Our most important fundraising drive of the year is underway now. After you're done reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to ensure that In These Times can continue publishing in the year ahead.
The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case that may very well overturn Roe v. Wade. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, is over a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks after a woman’s last period, running afoul of current Supreme Court precedent. In defending the law and the potential to make abortion illegal in the United States, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch made a novel argument: that abortion rights are no longer necessary because it has become so easy to raise a child while working outside the home. This claim directly challenges the logic of previous rulings: In its 1973 decision in Roe, the Supreme Court said that an unwanted pregnancy “may force upon the woman a distressful life and future,” while Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, a 1992 case that narrowed abortion rights but upheld Roe, said abortion rights are necessary “for women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation.”
But in a brief she co-authored in July, Fitch argued against Casey’s conclusion, stating that after Roe was decided there were many laws enacted to “protect equal opportunity — including prohibitions on sex and pregnancy discrimination in employment, guarantees of employment...
migrants to fake being gay to claim asylum in the U. K. . . . Law360 is on it, so you are, too. A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so ...