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  gender  guest blogger  reproductive justice  women  Chasing the Last Wave  stories to solutions  diversity  advocacy  discrimination  LGBTQ  reproductive rights  sexual harassment  career  Off the Beaten Partner Track  Balance  bias  MeToo  My So-Called First-World Problems  reproductive justice committee  Supreme Court  working mom  abortion  Community Outreach Committee  networking  perfection in the imperfection 

47th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

Posted By Elvira Cortez: A President's Perspective, Thursday, January 23, 2020
Updated: Thursday, January 23, 2020

This week marks the 47th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right for women to have a safe abortion. While some have criticized the decision on legal and ethical grounds, this landmark decision on women’s reproductive rights is supported by 73% of Americans. Lawyer Club supports a women’s right to choose and a women’s rights over her own reproductive health.

The most significant impact of Roe v. Wade has been the marked improvement on women’s health, especially for women of low socio-economic status. Before Roe v. Wade, illegal abortions comprised of one-sixth of all pregnancy related deaths. A study in New York City found that of the women with low incomes who had obtained an abortion, 80% had attempted dangerous, self-induced abortions. After Roe v. Wade, abortions conducted by medical professionals have a 99% safety record.

The reversal of Roe v. Wade would have a significant detrimental impact to the health of poor women, especially in states with significant populations. Twenty states are ready to outlaw abortions should Roe v. Wade be overturned, which include the poorest states in the country like Mississippi and Alabama. It is estimated that 25 million women are at risk of losing access to abortion, which constitutes about 1/3 of all women of reproductive age. We must continue to support Roe v. Wade to avoid taking a significant step back on women’s health and reproductive rights. 

 

If you are interested in learning more about supporting women’s reproductive rights, please join us at the 47th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade Breakfast Event. You can also review the amicus brief filed in June Medical Services LLC, et. al v. Gee (a case before the Supreme Court regarding Louisiana’s restrictive abortion laws), which Lawyers Club has joined in support of women’s reproductive rights. Please see our article posted here

 

Elvira Cortez practices business and commercial litigation and employment defense at Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP and is the 2019-2020 president of Lawyers Club.

 

Tags:  abortion  equality  reproductive justice  reproductive rights  roe v. wade 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Lawyers Club of San Diego Signs Supreme Court Amicus Brief Regarding a Challenge to Abortion Rights

Posted By Jinsook Ohta for Lawyers Club's Women's Advocacy and Reproductive Justice Committee, Tuesday, January 21, 2020

In late 2019, Lawyers Club of San Diego signed an amicus brief filed in the United States Supreme Court case, June Medical Services LLC., et. al. v. Gee. In doing so, Lawyers Club joined nearly 200 organizations and more than 700 individuals who signed U.S. Supreme Court amicus briefs voicing opposition to Louisiana’s Act 620, a law that would make it nearly impossible for Louisiana residents to obtain abortion care.

Twenty seven “friend of the court” briefs were filed, opposing medically unnecessary abortion restrictions that undermine access. Other signers include major medical associations like the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 197 members of Congress, attorneys general from 21 states and the District of Columbia, reproductive justice advocates, civil rights organizations, social science experts, the American Bar Association, prominent legal scholars and former judges, abortion providers, faith leaders, and close to 380 individuals sharing stories of their personal abortion experiences.

On October 4, 2019, the United States Supreme Court, in June Medical Services LLC., et. al. v. Gee, agreed to hear a challenge to Louisiana’s Act 620, the “Unsafe Abortion Protection Act,” which passed in June 2014. In part, Act 620, requires, “[E]very physician who performs or induces an abortion shall ‘have active admitting privileges at a hospital that is located not further than thirty miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced.’”

The justices’ announcement that they will weigh in on the constitutionality of the Louisiana law comes less than three and a half years after the United States Supreme Court struck down a similar law from Texas by a vote of 5-3. Texas had tried to defend the law by arguing that the admitting-privileges requirement was intended to protect the health of pregnant women. Justice Kennedy joined the court’s four more liberal justices in holding that the state had not provided any evidence to show that the admitting-privileges requirement actually served that interest. June Medical Services LLC., et. al. v. Gee will be the first case heard by the Supreme Court challenging to abortion rights since the appointment of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

EDITOR NOTE: Oral arguments for June Medical Services LLC. are scheduled for March 4, 2020.

Jinsook (Jin) Ohta is a Supervising Deputy Attorney General at the California Department of Justice, Consumer Law Section and wrote this for Lawyers Club of San Diego’s Women’s Advocacy and Reproductive Justice Committee.

 

 

Tags:  abortion  access  June Medical Services LLC  Kavanaugh  reproductive justice  Supreme Court  USSCt 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

My So-Called First World Problems: Meet Tim Murphy

Posted By Rebecca Zipp, Wednesday, November 1, 2017
My So-Called First World Problems: Meet Tim Murphy

A day before his life imploded, (former) Congressman Tim Murphy, a longtime member of the House Pro-Life Caucus, cast a vote in favor of a bill banning all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.


(Former) Congressman Tim Murphy (R-PA)’s was forced to announce a hasty resignation from office when his mistress’ divorce proceedings revealed that:


a) Congressman Tim Murphy was engaged in an extramarital affair with one Dr. Shannon Edwards;

b) Dr. Edwards experienced a pregnancy “scare” as a result of her relationship with Murphy; and,

c) Murphy’s response to the pregnancy “scare” was to encourage Dr. Edwards to abort.


