Category Archives: Racial Justice

PRPCP Provides Testimony to New York City Council on Gender and Racial Equity Training

Press Release:
April 27, 2017

From:
Columbia Law School, The Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP)

Subject:
Columbia Law School Think Tank Provides Testimony to New York City Council on Gender and Racial Equity Training

Contact:
Liz Boylan | eboyla@law.columbia.edu | 212.854.0167
Ashe McGovern | amcgovern@law.columbia.edu | 212.854.0161

______________________________________________

April 27, 2017—On Monday, April 24, Ashe McGovern, Legislative and Policy Director of Columbia Law School’s Public Rights/Private Conscience Project (PRPCP) testified before the New York City Council Committee on Women’s Issues on a bill that would require several city agencies to undergo training on “implicit bias, discrimination, cultural competency and structural inequity, including with respect to gender, race and sexual orientation.”

McGovern’s testimony outlines the merits of the bill, and encourages the council to expand its requirements to all city agencies, as well as to private city contractors. Private organizations that contract with the city receive billions of taxpayer dollars and are the primary source of many city-funded services. Any bill intended to combat discrimination within city programs, therefore, should apply to contractors. In addition, the current bill mandates training for only three city agencies—the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, the Administration for Children’s Services and the Department of Social Services/Human Resources Administration—despite the fact that all agencies and their grantees are in need of the proposed training.

The testimony also draws attention to the unique legal concerns and challenges that arise when faith-based organizations—which are exempted from certain provisions of New York City’s human rights law—contract with the city to provide vital services. PRPCP explains that clear training on all contractors’ legal duty to provide comprehensive and nondiscriminatory care is essential to ensuring that the city does not use public funds to subsidize discrimination.

“While this bill is an important step in the right direction, it is vital that all city agencies, and the private organizations they contract with, be subject to cultural competency training and more stringent oversight,” said McGovern. “Last year alone, New York City provided over $4 billion to private contractors so that they could meet the city’s social and human service’s needs. LGBTQ communities, those seeking reproductive healthcare, and communities of color experience unique vulnerabilities in accessing these vitally important services. The Council should be cognizant of those vulnerabilities and adopt proactive measures to ensure that all agencies and contractors, whether faith-based or secular, do not engage in discriminatory behavior.”

The PRPCP’s mission is to address contexts in which religious liberty rights conflict with or undermine fundamental rights to equality and liberty through academic legal analysis. PRPCP approaches the developing law of religion in a manner that respects the importance of religious liberty while recognizing the ways in which broad religious accommodations may violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Read the full transcript of McGovern’s testimony, here: http://tinyurl.com/McGovern424Testimony

Access a .pdf of this Press Release here: http://tinyurl.com/PR-McGovern-Testimony-424

See the agenda of the April 24 Committee meeting here: http://tinyurl.com/April24NYCCouncilAgenda

For more information on the PRPCP, visit the PRPCP’s webpage, here: http://tinyurl.com/PRPCP-Columbia

Because You’re Not Fooling Anyone: Why Trump Travel Ban 2.0 Still Unconstitutional

Cross-posted with Religion Dispatches, and on Medium, March 14, 2017

Trump’s second attempt at banning travel from certain Muslim-majority countries is clearly written to avoid being struck down under the Establishment Clause. Most notably, it no longer contains provisions that preference entry for religious minorities—language the President himself admitted was intended to prioritize entry for Christian rather than Muslim refugees.

So why isn’t the new EO constitutional, at least with regard to First Amendment claims? Because cutting its most obviously discriminatory provision doesn’t fix the fact that the new EO was passed with the same invalid purpose as the President’s first attempt—to reduce Muslim immigration into the U.S. When a candidate campaigns for nearly two years on the promise of banning, profiling, and even registering Muslims, that is context that a court can—and should—consider in evaluating whether his actions are motivated by religious animus or legitimate security concerns.

