U.S. Court of Appeals Rules Against Web Designer Seeking License to Discriminate Against LGBTQ+ Couples

On Monday, the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals maintained a lower court’s decision to reject a Colorado web designer’s request to discriminate against LGBTQ+ couples.

Lorie Smith, the owner of the web design business 303 Creative LLC, challenged the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) by suing to request that her business be allowed to deny LGBTQ+ couples wedding website design services. In addition, Smith wanted to add a statement to 303 Collective’s website describing her anti-LGBTQ+ policy. She argued that to offer web design services to same-sex couples would go against her religious beliefs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals voted 2-1 against Smith, ruling that she did not have the right to be exempt from CADA and refuse service to same-sex couples.

The court wrote in the majority opinion that “Colorado has a compelling interest in protecting both the dignity interests of members of marginalized groups and their material interests in accessing the commercial marketplace.”

Lambda Legal, an LGBTQ+ rights organization, filed an amicus brief in the case to defend CADA and celebrated the court’s decision.

“This is a tremendous ruling that properly situates our cherished freedoms of speech and religion among the important rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, while also understanding that the State of Colorado has a compelling interest and responsibility to end discrimination in the commercial sphere,” Jennifer C. Pizer, Senior Counsel at Lambda Legal, said in a statement.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative anti-LGBTQ+ legal organization, represented Smith in the case. The Southern Poverty Law Center has classified ADF as a hate group. ADF has said they will be appealing the Tenth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court.

“Make no mistake, this was another attempt by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) to chip away at hard-won civil rights secured for LGBT people and their families,” Pizer said. “But the appellate court today saw through ADF’s transparent and continuing effort to secure a ‘free to discriminate’ card to exempt 303 Creative from the laws all other Colorado businesses are expected to follow.”

“This really isn’t about cakes or websites or flowers. It’s about protecting LBGTQ people and their families from being subjected to slammed doors, service refusals, and public humiliation in countless places—from fertility clinics to funeral homes, and everywhere in between.”

Sources: Lambda Legal 7/26/21; Colorado Public Radio 7/27/21; The Colorado Sun 7/27/21

Biden Announces Plan to Protect “Long Covid” Patients Under Federal Disability Law on 31st Anniversary of Americans with Disabilities Act

On Monday, President Joe Biden honored the 31st anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act by announcing a new initiative to qualify “long Covid” symptoms as disability and grant Americans with “long Covid” protections under the ADA.

People who suffer from “long Covid” experience serious and ongoing health issues that originated from a previous Covid-19 infection.

“Many Americans seemingly recovered from the virus still face lingering challenges like breathing problems, brain fog, chronic pain and fatigue,” Biden said. “These conditions can sometimes rise to the level of disability. So we’re bringing agencies together to make sure Americans with long covid, who have a disability, have access to the rights and resources that are due under the disability law, which includes accommodations and services.”

President Biden made these remarks in the Rose Garden during the celebration of the 31st anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The historic civil rights act bans discrimination against people with disabilities and mandates accessibility in public places, such as workplaces, schools, and public transportation.

Biden had been a co-sponsor of the ADA when it was first introduced in Congress. In 1990, Former President George H.W. Bush signed the bill into law.

Although the Biden administration’s guidance regarding “long Covid” patients does not automatically include “long Covid” as a disability, it does allow a person suffering from the condition to undergo an “individualized assessment” to ascertain if their symptoms “substantially limits a major life activity” and can be considered a disability.

“We are glad that the White House recognizes that many COVID long haulers will not be part of the disability community, and therefore are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act,” Nicole Jorwic, senior director of public policy for the Arc, a disability rights organization, told Bloomberg Law.

“The ADA gives all Americans the opportunity to determine their own future,” said Vice President Kamala Harris at the Rose Garden ceremony. “Self-determination, which I believe the government must facilitate, that is the impact of the ADA and after all, the promise of America.”

“For our nation, the ADA is more than a law,” Biden said.

“It’s a testament to our character as a people, our character as Americans. It’s a triumph of American values. But of course, this law didn’t bring an end to the work we need to do today.” 

Sources: Washington Post 7/26/21; New York Times 7/26/21; The Hill 7/26/21; Department of Health and Human Services 7/26/21; Bloomberg Law 7/26/21

Thousands of People Celebrate Pride in Hungary Despite Anti-LGBTQ Legislation

On Saturday, 300,000 people marched in Budapest for the annual Pride parade to both celebrate Pride and protest the Hungarian government’s recent homophobic legislation.

The Hungarian Parliament passed a law in June that restricts media seen to promote homosexuality or gender nonconformity. Content that is considered to do so must be labeled as “not recommended for those under 18 years of age.” Additionally, any educational materials that the government sees as promoting homosexuality or gender nonconformity are prohibited for children. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán supports the law.

“In the past two years, we’ve had a government attack against the LGBTQI community, a lot of hate speech and also adoption of restrictive legislation when it comes to transgender rights, adoption, and most recently, a Russian-style propaganda law,” said Tamás Dombos, a board member of the Háttér Society, Hungary’s leading LGBTQ+ rights organization.

Marchers at the Budapest Pride parade wore bright colors, sang, danced, and waved rainbow flags in defiance of Hungary’s latest discriminatory law. Attendance at the Pride celebration Saturday was the largest it has ever been, according to the event organizers.

Prime Minister Orbán plans to hold a referendum on the new law due to an outcry of criticism against the legislation from the European Union, other members of the international community, and the Hungarian people.

“A lot of people came to show their support and to show that not everyone thinks like our government,” Dombos said of the march. “It feels really nice that so many people turned up.”

“There’s power in numbers,” Balint Rigo, a Pride organizer, said to CNN. “We may not be able to change anything in the short term, but together we’re a symbol of solidarity.”

Sources: CNN 7/24/21; New York Times 6/15/21; Politico 7/24/21; New York Times 7/24/21; CNN 7/21/21

Texas Senate Passes Bill that No Longer Requires Schools to Teach the History of Marginalized Groups or White Supremacy

Last week, the Texas Senate passed SB 3, a new bill that would eliminate several social studies curriculum requirements from public schools. Most of the omitted requirements involved teaching the history of marginalized populations and the history of white supremacy in the United States.

