On Wednesday, a federal court in Louisiana became the first to rule against marriage equality since Windsor. Is the decision an outlier or a sign of trouble ahead at the Supreme Court?
“The national same-sex marriage struggle animates a clash between convictions regarding the value of state decisions reached by way of the democratic process,” U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman wrote, “as contrasted with personal, genuine, and sincere lifestyle choices recognition.”
Though the race for the Ohio governor’s seat was initially expected to be close, Democratic candidate Ed FitzGerald’s chances of beating incumbent John Kasich are becoming more and more remote.
There is no perfect way to staff our judiciary, but the evidence is inescapable that the more money that goes into electing judges, the worse our state courts perform.
A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Texas’ highly restrictive omnibus anti-abortion law—which would have closed all but eight legal abortion facilities in the state—must remain blocked, for now.
The leader of a national anti-choice lobby group said Sunday that Texas’ omnibus anti-abortion law was always intended to shutter legal abortion clinics.
The circle of victims of misogynist harassment is getting bigger, and the Supreme Court is playing a role.
The order prevents authorities in Louisiana from enforcing the law while clinics and providers continue to try and secure hospital admitting privileges.
Without the court’s injunction, HB 2 could have reduced the number of Texas abortion providers to eight.
In a matter of days, five of Texas’ eight legal abortion providers will operate under the Planned Parenthood banner, a special irony in light of state lawmakers’ professed hatred for the provider.