Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Religious liberty (5)
- Contraceptive coverage (4)
- Abortion rights (3)
- Affordable Care Act (ACA) (3)
- Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) (3)
-
- Health care (3)
- Reproductive health care (3)
- Reproductive rights (3)
- Abortion access (2)
- Abortion ban (2)
- Establishment Clause (2)
- Religious accommodation (2)
- Reproductive freedom (2)
- Reproductive health (2)
- Sex discrimination (2)
- Women of color (2)
- Abortion care (1)
- Abortion restriction (1)
- Affordable Care Act (1)
- Anti-LGBTQ (1)
- Anti-choice (1)
- COVID-19 (1)
- Constitutional rights (1)
- Contraception mandate (1)
- Equality rights (1)
- Freedom of conscience (1)
- Global pandemic (1)
- Health disparities (1)
- LGBTQ people (1)
- Maternal mortality (1)
Articles 1 - 14 of 14
Full-Text Articles in Law
Era Project Summary Of Argument Before Pa Supreme Court On Whether Medicaid Abortion Ban Amounts To Sex Discrimination, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law
Era Project Summary Of Argument Before Pa Supreme Court On Whether Medicaid Abortion Ban Amounts To Sex Discrimination, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
This morning, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, a case in which reproductive rights advocates have challenged the state’s ban on Medicaid funding for abortion (Coverage Ban), arguing that the ban violates the state constitution’s explicit prohibitions against sex discrimination.
Statement From Columbia Law School’S Center For Gender And Sexuality Law On The Supreme Court Decision Overruling The Constitutional Right To Abortion, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law
Statement From Columbia Law School’S Center For Gender And Sexuality Law On The Supreme Court Decision Overruling The Constitutional Right To Abortion, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
The Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization signals a major break with at least three generations of constitutional law. This opinion eliminates not only constitutional protections for abortion, but well-settled legal principles on which fundamental rights have rested for over 60 years. “Within a 24-hour period the Supreme Court ruled on the one hand that abortion rights are a local issue to be decided by each state independently, while on the other, states are barred from making local decisions about how to regulate guns,” said Katherine Franke, James L. Dohr Professor of Law and Director of …
Columbia Law School’S Center For Gender And Sexuality Law On Leaked Dobbs Opinion, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law
Columbia Law School’S Center For Gender And Sexuality Law On Leaked Dobbs Opinion, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
The leaked Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, signals a major break with at least three generations of constitutional law. Should this opinion be officially issued by the Court, it will eliminate not only constitutional protections for abortion, but well-settled legal principles on which basic personal rights have rested for over 60 years.
What Comes Now? Religious Liberty And The End Of Roe, Law, Rights, And Religion Project
What Comes Now? Religious Liberty And The End Of Roe, Law, Rights, And Religion Project
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
New York, NY – The Law, Rights, and Religion Project at Columbia Law School, an academic think tank that conducts research and policy analysis on the complex ways in which religious liberty rights interact with other fundamental rights, has a number of materials that can help to shed light on three key issues around the possible end of Roe v. Wade in light of the draft Supreme Court opinion released yesterday.
New Report Documenting Abortion Bans In Protestant & Secular Hospitals In The U.S. South, Law, Rights, And Religion Project
New Report Documenting Abortion Bans In Protestant & Secular Hospitals In The U.S. South, Law, Rights, And Religion Project
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
Hospitals across the U.S. South strictly regulate the provision of abortion, leading to delays and denials of care for patients facing severe pregnancy complications according to this report released by Columbia Law School’s Law, Rights, and Religion Project (LRRP) in partnership with investigative reporter Amy Littlefield.
Columbia Law School's Era Project Files Amicus Brief With Pa Supreme Court Explaining Why Banning Public Funding For Abortion Violates The State Era, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law
Columbia Law School's Era Project Files Amicus Brief With Pa Supreme Court Explaining Why Banning Public Funding For Abortion Violates The State Era, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
On October 13, 2021, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) Project at Columbia Law School submitted an amicus — or friend of the court — brief with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explaining why a state ban on public funding for abortion is a form of sex discrimination, in violation of the state’s Equal Rights Amendment. In the brief filed in Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, the ERA Project provided the Court with an overview of how the denial of reproductive health care in general, and access to abortion in particular, has been found by the …
Religious Liberty Challenges To Health Care In The Age Of Covid-19 – Supreme Court Arguments In Little Sisters Of The Poor V. Pennsylvania, Law, Rights, And Religion Project
Religious Liberty Challenges To Health Care In The Age Of Covid-19 – Supreme Court Arguments In Little Sisters Of The Poor V. Pennsylvania, Law, Rights, And Religion Project
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 the Supreme Court will be hearing arguments (telephonically) in the most recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employee health plans include contraception coverage, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania. The case raises the important question of whether religious liberty rights can be used to limit access to health care at a time when the nation – and the world – is experiencing one of the worst global pandemics in human history. For this reason, the issues in this case take on special significance.
