Anti-abortion groups claim they don't want to punish women. New lawsuits say otherwise.
The antiabortion movement is grappling with an internal divide about whether women should be punished for abortion, as a growing number of state legislatures consider personhood bills authorizing the punishment of abortion seekers. But an ongoing struggle to deny accommodations for pregnant workers shows the two sides in this civil war might not be so far apart. Both groups seem to agree employers should be allowed to penalize workers who get abortions.
Well before the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade, the nation's most powerful antiabortion groups denounced the idea of punishing women for abortion. When then-candidate Donald Trump said in 2016 that women deserved 'some form of punishment' for abortion, leading antiabortion activists lambasted him. Movement leaders stressed that prosecutors had rarely targeted women in the years before Roe and pledged that nothing would change when abortion was once again a crime. The bans implemented after the Dobbs ruling, such as the trigger laws that went into effect immediately after Roe's demise, often contained exemptions for pregnant patients.
But in recent years, the most powerful antiabortion groups have faced a challenge from a new group of self-proclaimed abolitionists, many of them with roots in Southern evangelical churches. The abolitionists agree that a fetus is a person whose rights begin at fertilization, and that the only principled way to enforce those rights is to punish those who harmed the fetus. Why, the abolitionists ask, is it acceptable to exempt women from criminal abortion laws when statutes punished women for any other homicide?
Larger antiabortion groups understood, of course, that punishing abortion seekers was bad politics. Some members of the bigger groups opposed punishing women as a matter of principle. And they had long argued that women were the 'second victims' of abortion, manipulated by a profit-driven industry to make decisions they would regret.
But apparently, when working women have abortions, the calculus changes. Ongoing lawsuits by multiple conservative-run states show that both factions seem to favor allowing employers to penalize women who take time off to seek an abortion or deal with related medical complications.
The dispute turns on the interpretation of the Pregnant Worker Fairness Act, a law passed in 2022 with bipartisan support to deal with rampant discrimination against pregnant workers. Previous laws had prohibited employers from singling out pregnant employees for especially despicable treatment, but hadn't actually obligated employers to accommodate pregnancy-related complications. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act sought to change that.
Last year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a rule concluding that the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act also required employers to accommodate abortion-related leaves. But red states had no intention of handing over their right to discipline workers who needed accommodation related to abortion.
In one lawsuit, Louisiana and Mississippi convinced a district court to block enforcement of the rule. Seventeen conservative states also filed suit in Arkansas, arguing that the EEOC rule would do them real harm by undermining their symbolic opposition to abortion, limiting their ability to criminalize abortion, and costing them money when state employees had abortion-related complications.
An Arkansas district court judge refused the states' request to block the Biden rule while the litigation continues, finding that the states didn't have standing. This week, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. While the district court reasoned that the conservative states could only speculate about future injuries, the 8th Circuit held that that speculation was enough: The states would have compliance costs as employers if their workers asked for abortion-related leaves and let them pursue their case. Now, the suit will go forward, as abortion opponents wait on President Donald Trump to fill empty seats on the EEOC (Trump took the unprecedented step of firing two of the three Democratic commissioners, a move that may be challenged in court).
The fight over the scope of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act will matter for those who terminate their pregnancies, or those whose miscarriages or stillbirths are mistaken for abortion. But the fight over pregnancy accommodations also complicates the story abortion opponents tell about punishing women.
In theory, if women are victims, conservative states focus on protecting them from unscrupulous health-care providers — or others that they believe 'aid or abet' women. Disciplining or dismissing workers who take time off for abortion — or abortion complications — seems to be precisely the kind of punitive step that red states have sworn off. These lawmakers purport to protect women from the adverse consequences of abortion, but if an employee actually experiences complications, the state is fiercely defending the right not to accommodate her, or even to discipline or terminate her.
One way or another, it seems inevitable that employers will regain the power to fire workers who take time off to have an abortion, or who experience complications after terminating a pregnancy. The Trump EEOC will almost certainly roll back the Biden rule, if states like Texas don't manage to convince a court to invalidate the EEOC rule first. Either way, the message is clear: Texas may not want to put women in prison for having abortions, but firing them could be another thing entirely.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
36 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Kilmar Abrego Garcia Was Never Coming Back. Then He Did.
