Dear John,
On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law that bars anyone subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a gun. The 8-1 decision in United States v. Rahimi saw Justice Clarence Thomas cast the lone dissenting vote. Stakes in the case were high: domestic violence abusers have a high rate of recidivism, and the violence is likely to escalate over time. When a firearm is present in a home plagued by domestic abuse, the risk for murder at the hand of the abuser quintuples.
The victory is significant: “The law has prevented countless tragedies,” said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, which played a pivotal role in passing the original Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban at the heart of the Rahimi case. “It has saved the lives of countless domestic violence survivors, most of whom are women.” This was the third time the law had survived challenge; shortly after the law’s passage, attempts were made to exempt police officers and military service personnel from its coverage, both of which failed.
Writing for Ms., constitutional law scholar Mary Anne Franks observes: “As with the mifepristone case, the Supreme Court in Rahimi distanced itself from the unvarnished misogyny of the Fifth Circuit, which has been saying the quiet part too loud lately even for the most ardent conservatives on the Court, with the exception of Justice Thomas. But just as Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine [the abortion pill case] was a monster the Court itself created in Dobbs, Rahimi was a monster that the Court itself created in Bruen, and their losses are only temporary reprieves in the full-scale assault on women’s lives launched by those decisions.”
We still await the Court’s ruling in a second abortion case, Moyle v. United States, which involves whether states with severe abortion bans, like Texas and Idaho, can ignore the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act that requires hospitals to provide whatever emergency medical treatment is necessary to stabilize a patient, including an abortion. Because these states ban abortions almost entirely—the only exception being cases when a woman’s life is at stake, but not in cases where abortion is necessary to preserve her health—emergency room physicians have to wait as a matter of law until a patient’s condition deteriorates to the point where she faces imminent death before they can provide the necessary care to stabilize her. Doctors face prison time should they defy the state’s ban.
To understand more about the Court’s decisions in Rahimi and this term’s decisions on the abortion cases, join us online or at Georgetown University Law School on July 1 to debrief this term’s decisions with a number of experts—including doctors involved in fighting against anti-abortion laws, like Dr. Damla Karsan and Austin Dennard, journalists like Jamelle Bouie and Mark Joseph Stern, and many more notable legal scholars and abortion rights advocates. (Click here to RSVP).
As we approach the two year anniversary of the Dobbs decision this coming Monday, we’re reminded that the decision’s sobering impact continues to resonate in conservative-dominated statehouses and courts. But as the tactics of those who oppose our rights continue to evolve, so too do ours. In our latest print issue, we highlight the Reproductive Freedom Alliance—a nonpartisan coalition of 23 governors determined to protect abortion rights and reproductive health.
“Your zip code should not determine your constitutional rights. But that is what we got with the Dobbs decision,” said North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D), a member of the Alliance. “And the people—not only in North Carolina, but the people across this country—want reproductive freedom, whether they live in red states or blue states.”
On Sunday, we celebrate Title IX’s 52nd anniversary. I encourage you to read more below about the crucial amendment’s impacts—which are currently under attack in Republican states.
Finally, this past Wednesday we celebrated Juneteenth, a holiday on which we remember how the legacies of slavery continue to resonate through U.S. society today—and honor and uplift the joy and resilience of Black communities in the U.S., who remind us that all our struggles for rights are interconnected. In Ms. this week, Jhumpa Bhattacharya illustrates how centering Black women in our struggles for social justice ensures that all of our needs are met.
She uses the example of the fight for paid leave: “Some advocates will say that whatever we can get is a win, so if four weeks is what is politically feasible, we should all celebrate and be happy. Here’s the thing—because of racism built into our healthcare system, Black women have the highest percentage rate of cesarean births in the U.S. It takes longer (six to eight weeks) for women to heal from a cesarean birth. Limiting paid leave to four weeks would have been completely inadequate for close to 40 percent of Black women.” More paid leave, she points out, is good for everyone giving birth—particularly given that the U.S. has a high c-section rate across all races.
As we continue to fight for abortion rights, paid leave, an end to maternal mortality, and so much more, you can count on Ms. to keep you informed on all our struggles—because none of us are free till all of us are free.
Onward!
