Showing papers on "Supreme court published in 2022"

Beyond Abortion: The Consequences of Overturning Roe

Abstract: Abstract The upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has the potential to eliminate or severely restrict access to legal abortion care in the United States. We address the impact that the decision could have on abortion access and its consequences beyond abortion care. We posit that an abortion ban would, in effect, mean that anyone who becomes pregnant, including those who continue a pregnancy and give birth to healthy newborns and those with pregnancy complications or adverse pregnancy outcomes will become newly vulnerable to legal surveillance, civil detentions, forced interventions, and criminal prosecution. The harms imposed by banning or severely restricting abortion access will disproportionately affect persons of color and perpetuate structural racism. We caution that focusing on Roe as a decision that only protects ending a pregnancy ignores the protection that the decision also affords people who want to continue their pregnancies. It overlooks the ways in which overturning Roe will curtail fundamental rights for all those who become pregnant and will undermine their status as full persons meriting Constitutional protections. Such a singular focus inevitably obscures the common ground that people across the ideological spectrum might inhabit to ensure the safety, health, humanity, and rights of all people who experience pregnancy.

Requests for Self-managed Medication Abortion Provided Using Online Telemedicine in 30 US States Before and After the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization Decision.

Abstract: This study assesses changes in online telemedicine requests to self-manage abortions with medications before vs after the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade.

Affirmative Action in India via Vertical, Horizontal, and Overlapping Reservations

Abstract: Sanctioned by its constitution, India is home to the world's most comprehensive affirmative action program, where historically discriminated groups are protected with vertical reservations implemented as “set asides,” and other disadvantaged groups are protected with horizontal reservations implemented as “minimum guarantees.” A mechanism mandated by the Supreme Court in 1995 suffers from important anomalies, triggering countless litigations in India. Foretelling a recent reform correcting the flawed mechanism, we propose the 2SMG mechanism that resolves all anomalies, and characterize it with desiderata reflecting laws of India. Subsequently rediscovered with a high court judgment and enforced in Gujarat, 2SMG is also endorsed by Saurav Yadav v. State of UP (2020), in a Supreme Court ruling that rescinded the flawed mechanism. While not explicitly enforced, 2SMG is indirectly enforced for an important subclass of applications in India, because no other mechanism satisfies the new mandates of the Supreme Court.

The US Supreme Court's Rulings on Large Business and Health Care Worker Vaccine Mandates: Ramifications for the COVID-19 Response and the Future of Federal Public Health Protection.

Abstract: This Viewpoint examines the recent US Supreme Court rulings on government mandates for COVID-19 vaccination and how these decisions might affect the ongoing pandemic response as well as the future of public health.

Dobbs: Navigating the New Quagmire and Its Impacts on Abortion and Reproductive Health Care

Abstract: On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. By voting to uphold Mississippi’s law banning most abortions after 15 weeks, the Court overturned Roe v. Wade, eliminating the federal standard protecting a woman’s right to abortion and reversing nearly 50 years of legal precedent. The ruling returned regulation of abortion to the states, which are responding by implementing bans or protecting access to abortion. As political and legal conflicts escalate and individual horror stories emerge, the dangerous mirage presented by this misguided legal fix to a long-standing vexing issue will come into sharper relief. The Dobbs ruling is creating a new uncertain and treacherous landscape for women and health care professionals to navigate.

Internet Searches for Abortion Medications Following the Leaked Supreme Court of the United States Draft Ruling.

Abstract: This cross-sectional study evaluates whether internet searches for abortion medications increased following the leak of a draft Supreme Court of the United States ruling that would overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade decision.

Post‐Roe emergency medicine: Policy, clinical, training, and individual implications for emergency clinicians

Abstract: In June 2022, the United States Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade, removing almost 50 years of precedent and enabling the imposition of a wide range of state‐level restrictions on abortion access. Historical data from the United States and internationally demonstrate that the removal of safe abortion options will increase complications and the health risks to pregnant patients. Because the emergency department is a critical access point for reproductive health care, emergency clinicians must be prepared for the policy, clinical, educational, and legal implications of this change. The goal of this paper, therefore, is to describe the impact of the reversal of Roe v. Wade on health equity and reproductive justice, the provision of emergency care education and training, and the specific legal and reproductive consequences for emergency clinicians. Finally, we conclude with specific recommended policy and advocacy responses for emergency medicine clinicians.

