Through Legal Momentum's work in Sexuality and Family Rights, the orgainization seeks to promote women's autonomy, protect women's sexual and reproductive rights, and hold the government accountable for funding and promotion of policies that limit these rights, and harm women and girls.
Sex, Lies, and Stereotypes: How Abstinence-Only Programs Harm Women and Girls (2008): This groundbreaking report exposes the political motivations behind ineffective abstinence-only programs. The report highlights the harm these programs cause to women and girls in particular.
Learn more about Legal Momentum's litigation in this area:
Li v. Oregon - Determined whether denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the Oregon Constitution. April 2005
Nabozny v. Podlesny - Determined the right of a homosexual student to sue for peer-to-peer sexual harassment under §1983 and the 14th Amendment. July 1996
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services - Determined whether Title VII's prohibition against workplace sexual harassment applies to same-sex sexual harassment. March 1998
Steffan v. Aspin - Considered whether Department of Defense regulations against homosexuality in the military violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. November 1993
Strauss v. Horton - Sought to overturn California's Prop 8, the state's same-sex marriage ban. May 2009
Crisis Pregnancy Centers
Crisis Pregnancy Centers: Profiles (PDF) (2006): Legal Momentum examines the origins and activities of four of the most well established networks of crisis pregnancy centers operating in the United States and internationally.
Federal Abstinence-Only Funding for Crisis Pregnancy Centers (PDF) (2006): Over the last decade, federal and state government funding for CPCs has expanded dramatically. In this report, Legal Momentum examines abstinence-only funding for these centers.
In 2007, Legal Momentum and NOW spearheaded a movement against funding for the Bush Administration's "Responsible Fatherhood" initiative. Many of the programs funded by the initiative provided training and education for women but not for men, a violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the federal statute that prohibits sex discrimination in any education program that receives federal funds. More >>