This article was published by The Center for American Progress.  

Elizabeth Chen is a Policy Analyst for the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress and a Law Students for Reproductive Justice law fellow.

The Family and Medical Leave Act was signed into law 20 years ago today and was a great first step toward supporting workers and workplace fairness. The law ensures that employees can receive 12 weeks of unpaid job-protected leave to recover from a serious medical condition, provide care for a seriously ill family member, or care for a new child. Workplace leave, however, is not just an employment issue—it is also a matter of reproductive justice.

Reproductive justice stands at the intersection of traditional reproductive rights concerns, such as the decision whether to become a parent, and social justice issues. In addition, it centers on the reproductive health needs of the most marginalized populations, including women of color, low-income individuals, and individuals with disabilities, among others. In our 2006 report,“More than a Choice: A Progressive Vision for Reproductive Health and Rights,” we set forth four cornerstones essential to a progressive reproductive health, rights, and justice agenda, including policies that support the ability to become a parent and to parent with dignity—meaning being able to financially, emotionally, and physically support a child’s basic needs—and the ability to have healthy and safe families and relationships.

Workplace leave is crucial for all people, but especially for low-income individuals seeking to become parents and have healthy families—a right to which we are all entitled. Historically, though, some parenting has been privileged at the expense of others, and not everyone has been able to exercise this right.

Laws and social movements, for example, encouraged white women to stay out of the workforce in order to provide full-time care for their children, while driving women of color—especially black women—into paid work, thus preventing them from being full-time stay-at-home caregivers to their children. Harvard Law Dean Martha Minow has documented how welfare policy for mothers in the late 19th century provided income support for them to stay at home. When access to such income support became increasingly available to black women during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, however, the rhetoric surrounding welfare became more negative. University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Dorothy Roberts explainsthat, “The central message of welfare reform is that recipient mothers are deviant for staying home and would better serve their children by finding jobs.”

To this day, programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which provides income support for families living in poverty, require work in the formal economy—or training for it—driving low-income parents into the workforce. Unpaid work within the home, including caring for families, does not satisfy the program’s requirements. This is not merely a historical remnant of former cultural biases—as recently as the 2012 presidential election, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) claimed that he would require mothers receiving income support to either work outside the home or lose the support.

Furthermore, parenting itself is highly gendered in law and society, making it difficult for men to assume caregiving roles. Sex-role stereotypes, often historically codified in law, cast white women as caregivers and white men as breadwinners. Masculinity throughout the 20th century was defined by this stereotypical family wage system, even though working-class men and men of color were largely excluded from that system.

The gendered breadwinner-caregiver model has become increasingly destabilized over time. In fact, as we noted in our issue brief, “The New Breadwinners: 2010 Update,” in 2010 women were either primary breadwinners or co-breadwinners in nearly two-thirds of American families with children. Yet gendered caregiver bias persists and can result in employment discriminationagainst men when they request leave to care for their children.

Given the devaluation of caregiving, while also recognizing that most parents—especially low-income ones—must work, how can we support working parents as both workers and caregivers? The Family and Medical Leave Act was a step in the right direction: By protecting the jobs of workers caring for a new child, the law reflects policymakers’ recognition that caretaking after birth or adoption of a child is essential, and that workers should have the flexibility to take time off to do so.

The law also furthers equality and disrupts sex-role stereotypes by applying equally to both men and women. Under the law, men and women alike have the opportunity to take time off to care for family members—and the percentage of men taking leave for caregiving purposes hasincreased steadily over time. Even former Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, initially anopponent of women’s equality under the law, acknowledged the crucial work that the law does to “attack the formerly state-sanctioned stereotype that only women are responsible for family caregiving.”

Workplace policies such as the Family and Medical Leave Act give workers the opportunity to care for their families with dignity by permitting them to continue to work and also to spend crucial time bonding with their new children. Under the law, workers can also take time off to care for a seriously ill family member, including a child, expanding the ability for parents to meet the needs of their children.

