Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Law, Gender & Citizenship Symposium on March 5, 2010

Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society Symposium announces:

Law, Gender & Citizenship: Contemporary Issues for American Indians and American Immigrants

March 5, 2010

Pyle Center  •  702 Langdon Street  •  University of Wisconsin-Madison

Click here for the symposium agenda.

February 23, 2010 in Conferences and Symposia, Law School, Sexual Assault, Sexuality, Women, General | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

NAPW Conference on Drugs, Pregnancy and Parenting

Via National Advocates for Pregnant Women:

National Advocates for Pregnant Women and New York University present:

Drugs, Pregnancy and Parenting: What the Experts Have to Say

Part II

NAPWPeople working in the fields of criminal law, family law and child welfare frequently have cases that involve issues of drug use. These lawyers, social workers, counselors, advocates and investigators, however, are often trying to do their jobs without the benefit of evidence-based research or access to experts knowledgeable about drugs, drug treatment and the relationship between drug use, pregnancy and parenting. On April 29, 2010 we will continue the education and conversations started at last year's continuing education program, Drugs, Pregnancy and Parenting: What the Experts in Medicine Social Work and the Law Have to Say. PART II will provide the opportunity to meet and learn from new experts ready to address some of the questions left unanswered at last year's event.

When: Thursday, April 29, 2010 (half day program)
Where: NYU School of Law, 40 Washington Square South, Manhattan
Registration: http://napwedprogram.eventbrite.com

We are in the process of obtaining Continuing Education Credits in the areas of Law, Social Work, CASAC and Nursing.

For more information, contact Aileen Dibra, NAPW Conference Coordinator, at confcoordinator@advocatesforpregnantwomen.org

February 16, 2010 in Conferences and Symposia, Law School, Parenthood, Pregnancy & Childbirth | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Sixth Annual Wells Conference on Adoption Law

Capital University Law Review and the National Conference for Adoption Law and Policy announce the Sixth Annual Wells Conference on Adoption Law:

Please join the Capital University Law Review and the National Center for Adoption Law and Policy for –  The Sixth Annual Wells Conference on Adoption Law 

When: Thursday, March 11, 2010

 

Where: The Conference will be held at the Capital University Law School in downtown Columbus, Ohio.  

 

6.25 CLE and Social Work CEU Credits Available

 

“The Future of the Family: Modern Challenges in Adoption Law”

The Wells Conference strives to provide attorneys with practical advice relating to the adoption field.  The Conference is host to adoption experts from around the country, practicing adoption attorneys, and social workers who specialize in adoption.  As the make-up of families continues to evolve, the Conference will highlight issues and problems facing modern families.  This year’s Conference focuses on very timely topics, including:

(1) The Impact of Assisted Reproduction on Families

(2) Overcoming Barriers to the Creation of Families for Members of the GLBT Community

(3) The Impact of the Economic Crisis on Families

Attorneys applying for CLE credit:  $50

Social Workers, Students, Others: Free (pre-registration required)

Please visit the Wells Conference website.

Register online.  Continental breakfast and lunch are included in the registration fee.

February 9, 2010 in Assisted Reproduction, Conferences and Symposia, Law School, Parenthood, Sexuality | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, February 7, 2010

Joanna Erdman on a Procedure-Substance Divide in Abortion Liberalization

This abstract is posted in collaboration with the NYU Review of Law & Social Change symposium, "From Page to Practice: Broadening the Lens for Sexual & Reproductive Rights."

Joanna Erdman Abortion Liberalization: Transnational Legal Advocacy across a Procedure-Substance Divide

Joanna N. Erdman

Procedure and substance are well-acknowledged to be elusive categories in law. Procedure shades off into substance, such that their divide is not discoverable by mere logic or reason. It is a divide drawn to carry out a purpose.51 This acknowledgement does not deprive the divide of meaning. It redirects the inquiry. Rather than ask on what side a set of facts falls, we ask: why categorize as procedure or substance? What is both the purpose and effect of drawing the divide?

