Documenting the attack on reproductive rights - and how to fight back

Ever since the Supreme Court ruled that banning abortion violates a woman’s right to privacy, those seeking to deny women control over their own bodies have sought to change state and federal laws to chip away at that right.

Today, Alliance for Justice zeros in on the threat to reproductive rights as we launch our  annual “First Monday” social justice campaign.  Alliance for Justice has been canvassing the field in the battleground states of Texas and Mississippi, listening to women’s stories and witnessing the day-to-day struggles of women who are watching their reproductive rights slip away.  The centerpiece of the campaign is a short video, Roe at Risk: The Fight for Reproductive Justice, documenting both the struggle and the hope of the men and women fighting to preserve the constitutional right to reproductive freedom and justice.  It is more important now than ever to take action, to speak out, and to organize for reproductive rights and access for all.

You can preview the video here:



Today also marks the 37th anniversary of one of the first attempts to restrict reproductive rights: the Hyde Amendment, a law that,bars states from using  Medicaid money to fund abortion.  Many poor people rely on Medicaid to pay for their health care.  So while it’s true that  the Hyde Amendment does not, technically, eliminate the right to abortion, it  renders that right largely meaningless for the many poor and low-income women who simply cannot afford to pay for an abortion on their own.  For such women it amounts to a legislative repeal of a constitutional right.

The late Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill.,
author of the Hyde Amendment

And as we show in Roe at Risk, while the federal government took one of the first steps to cut off access to abortion 37  years ago, states have been following suit ever since.  In recent years, some state lawmakers have been transparent in their attempts to deny access to abortion, directly attacking the right with legislation that makes abortion unlawful after a set period of time.  Such attempts have taken the shape of bans that begin at twenty-weeks, at twelve weeks or at six weeks.

In other states, restrictions on access to abortion have been more insidious.  One of the popular approaches is to pass “TRAP” laws, which stand for “targeted regulation of abortion providers.”  These laws often require abortion providers to attain admitting privileges at a local hospital, or require abortion clinics to meet the same standards as hospitals or ambulatory facilities.

TRAP laws are passed under the pretext of protecting women’s health and safety, but in reality they are thinly veiled attempts to shut down abortion clinics.  For example, hospitals typically are not  required to grant admitting privileges, and if they oppose abortion, they do not have to grant admitting privileges to abortion providers at all. Moreover, the requirements to attain admitting privileges vary and may be impossible for abortion providers to obtain for reasons wholly unrelated to health or safety.

Predictably, abortion clinics often cannot meet the laws’ unnecessary requirements, and then they are forced to shut down.  When clinics shut down, women are left stranded.  Ultimately, these TRAP laws have one purpose and one effect: to end abortion in the state.

Roe at Risk doesn’t just document the threat – it also shows how people across the country are fighting back.  Find out more about attempts to curb the right to choose, and about what you can do about it at www.roeatrisk.org 

Read more about the harm of the Hyde Amendment:

• How To Ditch Hyde Anti-Abortion Law And Win Elections.
• The End of Abortion Funding Restrictions? 
• Access Denied: There's nothing to cheer about on the anniversary of the Hyde Amendment
• The Hyde Amendment: Legislating Inequality for 37 Years. 
• 37 Years After Hyde, Abortion Access Still Remains Out of Reach for the Poor. 
• Millennials are Fighting to Overturn the Hyde Amendment.  
• The Dangerous Consequences of the Hyde Amendment. 
• A Very Unhappy Anniversary for Low Income Women.  
• How the Hyde Amendment Hurts Women. 
• Support the Troops, Repeal Hyde.  
• An Anniversary Date that Should Go Way: The Hyde Amendment. 
• Let’s Talk About Sex (and Abortion), Baby. How the Hyde Amendment Hurts Asian American and Pacific Islander Women.  
• The First Assault on Abortion Rights. 
• “Thirty-seven Years After the Hyde Amendment…the Movement is Back on Offense” 

Confirmation Hearing exposes Republicans’ partisan opposition to D.C. Circuit nominees

This post was updated on Oct. 2, 2013

A funny thing happened at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday: Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Carolyn McHugh appeared for her confirmation hearing, and no Republican Senator complained that the Tenth Circuit’s caseload is too small to confirm another judge.

Judge Carolyn McHugh

It’s been a different story for President Obama’s three D.C. Circuit nominees. At each of their respective hearings, the Republicans sounded the same refrain: the D.C. Circuit doesn’t have enough cases to appoint new judges, new judges are too expensive, and the President’s attempt to fill preexisting, vacant seats is mere “court packing” that should be opposed.

So when Judge McHugh—currently the presiding judge of the Utah Court of Appeals—came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, it was reasonable to expect the same line of argument. After all, based on the most recent stats from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (marking the 12 month period ending March 31, 2013), the D.C. Circuit actually has more pending cases per active judge than does the Tenth. The D.C. Circuit has 1,456 pending appeals, which, divided among the court’s eight active judges, is 182 cases per judge. By contrast, the Tenth Circuit’s 1,318 pending appeals and 10 active judges results in 132 cases per judge—50 fewer than the D.C. Circuit. In fact, even if the Senate confirms all three D.C. Circuit nominees, the number of cases per active judge would only drop to 132—which is precisely the Tenth Circuit’s work-rate before either Carolyn McHugh—or her fellow nominee, Nancy Moritz—is added to the bench.

But these numbers never came up.

UPDATE, OCT. 2, 2013: This week, the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts released the statistics on judicial caseload through June 30, 2013, and the Republican caseload argument has further weakened. Based on these updated numbers, the D.C. Circuit’s caseload has increased from 1,456 pending cases to 1,479—that amounts to an additional three appeals per active judge.

Now, as both Alliance for Justice and others have already shown, the Republican caseload argument is wholly without merit. But one would think they would at least apply it consistently, if only to maintain the façade of sincerity.

None of this is to say that Tenth Circuit seats shouldn’t be filled. To the contrary, Carolyn McHugh is an exceptionally well-qualified jurist who—like the President’s D.C. Circuit nominees—should be swiftly confirmed. But the Republican’s selective use of the caseload argument exposes their staunch D.C. Circuit opposition for what it really is: pure partisan obstructionism employed solely to keep Democrat-appointed judges off the nation’s second most powerful court. The Republicans like the D.C. Circuit’s current conservative bent, and they are groping for whatever argument they can to maintain the status quo.

On second thought, maybe “funny” isn’t the right word. With the crucial role that the D.C. Circuit plays in the federal judiciary—taking on complex regulatory issues involving the environment, labor, and other areas that directly impact the daily lives of all Americans—there is simply too much at stake.

Marco Rubio’s obstruction of justice

Suppose you are a United States Senator who must decide whether to support a nominee for a judgeship.  What are the most important criteria?

A.    Knowledge of the law

B.     Intellect

C.     Judicial temperament

D.    Diligence

E.     If I vote for the guy, will it offend my extremist base?

Most of us would consider the first four.  But if the senator in question were Marco Rubio, and if he were forced to answer honestly, he would have to admit to E.

Sen. Marco Rubio

Sen. Rubio made that clear when, having previously supported the nomination of William Thomas to serve as a judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, he first delayed for months giving the Senate Judiciary Committee his okay to move forward with the nomination then changed his mind entirely.  By committee tradition, both home state senators must sign off on a judicial nomination for it to proceed.  Sen. Rubio’s reversal effectively vetoes the nomination.

As a result, this judgeship, already vacant for more than 18 months, will remain vacant still longer, causing unconscionable delays for residents of Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and several other South Florida counties seeking justice in federal court.

Thomas now serves as a state court judge in Florida.  Between the time Rubio said he would support Thomas and the time he changed his mind, Thomas did not change.  He’s the same William Thomas who won the support of groups like the Dade County Police Benevolent Association, the Broward County Police Benevolent Association, and the League of Prosecutors, a Miami-based group made up of current and former prosecutors.

The only thing that’s changed is Rubio’s need to shore up his far-right base after flirting with compromise on immigration reform.  Apparently, Rubio didn’t want to further alienate his extremist allies by supporting a highly-qualified judge who would also happen to be the first openly gay black male judge to serve on the federal bench.

As Yolanda Strader, president of Miami’s largest association for black lawyers told The New York Times: 

As much as I would like to think that politics has nothing to do with this, it looks as if it does.  It would be unfair to prevent a well-qualified judicial nominee from proceeding with the nomination process because he is an openly gay black male. 

But given Rubio’s feeble and illogical excuses for his reversal, that appears to be exactly what’s happened.

Rubio cites two rulings by Thomas. 

In the first, Thomas had to throw out a confession in a horrific rape and murder case because two of the five defendants either had not been read their Miranda rights, or did not understand them.  Nonetheless, all five were convicted or pled guilty - and Judge Thomas sentenced one of the killers to death. Never mind that the ruling at issue was made more than six years ago—and for that reason alone could not logically serve as Rubio’s justification for changing his mind about Judge Thomas in the last several months—Judge Thomas’s decision was a product of exactly what conservatives say they want judges to do: strictly apply the law, instead of bending it to reach a desired outcome.

In the second case, Rubio felt that Thomas had not imposed a sufficiently harsh sentence on a driver who killed a cyclist.

But Rubio has the complex facts of the case wrong.  In January of this year, the prosecutor who handled the case set the record straight in a letter to Rubio, saying that Judge Thomas made his sentencing determination—which was within the guidelines provided by law—using “careful judgment.” In July, the Administrative Judge for the court where Thomas serves did the same.  Rubio ignored both letters.

To make matters worse, these are exactly the sorts of questions that are best hashed out in the sunlight of a public committee hearing.  But without Rubio’s consent, Judge Thomas will never have that opportunity.

The big losers in all this are the people of South Florida.  When federal courts don’t have enough judges, delays can become unbearable.   Medical bills caused by injuries due to negligence may pile up while families wait for justice; memories may fade; witnesses may die.

Judge Thomas would have filled a seat that has been vacant for more than a year and a half.  The Administrative Office of the United States Courts says the situation is so bad that the vacancy is a “judicial emergency.” 

By his actions on the Thomas nomination, Rubio has given new meaning to the term “obstruction of justice.”

In its letter to Rubio strongly endorsing Thomas, the League of Prosecutors wrote: 

If – as we believe appropriate – the criteria on which you base your decision to confirm district court judges are judicial ability, work ethic, intelligence, experience, and a willingness to adhere scrupulously to the dictates of the law, you should confirm Judge Thomas without hesitation and urge your colleagues to do the same. 

Too bad those are not Marco Rubio’s criteria. 

AFJ applauds confirmation of Todd Hughes to serve on U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Hughes is first openly gay nominee confirmed 
as a federal appellate judge

Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron issued the following statement today on the confirmation of Todd Hughes to serve as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:

Judge Todd Hughes

Today’s vote to confirm Todd Hughes marks another milestone in the long journey toward justice and equality.  Alliance for Justice long has fought for a federal judiciary that reflects the full diversity of America and a confirmation process that evaluates candidates based on their legal expertise, not how they look or who they love.

We applaud President Obama for nominating the first openly gay individual confirmed to serve on a federal appellate court.  We will continue working with the President and the Senate to ensure our federal judges possess a breadth of personal and professional experience.

We share President Obama’s confidence that, in his words, Todd Hughes “will be [a] judicious and esteemed addition” to the Federal Circuit.

● Read more about Judge Hughes 
●Read more about President Obama’s record concerning diversity on the federal bench  

Now the full Senate needs to vote on on Pillard nomination for D.C. Circuit

Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron issued the following statement in response to the vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee today on President Obama’s nomination of Nina Pillard to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit:

We commend the majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee for supporting President Obama’s nomination of Nina Pillard for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.  We are disappointed, but not surprised, that all of the committee’s Republicans chose to put politics ahead of qualifications and opposed this outstanding nominee.

The American people have good reason to be fed up with Republican obstruction and delay.  They demand and deserve courts that have enough judges to administer justice fairly and swiftly.  Americans are entitled to a swift yes-or-no vote by the full Senate on Nina Pillard and President Obama’s other judicial nominees.

Read more about Nina Pillard in this previous post to Justice Watch

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Nina Pillard: 10 things you should know

On June 4, 2013, President Obama nominated Georgetown Law Professor Nina Pillard to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Over the course of her law career, Professor Pillard has won historic Supreme Court victories, and served two tours as a high-level government lawyer at the Department of Justice. She has spent 15 years teaching at Georgetown Law, where she is co-director of Georgetown’s Supreme Court Institute. As the Senate Judiciary Committee prepares to vote on her nomination tomorrow, here are 10 things you might not know about Professor Pillard:

1. She helped open VMI to women. Professor Pillard wrote the briefs in United States v. Virginia, a case originally filed by the George H.W. Bush Administration. Professor Pillard’s arguments persuaded the Supreme Court to open the Virginia Military Institute to women, ending one of the last male-only admissions policies at a state college. Read an op-ed columns about Professor Pillard from a VMI alumna and from the superintendent of VMI when women first were admitted.

2. She protected the Family and Medical Leave Act. Professor Pillard argued Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs before the Supreme Court, alongside Department of Justice  officials from the George W. Bush administration. Their defense of the Family and Medical Leave Act successfully vindicated a state employee’s right to take unpaid leave to care for his ill wife. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion.

