Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Uprooting Roe, B. Jessie Hill, Mae Kuykendall
Uprooting Roe, B. Jessie Hill, Mae Kuykendall
Faculty Publications
The U.S. Supreme Court is likely poised to overturn Roe v. Wade in a matter of months. Yet, the roots of Roe run both wide and deep, and to uproot Roe would be to uproot the Constitution’s promise of gender equality in a radical way. Just as the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence of reproductive liberty freed people with reproductive capacity from having their destinies and status tied to their biology, an uprooting of Roe and its companion principles will restore the iron rules of gender difference and return women to their common-law status as lacking self-ownership and equal citizenship.
Response To Wasserman And Rhodes: The Texas S.B. 8 Litigation And “Our Formalism”, B. Jessie Hill
Response To Wasserman And Rhodes: The Texas S.B. 8 Litigation And “Our Formalism”, B. Jessie Hill
Faculty Publications
In Solving the Procedural Puzzles of the Texas Heartbeat Act and Its Imitators: The Limits and Opportunities of Offensive Litigation, Professors Howard Wasserman and Rocky Rhodes explain why the U.S. Supreme Court correctly rejected the pre-enforcement legal challenge brought by abortion providers challenging Texas’s draconian abortion law, S.B. 8, which was specifically designed to evade such challenges. Wasserman and Rhodes also provide grounds for hope on the part of future similarly situated challengers to S.B. 8 copycat laws, outlining a route by which the clinics could have engaged in offensive federal-court litigation against “any person” plaintiffs who seek to …
Big Bad Roe, B. Jessie Hill
Big Bad Roe, B. Jessie Hill
Faculty Publications
Now that Roe v. Wade is gone, what should replace it? This moment presents a rare opportunity to re-imagine the right to reproductive autonomy, given that the longstanding constitutional framework governing that right has been tossed out the window. For the most part, constitutional litigation over the right to abortion has shifted to state courts and is brought under state constitutions. Thus, as state courts begin to recognize the existence of a constitutional right to reproductive autonomy under state constitutions, they must decide what the right looks like. In several cases currently being litigated in state courts, advocates have argued …
Sex, Lies, And Ultrasound, B. Jessie Hill
Sex, Lies, And Ultrasound, B. Jessie Hill
Faculty Publications
State-mandated falsehoods are rampant in the context of abortion regulation. State legislatures have required doctors, before performing abortions, to provide scientifically unsupported information to women, such as that having an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, or that it has negative mental health effects. Given the lack of evidence to sustain these sorts of claims, it seems reasonable to refer to such statements as government-mandated lies. However, this article argues that government mandated lies in the abortion context are unique in several ways that make them unlikely to be found unconstitutional, despite the fact that they obviously hinder patients’ …
What Is The Meaning Of Health? Constitutional Implications Of Defining 'Medical Necessity' And 'Essential Health Benefits' Under The Affordable Care Act, B. Jessie Hill
Faculty Publications
One consequence of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is that government will come to play a more extensive role in healthcare decision-making by individuals and their providers. The ACA does not directly regulate access to health services, but by means of a system of funding, mandates, and penalties, it essentially requires many employers to provide, and most individuals to carry, a certain minimum level of health insurance. Governmental decisions about which medical services qualify as medically necessary and appropriate may take on a new and greater importance, because government officials will be required to decide what sorts of procedures must …
Dangerous Terrain: Mapping The Female Body In Gonzales V. Carhart, B. Jessie Hill
Dangerous Terrain: Mapping The Female Body In Gonzales V. Carhart, B. Jessie Hill
Faculty Publications
The body occupies an ambiguous position within the law. It is, in one sense, the quintessential object of state regulatory and police power, the object that the state acts both upon and for. At the same time, the body is often constructed in legal discourse as the site of personhood - our most intimate, sacred, and inviolate possession. The inherent tension between these two concepts of the body permeates the law, but it is perhaps nowhere more prominent than in the constitutional doctrine pertaining to abortion. Abortion is one of the most heavily regulated medical procedures in the United States, …
A Radically Immodest Judicial Modesty: The End Of Facial Challenges To Abortion Regulations And The Future Of The Health Exception In The Roberts Era, B. Jessie Hill
Faculty Publications
If there is anything as strongly associated in the public mind with Chief Justice John Roberts as his black robe and judicial temperament, it is surely his claim to judicial modesty. And indeed, some commentators have suggested that there are signs of newfound judicial restraint in the Roberts Court. One example of this purported restraint is the Roberts Court’s expressed preference for narrower, as-applied decisionmaking in constitutional cases, as opposed to striking down statutes on their face. The Roberts Court has turned away facial challenges or otherwise expressed a preference for making decisions on an as-applied basis in a number …
Looking Ahead To The 2005-06 Term (2005), Jonathan H. Adler
Looking Ahead To The 2005-06 Term (2005), Jonathan H. Adler
Faculty Publications
This essay surveys the upcoming 2005-06 term of the Supreme Court, a term that may be as notable for what it says about the future direction of the Supreme Court as it is for specific decisions in any particular cases. This does not mean the term lacks important cases. To the contrary, this coming year the Court will consider the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, address the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to religious use of drugs, and determine whether the federal government can effectively preempt Oregon's decision to legalize doctor-assisted suicide. It will revisit contemporary federalism and …