Sexual pleasure can be a taboo subject in our society almost everywhere but in our entertainment, where it is arguably overdone. But even in our media, sex seems to be the sole privilege of young, white, single, and non-disabled people. That's what makes John Green's The Fault in Our Stars so remarkable.
Briana Dixon will start her third year at Spelman College in the fall and is one of Rewire‘s youth voices.
I don’t often watch movies for the sex scenes, but that’s what I found myself doing during The Fault in Our Stars.
It was one of my top three “God, I hope they don’t screw this up” scenes, right up there with Anne Frank’s house and The Last Good Day. I nervously anticipated the movie adaptation’s take on what I considered an iconic moment, unsure if it would hold up to the scene in the book. As a reproductive justice advocate, I had a vested interest in whether or not they would get this right: This was a rare opportunity to see a sex scene between two people with disabilities done brilliantly, and I was terrified the TFIOS film team wouldn’t capitalize it.
We live in an era when we are constantly inundated with media, from our televisions to our cell phones. On average, Americans consume 60 hours of media a week, and with such constant exposure it’s almost impossible to say that we aren’t affected by the recurring images appearing on the various screens we watch daily.
Appreciate our work?
Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:
Often those images are of young, white people without disabilities in every situation you can imagine, while minorities are left by the wayside. Representation has become an important issue as we fight to make sure that the diversity of humanity is accurately portrayed. We have made amazing strides in recent years, but there is still room for improvement.
Often people with disabilities are subjected to what Tom Shakespeare calledthe medical model of representation, where the character’s impairment is the driving force of their characterization and the audience is denied the opportunity to empathize with them as people. Paul Hunt, in 1999, identified ten common caricatures of people with disabilities, including “the disabled person as (1) pitiable and pathetic, (2) as an object of curiosity or violence, (3) as sinister or evil, (4) as the super cripple, (5) as atmosphere, (6) as laughable, (7) as her/his own worst enemy, (8) as a burden, (9) as non-sexual, and (10) as being unable to participate in daily life.” None of these representations allow characters with disabilities to be as nuanced and as developed as the people whom they represent deserve.
But, The Fault in Our Stars diverges from these stereotypes by portraying its characters as fully as possible.
Here’s a quick summary of TFIOS: The main characters are Hazel, her boyfriend Augustus “Gus,” and their best friend Isaac. In addition to having cancer, each character has a physical disability as a result of his or her illness: Hazel must constantly be connected to a breathing machine, Augustus has a prosthetic leg, and Isaac is blind. But this is not where these characters’ personalities end.
Hazel is an incredibly intelligent, (justifiably) moody, empathetic, and kind 16-year-old girl who doesn’t completely understand infinity in a mathematical sense, but still manages to make a great metaphor out of it. Augustus is a brash and brave boy who is incredibly loyal and tends to use big words incorrectly. Isaac is a witty and funny romantic who has a propensity for video games.
John Green, the author of TFIOS, creates characters whose disabilities shade their lives instead of dictate them, where the reader/viewer is never allowed to deny the characters’ humanity nor forget their disabilities. This is especially apparent as it comes to the characters love lives, and by extension, their sex lives.
Though many characters with disabilities are written as inherently non-sexual, John Green doesn’t deny his characters their right to be sexual beings. One of the most touching scenes in the book is when Hazel and Augustus take advantage of Augustus’ wish from the “Genies” (a fictionalization of the Make-a-Wish Foundation) and they go to Amsterdam to meet Van Houten, an author Hazel idolizes and whom Hazel and Augustus have been corresponding. In Amsterdam the couple consummate their love. It’s not a particularly erotic scene, more awkward than anything else, but it’s beautiful nonetheless because it’s so realistic.
It is in these scenes where Green’s ability to artfully portray teens with disabilities really shines: The moment when Hazel and Augustus have to navigate around Hazel’s breathing tube doesn’t overshadow the moment where they are kissing in the hallway, nor does the moment when Augustus panics over Hazel seeing where his leg tapers off take away from when Hazel and Augustus take off their clothes in Augustus’ bed. Green writes a sex scene that explores what sex means for these two teenagers, neither shying away from nor fetishizing their disabilities. He even has a scene where Augustus pulls out a condom! As a reproductive justice advocate, I was pleased after reading this moment in the book, and I was anxious to see how it would translate in the film. Would they get the awkwardness right and ignore the disability? From the commercials, it seemed like a possibility.