A procedure-substance divide in abortion liberalization can be traced to the 1994 U.N. International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) and its Programme of Action.52 The ICPD was an intergovernmental meeting under the auspices of the United Nations, where abortion was first recognized as a matter of concern for the transnational collective. To be particular, unsafe abortion was the subject of concern. Following much controversy and prolonged debate, governments and other participants agreed to address “the health impact of unsafe abortion as a major public health concern.”53 Unsafe abortion is pregnancy termination undertaken by persons without necessary skills or in an environment that fails minimum medical standards, or both.54 Unsafe abortion is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity in developing countries. Every year an estimated seventy thousand women die and millions more suffer with complications from unsafe abortion.55 Controversy stemmed from the legality of abortion. Regardless of modifier, safe or unsafe, abortion is a criminal offence under penal code or other statute in the vast majority of the world.

Continue reading

February 7, 2010 in Abortion, Conferences and Symposia, International, Scholarship and Research | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Paola Bergallo on International Human Rights Law and Reproductive Rights in Latin America

This abstract is posted in collaboration with the NYU Review of Law & Social Change symposium, "From Page to Practice: Broadening the Lens for Sexual & Reproductive Rights."

Paola_Bergallo Promising but elusive domestic uses of international human rights law in the struggle for reproductive justice in Latin America.

Paola Bergallo, Universidad de San Andres

    Reproductive justice remains an unfulfilled promise for Latin American (LA) women. This is particularly the case with regard to abortion. With the exception of Mexico City and Puerto Rico, the region’s laws still embrace either a model of total criminalization (i.e., Chile, Nicaragua or El Salvador) or variations of a hardly accessible model of indications (i.e., Argentina, Brazil, Colombia or Peru). Moreover, irrespectively of the regulatory approach adopted, LA abortion laws share at least two traits: (a) they are largely non-complied with by women forced to resort to backstreet abortions in significant numbers;23 and (b) they are extensively unenforced both from the point of view of criminal prosecution and from the perspective of the duty to provide legal abortion services when indications are the rule. Another common characteristic of the region’s abortion rules is the stability of the practices of noncompliance and under-enforcement. A stability that has endured the transitions to democracy underwent by a majority of LA countries since the 1980s. As it has proved to be the case with other women rights issues during such transitions, in Latin America, democratization did not equal liberalization.
      Faced with the reluctance to embark or even address abortion law reform by politicians and players from all sides in the ideological spectrum, LA feminists turned to international human rights law in search of another tool to promote a liberalizing reinterpretation of domestic laws. Indeed, in the years following the UN Conferences in Vienna, El Cairo and Beijing, feminists increasingly began to explore alternative uses of what was then slowly becoming a more woman friendly international human rights law with respect to many issues, reproductive rights among them.24 As part of this shift, feminist organizations timidly began to bring cases to international forums.25 Such feminist move towards international law in the quest for reproductive justice reforms took place in a context in which the internalization of international human rights had achieved some potential26 and where transnational networks of activists were successfully building a common legal language.27

Continue reading

February 7, 2010 in Conferences and Symposia, International, Scholarship and Research | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Judith Resnik & Reva Siegel on the Relationship of Health and Abortion in Law

This abstract is posted in collaboration with the NYU Review of Law & Social Change symposium, "From Page to Practice: Broadening the Lens for Sexual & Reproductive Rights."

Reva Heath Excepted, Health Accepted       

All rights reserved January 22, 2010

Judith Resnik & Reva Siegel, Yale Law School

 Judith Resnik      What is the relationship of health and abortion in law? How do the responses to this question change as one moves through various historical periods, from states to the national level in federations, or from the domestic to the international arena? Does conceiving (pun intended) of abortion as tethered to women’s health result in more authority, autonomy, equality, or safety for women -- or less?

      When contraception and abortion were legal in England and the United States, the banner of health provided arguments for their criminalization. Once contraception and abortion were criminalized, health became one of the justifications for regimes of partial decriminalization that allowed conditional access to methods of controlling fertility. For example, doctors and midwives who could demonstrate a patient’s health-based need for a “therapeutic” abortion sometimes had defenses to criminal prosecution. “Health” similarly justified immunities for those who sold condoms to men.

