A New War on Drugs in the Post-Roe World

David S. Cohen, Greer Donley & Rachel Rebouché, Abortion Pills, 76 Stan. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2024), Mar. 15, 2023 draft available at SSRN.

In countries around the globe that have long criminalized abortion, women and pregnant people have been using abortion pills for decades to end their pregnancies. Public health research has shown that abortion pills are safe and effective for terminating a pregnancy, even when people access pills and self-manage abortions outside the formal health care system. Since the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and permitted states to broadly restrict access to abortion care at any stage of pregnancy, abortion foes and abortion advocates have been engaged in a pitched battle over access to abortion pills. The majority of abortions in America are now managed through pills rather than a procedure. Given this reality, the legal battles over abortion pills could determine who has access to abortion care on the ground not only in red states, but even in blue states where many people presume (incorrectly) that their access to comprehensive reproductive health care is safe.

In their aptly titled draft article, Abortion Pills, David Cohen, Greer Donley, and Rachel Rebouché tackle the complicated legal terrain on which the abortion pills war is currently being waged. The authors argue that the battles over abortion pills will transform public contestation about government regulation of abortion going forward. The article provides a much-needed overview for scholars and advocates struggling to keep up with the barrage of litigation and legislation governing abortion pills post-Dobbs. Even more importantly, the authors crystallize the consequences of these legal battles for access to care nationwide. As with this trio’s previous article, The New Abortion Battleground, which was cited by the dissenting opinion in Dobbs and predicted much of the legal fallout from that decision, Abortion Pills is an important contribution to the rapidly growing literature on the impact of overturning Roe. Continue reading "A New War on Drugs in the Post-Roe World"

Interjurisdictional Abortion Wars in the Post-Roe Era

David S. Cohen, Greer Donley, and Rachel Rebouche, The New Abortion Battleground, 122 Col. L. Rev. __ (forthcoming 2022), available at SSRN.

The Supreme Court appears poised to overrule fifty years of precedent holding that pre-viability prohibitions on abortion are unconstitutional. In a leaked draft opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Alito proclaims that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey must be overruled and abortion left to the states to regulate. During oral argument in Dobbs, Justice Kavanaugh suggested that overturning Roe would return the Court to a position of “neutrality” on abortion. Justice Kavanaugh’s assertion falls in line with claims by anti-abortion jurists that reversing Roe would simplify abortion law by returning the issue to the states and getting the federal courts out of the hot-button issue of abortion.

In their draft article The New Abortion Battleground, forthcoming in the Columbia Law Review, David Cohen, Greer Donley, and Rachel Rebouche thoroughly disprove the notion that abortion law will become simpler if and when the Court overturns Roe. Given increasingly pitched polarization between red and blue states, the authors show how the abortion wars will continue in the federal courts—but will shift from constitutional battles over fundamental rights to liberty and equality to fights over principles of federalism and interstate comity raised by interjurisdictional conflicts between states and between the federal government and the states. The article is a must read for scholars and legal advocates preparing for the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs.
Continue reading "Interjurisdictional Abortion Wars in the Post-Roe Era"

Resisting Attempts to Control the “Hyper-Fertile”

Maya Manian, The Story of Madrigal v. Quilligan: Coerced Sterilization of Mexican-American Women, in Reproductive Rights and Justice Stories (forthcoming 2019), available at SSRN.

The meaning of “success” in litigation challenging inequalities is at the core of Professor Maya Manian’s essay about the extensive effort to end sterilization of Mexican-American women at the Los Angeles County + USC Medical Center in the 1970s.

In one sense, the case of Madrigal v. Quilligan is a great victory. The federal judge who first heard the case issued a preliminary injunction directed at making the Spanish language consent forms understandable to patients. This judge then signed off on a settlement agreement between the Madrigal plaintiffs and the California Department of Health, approving California’s enhanced sterilization consent requirements, which themselves had been the product of lobbying and media efforts by Chicana activists. The United States Department of Health issued new guidelines requiring bilingual consent forms and instituting a federal monitoring program. The case “galvanized Chicana feminist activism” in ways that made it clear that a broader notion of “reproductive justice” was necessary: it should not be limited to the emphasis by white feminists on abortion and contraception but must also include abusive practices intended to limit reproduction by women of color and impoverished women. Continue reading "Resisting Attempts to Control the “Hyper-Fertile”"

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com