment in March of last year marked a historic moment, as he became the first former President of the United States to face criminal charges.

The “Hush Money Case” revolves around allegations that Trump falsified business records after paying off former adult film actress Stormy Daniels to conceal an extramarital affair they had in 2006. To reduce the likelihood of political scandal during the 2016 election, the former president paid $130,000 in hush money to Daniels. Then, when Trump became president, he used funds from his business to pay his former lawyer, Michael Cohen. 

Recently, the trial for this case commenced, with nearly 100 prospective jurors initially summoned. However, approximately 50 were quickly dismissed due to concerns about impartiality. Outside the courthouse, anti-Trump protesters made their voices heard, reflecting the public interest in the case. 12 jurors have now been selected for the case.  

Apart from the “Hush Money Case,” Trump faces legal challenges in Georgia, Florida, and D.C. In Georgia, he is accused of interfering in the 2020 Presidential election by pressuring officials to “find 11,780 votes,” the margin he needed to surpass Biden’s vote count. While some charges in this case were dismissed, Trump and other defendants await trial for remaining felony offenses.

In D.C., Trump is charged with conspiracy-related offenses linked to his alleged interference in the 2020 election, including obstructing an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. Similarly, in Florida, he faces charges related to hoarding classified documents without proper clearance. Despite attempts to dismiss some cases, Trump awaits his trials as the American people weigh these legal challenges alongside their electoral decisions in November.

Polling reveals young voters’ priorities in the upcoming election

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

As the election approaches, attention remains focused on young voter engagement. On April 18th, the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics unveiled its Bi-Annual Harvard Youth Poll. From March 14th to 21st, the survey reached 2,010 young individuals aged 18 to 29. The findings shed light on key concerns among young voters, with Harvard’s Institute of Politics Director Setti Warren noting their growing interest in issues like the economy, foreign policy, immigration, and climate. Warren remarked that young people nationwide are increasingly eager to make their voices heard at the ballot box come November.

According to the survey results, President Joe Biden holds an eight-point lead over former President Trump among young voters. Notably, Biden leads by six points among men and thirty-three points among women. This is evidence of what Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority Foundation, coined as the “gender gap” in the 1980s. The gender gap is the difference in how men and women vote. Smeal initially attributed this gap to the Republican party’s failure to ratify the ERA constitutionally, which remains a strong identifier in election polling and analysis today. The Harvard results show a clear divide, suggesting that young women are leaning further left than men.

Among college students, Biden maintains a 23-point lead over Trump and a 47-point lead among college graduates. Additionally, while a significant portion of young Americans believe that the United States has an immigration crisis, they also believe that immigrants contribute positively to American culture and are against building a border wall. Half of the respondents believe that immigrants actively work to enhance the country’s cultural fabric and 45% disagree with the notion that immigrants lead to increased crime. This perspective underscores a more progressive mindset among young voters, shaping their expectations for candidates in this election.

In 2023, the Feminist Majority Foundation and Ms. Magazine, in partnership with Lake Research Partners, conducted a survey determining the most motivating issues for voters. The poll found that 74% of all voters support a person’s right to make their own reproductive decisions without government interference. Among these voters who support abortion rights, especially younger women, abortion and women’s rights combined are top issues that will determine their vote in November. 60% of voters identified as feminists, and 7 in 10 voters supported placing the Equal Rights Amendment in the Constitution. Abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment are strong voter turnout issues separately but even more powerful when combined. ​​ 

Still, in Harvard’s poll, only nine percent of young people believe the country is heading in the right direction, reflecting a lack of confidence in the current administration. Approval ratings for President Biden and his administration stand at thirty-one percent, a slight dip from Fall 2023. While a majority support student debt relief, Biden’s other economic, foreign policy, and environmental initiatives received lower approval ratings. This dissatisfaction underscores a need for the administration to address concerns among young voters, especially as issues like reproductive justice and rights continue to divide the nation.

Georgetown Law hosts ERA conference to strategize for the future

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

Rep. Cori Bush (MO-01) and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) join moderators for a discussion on the ERA.

