Prisoners in White County, Tennessee can now receive a credit for 30 days off their sentences if they voluntarily undergo a birth control procedure.

General Sessions Judge Sam Benningfield signed the standing order instituting the program on May 15. Since then, at least 32 women and 38 men have volunteered for the procedure. Female prisoners receive a Nexplanon arm implant, which works for up to three years. Male prisoners receive a vasectomy. The Tennessee Department of Health conducts both procedures free of charge for the inmates.

Judge Benningfield decided to sign the order after speaking with the Department of Health. He says his hope is that the program will end the vicious cycle of drug-addicted ex-cons giving birth to children they cannot support and who might one day become drug users and criminals themselves. “I hope to encourage them to take personal responsibility and give them a chance, when they do get out, not to be burdened with children,” he said in an interview with Nashville’s News Channel 5. “I understand it won’t be entirely successful, but if you reach two or three people, maybe that’s two or three kids not being born under the influence of drugs. I see it as a win-win.”

Not everyone agrees. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released a statement on Wednesday calling the program “unconstitutional:”

Offering a so-called ‘choice’ between jail time and coerced contraception or sterilization is unconstitutional. Such a choice violates the fundamental constitutional right to reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity by interfering with the intimate decision of whether and when to have a child, imposing an intrusive medical procedure on individuals who are not in a position to reject it. Judges play an important role in our community – overseeing individuals’ childbearing capacity should not be part of that role.

There is also dissent closer to home. Tennessee’s District Attorney Bryant Dunaway has instructed his staff not to make arrangements regarding the program. “Those decisions are personal in nature and I think that’s just something the court system should not encourage or mandate,” he told local news station WTKR.

So far, 32 female volunteers have received their implants. The male volunteers are still waiting for their procedures to begin.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tennessee Inmates Trading Time in Prison for Birth Control and Vasectomies appeared first on Law Street.

For many women, birth control pills feel like a lifesaver. When taken properly, they are 99 percent effective at preventing unwanted pregnancies, and often have the added bonus of reducing acne, regulating periods, and easing menstrual cramps. But, apparently their “lifesaving” status isn’t only meant metaphorically. According to a study by Oxford University, birth control pills have saved 200,000 lives from endometrial cancer over a nine-year period.

The Collaborative Group on Epidemiological Studies on Endometrial Cancer conducted the study and based on the results, believe that 400,000 cases of endometrial cancer before the age of 75 have been prevented over the past 50 years. Researchers determined this after analyzing the cases of 27,276 women with endometrial cancer and 115,743 without.

Endometrial cancer, more commonly known as uterine cancer, is a type of cancer that begins in the lining of the uterus and typically affects post-menopausal women. According to the National Cancer Institute, approximately 60,050 women in the U.S. were diagnosed with endometrial cancer in 2016, and approximately 10,470 women died from the disease, based on 2013 statistics.

The Oxford University study was first published in 2015 but made the news again this week, and its findings are more relevant than ever in light of recent events. This is especially true given that today is International Women’s Day, and women across the country are striking to protest President Donald Trump and to advocate for the rights of women–including reproductive rights.

This week Trump unveiled his highly awaited Obamacare replacement plan, which notably included provisions that would defund Planned Parenthood–preventing the organization from using federal funding toward its family planning services–and prevent Americans from using their tax credits to help pay for plans that include coverage of elective abortion services.

Under the new law, low-income women would have a much harder time obtaining affordable contraceptive options, including birth control pills. If the bill manages to make its way through Congress, the number of unwanted pregnancies and endometrial cancer cases could both rise.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Birth Control Pills Saved 200,000 Lives Over a Decade appeared first on Law Street.

Melinda Gates is dedicating herself to ensuring that women, globally, have access to contraception and reproductive health care. In a recent op-ed penned for National Geographic, the famed philanthropist pledged that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation would help 120 million more women gain access to birth control by 2020.

Gates described her motivations for taking on this task, saying:

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Melinda Gates Wants to Help More Women Access Contraception appeared first on Law Street.

The day after the election was rough to say the least. Not only had I overconfidently assumed that I’d be spending the day celebrating a woman finally breaking through the top political glass ceiling, but I hadn’t even allowed myself–up until that point–to imagine a reality where Donald Trump actually wins the 2016 presidential election.

Sleep deprived and legitimately scared for my life, I then began to mentally run through all the things that could now happen under a Trump presidency. For starters:

1. “The Great Wall of Mexico” could become a reality.
2. Marriage equality quite possibly could be overturned.
3. Abortion could become illegal.
4. Congress would likely work quickly to repeal Obamacare.

But wait, if Trump trashes the Affordable Care Act, that would mean no more free birth control!

I frantically began researching a form of contraception that would outlast a four-year Trump term and stumbled upon intrauterine devices. Commonly referred to as IUDs, these tiny T-shaped devices are inserted into a woman’s uterus as a long-acting reversible form of birth control.

Unlike the pill, versions such as Mirena can last up to five to seven years (which would be long enough to outlast Trump), and if you get one in the next 70 days, it’s probably free under Obamacare. According to Planned Parenthood, IUDs can cost as much as $1,000.

Apparently I wasn’t the only one ready to immediately schedule an appointment with my gynecologist. Women all across the country flocked to Twitter to urge women to get an affordable IUD while they still can.

Getting an IUD before January 1st that’s for damn sure

— Paige Daniel (@paigedaniel_) November 9, 2016

I have truly never been more shocked in my life. Hug your friends a little tighter, promise to protect each other, & everyone go get an IUD

— Rachel Varina (@rachelvarina) November 9, 2016

The only thing I was motivated to do today was set up an IUD consultation with my gyno.

— Cate Weinberg (@CateWeinberg) November 9, 2016

IF YOU CAN GET PREGNANT: TRY TO GET AN IUD IN THE NEXT 70 DAYS WHILE YOU ARE STILL COVERED.

— nurse lyons (@seelions) November 9, 2016

Get your IUD. If you have light periods, opt for a Paragard, which can last 10-12 years. Get your birth control that will outlast Trump.

— grimalkin (@grimalkinrn) November 9, 2016

IUDs aren’t for everyone, but this set-it-and-forget-it method can be 99.8 percent effective at preventing pregnancy. Anyone considering an IUD should definitely do thorough research and consult a medical professional before getting one. Here’s a comprehensive guide to five different kinds of IUDs to choose from.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why I Frantically Started Researching IUDs the Day After the Election appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

You Guys Ok?: Republicans Are Flipping Out

With one week to go until the election, team Trump is finding new ways to provoke people. On Monday night the hashtag #HillaryForPrision trended among people who want to see Hillary locked up. The word “prison” was misspelled to avoid detection by Twitter’s “censors”–the users employing the hashtag claim Twitter is trying to silence their opinions. Smart move, Republicans?

#HillaryForPrison Has been blocked by Twitter, so use the hashtag #HillaryForPrision!

— Democrats for Trump (@YoungDems4Trump) October 31, 2016

Please tell me again HOW she’s still allowed to run for President? 2 FBI criminal investigations? Seriously? #HillaryForPrision

— Heather Ross (@RealHeatherRoss) October 31, 2016

Also, during a rally in Las Vegas on Sunday, Trump supporter Wayne Allyn Root basically wished for the deaths of Clinton and Huma Abedin by comparing them with the movie characters Thelma and Louise. Hint: the movie ends with them driving their car off a cliff.

via GIPHY

And lastly, someone dumped a huge truckload of cow poop outside the Democratic Party headquarters in Lebanon, Ohio on Saturday. Can this election get any crappier?

Pile of manure dumped in front of Warren County Democratic Party HQ early today https://t.co/3QOOjyrfpV pic.twitter.com/MvwZwZwpzK

— Ohio_Politics (@Ohio_Politics) October 29, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 1, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

A new study by Danish researchers at the University of Copenhagen shows that your birth control pills might raise the risk of depression. The pills contain many hormones, so the theory that birth control pills can increase depression has been floated before, but this new Danish study is one of the largest and most comprehensive looks into the subject to date. The study looked at health records for one million Danish women between the ages of 15 and 34.

The study shows differences in rates of depression between types of hormone used, and also between oral or non-oral birth control. Women were grouped together based on whether they used hormonal contraceptives, including women who had done so in the previous six months, and those who do not. After over six years of following the women, an analysis of the data showed that the women using combination pills, that contain both estrogen and progestin, were 23 percent more likely than non-users to be on an antidepressant. But the numbers for women who took pills only containing progestin were even worse–34 percent more likely. Other, non-oral types of birth control also saw high rates of depression. According to the researchers that is probably because of the higher doses of hormones in those types of contraceptives.

This naturally created a ton of reactions on social media. Some were digitally shaking their heads–isn’t this already common knowledge?

I thought this was very common knowledge, but yes. The pill makes you depressed. It is insane. https://t.co/B8zi9evg2i

— Allie Goertz (@AllieGoertz) October 4, 2016

Cosmo said there’s a “new” risk about hormonal birth control increasing depression but like lol that’s really not anything new

— emo mommy (@emxmess) October 4, 2016

Many were just happy that the pill keeps them from getting pregnant.

The scientists who are claiming birth control causes depression don’t realize how psyched I am each month when I’m not pregnant

— Scarlet Meyer (@scarletkmeyer) October 4, 2016

And the risk seems to be the highest among teenage girls. Adding a birth control pill with even more hormones resulted in girls being 80 percent more likely to be prescribed an antidepressant when using a combination pill compared with non-using teenagers. Girls using progestin-only pills were 120 percent more likely.

However it is important to point out that the pills alone probably do not cause depression. Additionally, not all depressed women are treated with anti-depressants, and also some women may take anti-depressants without a formal depression diagnosis.

Maybe it’s time to invent a male birth control pill?

Birth control pills should be for men.

It makes more sense to unload a gun than to shoot at a bulletproof vest!

— TheBamaBromoRN (@BamaBromo_) September 30, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Study Shows Birth Control Pills Might Increase Risk of Depression appeared first on Law Street.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is no stranger to inflammatory remarks, and is not shy about offending large swaths of people, even citizens of the country he presides over. On Monday while speaking at an educational foundation in Istanbul, Turkey’s capital, Erdogan called on women to abstain from contraception, and to “multiply [their] descendants.”

“People talk about birth control, about family planning. No Muslim family can understand and accept that!” he said. “As God and as the great prophet said, we will go this way. And in this respect the first duty belongs to mothers.”

Erdogan, who has four children with his wife Emine, has called on Turkish women to bear at least three children, and that “four means abundance.” Turkey is the world’s nineteenth most populous nation with almost 80 million people, according to United Nations estimates.

The Koran, Islam’s holy scripture, does not explicitly condemn contraception. Eight of the nine schools of Islamic law permit the practice. And while Turkey is technically a secular democracy, Erdogan’s party, the AKP, is made up of Islamists, and critics (as well as global partners like the U.S.) fear that he is slowly steering his country in the direction of an Islamic dictatorship.

He’s jailed journalists and former military officers. Most recently, he booted Turkey’s Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, a move that critics saw as an attempt remove a man who he perceived a threat to his power.

Erdogan has also made a habit of offending women. In 2014, at a conference for justice and rights for women, he insisted that men and women are not in fact equal: “You cannot put women and men on an equal footing,” he said. “It is against her nature — because her nature is different, her bodily constitution is different.”

In a statement posted to Twitter, the Platform to Stop Violence Against Women, a women’s rights group, rejected Erdogan’s comments: “You cannot usurp our right to contraception, nor our other rights with your declarations that come out of the Middle Ages. We will protect our rights.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Turkey’s President: Birth Control Shouldn’t be Used by Muslim Women appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court of the United States announced Monday that it will not issue a landmark ruling in the Zubik v. Burwell case, instead it will send the contraception mandate case back to lower courts to explore if a compromise is possible.

Supreme Court punts in a major religious challenge to Obamacare’s contraception workaround https://t.co/3zxr7QMVPJ pic.twitter.com/DYgU67vJbS

— HuffPost Politics (@HuffPostPol) May 16, 2016

In the unanimous “per curium” opinion, SCOTUS determined that:

Given the gravity of the dispute and the substantial clarification and refinement in the positions of the parties, the parties on remand should be afforded an opportunity to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitioners’ religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners’ health plans “receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.

