Digital Commons Network^™

Symposium: Gender, Health & The Constitution: On The Constitutional Requirement For Adequate Prenatal Care Post-Dobbs, Ainslee Johnson-Brown

ConLawNOW

This Essay argues that state abortion statutes codifying government interests in the health and welfare of the unborn trigger a constitutional right to prenatal care where adequate medical care is constitutionally required in the penal system. It explores the healthcare mandates required by the U.S. Constitution in the era before the passage of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, specifically looking at abortion access and prenatal provisions in the penological system. It then dissects abortion-related legislation passed by various states in the wake of Dobbs—emphasizing language within the legislative findings that could trigger a constitutional obligation for prenatal …

Abortion Rights And Federalism: Some Lessons From The Nineteenth Century United States, Kate Masur

ConLawNOW

The Dobbs decision, which gives states complete control over abortion laws, has unleashed conflicts that resemble the battles that arose when enslaved people fled slave states for free states, and enslavers, in turn, mobilized state and federal power to get them back. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has prompted frequent allusions to slavery and the antebellum United States. The history of those struggles reminds us of the corrosive impact of interstate conflict and of the importance of federal protections for freedom and individual rights. The history of the United States in the nineteenth century …

Symposium: The Future Of Reproductive Rights: Reevaluating Regional Law Reform Strategies After Dobbs, Jamie R. Abrams

ConLawNOW

This article studies the triad of 2016 social media campaigns known as “#AskDr.Kasich,” “#askbevinaboutmyvag,” and “#PeriodsforPence” to garner insights to inform the vital work of regional law reform in a post-Dobbs America. While these campaigns, each located in the regional mid-South, were motivated by restrictive state abortion bills, they uniquely positioned menstruation and women’s bodies at the center of their activism—not abortion alone. They leveraged, as a political fault line, the contradiction of these states’ governors’ perceived disgust relating to basic women’s reproductive health, relative to their patriarchal assuredness in regulating and controlling women’s bodies. In so doing, they …

Symposium: The Future Of Reproductive Rights: An Embryo Is Not A Person: Rejecting Prenatal Personhood For A More Complex View Of Prenatal Life, Cynthia Soohoo

ConLawNOW

This essay considers current claims for prenatal personhood after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. It first explains how the Dobbs decision unnecessarily adopts a binary view of prenatal life, suggesting that the only option for courts and legislatures is to recognize prenatal personhood or deny protection for prenatal life. This ignores popular understandings that certain laws can and should protect prenatal life, especially where criminal or tortious actions are concerned, but not grant full legal personhood. The Dobbs decision also refused to draw meaningful lines about the value of prenatal life in …

Symposium: The Future Of Reproductive Rights: Perilous Private Enforcement Strategies: From Posses And Citizen's Arrest To Texas Heartbeat Statutes, Jennifer A. Brobst

ConLawNOW

The utility of state private enforcement statutes restricting abortion in Texas and other states is worthy of close scrutiny. Placing private enforcement in historical context aids in understanding when it may be a sustainable strategy. First, the strategy of involving the populace in the enforcement of legislative mandates has a long history in the United States. Self-help is a necessity where law enforcement is not equipped to prevent and respond to every call for assistance. Citizen’s arrest, posse comitatus, and mandatory reporting of misconduct by citizens, including professional misconduct, all involve private action for the common good in state and …

Symposium: The Future Of Reproductive Rights: Concrete Reliance On Stare Decisis In A Post-Dobbs World, Michael Gentithes

ConLawNOW

This Article will describe two ways in which Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has muddied the Supreme Court’s precedent on precedent. First, it will examine how the Court’s decision to overrule Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey undermines not only its substantive due process holding, but also its status as a precedent on precedent. Without Casey in place, Dobbs further elevates a weakened version of stare decisis that has been ascendant on the Court in recent decades, one which threatens to undermine legal stability in all areas of constitutional law. Second, the Article will examine the Dobbs majority’s …

Roe V. Wade Under Attack: Choosing Procedural Doctrines Over Fundamental Constitutional Rights, Simona Grossi

ConLawNOW

This Article details the Texas litigation on abortion rights in and out of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2021 and its implications for the future of constitutional rights. The litigation focused primarily on procedural issues like standing and sovereign immunity that prevented the plaintiffs’ claims of violation of fundamental constitutional rights to proceed to their merits. Such procedural doctrines have become a powerful tool in the hands of the Supreme Court used to control social and economic development. Thus procedure, originally conceived as the handmaid of justice, has become one of its main antagonists. This Article argues against such abuses …

Justice Gorsuch's Choice: From Bostock V. Clayton County To Dobbs V. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Marc Spindelman

ConLawNOW

Informed speculation holds that the Supreme Court’s decision to hear and decide Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization spells bad news for constitutional abortion rights. Recognizing both the stakes and the odds, this brief commentary engages Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County and the prospects that it opens up in Dobbs for a future for—not against—abortion rights. Bostock’s pro-gay and pro-trans sex discrimination rulings are built atop—and go out of their way to reaffirm—women’s statutorily-grounded economic and social rights, and hence women’s equal citizenship stature. Moreover, the final decision in the case emerges after judicial wrestling …

Abortion Rights In The Supreme Court: A Tale Of Three Wedges, Jennifer S. Hendricks

ConLawNOW

In May 2021, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a case designed to overrule Roe v. Wade. The assumption is that six justices are inclined to repudiate Roe, and that some of those six would like to go further, declaring a constitutional right to life that would prevent the abortion issue from going “back to the states” at all. The question for the next year is not whether Roe will be overruled—it already was, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey—but how far the Court will go. This essay describes the arc of the Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence in …

The Impact Of Justice Scalia's Replacement On Gender Equality Issues, Wilson R. Huhn

ConLawNOW

The last forty-six years may be accurately described as the era of the modern Republican Supreme Court. As a result of presidential elections, Republican presidents have nominated all ten of the Justices appointed to the United States Supreme Court between 1969 and 1991. Republicans have thus controlled the Court since 1970. During this period the right to gender equality was recognized and the right to marriage equality was realized. However, also during this period many Republican Justices staunchly opposed gender equality, and far more remains to be accomplished.

Since Justice Scalia’s death, the Supreme Court has been deadlocked on a …

The Unconstitutionality Of Ohio's House Bill 125: The Heartbeat Bill As Analyzed Under The First Amendment Of The United States Constitution, Jessica L. Knopp

ConLawNOW

This article examines the constitutionality of Ohio’s controversial House Bill 125 (“H.B. 125”), which includes new restrictions and requirements for abortion procedures performed in Ohio. The author argues that, while the new abortion measures conflict with the Supreme Court’s Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence established in Roe v. Wade and in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, H.B. 125 also violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by imputing religious beliefs about conception and the value of life onto all Ohioans.

The article first outlines the current legal framework for constitutionally acceptable and unacceptable abortion restrictions, including a discussion of informed consent …