Supreme Court – Teen Observer Archive

June 25, 2019

Four years after legalized same-sex marriage, greater LGBTQ acceptance

People in Washington, D.C. interviewed this month agreed that acceptance of same sex marriage has been on the rise in the United States in the four years since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on the subject.

Brittany Proudfoot-Ginder, 30, an employee at American University, thinks the culture has become more aware and will continue to change toward acceptance in the years to come. Ginder explained opposition is dependent on geographic location and socioeconomic status.

Despite groups who disagree with same sex marriage, Ginder says people feel more comfortable speaking about it and there has been more visibility for the LGBTQ community.

The opposition is “fairly similar to how it’s always been, but now there is more of a community fighting back,” said Ginder, whose sister identifies as lesbian and is getting married later this year.

Ginder spoke passionately about the benefits of marriage, such as filing taxes together, sharing a health insurance plan, and being able to visit them in the hospital.

A May 2019 report from Pew Research Center found the opinions of same sex marriage have remained largely unchanged since 2017. While opposition is slowly declining, it remains a part of the culture in the United States.

Jack Sullivan, 66, sat on a bench on the American University campus on a recent day in June. He believes marriage being held as a constitutional right has only helped create acceptance and education.

“Acceptance provoked the legalization of marriage,” Sullivan said.

Aubrey Amos,16, has seen a lot more about LGBTQ groups on social media, but has also seen opposition more frequently, too.

“They are speaking their minds,” Amos said of those still opposed to same-sex marriage.

Jabriela Calderon, 30, thinks opposition groups have become more verbal and occasionally violent. She attributed this to same sex marriage and the LGBTQ community being normalized after years of marginalization.

“There seems to be more of an understanding towards same sex couples,” Calderon said.

According to a Pew Research report from May 2013, people are more open to same sex marriage after being exposed to someone from the LGBTQ community.

For Tyler Massias, 19, same-sex marriage has meant larger acceptance for others, too, including people of color who identify as transgender. He says that in the four years since that Supreme Court ruling, it has “generated a permissive culture.”

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case Obergefell v. Hodges, “requiring all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Hannah Ruth Wellons, who worked at the American University library, said she believes that the issue now goes beyond marriage. It means that ignorance also is being taken away.

July 6, 2017July 6, 2017

D.C. residents’ powerful reaction to travel ban decision

Protestors oppose president Trump’s travel ban. Photo by Masha George

Many Washington, D.C. residents and students interviewed in the days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that parts of Donald Trump’s travel ban can remain intact, believed it would create a negative impact on the United States.

According to the ACLU, the revised travel ban forbids the residents of six predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States unless they fit certain criteria.

Trump issued his original travel ban on Jan. 27, which, after much debate, was eventually blocked. While the original travel ban was in effect, thousands protested the ban nationwide, especially in airports.

Even after the revisions, which allows people in special circumstances to be exempt from the ban, many citizens of the United States have strong emotions concerning the travel ban.

“America is supposed to be the Land of Opportunity and I very disagree with the travel ban. I don’t think that all Muslims are bad people, I have friends who are Muslims, I work with people who are Muslims, they are not all terrorists,” said April Spence, 34, of Woodbridge, Virginia.

Other arguments for why the revised travel ban will negatively affect the United States also included that the United States is a nation of immigrants, and so the citizens of the United States cannot discriminate against and ban people solely based on their religion.

Furthermore, people argued that people of most religions are part of terrorist groups and many Muslims are not part of a terrorist group. In fact, the FBI found that 94 percent of terrorist attacks that occurred in the United States from 1980 to 2005 were not by Muslims.

Everyone interviewed June 29 and June 30 in the Tenleytown neighborhood of Washington, D.C. and the American University campus believed that this travel ban was discriminatory, but one person was also in favor of the revised travel ban for security.

Often, the people in favor of the travel ban argued that terrorism does exist in the countries that fall under the ban. So, by banning residents from those countries inherently, they say, security will improve.

“I am sure that there is good reason to put it into place, and I’m sure there will be, as a side effect of the whole thing, a certain amount of discrimination that takes place, and that is unfortunate,” said Beth Cash, 54, of Cleveland, Ohio.

“But if that’s what needs to happen to keep us safe, then I think some of us are just going to have to live with that,” said Cash. According to a recent POLITICO/Morning poll, Beth Cash is one of many supporters of this revised travel ban, as the poll found that 60% of Americans support it.

Many people interviewed also believe that this travel ban will go beyond just damaging the United States domestically, but will also affect its international relations.

“I think it’s already had a very negative impact,” said David Sarokin, 65, of Washington, D.C. “The mere fact of even proposing a ban like that, based on religion and based on no good national security reason, has done a lot of damage to our reputation as a free and open country.”