The Texas Senate voted to pass the bill 18-4. However, it has yet to be voted on in the House, due to the group of Texas House Democrats who left the state for D.C. to protest Texas’s new restrictive voting bill.

Senate Bill 3 drops many of the curriculum requirements outlined in House Bill 3979, a previous education bill signed into law by Texas Governor Greg Abbott in June. HB 3979 is set to take effect in September.

HB 3979 would require social studies curriculums in Texas public schools to teach “historical documents related to the civic accomplishments of marginalized populations,” as well as the history of the Chicano movement, the civil rights movement, women’s suffrage, Native Americans, and the American labor movement. It also requires the teaching of writings from Frederick Douglass, Dolores Huerta, Susan B. Anthony, Abigail Adams, Cesar Chavez, and Martin Luther King Jr.

SB 3 eliminates all of these requirements from the agenda.

Additionally, HB 3979 requires schools to teach “the history of white supremacy, including but not limited to the institution of slavery, the eugenics movement, and the Ku Klux Klan, and the ways in which it is morally wrong.”

This provision has also been excluded from the new Senate Bill 3, meaning public schools would no longer be required to teach that slavery, eugenics, or the Ku Klux Klan are morally wrong.

The bill also limits how teachers can teach current events.

“Incredibly, Senate Bill 3 specifies that a teacher may not discuss current events or controversial issues of public policy or social affairs unless the educator ‘strives to explore the topic from diverse and contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective,’” said Texas State Senator Judith Zaffirini (D).

“How could a teacher possibly discuss slavery, the Holocaust, or the mass shootings at the Walmart in El Paso or at the Sutherland Springs church in my district ‘without giving deference to any one perspective?’”

“We must trust our teachers,” Texas House Representative Jarvis Johnson (D) wrote on Twitter. “We must defend the truth in our classrooms. SB 3 does the opposite.”

Sources: Texas State Legislature 7/16/21; CNN 7/22/21; NBC News 7/21/21; Huffington Post 7/19/21

Anti-Trans Laws in Arkansas and West Virginia Blocked by Federal Judges

On Wednesday, federal judges blocked two anti-trans state laws from going into effect. The first, an Arkansas law, would prohibit physicians from providing gender-affirming care to transgender youth. The second, a West Virginia law, banned transgender girls and women from playing in women’s public-school sports.

The Arkansas law would ban doctors from offering necessary gender-confirming treatment to trans youth under 18 years old. The prohibited treatments include hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and gender confirmation surgery. Arkansas is the first state to enact such a law.

U.S. District Court Judge Jay Moody placed a preliminary injunction on the law, preventing it from going into effect when scheduled on July 28. The injunction temporarily ensures that the law will not be enforced until Judge Moody makes a final ruling on the lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in May.

“To pull care midstream from these patients, or minors, would cause irreparable harm,” said Judge Moody.

The ban had originally been vetoed by Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson. The Arkansas state legislature, however, overrode Gov. Hutchinson’s veto.

Hutchinson argued that “the act was too extreme and did not provide any relief for those young people currently undergoing hormone treatments with the consent of their parents and under the care of a physician.”

“This ruling sends a clear message to states across the country that gender-affirming care is life-saving care, and we won’t let politicians in Arkansas—or anywhere else—take it away,” said the executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas, Holly Dickson. “Today’s victory is a testament to the trans youth of Arkansas and their allies, who never gave up the fight to protect access to gender-affirming care and who will continue to defend the right of all trans people to be their authentic selves, free from discrimination. We won’t rest until this cruel and unconstitutional law is struck down for good.”

The West Virginia law, also temporarily blocked by a federal judge on Wednesday, bans trans athletes from participating in women’s public middle school, high school, and college sports.

In May, the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia and Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit against the state to challenge the ban on behalf of Becky Pepper-Jackson, an 11-year-old transgender girl who wanted to try out for her middle-school cross country team.

The sports ban had already gone into effect this month. The preliminary injunction, issued by U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin, prevents West Virginia from continuing to enforce the law.

“I am excited to know that I will be able to try out for the girls’ cross-country team and follow in the running shoes of my family,” said Pepper-Jackson. “It hurt that the State of West Virginia would try to block me from pursuing my dreams. I just want to play.”

“Becky—like all students—should have the opportunity to try out for a sports team and play with her peers,” said Josh Block, senior staff attorney with the ACLU LGBTQ & HIV Project.

“We hope this also sends a message to other states to stop demonizing trans kids to score political points and to let these kids live their lives in peace.”

Sources: CBS News 7/21/21; NPR 7/21/21; CNN 7/21/21; ACLU 7/21/21; CNN 7/21/21; ACLU 7/21/21; ACLU 7/21/21

Federal Judge Blocks Arkansas Law Banning Almost All Abortions

On Tuesday, a federal judge placed a preliminary injunction on an Arkansas law that would ban most abortions. The temporary block ensures that the law will not go into effect until a final ruling on the legality of the ban is made.

U.S. District Court Judge Kristine Baker blocked the law, which would prohibit all abortions except for those performed in a medical emergency to save a pregnant person’s life. The ban does not allow for abortions in the case of rape, incest, or fetal abnormalities. Because the law prohibits abortions before the fetus is viable, Judge Baker said the measure was “categorically unconstitutional.”

“Since the record at this stage of the proceedings indicates that women seeking abortions in Arkansas face an imminent threat to their constitutional rights, the court concludes that they will suffer irreparable harm without injunctive relief,” Judge Baker wrote in her decision.

Several reproductive and civil rights groups, such as Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a lawsuit in May to challenge the Arkansas ban. 

The bill was signed into law in March by Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, and it would have taken effect on July 28. Gov. Hutchinson signed the bill despite acknowledging that it was “not constitutional under Supreme Court cases right now.”

