吃瓜大本营

WASHINGTON 鈥� In their brief defending the state鈥檚 ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has asked the Supreme Court to expand its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade and allow the state to target transgender people鈥檚 autonomy over their own bodies, too. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, three Tennessee transgender youth and their families are challenging a state law that prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that are allowed for minors who are not transgender. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, the families argue that the ban violates their Equal Protection rights under the 14th Amendment. In the brief filed today, Tennessee relies on the Supreme Court鈥檚 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Whole Women鈥檚 Health in an attempt to justify its ban on gender-affirming health care for transgender people. The brief cites to Dobbs at least 10 times in sweeping arguments to justify government sex discrimination. 鈥淲e鈥檝e seen just how far extreme politicians will push to deny us our reproductive freedom, from banning abortion to threatening IVF to even threatening to put doctors in jail for providing emergency care, with deadly consequences for women鈥檚 lives,鈥� said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU鈥檚 Reproductive Freedom Project. 鈥淭he same politicians who are trying to control women have now set their sights on transgender people and their families and are trying to control their bodies and lives. Allowing politicians to continue down this road could hold severe implications for the freedom of all people to decide what is right for their own body.鈥� Tennessee claims that their ban on gender-affirming care does not discriminate on the basis of sex even though it bans minors of one sex from accessing health care it allows to members of another sex. A transgender girl is barred from taking doctor-prescribed estrogen because Tennessee considers it 鈥渋nconsistent鈥� with her birth-assigned sex of male but a cisgender girl with a birth-assigned sex of female is permitted to take estrogen for any purpose including to affirm her female gender identity. 鈥淪ince this Project鈥檚 founding by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we have adamantly challenged efforts to limit who we can be based on our gender or ability to bear children,鈥� said Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU鈥檚 Women鈥檚 Rights Project. 鈥淭ennessee鈥檚 attempt to limit who young people can become based on their sex shares a through-line with our nation鈥檚 history of subjugating women in the name of biology. The fight for each of us to live fully and authentically must include trans people. There is no 鈥榯ransgender鈥� exception to the U.S. Constitution.鈥� In April 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP sued the state of Tennessee to block S.B. 1, which prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that it exempts for minors who are not transgender. Following a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, S.B. 1 took effect in July 2023. Since 2021, 24 states have banned hormone therapies for transgender youth. 鈥淟aws like Tennessee鈥檚 are not benign regulations of medical care; they are discriminatory efforts to exclude transgender people from the protections of the Constitution,鈥� said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU鈥檚 LGBTQ & HIV Project. 鈥淭hese bans represent a dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country and their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.鈥�

WASHINGTON, D.C. - On Friday, a broad coalition of labor, workers鈥� rights, and gender justice organizations 鈥� led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Arkansas, and the National Women鈥檚 Law Center (NWLC) 鈥� filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in support of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission鈥檚 (EEOC) regulations implementing the landmark Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), including the regulations鈥� explicit protection for workers who have abortions. The PWFA, which took effect last year, was the culmination of a decade-long campaign to secure access to reasonable accommodations for workers with temporary limitations caused by 鈥減regnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.鈥� The EEOC鈥檚 regulations provide comprehensive guidance to workers, employers, and the courts about the statute鈥檚 range of protections, including job-protected time off for medical treatment and recovery. The amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit supports the EEOC in a challenge by 17 red states that are trying to block the PWFA regulations鈥� coverage of accommodations for abortion-related care. In June, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the states鈥� challenge, and the states appealed to the Eighth Circuit. Their appeal includes a request that the Eighth Circuit issue a preliminary injunction of the regulations鈥� abortion provisions. The ACLU-NWLC brief details the federal law鈥檚 longstanding ban on discrimination against workers who obtain abortions 鈥� protection the PWFA intended to continue. The brief also documents the accounts of workers whose health and jobs were put at risk when their employers denied them accommodations, including time off, for abortion care. Such accounts illustrate the urgent need for clarity with respect to the PWFA鈥檚 coverage of abortion-related accommodations, and the devastating medical and financial consequences if such accommodations are denied. 鈥淎bortion has long been recognized as part of the full spectrum of workers鈥� pregnancy-related needs that are protected by the law, 鈥� said Gillian Thomas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU鈥檚 Women's Rights Project. 鈥淭he states鈥� challenge has created uncertainty, and seeks to deprive workers of essential, job-protected time off for abortion care, posing significant health risks and leading to forced pregnancies. The EEOC regulations are vital to ensure pregnant workers don't have to choose between their health and their jobs.鈥� 鈥淓xtremist politicians are demonstrating repeatedly their willingness to risk women鈥檚 health to advance their anti-abortion agenda,鈥� said Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president for Education and Workplace Justice at the National Women鈥檚 Law Center (NWLC). 鈥淟et鈥檚 be clear: abortion care is pregnancy-related care, and stripping essential protections for abortion from the PWFA would endanger the health and economic security of pregnant workers.鈥� 鈥淭he Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and its regulations provide a lifeline for workers who need accommodations during the most critical periods of their lives. Attempting to strip away these protections, particularly for abortion-related needs, is an affront to the rights and well-being of pregnant workers,鈥� said John Williams, legal director of the ACLU of Arkansas. 鈥淎ll people in all aspects of pregnancy, including abortion, should be treated with the care and consideration they deserve. We stand firmly with the EEOC in defending these essential protections.鈥� A copy of the brief can be found here.

WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass H.J. Res. 165, a Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving of the U.S. Department of Education鈥檚 final Title IX rule providing guidance to schools on protecting students from sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, anti-LGBTQ discrimination, and other forms of sex discrimination. Mike Zamore, ACLU National Policy and Government Affairs Director, had the following response: 鈥淭oday鈥檚 vote to completely repeal the Title IX rule takes a sledgehammer to the government鈥檚 ability to ensure that all students have the opportunity to learn free from sex discrimination and harassment. Stripping critical civil rights protections from LGBTQ students and students who are pregnant and parenting - as this resolution would do - is something that all members of Congress should strongly oppose. This is also not how Congress should act to protect the rights of students who face disciplinary action under Title IX because passing this resolution would prevent future rulemaking to ensure fair processes in school disciplinary proceedings.鈥� The ACLU鈥檚 letter urging a 鈥淣o鈥� vote on H.J. Res. 165 can be found here: /documents/aclu-urges-no-vote-on-h-j-res-165 The ACLU鈥檚 statement on the final Title IX rule can be found here: /press-releases/155090