More Than A Magazine, A Movement
Title IX was passed in 1972 and prohibits sex (and pregnancy, gender identity or sexual orientation) discrimination in any higher education institution receiving federal funding. It guaranteed equal opportunities in sports for women and girls in higher education. It also provided resources and protections against sexual harassment and sexual assault.
Part two of a three-part series about the 900-plus-page right-wing “misogynistic manifesto”:
Project 2025 eviscerates women’s long-held rights to sex equality in the workplace. Its plans for women students and workers would devastate their educational opportunities, harming their careers and earning power.
(This article originally appears in the Fall 2024 issue of Ms. Join the Ms. community today and you’ll get issues delivered straight to your mailbox!)
The Supreme Court of Montana used state constitutional grounds to strike down the Consent Act, which required minors to obtain parental consent for an abortion. The court’s analysis of these justifications determined that they were clearly intended to obfuscate the antiabortion animus behind the Consent Law.
Having revealed the baselessness of the underlying justifications for discriminating against teens who choose abortion over childbirth, it becomes readily apparent that these are antiabortion laws—plain and simple—that aim to divest teens of control over this reproductive choice.
In every issue of Ms., we track research on our progress in the fight for equality, catalogue can’t-miss quotes from feminist voices and keep tabs on the feminist movement’s many milestones. We’re Keeping Score online, too—in this biweekly roundup.
This week: Kamala Harris chooses Tim Walz; female Olympians make history; new Title IX rule faces legal challenges; JD Vance doubles down on supporting Project 2025; mandating in-person work hurts women; over 90 percent of women engage in civic actions; and more.
From Caitlin Clark’s success this season, to the Women’s Basketball Team shot at The Olympics this week, the history of women’s basketball has been paved by Title IX.
“It’s now over 50 years since Title IX was passed and it’s amazing how great U.S. women athletes are doing [at the Olympics]. Finally hearts and minds are getting closer to matching the law. People are investing in women’s sports as a business, not a charity,” said Billie Jean King.
(This article originally appears in the Summer 2024 issue of Ms. Join the Ms. community today and you’ll get issues delivered straight to your mailbox!)
In every issue of Ms., we track research on our progress in the fight for equality, catalogue can’t-miss quotes from feminist voices and keep tabs on the feminist movement’s many milestones. We’re Keeping Score online, too—in this biweekly roundup.
This week: Vice President Kamala Harris launched her presidential campaign with Biden’s endorsement; Trump’s VP pick JD Vance’s anti-abortion extremism; women’s health is suffering in the Southeast; the Supreme Court blocked an EPA air pollution plan; House Republicans attack voting rights and Title IX; rest in power, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee and Dr. Ruth Westheimer; and more.
The Justice Department went to the U.S. Supreme Court this week in defense of the Biden administration’s new Title IX sex discrimination rule that includes transgender protections—arguing strongly that the logic of the rule is “compelled” by the Court’s ruling in Bostock.
The rule, issued under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, is set to go into effect on Aug. 1.
This year marks the 52nd anniversary of Title IX, a landmark civil rights law that has transformed the landscape of U.S. education. The Biden-Harris administration’s new Title IX regulations, set to take effect Aug. 1, represent a significant step toward acknowledging and addressing the unique challenges faced by student who face discrimination and sexual violence, especially female, LGBTQ+ and pregnant or parenting students. But Republicans hope to block these Title IX revisions and revert them back to the restrictive Trump-era Title IX guidelines.
In this historic election year, with President Biden stepping down from the presidential campaign and Vice President Kamala Harris stepping up as the new candidate, the stakes are even higher.
One of the Court’s most significant decisions of 2024 was Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. In a reversal of 40 years of precedent, courts—not agencies—will have the last word on interpreting federal law.
In her Loper dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote: “In every sphere of current or future federal regulation, expect courts from now on to play a commanding role.” Kagan’s dissent raises the specter of judges across the country—not doctors or scientists or educators, nor even politicians, who at least must answer to the public—playing a “commanding role” in reproductive rights policy.
On April 19, the Biden administration released new Title IX guidelines that increase protections for assault victims, LGBTQ+ students, and pregnant students by providing schools more flexibility in how they conduct investigations.
Almost three months later, on July 10, House Republicans passed a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution—House Joint Resolution 165—that would block the Biden administration’s Title IX revisions and revert them back to the restrictive Trump-era Title IX guidelines.
The state of Texas does not believe its arsenal of antiabortion laws has done enough to strip pregnant people of control over their bodies.
Represented by antiabortion warrior Attorney General Ken Paxton, Texas is suing the Biden administration in a challenge to the Title IX claim that abortion-related discrimination is prohibited sex discrimination. Two professors from the University of Texas-Austin—John Hatfield, a professor of finance, and Daniel Bonevac, a philosophy professor—subsequently joined the suit as named plaintiffs.
At its core, this case is about the surveillance and control of the sexual and reproductive lives of students, and the chillingly privileged view that professors are somehow entitled to this measure of control over students’ lives based upon their own views about abortion.