Unfortunately, the Family and Medical Leave Act doesn’t go far enough. As we noted in our 2009 issue brief, “Labor Pains: Improving Employment and Income Security for Pregnant Women and New Mothers,” the law only covers a subset of workers.  According to new statistics released by the Department of Labor, more than 60 percent of workers do not qualify for the protections of the law because they or their employers do not meet one or more requirements for leave. Moreover, because the leave is unpaid, almost 50 percent of workers report not being financially able to take the leave. Guaranteed leave does not enhance the ability for individuals to parent with dignity if they do not qualify for it or cannot afford to take it.

Workplace leave is crucial for people with children to be able to parent with dignity and have healthy families. The ability to care for children when they are born or adopted, or when they fall ill is essential to a holistic and comprehensive vision of reproductive health, rights, and justice. The Family and Medical Leave Act was a good beginning, but we must continue to fight until all Americans have the ability to care for their children without jeopardizing their job or their income.

Rosie Wang, Resident Blogger (’14, Columbia Law School)

Here is an alarming fact that I didn’t know until recently: Some studies have found that it is actually more likely for a woman to conceive after rape than after consensual sex. So much for the woman’s body having a way to shut that down. On the contrary, this tragic reality seems to highlight the necessity of abortion as an option.  But what is behind the link between lack of consent and increased likelihood of conception?

Jonathan and Tiffani Gottschall looked at the results from the National Violence Against Women survey and found that out of the 405 women who said they had been raped, pregnancy occurred at rate of 6.42% Horrifyingly, this is more than twice the rate that women become pregnant from consensual sex. The Gottschalls eliminated a few possibilities: rape does not induce ovulation, nor is the sperm of the rapist unusually viable. One hypothesis they present is that of male choice. Supposedly, rapists target women who are young and desirable. And since the markers of beauty and the markers of high fertility overlap, a woman with high fecundity is more likely to be chosen by a rapist because of these physical cues. Various news outlets [Huffington Post here, Politico here, Washington Post here]  have trotted out these findings as a refutation against the blatant misinformation perpetuated by Todd Adkin and his ilk.

However, there is something very wrong with this picture.

First of all, rape is not primarily about sexual attraction, rape is about power and anger. Second, this type of correlation between visible fertility and rape veers straight into the territory of victim-blaming. I imagine wildly misguided “advice” based on these findings that puts the onus on the victims to obscure their physical cues of fertility. “If she had worn something baggier, that would have obscured her ideal hip to waist ratio, she wouldn’t have been raped.” Sadly, since two-thirds of rapes are committed by someone known to the victim, and 38% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance, it would seem like rapists do not target the women with the highest and strongest fertility cues, but those whose familiarity and trust they can exploit. Thus, even if some piece of information or research looks like a good argument for reproductive justice, it’s often worth it to dig a bit deeper and look at what the implications mean.

Ash Moore, Resident Blogger (’14, University of Oklahoma College of Law)

It is the 40^th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I’m in law school so you may think you’re about to be bombarded with legalese and a disconnected opinion. But I have a different and important perspective – a personal one.

When I was a teenager, I was raped. Gang raped. And as cliche and trite as it has become, I was ashamed and felt like it was my fault. So, despite my better judgment, the first thing I did was take a hot shower. I washed away all evidence of the crime even though I knew exactly what I was doing. After the shower, I went in to denial. I tried to pretend like it didn’t happen. I didn’t get tested for STDs and I didn’t do anything about a potential pregnancy.

Then, in a couple of months when I started throwing up and feeling like I was getting fatter, reality set in with a vengeance and brought sheer terror with it. I didn’t know anything about pregnancy except how it came about and I knew it was a possibility.

At that point, I was more determined not to tell anyone than I was before. What if they didn’t believe me? Or what if they did and they were furious I did everything I wasn’t supposed to do? Either way, what was I going to do if I was really pregnant? I knew abortion was an option, but I didn’t want to kill something growing inside me.

I could give a baby up for adoption, but my life would be permanently changed and maybe ruined in the meantime. I didn’t know if that option was selfish, but I didn’t make a mistake, this was forced on me. Couldn’t I put myself first for a second?

