Podcasts about hellerstedt

ENCORE ALERT! The Feminist Buzzkills are signing off for a two week end-of-summer break! But, no need to fear – we're leaving y'all with some extra brain juice to help you prep for the November elections. We're dropping an ENCORE POD EPISODE of when we brought in an all-star team of experts to break down SCOTUS' EMTALA ruling to keep you company while we're offline. It went a little something like this…The Supreme Court FINALLY made up its mind on the fate of the Emergency Medical and Labor Act (EMTALA) earlier this summer, and your Feminist Buzzkills HAVE FACTS, FEELINGS, AND ANSWERS ABOUT IT!What in the abobo hell even was the Idaho v. United States case? Why is this NOT a win and NOT enough? How did the clown justices react? How does this affect other places, like Texas? And WTF happens next?! WE CALLED IN FOR BACKUP TO ANSWER ALL YOUR QUESTIONS! Your Buzzkills rallied together a dope lineup of EXPERTS to break it all down with us and dissect this nondecision-decision from all angles. GUEST ROLL CALL: Attorney Stephanie Toti, who successfully argued the Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt case before the Supreme Court; Idaho reproductive rights activist Jen Jackson Quintano; Idaho OB-GYN and abortion provider Dr. Caitlin Gustafson; and Ryan Hamilton, a Texas activist who has been vocal about his and his wife's experience in accessing emergency abortion care. You don't wanna miss this one. This episode is a good reminder of how important it is to center abortion at the ballot box. Knowledge is power, y'all. We gotchu. OPERATION SAVE ABORTION: You can still join the 10,000+ womb warriors fighting the patriarchy by listening to our five-part OpSave pod series and Mifepristone Panel by clicking HERE for episodes, your toolkit, marching orders, and more. HOSTS:Lizz Winstead @LizzWinsteadMoji Alawode-El @MojiLocks SPECIAL GUESTS: Stephanie Toti TW: @LawyeringProjJen Jackson Quintano IG: @TheProVoiceProjectDr. Caitlin Gustafson TW: @CatitlinGustaf15 IG/TW: @Idaho_CSHRyan Hamilton IG/TW: @TheRyanHamilton GUEST LINKS: The Lawyering ProjectThe Pro-Voice ProjectIdaho Coalition for Safe Healthcare EPISODE LINKS:SCOTUS Ruling Restores Emergency Abortion Rights in Idaho, Leaves Texas Case HangingI'm Staying in Idaho to Practice Medicine After the u.s. Supreme Court's Emtala Decision‘Not a Victory,' but ‘A Delay': With the Supreme Court's Emtala Ruling, u.s. Women Are Still at RiskSIGN: Repeal the Comstock ActBUY: Reproductive Rights Wall Art!EMAIL your abobo questions to The Feminist BuzzkillsAAF's Abortion-Themed Rage Playlist FOLLOW US:Listen to us ~ FBK Podcast Instagram ~ @AbortionFrontTwitter ~ @AbortionFrontTikTok ~ @AbortionFrontFacebook ~ @AbortionFrontYouTube ~ @AbortionAccessFrontTALK TO THE CHARLEY BOT FOR ABOBO OPTIONS & RESOURCES HERE!PATREON HERE! Support our work, get exclusive merch and more! DONATE TO AAF HERE!ACTIVIST CALENDAR HERE!VOLUNTEER WITH US HERE!ADOPT-A-CLINIC HERE!EXPOSE FAKE CLINICS HERE!GET ABOBO PILLS FROM PLAN C PILLS HERE!When BS is poppin', we pop off!

OYEZ! OYEZ! SCOTUS has dropped the EMTALA decision… Which should have been front and center in last night's “Grumpy Old Men” reboot, but never fear, YOUR BUZZKILLS ARE HERE! The Supreme Court FINALLY made up its mind on the fate of the Emergency Medical and Labor Act (EMTALA) yesterday and your Feminist Buzzkills HAVE FACTS AND FEELINGS ABOUT IT! What in the abobo hell even was the Idaho v. United States case? Why is this NOT a win and NOT enough? How did the clown justices react? How does this affect other places, like Texas? And WTF happens next?! WE CALLED IN FOR BACKUP TO ANSWER ALL YOUR QUESTIONS!  Your Buzzkills rallied together a dope lineup of EXPERTS to break it all down with us and dissect this nondecision-decision from all angles. GUEST ROLL CALL: Attorney Stephanie Toti, who successfully argued the Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt case before the Supreme Court; Idaho reproductive rights activist Jen Jackson Quintano; Idaho OB-GYN and abortion provider Dr. Caitlin Gustafson; and Ryan Hamilton, a Texas activist who has been vocal about his and his wife's experience in accessing emergency abortion care. You don't wanna miss this one. Times are heavy, but knowledge is power, y'all. We gotchu.  OPERATION SAVE ABORTION: You can still join the 10,000+ womb warriors fighting the patriarchy by listening to our five-part OpSave pod series and Mifepristone Panel by clicking HERE for episodes, your toolkit, marching orders, and more. HOSTS:Lizz Winstead @LizzWinsteadMoji Alawode-El @MojiLocks SPECIAL GUESTS: Stephanie Toti TW: @LawyeringProjJen Jackson Quintano IG: @TheProVoiceProjectDr. Caitlin Gustafson TW: @CatitlinGustaf15 IG/TW: @Idaho_CSHRyan Hamilton IG/TW: @TheRyanHamilton GUEST LINKS: The Lawyering ProjectThe Pro-Voice ProjectIdaho Coalition for Safe Healthcare EPISODE LINKS:SCOTUS Ruling Restores Emergency Abortion Rights in Idaho, Leaves Texas Case HangingI'm Staying in Idaho to Practice Medicine After the u.s. Supreme Court's Emtala Decision‘Not a Victory,' but ‘A Delay': With the Supreme Court's Emtala Ruling, u.s. Women Are Still at RiskSIGN: Repeal the Comstock ActBUY: Reproductive Rights Wall Art!EMAIL your abobo questions to The Feminist BuzzkillsAAF's Abortion-Themed Rage Playlist FOLLOW US:Listen to us ~ FBK Podcast Instagram ~ @AbortionFrontTwitter ~ @AbortionFrontTikTok ~ @AbortionFrontFacebook ~ @AbortionFrontYouTube ~ @AbortionAccessFront TALK TO THE CHARLEY BOT FOR ABOBO OPTIONS & RESOURCES HERE!PATREON HERE! Support our work, get exclusive merch and more! DONATE TO AAF HERE!ACTIVIST CALENDAR HERE!VOLUNTEER WITH US HERE!ADOPT-A-CLINIC HERE!EXPOSE FAKE CLINICS HERE!GET ABOBO PILLS FROM PLAN C PILLS HERE!

In recent years, Diversity along with Equity and Inclusion have emerged as key elements of organisational and people strategy. It is now essentially a “taken for granted” assumption that DEI initiatives are a good thing and that they in turn play an important role in reducing bias and inequality in the workplace. But is this really the case?To explore this further I am delighted to be joined today by Professor Karin Hellerstedt and Professor Timur Uman, both of Jönköping International Business School in Sweden, who were co-authors with Karl Wennberg of Linkoping University of a recent paper published in Academy of Management Perspectives.About our guests...Karin Hellerstedt is a Senior Associate Professor at Jönköping International Business School.Karin has conducted research on entrepreneurship in knowledge intensive industries, and on how firms and teams are formed and develop over time.She has been involved in several research projects dealing with different aspects of entrepreneurship such as academic, rural and knowledge intensive entrepreneurship. Karin Hellerstedt has written and published several research reports and published in international peer review journals.Her current research centers around ownership transitions and the succession of privately held businesses. Timur Uman is a Professor in Accounting and Control at Jönköping International Business School.Timur's research deals with corporate governance and management control in stock listed corporation, hybrid and public organizations and new ventures. His work has been published in premier journals in Business Administration such as Corporate Governance: An International Review, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Journal of World Business and Long-Range Planning among others. Prior to joining academia Timur worked in executive positions in Latvian and German companies dealing with financial management and planning.The paper discussed in the interview is available here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4308670 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Host: Erin Maye Quade, Gender Justice Special Projects Advisor Guests: Jess Braverman, Gender Justice Legal Director and Rupali Sharma, Deputy Executive Director for Legal Programs at the Lawyering Project “This case is about our humanity: do we matter?” — Rupali Sharma  Gender Justice legal and policy experts are joined by the Lawyering Project's Rupali Sharma to discuss the oral arguments in the case Idaho v. United States and Moyle et al., or the “EMTALA” (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) case, which centers on whether or not state abortion bans supersede the federal law mandating that hospital emergency departments receiving federal funding must stabilize a patient whose life or health is at risk.  Rupali Sharma previously worked at the Center for Reproductive Rights, where she successfully litigated challenges to unlawful abortion restrictions in Ireland and the U.S., including Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. She led the Lawyering Project's amicus brief submitted on behalf of doctors in the EMTALA case.  Audio of the Supreme Court oral arguments in the EMTALA case (transcript provided) Amicus brief submitted by Rupali Sharma for the Lawyering Project on behalf of Physicians for Reproductive Health in the EMTALA case  The Lawyering Project In Idaho v. United States, the Supreme Court Must Reckon With the Post-Dobbs Reality It Created I'm an ER Doctor. If the Supreme Court Upends EMTALA, Patients Will Die.   ### Visit the "Gender Justice" Website ⁠here⁠ and "Unrestrict Minnesota" ⁠here⁠. The GJB is produced by Michael at ⁠www.501MediaGroup.com⁠ & Audra Grigus. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/genderjustice/message

Andreas träffar gitarristen Ulf Hellerstedt. Det är en djupdykning i två av Uffes pedalbord samt pratar om allt från musikalgig till undervisning och both Year ger gitarrer. Mycket Nöje! Stort tack till alla som supportar oss via Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=32426577 och Swish: 1236293344

The history of abortion in the United States since 1970 has been marked by legal, political, and cultural shifts that have continually influenced the debate over reproductive rights. Here is a brief overview of the key events and turning points during this period: Roe v. Wade (1973): This landmark Supreme Court decision ruled that a woman's right to have an abortion is protected by the Constitution under the right to privacy. It established a legal framework in which states could regulate abortion but could not ban it outright before fetal viability (approximately 24 weeks of pregnancy). Roe v. Wade significantly expanded access to abortion throughout the United States. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992): This Supreme Court decision upheld the essential holding of Roe v. Wade but allowed states to impose certain restrictions on abortion as long as they did not place an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to access the procedure. This led to the implementation of various restrictions by states, such as waiting periods, parental consent laws, and mandatory counseling. Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (2003): This federal law, signed by President George W. Bush, banned a specific late-term abortion procedure known as intact dilation and extraction. The law was challenged but ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in the 2007 case, Gonzales v. Carhart. Affordable Care Act (2010): Also known as Obamacare, this law required most insurance plans to cover women's preventive health services, including contraception, without co-pays or deductibles. However, it also allowed states to restrict or prohibit insurance coverage for abortion services. Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016): This Supreme Court decision struck down two Texas laws that imposed strict regulations on abortion providers, such as requiring doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and requiring clinics to meet surgical-center standards. The Court ruled that these restrictions placed an undue burden on women seeking abortions and were thus unconstitutional. Heartbeat Bills (2018-2021): In this period, several states passed so-called "heartbeat bills," which banned abortions once a fetal heartbeat could be detected, as early as six weeks into pregnancy. Many of these laws were challenged in court, leading to injunctions and legal battles that continue today. Texas Senate Bill 8 (2021): This law bans abortions after approximately six weeks of pregnancy and allows private citizens to sue anyone who aids, abets, or performs an abortion in violation of the law. The Supreme Court declined to block the law in September 2021, leading to concerns about its potential implications for Roe v. Wade and other state-level abortion restrictions. The history of abortion in the United States since 1970 has been characterized by legal battles and changing social attitudes, with an ongoing struggle between those who advocate for reproductive rights and those who seek to restrict or ban abortion. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/chrisabraham/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/chrisabraham/support