The measure was designed to challenge Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision made in 1973 that makes abortion legal in the United States, as Gov. Hutchinson explicitly said. “I signed it because it is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade,” he told CNN in March on “State of the Union.”

Holly Dickson, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arkansas, applauded Judge Baker’s decision. “We’re relieved that the court has blocked another cruel and harmful attempt to criminalize abortion care and intrude on Arkansans’ deeply personal medical decisions,” she said.

“The court’s ruling today should serve as a stark reminder to anti-abortion politicians in Arkansas and other states that they cannot strip people of their right to make the deeply personal decision about whether to have an abortion or continue a pregnancy,” said staff attorney for the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, Meagan Burrows.

“We’ll continue to fight to make sure abortion stays legal in Arkansas and that the state’s unconstitutional ban is struck down for good.”

Sources: CNN 7/20/21; Arkansas State Legislature 3/9/21; Washington Post 7/21/21; NPR 7/2/21

Indiana “Abortion Reversal” Law Blocked by Federal Judge

A federal judge blocked an Indiana abortion law from going into effect that would have required abortion providers to give misinformation to patients seeking a medication abortion.

The law said doctors were obligated to tell their patients about the possibility of “abortion reversal”—a contested process for potentially stopping an abortion that has no scientific backing. Indiana Governor Eric Holcomb signed the law in April, and it would have taken effect July 1.

U.S. District Judge James Patrick Hanlon made the ruling in late June, just before the “abortion reversal” law would have gone into effect. In his decision, he argued that the effectiveness of the “abortion reversal” process had never been proven, and that the reproductive rights groups who filed the lawsuit would likely be successful in proving their argument that the law’s requirement would infringe upon abortion providers’ rights to free speech. Hanlon was appointed by former President Donald Trump.

“While the State may require abortion providers to give a woman seeking an abortion certain types of information as part of the informed-consent process, that information must, at a minimum, be truthful and not misleading,” wrote Hanlon in his decision.

The “abortion reversal” process is said to reverse a medication abortion, although there is little accurate scientific evidence to prove this. In fact, attempting to reverse a medication abortion can be very dangerous.

Medication abortion uses two drugs, mifepristone and misoprostol, to terminate a pregnancy. Mifepristone is taken first, and misoprostol is taken 24 to 48 hours later. Proponents of “abortion reversal” claim that if a person changes their mind about ending a pregnancy after taking mifepristone, they can “reverse” the abortion by not taking misoprostol and instead taking large amounts of progesterone. However, the only clinical trial on this treatment was terminated after patients experienced severe bleeding and had to go to the emergency room, Rewire News Group reported.

“Women who use mifepristone for medical abortions should be advised that not following up with misoprostol could result in severe hemorrhage,” said UC Davis Health’s Dr. Mitchell Creinin, the principal investigator of the clinical study.

Several abortion-rights groups challenged the Indiana law in court, including Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, All Options, and others.

The plaintiffs of the case also argued that the Indiana law specifically targets abortion providers and patients seeking abortions. They wrote in the lawsuit that “no other healthcare providers are required to inform their patients about experimental medical interventions, the safety and efficacy of which are wholly unsupportable by reliable scientific evidence, and no other patients are required to receive such information as a condition of treatment.”

The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also assert that there is no scientific backing to “reversing” a medication abortion, and information on the process’s safety is limited.

“Providers should not be forced to give patients inaccurate and dangerous information,” said the executive director of All Options, Parker Dockray. “Pregnant people deserve better—they need accurate information about all their options, and support to make the decisions that are right for them.”

Sources: The Hill 6/30/21; AP 6/30/21; Rewire News Group 7/9/21; Rewire News Group 12/6/19

Federal District Judge Rules DACA Illegal and Blocks New Applications

Judge Andrew Hanen, a federal district judge in Texas, ruled that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was unlawful on Friday.

While the decision will not immediately affect current DACA recipients, it will temporarily prevent new applicants from being admitted to the program.

Former President Obama created the DACA program in 2012 by executive order. It has since protected over 800,000 undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. when they were children from being deported. DACA was meant to be a temporary program used in the absence of concrete legislation that would provide a pathway to citizenship for such immigrants. However, Congress has yet to pass any legislation that would offer undocumented immigrants the same protections that DACA affords.

Although current DACA recipients can still live and work in the U.S., Hanen’s ruling once again calls into question the program’s legality and thus the fate of these recipients, as well as hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants who have applied for DACA. 

“I was banking on this to start my career,” said Sarahi Magallanez, a first-time DACA applicant, to the New York Times. “Now there is a chance I can’t. DACA is not safe, and we are at the mercy of whoever is in power.”

Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, and West Virginia all filed a lawsuit against DACA, arguing that it forced them to pay burdensome benefits for immigrants in their states and gave the Executive Branch too much power. Judge Hanen ruled in favor of the states, saying that the program is unlawful because the Department of Homeland Security had never been authorized by Congress to create the program. Hanen was appointed by former President George W. Bush.

In a statement, President Biden said, “Yesterday’s Federal court ruling is deeply disappointing. While the court’s order does not now affect current DACA recipients, this decision nonetheless relegates hundreds of thousands of young immigrants to an uncertain future.”

President Biden has also said that the Department of Justice will be appealing Hanen’s decision. The ruling has sparked increased calls for Congress to implement a permanent way for undocumented immigrants to obtain citizenship.

“The dreams of hundreds of thousands of young people who are contributing to the American economy will be put on hold for no good reason,” wrote Representative Joaquin Castro (D-TX) on Twitter. “Congress must pass a pathway to citizenship this year. We can’t wait.”

“Dreamers’ futures shouldn’t be in the hands of the courts,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “It is absolutely urgent that Congress acts now through the budget reconciliation process to provide Dreamers and other undocumented members of our communities with reliable status and a pathway to citizenship.”

Former President Obama said of the ruling on Twitter, “For more than nine years, DREAMers have watched courts and politicians debate whether they’ll be allowed to stay in the only country many of them have ever known. It’s long past time for Congress to act and give them the protection and certainty they deserve.”