After insisting again and again that they would not bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the United States, Trump-administration officials flew the 29-year-old Maryland man back from El Salvador today to face a grand-jury criminal indictment in Tennessee. Abrego Garcia's return doesn't mean he can go free. He now faces federal charges for human trafficking, according to the indictment unsealed today, and the Trump administration will get its opportunity to prove what it has long alleged about Abrego Garcia's membership in the gang MS-13. Even if prosecutors fail to convict him, the government could attempt to deport him to a third country—just not back to El Salvador. But by bringing him back to the United States, the Trump administration has climbed down from the court-defying pedestal where Vice President J. D. Vance, the adviser Stephen Miller, and Cabinet officials perched for months, claiming that Abrego Garcia's deportation was not, in fact, a mistake, and that he would never be allowed to set foot in the country again. Their obstinacy led to warnings of a constitutional crisis. Abrego Garcia's wife, a U.S. citizen, sued the government in March after he was deported to his native country in violation of a 2019 court order protecting him from being sent back to face likely harm. U.S. officials initially acknowledged that they'd made an 'administrative error,' then shrugged and said that the matter was out of their hands. White House officials remained dug in even as the Supreme Court ordered the administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return. 'There is no scenario where Abrego Garcia will be in the United States again,' Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem testified to lawmakers last month. Now, by bringing Abrego Garcia back to face criminal charges, the administration can quiet the constitutional concerns about his due-process rights and lay out the evidence it claims to possess showing that he is not a benign sheet-metal worker and devoted father but a gang leader and human trafficker. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters that Abrego Garcia 'played a significant role in an alien-smuggling ring.' The criminal charges, filed in the Middle District of Tennessee, allege that Abrego Garcia participated in a nine-year conspiracy that moved thousands of people to destinations across the United States and totaled more than 100 trips. The indictment also accuses him of gun running and drug smuggling. According to ABC News, which first reported on Abrego Garcia's return and the trafficking charges, the chief of the criminal division in the U.S. attorney's office in Nashville resigned after the indictment was filed. The attorney, Ben Schrader, declined to comment when I reached out to him this evening. Senator Chris Van Hollen, who traveled to El Salvador in April and was allowed by the country's authorities to meet with Abrego Garcia, said in a statement that the administration has 'finally relented to our demands for compliance with court orders and with the due process rights afforded to everyone in the United States.' 'As I have repeatedly said, this is not about the man, it's about his constitutional rights—and the rights of all,' Van Hollen said in the statement. 'The Administration will now have to make its case in the court of law, as it should have all along.' This is the second time in a week that Trump officials have relented on one of the cases in which federal judges ordered the government to bring back a deportee removed from the country without due process. A gay Guatemalan asylum seeker known in court documents as O.C.G., who was wrongly deported to Mexico, was allowed to return and pursue his protection claim on Wednesday. The Trump administration remains defiant elsewhere, however, holding a group of men from Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and other nations in a shipping container on a U.S. military base in Djibouti while it attempts to deport them to South Sudan. Simon Sandoval-Mosenberg, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, told me the administration's decision to bring his client back is a sign that 'they were playing games with the court all along.' Standard legal procedure would entail filing criminal charges against an alleged perpetrator and convicting them prior to a deportation—not the other way around, as the Trump administration is now attempting, Sandoval-Mosenberg said. 'Due process means the chance to defend yourself before you're punished, not after,' he said. 'This is an abuse of power, not justice. The government should put him on trial, yes—but in front of the same immigration judge who heard his case in 2019, which is the ordinary manner of doing things.' After Abrego Garcia's return, government attorneys told U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis that they intend to file a motion to dismiss the case challenging his unlawful deportation. Abrego Garcia was stopped for speeding by Tennessee state troopers in December 2022 while driving a Chevy Suburban with nine male passengers, none of whom carried identification, according to the indictment. Abrego Garcia was cited for an expired license, but he was not arrested or charged with a crime, even though troopers flagged the incident as a potential trafficking case. Abrego Garcia told officers that he'd been sent by his employer to pick up the men for a construction job, and his family has said that he would sometimes drive workers between job sites. They have denied the government's claims that Abrego Garcia was an MS-13 member. Driving passengers for money wouldn't be a crime unless the government can prove that Abrego Garcia knew he was transporting passengers who were unlawfully present, Andrew Rankin, an immigration attorney in Memphis, told me. Participating in a criminal conspiracy to bring them across the U.S.-Mexico border, as the government alleges, would bring severer penalties. 'What did he know? Did he have actual knowledge? What was the discussion between each person and Abrego?' Rankin said. 'And if these people were in violation of the law, the government could offer immunity to testify against him.' The indictment identifies six unnamed co-conspirators and says that Abrego Garcia transported MS-13 gang members on the trips. One of the co-conspirators told investigators that Abrego Garcia 'abused some of the female undocumented aliens' and was ordered to stop because it was 'bad for business.' Rankin said it was highly unusual for the government to deport someone and then begin building a criminal indictment. 'Now that the government has had to essentially bend the knee to bring Mr. Abrego back, the government is upset, and they can't just let him go,' Rankin told me. 'They can't just let him out and just let him walk around like he did before.'
