Author: Madeleine Roberts-Ganim

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

Posted on by Madeleine Roberts-Ganim

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

Posted on by Madeleine Roberts-Ganim

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

Posted on by Madeleine Roberts-Ganim

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

Posted on by Madeleine Roberts-Ganim

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

Posted on by Madeleine Roberts-Ganim

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

Posted on by Madeleine Roberts-Ganim

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

Posted on by Madeleine Roberts-Ganim

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

Posted on by Madeleine Roberts-Ganim

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

Posted on by Madeleine Roberts-Ganim

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

Rhode Island Passes Legislation to Make Period Products Free in Schools

Posted on by Madeleine Roberts-Ganim

The Rhode Island Senate on Tuesday unanimously passed a bill that will allow public school students to have access to menstrual products for free.

The bill says that public schools who teach grades five through 12 must provide pads and tampons in gender-neutral and women’s bathrooms beginning in the 2022-2023 school year at no cost to students.

It will now go to Rhode Island Governor Daniel McKee’s desk to either be vetoed or signed into law.

State Senator Valerie Lawson, who sponsored the bill, said in a statement, “We all know how necessary feminine hygiene products are, but what many people do not realize… is that a lack of access to these products can cause students to miss crucial school days.”

On Twitter, State Representative Carol Hagan McEntree, a sponsor of the House bill, said, “This bill will prevent the embarrassment suffered by our students who have an accident during the school day and afford them the dignity that they deserve.”

Other states, such as California, Illinois, New Hampshire, and New York have also passed legislation requiring public schools to offer free period products to students.

“These products are a daily necessity to so many students,” Lawson said, “and just as schools provide toilet paper for the bathrooms, these products should also be readily accessible for our students in need.”

Sources: Rhode Island Senate 6/29/21; CNN 6/29/21; US News 6/26/21; Twitter 6/25/21

Supreme Court Protects the CDC’s Eviction Moratorium

Posted on by Madeleine Roberts-Ganim

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court maintained the Center for Disease Control’s halt on eviction for tenants who could not pay rent due to hardships imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court denied a challenge on the eviction ban brought by a group of landlords. The moratorium will now be left in place until July 31st.

Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Brett Kavanaugh voted in favor of maintaining the moratorium.

The moratorium would have expired on Wednesday, but the CDC announced last week that it would be extended until July 31st. It has been extended a total of three times, twice by the CDC and once by Congress. Rochelle Walensky, the Director of the CDC, said this would be the last extension of the moratorium.

The group of landlords who filed suit against the eviction ban were spearheaded by the Alabama Association of Realtors. They claimed that the CDC did not have the power to impose such a moratorium, which has left “over $13 billion in unpaid rent per month.”

According to the CDC, between 30 million to 40 million people could be evicted if the moratorium were not in place.

$46.5 billion has been approved by Congress in rental assistance, but delays have prevented the money from being distributed.

The CDC put the eviction moratorium in place last year to prevent the spread of COVID-19 resulting from increased homelessness and shared living. Walenksy said in a statement that “keeping people in their homes and out of crowded or congregate settings—like homeless shelters—by preventing evictions is a key step in helping to stop the spread of COVID-19.”

Sources: Supreme Court 6/29/21; CNN 6/29/21; Reuters 6/29/21

Supreme Court Dismisses Transgender Rights Case, Maintains Victory for Student Gavin Grimm

Posted on by Madeleine Roberts-Ganim

On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case over transgender students’ right to use school bathrooms, leaving intact a lower court decision that allows transgender students to use the restrooms that match their gender identity.

While this does not mean that the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court’s decision, it does maintain a victory for LGBTQ+ rights for the time being. It also ends Gavin Grimm’s seven-year long battle to defend his right to use the men’s restroom.

In 2015, then-high school student Gavin Grimm, a transgender man, sued his school board for denying him the right to use the men’s bathroom at school. The board had initially permitted Grimm to use the men’s restroom, but after receiving complaints from parents, created a policy mandating that transgender students could only use the restrooms that correspond to the sex they were assigned at birth.

Under the new rule, Grimm could only use the women’s restroom or a unisex restroom, preventing him from using the bathroom that corresponded to his gender.

Grimm argued that the school board’s decision was a direct violation of Title IX’s Equal Protection Clause, which prevents schools from discriminating against students based on their sex. The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Grimm’s favor, affirming transgender students’ right to use the bathrooms that match their gender identity.

The school board appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, who has decided not to hear the case.

Now a high-school graduate, Grimm, 22, is relieved that his victory in the lower courts has been protected. In a statement Monday, Grimm said, “I am glad that my years-long fight to have my school see me for who I am is over. Being forced to use the nurse’s room, a private bathroom, and the girl’s room was humiliating for me, and having to go to out-of-the-way bathrooms severely interfered with my education.”

He noted how the Supreme Court’s decision not only affects him, but the entire transgender community. “It brought a feeling of jubilation, a feeling of togetherness immediately within my community. I didn’t just feel the win for me, I felt the win for all of the transgender students and transgender people across the nation,” Grimm said.

“Trans youth deserve to use the bathroom in peace without being humiliated and stigmatized by their own school boards and elected officials.”

Sources: CNN 6/28/21; Washington Post 6/28/21; NPR 6/28/21

Derek Chauvin Sentenced to 22.5 Years in Prison for Murdering George Floyd

Posted on by Madeleine Roberts-Ganim

Derek Chauvin, the Minneapolis police officer who murdered George Floyd in May of 2020, was sentenced to 22 and a half years in prison on Friday. The sentencing decision was delivered by Hennepin Country District Court Judge Peter A. Cahill.

Chauvin, 45, will likely only serve 15 years of the 22-and-a-half-year sentence. After 15 years, he will be eligible to serve the rest of his sentence on supervised release according to Minnesota law.

In April, Chauvin was convicted of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter. Chauvin faced 40 years in prison for the second-degree murder charge. Because he had no criminal record, Minnesota guidelines recommended he be sentenced to 12 and a half years in prison. However, the prosecution argued for a sentencing of 30 years due to the incredible cruelty with which Chauvin treated Floyd and the undeniable trauma Chauvin inflicted on Floyd’s family, witnesses of the scene, and the community at large.

Chauvin is only the second Minnesota police officer to be put in prison for murdering on the job. Less than a dozen officers in the U.S. have ever served jailtime for killing on-duty.

The sentencing decision was met with frustration and disappointment from Floyd’s family and several activists. “We were served a life sentence,” Floyd’s nephew Brandon Williams said after the decision was released, “We can’t get George back.”

Civil rights activist and founder of the National Action Network Rev. Al Sharpton, who joined the Floyd family outside the courthouse Friday for a press conference, argued that justice had not been served. “This is the longest sentence they’ve ever given, but this is not justice. Justice is George Floyd would be alive. Justice is if they had done sentences like this before, maybe Chauvin would have thought he would have not gotten away with it,” Sharpton said, “One sentence does not solve a criminal justice problem.”

On Twitter, President and CEO of the NAACP Derrick Johnson responded to the sentencing with a similar sentiment. “While George Floyd’s murderer was held accountable in court, we know that no amount of jail time is going to bring Gianna Floyd’s father back,” Johnson wrote.

“Legislation is urgently needed to ensure that what happened to George Floyd over a year ago will not happen again a year from now and devastate another family. We need a federal standard in policing to protect the lives of those often targeted.”

Sources: New York Times 6/25/21; Feminist Majority Foundation 4/21/21; CNN 6/25/21; The Washington Post 6/21/21; Twitter 6/25/21

Iowa Law Mandating 24-Hour Waiting Period for Abortion is Blocked by Judge

Posted on by Madeleine Roberts-Ganim

On Monday, an Iowa district judge blocked a law that required patients to observe a 24-hour waiting period before they could get an abortion.

The law, passed in 2020, was declared unconstitutional by Judge Mitchell Turner. He ruled that the law not only violated a 2018 decision made by the Iowa Supreme Court that protects the right to an abortion, but that the law also violated the single-subject rule in the Iowa Constitution because it was added to a bill as a nongermane amendment.  The single-subject rule mandates that a bill can only discuss one designated topic.

Turner had initially placed a temporary block on the 24-hour waiting period, but Monday’s ruling permanently blocks the law from going into effect. Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, the ACLU of Iowa, and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America challenged the law.

Currently, Iowa bans abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, with limited exceptions.

Last June, Iowa legislators attached the amendment requiring a 24-hour waiting period on abortions to a bill about life-sustaining healthcare for minors. Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds then signed the bill into law. Reynolds has said that she will be appealing Turner’s decision.

Turner, in his ruling, wrote that “the Amendment was clearly logrolled with other legislation, since the Amendment was attached to a non-controversial provision regarding withdrawal of life-sustaining procedures from a minor child.”

The ruling also found that the waiting-period requirement significantly affected low-income people seeking abortion care: “Moreover, the burdens imposed on women by the waiting period are substantial, especially for women without financial means … The Act requires poor and low-income women, which is a majority of PPH patients, to amass greater financial resources before obtaining the procedure.”

“Today the court confirmed what we knew when anti-abortion politicians in Des Moines rammed this legislation through—this medically unnecessary and harmful abortion restriction infringes on Iowans’ fundamental rights,” said Jamie Burch Elliott, the Iowa Public Affairs Director for Planned Parenthood North Central States, in a statement Tuesday.

“The Iowa Supreme Court has recognized that the right to safe, legal abortion is fundamental and protected by our constitution,” said Rita Bettis Austen, Legal Director of the ACLU of Iowa, “Today’s decision protects that right.”

Sources: CNN 6/23/21; Iowa District Court 6/21/21; Des Moines Register 6/23/21; ACLU of Iowa 6/22/21

Union Organizers No Longer Able to Speak to Workers on Farm Property, Supreme Court Rules

Posted on by Madeleine Roberts-Ganim

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court decided that a California law allowing unions to talk to agricultural workers on farm property is unconstitutional. The ruling is a major blow to union organizers and migratory farmworkers.  

In 1975, the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act was passed to remedy the difficulty unions frequently faced reaching migrant workers, who must move to different worksites often and are rarely in a permanent location. It allowed California union organizers to meet with farmworkers on growers’ property three times a day during nonworking hours for 120 days out of the year.

Cedar Point Nursery, a strawberry growing business, and Fowler Packing Company, a citrus and grape shipping business, challenged the law in 2016. They claimed the law was equivalent to the government seizing private property without offering just compensation in return.  The complaint was dismissed in the lower courts and then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The 6-3 decision ruled in favor of the growers, saying that the law violated their property rights. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the decision, wrote that the “access regulation grants labor organizations a right to invade the growers’ property. It therefore constitutes a per se physical taking.”

Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan dissented from the majority opinion. Breyer, in his dissent, wrote “the majority’s conclusion threatens to make many ordinary forms of regulation unusually complex or impractical.” He argued that the law is “not functionally equivalent to the classic taking in which government directly appropriates private property or ousts the owner from his domain.”

The decision has received criticism from labor organizers across the country. Beth Lyon, director of Cornell’s Farmworker Legal Assistance Clinic, noted the profound vulnerability and lack of protections that farmworkers must face. “The agricultural industry has one of the nation’s highest percentages of hired child labor, undocumented work, human trafficking, and workplace injury and fatality, including deaths from COVID-19.”

Mario Martinez, who works as general counsel for the United Farmworkers Union, said that the ruling fails to recognize the rights of farmworkers. “You double down on that exclusion and discrimination by saying that a state law that’s been in existence for almost 50 years is not respectful of the growers’ rights. But there was no discussion of the workers who are essential workers to feed America. There was no discussion of their rights at all.”

Sources: Supreme Court 6/23/21; CNN 6/23/21; The New York Times 6/24/21; NPR 6/24/21

Voting Rights Bill Blocked by Filibuster

Posted on by Madeleine Roberts-Ganim

Senate Republicans blocked an expansive voting rights bill with a filibuster on Tuesday despite Democrats’ efforts to move the bill forward.

The For the People Act is one of the most comprehensive pieces of voting rights legislation to be introduced in years. It would expand and protect voting rights, create new campaign finance rules, and reform gerrymandering laws.

After the House passed the landmark legislation in March, the bill moved to the Senate where it faced severe resistance. Republicans united in opposition against the measure, using the filibuster to block it.

Senate Democrats had hoped to eliminate the legislative filibuster in order to begin debate on the bill. However, they were unable to secure the necessary 60 votes to break the filibuster.

