Source: https://centraloregoncoastnow.org/tag/supreme-court/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 01:53:38+00:00

Document:
Controlling our reproduction is a basis of women’s freedom. On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Zubik v. Burwell and is expected to decide Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt next month. Whatever the outcome, the Court will change women’s access to abortion and birth control – and we’re expected to passively wait to see how our lives will be affected.
Enough already! We demand control over our reproduction. Join us for a Week of Action.
Speaking out is a powerful tool. In Florida and New York, we’ll host women testifying on their experiences with abortion, birth control, and pregnancy scares. We will distribute a packet on how to host a speakout- and we hope that women around the country will also organize events where women can testify on their need to control their reproduction.
Abortion rights were won by organized women- not simply given to us by the Supreme Court. In the United States, abortion rights were won by everyday women who joined together in groups and dared to tell the truth publicly about their own illegal abortions or their fears of the consequences of unwanted pregnancy.
We saw this first in New York where, on February 13, 1969, women won greater access to abortion from the state legislature after a group of radical feminists who would soon take the name Redstockings disrupted a New York City hearing on abortion reform. The New York legislature planned to create reform based on the opinions of a panel of “experts”—consisting of 13 men and a nun. But we know that women are the experts. These feminists demandedthat the hearing members listen to the real experts–women! Women interrupted the hearing and bravely testified about their then-illegal abortions. The women demanded what they really wanted–the repeal of all abortion laws, meaning no restrictions. About a month later, Redstockings held its own “hearing,” an open meeting in the Washington Square Methodist Church where twelve women testified about their experiences with illegal abortion or the fear that they could be pregnant. The disruption and the hearing that followed resulted in New York becoming the first state to legalize abortion. The NY law became the model for Roe v. Wade. It was a win, but with Roe v. Wade we got reform, instead of abortion law repeal.
Their fight is still ours today. For women, the right to birth control, including abortion, is a cornerstone of women’s freedom. Women must control if and when we have children to determine the direction of our lives and be on equal footing with men. Without an organized, strong feminist movement making radical demands and keeping up the pressure, our victories have been attacked and eroded. We need to strengthen the radical movement to turn this around!
In the Zubik case, the Supreme Court was supposed to decide whether employers could completely block their employees’ access to birth control by blocking them from the Affordable Care Act’s birth control funding. The court didn’t stand with women. Instead, it ordered the government and employers back to the lower courts to find a compromise.
In Whole Woman’s Health, the Supreme Court will decide whether to permit the state of Texas to require medically unnecessary regulations that will close nearly every abortion clinic. The Supreme Court’s decision will have reaching effects because many states have passed laws similar to the Texas law.
We are calling for a national week of speak outs for abortion and birth control, Friday, June 3rd–Friday, June 10th. Women are the experts—we know what we need and don’t need. We don’t need additional “safety” regulations on abortion. We don’t need employers deciding whether we get birth control. Women need unrestricted access to free birth control and abortions. Women, speak out!
At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by the age of 45. But, American abortion clinics are in a fight for their survival as they battle the spread of state laws designed to restrict access to abortion.
Trapped follows two Southern clinics, capturing their struggle as they continue to provide care in the face of an increasingly hostile legal climate.
Trapped is a powerful new documentary that focuses on TRAP laws (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) and clinics that struggle to comply with them. The Supreme Court is scheduled to announce its decision in the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt surrounding these controversial laws in June. Its decision could have an impact on Roe v. Wade, the ruling that made abortion in America legal in 1973.
Winner of a Special Jury Award at Sundance, this ONE TIME ONLY SHOWING of Trapped, followed by discussion, is an excellent backdrop to understanding the Supreme Court’s decision when it is announced.
WASHINGTON — In a victory for pregnant women in the workplace, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in favor of a worker who sued shipping giant UPS for pregnancy discrimination, sending her lawsuit back to a lower court where she had previously lost.
The case, Young v. United Parcel Service, hinged on whether or not UPS was justified in putting Peggy Young on unpaid leave after she became pregnant, even though other workers were commonly offered “light duty” for on-the-job injuries or to satisfy requirements under the American with Disabilities Act. The justices ruled 6-3 in favor of keeping Young’s lawsuit alive, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito joining the traditionally liberal members of the court.