Sources: CNN 7/17/21; New York Times 7/16/21; NPR 7/17/21

“Good Trouble Vigils for Democracy” Held Across the Nation to Honor John Lewis

Across the country, people gathered to honor the legacy of the late Representative John Lewis (D-GA) with candlelight vigils on Saturday.

People met in-person and virtually for these nationwide “Good Trouble Vigils for Democracy” to mark the one-year anniversary of Rep. Lewis’s death and continue his legacy by protesting the current onslaught of voter suppression laws.

Rep. Lewis was a prominent civil rights leader and voting rights activist who fought against voter suppression and worked to expand and protect the right to vote throughout his life. He died at the age of 80, one year ago Saturday.

According to Gloria Moore, Georgia’s Dekalb County Democratic Committee Third Vice-Chair, 158 candlelight vigils were held across 42 states to remember Lewis and his work.

Rep. Lewis was a strong proponent of the phrase “good trouble,” encouraging activists to make change by getting into good trouble.

“Do not get lost in a sea of despair,” Lewis tweeted in June of 2018. “Be hopeful, be optimistic. Our struggle is not the struggle of a day, a week, a month, or a year, it is the struggle of a lifetime. Never, ever be afraid to make some noise and get in good trouble, necessary trouble.”

The vigils Saturday aimed to pay tribute to Lewis by promoting this sense of hope and encouraging Congress to pass the For the People Act, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and D.C. Statehood.

Moore emphasized the importance of passing these bills to Lewis’s legacy. “It’s really important that we get people to focus on the fact that the John Lewis Voting Rights Act is an expansion of the original Voting Rights Act that he fought so hard for,” she told Decaturish at Dekalb County’s Good Trouble Vigil for Democracy in Georgia. “We have to make that happen.”

Sources: Atlanta Journal-Constitution 7/17/21; Good Trouble Vigil 7/17/21; Decaturish 7/19/21; Feminist Newswire 7/16/21; USA Today 7/18/21

Representative Joyce Beatty Arrested at Voting Rights Protest on Capitol Hill

On Thursday, Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-OH), Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, was arrested while protesting for voting rights in a Senate office building.

U.S. Capitol Police arrested Rep. Beatty and eight other activists who were demonstrating in the atrium of the Hart Senate Office Building. In a statement, police said they arrested the protestors for “demonstrating in a prohibited area on Capitol Grounds.”

Rep. Beatty, along with a small group of 12 protesters, were participating in a small, peaceful rally as part of the “Speak Out: Call to Action Day on Capitol Hill” event. They were demonstrating to defend the right to vote and protest the current wave of restrictive voting laws being introduced and passed in state legislatures.

“I stand in solidarity with the Black women and allies across the country in defense of our constitutional right to vote,” Beatty said in a statement after her arrest. “We have come too far and fought too hard to see everything systematically dismantled and restricted by those who wish to silence us. Be assured that this is just the beginning. This is Our Power, Our Message.”

On Twitter, Beatty posted photos of police zip-tying her hands. She captioned the photos, “Let the people vote. Fight for justice.” She then tweeted the hashtag #GoodTrouble, referencing the late Representative John Lewis (D-GA). Lewis was a civil rights leader who encouraged activists to make change by getting into “good trouble.”

Demonstrators called on senators to pass the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, two bills that would protect and expand the right to vote. They also chanted to end the filibuster, which would eliminate the legislative block that has prevented the bills from being passed in the Senate. 

Deborah Scott, a protester who came from Georgia to participate in the demonstration, said “The filibuster silences our votes and our voices. What we did in Georgia is being affected. We turned the vote out, and now to see Congress not fight for our rights means, we had to come here.”

Beatty wrote on Twitter, “You can arrest me. You can’t stop me. You can’t silence me.”

Sources: CNN 7/15/21; U.S. Capitol Police 7/15/21; Congresswoman Joyce Beatty 7/15/21; Twitter 7/15/21; New York Times 7/15/21; Washington Post 7/15/21; Twitter 7/15/21

DACA Application Backlog Puts Thousands of Recipients at Risk of Losing Work Permits

As a result of a paperwork backlog caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) application and renewal process has been significantly delayed, preventing undocumented people from receiving DACA benefits and existing DACA recipients from being able to work due to expired permits.

Over 62,000 first-time DACA applications had been submitted to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) as of May 31st, but only 1,900 of those applications had been adjudicated by that date.

According to a CNN report Wednesday, about 13,000 DACA recipients have been waiting over four months for their renewal cases to be processed by the USCIS. These 13,000 recipients can lose their ability to work in the U.S. if their permits are not renewed on time. DACA recipients are required to renew every two years.

Ju Hong, a DACA recipient since 2012, was fired from his job and lost his health insurance because the USCIS did not renew his permit on time, CNN reported. Hong had applied for a renewal when expected, but his permit expired due to USCIS’s backlog and subsequent delays.

Luckily, Hong was notified on Wednesday that his DACA permit had been renewed. He is now waiting on approval of his work authorization.

In response to the delays caused by the paperwork backlog, the Biden administration is set to increase the number of immigration officers assigned to process DACA applications and renewal cases. The USCIS is also addressing technical issues, staffing shortages, and other administrative difficulties that have led to delays.

“I am pleased to see USCIS has taken action following our call to address DACA delays, and I am hopeful that their recent efforts, including training more officers on initial DACA applications, will help address the challenges facing our Dreamers,” said Senator Cortez Masto (D-NV). “Moving forward, USCIS must continue to prioritize speeding up their application processing, so Dreamers are not suffering the consequences of delays.”

DACA recipients are already unsure of the reliability of the program, as an upcoming court decision in Texas over DACA’s legality could upend recipients’ status.

The House passed a bill in March that would give DACA recipients the opportunity to apply for permanent legal status and ultimately citizenship. However, the bill is unlikely to garner enough votes in the Senate.

“Even with DACA in place, we know that Dreamers live in a constant state of fear about their status and their future,” said Vice President Harris in a meeting with immigrant care workers on Tuesday.

“It is critically important that we provide a pathway to citizenship to give people a sense of certainty and a sense of security.”