Last Friday, April 12th, Georgetown Law, in partnership with the ERA Project at Columbia Law, hosted an inspiring conference entitled, “The Present and Future of the Equal Rights Amendment,” bringing together distinguished legal scholars, members of Congress, and political organizers to discuss the critical need for the ERA. The Columbia ERA Project, established in 2021, has been working tirelessly to raise awareness about the need to develop gender-based policies and justice.

Keynote remarks from Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Rep. Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), and Rep. Cori Bush (MO-01) reminded us about the importance of the grassroots initiatives and the current strategies dedicated to enshrining the ERA into the Constitution, including the joint resolution in both the House and Senate to remove the timeline and the House discharge petition to bring the ERA to the floor for a vote. Rep. Jennifer McClellan (VA-04) and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) also both recorded video messages to share their personal commitments to the ERA. 

The unique circumstances surrounding the history of the ERA continue to make it the center of an extensive conversation in constitutional law and at the forefront of the fight for gender equality. The conference began with a panel of legal experts who explored the path the ERA has taken over the past 100 years and the ERA’s impact on our current democracy. The ERA is argued to have faced the most roadblocks as an amendment and yet has also received the most bipartisan support. As discussed in the panel, a proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the states, or 38. The main legal disagreements surrounding the ERA have focused on the arbitrary timeline for ratification included in the preamble to the amendment when it passed Congress in 1972. Since the time limit was not included in the text of the amendment, the states did not vote on that language and it is not considered binding. Therefore, the ERA has met all requirements necessary to be a certified amendment to the US Constitution. 

What can you contribute to the movement: 

  • Sign the petition at SignERA: This is a petition dedicated to raising awareness and support for the importance of certifying the ERA as the 28th amendment. 
  • Campus organizing: Students can start their own Sign4ERA petition campaign on their college campus!
  • Reach out to your representatives: Rep. Pressley and Rep. Bush have both encouraged constituents to contact their elected officials to urge them to join the ERA Congressional Caucus. In addition, constituents can also inquire about where their representatives stand on the issue and if they have signed the discharge petition. 

Thank you to Victoria Nourse, a dedicated ERA activist, for hosting this event!

Arizona Supreme Court Upholds Archaic Abortion Law

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

On Tuesday, April 9, 2024, Arizona’s State Supreme Court upheld an 1864 abortion law that criminalizes abortions and imposes felony-time sentences on providers who perform them or assist women in obtaining them. Notably, the law does not provide exceptions for cases of rape and incest, but permits abortions solely to save a woman’s life. However, the court’s decision stipulates that the law will be enforced “prospectively.”

In a 4-2 majority opinion, the court declared, “Physicians are now on notice that all abortions, except those necessary to save a woman’s life, are illegal,” overturning a previous appellate court decision based on a 15-week gestational period interpretation. The court argued that since there are no state or federal prohibitions against the ban, it should be allowed to stand, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision. In 2022, the appellate court ruled in favor of medically trained and certified doctors performing legal abortions, while non-physicians were subject to penalties under the 1864 ban. However, the court’s loose definition of safety continues to jeopardize women’s health.

The 1864 ban predates Arizona’s statehood and reflects an era when women lacked rights during the Civil War. Arizona’s Democratic Attorney General, Kris Mayes, denounced the ruling as a “stain on our state,” affirming that women and doctors will not be prosecuted under the ban. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood Arizona, the largest abortion provider, will continue to offer abortion care until the law takes effect in 45 days.

Arizona’s situation mirrors recent developments in Florida, where the Supreme Court has banned abortions and is set to enforce a six-week ban soon. Arizona, grappling with fluctuating abortion rights, remains a battleground state for the upcoming November elections, with abortion rights garnering significant attention and support, evidenced by 500,000 signatures on related ballots.

The ongoing neglect of women’s protection, rights, and safety underscores the urgency for action. As reproductive rights and health dominate discussions leading up to the election, activists are called upon to advocate fiercely. It’s time to fight for meaningful change.

Department of Justice awards $4.14 million settlement to UMBC student-athletes

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

*Trigger Warning* This article contains sensitive information and subjects of sexual abuse, harassment, and assault that may be triggering for some readers. 

