When Texas banned nearly all abortions, it showed us that what happens on the state level can reach far beyond state lines. Just as starkly, it has shown the grim reality that when reproductive freedom comes under threat, people of color and those on the economic margins will undeniably bear the brunt of the harms caused by abortion restrictions.

Following the Texas ban, people flooded New Mexico and Oklahoma for appointments – but those without the resources required to book appointments, travel hours over state lines, miss work, secure childcare, and pay medical expenses could not access the care they needed.

While New Jerseyans aren’t subjected to the extreme restrictions happening in Texas, abortion access and reproductive health care remain out of reach for far too many. Though New Jerseyans currently have the right to an abortion, that doesn’t mean that everyone can access it. It’s past time for New Jersey to affirm autonomy, racial and economic justice, and community health to ensure that reproductive health care is accessible for all who need it.

We can achieve that by passing the Reproductive Freedom Act (S3030/A4848), currently before the New Jersey Legislature.

The Reproductive Freedom Act – known as the RFA – seeks to dismantle barriers to abortion that are rooted in systemic inequities and white supremacy while expanding access to reproductive health care for all New Jerseyans, regardless of income level, immigration status, or gender identity.

Introduced by prime sponsors Senator Loretta Weinberg and Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle, the RFA will strengthen New Jerseyans’ reproductive freedom.

In a 2021 poll, 87 percent of New Jersey residents said pregnant people should be the ones who make decisions about abortion, not politicians. The centerpiece of the RFA takes that to heart, declaring the right to reproductive health care, including abortion, by law. Reaffirming New Jerseyans’ fundamental right to autonomy is an essential part of protecting and expanding access to reproductive health care. The RFA declares that the decision if and when to seek an abortion is a decision made by a patient in consultation with their health care provider.

This declaration is necessary because it provides patients and providers with a clear affirmation of the right to abortion. But a declaration of rights doesn’t ensure those who need care can access it. Many barriers – including high costs, limited access to providers, discrimination, and more – prevent people from getting the care they need. That’s why the RFA can’t stop at simply declaring the right to abortion in New Jersey – it must expand how people access care in the state.

The RFA will begin to remove some of these barriers, especially for people of color, low-income New Jerseyans, people who are LGBTQ+, and immigrant community members who are all disproportionately affected by these barriers to accessing care. And for New Jerseyans who live in the intersections of these identities, the obstacles are that much greater.

The attacks on reproductive freedom in state legislatures and the cases before the Supreme Court make it all the more urgent for New Jersey to unequivocally affirm our right to reproductive health care, including abortion. But we cannot and will not stop there. We must commit to removing the harmful barriers that make accessing that right so difficult for so many. In the past three years alone, 12 bills have been enacted around the country to protect and expand access to abortion care. By making the RFA law, New Jersey will join these states in leading the way toward protecting and expanding reproductive freedom.

The experiences of patients and providers have shown that systemic inequities make accessing the constitutional right to an abortion out of reach for far too many New Jerseyans. The RFA would ensure that all New Jerseyans can make their own decisions about their bodies, health, and families free from discrimination and government intrusion and without barriers to equitable access.

New Jerseyans have the power to demand that abortion be accessible and safe for everyone, regardless of race, ethnicity, income, gender identity, or immigration status. New Jersey has the opportunity to prioritize equity and justice by passing the Reproductive Freedom Act. Rights without access is not enough.

This blog was originally published by the ACLU of New Jersey here.

Although Congress outlawed pregnancy discrimination in 1978, far too many employers still routinely deny pregnant workers the temporary job modifications they need to keep working and have a healthy pregnancy. These requests for “accommodations” — such as more frequent breaks, schedule changes, and reassignment of hazardous tasks — often are denied to pregnant workers, and can result in severe consequences for their health and financial security. Nobody should have to choose between a healthy pregnancy and a job.

The bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) would outlaw such discrimination and require employers to provide “reasonable accommodations” to pregnant workers. The PWFA has never been so close to becoming law. The House of Representatives passed the bill earlier this year, and we’re waiting for the full Senate to take it up for a vote.

The ACLU has represented numerous pregnant women who have faced a terrible choice: follow their doctors’ orders or lose their incomes. Their stories illustrate three key reasons why the PWFA is urgently needed –– and long overdue.

It’s generally safe to keep working during pregnancy. But many jobs do pose risks to pregnant workers’ health. Police officers and firefighters face life-threatening dangers. Retail workers and cashiers must stand for hours at a time. Custodial staff are exposed to toxic chemicals. And even for people with desk jobs, the realities of even a “normal” pregnancy — from morning sickness to regular prenatal care visits — can interfere with work. For these reasons, pregnant workers may need to temporarily modify their duties and — where pregnancy complications are more severe — take job-protected leave. Employers that deny such accommodations put pregnant workers in the position of leaving work altogether, or working without the safety precautions they need.

Pregnancy discrimination in the workplace often leads to significant financial hardship for employees who are forced to take unpaid leave, or fired because they need job modifications employers aren’t willing to provide. The loss of income imposes costs not faced by other workers who choose to start a family — and could not come at a worse moment for pregnant workers and their families.

“At that point, I was about six months away from my due date. How was I supposed to live for six months without a paycheck? How could I buy what I needed to prepare for my baby’s arrival? How would I support my son after he was born? When I got the leave paperwork from the company, the news got even worse: Rural/Metro’s policy did not allow employees who were on leave to work for another company, either … The reality was that I not only was going to lose my paycheck temporarily; I also was at risk of losing my job forever.”
— Michelle Durham

When Michelle Durham, an emergency medical technician (EMT) in Alabama, became pregnant and was directed by her doctor to avoid heavy lifting, her employer told her that her only option was to take unpaid leave — but capped her time off at 90 days. With months to go until her due date, she was effectively fired. The resulting loss of income meant that Michelle had to move in with her grandmother, and fell deep into credit card debt. Years later, she still had bills to pay after giving birth to her son.

Since 1978, when Congress outlawed pregnancy discrimination under federal law, pregnancy has become routine in the U.S. workplace. Women now comprise half the workforce, and roughly 85 percent of working women will be pregnant at least once. Census figures show that most workers can and will remain on the job well into their final month of pregnancy. Simply put, pregnancy is a normal condition of employment — and employers should be obligated to treat it that way.

“Though my male co-workers were allowed to come and go virtually without penalty, I kept racking up points due to my pregnancy. If throwing up due to severe morning sickness made me late, I got a fraction of a point. Once, I started bleeding and had to be hospitalized overnight. I accrued a point for that too.” — Katia Hills

Katia Hills, an AT&T Mobility retail sales representative in Indiana, was fired after she accumulated too many punitive “points” under the company’s attendance policy. AT&T deemed Katia’s absences caused by severe morning sickness, prenatal appointments, and ER visits “unexcused,” while co-workers’ absences due to jury duty, bereavement, and other reasons unrelated to pregnancy were “excused” and spared points. As a result, Katia not only lost her job; she lost the opportunity to fulfill her dream of advancing in the company and eventually achieving a management role.

The PWFA assures that pregnant workers can keep working, and earning, while also maintaining a healthy pregnancy. Forty years after Congress acted to outlaw pregnancy discrimination, it is long past time for it to assure that workers get the accommodations they need to stay on the job.

Since the nation’s founding, Black, Indigenous, and other people of color have faced disenfranchisement. As redistricting begins, we’re watching to make sure our political leaders don’t continue to disenfranchise these same communities.

Every 10 years, district maps are redrawn according to the census to ensure fair and equal representation for the population. The 2020 census was a historic population count of the United States. Virtually all of the population growth in our country between 2010 and 2020 was due to growth in communities of color. Overall, the population of people who identify as non-Hispanic white alone has shrunk while the population of those identifying as mixed-race or as a racial minority has grown.

Yet sometimes we get corrupted maps that stray far from these democratic ideals. These maps are the result of something called gerrymandering, and they can have very real consequences for the people they’re meant to represent.

Gerrymandering is not just a new phenomenon. And it has often been used to deprive communities of color, and Black communities in particular, of political power. After the South lost the war, slavery had not only ended, but the 15th Amendment gave freed slaves the right to vote. But still Southern leaders did not want Black people to have political power, so Southern legislatures decided they would need to come up with ways to disenfranchise them.

In states like Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and many others, district lines have often been drawn to favor largely-white-rural areas, and to minimize the political power of urban areas where many Black people live. This dilution of Black political power in these states continues today.

Here are the states we currently have pending litigation:

We filed a lawsuit in Alabama. The state’s new maps are unconstitutional and grossly gerrymandered in a way that harms Black Alabamians, communities of color, and all Alabamians who care about fair representation. As a result of our lawsuit, a federal court ruled the state Legislature must draft a new congressional map that complies with the Voting Rights Act.

We filed a lawsuit challenging the Ohio state legislative map as unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. Following our lawsuit, the Supreme Court of Ohio ordered the Republican-controlled Redistricting Commission to draw a new map that complies with the Ohio Constitution.

We filed a lawsuit in Georgia. The state has enacted new state House and state Senate district lines that are unlawful and deny Black residents an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of choice.

We filed a lawsuit over South Carolina’s new racially gerrymandered state House district map. It intentionally discriminates against Black communities in the state and denies Black voters equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice.

We filed a lawsuit challenging the new redistricting plan for the Arkansas State House of Representatives that would undermine the voting strength of Black Arkansans.