In 2005, the Supreme Court issued two decisions on the question of whether displaying the Ten Commandments in or near a courthouse violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The cases came out split, with one display upheld and the other held unconstitutional. The takeaway? Context and history matter.

These decisions serve as helpful background for why a quick fix to Trump’s Executive Order on Immigration doesn’t resolve all the EO’s constitutional problems.

In one of the cases, McCreary County v. ACLU, the displays at issue were the third in a series of exhibits that had been repeatedly challenged as unconstitutional. The first displays—installed in two Kentucky county courthouses—were large, gold-framed copies of the Ten Commandments, with a citation to the Book of Exodus. In response to a suit by the ACLU, the counties expanded the displays to include additional documents in smaller frames, each with a religious theme, including the “endowed by their Creator” passage from the Declaration of Independence and the national motto, “In God We Trust.”

When a District Court preliminarily enjoined both the original and the expanded displays, the counties installed a third version, this time consisting of nine framed documents including the Ten Commandments, Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights. In explaining its decision to strike down even this seemingly acceptable display, the Supreme Court noted: “the purpose apparent from government action can have an impact more significant than the result expressly decreed” (emphasis added).

In other words, the counties weren’t fooling anyone.

In order to be upheld under the Establishment Clause, a government action must have a valid secular purpose. While courts typically give deference to the secular intent proffered by legislatures, the purpose has to be “genuine, not a sham.” In this case, it was obvious to the Court that the counties’ intent in creating the third round of displays was no different than their intent for the original display: they “were simply reaching for any way to keep a religious document on the walls of courthouses constitutionally required to embody religious neutrality.”

In contrast, the Court in Van Orden v. Perry held that it was permissible for Texas to accept and display a Ten Commandments statue donated by a civic organization on the state capitol grounds, alongside 17 other monuments and 22 historical markers. In this case, there was no history indicating a legislative intent to endorse or advance religion.

The history of Trump’s two Executive Orders recalls the counties’ efforts in McCreary to water down a religious display simply to meet legal approval, without changing its underlying intent. In the years leading up to the EO, President Trump repeatedly pledged to ban Muslims from entering the country. (He also made comments supporting Muslim profiling, the creation of a Muslim registry, and the closure of mosques.) Trump sometimes varied his language, calling his plan “extreme vetting” or emphasizing its application to “terror nations” rather than Muslim-majority nations.

After the issuance of the first order, however, Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani openly admitted that the President intended to craft a Muslim ban that would withstand judicial scrutiny. When the ban was enjoined, Trump stated in a press conference that the administration could “tailor the [new] order to that decision and get just about everything, in some ways more.” White House advisor, Stephen Miller, also stated that the new EO contained “mostly minor, technical differences,” and would “have the same, basic policy outcome for the country.”

Thus, despite the elimination of the explicit religious preference, there’s no indication that the new order should be treated any differently from the last one when it comes to determining whether the administration had a valid, secular, non-discriminatory purpose in issuing the EO.

This is certainly not to say that Trump can never pass a law on immigration or national security that won’t violate the Establishment Clause. The McCreary Court explained that it did not hold that the counties’ “past actions forever taint any effort on their part to deal with the subject matter.” However it does mean that Trump cannot avoid the ample and longstanding evidence that his EO is intended to be a Muslim ban simply by removing the language that most clearly identifies it as one.

What Muslim Ban? A Religious Liberty Hearing in the Trump Era

Re-blogged from Religion Dispatches
Originally post, February 16, 2017

Today the U.S. House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the “State of Religious Liberty in America.” What was perhaps most striking about the hearing was how dated many of the speeches and arguments felt—as if an Obama-era hearing was being held nearly a month into the Trump administration.

