Why the ERA Is Needed—Even With the 14th Amendment

For years, critics have claimed that women don’t need the Equal Rights Amendment because the Supreme Court has secured women’s rights under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. 

At the time it was ratified in the 19th century, no one thought that the 14th Amendment protected women; its purpose was to end slavery. Thanks to pioneering lawsuits by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the 1970s, women did gain a measure of equal rights under the 14th Amendment, but lawyers know that those victories were limited.

(This essay is part of “The ERA Is Essential to Democracy” Women & Democracy collection.)

The Ms. Q&A with Nasrin Sotoudeh: The Iranian Activist on Global Solidarity, Her Time in Prison and Being an Optimist  

Nasrin Sotoudeh is an Iranian human rights lawyer and activist who has consistently fought for the rights of women, children, religious minorities and others under persecution in Iran. Over the years, Sotoudeh has spent much of her time in prison, having been arrested for protesting Iran’s mandatory hijab law and resisting authoritarian rule. While in custody in 2022, Sotoudeh wrote to Ms. editors detailing the plight of women in Iran and called for global solidarity around women’s rights.  Ms. executive editor Kathy Spillar spoke with Nasrin and her husband Reza Khandan last month.

“The world has gone through darker days. … We’ve made our way forward through those horrific and dark events and times, and so, why not again? As long as I’m alive, I’m just naturally an optimist.”

So Who Gets the Kids? Divorce in the Age of Equal Parenting

The Alice Hector–Robert Young divorce case epitomizes the impact of gendered parenting stereotypes held in custody cases. Is there a side feminists should take?

(For more ground-breaking stories like this, order 50 YEARS OF Ms.: THE BEST OF THE PATHFINDING MAGAZINE THAT IGNITED A REVOLUTION, Alfred A. Knopf—a collection of the most audacious, norm-breaking coverage Ms. has published.)

Supreme Court to Hear Two Key Cases on Abortion Access

Rather than being done with the issue of abortion, the Supreme Court has taken up two cases this term that could have further disastrous effects on abortion access. One case could lead to limits on access to one of the two drugs used for medication abortion, and the other could allow states to ban emergency abortion care to save a patient’s life.

Decisions in both cases would have effects nationwide—illustrating the chaos and confusion that the Dobbs decision has created for providers and patients.

‘Gaza Is at Breaking Point’: Health Workers and Patients Describe an Unfolding Catastrophe in Rafah

Since the escalation of hostilities in October 2023, around 1.7 million people have been displaced in Gaza, with an estimated 1.5 million crowded into Rafah. As food, fuel, clean water and medical supplies run desperately low, disease, illness, severe hunger and acute malnutrition are rife, particularly among the more than 155,000 pregnant and breastfeeding women and their newborns.

The Upcoming SCOTUS Abortion Pill Case Could Be the Next Dobbs

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week, on Tuesday, March 26, in a case against the abortion pill mifepristone, filed against the FDA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services by the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of anti-abortion doctors and dentists. The Court will issue its ruling by summer—just months before the fall election, when voters will decide on the next U.S. president and control of Congress.

“This case is not based on any kind of medical or scientific fact around abortion. It’s purely based on politics,” said Elisa Wells of the abortion pill advocacy group Plan C. “The fact that it’s been allowed to progress so far in the court system is outrageous.”

(This article originally appears in the Spring 2024 issue of Ms. Join the Ms. community today and you’ll get issues delivered straight to your mailbox!)

Abortion Bans Are Sex Discrimination. Here’s How the ERA Can Challenge Restrictions on Abortion

On Jan. 29, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that a law banning Medicaid funding for abortion discriminates against women, in violation of the state’s Equal Rights Amendment. The decision overturned a 1985 case saying the ERA did not apply to abortion.

“The Pennsylvania case is so sweeping and strong in the way that it identifies interference with reproductive decision-making as a form of sex discrimination and as part of the historic pattern of oppression of women. It’s really beautiful,” said Susan J. Frietsche, co-executive director of the Women’s Law Project, which filed the case on behalf of Pennsylvania abortion providers.

(This essay is part of “The ERA Is Essential to Democracy” Women & Democracy collection. It also appears in the Spring 2024 issue of Ms. Join the Ms. community today and you’ll get issues delivered straight to your mailbox!)

‘Small But Mighty’: Abortion Funding in New England

and

Since the fall of Roe, states in New England have been fairly protective of abortion. In spite of these protections, there are still abortion seekers in New England who need help accessing costly procedures. That’s where abortion funds come in—local nonprofits that pay for someone’s abortion, plus extra costs, like transportation or lodging.

We interviewed representatives from Tides for Reproductive Freedom (Tides) in Massachusetts, the Reproductive Freedom Fund of New Hampshire (ReproFund), and the Women’s Health and Education Fund of Rhode Island (WHEF). More than one fund activist called their group “small but mighty”—acknowledging both the community-based approach, but also the power that comes with their smallness.

(This piece is the second in a series of articles spotlighting interviews with fund representatives across the U.S.)

‘Turbocharge’ Gender Equality—Like Caitlin Clark

We are seeing success and the benefits of investing financially in women, but how can we fast track gender equality? How can we help the younger generation strive for equality? Maybe the answer is “The Caitlin Clark effect.”

On March 1, the The Star Tribune out of Minneapolis posted a heartfelt and moving op-ed by Dr. Asitha Jayawardena, a proud dad to two young daughters that went viral: “Dear Caitlin Clark … You’re amazing on the court—but that’s just the start of your influence.” 

We Just Need to Pee

I’ve had bathroom anxiety since I was a kid. I always felt that using the women’s restroom was always the safest bet—until I began hormone replacement therapy in my late 20s. I remember the moment when a sharp male voice came from behind me, asking, “Excuse me—are you a guy or a girl?” My scariest moment left me unscathed. I survived. Nothing happened. I was lucky. Nex Benedict was not.

Stories of the many vigils held across the country for Nex speak to the care for our community. The story of Nex’s classmates walking out in protest of the school’s bullying policies speaks to the bravery of this next generation joining the ranks marching to the front line. To my trans and gender-nonconforming siblings: You are seen, you are loved, you are worth fighting for. There will come a day when we all can pee in peace. We continue on.