       Roe v. Wade reflects both these traditions: in Roe, “health” offers reasons for regulation as well as for exemption from regulation. Roe recognizes, in the second trimester of a pregnancy, the state’s interest in regulating abortion to protect maternal health, and in the third trimester, the state’s interest in regulating abortion to protect potential life -- so long as government allows women access to abortions necessary to protect their lives or health.
     
     

Continue reading

February 7, 2010 in Abortion, Conferences and Symposia, Scholarship and Research | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Carlton Veazey on Reclaiming Morality in Defending Reproductive Rights

This abstract is posted in collaboration with the NYU Review of Law & Social Change symposium, "From Page to Practice: Broadening the Lens for Sexual & Reproductive Rights."

Carlton Veazey Reclaiming Values and Morality

Reverend Dr. Carlton W. Veazey, President and CEO, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice

"Reproductive rights" is a legal term. When a woman is making a decision about abortion, she's not making a legal decision - she's making a personal, moral decision that involves matters close to her heart - her religious beliefs, moral values, and life circumstances. Yet this is rarely recognized in legal and policy work, and that is having an adverse effect on efforts to preserve support for legal abortion. To claim or reclaim the language of values and morality in a positive way, we have to recognize that reproductive and sexual issues are primarily personal and begin to use moral - as opposed to rights - language when appropriate and sincere.
 
A decision about abortion is a moral decision in another sense: it can be more ethical - or more moral - to terminate an unwanted pregnancy than to continue it, for a host of reasons, including severe family conflict, the needs of other children, and a woman's or family's ability to care for another child.
 
Viewed from the perspective of values-based decision-making, public policy should preserve for the individual woman the ability to make reproductive decisions based upon her understanding of her needs, responsibilities, health, and faith. Government should provide a safe environment for these decisions, offering the space, opportunity and freedom for a woman to exercise her conscience and carry out her decision, free from the coercion of restrictions and obstacles or barriers.
 

Continue reading

February 7, 2010 in Abortion, Conferences and Symposia, Religion and Reproductive Rights, Scholarship and Research | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Erez Aloni on Lawrence v. Texas and Reproductive Freedom for LGBT Individuals

This abstract is posted in collaboration with the NYU Review of Law & Social Change symposium, "From Page to Practice: Broadening the Lens for Sexual & Reproductive Rights."

Erez Aloni How thinking like pro-choice lawyers can win the battle and lose the war.

RECLAIMING THE ENTIRE HOME AFTER LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

EREZ ALONI, Penn Law School

      In Lawrence v. Texas,19 the United States Supreme Court not only struck down Texas’ sodomy law, but also provided a more expansive ruling, holding that immorality alone cannot serve as a justification to prohibit a certain practice. This case was considered one of the greatest victories in history for the LGBT community. However, some have argued that Lawrence, important as it is, offered only “domesticated liberty” for LGBTs in that its ruling did not extend beyond the private domain and gave no acceptance to the notion of a more substantial kind of sexual liberty that the queer community embraces. 20 Although I find merit in this critique, I believe that even the perceived domestic liberty provided by Lawrence did not truly offer enough of an opportunity for gays to freely practice a gay lifestyle in the home. In fact, it seems that Lawrence only offered gays freedom in the bedroom, but not in the rest of the home. The image of a gay family of any kind, with or without children, living freely and publicly was not part of the vision that Lawrence suggested. The majority opinion emphasized that its decision “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual person seeks to enter.” Therefore, while Lawrence did provide for domestic liberty, the domestic liberty was intended to be confined to the bedroom exclusively. In this respect, Lawrence provided sexual rights but not reproductive rights. 

 

Continue reading

February 7, 2010 in Conferences and Symposia, Scholarship and Research, Sexuality | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Carlos Ball on Morality and the LGBT Rights Movement

This abstract is posted in collaboration with the NYU Review of Law & Social Change symposium, "From Page to Practice: Broadening the Lens for Sexual & Reproductive Rights."

Carlos Ball MORALITY AND THE LGBT RIGHTS MOVEMENT

Carlos A. Ball
Professor of Law, Rutgers University School of Law (Newark)

There are at least three different questions we can ask about the role that morality can or should play in issues related to the contemporary LGBT rights movement: First, can the government legitimately account for questions of morality when it legislates in LGBT-related matters? Second, should the LGBT rights movement rely on moral arguments when it seeks reform through the political and legislative processes? And third, should the LGBT rights movement rely on moral arguments when it litigates? The quick answer to the first question is “it depends.”