I could keep the baby. But I truly believed that wouldn’t be the best thing for the baby. I wouldn’t be able to give it the kind of life it deserved. I would struggle, not have money, and be a young parent (with or without help) which is hard on the people I knew who had young parents.

Whether you think it was right or wrong, abortion was a huge part of the decision process. And the longer I thought about it, the more it seemed like the most rational and right choice. I’m deeply religious and that caused a huge problem and huge internal struggle. Would God understand? Would He approve? Would I be condemned? I knew no matter what decision I made, I would never be the same again.

Most people agree that abortion should be available for rape victims. So I wasn’t in the same position as the women struggling with restricted rights today. But what was the same was the excruciating decision process and fear. What the pregnancy test result was and what I ultimately decided are irrelevant.

What is relevant was that I had a tough decision to make and no matter what I decided, more options made the tortuous experience a little easier. It made me feel like others had struggled and came to the same decision I did; no matter what I chose, I knew I would never blame or fault anyone for making a different one in that impossible situation.

No matter how someone gets to the point where they need to make a decision regarding a pregnancy (through rape, mistake, health or money problems, or other things I may not be able to think about right now), I believe all the choices I had should be available to every other woman (and more if we can find them).

I think access to all the choices should be easy because the decision making process is hard enough. I think most women probably walk in to a doctor’s office or adoption agency after as much thought, pain, and tears as I went through. Any obstacles to make these personal decisions harder are cruel and unusual punishment.

If abortion is the ultimate decision, I believe no doctor or spectator has a better idea of the heartbeat about to stop than the woman who has to live with the decision. As you can see, abortion isn’t my story. But it’s an important part of it. And it’s an important part of society. No matter what you would choose, imagine, as I did, the process without one or more of the choices.  Then look me in the eye and tell me you want to do that to another living, breathing, caring, concerned person who is only trying to think about the best decision she can make for herself and her family. It should never be harder than it was for me. Or you. If you know the feeling.

Rosie Wang, Resident Blogger (’14, Columbia Law School)

As the year comes to a close, and law school finals draw close, my already questionable domestic skills really go by the wayside.  I have no real groceries besides frozen tater tots and a jar of capers, my desk is in disarray, and my laundry is perilously close to what can only be described as a underwear crisis. It’s times like these that I can’t help wondering, how do people who work and have kids and other obligations keep up with their housework if even I can’t? How do actual lawyers do this? The answer to this question turns out to be a complicated one, involving gender roles in parenting, housekeeping, and work.

For example, did you know that 84% of married women who are lawyers have a spouse who is employed full time compared to only 44% of married men who are lawyers?  Thus, lawyers who are men are more likely to have a partner shoulder the majority of housework and childcare. This phenomenon isn’t unique to lawyers however, as 55.1% of men compared to 72.1% of women spent time on childcare on the average day. Perhaps even more worryingly, the class divide between women is growing so that even if more educated, more well off women have increased their access to paid maternity leave over time (27% in the early 1970s to 66% in 2006-2008), women who do not have their high school degree’s access has stagnated at 18% through the same time period. All of this matters for reproductive justice because there is a gender-based imbalance in career consequences related to getting married, starting a family, and having children.

Wrapped up in this imbalance is also the debate on the division of domestic labor and it’s impact on marriage.  One study reports that the equal division of housework is correlated with higher rates of divorce (in Norwegian married couples). On the other side,  it doesn’t seem unimaginable to me that communities where the norm is for women take on all the household responsibilities would also stigmatize divorce more, pressuring couples to stay together despite unhappiness or incompatibility.

Stress rates, measured by levels of cortisol, were measured in married women and men, and declined in married women when their husbands shared the housework.  Stress rates for men, on the other hand, did not  decline in married men unless men had more time to relax, at the expense of their wives’ leisure time. Alternately, a different study promisingly shows that men have higher levels of well-being and lower levels of work-family conflict when making an equal contribution to the household work. How can these be reconciled? The former study was conducted on 30 dual earner couples in Los Angeles, and the latter over 7 European countries. Maybe the difference lies in the sample. By changing innate attitudes in our country towards work as gendered, perhaps we can change stress levels and happiness levels for the better across the board.