To change the Senate rules on the number of votes required to eliminate a filibuster, Democrats needed 50 votes – meaning a vote from every single Senate Democrat in support of changing the filibuster rule. Moderate Democrats, however, such as Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), opposed changing the rule and prevented ending the filibuster.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer voiced his anger at the bill’s failure but insisted that Democrats would continue the effort to defend voting rights. “Make no mistake about it, it will not be the last time voting rights comes up for debate in the Senate. … We have several serious options for how to reconsider this issue and advance legislation to combat voter suppression. We are going to explore every last one of our options,” Schumer said.

Sources: The New York Times 6/23/21; Feminist Majority Foundation 3/5/21; The Hill 6/22/21

Secretary of Defense Supports Major Change in Prosecution of Military Sexual Assault Cases

Posted on by Madeleine Roberts-Ganim

On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin endorsed a proposed change in the military justice system that would remove the authority to prosecute sexual assault cases from the chain of command and instead transfer that authority to independent military lawyers.

Under the new recommendations, military commanders would no longer handle the prosecution of sexual assault cases. Instead, trained military criminal justice lawyers would decide how to prosecute service members accused of sexual assault.

Austin’s statement comes after the release of a report and recommendations made by the Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military. The report “provides us real opportunities to finally end the scourge of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the military,” Austen said on Tuesday.

According to a Pentagon report, in 2019 13,000 women and 7,500 men survived sexual assault while serving in the military.

The IRC also recommended that domestic violence cases be prosecuted independently from the chain of command. Austin voiced his support for this measure as well, “given the strong correlation between these sorts of crimes and the prevalence of sexual assault.”

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), now chair of the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee, has been working for years on a bill to reform the way in which the military justice system handles not only sexual assault, but all serious crimes as well. Her bill, the Military Justice Improvement and Education Act, would put into place the reforms suggested by the IRC and Austin. It would remove control of cases from the chain of command and allow trained military lawyers to handle them instead. The bill aims to ensure an unbiased investigation and prosecution of all serious crimes.

According to Gillibrand, the Department of Defense estimates that there are 20,000 sexual assault cases within the military, but only just over 200 that ended in conviction. In response to Austin’s statement, Gillibrand said that his recommendations “are an excellent step in the right direction, but it’s not the full reform we need.”

Sources: NPR 6/23/21; US Department of Defense 6/22/21; CNN 6/23/21

V.A. Will Provide Gender Confirmation Surgery to Transgender Veterans

Posted on by Madeleine Roberts-Ganim

On Saturday, the Department of Veterans Affairs announced that they plan to add gender confirmation surgery to their existing healthcare services. V.A. Secretary Denis McDonough made this announcement at a Pride event in Orlando, Florida.

The new directive will reverse a 2013 ban on gender confirmation surgery, in which the V.A. refused to provide the surgery to transgender veterans.

It will take two years to put the plan into action. “This process will require changing V.A.’s regulations and establishing policy that will ensure the equitable treatment and safety of transgender veterans,” McDonough said at the Saturday event.

McDonough discussed the high rates of mental illness, suicidal ideation, and fear of seeking necessary care due to stigma among transgender veterans. Gender confirmation surgeries, which will now be offered to transgender veterans through the V.A., are seen as possible ways to reduce these mental health issues. He said, “this is a health care decision that has very real physical health care impacts as well as significant mental health impacts.”

According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, there are an estimated 134,000 transgender veterans. These estimates also suggest that there are more than 15,000 transgender individuals who actively serve in the military.

Gina Duncan, the director of transgender equality for Equality Florida, an LGBTQ+ rights organization, voiced support for the policy change. She said in response to the V.A.’s announcement, “Support for transgender veterans and the lifesaving health care they need to live authentically is a critical component to fulfilling our nation’s promise of caring for those who’ve served.”

“We’re making these changes not only because they are the right thing to do,” McDonough said, “but because they can save lives.”

Sources: The New York Times 6/21/21; The Washington Post; 6/19/21; NBC 6/20/21; National Center for Transgender Equality 2021

Laurel Hubbard to Become the First Openly Transgender Olympian

Posted on by Madeleine Roberts-Ganim

Laurel Hubbard, a New Zealand weightlifter, will become the first ever openly transgender individual to compete at the Olympics. She has been selected as a member of the New Zealand women’s weightlifting team for this summer’s Tokyo 2021 Olympic Games. 

