Important decision by Pennsylvania Supreme Court on reproductive liberty
Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern have written an essay about an important decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that stands as a firm rebuke to the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs. The decision points the path forward for other states. See Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, Pennsylvania Supreme Court rebukes Dobbs, Sam Alito's abortion views.
As explained by Lithwick and Stern, Pennsylvania has a state constitutional “equal rights amendment”, adopted in 1971, which bars the denial or abridgment of “equality of rights” because of “the sex of the individual.” Based on that provision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that “abortion restrictions do amount to sex-based discrimination.”
Lithwick and Stern explain:
On Monday, the court issued a landmark opinion declaring that abortion restrictions do amount to sex-based discrimination and therefore are “presumptively unconstitutional” under the state constitution’s equal rights amendment.
The majority vehemently rejected Dobbs’ history-only analysis, noting that, until recently, “those interpreting the law” saw women “as not only having fewer legal rights than men but also as lesser human beings by design.”
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision thus spurned Dobbs in two ways. First, the majority held that laws regulating a woman’s body do discriminate on the basis of sex, a truth that has been widely understood by legal scholars for decades.
And second, the majority explained that rooting women’s rights in the past is, itself, a form of sex discrimination, perpetuating misogynistic beliefs about gender inequality by judicial decree.
The decision in Pennsylvania points the way forward for other states until we can expand the Court and undo the travesty of Dobbs.
[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]
21 notes
·
View notes
The man is worth $44bn but couldn’t afford to keep 3,700 employees? And a lot of those layoffs were women?
Two women who lost their jobs at Twitter during mass layoffs after Elon Musk took over the company are suing, claiming that the company disproportionately targeted female employees for cuts.
The discrimination lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal challenges to hit the company after Musk, the world’s richest person, bought the company for $44bn and set about making swift, drastic changes including laying off around half its workforce, or roughly 3,700 employees. Hundreds more subsequently resigned.
The new suit, filed on Wednesday in San Francisco federal court, said that Twitter laid off 57% of its female workers compared with 47% of men.
The gender disparity was more stark for engineering roles, where 63% of women lost their jobs compared to 48% of men, according to the new lawsuit.
The lawsuit accuses the company of violating federal and California laws banning workplace sex discrimination.
Shannon Liss-Riordan, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said women “had targets on their backs” once Musk acquired the company,
regardless of their talent and contributions.
“It’s not a huge surprise unfortunately that women were hit so hard by these layoffs when Elon Musk was overseeing these incredibly ad hoc layoffs just in a matter of days,” Liss-Riordan said at a press conference in San Fransisco discussing the four class action lawsuits she has filed on behalf of former Twitter employees.
Wren Turkal, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said she had been through acquisitions at other companies but that she had “never seen anything like this”.
“I have a family, I have a kid to support,” Turkal said at the press conference. “All that we’re looking for is fairness. I’m also worried about my friends who are financially in a difficult position or are in a difficult position for visa reasons.”
Liss-Riordan represents current and former Twitter employees in three other pending lawsuits filed in the same court since last month.
Those cases include various claims, including that Twitter laid off employees and contractors without the advance notice required by law and failed to pay promised severance, and that Musk forced out workers with disabilities by refusing to allow remote work and calling on employees to be more “hardcore”.
At least three workers have separately filed complaints against Twitter with the US National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) claiming they faced retaliation for advocating for better working conditions. Liss-Riordan said that she has also filed a complaint with the NLRB on behalf of employees who were protesting policies Musk was implementing including the “abrupt return to office” policy.
“It’s very clear that this company is doing all it can to disrupt worker organizing and that’s also illegal,” she said.
Twitter has denied wrongdoing in the lawsuit involving advance notice, and has not responded to the other complaints.
The lawsuit comes as Musk’s company continues to face scrutiny on multiple fronts. This week the company came under under investigation by city officials in San Francisco following a complaint that the company allegedly converted rooms in its headquarters to sleeping quarters.
As of Monday, the office has “modest bedrooms featuring unmade mattresses, drab curtains and giant conference-room telepresence monitors” with four to eight beds a floor, employees told Forbes. The changes appear to be part of Musk’s plan for a more “hardcore Twitter” in which he has demanded workers dedicate “long hours at high intensity”.
“People’s livelihoods are at stake here,” Liss-Riordan said at the press conference. “Real people were impacted by these decisions.
“Of all the issues facing Elon Musk, this is the easiest to address: treat the workers with respect, pay them what they deserve under the law,” she added.
4 notes
·
View notes
The same men who deny women their reproductive rights are mortally terrified of having their own reproductive rights violated.
They're terrified by the idea of a "crazy girlfriend" who pokes holes in condoms or lies about being on birth control in order to "baby trap" them into marriage or child support.
They're horrified by the idea that someone could use them and their bodies without regard for their rights or opinions. That they could be denied control over whether they want to have a child or not. That someone could force them to become a parent and they would have no say in the matter. They're never shamed for these fears.
The assertion that one should have control over their reproductive rights is only considered valid when it comes from a male.
260 notes
·
View notes
this [redacted] organization I follow unironically referred to as age-based discrimination as "ейджизъм" and I've been thinking about how cringe-inducing that is for days.
what the fuck is eydzizam? why did you have to literally transcribe a foreign compound word that makes zero sense when you could have simply said "discrimination based on age" and provided an insightful explanation for the issue you're addressing? how do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you can't even utilize language to make your point?
"oh but its terminology" it isn't! it truly isn't. right up there with "ейбълизъм" for "ableism" it's lazy, anglocentric and pathetically unaware of its own bias.
"but people who care about these things understand English so they know what it means" then why are you preaching to the choir? why are teenagers and 20 - 30 something year olds who have the means to master a foreign language the only audience that matters? what about people who don't know "terminology" or who are too old and out of the loop, or simply don't speak the language you're borrowing from?
I don't think wanting to have this information accessible in your own language, in terms you can fully comprehend, is somehow backwards or limiting. If this is what the entire "progressive" scene is like in this country, is it at all surprising that so many people (whether they're conservative, moderate or completely politically inactive) genuinely believe that these ideas are "planted by foreign agents" from the West?
And the fact that I get called "nationalist" for wanting the bare minimum effort to be put into adapting these topics for a localized audience is insane. If you can't make discussions on "ageism" or "ableism" accessible to a local person who doesn't speak English, it's not their problem for being "willfully ignorant" as most people coming from a place of privilege are. it's your problem for dismissing a huge segment of the population before they can even learn what the fuck you're preaching.
25 notes
·
View notes
I watched a black man react to a video where people were asked how racist they were on a scale of 1-10. Most of the women (white and poc) picked 1 and the examples of racism they gave to the presenter (the person who asked the question) were going the other direction, going to the order part of the room, taking distance from so-called people (I think we all know they were talking about men).
The way he got mad that white women are cautious around him made me feel things. I'm not saying that some of them aren't doing so bc of racism, but I think the majority of them are just scared of men in general. I'm sure that if you asked the same women if they would act the same with black women, they would say no. But they are racist because they keep their distance from someone who seems threatening to them.
10 notes
·
View notes
I was BORN to be asked how often I think about the Roman Empire, but now people are asking what i think about INSTEAD of the Roman Empire. It’s like a bad dream
7 notes
·
View notes