Roundups Law and Policy

Legal Wrap: The Anti-Contraception Movement’s Long History

Jessica Mason Pieklo

Legal contraception for single people has been a fight for over 40 years, and the latest challenges suggest the fight isn't ending soon.

Legal Wrap is a weekly round-up of key legal and reproductive justice news.

It may seem like the battle over contraception access is a new thing, but it’s not. March 22 marks the 41st anniversary of Eisenstadt v. Baird, a Supreme Court decision that established that individual privacy rights include the right of single persons to possess contraception. As Bridgette Dunlap explained in a recent piece for Rewire, as recently as 1972 a person could be jailed for giving contraception to an unmarried person. As we’re witnessing today with the current assaults on contraception access, there are many individuals in this country fighting to undo the legacy of Baird.

The National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) submitted amicus briefs in two cases that challenge the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage benefit: Autocam v. Sebelius in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. v. Sebelius in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. At the heart of both cases is whether for-profit companies must comply with the benefit, which ensures that employees have access to insurance coverage for birth control without out-of-pocket costs.

In Michigan, another for-profit business has challenged the contraception mandate. Last week, organic and natural foods company Eden Foods and its chairman, president, and sole shareholder Michael Potter filed Eden Foods, Inc. v. Sebelius. Like many of the other for-profit companies challenging the contraception benefit, Eden Foods is represented by conservative activist group the Thomas More Law Center.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

The battle to renew the Violence Against Women Act did not include a focus on making emergency contraception (EC) widely available to rape survivors. Sadly, it appears that oversight was the result of women’s rights advocates failing to make EC availability a priority.

Imani Gandi asks the important question of whether the National Mortgage Settlement is failing women and communities color in this must read.

In Kentucky, child-care agencies that contract with the state will now have to ensure that children are not pressured into participating in religious worship or instruction, thanks to a settlement in a case that accused the state agency of looking the other way as private companies discriminated against students on the basis of religion.

Meanwhile, in Tennessee, a federal court permanently blocked a state law that was designed to defund Planned Parenthood. The law cut off grants to the health-care provider for HIV-prevention work because some clinics also provide abortion care.

Silicon Valley may seem like a universe away from Steubenville, Ohio, but as Natasha Chart shows, rape culture really is everywhere.

Speaking of Steubenville, I offered some thoughts on how the history of the juvenile justice system worked to produce a guilty verdict in the trial while also doing little to address the victim-blaming and -shaming that encompassed the legal defense in the case.

This week the Supreme Court will hears arguments in two landmark cases that consider the issue of marriage equality and to what extent states or the federal government can discriminate and favor opposite-sex marriage over same-sex marriage. Rewire writers will be covering the arguments and have previewed some of the issues here, but in the meantime, check out this interesting read in The Economist on the similarities between the legal battle for marriage equality and the fight for abortion rights.

News Sexual Health

State with Nation’s Highest Chlamydia Rate Enacts New Restrictions on Sex Ed

Nicole Knight Shine

By requiring sexual education instructors to be certified teachers, the Alaska legislature is targeting Planned Parenthood, which is the largest nonprofit provider of such educational services in the state.

Alaska is imposing a new hurdle on comprehensive sexual health education with a law restricting schools to only hiring certificated school teachers to teach or supervise sex ed classes.

The broad and controversial education bill, HB 156, became law Thursday night without the signature of Gov. Bill Walker, a former Republican who switched his party affiliation to Independent in 2014. HB 156 requires school boards to vet and approve sex ed materials and instructors, making sex ed the “most scrutinized subject in the state,” according to reproductive health advocates.

Republicans hold large majorities in both chambers of Alaska’s legislature.

Championing the restrictions was state Sen. Mike Dunleavy (R-Wasilla), who called sexuality a “new concept” during a Senate Education Committee meeting in April. Dunleavy added the restrictions to HB 156 after the failure of an earlier measure that barred abortion providers—meaning Planned Parenthood—from teaching sex ed.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Dunleavy has long targeted Planned Parenthood, the state’s largest nonprofit provider of sexual health education, calling its instruction “indoctrination.”