Hubbard will compete in the 87-kilogram women’s category. She suffered a potentially career-ending arm injury in 2018 but has since made a comeback.

In a statement, Hubbard expressed her gratitude to her supporters. “I am grateful and humbled by the kindness and support that has been given to me by so many New Zealanders,” she said.

The 43-year-old weightlifter qualified for the Olympics after the International Olympic Committee changed its guidelines regarding transgender athletes in 2015. According to the new IOC requirements, transgender women must wait to compete until 12 months after beginning hormone therapy. They must also prove that their levels of testosterone, the hormone that increases muscle and bone mass, are below a threshold of 10 nanomoles per liter. Previously, transgender women could not compete until they had waited two years after having sex reassignment surgery.

Hubbard’s selection for the New Zealand women’s weightlifting team comes at a time of ongoing debate, both internationally and within the U.S., regarding transgender women’s eligibility to participate in sports. Just this year, Alabama, Montana, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Dakota, Florida, and West Virginia passed anti-trans legislation that prohibits transgender women and girls from playing in women’s public-school sports.

In response to this legislation, the National Collegiate Athletic Association expressed its support for transgender athletes. The NCAA’s Board of Governors said in a statement, “Inclusion and fairness can coexist for all student-athletes, including transgender athletes, at all levels of sport.”

Hubbard has met all the necessary criteria to compete in the Olympics, including the requirements of the International Olympic Committee, the International Weightlifting Federation, and the New Zealand Olympic Committee.

Kereyn Smith, the CEO of the New Zealand Olympic Committee, said in a statement, “We acknowledge that gender identity in sport is a highly sensitive and complex issue requiring a balance between human rights and fairness on the field of play. As the New Zealand Team, we have a strong culture of manaaki and inclusion and respect for all. We are committed to supporting all eligible New Zealand athletes and ensuring their mental and physical wellbeing, along with their high-performance needs, while preparing for and competing at the Olympic Games are met.”

Sources: The Washington Post 6/21/21; CNN 6/21/21; New Zealand Olympic Committee 6/21/21; NewsNation Now 6/1/21; CNN 4/13/21

North Carolina’s 20-Week Abortion Ban Ruled Unconstitutional by Federal Appeals Court

Posted on by Madeleine Roberts-Ganim

North Carolina’s ban on abortion past 20 weeks of pregnancy was unanimously declared unconstitutional on Wednesday by Richmond, Virginia’s 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

The ban had been in effect since 1973 and was enacted as a response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Roe v. Wade. It prohibited abortion after 20 weeks except in the case of medical emergencies.

The three-judge panel was comprised of Judge Diana Motz, an appointee of President Clinton, Judge Albert Diaz, an appointee of President Obama, and Judge Julius Richardson, an appointee of President Trump.

In 2015, abortion providers filed a lawsuit to challenge the 20-week abortion ban because North Carolina’s state legislature had passed further restrictions on abortion access. These restrictions included a 72-hour waiting period before getting an abortion as well as further limitations on medical exemptions.

North Carolina, in its argument, claimed that the state had never prosecuted an abortion provider under the law. For this reason, the state officials argued that abortion providers were not entitled to sue due to lack of serious threat of prosecution.

However, the court rejected this claim and decided unanimously that the law does sincerely threaten to prosecute abortion providers who administer abortions past 20 weeks. Motz wrote in the opinion, “Amidst a wave of similar state action across the country, North Carolina has enacted legislation to restrict the availability of abortions and impose heightened requirements on abortion providers and women seeking abortions. Given these facts, we cannot reasonably assume that the abortion ban that North Carolina keeps on its books is largely symbolic.”

“As a nation we remain deeply embroiled in debate over the legal status of abortion. While this conversation rages around us, this court cannot say that the threat of prosecution to abortion providers who violate the law is not credible,” Motz continued.

In a news release, Genevieve Scott, lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said, “This ruling is a victory for all North Carolinians in line with decades of Supreme Court precedent. Forcing someone to continue a pregnancy against their will is a violation of their basic humanity, their rights, and their freedom.”

Sources: The Washington Post 6/16/21; The Hill 6/16/21, NPR 6/17/21

>