3. She has bipartisan support—including from top Republican former Justice Department officials. Professor Pillard’s impressive record, integrity, and impartiality have earned her the support of top Department of Justice officials in previous Republican administrations. President George W. Bush’s Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh and former FBI Director William Sessions both wrote personal letters to the Senate Judiciary Committee endorsing Professor Pillard for the DC Circuit.

4. She has argued or briefed dozens of cases before the Supreme Court. Over the course of her career, Professor Pillard has litigated at all levels and throughout the country, from trial court to the Supreme Court.

5. If confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, Nina Pillard would be only the sixth woman to serve on that court in its 120-year history.

6. She assisted the American Bar Association in concluding that  Samuel Alito was “well qualified” for the U.S. Supreme Court. Because of Professor Pillard’s unbiased approach to the law, she was asked to chair an ABAcommittee that reviewed Judge Samuel Alito’s writings, in the context of his nomination to the Supreme Court. Armed with the review by Professor Pillard’s committee, the Standing Committee unanimously gave Judge Alito its highest rating of “Well Qualified.”

7. Professor Pillard has substantial expertise in matters affecting law enforcement. Professor Pillard served two tours at the U.S. Department of Justice and has repeatedly defended and advised law enforcement officials. Her expertise has earned her the endorsement of the International Union of Police Associations and more than two dozen top attorneys in law enforcement and national security.

8. She’s a beloved professor. Over the last 15 years, Nina Pillard has distinguished herself as a professor at Georgetown University Law Center. One of her favorite classes to teach is Civil Procedure, which covers the crucial role that fair process plays in the American legal system.

9. Professor Pillard serves as a Co-Director of Georgetown University’s Supreme Court Institute. Here, she prepares lawyers for argument on a pro bono, first-come basis, without regard to which side they represent. Over the past term, the Institute prepared lawyers on one or both sides of every case heard by the Supreme Court.

10) Professor Pillard has devoted considerable time and energy to mentoring others throughout her career. During her years at Georgetown, she has mentored countless law students.  As a college student, moreover, she mentored low-income girls through a Big Sister program.  In addition, she served on the Board of Friends of the Double Discovery Center at Columbia College, which works with low-income and first-generation-college youth to ensure academic skills building, high school graduation, college entrance and completion, and responsible adulthood.

You can help get Nina Pillard confirmed.  Click here to email your Senators. 

Read more about Nina Pillard.

Too many cases and too few judges leave courts in crisis

Federal Judgeships Act seeks relief for overburdened courts but Republicans keep record of obstruction intact, throwing up roadblocks to reform

At a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Bankruptcy and the Courts on the Federal Judgeship Act of 2013 today, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) made clear that Senate Republicans intend not only to both have their cake and eat it, but to then throw the cake at Democrats who are working to give federal courts the resources necessary to administer justice in a fair and efficient way for all Americans.

The Federal Judgeships Act, introduced by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), would create 91 new federal judgeships to address a burgeoning caseload that’s been growing since the last time Congress passed a comprehensive judges bill in 1990.  The bill is based on the specific requests of the nonpartisan Judicial Conference, which is headed by Chief Justice John Roberts. 

Alliance for Justice supports this bill because, as Senator Coons said today, “Overburdened judges, almost by definition, cannot provide the level of time, and care, and reflection they would like to for each case before them.”

In opposing the legislation, Senator Sessions remarked that the President has not named nominees for 50 of the 92 current vacancies on thefederal bench and suggested that the need for more judges would be solved if the White House simply filled existing seats.  But here’s what Sessions left out: Of the 50 current vacancies without nominees, 25 are in states with two Republican Senators and 16 are in states with one Republican Senator, while states with two Democratic Senators only have 8.  That means that a whopping 82% of current judicial vacancies without a nominee are in states with at least one Republican Senator.

This disparity is no coincidence.  As AFJ has consistently noted, President Obama knows that nominees who lack support from both of their home state senators have no chance of moving through the Senate Judiciary Committee, and therefore any pre- or post-nomination objection or opposition from a home Senator renders a nomination futile.  The Republicans have relied on this sort of backdoor obstructionism—using home state opposition to well-qualified and eminently capable candidates—to block the President’s attempt to fill critical vacancies, and are now cynically turning around and using these vacancies to oppose timely and important legislation.

This painfully obvious attempt to have it both ways cannot go unnoticed, and Republican Senators should be held accountable for unduly limiting access to the federal justice system.