Feminist Judgments: Reproductive Justice Rewritten
Feminist Judgments: Reproductive Justice Rewritten
Reproductive justice (RJ) is a pivotal movement that supplants the language and limitations of reproductive rights. RJ's tenets are that women have the human rights to decide if or when they'll become pregnant, whether to carry a pregnancy to term, and to parent the children they have in safe and healthy environments. Recognizing the importance of the rights at stake when the law addresses parenting and procreation, the authors in this book re-imagine judicial opinions that address the law's treatment of pregnancy and parenting. The cases cover topics such as forced sterilization, pregnancy discrimination, criminal penalties for women who take illegal drugs while pregnant, and state funding for abortion. Though some of the re-imagined cases come to the same conclusions as the originals, each rewritten opinion analyzes how these cases impact the most vulnerable populations, including people with disabilities, poor women, and women of color.
- Shows how a reproductive justice lens changes legal analysis in a case, even if it does not change the case outcome
- Represents a spectrum of issues related to reproduction (abortion, contraception, the right to parent one's children, forced sterilization and more) to make clear that they all must be understood within the larger frame of how the law and courts impact the choices that women make about pregnancy and parenting
- Provides commentaries to each rewritten case to help readers who are not wholly familiar with the legal concepts being discussed
Product details
April 2020Adobe eBook Reader
9781108698955
0 pages
This ISBN is for an eBook version which is distributed on our behalf by a third party.
Table of Contents
- Part I. Introduction Kimberly Mutcherson
- Part II: The Feminist Judgments
- 1. Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) Jasmine E. Harris and Kim Hai Pearson
- 2. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) Radhika Rao and Thomas Williams
- 3. Wyman v. James, 400 U.S. 309 (1971) Michele Gilman and Priscilla Ocen
- 4. Maher v. Roe, 432 US 464 (1977) Ederlina Co and Michele Goodwin
- 5. In Re Madyun, 114 Daily wash. Law. Rptr. 2233 (D.C. Super Ct. 1986) Farah Diaz-Tello and Maya Manian
- 6. Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal. 4th 84 (1993) Cathy Sakimura and Melanie Jacobs
- 7. Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2000) Lisa Crooms-Robinson and Margo Kaplan
- 8. State v. Oakley, 245 Wis. 2d 447 (2001) Aziza Ahmed and Solangel Maldonado
- 9. Sojourner A. v. N.J. Dep't of Human Servs., 177 N.J. 318 Ann Cammett and Cynthia Soohoo
- 10. K.M. v. E.G., 37 Cal. 4th 130 (2005) Nancy Polikoff and Melissa Murray
- 11. Reber v. Reiss, 42 A.3d 1131 (2012) Kevin Maillard and Dara Purvis
- 12. Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U.S. – -, 133 S. Ct. 2552 (2013) Rose Cuison Villazor and Nancy Dowd
- 13. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. __ (2014) Suzanne A. Kim and Anthony Michael Kreis
- 14. Young v. UPS, 575 U.S. __ (2015) Mary Ziegler and Meredith Harbach
- 15. Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt Myrisha Lewis and David Cohen
- Index.
