GroupCenter for Public Health Law Research (Temple University Beasley School of Law)
Case Western Reserve Law-Medicine Center (Case Western Reserve University)
SubjectAbortion--Law and legislation--United States
Abortion--Government policy--United States
Abortion--Political aspects--United States
Permanent link to this recordhttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12613/7459
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractWhat 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.
CitationCenter for Public Health Law Research, After the Inauguration: Abortion Law in 2021, YouTube (Feb. 1, 2021), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIcjtcbg5P0.
Citation to related workCenter for Public Health Law Research
ADA complianceFor Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation, including help with reading this content, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Assuring Access to AbortionCenter for Public Health Law Research (Temple University) (2021)Over the spring of 2020, numerous states announced measures suspending abortions in response to COVID-19. Banning abortion during the pandemic is counterproductive. Impeding access to abortion will not help preserve healthcare resources. Moreover, prohibiting access to abortion care exacerbates the strain on the healthcare system. People who lack access to abortions will travel to neighboring states, induce their own abortions, or carry pregnancies to term, which will require prenatal care and assistance in childbirth. Perhaps more importantly, the people hit hardest by suspending abortion care are those for whom the pandemic already has had devastating effects. Lifting restrictions on medication abortion and expanding telehealth abortion services will conserve healthcare resources and improve public health. Recognizing the advantages of telemedicine, some states, as well as the federal government, have relaxed restrictions on remote diagnosis and treatment. However, many of those same states have carved out exceptions for abortion in their telemedicine policies. In addition, people seeking medication abortions still face unnecessary restrictions on access, none of which are applied to comparable office-based procedures. Policymakers can eliminate barriers to safe abortion services now and in the future. “No-touch” terminations, in which all medical supervision happens over the telephone or online, can better accomplish the goals that the present abortion suspensions cannot. Telehealth for medical abortion can ease the burdens on pregnant people, healthcare workers, and health systems in light of the unprecedented challenges presented by COVID-19.
A Functionalist Approach to Comparative Abortion LawRebouché, Rachel (2014)This chapter critiques the present comparative methodology in abortion law and explores the possibilities of a new comparative approach. The current method relies on high- profile but dated constitutional abortion decisions from the United States and Germany. Courts continue to rely on these cases to justify their decisions as consistent with a modern, global convergence around women’s rights and to minimize national resistance to contested law reform. These comparisons, however, oversimplify legal developments of the past forty years by focusing on constitutional norms and legislative regimes, rather than on the relationship between abortion law and practice.
Abortion OpportunismRebouché, Rachel (2020-05-18)Eleven states have tried to suspend abortion care in response to COVID-19. State officials claim that they will preserve medical supplies, hospital space, and health care capacity by classifyingabortion as an elective, non-essential surgery that must be delayed. Advocacy groups representing abortion providers sued in several states to enjoin these bans. What has emerged is a fight that ignores medical evidence and threatens to exacerbate the current public health emergency. The Executive Order issued in Texas offers an apt example. Though abortion may be available in Texas for the time being, opinions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit provide a troubling roadmap for suspending constitutional rights as a health emergency measure.