Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Statement From Columbia Law School’S Center For Gender And Sexuality Law On The Supreme Court Decision Overruling The Constitutional Right To Abortion, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law
Statement From Columbia Law School’S Center For Gender And Sexuality Law On The Supreme Court Decision Overruling The Constitutional Right To Abortion, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
The Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization signals a major break with at least three generations of constitutional law. This opinion eliminates not only constitutional protections for abortion, but well-settled legal principles on which fundamental rights have rested for over 60 years. “Within a 24-hour period the Supreme Court ruled on the one hand that abortion rights are a local issue to be decided by each state independently, while on the other, states are barred from making local decisions about how to regulate guns,” said Katherine Franke, James L. Dohr Professor of Law and Director of …
Columbia Law School’S Center For Gender And Sexuality Law On Leaked Dobbs Opinion, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law
Columbia Law School’S Center For Gender And Sexuality Law On Leaked Dobbs Opinion, Center For Gender And Sexuality Law
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
The leaked Supreme Court opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, signals a major break with at least three generations of constitutional law. Should this opinion be officially issued by the Court, it will eliminate not only constitutional protections for abortion, but well-settled legal principles on which basic personal rights have rested for over 60 years.
Comment On U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services Rule, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project
Comment On U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services Rule, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project
Center for Gender & Sexuality Law
In medical facilities across the country, doctors whose conscience would require them to perform a sterilization on a patient who requests one, offer truthful information about accessing abortion services, or provide comprehensive LGBTQ+ health care are forbidden from doing so by their employer. The conscience of such medical providers is entirely ignored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS) recently proposed rule that purports to “ensure that persons or entities” providing health care “are not subjected to certain practices or policies that violate conscience, coerce, or discriminate.” As explained in a comment submitted today by the Columbia …