Sources: The Hill 7/14/21; CBS 7/13/21; CNN 7/15/21;

Reproductive Rights Organizations File Lawsuit Challenging Texas Abortion Law that Incentivizes Citizen Enforcement

On Tuesday, Abortion rights organizations filed a federal lawsuit aimed at blocking a Texas six-week abortion ban. The law would allow individuals to sue anyone thought to have helped someone obtain an abortion.

Whole Woman’s Health, Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the ACLU, and other parties are challenging the Texas law, which encourages citizens to enforce the ban by offering individuals a $10,000 award for every successful suit brought against someone aiding an abortion.

Private citizens would be empowered to sue anyone who helps a woman get an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, including someone who offers financial assistance for the abortion, transportation to a clinic, or even “a sexual assault counselor who calls an abortion clinic on behalf of a patient.” 

“The state has put a bounty on the head of any person or entity who so much as gives a patient money for an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, before most people even know they are pregnant. Worse, it will intimidate loved ones from providing support for fear of being sued,” Nancy Northup, the president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said of the law.

The organizations filing the lawsuit argue that “the burdens of the cruel law will fall most heavily on Black, Latinx, and indigenous patients who, because of systemic racism, already encounter substantial barriers to obtaining health care, and will face particular challenges and injuries if forced to attempt to seek care out of state or else carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.”

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, between 85%-90% of people who get an abortion in Texas are already at least six weeks pregnant. This means that the Texas six-week ban would effectively illegalize all abortion in the state.

Because the ban will be enforced by private citizens rather than government officials, the law is much more difficult to challenge. Abortion rights organizations cannot sue the state officials usually responsible for enforcing such laws as they have in the past. For this reason, the plaintiffs of this lawsuit must instead sue a variety of other parties who may help enforce the law, such as state court trial judges, county clerks, and other judicial branch officials. Other defendants include the heads of the Texas State Board of Pharmacy, the Texas Medical Board, and the Texas Board of Nursing.

The law, SB 8, will go into effect in September if it is upheld.

“If the oppressive law takes effect, it will decimate abortion access in Texas—and that’s exactly what it is designed to do,” Northup said. “We will pursue every legal avenue we can to block this pernicious law.”

Sources: Center for Reproductive Rights 7/13/21; CNN 7/13/21; Washington Post 7/13/21; Center for Reproductive Rights 7/13/21l; New York Times 7/13/21; LegiScan 5/19/21

House Subcommittee Advances HHS Spending Bill without Hyde Amendment

On Monday, the House Appropriations Labor and Health and Human Services subcommittee advanced a spending bill for the Department of Health and Human Services that does not include the Hyde Amendment.

The 1976 Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds, specifically Medicaid, for abortion care. It disproportionately affects women of color and low-income women who require Medicaid for their health care. The Hyde Amendment has never been excluded from an HHS spending bill until now.

This exclusion of the Hyde Amendment comes after President Biden released a $6 trillion federal budget plan in May that also does not include the Hyde Amendment.

In response to the President’s budget proposal, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) said, “we’re seeing real momentum towards repealing Hyde.”

“I know this is an issue on which many of us disagree,” Appropriations Committee Chairperson Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) said of the HHS spending bill’s exclusion of Hyde. “But regardless of the original intent of Hyde, it has disproportionately impacted women of color, and it has ultimately led to more unintended pregnancies and later riskier, and more costly abortions.”

“We are finally doing what is right for our mothers, our families, our communities by striking this discriminatory amendment, once and for all,” she said.

Destiny Lopez, Co-President of All* Above All, an abortion justice organization, said in a statement, “Let’s get this bill across the finish line and make it clear that people working to make ends meet should not be denied access to abortion just because of how they are insured.”

Although challenges to the Hyde Amendment are growing, the movement to repeal the Helms Amendment, which restricts U.S. foreign aid from being used for abortion care internationally, has not gained as much traction.

In March, however, Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) introduced the Abortion is Health Care Everywhere Act that would effectively repeal the Helms Amendment. Her bill would allow the use of U.S. funding for abortion services abroad.

Repealing the Helms Amendment would be “a way to show solidarity with women around the world,” said Representative Schakowsky.

Sources: The Hill 7/12/21; Axios 7/12/21; Feminist Newswire 5/28/21; Twitter, 7/11/21; Washington Post 3/9/21

Biden Administration Directs ICE to Stop Detaining Most Pregnant, Postpartum, and Nursing People

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement released a new guidance that says ICE will no longer arrest or detain individuals who are pregnant, postpartum, or nursing unless there are special circumstances.

“Generally ICE should not detain, arrest, or take into custody for an administrative violation of the immigration laws individuals known to be pregnant, postpartum or nursing unless release is prohibited by law or exceptional circumstances exist,” wrote ICE acting Director Tae Johnson in the July 1 memo.

This new Biden administration policy takes a turn away from the Trump administration’s restrictive immigration policies. In 2017, former President Trump reversed an Obama administration guidance that had directed ICE to try to release any pregnant woman in ICE custody. According to a Government Accountability Report conducted in 2019, Trump’s directive led ICE to detain 2,089 pregnant women and 381 nursing women in 2018. This was a 52% increase from the 1,380 pregnant people detained during the last year of the Obama administration.

The new ICE directive is more expansive than the Obama-era policy in that it not only applies to pregnant people, but it also applies to people who are nursing and who have given birth within the last year. It also uses gender neutral language, meaning transgender men are protected by the policy as well as women.

“This action by the Biden administration is a welcome step in the right direction. This move brings us closer to more humane treatment by ICE of people who are pregnant, postpartum, or nursing,” said senior staff attorney with the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, Eunice Cho, in response to the ICE guidance.

However, since Biden’s new policy was not issued through legislation, it is possible that this protection could be reversed by another administration.

Breanne J. Palmer, a lawyer for UndocuBlack Network, said, “Any change in presidential administration can materially change people’s lives, especially immigrants and folks who are kind of trying to navigate their way through the immigration system. People who endure detention when they’re pregnant or nursing, you know, they really have very little recourse.”