Three of the witnesses and many of the congresspersons who spoke conjured a world in which a hostile federal government seeks out well-meaning and peaceful Christians for baseless persecution, and in which the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represents the greatest threat to religious liberty. Meanwhile, other legislators and a lone witness desperately tried to redirect the conversation to the fact that President Trump campaigned on a platform of Islamophobia and recently admitted that he intends to prioritize immigration by Christian refugees. No speaker brought up other salient religious liberty issues, such as a recently-filed Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) claim challenging the Dakota Access Pipeline and an increased interest in using RFRA to resist immigration law.

The witnesses at the hearing included Kim Colby of the Christian Legal Society, Casey Mattox of Alliance Defending Freedom, Hannah Smith of Becket, and Rabbi David Saperstein, who served as United States Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom under President Obama.

The first three of these, all from conservative organizations that advocate for broad religious exemptions, pushed a narrative of religious persecution fueled by several fundamental misrepresentations: first, that efforts to combat anti-LGBTQ discrimination, or to provide access to contraception, constitute malicious anti-Christian harassment rather than attempts to expand access to jobs, services, housing, and health care; second, that groups seeking anti-LGBTQ and anti-choice exemptions want merely to “live-and-let-live” when in fact many of these organizations have consistently sought to ban LGBTQ relationships and abortion; and third, that issues around sex, marriage, and reproduction constitute the primary site for religious liberty disputes in the current political climate.

Sticking to their anti-Obama talking points, the speakers seem not to have grasped that it may become increasingly difficult to claim the mantle of “religious liberty” without speaking out against the Islamophobic rhetoric adopted at the highest levels of government, and the dramatic rise in anti-Muslim hate groups across the country.

While Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas sought in his remarks to pit religious minorities against each other, claiming that the legacy of the Holocaust was preventing Germany from adequately screening out Muslims that “hate Jews,” Representative Steve Cohen—Tennessee’s first Jewish congressperson—called Islamophobia the “latest form of dog-whistle politics” and noted that he himself had received an increased number of “jabs” for his faith in recent months. Thus Trump’s EO on immigration has shed a clear spotlight on what many advocates and legislators mean when they use the phrase “religious freedom”—and what they don’t.

Furthermore, no one in the room seemed to have fully grappled with the fact that expanding a right to religious accommodations may come back to haunt conservatives, as progressive faith leaders and religious practitioners search for ways to employ RFRA for their own spiritual practice, including helping Syrian refugees, protecting the environment, or providing sanctuary to undocumented immigrants.

None of this is to understate the continued relevance of anti-LGBTQ and anti-choice religious exemptions. Legislators have promised to re-introduce—and the President has promised to sign—the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), which would sanction religiously-motivated discrimination against same-sex couples and unmarried pregnant and parenting persons. Many states continue to propose similar exemptions. And the recently-leaked Executive Order on religion, if signed, would provide legal cover for even large companies to defy laws that conflict with certain religious beliefs about sex, marriage, and reproduction.

But as significant as those measures remain to LGBTQ families, unmarried parents, and women, what was left unsaid during the hearing is of equal import: the religious right may not have a monopoly on the “religious freedom” platform for long, especially if they continue to ignore the new free exercise and establishment clause battles being waged in the courts, legislatures, and streets.

Unmarried and Unprotected: How Religious Liberty Bills Harm Pregnant People, Families, and Communities of Color

PRESS RELEASE

FROM: PUBLIC RIGHTS/PRIVATE CONSCIENCE PROJECT

RE: New Report Reveals That Religious Exemptions Laws Disproportionately Harm Communities of Color

MEDIA CONTACT: Kira Shepherd, 215-908-4825, ks3377@columbia.edu

New York, NY – A new report shows how recent legislative efforts to expand religious liberty rights, such as the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), allow religious objectors to violate laws that protect against pregnancy, familial status, and marital status discrimination. These measures will disproportionately impact women of color who are more likely to become pregnant and raise families when unmarried. The report issued by Columbia Law School’s Public Rights/ Private Conscience Project (PRPCP), entitled Unmarried and Unprotected: How Religious Liberty Bills Harm Pregnant People, Families, and Communities of Color, highlights. the under-examined negative consequences of many religious exemption bills – how overly-broad religious exemption laws can be used to undermine sexual liberty and equality rights.

Many recently proposed religious exemptions bills, most notably FADA, which President Trump has highlighted as a top legislative priority, would confer special protections for the religiously motivated belief that sexual relations should only take place between married different-sex persons. By allowing religious objectors to defy all laws that conflict with their religious beliefs about sex and marriage, FADA and similar bills would significantly undermine the reach of federal and state anti-discrimination laws, including the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Fair Housing Act, and Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Such exemptions would permit (if not encourage) religious objectors to engage in a wide range of discriminatory acts against unmarried pregnant and parenting persons, including denial of employment, housing, public benefits, and access to social services. An earlier report by PRPCP offers an overview of state and federal religious exemption bills.

Although these bills have the potential to harm anyone who has had sex when unmarried, people of color, especially African Americans, would particularly suffer their effects. This is because among all racial groups, African Americans are the most likely to have and raise children outside of marriage. According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, 70% of African American children are born to parents who are not married, followed by 67% percent of Native American children, and 53% percent of Hispanic children, compared with 35% for children born to white women. In addition, because most women of color earn less than white women and are less likely to have financial cushions, religious exemptions laws that sanction employment, housing, and benefits discrimination stand to present women of color with far greater financial burdens.

“This report shows that policymakers across the nation are leveraging religion to push forward crude and discriminatory laws that impose extreme financial, dignitary, and emotional harm on women of color and their families,” said Kira Shepherd, Associate Director of PRPCP’s Racial Justice Program. “These laws could turn back the clock on some of the progress this country has made towards racial justice. They have the potential to take us back to a dark era where certain religious views were used as a justification for legal discrimination.”

PRPCP Director Elizabeth Reiner Platt said, “Women of color already face disproportionately high rates of pregnancy discrimination. In the name of protecting religious beliefs, FADA and similar state-level exemptions would impose yet another burden on many low-income families and families of color.”

Read the full report here.

PRPCP is a think tank based at Columbia Law School whose mission is to bring legal academic expertise to bear on the multiple contexts in which religious liberty rights conflict with or undermine other fundamental rights to equality and liberty. To learn more about the organization visit our website at: http://web.law.columbia.edu/gender-sexuality/public-rights-private-conscience-project.

PRPCP is on Facebook and Twitter.  Follow us to keep up to date with the latest information regarding our research, programs, and events.

Ben Carson’s “Judeo-Christian Nation” Vision Threatens Housing Equality

Today, former Presidential candidate Ben Carson is appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee for a hearing on his nomination to become Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or HUD. HUD is the federal agency tasked with administering and overseeing a wide range of vital housing programs and services, with a budget of over $32 billion. It is also the agency responsible for enforcing the federal Fair Housing Act, or FHA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin, in the selling, renting or securing of funds for a dwelling.

Throughout his campaign for President, Carson argued that he would ground his role as a government official in his own religious principles—which he contends do not require him to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer, or LGBTQ, people or Muslim communities, among other groups. Carson’s confirmation as Secretary of HUD would call into question whether this important role as HUD Secretary will be faithfully executed and whether the agency will continue to adequately protect those whose existence Carson deems to be in conflict with a properly organized “Judeo-Christian nation.

LGBTQ Communities

Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has made clear that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution requires states to license marriage certificates to same-sex couples, Carson has stated emphatically that he does not support same-sex marriage, calling it an “extra right” and the LGBTQ people seeking it, “abnormal.” During his run for president, he strongly supported Kim Davis, the infamous Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, arguing that LGBTQ people should not be able to force their “way of life upon everybody else.” He has also asserted that Congress should fire federal judges who support marriage equality and pass a law to nullify the Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision, comparing LGBTQ people to those who practice bestiality and pedophilia.

Carson has also stated numerous times that transgender people’s desire to be legally recognized as their authentic selves is the “height of absurdity,” and should not be forced upon “normal people” by “secular progressives.” He also claims that gender is a biological fact, grounded in both biblical and genetic truths, despite contrary consensus from the country’s leading medical associations and the lived reality of actual transgender people.

Muslim Communities

Carson’s brand of biblical governance also distorts the lived experiences of Muslim Americans, despite his alleged commitment to religious freedom and liberty. Leading Muslim American groups have widely questioned the impact of Carson’s statements about Islam on his ability to govern fairly.

For example, in response to questions on whether he would support having a Muslim president, Carson claimed that “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of [their] public life and what [they] do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution,” going on to say he would not support a Muslim President unless they disavow their faith.  During a speech at Iowa University, Carson claimed that Islam is actually not a religion, but is instead “a life organization system” that has an “apocalyptic vision.”

These statements exist, ironically, in tandem with his insistence that “it is absolutely vital that we do all we can to allow Americans to practice their religious ways, while simultaneously ensuring that no one’s beliefs infringe upon those of others.”

Significant Gains May be Lost

Carson’s potential confirmation, and insistence on misunderstanding or ignoring constitutional and legislative protections for vulnerable communities, is both dangerous and will likely damage the protective framework created by the Fair Housing Act and regulations promulgated by HUD under the Obama administration.

For example, in 2012 HUD released urgently needed regulations to ensure LGBTQ people have equal access to housing and housing services, and in 2016, it extended those protections to emergency homeless shelters that were not previously covered.  These policies have been important not only because of the high rates of discrimination that LGBTQ people,  particularly transgender people of color, experience in housing, but also because LGBTQ people can still be denied housing and shelter in most states, absent federal protections from HUD. Further, Muslim Americans also report experiencing significant discrimination in housing, and under the Obama administration, both HUD and agencies including the Department of Justice, have been committed to forming partnerships to combat Islamophobia.

As Secretary of HUD, Carson would have the power to nullify and dismantle anti-discrimination gains made under the Obama administration. He would also have the ability to significantly weaken enforcement of the Fair Housing Act, and his statements indicate that he is likely to do just that for communities he deems unworthy of equal protection.

Religious Discrimination Removed from National Defense Bill

In a briefing with reporters on Tuesday, a Congressional aide confirmed that the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) will not contain what has come to be known as the “Russell Amendment.” The Amendment would have required the Federal Government and all of its agencies to allow federally-contracted religious organizations and associations to discriminate against current and potential employees when those employees do not share their employers’ religious beliefs or adhere to the tenets of their employers’ religion. These exemptions already exist in private employment contexts, but the Amendment would have codified the requirement for all federally-contracted programs, which collectively employ approximately 28 million people, or more than 20 percent of the American workforce.

Although this is a positive development for those concerned with the potential consequences of the Amendment, the aide indicated that its removal is directly related to “new paths” that have opened up to address the Amendment’s intended purpose, indicating a related stand-alone bill may be introduced in the near future.  Steve Russell, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Oklahoma, attached the contentious amendment to the NDAA in May, and it passed narrowly in a late night House vote. Today, that Amendment seems to have been stripped from the bill’s current version, which will likely come up for a floor vote on Friday.

Opponents of the Amendment claim that, had it passed, it would have been a direct and intentional threat to a 2014 Executive Order signed by President Obama (EO 13672), which prohibits federal contractors and sub-contractors from engaging in employment discrimination on the basis of a worker’s sexual orientation or gender identity.  EO 13672 amended an earlier Executive Order signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965—which has been enforced by subsequent Administrations—prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against their employees on the basis of religion, sex, race, and national origin.

Proponents of the Amendment argued that the measure would simply reinforce the current legal status quo, by incorporating exemptions for religious organizations found within Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), both of which do provide limited nondiscrimination exemptions to religious organizations—but neither of which clearly apply in the context of federal contractors.

