Title X is a federally funded family planning program that guarantees low-income people can receive critical health care services for free or at a reduced cost. For decades it’s been one of the most effective federal health care programs, providing a wide range of vital reproductive and other services for millions of people across the country who wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford them.

However, the Trump administration wants to undermine that success as part of an overall agenda that attacks people’s access to reproductive health care. Today, we are in the 9^th Circuit arguing that the program should be protected from their efforts to destroy it.

Services that are provided under Title X include contraceptive care and information, sexually transmitted infection testing and prevention, cancer screening, and pregnancy testing and counseling.  In 2018, Title X family planning care was provided to nearly four million patients.  Two-thirds of them had incomes at or below the federal poverty level, and more than half were people of color.  For many, the providers they see through Title X are their only ongoing source of health care and health education. 

The Title X program dates back to 1970 when, at President Nixon’s urging, a bipartisan Congress enacted it to improve access to family planning and to make birth control like “the pill” and IUDs available to all regardless of their income. For nearly five decades since then, the program has been a resounding success.

 Under Title X’s previous rules, any patient who tested positive for pregnancy was provided counseling about their options, along with referrals to other providers—including abortion providers—upon request. 

But the Trump administration’s new Title X rule allows providers to refuse to provide counseling that includes all pregnancy options for any reason, including if those options violate their religious beliefs. It also requires providers to refer all pregnant patients for prenatal care, even if the patient has decided to have an abortion, and blocks them from referring patients to abortion providers.

Through this rule change, the Trump administration is attempting to kick high quality providers out of the program and remake it into one composed of anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers that do not want to provide the most effective forms of birth control and which do not discuss—let alone refer for—abortion. This will have a catastrophic effect on low-income people who rely on Title X. Many people will lose access to high-quality family planning services along with their primary source of health care. In March, the ACLU filed a lawsuit to block the new rule on behalf of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), which is a membership organization representing family planning providers across the country, including Cedar River Clinics, who we also represent in the case. 

We asked the district court to enter a preliminary injunction that would prevent the Trump administration’s new rule from going into effect.  We argued that the new rule violates the law and that if enforced, it would cause serious irreparable harm.  And we won. 

But the government appealed, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to lift the injunction so that it could enforce the new rule while the case moves forward in the lower court.  The Ninth Circuit ruled in the government’s favor.  This means that the Trump administration has already started dismantling the Title X network by requiring compliance with the new rule, which has forced many long-time providers to leave the program.

Today we’re asking the Ninth Circuit to reinstate the injunction to prevent the Trump administration from further carrying out its anti-health agenda and robbing people of critical family planning care. 

Remaking the Title X program is just one piece of the Trump administration’s larger campaign to curb access to abortion and contraception at the federal level. Last year, for example, they tried to deny abortion care to immigrant minors in their custody until we stepped in, and they’re also trying to undo the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers and universities include insurance coverage for contraception in their health plans.These attacks, coupled with President Trump’s recent appointments to the Supreme Court, have emboldened hostile politicians to ratchet up their attacks on reproductive health care, including by taking direct aim at Roe v. Wade by passing draconian bans on abortion at the state level.

This is a concerted effort to take away people’s rights and block them from accessing reproductive health care. Taking family planning health care away from millions of people is downright cruel, and we won’t let them get away with it. We’re fighting back, and we hope you’ll join us.

Fiona Kaye, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project

In a year when we’ve seen states throughout the South and Midwest move to ban abortion and restrict access to reproductive health, California could soon cement its reputation as a leader in reproductive freedom. This past week, the state legislature passed SB 24 to ensure that medication abortion is available to college students in public universities.

Jessy Rosales, a UC student, struggled with paying for care and dealing with the complexities of insurance plans when she needed an abortion. She had to go off campus to three different providers, which took time away from class, work, and other responsibilities. Jessy’s grades slipped as she tried to navigate the obstacles to getting an abortion. Such financial, logistical, and emotional tolls are completely unnecessary.

Every month, approximately 500 students at the UC and CSU campuses seek the abortion pill at off-site health care facilities. On average, a student seeking abortion in California will have to wait one week for the next available appointment at the facility closest to their campus — and that’s assuming they can make it to the appointment. More than half of all students in UC and CSU universities are low-income and over two-thirds of UC students and one-third of CSU students do not have a car, so cost and transportation are critical barriers for many. Students of color, low-income students, first-generation college students, and students who are already parents or supporting their families are particularly harmed by barriers to accessing comprehensive reproductive care.

State Sen. Connie M. Leyva (D-Chino) authored the groundbreaking bill to require every University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) campus to provide the abortion pill — a safe and effective method to end a pregnancy — at student health centers. The law would eliminate barriers currently faced by students who struggle to travel off campus to obtain an abortion, which results in unnecessary hardship and delay. California’s effort to improve access to abortion care is a bright point in a national landscape that has seen access to abortion decrease significantly. In the first nine months of 2019 alone, seven states banned all or most abortions. And the Supreme Court is likely to further gut abortion rights, even if it doesn’t immediately overturn Roe v. Wade.

Student health centers already provide a range of reproductive health services including testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy tests, pregnancy options counseling, and contraception. It just makes sense that the abortion pill — safe, effective, and simple to provide — should be among the services offered.

Research shows that student health centers are well equipped to offer the abortion pill, and private funders have come forward to pay the costs of implementation and training.

In addition, students and allies from across the state have built a groundswell of support for SB 24. Six in 10 Californians support providing the full range of reproductive health care including the abortion pill, including majorities of every age bracket. The ACLU of California is proud to be one of seven organizational sponsors of SB 24, which has received support from over 130 organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other medical groups; reproductive health, rights, and justice organizations; and community groups from every part of the state. The Los Angeles Times editorial board came out in support of the measure, calling it a “sensible and smart addition to the healthcare services.”

Last year, California narrowly missed a chance to make history and support its students when a similar bill (SB 320) was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown. At that time, now-Governor Gavin Newsom said he supported the bill. Today, SB 24 sits on his desk awaiting his signature.

The future of abortion rights in the U.S. may be uncertain, but California is poised to lead the nation in expanding access. SB 24 is a testament to California’s spirit of innovation, the drive of our young people, and our commitment to a better future. It sets a new standard for campus care that we can all be proud of.

Phyllida Burlingame, ACLU of Northern California
& Jennifer Dalven, Reproductive Freedom Project

If you own a credit card or a bank account, use a ride-sharing service, made an online purchase, or work in corporate America, chances are you have signed a forced arbitration agreement: a promise that, if any disputes arise between you and your employer or the business, you won’t sue. Hidden in the fine-print of a contract you may not even remember signing is language that says you’ve agreed, in advance, to give up your right go to court.

But today, the House of Representatives passed the FAIR Act, legislation that would prohibit the use of forced arbitration in employment discrimination and consumer contract cases. In the wake of #MeToo, the practice is drawing increasing criticism—making the FAIR Act one of the most important reforms we can make to ensure workplace equality.

Little known to consumers and employees, the use of this sneaky practice is on the rise—it has doubled in scope between the 1990s, and currently impacts more than 60 million workers. These kinds of agreements are prevalent in female dominated industries – 57.6 percent of female workers are subject to the practice – as well as in low-wage fields and industries dominated by women of color.  One estimate shows that by 2024, forced arbitration will be in place in over 80% of workplaces, covering more than 85 million workers.

Forced arbitration has had the effect of slamming the courthouse doors in the face of victims of workplace harassment and discrimination, and is a huge boon to employers. By sneaking forced arbitration into contracts, employers and corporations are ensuring that even if you did notice what you signed, and have the foresight to imagine what you would prefer to do if a dispute were to arise in the future, you have very little choice but to sign.

Studies have shown that employees are less likely to pursue discrimination cases in arbitration, and that when they do, they are less likely to win and their monetary awards far lower than they would be in court. For example, one report showed that in 30 years, only 17 women on Wall Street had won sexual harassment claims in industry arbitration.  The  widespread use of forced arbitration agreements is one major reason that many valid sexual harassment cases, and other discrimination cases, never see the light of day — and repeat offenders are not held to account.

Companies claim that this method is more efficient and less costly than court proceedings. That can be true in some cases – and there is no doubt that it should remain an option, particularly if both parties agree to use it after a dispute has actually arisen.

But what they don’t tell you is that arbitration also lacks critical procedural safeguards — for example, permitting access to evidence from the other side that can be the key to proving your claims – particularly in discrimination cases, which often hinge on how the employer has treated other employees. The arbitrators may or may not be lawyers, and may or may not be trained in resolving discrimination cases. Results are secret, helping companies evade public accountability. The outcome is binding, and there is generally no right to an appeal.

How did we get into this mess? Congress initially blessed arbitration agreements as a tool to settle disputes between corporations, and passed a law favoring their enforcement. But a series of Supreme Court cases has since permitted the practice to spread unchecked, and to extinguish the right to go to court in a host of contexts it was never intended to reach. These include not only employment discrimination cases, but also cases brought by rideshare passengers who allege they were raped by inadequately vetted drivers; families whose loved ones were abused or neglected in residential care centers; customers who bought furniture online and discovered it was infested with bedbugs, and, most recently, in the context of class actions to improve working conditions. These cases are a far cry from what was originally intended.

But the FAIR Act could finally allow workers, consumers, and others to choose how they wanted to pursue their dispute.  This bill could solve one of the biggest problems most of us never knew we had (until it’s too late).

Forced arbitration agreements have to go.  The House has taken the first important step but our fight has just begun – the bill has little chance of passing the Senate, unless each of us takes steps to let them know how we feel about being snookered into these agreements. It’s past time to pry the courthouse doors back open again – and make antidiscrimination laws more than an empty promise.

Galen Sherwin, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU Women’s Rights Project
& Vania Leveille, Senior Legislative Counsel