Heather Chang* The outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic in the Spring of 2020 required unprecedent changes. While business and individuals have adapted their policies and behaviors to reflect health and safety recommendations, the prison system remains rigid and dangerous. As of January 12, 2021, The Marshall Project reports that at least 343,008 prisoners tested positive…Continue Reading
Brenna Evans* The modern discussion of reproductive rights—especially surrounding women’s reproductive rights—often focuses on the idea of the right not to reproduce, such as the right to abortion or the right to birth control. However, one topic that seems to be left out of discussion is that of people who have had their ability to…Continue Reading
by Mercedes Molina* Since Buck v. Bell was decided in 1927, approximately 70,000 people have been legally forcibly sterilized. The legal framework put in place by that infamous 1927 case still exists, despite the repeal of most state’s compulsory sterilization laws.Continue Reading
In this blog, JLI’s Lead Online Editor Madelyn Cox-Guerra analyzes the impact of the overturning of Roe v. Wade on asylum-seekers who come to the United States.Continue Reading
by Kaiya A. Lyons
Since its decision in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy before viability and without undue burden. However, the ability of a woman to exercise that right today is as intimately connected to her economic privilege and geographic location as it was in the days preceding that landmark ruling. Under the guise of protecting women from the “harms inherent in abortion,” major conservative gains in the 2010 midterm elections resulted in hundreds of anti-abortion measures flooding a majority of state legislatures. In the aftermath of that year’s midterm elections, the bulk of state legislatures passed an unprecedented number of harsh new restrictions on when, how, and even whether women may access abortion services. Because these laws are also substantially more obstructive than their predecessors, for low-income women, the economic impact of these restrictive regulations is extremely harmful.
JLI’s Editor-in-Chief, Navin Ramalingam, and Executive Editor, Abby Rauls, sit down with Prof. June Carbone, family law professor and faculty advisor for the journal, for the first in a series of video interviews for Inequality Inquiry with the faculty, practitioners and other legal experts about a variety of issues affecting law and inequality during COVID-19. They discuss the gendered dynamics surrounding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Topics include the effect of quarantine on families and couples who are having to stay at home together, gender discrepancies in the “essential” workforce, funding of the healthcare system, and possible recourse for those who may be facing higher levels of domestic abuse and violence during these turbulent times.Continue Reading