Professor Katherine Franke Joins An Amicus Brief In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania And New Jersey V. Trump, Law, Rights, And Religion Project
Professor Katherine Franke Joins An Amicus Brief In Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania And New Jersey V. Trump, Law, Rights, And Religion Project
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
On Monday, March 25th, Professor Katherine Franke, Faculty Director of the Law, Rights, and Religion Project at Columbia Law School, joined an amicus brief in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and New Jersey v. Trump,* a challenge to two rules that exempt employers with religious or moral objections from compliance with the contraceptive coverage requirement of the Affordable Care Act.
Devalued, Turned Away, And Refused Health Care: What Happens To Women Of Color When Religion Dictates Patient Care, Elizabeth Boylan
Devalued, Turned Away, And Refused Health Care: What Happens To Women Of Color When Religion Dictates Patient Care, Elizabeth Boylan
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
Columbia Law School's Law, Rights, and Religion Project, and the National Women’s Law Center hosted a Capitol Hill Briefing at 10:15 am on Thursday, May 24th to discuss the impact of religious health care refusals on women of color. The event, entitled Devalued, Turned Away, and Refused Health Care: What Happens to Women of Color When Religion Dictates Patient Care, was presented in cooperation with Senator Kamala Harris and Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman.
Comment On U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services Rule, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project
Comment On U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services Rule, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
In medical facilities across the country, doctors whose conscience would require them to perform a sterilization on a patient who requests one, offer truthful information about accessing abortion services, or provide comprehensive LGBTQ+ health care are forbidden from doing so by their employer. The conscience of such medical providers is entirely ignored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS) recently proposed rule that purports to “ensure that persons or entities” providing health care “are not subjected to certain practices or policies that violate conscience, coerce, or discriminate.” As explained in a comment submitted today by the Columbia …
Columbia Law Experts Denounce Federal Guidance Allowing Religious And Moral Discrimination In Contraceptive Coverage, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project
Columbia Law Experts Denounce Federal Guidance Allowing Religious And Moral Discrimination In Contraceptive Coverage, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
Columbia Law School’s Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP) condemns the Trump administration for issuing sweeping new rules today that roll back the Affordable Care Act (ACA)’s birth control benefit, by broadening exemptions for employers who claim religious or moral objections to offering birth control to their workers. These regulations place the religious and moral views of employers above the health and wellbeing of their workers and gut the contraceptive coverage provision of the ACA by dramatically reducing access to affordable birth control. Rather than protecting religious freedom for all Americans, these regulations are part of the current administration’s ongoing effort …
Proposed New York State Health Regulation Contains Troubling Exemption: The Public Rights/Private Conscience Project Responds To A Proposal On Abortion Access, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project
Proposed New York State Health Regulation Contains Troubling Exemption: The Public Rights/Private Conscience Project Responds To A Proposal On Abortion Access, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
A proposed New York State regulation requiring insurance plans to cover “medically necessary” abortions contains a broad religious exemption that would undermine the state’s longstanding commitment to reproductive health. The exemption — which is not required by New York’s Constitution or laws — defines the term “religious employers” to include large nonprofits and even some for-profit companies. In the face of a national movement to enact anti-LGBTQ and anti-choice religious exemptions, the regulation would set a harmful precedent by accommodating religion at the expense of other fundamental liberty and equality rights.
What's At Stake For Women Of Color In Zubik V. Burwell, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project
What's At Stake For Women Of Color In Zubik V. Burwell, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
In March 2016, the Law, Rights, and Religion Project issued a memorandum analyzing the potential outcomes of the Supreme Court case, Zubik v. Burwell. Per the Law, Rights, and Religion Project's analysis, if the plaintiffs in Zubik v. Burwell win, thousands of women of color who work at religious non-profits could be stripped of their right to no-cost insurance coverage for contraception. That’s what at stake in the latest Supreme Court case challenging the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive mandate. This fact sheet explores what women of color have at stake in this round of litigation over the ACA.
Brief For Amici Curiae Church-State Scholars In Support Of Respondents In Zubik V. Burwell, Elizabeth Boylan
Brief For Amici Curiae Church-State Scholars In Support Of Respondents In Zubik V. Burwell, Elizabeth Boylan
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
The Law, Rights, and Religion Project assisted the Counsel for Church-State Scholars in the preparation of an amicus brief submitted in the Supreme Court of the United States case of David A. Zubik, et al., v. Sylvia Burwell, et al.