A panel of judges heard arguments Monday on Arizona’s 20 week abortion ban and didn’t appear convinced the state had made its case.
Could state Medicaid funding challenges be designed to test the limits of civil rights enforcement statutes?
Briefs filed in support of Arizona’s 20 week abortion ban show the evolution of the anti-choice legal strategy against Roe v. Wade.
Will corporations that facilitate human rights abuses abroad be held accountable under U.S. law? That’s the question the Supreme Court will decide in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum.
Judge James Teilborg isn’t just allowing a pre-viability abortion ban, he’s setting up a legal precedent to overturn Roe all together.
H.R. 3803, sponsored by Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ), denies a woman access to a medically necessary abortion and includes no exceptions for situations where continuing a pregnancy will place at risk a woman’s health or ability to have children in the future.
The Supreme Court ruling that the Affordable Care Act will not be struck down has managed to bump up the popularity of the legislation.
With a new law on the books that says customers cannot be turned down for insurance coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, the 2012 election could determine the fate of millions of Americans with illnesses and disabilities.
I would prefer to celebrate the birthday of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by recalling the enormous gains this legislation has made for women. Instead, I wait with baited breath for oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court this week, fearful that the Court’s majority – five conservative male justices – could dismantle the rights we fought so hard to secure.
One key reason for the success of state legislatures in restricting women’s right to choose might be that the fight over abortion in the United States historically has been framed as an issue of privacy. And the right to privacy offers poor protection for what is also an issue of life, health, and—above all—discrimination.