The controversial case is part of an ongoing battle between the government and private employers over access to contraception, and whether or not employers can refuse to provide coverage.

As it stands, religious organizations like churches are exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) mandate that contraception be covered under private health plans. However, non-profit organizations with religious affiliations, such as hospitals, charities, and universities, argued that they should be exempt as well.

The ACA has given private employers who have religious objections the option to file a Form 700 with their insurance companies notifying them of their objection, so the insurance company can then contact employees with contraception options, sans employer involvement.

The Little Sisters of the Poor, a network of nursing homes operated by Catholic nuns, protested filing Form 700, along with several other non-profit organizations, because it believed that doing so would make it complicit in providing contraception, which is recognized as a sin under Roman Catholic doctrine.

In the concurring opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, both justices underscored the court’s caution to lower courts not to read too much into the ruling. Sotomayor writes,

Today’s opinion does only what it says it does: ‘affords an opportunity’ for the parties and courts of appeals to reconsider the parties’ arguments in light of petitioners’ new articulation of their religious objection and the government’s clarification about what the existing regulations accomplish, how they might be amended and what such an amendment would sacrifice. As enlightened by the parties’ new submissions, the courts of appeals remain free to reach the same conclusion or a different one on each of the questions presented by these cases.

This case has been considered the sequel to SCOTUS’s Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case, which determined for-profit organizations can be exempt from “a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law’s interest.” Under the Hobby Lobby ruling, organizations were given the same option of having insurers contact employers directly in the company objected.

Now, the lower courts will have to decide again if that same alternative puts too much of a burden on religious institutions. If so, these non-profits may gain a special exemption.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Asks For Compromise in Obamacare Contraception Mandate Case appeared first on Law Street.

As reported previously on Law Street, Oregon and California recently passed legislation to allow women seeking certain hormonal contraceptives to bypass a doctor and a prescription and speak with a pharmacist instead in an effort to make contraception more accessible for women.

Women in Oregon were able to start getting these contraceptives prescription-free in January.

As of Friday, the law in California has now been enacted and women can begin to use this service.

Advocates believe that this will make it easier and less costly for women to obtain contraception. The issue of unintended pregnancy has been at the forefront of many discussions now because of the heavy debate on abortion. According to the Guttmacher Institute, almost half of all pregnancies in the U.S. (6.1 million) are unintended. Fifty-four percent of unintended pregnancies in the U.S. resulted from a non-use of any method of contraception.

Obviously, one of the best methods to prevent unintended pregnancy is using some form of contraception. Unfortunately, for some women it is not just as easy as picking it up from their local pharmacy. In most cases, a woman must see a doctor in order to get the prescription they need–costly and sometimes inconvenient or impossible for some women.

There is one key difference between California’s and Oregon’s laws. There is no age-restriction for women seeking contraception in California but in Oregon you must be 18 or older and have obtained your first prescription from a doctor.

Other positive steps were taken this week when the FDA loosened regulations on the abortion-inducing pill mifepristone, now allowing women to request a medication-induced abortion up to 70 days after conception, rather than the previous 49 days. The second drug is also now allowed to be taken at home rather than in the doctor’s office.

This news comes at a time when many clinics have been forced to shut down around the country due to strict abortion laws in many states. The Supreme Court has been hearing testimony, debating the issue and will decide on the constitutionality of these key legislations. But for now, the FDA’s decision is a step in the right direction to lessening the burden on women in some of these states where legislatures are trying to outlaw legal abortion.

There is good news coming out of other parts of the West, too. In Colorado, a program was started in 2011 that aimed to have long-lasting contraception, like IUDs and implants, accessible and free to teenagers. Through this program, by 2013, the rate of teenage pregnancy had dropped 40 percent. However, due to the initial funding running out, Gov. John Hickenlooper asked the state for funding to continue the program. Republican lawmakers said no, but the program has survived through private grants and donations, which was an unexpected win for health providers in the state. As a lot of abortion providers are forced to shutter in many parts of the state, these small reproductive rights victories are key.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reproductive Rights Breakthroughs in Oregon and California appeared first on Law Street.

In 2011, a personal injury complaint was filed in regards to Mirena, an intrauterine device (IUD) manufactured by Bayer Healthcare, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies worldwide. Since then, over a thousand lawsuits have been filed against the manufacturers of Mirena. Some Mirena users have suffered from uterine perforation, inflammation, organ damage, and a host of other medical complications. The Mirena IUD is Bayer’s most popular model worldwide, and the company markets the product as safe and efficient. Yet as the number of lawsuits continues to rise, Mirena’s reputation may take a hit. Take a look at the details behind Mirena and why these lawsuits are making the news.

Mirena by the Numbers

The three hormonal IUDs available in the United States: Skyla, Liletta, and Mirena. Both Skyla and Mirena are manufactured by Bayer while Liletta was developed by Actavis and Medicines360 specifically to be low cost and available to public health clinics. According to Mirena’s official website, Mirena is recommended for women who have already had a child. The IUD is marketed as a “hassle free” form of birth control for busy moms. The major benefits of the IUD are that it is effective, convenient, reversible (the IUD can be removed if you wish to become pregnant) and estrogen free (the IUD utilizes progestin).

However, in 2009, the FDA issued a warning letter to Bayer, arguing that the Mirena advertising campaign exaggerated the efficacy of the device, misleading consumers. The FDA singled out certain advertisements that failed to describe any of the risks associated with IUDs and sent a letter requesting the immediate termination of specific websites. The letter was meant to serve as a larger warning towards Bayer for future advertising campaigns: do not overstate Mirena’s positive effects while minimizing its negative impacts.

Despite the 2009 warning from the FDA, Mirena sales continued to rise. Once implanted by a medical professional, the Mirena IUD is expected to last for up to five years. Each Mirena IUD costs $800, which has generated over a billion dollars in revenue for the manufacturers. The risks of side effects for Mirena users is equivalent to the risk that oral contraceptive users face so many women who once relied on oral contraceptives have transitioned to the IUD, expecting minimal changes in their physical health. For the vast majority of women who have made that switch, that has held true–IUDs including Mirena largely are safe and effective forms of contraception. However, the plaintiffs in the the lawsuits filed against Mirena have experienced side effects including perforation of the uterus, pelvic inflammatory disease, and ectopic pregnancy (pregnancy that occurs outside the uterus). The most common complaint among the plaintiffs is device migration, during which the IUD shifts and eventually presses against organs or blood vessels, sometimes causing internal damage.

The Nature of the Lawsuits

Bayer is being sued in multiple states by thousands of plaintiffs, after more than 45,000 adverse event reports. These event reports usually involve medical side effects once the IUD has been inserted, but several cases have been filed regarding removal of the IUD. Mirena removal is meant to be simple but some women have needed surgical procedures to remove the device. These lawsuits are currently being filed on an  individual basis and in 2014, the US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation chose not to consolidate multiple claims into one. The differing nature of the claims against Mirena (uterine perforation, increased risk of neurological damage and painful surgical removal, to name just a few) make it difficult to consolidate the claims into a single case. However, as the number of lawsuits increases, the possibility of a class action suit has not been ruled out. According to Lawyers and Settlements,

A refusal to centralize lawsuits at this stage does not mean that the lawsuits will never be centralized. Plaintiffs in Lipitor lawsuits faced a similar situation in 2013, when their request to have lawsuits centralized was denied. At the time, the panel ruled that with only five lawsuits and 24 potential tagalongs, there was no need to consolidate. By 2014, however, the number of lawsuits had increased to 56, with 170 potential tagalongs. At that point the request to consolidate was approved. As of August 2014, there were approximately 1,000 Lipitor lawsuits filed.

If a sufficient number of Mirena users come forward with similar complaints, their cases could be combined into a single class action suit against Bayer. However, because Mirena is still a relatively new product, it may take years before a sufficient number of users come forward with similar complaints. There have been multiple online forums set up for women to discuss Mirena effects, including one established by famed activist Erin Brokovich, but for the time being, efforts to consolidate Mirena claims are at a standstill.

What Does this Mean for Bayer?

Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals is a speciality pharmaceutical company that works in General Medicine, Hematology, Neurology, Oncology and Women’s Healthcare. Bayer Healthcare is one of 289 subsidiaries of the Bayer Group, based in Germany. As the parent company of Mirena, Bayer is being held liable for virtually all of the personal injury claims involving the product. Most plaintiffs have chosen to sue Bayer rather than their doctor, arguing that their medical side effects come from the IUD itself not from a poorly performed insertion. When the FDA submitted its 2009 letter to Bayer, it stated that Bayer had overstated the efficiency of the product (making unsubstantiated claims), omitted information about the risk of the product and ultimately made a serious of false or misleading statements in its advertising campaign. Bayer has claimed it was not aware of those side effects and that its marketing campaign should not be considered irresponsible.

Other Legal Concerns 

Besides the Mirena lawsuits, Bayer is also involved in a host of lawsuits regarding its birth control pill, Yaz. Research found that blood clot risk could be higher in women who used Yaz compared with women who used other oral contraceptives, and Yaz has been linked to many injuries and dozens of deaths. This is largely due to the presence of drospirenone in Yaz, which was found to “increase the risk of an embolism or thrombosis by up to three times compared to previous generations of contraceptive pill” according to DW.

A study in Denmark assessed the data of 1.6 million Danish women who took a drospirenone contraceptive pill for several years and found that the “risk of a heart attack or stroke was higher in these women than those using a non-hormonal method of contraception.”

Plaintiffs argue that Bayer downplayed the risks of the drug and exaggerated the benefits. There are further claims that the Bayer team did not complete sufficient research during product testing and failed to issue a recall once the side effects of the drug became apparent. The FDA has at least somewhat supported these claims, as it sent a warning letter to Bayer in 2008 discussing misleading marketing techniques used to sell Yaz. As of last year, Bayer had settled 8,250 cases for $1.7 billion but there are still lawsuits pending in national and state courts across the country. Onlookers point out that the number of settlements Bayer has made in the Yaz case may be promising for the plaintiffs in the Mirena cases. When Bayer’s oral contraceptives and IUD have come under significant criticism, both from the FDA and from individual users, the company has the potential to lose credibility. 

Conclusion

IUDs are a largely effective and safe form of birth control and a growing number of physicians have been recommending them to women. However, the lawsuits against Mirena should not be ignored and the manufacturers should strive to correct errors in their products in order to reduce the medical risks of their IUD. The lawsuits against Mirena do not only affect Bayer, they also affect the reputation of all versions of the IUD across the United States. If drug companies use misleading advertising to sell their products, the number of adverse event reports (and the lawsuits that accompany them) will swell in size. Birth control should not inspire fear in young women but should instead be seen as a safe and effective choice. Pharmaceutical companies have a duty to these women to present them with safe and effective products and to fully explain the medical risks associated with any form of birth control–we’ll have to see what the courts decide when it comes to whether or not Bayer took on that responsibility appropriately.

Resources

Primary

FDA: Notice of Violation Letter

FDA: Warning Letter

Additional

Injury Lawyer News: Mirena IUD Named in California Injury Lawsuit

Newsweek: The Courtroom Controversy Behind Popular Contraceptive Mirena

Lawyers and Settlements; More Mirena Lawsuits Expected with New Study

Drug Watch: Manufacturer:Bayer

The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation: IUDS: Access for Women in the United States

Deutsche Welle: Bayer Sued over Controversial Contraceptive Pill Yasminelle

The Richmond Legal Examiner: FDA to Review Essure Birth Control Device

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Legal Battles over the Mirena IUD: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

In a big win for advocates for more accessible contraceptives, certain hormonal birth controls are soon going to be available to women in California and Oregon directly from pharmacists. Instead of requiring prescriptions from doctors, the new laws would allow women to get the prescriptions from pharmacists instead, hopefully cutting down on costs and making contraceptives easier to obtain.

Both California and Oregon’s new laws will be enacted in the next few months, although it’s unclear exactly when. But when they are in place, women will be able to visit their local pharmacy and, after filling out a short questionnaire that discusses their medical histories and other pertinent questions, obtain birth control directly from the pharmacists. These will include a variety of different kinds of hormonal birth control, including pills, patches, and rings, and they will be subject to the same insurance coverage as when they were prescribed by doctors.

