That’s the question before the Roberts Court in a case that pits the religious rights of employees against the duty of an employer to accommodate them.
Though many remember New York’s Percy Sutton as an investor, lawyer, and power broker, he also introduced the state’s first bill that would have relaxed abortion restrictions—opening the door for the liberalization of New York’s abortion laws before Roe v. Wade.
Most states have rescinded their requirements that brides and grooms be tested for STDs, but one Oklahoma lawmaker would like to reverse this trend.
If Mississippi gets its way, the right to an abortion will be meaningless in the face of unrestricted state power to regulate reproduction.
The federal courts are so far unanimous in rejecting claims that the Obama administration’s accommodation process to the birth control benefit burdens religious rights.
The lack of paid sick time available across the country means that if a worker needs time to address reproductive health needs—including prenatal or abortion care—she may have to risk her livelihood or her paycheck to do so.
Most legislators—including lawmakers in California, Maine, and Minnesota—are attempting to close loopholes and make it more difficult for people to get around inoculation requirements. Some, however, are actually trying to make it easier for parents to say “no” to vaccines.
In its recent ruling, the high court did leave in place significant hurdles for employees making claims they were forced off the job.
Last week, RH Reality Check met with six of the 17 Salvadoran women imprisoned for what amount to pregnancy complications. The women discussed the challenges they face, including harassment from other inmates and overcrowded conditions.
The Roberts Court takes aim at another key civil rights law, and the prognosis is bad.