Student-athletes are finally being heard after undergoing years of sexual harassment and sexual discrimination from the late Head Swimming and Diving Team Coach, Chad Cradock. On Wednesday, April 3rd, the Department of Justice released a $4.14 million settlement agreement with the University of Maryland at Baltimore County after the conclusion of an investigation that the university and coach did commit numerous Title IX violations. The Justice Department hopes that this agreement sends “a resounding message” to other institutions about the fact that sexual abuse and harassment will no longer be ignored.

Cradock was also a former UMBC student, which allowed much of his behavior to go unnoticed and without consequence. Survivors of his harassment and abuse recalled that Chadrock “kissed male student-athlete’s necks, hugged them from behind, traced his fingers down their bare stomachs from their belly buttons toward their genitals, and massaged their bare skin.” The students also made clear that many times, the abuse took place within earshot of other members of the Athletics Department, and nothing was done to help the students. 

Students were explicitly reporting the abuse for many years. In 2015, however, a UMBC athletics staff member received a letter detailing their discomfort after a camera was used to film male students in the showers. The call for help only resulted in a flawed police investigation, where the Head Coach was given warning and was able to cover up evidence. Students continued to feel fearful about reporting these incidents, as whistleblowing could result in loss of scholarship or coaching as well as isolation from the team. 

Young women on the team recall their open sexual discrimination and intimate abuse encouraged by the head coach’s behavior. Cradock reportedly “generally disfavored” the young women on the team and often blamed them for the abuse they were enduring. In light of hypersexualization and sexual abuse from fellow men on the team, Cradock encouraged a culture of silencing of the young women on the team. They shared that “male student-athletes had sexually assaulted them, stalked them, and subjected them to dating violence.” 

Cradock even encouraged in-team dating, calling it “Swincest,” and was intimately involved in the athletes’ sex lives and relationships. When reports were made about the dating violence to the university administration, Title IX protocol was not followed. Instead, the head coach led biased mediation sessions, again highlighting another shortcoming of the University’s Title IX compliance efforts. 

After the Department of Justice’s investigation, the coach was banned, forced to retire, and would later on take his own life. The DOJ, under Title IX, has been able to reach a settlement agreement where the University of Maryland at Baltimore County will pay $4.14 million to the survivors, provide full-time support to those who have been victims of sexual violence and abuse, provide additional resources for the Title IX compliance program equipped with a coordinator, enforce clear guidelines for coaching staff, administer surveys to student-athletes on cases like this, and improve the process of reporting and investing sexual violence and abuse.

Although there is a road for reparations at UMBC, stories like this continue to happen across campus throughout the United States. Sexual violence and abuse continue to plague college students, and too many times, they are overlooked and silenced. As we intentionally take the time to talk about issues like this in April, it is essential to remember that there is still more to achieve in this fight. 

Florida Supreme Court’s ruling triggers DeSantis’ 6 week abortion ban

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

On April 1st, the conservative Florida Supreme Court ruled 4-3 to uphold the state’s 15-week abortion ban. As a result, the ruling has triggered Gov. Ron DeSantis’ extreme 6-week abortion ban, which is set to take effect in just 30 days. The state Supreme Court’s decision rests on the notion that the state constitution’s privacy clause has no basis to invalidate the 15-week ban abortion statute, following the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court when Roe was overturned. This has, ultimately, ended Florida’s status as a “safe haven” for Southern patients seeking abortion care from other states with even more restrictive legislation. 

However, voters could potentially overturn the amendment via a ballot initiative in November as long as the measure receives 60% of the votes. The ballot initiative, Amendment 4, would establish a constitutional right to abortion “before fetal viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health.” Viability is generally estimated to be around 24 weeks. 

In 2022, after the Dobbs Supreme Court decision, Ron DeSantis signed HB-5, the Reducing Fetal and Infant Mortality Act. This bill “prohibits an abortion after an unborn child has reached 15 weeks of gestation.” DeSantis then signed SB-300 in 2023, the Heartbeat Protection Act, which is said to protect “innocent, unborn life by prohibiting abortions after six weeks gestation.” These two pieces of legislation have been argued as going “far beyond where most Floridians would land on the issue,” exacerbating the discontent of constituents. 

It is clear that abortion rights will be front and center in November’s election as Florida joins at least 8 other states with ballot referendums centered around reproductive rights.

