Womenstake

Women & Equal Protection: Questions for Judge Sotomayor

by Amy Matsui, Senior Counsel,
National Women's Law Center 

This post is part of a series about the nomination of Judge Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.

This is the moment judicial junkies spend years waiting for. As the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings begin on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, we're eagerly anticipating hearing the questions almost as much as the answers. These hearings are an opportunity to hear high-level discussion about many of the legal issues that come before the Supreme Court that impact women’s lives, including the right to privacy, equal protection under the law, anti-discrimination protections, health and safety regulations, and more.

So let’s talk about Equal Protection. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Since 1973, the Supreme Court has held that a law or government policy that discriminates on the basis of sex cannot be upheld unless it can withstand heightened judicial scrutiny. That is, the government must offer an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for the law that is substantially related to the classification.

Before this standard was applied, no government-sponsored sex discrimination was found to be illegal, no matter how harmful and no matter how much it was based on outmoded stereotypes. But under the heightened scrutiny standard, the Court has struck down numerous laws that discriminate on the basis of sex, including a law that provided welfare benefits to children with unemployed fathers, but not those with unemployed mothers; a state statute that made a husband the “head and master” over property owned jointly with his wife; and state university policies that denied admission to women on the grounds that they were not “tough” enough to succeed at the school’s demanding curriculum. 

Farewell to Jocelyn Samuels, NWLC Vice President for Education and Employment

by Melanie Ross Levin, Outreach Manager, 
National Women’s Law Center 

After serving as the Vice President for Education and Employment for close to eight years at the National Women's Law Center, Jocelyn Samuels is moving on to work for the U.S. Justice Department in the Civil Rights Division. We’re sad to see her go — but we’re very happy that in her new position, she will continue to advocate for educational opportunities for women and girls. Check out her good-bye video message. 

Pregnant and Parenting Students: Know Your Rights

by Melanie Ross Levin, Outreach Manager, 
National Women’s Law Center

Title IX says that schools must give all students who might be, are or have been pregnant (whether the student is a parent or not) the same access to school programs and extracurricular activities that other students have in school. Check out our new video and fact sheet explaining the rights of pregnant and parenting students in school.

Florida High School Athletic Association Accused of Title IX Violation

by Kolbe Franklin, Program Associate, 
National Womens Law Center 

Claiming budget constraints, the Florida High School Athletic Association (FHSAA) recently approved a plan to reduce the number of varsity-level games for all sports except football. In response, Florida Parents for Athletic Equity, represented in part by Nancy Hogshead-Makar, a law professor and Title IX advocate, issued statements claiming the decision was in violation of Title IX. Under the FHSAA plan, virtually all girls would face cuts while a significant number of boys would be unaffected. The parents and students tried to work with FHSAA to make changes in time for the next school year, but FHSAA chose not to readdress the plan until next fall, leaving the parents and students no choice but to file a lawsuit to try to prevent the inequitable scheduling.

The Ninth Circuit Gets it Right . . . Finally!

by Jen Swedish, Health Law Fellow, 
National Women's Law Center 

Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the State of Washington can fully enforce a rule passed by its pharmacy board that ensures patient access to medication. As we’ve reported before, back in 2007, two pharmacists and a pharmacy challenged the rule in court, because they objected to providing emergency contraception. A lower federal court decided in favor of the challengers, issuing a preliminary injunction that halted the rule as it applied to Plan B emergency contraception.

While the appeal was pending, Washington argued that it should be allowed to enforce the rule in its entirety, but the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court’s preliminary injunction. This meant that until the Ninth Circuit could decide the merits of the case, Washington women who wanted EC were at risk of delay in accessing the time-sensitive medication because of a refusing pharmacist.

The Ninth Circuit finally decided the merits of the appeal yesterday and said that the lower court was wrong to issue the broad injunction. The pharmacy and pharmacists who brought the case claimed that requiring them to provide EC violated their right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit held that the district court should not have applied heightened scrutiny to analyze the rule’s affect on religious freedom. According to the appellate court, the rule’s purpose was not to eliminate religious objections to the delivery of lawful medications, but rather to eliminate all objections that do not ensure patient health, safety, and access to medication. As such, the rule was a neutral law of general applicability, which must withstand only rational basis review to pass constitutional muster. Although the Ninth Circuit sent the case back to the lower court to apply the correct standard of review, it suggested that the rule would likely pass constitutional muster.

Finally, yesterday's Ninth Circuit decision assures Washington women access to EC at the pharmacy!

Witness List for Sotomayor Hearing Announced

by Amy Matsui, Senior Counsel,
National Women's Law Center 

The witness list for the confirmation hearing for Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been announced. Remember the hearing begins Monday, July 13, at 10 a.m. Check back here for updates throughout the week!

American Bar Association Witnesses

• Kim Askew, Chair of Standing Committee
• Mary Boies, Primary Reviewer

Majority Witnesses

• Michael Bloomberg, Mayor, City of New York
• Chuck Canterbury, National President, Fraternal Order of Police
• David Cone, former Major League Baseball pitcher
• JoAnne A. Epps, Dean, Temple University Beasley School of Law, on behalf of the National Association of Women Lawyers
• Louis Freeh, former Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Michael J. Garcia, former U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York
• Wade Henderson, President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
• Patricia Hynes, President, New York City Bar Association
• Dustin McDaniel, Attorney General, State of Arkansas
• Robert Morgenthau, former District Attorney, New York County, New York
• Ramona Romero, National President, Hispanic National Bar Association
• Congressman Jose E. Serrano, New York 16th District
• Theodore M. Shaw, Professor, Columbia Law School
• Kate Stith, Lafayette S. Foster Professor of Law, Yale Law School
• Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez, Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. 

