Your AP(Eye) on the Hill: DACA, Worker Rights, and Reproductive Healthcare
Published: March 9, 2018
Published: March 9, 2018
- Supreme Court rejects Trump’s challenge on DACA case
- Supreme Court rules that immigrants can be detained indefinitely
- New Title X funding announcement undermines effective reproductive healthcare
- Supreme Court hears oral arguments on crucial workers’ rights case
Supreme Court rejects Trump’s challenge on DACA case
After a federal judge in California blocked Trump’s rollback of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in January, the Trump administration requested that the Supreme Court immediately hear the case. Early last week, the Supreme Court rejected this request, maintaining that the injunction must be reviewed in the appeals courts first. While this decision does not indicate how the Supreme Court would rule on DACA itself, as this decision was purely regarding procedural matters, it keeps the DACA program temporarily in place, with current recipients still able to renew their work permits.
- Learn about the California judge’s original order in January
Supreme Court rules that immigrants can be detained indefinitely
On February 27, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 decision that immigrants who are detained do not have the right to bond hearings, even for asylum seekers and legal permanent residents. A bond is an amount of money that can be paid for someone in detention to be release so long as that person appears in future court proceedings. When an immigrant is detained, they can request a bond hearing from the immigration judge. Previously, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that an immigrant in detention must be given a bond hearing every six months.
- Learn more about bond hearings here
- Learn more about immigrant rights when it comes to detention and arrests
New Title X funding announcement undermines effective reproductive healthcare
On February 23, the Trump administration released an FOA (funding opportunity announcement) for Title X, the nation’s program for family planning and reproductive health services. In addition to being several months late for its release, the announcement represents a massive shift in priorities by blocking women from going to Planned Parenthood and other trusted healthcare experts and instead pushing them to go to providers that emphasize abstinence-only and do not provide the full range of birth control methods. Furthermore, the new announcement emphasizes fertility awareness methods such as the “rhythm method” instead of scientifically effective forms of birth control. Of the 4 million clients served by the Title X program, over half are women of color.
- Read a more detailed comparison about this year’s Title X FOA to others
- Read about how an abstinence-only advocate will be in charge of Title X funds
- Learn more about the Title X program, including more in-depth information here
Supreme Court hears oral arguments on crucial workers’ rights case
On February 26, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Janus vs. AFSCME, a case that could have enormous implications on workers’ rights and the ability of public sector workers to unionize. A ruling in favor of Janus and billionaire-backed anti-worker rights organizations--and against AFSCME--would significantly harm public unions by reducing their funding and membership. Most importantly, it would undermine the freedom of workers to speak up and collectively bargain through unions. Union membership is especially important for women: research shows that unions help close the gender wage gap.
Keep an eye out for…