I have long imagined that the pro-life community harbored those who, when push came to shove, would avail themselves of the safe, legal abortion they spent so much energy railing against. But I was caught off-guard when an eight-term U.S. congressman and enthusiastic House Pro-Life Caucus member was exposed for having encouraged his own sexual partner to abort.


Murphy, a sexagenarian, (was) a full-time federal employee and a practicing psychologist. His mistress, age 32, is likewise a psychologist. These are people who can afford their co-pays, who can afford travel, who would never have to sleep in their car if forced to travel to obtain a medical procedure. There was no sexual assault. No incest. These were not lusty teenagers. There was no apparent concern about maternal health or fetal abnormalities. These people are not impoverished, and (former) Congressman Murphy’s only child is grown, so it is doubtful that he is currently overwhelmed by the demands of parenting. 


This is a case of two highly educated, older adults, with the ability to self-determine, to choose whether to engage in sexual activity (extra-marital or otherwise), and finally, these are people with the freedom to choose whether to embrace the unintended consequences of their sexual activities or not.


I mention this because a recent 14-country study showed that most women report seeking abortion because of socioeconomic reasons, because they want no more children, or because they wish to space their children.


It’s not for me to dictate the circumstances under which someone else should be able to obtain an abortion, and I recognize that the circumstances of Edwards’ putative pregnancy were less than ideal. But, it is difficult to imagine a greater act of hypocrisy than encouraging your mistress to abort while devoting much energy to making abortions more difficult to obtain. The cherry on top is that a mere day before the revelations about the affair, the pregnancy, etc. broke, (former) Congressman Murphy voted to ban all abortions after 20 weeks.

When a pregnancy is inconvenient for the man, let's allow abortion with impunity. When the pregnancy impacts the woman's life plans, throw as many barriers in her way as possible. Liberal men certainly have their share of sex scandals. (Remember San Diego Mayor Bob Filner?) But, these men don't flout a philosophical adherence to puritanical sexual mores, nor do they publicly advocate putting the kibosh on a woman's ability to self-determine. Or, as Jennifer Weiner puts it, they are not, "pro-life in the streets, pro-choice in the sheets."

So, to (former) Congressman Tim Murphy: Good night, sweet prince. And may flights of angels sing thee to thy departure from public life.

 

Rebecca Zipp co-chairs the Women's Advocacy Committee, serves as Lawyers Club Board Secretary, prosecutes securities fraud at the San Diego District Attorney's Office, and recently began composting.

Tags:  abortion  abortion access  anti-abortion  Bob Filner  congress  hypocrisy  LCB  reproductive rights  Tim Murphy 

Share |
PermalinkComments (4)
 

My So-Called First-World Problems: "The Seven Most Miserable Moments for Women this Election Season"

Posted By Rebecca Zipp, Tuesday, November 8, 2016
The Seven Most Miserable Moments for Women this Election Season:

7. Trump mansplains a Muslim woman voter at a town hall-style debate, “We have to be sure that Muslims come in and report when they see something going on,” after she poses a question about combating Islamophobia.

6. The vice presidential debate, during which the word “women” was uttered 20 times in connection with the following topics:

  • In reference to reproductive freedom: 13
  • Men and women in military service: 2
  • Quoting Donald Trump’s descriptions of individual women: 2
  • Men and women in law enforcement: 1
  • Quoting Hillary Clinton on women’s rights: 1
  • Women as political colleagues: 1

Based on this breakdown: Women are 66% reproductive chamber, 10% objects of male ridicule, 24% human people.

5. The selection of Mike Pence, Governor of Indiana, as major party’s VP nominee. Mr. Pence is so hostile toward abortion that recent legislation in Indiana mandating funerals or cremation for miscarried fetuses and barring abortion in cases of fetal abnormalities gave rise to the “Periods for Pence” movement. This, in a state where public funding of abortion is prohibited except for cases of life endangerment, rape, or incest; state law limits private insurance coverage of abortion; parental consent is required, and women are subject to an 18-hour waiting period after receiving mandated counseling on fetal pain.


4. #Repealthe19th – After realizing that Trump would win the election if the right to vote were reserved to men only, Trump supporters (male and female) took to Twitter with this hashtag, claiming that a Trump victory is more important than suffrage. Fortunately, they haven’t advocated #Repealthe13th. (At least, not as of press time.)


3, 2, and 1, in no particular order:

  • A major-party nominee boasts about his sexually assaultive behavior.
  • Political leaders describe their chagrin with the major-party nominee’s boasts in the following ways: “as the father of three daughters” (Mitch McConnell);  “as the grandfather of two precious girls” (Jeb Bush); “Such vile degradations demean our wives and daughters . . . ” (Mitt Romney); “[W]e’ve got a 15-year-           old daughter” (Jason Chaffetz); and, even the nominee’s own running-mate Mike Pence chimed in, “[a]s a husband and a father, I was offended.” As shrewdly     observed by Amanda Marcotte on slate.com, these men invoking their wives and daughters, “fram[es] sexual violence as a property crime against male-controlled female bodies, rather than a crime against people with rights.”

Rebecca Zipp is a person. While she derives much joy from her husband and sons, she understands that her intrinsic value as a person does not stem from her status as a wife or mother.

Tags:  Abortion  elections 2016  mansplain  politics  sexual violence  victim-blaming  voting  voting rights  women 

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 Calendar

2/28/2020
COC's Spring Read-In

3/5/2020
2020 Red, White & Brew

3/13/2020
International Women's Day Luncheon

3/19/2020
GOOD Guys MCLE and Networking Happy Hour

5/14/2020
Lawyers Club Annual Dinner: Tickets now on sale!

Lawyers Club of San Diego

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

Association Management Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal