Timeline of women's legal rights in the United States (other than voting)

Timeline of women's legal rights in the United States (other than voting) represents formal legal changes and reforms regarding women's rights in the United States. That includes actual law reforms as well as other formal changes, such as reforms through new interpretations of laws by precedents. For such things outside as well as in the United States, see Timeline of women's legal rights (other than voting). The right to vote is exempted from the timeline: for that right, see Timeline of women's suffrage in the United States. The timeline also excludes ideological changes and events within feminism and antifeminism: for that, see Timeline of feminism in the United States.

Before the 19th century

1600s

• Massachusetts: A 17th-century law in Massachusetts announced that women would be subjected to the same treatment as witches if they lured men into marriage via the use of high-heeled shoes.[1]

1641

• Massachusetts: The 1641 Body of Liberties of the Massachusetts Bay colonists declared that a married woman should be "free from bodilie correction or stripes by her husband."[2]

1662

• Virginia colony: The Virginia colony passed a law incorporating the principle of partus sequitur ventrem, ruling that children of enslaved mothers would be born into slavery, regardless of their father's race or status.[3] This was in contradiction to English common law for English subjects, which based a child's status on that of the father.

1664

• Maryland: Maryland declared that any Englishwoman who married a slave had to live as a slave of her husband’s master.[4]

1718

• Province of Pennsylvania (now U.S. state of Pennsylvania): Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[5]

19th century

1820–1900

• Primarily through the efforts of physicians in the American Medical Association and legislators, most abortions in the U.S. were outlawed.[6]

1821

• Maine: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[5]
• Connecticut: A law targeted apothecaries who sold "poisons" to women for purposes of inducing an abortion.

1829

• New York: New York made post-quickening abortions a felony and pre-quickening abortions a misdemeanor.

1835

• Arkansas: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[5]
• Massachusetts: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[5]
• Tennessee: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[5]

1839

• Mississippi: The Married Women's Property Act 1839 grants married women the right to own (but not control) property in her own name.[7]

1840

• Maine: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[5]

1841

• Maryland: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[5]

1842

• New Hampshire: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[5]

1843

• Kentucky: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[5]

1844

• Maine: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Maine: Married women granted trade license.[5]
• Massachusetts: Married Women granted separate economy.[8]

1845

• New York: Married women granted patent rights.[5]
• Florida: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[5]

1846

• Alabama: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[5]
• Kentucky: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[5]
• Ohio: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[5]
• Michigan: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[5]

1848

• New York: Married Women's Property Act grant married women separate economy.[9]
• Pennsylvania: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Rhode Island: Married women granted separate economy.[5]

1849

• Alabama: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[5]
• Connecticut: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[5]
• Missouri: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[5]
• South Carolina: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[5]

1850–1874

1850s

• Illinois: When Illinois opened its first hospital for the mentally ill in 1851, the state legislature passed a law that within two years of its passage was amended to require a public hearing before a person could be committed against his or her will. There was one exception, however: a husband could have his wife committed without either a public hearing or her consent.

1850

• California: Married Women's Property Act grant married women separate economy.[10]
• Wisconsin: Married Women's Property Act grant married women separate economy.[10]
• Oregon: Unmarried women are allowed to own land.[11]
• Tennessee: Tennessee became the first state in the United States to explicitly outlaw wife beating.[12][13]

1852

• New Jersey: Married women granted separate economy.[8]
• Indiana: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[5]
• Wisconsin: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[5]

1854

• Massachusetts: Married women granted separate economy.[10]

1855

• Michigan: Married women granted separate economy.[14]

1856

• Connecticut: Married women granted patent rights.[5]

1857

• Maine: Married women granted the right to control their own earnings.[8]
• Oregon: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[5]
• Oregon: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[5]

1859

• Kansas: Married Women's Property Act granted married women separate economy.[10]

1860

• New York: New York's Married Women's Property Act of 1860 passed.[15] Married women granted the right to control their own earnings.[8]
• Maryland: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Maryland: Married women granted the right to control their earnings.[5]
• Maryland: Married women granted trade license.[5]
• Massachusetts: Married women granted trade licenses.[5]

1861

• Illinois: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Ohio: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Illinois: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]
• Ohio: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]

1862

• New York: New York's Married Women's Property Act of 1860 was amended so that women lost equal guardianship of their children, and only had veto power over decisions on apprenticeship and the appointment of testamentary guardians. Also, the parts of the 1860 law that made husbands and wives equal in realty in cases of intestacy were overturned.[15]

1865

• Louisiana: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[5]

1867

• Illinois: In 1867, the State of Illinois passed a "Bill for the Protection of Personal Liberty" which guaranteed all people accused of insanity, including wives, had the right to a public hearing.[16]
• Alabama: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• New Hampshire: Married women granted separate economy.[5]

1868

• North Carolina: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Arkansas: Married women granted trade license.[5]
• Kansas: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Kansas: Married women granted trade license.[5]
• Kansas: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]
• South Carolina: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[5]
• Georgia: Married women allowed to own (but not control) property in their own name.[5]

1869

• Minnesota: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Georgia: Married women granted separate economy.[17]
• South Carolina: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• South Carolina: Married women granted trade license.[5]
• Tennessee: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Iowa: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]
• Illinois and Massachusetts: In 1869 legislation was passed in Illinois and Massachusetts allowing married women equal rights to property and custody of their children.[18]

1870

• Wyoming Territory: Justice Howe of the Wyoming Territory saw fit to extend women the rights to sit on a jury in 1870.[19] This was put into action and women served on gender-mixed juries with men for the next year. The first woman to serve on a jury was Eliza Stewart Boyd.[20] But once Howe was replaced by his successor in 1871, women were no longer called upon to serve on juries. (1870, 1890–1892).

1871

• Mississippi: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Mississippi: Married women granted trade license.[5]
• Mississippi: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]
• Arizona: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Arizona: Married women granted trade license.[5]

1872

• Pennsylvania: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]
• California: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Montana: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• California: Married women granted trade license.[5]
• California: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]
• Wisconsin: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]

1873

• Arkansas: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Kentucky: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• North Carolina: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]
• Kentucky: Married women granted trade license.[5]
• Arkansas: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]
• Delaware: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]
• Iowa: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Nevada: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Iowa: Married women granted trade license.[5]
• Nevada: Married women granted trade license.[5]
• Nevada: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]
• The Comstock Law was a federal act passed by the United States Congress on March 3, 1873, as the Act for the "Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use". The Act criminalized usage of the U.S. Postal Service to send any of the following items:[21]
  • erotica
  • contraceptives
  • abortifacients
  • sex toys
  • personal letters alluding to any sexual content or information
  • information regarding the above items

In places like Washington D.C., where the federal government had direct jurisdiction, the act also made it a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment, to sell, give away, or have in possession any "obscene" publication.[21] Half of the states passed similar anti-obscenity statutes that also banned possession and sale of obscene materials, including contraceptives.[22]

The law was named after its chief proponent, Anthony Comstock. Due to his own personal enforcement of the law during its early days, Comstock received a commission from the postmaster general to serve as a special agent for the U.S. Postal Services.[21]

• Bradwell v. State of Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1873),[23] was a United States Supreme Court case that solidified the narrow reading of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and determined that the right to practice a profession was not among these privileges. The case is also notable for being an early 14th Amendment challenge to sex discrimination in the United States. In this case the United States Supreme Court held that Illinois constitutionally denied law licenses to women, because the right to practice law was not one of the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed.

1874

• Massachusetts: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]
• New Jersey: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]
• Rhode Island: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]
• New Jersey: Married women granted trade licenses.[5]
• Colorado: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Illinois: Married women granted trade license.[5]
• Minnesota: Married women granted trade license.[5]
• Montana: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]
• Montana: Married women granted trade license.[5]
• Colorado: Married women granted trade license.[5]
• Colorado: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]

1875–1899

1875

• The Page Act of 1875 (Sect. 141, 18 Stat. 477, 3 March 1875) was the first restrictive federal immigration law in the United States, and effectively prohibited the entry of Chinese women, marking the end of open borders.[24] The law technically barred immigrants considered "undesirable,"[25] defining this as a person from East Asia who was coming to the United States to be a forced laborer, any East Asian woman who would engage in prostitution, and all people considered to be convicts in their own country. Only the ban on female East Asian immigrants was effectively and heavily enforced, and it proved to be a barrier for all East Asian women trying to immigrate, especially Chinese women.[26] The Act was later repealed.
• New Hampshire: Married women granted trade licenses.[5]
• Wyoming: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Wyoming: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]
• Wyoming: Married women granted trade license.[5]
• Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant anyone, and in this case specifically a female citizen of the state of Missouri, a right to vote even when a state law granted rights to vote to a certain class of citizens. The Supreme Court upheld state court decisions in Missouri, which had refused to register a woman as a lawful voter because that state's laws allowed only men to vote. The Minor v. Happersett ruling was based on an interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court readily accepted that Minor was a citizen of the United States, but it held that the constitutionally protected privileges of citizenship did not include the right to vote. The Nineteenth Amendment, which became a part of the Constitution in 1920, effectively overruled Minor v. Happersett by prohibiting discrimination in voting rights based on sex.[27]

1877

• Connecticut: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]
• Connecticut: Married women granted trade licenses.[5]
• Dakota: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Dakota: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]
• Dakota: Married women granted trade license.[5]

1878

• Virginia: Married women granted separate economy.[5]

1879

• Indiana: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Indiana: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]
• California: "A person may not be disqualified from entering or pursuing a business, profession, vocation, or employment because of sex, race, creed, color, or national or ethnic origin." – California Constitution, Article I, §8 (1879).
• A law was enacted allowing qualified female attorneys to practice in any federal court in the United States.[28]

1880

• Oregon: Married women granted trade license.[5]
• Oregon: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]

1881

• Vermont: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Vermont: Married women granted trade license.[5]
• Nebraska: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Nebraska: Married women granted trade license.[5]
• Nebraska: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]
• Florida: Married women allowed to own and manage property in their own name during the incapacity of their spouse.[5]

1882

• Lindon v. First National Bank, 10 F. 894 (W.D. Pa. 1882), is one of the very earliest precedent-setting US federal court cases involving common law name change.[29] A woman who had changed her last name to one that was not her husband's original surname was trying to claim control over her inheritance. The court ruled in her favor. This set forth many things. By common law, one may lawfully change their name and be "known and recognized" by that new name. Also, one may enter into any kinds of contracts in their new adopted name. Contracts include employment (see Coppage v. Kansas 236 U.S. 1), and one can be recognized legally in court in their new name.

1883

• Washington Territory: Women in the Washington Territory were granted jury service rights, but those rights were rescinded in 1887 due to a change in the territory's Supreme Court.[30][31]

1887

• Washington Territory: Women’s jury service rights were rescinded in 1887 due to a change in the territory's Supreme Court.[30][31]
• Idaho: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• Idaho: Married women granted trade license.[5]
• The Edmunds–Tucker Act disincorporated both the LDS Church and the Perpetual Emigration Fund on the grounds that they fostered polygamy. The act prohibited the practice of polygamy and punished it with a fine of from $500 to $800 and imprisonment of up to five years. It dissolved the corporation of the church and directed the confiscation by the federal government of all church properties valued over a limit of $50,000. The act was enforced by the U.S. Marshal and a host of deputies.

The act: -Disincorporated the LDS Church and the Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company, with assets to be used for public schools in the Territory.[32]
-Required an anti-polygamy oath for prospective voters, jurors and public officials.
-Annulled territorial laws allowing illegitimate children to inherit.
-Required civil marriage licenses (to aid in the prosecution of polygamy).
-Abrogated the common law spousal privilege for polygamists, thus requiring wives to testify against their husbands.[33]
-Disenfranchised women (who had been enfranchised by the Territorial legislature in 1870).[34]
– Replaced local judges (including the previously powerful Probate Court judges) with federally appointed judges.
– Abolished the office of Territorial superintendent of district schools, granting the supreme court of the Territory of Utah the right to appoint a commissioner of schools. Also called for the prohibition of the use of sectarian books and for the collection of statistics of the number of so-called gentiles and Mormons attending and teaching in the schools.
[35] In 1890 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the seizure of Church property under the Edmunds–Tucker Act in Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States. The act was repealed in 1978.[36][37]

1889

• State of Washington: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• State of Washington: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]
• State of Washington: Married women granted trade license.[5]

1890

• Wyoming: "In their inherent right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all members of the human race are equal. Since equality in the enjoyment of natural and civil rights is only made sure through political equality, the laws of this state affecting the political rights and privileges of its citizens shall be without distinction of race, color, sex, or any circumstance or condition whatsoever other than the individual incompetency or unworthiness duly ascertained by a court of competent jurisdiction. The rights of citizens of the state of Wyoming to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex. Both male and female citizens of this state shall equally enjoy all civil, political and religious rights and privileges." – Wyoming Constitution, Articles I and VI (1890).

1894

• Louisiana: Married women granted trade license.[5]

1895

• South Carolina: Separate economy allowed for married women.
• Utah: Married women granted separate economy.[5]
• State of Washington: Married women granted control over their earnings.[5]
• State of Washington: Married women granted trade license.[5]

1896

• Utah: "The rights of citizens of the State of Utah to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex. Both male and female citizens of this State shall enjoy all civil, political and religious rights and privileges." – Utah Constitution, Article IV, §1 (1896).

1898

• Utah: The Utah State Legislature granted women permission to serve on juries in 1898. Even though women were able to serve on juries starting in 1898, women were able to seek exemption from jury duty and they did not regularly serve on juries until the 1930s.[38][30]

20th century

1900–1939

1907

• Section 3 of the Expatriation Act of 1907 provided for loss of citizenship by American women who married aliens.[39] Section 4 provided for retention of American citizenship by formerly alien women who had acquired citizenship by marriage to an American after the termination of their marriages. Women residing in the US would retain their American citizenship automatically if they did not explicitly renounce; women residing abroad would have the option to retain American citizenship by registration with a US.consul.[40] The aim of these provisions was to prevent cases of multiple nationality among women.[41]

1908

• Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908), was a landmark decision in United States Supreme Court history, as it was used to justify both sex discrimination and usage of labor laws during the time period. The case upheld Oregon state restrictions on the working hours of women as justified by the special state interest in protecting women's health. The ruling had important implications for protective labor legislation.
• New York City: The New York City Board of Aldermen unanimously passed an ordinance that prohibited smoking by women in public.[42]

1910

• The White-Slave Traffic Act, or the Mann Act, is a United States federal law, passed June 25, 1910 (ch. 395, 36 Stat. 825; codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421–2424). It is named after Congressman James Robert Mann of Illinois, and in its original form made it a felony to engage in interstate or foreign commerce transport of "any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose". In practice, its ambiguous language about "immorality" has resulted in its being used to criminalize even consensual sexual behavior between adults.[43] It was amended by Congress in 1978 and again in 1986.[44]

1912

• Starting January 1, 1912, the Massachusetts government started to enforce a law that allowed women to work a maximum of 54 hours, rather than 56 hours. Ten days later, the women workers found out that pay had been reduced along with the cut in hours.[45] There was a strike about it in Lawrence, Massachusetts, and mill owners soon decided to settle the strike, giving workers in Lawrence and throughout New England raises of up to 20 percent.

1915

• Section 3 of the Expatriation Act of 1907 provided for loss of citizenship by American women who married aliens.[39] The Supreme Court first considered the Expatriation Act of 1907 in the 1915 case MacKenzie v. Hare. The plaintiff, a suffragist named Ethel MacKenzie, was living in California, which since 1911 had extended the franchise to women. However, she had been denied voter registration by the respondent in his capacity as a Commissioner of the San Francisco Board of Election on the grounds of her marriage to a Scottish man.[41] MacKenzie contended that the Expatriation Act of 1907 "if intended to apply to her, is beyond the authority of Congress", as neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other part of the Constitution gave Congress the power to "denationalize a citizen without his concurrence". However, Justice Joseph McKenna, writing the majority opinion, stated that while "[i]t may be conceded that a change of citizenship cannot be arbitrarily imposed, that is, imposed without the concurrence of the citizen", but "[t]he law in controversy does not have that feature. It deals with a condition voluntarily entered into, with notice of the consequences." Justice James Clark McReynolds, in a concurring opinion, stated that the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.[46]

1918

• Margaret Sanger was charged under the New York law against disseminating contraceptive information. On appeal, her conviction was reversed on the grounds that contraceptive devices could legally be promoted for the cure and prevention of disease.[47]

1921

• The Promotion of the Welfare and Hygiene of Maternity and Infancy Act, more commonly known as the Sheppard–Towner Act, was a 1921 U.S. Act of Congress that provided federal funding for maternity and child care.[48] It was sponsored by Senator Morris Sheppard (D) of Texas and Representative Horace Mann Towner (R) of Iowa, and signed by President Warren G. Harding on November 23, 1921.[49] This showed the political and economic power of women's issues since the bill was passed due to pressure from the newly formed Women's Joint Congressional Committee. Before its passage, most of the expansion in public health programs occurred at the state and local levels. Many factors helped its passage including the environment of the Progressive Era.[50] Massachusetts, Connecticut and Illinois never participated in the program. Participation in the program varied depending on states. The Act was due for renewal in 1926, but was met with increased opposition.[50] Hence, Congress allowed the act's funding to lapse in 1929 after successful opposition by the American Medical Association, which saw the act as a socialist threat to its professional autonomy.[51] This opposition was in spite of the fact that the Pediatric Section of the AMA House of Delegates had endorsed the renewal of the act. The rebuking of the Pediatric Section by the full House of Delegates led to the members of the Pediatric Section establishing the American Academy of Pediatrics.[52] The Act was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1922 but the Act continued to be in force until 1929.

1922

• The Cable Act of 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat. 1021, "Married Women's Independent Nationality Act") was a United States federal law that reversed former immigration laws regarding marriage.(It is also known as the Married Women's Citizenship Act or the Women's Citizenship Act). Previously, a woman lost her United States citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to United States citizen men who married foreign women. The law repealed sections 3 and 4 of the Expatriation Act of 1907.[53] However, the Cable Act of 1922 guaranteed independent female citizenship only to women who were married to an "alien eligible to naturalization."[54] At the time of the law's passage, Asian aliens were not considered to be racially eligible for US citizenship.[55][56] As such, the Cable Act only partially reversed previous policies and allowed women to retain their United States citizenship after marrying a foreigner who was not Asian. Thus, even after the Cable Act become effective, any woman who married an Asian alien lost her United States citizenship, just as under the previous law. The Cable Act also had other limitations: a woman could keep her United States citizenship after marrying a non-Asian alien if she stayed within the United States. However, if she married a foreigner and lived on foreign soil for two years, she could still lose her right to United States nationality.

1931

• An amendment to the Cable Act allowed females to retain their citizenship even if they married an Asian.[57]

1936

• In 1936, a federal appeals court ruled in United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries that the federal government could not interfere with doctors providing contraception to their patients.[58]
• The Cable Act was repealed.

1940–1969

1945

• Illinois: In People ex rel. Rago v. Lipsky, 63 N.E.2d 642 (Ill. 1945), the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District did not allow a married woman to stay registered to vote under her birth name, due to "the long-established custom, policy and rule of the common law among English-speaking peoples whereby a woman's name is changed by marriage and her husband's surname becomes as a matter of law her surname."[59][60]

1946

• North Carolina: A state constitutional amendment passed in North Carolina making women eligible to serve on a jury.[61]

1947

• New Jersey: Wherever in this Constitution the term "person", "persons", "people" or any personal pronoun is used, the same shall be taken to include both sexes. – New Jersey Constitution, Article X, paragraph 4 (1947).

1948

• Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464 (1948), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Michigan law which prohibited women from being licensed as a bartender in all cities having a population of 50,000 or more, unless their father or husband owned the establishment. Valentine Goesaert, the plaintiff in this case, challenged the law on the ground that it infringed on the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Speaking for the majority, Justice Felix Frankfurter affirmed the judgment of the Detroit, Michigan district court and upheld the constitutionality of the state law. The state argued that since the profession of bartending could potentially lead to moral and social problems for women, it was within the state's power to bar them from working as bartenders. Only when the owner of the bar was a sufficiently close relative to the women bartender could it be guaranteed that such immorality would not be present.
• The Women's Armed Services Integration Act (Pub.L. 80–625, 62 Stat. 356, enacted June 12, 1948) is a United States law that enabled women to serve as permanent, regular members of the armed forces in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and the recently formed Air Force. However, Section 502 of the act limited service of women by excluding them from aircraft and vessels of the Navy that might engage in combat.