Meanwhile, advocates argue that evidence-based health education is sorely needed in a state that reported 787.5 cases of chlamydia per 100,000 people in 2014—the nation’s highest rate, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Surveillance Survey for that year.

Alaska’s teen pregnancy rate is higher than the national average.

The governor in a statement described his decision as a “very close call.”

“Given that this bill will have a broad and wide-ranging effect on education statewide, I have decided to allow HB 156 to become law without my signature,” Walker said.

Teachers, parents, and advocates had urged Walker to veto HB 156. Alaska’s 2016 Teacher of the Year, Amy Jo Meiners, took to Twitter following Walker’s announcement, writing, as reported by Juneau Empire, “This will cause such a burden on teachers [and] our partners in health education, including parents [and] health [professionals].”

An Anchorage parent and grandparent described her opposition to the bill in an op-ed, writing, “There is no doubt that HB 156 is designed to make it harder to access real sexual health education …. Although our state faces its largest budget crisis in history, certain members of the Legislature spent a lot of time worrying that teenagers are receiving information about their own bodies.”

Jessica Cler, Alaska public affairs manager with Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest and Hawaii, called Walker’s decision a “crushing blow for comprehensive and medically accurate sexual health education” in a statement.

She added that Walker’s “lack of action today has put the education of thousands of teens in Alaska at risk. This is designed to do one thing: Block students from accessing the sex education they need on safe sex and healthy relationships.”

The law follows the 2016 Legislative Round-up released this week by advocacy group Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. The report found that 63 percent of bills this year sought to improve sex ed, but more than a quarter undermined student rights or the quality of instruction by various means, including “promoting misinformation and an anti-abortion agenda.”

News Law and Policy

Court Blocks North Carolina’s ‘Discriminatory’ Voter ID Law

Imani Gandy

“[T]he new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision," Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the court, describing the North Carolina GOP's voter ID law.

A unanimous panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down North Carolina’s elections law, holding that the Republican-held legislature had enacted the law with discriminatory intent to burden Black voters and that it therefore violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The ruling marks the latest defeat of voter ID laws passed by GOP-majority legislatures across the country.

“We can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent,” Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the court.

HB 589 required in-person voters to show certain types of photo ID beginning in 2016, and either curtailed or reduced registration and voting access tools that Black voters disproportionately used, including an early voting period. Black voters also disproportionately lack photo IDs.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Republicans claimed that the law was intended to protect against voter fraud, which has proven exceedingly rare in Republican-led investigations. But voting rights advocates argue that the law was intended to disenfranchise Black and Latino voters.

The ruling marks a dramatic reversal of fortune for the U.S. Justice Department, the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP, and the League of Women Voters, which had asked the Fourth Circuit to review a lower court ruling against them.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder in April ruled that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the law hindered Black voters’ ability to exercise political power.

The Fourth Circuit disagreed.

“In holding that the legislature did not enact the challenged provisions with discriminatory intent, the court seems to have missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees,” Motz wrote. “This failure of perspective led the court to ignore critical facts bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina.”

The Fourth Circuit noted that the Republican-dominated legislature passed the law in 2013, immediately following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby v. Holder, which struck a key provision in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.

Section 4 is the coverage formula used to determine which states must get pre-clearance from the Department of Justice or the District Court for the District of Columbia before making any changes to election laws.

The day after the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Shelby, the Republican chairman of the Senate Rules Committee announced the North Carolina legislature’s intention to enact an “omnibus” election law, the appeals court noted. Before enacting the law, however, the Republican-dominated legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices.

After receipt of the race data, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration, all of which disproportionately burdened Black voters.

“In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its actions, the State offered only meager justifications,” Motz continued. “[T]he new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision.”

The ruling comes a day after the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, president of the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP and one of the primary organizers of Moral Mondays, gave a rousing speech at the Democratic National Convention that brought convention goers to their feet.

During a protest on the first day of the trial, Barber told a crowd of about 3,500 people, “this is our Selma.”