Olivia Rodrigo’s ‘GUTS’ Tour Spotlights Reproductive Justice Amidst Controversy

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

Reproductive rights have been a central focus of singer Olivia Rodrigo’s latest tour for her album, ‘GUTS.’ Early this year, Rodrigo launched her global non-profit, Fund 4 Good, dedicated to achieving an equitable world for women and girls, ending gender-based violence, and supporting people seeking reproductive healthcare. Proceeds from ticket sales from the tour have been used to support the cause. 

To continue to raise awareness of injustices against reproductive rights, Rodrigo has partnered with local chapters of the National Network of Abortion Funds. Most recently, on her tour in Missouri, a fan reported that they received Plan B, condoms, and information for an abortion hotline from the abortion fund workers. However, this raised concerns among many anti-abortion extremists, who believed that because children were at the concert, this was inappropriate. In addition, a Missouri State Senator responded, “As the father of a daughter, I am horrified by this,” and that Rodrigo “should be ashamed.” Rodrigo’s team announced they would no longer distribute emergency contraception at her shows.

Missouri is one of the 14 states where nearly all abortions are illegal. The law makes no exception for rape or incest; the only exceptions are for medical emergencies that threaten the life of the pregnant person. Yet still, Plan B, an over-the-counter emergency contraceptive, is available in pharmacies with no age requirement. However in certain states, pharmacists are able to refuse to fill prescriptions, because of a “conscience clause.” A conscience clause allows healthcare professionals to deny medical care and assistance based on personal beliefs. After the overturning of Roe v. Wade, many states have implemented clauses like this to further restrict reproductive rights. 

Access and awareness of contraceptives should not be something that young people are shielded from. Too often, state-by-state decisions prevent accessibility to reproductive care. It is time to have the “GUTS” to fight back. 

Alabama Governor Protects IVF Access

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

In early March, Republican Governor Kay Ivey signed the Alabama Senate bill SB159, which protects IVF from “civil and criminal immunity for death or damage to an embryo provided to persons.” This bipartisan bill was proposed in the wake of the recent state Supreme Court ruling that decided frozen embryos are protected by the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act of 1872, suggesting that “it applies to all unborn children, regardless of their location.” 

After the Court’s ruling, three major IVF clinics in the state paused treatment and patients immediately expressed their frustration. In response, Alabama state lawmakers proposed immunity for the IVF clinics to alleviate the risks from the court’s ruling. Governor Ivey, after signing, said, “I am pleased to sign this important, short-term measure into law so that couples in Alabama hoping and praying to be parents can grow their families through IVF.” Unfortunately, this is only a temporary solution for a more significant issue of embryos being seen as “children.” 

At the state level, embryonic personhood has been left undefined. Although passing this immunity bill protects against criminal charges, it is still not enough when considering that there is no confirmed consensus regarding the status of embryos, which can potentially lead to more legal issues going forward. 

The ERA Discharge Petition: Moving Forward

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

In January of 2023, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (MA-07) introduced H.J.Res.25 in the House to remove the arbitrary deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. The resolution has 209 co-sponsors. At the same time, Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) introduced an identical resolution in the Senate, S.J.Res.4, with 53 co-sponsors. 

In order to force H.J.Res.25 to a vote, Rep. Pressley launched a discharge petition for the bill. Once a majority of the House, 218 members, have signed the discharge petition, “it must immediately be brought before the full chamber for a vote,” bypassing the Republican Speaker of the House. The discharge petition currently has 206 signers. Reps. Ed Case (HI-01) and Josh Gottheimer (NJ-05) are the most recent signers, adding their names on February 15th, 2024. Only 12 more members need to sign on to bring it to a vote.  

In 2023, the Feminist Majority Foundation and Ms. Magazine commissioned Lake Research Partners to conduct a survey to determine the influence of abortion rights and the Equal Rights Amendment in turning out the vote. The polling shows that the ERA will be one of driving forces in the 2024 election. Abortion and the ERA are both strong issues that increase voter turnout separately, but are even more powerful when combined. Messaging that includes both abortion access and the ERA is incredibly motivating in mobilizing voters, especially young women. 

The Feminist Majority Foundation, along with the ERA Coalition and its partners — which include the League of Women Voters, AAUW, YWCA, and more — have been working tirelessly to secure the signatures on the discharge petition and are very close to reaching a majority. FMF and the coalition intend to make this a top issue for the 2024 elections.

