Unconscionable: how the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisprudence lags behind the world when it comes to contraception and conscience
نویسندگان
چکیده
U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence undermines access to contraception by permitting individuals, institutions, and even corporations to claim religious objections to ensuring contraceptive insurance coverage, thus imposing those beliefs on non-adherents and jeopardizing their access to essential reproductive-health services. This jurisprudence is not only harmful but also runs contrary to the laws and policies of peer nations, as well as international human rights principles, which are more protective of the rights of health-care recipients to make their own decisions about contraception free from interference. The United States should look to the practice and jurisprudence of other nations and ensure that religious exemptions are not permitted to deprive a third party of access to contraception.
منابع مشابه
Freedom of Conscience is Freedom of Choice: Women’s Reproductive Needs, Rights, and their Therapeutic Implications
Using reasonableness, we examine the U.S. Catholic bishops’ opposition to provisions of the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Weaving contributions from theology, philosophy, and jurisprudence, we emphasize the reasonable importance of mental health therapy for women within a relevant Catholic/Christian dialogue, particularly in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on healthcare. We princip...
متن کاملThe Supreme Court’s “non-transsubstantive” Class Action
I. THE ROBERTS COURT’S COMPETING CLASS ACTION CASES ... 1628 II. THE COURT’S “NON-TRANSSUBSTANTIVE” CLASS ACTION DECISIONS ............................................................................. 1636 A. The Court’s “Non-Transsubstantive” Rule 23 Jurisprudence .............. 1637 1. Substantive Lawmaking .................................................... 1637 2. Composite Judgments: Subs...
متن کاملThe “monstrous Heresy” of Punitive Damages: a Comparison to the Death Penalty and Suggestions for Reform
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................854 I. THEORIES AND CRITIQUES OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES ........................857 A. The History and Theories of Punitive Damages Awards ......... 857 B. Critiques of Punitive Damages ........................................... 860 II. THE SUPREME COURT’S PUNITIVE DAMAGES JURISPRUDENCE .......863 III....
متن کاملUnited States v. Jones and the Future of Privacy Law: The Potential Far-Reaching Implications of the GPS Surveillance Case
BY DANIEL J. SOLOVE T he U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Jones, No. 10-1259 (U.S. Jan. 23, 2012) is a profound decision in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence as well as in privacy law more generally. In this case, FBI agents installed a global positioning system (GPS) tracking device on Jones’s car and monitored where he drove for a month without a warrant. Antoine Jones ch...
متن کاملThe Backward Jurisprudence of Baze
The Supreme Court’s plurality opinion in Baze v. Rees begins with a seemingly simple assertion of constitutional law. “We begin with the principle, settled by Gregg, that capital punishment is constitutional.” It continues, “[i]t necessarily follows that there must be a means of carrying it out.” This second pronouncement provides the foundation for the Supreme Court’s holding in Baze that Kent...
متن کامل