Josie Sustaire, Resident Blogger (’14, University of Oregon School of Law)

Ladies and Gentlemen, we did it.  We spoke up and spoke out.  We debated, made phone calls, sent emails, posted endlessly on Facebook, tweeted, laughed and cried, then laughed again.  We followed our hearts and we stood up for the rights of others.  We voted.  On behalf of my vagina and the millions of vaginas across these United States, I say thank you.

As I watched the news over the past week, I was overwhelmed with a sense of relief and accomplishment.  This is what I saw (thanks to Planned Parenthood for the headlines):

Oregon congressional candidate Art Robinson said the government should force a rape survivor to continue an unwanted pregnancy, by compensating her “very generously…for this burden.”  He LOST to women’s health champion Peter DeFazio!

Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh said there should be no abortion exception for the life of the mother, because “with modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance” in which a woman would actually die.  He was FIRED!

Florida Congressman Allen West said, “Planned Parenthood women…have been neutering American men.”  He just got FIRED in his bid for re-election!

Washington congressional candidate John Koster said “the rape thing” does not excuse abortions, because “crime has consequences.”  He just LOST.

Richard Mourdock said pregnancy from rape is “something God intended.”  He just LOST his bid for an Indiana Senate seat.

Missouri Congressman Todd Akin said women can’t get pregnant from “legitimate rape.” He just got FIRED in his bid for a Senate seat!

This election became something this year that past elections have never been for me:  personal.  I cannot recall an election year that meant more to me.  Perhaps it was the fact that I am in my second year of law school in an environment conducive towards political awareness and, at least in Oregon, progressive legislation and politicians.

Or perhaps it was the fact that I am now the Co-Director of the University of Oregon’s LSRJ chapter, a title that I feel is a testament to my unwavering support of the pursuit of reproductive justice.  It was these reasons that motivated me to share my views with my family, friends, classmates, and even strangers at an airport (true story).  But one reason above all these inspired me the most.  This year my kids asked me, “Who are you voting for?”  I don’t recall ever asking my parents whom they voted for (it usually wasn’t a mystery) and so I was a bit shocked to hear it from my kids’ mouths.  I wasn’t sure whether they would understand and I considered changing the subject…and then thought better.  “I’m voting for President Obama,” I said assuredly, “and this is why…”  I proceeded to tell my ten-year-old daughter and eight-year-old son exactly why I was voting for President Obama.  It was an engaging discussion, full of questions and comments.  It made me hopeful for the future and to many more meaningful discussions to come.

So, here’s to the voters, to the ladies and gents, and kids too!  We can rest easy tonight knowing that our lady parts or the lady parts of ladies we love are much safer.

Elisabeth Smith, Resident Blogger (’14, University of Washington School of Law)

Thinking about Tuesday makes me a little nauseous.  We might reelect President Obama or be treated to another “what if” when he hosts Saturday Night Live in 2018. In Washington State, voters will approve or defeat Marriage Equality and legalize or continue to criminalize marijuana. Both Referendum 74 and Initiative 502 are reproductive justice issues that touch RJ’s meta rights (the right to parent; the right not to parent; and the right to parent the child you have with dignity and free from violence or oppression). Wednesday could be an incredible day or a really, really terrible one.  I certainly don’t want to sob my heart out like 2004.

Referendum 74

On Thursday night I attended a Referendum 74 debate between Jeff DeGroot, a 3L and comments editor of the University of Washington Law Review, and Joseph Backholm, chairman of Preserve Marriage Washington.  Jeff was raised in Oregon by two mothers and he made the point over and over again that his parents are like any other parents. In Jeff’s words, Mr. Backholm only offered distractions.  Let me give you a few: marriage equality means (1) parents cannot control their children’s public education; (2) business owners won’t be able to live out their beliefs; and (3) lesbians and gay men in Washington already have all the rights of associated with marriage via domestic partnerships. Jeff’s answers to those assertions were that education decisions are made on a local level with teachers, administrators, and parents; anti-discrimination statutes already prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation; and the word marriage means more than domestic partnership ever could.

