Two groups have appealed the dismissal of their challenge to an Arizona anti-choice restriction that they argue unconstitutionally relies on harmful racial stereotypes to discriminate against and shame Black and Asian American and Pacific Islander women who decide to end their pregnancies.
What conservatives really mean when they talk about “religious freedom” has been revealed already by their longstanding crusade against the birth control benefit afforded by the Affordable Care Act. For them, having religious freedom requires the right to discriminate—against specific people, and in a specific way.
Central to the political agenda of men’s rights activists is floating the idea that men somehow have a “right” to an abortion, or more accurately a right to interfere with a woman’s right to an abortion—an argument that highlights the intersecting bigotries embedded in the men’s rights movement.
Slowly but surely pregnant workers are gaining more workplace protections, but Congress still needs to act.
On this episode of Reality Cast, I interview journalist Brian Beutler about the conservative waiver mania. In another segment, I discuss how things are getting really bad for women in the Rio Grande Valley, while the absurd and routine conservative attacks on women continue.
Attorneys for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the Center for Reproductive Rights have challenged a new regulation they argue threatens to make medication abortion unavailable in the state.
A veto in Arizona may have meant the demise of one attempt to further enshrine discrimination in the name of religious liberty, but the larger threat from the Supreme Court remains.
Rachel Maddow reports on the states where Republican-sponsored bills to legalize discrimination have failed or been withdrawn. [via MSNBC]
State laws in Arizona, Kansas, Ohio, and elsewhere that would enshrine discrimination in the name of “religious liberty” have faced political setbacks, but a legal victory isn’t certain yet.
Will Senate Democrats respond to calls to block the nomination of Michael Boggs to the federal bench?