Amy Brenneman divides her time evenly between acting, producing, and political activism. She earned a degree in Comparative Religion at Harvard, with a specialty in Indo-Tibetan Religion, studying sacred dance and indigenous ritual in Kathmandu.  She was a founding member of the Cornerstone Theater Company, which specializes in site-specific community-based theater on themes of social justice.   Other theater:  CSC Rep, Lincoln Center Theater, LA Theater Works, LATC, Williamstown Theater Festival, En Garde Arts, Spark, The American Repertory Theater, Yale Rep, Playwrights Horizons, and the Geffen Playhouse.        Amy co-created, wrote and starred in Mouth Wide Open (The Yard, American Repertory Theater) and Overcome (The Yard).  Overcome will have its premiere at South Coast Repertory as part of the 2021-2022 season.           Amy created, executive produced and starred in “Judging Amy” (two TV Guide Awards, three Golden Globe nominations, Producer's Guild Nomination, three Emmy Award nominations, People's Choice SAG nomination) based on the work of her mother, the Honorable Judge Frederica Brenneman.  Other television: “NYPD Blue” (2 Emmy nominations, SAG award), “Frasier,” “Heartbeat” (exec producer), “Goliath” and Shonda Rhimes' “Private Practice.”  Amy starred in “The Leftovers” (Peabody Award, Critic's Choice nomination). Amy's most recent television roles include playing opposite Jeff Bridges in the critically acclaimed FX/hulu series “The Old Man;” opposite Elisabeth Moss in “Shining Girls” on Apple TV+; and “Tell Me Your Secrets” on Amazon Prime. Film credits include:  CASPER, FEAR, DAYLIGHT, HEAT, FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS, THE JANE AUSTEN BOOK CLUB, PEEL, THE LOOK OF LOVE and WORDS AND PICTURES opposite Clive Owen.  Amy has a long collaboration with Rodrigo Garcia, with whom she worked on NINE LIVES, THINGS YOU CAN TELL JUST BY LOOKING AT HER and MOTHER AND CHILD.      Amy produced and directed the documentary “The Way the World Should Be” about the trailblazing work of the CHIME Institute and its mission of inclusive education.  She created and hosts the podcast “The Challengers” now in its third season.         As a teacher, she has taught drama and creative process the CHIME Charter school, which specializes in educating children of all abilities.  She has also taught at Harvard and UCLA, among others.          For her activist work, Amy has been honored by Women in Film, The Brady Center, the League of Women Voters, the California State Assembly, the National Children's Alliance, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, the Help Group, the Producer's Guild of America, among others. In 2016, she was part of the amicus brief for the Supreme Court case Whole Women's v. Hellerstedt, ensuring that abortion clinics remain open in Texas and elsewhere; she received the Eleanor Roosevelt Award from The Feminist Majority for her ongoing commitment to reproductive rights. In 2019 Amy received the Change Agent Award from En Garde Arts in New York.  She has served as keynote speaker for NARAL, Cal-Tash, The Council for Exceptional Children and on the steps Supreme Court.              Amy splits her time between Los Angeles and West Tisbury, MA.  She is married to writer/director Brad Silberling and has two children, Charlotte and Bodhi.     Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Liz, Rebecca, Alison and Monica discuss the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturns the fundamental right to abortion care. The co-hosts break down the decision, the ramifications of the decision, and commiserate over the future of the rights of women to make their own health care choices.    Background Oral Arguments SCOTUS Blog Page Text of SB8 FFRF, CFI, and AA coalition amicus brief AU, AHA, Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice, and Interfaith Alliance Foundation coalition amicus brief Rebecca's blog on the leaked opinion Relevant Cases Roe v. Wade Planned Parenthood v. Casey Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt   Check us out on Facebook and Twitter. Our website, we-dissent.org, has more information as well as episode transcripts.

"On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (JWHO). The ruling upheld Mississippi's ban on abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy, overturned Roe v. Wade, and ended the federal constitutional right to abortion in the United States.By overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court erased nearly 50 years of precedent. They took away our power to make our own personal medical decisions, and they gave that power to lawmakers. The court's decision most harms Black, Latino, Indigenous, and other people of color — communities for whom systemic racism has long blocked access to opportunity and health care.The ruling will have a ripple effect, spreading abortion bans across the United States. About half the states in the country could move to wipe out abortion access. Some of these states have policies that ban abortion immediately. Others are led by lawmakers who are hostile to abortion and have a history of passing abortion restrictions.Thirty-six million women, plus many others who can become pregnant, are at risk of losing abortion access in their state.The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling on January 22, 1973, decriminalized abortion nationwide. It gave people the right to access abortion legally all across the country and freed patients to access the health care they needed when they needed it without fear.Despite all the attacks on abortion rights, the Supreme Court had — until now — honored Roe v. Wade's core principle: that the Constitution protects a person's right to make their own private medical decisions, including the decision to have an abortion prior to fetal viability. The court honored that principle through decisions in key abortion rights cases, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey and Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.So, what changed? The makeup of the Supreme Court. Three relatively new Supreme Court justices — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — brought records hostile to reproductive health and rights to the court.Beyond the numbers, personal stories show that abortion is an essential health care service — no matter the reason."https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/roe-v-wadePodcast Art: Hannah Packer

SURPRISE MINI-SODE ALERT! F**k a moment's rest Amirite? Feminist Buzzkills were gonna take a break this week, but pffft. With all this anti-abortion shit hitting the fan, we whipped up a special pod drop to rage with y'all. There is so much to unpack and mere mortals cannot do it alone so we invited Roe-iier and reproductive legal big brain Stephanie Toti to pop off with us. Stephanie is the senior counsel & project director over at The Lawyering Project- AND BTW She argued AND WON the 2016 landmark Supreme Court abortion case, Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt. She & her team of badass attorneys continue fighting other unconstitutional state laws around the country, including this latest Texas trash bounty hunter six week law. She offers all the guidance we need right now as we try to unpack the legality of the current shitstorm we are all being dragged through. Follow @AbortionFront on all socials - we'll keep you one step ahead of the garbage womb raiders trying to seize your bodily autonomy. Also, check out Operation Save Abortion, AAF's post-roe program to educate and activate everyone so we can all work to protect access to abortion. Get all the info via the link below.  ‘Cause you know us, when BS is poppin', we pop off! TODAY'S HOSTS: Lizz Winstead @LizzWinstead Moji Alawode-El @MojiLocks Our third Buzzkill, Marie Khan @MjKhan was out saving the world.   SPECIAL GUESTS: Stephanie Toti EPISODE LINKS: Stephanie Toti | The Lawyering Project The Lawyering Project OPERATION SAVE ABORTION GET SOME FBK MERCH! AAF's Abortion-Themed Rage Playlist FOLLOW US: Listen to us ~ FBK Podcast Instagram ~ @AbortionFront Twitter ~ @AbortionFront TikTok ~ AbortionAF Facebook ~ @AbortionFront YouTube ~ @AbortionAccessFront DONATE HERE! VOLUNTEER WITH US HERE! ADOPT-A-CLINIC + WISHLIST HERE! HYPOCRITES UNMASKED HERE! EXPOSE FAKE CLINICS HERE! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See you next week! FBK Pod ~ Fridays at 6PM ET When BS is poppin', we pop off!

Imani Gandy and Jessica Mason Pieklo of Rewire News Group and the Boom! Lawyered podcast join Jess and Zerlina on the show to discuss Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's Supreme Court confirmation hearings.Imani and Jessica, both constitutional lawyers, are two of the nation's leading legal journalists on reproductive and sexual health, rights and justice.Imani is Senior Editor of Law and Policy for Rewire News Group, where she covers law and courts and co-hosts RNG's podcast Boom! Lawyered. Imani also began and continues to write the Angry Black Lady Chronicles.Imani is a recovering attorney turned award-winning journalist and political blogger. Previously, Imani founded Angry Black Lady Chronicles, winner of the 2010 Black Weblog Award for Blog to Watch and the 2012 Black Weblog Award for Best Political Blog. She received her JD from University of Virginia School of Law in 2001, where she was a Hardy Cross Dillard scholar and an Editorial Board member of the University of Virginia Law Review.Jessica Mason Pieklo is a Senior Vice President and Executive Editor for Rewire News Group (RNG). She is also the co-host of RNG's signature podcast Boom! Lawyered.Jessica has over a decade of experience as a former litigator, and taught law for four years before transitioning to journalism. She was part of the SCOTUSblog symposium on abortion rights following Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt and won the Excellence in Online Journalism award in 2018 from the Association of LGBTQ Journalists. She is the co-author of “The End of Roe v. Wade: Inside the Right's Plan to Destroy Legal Abortion. "

Lacy talks with Dr. John Hellerstedt, M.D., who leads the agency responsible for Texas' response to the pandemic: the Texas Department of State Health Services. Fully aware of the role that strong health plays in protecting each of us from serious illness, Dr. Hellerstedt admits that -- like many of us -- he's struggled to prioritize his health during these stressful two years.  And he shares his inspiration for getting back on track after an eye-opening visit to the doctor. Learn the Get Fit Texas Challenge is ideal for any state employee looking to reclaim their health, and why “no pain, no gain” is flat-out wrong! BONUS: if you are a state employee, you will feel incredibly appreciated by this state agency leader who knows how talented and dedicated you are to your fellow Texans. ERS Wellness Events Channel- Through our channel can view the recorded version of tour past webinars, short tutorial videos, & brain breaks – click “Load More” in the middle of the page to see a library of 32 webinars on various topics related to health and well-being.Get Fit Texas …be sure to check out the “Calendar” tab on the left side where you will find daily virtual fitness & wellness opportunities!Get Fit Texas Swag Bag - Find links to  more great resources and benefits available to you ! 