Contrary to popular belief, there’s no real need for contraceptives to be prescribed by a doctor. Dr. Daniel Grossman, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California, San Francisco and the vice president for research at Ibis Reproductive Health explained why it’s acceptable for pharmacists to prescribe contraceptives:

There’s a growing body of evidence that there isn’t a safety concern. There are studies showing that women can really accurately identify the conditions that make it appropriate to use certain contraceptives, using a simple checklist.

Allowing pharmacists to dispense certain types of medications based on their own judgment isn’t a new concept–take for example, flu shots. Pharmacists can dispense flu shots after consulting with a patient, regardless of whether or not there’s a doctor there. However, exactly what pharmacists are allowed to do depends on the state–Oregon and California will be just be extending those privileges.

There are some concerns from advocates of more accessible birth control that this new step is counter-productive. Advocates, including the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, are pushing for birth control to be over the counter (OTC) as opposed to dispensable through a pharmacist. But, while that might be true, this is certainly a step in the right direction in allowing more women to have easy access to affordable birth control.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California and Oregon to Allow Pharmacists to Prescribe Birth Control appeared first on Law Street.

Yesterday the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy celebrated National Thanks Birth Control Day, where women everywhere were encouraged to share the reasons why they love birth control on social media. The campaign aimed to dispel myths and raise awareness of all of the benefits of contraceptives, which makes perfect sense because birth control is pretty amazing.

Not only does it help prevent unplanned pregnancy, but it also stops cramps, regulates periods, clears acne-prone skin, and allows women to be able to have sex on their terms. All of these reasons account for why 99 percent of women have used birth control at some point in their lives.  Therefore talking about the subject shouldn’t be taboo or politically polarizing, but rather a celebration of women having power over their ovaries and their destinies!

Here are some of the best birth control shout outs women all across the country had on social media:

Birth control gives women power to plan their families & futures. Accessibility is essential. #ThxBirthControl pic.twitter.com/0aAsFCNVar

— Cecile Richards (@CecileRichards) November 10, 2015

#ThxBirthControl for helping me regulate my periods and lessen how long they last each month. Also I enjoy not having babies. — Katelyn (@katelyn0donnell) November 11, 2015

#ThxBirthControl for giving me my life back when endometriosis threatened to cripple it. @bedsider — Tracy L F (@stillsunflowers) November 11, 2015

I get to spend all the energy I would waste on worrying if I was pregnant on writing really fire tweets. #ThxBirthControl — Caitlin Van Horn (@HelloCVH) November 10, 2015

#Birthcontrol means families can plan, women can continue their educations, and kids are born into healthy families. #thxbirthcontrol

— Amanda O. (@colorcodedlife) November 10, 2015

#BirthControl lets us take charge of our own destinies. #ThxBirthControl! pic.twitter.com/xzwDgwBLVT — PP South Atlantic WV (@PPSATWV) November 10, 2015

Its #ThxBirthControl day! So many reasons to be grateful for contraception. And this sums it up. #bossbride pic.twitter.com/Zv1Z30GGj2 — Charreah Jackson (@Charreah) November 10, 2015

#ThxBirthControl for helping us shape our futures! (CC: @Bedsider) pic.twitter.com/iRwTbatHNQ — CenterforReproRights (@ReproRights) November 10, 2015

Fur babies now. Real babies later. #ThxBirthControl for giving us options! pic.twitter.com/AuGX4l74E5

— SF State SHS (@SFStateSHS) November 10, 2015

I want to thank birth control for giving me the opportunity to not worry about unplanned pregnancy. #ThxBirthControl #R29xBedsider — Teen Vogue (@TeenVogue) November 10, 2015

#ThxBirthControl for letting me have 2 kids when I was ready and spaced apart! -Amy pic.twitter.com/cCNX3pQTKR

— CenterforReproRights (@ReproRights) November 10, 2015

More than 99% of women have used birth control. I love being in good company. #ThxBirthControl — Ashley Rickards (@AshleyRickards) November 11, 2015

#ThxBirthControl For helping girls run the world #R29xBedsider pic.twitter.com/TfjNEUaAuV — Teen Vogue (@TeenVogue) November 10, 2015

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #ThxBirthControl Empowers Women’s Right to Control Their Ovaries appeared first on Law Street.

The University of Notre Dame, a Roman Catholic institution, may now resume its battle against birth control after the Supreme Court revived its religious objections to the government contraceptive coverage requirements. The whole debate boils down to an Obamacare provision that has religious opponents in this case advocating for some separation between church and state.

The 2010 Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, has been a topic of contention for some religious organizations unwilling to adhere to its contraception provision. The act mandates employers supply health insurance policies to their female employees that cover contraception and sterilization, but detractors say that violates their religious beliefs.

Christian business Hobby Lobby battled boycotts while defending their moral opposition to the act last summer in the Supreme Court and won. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.‘s landmark decision in favor of Hobby Lobby set a precedent for other religious organizations to seek exemptions from the law due to their religious preferences, based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The justices asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision for the Catholic university in light of that ruling.

According to Reuters, the lower court threw out a February 2014 appeals court ruling denying Notre Dame an injunction against the requirement. The appeals court ruling pre-dated the Supreme Court’s June 2014 Hobby Lobby exemption decision. Despite the landmark decision, courts have continued to hear cases on the issue, but have all decided in favor of the government, finding “the compromise does not impose a substantial burden on the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs.”

Louise Melling, deputy legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, discussed Notre Dame’s objections with the Wall Street Journal. She advocated for women’s rights, saying:

It’s absurd to assert that simply filling out a form stating an objection violates religious freedom. What Notre Dame and others really object to is women getting the contraceptive coverage they need. That’s discrimination, plain and simple.

The Catholic church and some Christian opponents don’t see the issue as discrimination, but rather a violation of their rights to represent their beliefs while operating private businesses. Catholicism has historically been opposed to all forms of birth control except abstinence and natural family planning. So, insurance plans that cover birth control, especially in the form of emergency contraception like the Plan B pill and intrauterine devices, stand contradictory to their beliefs.

However, the church may be loosening its stance some when it comes to sex. Pope Francis, who has been recently hailed as a revolutionary force in the Catholic Church, was just quoted saying “Catholics needn’t feel compelled to breed like rabbits.” Even so, following the church’s voice on sexual matters has become less and less important for modern Catholics.  The New York Times broke down Gallup’s “Values and Beliefs” survey from last May finding:

Catholics were only slightly less open to birth control, with 86 percent of them saying that it was “morally acceptable” in comparison with 90 percent of all respondents. But Catholics were more permissive than all respondents when it came to sex outside marriage (acceptable to 72 percent of Catholics versus 66 percent of Americans overall) and gay and lesbian relationships (70 percent versus 58).

Regardless of the feelings of average Americans, however, Notre Dame has stuck to the lawsuit.

Overall this battle between church and state is a fight over health vs. morals. Providing adequate health care coverage for employees is an employer’s responsibility, and maintaining sexual and reproductive health is essential to all women’s wellbeing. The Supreme Court’s decision and reexamination of Notre Dame’s objections may mean some women will have to decide whether or not they’re willing to forfeit that right to adhere with company culture when choosing to work for a religious organization.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Revives Notre Dame’s Contraception Mandate Objections appeared first on Law Street.

The idea of a “welfare queen” has been a political talking point for several decades. It began as a term used by President Reagan in a story he told while he was running for election in 1976:

‘In Chicago, they found a woman who holds the record…She used 80 names, 30 addresses, 15 telephone numbers to collect food stamps, Social Security, veterans’ benefits for four nonexistent deceased veteran husbands, as well as welfare. Her tax-free cash income alone has been running $150,000 a year.’

The idea of a welfare queen has evolved into being characterized as a woman who stays on welfare, receiving benefits, and continuing to have children so she can get even more money from the government to support those children. In the eyes of many, the stereotype is thoroughly racist–she’s an under-performing black woman, living off of taxpayers’ money. The term is seen by many as a dog whistle of sorts, a way to play on the public’s racial anxieties without actively saying so.

Read More: No Strings Attached: Replacing Welfare With a Guaranteed Income

Some claim that Reagan’s story was a complete lie, but, there is some proof that it was at least based on reality. It now appears that there wasn’t just one welfare queen, but the subject of Reagan’s story  was actually an amalgamation of three different women. Craig R. Smith, a former speechwriter for Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush said,

It hangs together as a good story because it’s consistent with people’s perception of the real world…Like in any good mythology, you need heroes and villains and in the Welfare Queen, you had a villain who was taking advantage of the system.

Regardless of the truth, this story changed the minds of many Americans about the state of the welfare system and the people who receive the benefits.

 What is the “Welfare Queen” law?

Nearly two decades ago, California  passed a law that many have come to call the “Welfare Queen” law. It states that a family that has any additional children while on the welfare system is barred from getting any increases in the grant it already receives from the state. There are exemptions made if the couple in question can prove that birth control measures such as sterilization, IUD, or Norplant failed. There are also concessions made if the case involves rape or incest. In cases like those, the mothers were more quickly offered medical, physical, and monetary help. California is not the only state to use a variation of this law. In fact, other states including Arizona, Mississippi, and Virginia have similar measures.

Senate Bill 23

California Democrats are fighting to repeal the measure, calling it “classism” and “prejudicial” to the citizens of the state. Holly Mitchell, a Senator from Los Angeles, is working for the third time to abolish the law. She introduced Senate Bill 23, which would repeal the “welfare queen” law.

Advocates for the poor are mounting their strongest efforts ever to repeal the “maximum family grant” ruling as the state is about to set its budget for the next year. These changes come after it was announced that California was named the state with the highest child poverty rate.

“It is a classist, sexist, anti-democratic, anti-child, anti-family policy whose premise did not come to fruition,” said Mitchell, the author of Senate Bill 23. “It did not accomplish what it set out to accomplish. So it’s appropriate to take it off the books.”

California is very split on this topic, ranging from those who would like to impose stronger rules against the so called “welfare queens” to those who want to completely annul the law.

Arguments to Eliminate the “Welfare Queen” Law

The average cost to raise a child in America, from birth to 18 years old, is $241,080, according to CNN Money. That breaks down to about $1,116 a month–something that many low-income families will not make. If a family has more than one child, many families will go without in order to provide for the children instead.

Advocates for repeal also argue that when it comes down to it, the law is aimed at controlling women. According to Sacramento Bee, Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) said reversing the policy is “critically important to families, telling a recent women’s policy summit in Sacramento that the criteria are “’invasive (and) insulting.’” Some have even compared the law to China’s One Child Policy. Women’s groups and Planned Parenthood find fault with this measure as well, citing that it is more controlling than necessary.

In addition, those who want to repeal it say that it unfairly punishes children for the actions of their parents. Newborns need care and support, and not allowing the parents of newborns to gain the necessary resources can endanger the health and wellbeing of those children.

In an unlikely collaboration, Linda Wanner, the associate director of government relations at the California Catholic Conference, said that her group favors annulment of the bill as well, but for other reasons: “We have the opportunity to remove burdensome county processes, reduce the number of children living in poverty, and, more importantly, eliminate the incentive to terminate a pregnancy,” she said.

Arguments to Keep the Law in Place

Those who oppose abolishing the law say that removing it to raise the amount of money that the family gets will not lift any family out of poverty. According to the Sacramento Bee, Mary L.G. Theroux, senior vice president of The Independent Institute, a nonprofit research organization based in Oakland, said she doesn’t disagree that the law did not prevent births. “The opportunity cost of them having another kid is not going to stop them from doing it,” she said. However, she continued to say that giving more money would not give the growing families the incentive to get help from charities, family members, or find higher paying jobs. She then continued, “What these programs are doing is completely handicapping people from learning how to take care of their families and how to help their children have a better life than they do.” In addition, many feel that these programs that provide complete care to parents and children actually hinder further development of the child and his or her autonomy.

