Allison Jones Rushing On Abortion
Rushing Upheld A Trump Administration Rule Restricting Doctors Referring Their Patients For Abortion Services If They Wanted Them
Rushing Upheld A Trump Rule That Would Prevent Certain Doctors From Referring Patients To Abortion Services
Rushing Dissented To Allow The Trump Administration’s Domestic Abortion Gag Rule To Go Into Effect, Even Though A Lower Court Had Enjoined It. According to Rewire News Group, “From the start, Rushing has worked to enact Trump’s conservative agenda. Shortly after taking the bench, she voted, along with fellow Trump appointee Julius Richardson, to allow the administration’s domestic ‘gag rule’ to go into effect, even though a lower court had enjoined it. The gag rule bars Title X funds from going to any health-care clinic that performs abortions or refers patients for abortion services.” [Rewire News Group, 4/3/20]
The Trump Administration’s Gag Rule Barred Clinics From Referring Women For Abortion Services, And If They Did They Would Not Receive Federal Funding. According to Courthouse News Service, “The Trump administration’s rule barring clinics that receive federal funding from referring women for abortions cannot be enforced in the state of Maryland, the full Fourth Circuit ruled Thursday. In a 9-6 decision, the en banc court found that the Trump administration’s implementation of its rule undermining the long-standing program known as Title X is both arbitrary and punitive. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar finalized the rule at issue last year, prohibiting health care providers like Planned Parenthood and others from taking federal funding so long as they referred their patients to abortion services.” [Courthouse News Service, 9/3/20]
Rushing Worked At The Anti-Abortion Alliance Defending Freedom
Rushing Worked As A Legal Intern At The Alliance Defending Freedom, A Far-Right Organization That Supported The Criminalization of Abortion
2005: As A Law Student, Rushing Worked As A Legal Intern At Alliance Defending Freedom. “Allison Jones Rushing […] Employment Record: List in reverse chronological order all governmental agencies, businesses or professional corporations, companies, firms, or other enterprises, partnerships, institutions or organizations, non-profit of otherwise, with which you have been affiliated […] Summer 2005 Alliance Defense Fund (now known as Alliance Defending Freedom).” [Senate Committee On The Judiciary, Questionnaire for Judicial Nominations, Allison Jones Rushing, accessed 10/24/18]
The Alliance Defending Freedom Fought To Criminalize Abortion. According to Rewire News Group, “Since 1994, the Alliance Defending Freedom has been building a network of lawyers in public and private practice ‘to keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel by transforming the legal system,’ according to its website. Today, the Alliance has more than $40 million in assets, according to its most recent auditor’s report, and is becoming an increasing force in the conservative legal arena. Through legal actions and its various legal training programs, the nonprofit focuses on fighting for the criminalization of abortion.” [Rewire News Group, 5/13/14]
Allison Jones Rushing On LGBTQ Rights
Rushing Opposed LGBTQ Rights And Worked For An Anti-LGBTQ Group
Rushing Interned for The Anti-LGBTQ Alliance Defending Freedom
2005: Rushing Was A Legal Intern For The Group Now Known As The Alliance Defending Freedom. [U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Allison Jones Rushing, Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees, accessed 9/20/20]
The Alliance Defending Freedom Supported Criminalizing Sex Between LGBTQ Adults Domestically And Abroad
The Alliance Defending Freedom Supported Criminalizing Sex Between LGBTQ Adults Domestically And Abroad. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “Founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian Right, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal advocacy and training group that has: Supported the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the U.S. and criminalization abroad Defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad Contended that LGBTQ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia Claimed that a ‘homosexual agenda’ will destroy Christianity and society” [Southern Poverty Law Center, accessed 9/20/20]
The Alliance Defending Freedom Defended Sterilization Of Trans People
The Alliance Defending Freedom Defended Sterilization Of Trans People. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “Founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian Right, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal advocacy and training group that has: Supported the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the U.S. and criminalization abroad Defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad Contended that LGBTQ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia Claimed that a ‘homosexual agenda’ will destroy Christianity and society” [Southern Poverty Law Center, accessed 9/20/20]
