Articles for tag: Demokratie, Diskriminierung, Eizellenspende, Elternschaft, LGBTIQ+, reproductive justice, reproduktive Gerechtigkeit, Reproduktive Rechte, reproduktive Selbstbestimmung, Schwangerschaftsabbruch

Reproduktive Ungerechtigkeit

,

&

Reproduktive Rechte befinden sich weltweit in einer Krise. Der aktuelle Weltbevölkerungsbericht der Vereinten Nationen zeigt, dass Familienplanung und Fortpflanzung unter erheblichem (bevölkerungs-)politischen Druck stehen, auch in Deutschland. Schwarze Aktivistinnen fordern seit langem, diese Entwicklung nicht nur als Einschränkung persönlicher Freiheit zu sehen, sondern die strukturellen Ursachen als Teil der reproduktiven Gerechtigkeit („Reproductive Justice“) zu betrachten. Das erfordert ein Umdenken.

1. September 2025

, , , , , , , , ,

Sex Testing on Trial

,

&

Two global sport governing bodies – World Athletics and World Boxing – decided to institute genetic testing. Both now require all athletes intending to compete in women’s events to undergo a genetic test. The intent is to exclude some women, including those with certain congenital “differences of sex development”, from women’s sport. This revives an old model – last widely used in 1990s – which was deemed unscientific, unethical, and ultimately unworkable. In today’s legal landscape, this renewed approach faces even more pitfalls.

7. August 2025

, , , , , ,

Silencing Children’s Rights

The U.S. Supreme Court decided Mahmoud v. Taylor on June 27, 2025. In doing so, it dramatically expanded parental rights over students and education without concern for the rights of children or consideration of pedagogy and curriculum. Instead of addressing the plurality of views around sexual orientation and gender, the Court indirectly, but unsubtly, installs a traditional values framework that imposes norms of heterosexuality, religious fundamentalism and parental micromanagement of curriculum.

10. Juli 2025

, , , ,

From Erosion to Evisceration

Last week, the Supreme Court decided the case United States v. Skrmetti. As Ryan Thoreson has argued on this blog, the Court’s opinion rolls back existing understandings of sex discrimination in ways that will likely play out in future cases. Building on that insight, I examine how the Court narrows what counts as sex discrimination and strips the concept of stereotypes of its constitutional force. The most troubling aspects of the decision, however, appear in concurrences written by the ultraconservative members of the Court, which confine the reach of equal protection to formal legal classifications alone.

24. Juni 2025

, , , ,

The Erosion of Equal Protection

In United States v. Skrmetti, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 along ideological lines to uphold a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for minors, reaching that conclusion by construing equal protection jurisprudence in regressive ways. The majority reasoned that the law not only did not discriminate on the basis of sex, but did not discriminate on the basis of transgender status either. This post explains how the Skrmetti decision threatens to narrow the scope of constitutional equality protections in the United States, why it is dangerous for the equality claims of women and lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, and why it is likely to be so damaging for transgender people targeted by state and federal lawmakers in recent years.

23. Juni 2025

, , , , , ,

A Door Opened, But Not Fully

&

On 12 June 2025, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in T.H. v. the Czech Republic – the first case brought by a non-binary person. The Court found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention for requiring sterilisation as a precondition for legal gender recognition. Yet, the misgendering of the applicant, the Court’s silence on Articles 3 and 14, and the absence of compensation all temper the applicant’s win.

17. Juni 2025

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Parlamentarische Frage vs. Schutz vor Rassismus

&

Parlamentarische Anfragen nach den Vornamen deutscher Tatverdächtiger haben eine unrühmliche Geschichte. 2024 verweigerte der Berliner Senat erstmals die Auskunft, weil er das Recht auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung verletzt sah. Der Berliner Verfassungsgerichtshof hat diese Argumentation nun zurückgewiesen und die Antwortverweigerung als Verstoß gegen Abgeordnetenrechte gewertet – ohne dabei den Rassismus solcher Anfragen zu thematisieren. Dagegen weist das Minderheitenvotum zu Recht darauf hin, dass Diskriminierungsverbote eine verfassungsimmanente Grenze parlamentarischer Informationsrechte bilden.

13. Juni 2025

, , , , , , , , ,

The Nationality Lottery

On 24 March 2025, the Amsterdam District Court issued a consequential judgement on deprivation of nationality after a terrorist conviction. The ruling stated that the Dutch government could not revoke the nationality of a person convicted of terrorism-related crimes, declaring it a violation of the prohibition of discrimination based on ethnic origin. The judgement marks a departure from previous case law established by the Council of State – the highest administrative court in the Netherlands – as it reconceptualizes the issue of deprivation of nationality as one of direct discrimination based on ethnic origin. However, it fails to provide a clear explanation for its reasoning and seems to conflate nationality with ethnicity.

12. Mai 2025

, , , , , ,

Back to Binary Basics

On April 16 2025, the UK Supreme Court delivered its decision on a fundamental question regarding the interpretation of the terms “sex” and “woman” under the Equality Act. The Court unanimously held that, under the Equaliy Act, the meaning of the word “woman” must be restricted to “biological” women, and does not include trans women, even those who have legally changed their gender under the Gender Recognition Act. The decision risks undermining the UK’s equality law framework and marks a troubling regression in gender rights.

24. April 2025

, , , , , , ,

Under Guise of War

The Knesset’s legislative work since October 2023 has included several legislative initiatives that may be creating a framework for furthering systemic discrimination against Arab Israelis. These new laws could pose a dangerous new precedent in Israel, stripping the right to equality and human dignity of their meaning and threatening the already fragile state of democracy as we know it.

4. Dezember 2024

, , , , , , ,