The quick answers to the second and third questions are “yes” and “no” respectively. I elaborate briefly below on each of these.

Continue reading

February 7, 2010 in Conferences and Symposia, Scholarship and Research, Sexuality | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Lynn Paltrow on a Multi-Strategy Approach to Defending Women's Right to Abortion

This abstract is posted in collaboration with the NYU Review of Law & Social Change symposium, "From Page to Practice: Broadening the Lens for Sexual & Reproductive Rights."

Lynn Paltrow Lynn M. Paltrow, JD5

National Advocates for Pregnant Women

I founded National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) in order to do cross–issue work. Having had the privilege of working in many of the main-stream pro-choice organizations and having worked extensively with the founders and leaders of the Reproductive Justice Movement, I came to the conclusion that women’s reproductive rights and health would never be secure if the focus of our legal work remained on the defense of abortion rather than on the women who have them. Women’s lives are not just influenced by whether or not they can end a pregnancy, but also by all of the political, economic, and social conditions that enhance or limit their ability to be full and equal participants in society. I also became clear to me that the mainstream pro-choice movement was missing an extraordinary number of opportunities to build alliances and strength across issues.

As a result, NAPW has worked to build bridges between reproductive rights and drug policy reform advocates, identifying shared interests and the strong relationship between the war on abortion and the war on drugs. NAPW has also taken the lead in building bridges between those who defend the right to choose abortion and those who defend the rights of pregnant women at all stages of pregnancy, including during labor and delivery. NAPW believes that “Birth Justice” must be fully part of the definition and agenda of the Reproductive Justice Movement.

In this post, however, I want to focus on one case and one example of how failure to do cross-issue, multi-strategy work undermines the effort to defend Roe v. Wade, and more importantly, the women who become pregnant and sometimes have abortions.

Continue reading

February 7, 2010 in Abortion, Conferences and Symposia, Pregnancy & Childbirth, Scholarship and Research, Women, General | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Ruthann Robson on The Interrelationships Between Lesbians and Abortion

This abstract is posted in collaboration with the NYU Review of Law & Social Change symposium, "From Page to Practice: Broadening the Lens for Sexual & Reproductive Rights."

Ruthann Robson Ruthann Robson, CUNY School of Law

    For my comments on Panel One, Reproductive Justice: Expanding the Vision to “Collateral” Fields, I would like to “expand” by focusing more specifically on the interrelationships of lesbians and abortions.

    Lesbians are by definition “reproductive outsiders,” as Jenni Millbank has rightly theorized.  This outsiderness, in theory and in practice, is most obvious in several categories:  as the protection of legal parenthood status from challenges by non-lesbians, including the state in its child protective powers;  as the conflict between lesbians who have legal parenthood status and lesbians who do not have legal parenthood status (often, although not always, following biological status); and as the legal ability to access “reproductive technology,” including very basic and rather non-technological technology such as insemination.

    Thus there is an important argument to be made that lesbians and other sexual minorities do not inhabit a “collateral” field to be integrated into the house of reproductive rights.  Additionally, it is also true that reproductive rights have an essential place in the LGBT legal reform movements.   The symbiotic relationship between reproductive rights and sexual rights is not unproblematic, but it is an experience that is lived, litigated, and theorized.   The experience occurs across various societies and states, with diverse economic, racial, ethnic, and disability hierarchies.  
   
    Here I’d like to highlight the specific relationship between lesbians and abortion. This relationship does not seem symbiotic or even obvious to most people, except at the broadest conceptualization of reproductive and sexual rights as part of a liberatory politics.  While “liberation” is an exceedingly troublesome word, I hope we will explore “liberty” in the context of lesbians and abortion, including litigation strategies.  Privacy and (substantive) due process as the constitutional grounding for Roe, Casey, and Lawrence have been devastatingly critiqued, by both progressives and conservatives; McDonald v. City of Chicago (the incorporation of the Second Amendment case presently before the Court) may necessitate doctrinal reconceptualizations.   Equality doctrine and rhetoric are attractive, but the normalizing and deradicalizing in the same-sex marriage equality arguments are vexing.

