Home » lyles » Are you graduating?  Going to Law School, Grad School, Looking for a Job in another State?


Are you graduating?  Going to Law School, Grad School, Looking for a Job in another State?

Read the following article:

As College Decision Day Nears, Students Should Consider States’ Abortion Access


  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. “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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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!

      • 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.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 250 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here