Hamilton Spectator
42 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Election observers at the OAS voice serious concerns about Mexico's contentious judicial elections
MEXICO CITY (AP) — Electoral watchdogs at the Organization of American States expressed concern Friday over the low turnout in Mexico's historic and contentious judicial elections, recommending that countries in the Americas not follow its path. In a report, the electoral mission said the June 1 election was 'extremely complex' and 'polarizing,' and was marked by a 'widespread lack of awareness' among voters about what they were voting for and who the thousands of candidates were. In Sunday's vote, Mexicans elected 881 federal judges and another 1,800 state judges as part of a complete overhaul of the judiciary. The process was carried out following a constitutional reform approved last year by a Congress with a ruling-party majority. The overhaul fueled protests and criticism within Mexico and by the American and Canadian governments, which warned of a potential loss of judicial independence and the politicization of justice in Mexico. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and her mentor and architect of the overhaul, former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador claimed they want to root out corruption in the judiciary, which most Mexicans agree is broken. Mexico's electoral authority said this week that voter turnout was 13%, significantly lower than the 60% turnout in last year's general elections. In the Friday report, the OAS mission — led by former Chilean Foreign Minister Heraldo Muñoz Valenzuela — expressed concern over 'the low level of citizen participation' and noted that 'this is one of the lowest turnout levels in the region.' Observers also pointed to the 'high percentage' of null and unmarked ballots, which exceeded 10%. 'It's necessary to carry out a comprehensive reflection on the nature of the (electoral) process and how it was conducted,' the report concluded. The OAS's 16-member observation mission also raised concerns about the nine candidates elected to join Mexico's Supreme Court who 'were promoted in physical and digital 'cheat sheets.'' While parties were not allowed to advocate for candidates, pamphlets known as 'accordions' guiding voters on which candidates to vote for were widely distributed. Mexican electoral authorities investigated complaints against the ruling Morena party and other opposition groups that distributed the voter guides in communities across the capital and other cities in the weeks leading up to the vote. The agency also ordered that a website featuring a digital cheat sheet with Morena-aligned candidates for the Supreme Court and other top tribunals be taken down. OAS observers also noted that six of the nine candidates elected to the high court had been nominated by the government controlled by Morena, and the remaining three were justices appointed by López Obrador, 'which raises reasonable doubts about the autonomy and independence of the highest court in relation to the Executive.' Given the findings, the mission concluded that 'it does not recommend this model of judge selection be replicated in other countries in the region.' Despite the criticism, Sheinbaum praised the election this week, calling it a success. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Election observers at the OAS voice serious concerns about Mexico's contentious judicial elections
MEXICO CITY (AP) — Electoral watchdogs at the Organization of American States expressed concern Friday over the low turnout in Mexico's historic and contentious judicial elections, recommending that countries in the Americas not follow its path. In a report, the electoral mission said the June 1 election was 'extremely complex' and 'polarizing,' and was marked by a 'widespread lack of awareness' among voters about what they were voting for and who the thousands of candidates were. In Sunday's vote, Mexicans elected 881 federal judges and another 1,800 state judges as part of a complete overhaul of the judiciary. The process was carried out following a constitutional reform approved last year by a Congress with a ruling-party majority. The overhaul fueled protests and criticism within Mexico and by the American and Canadian governments, which warned of a potential loss of judicial independence and the politicization of justice in Mexico. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and her mentor and architect of the overhaul, former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador claimed they want to root out corruption in the judiciary, which most Mexicans agree is broken. Mexico's electoral authority said this week that voter turnout was 13%, significantly lower than the 60% turnout in last year's general elections. In the Friday report, the OAS mission — led by former Chilean Foreign Minister Heraldo Muñoz Valenzuela — expressed concern over 'the low level of citizen participation' and noted that 'this is one of the lowest turnout levels in the region.' Observers also pointed to the 'high percentage' of null and unmarked ballots, which exceeded 10%. 'It's necessary to carry out a comprehensive reflection on the nature of the (electoral) process and how it was conducted,' the report concluded. The OAS's 16-member observation mission also raised concerns about the nine candidates elected to join Mexico's Supreme Court who 'were promoted in physical and digital 'cheat sheets.'" While parties were not allowed to advocate for candidates, pamphlets known as 'accordions' guiding voters on which candidates to vote for were widely distributed. Mexican electoral authorities investigated complaints against the ruling Morena party and other opposition groups that distributed the voter guides in communities across the capital and other cities in the weeks leading up to the vote. The agency also ordered that a website featuring a digital cheat sheet with Morena-aligned candidates for the Supreme Court and other top tribunals be taken down. OAS observers also noted that six of the nine candidates elected to the high court had been nominated by the government controlled by Morena, and the remaining three were justices appointed by López Obrador, 'which raises reasonable doubts about the autonomy and independence of the highest court in relation to the Executive.' Given the findings, the mission concluded that 'it does not recommend this model of judge selection be replicated in other countries in the region.' Despite the criticism, Sheinbaum praised the election this week, calling it a success.
