Read the following article:
As College Decision Day Nears, Students Should Consider States’ Abortion Access
Recent Posts
- Protected: Part 3: 2025 Final Exam
- Protected: 46 The Implications of Intersectionality on Southeast Asian Female Students’ Educational Outcomes in the United States: A Critical Quantitative Intersectionality Analysis
- Protected: 45 Gender, Ethnicity and Political Agency South Asian Women Organizing (book with 7 chapters, pick one chapter)
- Protected: 43. South Asian Women’s Identities: A Media and Personal Narrative Analysis
- Protected: Critical Race Theory (CRT)
Recent Comments
- Kalie Landrum on Protected: State v. Mann (1829)
- Kalie Landrum on Protected: Fifteenth Amendment
- Kalie Landrum on Protected: Fourteenth Amendment
- Kalie Landrum on Protected: Thirteenth Amendment
- Mariana Lillig on Protected: The Liberty Hill School for Black children
Archives
- April 2025
- February 2025
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- November 2020
- June 2020
- March 2018
- July 2015
- June 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- June 2014
- February 2014
- November 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- July 2012
- April 2011
I’m graduating this semester with a Bachelor’s in Political Science and Bachelor’s in Philosophy. Originally I wanted to go to law school. However, I realized law school just is not my thing. So I am going to reenroll at a university in Illinois to pursue a bachelor’s of arts in physics and go to grad school to pursue a PhD in philosophy, studying the philosophy of physics. I was originally a physics student when I started university, so I have taken a fair number of physics and mathematics courses, so it hopefully shouldn’t take too long.
Diego, I say this with the love and compassion and respect between you and me, you’re going to be amazing in physics and philosophy. Though I cannot share that same vigor to do physics anymore as I do as in POLS and now the law- like Oppenheimer, I do not have Sitzfleisch- I have recognized your mastery of what’s precisely needed for both fields as far back as POLS 200 a year or two ago. And while you may not be going to law school- I want everyone to know that this guy was the reason I changed my concentration to the law and courts. Call it a healthy competition, he already killed it on the LSAT, so now I intend to do the same in June.
I wish you the best in your academic pursuits man.
As for my future, I want to gain experience working for organizations that deal with issues I care about, and then I will attend law school. Location is a big consideration of mine. Diversity in the city and legislatures that attempt to protect my family’s and community’s rights are of utmost importance to me. Of course, both are not always available, but I have the privilege to live near Chicago and have appropriate public transportation if needed.
I will be taking a gap year as my financial safety and goals are number one on my list. I already have a fulltime job lined up so it will just be putting in the hours, saving, and spending time resetting my brain. Im not to sure about after the gap year is up though…
I’m doing an international teaching program next year, then I will go to law school. I’m really interested in the intricacies of legal research and policies, but I also enjoy the more personable/social aspects of law. In the future I hope I am happy, financially secure and challenged by my job, whatever it may be. For the time being I am still learning how to be an adult and school is something that makes me feel secure and safe, so I’d like to keep going as long as my bank account can afford.
I’ll be graduating in a few days and have planned to apply to law school sometime in the fall. Since I’ll be taking a gap year (hopefully for just ONE year), I’m planning to intern or work for any organization that deals with government and the law. The majority of the job and internship listings are either in Chicago or New York City, as they are two main places I wish to work in. I don’t think I’d ever go to a school or a job that is located in the South or a red state, it may sound prejudiced, but considering the legislation and ideas that come from that specific area makes me want to stay away.
Yet things are changing rapidly, and I’m starting to believe that we’re coming to a point where the places we deem as “safe” will be affected. Things such as abortion continue to be protected in our state and other blue states, yet other areas such as free speech and immigration polices are currently being affected. These are now things students have to consider when applying to college, as their decision may affect their personal lives. It’s now been 6 months since Trump was re-elected, and honestly, I’m not sure how things will play out. Hopefully, we still have a court system that will defend our rights.
Eventually, I would like to attend law school or seek a Master’s in Sociology – maybe both. Right now, though, I don’t feel prepared to seek higher education. With the world on fire, literally and figuratively, I really don’t know if it’s worth investing thousands of dollars into a degree that may not mean anything by the time I earn it. Or, spending thousands on a program that doesn’t teach multiple perspectives because they fear the current administration, so my education is limited to one worldview. I know some colleges are willing to go against the Trump administration, but I’m not sure I can afford those programs given Trump’s economic policies and my family’s finances. Until things are a little clearer, I will move back towards where my parents live so I can be there should anything happen. They live in Illinois, so I don’t have to worry much about whether I will be able to access abortion care like the article mentions. However, they live across the river from St. Louis, MO, and I am considering apartments there. I know I will always be able to get to Illinois should I need any care, but I am worried about how living or working in St. Louis might affect other parts of my life, like my ability to access birth control or to earn a livable wage.
I’m not sure what I want to do in the future. My plan now is it go to law school but I have another semester left here. I have been passionate about law especially after taking these courses and being educated to a point that I understand that there is a lot i do not know. I also have taking a liking to politics. I think if anything since I’ve started my schooling here I will take the bar in Illinois if I decide to follow through with and if I make it out of law school. I want to fight for the federal protection of an abortion and of the importance of CRT and affirmative action. This class is like a stepping stone to help me along my journey to fight for the people who cannot fight themselves. I hope the current administration does not make my efforts more challenging, but I doubt it. That is why we need someone to fight those fights more than ever.
Sophia, if it helps then… do both! Don’t ever landlock your amazing and curious mind to one thing. I’ll miss our talks.
As I am graduating this year, and after taking these constitutional law classes… I’ve gained a new sense of fear and awe of the court. With abortion access now under conflict, and after recognizing the several decades fight to reverse Roe becoming a success for some that means alot of harm for women who need that access- I am scared of moving.
I will never go to the South, nor the West except for those states that touch the Pacific. And I will not sit idly by when a matter of medical ethics is misconstruing this right with killing under religious grounds- and only under the grounds wherein they only consider their own experiences or beliefs without regard to others who deserve and need that right.
I’ve become afraid of recent cases, not because they’re the “first” cases that made me “lose” hope in the court, but because they are eerily familiar to before Roe- before several cases that flipped on harmful norms- and that an era much similar to the past will dominate my lifetime, a lifetime and generation when we were promised that we would save the world. But there’s a pragmatic nature to all of this… just as some rights are now in contention and have been reversed, we can tip the scales. All we need is our own comparable philosophy and jurisprudence, as well as the slow support within or without to rethink how we understand rights. I just hope that I have enough time and energy- that’s why I’ve just recently finished all of the caselaw for 356 this night. So I can reorient and refocus my efforts with a good final exam performance ensured.
I 100 percent make my decision based on the type of community that is fostered at a new school institution. I do not think I would succeed at PWI.
Actually, I don’t think – I know.
I think it’s important to be cautious of the state laws when going to school out of state. It allows for the student to encompass every aspect of the state that they are going to be living in and surrounding themselves in for the next four years. Honestly, I’ve never really thought about that, maybe because I stayed in- state for school, but I can see how it can be important for some people. State laws in general and how certain aspects of life are sought through will definitely be in the back of my mind as I continue on with school after the next semester.
I definitely make my decisions about schools on the basis of state laws and the rights they grant to women/other marginalized communities. I remember wanting to attend Arizona State for undergrad but I couldn’t because of the laws it imposed against immigrants and its overall attitude at the time towards Latino immigrants. My family warned me about it, so I steered clear.
Even if a law hasn’t been passed yet, you always have to keep in mind the state’s political climate and whether it will be safe to live in if something goes wrong in an election or a court case.
“76 percent of students prefer to go to college in a state where abortion is legal and accessible.” Undergraduate and graduate students are making critical decisions to select a university to further their education- however, for many selecting a university, their decision is dependent on the abortion access in the school’s state. I am curious to see how universities in states enforcing abortion bans will respond to expected decreased enrollment and or lower retention rates. As one of the students interviewed in the article emphasized that they would fear discussing their pro-abortion views at a university whose states have banned abortion- how will the university respond to this censorship?
As I read and observe the ongoing issues with abortion access, the more I worry for my friends out in Arizona. I get the luxury to live in Chicago, where I don’t have to consistently worry about “what-if” situations, but I know and care for so many young women who are living in that reality. Especially with the normativity of hook-up culture in colleges across the US, I fear for the young women moving to and living in states with extreme abortion restrictions. It is a shame to know that some women will not get to take wonderful academic opportunities because they have to choose between academic scholarships and maintaining their rights.
SENIOR! I made it this far I’m just going to bang it out. Might need a law school letter of recommendation… Thanks for the class, Dr. Lyles!
CONGRATULATIONS!
Thanks!!
Kristen Drysch
April 28, 2023
POLS 356 FINAL EXAM
I. Type of Case: Welfare and distribution of benefits
II. Petitioner: Jane Doe
Respondent: Illinois Department of Public Aid – State of Illinois
III. Issue: Jane Doe was told under Illinois newly amended public assistance act that she had not resided in Illinois long enough to receive state aid. She would have to wait another three months and then return to the office to update her application and provide proper documentation of her six-month residency in Illinois (180 days). Jane also learned she would have to implement one of the prescribed methods of birth control or provide proof she was sterile.
IV. Statement of decided issues: In Jane’s first hearing, retaining legal attorney Mary Bradwell, the decision of the agency was upheld. Bradwell then filed a class-action suit in federal district court on behalf of Jane and other individuals in similar situations. The focus of this summary will focus solely on Jane Doe.
The arguments made in civil court by Bradwell asked the District Court Judge to grant injunctive relief prohibiting the IDPA from implementing and enforcing the amendments to the State’s public assistance act. Bradwell makes the claim that the amendments impact Jane’s right to travel using the legal precedent of Shapiro vs. Thompson (Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969). In regards to her sexual privacy, Bradwell drew upon the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, retained by the Ninth amendment and applied to the states through the fourteenth “equal protection” by claiming the unconstitutionality of women having to submit to using contraceptives for public aid and men not having to do so.
The Department of public aid countered that these amendments were necessary to ensure that Illinois did not become a dumping ground for the nations poor.
The same week the Court of Appeals upheld part of Jane Doe’s claim against the Illinois Department of Public Aid. Losing their appeal on section 3 Bradwell petitioned for a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court.
V. Governing legal principals: Drawing on Shapiro vs. Thompson for legal precedent restricting Jane Doe’s welfare benefits on account of length of time spent in the state is unconstitutional. State laws that condition the receipt of benefits, like welfare, on residency requirements are a burden to the right to travel and are a violation of the equal protection clause.
VI. Disposition: As the deciding 4-4 vote in the petitioned Supreme Court Case of Jane Doe vs. Illinois. I have ruled in favor of the plaintiff concurring with my four peers that enforcing a lengthy period of time before benefits can be collected is unconstitutional and is a burden on travel, which is protected by the 14TH amendment.
I. Type of case: Sexual Harassment in the workplace
II. Petitioner: Jane Doe
Respondent: EEOC & Al Crump JR.
III. Issues: After gaining employment at the Kit Kat Klub, Jane Doe was propositioned by Mary Jones, the manager of the club. Jane refused Mary’s unwanted sexual advances for several weeks. Mary told Jane that if she did not have sex with Mary that she would be fired. After their sexual relationship began Mary increased Jane’s salary and gave her better hours that allowed her to spend more time with her children. Mary Jones then told Jane Doe that she could make more money by having sex with clients at Mary’s apartment. Jane told Mary she was not like that and left the club, forfeiting employment. Mary consistently forced Jane to violate Illinois anti-sodomy laws while working in the club. In relation to a public welfare dispute, the attorney for Jane Doe filed a sexual harassment claim with the EEOC against Mary Jones and the Shariff Don’t Like It Club D.B.A. Kitty Kat Klub. The claim was made that Mary repeatedly violated Jane’s civil rights; freedom of speech, sexual privacy, and Title VII. Jane Doe claims workplace hostility; proposition and fondling as well as physical contact of a sexual nature on the part of Mary constitutes as sexual harassment.
IV. Statement of Decided issues: The EEOC ruled against Jane Doe with a Republican House Member stating Jane Doe should “wrap herself in clothes and shame, not wrap herself in the constitution.” This caused Mary Bradwell to file in Federal court on behalf of Jane against the EEOC and Al Crump, owner of the Kitty Kat Klub. The Court of appeals affirmed Judge Jackson’s ruling a month later and dismissed Jane Doe’s forced sodomy charge using the legal precedent of Lawrence vs. Texas (2003). Bradwell then filed for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court to challenge all previous rulings.
V. Governing legal principals and resolution of facts:
The main legal question was if the incidents were reported and if whether workplace harassment can be classified as discrimination when the harasser and the harassed are the same sex. Using the legal precedent of Sundowner and Oncale (Sundowner v. Oncale 523 U.S. 75 (1998) the court extended its protections to same-sex harassment claims. In addition Harris vs. Forklift Systems 510 U.S. 17 (1993) creates a sound legal cushion for reprimanding any unwanted sexual advances, sexist comments and behavior. There does not need to be proof of psychological harm suffered in a hostile work environment, instead the conduct must be severe or pervasive enough to to create a work environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive. Dismissing the House comments made about workers in the sex industry and other public nuances the Supreme Court granted Bradwell, on behalf of Jane Doe the right to appeal to the Supreme Court.
VI. Disposition: As the deciding 4-4 vote in the petitioned Supreme Court Case of Jane Doe vs. EEOC & Al Crump. I have ruled in favor of the plaintiff concurring with my four peers that there was a pervasive method of conducting business. The deciding factor was that the plaintiff stopped working at Kitty Kat Klub after being propositioned to perform acts with customers at Mary’s apartment. I believe the EEOC to be tone deaf in matters regarding the sex-worker industry. It brings up other questions of what if a sex worker goes to a non-adult industry place of employment for a job? Does she not qualify for protection from unwanted sexual advances because she was once a sex-worker. There is a clear and pervasive violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in this case.
I. Type of Case: Abortion Law
II. Petitioner: Jane Doe
Respondent: Paul Williams
III. Issues: Paul Williams was Jane’s boss at the firm she was working at. After a day out with her children Paul made sexual advances towards Jane. She wanted to continue working at the firm, so she consented. Various acts were performed by Jan including sodomy, vaginal penetration and other various sex acts. Jane felt like it was rape, but did not fight back. Jane also did not report the incident. Williams was then told by Jane to stay away from her and her children after leaving the hotel. Months later Jane suspected that she was pregnant with Paul’s baby. She tried to seek an abortion, but was told the procedure would not be covered under any benefits package. After learning of Jane’s plans Paul was devastated and felt remorseful for what transpired between them when she arrived in Chicago. He adamantly claims he did not rape her and wanted to stop Jane from killing his unborn child. Paul claimed he had paternal rights and retained Camille Paige, a pro-life attorney. Jane remains that the encounter was a rape, while Williams is strong in his stance that Jane is a sex worker who wants to terminate the life of a child to punish him.
IV. Statement of Decided Issues: Paul Williams was aquitted for rape in district court. Mary Bradwell, Jane’s attorney filed a petition with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted all of the positions for certiorari and four justices agreed to rule on Paul Williams petition for injunctive relief.
V. Governing principle and resolution of facts: Dobbs vs. Jackson 597 U.S. overturned Roe vs. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973), but neither of these cases give men the right to choose what happens with a woman’s body. Jane felt as though the incident was rape and was making the choice to terminate the pregnancy.
VI. Disposition: As the deciding 4-4 vote in the petitioned Supreme Court Case of Jane Doe vs. Paul Williams. I have ruled in favor of the plaintiff concurring with my four peers that it is Jane’s right to choose and if she felt it was rape then she has every right to terminate the pregnancy.
I am just going to post this right here in case my email gets intercepted.. because it’s happened.