Yeah... I'd probably call some of those maps on a few things. Cases of "technically true, but they're missing some of the picture". Protection from discrimination based on ethnicity, ferex,
is legally guaranteed to folks in the US... when they're hired or being considered for hiring by companies of a particular size --
15 and up, in this case. As MSH notes, it's been defended repeatedly based on th'inequal protection bit. Smoking
is banned in schools at the subnational level, as well (search through for "school"), and education
is guaranteed for the disabled (just not constitutionally). Good deal of the stuff on those things does appear to be accurate, but it's somewhat troublesome that they're outright wrong or highly misrepresentative on some other bits

Don't get me wrong, you want to shit on the states in the arena that article addresses, there's plenty of room to do it. No need to leave out facts.
Report the unadulterated facts with absolutely no personal interjection or opinion. It's rather easy, excepting for when you have a paycheck.
Just make sure you avoid reporting all the
potentially relevant facts and that's an absolutely beautiful way to get some deliciously biased material out there. Deception 101 is how to do it with facts, heh. The disabled education bit is an excellent example... check
the source on the inclusion of the disabled into the education process. No, education's not constitutionally decreed, but there's pretty significant legal support anyway. And in an article that's ostensibly about "children's chances", it's pretty bloody obvious that reporting on the constitutional support but not the institutional support is blatant bias.
Edit: Well, okay, either blatant bias or ineptitude. Could be either, I guess.