And so I sat in the theater with my overpriced nachos and contraband lemonade, enjoying the movie, and waiting for the scene. When it came, I was pleased: They kept the banter about Augustus’ leg, the breathing tube bit totally worked, and they topped it all off with this beautiful slow pan of Hazel and Augustus wrapped up in the hotel covers, both Gus’ amputated leg sans prosthetic and Hazel’s breathing tube clearly visible.
The movie was not without its flaws, of course. It was severely lacking in people of color. The only named (and in focus) character of color was Dr. Maria, Hazel’s Black doctor, whose opinion on Hazel traveling to Amsterdam is initially overridden by a white male doctor. Though Dr. Maria’s opinion reigns in the end, it is worth noting that film is a visual medium and visually the Black doctor was still depicted in such a way where she was subordinate to a white male. In the book, the race of Dr. Maria isn’t mentioned, nor the races of the other children in support group who also have cancer. Nor is there any discussion of children with cancer who aren’t from middle class families in either the book or the movie. And it was disappointing to see they hadn’t included Augustus pulling out a condom in the film. However, even with these flaws, the movie was quite impressive.
Sexual pleasure can be a taboo subject in our society almost everywhere but in our entertainment, where it is arguably overdone. But even in our media, sex seems to be the sole privilege of young, white, single, and non-disabled people. The denial of sexual pleasure in media to anyone but this select group feeds back in the problem of underrepresentation. But the denial of sexual pleasure in our lives is a topic that affects our livelihoods.
Mitchell Tepper argues that sexual pleasure “can enhance an intimate relationship. It can add a sense of connectedness to the world or to each other. It can heal a sense of emotion and isolation so many of us feel even though we are socially integrated. It can help build our immunity against media messages that can make us feel as if we don’t deserve pleasure.”
He goes on to say that “when we do not include a discourse of pleasure we perpetuate [people with disabilities’] asexual and victimization status.” Sexual pleasure, for many, is a natural part of the human experience, and no one should be denied it solely based on something that is out of their control, whether it be race, gender, orientation, or disability. This translates to our media: When we consistently deny characters sexual pleasure, we deny them part of the human experience, which we cannot afford to do in an age where media is everywhere.
TFIOS is a step in the right direction, as it explores the lives of these teenagers with all the depth and nuance one could ask for, with both the book and the movie doing its characters justice.
It is quite commonplace, while traversing the Internet, to find an article that dismisses young people and/or the things they enjoy. Often all I have to do is log in to Twitter to find yet another exposé on how narcissistic we are, how risqué our media is, or how embarrassed adults should be if they are enjoying our books.
When The Fault in Our Stars led the box office over the Tom Cruise flick Edge of Tomorrow during its opening weekend, the fact that its primary audience consisted of young women became one of the biggest focal points among media outlets. What I find much more interesting about TFIOS, compared to many other popular films, is the care Green and the film’s team evidently put into creating the book and movie, respectively, ensuring an honest portrayal of teenagers with both cancer and disability. It doesn’t romanticize anything, nor does it vilify anything; it simply tells the story in all its nuanced beauty. The Fault in Our Stars challenges everyone to imagine its characters complexly, to see beyond our own preconceived ideas of who these characters should be and to whom they really are. This is a feat that is impressive no matter the intended demographic, a feat that I’m sure makes everyone involved in the production of the book and film proud.
The title, The Fault in Our Stars,is a play on the Shakespeare quote, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves that we are underlings.” This implies that the problems in our lives aren’t due to what we call fate, but to our own failings. TFIOS argues conversely, asserting that there are inequities in our lives that have nothing to do with our failings, but that doesn’t make anyone’s life less valuable, simply less privileged. I definitely agree with this assertion, for in many cases there are things in this world that are out of our control.
However, the faults in our media are within our power to change. It is up to us, in this age of infinite screens, to ensure that the images we see daily are nuanced ones. The Fault in Our Stars is a step in the right direction, and I am hopeful that it will open doors to stories that follow in its stead.
This is the first article in Rewire’s two-part series about the U.S. immigration system’s effects on unaccompanied children.
Earlier this month, three North Carolina high school students were released from a Lumpkin, Georgia, detention center after spending more than six months awaiting what seemed like their inevitable fate: deportation back to conditions in Central America that threatened their lives.
Wildin David Guillen Acosta, Josue Alexander Soriano Cortez, and Yefri Sorto-Hernandez were released on bail in the span of one week, thanks to an overwhelming community effort involving pro bono attorneys and bond money. However, not everyone targeted under the same government operation has been reprieved. For example, by the time reports emerged that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had detained Acosta on his way to school in Durham, North Carolina, the government agency had already quietly deported four other young people from the state, including a teenage girl from Guatemala who attended the same school.
Activated in January, that program—Operation Border Guardian—continues to affect the lives of hundreds of Central American migrants over the age of 18 who came to the United States as unaccompanied children after January 2014. Advocates believe many of those arrested under the operation are still in ICE custody.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson has said that the goal of Operation Border Guardian is to send a message to those in Central America considering seeking asylum in the United States. But it’s not working, as Border Patrol statistics have shown. Furthermore, vulnerable, undocumented youth who pose no real threat are being stripped of their right to an education and instead sit in detention awaiting deportation. These youth arrived at the border in hopes of qualifying for asylum, but were unable to succeed in an immigration system that seems rigged against them.
“The laws are really complicated and [young people] don’t have the community support to navigate this really hostile, complex system. That infrastructure isn’t there and unless we support asylum seekers and other immigrants in this part of the country, we’ll continue to see asylum seekers and former unaccompanied minors receive their deportation orders,” said Julie Mao, the enforcement fellow at the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild.
Appreciate our work?
Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:
In January, ICE conducted a series of raids that spanned three southern states—Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas—targeting Central American asylum seekers. The raids occurred under the orders of Johnson, who has taken a hardline stance against the more than 100,000 families who have sought asylum in the United States. These families fled deadly gang violence in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala in recent years. In El Salvador, in particular, over 400 children were murdered by gang members and police officers during the first three months of 2016, doubling the country’s homicide rate, which was already among the highest in the world.
ICE picked up some 121 people in the early January raids, primarily women and their young children. Advocates argue many of those arrested were detained unlawfully, because as people who experienced severe trauma and exhibited symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, generalized anxiety, and depression, they were disabled as defined under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and ICE did not provide reasonable accommodations to ensure disabled people were not denied meaningful access to benefits or services.
Just a few weeks later, on January 23, ICE expanded the raids’ focus to include teenagers under Operation Border Guardian, which advocates said represented a “new low.”
The media, too, has also criticized DHS for its seemingly senseless targeting of a population that normally would be considered refugees. The New York Times called Operation Border Guardian “a grossly misnamed immigration-enforcement surge that went after people this country did not need to guard against.”
In response to questions about its prioritization of former unaccompanied minors, an ICE spokesperson told Rewire in an emailed statement: “As the secretary has stated repeatedly, our borders are not open to illegal migration. If someone was apprehended at the border, has been ordered removed by an immigration court, has no pending appeal, and does not qualify for asylum or other relief from removal under our laws, he or she must be sent home. We must and we will enforce the law in accordance with our enforcement priorities.”
DHS reports that 336 undocumented Central American youth have been detained in the operation. It’s not clear how many of these youth have already been deported or remain in ICE custody, as the spokesperson did not respond to that question by press time.
Acosta, Cortez, Sorto-Hernandez, and three other North Carolina teenagers—Santos Geovany Padilla-Guzman, Bilmer Araeli Pujoy Juarez, Pedro Arturo Salmeron—have become known as the NC6 and the face of Operation Border Guardian, a designation they likely would have not signed up for.
Advocates estimate that thousands of deportations of low-priority migrants—those without a criminal history—occur each week. What newly arrived Central American asylum seekers like Acosta could not have known was that the federal government had been laying the groundwork for their deportations for years.
Asylum Seekers Become “High-Priority Cases”
In August 2011, the Obama administration announced it would begin reviewing immigration cases individually, allowing ICE to focus its resources on “high-priority cases.” The assumption was that those who pose a threat to public safety, for example, would constitute the administration’s highest priority, not asylum-seeking high school students.