There’s also a concern that repealing the law would be a huge economic strain on the state of California. The state’s economy has been struggling since the recession in 2008, and pouring more money into welfare could harm its rebound even further. One analyst claimed that repealing the law could cost up to $205 million a year, although that number is difficult to reliably quantify.

According to the Sacramento Bee, Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff (R-Diamond Bar) said that helping families in poverty is an important role for officials in the state government as well as people outside of the state, and is even a nationwide issue. The question is whether repealing the maximum grant is the best thing to do with the money. “Putting $200 million into an effective job training program or providing child care for working mothers would be a better use of resources,” Huff said. Huff “pointed to a long list of other needs for both the parents and children in the state, including services for the developmentally disabled and foster children.”

Conclusion

This is not the only time that discussions have been developed around the “welfare queen” law. In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed a welfare reform law, and then-Governor of California Pete Wilson and lawmakers compromised on a statewide program called CalWORKS in 1997. This bill stiffened the work requirements and set time limits, sanctions, grant levels, and eligibility requirements for California welfare recipients.

So how much fraud is there really in the welfare system? According to Eric Schnurer of the Atlantic it’s actually not so clear.

It’s not easy to get agreement on actual fraud levels in government programs. Unsurprisingly, liberals say they’re low, while conservatives insist they’re astronomically high. In truth, it varies from program to program. One government report says fraud accounts for less than 2 percent of unemployment insurance payments. It’s seemingly impossible to find statistics on ‘welfare’ (i.e., TANF) fraud, but the best guess is that it’s about the same. A bevy of inspector general reports found ‘improper payment’ levels of 20 to 40 percent in state TANF programs — but when you look at the reports, the payments appear all to be due to bureaucratic incompetence (categorized by the inspector general as either ‘eligibility and payment calculation errors’ or ‘documentation errors’), rather than intentional fraud by beneficiaries.

The number of people living in poverty in California, and nationwide, has continued to grow and grow. The face of welfare has changed since the 1980s, as has the amount of money that is needed to raise a child, especially in a state where the cost of living is high.

Resources

Primary

California Legislature: Senate Bill No. 23

Additional

Cal Coast News: California May Repeal “Welfare Queen” Law

CNN: Return of the ‘Welfare Queen’

NPR: The Truth Behind the Lies of the Original ‘Welfare Queen‘

New York Post: When Welfare Pays Better Than Work

CNN: Average Cost to Raise a Child

Huffington Post: California Poverty Rate

Slate: The Welfare Queen

Nieman Reports: The ‘Welfare Queen’ Experiment

SCPR: Lawmakers Debate Repeal of Welfare Queen Law in California

Jezebel: Reagan’s ‘Welfare Queen’ Was a Real Person and Her Story is Bananas

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to credit select information to the Sacramento Bee. 

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Battle Over the “Welfare Queen” Law in California appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 midterm elections weren’t the only reason to pay attention to political news this year. Keep scrolling to check Law Street’s top 10 political stories of 2014.

1. BridgeGate: 7 Reasons to Watch the Chris Christie Scandal

This winter, revelations about Governor Chris Christie’s involvement in the shutting down of the George Washington Bridge came to light. The whole scandal raised a lot of questions about Christie’s ability to be a contender on the national stage, quite possibly as the 2016 Republican Presidential nominee. Whether or not Christie chooses to run, there will be a lot of eyes on his handling of “Bridgegate.”

2. Marijuana Legalization: Let’s Be Blunt 

The states of Colorado and Washington voted to legalize recreational marijuana in 2012, and the sale and use started moving into the public sphere earlier this year. However, given that Colorado and Washington were the first two states to do so, many were left with questions about how exactly the legalization worked, what affects it could have on society, and how the Washington and Colorado laws would interact with federal law.

3. Drone Rules: Are They Enough to Protect Civilians?

Drones have evolved from being a futuristic fantasy to real part of American military strategy. However, like any new innovation, the legality is developed after the technology itself. In early 2014, the Obama Administration’s drone strike policies were a hot topic of conversation, especially after the disclosures regarding a December 2013 strike in Yemen.

4. Hobby Lobby: They Want to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage

Image courtesy of [Annabelle Shemer via Flickr]

Another hot political topic in 2014 was the Supreme Court case that’s widely become known as Hobby Lobby. It questioned whether or not the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) required employers to provide contraception for their employees, regardless of the company’s religious beliefs. Concerns about the case extended far beyond whether or not those particular employees would get contraceptive coverage, as it could have set a dangerous precedent for all sorts of discriminatory policies.

5. Obamacare Is Here to Stay! But It Still Kind of Sucks

Image courtesy of [Daniel Borman via Flickr]

The much maligned Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) finally went into effect this year, with the first open enrollment period. The act provided healthcare for many who previously didn’t have it, but that doesn’t mean that it was anywhere close to perfect. Partisan bickering over the law remained steady, but the Affordable Care Act can certainly be considered a step in the right direction.

6. Stuck in McAllen: Jose Vargas and the Texas Immigration Crisis

This summer, the arrival of undocumented youth at the Texas border sparked political debates, some outrage, and acts of compassion. One of the biggest advocates for these young people was a man named Jose Vargas, a prominent undocumented immigrant who works as a journalist and advocate. When Vargas traveled to McAllen, Texas, one of the towns most heavily affected by the arrival of the children, he was briefly detained and then released–cementing his status as one of the lucky few.

7. Debating Minimum Wage in America

As the cost of living in the United States continues to creep upward, and the American economy rebounds from one of the worst economic crises in recent history, many people still struggle to meet ends meet. Minimum wage jobs are an important sector of our economy–but what exactly do we mean when we say minimum wage? It’s an important political question that has yet to find an exact answer.

8. “Gay Panic” Defense Outlawed in California

For some time, the “gay panic” defense served as a way to claim a sort of self-defense in regards to hate crimes. While it doesn’t have a strong track record of actually succeeding, there were no laws specifically forbidding it. This fall, California became the first state to actually ban the “gay panic” defense, an important step in the fight against homophobia.

9. Campaign Finance: Free Speech or Unfair Influence?

In the wake of Citizens United and other landmark court decisions, our rules about campaign finance have seen some extreme changes in the last few years. These changes will have a huge impact on the 2016 Presidential elections, and pretty much every election moving forward, unless more changes happen. Given the topsy-turvy world that is the debate over campaign finance, anything is possible.

10. Just Get Ready For It: Another Clinton in the White House

We’ve all barely recovered from 2012, not to mention this year’s midterms, but speculation about 2016 has, predictably, already begun. Probably the Democratic front-runner at this point, Hillary Clinton has a lot of support. There are many reasons to get on the Hills bandwagon–including feminism, foreign policy, and her awesome facial expressions.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Top 10 Political Stories of 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

This is going to be a fun one!

Some of y’all know a while ago I was writing a personal blog, stumbled across Law Street, and was fired up by one of the contributors, Hannah Winsten. I wrote a rebuttal and the rest is history. I’ve been writing for Law Street for a few months now and have had the greatest pleasure in doing so, the team rocks! But in the back of my mind I always wondered when I would be able to have another encounter with Hannah. I like to think of her as the antithesis of me, she stands for everything that I don’t believe in, but in a good way!

The day has finally come. Ladies and gentlemen, Hannah is back and she has fired me up!

Hannah wrote a piece this week entitled, “LADIES: Vote Republican and You’ll Get the D” and I thought this will be a fun one. Boy was I right! I love how she starts right off with a sarcastic tone, throwing in those traditional pop culture references before pulling out the big words like ‘racist,’ ‘sexist,’ ‘homophobic’ and ‘Republican.’

First, she certainly did get it right that President Obama is getting close to being a lame duck, actually at this point he’s checked out and moved on to retirement on the golf course while still in the White House. Things haven’t gone the way he planned and homeboy has chunked deuce on the country, as pointed out by fellow Law Street writer Katherine Fabian here.

Who isn’t ready for the 2016 elections? I know I am!

Here we go again with Hannah only selecting bits and pieces of a report, only outlining what is beneficial and relevant to how she thinks and not the whole story. Yes, Politico reported a survey that states 49 percent of single women hold a negative view of the Republican Party, but it also says that 39 percent view Democrats unfavorably. If you go deeper into the article you also see that 48 percent of married women prefer a Republican to a Democrat. It isn’t a very positive article for Republicans but at least it is the truth and they are trying to do something about it.

Yes, the Republican Party has been perceived as the “good ole boys” party and women were neglected in some respects. But there are still plenty of Republican women in the country and I’m sorry but the idea that Republicans support rape and domestic violence is just vile. Does Hannah see all Republicans as toothless, alcoholic, wife-beating-if-they-step-out-of-the-kitchen inbreds? Referring to conservatives as ‘conserva-turds’ is almost as ridiculous as your girl, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, making the comment that “What Republican tea party extremists like Scott Walker are doing is they are grabbing us by the hair and pulling us back.” Maybe you and Debbie get together in the last few days and brainstormed creative ways of calling the Republican Party abusive? Even people in the Democratic Party are distancing themselves from that foolish woman and her hideous remarks.

Nowhere in any Republican initiative or in that specific poll does it say that Republicans are planning to tell anyone that they are wrong. Nowhere. The report says that it is a “lack of understanding” between women and Republicans that “closes many minds to Republican policy solutions.” But let’s be honest, we don’t need a poll to tell us that there is a lack of understanding between the American people and politics. Not many in my generation or in younger generations take the time to understand politics, they just go with what they hear on television and we both know that is not an accurate depiction of politics at its core.

Hannah claims that Republicans will basically shake their fingers at all women, tell them they are wrong, and expect them to go out and vote for the GOP. What exactly are you reading that says any of that? Oh right, it is all based on opinion, not fact. Let’s go back to the Politico article where it states that the group that took the poll suggests “Republicans deal honestly with any disagreement on abortion, and then move to other issues.” Again, the report suggests this for Republicans. On the upside, there have been several Republicans who have come out in support of over-the-counter birth control, and many conservatives in general are Pro-Choice. Yes, Republicans should deal with the abortion topic with real facts, solutions, ideas, and then move on. Unlike Democrats who are still ignoring the facts of the IRS scandal, the Benghazi issue, ISIS, and most importantly Obamacare.

R.R. Reno made valid points in his opinion piece on the dilemma facing social conservatives, but my dear Hannah took what she wanted and neglected the rest. She assumes that this piece is to attack single women, assuming that they live with 12 cats and are terrified that they will end up alone so they recognize the strengths of getting a hand out when they are older and thus support the Democratic Party. What Reno was doing was quoting a statistic about marriage and vulnerability and then putting his two cents in on why McKinsey, a fictional character, may feel judged when someone “opposes gay marriage, because she intuitively senses that being pro-traditional marriage involves asserting male-female marriage as the norm — and therefore that her life isn’t on the right path.”

That is a valid argument and a valid way of thinking. I know that I was raised to believe that the order of life is to graduate high school, go to college, get a job, get married and have kids all under the age of 30. Guess what? I’m 29, I have two degrees (working on a third), and two jobs, but I am not married or have kids and it is a scary idea sometimes. Our parents’ traditional ways were engraved in our minds as young children, but the path our parents and older generations took is not what our generation wants to take. It will take time, but not everyone feels supported in their ventures because we aren’t doing what we were “supposed” to do. I’m glad I messed up and took a different path. I’m a better person for it. Reno was simply putting those ideals in a simple statement and showing that McKinsey chose to reject the norm so that she could feel accepted in her choices, and nothing is wrong with that.

I hate to break it to you, Hannah, but if you think women are voting Democrat because they “want to have control over their own bodies, their own reproductive systems, and their own lives. They want to be able to support ourselves. They want to lead lives that aren’t wracked with violence,” then you should probably vote for the unrepresented party. Democrats are taking away more of your rights than Republicans. Remember that tiny thing called Obamacare? Yeah, do some research and you will find there are more restrictions than advantages. You want to live your own life without someone dictating what you can and can’t do? Should probably take another look at the Democratic Party and its belief in big government, controlling every aspect of our lives and making people believe that they are entitled to handouts instead of working hard for what they have in life. Democrats would rather rich people do the work and hand the benefits to the less fortunate and lazy. Democrats believe in helping everyone but also in accruing more debt — that doesn’t help the economy, it hurts it.