   

Continue reading

February 7, 2010 in Abortion, Conferences and Symposia, Scholarship and Research, Sexuality | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Anita Allen on Infertility and Racial Justice

This abstract is posted in collaboration with the NYU Review of Law & Social Change symposium, "From Page to Practice: Broadening the Lens for Sexual & Reproductive Rights."

Anita Allen Where’s My Bump? Just Responses to Working Women’s Infertility Crisis

Anita L. Allen,  Penn Law School

Introduction
   
       While stereotyped as hyper-fertile African American women are affected by the opposite characteristic: we are more likely studies say, than white counterparts between the ages of 25 and 44 to be and remain infertile.

    If you did not know this, do not be ashamed.  Most physicians don’t know it either.  A recent Centers for Disease Control report says 6.1 million U.S. women between the ages 15 and 44 had trouble conceiving; 2.1 million married couples experienced infertility, and 9.2 million women had made use of infertility services.

    In a  study of  US physicians’ perceptions of fertility, only 16% of the responding physicians correctly identified African Americans as the racial group most at risk for fertility, 82% thought white women were most at risk. While stereotyped as hyper-fertile  most studies say that African American women are more likely than white counterparts between the ages of 25 and 44 to be and remain infertile.

Continue reading

February 7, 2010 in Assisted Reproduction, Conferences and Symposia, Fertility, Race & Reproduction, Scholarship and Research | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

NYU Review of Law & Social Change: Symposium on "Broadening the Lens of Sexual & Reproductive Rights"

This blog will be posting abstracts from participants in an upcoming symposium hosted by the NYU Review of Law & Social Change, "From Page to Practice: Broadening the Lens for Sexual & Reproductive Rights," on February 12.  The editors invite comments from readers on these abstracts.

Via the NYU Review of Law & Social Change:

While most legal symposia consist of academics speaking at length about their current research intended for publication in an upcoming journal symposium issue, the NYU Review of Law & Social Change is seeking to do something different in its February 12th symposium, From Page to Practice: Broadening the Lens for Sexual & Reproductive Rights. As part of the Page to Practice model, they are integrating practitioner voices into the discussion. Through the conversations that develop, the symposium planners hope to bring an on the ground critical lens to academic work and encourage collaborations around strategy that extend beyond traditional silos.

As part of this collaborative model, we are posting some of the academic presenters’ abstracts here. Given that this is a one-day symposium, the organizers hope to begin the conversations early through comments and ideas posted on blogs. For more information about the symposium, please see the invitation below.

Continue reading

February 7, 2010 in Conferences and Symposia, Law School, Scholarship and Research | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, November 13, 2009

Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society: Call for Papers (Due Nov. 15th)

The Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society announces our 2010 Symposium: Contemporary Issues for American Indians and American Immigrants:

Conference will be held March 5, 2010 at University of Wisconsin Law School (Madison, Wisconsin). We are seeking original scholarship, from both scholars and practitioners, that addresses the intersections of law and gender in the daily lives of two populations, each of which occupies a unique space in American law: American Indians and Immigrants. Interested parties should send an abstract to: WJLGS.Symposium@gmail.com by November 15, 2009. Those selected for the Symposium will be notified in early January 2010. The Journal’s Symposium issue will be published in Winter 2010. Questions can be addressed to Symposium Editor Dan Lewerenz, danlewerenz@gmail.com.

November 13, 2009 in Conferences and Symposia, Law School, Women, General | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Call for Papers: 7th Annual Symposium on "IP/Gender: Mapping the Connections"

IP/Gender: Mapping the Connections
7th Annual Symposium
April 16, 2010
CALL FOR PAPERS

Conference The symposium will convene from 9:00 am until 4:00 pm on Friday, April 16, 2010 at the American University Washington College of Law in Washington, D.C. 

Special Theme: Gender and Invention

Sponsored by American University Washington College of Law’s Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property and Women and the Law Program, Journal of Gender, and Social Policy & the Law

Deadline for submission of abstracts:  November 20, 2009 at 5:00pm (Eastern Time)

The 7th Annual Symposium on “IP/Gender: Mapping the Connections” invites proposals for papers on gender issues relating to the production and use of inventions, broadly defined.  Appropriate topics might include: gendered patterns in the history of invention or creation; gendered regulation of inventive activities; gendered models of individual and collective inventive activities; gendered aspects in licensing or assignment of technologies; and related subjects.

