Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Uprooting Roe, B. Jessie Hill, Mae Kuykendall
Uprooting Roe, B. Jessie Hill, Mae Kuykendall
Faculty Publications
The U.S. Supreme Court is likely poised to overturn Roe v. Wade in a matter of months. Yet, the roots of Roe run both wide and deep, and to uproot Roe would be to uproot the Constitution’s promise of gender equality in a radical way. Just as the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence of reproductive liberty freed people with reproductive capacity from having their destinies and status tied to their biology, an uprooting of Roe and its companion principles will restore the iron rules of gender difference and return women to their common-law status as lacking self-ownership and equal citizenship.
Big Bad Roe, B. Jessie Hill
Big Bad Roe, B. Jessie Hill
Faculty Publications
Now that Roe v. Wade is gone, what should replace it? This moment presents a rare opportunity to re-imagine the right to reproductive autonomy, given that the longstanding constitutional framework governing that right has been tossed out the window. For the most part, constitutional litigation over the right to abortion has shifted to state courts and is brought under state constitutions. Thus, as state courts begin to recognize the existence of a constitutional right to reproductive autonomy under state constitutions, they must decide what the right looks like. In several cases currently being litigated in state courts, advocates have argued …
Response To Wasserman And Rhodes: The Texas S.B. 8 Litigation And “Our Formalism”, B. Jessie Hill
Response To Wasserman And Rhodes: The Texas S.B. 8 Litigation And “Our Formalism”, B. Jessie Hill
Faculty Publications
In Solving the Procedural Puzzles of the Texas Heartbeat Act and Its Imitators: The Limits and Opportunities of Offensive Litigation, Professors Howard Wasserman and Rocky Rhodes explain why the U.S. Supreme Court correctly rejected the pre-enforcement legal challenge brought by abortion providers challenging Texas’s draconian abortion law, S.B. 8, which was specifically designed to evade such challenges. Wasserman and Rhodes also provide grounds for hope on the part of future similarly situated challengers to S.B. 8 copycat laws, outlining a route by which the clinics could have engaged in offensive federal-court litigation against “any person” plaintiffs who seek to …