· · · · · 

What’s the Matter With Bans on Race- and Sex-Selective Abortion? Everything.

Conservative MP Mark Warawa speaks about Motion 408, his motion against sex-selection abortions, on Parliament Hill.

A particularly pernicious narrative about abortion rights has taken hold in this country accusing pro-choice groups and abortion clinics of attempting to target minorities. But it’s all based on lies and illogical arguments.

· · · · · 

So What’s the Deal with the New Contraception Mandate Rules?

On Friday, in the latest case to address the provision in the Affordable Care Act that mandates contraception coverage in employee health insurance plans, the Third Circuit ruled that the Pennsylvania-based Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation must comply.

I would argue that the new proposed rules don’t change anything for women. At all. They don’t restrict contraception access, nor do they take away contraception access previously available.

· · · · · 

Personhood USA’s Unhinged Response to National Advocates for Pregnant Women Study

Jennifer and Keith Mason, of Personhood USA. (Newsweek tumblr)

There’s an old saying: A hit dog will holler. That phrase came to mind as I read Personhood USA’s unhinged response to the new study conducted by Lynn Paltrow of National Advocates for Pregnant Women and Professor Jeanne Flavin of Fordham University. Never mind the facts, Personhood USA makes up its own.

· · · · · 

Hope Ankrom and Amanda Kimbrough: Victims of Alabama’s Personhood Agenda

Amanda Kimbrough. (123 People)

I have grown to hate the term “judicial activism” because it is frequently used by conservatives to criticize court decisions they simply don’t like. Still, there are few alternative phrases that accurately describe the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision in the consolidated cases of Amanda Kimbrough and Hope Ankrom, two women who were swept up in the Alabama judiciary’s zeal to promote an anti-choice personhood agenda by redefining the word “child” in Alabama’s chemical endangerment statute, so that it now applies to pregnant women who uses any amount of controlled substances, whether prescribed by a doctor or not.

· · · · · 

Sotomayor Is Right: Hobby Lobby’s Legal Claims Are Not “Indisputably Clear”

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. (BCNN1)

Conservative critics have criticized Justice Sotomayor’s decision to reject Hobby Lobby’s request for an emergency injunction on the birth control benefit under the ACA. The question before her was: Are Hobby Lobby’s rights so indisputably clear that an emergency injunction was required? She answered that question correctly: no.

· · · · · 

Roe v. Wade and Fetal Personhood: Juridical Persons Are Not Natural Persons, And Why it Matters

As women’s rights and pro-choice activists continue to sharply criticize the ongoing attempts to grant personhood rights to eggs, it is important to examine what “personhood” actually means, what fetal personhood laws would mean for our movement, and how personhood activists are getting it all wrong.

· · · · · 

The Sliding Scale of Sin: Tyndale Publishers and Contraception Without a Co-Pay

A perhaps unintended consequence of Administration compromises on the birth control benefit is to concede that insurance coverage of contraception can be “participation in sin.” Women’s rights activists and attorneys must adjust and re-frame the argument to address this new development in birth control benefit litigation.

· · · · · 

Bush Appointee Rejects Hobby Lobby Arguments Against Birth Control Benefit

For the first time, a court has held that the religious rights of corporations and persons are not co-extensive. Individuals may avail themselves of constitutional protections of religious freedoms, but secular corporations may not.

· · · · · 

The Right’s Position on the Birth Control Benefit is Unconstitutional. Is it Anti-Catholic, Too?

It seems outlandish to claim that the Catholic bishops’ own crusade against contraception is anti-Catholic. Still, arguments that this position is anti-Catholic seem not only well-founded but reasonable, whereas the Catholic bishops’ incessant interfering in American women’s lady-business is spectacularly unreasonable.

· · · · · 

The Decision in Fisher v. Texas: What’s at Stake for Women of Color

Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Fisher v. Texas, the first case on affirmative action to be heard by the court in almost a decade. If the Supreme Court strikes down the UT Plan, both students of color and white students will lose out.

· · · · ·