At least Republicans are trying to fix their issues, listen to the people, and change (slowly) with the times more so than Democrats. Not to mention they are taking responsibility for their errors.

If you think Hillary is going to be in the White House in 2016 you’ve got another thing coming. The same “what difference does it make?” Hillary who was so flustered and frustrated about being questioned on the topic of Benghazi that she lost her cool? The same Hillary Clinton who admitted to leaving the White House with her husband President Bill Clinton, personally $10 million in debt? I’m not sure that is someone I would want in the oval office. Let’s be truly honest. We all know that while President Clinton was busy getting blow jobs in the Oval Office Hillary was really running the country. So she’s been president, just behind the scenes, and we don’t need her again.

I’ve said this before, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but the moment that opinion turns into something disrespectful I have an issue with it. The holier than thou, self-righteous, talking down to anyone who doesn’t agree with you tone is not cool. I enjoy Hannah’s quick wit and sarcasm but sometimes she crosses the line. Republicans are people too and in most cases highly educated people who just don’t share your views. Ease up on the conservative detest because you are simply putting yourself in the category of abuse that you talk so much about hating.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Joe Wolf via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Response: Let’s Stop with the Republican Bashing appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Back to School, folks!

While I was traveling around Canada last month, all of you were clearly partying up your last few weeks of summer, right? RIGHT? I hope so, because law school is now officially back in session.

And you know what that means!

You need me back in the saddle to keep you informed about all the racist, sexist, homophobic legal bullshit that’s going on! (Also, to give you lots of procrastination material. Let’s be real.)

So! Let’s talk about the Republicans and women, shall we?

This is going to be good.

Now that President Obama is getting depressingly close to being a lame duck, all the politicians are really starting to get antsy about the 2016 election. Candidates are being tapped, strategies are being thought out, and groundwork is being laid to win over the decisive voting blocs.

For the Republicans, a key point of concern is the Beyoncé Voters. All the single ladies — and even plenty of the not-so-single ladies — are seriously skeptical of conservatives these days. According to a recent GOP report leaked by Politico, 49 percent of women hold a negative view of the Republican Party. It bluntly reported that women believe Republican policies to be misaligned with their own priorities and to be lacking in compassion and understanding.

As a result, the ladies are taking their votes elsewhere. And for good reason. Women aren’t wrong when they say that conservative politicians aren’t acting in their best interest. Republican policies advocate restricted access to birth control, virtually no access to safe abortion services, the continued entrenchment of rape culture and domestic violence, as well as a hearty LOL at equal pay.

So nope — we’re not voting for policies that take away our bodily autonomy, restrict our access to safe and affordable healthcare, leave us vulnerable to violence, and also make us poorer.

Goodness, what a mystery that more of us aren’t voting for you, conserva-turds!

Well, apparently, Republicans have solved the mystery, and are rolling out a new initiative to win the vaginal vote in 2016.

Are you ready for it?

They’re going to calmly explain to us little ladies that we’ve been mistaken this whole time — the Republican Party really is acting in our best interest — and now that we’ve cleared that whole mess up, won’t you please vote for us, darlin’?

They aren’t going to actually change any of their policies. They aren’t going to actually do anything different AT ALL.

The big, awesome, Republican strategy is to tell women that they know us better than we know ourselves, expect us to laugh good naturedly at our silly, womanly inability to understand the complex, crazy world of politics, and agreeably hand over our votes, glad to have been educated about our own feminine ineptitude.

What exactly will this episode of mansplaining look like? Republicans are going to attack the Democratic claim that their policies are unfair to women — without interrogating or changing those policies, mind you — and every time abortion comes up, they’ll change the subject as quickly as possible.

Conservatives seem to genuinely think this is a good plan.

R.R. Reno, an editor for the conservative journal First Things, wrote a completely serious, non-satirical essay about just how this plan would work in practice.

In it, he creates a fictional woman to use as an example of all the women who are mistakenly eschewing Republican policies. She’s a single, 35-year-old consultant, living in the suburbs of Chicago, “who thinks of herself as vulnerable and votes for enhanced social programs designed to protect against the dangers and uncertainties of life.”

Translation: She’s a misinformed damsel in distress who presumably owns about 12 cats.

Apparently, this woman is in favor of social safety net-type Democratic policies — not because she believes that all people should have access to a baseline quality of life — but because she has no man to provide for her, which is clearly TERRIFYING. She dislikes Republican policies that take away her bodily autonomy and expect her to lead a traditional life of wife and motherhood NOT because they’re sexist and terrible and render her, legally, as a quasi-human/permanent child, but because “she wants to get married and feels vulnerable because she isn’t and vulnerable because she’s not confident she can.”

So basically, all the women who aren’t voting Republican are in serious need of the D. And according to Reno, conservatives can and will deliver it.

He goes on to theorize that our fictitious cat lady should support Republican policies because a pro-marriage culture will increase her likelihood of getting married, therefore increasing her overall happiness. All we have to do is explain that to her! And then she’ll vote for us! Yay! Problem solved!

What Reno, and his conservative compatriots, fail to realize, is that women aren’t voting Democrat because of their inability to legally bind themselves to a penis.

We’re voting Democrat because we want to have control over our own bodies, our own reproductive systems, and our own lives. We want to be able to support ourselves. We want to lead lives that aren’t wracked with violence.

Also, they’re clearly forgetting that some of us don’t even like the D. (Fellow clam divers, I see you.)

So, Republicans, I totally applaud your strategy for locking down the vaginal vote in 2016. It’s a really great idea.

Because you’re buying Hillary a one-way ticket to the Oval Office.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post LADIES: Vote Republican and You’ll Get the D appeared first on Law Street.

Thousands of parents in California have recently done their children a great disservice by signing a petition to remove a sex ed book from the classroom called “Your Health Today.”

The book, which was slated to be used in 9th grade sex ed classes in Fremont, California this fall, takes a refreshingly new approach to sex ed by actually discussing things most 9th graders are questioning. It actually manages to go beyond clinical discussions of eggs, sperm, and vague references to how one reaches the other.

The petitioners claims that the book “exposes youth to sexual games, sexual fantasies, sexual bondage with handcuffs, ropes, and blindfolds, sexual toys and vibrator devices, and additional instruction that is extremely inappropriate.” With a description like that, you would think that the school district accidentally purchased a Cards Against Humanity deck rather than a textbook.

No one denies these topics are mentioned, but as pointed out by Slate, the book only provides definitions (students looking for anything more will need to sneak in to 50 Shades of Grey when it premieres next year. Or just use Google.) And on closer inspection, “Your Health Today” is actually a really informative book that provides information every sex ed class should: how to put on a condom, anatomically correct drawings of reproductive organs, and a myriad of topics affecting today’s youth that range from online dating to the idea of “hooking up” with someone.

But parents are seemingly up in arms over their teenagers being “exposed” to this information, as if talking about sex toys could do the same kind of damage as, say, a complete lack of information about preventing HIV. The parents are protesting even though school officials in Fremont say their own internal surveys show many students are sexually active.

I can’t say I’m surprised parents have had this reaction. As a culture, we regard sex as shameful and wrong, which has led to a lot of misinformation about sex and the topics surrounding it. Time after time we have heard about students who are uninformed about birth control, the importance of consent, and STIs. Sweeping sex under the rug and only talking about it in the most clinical of senses does not do anything to change that.

If we want children to develop healthy attitudes towards sex–ones that revolve around respect, emotional preparedness, and a working knowledge of the good and bad parts of being sexually active–we need to actually talk about it with teenagers. We need books that teach kids about their birth control options, that their sexual preferences aren’t wrong or unnatural, and that a lot of responsibility comes with being sexually active.

But we need parents to be on board, too. Mercury News reported one parent griping that: “there’s a section that tells you how to talk to your prospective partners about your sexual history […] How does that relate to a 14-year-old kid? I don’t see it at all.”

And therein lies the problem–that parent clearly doesn’t understand that this kind information could be invaluable for their child in just a few years. So I’m leaving it up to the rest of the parents in Fremont–the ones who are okay with their children learning about the great, bad, and everything in-between parts of sex–to tell the school board the support this book, and they support sex ed. We can’t get by with just teaching out kids “how sex works.” I promise, they already know that much. Let the school district teach an effective, comprehensive sex education class so your kids are as prepared as they can be. The more information they have, the better off they are.

[Petition] [Salon] [Mercury News]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hey Parents: Comprehensive Sex Education is Worth It appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Thursday, folks!

It’s been a crazy couple of weeks for women out there.

First—as I’m sure you recall—SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, giving employers the right to deny workers birth control coverage because of religious exemptions, and essentially giving douche-wad bosses everywhere the potential to control their employees’ uteruses.

Awesome.

And now, things are getting much, much worse.

Following the Hobby Lobby decision, religious institutions, religiously-run corporations, and basically anyone who is a fan of Jesus and also has some modicum of control over other people’s lives, are filing for the right to discriminate against people under religious exemptions.

Say good-bye to your civil rights, folks.

A group of 14 religious leaders wrote a letter to the Obama administration asking for the right to discriminate against LGBTQ people in closely-held corporations. George Fox University demanded a religious exemption that would allow it to bar a transgender student from living on campus, and the Department of Education granted it.

The Hobby Lobby ruling, not even a month old, is already proving to be disturbingly broad. Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned us about this in her dissent—that granting religious exemptions for IUDs and Plan B would be like opening a Pandora’s Box of discrimination potential—but did anyone listen to her?

And so here we are, with religious zealots breathing down the necks of the Supreme Court and of the President—and they have legal precedent to back themselves up.

Loves, this shit is scary. And not fear-monger-y type scary. Legit disturbing.

When the Hobby Lobby decision first came down it signaled yet another chip away at civil liberties and women’s rights in this country. One more piece of legal bullshit that diminishes a woman’s right to control her own body. One more reminder that women aren’t seen as real people or full adults in the United States, but rather as wards of the state, our spouses, our fathers, or apparently, our employers.

But as awful as that is, the asshat Justices who voted for this decision assured us that the Hobby Lobby ruling would end there. It would be a narrow ruling, applicable to only this situation, and that feminists would only have to fight against this one, single issue. Access to birth control regardless of what your boss’s religious beliefs are.

Justice Ginsburg called bullshit, and now I’m calling that she was right.

This ruling is not narrow. We can no longer be solely concerned with its reversal because women deserve the right to control their own goddamn bodies.

Nope. Instead, it’s turning out to be frighteningly broad, as the Supreme Court demands reviews of similar cases in lower courts and considers handing out more religious exemptions based on the precedent that Hobby Lobby’s now set.

Where does this end? There’s really no way to know just yet, but the possibilities are kind of endless.

Don’t want to hire women at your company? Sure thing, buddy! Claim that doing so would place an undue burden on you as a result of your religious beliefs and you’re good to go.

Don’t want to hire black people at your company either? No problem. Religious exemptions all around.

Can’t stand the thought of your female employees having consequence-free sex? Awesome. Religious exemption and boom! You just gained control over your workers’ uteruses. Don’t you feel better knowing your vagina-laden employees aren’t sleeping around (at least, not without feeling extreme anxiety about their reproductive systems)?

And maybe you don’t want to pay LGBT people the same amount of money as your straight employees. Or maybe you don’t want to hire them at all! Cool, dude. Religious exemption.

This shit is ridiculous. With the Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court just created a loophole for every piece of non-discrimination legislation ever enacted. Civil rights of all kinds—not just for women—are at serious risk. If anyone feels like they want to engage in some good, old-fashioned discrimination, they can pretty much do so! They just have to make a case for getting a religious exemption first.

And clearly, based on the fact that Hobby Lobby won its case, despite building it on a foundation of craptastic non-science, that’s not super hard to do.

So, way to go, SCOTUS! You really fucked things up for all of us, this time. Not only have you created an environment where everyone can be their own law book, but you’ve sent us down a path that will undoubtedly be littered with regressive politics.

The fight for personhood just got that much harder, lovelies.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York City. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Daryl Clark via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post WARNING: The Christians Are Coming for Your Civil Liberties appeared first on Law Street.

