Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Without Due Process Of Law: The Dobbs Decision And Its Cataclysmic Impact On The Substantive Due Process And Privacy Rights Of Ohio Women, Jacob Wenner
Journal of Law and Health
Since the overturning of prior abortion precedents in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, there has been a question on the minds of many women in this country: how will this decision affect me and my rights? As we have seen in the aftermath of Dobbs, many states have pushed for stringent anti-abortion measures seeking to undermine the foundation on which women’s reproductive freedom had been grounded on for decades. This includes right here in Ohio, where Republican lawmakers have advocated on numerous occasions for implementing laws seeking to limit abortion rights, including a 6-week abortion ban advocated …
“I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel To Be Free”: A Lamentation On Dobbs V. Jackson’S Pernicious Impact On The Lives And Liberty Of Women, April L. Cherry
“I Wish I Knew How It Would Feel To Be Free”: A Lamentation On Dobbs V. Jackson’S Pernicious Impact On The Lives And Liberty Of Women, April L. Cherry
Cleveland State Law Review
On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned nearly fifty years of precedent when it declared in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that abortion was not a fundamental right, and therefore it was not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and substantive due process. In law school corridors and legal scholar circles, discussion of the Court’s evisceration of abortion rights focused on the corresponding changes in Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence and the Court’s outright dismissal of stare decisis. But in homes, hospitals, community centers, and workplaces, different conversations were happening. Conversations, mostly had by women, concerned the real-life consequences of overturning …
Methodological Gerrymandering, David Simson
Methodological Gerrymandering, David Simson
Cleveland State Law Review
The U.S. Supreme Court has come to decide many of the most consequential and contentious aspects of social policy via its interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. Institutional features of the Court create significant pressure on the Justices to justify their decisions as applications of “law” rather than the practice of “politics.” Their perceived failure to do so calls forth criticism sounding in a variety of registers—ranging from allegations of a lack of neutrality, lack of impartiality, or lack of “principle,” to allegations of opportunism, disingenuousness, and hypocrisy. Analyzing the Justices’ choices in relation to interpretational “methodology”—choosing one lens through which …