July 1, 2016

American University students and staff react to SCOTUS abortion ruling

Robert Drinkwater, 31, expressed support for Monday's Supreme Court decision. Photo credit Joseph Ferrari. — Robert Drinkwater, 31, expressed support for Monday’s Supreme Court decision. Photo credit Joseph Ferrari.

American University students and staff reacted on Tuesday to the Supreme Court’s historic ruling on Texas’s restrictive abortion clinic laws.

Anisa Santiago, 21, was raised around pro-life Catholics, but attends American University, which she says tends to be more liberal. Though she doesn’t support abortion, she believes the Texas government shouldn’t have restricted access.

“If the government wants to shut down abortion clinics they need a better reason,” Santiago said.

The Texas bill required all abortion doctors to have admitting privileges to any hospital within 30 miles from their clinic, and forced all abortion clinics in the state to upgrade to ambulatory surgical centers. The changes forced many clinics to close.

Although Texas officials originally claimed their motive for enacting the restrictive legislation was to ensure the security and safety of women, some aren’t so sure.

“It was a poorly disguised political scam,” said Alex Mazzarisi, 22, an American University graduate. She added, “Abortions should be an option to all women.”

Before this bill was pushed through the Texas legislative system, there were as many as 36 abortion clinics in the state. Today, that number has dwindled down to about 8, according to the group Fund Texas Choice.

After Monday’s Supreme Court ruling, Texas Governor Greg Abbott responded in a press release, saying, “The decision erodes States’ lawmaking authority to safeguard the health and safety of women and subjects more innocent life to being lost. Texas’ goal is to protect innocent life, while ensuring the highest health and safety standards for women.”

Genesis Marte, 19, was convinced that Texas’s measures Abbott defended were “ridiculous.”

“Woman’s body, woman’s choice,” Marte said.

Rob Drinkwater, an AU staff member, agreed.

“They should have the right to choose and rights to their body,” said Drinkwater, 31.

July 1, 2016July 1, 2016

Support for Monday’s Supreme Court ruling strong

Screen shot 2016-07-01 at 9.51.42 AM — Ted Leibouitz, 22, reacts to Monday’s Supreme Court abortion decision. Photo credit Joseph Ferrari.

American University students showed overwhelming support of the June 27 Supreme Court decision overturning a restrictive Texas abortion law.

The 5-3 ruling struck down a Texas bill, known as HB2, which would have effectively forced the closure of nearly 40 health clinics that perform abortions, leaving women seeking services very few options in the Lone Star State.

“It’s a good thing,” Genesis Marte, 19, said of the high court’s decision to protect abortion services. “That’s a woman’s body and a woman’s choice.”

Anisa Santiago, 21, attended Catholic school and says she was raised pro-life. But now, as an American University student, Santiago also takes a pro-choice stance.

“If the government wants to shut down [clinics], they need a better reason,” Santiago said of the Texas law, which would have required health clinics to build special surgical facilities.

Alex Mazzarisi, 22, an American University graduate, agrees with the Supreme Court’s decision. She also felt as if it came with a lot of unneeded attention.

“I was happy,” Mazzarisi said. “There is a lot of restriction, very unnecessarily so.”

In the wake of the decision involving Texas, Wisconsin, Alabama and Mississippi abortion laws are getting more attention, according to the Supreme Court website.

To many, Texas’s law would have made women travel further for services, causing an undue burden.

“I think they should be available, of course, with health insurance and to help keep low-income woman out of poverty,” Mazzarisi said.

Santiago agrees that abortion should be accessible because nobody but the woman having it can understand the experience the procedure brings.

“It should be available pro-choice, nobody knows unless you’re going through it,” Santiago said. “There’s a stigma. And it’s a bad thing.”

July 1, 2016July 1, 2016

Support for Supreme Court’s landmark abortion ruling

People interviewed at American University the day after a historic Supreme Court ruling that struck down a controversial Texas law regulating abortion clinics overwhelmingly supported the landmark ruling.

“I was raised in a Christian family where abortion was not supported, but my view has changed for it to be the woman’s decision,” said Kefale Bekele, 49. “It’s too hard to say you can’t do this.”

Texas legislators passed a law that would have required abortion clinics to have hospital-grade equipment and have doctors with admitting access to an emergency room. This would have shut down a majority of clinics in the state.

“Anything that makes the full range of healthcare available to all women is a step in the right direction” said Dawn Fairvbanks, 51. “There is still a long way to go before women are on par with men in reproductive health care, however it can begin a more widespread discussion for change.”

Fei Lan, 20, said that people without choice would face long-term negative consequences.

“It’s not fair to kids because they won’t grow up well, they won’t be financially stable, it’s not a life,” Lan said.

Hannah Ross, a 21-year-old American University student, said she hopes the Supreme Court decision will create more liberal laws and policies nationwide.

“Hopefully, it will cause a domino effect where it goes to moral issues and gives more protection to women,” Ross said. “When the decision on women’s reproductive rights does come, no one side will be pleased.”