Birth control has been a source of political controversy since its first days on the market. In recent times, the debate over reproductive health care has traveled to the highest level of judiciary power in the country.

In the June 2014 Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court favored a corporation’s religious freedom over a woman’s right to affordable reproductive health coverage. Although the ruling did not completely strike down coverage set forth in the Affordable Care Act (ACA), it did set up the possibility for some employers to deny coverage. The IUD, or intrauterine device, is one of the contraceptive methods that no longer has guaranteed coverage. What are the policies surrounding birth control in America, and how truly effective is the IUD?

Pre-Hobby Lobby Policy

Passed in 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) recognizes that contraception is a necessary preventive health service for women. The ACA requires coverage without cost-sharing for women for all FDA-approved contraceptives. This benefits all women who want to use an IUD because of the high upfront costs without insurance.  All FDA-approved birth control methods must be covered by the plans, which includes: IUDs, the pill, the patch, the ring, the shot, diaphragms, sterilization procedures, and cervical caps.

Hobby Lobby Ruling

On June 30, 2014 the Supreme Court ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that for-profit corporations are exempt from government regulations that would require them to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties consolidated their cases to challenge the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act. The ruling is limited to closely held corporations under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). While some supporters of the majority’s ruling claim the decision won’t affect many women, that is simply not true. More than 90 percent of all American businesses are made up my closely held firms, and they employ approximately 52 percent of the workforce.

The companies argued that just like places of worship and non-profit organizations with religious affiliations, their religious beliefs should exempt them from covering certain emergency contraceptives. This includes IUDs, Plan B, and Ella. Hobby Lobby objected to the morning-after pills and IUDs as they believed they cause abortions. The reasoning is that these forms of contraceptives prevent conception and fertilized egg implantation in the uterus, which to them is equivalent to aborting a life. Director of Contraceptive Development for the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Diana L. Blithe, has stated that there is no scientific evidence that these contraceptives work beyond fertilization. Birth control pills will continue to be covered, as they are not in opposition to the employer’s beliefs. The ACA originally allowed for non-profit religious organizations to opt out of providing coverage for contraceptives and have outside insurance companies cover the women, and Justice Alito suggested that for-profit corporations adopt this method as well.

While women were denied basic reproductive health care by this ruling, the male-dominated majority ruled that  would continue to be covered. This hypocrisy has been noted by the public and Justice Ruth Bader Gingsburg in her blistering dissent.

What is the IUD?

The IUD is a small, polyethylene “T-shaped” device that is inserted by a health care provider into a woman’s uterus to prevent pregnancy. In the United States there are two types of IUDs available: hormonal (Mirena and Skyla), which released progestin, and copper (ParaGard). Mirena is effective for five years and Skyla is effective for three years; both may give the woman lighter periods. ParaGard is effective for 12 years and does not alter periods. The main way both types of IUDs work is by manipulating the way sperm moves so they are unable to join with an egg.

What are the benefits of an IUD?

The IUD and the birth control implant are the most effective reversible contraceptive methods available. By not requiring user intervention, the risk of pregnancy is less than one percent. If inserted up to five days after unprotected intercourse, copper IUDs can also serve as emergency contraception.

Hormonal methods offer supplementary health benefits in addition to contraceptive use. Similar to a birth control pill, an IUD can treat menstrual pain, menstrual bleeding, and acne.

IUDs help women avoid pregnancy coercion — pressuring one into becoming pregnant — and pregnancy due to a sexual partner’s refusal to use contraception. The device is effective, long lasting, and it’s nearly impossible for a partner to detect one.

Many other forms of birth control are advertised for how effective they are in preventing pregnancy. This is true, if they are used properly. A good example for this is the male condom. It is a common belief that they are 98 percent effective in preventing pregnancy, however the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 18 percent of women experience an unintended pregnancy while using this method. The discrepancy in information lies within the mighty if. IUDs are so efficient since they remove human error and are long-lasting. From the same CDC report, it was found that copper IUDs have a significantly lower 0.8 percentage.

What are the disadvantages of an IUD?

IUDs, called the Dalkon Shield, debuted in the United States in the 1950s. However, they were later taken off the market because of complications found in early versions of the device. The previous design led to infections and unwanted pregnancies due to it’s complicated method of correct insertion. It was also not widely known by doctors that it had to be removed when a woman became pregnant in order to avoid infection. Pelvic inflammatory disease and infertility was linked to the Dalkon Shield.Alexandra Sifferlin of Time reported, “According to various reports, upwards of 15 women who became pregnant with a Dalkon IUD inside them died of infections after they miscarried.”

Some other disadvantages include:

• IUDs do not protect against sexually transmitted diseases (the male condom provides the best protection from most diseases).
• If a woman is uninsured, an IUD costs between $500 and $1500, including tests, exams, insertion, removal, and the IUD itself. The upfront costs may be a barrier for many women.

Are women using them now?

American women have the lowest rate of IUD se of any developed country and more than half have never heard of them. Laura MacIsaac, Director of Family Planning at Mount Sinai, stated, “IUD use in most of Western Europe, it’s about 20 percent, some countries 30 percent…in America, it’s about five percent.” While these numbers are low compared to other countries, since 2008 Planned Parenthood reports a 75 percent increase in IUD use among patients. In 2009, 8.5 percent of women using contraceptives relied on long-acting reversible contraception such as the IUD. This is a dramatic increase from 2.4 percent in 2002 and 5.5 percent in 2007.

Women between the ages of 25 and 29 who are married, women with no religious affiliation, and women covered by Medicaid use IUDs most frequently. Teenagers are less likely to use the IUD; only three percent of 3.2 million teenage women who use contraceptives chose this method.

Conclusion

IUDs have moved past their sullied past and become one of the most effective methods of birth control on the market. With their long-lasting effectiveness, lack of personal upkeep, and low pregnancy rate, IUDs are a favorable contraceptive option.

Resources

Primary

CDC: Current Contraceptive Use in the United States, 2006-2010, and Changes in Patterns of Use Since 1995

SCOTUS: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

Additional

Planned Parenthood: IUD as a Form of Birth Control

Guttmacher: Changes in use of Long-Acting Contraceptive Methods in the U.S., 2007-2009

Guttmacher: IUD Fact Sheet

National Women’s Health Network: Not Your Mother’s IUD: Benefits and Risks of Modern IUDs

Time: Why is the Most Effective Form of Birth Control – the IUD – also the one no one is Using?

The New York Times: Religious Groups Equate Some Contraceptives With Abortion

Planned Parenthood: Birth Control Implant (Implanon and Nexplanon)

Washington Post: A LOT of People Could be Affected by the Supreme Court’s Birth

USA Today: Hobby Lobby Case: What Birth Control is Affected?

Huffington Post: Hobby Lobby Still Covers Vasectomies and Viagra

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post The IUD: Beyond the Hobby Lobby Case appeared first on Law Street.

Folks, this is not a happy Tuesday.

Why? Because the Supreme Court made a really shitty decision yesterday. (And we’re not even talking about the bullshit Aereo ruling from last week. WHY DO YOU TAKE ALL THE GOOD THINGS AWAY?!)

Monday, with a slim 5-4 majority, SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, deeming that employers can’t be legally compelled to provide insurance coverage for birth control and emergency contraception that are in conflict with their religious beliefs.

This decision is so wildly fucked up on so many levels. SO. MANY.

For those of you who don’t remember, we covered the Hobby Lobby case here at Law Street earlier this year, but here’s the quick gist: the company, which is owned by a family of devout Christians, is not a big fan of the Affordable Care Act and its rules regarding birth control.

While so far Hobby Lobby’s been covering 80 percent of the mandatory contraceptives listed in the ACA for its employees, it’s been holding out on two forms of intrauterine contraception and two forms of emergency birth control. Why? They’re spewing some zealously crap-tastic pseudo-science claiming these methods are “abortifacients,” which they unequivocally are not.

Despite the fact that Hobby Lobby’s case is built on totally unsubstantiated non-science and a complete disregard for the separation of church and state, SCOTUS decided to rule in their favor.

Now, thanks to this fuckery, if your boss’ religion says you shouldn’t be preventing or planning your pregnancies, sorry ladies! No bodily agency for you. The guy who signs your paycheck each week now controls your uterus.

Oh, and just to be clear, this refusal to cover birth control methods only applies to women. Vasectomies, which serve exactly the same purpose for men, will still be covered. So we’re really not talking about the religious evils of family planning or bodily autonomy. We’re only talking about the evils of women maintaining control over their lives.

But actually.

First of all, let’s talk about who made this decision, shall we? A tiny little group of men.

Literally. That slim majority who voted in favor of Hobby Lobby was 100 percent men. Every female Supreme Court justice sided with the dissent. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. (Obligatory shout out to Justice Stephen G. Breyer for being the only dude to side with the feminists on this one. We appreciate you, sir.)

So, let’s all take a moment and sigh gigantic, heaving sighs of exasperation at the fact that the bodies of women all over this nation have just been legislated by five, non-uterus-having men.

This could not be clearer. This ruling is about controlling women. Plain and simple.

And it gets worse. Aside from the fact that a bunch of entitled, sexist, wing-bat man-justices just infringed upon women’s bodily autonomy, they also opened up a Pandora’s Box of legal ambiguity.

As the oh-so-wonderful Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg points out in her ball-busting dissent, exempting employers from providing health insurance coverage for birth control because of their religious beliefs brings up a slew of other possible exemptions.

Will companies owned by Jehovah’s Witnesses be allowed to withhold coverage for blood transfusions? Can Scientologists deny their employees antidepressants? The pig-derived ingredients used to produce anesthesia, vaccines, and pills coated in gelatin can conflict with the religious beliefs of Muslims, Jews, and Hindus. Will employees of companies held by owners of these religions find themselves without coverage as well?

In truth, maybe. That’s the precedent the court is setting with this Hobby Lobby decision. So, watch out if you work for an orthodox Jewish-owned company and need surgery. You might have to suffer through it sans anesthesia.

Seriously? This shit is ridiculous. The legal absurdity SCOTUS is willing to open itself to in the interest of tightening its leash on American women is completely, batshit crazy.

But wait. There’s more. Now that SCOTUS has decided that companies/people (because corporations are apparently more human than women) can pick and choose which parts of a law they abide by based on their religious convictions, all of the laws have the potential to become piecemeal and sort of meaningless.

Everyone, potentially, can become a law book unto themselves. Don’t like this new bill? No problem! Say it conflicts with your religion, and you can opt right out. This defeats the purpose of law entirely — which is, presumably, to protect the people with a set of rules that are established for the common good.

There is no common good anymore, and there is no protection. Your employer thinks you’re a slut who shouldn’t be sleeping around? Too bad for you, love. He can limit your choices and circumscribe your life, and you get no say in the matter.

And finally, the mess this ruling makes out of the freedom of religion clause is insane. Folks are meant to be free to practice their religion without fear of persecution — not to impose their religion as a tool for persecution on unwilling others.

At this moment, the United States is as politically polarized as it was during the Civil War. Secularist, social-safety-net-supporting liberals and religious, anti-tax conservatives are at war right now. This Hobby Lobby decision is just another case in which the battle field is women’s bodies.

So let’s fight this bullshit war, folks. If you believe that women should have affordable access to birth control, join me and Planned Parenthood by telling SCOTUS just how you feel.

We want control over our own bodies and our own lives. Fuck anyone who gets in our way.

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Just Made a Battlefield Out of Women’s Bodies appeared first on Law Street.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, when applied to closely held corporations such as Hobby Lobby, violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion for the majority, which also included Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Anthony Kennedy. The opinion was a narrow one–Justice Alito made it clear that they were ruling on the specifics of this case–not opening the floodgates for other religious challenges. His opinion also stressed that this ruling only applies to closely held corporations with fewer than five majority owners. But despite the narrow ruling, this is a clear victory for Hobby Lobby.

