Podcast appearances and mentions of robin fretwell wilson

Rod Arquette Show Daily Rundown – Friday, February 17, 20234:20 pm: Robin Fretwell Wilson, co-director of the Program in Family Law and Policy at the University of Illinois' College of Law on her piece in the Deseret News about a Utah bill that makes adoption easier by making the costs more transparent4:38 pm: Heather Andrews, Utah Director of Americans for Prosperity joins the show for a conversation about her op-ed piece in the Deseret News opposing several bills being considered by Utah lawmakers that would require parental permission and age-verification to use social media apps6:05 pm: Scott McKay, Publisher of The Hayride and a contributor to American Spectator joins Rod to discuss his recent column where he says it's time to call transgenderism what it is, a mental illness6:20 pm: Jennifer Graham of the Deseret News joins Rod for a conversation about her piece on how caustic words are poisoning the way people address each other6:38 pm: We'll listen back to Rod's conversations this week with clinical psychologist Dr. Todd Corelli about the results of a CDC study that show teen girls are caught in an extreme wave of sadness and violence, and (at 6:50 pm) with Auguste Meyrat, a contributor to The Federalist, on what they're doing in France to keep kids from viewing pornography

Litigator and former Utah Supreme Court Justice Christine Durham, Yale Law School professor William Eskridge Jr., Ria Tabacco Mar of the ACLU and Illinois College of Law professor Robin Fretwell Wilson discuss reconciling LGBTQ+ rights and religious freedom, focusing especially on possible legislative compromises. UVA Law professor Craig Konnoth moderated the event, which was sponsored by Karsh Center for Law and Democracy and UVA's Religious Studies Department. Professor Micah Schwartzman '05, a director of the Karsh Center, introduced the event. (University of Virginia School of Law, Sept. 23, 2022)

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide. Immediately following the announcement, several companies – including Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Lyft, Dick's Sporting Goods and JPMorgan Chase – announced that they were offering to cover travel costs for employees who must travel out of state for abortions. This clearly has implications for communicators who are facing the need to respond to their internal and external audiences. We reached out to Robin Fretwell Wilson, a law professor at the University of Illinois and an expert on healthcare law. (You can read Robin's full impressive bio here.) “There's a bramble of issues in [any] direction that you move,” says Robin. Among the questions we discussed on this episode: Possible legal implications for companies who are reimbursing travel costs for employees who must leave their home states for abortions How the ruling could set up a type of “arms race” between the red and blue states What key messages communicators should keep in mind when advising their executives Several legal issues that may arise down the road – and companies and communicators may not have even yet considered Send this episode over to your legal partner – and begin that scenario planning. More is clearly to come on this issue. Other resources: Read the Reuters article, “Legal clashes await U.S. companies covering workers' abortion costs,” where Robin was interviewed. Business Insider is keeping an updated list of company reactions to the ruling. The Society of Human Resources has pulled together a comprehensive resource on navigating Roe v Wade in the Workplace Continue Reading → The post #63 – Roe v Wade: Communicators on alert for legal implications appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide. Immediately following the announcement, several companies – including Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Lyft, Dick's Sporting Goods and JPMorgan Chase – announced that they were offering to cover travel costs for employees who must travel out of state for abortions. This clearly has implications for communicators who are facing the need to respond to their internal and external audiences. We reached out to Robin Fretwell Wilson, a law professor at the University of Illinois and an expert on healthcare law. (You can read Robin's full impressive bio here.) “There's a bramble of issues in [any] direction that you move,” says Robin. Among the questions we discussed on this episode: Possible legal implications for companies who are reimbursing travel costs for employees who must leave their home states for abortions How the ruling could set up a type of “arms race” between the red and blue states What key messages communicators should keep in mind when advising their executives Several legal issues that may arise down the road – and companies and communicators may not have even yet considered Send this episode over to your legal partner – and begin that scenario planning. More is clearly to come on this issue. Other resources: Read the Reuters article, “Legal clashes await U.S. companies covering workers' abortion costs,” where Robin was interviewed. Business Insider is keeping an updated list of company reactions to the ruling. The Society of Human Resources has pulled together a comprehensive resource on navigating Roe v Wade in the Workplace Continue Reading → The post #63 – Roe v Wade: Communicators on alert for legal implications appeared first on FIR Podcast Network.

At least 50 people from Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras have been found dead in the back of a truck outside the Texas city of San Antonio. Mexico has blamed a people smuggling crisis at the border with the US. So what makes people attempt the journey? Lillian Perlmutter, a journalist based in Mexico City, gives us the latest reaction. We'll hear reaction from across the continent. The tragedy comes amid plummeting costs across North and South America, and protests in the Peruvian capital. The country's former finance minister, Alonso Segura, tells us about a growing emergency in the country. Back in the US, and a number of companies are offering their employees guaranteed access to abortions. One of them is Alloy - we hear why from founder Laura Spiekerman - and discuss the legal aspects with Robin Fretwell Wilson, a law professor at the University of Illinois. New Jersey trader Joe Saluzzi has your markets update, and Alex Bell rounds up the rest of the day's business affairs.

The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". The final day of the conference commenced with showcase panel on "Corporate and Academic Management Today."The life of law school Deans and university administrators have always included responding to various demands from students and faculty. In recent years those demands include attacks on the school for failing to address racist behavior and patterns, sexual harassment and the mistreatment of gays and other minorities. Over the last couple of years those demands have significantly increased in quantity, volume and force. At the same time corporate management, especially across Fortune 500 companies, but by no means limited to them, have experienced similar pressures. Most recently, we're beginning to see pushback on behalf of outspoken students on free speech grounds, accused predators with due process claims, and others on equal protection grounds. How has management handled these pressures both in academia and in the corporate world? How should they? This roundtable includes those who have dealt with these issues—is some cases very recently and in others from a few years ago.Featuring:Mr. Richard Bagger, Partner and Executive Director, Christie 55 Solutions LLCDean David Schizer, Dean Emeritus & Harvey R. Miller Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolDr. Lee Burdette Williams, Executive Director, College Autism Network; Former Vice President of Student Affairs and Dean of Students, Wheaton College; Former Dean of Students, University of ConnecticutProf. Robin Fretwell Wilson, Mildred Van Voorhis Jones Chair in Law, Director, Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois College of LawModerator: Hon. Michael Brennan, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Robin Fretwell Wilson, author and Director of the Institute of Government and Public Affairs for the University of Illinois System, joins the Karen Conti Show to talk about the Freedom of Religion, what it really means, and what some of the issues are that are coming before the courts. You can purchase Robin’s recent book, “Religious […]

Medical procedures often produce certain ethical concerns and the occasional dilemma. One of those is when pelvic examinations are conducted on unconscious women. The physical risks may be secondary to the emotional damage that can result when a woman realizes that her reproductive organs have been examined while she was under anesthesia for another procedure. Connor visits with Robin Fretwell Wilson from the University of Illinois College of Law about recent legislative efforts to protect the patient’s right to informed consent.

What happens when religious liberty collides with anti-discrimination laws protecting LGBTQ people or other minorities? Scholars and advocates from all sides of the debate join host Jeffrey Rosen for a civil dialogue to address this question head on. Jeff sits down with advocates who have represented both sides in legal cases about this issue: Matt Sharp of the Alliance Defending Freedom, who represented the baker refusing to create a cake for a same sex wedding in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, and Tobias Wolff of Penn Law School, who has represented gay couples who have been denied similar services. Also on the panel were religion and constitutional law scholars Robin Fretwell Wilson of the Illinois College of Law and Elizabeth Clark of Brigham Young University Law School. Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. 

he US Supreme Court has ruled on the biggest religious liberty case of the year. In a 7–2 vote, the Court sided with a Christian baker who declined to decorate a cake for a same-sex wedding. The baker, Jack Phillips, who had provided cakes for gay customers in other circumstances, argued that making a cake for a same-sex wedding would be an endorsement of the marriage and a violation of his beliefs. In its narrow ruling of Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Court stated that the penalties a Colorado human rights commission had levied against Jack Phillips violated his First Amendment rights. For the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that “Phillips was entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided.” While legal scholar Robin Fretwell Wilson found much of Kennedy’s opinions compelling, she ultimately doesn’t think a decision that serves both groups can be made through the courts. “There’s a pernicious outcome about the fact that we Americans like to litigate,” said Wilson. “When you have the Supreme Court take a case like Masterpiece, it stalls all the work in state legislatures where people are really trying to write a new script because they think, well, maybe this is going to be swamped by the Supreme Court, there’s going to be a new result reached, and why, in any event, should we spend political capital when the court’s going to do this for us?” Wilson joined associate digital media producer Morgan Lee and editor in chief Mark Galli to discuss just the true impact of the SCOTUS’ decision, why the Court took the case in the first place, and why adoption agencies are the next critical place where these clashes will play out.

Article V of the Constitution provides a process for amending the Constitution. However, this process has only produced a handful of Amendments. Many Amendments have been proposed throughout the nation’s history. What’s next? Looking to first principles, did the Founders leave anything out that is necessary today? What possible Amendments might be desirable and practical?Prof. Jamal Greene, Dwight Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Laura Donohue, Professor of Law, Georgetown LawProf. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of LawProf. Robin Fretwell Wilson, Roger and Stephany Joslin Professor of Law, Illinois College of LawModerator: Judge Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Article V of the Constitution provides a process for amending the Constitution. However, this process has only produced a handful of Amendments. Many Amendments have been proposed throughout the nation’s history. What’s next? Looking to first principles, did the Founders leave anything out that is necessary today? What possible Amendments might be desirable and practical?Prof. Jamal Greene, Dwight Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Laura Donohue, Professor of Law, Georgetown LawProf. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of LawProf. Robin Fretwell Wilson, Roger and Stephany Joslin Professor of Law, Illinois College of LawModerator: Judge Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court decided V.L. v. E.L., a case involving an interstate dispute over custody of a child raised by a same-sex couple. A Georgia court entered a final judgment of adoption making petitioner V. L. a legal parent of the children that she and respondent E. L., her same-sex partner, had raised together from birth. V. L. and E. L. later separated while living in Alabama. V. L. asked the Alabama courts to enforce the Georgia judgment and grant her custody or visitation rights. The Alabama Supreme Court refused, holding that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution did not require the Alabama courts to respect the Georgia judgment. -- By a vote of 8-0 the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Alabama Supreme Court and remanded the case, holding in a per curiam opinion that the Alabama Supreme Court erred in refusing to grant the Georgia adoption judgment full faith and credit. -- To discuss the case, we have Robin Fretwell Wilson, who is the Roger and Stephany Joslin Professor of Law and Director of the Program in Family Law and Policy at University of Illinois College of Law.