Background on the Equal Rights Amendment

The ERA “guarantees equality of rights under the law for all persons regardless of sex.” Simply put, the ERA would work to eradicate the second-class citizenship of women in America. After passing the 19th Amendment in 1920, which gave American women the right to vote, women’s suffrage leaders Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman drafted the original ERA to codify the rights for gender equality. The amendment was active in Congress from 1923 forward and was introduced in every session of Congress.

Rep. Shirley Chislom (D-NY) and Rep. Martha Griffiths (D-MI) helped lead the efforts in Congress that resulted in the ERA’s passing. In March 1972, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY), who had initially refused to hold a hearing discussing the ERA, gave the necessary room for both the House and Senate to pass “identical” bills to support making the ERA an official constitutional amendment. 

Although this was a tremendous win, Congress gave a seven-year deadline for three-fourths of states to ratify the ERA. In 1978, however, only 35 states had done so, rather than the 38 required. In 1977, Congress extended the deadline for ratification by three years, but the necessary 38 was not reached. Although there was much pushback, the salience of the ERA grew to the extent that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg successfully argued “for a jurisprudence of gender equality under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.” The ERA became something people could no longer ignore. 

Where is it now? 

Since the twentieth century, women’s rights activists have continued to keep the ERA in the national conversation. Now more than ever, the codification of this amendment has become vital in establishing a more equally representative democracy, made clear by Rep. Pressley’s passionate discharge petition fight in Congress. Sign4ERA, founded by former Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, has started a petition campaign to mobilize individuals across the nation to voice their support for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment and urge Congress to act. You can add your name to the petition here.

Implications of the ERA 

The ERA would “affirm gender equality in our Constitution, enshrining the principle of equality and an explicit prohibition against sex discrimination in the nation’s foundational document.” The ERA is not simply granting equal rights in a superficial sense. Instead, it would “advance equality in the fields of workforce and pay, pregnancy discrimination, sexual harassment and violence, reproductive autonomy, and protections for LGBTQ+ individuals,” especially with reproductive rights being a primary concern in the election. Put simply, the ERA represents the culmination of the longstanding struggle for equal treatment and rights that many Americans have ardently advocated for. Its significance should transcend the limitations of state-by-state recognition. As Congresswoman Pressley has passionately stated, “there should be no deadline on equality.”

Kamala Harris’ Speaking Tour Highlights the Significance of Abortion in the Election

Posted on by Jaharra Anglin Stubbs

On January 22, 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris began her nationwide Reproductive Freedoms Tour on what should have been the 51st anniversary of the passing of Roe V. Wade. Arguably, the Vice President’s decision to start the tour on the anniversary is a testament to the important role that reproductive rights will play in the election, especially in the battleground state of Wisconsin, where the tour commenced. In Wisconsin, upon the Supreme Court’s overturning, abortion in the state was deemed illegal for 15 months. 

Historically, reproductive rights have been a polarizing issue for the American people. This visible contention is due to the pro-choice and pro-life dichotomy birthed out of the fight for rights, which inevitably rethought the civil liberties of all people. This sentiment has been at the heart of the tour’s mission, especially as the Vice President stated, “Every time reproductive freedom has been on the ballot, the people of America have voted for freedom.”  It is not that reproductive rights have become merely a rallying issue for women, but a call to action for all Americans. 

As the Vice President stands on the battlefield where reproductive rights continue to be targeted, the American people are being called into action to make a decision not in the name of choice but in the name of freedom. Thus, in this prime moment, Vice President Harris finds herself persuading voters to consider how the overturning of Roe has led to drastic changes that challenge the liberties and freedom that our founders fought for. 

For the Biden-Harris administration, the civil rights of the American people have been at the core of the administration’s interest, especially when considering their predecessor, who has been associated with the loss of these freedoms. As the Biden-Harris campaign continues to rally its base around reproductive rights, the campaign has released a new campaign ad entitled “Forced,” where an OBGYN personally reflects on her need for abortion and reaffirms that this issue could have been avoided had it not been for the previous administration.

Overturning Roe v. Wade has gone beyond the right for a woman to choose, but has also critically refashioned the freedoms and civil liberties for which our democracy has become an icon. It will inevitably play a significant role in November’s election.

>