Law Commons^™

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 …

Judges As Superheroes: The Danger Of Confusing Constitutional Decisions With Cosmic Battles, H. Jefferson Powell

South Carolina Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

Unduly Burdening Abortion Jurisprudence, Mark Strasser

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The undue burden standard is the current test to determine whether abortion regulations pass constitutional muster. But the function, meaning, and application of that test have varied over time, which undercuts the test’s usefulness and the ability of legislatures to know which regulations pass constitutional muster. Even more confusing, the Court has refused to apply the test in light of its express terms, which cannot fail to yield surprising conclusions and undercut confidence in the Court. The Court must not only clarify what the test means and how it is to be used, but must also formulate that test so …

Third-Party Standing And Abortion Providers: The Hidden Dangers Of June Medical Services, Elika Nassirinia

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

Standing is a long held, judicially-created doctrine intended to establish the proper role of courts by identifying who may bring a case in federal court. While standing usually requires that a party asserts his or her own rights, the Supreme Court has created certain exceptions that allow litigants to bring suit on behalf of third parties when they suffer a concrete injury, they have a “close relation” to the third party, and there are obstacles to the third party's ability to protect his or her own interests. June Medical Services, heard by the Supreme Court on June 29, 2020, …

Overruling Roe V. Wade: Lessons From The Death Penalty, Paul Benjamin Linton

Pepperdine Law Review

In Furman v. Georgia (1972), the Supreme Court struck down the Georgia and Texas death penalty statutes, thereby calling into question the validity of every other state death penalty statute. In their concurring opinions, Justices Brennan and Marshall expressed the view that, given society’s gradual abandonment of the death penalty, capital punishment violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishments.” Justice Powell and three other justices dissented, arguing that the Court had misread the state of the law regarding society’s acceptance of the death penalty. Four years after Furman, in a quintet of cases, the Court held that …

The Scales Of Reproductive Justice: Casey’S Failure To Rebalance Liberty Interests In The Racially Disparate State Of Maternal Medicine, Mallori D. Thompson

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

Despite the maternal medicine crisis in the U.S., especially for Black women, legislatures are challenging constitutional abortion doctrine and forcing women to interact with a system that may cost them their lives. This Article proposes that because of abysmal maternal mortality rates and the arbitrary nature of most abortion restrictions, the right to choose an abortion is embedded in our Fourteenth Amendment right to not be arbitrarily deprived of life by the State. This Article is a call to abortion advocates to begin submitting state maternal mortality data when challenging abortion restrictions. The call for attention to life was central …

Forget Pro-Life And Pro-Choice: Refocus Transvaginal Ultrasound Abortion Laws On Medicine, Casey Hughes

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development

(Excerpt)

This Note reconciles the divide between the TV US debate and the original intent of abortion regulations to protect women’s health. By first analyzing the medicine and then applying it to the law, this Note proves transvaginal ultrasound regulations are not undue burdens on women’s access to abortion. Part I of this Note discusses transvaginal ultrasounds and their medical use in obstetrics, demonstrating they are not undue burdens, but rather beneficial to women and often necessary to support women’s health prior to abortions. Part II of this Note discusses abortion and ultrasound-related legal decisions and how they apply to …

Growing Burdens On Abortion Rights: An Individual Freedom During Covid-19 And Changing Judicial Interpretation, John Simpson

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

No abstract provided.

Covid-19, Abortion, And Public Health In The Culture Wars, Laura D. Hermer

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.