//  10/12/17  //  Commentary

On this week’s episode of Versus Trump, Easha and Jason discuss the Administration's drastic expansion of the number of companies that may now offer health insurance that does not cover birth control, as well as several lawsuits that were immediately filed challenging these new regulations. 

The discussion begins with a recap of the new interim final rules, which both greatly expand an existing, narrow exemption for religious organizations and also permit employers to exempt themselves from covering contraception by invoking a freestanding “moral objection" to offering coverage. Easha and Jason then discuss the three lawsuits that were immediately filed challenging the new regulations, and they walk through the four theories for why this new rule needs to be set aside: that it was not adopted with the proper procedure [at 10:30]; that it violates the First Amendment because it involves government favoring religion over non-religion [at 20:00]; that it violates the Equal Protection Clause because it discriminates against women [at 28:30]; and that it exceeds the Administration's authority under the Affordable Care Act [at 35:00].

The episode ends with a couple of Trump nuggets [at 40:00], including listener feedback about the twitter lawsuit and another update on what Steve Bannon is up to now that he has left the White House.

As usual, you can listen online below, and subscribe here with any podcast player or here in iTunes.

Please share or provide feedback, and rate us in iTunes. You can find us at @VersusTrumpPod on twitter, or send us an email at versustrumppodcast@gmail.com. 

Links

  • The two new interim final rules can be found here and here.
  • Nick Bagley's excellent post, which we discuss extensively, is here at Take Care.
  • We discussed three lawsuits: the one by California is linked here, the one by Massachusetts here, and the one by the ACLU here. Since we recorded, Washington State has also filed suit, and the complaint is here.
  • Easha mentioned that 1/3 of federal rules are issued without up-front notice and comment. Here is her source.
  • We also mentioned the following cases: Zubik v. BurwellTrinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer (specifically Justice Sotomayor's dissent), Estate of Thornton v. CalderBurwell v. Hobby Lobby, and Geduldig v. Aiello.
  • We discussed Ruth Bader Ginsburg's theory that access to contraception and abortion are necessary prerequisites to women's equality and therefore protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. An article about her views is here.
  • Finally, here is an article about Steve Bannon's threat to primary nearly every Republican senator up for reelection in 2018.

Key Context for Trump's Rhetoric About Immigrants

5/17/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

President Trump's rhetoric draw upon a familiar narrative that pathologizes immigration and immigrant reproduction as a threat while protecting and supporting the nation’s “good” mothers, families, and neighborhood

Yvonne Lindgren

UCSF Law School

Versus Trump: Trump Loses On Family Planning, Wins In The Ninth, and More

5/16/19  //  Uncategorized

This week on Versus Trump, Jason and Easha go through a few updates to cases involving Title X, which provides money for family planning; the Administration's policy to have many asylum applicants removed to Mexico; and the controversial border wall. Trump lost one, won one—for now, and hasn't yet gotten a decision in the third. Listen now!

Jason Harrow

Equal Citizens

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Religious Freedom As a Basis for the Right to Choose

5/16/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

If Roe is overturned, doctrines of religious freedom may help safeguard reproductive rights, but only if we build the groundwork by recovering the history of religious reproductive justice and amplifying the moral reasoning of pregnant people

Elizabeth Sepper

Washington University