1955

• Texas: It became legal for women to serve on juries in Texas.[62]

1959

• California: In 1959 the Government Code Section 12947.5 (part of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, passed in California) declared in part, “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to permit an employee to wear pants on account of the sex of the employee”, with exceptions only for “requiring an employee to wear a costume while that employee is portraying a specific character or dramatic role” and when good cause is shown.[63] Thus, the standard California FEHA discrimination complaint form now includes an option for "denied the right to wear pants".[64]

1961

• Hoyt v. Florida, 368 U.S. 57 (1961), was an appeal by Gwendolyn Hoyt, who had killed her husband and received a jail sentence for second degree murder. Although she had suffered mental and physical abuse in her marriage, and showed neurotic, if not psychotic, behavior, a six-man jury deliberated for just twenty-five minutes before finding her guilty.[65] They sentenced her to 30 years of hard labor. Hoyt claimed that her all-male jury led to discrimination and unfair circumstances during her trial. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice John Marshall Harlan II, Supreme Court of the United States held the Florida jury selection statute was not discriminatory.
• Ohio: In State ex rel. Krupa v. Green, 177 N.E.2d 616 (Ohio 1961), the Ohio appellate court allowed a married woman to register to vote in her birth name which she had openly and solely used, and been well-known to use, before her marriage, and held that she could use that name as a candidate for public office.[66][59]

1963

• The Equal Pay Act of 1963 is a United States federal law amending the Fair Labor Standards Act, aimed at abolishing wage disparity based on sex (see Gender pay gap). It was signed into law on June 10, 1963, by John F. Kennedy as part of his New Frontier Program.[67] In passing the bill, Congress stated that sex discrimination:[68]
  • depresses wages and living standards for employees necessary for their health and efficiency;
  • prevents the maximum utilization of the available labor resources;
  • tends to cause labor disputes, thereby burdening, affecting, and obstructing commerce;
  • burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and
  • constitutes an unfair method of competition.

The law provides (in part) that:

No employer having employees subject to any provisions of this section [section 206 of title 29 of the United States Code] shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs[,] the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex [ . . . . ][68] For the first nine years of the EPA, the requirement of equal pay for equal work did not extend to persons employed in an executive, administrative or professional capacity, or as an outside salesperson. Therefore, the EPA exempted white-collar women from the protection of equal pay for equal work. In 1972, Congress enacted the Education Amendments of 1972, which amended the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to expand the coverage of the EPA to these employees, by excluding the EPA from the professional workers exemption of the FLSA.

1964

• The decision in the 1964 case of People of California v. Hernandez by the California Supreme Court brought into question the validity of the rule that mistake as to the age of a female is no defense to a statutory rape charge.[69] The defendant was convicted of statutory rape, but the trial judge refused to allow the defendant to present evidence that the defendant had a good faith belief the female subject was of age as a defense to the charge. Defendant filed an appeal, with the sole issue being the question of whether defendant's intent and knowledge at the time of the commission of the crime mattered in determining criminal culpability. The California Supreme Court held that "a charge of statutory rape is defensible [where] criminal intent is lacking," overruling and disapproving prior decisional law holding to the contrary, particularly People v. Ratz (1896) 115 Cal. 132. The decision set off a flurry of discussion among academics on whether "the uniform rule in the United states [that] a mistake as to the age of a female is not a defense to the crime of statutory rape," was now dead letter.[70][71][72]
• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[73]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.[74] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act,[75] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).

In very narrowly defined situations, an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To prove the bona fide occupational qualifications defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between the protected trait and the ability to perform the duties of the job, the BFOQ relates to the "essence" or "central mission of the employer's business", and there is no less-restrictive or reasonable alternative (United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991) 111 S.Ct. 1196). The Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on protected traits (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977) 97 S.Ct. 2720). An employer or customer's preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kamehameha School – Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)). There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:

• Federal government; (Comment: The proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to certain federal government offices under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)
• Federally recognized Native American tribes
• Religious groups performing work connected to the group's activities, including associated education institutions;
• Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations.

• The Bennett Amendment is a US labor law provision in the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, §703(h) passed to limit sex discrimination claims regarding pay to the rules in the Equal Pay Act of 1963. It says an employer can "differentiate upon the basis of sex" when it compensates employees "if such differentiation is authorized by" the Equal Pay Act.

1965

• Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[76] is a landmark case in the United States in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception." By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as a right to "protect[ion] from governmental intrusion."

Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections, such as the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice Arthur Goldberg and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause.

• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decided in 1965 that segregated job advertising—"Help Wanted Male" and "Help Wanted Female"—was permissible because it served "the convenience of readers".[77] Advocates for women's rights founded the National Organization for Women (NOW) in June 1966 out of frustration with the enforcement of the sex bias provisions of the Civil Rights Act and Executive Order 11375.[78]

1966

• Pauli Murray and Dorothy Kenyon successfully argued White v. Crook, a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that women have an equal right to serve on juries.[79]
• Mississippi: Mississippi reformed its abortion law and became the first U.S. state to allow abortion in cases of rape.

1967

• Executive Order 11375, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 13, 1967, banned discrimination on the basis of sex in hiring and employment in both the United States federal workforce and on the part of government contractors.
• President Johnson signs Public Law 90-130, lifting grade restrictions and strength limitations on women in the United States military. Among other things, Public Law 90-130 amended 10 USC, eliminating the 2% ceiling on enlisted women. It also allowed female officers to be promoted to Colonel and above.
• Maryland: In Erie Exchange v. Lane, 246 Md. 55 (1967) the Maryland Court of Appeals held that a married woman can lawfully adopt an assumed name, even if it is not her birth name or the name of her lawful husband, without legal proceedings.[80]
• Section 230.3 Abortion (Tentative draft 1959, Official draft 1962) of the American Law Institute (ALI) Model Penal Code (MPC) was used as a model for abortion law reform legislation enacted in 13 states from 1967 to 1972. It would legalize abortion to preserve the health (whether physical or mental) of the mother, as well as if the pregnancy is due to incest or rape, or if doctors agree that there is a significant risk that the child will be born with a serious mental or physical defect.
• California, Colorado, Oregon, and North Carolina: Colorado became the first state to decriminalize abortion in cases of rape, incest, or in which pregnancy would lead to permanent physical disability of the woman, and similar laws were passed in California, Oregon, and North Carolina.

1968

• King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968), was a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) could not be withheld because of the presence of a "substitute father" who visited a family on weekends.
• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission declared age restrictions on flight attendants’ employment to be illegal sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[81]
• Georgia and Maryland: Georgia and Maryland reformed their abortion laws based on the American Law Institute (ALI) Model Penal Code (MPC).
• Prince Georges County: In 1967 Kathryn Kusner applied for a jockey license through the Maryland Racing Commission but was denied because she was a woman.[82] However, in 1968 Judge Ernest A. Loveless of the Circuit Court of Prince Georges County ordered her to be granted the license.[83] Kusner thus became the first licensed female jockey in the United States.[82]
• Texas: The Marital Property Act of 1967, which gave married women the same property rights as their husbands, went into effect on January 1, 1968.[84]
• Mississippi: On June 15, 1968, a law making women eligible to serve on state court juries was signed by Gov. John Bell Williams. Mississippi was the last state in America to allow this.[85]

1969

• Arkansas, Delaware, Kansas, New Mexico and Oregon: Arkansas, Delaware, Kansas, New Mexico and Oregon reformed their abortion laws based on the American Law Institute (ALI) Model Penal Code (MPC).
• In the case Weeks v. Southern Bell (1969), Lorena Weeks claimed that Southern Bell had violated her rights under the 1964 Civil Rights Act when they denied her application for promotion to a higher paying position because she was a woman. She won her case in 1969 after several appeals.

1970–1999

1970

• In 1970, Eleanor Holmes Norton represented 60 female employees of Newsweek who had filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that Newsweek had a policy of only allowing men to be reporters.[86] The women won, and Newsweek agreed to allow women to be reporters.[86] The day the claim was filed, Newsweek's cover article was "Women in Revolt", covering the feminist movement; the article was written by a woman who had been hired on a freelance basis since there were no female reporters at the magazine.[87]
• The Title X Family Planning Program, officially known as Public Law 91-572 or "Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs", was enacted under President Richard Nixon in 1970 as part of the Public Health Service Act. Title X is the only federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. Title X is legally designed to prioritize the needs of low-income families or uninsured people (including those who are not eligible for Medicaid) who might not otherwise have access to these health care services. These services are provided to low-income and uninsured individuals at reduced or no cost.[88] Its overall purpose is to promote positive birth outcomes and healthy families by allowing individuals to decide the number and spacing of their children. The other health services provided in Title X-funded clinics are integral in achieving this objective.[89]
• Congress removed references to contraception from federal anti-obscenity laws.[90]
• Schultz v. Wheaton Glass Co., 421 F.2d 259 (3rd Cir. 1970) was a case heard before the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1970. It is an important case in studying the impact of the Bennett Amendment on Chapter VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, helping to define the limitations of equal pay for men and women.[91][92] In its rulings, the court determined that a job that is "substantially equal" in terms of what the job entails, although not necessarily in title or job description, is protected by the Equal Pay Act.[93] An employer who hires a woman to do the same job as a man but gives the job a new title in order to offer it a lesser pay is discriminating under that act.[93]
• In Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc., a federal trial court ruled in a female flight attendant's favor on whether airline marriage bans were illegal under Title VII. The court found that neither sex nor marital status was a bona fide occupational qualification for the flight attendant occupation. The court's ruling was upheld upon appeal.[94][95]
• Women were not allowed in New York's McSorley's Old Ale House until August 10, 1970, after National Organization for Women attorneys Faith Seidenberg and Karen DeCrow filed a discrimination case against the bar in District Court and won.[96] The two entered McSorley's in 1969, and were refused service, which was the basis for their lawsuit for discrimination. The case decision made the front page of The New York Times on June 26, 1970.[97] The suit, Seidenberg v. McSorleys' Old Ale House (1970, United States District Court, S. D. New York) established that, as a public place, the bar could not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.[98] The bar was then forced to admit women, but it did so "kicking and screaming."[99] With the ruling allowing women to be served, the bathroom became unisex. But it was not until sixteen years later that a ladies room was installed.[100]
• Hawaii, New York, Alaska, Washington: Hawaii, New York, Alaska and Washington repealed their abortion laws. Specifically, Hawaii became the first state to legalize abortions on the request of the woman,[101] New York repealed its 1830 law and allowed abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy, and Washington held a referendum on legalizing early pregnancy abortions, becoming the first state to legalize abortion through a vote of the people.[102]
• South Carolina and Virginia: South Carolina and Virginia reformed their abortion laws based on the American Law Institute Model Penal Code.
• Illinois: The equal protection of the laws shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex by the State or its units of local government and school districts.- Illinois Constitution, Article I, §18 (1970).

1971

• Barring women from practicing law was prohibited in the U.S. in 1971.[103]
• Pennsylvania: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania because of the sex of the individual. – Pennsylvania Constitution, Article I, § 28.
• United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971) was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case, which held that the District of Columbia's abortion law banning the practice except when necessary for the health or life of the woman was not unconstitutionally vague.
• Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971), was an Equal Protection case in the United States in which the Supreme Court ruled that the administrators of estates cannot be named in a way that discriminates between sexes. The Supreme Court ruled for the first time in Reed v. Reed that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited differential treatment based on sex.[104]
• Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer may not, in the absence of business necessity, refuse to hire women with pre-school-age children while hiring men with such children. It was the first sex discrimination case under Title VII to reach the Court.
• Virginia: That no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts; and that the right to be free from any governmental discrimination upon the basis of religious conviction, race, color, sex, or national origin shall not be abridged, except that the mere separation of the sexes shall not be considered discrimination. – Virginia Constitution, Article I, §11 (1971).

1972

• New York: The New York State Court of Appeals ruled that Bernice Gera could be a baseball umpire.[105]
• Washington: Equality of rights and responsibility under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex. – Washington Constitution, ARTICLE XXXI, §1 (1972).
• Alaska: No person is to be denied the enjoyment of any civil or political right because of race, color, creed, sex or national origin. The legislature shall implement this section. – Alaska Constitution, Article I, §3 (1972).
• Title IX is a portion of the United States Education Amendments of 1972, Public Law No. 92‑318, 86 Stat. 235 (June 23, 1972), codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681–1688, co-authored and introduced by Senator Birch Bayh; it was renamed the Patsy Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act in 2002, after its late House co-author and sponsor. It states (in part) that:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

• For the first nine years of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the requirement of equal pay for equal work did not extend to persons employed in an executive, administrative or professional capacity, or as an outside salesperson. Therefore, the EPA exempted white-collar women from the protection of equal pay for equal work. The Education Amendments of 1972 amended the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to expand the coverage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to these employees, by excluding the EPA from the professional workers exemption of the FLSA.
• Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), was a United States Supreme Court case that established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married couples. The Court struck down a Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people for the purpose of preventing pregnancy, ruling that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
• The common law offence of being a common scold was extant in New Jersey until struck down in 1972 by Circuit Judge McCann who found it had been subsumed in the provisions of the Disorderly Conduct Act of 1898, was bad for vagueness and offended the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution for sex discrimination.
• Under § 215 of the Social Security Act (42 USCS 415), old-age insurance benefits are computed on the basis of the wage earner's "average monthly wage" earned during their "benefit computation years," which are the "elapsed years" (reduced by five) during which their covered wages were highest. Under the pre-1972 version, the computation for old age insurance benefits was such that a woman obtained larger benefits than a man of the same age having the same earnings record. The 1972 amendment altered the formula for computing benefits so as to eliminate the previous distinction between men and women, but only as to men reaching the age of 62 in 1975 or later; it was not given retroactive application.
• The 10th Circuit case Moritz v. Commissioner successfully challenged the denial of a dependent-care deduction to a single man who was a caretaker for his sick mother; the deduction had previously been limited to women, widowers, or divorced men.[106][107]
• Maryland: In Stuart v. Board of Elections, 266 Md. 440, 446, on the question of whether a wife could register to vote in her birth name rather than her husband's last name, the Maryland Court of Appeals held, "[A] married woman's surname does not become that of her husband where, as here, she evidences a clear intent to consistently and nonfraudulently use her birth given name subsequent to her marriage."[80]
• Florida: Florida reformed its abortion law based on the American Law Institute Model Penal Code.
• Maryland: Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged or denied because of sex. – Maryland Constitution, Declaration of Rights, Article 46 (1972).
• Texas: Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. This amendment is self-operative. – Texas Constitution, Article I, §3a (1972).

1973

• Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.[108] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.
• Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court overturning the abortion law of Georgia. The Supreme Court's decision was released on January 22, 1973, the same day as the decision in the better-known case of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Doe v. Bolton challenged Georgia's much more liberal abortion statute.
• Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case[109] which decided that benefits given by the United States military to the family of service members cannot be given out differently because of sex.
• Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973), was a 1973 decision of the United States Supreme Court which upheld an ordinance enacted in Pittsburgh that forbids sex-designated classified advertising for job opportunities, against a claim by the parent company of the Pittsburgh Press that the ordinance violated its First Amendment rights.
• From 1973 on, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has followed the Helms Amendment ruling, banning use of U.S. government funds to provide abortion as a method of family planning anywhere in the world.[110]
• The "Percy Amendment" of the Foreign Assistance Act required U.S. development assistance to integrate women into its programs, leading to USAID's creation of its Women in Development (WID) office in 1974.
• Colorado: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the state of Colorado or any of its political subdivisions because of sex. – Colorado Constitution, Article II, §29 (1973).
• Montana: Individual dignity. The dignity of the human being is inviolable. No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. Neither the state nor any person, firm, corporation, or institution shall discriminate against any person in the exercise of his civil or political rights on account of race, color, sex, culture, social origin or condition, or political or religious ideas. – Montana Constitution, Article II, §4 (1973).
• New Mexico: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the laws. Equality of rights under law shall not be denied on account of the sex of any person. – New Mexico Constitution, Article II, §18 (1973).
• California: In Rentzer v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1973), Gail Rentzer suffered from an ectopic pregnancy and was therefore unable to work. She was denied compensation by the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board because they did not recognize pregnancy or related medical complications as a disability. But after a lawsuit was filed, the California Court of Appeals found that because Gail had not had a normal pregnancy and her emergency surgery was performed to stop bleeding and save her life, her pregnancy was deemed worthy of disability benefits. This case allowed women with medical complications during pregnancy to be granted benefits and more protections, such as disability coverage for not just pregnancy, but also the amount of time it takes for recovery from complications.[111]

1974

• Connecticut: No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin or sex. – Connecticut Constitution, Article I, §20 (1974).
• Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U.S. 484 (1974), was an equal protection case in the United States in which the Supreme Court ruled on whether unfavorable treatment to pregnant women could count as sex discrimination. It held that the denial of insurance benefits for work loss resulting from a normal pregnancy did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The California insurance program at issue did not exclude workers from eligibility based on sex but did exclude pregnancy from a list of compensable disabilities. The majority found that even though only women would be directly affected by the administrative decision, the classification of normal pregnancy as non-compensable was not a sex-based classification, and therefore the court would defer to the state so long as it could provide a rational basis for its categorization.
• The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) is a United States law (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq.), enacted in 1974, that makes it unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract);[112] to the fact that all or part of the applicant's income derives from a public assistance program; or to the fact that the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The law applies to any person who, in the ordinary course of business, regularly participates in a credit decision, including banks, retailers, bankcard companies, finance companies, and credit unions.

Failure to comply with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act's Regulation B can subject a financial institution to civil liability for actual and punitive damages in individual or class actions. Liability for punitive damages can be as much as $10,000 in individual actions and the lesser of $500,000 or 1% of the creditor's net worth in class actions.[113]

• In Kahn v. Shevin the Supreme Court ruled that a Florida statute providing property tax exemptions only to widows does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[114]
• In Kaplowitz v. University of Chicago, 387 F.Supp. 42 (N.D.Ill.1974), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled that a law school was not required to police the discriminatory practices of employers using its placement facilities. The court did find that the law school was an employment agency, but found that employment agencies are only obligated to refer potential employees without discrimination.[115][116]
• The Women's Educational Equity Act (WEEA) of 1974 is one of the several landmark laws passed by the United States Congress outlining federal protections against the gender discrimination of women in education (educational equity). WEEA was enacted as Section 513 of P.L. 93-380. In 1984, Congress rewrote the WEEA legislation.
• Sex was added as a protected characteristic to the Fair Housing Act in 1974.[117][118][119]
• New Hampshire: All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights – among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin. – New Hampshire Constitution, Part First, Article 2 (1974).
• In the final week of December 1974, President Gerald Ford signed into law a bill that opened the Little League baseball program to girls.[120]

1975

• Stanton v. Stanton, was a 421 U.S. 7 (1975) United States Supreme Court case which struck down Utah's definitions of adulthood as a violation of equal protection: females reached adulthood at 18; males at 21.[121]
• Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which unanimously held that the gender-based distinction under 42 U.S.C. § 402(g) of the Social Security Act of 1935—which permitted widows but not widowers to collect special benefits while caring for minor children—violated the right to equal protection secured by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
• Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975), was a significant Supreme Court of the United States case, which held women could not be excluded from a venire, or jury pool, on the basis of having to register for jury duty.
• On February 19, 1975 the Texas Supreme Court's ruling in the case Jacobs v. Theimer made Texas the first state in America to declare a woman could sue her doctor for a wrongful birth.[122][123][124] That case involved Dortha Jean Jacobs (later Dortha Biggs), who caught rubella while pregnant and gave birth to Lesli, who was severely disabled.[124][122] Dortha and her husband sued her doctor, saying he did not diagnose the rubella or warn them how it would affect the pregnancy.[124]
• Schlesinger v. Ballard, 419 U.S. 498 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case that upheld a federal statute granting female Naval officers four more years of commissioned service before mandatory discharge than male Naval officers.[125] A federal statute granted female Naval officers fourteen years of commissioned service while allowing only nine years of commissioned service for male Naval officers before mandatory discharge. The Supreme Court held that the law passed intermediate scrutiny equal protection analysis because women, excluded from combat duty, had fewer opportunities for advancement in the military. The Court found the statute to directly compensate for the past statutory barriers to advancement.[126]
• Joan Little became the first woman in United States history to be acquitted using the defense that she used deadly force to resist sexual assault.[127][128]
• Tennessee: In Dunn v. Palermo, the Supreme Court of Tennessee held that "in this jurisdiction a woman, upon marriage, has a freedom of choice. She may elect to retain her own surname or she may adopt the surname of her husband. The choice is hers. We hold that a person's legal name is that given at birth, or as voluntarily changed by either spouse at the time of marriage, or as changed by affirmative acts as provided under the Constitution and laws of the State of Tennessee. So long as a person's name remains constant and consistent, and unless and until changed in the prescribed manner, and absent any fraudulent or legally impermissible intent, the State has no legitimate concern."[129]
• Wisconsin: In Kruzel v. Podell (1975), the Supreme Court of Wisconsin decided that a woman upon marriage adopts the last name of her husband by customarily using that name after marriage, but also stated that no law required her to.[130]
• Louisiana: No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws. No law shall discriminate against a person because of race or religious ideas, beliefs, or affiliations. No law shall arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably discriminate against a person because of birth, age, sex, culture, physical condition, or political ideas or affiliations. – Louisiana Constitution, Article I, §3 (1975).

