A ruling late Thursday shows that the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case was as much a political decision as a legal one.
Wheaton College, a religiously affiliated nonprofit, has asked for an emergency order exempting it from complying with the accommodation to the contraception benefit in the Affordable Care Act.
While the Hobby Lobby ruling keeps the government from guaranteeing basic reproductive health care for workers, the Harris decision effectively hobbles the ability of a group of public employees—most of whom are women—to properly bargain for affordable health care along with other vital benefits.
A new law in South Dakota bans the practice of so-called sex-selection abortion, while in Indiana two new laws went into effect, banning private insurance coverage of abortion care and mandating that abortion providers obtain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
On Tuesday, the plaza in front of the Legislative Assembly in El Salvador blazed with sun and the energy of 200 women and men gathered to demand from the state an accounting of progress made on petitions to pardon 17 women unjustly imprisoned for up to 40 years for what amount to miscarriages, stillbirths, and other obstetric complications.
Monday’s Hobby Lobby ruling is one more piece of evidence that we still do not value women’s rights in the same way that we value “universal rights”—that is, rights that pertain to men.
Although the reproductive rights movement and the broader feminist movement have become increasingly intersectional, there is still much work to be done in centering the issues faced by women who are not white, economically advantaged, heterosexual, and cisgender.
The Hobby Lobby decision is an affront to all women and yet another barrier to Asian American and Pacific Islander women who already face significant health disparities and barriers to insurance access.
Reading the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Massachusetts buffer zone case, you might get the idea that free speech in the form of protests and handing out literature about social and political issues is practiced without restriction in the United States. But that is not the case.
Religious conservatives challenged the California law, arguing it violated their First Amendment rights.