“It’s great to see the administration directing ICE to finally take meaningful steps to limit enforcement activities in this manner,” said Jorge Loweree, the director of policy at the American Immigration Council, “and we are hopeful that this announcement is an indication of a broader shift on detention policy.”

Sources: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 7/1/21; CNN 7/9/21; The Hill 7/9/21; Washington Post 7/9/21; New York Times 7/9/21

2021 Has the Most Abortion Restrictions on Record, Says Guttmacher Institute Report

According to a report released by the Guttmacher Institute last Thursday, 2021 is already the worst year for abortion rights in the United States. 90 abortion restrictions have been enacted by state legislatures in the first half of 2021 alone.

The report lists 11 bans on abortion passed in eight states, including Arkansas, Oklahoma, Idaho, South Carolina, Texas, Montana, South Dakota and Arizona.

Arkansas and Oklahoma have passed laws that ban abortion at any time during pregnancy. The only exception to this outright ban is when the pregnancy endangers the patient’s life.

Idaho, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas have all banned abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. The Texas ban is particularly restrictive, as there is no exception made for rape or incest.

“When you factor in the time it takes to confirm a pregnancy, consider your options and make a decision, schedule an appointment and comply with all the restrictions politicians have already put in place for patients and providers, a six-week ban essentially bans abortion outright,” said Dyana Limon-Mercado, the executive director of Planned Parenthood Texas Votes.

Additionally, the Texas law allows any private citizen to sue a person who helps someone get an abortion after six weeks, including the abortion provider. This will make it harder for abortion providers to challenge the law, since any individual can use a lawsuit to enforce the ban.

“Texas is inviting anti-abortion protestors to police abortion clinics and harass providers, even though the state knows that these kind of bans are unconstitutional,” said Elisabeth Smith, the Center for Reproductive Rights’ chief counsel of state policy and advocacy. “The goal is to saddle doctors and clinics with so many lawsuits that they have no resources left to stay open.”

Alexis McGill Johnson, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said of the Texas ban, “With its private cause-of-action provision, this bill is one of the most extreme in the country and sets a dangerous precedent.”

The Guttmacher Institute’s report also lists two “trigger” bans enacted by Oklahoma and Texas which would become law if Roe v. Wade were overturned.

Montana passed a gestational ban this year that prohibits abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy. South Dakota has enacted a ban on abortion if the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome, and Arizona passed a law banning abortion if there is a fetal abnormality.

Eight states, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and West Virginia have created legislation that restricts access to medication abortion, which places an unnecessary burden on patients seeking abortion care.

While numerous state legislatures have severely limited abortion access, a few states have passed laws to protect the right to an abortion. One such law, enacted in Washington, mandates that “college health insurance plans that cover maternity care must now also cover abortion care,” and a Hawaii law now allows advanced practice nurses to administer both medication abortion and procedural abortion.

“In 2022, one thing is clear,” said NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia in a tweet Wednesday, “we need to fight harder than ever to protect and expand abortion access.”

Sources: Guttmacher Institute 7/1/21; NPR 5/19/21; Texas Tribune 5/19/21; Feminist Newswire 5/20/21; Twitter 7/7/21

Teachers’ Unions Pledge to Defend Teachers Against Critical Race Theory Backlash

On Tuesday, the country’s second-largest teachers’ union announced its commitment to offer legal protection to teachers who face repercussions for how they teach the history of race and racism in the United States.

The president of the American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, said during a virtual union conference, “Mark my words: Our union will defend any member who gets in trouble for teaching honest history.”

The address comes at a time of national debate surrounding the teaching of critical race theory in schools. Critical race theory, or CRT, is a university-level concept that examines how racism has influenced American laws and institutions. Conservative activists and lawmakers, however, claim that CRT is divisive and indoctrinates schoolchildren into viewing everything in terms of race.

Weingarten noted in her remarks that critical race theory is only taught in universities, not at the primary school level.

Five states have already passed anti-CRT laws regulating how public-school educators can teach subjects like the U.S.’s history of slavery, racism, and white supremacy, and several more states have introduced similar bills into their legislatures. A recently passed Texas law will ban any curriculum that teaches that “slavery and racism are anything other than deviations from, betrayals of, or failures to live up to, the authentic founding principles of the United States.”

The AFT has a legal defense fund intended for challenging these laws, Weingarten said on Tuesday.

“Culture warriors are labeling any discussion of race, racism or discrimination as CRT to try to make it toxic. They are bullying teachers and trying to stop us from teaching students accurate history,” Weingarten said.

The National Education Association, the nation’s largest teacher’s union, has also expressed its support for teachers in the debate over critical race theory.

Last week at the NEA’s virtual representative assembly, the union’s board of directors passed a number of resolutions that will support anti-racist curriculum. One resolution says the NEA will create campaigns that “result in increasing the implementation of culturally responsive education, critical race theory, and ethnic…studies curriculum in pre-K-12 and higher education,” with the end goal being to “eradicate institutional racism” from public schools.

The NEA also approved an allocation of $127,600 to combat misinformation on critical race theory and issue materials explaining “what it is and what it is not,” while also releasing a study that “critiques empire, white supremacy, anti-Blackness, anti-Indigeneity, racism, patriarchy, cisheteropatriarchy, capitalism, ableism, anthropocentrism, and other forms of power and oppression at the intersections of our society.”

Becky Pringle, the president of the NEA, said at the assembly last week that teachers “must continuously do the work to challenge ourselves and others to dismantle the racist interconnected systems, and the economic injustices that have perpetuated systemic inequities.”

“This is a fight for justice,” Pringle said. “This is a fight for honesty in education.”

Sources: CNN 7/7/21; Washington Post 7/6/21; EducationWeek 7/6/21; Politico 7/6/21

Mary Simon Named First Indigenous Governor-General of Canada

On Tuesday, Inuit rights advocate and former diplomat Mary Simon was named Governor-General by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Simon is the first Indigenous person to occupy the role, where she will represent Queen Elizabeth II, Canada’s head of state. In the position, Simon will also execute necessary state duties and serve as the commander-in-chief of Canada’s Armed Forces.