The Implications of the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v Wade for Women With Pregnancy-Associated Cancers.

Abstract: This Viewpoint evaluates factors introduced by the overturn of Roe v Wade that will further complicate the complex, multidisciplinary decision-making involved in treating patients with pregnancy-associated cancer.

How Ohio's proposed abortion bans would impact travel distance to access abortion care

Abstract: Abstract Context Since March 2021, the Ohio legislature has been actively considering laws that would ban abortion if the United States Supreme Court overturns the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationally in 1973. Methods We used a national database of publicly advertised abortion facilities to calculate driving distances for Ohioans before and after the activation of proposed abortion bans. Using a legal analysis of abortion laws following the overturn of Roe, we determined which states surrounding Ohio would continue providing abortion care. We calculated distances from each Ohio county centroid to the nearest open abortion facility in three scenarios: (1) as of February 2022, (2) the best‐case post‐Roe scenario (two of the five surrounding states continue to offer abortion care), and (3) worst‐case post‐Roe scenario (no surrounding states continue to offer abortion care). We calculated population‐weighted distances using county‐level data about women aged 15–44 years from the 2019 American Community Survey. Results In February 2022, all Ohio county centroids were at most 99 miles from an abortion facility (median = 50 miles). The best‐case post‐Roe scenario shows 62 of Ohio's 88 counties to be 115–279 miles away from the nearest facility (median = 146). The worst‐case shows 85 counties to be 191–339 miles away from the nearest facility (median = 264). The current average population‐weighted driving distance from county centroid to the nearest facility is 26 miles; the post‐Roe scenarios would increase this to 157 miles (best‐case) or 269 miles (worst‐case). Conclusions Ohio's proposed abortion bans would substantially increase travel distances to abortion care, impacting over 2.2 million reproductive‐aged Ohioans.

Advancing Birth Equity in a Post-Dobbs US.

Abstract: This Viewpoint discusses the US Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, describes how that decision threatens birth equity for some racial and social groups, and suggests a reproductive justice approach to address racial and social inequalities and ensure reproductive freedom and autonomy for all people.

Reproductive Rights in Neurology-The Supreme Court's Impact on All of Us.

