Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- 42 U.S.C. 1395dd (1)
- Abortion (1)
- Abortion jurisprudence (1)
- Abortion law (1)
- Amici curiae (1)
-
- Amicus brief (1)
- Birthmark (1)
- Brief amici curiae (1)
- Court adjudication (1)
- Court of Appeals (1)
- Courts (1)
- EMTALA (1)
- Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (1)
- Experiment (1)
- Facts (1)
- Health law (1)
- Idaho v United States (1)
- Legal responsibility (1)
- Legitimacy (1)
- Mengele (1)
- Mike Moyle (1)
- Mike Moyle Speaker of the Idaho House of Representatives et al. Petitioners v. United States (1)
- Ninth Circuit (1)
- Nuremberg (1)
- Public health (1)
- Reproductive rights (1)
- Twins (1)
- Women's health (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Courts
Brief For Amici Curiae Legal Scholars Supporting Respondent, Nicole Huberfeld, Timothy S. Jost, Linda C. Mcclain, Wendy E. Parmet, Erwin Chemerinsky, Elizabeth Mccuskey, Danielle Pelfrey Duryea, Gabriel Scheffler, George J. Annas
Brief For Amici Curiae Legal Scholars Supporting Respondent, Nicole Huberfeld, Timothy S. Jost, Linda C. Mcclain, Wendy E. Parmet, Erwin Chemerinsky, Elizabeth Mccuskey, Danielle Pelfrey Duryea, Gabriel Scheffler, George J. Annas
Faculty Scholarship
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, preempts Idaho law in the narrow but important circumstance where terminating a pregnancy is required to stabilize an emergency medical condition that would otherwise threaten serious harm to the pregnant woman’s health but the State prohibits an emergency-room physician from providing that care.
The Future Of Facts: The Politics Of Public Health And Medicine In Abortion Law, Aziza Ahmed, Jason Jackson
The Future Of Facts: The Politics Of Public Health And Medicine In Abortion Law, Aziza Ahmed, Jason Jackson
Faculty Scholarship
While a great deal of public scrutiny has focused on how information circulates through online outlets including Twitter and Facebook, less attention has been devoted to how more traditional institutions traffic in factual assertions for the sake of setting a particular distributional agenda into motion.[1] Of these more traditional institutions, courts play a central role in legitimating legal and factual claims in the process of applying and clarifying legal rules. In public health-related adjudication, courts play at least two important roles: first, judges and juries make decisions between competing sets of public health and medical claims and second, courts …
Mengele's Birthmark: The Nuremberg Code In United States Courts, George J. Annas
Mengele's Birthmark: The Nuremberg Code In United States Courts, George J. Annas
Faculty Scholarship
Experimentation on human beings is so difficult to justify that the attempt is seldom even made. Usually its justification is simply assumed, and vague notions of progress or national emergency are suggested as sufficient rationales. The United States, a society dedicated to both progress and human rights, has been profoundly ambivalent about human experimentation. On the one hand, we have consistently argued in our ethical codes that the rights and welfare of research subjects must be protected; on the other hand, we have consistently used perceived emergencies, both national and medical, as an excuse to jettison individual rights and welfare …