To submit an abstract or project description for consideration, fill in the web-based form by clicking HERE

To find additional information on submitting a paper and attending the symposium, click HERE

November 5, 2009 in Conferences and Symposia, Law School, Scholarship and Research, Women, General | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Center for Reproductive Rights To Host Webinar on Teaching Reproductive Rights

The Center for Reproductive Rights is hosting a webinar on Teaching Reproductive Rights – What is the Role for Transnational Law? on Friday, November 13th, from 3 - 4 pm (Eastern):

CRR To take part, all you need to do is call a toll-free number. You can also watch a PowerPoint presentation on your computer during the call.

The webinar will focus on an important new article by Professor Martha Davis of Northeastern  - “Reproductive Rights in the Legal Academy: A New Role for Transnational Law,” which was published in the American Journal of Legal Education in September. The article can be found on SSRN. As you will see, the article summarizes Professor Davis’ research and findings about how reproductive rights are currently being taught in US law schools and opens the conversation about the value of bringing in comparative and international law.

Responding to Professor Davis will be Professor Erika George from the University of Utah.

After hearing from the presenters and responders, we will open up the call for conversation. We hope to both discuss Martha’s findings, and hear some personal experiences with teaching reproductive rights and using (or not using) non-U.S. materials. The call is intended to be collegial and informal and to promote reflection and exchange about current teaching approaches.

This webinar is part of the CRR’s wider Law School Initiative which, as you may know, has undertaken a range of activities to encourage teaching and scholarship around reproductive rights. For teaching, we are focusing on the value of bringing in comparative and international law. To that end, we have produced supplemental course modules for law teachers who would like to integrate transnational materials into their teaching of Family Law, Reproductive Rights, and Reproductive Technology and Bioethics. More about what the Law School Initiative has been up to can be found here: http://reproductiverights.org/en/our-work/law-school-initiative.

If you are interested in taking part in this webinar, please contact Diana Hortsch and she will forward you the call-in number on November 12th, the day before the event.

Diana Hortsch (Director of the Law School Initiative at the Center for Reproductive Rights)

Phone: (917) 637-3669

dhortsch@reprorights.org

November 3, 2009 in Abortion, Conferences and Symposia, Current Affairs, International, Law School | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Call for Presenters and Papers: Sixth Annual Wells Conference on Adoption Law

The Future of the Family: Modern Challenges in Adoption Law:

Conference is March 11, 2010 at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio

The conference is seeking proposals for presentations and papers emphasizing the following themes: 

(1) The Impact of the Economic Crisis on Families
(2) The Impact of Artificial Reproduction on Families
(3) Overcoming Barriers to the Creation of Families for Members of the LGBT Community

Participants are asked to a lead a panel discussion on one of the topics above.  Each topic will have 3-4 panel members who will present 30-45 minutes each, with discussion to follow.  In addition, participants are requested to prepare an article associated with their presentation for publication in the Capital University Law Review next year.  The article would be due on September 1, 2010.

Please send your proposals to the Wells Conference Committee Chair, Alisa Hardy (ahardy@law.capital.edu) by October 16, 2009.

September 22, 2009 in Conferences and Symposia, Law School | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

International Conference of Women Judges

American Jewish Congress and the International Conference of Women Judges host Gender and Justice: An International Inquiry:

The conference will be a gathering of remarkable women judges and scholars from around the world to discuss important issues. This conference promises to be an exciting, provocative, unique and historical occasion.