Abstract: The overturning of Roe v Wade through the US Supreme Court’s official ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization is already having an undeniable ripple effect on health care delivery across the nation. How this may change clinical practice for both adult and child neurologists and management of neurologic diseases appears initially less relevant. Neurologists rarely prescribe contraception or menopausal hormone therapy and do not participate in fertility treatment procedures or terminations of pregnancy. Except for contraception, these topics are seldom included in training and neurologic practice, and only 2 fellowship programs specialize in sexand gender-informed neurology nationally. However, bans on abortion will immediately affect the delivery of current standard neurologic care for many patients, specifically standards that depend on planning or preventing pregnancies using individual choice. Limits on reproductive health affect a wide diversity of populations and could magnify racial, ethnic, and social inequities that can negatively affect health outcomes for people with neurological conditions.1 Elimination of abortion as a constitutional right will restrict its availability to as many as 58% of women of reproductive age in the US.2 Further, termination of pregnancy is not exclusively a women’s rights issue—those who do not identify as women, such as transgender men and nonbinary people, may also seek abortion. Abortion rates are higher in non-Hispanic Black women and Hispanic women compared with non-Hispanic White women, according to 2019 data published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.3 Abortion rates are also starkly higher in women whose incomes are below the federal poverty line relative to those 200% above the federal poverty line.4 Further, longitudinal studies suggest that being denied a wanted abortion is associated with higher odds of poverty5 and lower odds of employment5 long term, as well as increased odds of headache and perception of “fair or poor health.”6 Therefore, restrictions on reproductive rights may differentially affect the health of women according to their race, ethnicity, or income levels and could further entrench women in a cycle of poverty. Many neurologic diseases disproportionately affect women during their reproductive years. This is relevant for common conditions such as migraine and for conditions such as epilepsy and multiple sclerosis that have had substantial improvements in disease control and quality of life associated with modern therapies. Known teratogenic medications (including valproic acid or teriflunomide) may be required to achieve optimal control of neurologic diseases that may be life threatening (such as status epilepticus) or result in accumulation of irreversible disability (such as multiple sclerosis). However, concerns about medication teratogenicity for those who are anticipating pregnancy or are pregnant may extend beyond medications with clearly established teratogenicity and include medications that lack evidence supporting their safety profiles. For instance, 1 review of 172 medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2000 to 2010 found “undetermined” human teratogenic risk profiles for 98% of these medications.7 In a climate of increased limitations on reproductive rights, whereby pregnancies cannot be reliably timed or prevented, neurologists might possibly restrict use of the effective medications that are standard care for other patient groups because of potential concerns about causing fetal harm. This could increase risk of morbidity, mortality, and irreversible disability accumulation for women with neurologic diseases. However, unintended pregnancies occur, even among participants in clinical trials with protocols that strictly encourage or require use of effective contraception,8 and these pregnancies will continue to occur regardless of legislative constraints on reproductive health services. Teratogenic drugs are only prescribed when it is possible for women to plan pregnancies and prevent fetal exposure. However, controlling the timing of teratogenic medication use may not be feasible in the short-term treatment of certain disorders, such as medically refractory status epilepticus, infectious and autoimmune encephalitis, or vasculitis. Further, some neurologic conditions, such as eclampsia, may occur before fetal viability, increasing the risk of morbidity and mortality for the mother if the pregnancy cannot be terminated. There are also neurological diseases, such as having a central nervous system neoplasm, that are not immediately life threatening, but where a delay in treatment due to pregnancy could put both the health and life of the mother at risk. Some bills, such as Oklahoma Senate Bill 6129 signed into law in May 2022, restrict legal abortion only “to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency.” Tensions in clinical decision-making that exist when the health of the mother is in opposition to the health of the fetus will only intensify with additional constraints on reproductive rights.10 Restricting personal decisions on childbearing will also change aspects of fetal neurologic care and counseling by child neurologists and maternal-fetal medicine specialists. The anatomic ultrasound at approximately 20 weeks’ gestation is common in obstetrical practice, with the goal of evaluating the growth and health of the fetus, placental position, and amniotic VIEWPOINT

Unfolding Judicial Ideology: A Data-Generating Priors Approach with an Application to the Brazilian Supreme Court

Abstract: Abstract Spatial models, in the form of latent response theories (ideal point estimation), have been widely used to study the voting behavior of judges in collegial courts. In some specific institutional contexts, building coherent testable hypotheses with conventional methodology is challenging. We set up a non-parametric method to identify the number and nature of the latent ideological traits allegedly orienting judicial voting behavior in the absence of prior information regarding the nature of their preferences. We draw information from explorative cluster analysis conducted on votes cast by judges in the decisions of the court to construct priors in the context of Item Response Theory. We concentrate on the Brazilian Supreme Court in the period 2009–2018. We primarily find that votes express a split which groups judges into two distinct clusters. On one side, we find judges appointed further back in time and with longer tenure on the bench; on the other side, we observe judges more recently appointed and with shorter experience. Judges are likely to respond to the presidential appointer and to elements related to their origin, university education, and career background (aside from the guidance of their own experience). Our study provides an original empirical approach that is not limited to the Brazilian Supreme Court, but is suitable to investigate judicial voting behavior when the nature of potential ideological drivers is debatable, controversial, or unknown.

Supreme Court Ruling on the Texas Abortion Law: Beginning to Unravel Roe v Wade.