This appointment follows a painful reckoning with Canada’s history of abuse and assimilation of Indigenous peoples. In the past two months, hundreds of unmarked graves have been found near former residential schools for Indigenous children in Canada.

Two weeks ago, over 750 graves were discovered at a former residential school in Saskatchewan. In May, the remains of 215 Indigenous children were found at Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Colombia. Just on Friday, 182 remains were uncovered in unmarked graves at another British Columbia former residential school.

These devastating discoveries have sparked a national conversation about the history of residential schools, in which the Canadian government forcibly attempted to assimilate Indigenous children and erase Indigenous culture.

Mary Simon, who was the president of a national Inuit organization, the Inuit Tapirlit Kanatami, acknowledged Canada’s brutal mistreatment of Indigenous peoples in her remarks on Tuesday.

“I do understand, as an Indigenous person, that there is pain and suffering across our nation,” she said. “We need to start to fully recognize and memorialize and comes to terms with the atrocities of our collective past.”

Simon was born to an Inuk mother in Nunavik in northern Quebec. She lived a traditional Inuk lifestyle for several months while she was a teenager, which she says has given her the ability to “be a bridge between the different lived realities that together make up the tapestry of Canada.”

“I can confidently say that my appointment is a historic and inspirational moment for Canada,” Simon said, “and an important step forward on the long path towards reconciliation.”

Sources:  BBC 7/6/21; Washington Post 7/6/21; CNN 6/25/21; Washington Post 5/28/21; CNN 7/2/21;

Feminist Recap of Olympics News: Sha’Carri Richardson, Soul Cap Swim Caps, and Gwen Berry

Sha’Carri Richardson, a star American sprinter set to join the U.S. Olympic track team, received a one-month suspension last Monday for a positive marijuana test. The suspension, issued by the United States Anti-Doping Agency, could jeopardize her participation in the 2021 Tokyo Olympics later this month.

Richardson apologized for using marijuana, explaining that she used it as a coping mechanism after discovering from a reporter that her biological mother had unexpectedly died. A reporter told Richardson this information during an interview at the Olympic track and field trials in Oregon last month.

In a Today show interview, Richardson, 21, said hearing this news from a stranger was “triggering,” “nerve-shocking,” and sent her into “a state of emotional panic.”

“I didn’t know how to control my emotions or deal with my emotions during that time,” she said.  

Due to her suspension, Richardson will be unable to compete in the 100-meter dash in Tokyo. While she cannot participate in this race, which she won in an astonishing 10.86 seconds during the Olympic trials, there is hope she could still run the 4X100-meter relay.

“I want to take responsibility for my actions. I know what I did. I know what I’m supposed to do. I know what I’m allowed not to do. But I still made that decision. I’m not making an excuse,” Richardson said.

In a statement on Twitter, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) criticized the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and asked them to reconsider their decision to ban Richardson, saying “Their decision lacks any scientific basis. It’s rooted solely in the systemic racism that’s long driven anti-marijuana laws.”

A petition to let Richardson run in the Olympics is currently at 450,000 signatures. The petition argues that “The imposition of a penalty against a world-class Black, queer, woman athlete is powerfully and infuriatingly reminiscent of the way drug laws are regularly applied in the United States,” the petition says.

 “Recreational marijuana use has been de facto legal for upper-middle-class white people for years—something more states are recognizing as they legalize marijuana for all people and consider how to repair the damage done to Black and brown communities by decades of ‘the war on drugs.’”

Also last week, the International Swimming Federation (FINA) received heavy backlash for its decision to ban Soul Cap swim caps, a Black-owned British brand designed for natural Black hair, from being used in the 2021 Tokyo Olympics.

After drawing criticism for this announcement, FINA is reconsidering the policy. In a statement Friday, FINA announced that it is “currently reviewing the situation with regards to ‘Soul Cap’ and similar products, understanding the importance of inclusivity and representation.”

Soul Cap co-founder Toks Ahmed said on social media that the ban would “discourage many younger athletes from pursuing the sport.”

“For younger swimmers, feeling included and seeing yourself in a sport at a young age is crucial,” Ahmed added.

Danielle Obe, the founder of the Black Swimming Association, said in response to the ban, “We believe that it confirms a lack of diversity in (the sport). Aquatics swimming must do better.”

“We need the space and the volume which products like the Soul Caps allow for. Inclusivity is realizing that no one head shape is ‘normal,’” Obe said. “If the (official swimming bodies) are talking about representation, they need to speak to the communities to find out what the barriers are that are preventing us from engaging. Hair is a significant issue for our community.”

These Olympic controversies come after Gwen Berry, an Olympic qualifier, protested the national anthem after winning third in the hammer throw at the U.S. track and field trials in Oregon last Saturday.

Berry said she had no intention of protesting and only learned the anthem would be played moments before making her way to the winners’ podium for pictures.

“I feel like it was setup,” Berry said, “I was thinking about what should I do. Eventually, I just stayed there and just swayed. I put my shirt over my head. It was real disrespectful. I know they did that on purpose, but it’ll be all right. I see what’s up.”

Berry turned her back to the flag and put her “Activist Athlete” shirt over her head. This is not the first time Berry has protested at sporting events. She raised her fist while standing on the winners’ podium at the 2019 Pan-American Games in Peru.

“It’s really important for me and my community just to be able to represent. I think sports is a distraction. Sports is entertainment. But my purpose and my voice and mission is bigger than the sport. So my being able to represent my communities and my people and those who have died at the hands of police brutality, those who have died to this systemic racism, I feel like that’s the important part,” Berry said.

“That’s why I’m going. And that’s why I was here today.”

Sources: New York Times 7/3/21; Washington Post 7/2/21l; The Hill 7/6/2021; CNN 6/5/21; The Guardian 7/2/21; Huffington Post 7/4/21; Washington Post 6/26/21; Washington Post 9/16/20

Supreme Court Maintains Arizona Voting Restrictions Further Weakening Voting Rights Act

On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that two Arizona voting restrictions did not violate the Voting Rights Act, the landmark legislation that bans racially discriminatory voting rules.