The Background

In order to understand how the court arrived at this opinion, we must first understand RFRA, the law under which the contraceptive mandate was challenged. That law states that, “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” An exception to this law can only be provided if it shows a compelling governmental interest and that governmental interest is achieved using the least restrictive means possible. This means the interest must be achieved in a way that least violates our First Amendment right to religious freedom. Therefore, in order for Hobby Lobby to win this case they had to:

1)   Show that a corporation could practice religion and be considered a “person” under this law;

2)   Show that Hobby Lobby’s ability to exercise religion had been substantially burdened by the contraceptive mandate;

3)   Either show that the contraceptive mandate was not a compelling governmental interest or prove that it was not achieved in the least restrictive means possible.

The Decision

The majority opinion held that a corporation could practice religion because its administration could make business decisions based off of religious beliefs. The majority also claimed that because companies do donate to charities, they are capable of caring about values that transcend profits–such as religion. Finally, they pointed out that in certain cases, Congress has specifically added clauses into laws specifying that corporations would not qualify, and would have done exactly that if they did not intend for corporations to be covered by RFRA.

On the other hand, the dissent, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, argued that a corporation cannot exercise religion because there is no clear way to decide who determines its religion. Would it be 51 percent of the shareholders? Or the majority shareholder? The CEO? This objection is why the majority applied this ruling only to closely held corporations with five or fewer owners, such as Hobby Lobby. These are often family-owned and can feasibly run their company based off of religious issues.

The owners of Hobby Lobby, the Green family, believe the contraceptive drugs they were required to include in their employees’ health coverage are similar to abortions. Their religious beliefs state that life starts at conception. Therefore, their ability to exercise their religion is substantially burdened by the contraceptive mandate.

Once the majority established that Hobby Lobby could be considered a person under RFRA and that it faced a substantial religious burden, they had to determine if the contraceptive mandate could be considered a legal exception. The majority conceded that providing contraceptive coverage was a compelling government interest, but also said that it was not done in the least restrictive way. They assert that because there is a penalty for not providing the contraceptives, the Greens were forced to either act against their religion or pay a significant fine. The majority opinion says that this is not the least restrictive way to provide contraception coverage, as the government could just provide the contraceptives itself and allow the Greens to respect their beliefs.

Another argument brought up in the dissent is that this ruling could lead to religious exemptions for other issues, such as coverage for immunizations and blood transfusions. However, the majority held that they were only ruling on the contraception mandate, stating that this ruling does not mean they would rule the same way for any other health care challenge under RFRA. The opinion specifically cites immunizations as an example of governmental interest that is compelling and is reached by the least restrictive means possible.

The Impact 

Now that we understand the ruling, let’s examine its impact, particularly on the Affordable Care Act. If we look at the ACA’s overall ability to provide healthcare, the impact is minimal. The ruling only strikes down one mandate, and says the government can still provide contraceptives itself. So in a way, it could expand governmental coverage of healthcare. Where this hurts the ACA is in the political battlefield, where the fact this was a very narrow ruling means almost nothing. All that matters is that the Democrat’s health care law overreached. This issue could very well serve as a rallying point for conservatives in the 2014 mid-term elections.

Already there are headlines popping up that make it seem like the Supreme Court ruled against the ACA. But at the end of the day, all the Supreme Court did was curb a small portion of the contraception mandate. They didn’t rule any mandate unconstitutional. They just provided a religious exception, while still leaving routes open for women to get the coverage the ACA promises.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Nate Grigg via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hobby Lobby Wins Big, but Obamacare Doesn’t Really Lose appeared first on Law Street.

“Ho Ho! Hey Hey! Birth control is here to stay!” Or is it?

Just when we think that the debate about contraception coverage has been laid to rest, another group of angry women are chanting outside of the supreme court and fighting for their right to be insured for their contraceptives. Although this time is a little different. This fight against contraception coverage was not brought about by a religiously affiliated group or a non profit religious organization, but by two corporations whose owners have certain religious beliefs. Thus, the debate regarding contraception coverage under the affordable care act continues, leading to the convening of the United States Supreme Court on Tuesday March 25, 2014.

What is the background regarding this debate?

A provision of the affordable health care act requires many employers to provide a variety of birth control methods to female employees who have comprehensive insurance coverage. This law does not apply to all employers due to the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which prevents law from substantially burdening an individual’s free exercise of religion. With this act, it was decided that the responsibility to provide birth control to employees was not extended to religious employers such as churches and religiously affiliated groups.

Who are the challengers?

This case has been brought to the supreme court by two for-profit corporations who argued that their businesses are run under religious principles. This includes the Hobby Lobby, arts and crafts chain that is run by a Christian family and Conestoga Wood Supplies, a cabinet making company owned by a Mennonite family.

The argument of the government:

The requirement of corporations to pay for contraceptives for female employees is an insurance that that all women will have equal opportunity and access to services regarding their health care. It is not the right of the employers to decide which form of contraception is best for their female employees, because that is the job of their doctor. It is believed that the corporations providing of birth control will lead to less abortions overall.

The argument of the two corporations:

They are not rejecting all forms of birth control, but instead feel that covering the costs of certain methods such as condoms, birth control pills and diaphragms would be within the boundaries of their religion. Now, there are various methods of birth control, but the main ones that are in contention include emergency contraceptives such as the morning after pill because the corporations feel if they comply, they are condoning abortion.

What will the outcome be?

We will have to wait and see. A ruling from the Supreme Court is expected in June. It is for the court to decide whether the challengers have the right to object to this birth control coverage of specific types of contraception under the 1993 Religious Restoration Act mentioned above. This would mean that the religious beliefs of the corporations were, “substantially burdened”, which is of course up for the Supreme Court to decide.

Where I stand:

There is a large difference between a for-profit company and a non-profit, religiously affiliated organization. In my opinion, there is difference between who should cover birth control and who has the right to opt out. Corporations are now trying to play the religion card, which is a very slippery slope. Let’s think about this. There are many for-profit businesses out there with owners who most likely have some religious affiliation or another. Simply because a business owner closes their doors on Sunday or considers themselves a Christian should not give them the easy way out for covering the birth control of employees, as is the law under the affordable care act. Once some corporations are granted their “religious liberties”, who is to say that not all corporations with a religiously practicing owner can opt out of paying for birth control. These companies are not religiously affiliated, they are not non-profit and they need to pay to cover their employee’s birth control.

For more information, to see the protesters and to decide for yourself:

[Reuters] [The New York Times]

—

Taylor Garre (@TaylorLynn013)

Taylor Garre

Taylor Garre is a student at Fordham University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Taylor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Not Another Contraception Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning, folks! Time for your weekly dosage of anti-feminist bullshit! On the menu today is Hobby Lobby, a for-profit corporation owned by a family of religious zealots that doesn’t want to cover your birth control.

Also, it doesn’t want any other employer-sponsored health insurance to cover your birth control either.

So, keep your legs closed?

I know, I know, conservatives bat this shit around all the goddamn time. They’re constantly challenging a woman’s right to choose, trying to flip or amend the shit out of Roe v. Wade to resurrect the age of the coat hanger, slash birth control coverage, nix preventive care exams, and pretty much destroy all the basic healthcare measures that are associated with vaginas.

And so far, they haven’t managed to deny all of us some modicum of control over our own bodies. Those of us who are lucky enough to live in a blue state with a decent level of economic privilege are still visiting the OB-GYN each year. But.

Hobby Lobby is making us really fucking nervous.

This obnoxious fuck of a company is suing the Department of Health and Human Services on the grounds that the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act infringes on their constitutional right to religious freedom. According to Hobby Lobby, since they’re owned by devout Christians, their health insurance benefits shouldn’t have to cover contraception for employees.

To make this even more awesome, Hobby Lobby is basing these claims on some crap-tastic pseudo-science about “abortifacients.” The company is already covering 80 percent of the mandatory contraceptives listed in the ACA, but is holding out on two forms of intrauterine contraception, and two forms of emergency birth control.

Contrary to the ridiculous claims they’re making about those devices, none of them are abortion pills. Which, for the record, are totally on the market and widely used. These just aren’t them.

Literally no one is a fan of this lawsuit.

For all the people who are in favor of women controlling their own bodies and sexual health, this is obviously some bullshit. Birth control and emergency contraception are basic tools that allow women to maintain their sexual health and control their destinies. Those are rights that shouldn’t be up for debate.

But what’s really surprising is who else isn’t a fan of this suit.

The entire business world.

That’s right! All the rich, conservative, white men who run the United States’ Fortune 500 companies have failed to file a single amicus brief in Hobby Lobby’s favor. They’re just as freaked out by this attempt at religious discrimination as feminists are.

Why? Because it would fuck shit up, business-wise.

Hobby Lobby’s case is built on the argument that a corporation isn’t separate from its owners. By their logic, since Hobby Lobby is owned by devout Christians, the company itself is also a devoutly Christian entity whose religious freedoms can be violated. This move conflates the business and its owners, making them one in the same.

And that’s really dangerous for business owners all across the country. The Chamber of Commerce and other organizations have filed a ton of amicus briefs opposing Hobby Lobby, citing how important it is to keep corporations separate from their owners.

This principle is called the “corporate veil,” and essentially, it protects its owners from liability. Since a corporation has a different set of rights and obligations than its owners, an owner can’t be held personally responsible for a company oversight, and vice versa.

But Hobby Lobby wants to have it both ways. They’d like to hang on to that liability protection, while simultaneously doing whatever the fuck they want.

So, at the end of the day, this lawsuit is a problem for everyone. It’s a problem for business owners who don’t want the corporate veil to get ripped to shreds. It’s a problem for women — specifically those employed at Hobby Lobby — who need their birth control to be covered under their health insurance. It’s also a problem for literally anyone whose behavior or existence violates someone’s religious beliefs.

If Hobby Lobby wins this suit, it would set a precedent that could make widespread discrimination totally legal. If the owner of a restaurant doesn’t like gay people, he or she can refuse to serve them. If a doctor doesn’t like abortion, he or she can refuse to prescribe birth control. If a landlord doesn’t like Jewish people, he or she could refuse to rent to them.

Virtually any kind of discrimination could be protected under a veil of religious freedom, making each individual person — and their company — a law book unto themselves.

This shit is ridiculous, am I right?

Religious conservatives, you do you. You be religious! You proselytize against birth control all you want. But stop trying to use your religious beliefs as an excuse to treat those of us who aren’t on your team like crap.

We’re seriously over it.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image Courtesy of [Annabelle Shemer via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hobby Lobby Wants to Remove the Corporate Veil — and Your Birth Control Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

Former Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is facing criticism for comments he made during a speech on Thursday, January 23, 2014 at the Republican National Committee’s Winter Meeting. Ironically, the former Arkansas Governor was discussing how Republicans need to increase their efforts to attract women voters when he stated, “If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it.”

There was instant outrage as soon as Huckabee finished delivering his speech. The Democratic National Committee was quick to jump at the chance to attack the Republican Party for Huckabee’s words. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stated that Huckabee’s comment “sounds offensive.” And a storm of tweets related to the subject were issued after the speech, including this one from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:

Even 100 years ago, it would have been hard to imagine a man making a statement as ridiculous as what Mr. Huckabee said today.

— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) January 23, 2014

What is not important about his statement is the fact that his comments have been easily misconstrued to mean that women can’t control their sexual urges. Though it may have seemed that Huckabee said women have uncontrollable libidos, the former Governor actually meant something else entirely. Reading into the context of the quotation, Huckabee was really discussing that, in his view, Democrats are using the ‘war on women’ to portray women as needing the government’s help to manage their reproductive systems.

However, the actual meaning of Huckabee’s comment is what is truly disconcerting for the three reasons:

1. Huckabee believes that women don’t need the government’s aid with respect to their reproductive health.

Due to a key provision in the Affordable Care Act, women are now able to get their prescribed FDA-approved contraceptives without co-payment. This measure is huge for lower income women who, prior to the passage of the legislation, couldn’t fit the payment for contraceptives into their already tight budgets. If the federal government did not mandate that contraceptives be free to women through their insurance,  many women would not be able to gain access to birth control.  Thus, it is very concerning that Huckabee’s statement suggests woman do not need the government to step in to protect their reproductive rights.