The decision essentially vacates a 2013 ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that threw out Young’s case.
Samuel Bagenstos, a lawyer for Young, called the ruling a “big win” in a tweet shortly after the decision came out.
The question at the heart of the case was whether the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires companies to offer light-duty options to pregnant workers if they already do so for non-pregnant workers in other situations.
UPS had maintained that its light-duty rules were “pregnancy neutral,” treating a pregnant worker like Young the same as anyone else. Under its collective bargaining agreement with the Teamsters, UPS said it didn’t have to accommodate workers with “off-the-job injuries or conditions,” except for cognitive disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The company tried to claim a partial victory after Tuesday’s decision, saying in a statement that the Supreme Court “rejected the argument that UPS’s pregnancy-neutral policy was inherently discriminatory.” UPS said it was “confident” it would prevail in the lower courts, where Young’s case may now go to trial.
Whatever the outcome of Young’s lawsuit, the Supreme Court case has reflected poorly on UPS. Young sued the company in 2008 and lost her case without a trial. That decision was upheld by the 4th Circuit in 2013, leading Young to appeal to the Supreme Court. Last year, not long before oral arguments were set to begin, UPS announced that it was changing its accommodation policy for pregnant workers, after years of defending it in court. As of Jan. 1, 2015, pregnant UPS workers are entitled to light duty.
Young, who was interviewed by The Huffington Post in October, was delivering packages for UPS in Maryland when she became pregnant in 2006. Her doctor recommended she not lift more than 20 pounds for the first 20 weeks of her pregnancy. Although light duty was common for many workers, UPS told Young that such accommodations wouldn’t apply to an “off-the-job” condition, which is how it classified her pregnancy.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that NOW chapters are encouraged to work in coalition in their own states and local communities to push back against this denial of rights for women and people of color.
Oh, Texas. What to do with you.
So mere hours after the Supreme Court struck down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Texas wasted no more time and re-instituted the same redistricting plan the courts had already ruled as unconstitutional. The same with their new voter suppression bill.
Attorney General Holder was having none of it, however. Texas was the first lawsuit to be filed by the Justice Department under Section 2 of the Voting Right Act.
And now Texas is presenting its defense. It is using two main arguments.
First, says Attorney General Greg Abbott, the redistricting is not about race. Oh no. It’s about not allowing DEMOCRATS to vote. White Democrats too.
DOJ’s accusations of racial discrimination are baseless. In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party’s electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats….The redistricting decisions of which DOJ complains were motivated by partisan rather than racial considerations, and the plaintiffs and DOJ have zero evidence to prove the contrary. It is perfectly constitutional for a Republican-controlled legislature to make partisan districting decisions, even if there are incidental effects on minority voters who support Democratic candidates.
You know, having them actually come right out and say it–that they don’t want Democrats to vote–is somehow not surprising. But it’s good that they’re doing it at last.
But wait! There’s more. To address the actual accusations of racial bias and discrimination, Texas is using the argument that “Yeah, there may be an isolated incident or two, but it’s NOTHING like it was in 1965”.
Furthermore, the state claims, even if Texas did discriminate, and the state stresses that it did not, it was nothing as bad as “the ‘pervasive,’ ‘flagrant,’ ‘widespread,’ and ‘rampant’ discrimination that originally justified preclearance in 1965.” So as long as Texas skies aren’t alight with flames from burning crosses, what’s the big whoop?
So, according to this, Texas is arguing that Section 2, and in fact the entire reasons for preclearance are all based on conditions in 1965. And that since “things are better than in 1965” then Section 2 is null and void.
I think the fact that Texas is second only to Mississippi in Section 2 lawsuits is the basis for this particular argument.
However, there is a danger here. Texas is arguing that ONLY conditions that existed in 1965 would justify Federal supervision of the elections process. Sort of like an “originalism to the extreme” argument.
And that can be dangerous because there are those on the Supreme Court that would like nothing more than the total eradication of the Voting Rights Act.
Not to mention the 13th 14th and 15th Amendments, but that’s another story.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.