Minority Witnesses

• Linda Chavez, President, Center for Equal Opportunity
• Sandy Froman, Esq., Former President, National Rifle Association of America
• Dr. Stephen Halbrook, Attorney
• Tim Jeffries, Founder, P7 Enterprises
• Peter Kirsanow, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
• David Kopel, Esq., Independence Institute
• John McGinnis, Professor, Northwestern University School of Law
• Neomi Rao, Professor, George Mason University School of Law
• Frank Ricci, Director of Fire Services, ConnectiCOSH (Connecticut Council on Occupational Safety and Health)
• David Rivkin, Esq., Partner, Baker Hostetler
• Nick Rosenkranz, Professor, Georgetown University School of Law
• Ilya Somin, Professor, George Mason University School of Law
• Lieutenant Ben Vargas, New Haven Fire Department
• Dr. Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for Life

Wal-Mart Endorses Employer Mandate Requirement

by Katie Chanpong, Health Care Policy Intern, 
National Women’s Law Center 

Last week Wal-Mart sent a letter to President Obama announcing its support of a requirement for businesses to contribute to the cost of health coverage for their employees (sometimes called an “employer mandate”). A controversial step, the world’s largest private employer is breaking ranks with its traditional political allies—the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business, and almost every other major business trade association in Washington—and joining forces with political adversaries—the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Center for American Progress (CAP). “Not every business can make the same contributions,” wrote leaders from Wal-Mart, SEIU, and CAP, “but everyone must make some contribution.”

By advocating that employers, individuals, and the government all have an important role to play in providing and obtaining health coverage, these three major stakeholders are focusing America’s health care debate on a vision of shared responsibility. We here at the National Women’s Law Center agree that a shared responsibility policy—including a meaningful employer mandate—will be crucial to achieving long-lasting health care reform and insuring millions of Americans. For women, a robust employer mandate means continued support for the 61 million women who currently receive employer-sponsored health insurance, as well as help obtaining coverage for the nearly 10 million working women who are uninsured.

The state of our current health system is bleak. Skyrocketing health care costs make it more difficult for employers and families to afford coverage; hard-working people fall into medical bankruptcy and millions go without necessary medical treatment. But time and time again, history has shown us that if we all do our part, we can change the system. As the health care reform bills make their way through Congress in the coming weeks, we’ll be on the lookout for inclusion of a strong employer mandate as well as other important shared responsibility provisions. As noted by Wal-Mart, SEIU, and CAP, these pieces are critical to “make this bill a win / win for employers, individuals and America’s competitiveness.”

School's Out for Summer (Unfortunately)

by Amalia Reiss, Intern, 
National Women's Law Center

On Thursday, July 2nd, the New York Times published a story entitled “Facing Deficits, Some States Cut Summer School.”  While young students might initially be enthusiastic about the prospect of avoiding school during the summer, these cuts ultimately have negative consequences for communities, families, and the students themselves.

Because of the economic recession and related state budget deficits, states are now drastically reducing or even completely eliminating summer school programs. Despite Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s urging for states to use some of the $100 billion of economic stimulus funds given to public education to keep schools open over the summer, nearly every school district in Florida has cut or eliminated programs, Los Angeles cuts of $34 million have left around 150,000 students bereft of summer school, and about three-quarters of North Carolina school districts are on track to reduce or eliminate their summer school programs.

Low-income students are most likely to be affected by these cuts, because other engaging, educational summer activities are often difficult to find at home or in their communities. In a study released in the spring of 2007, Johns Hopkins sociologists Karl Alexander, Doris Entwisle and Linda Steffel Olson found that an overwhelming two-thirds of the achievement gap between high- and low-income children can be traced back to disparate summer learning opportunities beginning as early as elementary school. This summer learning gap affects achievement in high school, college, and beyond. 

NWLC in the News

by Mary Robbins, Program Associate, 
National Women's Law Center

Time Magazine, July 8, 2009
Could Abortion Coverage Sink Health-Care Reform?

Cleveland Plain Dealer, July 7, 2009
Anti-abortion Democrats in Congress vow to oppose health care packages that don't exclude procedure

Palm Beach Post, July 7, 2009
FHSAA faces challenge on reduction of sports schedules

Women’s eNews, June 30, 2009
Women Attract Annual Progressive Limelight

ABC News, June 23, 2009
Celebrating Title IX at the White House

Indianapolis Star, June 23, 2009
New nursing programs address women's health needs

New York Times, June 19, 2009
Title IX Ruling in California Could Lead to Stricter Standards

Sotomayor Confirmation Hearing to Begin Monday, July 13

by Amy Matsui, Senior Counsel,
National Women's Law Center 

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold the confirmation hearing for the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court beginning on Monday, July 13 at 10:00 a.m. EST. The hearing will be held in room 216 Hart Senate Office Building. Judge Sotomayor will be introduced by her home state Senators, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, both of New York.

• Get details about the hearing or follow the hearings via webcast.  

• Get more information on how the public or media can attend the hearing.