More Than A Magazine, A Movement
In April, the nation’s highest Court will hear a pair of cases that will determine whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) preempts state laws that impede emergency abortions needed to protect the health of pregnant people even if they are not on the brink of death.
Both of these cases have ties to the main anti-abortion zealots that helped overturn Roe: Leonard Leo and Alliance Defending Freedom.
Right-wing politicians like Ron DeSantis are ranting about the “woke” media, yet most women’s sites today stick to “traditional” female topics: beauty, shopping, fashion, shopping, relationship issues and more shopping.
Perusing the happy headlines featured on women’s media sites, their readers would have no idea that abortion bans have demolished the rights of women in 21 states, nor that the maternal mortality rate has spiked in those states. Are women’s digital media site editors living in a Barbieland bubble?
Much of the criticism of Harvard’s Claudine Gay wasn’t about legitimate concerns about academic integrity or campus antisemitism. It was about who is in power.
But who’s surprised, really, that things went this way for Gay? Against Black women specifically, the conservative agenda is clear: Minimize their excellence and exaggerate their mistakes. Their identities and leadership become weaponized and politicized. There is no room for error.
With only a few days remaining before the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to adjourn for the winter break, the White House has signaled that it is willing to trade asylum protections and other immigration concessions to secure its foreign aid package. The reaction to this news has unleashed a torrent of criticism from human rights and immigration groups, but this is a moment that requires outcry from the broader public.
Time and again, important policies and decisions are derailed by a small group of Republican legislators who exercise far more control over the future of our country than should be tolerated. In this case, the stakes are so high that the Biden administration appears to be willing to agree to Trump-era policies for managing the border in exchange for aid to Ukraine, Israel, and other sensitive foreign policy objectives.
The Senate’s set to leave for the year on Dec. 15. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has urged his Senate colleagues to treat judicial nominations as a priority and to prepare “to stay in Washington until we finish our work.” (Trump had confirmed 187 judges by the end of 2019. President Joe Biden had secured 153 as of Thanksgiving.)
But it’s not enough to confirm nominees to the seats that exist; we need to expand the courts. Here’s the case for expanding the federal judiciary.
Five years after the Trump administration separated nearly 5,000 children and families in an attempt to deter migration, the Department of Justice has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit, Ms. L v. ICE, brought on behalf of those families by the ACLU. What began as a lawsuit representing one mother and one child quickly grew, as initial discovery in the case revealed that the scope of separations was far greater, and started far earlier, than May and June 2018, when the bulk of the separations took place.
“All of the consequences of such a horrific policy came, in part, because we don’t have an immigration system that actually centers the welfare of the child in decision-making.”
The Senate is feverishly debating the president’s $106 billion supplemental budget, which includes requests for additional aid to Ukraine and Israel, measures to counter China’s influence, significant humanitarian assistance funds, and border security.
Republican negotiators have chosen to use the urgency of the foreign aid requests to squeeze concessions from the administration and Democratic senators around the asylum process itself.
U.S. patriarchal authoritarianism is on the rise, and democracy is on the decline. But day after day, we stay vigilant in our goals to dismantle patriarchy at every turn. The fight is far from over. We are watching, and we refuse to go back. This is the War on Women Report.
This week: Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women shuttered after years of documented physical and sexual abuses by guards; a new White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research; Trump-appointed judges deal blow to Voting Rights Act; and more.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has allowed Saifullah Kahn, a student accused of sexual assault, to sue his accuser for defamation, relying on a Connecticut Supreme Court opinion finding that the accuser was not entitled to absolute immunity for statements she made during a Title IX proceeding.
This decision will have a chilling effect on sexual assault survivors’ willingness to come forward, as they are now vulnerable to defamation and other civil suits, which are increasingly used to silence and intimidate victims. But the ruling also could impact how schools conduct future Title IX proceedings, and influence proposed new Title IX regulations, which the Biden administration has been working on since 2020.
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.
