I attended today’s LSOC Caucus, and I must say I was impressed by the quality of the comments that came from the participants, as well as the quality of the leadership provided by LSRJ Intern Jeryl Hayes.  It all started with an e-mail invitation to attend the Caucus during our lunch hour on Saturday.  When I got there, I instantly felt that familiar feeling of comfort when all of a sudden, I was no longer the only brown person in the immediate vicinity.  To my left and to my right, behind me and in front of me, I saw a diverse group of advocates who had one definite thing in common: our passion for reproductive justice.

It was a beautiful thing!  We talked about racial tensions on our campuses and the dearth of minority lawyers in the RJ field.  We talked about our personal ambitions as future attorneys and what kind of pressures we faced from our respective communities to do something outside of public interest law.  Participants also touched on issues I had not thought of before – for example, what a strong reproductive justice movement would look like in the South and how law students of color and LGBTQ law students could contribute to it.  The conversation was fascinating, and above all, I think it was so important to create a time and space to address a topic that rarely gets airtime:  the intersection of race and gender that lies at the heart of reproductive justice.

There is much more to explore as we return to our campuses and try to make intersectionality a bigger part of our LSRJ chapter advocacy.  But I believe the seeds have been planted for a keen awareness about how our identities impact what we say and how our words are heard by others.  As a Latina law student, I appreciated the opportunity to reflect on how my identity brings a different perspective to conversations about reproductive justice on campus, at my internships, and in the lives of people I talk to everyday.

Lucy Panza

I am not a worthless piece of trash, but rather a valuable asset to people, families, the community—and the world. I hope that my story will help to alleviate the disgraceful practice of shackling women during labor, which in turn will help alleviate the negative behaviors of prison guards and hospital staff toward women who give birth while incarcerated.—Kimberly Mays

As of this spring, thanks to women like Kimberly Mays and fellow reproductive justice advocates across the state, Washington state can boast two large victories against the practice of shackling pregnant incarcerated women. On March 23, 2010, the Governor signed into law HB 2747 which bans the use of restraints on female inmates in labor or post-partum recovery, making Washington only the 7^th state in the nation to pass anti-shackling legislation. Just a couple of weeks ago, Legal Voice, a women’s rights organization based out a of Seattle, sent a press-release confirming that on May 3, 2010, the federal district court agreed that shackling laboring women violates the Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The Department of Corrections also agreed to pay plaintiff, Casandra Brawley, $125,000 to settle her lawsuit. But, nationwide, jails and prisons and immigration detention centers continue to put non-violent women in restraints such as leg irons and wrist shackles during childbirth. Pregnant women are shackled on the way to the hospital, while they are giving birth, and during recovery.

(more…)

Last week, University of San Diego LSRJ lured over 120 people to our last event of the semester with a sultry title, Chipotle, and a raffle for chocolate body paint, but the attendees stayed for a substantive conversation about the evolution and limitations of the constitutional “right to privacy.”

The split between the 5^th and 11^th Circuits over Lawrence v. Texas’ application to the sale and promotion of sex toys spawned “My Body, My Bedroom.”  Whereas the 11^th Circuit ruled in Williams v. Attorney General of Alabama, 378 F.3d 1232 (5th Cir. 2004), that Lawrence does not protect the sale of sex toys, the 5^th Circuit examined the question in Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Earle, 517 F.3d 738 (11th Cir. 2008), and came to the opposite conclusion.

(more…)

On April 1, 2009, I stood in front of a room full of my friends and peers, lured by the promise of cookies and baked goods, and timidly proclaimed that I was beginning a new chapter of Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ) at our school, Thomas Jefferson School of Law (TJSL) in San Diego

Coming upon LSRJ at the time that I did was a matter of fate.  I started playing roller derby during my first year of law school as a stress reliever.  Within about nine months of joining the local league, I was sitting on the sidelines with a pulled muscle and spending a significant amount of time undergoing rehabilitation.  It suddenly dawned on me that I was halfway through law school and all I had to show for it were some healing bruises and a weak groin.  I met with my career counselor who was aware that I was interested in practicing surrogacy and family formation law.  In her research prior to our meeting, she came across an organization called Law Students for Reproductive Justice.  She asked if I had heard of it—I hadn’t.  She navigated to the fact sheets located on LSRJ’s webpage and showed me that this organization focused on a myriad issues including assisted reproductive technology.  This piqued my curiosity so I went home and researched LSRJ.  I sent an inquiry to the national office, and the TJSL Chapter was born. (more…)