The Alliance Defending Freedom Claimed The “Homosexual Agenda” Would Destroy Christianity And Society
The Alliance Defending Freedom Claimed The “Homosexual Agenda” Would Destroy Christianity And Society. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “Founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian Right, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal advocacy and training group that has: Supported the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the U.S. and criminalization abroad Defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad Contended that LGBTQ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia Claimed that a ‘homosexual agenda’ will destroy Christianity and society” [Southern Poverty Law Center, accessed 9/20/20]
Rushing Claimed She Was Unaware Of The Alliance Defending Freedom’s Offensive Positions
Rushing Claimed She Was Not Aware Of All Of The Alliance Defending Freedom’s Anti-LGBTQ, And Anti-Abortion Positions. In her Answers to Supplemental Questions from the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Rushing said, “You have an extended relationship with the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), formerly known as the Alliance Defense Fund. Your affiliation began in the summer of 2005, when you interned for ADF. You have also served as a panelist and speaker at three ADF sponsored events. Among other positions, ADF opposes women’s reproductive rights; believes that healthcare workers have a right to decline participation in the performance of practices they find morally objectionable; and opposes marriage equality, civil unions between same-sex couples, and adoption by same-sex couples. When did you become aware that the organization: i. Opposes women’s reproductive rights? Regarding the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), I participated in a summer internship as a law student, and since then I have spoken to law students about clerking and careers, as I have done for other organizations. As regards the alleged positions attributed to ADF, I am not aware of all of ADF’s policy or litigating positions, and for those positions of which I am aware, I do not recall when I learned of them. I do not work for ADF or have any official role with them. If I am confirmed as a judge on the Fourth Circuit, I will be bound by the precedent of the Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit, including Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges, among others. I will faithfully follow those precedents. ii. Believes healthcare workers can decline participation in the performance of practices they find morally objectionable? Please see my response to question 7.a.i above. iii. Opposes marriage equality, civil unions between same-sex couples, and
adoption by same-sex couples? Please see my response to question 7.a.i above.” [U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Allison Jones Rushing, Supplemental Questions for Judicial Nominees, 10/24/18]
The Alliance Defending Freedom Was Considered A Hate Group By The Southern Poverty Law Center
The Alliance Defending Freedom Was Considered A Hate Group By The Southern Poverty Law Center. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a SPLC Designated Hate Group. [Southern Poverty Law Center, accessed 6/24/24]
Rushing Supported The Alliance Defending Freedom’s Legal Fellowship Program
Rushing Spoke At Least Three Times To The Alliance Defending Freedom’s Blackstone Legal Fellowship Program. According to the Alliance for Justice, “In addition to writing this article, skeptical of efforts to enforce separation of church and state, Rushing has used her platform as a conservative lawyer to mentor other ideologues through ADF’s controversial Blackstone Legal Fellowship program. As described in one article, ADF develops and promotes ‘legal actions and its various legal training programs’ – such as the Blackstone Legal Fellowship program – to focus ‘on fighting for the criminalization of abortion; against the rights of LGBT people; for so-called religious liberty (which often comes in the form of defending clients who wish to discriminate against gay people based on their religious beliefs); and for organized Christian prayer in government or publicschool settings.’ Rushing spoke to lawyers and law students at least three times through the Blackstone Legal Fellowship program, in 2013, 2015, and as recently as 2017. Her affiliation with these organizations demonstrates her commitment to the conservative legal movement, which is no doubt one reason why she was selected for a federal judgeship.” [Alliance for Justice, 10/15/18]
