Skip to contentNational Women's Law Center

Emily Martin, Vice President and General Counsel

Emily Martin

Emily Martin is Vice President and General Counsel at the National Women's Law Center, where she undertakes cross-cutting projects addressing women's health, economic security, and education and employment opportunities. She also provides in-house legal advice and representation to the Center. Prior to joining the Center, Ms. Martin served as Deputy Director of the Women's Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, where she spearheaded litigation, policy, and public education initiatives to advance the rights of women and girls, with a particular emphasis on the needs of low-income women and women of color. She also served as a law clerk for Senior Judge Wilfred Feinberg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and Judge T.S. Ellis, III, of the Eastern District of Virginia and previously worked for the Center as a recipient of the Georgetown Women's Law and Public Policy Fellowship. She has served as Vice President and President of the Fair Housing Justice Center, a non-profit organization in New York City. She is a graduate of the University of Virginia and Yale Law School.

My Take

Health Care Fight Puts Women’s Health and Women’s Rights in Jeopardy

Posted by Emily Martin, Vice President and General Counsel | Posted on: January 13, 2012 at 10:47 am

The constitutional fight over the health care law is a fight with high stakes for women’s health and women’s rights. Today, the National Women’s Law Center filed a brief on behalf of 61 women’s organizations and civil rights groups urging the Supreme Court to reject the constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s individual responsibility provision.

As Speaker Pelosi stated on the night the House approved the legislation, “It’s personal for women. After we pass this bill, being a woman will no longer be a preexisting medical condition.” A primary purpose behind the ACA was improving women’s health and women’s access to insurance, by ending the insurer practice of denying coverage to women who previously had Caesarean section or survived domestic violence; banning insurers from charging women higher premiums than men; prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded health programs; expanding Medicaid to cover more than 8 million additional low-income women, guaranteeing maternity coverage; providing Pap smears, mammograms, lactation counseling, and family planning without copayments; and more. Those challenging the ACA before the Supreme Court are arguing that the entire law, including all of these provisions so essential to women, should be struck down. The ACA litigation is in many important ways a women’s rights case.

Read more...

CEDAW Ratification Would Enhance Women’s Global Security

Posted by Emily Martin, Vice President and General Counsel | Posted on: December 21, 2011 at 10:27 am

On Monday, President Obama issued the first ever National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security, which recognizes that women’s meaningful participation in decisions regarding war and peace promotes national security and stability, and advances nations’ economic and social development. The plan, and the executive order implementing it, commit the United States to undertake steps to promote women’s roles in conflict prevention, peace processes, and decision making; to protect women and children from sexual and gender-based violence and trafficking in conflict zones; and to take women’s particular needs into account in providing humanitarian assistance. The plan recognizes that rape and violence against women is often used as a weapon in armed conflict and that efforts to prevent and end conflicts must address these forms of violence. It also recognizes that investing in women and girls’ health, education, and economic oppor­tunity pays dividends in the form of stable societies and lasting peace, because no nation can thrive when it fails to tap the potential of half its population. The plan is a strong and welcome commitment by the United States to foster women’s participation and leadership in diplomacy, defense, and development initiatives around the world.

Read more...

Reed v. Reed Reminds Us What’s At Stake for Women in Constitutional Fights

Posted by Emily Martin, Vice President and General Counsel | Posted on: November 22, 2011 at 02:36 pm

Happy anniversary! Forty years ago today, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time in history that a law that discriminated against women violated the Constitution. Reed v. Reed was the first in a series of path-breaking cases that established that the Constitution does not permit government to discriminate on the basis of sex unless it can prove it has an exceedingly persuasive justification for doing so. Today let’s start giving thanks a few days early and celebrate the cases that recognized that women are among those persons who may not be denied equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment.

But while these victories merit celebration, today it is also important to remember that women still have much at stake in current arguments about the Constitution and its meaning. For example, a week ago, the Supreme Court agreed to consider whether the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid and individual responsibility provision are constitutional. The answers to these questions will determine the fate of the Affordable Care Act-- legislation of tremendous importance to women’s health. The Court’s decision may also affect other laws upon which women depend.

Read more...

Reed v. Reed at 40: A Landmark Decision

Posted by Emily Martin, Vice President and General Counsel | Posted on: November 16, 2011 at 12:27 pm

In 1971, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Idaho law that required the selection of a man over a woman to serve as administrator of an estate when both were equally qualified.  The landmark Reed v. Reed decision, 404 U.S. 71 (1971), marked the first time in history that the Court applied the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down a law that discriminated against women.

Background of the Reed v. Reed Case

The woman who challenged Idaho’s discriminatory statute was Sally Reed, a single mother who earned a living by caring for disabled people in her home.  The case began when her teenage son Skip died tragically. According to Sally, her ex-husband, Cecil Reed, was an abusive husband and father who deserted the family when their son was only three or four years old. After their divorce, Sally raised Skip during his “tender years,” but Cecil was awarded partial custody of Skip when he reached his teens.  During one of his visits, Skip was found dead in his father’s basement, having apparently shot himself with his father’s rifle. Skip’s death was determined a suicide, but Sally was suspicious because Cecil had taken out a life insurance policy on the boy.  Because Skip had died without a will, Sally filed a petition to be appointed administrator of his estate, which consisted of only $495 and a few personal belongings. Cecil Reed put in a rival application.

Read more...

An Unlikely Source Affirms the Constitutionality of Health Care Reform

Posted by Emily Martin, Vice President and General Counsel | Posted on: November 09, 2011 at 01:56 pm

Yesterday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals became the third of the four federal appeals courts to consider the issue to turn back a constitutional challenge to the individual responsibility provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Congress has the power to require individuals to obtain health insurance (with subsidies for low- and moderate-income individuals), the court held, as part of its authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to regulate commercial markets, including the insurance industry. Those challenging the individual responsibility provision have argued that Congress nevertheless cannot require individuals to participate in the insurance market if they choose not to. But, as we argued in a brief in the case and the D.C. Circuit held, civil rights cases show that such a requirement falls squarely within Congress’s Commerce Clause power. As the D.C. Circuit Court stated, while the individual responsibility’s requirement that people obtain health insurance “is an encroachment on individual liberty, . . .it is no more so than a command that restaurants or hotels are obliged to serve all customers regardless of race.”

But just as notable as the decision itself is who wrote it. Senior Judge Laurence Silberman, the author of the opinion, is an intellectual leader among conservatives. 

Read more...