Released on July 8, 2020

WASHINGTON ,D.C. – Religion is no excuse for bigotry—but the Supreme Court has carved out a new exemption for employers who want to impose their personal beliefs over the health and rights of their workers. 

By allowing virtually any employer or university to opt-out of the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that contraception be covered by insurance plans without out-of-pocket costs, the Court is leaving millions of women out in the cold—and endangering their health.   

More than 61 million women currently have ACA coverage of birth control, many of them low-wage workers, people of color, LGBTQIA+ workers, and others who cannot afford to absorb higher costs.  Access to birth control is integral to the health and livelihood of many, and its coverage is especially critical as we navigate the ongoing economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Unintended pregnancy can be deadly—it’s closely correlated with infant mortality, maternal mortality, and increased risk of domestic violence homicide.  By giving the green light to the Trump Administration’s expansion of the so-called “conscience” exemptions to the ACA, the Court’s decision is creating a health-care disaster, putting the reproductive health of millions at risk. 

This decision reaffirms the commitment of NOW activists to take back the Senate and elect more feminists to office. We will be watching this case as it goes back to lower courts, and will be reminding voters this November that the makeup of the Supreme Court has everything to do with their reproductive rights.  Today’s decision is by no means the end of this story. 

Contact: Press Team, press@now.org,

Released on July 1, 2020

WASHINGTON, D.C. – NOW and over 50 women’s rights and civil rights organizations filed a joint amicus curiae brief (with the assistance of Winston & Strawn LLP) urging the enshrinement of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in the Constitution.  The brief was submitted in support of a lawsuit brought by the Attorneys General of Virginia, Illinois, and Nevada – all three states having recently passed ratification measures. Their lawsuit argues that the Archivist of the United States must now certify the Equal Rights Amendment as part of the U.S. Constitution. 

The Trump Administration is doing all that it can to stop the adoption of the ERA. In early January, the Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, issued a finding that because an extended deadline in 1982 has long since passed, it is too late for more states to ratify and that Congress must start over.  In May, the Department of Justice then asked the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia to dismiss the lawsuit brought by the three A.G.s in support of the Amendment. 

Our ERA brief filed today offers this response, “As a matter of constitutional law, the plain language of Article V dictates when the ERA becomes ’valid to all intent and purposes’ — namely, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states.” Congress cannot change the Article V process on its own without asking the states to ratify the change. A time limit imposed unilaterally by Congress cannot stand in the way of the will of the people in thirty-eight states that ratified the ERA as provided in the Constitution. 

The ERA satisfied all constitutional requirements for ratification in January 2020 when Virginia became the thirty-eighth state to ratify. The brief refutes the many baseless arguments of those who do not want to see the inclusion of the ERA. It argues that the Constitution reflects the norms of its time, intentionally excluding women, among other marginalized groups, from basic rights under the law. 

The brief also recounts the long, determined — and sometimes painful — effort — to achieve full equality for women, beginning more than 200 years ago.  A history of entrenched discrimination and denial of first-class citizenship and its attendant rights for women is told, but the story of women striving and succeeding in many areas despite these barriers is noted. 

Our movement towards equality has been ongoing, but in the wake of the #MeToo movement, there is a greater understanding of the gender-based violence and inequality women face. We know that women today face these issues in nearly every sphere, through domestic and sexual violence, in economic and employment-related scenarios, and much more.  

As the largest grassroots feminist organization in the country, NOW has worked tirelessly for decades, deploying tens of thousands of our activists to educate, lobby, and urge ratification of the ERA.   We are proud to stand with our coalition partners and advocates because we believe that there is no time limit on equality and that the protection of women’s rights must finally be enshrined in the Constitution. 

Contact: Press Team, press@now.org,

Released on June 29, 2020

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Supreme Court’s decision today in June Medical Services v. Russo struck down a Louisiana law imposing targeted restrictions on abortion providers (TRAP laws) that the Court had previously found unconstitutional in Texas.  TRAP laws are not designed to protect women’s health, but rather to expand the power of patriarchal church leaders and conservative Republicans and to dictate women’s most personal health decisions.  

The court also declined to rule on third-party standing which means that abortion providers can continue to challenge law that restrict access on behalf of their patients which is a crucial win for abortion activists.  The case was a challenge to a Louisiana law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. 

As Justice Stephen Breyer noted in his majority opinion, this case was “almost word-for-word identical” to the law at issue in the Texas case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstadt, from 2016.  In that case, the crucial fifth vote was cast by Justice Kennedy—but his replacement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, voted to keep the restrictions on the books.   

Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the majority in this case, but only because he agreed with Breyer that the issues had already been decided by the Court.  He reiterated his opposition to the arguments made by the majority in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstadt.  He doesn’t agree with Justice Breyer that the Texas and Louisiana laws “will continue to make it impossible for abortion providers to obtain conforming privileges for reasons that have nothing to do with the State’s asserted interests in promoting women’s health and safety.” 

This means that with John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch on the Court, access to abortion care is still on the brink of repeal.  NOW applauds today’s legal victory, but we have no illusions about the challenges women still face in defending their reproductive rights from activist judges and extremist politicians. 

Today we celebrate, but tomorrow we march—and in November, we vote. 

Contact: Press Team, press@now.org,