Anti-choice attacks on women’s access to insurance coverage for contraception and abortion are, in part, about building a legal case for controlling the private finances of women. The arguments being used could in the future apply even to your bank account.
The Roberts Court will meet in conference Tuesday to consider entering into the fight over corporate religious rights.
After what feels like years on the defensive, reproductive rights advocates pushed ahead with proposed federal protections for reproductive rights.
Right to Life of Michigan’s federal lawsuit adds to a pile of recent court cases challenging whether corporations can refuse to provide employees contraception coverage in employer-sponsored health insurance plans on moral grounds.
The problem with the birth control benefit debate is that few are thinking about the competing religious liberty rights of women.
Even with a packed docket, the Roberts Court could find room to take up important cases on pregnant workers’ rights as well as a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.
A host of new lawsuits, including a class-action challenge, look to take down the Obama administration’s compromise rule for religiously affiliated nonprofits.
Two separate requests to hear challenges to the contraception mandate were filed Thursday, increasing the odds the Supreme Court will rule on the issue in June.
There’s no reason to reject the Medicaid expansion except pure hatred for lower-income Americans. It doesn’t save money; to the contrary, it costs taxpayers more not to expand Medicaid.
The underlying problem of the anti-choice movement is that all their arguments go back to the fundamental belief that what strangers do with their own bodies is somehow their business. No matter how hard they try to deny it, this underlying assumption is easy enough to see across a variety of issues.