Law Commons^™

“But I’M Brain-Dead And Pregnant”: Advance Directive Pregnancy Exclusions And End-Of-Life Wishes, Wendy Adele Humphrey

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

Marlise Muñoz was approximately fourteen weeks pregnant when she suffered a pulmonary embolism, and two days later doctors declared her brain-dead. Knowing Marlise’s end-of-life wishes, her husband, Erick Muñoz, asked her doctors to withdraw or withhold any “life-sustaining” medical treatment from his brain-dead wife. The hospital refused, and it relied on a Texas statute that automatically invalidates a woman’s advance directive in the event she is pregnant. Ultimately, the trial court held that the Texas statute does not apply to a woman who is brain-dead and pregnant.

This tragic situation warrants action to ensure that a woman’s end-of-life wishes are …

Increasing Victimization Through Fetal Abuse Redefinition, Margaret Kelly

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Access To Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: Restrictive Policies And The Chilling Of Women's Medical Rights During Childbirth, Lisa Pratt

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

How Planned Parenthood V. Casey (Pretty Much) Settled The Abortion Wars, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

More than twenty-one years after Robert Bork's failed Supreme Court nomination and seventeen years after Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the rhetoric of abortion politics remains unchanged. Pro-choice interests, for example, argue that states are poised to outlaw abortion and that Roe v. Wade is vulnerable to overruling. In this Essay, I will debunk those claims. First, I will explain how Casey's approval of limited abortion rights reflected an emerging national consensus in 1992. Second, I will explain why the Supreme Court is unlikely to risk political backlash by formally modifying Casey- either by restoring the trimester test …

Hard Labor: The Legal Implications Of Shackling Female Inmates During Pregnancy And Childbirth, Geraldine Doetzer

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

Despite international human rights guidelines that prohibit the practice, thirty-eight states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons currently allow corrections officials to shackle pregnant inmates during the third trimester of pregnancy. Of these, twenty-three states and the Bureau also allow restraints to be used during active labor. Only two state legislatures, Illinois and California, have addressed the issue of using physical restraints on pregnant inmates; the vast majority of states rely on corrections officials to craft policy.

This article analyzes both states' justifications for shackling policies as well as the Constitutional and human rights arguments that have been posed by …