Abstract: This Viewpoint discusses the recent US Supreme Court ruling on SB8, the Texas law that prohibits abortion after 6 weeks of gestational age, and the effect the ruling could have on other constitutional rights.

Different systems, similar challenges: humor and free speech in the United States and Europe

Abstract: Abstract The United States and Europe are often contrasted with each other regarding their approach to freedom of expression. Yet, despite the differences between their respective judicial systems, courts from both regions inevitably face similar interpretive challenges when dealing with humor. Our paper conducts a comparative discussion of humor-related jurisprudence from the US and Europe, mostly (but not exclusively) focusing on two landmark cases – namely Hustler v. Falwell (US Supreme Court, 1988) and Vereinigung Bildender Künstler v. Austria (European Court of Human Rights, 2007). In particular, our analysis foregrounds two aspects: 1) How courts deal with the complex relations between humor, exaggeration and factual reality; 2) The role of objective harm (as opposed to subjective offence) in distinguishing between lawful and unlawful expression, and how the subjectivity of humor interpretation can undermine this criterion. On both levels, we argue that insights from literary and linguistic theories of humor – from Simpson’s work on satirical discourse to Attardo and Raskin’s General Theory of Verbal Humor – can set the basis for a more fine-grained and systematic approach to humor across different judicial systems.

Roe v Wade: How its scrapping will affect women worldwide

Abstract: The US Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the longstanding abortion ruling will have a chilling effect on reproductive healthcare provision in low income and middle income countries. Geetanjali Krishna and Sally Howard report

Public Perceptions of the Supreme Court: How Policy Disagreement Affects Legitimacy

Abstract: Abstract It is widely agreed that dissatisfaction with Supreme Court decisions harms the Court’s standing among the public. However, we do not yet know how or why Court performance affects legitimacy. We examine the role that mass perceptions of the Supreme Court’s institutional nature—particularly how “political” it is—plays in assessments of its legitimacy. We find that policy disagreement with Supreme Court decisions causes individuals to view that decision, and the Court itself, as being political in nature. We then show that the more political people think the Court is, the less legitimate they consider it to be. In this way, we show that policy disagreement with decisions strongly and directly reduces Court legitimacy.

Legal Risks and Ethical Dilemmas for Clinicians in the Aftermath of Dobbs.

Abstract: This Viewpoint discusses the ways in which the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which triggered abortion bans or restrictions in half of states, presents serious legal risks to clinicians and major ethical dilemmas.

Prenatal genetics in a post-Roe United States

Abstract: The Supreme Court removed a federal right to abortion access in June 2022. This returned the legality of abortion to each of the 50 states. This will have a profound impact on the provision of prenatal care in general and prenatal genetic screening and testing.

The End of Roe v. Wade

Abstract: Abstract The Supreme Court seems poised to overrule Roe v. Wade and hold that there is no constitutional right to choose abortion. The reversal of Roe seems to run counter to public opinion in the United States—while many favor restrictions, a clear majority do not want Roe reversed and favor access to abortion early in pregnancy. The current Court’s apparent willingness to run the risk of political pushback has a complex history. Scholars have long described the Court as a countermajoritarian institution, but in practice, as historians have shown, the Court tends not to stray too far from popular opinion. For a Court bent on reversing Roe and tackling a long list of other divisive topic, concerns about institutional legitimacy no longer appear to be an effective check. A post-Roe Court may be more unplugged from popular opinion, with unpredictable results for the future of the democracy.

A decade-long longitudinal survey shows that the Supreme Court is now much more conservative than the public

Abstract: Significance Leveraging three unique surveys collected over a decade that ask members of the public about the policy issues before the US Supreme Court, we show how the court stands relative to the public. As we demonstrate, the court has, since 2020, become much more conservative than the public and is now more similar to Republicans in its ideological position on key issues. We also find that members of the public update their beliefs about the court’s ideology when its composition and rulings change. Even so, many members of the public currently underestimate the court’s conservative leaning, which in turn makes them less likely to support making changes to the institution than they would otherwise.