Law Commons^™

The Road Not Taken: State Constitutions As An Alternative Source Of Protection For Reproductive Rights, Kevin F. O'Neill

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Lawyers seeking constitutional protection for reproductive rights have relied almost exclusively on a liberty/privacy theory under the Federal Constitution. In the wake of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, this theory may be seen as providing a floor of minimum protection-preventing states from banning abortion outright. But it is not strong enough to prevent states from enacting restrictions on the availability of abortion. Thus, the battle over reproductive rights may be seen as shifting from one phase ("Can abortion be banned?") to another ("How far can states go in restricting access to abortion'?"). If proponents of reproductive freedom are …

Love, Justice, And Power, David F. Forte

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

Abortion is the quintessential act of power.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Of Ohio Right To Life Society, Inc., Cleveland Lawyers For Life, Inc., Physicians For Life, Inc. In Support Of Respondents, National Organization For Women V. Scheidler, 114 S. Ct. 798 (1993), David F. Forte

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

(In this action, petitioner health care clinics alleged, among other things, that respondents, a coalition of antiabortion groups called the Pro-Life Action Network (PLAN) and others, were members of a nationwide conspiracy to shut down abortion clinics through a pattern of racketeering activity -- including extortion under the Hobbs Act -- in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) chapter of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968.)

Amici contend that the ordinary canons of statutory interpretation support the Seventh Circuit's conclusion below that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") chapter of …

Operation Rescue Blockades And The Misuse Of 42 U.S.C. 1985(3), Michael F. O'Brien

Cleveland State Law Review

The purpose of this Note is to demonstrate that § 1985(3) is not applicable to Operation Rescue's blockade activities. Part II provides a brief survey of the history of § 1985(3) from its roots in the post-Civil War era to the 1950's. Part III examines the requirements for a § 1985(3) claim as delineated in the Griffin, Novotny, and Scott decisions. Part IV applies these requirements to the blockade controversy and argues that: (1) Gender-based animus should be accepted by the Court as a form of class-based animus within the meaning of § 1985(3); (2) the blockades do not fall …