But there was an indication from DHS that asylum-seeking students would eventually be targeted and considered high-priority. After Obama’s announcement, ICE released a statement outlining who would constitute its “highest priorities,” saying, “Specifically individuals who pose a threat to public safety such as criminal aliens and national security threats, as well as repeat immigration law violators and recent border entrants.”
In the years since, President Obama has repeatedly said “recent border crossers” are among the nation’s “highest priorities” for removal—on par with national security threats. Those targeted would be migrants with final orders of removal who, according to the administration, had received their day in court and had no more legal avenues left to seek protection. But, as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reported, “recent border entrant” is a murky topic, and it doesn’t appear as if allcases are being reviewed individually as President Obama said they would.
“Recent border entrant” can apply to someone who has been living in the United States for three years, and a border removal applies “whenever ICE deports an individual within three years of entry—regardless of whether the initial entry was authorized—or whenever an individual is apprehended by Customs and Border Protection (CBP),” explained Thomas Homan, the head of ICE’s removal operations in a 2013 hearing with Congress, the ACLU reported.
Chris Rickerd, policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington Legislative Office, added that “[b]ecause CBP refuses to screen the individuals it apprehends for their ties to the U.S., and DHS overuses procedures that bypass deportation hearings before a judge, many ‘border removals’ are never fully assessed to determine whether they have a legal right to stay.”
Over the years, DHS has only ramped up the department’s efforts to deport newly arrived immigrants, mostly from Central America. As the Los Angeles Times reported, these deportations are “an attempt by U.S. immigration officials to send a message of deterrence to Central America and avoid a repeat of the 2014 crisis when tens of thousands of children from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala arrived at the U.S. border.”
This is something Mao takes great issue with.
“These raids that we keep seeing are being done in order to deter another wave of children from seeking asylum—and that is not a permissible reason,” Mao said. “You deport people based on legality, not as a way of scaring others. Our country, in this political moment, is terrorizing young asylum seekers as a way of deterring others from presenting themselves at the border, and it’s pretty egregious.”
There is a direct correlation between surges of violence in the Northern Triangle—El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—and an uptick in the number of asylum seekers arriving in the United States. El Salvador, known as the murder capital of the word, recently saw an explosion of gang violence. Combine that with the possible re-emergence of so-called death squads and it’s clear why the number of Salvadoran family units apprehended on the southern border increased by 96 percent from 2015 to 2016, as Fusion reported.
Much like Mao, Elisa Benitez, co-founder of the immigrants rights’ organization Alerta Migratoria NC, believes undocumented youth are being targeted needlessly.
“They should be [considered] low-priority just because they’re kids, but immigration is classifying them at a very high level, meaning ICE is operating like this is a population that needs to be arrested ASAP,” Benitez said.
The Plight of Unaccompanied Children
Each member of the NC6 arrived in the United States as an unaccompanied child fleeing violence in their countries of origin. Acosta, for example, was threatened by gangs in his native Honduras and feared for his life. These young people should qualify as refugees based on those circumstances under international law. In the United States, after they present themselves at the border, they have to prove to an immigration judge they have a valid asylum claim—something advocates say is nearly impossible for a child to do with no understanding of the immigration system and, often, with no access to legal counsel—or they face deportation.
Unaccompanied children, if not immediately deported, have certain protections once in the United States. For example, they cannot be placed into expedited removal proceedings. According to the American Immigration Council, “they are placed into standard removal proceedings in immigration court. CBP must transfer custody of these children to Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), within 72 hours.”
While their court proceedings move forward, HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement manages the care of the children until they can ideally be released to their parents already based in the country. Sometimes, however, they are placed with distant relatives or U.S. sponsors. Because HHS has lowered its safety standards regarding placement, children have been subjected to sexual abuse, labor trafficking, and severe physical abuse and neglect, ThinkProgress has reported.
If while in the care of their family or a sponsor they miss a court date, detainment or deportation can be triggered once they turn 18 and no longer qualify for protections afforded to unaccompanied children.
This is what happened to Acosta, who was placed with his mother in Durham when he arrived in the United States. ICE contends that Acosta was not targeted unfairly; rather, his missed court appearance triggered his order for removal.
