Print Page   |   Sign In   |   Register
Lawyers Club Blog
Blog Home All Blogs
Lawyers Club of San Diego is a specialty bar association committed to advancing the status of women in the law and society. We use this space to share articles written about Lawyers Club events and programs and items of interest to our members which are relevant to our mission. The opinions outlined in content published on the Lawyers Club of San Diego blog are those of the authors and not of Lawyers Club. All members are encouraged to participate respectfully in discussions regarding the topics posted on the blog. Guest writers are welcome. Guidelines for writers may be found on the Leadership Resources page.

 

Search all posts for:   

 

Top tags: LCB  legal profession  equality  feminist  feminism  guest blogger  gender  reproductive justice  women  Chasing the Last Wave  stories to solutions  discrimination  LGBTQ  sexual harassment  career  Off the Beaten Partner Track  Balance  diversity  MeToo  My So-Called First-World Problems  reproductive justice committee  reproductive rights  working mom  advocacy  networking  perfection in the imperfection  Supreme Court  activism  Art  awareness 

Flashback to October 1991 | Lawyers Club Opposes Thomas Nomination

Posted By Lawyers Club, Tuesday, October 2, 2018
Lawyers Club News, October 1991, Page 3:

Lawyers Club Opposes Thomas Nomination
 
At its regular meeting on September 9, 1991, the Lawyers Club Board of Directors approved a statement of opposition to the appointment of Judge Clarence Thomas to be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Copies of the statement were sent to various media and to California's two U.S. Senators. The following is the text of the statement opposing appointment of Clarence Thomas to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court:
 
Lawyers Club strongly opposes appointment of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. The evidence is overwhelming that he does not support the right to abortion and opposes affirmative action programs that benefit women and minorities. He has made his views known in his speeches, by his record as Chairman of the EEOC, and by membership in the professional and social organizations in which he participates.

Clarence Thomas has indicated that he would deprive women of the fundamental right to control their reproduction based upon his belief that the U.S. Constitution requires the criminalization of abortion. His belief in the "constitutional right to life" of a fetus greatly increases the likelihood that the court will overturn Roe v. Wade and return us to a time where women, especially those of low economic status, would be forced once again to resort to self-induced or back alley abortions.

We also oppose Clarence Thomas because of his views relating to protection of the civil rights of classes of individuals who have historically suffered from discrimination. He believes that affirmative action diminishes the motivation of the women and minorities who benefit from these programs. His rigid opposition to group rights will adversely affect the hard-won gains that women, minorities, and others who have been discriminated against have made in the quest to achieve social and economic equality.

Clarence Thomas' performance at the EEOC reflected an arrogant lack of respect for established laws, policies and legal doctrines. It would therefore be foolish, at best, to place him in the position of interpreting and enforcing laws. At worst, giving him supreme judicial power would wreak havoc on the rights which women and minorities have managed to wrest for themselves thus far.

The Justices of the U.S Supreme Court are charged with the responsibility of enforcing all laws and doing justice for all people of this land. Women and people of color are an integral part of the make up of this country and their rights must be protected vigorously and vigilantly.

Download File (PDF)

Tags:  Clarence Thomas  equality  feminism  LCB  reproductive justice  SCOTUS 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Lawyers Club urges Senate to delay vote on Judge Kavanaugh

Posted By Lawyers Club of San Diego, by Danna Cotman, President, Thursday, September 27, 2018

One, then two, now three and four accusers. As Shakespeare said, truth will out; however, bringing that truth to the light sooner than later is worth demanding. See the most recent way Lawyers Club demands equality in connection with nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court. How are you demanding equality?


Read our letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee below and here.

 
 

Tags:  equality  justice  LCB  metoo  SCOTUS 

Share |
PermalinkComments (1)
 

My So-Called First-World Problems: "June 27, 2016"

Posted By Rebecca Zipp, Wednesday, August 10, 2016
 June 27, 2016.

When San Diego’s Coalition for Reproductive Justice (formerly the Coalition for Reproductive Choice), scheduled a June 27, 2016 screening of Trapped many moons ago, we were ignorant of the date’s auspices. Trapped follows the travails of abortion providers and their patients following the enactment of HB 2—the 2013 Texas law requiring that (a) doctors performing abortions must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic; and, (b) each abortion clinic meet standards for ambulatory surgical care centers. Serendipitously, we aired Trapped just hours after the Supreme Court of the United States held that HB 2 unconstitutionally placed an “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

A little history: Traditionally, abortion foes prioritized the fetus, whereas advocates of abortion access have prioritized women’s lives and right to self-determination over any competing rights of the fetus.

In the last decade, the right-to-life camp has shifted gears, claiming that they are on the side of women—the more barriers to abortion, the better for women. Abortion, they began to argue, is inherently harmful to the woman physically, emotionally, and mentally. (NB: None of this is borne out by the evidence. Abortion is safer than childbirth. It is safer than a colonoscopy. Safer than liposuction. And, according to the American Psychological Association (APA), abortion does not cause mental health problems for most women.)  

A survey of available data (courtesy of the Guttmacher Institute and the APA) suggests that abortion is not harmful to women. What is harmful is the stigma our society attaches to abortion, and the strategically placed barriers to early abortion access. (Early abortions are safer and less expensive than later ones). What I love most about Whole Woman’s Health is the Court’s refusal to give credence to falsified claims that TRAP (targeted regulation of abortion providers) laws do anything to help women. Why the refusal? Because the claims are not supported by evidence. We lawyers traffic in facts, and the record in Whole Woman’s Health is chock-full of facts demonstrating that barriers to abortion care are unhelpful and even dangerous.

The Court found the stated justification–keeping women safer–to be seriously lacking, and it found an unconstitutional undue burden. Among other persuasive facts, the Court considered that most abortions are not surgical, but medical (where the woman takes a pill to induce the abortion); thus, repudiating the opposition's assertion that abortions ought to occur at ambulatory surgical care centers.

 

State laws similar to HB 2 have proliferated in the past few years and are expected to face serious scrutiny in the wake of Whole Woman’s Health. As a result, the anti-abortion camp is expected to again revamp its strategy, returning their focus to the rights of the fetus, while reproductive justice advocates will continue to work toward the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, economic, and social well-being of women and girls.

The atmosphere at CRJ’s screening of Trapped was celebratory yet somber. In the wake of HB 2’s enactment, Texas lost half of its abortion clinics. Rebuilding will take time, and in the three years it took the case to wind its way through the courts, real women and girls bore HB 2’s consequences. 

This blog was authored by Rebecca Zipp. Rebecca Zipp is the proud owner of a Notorious RBG t-shirt.



Tags:  Abortion  My So-Called First-World Problems  reproductive justice  SCOTUS  Supreme Court  Texas  Texas TRAP laws 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 
more LC Blog
more Calendar

12/11/2019
Fund For Justice Luncheon--Online registration has closed; call for ticket availability.

3/5/2020
2020 Red, White & Brew

5/14/2020
Save the Date: Lawyers Club Annual Dinner!

Lawyers Club of San Diego

402 West Broadway, Suite 1260
San Diego CA 92101
619-595-0650

Association Management Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal