Two new reports on state court elections show the damaging role outside money plays in local judicial elections.
A ruling Friday by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals highlights the political nature of the fight over the birth control benefit in the Affordable Care Act.
On the second day of its term, the Roberts Court looks ready to allow more political spending. The question is just how much more?
Led by attorney James Bopp Jr., the anti-choice advocacy group wants to spend money on political campaigns without declaring itself a political action committee. Will the Roberts Court let it?
The ugly reality is that this entire battle over the contraception mandate is about something bigger. It’s about private businesses and corporations creating a legal loophole that allows them to opt out of an array of worker protections and other regulations, all by citing “religious freedom” as a reason.
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.
If state judicial elections continue to be a big-money game, reproductive health and social justice could lose big.
An anti-choice Super-PAC may now have to disclose its donors thanks to the Supreme Court.
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 explosion of anti-choice legislation coincides with a flood of unaccountable money in our electoral system, and Republicans are fighting hard to keep it that way.