If it’s possible to qualify some of the things Mr. Backholm said as the worst, here’s what really made my blood boil: “for all 6,000 years of human history, marriage has been a union between one man and one woman;” “without fathers, children cannot survive and thrive and predictably end up in prison;” and “marriage equality will mean that men dressed as women can use women’s restrooms.” I would like to respond.

First, no. Marriage has looked very different at different times and in different places. Second, yes, fathers are important, but parenthood doesn’t require a penis. Heritage Foundation-inspired horror stories about single motherhood ignore the structural barriers that limit women’s pay and access to childcare. Patriarchy, racism, homophobia, and the criminalization of poverty all play their parts. Also, children raised by lesbian parents seem to fare really well. (Right Jeff?) Third, the rights of transgender people in Washington are protected by the state’s anti-discrimination laws: RCW 29.60.040.26.

Mr. Backholm gave us the kitchen sink argument, but the diversity of his distractions gives us a better vantage point from which to consider his opinion. Marriage equality is foremost about equality. Voting yes on Referendum 74 means that traditional parents like Jeff’s can get married, but it also means that gay men and lesbians who don’t look or act like them can also get married. While Mr. Backholm may consider himself to be better than LGBTQ individuals, their marriages would occupy the same societal position. Marriage equality would limit the privileges we afford to heterosexuals, fathers, gender-conforming, and discrimination. For people who have constructed their identities based on such privileges, the idea of equality must be deeply threatening.

Initiative 502

I-502 would allow people 21 and older to legally grow, sell, and buy marijuana. It has been endorsed by Legal Voice and Surge Northwest. Lillian Hewko, a Surge Northwest and an LSRJ board member, wrote about the need for 502, citing the destructive effects of drug laws on women and their children. Who’s using marijuana? In 2011, 7.8% of women 18 and older used marijuana. Who’s arrested and prosecuted for marijuana offenses though?  Predominantly people of color. Legalizing marijuana will halt Washington’s racialized arrests and prosecutions, thereby allowing families to remain intact and protecting women from the dangers of incarceration.

I voted for President Obama and for Referendum 74 and for Initiative 502. I’m hoping that on Tuesday Washington State announces to the world that equality trumps privilege.

The following are the second part of condensed remarks given by Law Students for Reproductive Justice Fellow Laura Nixon on October 6, 2012 at William & Mary School of Law’s Reproductive Justice Symposium, sponsored by their Initiative on Gender, Sexuality, and the Law. Read the first part here.

Now, I want to turn to addressing some specific barriers to reproductive justice for transgender people. I want to ground this conversation in the reality that transgender people have sexual partners who are men or women  – and that when we make blanket assumptions about sexual behavior based on gender identity and sexual orientation, we may miss reproductive health issues that are important to members of our community.

The National Center for Transgender Equality has created an excellent fact sheet showing us some of the important reproductive healthcare issues for transgender people. Foremost of these issues is how often transgender people are denied healthcare by providers outright – in national surveys, somewhere between 19 to 27 percent of transgender people report having this experience.  Related to refusal of care, is how often transgender people must educate their healthcare providers about appropriate clinical care and the paucity of adequate information about sexual health available to transgender people.  With regard to reproductive health, many transgender men who have sex with men report being more concerned about unintended pregnancy than sexually transmitted infections, even as they may be at high risk for both.  Additionally, requirements that people undergo sex reassignment surgery before being allowed to change the gender marker on their identity documents (such as driver’s licenses or birth certificates) essentially requires that they be sterilized in order to obtain these correct documents – which should be a profound concern for LGBT and reproductive justice advocates.