2. The comment echos the common misconception that birth control is only for preventing pregnancy.

Huckabee’s statement draws further evidence to the fact that many have the wrong idea about birth control. Contraceptives are not solely used to prevent unplanned pregnancies while engaging in sexual activity (though it is extremely important that woman have access to birth control to control what happens in their own bodies).  Birth control is prescribed to many women for a variety of reasons. In response to Huckabee’s speech, Planned Parenthood released a statement noting that birth control “helps women plan their pregnancies and manage their lives, and many women use it for a variety of other medical reasons, including treatment of endometriosis that can lead to infertility.”  In addition to treating endometriosis, there are many other uses for birth control, including regulating a woman’s menstrual cycle, relieving menstrual pain, and clearing acne. In addition, according to a study done by the Guttmacher Institute, more than half of women surveyed who use a contraceptive use birth control for purposes other than pregnancy prevention. Thus contraceptives are not merely used for preventing pregnancy but for a multitude of other important issues related to women’s health.

3. Huckabee’s statement exposes his own hypocrisy with regard to government law on contraceptive coverage.

By claiming that the government should stay out of contraceptive coverage for women, Mike Huckabee ignores his own past as Governor of Arkansas. Bill Scher of Campaign for America’s Future noted that in 2005, Huckabee signed into law a measure that required Arkansas insurance plans to include coverage of birth control and other kinds of contraception. And Huckabee was not the only Republican supporting mandated contraceptive coverage for insurance. Five other GOP governors were responsible for signing similar bills into law, and George W. Bush never challenged federal mandates on contraception during his presidency. However, as soon as birth control became a partisan issue, Republicans were quick to move away from supporting state-mandated contraceptive coverage. If Huckabee believes that government should not sponsor birth control coverage, he should not stop at blaming only Democrats, but should also include his own past actions and those of other Republicans.

What is certain about Huckabee’s statement is that it won’t help the Republican party gain an influx of female voters. From this comment to Todd Akin’s infamous ‘legitimate rape’ gaffe, there are so many instances that prove Republicans are failing to properly address and understand women’s issues.  And while Huckabee’s comment has been misinterpreted as being more offensive than what he actual meant, perhaps the former Governor should have taken time to ensure his words would be clear before making a public speech that would be covered extensively by the media. Moreover, in bringing up the issue of women’s reproductive rights in an attempt to gain political clout for his party, Huckabee demonstrates that politicians are still politicizing an issue that needn’t be controversial at all: the right for women to control their own choices.

[Washington Post] [Twitter] [CBS News] [Guttmacher] [Campaign for America’s Future] [LA Times]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Nozell via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post What Is and Isn’t Important About Huckabee’s ‘Libido’ Comment appeared first on Law Street.

This year promises to be an interesting one in law. Here are some of the most interesting cases, trials, and legal topics y’all might want to keep your eyes on in 2014.

(Note: I have tried not to include Supreme Court cases that were heard in 2013 but will be ruled upon in 2014, as most of those have already been heavily covered by the media during oral arguments.)

8. Lavabit and Ladar Levison 

The case: After Edward Snowden’s revelations about NSA spying, it was discovered that he was using an encrypted email service called Lavabit. The owner, Ladar Levison, was court-ordered to hand over access to the entire site to the government, because Lavabit’s programming made it impossible to hand over access to just Snowden’s account. In protest, Levison shut down the site, defied a gag order, and has now filed an appeal.

Why it matters: This year, mainly from the NSA spying scandal, we learned about the technological abilities our government uses to monitor US citizens. This court ruling will either stifle or extend those abilities. For those who oppose the government having access to personal information, this Lavabit case may set important precedent — and it really will be a case to watch.

7. Jodi Arias Sentencing

The case: In 2013, we saw the extremely weird case involving Jodi Arias in Arizona. She was eventually convicted of murdering her boyfriend, Travis Alexander. It was a gruesome and disturbing case in which the jury found her guilty; however, they could not agree on whether to sentence her to life in prison, or death. A mistrial was declared on the sentencing portion of her trial and the new sentencing trial will also have new jurors.

Why it matters: The Defense has gone so far as to request a change of venue for the resentencing portion. They have argued that the huge media attention directed at the case has the potential for bias. That may be true, and it certainly wasn’t the first case with a big media blitz –Casey Anthony ring a bell? But if that’s actually the case, a change in venue won’t help — this case was huge all over the country. I’m reminded of an SNL skit from a few years ago about choosing jurors for OJ Simpson’s 2007 robbery and assault case. Watch it here, it’s really funny. But all joking aside, it’s the truth. It will be incredibly hard to find jurors who haven’t heard of Jodi Arias. Is it possible that our obsession with watching justice unfold is getting in the way of justice itself? Maybe we’ll get some answers with this retrial. 

6. McCullen v. Coakley 

The case: Oral arguments for McCullen v. Coakley are scheduled before the Supreme Court later this month. This case has been waiting for its day in court since 2001; there was appeal after appeal before the Justices agreed to hear it. It involves a law that Massachusetts instituted to create a 35-foot buffer zone around reproductive health facilities.

Why it matters: First of all, as I mentioned, this case has been going on for a very long time. The Supreme Court’s decision will add some sort of finality to it, no matter what the decision may end up being. Second, it could reverse a much-relied upon precedent, Hill v. Colorado, which allowed an eight-foot buffer zone. Finally, it raises an important constitutional issue about which right is more important: the right to free speech, assembly, and protest, or the right to seek an abortion without harassment?

Hopeful finality for this case.

5. Silkroad Case

The case: The infamous illegal-good site Silk Road was removed from the web this Fall, and its alleged creator, Ross Ulbricht, was arrested. The site sold drugs and fraudulent IDs, among other things. In addition to being indicted for his work on the site, he has now been accused of hiring assassins. The $80 million he allegedly made through the site is now in government custody. In 2014, he’ll either work out some sort of deal with the government, or face trial.

Why it matters: Silkroad had a huge market. It was relied upon by many people to get illegal goods relatively safely. Most of the Bitcoins (an electronic currency) in existence went through this site. And it was really only a matter of time until it shut down.

But, and this point is becoming a common trend on my list, it’s also another mark of how the government’s ability to use technology for prosecutorial purposes is evolving. I can assure you that this will have ramifications in the future, because people aren’t going to stop buying illegal stuff over the Internet. They’ll just get better at it.

4. Marriage Rights

The case(s): The Supreme Court already put a stop to Utah’s same-sex marriage licenses in 2014. The case will now go to the nearest appeals court. This is just one example; there are other cases regarding the rights of homosexuals to marry all over the United States.

A spontaneous reaction after the DOMA ruling last year.

Why it matters: 2013 was a banner year for gay rights in a lot of ways, but it’s important to note that the court cases will probably continue for years to come. There’s a lot of work to be done, and it doesn’t seem like the Supreme Court would unilaterally rule to legalize gay marriage. In 2014 we will continue to see more cases, trials, and hopefully, victories.

3. Voting Rights Cases

The case(s): There have been a lot of efforts at the state level to change voting rights laws, and the DOJ and various special interest groups have stood up to these changes when needed. But in 2013, part of the Voting Rights Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. So, each challenge to voting rights has to be filed against separately. As a result, many suits will be heard in 2014 to states’ attempted voting rights changes.

Why it matters: The change to the Voting Rights Act makes it more difficult for suits to be filed against voting rules, but special interest groups will also be under pressure to make changes before the 2014 midterms and 2016 national elections.

2. Contraception

The case(s): There were contraception cases regarding coverage through the Affordable Care Act that made it to the court in 2013, but many more will be on deck in 2014. One involves a nonprofit called Little Sisters of the Poor, and others involve for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby.

Why it matters: Not only is contraception a hot political issue, these cases involve parts of the Affordable Care Act. Parts of the ACA have already made it to the Supreme Court, but this will be a new decision will have ramifications as to whether or not companies are required to cover contraception for their employees, regardless of religious beliefs.

1. NSA Cases

The case(s): A lot of cases have been filed regarding the NSA’s monitoring of US citizens. A few may make it to the high court. US District Court Judge Richard Leon in Washington recently ruled that the NSA monitoring was unconstitutional. Meanwhile, District Court Judge William Pauley in New York dismissed a similar case. That kind of contradiction could lead to a big legal showdown in 2014.

Why it matters: The NSA surveillance debate was one of the biggest controversies of the year, and raised many legal questions about the ability of the government to monitor its people. What happens in these cases could set a serious precedent.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Dan Moyle via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cases to Watch in 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Happy New Year, folks! Welcome to 2014.

This is going to be one hell of a year — and it’s already kicked off with a bang. Not a fun, happy, feminist bang, but a bang nonetheless.

During her final moments of 2013, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor signed a temporary stay on the enforcement of the contraceptive coverage requirements in the Affordable Care Act. What does that mean? Basically, she just made it that much harder for women across the country to access birth control.

Not your finest moment, Justice Sotomayor. Courtesy of the Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States, Steve Petteway source via Wikipedia.

Here’s how it went down. As of December 30, 2013, the Affordable Care Act requires employer-sponsored health insurance to cover birth control. So, basically, if you get health insurance on your day job’s dime, you legally cannot be prevented from using it to snag some birth control pills. Awesome.

But! As always, some folks were pretty pissed off about this. Namely, Christian folks. A whole slew of Christian-values nonprofits and businesses objected to this piece of the ACA, claiming it infringed on their religious freedom. The logic here, is that if Christian values include not supporting contraception or abortion, a Christian employer shouldn’t have to subsidize those services for its employees.

Fair enough, churchgoers. The government can’t force you to support — financially or otherwise — actions that are forbidden by your religion. That’s what religious freedom is all about, right? Getting to practice your faith freely, without anyone telling you it’s not allowed?

Yes! Absolutely. But, there’s another side to the freedom of religion coin. While the government can’t prevent anyone from freely practicing their faith, it also can’t push any particular faith on its citizens. So, while the government can’t stop Catholics from attending church on Sundays, it also can’t force Jews to celebrate Christmas. The street runs both ways.

And this is where things get tricky. While Christian organizations have a fair point — being legally forced to subsidize contraception if they’re religiously opposed to it is majorly problematic — they’re also forgetting the other side of the coin. They’re right in asserting that they can’t be forced to do anything that interferes with their religious beliefs, but they can’t, in turn, force their religious beliefs on anyone else.

And that’s the tragic flaw in their anti-Obamacare logic. If Christian businesses were given their way — and allowed to forego contraceptive coverage for their employees — they would be forcing workers to live by a set of Christian standards, unless they paid a steep price tag. What happens when the employees of a Christian company aren’t Christian themselves? What happens when they’re Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or Atheist? Can those employees be forced to live by Christian values?

Absolutely not. Now you’re infringing on their religious freedom.

And here lies the central problem. Forcing Christian businesses to pay for contraceptive coverage might be infringing on their religious freedom — but allowing them to not pay for it might infringe on workers’ religious freedom.

It’s a lose-lose situation.

But! As per a compromise cooked up by the Department of Health and Human Services, there seemed to be a solution. Under this plan, Christian companies and nonprofits had to sign a form stating their religious affiliation, and instead of paying for contraceptive coverage themselves, the insurers paid for it, and were reimbursed.

Yay solutions!

Awesome! Way to use your problem solving skills, people. This way, religiously opposed employers don’t have to pay for contraception, but employees can still access those services if they choose.

But, this wasn’t good enough for many a Christian employer. Signing a form was, apparently, too much to ask. So lawsuits poured in. And Justice Sotomayor was sympathetic.

So, with the hourglass running down on 2013, she signed a mandate preventing this piece of the law being enforced. What does that mean? Religious employers can deny workers contraceptive coverage. For folks working at Christian institutions, birth control will only be an option if they can afford to pay a whole ton of money out of pocket. Which really means, birth control won’t be an option at all.

The Obama administration has until tomorrow to respond. From there, we’ll all just have to wait around for the Supreme Court to make a final decision sometime this summer, after it’s had a chance to sift through all of the case filings. And, mind you, things aren’t looking too good on that front, considering this problem was brought about by one of the most feministy of Justices. If Sotomayor is making it hard for women to access birth control, who the fuck is going to make it any easier?

We’re looking at you, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The tricky business of religious freedom has been a constant roadblock for women and feminism. What do you think about this latest Obamacare battle?

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Parenting Patch via Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Happy New Year! Your Birth Control’s No Longer Covered appeared first on Law Street.