1976

• In General Electric v. Gilbert the Supreme Court ruled that it was legal for employers to exclude pregnancy-related conditions from employee sickness and accident benefits plans.[131]
• Massachusetts: All people are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin. – Massachusetts Constitution, Part 1, Article 1 (1976).
• Bellotti v. Baird (1976), 428 U.S. 132 (1976), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Massachusetts law requiring parental consent to a minor's abortion, which provided that "if one or both of the [minor]'s parents refuse ... consent, consent may be obtained by order of a judge ... for good cause shown."[132] The decision was unanimous, and the opinion of the Court was written by Justice Blackmun. The law in question "permits a minor capable of giving informed consent to obtain a court order allowing abortion without parental consultation, and further permits even a minor incapable of giving informed consent to obtain an abortion order without parental consultation where it is shown that abortion would be in her best interests."[132]
• Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976), was the first case in which a majority of the United States Supreme Court determined that statutory or administrative sex classifications were subject to intermediate scrutiny under Fourteenth Amendment's the Equal Protection Clause. The Court also acknowledged that parties economically affected by regulations may challenge them "by acting as advocates of the rights of third parties who seek access to their market or function." The case specifically concerned the fact that Oklahoma passed a statute prohibiting the sale of "nonintoxicating" 3.2% beer to males under the age of 21 but allowed females over the age of 18 to purchase it. The Court held that the gender classifications made by the Oklahoma statute were unconstitutional because the statistics relied on by the state were insufficient to show a substantial relationship between the statute and the benefits intended to stem from it.
• Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976) is a United States Supreme Court case on abortion. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of a Missouri statute regulating abortion. The Court upheld the right to have an abortion, declaring unconstitutional the statute's requirement of prior written consent from a parent (in the case of a minor) or a spouse (in the case of a married woman).[133]
• In United States politics, the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortion unless the pregnancy arises from incest, rape, or to save the life of the mother.[134][135] The Hyde Amendment is not a permanent law, but rather is a "rider" that in various forms has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976.[134] Legislation including the Hyde Amendment generally only restricts the use of funds allocated for the Department of Health and Human Services and primarily affects Medicaid.[134][135]
• District of Columbia: The case Williams v. Saxbe of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia established sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination when sexual advances by a male supervisor towards a female employee, if proven, would be deemed an artificial barrier to employment placed before one gender and not another.

1977

• Beal v. Doe, 432 U.S. 438 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case that concerned the disbursement of federal funds in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania statute restricted federal funding to abortion clinics. The Supreme Court ruled states are not required to treat abortion in the same manner as potential motherhood. The opinion of the Court left the central holding of the Roe v. Wade decision – abortion as a right – intact. The statute was upheld, with Justice Powell writing the majority opinion.
• Califano v. Webster, 430 U.S. 313 (1977) was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that Section 215 of the Social Security Act does not violate due process by allowing women to calculate retirement benefits without including additional low-earning years, since it is an attempt to compensate for previous discrimination.
• Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the different treatment of men and women mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 402(f)(1)(D) constituted invidious discrimination against female wage earners by affording them less protection for their surviving spouses than is provided to male employees, and therefore violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
• Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977), was the first United States Supreme Court case which the bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) defense was used. The court held that Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer may not, in the absence of business necessity, set height and weight restrictions which have a disproportionately adverse effect on one gender. However, on the issue of whether women could fill close contact jobs in all male maximum security prisons the Court ruled 6–3 that the BFOQ defense was legitimate in this case. The reason for this finding is that female prison guards were more vulnerable to male sexual attack than male prison guards.[136]
• Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was unconstitutional to prohibit anyone other than a licensed pharmacist to distribute nonprescription contraceptives to persons 16 years of age or over, to prohibit the distribution of nonprescription contraceptives by any adult to minors under 16 years of age, and to prohibit anyone, including licensed pharmacists, to advertise or display contraceptives.
• In 1977, the National Partnership for Women & Families litigated and achieved a significant victory in Barnes v. Costle, a U.S. Court of Appeals decision that held that any retaliation by a boss against an employee for rejecting sexual advances violates Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination.[137]
• The January 7, 1977 Supreme Court ruling in State of Washington v. Wanrow was an important victory for the feminist cause of gender-equality before the law. In a landmark ruling, the Washington Supreme Court, sitting en banc, declared that Yvonne Wanrow was entitled to have a jury consider her actions in the light of her "perceptions of the situation, including those perceptions which were the product of our nation's long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination." [138] The ruling was the first in America recognizing the particular legal problems of women who defend themselves or their children from male attackers, and was again affirmed by the Washington Supreme Court in denying the prosecutor's petition for rehearing in 1979.[138][139] Before the Wanrow decision, standard jury instructions asked what a "reasonably prudent man" would have done, even if the accused was a woman; the Wanrow decision set a precedent that when a woman is tried in a criminal trial the juries should ask "what a reasonably prudent woman similarly situated would have done." [140]
• In Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977), the Supreme Court held that the death penalty for rape of an adult woman was grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment, and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[141]

1978

• Hawaii: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the State on account of sex. The legislature shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this section. – Hawaii Constitution, Article I, §3 (1978).
• The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 is a United States federal statute. It amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to "prohibit sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy."[142] The Act covers discrimination "on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions." It only applies to employers with 15 or more employees.[143][144] Employers are exempt from providing medical coverage for elective abortions – except in the case that the mother's life is threatened – but are required to provide disability and sick leave for women who are recovering from an abortion.[145]
• Judge John Sirica ruled the law banning Navy women from ships to be unconstitutional in the case Owens v. Brown. That same year, Congress approved a change to Title 10 USC Section 6015 to permit the Navy to assign women to fill sea duty billets on support and noncombatant ships.[146]
• The Mann Act originally made it a felony to engage in interstate or foreign commerce transport of "any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose". In 1978, Congress updated the Mann Act's definition of "transportation" and added protections against commercial sexual exploitation for minors.
• The federal lawsuit, Melissa Ludtke and Time, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Bowie Kuhn, Commissioner of Baseball et al. (1978) is credited with giving equal access to Major League Baseball locker rooms to women sports reporters.[147][148] In 1977, Ludtke sued the baseball commission on the basis that her 14th amendment rights were violated when she was denied access to the New York Yankees clubhouse while reporting on the 1977 World Series.[149][150] She won the lawsuit.[151][152] The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York stated her fourteenth amendment right was violated since the New York Yankees clubhouse was controlled by New York City. That court also stated that her fundamental right to pursue a career was violated based on her sex.[153]
• The 1890 Edmunds-Tucker Act is repealed. The Edmunds–Tucker Act disincorporated both the LDS Church and the Perpetual Emigration Fund on the grounds that they fostered polygamy. The act prohibited the practice of polygamy and punished it with a fine of from $500 to $800 and imprisonment of up to five years. It dissolved the corporation of the church and directed the confiscation by the federal government of all church properties valued over a limit of $50,000. The act was enforced by the U.S. Marshal and a host of deputies.

The act: -Disincorporated the LDS Church and the Perpetual Emigrating Fund Company, with assets to be used for public schools in the Territory.[32]
-Required an anti-polygamy oath for prospective voters, jurors and public officials.
-Annulled territorial laws allowing illegitimate children to inherit.
-Required civil marriage licenses (to aid in the prosecution of polygamy).
-Abrogated the common law spousal privilege for polygamists, thus requiring wives to testify against their husbands.[33]
-Disenfranchised women (who had been enfranchised by the Territorial legislature in 1870).[34]
– Replaced local judges (including the previously powerful Probate Court judges) with federally appointed judges.
– Abolished the office of Territorial superintendent of district schools, granting the supreme court of the Territory of Utah the right to appoint a commissioner of schools. Also called for the prohibition of the use of sectarian books and for the collection of statistics of the number of so-called gentiles and Mormons attending and teaching in the schools.
[35] In 1890 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the seizure of Church property under the Edmunds–Tucker Act in Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States. The act was repealed in 1978.[36][37]

1979

• Bellotti v. Baird (1979), 443 U.S. 622 (1979) was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that teenagers do not have to secure parental consent to obtain an abortion. The Court, 8-1, elaborates on its parental consent decision of 1976. It implies that states may be able to require a pregnant, unmarried minor to obtain parental consent to an abortion so long as the state law provides an alternative procedure to parental approval, such as letting the minor seek a state judge's approval instead. This plurality opinion declined to fully extend the right to seek and obtain an abortion, granted to adult women in Roe v. Wade, to minors.[154] The Court rejected this extension to minors by placing emphasis on the especially vulnerable nature of children, their "inability to make critical decisions in an informed and mature manner; and the importance of the parental role in child rearing."[154][155]
• The Supreme Court ruled in Califano v. Westcott that two-parent families with unemployed mothers are entitled to AFDC benefits.
• Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (1979) was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case, which held void for vagueness part of Pennsylvania's 1974 Abortion Control Act. The section in question was the following:

(a) Every person who performs or induces an abortion shall prior thereto have made a determination based on his experience, judgment or professional competence that the fetus is not viable, and if the determination is that the fetus is viable or if there is sufficient reason to believe that the fetus may be viable, shall exercise that degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the fetus which such person would be required to exercise in order to preserve the life and health of any fetus intended to be born and not aborted and the abortion technique employed shall be that which would provide the best opportunity for the fetus to be aborted alive so long as a different technique would not be necessary in order to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Doctors who failed to adhere to the provisions of this section were liable to civil and criminal prosecution "as would pertain to him had the fetus been a child who was intended to be born and not aborted." Franklin and others sued, arguing that the provision was both vague and overbroad. In a 6–3 decision written by Roe author Harry Blackmun, the Supreme Court agreed, finding that requiring a determination "if... the fetus is viable or if there is sufficient reason to believe the fetus may be viable" was insufficient and impermissibly vague guidance for physicians who might face criminal liability if a jury disagrees with their judgment.

• Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision upheld the constitutionality of a state law, giving hiring preference to veterans over nonveterans.[156]

The law was challenged as violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by a woman, who argued that the law discriminated on the basis of sex because so few women were veterans.[156]

• Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the exemption on request of women from jury service under Missouri law, resulting in an average of less than 15% women on jury venires in the forum county, violated the "fair-cross-section" requirement of the Sixth Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth.

1980

• Shyamala Rajender v. University of Minnesota was a landmark class action lawsuit dealing with sexual discrimination at an American university.[157] The case was filed on September 5, 1973 by Shyamala Rajender, an assistant professor of chemistry at the University of Minnesota. Rajender accused the university of engaging in employment discrimination on the basis of sex and national origin after she was turned down for a tenure-track position despite being recommended for the position by several university committees.[158] The suit was certified as a class action by the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota in 1978. After eleven weeks of trial, the suit was settled in 1980 by a consent decree. Rajender received $100,000 and Judge Miles Lord enjoined the university from discriminating against women on the basis of sex.[159] Rajender's attorneys were awarded approximately $2 million in fees.[160]
• Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980),[161] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that States that participated in Medicaid were not required to fund medically necessary abortions for which federal reimbursement was unavailable as a result of the Hyde Amendment, which restricted the use of federal funds for abortion. The Court also held that the funding restrictions of the Hyde Amendment did not violate either the Fifth Amendment or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
• In William v. Zbaraz, the United States Supreme Court upheld that states could constitutionally make their own versions of the anti-abortion Hyde Amendment, and that states/the federal government have no statutory or constitutional obligation to fund medically necessary abortions.
• Alexander v. Yale, 631 F.2d 178 (2d Cir. 1980),[162] was the first use of Title IX[163] in charges of sexual harassment against an educational institution.[164] It further established that sexual harassment of female students could be considered sex discrimination, and was thus illegal.

1981

• The full end of the legal subordination of a wife to her husband: Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 450 U.S. 455 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held a Louisiana Head and Master law, which gave sole control of marital property to the husband, unconstitutional.[165]
• H. L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 (1981) was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case, according to which a state may require a doctor to inform a teenaged girl's parents before performing an abortion or face criminal penalty.
• Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the practice of requiring only men to register for the draft was constitutional. After extensive hearings, floor debate and committee sessions on the matter, the United States Congress enacted the law, as it had previously been, to apply to men only. Several attorneys, including Robert L. Goldberg, subsequently challenged the gender distinction as unconstitutional. (The named defendant is Bernard D. Rostker, Director of the Selective Service System.) In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court held that this gender distinction was not a violation of the equal protection component of the due process clause, and that the Act would stand as passed.
• Bundy v. Jackson, 641 F.2d 934 (C.A. D.C. 1981), was a D.C. Circuit opinion, written by Judge Skelly Wright, that held that workplace sexual harassment could constitute employment discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County, 450 U.S. 464 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court case over the issue of gender bias in statutory rape laws. The petitioner argued that the statutory rape law discriminated based on gender and was unconstitutional. The court ruled otherwise. Sexual intercourse entails a higher risk for women than men. Thus, the court found the law just in targeting men as the only possible perpetrators of statutory rape.[166]
• The version of the Hyde Amendment in force from 1981 until 1993 prohibited the use of federal funds for abortions "except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term."[167]
• The Supreme Court of the United States determined in County of Washington v. Gunther that the Bennett Amendment explicitly incorporated only limited defenses to unequal pay due to sex and did not otherwise bar suits based on a comparison of payment for different jobs. Nevertheless, it has continued to be used to bar comparable worth suits in lower courts.

1982

• Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982) was a case decided 5–4 by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court held that the single-sex admissions policy of the Mississippi University for Women violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[168]
• Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc., 670 F.2d 760 (7th Cir. 1982) is a US labor law decision of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the award of attorney's fees in a discrimination lawsuit. The facts of the case involved allegedly discriminatory practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The litigants of the case settled in favor of the plaintiffs, but brought the issue of reasonable attorney's fees to the district court. Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal, Inc. found that the reasonable attorney's fees are recoverable for time spent persuading the Federal Government to debar a defendant from its contracts when engaging in discriminatory practices. Reasonable attorney's fees are to be determined by the plaintiff's attorneys' rates, not by customary rates of attorneys in the locality in which the district court sits. Reasonable attorney's fees for risks of litigation and quality or representation are recoverable.
• New York City: After Brenda Berkman’s requests for a firefighting test that was fairer for women were ignored, she filed an ultimately successful class-action lawsuit: Brenda Berkman, et al. v. The City of New York (1982).[169] A new test was created in which standards were changed so the test was job-related and Brenda with 40 other women passed to enter the fire academy in 1982.[170] (See Brenda Berkman, et al. v. The City of New York, CV-79-1813, 536 F. Supp. 177 (E.D.N.Y. 1982), aff’d Berkman v. City of New York, 705 F.2d 584 (2d Cir. 1983.))

1983

• City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983),[171] was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed its abortion rights jurisprudence. The case, decided June 15, 1983, struck down an Ohio abortion law with several provisions.
• After 139 years of existence as an all-male public high school, Central's all-male policy was challenged by Susan Vorchheimer, who wished to be admitted to Central. On August 7, 1975, U.S. District Court Judge Clarence C. Newcomer ruled that Central must admit academically qualified girls starting in the fall term of 1975. The decision was appealed, and the Third Circuit Court ruled that Central had the right to retain its present status.[172] The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court that, on April 19, 1977, upheld the Third Circuit Court's verdict by a 4 to 4 vote with one abstention.[173] That Supreme Court case was called Vorchheimer v. School Dist. of Philadelphia. However, in August 1983, Judge William M. Marutani of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, ruled that the single-sex admission policy was unconstitutional. The Board of Education voted not to appeal the legal decision, thereby admitting girls to Central High School. In September 1983, the first six girls, all seniors, were admitted.
• Washington: Washington removed its marital exemptions for first-degree rape and second-degree rape in 1983.[174]

1984

• The U.S. Supreme Court's 1984 ruling Grove City College v. Bell[175] held that Title IX applied only to those programs receiving direct federal aid.[176] The case reached the Supreme Court when Grove City College disagreed with the Department of Education's assertion that it was required to comply with Title IX. Grove City College was not a federally funded institution; however, they did accept students who were receiving Basic Educational Opportunity Grants through a Department of Education program.[175] The Department of Education's stance was that, because some of its students were receiving federal grants, the school was receiving federal assistance and Title IX applied to it. The Court decided that since Grove City College was only receiving federal funding through the grant program, only that program had to be in compliance. The ruling was a major victory for those opposed to Title IX, as it made many institutions' sports programs outside of the rule of Title IX and, thus, reduced the scope of Title IX.[177]
• Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), was an opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's application of a Minnesota antidiscrimination law, which had permitted the United States Junior Chamber (Jaycees) to exclude women from full membership.
• People v. Pointer[178] was a criminal law case from the California Court of Appeal, First District, which is significant because the trial judge included in his sentencing a prohibition on the defendant becoming pregnant during her period of probation. The appellate court held that such a prohibition was outside the bounds of a judge's sentencing authority. The case was remanded for resentencing to undo the overly broad prohibition against conception.
• In Tallon v. Liberty Hose Co. No. 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984) it was ruled that a volunteer fire department may be held liable under section 1983 for violating a plaintiff's constitutional rights.[179]
• In Hishon v. King & Spaulding (1984) the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bans discrimination by employers in the context of any contractual employer/employee relationship, including but not limited to law partnerships.[180]
• New York: In the 1984 New York Court of Appeals case of People v. Liberta, judge Sol Wachtler stated that "a marriage license should not be viewed as a license for a husband to forcibly rape his wife with impunity. A married woman has the same right to control her own body as does an unmarried woman".[181]

1985

• The "Mexico City Policy" came into effect, and it directed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to withhold USAID funds from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available.
• Indianapolis, Indiana: American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985),[182] aff'd mem., 475 U.S. 1001 (1986), was a 1985 court case that successfully challenged the constitutionality of the Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance, as enacted in Indianapolis, Indiana the previous year. Judge Easterbrook, writing for the court, held that the ordinance's definition and prohibition of "pornography" was unconstitutional.[183] The ordinance did not refer to the prurient interest, as required of obscenity statutes by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).[184] Rather, the ordinance defined pornography by reference to its portrayal of women, which the court held was unconstitutional, as "the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message [or] its ideas."[185]

1986

• The "Thurman Law" (aka the Family Violence Prevention and Response Act) instituted in Connecticut in 1986, made domestic violence an automatically arrestable offense, even if the victim did not wish to press charges.[186]
• Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986) was a United States Supreme Court case involving a challenge to Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act of 1982.[187] The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists sought an injunction to all enforcement of the Pennsylvania law. Although the law in question was similar to the one in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, in Thornburgh the Reagan administration asked the justices to overrule Roe v. Wade. Justice Blackmun's opinion for the court rejected this position, reaffirming Roe.
• Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), marked the United States Supreme Court's recognition of certain forms of sexual harassment as a violation of Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII, and established the standards for analyzing whether conduct was unlawful and when an employer would be liable.
• The Mann Act originally made it a felony to engage in interstate or foreign commerce transport of "any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose". In 1978, Congress updated the Mann Act's definition of "transportation" and added protections against commercial sexual exploitation for minors. In 1986 it was further amended to replace the ambiguous "debauchery" and "any other immoral purpose" with the more specific "any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense" as well as to make it gender-neutral.[188]
• Alabama: In Alabama, the marital exemption from the rape law (Merton v. State (1986)[189]) was found unconstitutional.
• District of Columbia: Women gained the right to go topless.[190]
• Rhode Island: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the laws. No otherwise qualified person shall, solely by reason of race, gender or handicap be subject to discrimination by the state, its agents or any person or entity doing business with the state. Nothing in this section shall be construed to grant or secure any right relating to abortion or the funding thereof. – Rhode Island Constitution, Article I, §2 (1986).

1987

• California Federal S. & L. Assn. v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case about whether a state may require employers to provide greater pregnancy benefits than required by federal law, as well as the ability to require pregnancy benefits to women without similar benefits to men. The court held that The California Fair Employment and Housing Act in 12945(b)(2), which requires employers to provide leave and reinstatement to employees disabled by pregnancy, is consistent with federal law.
• In 1976, the Rotary Club of Duarte in Duarte, California, admitted three women as members. After the club refused to remove the women from membership, Rotary International revoked the club's charter in 1978. The Duarte club filed suit in the California courts, claiming that Rotary Clubs are business establishments subject to regulation under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on race, gender, religion or ethnic origin. Rotary International then appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court, on 4 May 1987, confirmed the Californian decision supporting women, in the case Board of Directors, Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte.[191] Rotary International then removed the gender requirements from its requirements for club charters, and most clubs in most countries have opted to include women as members of Rotary Clubs.[192][193]
• Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987), is the only United States Supreme Court case to address a sex-based affirmative action plan in the employment context. The case was brought by Paul Johnson, a male Santa Clara Transportation Agency employee, who was passed over for a promotion in favor of Diane Joyce, a female employee who Johnson argued was less qualified. The Court found that the plan did not violate the protection against discrimination on the basis of sex in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII.[194]

1988

• The Civil Rights Restoration Act was passed in 1988 which extended Title IX coverage to all programs of any educational institution that receives any federal assistance, both direct and indirect.[195]
• Bellingham, Washington: A version of the Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance was passed in Bellingham, Washington; however, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the city of Bellingham after the ordinance was passed, and the federal court struck the law down on First Amendment grounds.
• H.R.5050 - Women's Business Ownership Act of 1988: The Women's Business Ownership Act was passed in 1988 with the help of the National Association Women Business Owners (NAWBO). The Act was created to address the needs of women in business by giving women entrepreneurs better recognition, additional resources, and by eliminating discriminatory lending practices by banks that favored male business owners over female. The bill was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. Among other things, it put an end to state laws that required women to have male relatives sign business loans.

1989

• Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court decision on July 3, 1989 upholding a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on the use of state funds, facilities, and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling on abortions. The Supreme Court in Webster allowed for states to legislate in an area that had previously been thought to be forbidden under Roe v. Wade.
• Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), was an important decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of employer liability for sex discrimination. The Court held that the employer, the accounting firm Price Waterhouse, must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision regarding employment would have been the same if sex discrimination had not occurred. The accounting firm failed to prove that the same decision to postpone Ann Hopkins's promotion to partnership would have still been made in the absence of sex discrimination, and therefore, the employment decision constituted sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The significance of the Supreme Court's ruling was twofold. First, it established that gender stereotyping is actionable as sex discrimination. Second, it established the mixed-motive framework as an evidentiary framework for proving discrimination under a disparate treatment theory even when lawful reasons for the adverse employment action are also present.[196]
• The first "Restroom Equity" Act in the United States was passed in California in 1989.[197] It was introduced by then-Senator Arthur Torres after several long waits for his wife to return from the bathroom.[197]

1990

• Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case that dealt with whether a state law may require notification of both parents before a minor can obtain an abortion. The law in question provided a judicial alternative. The law was declared valid with the judicial bypass, but the ruling struck down the two-parent notification requirement.

1991

• The Civil Rights Act of 1991 added provisions to Title VII protections including expanding the rights of women to sue and collect compensatory and punitive damages for sexual discrimination or harassment.
• The case of Ellison v. Brady (US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit – 924 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991)) resulted in rejecting the reasonable person standard in favor of the "reasonable woman standard" in sexual harassment cases which allowed for such cases to be analyzed from the perspective of the complainant and not the defendant.[198]
• Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 1991 that found restrictions on funding with regard to abortion counseling to be constitutionally permissible.
• United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc. 499 U.S. 187 (1991)[199] is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that private sector policies which allow men but not women to knowingly work in potentially hazardous occupations is gender discrimination and violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. At the time the case was heard, it was considered one of the most important sex-discrimination cases since the passage of Title VII.[200]
• In Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., a Florida district court judge ruled that "pictures of nude and partially nude women" placed throughout the workplace do constitute sexual harassment.[201]

1992

• Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the constitutionality of several Pennsylvania state statutory provisions regarding abortion were challenged. Notably, the case was a turn from the Roe v. Wade decision to tie an abortion's legality to the third trimester, associating the legal timeframe with fetal viability. In theory, its aim was to make the woman's decision more thoughtful and informed.[202] The Court's plurality opinion upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion while altering the standard for analyzing restrictions on that right. Applying its new standard of review, the Court upheld four regulations and invalidated the requirement of spousal notification.
• In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the United States Supreme Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.
• New York State: In 1986, seven women who picnicked topless were charged in Rochester, New York with baring "that portion of the breast which is below the top of the areola".[203] That law had originally been enacted to discourage 'topless' waitresses. The women were initially convicted, but on appeal two of the women's charges were reversed by the New York State Court of Appeals in 1992 on equal protection grounds in Santorelli's case.[204][205][206][190]

1993

• Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993), is a case in which the United States of America Supreme Court clarified the definition of a "hostile" or "abusive" work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that a determination about whether a work environment is hostile or abusive requires a consideration of all relevant circumstances.[207]
• Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) does not provide a federal cause of action against persons obstructing access to abortion clinics. Several abortion clinics (most known was the Alexandria Health Clinic) sued to prevent Jayne Bray and other anti-abortion protesters from voicing their freedom of speech in front of the clinics in Washington D.C.[208]

Alexandria Women's Health Clinic reported that the protesters violated 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), which prohibits protests to deprive "any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws."[209]

• The "Mexico City Policy", which directed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to withhold USAID funds from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available, was rescinded by President Clinton.
• On October 22, 1993, President Clinton signed into law the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1994.[210] The Act contained a new version of the Hyde Amendment that expanded the category of abortions for which federal funds are available under Medicaid to include cases of rape and incest.[211]  
• The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) is a United States federal law requiring covered employers to provide employees job-protected and unpaid leave for qualified medical and family reasons. Qualified medical and family reasons include: personal or family illness, family military leave, pregnancy, adoption, or the foster care placement of a child.[212]
• By 1993, all states had either withdrawn exemptions used to legalize marital rape, with the last states to do so being Oklahoma and North Carolina[213] (both in 1993) or their exemption had been declared judicially to be unconstitutional.
• Utah: In Beynon v. St. George-Dixie Lodge 1743 (1993),[214] the Utah Supreme Court ruled that while Freedom of Association allowed the Elks to remain a men-only organization, "the Elks may not avail itself of the benefits of a liquor license and the license's concomitant state regulation" as long as it violated the Utah State Civil Rights Act. Faced with losing their liquor licenses if they did not admit women, the Elks Lodges of Utah voted to become unisex in June 1993,[215] which was followed by a vote at the Elks National Convention in July 1995[216] to remove the word "male" from the national membership requirements.

1994

• Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994), is a United States Supreme Court case where Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of an injunction entered by a Florida state court which prohibits antiabortion protesters from demonstrating in certain places and in various ways outside of a health clinic that performs abortions.[217] The Madsen majority sustained the constitutionality of the Clinic's thirty-six foot buffer zone and the noise-level provision, finding that they burdened no more speech than necessary to serve the injunction's goals. However, the Court struck down the thirty-six foot buffer zone as applied to the private property north and west of the Clinic, .the 'images observable' provision, the three hundred foot no-approach zone around the Clinic, and the three hundred foot buffer zone around residences. The Court found that these provisions " [swept] more broadly than necessary" to protect the state's interests. Thus, the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court was affirmed in part and reversed in part.[218]
• The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 is a United States federal law (Title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, H.R. 3355) signed as Pub.L. 103–322 by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994 (codified in part at 42 U.S.C. sections 13701 through 14040). The Act provides $1.6 billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposes automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allows civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave un-prosecuted. The Act also establishes the Office on Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice.
• In 1994, the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, sponsored by congresswoman Cardiss Collins, required federally assisted higher education institutions to disclose information on roster sizes for men's and women's teams, as well as budgets for recruiting, scholarships, coaches' salaries, and other expenses, annually.[219]
• J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that making peremptory challenges based solely on a prospective juror's sex is unconstitutional. J.E.B. extended the court's existing precedent in Batson v. Kentucky (1986), which found race-based peremptory challenges in criminal trials unconstitutional, and Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company (1991), which extended that principle to civil trials. As in Batson, the court found that sex-based challenges violate the Equal Protection Clause.
• The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE or the Access Act, Pub. L. No. 103-259, 108 Stat. 694) (May 26, 1994, 18 U.S.C. § 248) is a United States law that was signed by President Bill Clinton in May 1994, which prohibits the following three things: (1) the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is obtaining reproductive health services or providing reproductive health services (this portion of the law typically refers to abortion clinics), (2) the use of physical force, threat of physical force, or physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate, interfere with or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person who is exercising or trying to exercise their First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship, (3) the intentional damage or destruction of a reproductive health care facility or a place of worship.[220][221]

1995

• Columbus, Ohio: Women in Columbus, Ohio gained the right to go topless.[190]
• The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 28 U.S.C. § 994 note Sec. 280003, requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived gender, race, color, religion, national origin, or ethnicity of any person. In 1995, the Sentencing Commission implemented these guidelines, which only apply to federal crimes.[222]

1996

• Fauziya Kasinga, a 19-year-old member of the Tchamba-Kunsuntu tribe of Togo, was granted asylum in 1996 after leaving an arranged marriage to escape FGM; this set a precedent in U.S. immigration law because it was the first time FGM was accepted as a form of persecution.[223] In addition, this was the first situation in which asylum was granted based on gender.[224]
• United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the Virginia Military Institute (VMI)'s long-standing male-only admission policy in a 7–1 decision. (Justice Clarence Thomas, whose son was enrolled at VMI at the time, recused himself.)
• The Newborns' and Mothers' Health Protection Act of 1996 is a piece of legislation relating to the coverage of maternity by health insurance plans in the United States of America. It was signed into law on September 26, 1996 and requires plans that offer maternity coverage to pay for at least a 48-hour hospital stay following childbirth (96-hour stay in the case of a caesarean section).
• California: The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. – California Constitution, Article I, §31(a) (1996) (1996 California Proposition 209)

1997

• The Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997 enacted 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f)(1)(F)(ii), which requires campus security authorities to collect and report data on hate crimes committed on the basis of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability.
• The Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act is enacted.[225]
• Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York, 519 U.S. 357 (1997), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court related to legal protection of access to abortion. It ruled in an 8–1 decision that "floating buffer zones" preventing protesters approaching people entering or leaving abortion clinics were unconstitutional, though "fixed buffer zones" around the clinics themselves remained constitutional. The Court's upholding the fixed buffer was the most important aspect of the ruling, because it was a common feature of injunctions nationwide.[226]
• The Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, often called "the Lautenberg Amendment" ("Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence", Pub.L. 104–208 (text) (pdf),[227] 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)[228]), is an amendment to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, enacted by the 104th United States Congress in 1996, which bans access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. The act is often referred to as "the Lautenberg Amendment" after its sponsor, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D – NJ).
• Yeaw v. Boy Scouts of America was a high-profile case filed in 1997 before the Supreme Court of California to determine whether the Boy Scouts of America is a business establishment within the meaning of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51) and does not have the right to exclude girls from membership.[229][230] It was determined The Boy Scouts of America are not considered a "business establishment" and do not fall under the provisions of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
• Gloria Allred represented Melrose Place actress Hunter Tylo in 1997 when producer Aaron Spelling fired her because she was pregnant.[231][232] A jury awarded Tylo $4.8 million. The case was important in establishing the rights of actors to continue work if they become pregnant.[233]

1998

• Iowa: All men and women are, by nature, free and equal and have certain inalienable rights—among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. – Iowa Constitution, Article I, §1 (1998).
• Florida: Basic rights. All natural persons, female and male alike, are equal before the law and have inalienable rights, among which are the right to enjoy and defend life and liberty, to pursue happiness, to be rewarded for industry, and to acquire, possess and protect property; except that the ownership, inheritance, disposition and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship may be regulated or prohibited by law. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability. – Florida Constitution, Article I, §2 (1998).
• Moscow, Idaho: Women in Moscow, Idaho gained the right to go topless.[190]
• Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court identified the circumstances under which an employer may be held liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the acts of a supervisory employee whose sexual harassment of subordinates has created a hostile work environment amounting to employment discrimination. The court held that "an employer is vicariously liable for actionable discrimination caused by a supervisor, but subject to an affirmative defense looking to the reasonableness of the employer's conduct as well as that of a plaintiff victim."
• Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 US 742 (1998) is a landmark employment law case of the United States Supreme Court holding that employers are liable if supervisors create a hostile work environment for employees. Ellerth also introduced a two-part affirmative defense allowing employers to avoid sex discrimination liability if they follow best practices. Ellerth is often considered alongside Faragher v. City of Boca Raton.
• Lois E. Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co. was the first class-action sexual harassment lawsuit in the United States. It was filed in 1988 on behalf of Lois Jenson and other female workers at the EVTAC mine in Eveleth, Minnesota on the state's northern Mesabi Range, which is part of the Iron Range. On December 23, 1998, just before the trial was set to begin, fifteen women settled with Eveleth Mines for a total of $3.5 million.
• Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the validity of laws relating to U.S. citizenship at birth for children born outside the United States, out of wedlock, to an American parent. The Court declined to overturn a more restrictive citizenship requirement applying to an illegitimate foreign-born child of an American father, as opposed to a child born to an American mother under similar circumstances.
• In Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, the Supreme Court ruled that in order for a party to recover sexual harassment damages under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, they must show that a school district official knew what was happening and was able to take measures to correct it if they wished, and that the educational establishment deliberately failed to respond properly. Since that was not what happened in this case, Lago Vista was not liable for sexual harassment damages.[234]
• Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. The case arose out of a suit for sex discrimination by a male oil-rig worker, who claimed that he was repeatedly subjected to sexual harassment by his male co-workers with the acquiescence of his employer. The Court held that Title VII's protection against workplace discrimination "because of... sex" applied to harassment in the workplace between members of the same sex.

1999

• A United States House of Representatives appropriations bill (HR 2490) that contained an amendment specifically permitting breastfeeding[235] was signed into law on September 29, 1999. It stipulated that no government funds may be used to enforce any prohibition on women breastfeeding their children in federal buildings or on federal property.
• A federal law enacted in 1999 specifically provides that "a woman may breastfeed her child at any location in a federal building or on federal property, if the woman and her child are otherwise authorized to be present at the location."[236]
• In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that a school board can be held responsible under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 for student-on-student sexual harassment.[237]

21st century

2000

• Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000), is a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with a Nebraska law which made performing "partial-birth abortion" illegal, without regard for the health of the mother. Nebraska physicians who performed the procedure contrary to the law were subject to having their medical licenses revoked. The Court struck down the law, finding the Nebraska statute criminalizing "partial birth abortion[s]" violated the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, as interpreted in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade.
• United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided insurance for prescription drugs to their employees but excluded birth control were violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[238]

2001

• The "Mexico City Policy", which directed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to withhold USAID funds from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available, was reinstated by President George W. Bush, who implemented it through conditions in USAID grant awards, and subsequently extended the policy to "voluntary population planning" assistance provided by the Department of State.
• Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court decision that found Medical University of South Carolina's policy regarding involuntary drug testing of pregnant women to violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that the search in question was unreasonable.
• Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the validity of laws relating to U.S. citizenship at birth for children born outside the United States, out of wedlock, to an American parent. The Court declined to overturn a more restrictive citizenship requirement applying to a foreign-born child of an American father and a non-American mother who was not married to the father, as opposed to a child born to an American mother under similar circumstances.[239][240]

2002

• Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2002), was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the Bush Administration's re-imposition of the Mexico City Policy, which states that "the United States will no longer contribute to separate nongovernmental organizations which perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations."
• In Apessos v. Memorial Press Group, a Massachusetts state court made a ruling forbidding employers from firing domestic violence survivors who need to take time off from work to obtain a court order of protection.[241]

2003

• Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 537 U.S. 393 (2003), is a United States Supreme Court case involving whether abortion providers could receive damages from protesters under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.[242] National Organization for Women (NOW) obtained class status for women seeking the use of women's health clinics and began its court battle against Joseph Scheidler and PLAN et al. in 1986. In this particular case, the court's opinion was that extortion did not apply to the defendants' actions because they did not obtain any property from the respondents (NOW and the class of women).
• The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108–105 (text) (pdf), 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531,[243] "PBA Ban") is a United States law prohibiting a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls "partial-birth abortion", referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction.[244] Under this law, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both."
• Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 was "narrowly targeted" at "sex-based overgeneralization" and was thus a "valid exercise of [congressional] power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment."[245]
• The Indiana Supreme Court recognized the medical malpractice tort of "wrongful pregnancy" when a woman became pregnant after a failed sterilization procedure. The court decided that the damages may include the cost of the pregnancy but may not include the ordinary cost of raising the child, as the benefits of rearing the child could not be calculated.[246]

2005

• Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, 544 U.S. 167 (2005), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that retaliation against a person because that person has complained of sex discrimination is a form of intentional sex discrimination encompassed by Title IX.
• McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846 (5th Cir. 2004), was a case in which the principal original litigant in Roe v. Wade,[247] (1973) Norma McCorvey, also known as 'Jane Roe', requested the overturning of Roe. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that McCorvey could not do this; the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on February 22, 2005,[248] rendering the opinion of the Fifth Circuit final.
• The lawsuit Eduardo Gonzalez, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., et al. (No. C03-2817), filed in June 2003, alleged that the nationwide retailer Abercrombie & Fitch "violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by maintaining recruiting and hiring practice that excluded minorities and women and adopting a restrictive marketing image, and other policies, which limited minority and female employment."[249][250] The female and Latino, African-American, and Asian American plaintiffs charged that they were either not hired despite strong qualifications or if hired "they were steered not to sales positions out front, but to low-visibility, back-of-the-store jobs, stocking and cleaning up."[251] In April 2005, the U.S. District Court approved a settlement, valued at approximately $50 million, which requires the retail clothing giant Abercrombie & Fitch to provide monetary benefits to the class of Latino, African American, Asian American and female applicants and employees who charged the company with discrimination.[251][252] The settlement, rendered as a Consent Decree, also requires the company to institute a range of policies and programs to promote diversity among its workforce and to prevent discrimination based on race or gender.[249][252] Implementation of the Consent Decree continued into 2011. Abercrombie did not admit liability.[251]
• Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.
• New York City: New York City Council passed a law in 2005 requiring all new establishments falling under the terms of the legislation to maintain roughly a two-to-one ratio of women's bathroom stalls to men's stalls and urinals. Existing establishments were required to come into compliance when they undergo extensive renovations, while restaurants, schools, hospitals, and municipal buildings were excluded.[253][254]
• The U.S. Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (implemented in January 2007) prevented college health centers and many health care providers from participating in the drug pricing discount program, which formerly allowed contraceptives to be sold to students and women of low income in the United States at low cost.
• Tennessee: Until 2005, when it was repealed, the law in Tennessee stated that a person could be guilty of the rape of a spouse at a time they are living together only if that person either "was armed with a weapon or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead the alleged victim to reasonably believe it to be a weapon" or "caused serious bodily injury to the alleged victim". This meant that, in practice, most cases of marital rape could not be prosecuted, since few rapes involve such extreme circumstances. The law was finally repealed in 2005, allowing for marital rape to be treated like any other type of rape.[255][256][257]

2006

• Jespersen v. Harrah's Operating Co., No. 03-15045 (9th Cir. Apr. 14, 2006, en banc) was a United States federal employment law sex discrimination case.

Darlene Jespersen was a 20-year employee at Harrah's Casino in Reno, Nevada. In 2000, Harrah's advanced a "Personal Best" policy, which created strict standards for employee appearance and grooming, which included a requirement that women wear substantial amounts of makeup. Jespersen was fired for non-compliance with its policy. Jespersen argued the makeup requirement was contrary to her self-image, and that the requirement violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[258][259]

In 2001, Jespersen filed a lawsuit in United States District Court for the District of Nevada, which found against her claim. The district court opined that the policy imposed "equal burdens" on both sexes and that the policy did not discriminate based on immutable characteristics of her sex. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, but on rehearing en banc, reversed part of its decision. The full panel concluded, in contrast to the previous rulings, that such grooming requirements could be challenged as sex stereotyping in some cases, even in view of the decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. However, the panel found that Jespersen had not provided evidence that the policy had been motivated by stereotyping, and affirmed the district court's finding for Harrah's.[260][261][262]

• Khalid Adem, an Ethiopian American, was both the first person prosecuted and first person convicted for female genital mutilation (FGM) in the United States,[263][264] stemming from charges that he had personally excised his 2-year-old daughter's clitoris with a pair of scissors.[265][266][267]
• On November 24, 2006, the Title IX regulations were amended to provide greater flexibility in the operation of single-sex classes or extracurricular activities at the primary or secondary school level.[268]
• Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving a facial challenge to New Hampshire's parental notification abortion law. The First Circuit had ruled that the law was unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement was proper. The Supreme Court vacated this judgment and remanded the case, but avoided a substantive ruling on the challenged law or a reconsideration of prior Supreme Court abortion precedent. Instead, the Court only addressed the issue of remedy, holding that invalidating a statute in its entirety "is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief."
• Governor Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana signed into law a ban on most forms of abortion (unless the life of the mother was in danger or her health would be permanently damaged) once it passed the state legislature. The bill would only go into effect if the United States Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade. Louisiana's measure would allow the prosecution of any person who performed or aided in an abortion. The penalties include up to 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $100,000.[269]
• In Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, the standard for retaliation against a sexual harassment complainant was revised to include any adverse employment decision or treatment that would be likely to dissuade a "reasonable worker" from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.
• Michigan: The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or Proposal 2 (Michigan 06-2), was a ballot initiative that passed into Michigan Constitutional law. MCRI was a citizen initiative aimed at stopping discrimination based on race, color, sex, or religion in admission to colleges, jobs, and other publicly funded institutions – effectively prohibiting affirmative action by public institutions based on those factors.[270] Its constitutionality was challenged in federal court, but its constitutionality was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.[271]

2007

• Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.[272]
• Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), is an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, stating that employers cannot be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more. Justice Alito held for the five-justice majority that each paycheck received did not constitute a discrete discriminatory act, even if affected by a prior decision outside the time limit. Ledbetter's claim of the "paycheck accrual rule" was rejected.[273] The decision did not prevent plaintiffs from suing under other laws, like the Equal Pay Act, which has a three-year deadline for most sex discrimination claims,[274] or 42 U.S.C. 1981, which has a four-year deadline for suing over race discrimination.[275]
• In 2007, Michael Buday and Diana Bijon enlisted the American Civil Liberties Union and filed a discrimination lawsuit against the state of California. According to the ACLU, the obstacles facing a husband who wishes to adopt his wife's last name violated the equal protection clause provided by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.[276] At the time of the lawsuit, only the states of Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York and North Dakota explicitly allowed a man to change his name through marriage with the same ease as a woman. As a result of the lawsuit, the Name Equality Act of 2007 was passed to allow either spouse to change their name, using their marriage license as the means of the change; the law took effect in 2009.[277][278]

2008

• Nebraska: (1) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.[....] (3) Nothing in this section prohibits bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. – Nebraska Constitution, Article I, §30 (2008).
• Maouloud Baby v. State of Maryland[279] (aka Maryland v. Baby) is a Maryland state court case relating to the ability to withdraw sexual consent.[280] The jury in the trial court convicted Baby of first degree rape and related charges, but the Court of Special Appeals, based upon a 1980 precedent that held that a rape could not legally occur if a woman withdrew consent after penetration,[281] reversed the conviction.[282] That precedent interpreted the English common law such that the withdrawal of consent following initial penetration did not make the act a rape. The court noted other states had noted that the act of intercourse is not completed at the initial penetration, and so consent could be withdrawn at any point during intercourse. For rape, the court noted that force or threat of force was a necessary element of the crime. Due to issues involving the instructions to the jury regarding rape and consent, the case was remanded for a new trial. In 2008, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Special Appeals' reversal of the convictions and remand for re-trial, due to the trial court's error in failing to answer the jury's questions about whether a sex act continued after the withdrawal of consent could constitute rape if penetration had already occurred.[279] However, the court ruled that consent could be withdrawn at any time, even if the victim had initially consented.[283]
• In 2008 the Federal Bureau of Prisons mandated that in all federal correctional facilities, "inmates in labor, delivery, or post-delivery recuperations shall not be placed in restraints unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the inmate presents an immediate serious threat of hurting herself or others, or there are reasonable grounds to believe the inmate presents an immediate and credible risk of escape."[284]
• In April 2008, President George W. Bush signed the Second Chance Act into law, requiring all federal facilities to document and report "the use of physical restraints on pregnant female prisoners during pregnancy, labor, delivery, and post-delivery and justify the use of restraints with documented security concerns".[284]

2009

• The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Pub.L. 111–2 (text) (pdf), S. 181) is a federal statute in the United States that was the first bill signed into law by President Barack Obama on January 29, 2009. The Act amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act states that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new paycheck affected by that discriminatory action. The law directly addressed Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), a U.S. Supreme Court decision that the statute of limitations for presenting an equal-pay lawsuit begins on the date that the employer makes the initial discriminatory wage decision, not at the date of the most recent paycheck.
• The "Mexico City Policy" was rescinded January 23, 2009, three days after President Barack Obama took office.[285]
• Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, 555 U.S. 271 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously ruled that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects an employee who opposes unlawful sexual harassment, but does not report the harassment him or herself.
• The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, also known as the Matthew Shepard Act, is an American Act of Congress, passed on October 22, 2009,[286] and signed into law by President Barack Obama on October 28, 2009,[287] as a rider to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2010 (H.R. 2647). Conceived as a response to the murders of Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr., the measure expands the 1969 United States federal hate-crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.[288]

The bill also:

• Removes the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity, like voting or going to school;
• Gives federal authorities greater ability to engage in hate crimes investigations that local authorities choose not to pursue;
• Provided $5 million per year in funding for fiscal years 2010 through 2012 to help state and local agencies pay for investigating and prosecuting hate crimes;
• Requires the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to track statistics on hate crimes based on gender and gender identity (statistics for the other groups were already tracked).[289][290]

• Section 3A1.1 of the 2009 United States Sentencing Guidelines states that: "If the finder of fact at trial or, in the case of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court at sentencing determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person," the sentencing court is required to increase the standard sentencing range.[291]

2010

• United States, jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit: In Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that a hostile work environment can be created in a workplace where sexually explicit language and pornography are present. A hostile workplace may exist even if it is not targeted at any particular employee.[292]
• Section 4207 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act and required employers to provide a reasonable break time for an employee to breastfeed her child if it is less than one year old.[293] The employee must be allowed to breastfeed in a private place, other than a bathroom. The employer is not required to pay the employee during the break time.[293] Employers with fewer than 50 employees are not required to comply with the law if doing so would impose an undue hardship to the employer based on its size, finances, nature, or structure of its business.[294]
• Sex discrimination was outlawed in health insurance.[295]
• Executive Order 13535 is an executive order announced by President Barack Obama on March 21, 2010, and signed on March 24. It reinforces a commitment to preservation of the Hyde Amendment's policy restricting federal funds for abortion within the context of recent health care legislation.[296][297] The order was signed after an agreement with pro-life Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak, who had said he and several other pro-life Democrats in the House of Representatives would not support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unless the Bill's language prohibiting federal funding of abortions was strengthened.[298][299]
• In United States v. Jardee[300] it was ruled that the threat of being subjected to the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban did not turn an otherwise "petty" crime into a "serious" one requiring a jury trial.
• Oklahoma: Sex-selective abortions were banned in Oklahoma.

2011

• Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. ___ (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case. The case was an appeal from the Ninth Circuit's decision in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in which the Supreme Court, by a 5–4 decision, reversed the district court's decision to certify a class action lawsuit in which the plaintiff class included 1.6 million women who currently work or have worked for Wal-Mart stores, including the lead plaintiff, Betty Dukes. Dukes, a current Wal-Mart employee, and others alleged gender discrimination in pay and promotion policies and practices in Wal-Mart stores.[301] The Court agreed to hear argument on whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(2), which provides for class-actions if the defendant's actions make injunctive relief appropriate, can be used to file a class action that demands monetary damages. The Court also asked the parties to argue whether the class meets the traditional requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.[302] The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the class should not be certified in its current form but was only 5-4 on the reason for that and whether the class could continue in a different form.
• Arizona: Sex-selective abortions were banned in Arizona.

2012

• Planned Parenthood v. Rounds (686 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2012) (en banc)) was a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that upheld a provision of a South Dakota law that requires a doctor to inform a patient, prior to providing an abortion, that one of the "known medical risks of the procedure and statistically significant risk factors" is an "increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide."
• A provision of the Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, effective August 1, 2012, states that all new health insurance plans must cover certain preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charging a deductible, co-pay or coinsurance. Women's Preventive Services – including: well-woman visits; gestational diabetes screening; human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing for women age 30 and older; sexually transmitted infection counseling; human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening and counseling; FDA-approved contraceptive methods and contraceptive counseling; breastfeeding support, supplies and counseling; and domestic violence screening and counseling – will be covered without cost sharing.[303] The requirement to cover FDA-approved contraceptive methods is also known as the contraceptive mandate.[304][305]
• In Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that the Family Medical Leave Act's self-care leave provision is not enforceable against states; the court did not agree that the provision addresses sex discrimination and sex stereotyping.[306]

2013

• The Transport for Female Genital Mutilation Act, which prohibits knowingly transporting a girl out of the United States for the purpose of undergoing FGM, was enacted.[307]
• On March 7, 2013, President Barack Obama signed the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013.[308] The renewed act expanded federal protections to gays, lesbians and transgender individuals, Native Americans and immigrants.[309][310][311]
• University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), was a Supreme Court of the United States case involving the standard of proof required for a retaliation claim under Title VII.[312] The Court held that while Title VII applies a mixed motive discrimination framework to claims of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2), that framework did not apply to claims of retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. The Court reasoned that based on its decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. and on common law principles of tort law, the plaintiff was required to show that a retaliatory motive was the "but for" cause of the adverse employment action.
• Vance v. Ball State University is a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding who is a "supervisor" for the purposes of harassment lawsuits. The Supreme Court upheld the Seventh Circuit's decision in a 5–4 opinion written by Samuel Alito, rejecting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's interpretation of who counts as a supervisor.[313] The case was important because it resolved a dispute between several different circuits.[314][315][316] The Supreme Court held that an employee is a "supervisor" for purposes of vicarious liability under Title VII only if he or she is empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim.
• Florida: A Florida man successfully forced the Florida Department of Motor Vehicles to accept his decision to take his wife's last name.[317]
• Kansas: Kansas lawmakers approved sweeping anti-abortion legislation (HB 2253) on April 6, 2013 that says life begins at fertilization, forbids abortion based on gender and bans Planned Parenthood from providing sex education in schools.[318]
• Washington: Until 2013, Washington had an exemption preventing a spouse from being prosecuted with third-degree-rape against the other spouse.[319]

2014

• The Board of Immigration Appeals, America's highest immigration court, found for the first time that women who were victims of severe domestic violence in their home countries could be eligible for asylum in the United States.[320] However, this ruling was in the case of a woman from Guatemala and thus applies only to women from Guatemala.[320]
• New amendments were made to the Clery Act to require reporting on domestic violence, dating violence and stalking.
• Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), was a landmark decision[321][322] by the United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest. It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief,[323] but it is limited to closely held corporations.[lower-alpha 1] The decision is an interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

For such companies, the Court's majority directly struck down the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees, by a 5–4 vote.[324] The court said that the mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care, noting that a less restrictive alternative was being provided for religious non-profits, until the Court issued an injunction 3 days later, effectively ending said alternative, replacing it with a government-sponsored alternative for any female employees of closely held corporations that do not wish to provide birth control.[325]

• United States v. Castleman (2014) challenged the application of the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban to misdemeanor convictions which did not involve "the use or attempted use of physical force". In a 9–0 decision, the United States Supreme Court held that Castleman's conviction of "misdemeanor domestic assault" did qualify as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" under Tennessee state law. Specifically they held that the ""physical force" requirement is satisfied by the degree of force that supports a common-law battery conviction – namely, offensive touching" – thereby preventing him from possession of firearms.[326]
• McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case. The Court unanimously held that Massachusetts' 35-feet fixed abortion buffer zones, established via amendments to that state's Reproductive Health Care Facilities Act, violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because it limited free speech too broadly.
• Oregon: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the state of Oregon or by any political subdivision in this state on account of sex. – Oregon Constitution, Article I, §46.

2015

• Tennessee [327]
• Kansas became the first state in the United States to ban the dilation and evacuation procedure, a common second-trimester abortion procedure.[328] But the new law was later struck down by the Kansas Court of Appeals in January 2016 without ever having gone into effect.[329]
• The Obama administration issued a new rule stating that a closely held for-profit company that objects to covering contraception in its health plan can write a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services stating its objection, and that the Department will then notify a third-party insurer of the company's objection, and the insurer will provide birth control coverage to the company's female employees at no additional cost to the company.[330]
• A policy update in 2015 required all Indian Health Services-run pharmacies, clinics, and emergency departments to have Plan B One-Step in stock, to distribute it to any woman (or her representative) who asked for it without a prescription, age verification, registration or any other requirement, to provide orientation training to all staff regarding the medication, to provide unbiased and medically accurate information about emergency contraception, and to make someone available at all times to distribute the pill in case the primary staffer objected to providing it on religious or moral grounds.[331]
• Ellen Pao v. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers LLC and DOES 1–20 was a lawsuit filed in 2012 in San Francisco County Superior Court under the law of California by executive Ellen Pao for gender discrimination against her employer, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Overlapping with a number of condemning studies on the representation of women in venture capital, the case was followed closely by reporters, advocacy groups and Silicon Valley executives.[332] Given the tendency for similar cases to reach settlements out of court, coverage of Pao v. Kleiner Perkins described it as a landmark trial once it began in February 2015.[333][334] On March 27, 2015 the jury found in favor of Kleiner Perkins on all counts.
• In the U.S. Supreme Court case Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. ___ (2015), the Court held that Congress specifically intended to include disparate impact claims in the Fair Housing Act, but that such claims require a plaintiff to prove it is the defendant's policies that cause a disparity.[335] The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination based on sex.[336]
• Young v. United Parcel Service, 575 U.S. ___ (2015), is a United States Supreme Court case that the Court evaluated the requirements for bringing a disparate treatment claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.[337] In a 6–3 decision, the Court held that to bring such a claim, a pregnant employee must show that their employer refused to provide accommodations and that the employer later provided accommodations to other employees with similar restrictions.[337]

2016

• Zubik v. Burwell was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires non-church employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Churches are already exempt under those regulations.[338] On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam ruling in Zubik v. Burwell that vacated the decisions of the Circuit Courts of Appeals and remanded the case "to the respective United States Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fifth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuits" for reconsideration in light of the "positions asserted by the parties in their supplemental briefs".[339] Because the Petitioners agreed that "their religious exercise is not infringed where they 'need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception'", the Court held that the parties should be given an opportunity to clarify and refine how this approach would work in practice and to "resolve any outstanding issues".[340] The Supreme Court expressed "no view on the merits of the cases."[341] In a concurring opinion, Justice Sotomeyer, joined by Justice Ginsburg noted that in earlier cases "some lower courts have ignored those instructions" and cautioned lower courts not to read any signals in the Supreme Court's actions in this case.[342]
• Voisine v. United States, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that reckless misdemeanor domestic violence convictions trigger gun control prohibitions on gun ownership.[343][344][345]
• Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case decided on June 27, 2016, when the Court ruled 5–3 that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion. It has been called the most significant abortion rights case before the Supreme Court since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.[346]
• The Survivors' Bill of Rights Act of 2016 was passed by the United States Congress in September 2016 and signed into law by US President Barack Obama on October 7, 2016.[347] The law overhauls the way that rape kits are processed within the United States and creates a bill of rights for victims. Through the law, survivors of sexual assault are given the right to have a rape kit preserved for the length of the case's statute of limitations, to be notified of an evidence kit's destruction, and to be informed about results of forensic exams.[347]
• The Obama administration issued guidance that informed states that ending Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood or other health-care providers that performed abortions might be against federal law. The Obama administration contended that Medicaid law permitted states to ban providers from the program only if the providers could not perform covered services or bill for those services. However, the Trump administration repealed this guidance in 2018.[348]

2017

• The "Mexico City Policy" was reinstated by President Trump.[349] Trump not only reinstated the policy but expanded it, making it cover all global health organizations that receive U.S. government funding, rather than only family planning organizations that do, as was previously the case.[350]
• A new law ended former President Obama's executive order, which would have mandated companies trying to get contracts with the federal government to show compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws.[351] That executive order had been enjoined by a federal judge in October 2016.[352]
• In 2017 a rule about abortions was overturned by new legislation.[353] Late in 2016, the Obama administration issued the rule, effective in January 2017, banning U.S. states from withholding federal family-planning funds from health clinics that give abortions, including Planned Parenthood affiliates; this rule mandates that local and state governments give federal funds for services related to sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy care, fertility, contraception, and breast and cervical cancer screening to qualified health providers whether or not they give abortions.[354] However, this rule was blocked by a federal judge the day before it would have taken effect.[355]
• The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that employers could pay women less than men for the same work if they based that on differences in the workers' previous salaries.[356]
• The Trump administration issued a ruling letting insurers and employers refuse to provide birth control if doing so went against their "religious beliefs" or "moral convictions".[357]
• Federal judge Wendy Beetlestone issued an injunction temporarily stopping the enforcement of the Trump administration ruling letting insurers and employers refuse to provide birth control if doing so went against their "religious beliefs" or "moral convictions".[357][358]

2018

• The Trump administration repealed guidance issued in 2016 by the Obama administration, which had informed states that ending Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood or other health-care providers that performed abortions might be against federal law. The Obama administration had contended that Medicaid law permitted states to ban providers from the program only if the providers could not perform covered services or bill for those services.[348]
• National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing the constitutionality of California's FACT Act, which mandated that crisis pregnancy centers provide certain disclosures about state services. The law required that licensed centers post visible notices that other options for pregnancy, including abortion, are available from state-sponsored clinics. It also mandated that unlicensed centers post notice of their unlicensed status. The centers, typically run by Christian non-profit groups, challenged the act on the basis that it violated their free speech. After prior reviews in lower courts, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, asking "Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the free speech clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment."[359] The Court ruled on June 26, 2018 in a 5–4 decision that the notices required by the FACT Act violate the First Amendment by targeting speakers rather than speech.[360]
• California: A law was signed making California the first state in America to require women to be included on companies’ boards of directors. The law requires all publicly traded California companies to have at least one woman on their boards by the end of 2019, and in 2021 requires five-member boards to have two female members, and boards with six or more members to have three.[361]
• The Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA) and Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) are the U.S. Senate and House bills that as the FOSTA-SESTA package became law on April 11, 2018. They clarify the country's sex trafficking law to make it illegal to knowingly assist, facilitate, or support sex trafficking, and amend the Section 230 safe harbors of the Communications Decency Act (which make online services immune from civil liability for the actions of their users) to exclude enforcement of federal or state sex trafficking laws from its immunity.
• On November 20, 2018, U.S. District Judge Bernard A. Friedman ruled that the federal Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996 was unconstitutional. The defendants in this case which led to this ruling had argued successfully that the practice does not pertain to the Commerce Clause under which the federal law was passed.[362]
• The FIRST STEP Act became law, and it requires the Federal Bureau of Prisons to make feminine hygiene products "available to prisoners for free, in a quantity that is appropriate to the healthcare needs of each prisoner."[363][364] It also prohibits the use of restraints on pregnant women, unless the woman "is an immediate and credible flight risk that cannot reasonably be prevented by other means" or "poses an immediate and serious threat of harm to herself or others that cannot reasonably be prevented by other means" or "a healthcare professional responsible for the health and safety of the prisoner determines that the use of restraints is appropriate for the medical safety of the prisoner." For those situations in which restraints are allowed, the legislation mandates the use of the least restrictive restraints necessary.[365] However, it only applies to federal prisons.[363]
• Indiana: The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens. – Indiana Constitution, Article 1, §23 (2018).
• District Judge Carlton Reeves blocked a Mississippi law banning abortion at 15 weeks from taking effect.[366]
• The Violence Against Women Act expired on December 21, 2018.

2019

• National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System was a court case decided on February 22, 2019 that declared that the exclusion of female conscription from the male-only draft in the United States was unconstitutional. The case did not specify any action that the government must take.[367]
• Minnesota: Until July 2019, in Minnesota sexual violence occurring between spouses at the time they cohabit or between unmarried partners could be prosecuted only if there was force or threat of thereof, due to exemptions created by Article 609.349 'Voluntary relationships'[368] which stipulated that certain sexual offenses do not apply to spouses (unless they are separated), and neither do they apply to unmarried cohabitants. These are offenses that deal with situations where the lack of consent is due to the incapacity of consent of the victim, including where the victim was drugged by the perpetrator. These situations, which were excluded from prosecution, are where the victim was "mentally impaired, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless". The term "mentally incapacitated" is defined as a person who "under the influence of alcohol, a narcotic, anesthetic, or any other substance, administered to that person without the person's agreement, lacks the judgment to give a reasoned consent to sexual contact or sexual penetration". (see Article 609.341 for definitions).[369] In 2019, these exemptions were repealed.[370][371]
• Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. (Docket 18-483) was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the constitutionality of a 2016 anti-abortion law passed in the state of Indiana. Indiana's law sought to ban abortions performed solely on the basis of the fetus' gender, race, ethnicity, or disabilities. Lower courts had blocked enforcement of the law for violating a woman's right to abortion under privacy concerns within the Fourteenth Amendment, as previously found in the landmark cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The lower courts also blocked enforcement of another portion of the law that required the disposal of aborted fetuses through burial or cremation. The per curiam decision by the Supreme Court overturned the injunction on the fetal disposal portion of the law, but otherwise did not challenge or confirm the lower courts' ruling on the non-discrimination clauses, leaving these in place.
• In June 2019, the Trump administration was allowed by a federal court of appeals to implement, while legal appeals continue, a policy restricting taxpayer dollars given to family planning facilities through Title X. This policy requires that companies receiving Title X funding must not mention abortion to patients, provide abortion referrals, or share space with abortion providers.[372][373]
• Jurisdiction of the 10th Circuit: A federal lawsuit in the 10th Circuit regarding Fort Collins's ordinance against female toplessness was won at the appellate level. In September 2019, after spending over $300,000, Fort Collins decided to stop defending their ordinance against female toplessness and repeal it. That effectively gave females of all ages the right to go topless wherever males can in the jurisdiction of the 10th Circuit (Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas and Oklahoma states as well as all counties and cities therein).[374]
• Delaware: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex. – Delaware Constitution, Article I, §21 (2019)
• A federal judge declared unconstitutional the Trump administration’s "conscience rule" that would have allowed providers of health care to refuse to participate in sterilizations, abortions, or other types of care they disagreed with on moral or religious grounds.[375]
• The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared that Mississippi’s ban on abortion at 15 weeks was unconstitutional; the Court said U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves ruled correctly when in 2018 he blocked the Mississippi law banning abortion at 15 weeks from taking effect.
• The Violence Against Women Act, which expired on December 21, 2018, was temporarily reinstated via a short-term spending bill on January 25, 2019, but expired again on February 15, 2019.

2020

• June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo (formerly June Medical Services, LLC v. Gee) (591 U.S. ___ (2020)) was a U.S. Supreme Court case which ruled that a Louisiana state law placing hospital-admission requirements on abortion clinics doctors, which had mirrored a Texas state law previously found unconstitutional under Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (579 U.S. ___ (2016)) (WWH), was also unconstitutional.
• Mississippi: A law was enacted in Mississippi banning abortions based on the sex, race, or genetic abnormality of the fetus.[376]
• Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) was a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the ministerial exception of federal employment discrimination laws. (When applied, the exception operates to give religious institutions an affirmative defense when sued for discrimination by employees who qualify as "ministers;"[377] for example, female priests cannot sue the Catholic church to force their hiring.[378]) The case extends from the Supreme Court's prior decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission[379] which created the ministerial exception based on the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution, asserting that federal discrimination laws cannot be applied to leaders of religious organizations. The case, along with the consolidated St. James School v. Biel (Docket 19-348), both arose from rulings in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that found that federal discrimination laws do apply to others within a religious organization that serve an important religious function but lack the title or training to be considered a religious leader under Hosanna-Tabor. The religious organization challenged that ruling on the basis of Hosanna-Tabor. The Supreme Court ruled in a 7–2 decision on July 8, 2020 that reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling, affirming that the principles of Hosanna-Tabor, that a person can be serving an important religious function even if not holding the title or training of a religious leader, satisfied the ministerial exception in employment discrimination.
• United States: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act tried to require employers to offer health-insurance plans that paid for contraceptives. The law specifically exempted churches, but not faith-based ministries. Due to that, religious non-profits like Little Sisters of the Poor were fined if they did not comply.[380] On October 6, 2017, Health & Human Services issued a new rule with an updated religious exemption that protected religious non-profits.[381] But federal judge Wendy Beetlestone issued an injunction temporarily stopping the enforcement of that exemption.[357][358] As well, following the new rule announcement, the state of Pennsylvania sued the federal government to take away the exemption.[382] Pennsylvania asked a judge to order that the Little Sisters of the Poor must comply with the federal mandate or pay tens of millions of dollars in fines.[383] The state alleged that the religious organization violated the Constitution, federal anti-discrimination law, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).[384] On July 8, 2020, in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against that and in favor of Little Sisters of the Poor.[384][385]
• National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System was a court case decided on February 22, 2019 whose decision declared that the exclusion of female conscription from the male-only draft in the United States was unconstitutional; the decision did not specify any action that the government must take.[367] However, that decision was appealed[386] and a decision by a 3-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals was issued on August 13, 2020, reversing the 2019 decision on the grounds that it amounted to overturning the Supreme Court's precedent, which only the Supreme Court has the authority to do.[387][388]
• Louisiana: In 2020, Louisiana voters passed a measure to amend the state constitution to omit any language implying that a woman has a right to get an abortion or that any abortion that does occur should be funded.[389]
• Tennessee: Tennessee banned abortions because of a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome or because of the gender or race of the fetus.[390]
• East Lansing, Michigan: The city of East Lansing, Michigan made it legal for women to go topless.[391]
• Ohio: A bill was signed into law requiring all aborted fetal tissue to be cremated or buried.[392]

2021

• Indiana: A law went into effect in Indiana mandating an ultrasound 18 hours or more before an abortion is performed.[393]
• The STOP FGM Act of 2020 was signed into law, and it gives federal authorities the power to prosecute those who carry out or conspire to carry out FGM, as well as increasing the maximum prison sentence from five to ten years. It also requires government agencies to report to Congress about the estimated number of females who are at risk of or have had FGM, and on efforts to prevent FGM.[394]
• The Supreme Court reinstated federal rules mandating anyone having a medication abortion to acquire the pills for it from a medical provider in person.[395]
• President Biden rescinded the Mexico City policy.[396]

See also

• Legal rights of women in history
• Timeline of reproductive rights legislation
• Sterilization law in the United States
• Timeline of women's legal rights (other than voting)

References

1. "Closely held" corporations are defined by the Internal Revenue Service as those which a) have more than 50% of the value of their outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and b) are not personal service corporations. By this definition, approximately 90% of U.S. corporations are "closely held", and approximately 52% of the U.S. workforce is employed by "closely held" corporations. See Blake 2014, Washington Post.

1. Margo DeMello (10 September 2009). Feet and Footwear: A Cultural Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. p. 323. ISBN 978-0-313-35715-2.
2. The Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641) at Hanover Historical Texts Project.
3. Taunya Lovell Banks, "Dangerous Woman: Elizabeth Key's Freedom Suit – Subjecthood and Racialized Identity in Seventeenth Century Colonial Virginia", 41 Akron Law Review 799 (2008), Digital Commons Law, University of Maryland Law School, accessed 21 April 2009
4. Laura Buzzard; Don LePan; Nora Ruddock; Alexandria Stuart (29 August 2016). The Broadview Anthology of Expository Prose – Third Edition. Broadview Press. pp. 811–. ISBN 978-1-55481-333-9.
5. B. Zorina Khan (November 20, 2013). The Democratization of Invention: Patents and Copyrights in American Economic Development, 1790–1920. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521747202.
6. Mohr, James C. (1978). Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, 1800–1900. New York: Oxford University Press US.
7. Boswell, Angela (2000). "Married Women's Property Rights and the Challenge to the Patriarchal Order: Colorado County, Texas". In Coryell, Janet L. (ed.). Negotiating Boundaries of Southern Womanhood: Dealing With the Powers That Be. University of Missouri Press. p. 92. ISBN 9780826263100.
8. Roberts, Evan (14–16 September 2006), Women's Rights and Women's Labor: Married Women's Property Laws and Labor Force Participation, 1860–1900, Economic History Association annual meeting, Pittsburgh (PA), archived from the original on 26 April 2012
9. New York State (1848), Married Women's Property Act (PDF)
10. Beard, Charles Austin; Beard, Mary Ritter. History of the United States. Forgotten Books. ISBN 9781606202166.
11. Richard J Evans (1979). Kvinnorörelsens historia i Europa, USA, Australien och Nya Zeeland 1840–1920 (The Feminists: Women's Emancipation Movements in Europe, America and Australasia, 1840–1920) Helsingborg: LiberFörlag Stockholm. ISBN 91-38-04920-1 (Swedish)
12. Kleinberg, S. J. (1999). Women in the United States, 1830–1945. Rutgers University Press. p. 143. ISBN 978-0-8135-2729-1.
13. Pleck, Elizabeth (1989). "Criminal Approaches to Family Violence". Family Violence. 11.
14. Smith, Bonnie G., ed. (2008). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History, Volume 1. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195148909.
15. "Declaration of Rights of the Women of the United States: Stanton and Anthony Papers Online". Ecssba.rutgers.edu. Retrieved 2018-07-29.
16. Download PDF. "(PDF) Mrs. Packard's Revenge (1991) | Paul A. Lombardo". Academia.edu. Retrieved 2020-02-15.
17. Lebsock, Suzanne D. (May 1977). "Radical Reconstruction and the Property Rights of Southern Women". The Journal of Southern History. Southern Historical Association. 43 (2): 195–216. doi:10.2307/2207345. JSTOR 2207345.
18. Packard, E. P. W. (Elizabeth Parsons Ware) (17 August 1874). "Modern persecution, or, Insane asylums unveiled : as demonstrated by the report of the investigating committee of the legislature of Illinois". Hartford : Case, Lockwood & Brainard (printers and binders). Retrieved 17 August 2018 – via Internet Archive.
19. Mitchell, Jocelyn. 2010. “Women's Suffrage in Wyoming in 1869: The Uproar Against Female Jurors.” Atlanta Review of Journalism History 11 (4): 15–30.
20. Whittenburg, Clarice. 1957. “Portrait of an ‘Ordinary’ Woman: Eliza Stewart Boyd.” Annals of Wyoming 29 (1): 33–37.)
21. Horowitz, Helen Lefkowitz. Rereading Sex. New York: Random House, 2002.
22. Beisel, Nicola. Imperiled Innocents. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997.
23. Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (Text of the opinion from Findlaw)
24. Olivia B. Waxman, "How Trump's 'Shithole Countries' Comment Echoes a Century of American Immigration Policy", Time Magazine, Jan. 12, 2018.
25. Abrams, Kerry, "Polygamy, Prostitution, and the Federalization of Immigration Law," Columbia Law Review 105.3 (Apr. 2005): 641–716.
26. Eithne Luibheid, Entry Denied: Controlling Sexuality at the Border (University of Minnesota Press, 2002) 31.
27. Ray, Angela G.; Richards, Cindy Koenig (2007). "Inventing Citizens, Imagining Gender Justice: The Suffrage Rhetoric of Virginia and Francis Minor" (PDF). Quarterly Journal of Speech. 93 (4): 375–402. doi:10.1080/00335630701449340. S2CID 143708176. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 3, 2011. Retrieved February 27, 2012., p. 376. "The Minor decision, which acknowledged women's status as citizens but denied that citizenship entailed voting rights, dealt a blow to women's political participation that would only be overturned after forty-five years of additional agitation, culminating in the Nineteenth Amendment."
28. Brian Burns (2017). Gilded Age Richmond: Gaiety, Greed & Lost Cause Mania. Arcadia Publishing. pp. 108–. ISBN 978-1-62585-851-1.
29. Bander, Edward (January 1, 1973). Change of name and law of names. Oceana Publications. pp. 37–38. ISBN 9780379110883. Retrieved 31 October 2017.
30. McCammon, Holly J. (2012). The U.S. Women's Jury Movements and Strategic Adaptation : a More Just Verdict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780511842597. OCLC 794327674.
31. VanBurkleo, Sandra F. 2015. Gender Remade: Citizenship, Suffrage, and Public Power in the New Northwest, 1879-1912. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. L. Rex Sears, "Punishing the Saints for Their "Peculiar Institution": Congress on the Constitutional Dilemmas," 2001 Utah L. Rev. 581
33. Embry, Jessie L. (1994), "Polygamy", in Powell, Allan Kent (ed.), Utah History Encyclopedia, Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, ISBN 0874804256, OCLC 30473917
34. Women's Suffrage in Utah Jean Bickmore White, Utah History Encyclopedia
35. Edmunds–Tucker Act: Section 25
36. The practice of polygamy: legitimate free exercise of religion or legitimate public menace? Revisiting Reynolds in light of modern constitutional jurisprudence Richard A. Vazquez, Journal of Legislation & Public Policy (New York University School of Law), Volume 5, Number 1, Fall 2001
37. Past and Present Proposed Amendments to the United States Constitution Regarding Marriage Archived 2010-06-06 at the Wayback Machine Edward Stein, Washington University Law Quarterly, Volume 82, Number 3, 2004
38. Pearson, Lisa Madsen, and Carol Cornwall Madsen. 2005. “Innovation and Accommodation: The Legal Status of Women in Territorial Utah, 1850–1896.” Essay. In Women in Utah History: Paradigm or Paradox?, 36–81. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
39. Tsiang, I-Mien (1942). The question of expatriation in America prior to 1907. Johns Hopkins Press. p. 114. OCLC 719352.
40. Tsiang, I-Mien (1942). The question of expatriation in America prior to 1907. Johns Hopkins Press. p. 115. OCLC 719352.
41. Martin, David A. (Spring 2005). "Dual Nationality: TR's 'Self-Evident Absurdity'". UVA Lawyer. Retrieved 2012-06-12.
42. Brandt, Allan M. (2007). The Cigarette Century. New York: Basic Books, page 57.
43. "Mann Act", Dictionary of American History, Encyclopedia, 21 October 2013 [2003]
44. Bell, Ernest Albert (1910), The War on the White Slave Trade (ebook), Chicago: GS Ball – via Archive
45. "Lawrence, MA factory workers strike "for Bread and Roses," U.S. 1912 | Global Nonviolent Action Database". nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu.
46. MacKenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299, 17, 20, 22 (1915).
47. "Biographical Note". The Margaret Sanger Papers. Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, Northampton, Mass. 1995. Retrieved 2006-10-21.
48. "Text of the Act".
49. "The Sheppard–Towner Maternity and Infancy Act". History, Art & Archives. United States House of Representatives. Retrieved 21 October 2017.
50. Moehling, Carolyn M., and Melissa A. Thomasson. "Saving Babies: The Contribution of Sheppard-Towner to the Decline in Infant Mortality in the 1920s." NBER Working Paper No. 17996 (2012): n. pag. NBER. Apr. 2012. Web. 8 Mar. 2013
51. "Harding Signs Sheppard-Towner Act–November 23, 1921." American President A Reference Resource. Miller Center, Univ. of VA. Web. Retrieved 1 March 2012.
52. Siegel, Benjamin S.; Alpert, Joel J. (2006). "The profession of pediatrics". In Kliegman, Robert M.; Marcdante, Karen J.; Jenson, Hal B.; Behrman, Richard E. (eds.). Nelson essentials of pediatrics (5th ed.). Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders. pp. 1–14. ISBN 1-4160-0159-X.
53. Tsiang, I-Mien (1942). The question of expatriation in America prior to 1907. Johns Hopkins Press. p. 115. OCLC 719352.
54. Marian L. Smith (1998), "Women and Naturalization, ca. 1802–1940", Prologue Magazine, 30 (2), retrieved 2009-01-03
55. For Teachers: A Brief Introduction to Asian American History, Smithsonian Asian Pacific American Program, retrieved 2009-01-03
56. Timeline of Asian American History, Digital History: University of Houston, archived from the original on 2009-04-22, retrieved 2009-01-03
57. Gardner, Martha Mabie (2005), The Qualities of a Citizen: Women, Immigration, and Citizenship, 1870–1965, Princeton University Press, p. 146, ISBN 978-0-691-08993-5 ISBN 0-691-08993-0, ISBN 978-0-691-08993-5
58. "Biographical Note". The Margaret Sanger Papers. Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, Northampton, Mass. 1995. Retrieved 2006-10-21.
59. "Stuart v. Board of Elections, 295 A.2d 223, 266 Md. 440 –". Courtlistener.com. Retrieved 2018-09-10.
60. "People ex rel. Rago v. Lipsky, 327 Ill. App. 63 | Casetext Search + Citator". casetext.com.
61. "#ThrowbackThursday — The first woman to serve on a Stanly County jury – The Stanly News & Press | The Stanly News & Press". Thesnaponline.com. 2018-09-01. Retrieved 2018-09-20.
62. Tribune, Laura Duncan Special to the. "I FOUGHT THE LAW, AND THE LAW LOST". chicagotribune.com.
63. California Government Code Section 12947.5.
64. Instructions to Obtain Right to Sue Notice by Mail Archived 2013-05-31 at the Wayback Machine, California Department of Fair Housing and Employment, February 2013.
65. Cushman, Clare (2001). Supreme Court Decisions and Women's Rights. Washington D.C.: CQ Press. p. 29.
66. "DAVIS v. ROOS| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Law". CaseMine. Retrieved 2018-09-10.
67. "The Equal Pay Act Turns 40". U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Archived from the original on June 26, 2012.
68. "Equal Pay Act of 1963". U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
69. "People v. Hernandez – 61 Cal.2d 529 – Thu, 07/09/1964 | California Supreme Court Resources". scocal.stanford.edu.
70. "Mistake of Age as a Defense to Statutory Rape". Washington & Lee Law Review. 1 March 1965. Retrieved 20 January 2016.
71. Williams, Shelton (July 1964). "People v. Hernandez, 39 Cal. Rptr. 361, 393 P.2d 673 (1964)". Montana Law Review. Retrieved 20 January 2016.
72. Kahn, Sandy (1965). "Criminal Law – Statutory Rape – Reasonable Belief of Age". DePaul Law Review. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
73. "Civil Rights Act of 1964 – CRA – Title VII – Equal Employment Opportunities – 42 US Code Chapter 21". finduslaw. Retrieved 2010-06-06.
74. Parr v. Woodmen of the World Life Insurance Company, 791 F.2d 888 (11th Cir. 1986).
75. "Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967". Finduslaw.com. Retrieved 2010-06-06.
76. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
77. New York Times: John Herbers, "Help Wanted: Picking the Sex for the Job," September 28, 1965, accessed March 25, 2012
78. National Organization for Women: "The Founding of NOW Archived 2012-03-22 at the Wayback Machine, accessed March 25, 2012
79. Linda K. Kerber (August 1, 1993). "Judge Ginsburg's Gift". The Washington Post.  – via HighBeam Research (subscription required) . Archived from the original on October 11, 2013. Retrieved January 14, 2013.
80. "Hall v. Hall". Justia Law.
81. K Barry. "Timeline of Discrimination". Femininity in Flight. Retrieved 2015-08-06.
82. "Kusner, Kathy (1940—) – Dictionary definition of Kusner, Kathy (1940—) | Encyclopedia.com: FREE online dictionary". www.encyclopedia.com. Retrieved March 31, 2017.
83. Leonard, Kevin. "Rediscovering Kathy Kusner: The country's first licensed female jockey". baltimoresun.com.
84. "Until 1968, a Married Texas Woman Couldn't Own Property or Start a Business Without Her Husband's Permission. This Dallas Attorney Changed That. – Texas Monthly". www.texasmonthly.com.
85. “Women on Mississippi Juries.” The New York Times, June 15, 1968.
86. "Newsweek Agrees to End Sex Discrimination Policy". Associated Press. August 28, 1970.
87. Lynn Povich (2013). The Good Girls Revolt: How the Women of Newsweek Sued their Bosses and Changed the Workplace. PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1610393263.
88. Office of Population Affairs Clearinghouse. "Fact Sheet: Title X Family Planning Program." Archived 2012-04-05 at the Wayback Machine January 2008.
89. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Population Affairs. "Family Planning."
90. Engelman, Peter C. (2011), A History of the Birth Control Movement in America, ABC-CLIO, ISBN 978-0-313-36509-6., p. 184.
91. Gaye, Luna (1990). "Understanding gender-based wage discrimination: legal interpretation and trends of pay equity in higher education". Journal of Law & Education (19): 371. ...first cases to discuss the Bennett Amendment, and consequently to consider the relationship between the EPA and Title VII, was Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co...
92. Moore, Mary Virginia; Yohannan T. Abraham (1994). "The legal and juridical posture". Public Personnel Management. 23. doi:10.1177/009102609402300208. S2CID 156966210. Retrieved 2008-10-11. VII was examined in Shultz v. Wheaton Glass Co....
93. Woody, Robert Henley (1984). The Law and the Practice of Human Services. Jossey-Bass Publishers. p. 203. ISBN 0-87589-602-2.
94. K Barry. "Timeline of Discrimination". Femininity in Flight. Retrieved 2017-03-31.
95. "SPROGIS v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC. | 308 F.Supp. 959 (1970)". Leagle.com. 2015. Retrieved 2017-03-31.
96. Seidenberg v. McSorleys' Old Ale House
97. Charlton, Linda (26 June 1970). "Judge Tells Mcsorley's to Open All-Male Saloon to All Women". New York Times.
98. Seidenberg v. McSorley's Old Ale House, 317 F.Supp. 593 (1970) (United States District Court, S. D. New York 25 June 1970).
99. Lichtenstein, Grace (August 11, 1970). "McSorley's Admits Women Under a New City Law". The New York Times. Retrieved March 13, 2010.
100. "Tour" from McSorley's website
101. "Medicine: Abortion on Request". Time. March 9, 1970. Retrieved 2012-10-15. (subscription required)
102. "Abortion Reform in Washington State - HistoryLink.org". www.historylink.org. Retrieved 2017-10-09.
103. "Nettie and Florence Cronise, Ohio's first female lawyers, honored in Tiffin – Story". Archived from the original on 2013-11-11.
104. "Reed v. Reed – Significance". law.jrank.org.
105. WILLIAM E FARRELL (Jan 14, 1972). "Court rules woman may be a baseball umpire". New York Times. ProQuest 119422502.
106. Lithwick, Dahlia (2010-08-30). "Ruth Bader Ginsburg shows how feminism is done. Again". Slate.com. Retrieved 2018-08-04.
107. Grady, Constance (2015-06-29). "Notorious RBG: Ruth Bader Ginsburg's journey from ACLU lawyer to pop culture icon". Vox. Retrieved 2018-08-04.
108. See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 162 ("We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a non-resident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.").
109. Technically, the case was decided under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, not under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, since the latter applies not to the federal government but to the states. However, because Bolling v. Sharpe, through the doctrine of reverse incorporation, made the standards of the Equal Protection Clause applicable to the federal government, it was for practical purposes an addition not to due process, but rather to equal protection jurisprudence.
110. USAID Public website USAID's Family Planning Guiding Principles and U.S. Legislative and Policy Requirements Archived 2013-03-29 at the Wayback Machine Retrieved September 10, 2012
111. Neuwirth, Jessica (2015). Equal Means Equal: Why the Time For an Equal Rights Amendment is Now. New York: The New Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-1-62097-039-3.
112. Dlabay, Les R.; Burrow, James L.; Brad, Brad (2009). Intro to Business. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning. p. 470. ISBN 978-0-538-44561-0. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits creditors from denying a person credit because of age, race, sex, or marital status.
113. Regulation B, Equal Credit Opportunity 12 CFR 202.14(b) as stated in Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending Archived 2015-04-19 at the Wayback Machine, Federal Reserve System of Boston.
114. "Kahn v. Shevin". Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 2018-08-04.
115. "833 F.2d 1334". law.resource.org.
116. "Kaplowitz v. University of Chicago, 387 F. Supp. 42 (N.D. Ill. 1974)". Justia Law.
117. "40 Years Ago: Fair Housing Act Amended to Prohibit Discrimination on Basis of Sex". nlihc.org. 4 August 2014.
118. "Title VIII: Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity – HUD". Portal.hud.gov. Archived from the original on 2015-07-08. Retrieved 2015-07-06.
119. Definition of Fair Housing Act of 1968 , Legal Dictionary at TheFreeDictionary.com, Farlex Company. Accessed 15 January 2011.
120. "Newsmakers closer to home". San Francisco Examiner. January 1, 1975. p.26
121. Greenhouse, Linda (2005). Becoming Justice Blackmun. New York: Times Books. pp. 217–218. ISBN 0-8050-8057-0.
122. Drash, Wayne. "When you wish your baby had never been born". Video by Madeleine Stix, Photographs by Matthew Busch. CNN.
123. Lees, Richard; Office, Texas Senate Press (February 27, 2017). "Bill would end 'wrongful birth' suits". Plainview Herald.
124. Drash, Wayne. "Texas 'wrongful birth' bill would allow doctors to lie, critics say". CNN.
125. Varat, J.D. et al. Constitutional Law Cases and Materials, Concise Thirteenth Edition. Foundation Press, NY: 2009, p. 583
126. Varat, p. 583
127. Pickard, Toni, Phil Goldman, Renate M. Mohr, and Rosemary Cairns-Way. 2002. Dimension of criminal law. 3rd edition. Toronto: Emond Montgomery.pg. 885
128. By WAYNE KINGAUG. 16, 1975 (1975-08-16). "Joan Little Acquitted in Jailer's Slaying – The New York Times". Nytimes.com. Retrieved 2018-08-25.
129. "Dunn v. Palermo, 522 S.W.2d 679 | Casetext Search + Citator". casetext.com.
130. "Davis v. Roos, 326 So. 2d 226 –". Courtlistener.com. 1976-02-03. Retrieved 2018-09-17.
131. 🖉"General Electric Company v. Gilbert | Encyclopedia.com". www.encyclopedia.com.
132. "Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132 (1976)". Justia Law.
133. Young, Julia L. (1977). "Constitutional Law: Elimination of Spousal and Parental Consent Requirements for Abortion". Washburn Law Journal. 16 (2): 463–464. PMID 11664766. Retrieved 16 April 2014.
134. "Abortion Funding Ban Has Evolved Over The Years". NPR.org.
135. "The Hyde Amendment at 35: a new abortion divide". Washington Post.
136. Cushman, C., 2001, Supreme Court Decisions and Women's Rights. CQ Press. pp. 122–8
137. "Calstate.edu: Barnes v. Costle" (PDF). California State University. Retrieved 2012-07-18.
138. "State of Washington v. Wanrow | Center for Constitutional Rights". Ccrjustice.org. 2007-10-09. Retrieved 2018-08-25.
139. (PDF) https://web.archive.org/web/20130921053247/http://faculty.law.miami.edu/zfenton/documents/Wanrow2.pdf. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-09-21. Retrieved 2019-12-12. Missing or empty |title= (help)
140. "The Spokesman-Review – Google News Archive Search". news.google.com.
141. Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977).  This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
142. "The Pregnancy Discrimination Act". www.eeoc.gov.
143. "Facts About Pregnancy Discrimination". www.eeoc.gov.
144. "Pregnancy Discrimination". www.eeoc.gov.
145. Congress and the Nation, s.vv. "1798," "Pregnancy Disability." Vol. V, 1977–1980, p. 797
146. "Historical Timeline". Archived from the original on 2014-10-10.
147. "Melissa Ludtke and Time, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Bowie Kuhn, Commissioner of Baseball United States District Court, Southern District of New York. 461 F. Supp. 86. September 25, 1978". University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law.
148. "Complaint: Melissa Ludtke and Time, Incorporated" (PDF). Melissa Ludtke and Time, Incorporated v. Bowie Kuhn, Commissioner of Baseball, et al. (7329663 / Civil Case No. 77C6301). National Archives and Records Administration. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. 1865–. Record Group 21: Records of District Courts of the United States, 1685 – 2009. 29 December 1977.
149. Carmody, Deirdre (30 December 1977). "Female Reporter Sues Over Locker‐Room Ban". The New York Times.
150. Special To The New York Times (31 December 1977). "Kuhn Reacts to Suit Of Female Writer". The New York Times.
151. "Order with Notice of Entry Judgment" (PDF). Melissa Ludtke and Time, Incorporated v. Bowie Kuhn, Commissioner of Baseball, et al. (7329664 / Civil Case No. 77C6301). National Archives and Records Administration. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. 1865–. Records of District Courts of the United States, 1685 – 2009. 25 September 1978.
152. "Title IX: 40 Years and Counting: Melissa Ludtke speaks about Ludtke/Time Inc. vs. Kuhn and MLB" (Video). Wellesley Athletics. Wellesley College. 15 February 2012.
153. Barrett, Molly. "Case Summary: Ludtke v. Kuhn 461 F. Supp. 86 (D.N.Y. 1978)" (PDF). University of Denver Sports & Entertainment Law Journal. Denver, CO: University of Denver, Sturm College of Law.
154. Wharton, Linda (2009). "Roe at Thirty-Six and Beyond: Enhancing Protection for Abortion Rights Through State Constitutions". William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law.
155. Bellotti v. Baird (Bellotti II), 443 U.S. 622, 643 (1979)
156. "Oyez: Personnel Administrator MA v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (1979), U.S. Supreme Court Summary". The Oyez Project website. The Oyez Project. 2008. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
157. Glazer-Raymo, Judith (1999). Shattering the Myths: Women in Academe. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 94.
158. Clark, VèVè; Garner, Shirley Nelson; Higonnet, Margaret; et al., eds. (1996). Antifeminism in the academy. Routledge. pp. 210–211.
159. Kohlstedt, Sally G.; Fischer, Suzanne M. (2009). "Unstable Networks Among Women in Academe: the Legal Case of Shyamala Rajender". Centaurus. 51 (1): 37–62. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0498.2008.00131.x. PMID 19618550.
160. Leap, Terry L. (1993). Tenure, discrimination, and the courts. Cornell University. p. 186.
161. 448 U.S. 297 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com.
162. Alexander v. Yale, 631 F.2d 178 (2d Cir. 1980).
163. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.
164. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2010-06-24. Retrieved 2010-06-18.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
165. "Kirchberg v. Feenstra :: 450 U.S. 455 (1981) :: Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center". Justia Law. Retrieved 10 April 2016.
166. "Redirecting..." heinonline.org.
167. See, e.g., Pub.L. No. 101-166, § 204, 103 Stat. 1159, 1177 (1989).
168. "Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan". Law.cornell.edu. Retrieved 2012-07-20.
169. "Berkman v. City of New York, 536 F. Supp. 177 (E.D.N.Y. 1982)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2019-04-02.
170. "Taking the Heat: The First Women Firefighters of New York City". PBS. Retrieved May 20, 2012.
171. "FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions". Findlaw.
172. Vorchheimer v. School District of Philadelphia, 532 F.2d 880 (Third Circuit Court 1976).
173. Vorchheimer v. School District of Philadelphia, 430 U.S. 703, 97 S.Ct. 1671, 51 L.Ed.2d 750 (Supreme Court of the United States 1977).
174. "Wayback Machine" (PDF). web.archive.org. October 17, 2015. Cite uses generic title (help)
175. "The Oyez Project, Grove City College v. Bell", 465 U.S. 555 (1984)
176. "Title IX." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 19 Nov. 2009
177. Suggs, Welsh. A Place on the Team. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 2005.
178. 151 Cal.App.3d 1128 (1984)
179. Tallon v. Liberty Hose Co. No. 1, 485 A.2d 1209 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984). (A volunteer fire department may be held liable under section 1983 for violating a plaintiff's constitutional rights.)
180. "Hishon v. King & Spaulding". Casebriefs. 1984-05-22. Retrieved 2018-08-02.
181. "People v. Liberta 64 N.Y.2d 152, 474 N.E.2d 567, 485 N.Y.S.2d 207(1984)" (PDF).
182. American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985).
183. Hudnut, 771 F.2d at 332.
184. Hudnut, 771 F.2d at 324.
185. Hudnut, 771 F.2d at 324, quoting Police Department v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972)
186. "Thurman v. City of Torrington". harvard.edu. Retrieved 2011-09-04.
187. Greenhouse, Linda. Becoming Justice Blackmun. Times Books. 2005. Page 183.
188. "Reagan Signs Tough Bill In Crackdown on Child Porn". United Press International (via the San Francisco Chronicle) November 8, 1986. "President Reagan signed a bill yesterday strengthening provisions of existing child pornography laws. The new measure, passed unanimously by both houses of Congress, would make it a crime to advertise to buy or sell child pornography, to seek children for the production of pornography or to participate with children in the production of it. [...] On another subject, the bill rewrites the Mann Act, a relic of the early part of the century, which makes it a crime to transport a woman across state lines for 'immoral' purposes. The new provision makes the statute gender-neutral and eliminates archaic language."
189. "Merton v. State". Justia Law.
190. "10 successful cases giving women the right to be topless in certain states or cities". GoTopless.org. Retrieved 2009-09-28.
191. "Board of Directors, Rotary International v. Rotary Club of Duarte". Rotary International v. Rotary Club. Retrieved 10 November 2011.
192. Stuart Taylor Jr. (1987-05-05). "High Court Rules that Rotary Clubs Must Admit Women". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-03-11.
193. "Rotary eClub One Makeup". rotaryeclubone.org.
194. 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.
195. "Legislative History of Title IX" Archived 2010-06-24 at the Wayback Machine National Organization for Women. June 27, 2007.
196. Goldstein, Leslie. "Gender Stereotyping and the Workplace: Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989)." 2006. The Constitutional and Legal Rights of Women, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury, 2006. 167-75. Print.
197. Banks, Taunya Lovell (1990–1991). "Toilets as a Feminist Issue: A True Story". Berkeley Women's Law Journal. UC Berkeley. 6 (2): 263–289.
198. "Sexual Harassment Support Forum". Archived from the original on 2007-03-10. Retrieved 2006-07-19.
199. Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 111 S. Ct. 1196, 113 L. Ed. 2d 158 (1991)
200. Presser, Arlynn Leiber; Bertin, Joan (June 1990). "Women at Work: Should 'Fetal Protection' Policies Be Upheld". ABA Journal. American Bar Association. 76 (6): 38–39.
201. "Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc". Legal Momentum. Retrieved 2017-03-31.
202. Morris, Danielle Keat. "Fordham International Law Journal Planned Parenthood v. Casey: From U.S. "Rights Talk" to Western European "Responsibility Talk"".
203. Penal Law § 245.01 has since been amended. For the present version:
     A person is guilty of exposure if he appears in a public place in such a manner that the private or intimate parts of his body are unclothed or exposed. For purposes of this section, the private or intimate parts of a female person shall include that portion of the breast which is below the top of the areola. This section shall not apply to the breastfeeding of infants or to any person entertaining or performing in a play, exhibition, show or entertainment.
204. "NY v Santorelli". Naturist Education Foundation. July 7, 1992. Retrieved 12 February 2012.
205. "The People &C., Respondent, V. Ramona Santorelli and Mary Lou Schloss". New York Court of Appeals. July 7, 1992. Retrieved 13 March 2012.
206. Zuckerman, Esther (June 9, 2011). "Yes, Ladies, You Can Walk Around the City Topless". Village Voice. Retrieved 8 February 2012.
207. "Legal Information Institute". Cornell University Law School. Retrieved October 4, 2016.
208. Colman McCarthy. "Scalia Outreasons Stevens in Bray Case: METRO Edition." Star Tribune: 14.A. 1993. Print.
209. United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Labor and Human Resources. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1993 : Hearing before the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, United States Senate, One Hundred Third Congress, First Session, on S. 636 ... may 12, 1993. United States:, 1993. Print.
210. Pub.L. No. 103-112, 107 Stat. 1082 (1993).
211. Id. § 509, 107 Stat. at 1113 (the 1994 Hyde Amendment).
212. "Family and Medical Leave Act," Stephen Bruce. HR Daily Advisor. Retrieved on 20 September 2011.
213. "The National Center for Victims of Crime – Library/Document Viewer". Ncvc.org. Retrieved 2012-05-14.
214. "Beynon v. St. George-Dixie Lodge 1743".
215. "ELKS MUST ADMIT WOMEN OR LOSE LIQUOR LICENSE".
216. "Elks Lodges Vote on Whether to Admit Women".
217. Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753 (1994).  This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
218. Wohlstadter, Jennifer (1995). "Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc.: The Constitutionality of Abortion Clinic Buffer Zones". Golden Gate University Law Review. 25 (3): 18. Retrieved 28 March 2012.
219. "Landmark Title IX Cases in History" Gender Equity in Sport. February 23, 2006.
220. United States. Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances (FACE) Act – Statute., Web. November 21, 2009. <"Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2009-12-01. Retrieved 2009-11-23.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)>.
221. U.S. Code Collection." Cornell University Law School, Web. November 23, 2009. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/248->.
222. "Hate Crime Sentencing Act". Anti-Defamation League. Archived from the original on 7 July 2009. Retrieved 10 December 2009.
223. Dugger, Celia W. "June 9–15; Asylum From Mutilation",The New York Times, 16 June 1996.
     • "In re Fauziya KASINGA, file A73 476 695, U.S. Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review, decided 13 June 1996.
     • Dugger, Celia W. "Woman's Plea for Asylum Puts Tribal Ritual on Trial", The New York Times, 15 April 1996.
224. "Global feminism at the local level: Criminal and asylum laws regarding female genital surgeries". Journal of Gender, Race and Justice. 3: 45–62.
225. Zabus 2004, p. 110.
226. Greenhouse, Linda (February 20, 1997). "High Court Upholds 15-Foot Buffer Zone at Abortion Clinics". The New York Times.
227. "PUBLIC LAW 104-208".
228. "1117. Restrictions on the Possession of Firearms by Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence – USAM – Department of Justice". www.usdoj.gov.
229. DUI Defense Lawyers
230. "Yeaw v. Boy Scouts of America (Court Docket)". Docket Alarm. Retrieved 2 January 2017.
231. "Significant Cases". Allred, Maroko & Goldberg. 2009. Retrieved 2009-12-05.
232. Text of Tylo v. Superior Court (Spelling Entertainment Group, Inc.) (1997) 55 CA4th 1379 is available from:  ceb.com 
233. Pous, Terri (November 9, 2011). "A History of Gloria Allred's High-Profile Clients: Hunter Tylo". Time.
234. "Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District". Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 2018-08-04.
235. "Breastfeeding Amendment". Archived from the original on 2015-05-04.
236. "Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2000". Retrieved 13 July 2012. section 647.
237. "Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education". Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved 2018-08-04.
238. "Commission Decision on Coverage of Contraception". The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 2000-12-14. Retrieved 2014-01-25.
239. Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53, 60–61.
240. "Parent's Sex May Be Factor in Citizenship, Court Rules; Justices Uphold Law Favoring U.S. Mothers of Out-of-Wedlock Children". Washington Post. June 12, 2001. The government may make it more difficult for children born out of wedlock overseas to U.S. citizen fathers to claim citizenship than for the children of American mothers, the Supreme Court ruled yesterday, rejecting a claim that the different treatment violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
241. "History". Legal Momentum. 2015-07-07. Retrieved 2017-03-31.
242. Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 537 U.S. 393 (2003).
243. Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate Archived 2008-11-29 at the Wayback Machine (HTML); * same, from the U.S. Government Printing Office (PDF)
244. Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. ____ (2007). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2007-04-19. ("The medical community has not reached unanimity on the appropriate name for this D&E variation. It has been referred to as 'intact D&E,' 'dilation and extraction' (D&X), and 'intact D&X' ....For discussion purposes this D&E variation will be referred to as intact D&E....A straightforward reading of the Act's text demonstrates its purpose and the scope of its provisions: It regulates and proscribes, with exceptions or qualifications to be discussed, performing the intact D&E procedure.")
245. See Nev. Dep't of Human Res. v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721, 726–27 & n.1 (2003)
246. Chaffee v. Seslar, 786 N.E.2d 705 (Ind. 2003) ("By contrast, more than a decade ago this jurisdiction determined that the cause of action labeled 'wrongful pregnancy' existed in Indiana.").
247. "FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions". Findlaw.
248. "Search – Supreme Court of the United States". www.supremecourt.gov.
249. "EEOC Agrees to Landmark Resolution of Discrimination Case Against Abercrombie & Fitch," Press Release from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Nov. 18, 2004.
250. "The Look of Abercrombie & Fitch: Retail Store Accused Of Hiring Attractive, Mostly White Salespeople," CBS 60 Minutes segment on Gonzalez case, Dec. 5, 2003.
251. "Abercrombie & Fitch Bias Case Is Settled," The New York Times, November 17, 2004.
252. "Abercrombie settles 3 bias suits: Retailer to pay $40 million; judge has to rule on plan," San Francisco Chronicle, November 17, 2004.
253. "nyccouncil.info". webdocs.nyccouncil.info.
254. Confessore, Nicholas (26 May 2005). "Council Passes a Bill to Shorten the Line at the Ladies' Room". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-05-10.
255. "Why Reproductive Rights Advocates Need to Start Paying Attention to Tennessee". November 6, 2008.
256. "Tennessee General Assembly Legislation". wapp.capitol.tn.gov.
257. Lexisnexis.com
258. Moldover, Judith A. (April 28, 2006). "9th Circuit: Cosmetics cause of action OK'd". HR Magazine. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
259. Selmi, Michael (2007). "The Many Faces of Darlene Jespersen". Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy. 14: 467.
260. Chandler, Susan; Jones, Jill B. (2011-07-28). Casino Women: Courage in Unexpected Places. Cornell University Press. pp. 79–. ISBN 9780801450143. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
261. Publishers, Aspen (2008-05-02). Employment Law: Keyed to Courses Using Rothstein and Liebman's Employment Law. Aspen Publishers Online. pp. 92–. ISBN 9780735571860. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
262. Cooper, Frank Rudy; McGinley, Ann C. (August 2012). Multidimensional Masculinities and Law: Feminist and Critical Race Lenses. NYU Press. pp. 54–. ISBN 9780814723500. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
263. There were, however, two people in California in 2004 charged with "conspiring" to commit an act of FGM. Adem was the first American prosecuted for actually performing the procedure.
264. Broussard, Patricia A. (2008). "Female genital mutilation: exploring strategies for ending ritualized torture; shaming, blaming, and utilizing the Convention against Torture". Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy. Durham: Duke University School of Law. 15: 19–48. Retrieved 2008-10-23.
265. Luscombe, Belinda (2010-05-11). "Has a U.S. Pediatrics Group Condoned Genital Cutting?". Time. Retrieved 2010-05-18.
266. Brock, J. (2006). "Adem gets 10 years in prison for mutilation". Gwinnett Daily Post. Retrieved November 4, 2006.
267. "Man Convicted in Daughter's Mutilation". The New York Times. Associated Press. 2006-11-02. Retrieved 2008-12-01.
268. "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance". Federal Register. 71 (206). October 25, 2006. Retrieved 2012-06-24.
269. Alford, Jeremy (June 7, 2006). "Louisiana Governor Plans to Sign Anti-Abortion Law". The New York Times. Retrieved April 23, 2010.
270. Cohen, Carl (2007). "The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative and the Civil Rights Act of 1964". "michigan Law Review". Archived from the original on 2011-06-02.
271. Adler, Jonathan (2014-04-22). "Supreme Court upholds Michigan civil rights initiative". The Washington Post.
272. "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)". Archived from the original on 2008-11-29.
273. http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawReview-84-6-Weinberg.pdf
274. Ted Frank, American Enterprise Institute, "The Ledbetter Case and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act," Feb. 4, 2008, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2008-05-01. Retrieved 2016-05-18.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link). The Supreme Court's Ledbetter ruling specifically noted that the plaintiff could have sued instead under the Equal Pay Act, observing that plaintiff "having abandoned her claim under the Equal Pay Act, asks us to deviate from our prior decisions in order to permit her to assert her claim under Title VII." http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1074.ZO.html
275. See the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Jones v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons, 541 U.S. 369 (2004), https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1205.ZS.html.
276. "ABC News: ABC News". Archived from the original on April 23, 2009.
277. "Man files lawsuit to take wife's name". Archived from the original on 2007-01-14.
278. "The Name Equality Act of 2007" (PDF). California Department of Public Health. January 2017. Retrieved 15 December 2017.
279. 'Maryland v. Baby', 946 A.2d 463 (Md. 2007).
280. Londoño, Ernesto (November 2, 2006). "Court Says Consensual Sex Can't Become Rape". Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-02-14.
281. 'Battle v. Maryland', 414 A.2d 1266, 1270 (Md. 1980).
282. 'Baby v. Maryland', 916 A.2d 410 (Md. 2007).
283. Wyatt, Kristen (April 16, 2008). "Md. Court Rules Women Can Withdraw Sexual Consent". Washington Post.
284. Sussman, Dana (2009). "Bound by Injustice: Challenging the Use of Shackles on Incarcerated Pregnant Women" (PDF). Cardozo Journal of Law & Gender. 15 (477).
285. Statement released after the President rescinds "Mexico City Policy" (whitehouse.gov, 1-25-09) "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2011-03-11. Retrieved 2011-03-11.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
286. "Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act passes Congress, finally". Mercurynews.com. Retrieved December 30, 2012.
287. "Obama Signs Hate Crimes Bill". nytimes.com. Retrieved September 29, 2013.
288. "President Obama Signs Hate Crime Prevention Act". Fox News. October 28, 2009. Retrieved September 29, 2013.
289. "Human Rights Campaign". hrc.org. Archived from the original on November 19, 2008. Retrieved September 29, 2013.
290. "Hate Crimes Protections 2007". National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Archived from the original on September 27, 2007. Retrieved December 9, 2009.
291. "United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual § 3A1.1 (2009)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on February 15, 2010. Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
292. "Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., No. 07-10270 (11th Cir. Jan. 20, 2010)". www.employmentlawblog.info. Retrieved 2016-06-17.
293. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Government Printing Office. Page 459.
294. Landau, Elizabeth (April 9, 2010). "Breastfeeding rooms hidden in health care law". CNN.
295. Grady, Denise (March 29, 2010). "Overhaul Will Lower the Costs of Being a Woman". The New York Times.
296. Shear, Michael D. (March 24, 2010), "Obama signs executive order on abortion out of sight of media glare", The Washington Post, Retrieved March 24, 2010
297. "White House Defends Abortion-related Executive Order, Even as Obama Signs it", Fox News, March 24, 2010, Retrieved March 24, 2010
298. "Obama issues executive order on abortion", UPI.com, March 21, 2010, Retrieved March 21, 2010
299. Montgomery, Lori & Murray, Shailagh (March 21, 2010) "In deal with Stupak, White House announces executive order on abortion", The Washington Post, Retrieved March 21, 2010
300. "Order striking jury trial". Retrieved 2010-03-13.
301. AAUW Stands with the Women of Wal-Mart During U.S. Supreme Court Hearing Archived 2011-07-06 at the Wayback Machine, American Association of University Women.
302. 10-277 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, Questions Presented, Supreme Court of the United States.
303. "Next Steps to Comply with Health Care Reform". The National Law Review. Schiff Hardin LLP. 2012-10-10. Retrieved 2012-10-10.
304. "Affordable Care Act Rules on Expanding Access to Preventive Services for Women".
305. Kliff, Sarah (1 August 2012). "Five facts about the health law's contraceptive mandate". The Washington Post. Retrieved 29 November 2012.
306. "Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals – US Supreme Court". Lawmemo.com. Retrieved 2018-08-04.
307. Hassan, Yasmeen (3 January 2013). "As Global Consensus Accelerates, Obama Strengthens Federal Law Protecting Girls in the Fight Against Female Genital Mutilation". The Huffington Post.
308. Pub. L. No. 113-4, 127 Stat. 54 (March 7, 2013).
309. Camia, Catalina (February 28, 2013). "Congress sends Violence Against Women Act to Obama". USA Today. Retrieved 28 February 2013.
310. LeTrent, Sarah (March 14, 2013). "Violence Against Women Act shines a light on same-sex abuse". CNN. Retrieved May 2, 2013.
311. "Nondiscrimination Grant Condition in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013" (PDF).
312. "12-484 University of Tex. Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar (06/24/2013)" (PDF). Retrieved 2018-08-02.
313. "11-556 Vance v. Ball State Univ. (06/24/2013)" (PDF). Retrieved 2018-08-02.
314. Totenberg, Nina (November 26, 2012). "Supreme Court To Look At Who Is A 'Supervisor' In Harassment Cases". National Public Radio. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
315. "11-556 Vance v. Ball State University, et al. Question Presented:Harassment Cases" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. June 25, 2012. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
316. Denniston, Lyle (November 21, 2012). "Argument preview: Who is a supervisor?". ScotusBlog. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
317. "Florida accuses man of fraud for taking wife's name, then backs off".
318. "Kansas lawmakers pass sweeping anti-abortion legislation – U.S. News". Usnews.nbcnews.com. 2013-04-05. Retrieved 2019-12-12.
319. May 2, Anna Minard •; Pm, 2013 at 3:21. "Washington Closes Troubling Marital Rape Loophole, to the Relief of Wives". The Stranger.
320. "In First for Court, Woman Is Ruled Eligible for Asylum in U.S. on Basis of Domestic Abuse". The New York Times. 30 August 2014. Retrieved 16 December 2016.
321. Willis, David (Jun 30, 2014). "Hobby Lobby case: Court curbs contraception mandate". BBC News. Retrieved Jun 30, 2014.
322. O'Donoghue, Amy Joi (July 5, 2014). "Group protests Hobby Lobby decision on birth control". Deseret News. Retrieved July 30, 2014.
323. >Haberkorn, Jennifer; Gerstein, Josh (Jun 30, 2014). "Supreme Court sides with Hobby Lobby on contraception mandate". Politico. Retrieved Jun 30, 2014.
324. See:
     • Wolf, Richard (June 30, 2014). "Justices rule for Hobby Lobby on contraception mandate". USA Today.
     • Mears, Bill; Tom Cohen (June 30, 2014). "Supreme Court rules against Obama in contraception case". CNN.
     • Barrett, Paul (July 7, 2014). "A Supreme Feud Over Birth Control: Four Blunt Points". BusinessWeek.
325. See:
     • Logiurato, Brett (July 3, 2014). "Female Justices Issue Scathing Dissent in the First Post-Hobby Lobby Birth Control Exemption". BusinessInsider.
326. United States v. Castleman (2014), March 26, 2014.
327. https://www.tennessean.com/amp/3652946001
328. Kansas governor signs nation's 1st ban on abortion procedure – Yahoo News. News.yahoo.com (2015-04-07). Retrieved on 2015-04-12.
329. Alter, Charlotte. "Kansas Court Strikes Down Second-Trimester Abortion Ban". TIME.com. Retrieved 2016-10-20.
330. 07/10/2015 12:45 pm EDT (July 10, 2015). "White House Finds Way Around Hobby Lobby Birth Control Decision". Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2015-07-13.
331. Rankin, Kenrya. "This Policy Gives Native Women Equal Access to Emergency Contraception". Colorlines. Retrieved 2015-10-24.
332. Primack, Dan (2014-02-06). "Venture capital's stunning lack of female decision-makers". Fortune. Retrieved 2015-10-14.
333. Farhad Manjoo (March 27, 2015). "Ellen Pao Disrupts How Silicon Valley Does Business". The New York Times. Retrieved March 28, 2015. Ms. Klein argued that the Kleiner trial would become a landmark case for women in the workplace, as consequential for corporate gender relations as Anita Hill's accusations in 1991 of sexual harassment during the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
334. Gannes, Liz (2015-02-18). "What's at Stake in the Ellen Pao Case". Recode. Retrieved 2015-10-16.
335. Inclusive Communities Project, slip op. at 16–17, 19–20.
336. "Title VIII: Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity – HUD". Portal.hud.gov. Archived from the original on 2015-07-08. Retrieved 2015-07-06.
337. "Slip opinion from Young v. United Parcel Service" (PDF). Retrieved 2015-04-05.
338. Justices Seem Split in Case on Birth Control Mandate, Adam Liptak, New York Times, March 23, 2016
339. Zubik v. Burwell, No. 14–1418, 578 U.S. ___, slip op. at 3, 5 (2016) (per curiam).
340. Zubik, slip op. at 3–4.
341. Zubik, slip op. at 4.
342. Zubik, slip op. at 2–3 (Sotomayor, J., concurring).
343. "How Bad Does Domestic Violence Have to Be Before You Can't Have a Gun?". 2016-02-22. Retrieved 2016-06-27.
344. "Supreme Court Rules Domestic Abusers Can Lose Their Gun-Ownership Rights". NPR.org.
345. Lopez, German (27 June 2016). "The Supreme Court quietly handed gun control advocates a small victory".
346. Green, Emma (November 13, 2015). "A New Supreme Court Challenge: The Erosion of Abortion Access in Texas". Atlantic. Retrieved January 26, 2016.
347. "Text – H.R.5578 – 114th Congress (2015–2016): Survivors' Bill of Rights Act of 2016 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress". Congress.gov. Retrieved 2016-10-13.
348. "Trump administration rescinds Obama guidance on defunding Planned Parenthood". TheHill. Retrieved 2018-01-22.
349. "Trump reinstates ban on US funds promoting abortion overseas". TheHill. Retrieved 2017-01-23.
350. Gardenswartz, Jacob. "Trump's global abortion gag rule goes much further than any previous administration". Vox. Retrieved 2017-01-26.
351. Sabrina Siddiqui in Washington (2017). "'Death by a thousand cuts': LGBT rights fading under Trump, advocates say | US news". The Guardian. Retrieved 2017-03-31.
352. "Trump revokes executive order, weakens protections for LGBT workers". Thinkprogress.org. 2017-01-30. Retrieved 2017-03-31.
353. "Trump Moves Against Planned Parenthood by Signing GOP Bill". Bloomberg. 2017. Retrieved 2017-04-13.
354. Calmes, Jackie (14 December 2016). "Obama Bars States From Denying Federal Money to Planned Parenthood" – via NYTimes.com.
355. Gorman, Steve (2016-12-31). "U.S. judge blocks transgender, abortion-related Obamacare protections". Reuters. Retrieved 2017-01-02.
356. "It's legal to pay women less than men based on past salaries, court rules". LA Times. 2017-04-27. Retrieved 2017-06-03.
357. "Trump rolls back free birth control". 6 October 2017 – via www.bbc.com.
358. "Federal judge in Pennsylvania temporarily blocks new Trump rules on birth control". Associated Press.
359. National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, SCOTUSblog.
360. "Supreme Court Sides With California Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers". NPR.org. Retrieved 2018-06-26.
361. Kauffman, Jonathan (2018-09-30). "California will require women on corporate boards under bill signed by Brown". SFChronicle.com. Retrieved 2019-01-03.
362. Baldas, Tresa (November 20, 2018). "Judge Dismisses Female Genital Mutilation Charges in Historic Case". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved November 21, 2018.
363. "The feds just passed criminal justice reform. Here's why state-level efforts matter more". Los Angeles Times. December 30, 2018.
364. Doug, Collins (23 May 2018). "Text – H.R.5682 – 115th Congress (2017–2018): FIRST STEP Act". Congress.gov. Retrieved 28 November 2018.
365. Collins, Doug (23 May 2018). "Text – H.R.5682 – 115th Congress (2017–2018): FIRST STEP Act". www.congress.gov. Retrieved 21 December 2018.
366. "Mississippi 15-week abortion ban is blocked by appeals court". AP NEWS. December 13, 2019.
367. Tyler Pager (24 February 2019). "Drafting Only Men for the Military Is Unconstitutional, Judge Rules". The New York Times. Retrieved 24 February 2019.
368. Revisor.mn.gov
369. Revisor.mn.gov
370. Vera, Amir (2019-05-03). "Marital rape is no longer legal in Minnesota with new law". CNN. Retrieved 2019-05-20.
371. Dana Ferguson. "Walz signs repeal of marital rape exemption in Minnesota – Twin Cities". Twincities.com. Retrieved 2019-05-20.
372. Belluck, Pam (2019-02-22). "Trump Administration Blocks Funds for Planned Parenthood and Others Over Abortion Referrals". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-06-22.
373. "Trump abortion rules on referrals, clinic locations can take effect during appeals, court rules". NBC News. June 22, 2019. Retrieved 25 August 2019.
374. Williams, Peter (September 20, 2019). "Topless women win big as Colorado city drops ban". NBC News. Retrieved 2019-09-20.
375. "Trump's 'conscience rule' for health providers blocked by federal judge". The Washington Post. 2019-11-06. Retrieved 2019-12-12.
376. "Mississippi bans abortion on sex, race, genetic disability". www.catholicnewsagency.com.
377. 45C Am. Jur. 2d Job Discrimination § 2153 (2020).
378. Sullivan, Amy (2011-10-07). "Why Catholic Bishops are Targeting Obama on Religious Freedom". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. Retrieved 2020-05-30.
379. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 565 U.S. 171 (2012)
380. Alvaré, Helen (2020-05-05). "Opinion | The Endless War on the Little Sisters of the Poor". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2020-05-13.
381. Division, News (2017-10-06). "Trump Administration Issues Rules Protecting the Conscience Rights of All Americans". HHS.gov. Retrieved 2020-05-13.
382. "Little Sisters of the Poor v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania". Becket. Retrieved 2020-05-13.
383. Malhi, Sabrina (2020-05-12). "The Little Sisters of the Poor should finally get their win". TheHill. Retrieved 2020-05-13.
384. "Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania". Oyez. Retrieved 2020-06-14.
385. "Supreme Court Rules 7–2 in Favor of Little Sisters of the Poor in ObamaCare Contraception Case". spacecoastdaily.com.
386. "Selective Service Defends Men-Only Draft In 5th Circ". Law360. 2019-08-15. Retrieved 2019-09-17.
387. Hasbrouck, Edward. "Court of Appeals overturns ruling that male-only draft registration requirement is unconstitutional". Resisters.info. Retrieved 17 August 2020.
388. Hasbrouck, Edward. "Appeals Court hears arguments on the Constitutionality of draft registration". Resisters.info. Retrieved 6 March 2020.
389. 🖉Lisa, Andrew. "Notable ballot measures from the 2020 election and how they could reshape America". The Desert Review.
390. 🖉"Court: Tennessee can enforce Down syndrome abortion ban". AP NEWS. November 21, 2020.
391. Kaminski, Kyle. "Topless women now allowed to taunt cops in East Lansing". City Pulse.
392. "DeWine signs bill that requires women to choose burial or cremation of aborted fetal tissue". WEWS. December 31, 2020.
393. "Law requiring ultrasound before abortion goes into effect Jan. 1". www.wthr.com.
394. "Sight Magazine – US toughens ban on "abhorrent" female genital mutilation". www.sightmagazine.com.au.
395. "Supreme Court reinstates restrictions on abortion pill". www.politico.com.
396. Lucey, Catherine; Peterson, Kristina (January 28, 2021). "Biden Targets Abortion Restrictions as Fight Looms in Congress". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved January 28, 2021.