Dr Natasha Larmie (aka "The Fat Doctor") on getting serious about the harms of anti-fat bias in healthcare.   In this episode, Natasha shares her arrival onto the Instagram scene, what the weight stigma research shows, the difference between implicit and explicit biases and how they impact clients and patients, what’s really happening when a doctor prescribes ‘weight loss’, the makings of the ‘Healthcare Professionals Against Weight Stigma Group’ and how you can begin to contribute to the collective dismantling of weight stigma.   As mentioned in the podcast: Impact of weight bias and stigma on quality of care and outcomes for patients with obesity. S. M. Phelan, D. J. Burgess, M. W. Yeazel, W. L. Hellerstedt, J. M. Griffin, M. van Ryn  Healthcare Professionals Against Weight Stigma Group (UK based)  Amanda Lee @mandapaints – Amanda shares her personal lived experience with weight stigma in healthcare More about Natasha:  I'm a weight inclusive GP with over 20 years medical experience who is campaigning against weight stigma in healthcare. I've been fat for most of my adult life, and I'm only now beginning to realise just how much of an impact anti-fat bias has had on my physical and mental health. In coming to this realisation and embarking on a lifelong learning journey, I began exploring the issues surrounding weight-based discrimination and how they impact the health of my patients. My mission is to educate the healthcare profession and empower the fat community to rid the world of weight stigma – Dr Natasha Larmey. Connect with Natasha: Website Instagram Linkedin Facebook Twitter

Featuring guest speaker, Mai Ratakonda of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In Episode 12 of Notorious, we discussed the case of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, which addressed issues related to reproductive freedom. At issue was a Texas Law that placed restrictions on physicians and facilities performing abortions. As a result, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the provisions violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Kennedy, Sotomayor, and Kagan, highlighted a balancing test. The articulated balancing test considered whether the government purposes of the law at issue outweighed the burden placed on substantive due process rights. Here, the majority found that the law imposed an undue burden on abortion access. While joining in the majority opinion, Justice Ginsburg also wrote a concurring opinion. In her concurrence, Justice Ginsburg bluntly stated:  "[I]t is beyond rational belief that . . . [the law at issue] could genuinely protect the health of women." Mai Ratakonda, of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, joined by Patterson Belknap attorneys, Michelle Bufano and Amy Vegari, discuss this case and Justice Ginsburg's fight for reproductive freedom. Related Resources: For a selection of Justice Ginsburg's writings, see Decisions and Dissents of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:  A Selection, edited by Corey Brettschneider. For more information about Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, see www.pbwt.com. For information about becoming a guest on Notorious, email Michelle Bufano. For questions or more information about Notorious, email Jenni Dickson. Also, check out the Patterson Belknap podcast, How to Build A Nation in 15 Weeks. Related People: Mai Ratakonda Michelle Bufano Amy Vegari

In this week's episode, Stefania tells Laura the story of RUTH BADER GINSBURG, a lawyer, professor, judge, and steadfast pioneer in the fight for gender equality under the law. She was the co-founder of the Women's Rights Project at the ACLU, and later spent 10 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals. In 1993, she became the second woman and 107th U.S. Supreme Court Justice, serving 27 years on the bench. Her unrelenting devotion to the pursuit of constitutional gender equality earned her the moniker: “the great dissenter” reading aloud from the bench, attempting to redirect the court's path, get the attention of congress, and address the courts of the future. This led her to become a legal and cultural phenomenon, with yet another moniker: “The Notorious RBG”. Born: March 15, 1933, Brooklyn, New York, U.S.A.; Died: September 18, 2020, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.   EPISODE SOURCES:  Carlson, Margaret. “A Legal Giant.” TIME Magazine Commemorative Edition, 1 Jan. 2021, pp. 4-9.  Clinton, President Bill. “A Justice for All.” TIME Magazine Commemorative Edition, 1 Jan. 2021, pp. 10-11.  De Hart, Jane Sherron. “The Girl from Brooklyn.” TIME Magazine Commemorative Edition, 1 Jan. 2021, pp. 20-27. Carmon, Irin and Knizhnik, Shana. “The ACLU Years.” TIME Magazine Commemorative Edition, 1 Jan. 2021, pp. 28-35. Carlson, Margaret. “Joining the Court.” TIME Magazine Commemorative Edition, 1 Jan. 2021, pp. 38-43. Jerome, Richard. “Fit to Serve.” TIME Magazine Commemorative Edition, 1 Jan. 2021, pp. 44-49.  Dalenberg, Alex. “A Case for Fair Pay.” TIME Magazine Commemorative Edition, 1 Jan. 2021, pp 50-55. Hirshman, Linda. “Women of the Court.” TIME Magazine Commemorative Edition, 1 Jan. 2021, pp. 56-59. Isaacson, Walter, President, Aspen Institute. “Unlikely Pair.” TIME Magazine Commemorative Edition, 1 Jan. 2021, pp. 60-63.  Lipton, Lauren. “Life With Marty.” TIME Magazine Commemorative Edition, 1 Jan. 2021, pp. 64-71. Daspin, Eileen. “Pop Icon.” TIME Magazine Commemorative Edition, 1 Jan. 2021, pp. 72-79. Carmon, Irin and Knizhnik, Shana. Notorious RBG: The Life and Times of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Dey Street Books, an Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers. 27 Oct. 2015 RBG. Directed by Julie Cohen and Betsy West, Performance by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, CNN Films, 2018. Netflix. www.netflix.com/search?q=rbg&jbv=80240086. Haridasani Gupta, Alisha. “Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg Wasn't All That Fond of Roe v. Wade”, The New York Times, Sept. 21, 2020. www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html.  Ritschel, Chelsea. “10 Quotes That Sum Up Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Thoughts on Marriage and Relationships”, The Independent, Sept. 26, 2020. www.independent.co.uk/life-style/ruth-bader-ginsburg-marriage-martin-quotes-equality-children-b533470.html  Newkirk II, Vann R. “How Shelby County v. Holder Broke America”, The Atlantic, July 10, 2018. www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/how-shelby-county-broke-america/564707/ Foussianes, Chloe. “How Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Late Husband, Marty, Helped Her Reach Her Potential”, Town & Country, Sept. 19, 2020. www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a26292252/ruth-bader-ginsburg-martin-husband-love-story-rbg/ Neier, Aryeh. “How Ruth Bader Ginsburg Got Her Start at the ACLU”, ACLU, Sept. 25, 2020. www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/how-ruth-bader-ginsburg-got-her-start-at-the-aclu/ Hockenberry, John. “Transcript: Interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg”, The Takeaway, WNYC Studios, Sept. 15, 2013. www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/transcript-interview-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg YOUTUBE VIDEOS: Legally Speaking: Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Hastings College of the Law, University of California Television, Nov. 3, 2011. www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA5KTkCGTWo&t=2851s A Conversation with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Aspen Institute. July 10, 2010. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukGH4uv7XFM Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg rare interview: ‘It's not the best of times' . BBC Newsnight. Feb. 23, 2017. www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQzClRA2QLM CASES CITED: Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. ___ (2016). www.oyez.org/cases/2015/15-274 Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973). www.oyez.org/cases/1972/71-1694 Additional Websites Sources: Rutgers Law. Women's Rights Law Reporter. womensrightslawreporter.com/about-us/ Pullman, Sandra. TRIBUTE: THE LEGACY OF RUTH BADER GINSBURG AND WRP STAFF. www.aclu.org/other/tribute-legacy-ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-wrp-staff

In 2013, Texas implemented a slew of laws targeting abortion providers, shuttering over half of the state’s 40-some clinics overnight. The founder, CEO, and president of one such clinic, Amy Hagstrom Miller of Whole Woman’s Health, felt she had no option other than to sue the state to protect Texans’ right to choose. Still, as the now-landmark case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt wound its way through the federal court system, she was commonly asked the question: “Are you ready to risk the abortion rights of the whole country?” Bringing a case to the Supreme Court can lead to a Roe v. Wade-level decision — expanding rights for the entire nation — or the opposite. Nine years later, and with three reproductive rights cases currently in the federal court system, Hagstrom Miller finds herself in a situation with similarly high stakes. Though the Supreme Court said access to safe, legal abortions was a constitutional right 48 years ago, the anti-choice movement has steadily chipped away at the protections enshrined in Roe through restrictions and bans. The October SCOTUS confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who is publicly anti-choice, was another blow to the reproductive rights movement, advocates said at the time. Says Hagstrom Miller, “You have to ask, ‘What advancements or rollbacks could happen?’” if the court rules one way or the other. But while bringing cases to SCOTUS was one of the only ways to protect national access under President Trump and a Republican-dominated Congress, a lot has changed in just three months. With the inauguration of President Joe Biden in the bag, pro-choice groups are gearing up to not just preserve the status quo, but expand abortion access — and rights — nationwide. “We’ve long known that the promise of Roe v. Wade was never real for working families in America,” Kelsey Ryland, co-director of All* Above All, a reproductive justice policy and strategy organization, tells Bustle. That’s why, she adds, now’s the time to “re-imagine” what Roe can do for people. “The courts are one piece of protecting access to abortion care, but they’re not our saving grace.” Below, four reproductive rights advocates explain what their biggest priorities are for the next four years. A major first step to expanding reproductive health care access in the United States independent of the court system would be repealing the Hyde Amendment, the annual budget bill rider that bars federal funds from paying for abortions. Under Hyde, people enrolled in Medicaid can’t use that health insurance for terminating a pregnancy, except in limited cases. This budget detail keeps the poorest Americans from receiving the same health care that their wealthier, privately insured peers have. Without insurance coverage, a first-trimester abortion costs about $500 in the United States just for the procedure; many clinics charge up to $250 in additional fees. The Biden administration has pledged to remove abortion coverage bans like Hyde from the budget, and a slim Democratic majority in both the House and Senate mean that it’s possible. But Ryland stresses that Hyde is just one piece of the puzzle. Earlier this month, All* Above All released a policy proposal that would holistically address how economic marginalization keeps people from getting comprehensive reproductive care. In addition to ending Hyde, the proposal points to raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, ending tipped wages, protecting essential workers from deportation, and including low-wage workers in economic recovery efforts as actions the Biden-Harris administration can take in their first 100 days. “We have a great opportunity with the new administration and we’re really calling on the Biden-Harris administration to build back bolder,” Ryland says. “This is what we mean when we say that Roe was never enough. People need comprehensive and bold solutions to thrive and get the care they need.” Yamani Hernandez, the executive director of the National Network of Abortion Funds, echoes the need for Hyde repeal, but adds that there are many more costs that go into terminating a pregnancy. That’s why Hernandez’s organization has focused their past year on implementing a process to pool together funds, in preparation for whatever changes SCOTUS’s conservative supermajority might bring. Abortion funds help people afford both the procedure and associated expenses, like lodging, gas money, or child care. Hernandez explains that most funds aren’t able to pay for the full cost of an abortion for every person who calls. Generally, they’ll make a pledge of a certain dollar amount, and then refer the patient to other funds that might be able to help contribute the rest, so that the patient effectively crowdfunds their abortion. “We want to close that gap so people don’t have to call around to five different funds to get $50 here, $200 there,” says Hernandez. “On average, an abortion fund is able to fund about 1 in 4 people who call. We want to raise enough money to make those budgets higher.” The fund pooling program is now being piloted in certain regions of the country. The patient gets matched with a full-time staff case manager who will follow them throughout the process, taking the work of calling different funds off their plates. The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority undertook its first decision on abortion access in early January, when it approved a Trump administration request to reinstate restrictions on medication abortion that had been temporarily lifted because of the pandemic. Now, patients have to pick up mifepristone in-person (even though you take it at home), rather than have it mailed to them. Decisions like these explain why Kirsten Moore, the director of the Expanding Medication Abortion Access (EMAA) Project, has always focused on swaying Food & Drug Administration (FDA) policy, rather than trying to make change through legislation. Ultimately, it comes down to one FDA program, called Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS), that regulates high-risk drugs like chemo medication to ensure they’re used safely. Mifepristone, however, is safer to take than a Tylenol, and unlike chemo drugs, is taken at home. “The Biden-Harris administration needs to speak up early and indicate their concern with the Supreme Court decision … [and] encourage the FDA to undertake a full review of the REMS,” Moore says. She hopes that without fear of pushback from the Trump administration about mifepristone’s regulations, the FDA will be ready to re-evaluate how patients can get this medication. Another crucial way to work around the Supreme Court? Change hearts and minds on the ground. “If we could have a shift in Texas like what has happened in Georgia, we could stop these laws from getting into the court system altogether,” says Hagstrom Miller. “It’s a lot cheaper to block a law from being passed in the first place than to block a law from going into effect [...] and that would be more powerful and more long-standing than any given court case.” Rachel Rebouché, the associate dean of research and James E. Beasley Professor of Law at Temple University, adds that the pandemic has changed how people have become accustomed to seeking out care. “Virtual clinics, online pharmacies, patients having medication abortion mailed to them — this all is about to become even more important now” that the FDA restrictions on mailing medication abortion pills are back in place, but the pandemic continues on. Rebouché is optimistic that no matter what policy changes get made, patients and providers will step in to fill the gaps. “There will become abortion markets that try to meet the needs of abortion deserts. That will have costs. People will travel. Self-managed abortion will jump and there will be consequences. But there will also likely be [financial] incentives to build out ways to support these markets, and I do think that’s where people are looking right now,” she says. “If you can’t rely on the Supreme Court and the Constitution for protection, then state regulations, federal actions, informal networks, and service infrastructure has to be the way to go.”