With respect to the experiences of transgender people, an important question to ask is: are our language choices in the reproductive health, rights, and justice movements drawing people in or are we pushing people out? In terms of reproductive health care, Dean Spade, a trans legal scholar and activist has proposed some ideas about how anyone working in the health field can change the language they use, so that transgender people know that their needs are being considered, met, and welcomed. In terms of reproductive rights and justice movement-building, we have heard a lot about the “war on women” over the past year, given the number of unprecedented legislative attacks on reproductive freedom.  Sometimes in these discussions, we may have heard people say something to the effect of “Only people with vaginas should be deciding these issues!”  This is a tongue-in-cheek way to demand that people who are most affected by these attacks on reproductive freedom be heard on these issues, and be the decision-makers in their own reproductive lives.  However, it’s worth thinking a little more deeply about how those statements may box out transgender people from the movement and communicate that they don’t have a voice in these issues because people who are women may or may not have vaginas.  In the same way the Dean Spade has suggested that we shift our language about reproductive anatomy in the healthcare setting, we must think about our language choices in reproductive rights and justice movement-building so that our work truly reflects the needs and experiences of all members of our community.

I hope the information and research that I have shared today shows us why harmful restrictions on contraception and abortion care affect LGBT people and how we can build healthcare systems and movements that are really responsive to the reality of LGBT peoples’ sexual and reproductive experiences.  Our LGBT rights and reproductive health, rights, and justice movements have strong  – not just theoretical – connections.  Let’s continue to work together to build a better world!

Catrina Otonoga, LSRJ Summer Legal Intern

The question, “when are they going to come up with something for men?” rings through my head countless times a month — as I take my birth control each day and wonder what it does to my body, as I stand in line at the pharmacist and charge another $60 to my credit card each month, and as I do another at home breast-exam and wonder if, maybe, years of birth control had anything to do with that lump in my breast.

Just late last month, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute announced a breakthrough in birth-control options for men, a hormonal gel that lowers sperm count with few side effects. No evidence of causing breast tenderness, nausea, mood changes or increased risks like blood clots or stroke. So far, just acne and slight increases in cholesterol.

This could do wonders for gender equity in hetero-normative relationships. Rather than women bearing the burden of balancing perceptions,(such as being sexy enough to need birth control, yet virginal enough to not have children), all the while paying for, regularly taking, and constantly worrying about birth control, men might be able to step into the fold of being concerned about the potential outcomes of having sex. Women continue to fight for autonomy over our bodies and our reproductive choices, including when and with whom we choose to get pregnant, or not. Access to the pill is a huge platform to effectively make that choice. Despite the times we are frustrated about weight gain or cost, we know that each time we take that pill we are exerting some control over what happens to us, and when.

In 2011, The National Domestic Violence Hotline released a study indicating that 1 in 4 women who agreed to answer questions after calling in to the hotline had experienced pressure to become pregnant, were told not to use birth control, or had experienced men hiding or throwing away birth control.

Every day, women of all backgrounds experience reproductive coercion, from long term efforts to undermine autonomy to one-night stands that refuse to wear a condom. For some women, reproductive decision making is not a dual decision, let alone a singular one. They don’t have a say in those “decisions” at all. So, while breakthroughs in contraceptive options for men are an important instep for many men and women to consider reproductive choice with their partner and with themselves, many women are struggling to own their reproductive choice.

Adding men to the conversation on reproductive rights, choice, and contraceptive decisions is an important move. Amplifying all women’s voices to be strong enough to make choices about their relationships and their reproductive futures is imperative.

One blogger is pretty pleased about the upheld Affordable Care Act.

Hey Look! It the Affordable Care Cat!

While the Affordable Care Act was a victory for many, some are more cautious to celebrate as the longterm effects of the ACA locking in racial inequality.

Joshua Matz for SCOTUSblog has compiled a pretty big pile up of blogs to get a variety of angles and opinions of the court decision.

SCOTUSblog editor, Amy Howe offers a laywoman’s explanation of the ACA decision.

Anti-choice advocates are at it again, performing ‘sting operations’ in Planned Parenthoods in an effort to expose the facilitation of sex selective abortions.

The Crunk Feminist Collective shares on the reality of life in social justice activism work with a piece on what to do when you say something wrong, insensitive, or politically incorrect in a coalitional space. Three cheers for honesty and accountability!

Senate votes in favor of the Violence Against Women Act.

Irin Carmon debunks The Myth of the “morning-after abortion pill.”

Our RJ fellow, Keely Monroe reminds of how much further we need to go after two years of having the Affordable Care Act.