As opponents of the Amendment rightly point out, had it passed, the law would have undermined existing federal nondiscrimination protections not only for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) workers and communities, but also for communities of color, people living with disabilities, immigrant communities, women and gender non-conforming people, people of faith or no faith who hold different views than their employers, and others who would otherwise be protected under Title VII, the ADA, or other nondiscrimination regulations that federal agencies have already promulgated.

For example, under this Amendment, an organization, using federal funds, might refuse to hire a transgender person simply by claiming that their identity and non-conformity to certain sex stereotypes did not meet a tenet of that employer’s religion—namely, that if a person is assigned a particular sex at birth, they must have a particular gender identity or set of gender expressions. While the Supreme Court has ruled clearly that employment discrimination on the basis of sex stereotyping is a violation of Title VII—and the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission and federal courts have confirmed this applies to transgender and gender non-conforming people—the Amendment would have created a broad exemption for all federal contractors that fall under the exemption, without guidance on how existing nondiscrimination protections might be threatened or undermined.

Furthermore, proponents failed to address the unique constitutional concerns that arise under the Establishment Clause when government funds, as opposed to private funds, are used to promote and endorse religion and further discriminatory behavior against third parties. In this case, job applicants or current employees of religious organizations could have been directly harmed.

Although the removal of the Russell Amendment is welcome news to those concerned with its consequences, given the recent election outcome and the current list of proposed Presidential appointments, similar legislative and administrative efforts seem inevitable in the immediate future and over the next several years.

PRPCP’s Comment Regarding Zubik

This week the Public Rights Private Conscience Project (PCPCP) submitted a letter to the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) in response to their request for information (RFI) regarding an accommodation for religious employers who do not wish to provide their employees with insurance coverage for no-cost contraceptive care, as mandated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  The request came shortly after the Supreme Court punted a case on this very topic back to the lower courts, leaving religious freedom and women’s health advocates in limbo regarding the mandate’s fate.

The case, Zubik v. Burwell, combined separate challenges from religious non-profits to the ACA’s contraceptive mandate, which requires employers to provide health insurance coverage for birth control to their employees. The religious accommodation to the mandate allowed religious non-profits to file a one-page form with the HHS to opt out, and made health insurance companies or third-party administrators responsible for stepping in to provide this coverage without involvement or funds from the employer. But the non-profits asserted that even this requirement violated their religious beliefs. The government holds that the accommodation complies with relevant laws protecting religious freedom, such as the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA), which was enacted in 1993 to protect religious minorities.

In the RFI, the government states that their commitment to religious freedom and desire to find an accommodation that works for all led to the public information request.  The government also recognized that the Zubik decision “affect(s) a wide variety of stakeholders, including many who are not parties to the cases that were before the Supreme Court,” which they say increased their desire to find an effective solution to the problem presented in Zubik.

The RFI asks the public to comment on two alternatives to the ACA religious accommodation. The first alternative would allow religious non-profits to contract with insurers for coverage that did not include contraceptives and then the insurer would have to notify employees separately and explain that they would provide no-cost contraceptive coverage independent of the employer’s health plan. Here, the religious employer would only have to verbally notify the insurer of their objection, rather than through a form. The second alternative was for women employees to affirmatively enroll in policies that only covered contraceptives.

In the comment that PRPCP submitted we began by discussing how the existing religious accommodation does not offend RFRA:

“RFRA prohibits the government from substantially burdening the exercise of religion unless doing so is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. The current accommodation meets this standard for two reasons: first, it does not impose a burden, much less one that is substantial in nature, on religious exercise and second, it is the least restrictive means of furthering the government’s compelling interests in ensuring access to contraceptives, a necessary part of basic preventative health care, and avoiding violations of the Establishment Clause.”