In this 2nd part of our Supreme Court debrief installment, with University of Michigan Law Professor Leah Litman, we discuss the DACA case, in which the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration’s rescission of the Obama DACA program because it was “arbitrary and capricious.” We also discuss Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, also known as the Contraceptive Coverage case. We finally take a broader look at where the Roberts court stands on a crucial issue for America’s future in the 2020 election and beyond: voting rights. Professor Litman teaches and writes about constitutional law, federal post-conviction review, and federal sentencing at the University of Michigan Law School. In addition, she is one of the co-hosts and creators of Strict Scrutiny, a podcast about that examines the U.S. Supreme Court and other legal decisions. Professor Litman was also part of the litigation team in Garcia v. United States, one of the challenges to Trump’s rescission of the DACA program and was on the brief for Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. Intergenerational Politics is a podcast created by Jill Wine-Banks and Victor Shi dedicated to engaging all generations in politics with weekly unfiltered conversations with experts across the nation.

In this episode of HJ Talks About Abuse, Alan Collins and Feleena Grosvenor pay tribute to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg was a US Supreme Court Justice and she died on the 18th of September 2020, aged 87. She was only the second women ever to serve as a justice at the US Supreme Court, a well-known advocate for gender equality and an outspoken advocate of LGBTQ rights. She was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1993 by President Bill Clinton and has heard a number of landmark cases. One of the most significant cases Justice Ginsburg heard was Obergefell v Hodges. This was a case heard at the Supreme Court on 26 June 2015 and it related to two main questions; firstly whether states were required to license marriages between same-sex individuals and secondly if they were required to recognise same-sex marriages licensed out-of-state. Justice Ginsburg sided with the majority which asserted that the right to marry is a fundamental right “inherent in the liberty of the person” and is therefore protected by the due process clause, which prohibits the states from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Ultimately, the close connection between liberty and equality meant that the states could not deny any person the equal protection of the laws. The 5-4 majority, including Justice Ginsburg, legalised same-sex marriage in all 50 states. It is an unfortunate reality that over history, and even in the present day, that those who have a sexual orientation other than heterosexual can be targeted and abused and/or discriminated against for this reason. This case and the comments made of the Supreme Court were monumental and one of the many occasions where Justice Ginsburg showed her support for the LGBTQ community. Another significant case, and one of the most controversial that Justice Ginsburg heard, was Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt. This case was heard in 2016 and related to Texas’ Omnibus Abortion Bill (known widely as H.B.2) which imposed strict restrictions and requirements on abortion providers. The bill was argued to have the purpose of making the clinics harder to run in an affordable and accessible way. The justices struck down the bill by a majority of 5-3 because H.B.2 had forced abortion care facilities to close which resulted in fewer available facilities which then resulted in women facing undue burdens such as travel time and cost when seeking abortions. This restriction of access to abortion care was found to be unconstitutional. Justice Ginsburg was a part of the majority and although she did not write the official majority option, she made clear her views on the subject should it be raised in future. She made a powerful statement as follows: “it is beyond rational belief that H.B.2 could genuinely protect the health of woman and certain that the law would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions… When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners… at a great risk to their health and safety…. Laws like H.B.2 that do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion, cannot survive judicial inspection.” The HJ Talks About Abuse podcast is produced by the Sexual Abuse Team at Hugh James. If you have any questions about this episode of the podcast or would like to suggest a topic for a future episode, please email aboutabuse@hjtalks.co.uk 

This month we continue our annual tradition of trying to ask questions about the Supreme Court term gone by that are intelligent enough to be worthy of the answers we get from friend-of-the-show Ann Duncan. And in One Last Thing, Dan is watching the story progress in a show that he loves and Tim is watching a movie in which no one makes any progress at all. Some of the things we talked about in this episode: The cases from this term were Bostock v. Clayton County, June Medical Services v. Russo, Espinoza v. Montana, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, and Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru. The past cases which came up in our conversation were Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Ann mentioned Blaine amendments. Dan's OLT was season two of Hanna. Tim's OLT was the movie Palm Springs. 0:00-0:56: Introduction 1:00-42:45: Duncan interview 42:50-46:00: Dan's OLT 46:01-48:39: Tim's OLT 48:40-49:49: Credits

  Yet again, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the abortion industry. In this episode, Human Coalition President Brian Fisher examines the recent Supreme Court decision of June Medical Services v. Russo and what it means for the pro-life movement. Helpful resources: CBS News (Background on June Medical Services v. Russo): CNBC News (Senator Katrina Jackson quote; June Medical Services v. Russo decision): ABC News (June Medical Services v. Russo decision): Human Coalition Action (statement and amicus brief): SCOTUSblog (June Medical Services v. Russo decision; Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision): “The Briefing†Tuesday, June 30, 2020 (Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt decision; opinions on the June Medical Services v. Russo decision): SupremeCourt.gov (full text of the June Medical Services v. Russo decision): Questions or comments about the show? We love hearing from you! The post appeared first on .

We take a broad look at the Supreme Court’s recent decision in June Medical Services v Russo, which struck down a Louisiana law requiring doctors at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.  Greg opens with an overview of how the Supreme Court binds itself to its previous rulings; and discussed why Chief Justice John Roberts felt bound to strike it down this year, even though he voted to uphold a nearly-identical Texas law only four years ago in Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt. Jim observes that judicial nominations do not generate the attention you would think, at least on the House side of Congress.  Jeff talks about public perception of legal issues, or the lack thereof.  

This week, in a victory for abortion access, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June Medical Services v. Russo that Louisiana could not require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The ruling upholds an earlier Supreme Court decision, Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, which struck down a similar Texas law because it placed on undue burden upon those seeking abortion care. In this episode we talk with TJ Tu, co-lead counsel on June Medical with the Center for Reproductive Rights, all about what this decision means for abortion access. Support the show (https://www.reprosfightback.com/take-action#donate)

Today's show could also be called "the worst good news possible" because, yes, the Supreme Court declined to completely gut Roe v. Wade (despite the fact that Roe is effectively dead in many ways), but this was not John Roberts turning into AOC. Find out why in Andrew's breakdown! Before that main story though, our first segment is about some reallllly bad news out of Florida. Remember when Florida voters came out overwhelmingly in supermajority numbers to restore voting rights to ex-felons? Yeah Republicans said "nah." We last covered this, when we thought the courts scored us a victory, in Episode 363. We also discuss the Supreme Court granting cert for some Mueller Report cases, which is NOT good news. Here are Andrew's links and references: Private Debt Collectors ad 40% to Total, Felons Can't Afford These Fines, Jones v. Governor of Florida, Previous OAs on June Medical: OA249 OA251 and OA251.5, Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, OA309 Discusses Sheldon Whitehouse, Comprehensive Supreme Court Report by Sen Whitehouse and his amicus brief, Roberts Narrow Concurrence vs. stare decisis in Casey.

The June Medical Services v. Russo decision is in, and it's 5-4 in favor of the very obvious truth: Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt already decided this shit. Chief Justice John Roberts is forced to concur, but his dissent lays out a troubling roadmap for the next round of anti-choice restrictions. Jess and Imani explain all of this and more.And on Tuesday June 30 at 11am ET, join Jess and Imani for an Instagram Live discussion of the case at https://www.instagram.com/rewire.news — tell your friends!If you'd like to support Boom! Lawyered, please do so at https://rewire.news/boomgive or text "BOOMGIVE" to 44-321.  

The June Medical Services v. Russo decision is in, and it's 5-4 in favor of the very obvious truth: Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt already decided this shit. Chief Justice John Roberts is forced to concur, but his dissent lays out a troubling roadmap for the next round of anti-choice restrictions. Jess and Imani explain all of this and more.And on Tuesday June 30 at 11am ET, join Jess and Imani for an Instagram Live discussion of the case at https://www.instagram.com/rewire.news — tell your friends!If you'd like to support Boom! Lawyered, please do so at https://rewire.news/boomgive or text "BOOMGIVE" to 44-321.  

A challenge to the Louisiana abortion law that requires doctors performing abortions to have hospital admitting privileges was heard by the Supreme Court last week. Julie Rikelman of the Center for Reproductive Rights, who argued on behalf of the abortion providers in June Medical Services v. Russo, and Catherine Glenn Foster of Americans United for Life, who authored an amicus brief on behalf of Members of Congress on the opposing side of the case, joined host Jeffrey Rosen on this week’s episode. They presented the arguments on both sides of the case — diving into the facts, considering whether admitting privilege requirements are prudent and whether the “undue burden” standard established by the 2016 Supreme Court case Whole Women’s Health v Hellerstedt is workable, and explaining how they think this case might impact the lives of women. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

A challenge to the Louisiana abortion law that requires doctors performing abortions to have hospital admitting privileges was heard by the Supreme Court last week. Julie Rikelman of the Center for Reproductive Rights, who argued on behalf of the abortion providers in June Medical Services v. Russo, and Catherine Glenn Foster of Americans United for Life, who authored an amicus brief on behalf of Members of Congress on the opposing side of the case, joined host Jeffrey Rosen on this week’s episode. They presented the arguments on both sides of the case — diving into the facts, considering whether admitting privilege requirements are prudent and whether the “undue burden” standard established by the 2016 Supreme Court case Whole Women’s Health v Hellerstedt is workable, and explaining how they think this case might impact the lives of women. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

CONSOLIDATED WITH 18-1460 AND A TOTAL OF ONE HOUR IS ALLOTTED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT Case: 18-1323 QUESTION PRESENTED: In Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016), this Court held that a state law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital was unconstitutional because it imposed an undue burden on women seeking abortions. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld an admitting privileges law in Louisiana that is identical to the one this Court struck down. This presents the following issue: Whether the Fifth Circuit's decision upholding Louisiana's law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital conflicts with this Court's binding precedent in Whole Woman's Health. Case: 18-1460 QUESTION PRESENTED: Can abortion providers be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients absent a "close" relationship with their patients and a "hindrance" to their patients' ability to sue on their own behalf? Are objections to prudential standing waivable (per the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Federal Circuits) or non-waivable (per the D.C., Second, and Sixth Circuits)? --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus/support

NARAL's The Morning After is a production of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio. ********** This week, we wanted to lift up just a few of the amazing speeches from the rally outside the US Supreme Court during oral arguments in June v. Russo. That case out of Louisiana is identical to the 2016 case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, which struck down a series of Texas politically motivated abortion restrictions. The audio for today's podcast is available thanks to the Center for Reproductive Rights. You can watch the entire rally on their YouTube channel here: https://youtu.be/om5c20c_HB4  &  https://www.youtube.com/user/ReproductiveRight100/videos  The rally was emceed by Renee Bracey Sherman and featured speakers representing major national reproductive rights organizations and independent clinics, patients, clergy and faith organizations, medical groups, and members of Congress.  ********** Join the Freedom of Choice Ohio coalition for Advocacy Day on April 1. Join us to tell your Ohio state legislators how you feel about abortion restrictions. Register at: http://bit.ly/ohioadvocacyday2020  For other upcoming events, visit the Events tab on our Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pg/NARALProChoiceOhio/events/  ********** Listen to NARAL's The Morning After on these podcast apps: Apple Podcasts: bit.ly/naralpodcast  Spotify: bit.ly/naralspotify  Stitcher: bit.ly/naralstitcher  Podbean: bit.ly/naralpodbean 

A case in which the Court will decide whether the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholding Louisiana’s law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital conflicts with the Court’s binding precedent in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

NARAL's The Morning After is a production is NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio. With the team back from the holiday break, Jaime, Gabe, and Kelley discussed new attacks from anti-choice Republicans already happening in 2020.  An amicus brief in June v. Gee was signed by 207 anti-choice members of Congress, including 11 men from Ohio. That case is basically a rehearing of 2016's pro-choice victory in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. In Cincinnati, Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio is working to meet politically-biased state requirements all while continuing to serve patients. Our Patients to Advocates fellows produced a new series of videos. Find them on our blog. ********** For upcoming events, visit the Events tab on our Facebook page. Listen to NARAL's The Morning After on these podcast apps: Apple Podcasts: bit.ly/naralpodcast Spotify: bit.ly/naralspotify Stitcher: bit.ly/naralstitcher Podbean: bit.ly/naralpodbean

Did you have a swell spooky szn? We sure did and are ready to share our favourite bits of it with y’all1 We've also got your regular programming of politics and pop culture so buckle up and get ready to learn about all things Ruth Bader Ginsburg and R-Patz this episode.    Reading The Rest of the Story by Sarah Dessen   Watching Fleabag Live The Politician Looking For Alaska Succession  The Good Place (again) Paris Texas    Listening  'The 200 Best Songs Of The 2010s', Pitchfork: https://pitchfork.com/features/lists-and-guides/the-200-best-songs-of-the-2010s/ Puppets (Succession Remix) by Pusha T The Politician Soundtrack  Lights Up by Harry Styles    Politics  ‘Ruth Bader Ginsburg Wins $1 Million Berggruen Award’, The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/arts/ruth-bader-ginsburg-berggruen-prize.html ‘Ruth Bader Ginsburg’, Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/justices/ruth_bader_ginsburg ‘Ruth Bader Ginsburg’, Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg ‘Tribute: The Legacy Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg And WRP Staff’, ACLU:https://www.aclu.org/other/tribute-legacy-ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-wrp-staff#emerging ‘Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Reading List’, The Library At Washington And Lee University Of Law: https://libguides.wlu.edu/c.php?g=601727&p=4166850 ‘Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Landmark Opinions On Women’s Rights’, History: https://www.history.com/news/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-landmark-opinions-womens-rights-supreme-court ‘Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt’, Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/15-274    Pop Culture ‘Robert Pattinson’, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pattinson ‘Landmark Moments in ‘Twilight’ Fandom’, The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/11/landmark-moments-twilight-fandom/321382/ ‘Robsessed’ Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlGMgF5sx20 ‘Robert Pattinson Hates Twilight’, Tumblr: https://robertpattinsonhatingtwilight.tumblr.com ‘I Think About This a Lot: The Time Robert Pattinson Blatantly Lied on the Today Show’, The Cut: https://www.thecut.com/2019/08/i-think-about-robert-pattinson-lying-on-the-today-show-a-lot.html ‘Robert Pattinson’s Viral Moments, Ranked’, GQ: https://www.gq.com/story/robert-pattinson-viral-moments-ranked ‘Harry Styles’ New Direction’, Rolling Stone: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/harry-styles-new-direction-119432/

In the first half of 2019, State legislatures across the South, Midwest and the Plains enacted 58 abortion restrictions, 26 of which would ban some, most or all abortions--even before most people know they’re pregnant. On the brighter side, 93 new laws that expand reproductive healthcare were enacted, including 29 that expanded access to abortion, including NY, Vermont, Maine and Nevada. In the midst of this maelstrom, in June, 2019 I attended a panel put on The Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health--about the threats against Roe v. Wade and what it means for patients. I found the speakers and the content really helpful in wrapping my arms around the state of affairs and wanted to share it with you---so the Bixby Center gave me permission to do just that. The speakers you will hear include Stephanie Toti (who successfully argued Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt in front of the Supreme Court) and now runs the Lawyering Project whose mission is to strengthen protections for reproductive rights under U.S. law and promote reproductive justice), Erin Grant (of the Abortion Care Network, an organization that supports independent abortion providers) and Renee Bracey Sherman (of the National Network of Abortion Funds which works to remove financial and logistical barriers to abortion access). This panel discussion, “meeting the needs of patients post-Roe v. Wade”  was moderated by Dan Grossman a professor at UC San Francisco and the director of their research program Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, which you will hear referred to as ANSIRH. The Bixby Center is part of University of California San Francisco, and they research, train and advocate to advance reproductive health policy and practice worldwide through an evidence-based approach. For those of us who use birth control, let’s give them a shout out. Their researchers have played a part in testing every contraceptive method currently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Links to the resources and information shared in the panel and more on this topic, at my website, inflectionpointradio.org. Support the production of Inflection Point with a monthly or one-time contribution! And when you’re done, come on over to The Inflection Point Society, our Facebook group of everyday activists who seek to make extraordinary change through small, daily actions. Subscribe to “Inflection Point” to get more stories of how women rise up right in your feed.

Hello again World, Prompted by recent events, I am joined by one of my best & dearest friends, Morgan Alonzo, to have an honest, respectful conversation about the history and realities of the very complicated topic of ‘abortion’ in our country. We trace the history of its legality and origin of the debate as well as attempt to evaluate arguments on both sides. Have feedback? You can contact us via twitter (@fafpodcast) OR the podcast’s email: fafpodcast@gmail.com. ALSO, if you really, really dig the show, please subscribe and share. Enjoy! Sources: • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#Federal_legislation • https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/health/abortion-history-in-united-states/index.html • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade • https://slate.com/human-interest/2017/04/when-does-life-begin-outside-the-christian-right-the-answer-is-over-time.html • https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/ • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Woman%27s_Health_v._Hellerstedt • https://time.com/5589528/alabama-abortion-ban-roe-v-wade/ • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_Christianity • https://www.secularprolife.org/stances

The increasing number of new laws restricting abortion recently passed in numerous states around the country has some wondering: is Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion at risk? On this episode, we dive into landmark abortion precedent from Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade through Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, tracing the evolution of abortion jurisprudence under the Constitution. We also discuss the variety of new laws aimed at restricting access to abortion, and how current justices may rule on upcoming challenges to these laws—whether they will be upheld or struck down. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Kathryn Kolbert, a reproductive rights lawyer who argued on behalf of Planned Parenthood in the Casey case, and Clarke Forsythe, Senior Counsel at Americans United for Life.  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The increasing number of new laws restricting abortion recently passed in numerous states around the country has some wondering: is Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion at risk? On this episode, we dive into landmark abortion precedent from Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade through Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, tracing the evolution of abortion jurisprudence under the Constitution. We also discuss the variety of new laws aimed at restricting access to abortion, and how current justices may rule on upcoming challenges to these laws—whether they will be upheld or struck down. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Kathryn Kolbert, a reproductive rights lawyer who argued on behalf of Planned Parenthood in the Casey case, and Clarke Forsythe, Senior Counsel at Americans United for Life.  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The increasing number of new laws restricting abortion recently passed in numerous states around the country has some wondering: is Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion at risk? On this episode, we dive into landmark abortion precedent from Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade through Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, tracing the evolution of abortion jurisprudence under the Constitution. We also discuss the variety of new laws aimed at restricting access to abortion, and how current justices may rule on upcoming challenges to these laws—whether they will be upheld or struck down. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by Kathryn Kolbert, a reproductive rights lawyer who argued on behalf of Planned Parenthood in the Casey case, and Clarke Forsythe, Senior Counsel at Americans United for Life.  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org

Two leading voices from organizations on different sides of today's biggest debates over reproductive rights and abortion laws—Catherine Glenn Foster of Americans United for Life and Dr. Kelli Garcia of National Women's Law Center—join host Jeffrey Rosen to explore the key cases making their way up to the Supreme Court. Garcia and Foster also share their views on landmark abortion precedent like Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and the more recent case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, and predict how precedent might affect the outcomes of challenges to pending abortion laws at the federal level and in states like Louisiana, Tennessee, and Mississippi.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. 

Two leading voices from organizations on different sides of today's biggest debates over reproductive rights and abortion laws—Catherine Glenn Foster of Americans United for Life and Dr. Kelli Garcia of National Women's Law Center—join host Jeffrey Rosen to explore the key cases making their way up to the Supreme Court. Garcia and Foster also share their views on landmark abortion precedent like Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and the more recent case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, and predict how precedent might affect the outcomes of challenges to pending abortion laws at the federal level and in states like Louisiana, Tennessee, and Mississippi.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. 

This rapid-response bonus episode tackles the Supreme Court's late-breaking stay of the 5th Circuit's opinion in June Medical Services v. Gee, with a particular emphasis on dissecting Justice Brett Kavanaugh's dissent.  What does it all mean?  Listen and find out! We have also continued the episode with a deep dive into res judicata and the truly ominous implications of Kavanaugh's dissent at our Patreon page for supporters of the show at any level. Show Notes & Links Check out Episodes OA: 249 "Overturning Roe v. Wade Starts Today" and OA 251 for reference to our past discussion on this cases. Click here to read the Court's granting of the stay (which includes Kavanaugh's dissent), and here for the Supreme Court’s docket in June Medical Services v. Gee. This is the reply brief filed by the petitioners. Here is the prior 2016 Supreme Court decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Download Link

Today's episode sounds the alarm as to whether our activist right-wing Supreme Court is ready to effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and essentially permit the entire state of Louisiana to all but ban the right to an abortion in that state.  We're NOT an alarmist podcast, but this is something you need to be watching.  We also follow up on the Trump Shutdown, answer a listener question regarding our discussion of the Hilton lawsuit from last episode, and (of course) take our weekly visit to Yodel Mountain, this time on the back of one Roger Stone.  Are these all just "process crimes?"  And what the hell does that mean, anyway?  Strap in and find out! We begin, however, with a brief look at the end of the Trump Shutdown and what's likely to come next. After that, we tackle some questions and misperceptions regarding our story of the lawsuit against Hilton hotels from Episode 248. Then, it's time for the main segment, which takes a look at a pending Supreme Court motion and discusses what this means for the future of Roe v. Wade and the right to a legal abortion in this country.  Yes, it really is that significant. Then, it's time for a trip to Yodel Mountain to discuss "process crimes" rapid-fire round of questions about Trump's shutdown.  Why is Congress still getting paid?  Who can sue, and why haven't they?  Find out the answers to these questions and more! We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #112 about murder most foul!  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Appearances None!  If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com. Show Notes & Links 1. Ann Coulter was responsible for the shutdown and Trump's approval ratings take a hit. (Thomas Was Right) 2. A series of bipartisan proposals show support for ending shutdowns. 3. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. 4. Several years ago, Andrew wrote on reasonable religious accommodations at Disney when he was still working for The Man. 5. We discussed Planned Parenthood v. Casey in OA: Episode 27 and OA Episode: 28. 6. Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt 136 S.Ct. 2292 (2016) 7. June Medical Services v. Gee, 905 F.3d 787 (5th Cir. 2018) 8. MOTION TO STAY filed by June. 9. Dershowitz – what the defenders are saying and why it’s Wrong . Followed by Seth Abramson’s Smackdown thread. 10. Stone Indictment 11. More on Randy Credico from his wiki entry and twitter. 12. Roger Stone will work the media 13. Concord Management & Consulting media discovery. 14. The joint motion in Roger Stone's case and the "voluminous and complex" evidence against him. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ Don't forget the OA Facebook Community! For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

With the confirmation of Kavanaugh yesterday, I thought it was time to look at the Hellerstedt case and how it built on the previous cases looked at in an earlier episode on abortion rights in the USA. Here I take a look at what was at issue in the case and how the ruling wasn't the liberal ruling many calm, but was significant nonetheless and how it relates to the political impact of the confirmations of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

We find ourselves in a moment of untruth. Our guest, Brad Wendel, talks with us about political and legal truth and their relation to morality and social roles. This show’s links: Brad Wendel's faculty profile (http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/faculty/bio_bradley_wendel.cfm) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=247191) W. Bradley Wendel, Truthfulness as an Ethical Form of Life (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3072303) Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit (http://stoa.org.uk/topics/bullshit/pdf/on-bullshit.pdf) Bernard Williams, Saint-Just's Illusion (https://www.lrb.co.uk/v13/n16/bernard-williams/saint-justs-illusion-interpretation-and-the-powers-of-philosophy) (also here (https://books.google.com/books?id=AHol9VbeLUYC&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=%22saint-just%27s+illusion%22&source=bl&ots=nFGDaDyVqd&sig=fQzZzCAnV4GBPnyhGYZ35DMopGc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn1vK-q9XYAhUq2IMKHTNoAG4Q6AEIQzAF#v=onepage)) Kleindienst v. Mandel (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2384957718526063733) Stephen Colbert, The Word: Truthiness (http://www.cc.com/video-clips/63ite2/the-colbert-report-the-word---truthiness) (video from the first episode of the Colbert Report, and it's still unbelievably great) International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2110961142700228731) (4th Circuit en banc) Ninth Circuit's denial of en banc consideration in Washington v. Trump (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7212509001957517972) (containing Judge Bybee's dissent) State Bar of Michigan, Informal Ethics Opinion CI-1164 (http://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/OpinionID=193) Bernard Williams, Truth and Truthfulness (https://books.google.com/books/about/Truth_Truthfulness.html?id=2iaFFE54fYkC) Cynthia Farina, et al., Rulemaking in 140 Characters or Less: Social Networking and Public Participation in Rulemaking (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1702501) Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12719084930434459940) W. Bradley Wendel, Sally Yates, Ronald Dworkin, and the Best View of the Law (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2927113) Fireside (https://fireside.fm)

This week, we look at the case Hargan v. Garza, a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of undocumented immigrantthat asks if the federal government can deny access to an abortion for pregnant undocumented teens. As of January 11, 2018, the Supreme Court was considering the case in private conference. Joining us to discuss this important question are two of America’s leading experts on constitutional and family law. Catherine Glenn Foster is President and CEO of Americans United for Life. She served as Counsel of Record for amicus curiae Alliance Defending Freedom’s Amicus Brief in Planned Parenthood v. Abbott, which defended Texas’ healthcare regulations around abortion clinics. Leah Litman is Assistant Professor of Law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. She co-authored Petitioner’s Brief in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt case, which successfully challenged Texas’ healthcare regulations around abortion clinics. Jeffrey Rosen is the President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Constitution Center, the only institution in America chartered by Congress “to disseminate information about the United States Constitution on a nonpartisan basis.” He is also a professor at The George Washington University Law School, and a contributing editor for The Atlantic.  Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org And don't forget to take our new podcast survey at constitutioncenter.org/survey

On this month's show, we commemorate the 45th anniversary of the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade by talking to a scholar about how that case changed abortion politics, what the issue looks like today, and what we might expect going forward. And in One Last Thing, we take a final look back at 2017 to judge what best encapsulates the year we all just survived. Some things we talked about in this show: Our guest is Dr. Joshua Wilson. His book is The New States of Abortion Politics. Dr. Wilson mentioned Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, and also a new Pew poll on abortion in America. He also said that most Americans' views on abortion are nuanced, a point underscored by a recent Vox poll. Dan's year-end OLT was Stranger Things. See the kids from that show on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon and The Late Late Show with James Corden. Tim's year-end OLT was the eclipse. Here are some pictures from it, because you can never have too many pictures of the eclipse. 0:00-1:33: Introduction 1:38-32:11: Wilson interview 32:16-34:59: Dan OLT 35:00-36:57: Tim OLT 36:58-38:18: Credits 38:19-39:11: Postscript: Thank you, Bryan Kelley

Stephanie Toti tells her story of arguing on behalf of Whole Woman's Health in the landmark Supreme Court case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. Go inside the mind of a reproductive rights attorney as she prepares for the biggest case of her career on the biggest stage in the country.

We speak with Whole Woman’s Health founder and CEO Amy Hagstrom Miller on the 1 year anniversary of Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellerstedt about going to the Supreme Court and the state of abortion rights in the US.

Mother's Day marks the start of National Women's Health Week. School of Public Health women's health researcher Wendy Hellerstedt talks about how women can stay healthy.

It’s finally here, the one where we talk with the hosts of the world-famous First Mondays podcast, Ian Samuel and Dan Epps. Topics include physics conundrums, podcasts (05:13), the politics of Supreme Court nominations (27:08), and radically changing the rules governing the Supreme Court’s docket (54:54). This show’s links: First Mondays (http://www.firstmondays.fm) Dan Epps’ faculty profile (http://law.wustl.edu/faculty_profiles/profiles.aspx?id=10752) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=462731) Ian Samuel’s faculty profile (http://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/11599/Samuel/) and writing (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=936551) Feynman on mirrors (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msN87y-iEx0) Randall Munroe, The Goddamn Airplane on the Goddamn Treadmill (https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/09/09/the-goddamn-airplane-on-the-goddamn-treadmill/) Randall Munroe, xkcd: 28-Hour Day (https://xkcd.com/320/) Christian Turner, Podcasts (https://www.hydratext.com/blog/2014/1/11/podcasts) (and somehow this post about Streamers (https://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/14575/streamers) is still online) The Bernie Sanders Show (https://www.sanders.senate.gov/bernies-podcast) Chris Guthrie and Tracey George, Remaking the United States Supreme Court in the Courts' of Appeals Image (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1374449) Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12719084930434459940); Planned Parenthood v. Casey (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6298856056242550994) Nina Martin, The Supreme Court Decision That Made a Mess of Abortion Rights (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/supreme-court-decision-mess-abortion-rights) Barry Friedman, The Will of the People (https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Will_of_the_People.html?id=V004NCn4Vm8C) Daniel Epps and William Ortman, The Lottery Docket (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2928275) John Duffy, The Federal Circuit in the Shadow of the Solicitor General (http://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/78-3-Duffy.pdf) Washington Energy Co. v. United States (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=297528725569885130) Oral Argument 28: A Wonderful Catastrophe (http://oralargument.org/28) (background for Joe’s Erie question) Expression Hair Design v. Schneiderman (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1391_g31i.pdf); Guido Calabresi, Federal and State Courts: Restoring a Workable Balance (http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/2123/) The First Mondays Patreon page (https://www.patreon.com/firstmondays) Special Guests: Dan Epps and Ian Samuel.

It's a two-episode week!  In this week's Wednesday episode, we are joined by Tom & Cecil of the Cognitive Dissonance podcast for a discussion about freedom of speech and whether online platforms such as Facebook and Twitter ought to be considered "public spaces." We begin with some announcements about the schedule, including Thomas Takes the Bar Exam, which will remain a weekly feature once we move to our twice-per-week format in January.  So no new question today, but you will have a few extra days to answer TTTBE #3. Then we take a look at the new Texas law requiring funereal services for aborted embryos and miscarriages, and Thomas takes a shot at analyzing the issue.  Is all his hard work studying for the Bar Exam paying off?  Listen and find out! Finally, the show concludes with a discussion of the 1994 McDonalds "Hot Coffee" lawsuit, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, as an example of legal myths gone awry.  What exactly happened in that case, and what does it say about whether we should have caps on punitive damages or other forms of "tort reform" in the U.S.? After that, we look at the abortion-related question of the lawsuit ostensibly brought by Sofia Vergara's frozen embryos.  Is this a meritorious lawsuit or a publicity stunt orchestrated by a goofball anti-abortion columnist? Show Notes & Links Check out the Cognitive Dissonance podcast! Here are the actual fetal tissue rules promulgated by the Texas Health Services that require "interment" of "the products of spontaneous or induced human abortion." A federal judge in the Western District of Texas recently issued a temporary restraining order blocking the implementation of the rules pending a preliminary injunction hearing to be held on January 3. Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S.Ct. 2292 (2016), provides some guidance as to how the Supreme Court might treat the Texas abortion rules. Here's the CollegeHumor video on the McDonald's "Hot Coffee" lawsuit. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

The UCSF/UC Hastings Consortium presents its annual review of Supreme Court decisions impacting health and policy. A panel of experts from UC Hastings College of the Law and UCSF provides overview and analysis of key cases from 2016. Topics include the 8-person court, Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, and Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. [Public Affairs] [Health and Medicine] [Show ID: 31422]

The UCSF/UC Hastings Consortium presents its annual review of Supreme Court decisions impacting health and policy. A panel of experts from UC Hastings College of the Law and UCSF provides overview and analysis of key cases from 2016. Topics include the 8-person court, Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, and Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. [Public Affairs] [Health and Medicine] [Show ID: 31422]

On June 27, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. Whole Woman’s Health and other Texas abortion providers sued Texas officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a state law requiring that physicians who perform abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of the location where the abortion is performed, and requiring that abortion facilities satisfy the standards set for ambulatory surgical centers (“ASC”s). The district court enjoined enforcement of both requirements “as applied to all women seeking a previability abortion,” and as applied to abortion facilities in McAllen and El Paso, but dismissed claims that the law violated equal protection and effected an unlawful delegation. -- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the equal protection and unlawful delegation claims, and affirmed but modified the injunction of the ASC and admitting privileges requirements as applied to the McAllen facility. The Court vacated the district court’s injunction of the admitting privileges requirement as applied to “all women seeking a previability abortion,” however, and reversed the injunction of the ASC requirement on its face (and in the context of medication abortion), as well as the injunction of the admitting privileges and ASC requirements as applied to the El Paso facility. As a result, the Texas law was to remain in effect statewide--except for the ASC requirement as applied to the Whole Woman’s Health abortion facility in McAllen, and the admitting privileges requirement as applied to a particular doctor when working at the McAllen facility. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, stayed issuance of the mandate on the Fifth Circuit’s judgment, ultimately reversing that judgment by a vote of 5-3 and remanding the case. -- Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, holding that petitioners’ constitutional claims were not barred by res judicata, and that both the admitting-privileges and the ambulatory surgical-center requirements placed a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, constituted an undue burden on abortion access, and violated the Constitution. Justice Breyer’s majority opinion was joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas joined. -- To discuss the case, we have Roger Severino, who is Director, DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

In this week's episode, Neil, Natalia, and Niki debate the legacy of basketball coach Pat Summitt, the place of Women's Whole Health v. Hellerstedt in America's abortion debate, and the House Democrats' sit-in over gun control.  

EP098 GunBlog VarietyCast - The Queen of All Media Pacifiers & Peacemakers - Being a New Mom with a Gun Felons Behaving Badly - Mom shot while holding baby inside Wake County home; Man arrested Tech Tips with The Barron  - Card Skimmers Main Topic - Erin takes on the BBC The Bridge -  On Abortion and Guns Blue Collar Prepping - Preparing to Face the Media This Week in Anti-Gun Nuttery - Jeanne Shaheen thinks we’re “Up to No Good” Plug of the Week - JM Custom Kydex - http://www.jmcustomkydex.com/ Our Sponsor - http://www.lawofselfdefense.com/variety   Pacifiers & Peacemakers - Being a New Mom with a Gun Concealed Carry Magazine - https://www.concealedcarrymagazine.com/   Felons Behaving Badly Mom shot while holding baby inside Wake County home; Man arrested - http://wncn.com/2016/06/24/1-injured-in-wendell-shooting/ Suspect - http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=0564748&searchLastName=Watkins&searchFirstName=Kevin&listurl=pagelistoffendersearchresults&listpage=1 Victim - http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=1478405&searchLastName=Davis&searchFirstName=Destiny&listurl=pagelistoffendersearchresults&listpage=1 Witness 1 - http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=1368125&searchLastName=Smith&searchFirstName=Ethelene&listurl=pagelistoffendersearchresults&listpage=1   Tech Tips with The Barron  - Card Skimmers ATM skimmer caught in the wild by a real security engineer - https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/24/atm-skimmer-caught-in-the-wild-by-a-real-security-engineer/ Raw Video: Men Place Card Skimmer on ATM Store Machine! - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y83ZgzuFBSE   The Main Topic - Erin takes on the BBC Stacey Dooley: Hate and Pride in Orlando - https://youtu.be/CL4yAbaUM_Q?t=7m45s BCP Midweek Update - http://bluecollarprepping.blogspot.com/2016/06/midweek-update.html   The Bridge - On Abortion and Guns Whole Woman’s Health Et Al. V. Hellerstedt - http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf Abort! Abort! - http://frontsightpress.com/2016/06/abort-abort/   Blue Collar Prepping - Preparing to Face the Media MP3 Skype Recorder - http://mp3-skype-recorder.soft32.com/ SONY ICD PX333 Digital Voice Recorder - http://amzn.to/295sIby Zoom H1 - http://amzn.to/29cEOmO Zoom H4N Pro - http://amzn.to/29vDkSu Zoom H5 - http://amzn.to/29hFjOr 10 Commandments of Propaganda - http://amzn.to/296E0AN   This Week in Anti-Gun Nuttery - Jeanne Shaheen thinks we’re “Up to No Good” Democratic Senator: People Getting The AR-15 Are “Buying It To Do Bad Things”: https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/democratic-senator-people-getting-the-ar-15-are-buying-it-do?utm_term=.upMA9xM1OJ#.srRLP764dM   Plug of the Week JM Custom Kydex - http://www.jmcustomkydex.com/

On Monday, the Supreme Court invalidated two provisions of Texas’ omnibus abortion law known as HB2. The 5-3 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt was a big win for abortion rights advocates, many of whom expected things to turn out the other way. On today’s show, we speak with Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder and CEO of the abortion provider that challenged the Texas law. We also sit down with Slate’s own Mark Joseph Stern to recap the highlights – and lowlights – of one a Supreme Court term that was chock-full of unexpected twists and turns.   Amicus is sponsored by The Great Courses Plus, a new video service with thousands of lectures on dozens of topics. Learn more at TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. And by Wunder Capital. Invest in large-scale solar project across the US. Create an account for free at Wundercapital.com/amicus. Invest in Wunder Capital’s solar funds. Do well and do good. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com.  Podcast production by Tony Field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Monday, the Supreme Court invalidated two provisions of Texas’ omnibus abortion law known as HB2. The 5-3 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt was a big win for abortion rights advocates, many of whom expected things to turn out the other way. On today’s show, we speak with Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder and CEO of the abortion provider that challenged the Texas law. We also sit down with Slate’s own Mark Joseph Stern to recap the highlights – and lowlights – of one a Supreme Court term that was chock-full of unexpected twists and turns.   Amicus is sponsored by The Great Courses Plus, a new video service with thousands of lectures on dozens of topics. Learn more at TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. And by Wunder Capital. Invest in large-scale solar project across the US. Create an account for free at Wundercapital.com/amicus. Invest in Wunder Capital’s solar funds. Do well and do good. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com.  Podcast production by Tony Field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

TRAPS, the Hyde Amendment, Criminalization of Self-Induced Abortion and Increasing Restrictions on Reproductive Rights in the United States.Discussion with Jill E. Adams and Melissa Mikesell on Whole Women's Health v Hellerstedt and the constitutionality and impact of TRAPS (targeted regulations of abortion providers) and increasing criminalization of self-induced abortion. We also look at increased violence at clinics, parental consent laws and the particular plight of indigent women resulting from family welfare caps on the one hand and the Hyde Amendment and Harris v McRae on the other, as well as discussing their constitutionality. Additionally, we discuss the patriarchial basis of the denial of reproductive rights to women. Jill is the founding Executive Director of the Center for Reproductive Rights and Justice at Berkeley Law, an organization dedicated to advancing reproductive rights. She is the Executive Editor of “Cases on Reproductive Rights and Justice”, the first legal textbook on reproductive rights and serves as advisor to numerous reproductive rights associations, including being the Vice President of the California Coalition for Reproductive Freedom and Board Treasurer of Reproductive Health Technologies Project. Melissa is the Center’s Supervising Attorney and the Director of the Self-Induced Abortion Legal Team. Before joining the Center, Melissa was the Senior Counsel and West Coast Director of Alliance for Justice. Her legal practice includes advocacy for clients in reproductive, social, economic and environmental justice as well as campaign compliance.For More Info:SIA Legal Team Primer,SIA Legal Team BrochureSIA Legal Team InfographicHarris v. McRae law journal articleWelfare family caps issue brief

In this bonus episode of CHOICE/LESS, Rewire's Jessica Mason Pieklo discusses this week's landmark Supreme Court decision, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. While the legal impact is already being felt around the country, a variety of other laws and provisions still impede abortion access in Texas and elsewhere. Read more of Jessica's analysis at https://rewire.news.

June Thomas, Noreen Malone, and Dahlia Lithwick Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, the HBO documentary Suited, and The New York Times' war on "mom hair." Double X is brought to you by Squarespace. Start building your website today at Squarespace.com. Enter the offer code DOUBLEX at checkout to get 10 percent off. And by BollandBranch.com, offering luxury bedding at affordable prices. Order right now and they'll give you 20 percent off, plus free shipping. Get sheets, towels, blankets, duvet covers, and more at BollAndBranch.com and use the promo code DOUBLEX. And by SeatGeek. SeatGeek pulls in ticket options from hundreds of online ticket sellers to create a one-stop shop for tickets—for sporting events, music concerts, and more. Use the promo code DOUBLEX in the SeatGeek app and get a $20 rebate off your first purchase—or shop online at SeatGeek.com.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, the Supreme Court handed the abortion-rights movement a major victory in its Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt decision. Irin Carmon, MSNBC reporter and author of the bestseller “The Notorious RBG," joins the show to discuss the implications of the decision, and the future of the Court. Also this week, the conclusion of the House’s Benghazi investigation is the latest reminder of the paranoia and hucksterism running through conservative politics. New Republic senior editor Jeet Heer explains how Donald Trump is exploiting this weakness to run the greatest political scam of all time.

June Thomas, Noreen Malone, and Dahlia Lithwick Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, the HBO documentary Suited, and The New York Times' war on "mom hair." Double X is brought to you by Squarespace. Start building your website today at Squarespace.com. Enter the offer code DOUBLEX at checkout to get 10 percent off. And by BollandBranch.com, offering luxury bedding at affordable prices. Order right now and they'll give you 20 percent off, plus free shipping. Get sheets, towels, blankets, duvet covers, and more at BollAndBranch.com and use the promo code DOUBLEX. And by SeatGeek. SeatGeek pulls in ticket options from hundreds of online ticket sellers to create a one-stop shop for tickets—for sporting events, music concerts, and more. Use the promo code DOUBLEX in the SeatGeek app and get a $20 rebate off your first purchase—or shop online at SeatGeek.com.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Discussing the Supreme Court's ruling in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, Justice Thomas' dissent, the founder of Planned Parenthood... and cats that attack people. It's happening, folks!

Description:   This week, Randi, Jaime, and Gabe discussed several Ohio lawsuits currently pending, and one that just found closure. Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWinewas ordered to pay $45,000 to the legal team representing Planned Parenthood. DeWine accused Planned Parenthood of mishandling fetal tissue (they weren't) and threatened to enforce a vague law (he couldn't). The lawsuit was settled this week. In a different case, U.S. District Judge Michael R. Barrett will hear arguments in his Cincinnati courtroom over whether the temporary restraining order that keeps the Planned Parenthood defunding law from taking effect should be made permanent. The order was extended to August 5, 2016. Also pending are three other cases affecting reproductive rights in Ohio. In Toledo, Capital Careis challenging the constitutionality of Ohio's transfer agreement requirement. In Dayton, Women's Med Centerand PPSWO have a case challenging the process for the state to grant variance requests (these are the way clinics could work around transfer agreements by working directly with doctors instead of hospitals). In Cleveland, Pretermis challenging John Kasich's 2011 state budget for violating the requirement that all bills be single-subject. NARAL Pro-Choice America ran radio ads in several states asking voters to contact their US senators, including Ohio's Rob Portman. https://youtu.be/7b8Gx9JJfVk   Finally, we're watching the US Supreme Court for a decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. The case could affect abortion restrictions in Texas, the Southwest, or the whole country… or the court could send it back to Texas for more research. NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio will be joining Freedom of Choice Ohio coalition partners at ComFest. You can volunteer in our booth. Register here.  

If you missed NCJW Spring 2016 event, catch it on Spreaker and iTunes through Back Room Stewdios.What's at Stake for Women's Health and Why Courts Matterwas held on May 18, 2016 at theEdina Country Club.Amy Hagstrom Miller is the Founder, President and CEO of Whole Woman's Health, LLC. Whole Woman's Health was first established in Austin, TX in 2003. With eight facilities located in Texas, Minnesota, Maryland, New Mexico, and Illinois, her clinics offer reproductive healthcare to more than 30,000 women a year. Amy's comittment to reproductive justice, advocacy for women and the elimination of the cultural stigma surrounding abortion, is unmatchable! Throughout her extensive career within women's reproductive justice, Amy has gained national attention and accolades including: Reproductive Equity Award from the Lillith Fund, Woman of the Year Award from Abortion Care Network and the Person of the Year from the National Coalition of Abortion Providers.Earlier this year, the Supreme Court heard Oral Arguments in Whole Women's Health vs. Hellerstedt. This case could decide whether abortion, a currently legal practice, could become practically inaccessible to millions of women and place an "undue burden" on women's access to reproductive health care.This is a pivotal time and case for women's reproductive health rights in this country, and one of the many reasons that #CourtsMatter

In this first episode of CHOICE/LESS, Candice talks about the ways her childhood informed her decisions about her own reproduction, and how her choices were hindered by HB 2, the sprawling anti-abortion law at the heart of the Supreme Court case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

This week, NC Family president John Rustin talks with Chris Gacek, senior fellow for regulatory affairs at Family Research Council, about an important case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court called Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which involves a legal challenge to Texas’ abortion safety law.

Ashley Gray, Sharron Paul and Rae Sanni are joined by first-time podcaster Abby Holland of Buzzoff Lucille! The ladies recap our trip to Washington DC for the Supreme Court oral arguments in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt and give their opinions on the case. This week’s news rundown features scary news out of Oklahoma, Florida and a disturbing report in the New York Times regarding google searches for self-induced abortion instructions. Luckily, our favorite repro journalist, Robin Marty, brings us the coolest resource for obtaining a safe and legal abortion in Cosmo.com! We also give a shout out to West Virginia’s latest victory. We also have a good laugh thanks to Ted Cruz’s dad.

Ashley Gray, Sharron Paul and Rae Sanni are joined by first-time podcaster Abby Holland of Buzzoff Lucille! The ladies recap our trip to Washington DC for the Supreme Court oral arguments in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt and give their opinions on the case. This week’s news rundown features scary news out of Oklahoma, Florida and a disturbing report in the New York Times regarding google searches for self-induced abortion instructions. Luckily, our favorite repro journalist, Robin Marty, brings us the coolest resource for obtaining a safe and legal abortion in Cosmo.com! We also give a shout out to West Virginia’s latest victory. We also have a good laugh thanks to Ted Cruz’s dad.

https://onthegroundshow.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/OTG-MARCH10-2016SMALLERFILE.mp3 This show's focus is on the wide-ranging keynote address by the activist and award-winning author Chris Hedges at the Summit on Saudi Arabia organized by Code Pink, March 5th and 6th 2016 in Washington, DC. Spanning from what Hedges referred to as the atrocity of the House of Saud, to the U.S. presidential race, to specter of American fascism, he pulled no punches in his opposition to the stranglehold of global corporate capitalism. Voices: Chris Hedges, Protesters against the National Policy Institute NPI in Washington, DC. Headlines: -Protesters rally outside a conference held by the white supremacist think tank National Policy Institute NPI in Washington, DC. -The Foundation for Middle East Peace, Human Rights Watch and Americans For Peace is holding a panel discussion on Capital Hill on Human Rights Watch’s new report, Occupation, Inc.: How Settlement Businesses Contribute to Israel’s Violations of Palestinian Rights. -Environmental activists hold a Cove Point Spring Break Action Camp in southern Maryland for activists, college students and anyone else wanting to learn more about the battle that’s being waged against fracking in the mid-Atlantic region. -"Trapped” is a new documentary about the same issues at the heart of the current Supreme Court abortion case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, and features several of the players in the SCOTUS case. Producer and Host: Esther Iverem Engineer: Michael Nasella

On March 2, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. Whole Woman’s Health and other Texas abortion providers sued Texas officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a state law requiring that physicians who perform abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of the location where the abortion is performed, and requiring that abortion facilities satisfy the standards set for ambulatory surgical centers (“ASC”s). The district court enjoined enforcement of both requirements “as applied to all women seeking a previability abortion,” and as applied to abortion facilities in McAllen and El Paso, but dismissed claims that the law violated equal protection and effected an unlawful delegation. -- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the equal protection and unlawful delegation claims, and affirmed but modified the injunction of the ASC and admitting privileges requirements as applied to the McAllen facility. The Court vacated the district court’s injunction of the admitting privileges requirement as applied to “all women seeking a previability abortion,” however, and reversed the injunction of the ASC requirement on its face (and in the context of medication abortion), as well as the injunction of the admitting privileges and ASC requirements as applied to the El Paso facility. As a result, the Texas law was to remain in effect statewide--except for the ASC requirement as applied to the Whole Woman’s Health abortion facility in McAllen, and the admitting privileges requirement as applied to a particular doctor when working at the McAllen facility. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, stayed issuance of the mandate on the Fifth Circuit’s judgment, and that stay currently remains in place pending issuance of the written judgment of the Supreme Court. Thus, the district court’s original injunctions against the Texas law remain in effect for now. -- There are two questions before the Supreme Court: (1) Whether, when applying the “undue burden” standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a court errs by refusing to consider whether and to what extent laws that restrict abortion for the stated purpose of promoting health actually serve the government’s interest in promoting health; and (2) whether the Fifth Circuit erred in concluding that this standard permits Texas to enforce, in nearly all circumstances, laws that would (according to petitioners) cause a significant reduction in the availability of abortion services while failing to advance the State’s interest in promoting health - or any other valid interest. -- To discuss the case, we have Roger Severino who is Director, DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

It was a big week at SCOTUS, as a newly-balanced Court turned to Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, its first abortion case in nine years. We discuss the case with legal scholar Pamela Karlan and listen to some highlights from oral arguments.Amicus is sponsored by Casper, an online retailer of premium mattresses for a fraction of the price. Casper mattresses come with free delivery and returns within a100-day period. And get 50 dollars toward any mattress purchase by visitingCasper.com/amicus and using the promo code AMICUS.And by Amazon. Detective Harry Bosch is back on the new season of Amazon’s Original Series Bosch, based on the best selling novels by Michael Connelly. Stream the new season on March 11th on Amazon Prime Video.Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial today here. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Tony Field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It was a big week at SCOTUS, as a newly-balanced Court turned to Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, its first abortion case in nine years. We discuss the case with legal scholar Pamela Karlan and listen to some highlights from oral arguments. Amicus is sponsored by Casper, an online retailer of premium mattresses for a fraction of the price. Casper mattresses come with free delivery and returns within a 100-day period. And get 50 dollars toward any mattress purchase by visiting Casper.com/amicus and using the promo code AMICUS. And by Amazon. Detective Harry Bosch is back on the new season of Amazon’s Original Series Bosch, based on the best selling novels by Michael Connelly. Stream the new season on March 11th on Amazon Prime Video. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial today here.  Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com.  Podcast production by Tony Field. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the first major Supreme Court decision since Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, eight justices have the power to make a major decision about abortion. Find out more now.

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt | 03/02/16 | Docket #: 15-274

Justice Antonin Scalia has passed, and along with him an era of American civility and constitutionalism has also gone extinct.  He was to the Supreme Court what Ronald Reagan was to the Presidency.  His close kinship with fellow Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg--a flaming leftist--demonstrated his rare gift of civility despite stark disagreement.  Civility is now nearly extinct in our society.  Scalia was also an undying advocate of judicial restraint and citizen sovereignty.  Judicial restraint and democratic rule of law is ALL BUT LOST.  Scalia was the leading originalist Justice on the bench.  We have lost the court's major restraining force, and now the future of the court hangs in the balance.  Will we have a humble court that protects our constitutional rights, or will we be ruled by a totalitarian judicial oligarchy? Scalia's death is particularly relevant to the abortion wars.  On March 2nd, oral arguments for Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt will be made.  The Highest Court will be deciding whether new Texas laws holding abortion clinics to normal surgical clinic standards place an "undue burden" upon the so-called "fundamental right" to abortion.  Several restrictions across the country (even the transfer agreement law here in Ohio, which we rely upon for success with Killers Among Us) will be on the line!  Without Scalia, it is unlikely that these laws will be upheld.  The decision will likely be split, which would defer to the lower court (which affirmed the laws), but WE NEED TO PRAY for this result! Please RSVP and travel with us to DC (email jami@createdequal.org) as we listen to the arguments.  Pray for this HISTORIC MOMENT IN THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT!