Reproductive Justice?

Posted on March 9, 2016 by Rachel Port

President Bill Clinton stands by as Ruth Bader Ginsburg is sworn in as associate Supreme Court justice in 1993

When Justice Antonin Scalia died on February 13, 2016, it was the death of more than just one man. For the first time in 20 years, the fairly reliable conservative tilt of the Supreme Court vanished. Now there were four generally liberal justices, three remaining consistently conservative justices, and Anthony Kennedy, a moderate who, though usually conservative, could move to the left, especially on social issues, as we saw in his eloquent opinion in support of same-sex marriage. If Kennedy voted with the conservatives, it would result in a tie, not a 5-4 decision. In case of a tied vote on the Supreme Court, the lower court ruling holds, and if there are conflicting rulings in different circuits, we continue with different law in different parts of the country.

Or the court could order a rehearing of a case once a new justice is seated.

The makeup of the Supreme Court is a glaring example of how much is at stake in presidential elections.

The political wheels started turning immediately. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell almost immediately announced that Scalia’s seat should be filled after “the American people” weigh in during the presidential election — Republicans always seem to forget that the American people have already weighed in twice by making Barack Obama president. This categorical rejection of any Obama nominee, no matter who, is unprecedented. Scalia’s seat was apparently sacred, and could only fairly be filled by a Republican appointee. McConnell does not seem to consider that the next president might also be a Democrat.

The change in the balance of the court was apparent in the first of two cases concerning reproductive health that were scheduled to be heard this month. (The second case, Zubik v. Burwell, will be argued on March 23.) At SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston analyzed the oral arguments in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. It was always clear that the outcome would hinge on Justice Kennedy, and, before Scalia’s death, that in all likelihood the Texas law requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, and abortion clinics to meet ambulatory surgical clinic requirements, would be upheld. Continue reading →

Pro-Choice Friday News Rundown

Posted on April 25, 2014 by Stacey S.

Arizona’s abortion restrictions are making national news for their colossal suckiness. (Rolling Stone)
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is an anti-choice zealot and, unsurprisingly, so is his wife. It seems she has strong ties with a “crisis pregnancy center” that counsels women (and tells them big lies) to dissuade them from having abortions. What does this mean for us? It means buffer zones at abortion clinics could be a thing of the past if Scalia has anything to say about it. WHICH SADLY HE DOES. (Salon)
Criminalizing pregnant women for having the misfortune of being addicts. That’s the agenda in Tennessee. (RH Reality Check)
Abortion opponents cannot grasp the fact that pro-choice advocate Chelsea Clinton is choosing to have a child. The air is really thick with stupid these days, isn’t it? (Think Progress)
Nearly 70 percent of Americans believe all health insurance plans should cover birth control. Maybe because something like 97 percent of women use or have used some form of contraception in their lifetimes? That could be why. (Time)
Catholic Cardinal Timothy Dolan thinks people can walk into “a 7-Eleven or any shop on any street in America” and pick up birth control like it’s a pack of Juicy Fruit Gum. Look, I know the guy’s celibate and all, but lack of sex doesn’t excuse this kind of ignorance. (NY Times)
Rand Paul said something reasonable and non-extreme about abortion and conservatives are pissed. (HuffPo)
Need some tips to make sex and birth control less awkward subjects in your life? Here ya go! (Care2)

Judging Sex: From Bowers v. Hardwick to Lawrence v. Texas

Posted on June 24, 2013 by Tori

Tyron Garner, left, and John Lawrence, right, react to the decision in Lawrence v. Texas. Image: Metro Weekly

This week, two related Supreme Court cases both mark anniversaries.

Twenty-seven years ago (and yes, I totally had to get out my calculator for that one), on June 30, 1986, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick. In it, the court concluded, “The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy.” That is, even though previous courts had established and upheld a constitutional right to privacy when it came to some matters of sexual health — such as in Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade — states were free to enact laws that made it illegal for people to engage in “homosexual sodomy” — basically, outlawing same-sex couples from having oral or anal sex.

June 26 is the 10th anniversary of Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws nationwide.

On its way to the Supreme Court, the relevant appeals court held that laws that discriminated against same-sex couples’ consensual sexual activities violated an individual’s “fundamental rights because his homosexual activity is a private and intimate association that is beyond the reach of state regulation by reason of the Ninth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” However, other courts of appeals had issued rulings in conflict with that sentiment. When the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Bowers, it explicitly rejected that same-sex sexual activity fell under the same constitutional right to privacy:

No connection between family, marriage, or procreation, on the one hand, and homosexual activity, on the other, has been demonstrated, either by the Court of Appeals or by respondent. Moreover, any claim that these cases nevertheless stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable.

However, another date in June — the 26th, to be specific — marks the 10th anniversary of a different case involving gay rights: Lawrence v. Texas. That ruling reversed and overturned the court’s decision in Bowers.

So in those 17 years between Bowers and Lawrence, what changed? Continue reading →