More Than A Magazine, A Movement
On April 24, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases, Idaho v. United States and Moyle v. United States, about whether states can prohibit doctors from treating women with life-threatening pregnancies until a patient’s condition deteriorates to the point where they are about to die.
Reproductive rights and legal advocates are collecting stories from over 100 women who almost died—and at least one who did—after being denied emergency abortion care.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released its final regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The landmark statute mandating “reasonable accommodation” of workers’ pregnancy-related needs went into effect last summer, but the regulations explain the PWFA’s protections in more detail, providing additional guidance to workers, employers, and the courts so that the full force of the law is given effect.
A 20-year study of birth mothers and analysis of the outcomes of their open adoptions, Gretchen Sisson’s book Relinquished posits that most birth mothers don’t want to relinquish, and would not do so if they had limited financial support. After the Dobbs decision and before the upcoming election, Sisson’s timing could not be better.
In 2021, the Century Foundation published its first care policy report card, “Care Matters,” which graded each state on a number of supportive family policies and worker rights and protections, such as paid sick and paid family leave, pregnant worker fairness, and the domestic worker bill of rights. The 2021 report card revealed the tremendous gaps in state care policies and a fragmented and insufficient system of care workers and families in most states.
This year’s update, co-authored with Caring Across Generations, takes another look at how states are doing.
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act’s gender-inclusive language—in notable contrast to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978—marks a crucial step towards ensuring equitable treatment and access to accommodations. Without adequate protections, Texas employers could resist making accommodations for people such as pregnant trans men by arguing that it does not apply to them on the account that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act refers specifically to “women”.
Texas has already made clear that trans and gender diverse employees will not be protected in the workplace, when a judge ruled that employers need not protect trans workers from discrimination based on dress, pronoun, and bathroom usage. The Texas legislature’s obstruction of the PWFA serves as a stark reminder of the tangled web woven by the state’s pro-business stance and its vehemently anti-trans agenda.
Now, as we navigate the treacherous terrain of a post-Dobbs landscape, the plight of transgender pregnant individuals in Texas grows increasingly dire, underscoring the urgent need for comprehensive protections and support.
Texas AG Ken Paxton sued the Biden administration last year over a government funding package that passed largely by proxy votes because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The funding package, passed in December 2022, included the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, which protects accommodations for pregnant employees and allows workers to sue employers for failing to do so.
Paxton argued the Constitution requires a physical majority of members to pass legislation. Since a majority voted on the funding package by proxy, Paxton said it was unenforceable. Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas agreed with Paxton’s understanding of a quorum—ruling the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act unenforceable against the state government and its agencies.
Senate Democrats on Tuesday highlighted their plan to protect IVF, warning their Republican colleagues they will need to decide by Wednesday whether to block a bill that would preserve access to assisted reproductive technologies.
“It’s been incredible to watch Republicans now scramble over the weekend to suddenly support IVF—well, many of these same Republicans are literally right now co-sponsors of legislation that would enshrine fetal personhood, the very concept that caused all of the chaos in Alabama,” said Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, an original co-sponsor of Duckworth’s Access to Family Building Act.
In Congress, meanwhile, Democrats’ bill that would protect IVF access nationally has received only a single Republican co-sponsor in the House and none in the Senate.
The Alabama Supreme Court’s decision to consider frozen embryos as human life warns of the impact of theocratic decision-making.
Ruling that embryos are human life with legal rights is making a theological statement, rather than a legal or scientific one. We’re watching before our eyes a clear erosion of church and state.
The availability of in-vitro fertilization in Alabama may now be in question after the state’s Supreme Court ruled that embryos kept in clinic freezers are considered persons under the law, and protected by the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. It’s a shocking and jarring decision that radically extends the bounds of legal personhood, tosses any claims to originalism aside, and seems primed to make a variety of fertility treatments either extremely costly for patients, or extremely legally risky for clinicians.
IVF is, unfortunately, not safe from the anti-abortion movement. Many of the movement’s leaders have indicated that they would like to outlaw it, and while right now they have bigger fish to fry, abortion opponents have never stopped at simply (“simply”) banning abortion. They want full control over reproduction, and over women specifically. And Alabama just put us all one step closer to their ultimate goal.
Opill, the first over-the-counter birth control pill, is set to hit drugstores, grocery stores and online shelves in the first quarter of 2024. But the real challenge lies ahead: Will it be affordable and truly accessible to all?
Opill is a progestin-only oral contraceptive pill, boasting a success rate as high as 98 percent in preventing pregnancies. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration hailed the approval of Opill as a breakthrough that could “reduce barriers to access” for those seeking contraception.
However, the promise of accessibility hinges on the crucial factor of affordability.