June 14-16 2009
American University Washington College of Law
4801 Massachusetts Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20016

Click here to register or contact Harriet Kurlander for more information at 954-933-7489 or hkurlander@ajcongress.org

June 2, 2009 in Conferences and Symposia, International | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, May 22, 2009

Law & Society Roundtable Will Address "Critical Thinking on Reproductive Rights & Society"

A message from Martha Davis (Northeastern University):

For those who will be attending the Law & Society Conference in Denver, Colorado, please join us at a Roundtable titled "Critical Thinking on Reproductive Rights and Society."  Participants will include Pam Bridgewater (American University), Nancy Ehrenreich (University of Denver), Khiara Bridges (Columbia University), Suzanne Stolz (Center for Reproductive Rights) and Martha Davis (Northeastern University).  The panel description reads: 

In recent years, access to reproductive rights continues to contract, with the U.S. Supreme Court's 2007 decision on Gonzales v. Carhart marking the first time the Court had accepted restrictions on abortion access that jeopardize women's health. Drawing on multiple disciplines (history, anthropology, law) and multiple perspectives (practitioner, academic), this roundtable will explore both the social and legal contexts for these developments. In particular, participants will examine the continuing role of race in shaping  reproductive rights discourse, and the utility and implications of alternative rights-based paradigms, such as human rights, as a vehicle for re-shaping the domestic reproductive rights dialogue. Comparative legal approaches will also be explored.

The panel will be held on May 28, from 8:15 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.  The specific room has not yet been assigned, but will be available on the Law & Society website, www.lawandsociety.org.  We expect a lively discussion, so please join us if you're in Denver, and circulate to colleagues who may be going!

May 22, 2009 in Conferences and Symposia | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Borgmann and Manian on Facial Challenges and the Roberts Court

I have posted Holding Legislatures Constitutionally Accountable Through Facial Challenges on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

Borgmann The Roberts Court has viewed facial challenges with skepticism and hostility. The Court issued one early decision suggesting that its primary concern with facial challenges was the breadth of the remedy. More recently, however, the Court has simply denied facial challenges outright without considering the possibility of more limited relief. In these cases, the Court has focused more on the pre-enforcement and broad-ranging nature of facial challenges, expressing a preference for concrete evidence that a law has harmed, or will harm, particular classes of individuals. While placing a heavy burden on plaintiffs to demonstrate actual or likely harm, the Court has often deferred to legislative factual assertions regarding the purposes that underlie rights-infringing laws, even where those purposes are quite likely pretextual. The Roberts Court’s intolerance for facial challenges thus does more than perpetuate the Court’s longstanding confusion over the standard by which to assess such challenges; it permits the Court to withdraw from its critical role in safeguarding individual rights. This Article argues that facial challenges and facial invalidations can help to promote constitutional accountability among legislatures. When a legislature defies clearly established constitutional requirements, or when a legislature’s fact-based justifications for a rights-infringing law crumble under independent examination, a legislature repudiates its duty to uphold the Constitution. That shortcoming infects the entire law; it is not limited to some subset of potential applications. It is the courts’ duty in such cases, not to reward or accommodate the legislature’s failure, but to protect individual rights from it. Complete invalidation of the law in such circumstances satisfies constitutional norms and vindicates the courts’ critical role in protecting individual rights from majority oppression.

Maya Manian (USF) wrote a response to the article, Rights, Remedies and Facial Challenges, also available on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

Maya Manian This brief comment extends upon a key point raised by Caitlin Borgmann’s article, Holding Legislatures Constitutionally Accountable Through Facial Challenges, which argues in part that the Roberts Court takes an outcome-driven approach to facial challenges. Building on Borgmann’s analysis, this comment further suggests that the Court not only manipulates the law in an outcome determinative manner, but also exploits the rules regarding the use of as-applied and facial challenges as a means to rewrite substantive law without having to openly overrule prior precedent. This comment focuses on Gonzales v. Carhart as an illustration of the Roberts Courts’ manipulation of procedural rules regarding as-applied and facial challenges to cloak its overruling of substantive precedent. This comment also suggests that, given an environment of hostility towards facial challenges, civil rights litigants might better succeed in preserving constitutional rights by seeking narrower injunctive remedies against unconstitutional regulations rather than seeking total invalidation of such regulations.

These articles were written for a symposium on facial challenges and the Roberts Court, hosted by the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly in February 2009.  David Franklin (DePaul) and David Faigman (Hastings) also contributed articles, and Kevin Walsh (Villanova) contributed a response to Professor Faigman.  The symposium issue is forthcoming this spring.

May 12, 2009 in Conferences and Symposia, Scholarship and Research, Supreme Court | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)