The 6-3 decision was made along ideological lines, with the court’s conservative members comprising the majority and the liberal justices in dissent.

Their ruling upholds two voting laws in Arizona. One mandates that any ballots placed at the wrong voting precinct cannot be counted, and the other decrees that absentee ballots can only be delivered to a precinct by a relative, mail carrier, or election official.

Both restrictions had previously been struck down by the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, who argued that they violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act which bans voting regulations that “result in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race.” The appeals court also found that “there is no evidence of any fraud in the long history of third-party ballot collection in Arizona.”

Judge William A. Fletcher of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that the Arizona laws were discriminatory to minority voters, given that Black, Latinx, and Indigenous voters were much more likely to cast ballots at the wrong precinct due to “frequent changes in polling locations; confusing placement of polling locations; and high rates of residential mobility.”

Additionally, the appeals court argued that the law’s restriction on ballot collecting by anyone other than a relative or official would disproportionately affect minority voters, who rely on ballot collection services much more than white voters. The appeals court cited the Navajo Nation, a large swath of land with very few post offices, where many people without transportation can only vote through ballot collectors.

However, Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the Supreme Court’s majority decision, claimed that the Arizona laws did not unfairly burden minority voters, and that the restrictions were necessary to prevent voting fraud.

Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent, wrote that “Wherever it can, the majority gives a cramped reading to broad language. And then uses that reading to uphold two election laws from Arizona that discriminate against minority voters.” She continued, “This Court has no right to remake Section 2. Maybe some think that vote suppression is a relic of history—and so the need for a potent Section 2 has come and gone…But Congress gets to make that call.”

In response to the ruling, Derrick Johnson, President of the NAACP, said, “The Court sent a clear message that vote suppressors around the country will go unchecked as they enact voting restrictions that disproportionately impact voters of color.”

“Once again, a conservative Court has signaled to racists, intent on denying Black people our right to vote, that Jim Crow is alive and well in the hearts of the conservative justices,” said Marcela Howell, president and CEO of In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda, in a statement Thursday. “Conservative lawmakers across the country are pulling out all the stops to prevent people of color—especially Black people—from exercising our right to vote … But they will not have the last word.”

The court’s decision has also renewed calls for Congress to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would restore important protections of the Voting Rights Act.

“We demand that Congress immediately pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. We are organizing every voter to hold their elected representatives accountable to demand immediate action to pass this legislation,” Howell said. “Stopping the attacks on our voting rights is integral to dismantling systemic racism and sexism.”

Gender Equity in Education Act Reintroduced in House and Senate to Advance Title IX’s Implementation

Last Wednesday, Senator Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI) and Representative Doris Matsui (D-CA), reintroduced the Patsy T. Mink and Louise M. Slaughter Gender Equity in Education Act (GEEA) in Congress.

The House and Senate versions of the bill, H.R.4097 and S.2186, would support the implementation of Title IX by providing resources, funding, and training to reduce and prevent discrimination on the basis of sex in education. Senator Hirono and Representative Matsui reintroduced the legislation on Title IX’s 49th anniversary.

Both Representative Patsy Mink (D-HI), who died in 2002, and Representative Louis Slaughter (D-NY), who died in 2018, spearheaded campaigns for gender equity in Congress. Rep. Mink was the first woman of color elected to the U.S. House of Representatives and a leading author of the 1972 Title IX law and the Women’s Educational Equity Act in 1974.

“Trailblazers Patsy Mink and Louise Slaughter spent their careers demanding better opportunities for all Americans, regardless of their gender. This bill builds on their legacy by providing more funding to address sex-based harassment and discrimination in education,” Senator Hirono said in a statement last Wednesday. “On the 49th anniversary of Title IX’s enactment, Congress should act now to make sure that all students can learn in safe and supportive learning environments.”

The bill would create necessary infrastructure to protect students against sex discrimination “based on multiple characteristics including actual or perceived sex—including sex stereotypes; pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; sexual orientation or gender identity.” It would also work to reduce discrimination based on other characteristics such as race, national origin, and disability.

The legislation would create an Office for Gender Equity in the U.S. Department of Education, fund grants for schools to promote Title IX, and provide annual training and resources to Title IX oordinators about Title IX compliance.

Numerous organizations have expressed their support for the bill. “Title IX became law on this day 49 years ago, and we celebrate the advances made in education to ensure that all students, including women and girls, have equal access to education,” Shiwali Patel, Director of Justice for Student Survivors & Senior Council at the National Women’s Law Center, said. “However, much remains to be done to eliminate sex discrimination and bias in schools, and GEEA brings us closer towards achieving this and creating equitable and welcoming school environments.

GEEA “has great potential for making a comprehensive and lasting impact on improving gender equity in and through education,” said Dr. Sue Klein, Education Equity Director of the Feminist Majority Foundation. “Using existing legislation, GEAA should inspire the Education Department to establish an Office for Gender Equity and issue new guidance on the roles and responsibilities of the Title IX Coordinators in a Title IX Gender Equity infrastructure even before GEEA is passed.”

The Feminist Majority Foundation, National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, and others are requesting that the Department of Education (ED), establish an Office for Gender Equity in ED reporting to the Secretary of Education as specified in the reintroduced GEEA for the 117th Congress even before GEEA is signed.

“Patsy Mink and Louise Slaughter were tireless warriors for equality and continue to serve as our north star for expanding opportunity and eradicating discrimination on the basis of sex in schools everywhere,” Representative Matsui said. “By introducing this legislation on the forty-ninth anniversary of Title IX, we honor and build on their legacy—continuing to fight against discrimination and ensuring our nation’s schools provide a just learning environment for all.”

Sources: Senator Hirono 6/23/21; Congress.gov 6/23/21; Ms. Magazine 6/24/21; Feminist Newswire 6/26/19

>

We must end the filibuster and put the ERA in the US Constitution! Give Now