The Alliance Defending Freedom’s Legal Fellowship Program Promoted Anti-LGBTQ and Anti-Abortion Legal Training. According to the Alliance for Justice, “In addition to writing this article, skeptical of efforts to enforce separation of church and state, Rushing has used her platform as a conservative lawyer to mentor other ideologues through ADF’s controversial Blackstone Legal Fellowship program. As described in one article, ADF develops and promotes ‘legal actions and its various legal training programs’ – such as the Blackstone Legal Fellowship program – to focus ‘on fighting for the criminalization of abortion; against the rights of LGBT people; for so-called religious liberty (which often comes in the form of defending clients who wish to discriminate against gay people based on their religious beliefs); and for organized Christian prayer in government or publicschool settings.’ Rushing spoke to lawyers and law students at least three times through the Blackstone Legal Fellowship program, in 2013, 2015, and as recently as 2017. Her affiliation with these organizations demonstrates her commitment to the conservative legal movement, which is no doubt one reason why she was selected for a federal judgeship.” [Alliance for Justice, 10/15/18]
Rushing Supported The Defense Of Marriage Act
2013: Rushing Participated In A Panel Titled “‘Enemies of Mankind’: Religion and Morality in the Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Jurisprudence.” According to the Alliance for Justice, “In 2013, Rushing participated in a panel at Capitol Hill Baptist Church titled ‘Henry Forum: ‘Enemies of Mankind’: Religion and Morality in the Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Jurisprudence.’ In this discussion, Rushing frequently referenced Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion that the holding in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013), departed from ‘traditional’ concepts of marriage and morality. Rushing said that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) ‘explicitly stated that its purpose was ‘protecting the traditional moral teachings reflected in heterosexual-only marriage laws’ and that ‘[t]he congressional record indicated that DOMA reflected ‘moral disapproval of homosexuality, and a moral conviction that heterosexuality better comports with traditional (especially Judeo-Christian) morality.’ 11 Rushing then highlighted the dissenting justices in Windsor who emphasized “the fact that DOMA codified the definition of marriage that had prevailed throughout most of human history and, at the time of DOMA’s enactment, had been adopted by every State in the nation and every nation in the world, was evidence that the law did have a valid basis, or at least explained how lawmakers could enact such a law motivated by something other than hatred.”12 Additionally, she noted how ‘[m]ost interestingly, the dissenters observed that the majority could have decided the case on legal principles that would have accused DOMA’s supporters simply of making a legal error, which is an error that one could make in good faith. But instead, the majority chose the [sic] write the opinion in a unique way that calls it bigotry to believe that homosexuality does not comport with Judeo-Christian morality.’13 Rushing’s characterizations show an affinity for the dissent’s arguments in Windsor, presenting support of DOMA in a positive light and favorably comparing Justice Scalia’s dissent to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion. This is especially disturbing at a time when the LGBTQ community faces incredible hostility from the Trump Administration and threats to its rights in the courts” [Alliance for Justice, 10/15/18]
The Defense Of Marriage Act Defined Marriage As Only Being Between A Man And A Woman And Declared That States Did Not Have To Recognize Same-Gender Marriage Performed In Another State
The Defense Of Marriage Act Defined Marriage As Only Being Between A Man And A Woman. According to the Clinton Digital Library, “President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law on September 21, 1996. The Act declared that no state shall be required to recognize a same-gender marriage performed in another state. DOMA also defined marriage as only between a man and a woman for purposes of Federal law.” [Clinton Digital Library, accessed 6/24/24]
The Defense Of Marriage Act Declared That States Did Not Have To Recognize Same-Gender Marriage Performed In Another State. According to the Clinton Digital Library, “President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law on September 21, 1996. The Act declared that no state shall be required to recognize a same-gender marriage performed in another state. DOMA also defined marriage as only between a man and a woman for purposes of Federal law.” [Clinton Digital Library, accessed 6/24/24]
Rushing Defended The Dissent In United States v. Windsor, Which Struck Down The Defense Of Marriage Act
