Digital Commons Network^™

Through The Looking Glass: What Abortion Teaches Us About American Politics, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Judicial Minimalism: Abortion Politics, Party Polarization, And The Consequences Of Returning The Constitution To Elected Government, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

How Planned Parenthood V. Casey (Pretty Much) Settled The Abortion Wars, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

More than twenty-one years after Robert Bork's failed Supreme Court nomination and seventeen years after Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the rhetoric of abortion politics remains unchanged. Pro-choice interests, for example, argue that states are poised to outlaw abortion and that Roe v. Wade is vulnerable to overruling. In this Essay, I will debunk those claims. First, I will explain how Casey's approval of limited abortion rights reflected an emerging national consensus in 1992. Second, I will explain why the Supreme Court is unlikely to risk political backlash by formally modifying Casey- either by restoring the trimester test …

How Congress Paved The Way For The Rehnquist Court's Federalism Revival: Lessons From The Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

Grasping Fatherhood In Abortion And Adoption.Pdf, Malinda L. Seymore

Malinda L. Seymore

Unenumerated Rights And The Limits Of Analogy: A Critque Of The Right To Medical Self-Defense, O. Carter Snead

O. Carter Snead

Volokh’s project stands or falls with the claim that the entitlement he proposes is of constitutional dimension. If there is no fundamental right to medical self-defense, the individual must, for better or worse, yield to the regulation of this domain in the name of the values agreed to by the political branches of government. Indeed, the government routinely restricts the instrumentalities of self-help (including self-defense) in the name of avoiding what it takes to be more significant harms. This same rationale accounts for current governmental limitations on access to unapproved drugs and the current ban on organ sales. The FDA …

Justice Lewis F. Powell's Baffling Vote In Roe V. Wade, Samuel W. Calhoun

Samuel W. Calhoun

No abstract provided.

Why Strive For Balance In A Roe Symposium?, Samuel W. Calhoun

Samuel W. Calhoun

No abstract provided.

Who Deserves The Right To Decide On Abortion?, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

Deadly Dicta: Roe’S “Unwanted Motherhood,” Gonzales’S “Women’S Regret” And The Shifting Narrative Of Abortion Jurisprudence, Stacy A. Scaldo

Stacy A Scaldo

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Heads Into A New Term, Gerry Bradley

Gerard V. Bradley

Gerard Bradley was quoted in the National Catholic Register article Supreme Court Heads Into a New Term by JOAN FRAWLEY DESMOND on October 9. Gerard Bradley, an expert on constitutional law at the University of Notre Dame Law School, told the Register that the justices will decide “whether states have the power to limit a doctor’s prescription of RU-486 to the FDA protocols.” But there is a larger issue at stake for abortion facilities that resist this kind of oversight. “I think the outcome is important and will actually turn on the larger question of whether Oklahoma is setting up …

The Rule Of Law And The Law Of Precedents, Daniel A. Farber

Daniel A Farber

No abstract provided.

The Concept Of Person In The Law, Charles Baron

Charles H. Baron

The focus of the abortion debate in the United States tends to be on whether and at what stage a fetus is a person. I believe this tendency has been unfortunate and counterproductive. Instead of advancing dialogue between opposing sides, such a focus seems to have stunted it, leaving advocates in the sort of “I did not!” – “You did too!” impasse we remember from childhood. Also reminiscent of that childhood scene has been the vain attempt to break the impasse by appeal to a higher authority. Thus, the pro-choice forces hoped they had proved the pro-life forces “wrong” by …

Deadly Dicta: Roe’S “Unwanted Motherhood”, Gonzales’S “Women’S Regret” And The Shifting Narrative Of Abortion Jurisprudence, Stacy A. Scaldo

Stacy A Scaldo

For thirty-four years, the narrative of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the issue of abortion was firmly focused on the pregnant woman. From the initial finding that the right to an abortion stemmed from a constitutional right to privacy[1], through the test applied and refined to determine when that right was abridged[2], to the striking of statutes found to over-regulate that right[3], the conversation from the Court’s perspective maintained a singular focus. Pro-life arguments focusing on the fetus as the equal or greater party of interest were systematically pushed aside by the Court.[4] The consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, or as …

Valuing Intrauterine Life, Samuel W. Calhoun

Samuel W. Calhoun

No abstract provided.

Is It Possible To Take Both Fetal Life And Women Seriously? Professor Laurence Tribe And His Reviewers, Samuel W. Calhoun, Andrea E. Sexton

Samuel W. Calhoun

No abstract provided.

Casey Skit: A Pedagogical Tool For Interviewing Young Women And Proceeding Through A Judicial Bypass Hearing , Jamin B. Raskin, Ann Shalleck

Jamin Raskin

No abstract provided.

Irrational Women: Informed Consent And Abortion Regret, Maya Manian

Maya Manian

This chapter explores the law’s failure in the twenty-first century to treat pregnant women as capable of making their own decisions concerning whether to have an abortion. The Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld a federal ban on a type of second-trimester abortion that many physicians believe is safest for their patients, brought the question of women’s capacity for abortion decision-making to the forefront of public legal consciousness. In Carhart, the Court abandoned its previous deference and respect for a woman’s right to be her own decision-maker with regard to abortion and instead determined that a …

Abortion Rights (Symposium: The Supreme Court And Local Government Law; The 1989-90 Term), Eileen Kaufman

Eileen Kaufman

No abstract provided.

Abortion Rights (Symposium: The Supreme Court And Local Government Law; The 1989-90 Term), Eileen Kaufman

Eileen Kaufman

No abstract provided.

Rights, Remedies And Facial Challenges, Maya Manian

Maya Manian

This brief comment extends upon a key point raised by Caitlin Borgmann’s article, Holding Legislatures Constitutionally Accountable Through Facial Challenges, which argues in part that the Roberts Court takes an outcome-driven approach to facial challenges. Building on Borgmann’s analysis, this comment further suggests that the Court not only manipulates the law in an outcome determinative manner, but also exploits the rules regarding the use of as-applied and facial challenges as a means to rewrite substantive law without having to openly overrule prior precedent. This comment focuses on Gonzales v. Carhart as an illustration of the Roberts Courts’ manipulation of procedural …

The Irrational Woman: Informed Consent And Abortion Decision-Making, Maya Manian

Maya Manian

In Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on a type of second-trimester abortion that many physicians believe is safer for their patients. Carhart presented a watershed moment in abortion law, because it marks the Supreme Court’s first use of the anti-abortion movement’s “woman-protective” rationale to uphold a ban on abortion and the first time since Roe v. Wade that the Court denied women a health exception to an abortion restriction. The woman-protective rationale asserts that banning abortion promotes women’s mental health. According to Carhart, the State should make the final decisions about pregnant women’s healthcare, because …

The Concept Of Person In The Law, Charles Baron

Charles H. Baron

The focus of the abortion debate in the United States tends to be on whether and at what stage a fetus is a person. I believe this tendency has been unfortunate and counterproductive. Instead of advancing dialogue between opposing sides, such a focus seems to have stunted it, leaving advocates in the sort of “I did not!” – “You did too!” impasse we remember from childhood. Also reminiscent of that childhood scene has been the vain attempt to break the impasse by appeal to a higher authority. Thus, the pro-choice forces hoped they had proved the pro-life forces “wrong” by …