• After June Medical Services: The Past, Present, And Future Of Regulating Reproduction

      Center for Public Health Law Research (Temple University Beasley School of Law); Harvard Law and Policy Review (Harvard University); Florida State University College of Law (2020-06-30)
      Where does abortion law in the United States stand, and where are we headed? In the wake of Supreme Court’s landmark decision, June Medical Services v. Russo, join the authors of four influential books on reproductive health, Professors David S. Cohen, Michele Goodwin, Carol Sanger, and Mary Ziegler, for a conversation moderated by NPR’s Sarah McCammon about the past, present, and future of the law and politics of reproduction. The authors’ insights also bring into focus recent state policies that have deepened inequalities and strained access to pregnancy and abortion care during the pandemic.
    • After The Inauguration: Abortion Law In 2021

      Center for Public Health Law Research (Temple University Beasley School of Law); Case Western Reserve Law-Medicine Center (Case Western Reserve University) (2021-01-28)
      What is in store for abortion rights with new national leadership and a differently-configured Supreme Court? The coming year may prove crucial to abortion law’s future. The Biden Administration may revisit any number of anti-abortion policies, from the unnecessary regulation of medication abortion to restrictions on funding for abortion providers. At the same time, the constitutional right to abortion hangs in the balance. A majority of the Supreme Court stands poised to overturn or further eviscerate the core holding of Roe v. Wade, raising the specter of discriminatory criminalization of abortion care. This conversation brings together experts to discuss what the map for abortion access looks like with and without federal protection for abortion rights. Specifically, panelists discuss how abortion access could change – across state lines and through “tele-abortion” or self-managed abortion – and what challenges remain during the pandemic. Speakers not only analyze the abortion cases that may land before the Supreme Court, but also consider the potential responses of state legislatures and the federal government.
    • State Law Approaches to Facility Regulation of Abortion and Other Office Interventions

      Center for Public Health Law Research (Temple University Beasley School of Law) (2018-03-07)
      Objectives. To compare the prevalence and characteristics of facility laws governing abortion provision specifically (targeted regulation of abortion providers [TRAP] laws); office-based surgeries, procedures, sedation or anesthesia (office interventions) generally (OBS laws); and other procedures specifically. Methods. We conducted cross-sectional legal assessments of state facility laws for office interventions in effect as of August 1, 2016. We coded characteristics for each law and compared characteristics across categories of laws. Results. TRAP laws (n = 55; in 34 states) were more prevalent than OBS laws (n = 25; in 25 states) or laws targeting other procedures (n = 1; in 1 state). TRAP laws often regulated facilities that would not be regulated under OBS laws (e.g., all TRAP laws, but only 2 OBS laws, applied regardless of sedation or anesthesia used). TRAP laws imposed more numerous and more stringent requirements than OBS laws. Conclusions. Many states regulate abortion-providing facilities differently, and more stringently, than facilities providing other office interventions. The Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt casts doubt on the legitimacy of that differential treatment.