Rushing Defended The Dissent In United States v. Windsor, Which Struck Down The Defense Of Marriage Act. According to the Alliance for Justice, “11 Rushing then highlighted the dissenting justices in Windsor who emphasized ‘the fact that DOMA codified the definition of marriage that had prevailed throughout most of human history and, at the time of DOMA’s enactment, had been adopted by every State in the nation and every nation in the world, was evidence that the law did have a valid basis, or at least explained how lawmakers could enact such a law motivated by something other than hatred.’ 2 Additionally, she noted how ‘[m]ost interestingly, the dissenters observed that the majority could have decided the case on legal principles that would have accused DOMA’s supporters simply of making a legal error, which is an error that one could make in good faith. But instead, the majority chose the [sic] write the opinion in a unique way that calls it bigotry to believe that homosexuality does not comport with Judeo-Christian morality.’13 Rushing’s characterizations show an affinity for the dissent’s arguments in Windsor, presenting support of DOMA in a positive light and favorably comparing Justice Scalia’s dissent to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion. This is especially disturbing at a time when the LGBTQ community faces incredible hostility from the Trump Administration and threats to its rights in the courts” [Alliance for Justice, 10/15/18]
Allison Jones Rushing On The Separation Of Church And State
Rushing Criticized The Separation Of Church And State
2005: Rushing Co-Authored An Article Criticizing The Enforcement Of The Separation Of Church And State
2005: Rushing Co-Authored An Article Criticizing The Enforcement Of The Separation Of Church And State. According to the Alliance for Justice, “Rushing also co-authored a 2005 article with ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence, titled Nothing to Stand On: ‘Offended Observers’ and the Ten Commandments. Lorence’s advocacy includes fighting against the rights of the LGBTQ community, with specific focus on the right to marry. The Rushing-Lorence article criticizes and demeans those who seek to enforce the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, arguing that the Court’s standing jurisprudence ‘provide[s] a loophole for every village secularist to charge into court with the ACLU and challenge governmental acknowledgments of religion, no matter how passive or benign. These delicate plaintiffs with eggshell sensitivities— who claim deep offense at the acknowledgment of any beliefs that conflict with their own—then seek court orders censoring the religious message, as a type of ‘heckler’s veto.’” [Alliance for Justice, 10/15/18]
2017: Rushing Filed An Amicus Brief Supporting Government Aid For A Church
2017: Rushing Filed An Amicus Brief Supporting Government Aid For A Church. According to Reproductive Freedom for All, “Rushing filed an amicus brief in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer arguing in favor of a Missouri church that wanted to receive a grant from the Missouri government despite a Missouri law that prohibited government aid of churches” [Reproductive Freedom for All, October 2018]
The Supreme Court Ruled That Governments Could Not Prevent Churches And Faith-Based Organizations From A Secular Government Program
The Supreme Court Ruled That Governments Could Not Exclude Churches And Faith-Based Organizations From A Secular Government Program. According to the Alliance Defending Freedom, “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 Monday that the government cannot exclude churches and other faith-based organizations from a secular government program simply because of their religious identity. The much-anticipated decision came in the case Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, involving a church-run preschool in Missouri. The state denied the church a partial reimbursement grant for rubberized playground surface material made from recycled tires solely because a church runs the preschool, even though the only purpose of the grant program is to improve children’s safety.” [Alliance Defending Freedom, 6/26/17]
Allison Jones Rushing And Arbitration
Rushing Supported Arbitration Agreements
Rushing Defended A Company Which Argued That Collective Bargaining Provisions Did Not Prohibit Arbitration Agreements
Rushing Was Part Of The Team Representing Ernst & Young Regarding The Enforceability Of Arbitration Agreements. According to Williams & Connolly LLP, “Ernst & Young (EY) retained Williams & Connolly as lead counsel in the Supreme Court on appeal from an adverse decision by the Ninth Circuit regarding the enforceability of EY’s arbitration agreement with its employees. The question presented in the case is whether the collective-bargaining provisions of the National Labor Relations Act prohibit the enforcement of an agreement requiring an employee to arbitrate claims against an employer on an individual, rather than collective, basis. After Williams & Connolly filed a petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court granted review. […] The Williams & Connolly team included Kannon Shanmugam, Allison Jones Rushing, Josh Podoll, William Marks, and Eden Schiffmann.” [Williams & Connolly LLP, May 2018]
The Supreme Court Ruled In Favor Of Rushing And Ernst & Young
The Supreme Court Ruled In Favor Of Rushing And Ernst & Young. According to Williams & Connolly LLP, “On May 21, 2018, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of EY and other employers. The decision validates the legality of employment agreements that require individual arbitration. .” [Williams & Connolly LLP, May 2018]