Reproductive Rights Prof Blog

Federal Appeals Court Rules Disclaimer Requirement for Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers Unconstitutional

The Washington Post: Montgomery anti-abortion pregnancy center disclaimer law is unconstitutional, federal court rules, by Victor Zapana:

A federal appeals court has struck down a controversial Montgomery County health regulation that requires anti-abortion pregnancy centers to provide a health disclaimer to patients.

The regulation, which was approved by the Montgomery County Council in 2010, required the centers to make two declarations: First, they do not have licensed medical professionals on staff. Second, the county encourages women to find “a licensed health care provider.” . . .

Study Suggests Women Who Fear Childbirth Have Longer Labor

TIME: Why Women Who Fear Childbirth Spend More Time in Labor, by Alexandra Sifferlin:

Women who fear childbirth just got something else to worry about: a recent Norwegian study found that women who were scared of giving birth ended up spending more time in labor, about 8 hours versus 6.5 for women who weren’t afraid. . . .

The study also found that mothers who feared childbirth were also more likely than unafraid women to need an emergency C-section (11% versus 7%) or assistance with instruments such as forceps for vaginal delivery (17.0% versus 11%). . . .

Health Care Ruling Motivates Advocates on Both Sides of Abortion Debate

The Washington Times: Abortion activists concur: Presidential vote paramount, by Cheryl Wetzstein:

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s stunning ruling on health care, activists on both sides of the abortion issue have pledged to bring the full weight of their movements into the November election battles.

“Defeat Obama, elect Mitt Romney and repeal Obamacare,” David O'Steen, executive director of the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), said in response to the high court’s 5-4 decision Thursday, which found the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act constitutional under the taxation powers of the federal government. . . .

Federal Judge Temporarily Enjoins Mississippi Abortion Law

Reuters: Federal judge halts Mississippi abortion law, by Emily Le Coz:

A federal judge on Sunday temporarily blocked Mississippi from enforcing a new law that requires doctors who perform abortions at the state's sole abortion clinic to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.

The state law, challenged last week by the Jackson Women's Health Organization, has threatened to make Mississippi the only U.S. state without an abortion clinic. It was set to take effect on Sunday. . . .

Senator Rand Paul Proposes Abortion Amendment to Flood Insurance Bill

Politico – blog: Flood insurance bill snag: Abortion, by Seung Min Kim:

The Senate’s flood insurance program looked like it was headed toward smooth passage – but now, there appears to be an abortion-related wrinkle.

Yes, abortion.

That’s at least according to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who said Tuesday that a Republican senator is insisting on a vote on an amendment defining “when life begins.” Reid didn’t name the senator, but it was Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) who had offered the amendment. . . .

Center for Reproductive Rights Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging Mississippi TRAP Law

Center for Reproductive Rights – Press Release: Center for Reproductive Rights Takes Legal Action to Keep Last Abortion Clinic in Mississippi Open:

New federal lawsuit challenges unconstitutional state law designed to halt reproductive health services for all women in the state as of July 1

Mississippi’s latest attempt to shut down its one remaining clinic providing abortion services would effectively ban abortion in the state and is patently unconstitutional, according a new legal challenge filed in federal court today by the Center for Reproductive Rights.
 
House Bill 1390, which was signed into law on April 16, imposes medically unwarranted requirements that any physician performing abortions in the state be a board certified or eligible obstetrician-gynecologist with admitting privileges at an area hospital. . . .

Journal of Law and Health: Call for Papers

Journal of Law and Health’s Annual Symposium: The Legal and Ethical Implications of Posthumous Reproduction:

The symposium is tentatively scheduled for March 2013.

In Astrue v. Capato, the Supreme Court held that children conceived through in vitro fertilization after the death of a parent were not automatically entitled to survivor benefits under the Social Security law. The Court stated that the children’s eligibility to receive the benefits depended upon their ability to inheritance under the state’s intestacy system.

Areas of interest for this special journal issue include, but are not limited to, the following topics:

• What steps are necessary to protect the financial interests of posthumously conceived children?
• What regulations are needed to protect the reproductive rights of the dead gamete provider?
• What steps are necessary to address the legal, moral and ethical consequences of posthumous reproduction?
• What impact, if any, will the United States Supreme Court decision in Astrue v. Capato have on posthumous reproduction? 
• Do the dead have a fundamental right to procreate?
• Should posthumously conceived children be treated like heirs under the intestacy system?
• Whether health insurance should cover the expense of posthumous reproduction?

Those interested in submitting an article must submit a 600-word abstract describing selected topic and submit curriculum vitae by October 1, 2012. Email abstract and CV to Journal of Law and Health at health.journal@law.csuohio.edu. Include “Submission: Annual Symposium” in the subject line.