More Than A Magazine, A Movement
On the floors of state legislatures over the past year, doctors detailed the risks their pregnant patients have faced when forced to wait to terminate until their health deteriorated. Women shared their trauma. Some Republican lawmakers even promised to support clarifications.
But so far, few efforts to add exceptions to the laws have succeeded.
Emboldened by the Supreme Court’s recent decision to strike down the use of affirmative action in college admissions, conservatives are setting their sights on their next target: corporate America. As the CEO of Girls Who Code, a nonprofit dedicated to diversifying the tech industry, I worry about what this means in the fight to create a more representative and equitable workforce.
Rather than staying silent, corporations should follow the lead of companies like Microsoft and Salesforce which have both taken a stand against anti-affirmative action litigation. This is not a question of feel-good altruism—it’s good business, too.
On Dec. 5, the Supreme Court will hear Moore v. United States, which could dramatically limit the government’s ability to raise revenue for critical priorities, including childcare, disability care, affordable housing and paid leave. It could also widen an already gaping wealth gap for women and people of color, particularly single Black women and Latinas.
The case is being brought by Charles and Kathleen Moore, who own a small stake in an Indian manufacturing firm. Due to a provision in the 2017 Trump tax law, the couple was directed to pay a one-time tax of $15,000 on the profits of their investments. Rather than do so, they are challenging the law. Unless you’re a tax lawyer, this technical legal question may not only seem dry, but also irrelevant. So why should women care about this case?Even a narrow ruling in favor of the Moores could upend our existing tax code.
The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to consider the case of United States v. Rahimi, where the justices could strike down a longstanding, life-saving federal law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence protective orders from possessing firearms.
Imagine living with a violent, controlling partner, not knowing what you might face each time you enter your home. Imagine trying to protect yourself and your child in that situation, hang onto your job, and figure out how to get help. Imagine you reach out to a domestic violence program or the police get involved, eventually get legal representation and take the difficult step of showing up for a court proceeding that results in a domestic violence protective order requiring your abuser to stay away. And then imagine that they can nonetheless walk into a gun shop and purchase a firearm. How safe would you and your child be?
On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in United States v. Rahimi, a case in which the Court will decide whether the Second Amendment prevents the government from protecting survivors of domestic violence by temporarily disarming their abusers. Invalidating this law would exacerbate an already colossal maternal and reproductive health and rights crisis in the United States and have devastating consequences.
Violence against women is a pervasive problem globally, but in the U.S., the lethal combination of intimate partner violence against women and guns is staggering. The right to life and reproductive autonomy includes the right to live free from violence at the hands of intimate partners.
House Speaker Mike Johnson’s path to the speakership was circuitous, but it puts an ally of one of the country’s most influential anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-abortion groups third in line for the presidency.
When I heard the title of Elizabeth Silver’s new book, The Majority, I knew the lone word in the title held layers of resonance.
The novel’s main character is reminiscent of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or “The Notorious RBG,” and the reader follows her arduous, yet steady, ascending legal career. The novel reveals an intergenerational weave of feminists still trying—sometimes in impossibly constricted ways—to break down doors, laws and spaces to effect change. In this book, we see a composite of personal and professional challenges that reflect the path of one character but represent so much more beyond just her.
Reports of abuse involving reproductive coercion—actions that prevent someone from making crucial decisions about their body and reproductive health—nearly doubled in the yearlong period after Roe v. Wade was overturned.
Reproductive coercion can take the form of any situation in which one partner is exerting power over another in a way that impacts their reproductive health: forcing someone to engage in sexual activity, refusing to use contraception, restricting a partner from seeing a healthcare provider, telling a partner they are not allowed to receive abortion care.
On Thursday, Oct. 12, a wide range of organizations filed 14 amicus curiae briefs supporting a Justice Department petition asking the United States Supreme Court to overturn a Fifth Circuit decision imposing nationwide limits on access to the abortion pill mifepristone.
The opposition has until Nov. 9 to file response briefs in the case. If the justices take up the case, they could hear oral arguments early next year and issue a decision by late June 2024, which would likely factor into the fall elections.
The Alliance Defending Freedom is the group that overturned Roe v. Wade. And they’re clear on what they’re coming for next: Trans rights. Gay rights. The separation of church and state. Secularism. Anti-discrimination laws. And contraception.