Acosta’s mother told local media that after attending his first court date, Acosta “skipped subsequent ones on the advice of an attorney who told him he didn’t stand a chance.”
“That’s not true, but it’s what they were told,” Benitez said. “So, this idea that all of these kids were given their day in court is false. One kid [we work with] was even told not to sign up for school because ‘there was no point,’ it would just get him deported.”
Benitez told Rewire the reasons why these young people are being targeted and given their final orders of removal need to be re-examined.
Sixty percent of youth from Central America do not ever have access to legal representation throughout the course of their case—from the time they arrive in the United States and are designated as unaccompanied children to the time they turn 18 and are classified as asylum seekers. According to the ACLU, 44 percent of the 23,000 unaccompanied children who were required to attend immigration court this year had no lawyer, and 86 percent of those children were deported.
Immigration attorneys and advocates say that having a lawyer is absolutely necessary if a migrant is to have any chance of winning an asylum claim.
Mao told Rewire that in the Southeast where Acosta and the other members of the NC6 are from, there is a pipeline of youth who arrived in the United States as unaccompanied children who are simply “giving up” on their valid asylum claims because navigating the immigration system is simply too hard.
“They feel the system is rigged, and it is rigged,” Mao said.
Mao has been providing “technical assistance” for Acosta and other members of the NC6. Her organization doesn’t represent individuals in court, she said, but the services it provides are necessary because immigration is such a unique area of law and there are very few attorneys who know how to represent individuals who are detained and who have been designated unaccompanied minors. Those services include providing support, referrals, and technical assistance to advocates, community organizations, and families on deportation defense and custody issues.
Fighting for Asylum From Detention
Once arrested by ICE, there is no telling if someone will linger in detention for months or swiftly be deported. What is known is that if a migrant is taken by ICE in North Carolina, somewhere along the way, they will be transferred to Lumpkin, Georgia’s Stewart Detention Center. As a local paper reported, Stewart is “the last stop before they send you back to whatever country you came from.”
Stewart is the largest detention center in the country, capable of holding 2,000 migrants at any time—it’s also been the subject of numerous investigations because of reports of abuse and inadequate medical care. The detention center is run by Corrections Corporation of America, the country’s largest private prison provider and one that has become synonymous with maintaining inhumane conditions inside of its detention centers. According to a report from the National Immigrant Justice Center, Stewart’s remote location—over two hours away from Atlanta—hinders the facility from attracting and retaining adequate medical staff, while also creating barriers to visitation from attorneys and family members.
There’s also the matter of Georgia being notoriously tough on asylum seekers, even being called the “worst” place to be an undocumented immigrant. The Huffington Postreported that “Atlanta immigration judges have been accused of bullying children, badgering domestic violence victims and setting standards for relief and asylum that lawyers say are next to impossible to meet.” Even more disconcerting, according to a project by Migrahack, which pairs immigration reporters and hackers together, having an attorney in Georgia had almost no effect on whether or not a person won their asylum case, with state courts denying up to 98 percent of asylum requests.
Acosta, Cortez, and Sorto-Hernandez spent over six months in Stewart Detention Center before they were released on bail—a “miracle” according to some accounts, given the fact that only about 5 percent of those detained in Stewart are released on bond.
In the weeks after ICE transferred Acosta to Stewart, there were multiple times Acosta was on the verge of deportation. ICE repeatedly denied Acosta was in danger, but advocates say they had little reason to believe the agency. Previous cases have made them wary of such claims.
Advocates believe that three of the North Carolina teens who were deported earlier this year before Acosta’s case made headlines were kept in detention for months with the goal of wearing them down so that they would sign their own deportation orders despite having valid asylum claims.
“They were tired. They couldn’t handle being in detention. They broke down and as much as they feared being returned to their home countries, they just couldn’t handle being there [in detention] anymore. They’d already been there for weeks,” Benitez said.
While ICE claims the average stay of a migrant in Stewart Detention Center is 30 days, the detention center is notorious for excessively long detainments. Acosta’s own bunkmate had been there over a year, according to Indy Week reporter David Hudnall.
As Hudnall reported, there is a massive backlog of immigration cases in the system—474,000 nationally and over 5,000 in North Carolina.
Mao told Rewire that the amount of time the remaining members of the NC6 will spend in detention varies because of different legal processes, but that it’s not unusual for young people with very strong asylum cases to sign their rights away because they can’t sustain the conditions inside detention.
Pedro Arturo Salmeron, another NC6 member, is still in detention. He was almost deported, but Mao told Rewire her organization was able to support a pro bono attorney in appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to stop proceedings.
Japeth Matemu, an immigration attorney, recently toldIndy Week’s David Hudnall that “the BIA will tell you that it can’t modify the immigration judge’s ruling unless it’s an egregious or obvious miscarriage of justice. You basically have to prove the judge is off his rocker.”
It could take another four months in detention to appeal Salmeron’s case because ICE continues to refuse to release him, according to the legal fellow.
“That’s a low estimate. It could be another year in detention before there is any movement in his case. We as an organization feel that is egregious to detain someone while their case is pending,” Mao said. “We have to keep in mind that these are kids, and some of these kids can’t survive the conditions of adult prison.”
Detention centers operate as prisons do, with those detained being placed in handcuffs and shackles, being stripped of their personal belongings, with no ability to move around freely. One of Acosta’s teachers told Rewire he wasn’t even able to receive his homework in detention.
Many of those in detention centers have experienced trauma. Multiple studies confirm that “detention has a profoundly negative impact on young people’s mental and physical well-being” and in the particular case of asylum seekers, detention may exacerbate their trauma and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.
“People are so traumatized by the raids, and then you add detention on top of that. Some of these kids cannot psychologically and physically deal with the conditions in detention, so they waive their rights,” Mao said.
In March, Salmeron and fellow NC6 member Yefri Sorto-Hernandez received stays of deportation, meaning they would not face immediate deportation. ICE says a stay is like a “legal pause.” During the pause, immigration officials decide if evidence in the case will be reconsidered for asylum. Sorto-Hernandez was released five months later.
Benitez said that previously when she organized around detention, a stay of deportation meant the person would get released from detention, but ICE’s decision to detain some of the NC6 indefinitely until their cases are heard illustrates how “weirdly severe” the agency is being toward this particular population. Mao fears this is a tactic being used by ICE to break down young people in detention.
“ICE knows it will take months, and frankly up to a year, for some of these motions to go through the court system, but the agency is still refusing to release individuals. I can’t help but think it’s with the intention that these kids will give up their claims while suffering in detention,” Mao said.
“I think we really have to question that, why keep these young people locked up when they can be with their communities, with their families, going to school? ICE can release these kids now, but for showmanship, ICE is refusing to let them go. Is this who we want to be, is this the message we want to send the world?” she asked.
In the seven months since the announcement of Operation Border Guardian, DHS has remained quiet about whether or not there will be more raids on young Central American asylum seekers. As a new school year approaches, advocates fear that even more students will be receiving their orders for removal, and unlike the NC6, they may not have a community to rally around them, putting them at risk of quietly being deported and not heard from again.
Meanwhile, according to Politifact, North Carolina attorney general and gubernatorial challenger Roy Cooper is actually saving taxpayers money by refusing to appeal the Fourth Circuit’s ruling on the state’s voter ID law, so Gov. Pat McCrory (R) should stop complaining about it.
And in other North Carolina news, Ian Millhiser writes that the state has hired high-powered conservative attorney Paul Clement to defend its indefensible voter ID law.
Appreciate our work?
Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:
Alex Thompson writes in Vice that the Zika virus is about to hit states with the most restrictive abortion laws in the United States, including Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. So if you’re pregnant, stay away. No one has yet offered advice for those pregnant people who can’t leave Zika-prone areas.
Robin Marty writes on Care2 about Americans United for Life’s (AUL) latest Mad Lib-style model bill, the “National Abortion Data Reporting Law.” Attacking abortion rights: It’s what AUL does.
The Washington Postprofiled Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Given this Congress, that will likely spur another round of hearings. (It did get a response from Richards herself.)
Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson writes in Bloomberg BNA that Stanford Law Professor Pamela Karlan thinks the Supreme Court’s clarification of the undue burden standard in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt will have ramifications for voting rights cases.
This must-read New York Times piece reminds us that we still have a long way to go in accommodating breastfeeding parents on the job.