Check out our second election explainer - this one about how IVF is on the ballot this year.

RT @UCLAReproPolicy: On Monday, a Georgia court struck down the state’s 6-week abortion ban. CRHLP’s Legal Fellow Sofia Espinoza summariz….

Just lifting up this resource with real facts as you listen to the VP debate and spin.

Generate videos in just a few seconds. Try Grok Imagine, free for a limited time.

RT @UCLAReproPolicy: Today, we released the first in a series of Election Impact Explainers, unpacking how this upcoming presidential elect….

RT @UCLAReproPolicy: Watch our Executive Director @mg718 break down 5 key ideas the center's work is advancing ⤵️.

RT @UCLA_Law: Here, Melissa Goodman, executive director of @UCLAReproPolicy, shares 5 key ideas the center's work is advancing. #Reproducti….

Criminalizing people for sleeping on the street when cities don’t have the infrastructure or affordable housing to give them another place to go is cruel. Access to housing is a repro justice matter. Economic stability is a necessary ingredient of freedom

RT @UCLAReproPolicy: “It’s a sad day when the Court can’t easily answer the question whether Idaho should be allowed to hurt pregnant peopl….

And, as someone who has actually litigated First Amendment cases by U.S. citizens challenging denial of visas to foreign scholars, the Court is also mangling the meaning of the Mandel case. So please just read Justice Sotomayor’s important dissent.

Justice Sotomayor correctly warns us all how we can expect the Supreme Court to undermine the right to marry, as well as other fundamental liberty and equality rights the current majority does not like, in the future.

The court has to do that here today because the Supreme Court has previously made very clear that the right to marry and the right to familial intimacy and togetherness is indeed a fundamental constitutional right.

And once again, the Supreme Court is mangling how liberty cases should be decided by defining the right a person invokes exceptionally narrowly in order to be able to say “of course there is no history and tradition for this right.”.

Once again, like in Dobbs, the Supreme Court is doing a total overreach to decide a huge and weighty liberty issue in the wrong direction when it didn't need to in order to resolve the case.

We must be building a world in which we have the ability and right to be with our families and, at a very, very minimum, require some basic modicum of due process – notice of why and a real opportunity to challenge it-- when the government takes that away from us.

The Ct is blessing potentially lifelong gov-imposed family separation & banishment w/out even a justification given to a U.S. citizen as totally unproblematic, constitutionally-speaking. This runs counter to any real vision of what repro justice should look like in this country.

While on its face an immigration case, it is also a reproductive justice matter, and a troubling harbinger of things to come with this Supreme Court and rights currently (for now) considered fundamental.

The Court holds a U.S. citizen has no fundamental constitutional right to know even the factual basis for why the government has refused to let them live together in this country with their spouse and imposed family separation.

I hope everyone reads Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in Muñoz, the Supreme Court decision today. A long thread . .

RT @MyHarmReduction: This is HUGE!. The House of Delegates of the American Medical Association voted in support of decriminalizing all drug….

RT @UCLAReproPolicy: Soon after #SCOTUS issues their decision in Moyle V. United States, join CRHLP for a webinar discussing the practical….