PRPCP then discusses how the alternative accommodations proposed by the plaintiffs would impose harms on employees and their families and risk violating the Establishment Clause. Here, we noted that a number of Supreme Court cases have held that the Establishment Clauses was violated when a government-created religious accommodation imposed serious harms on other private individuals. We stated:

“Both of the alternative accommodations put forth in the RFI would impose a significant harm on non-beneficiaries, most notably employees and their families. The first alternative, by providing ample opportunity for confusion, misrepresentation, and further RFRA litigation, would make employees susceptible to extensive gaps in necessary contraceptive coverage. Further, by making enforcement of the contraceptive mandate significantly more difficult, it would impose costs on both employees and the government. The second alternative would impose significant burdens on third parties by requiring health plans to create, and employees to seek out and enroll in, contraceptive-only health plans. These plans would likely face substantial administrative and financial difficulties. Furthermore, they would result in fewer employees and families having adequate access to contraceptive health care.”

Lastly, we mentioned how important seamless access to cost-free contraceptive care is for women of color, a conversation that is oftentimes left out of the discussion about religious accommodations to the ACA. PRCPC noted:

“Eliminating disparities in reproductive health care, including high rates of unintended pregnancy, involves increasing access to contraception and family planning resources. Access to contraception allows women of color to plan whether and when they will have a child, which research has shown provides them with greater financial stability and freedom.  Many women of color, who on average earn significantly less than white women, cannot afford to pay for quality contraception. For example, the IUD is considered the most effective form of contraception available on the market today and costs between $500.00 and $1,000.00 without insurance. Because of its high cost, among other factors, only six percent of Black women have used IUDs compared with seventy-eight percent who have used birth control pills, which have higher user failure rates.  Providing women of color with access to contraceptive coverage at no additional cost will help to reduce the reproductive health disparities that we see in communities of color. This is an important first step in ameliorating the overall health disparities between women of color and white women in the United States.”

We applaud the Department’s commitment to religious freedom as mentioned in the RFI, however hope this commitment does not outweigh its duty to uphold the rights of women seeking cost-free contraceptive coverage. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court dodged making a decision on this important

Why Zubik is Especially Important for Women of Color

By Elizabeth Reiner Platt and Kira Shepherd

This blog is also available at Religion Dispatches

From the forced breeding of slave women, to the eugenics movement of the 1920s to a relatively recent campaign to sterilize incarcerated women, the institutional denial of women of color’s reproductive freedom has left many mistrustful of medical institutions and the government’s attempts to interfere with their reproductive choices. This has led, in turn, to poor health and political disengagement amongst communities of color. Now, the Supreme Court’s decision in Zubik v. Burwell may effectively strip thousands of women of color of their right to no-cost insurance coverage for contraception.

For those not following the case, Zubik is a challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, which requires certain employer-sponsored health insurance plans to cover contraception with no co-pay. The Obama administration has already created an accommodation for religious non-profits opposed to birth control, which allows them to opt-out of paying for contraceptives while maintaining insurance coverage for their employees. The organizations suing in Zubik, however, want to prevent their employees from receiving coverage through the plans at all. They claim that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), they are entitled not just to refuse to pay for birth control themselves, but to demand that their insurance providers refuse to offer it.

While religious organizations employ women of all backgrounds, the Zubik case should be particularly concerning to women of color. Lack of access to quality reproductive health care plays a large role in the overall health disparities faced by communities of color today. Women of color have the highest rates of unintended pregnancy, abortion, and maternal mortality, all of which have taken a toll on the psychological, economic, and social vitality of these communities.

Moreover, as abortion clinics across the country close due to the conservative attack on abortion rights, women of color are harmed disproportionately. Clinic closings make it especially hard for low-income women and women of color to get an abortion, since many cannot afford to travel the long distances needed to reach a clinic. A recent New York Times article found that clinic closings appear to be closely linked to the uptick in searches for illegal, self-induced abortion.

In addition, women who have unintended pregnancies are more likely to abuse substances while pregnant and less likely to seek prenatal care, which can negatively impact the health of the fetus. Some unintended pregnancies cost women of color their lives. The United States is now one of only eight countries—including Afghanistan and South Sudan—where the maternal mortality rate is actually increasing. These numbers are even bleaker for women of color in the U.S., where black women are four times more likely than white women to die in childbirth.

The pervasive health disparities among communities of color can be traced back, in part, to a long legacy of reproductive coercion. In 2003, the Institute of Medicine produced astudy about the causes of racial health disparities in America. It found that many of the disparities are rooted in historic and current racial inequalities, including poor socio-economic conditions as well as implicit biases held within the medical community that lead to subpar treatment.

Eliminating the disparities in reproductive health care, including high rates of unintended pregnancy, involves increasing access to contraception and contraceptive counseling. Access to contraception allows women of color to plan whether and when they have a child, which provides them with greater financial stability and freedom. Women of color, on average, earn significantly less than white women, and many cannot afford to pay for quality contraception.

The IUD, for example, is considered the most effective contraception available on the market today, but because it costs between $500 to $1000 only 6% of black women have used IUDs compared with 78% who have used birth control pills. Providing women of color with access to no-cost contraceptive coverage is an important first step in ameliorating the overall health disparities between women of color and white women in the United States.

It should be no surprise that when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services asked The Institute of Medicine to come up with a list of women’s health services that should qualify as preventive care and require no co-pay under the Affordable Care Act, the Institute included contraceptive care and counseling in their recommendations, two services that can help right some of the wrongs done to women of color in the area of reproductive justice and liberty. It would be a grave injustice for the Supreme Court to allow the plaintiffs in Zubik—and others who might follow in their wake—to take us one step back.

We’re Hiring! Contract Position – Temporary – Research Analyst – Racial Justice Program

Research Analyst Position (full-time/part-time)
Contract position – Temporary

The Racial Justice Program, part of Columbia Law School’s Public Rights/Private Conscience Project, produces original research on the impact of religious exemptions on communities of color and leverages that research into policy and advocacy interventions.

Columbia Law School’s Public Rights/Private Conscience Project is a unique law and policy think tank based at Columbia Law School. Its staff conceptualizes and operationalizes new frames for understanding religious exemptions and their relationship to reproductive and sexual liberty and equality rights, and disseminates those frames through legal scholarship, public policy interventions, advocacy support, and popular media representation.

The Program is seeking a Research Analyst to join our team. The Research Analyst will examine ways religious exemptions impact communities of color through health care restrictions, employment restrictions, and other means. This is a 2-month full-time contract position, with possibility of extension. Alternatively, for the right candidate in need of a more flexible work schedule, this can be a 4-month part-time position, with possibility of extension.

Key Tasks include:

• Determine analytical requirements for data processing, including the selection of appropriate data, tabulations and statistical methods

• Identify and interpret trends or patterns in complex data sets

• Interpret data and analyze results using statistical techniques and provide report(s)

• Assist with preparation of presentations describing project methods and results of analyses Requirements:

• A master’s degree from an accredited college in statistics, sociology, public policy, or a closely related field; with at least two (2) years of related work experience, or

• A baccalaureate degree from an accredited college, with at least four (4) years of related work experience

• Strong quantitative and problem-solving skills; experience with empirical methods and data analytics including working with large, complex data sets and conducting research

• Experience collecting and working with secondary data collection for social science research including data cleaning, analysis, and documenting procedures

• Knowledge in the use of one or more statistical research software packages (STATA, SPSS, SAS)

• Ability to think outside of the box and develop novel strategies for analysis

• Experience working effectively both independently and as part of a team

• Knowledge of health care policies and employment policies strongly preferred

• Knowledge of racial justice issues strongly preferred

To apply, please submit your resume and cover letter by e-mail to gender_sexuality_law@law.columbia.edu.