UC Law SF Scholarship Repository
Not a member yet
18602 research outputs found
Sort by
An Examination of Race in Reproductive Oppression: Why Intersectional Abortion Stigma Disruption is Necessary to Achieve Reproductive Justice in 2024 and Beyond
Get PDFThis article examines the perpetuation of white supremacy in reproductive oppression throughout American history. The history of the reproductive rights movement, when applying a racialized lens, often looks contradictory in protections and restrictions implemented by the American government, at both the federal and state level. For example, contraception, while often thought to provide more access to family planning and personal autonomy, was historically implemented in a way that relied on racist and classist framings to prevent more black and brown children from being born. This paradigm has fluctuated throughout American history to now prevent black and brown women from receiving abortions as an attempt to stall upward social and economic mobility and maintain patriarchal power structures. Under either framing, a woman’s choice in reproduction is severely compromised. Therefore, the term “reproductive oppression” will serve as a guiding term to categorize any reproductive policy that takes a choice away from women. In this article, I examine the trends towards limiting reproductive freedoms both before and after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022, focusing on the disproportionate impact of restrictive legislation on poor women of color. An examination of relevant practices and legislation show that nonwhite women suffer the greatest from laws restricting the right to bodily autonomy. With this reality in mind, this article encourages the application of a more intersectional approach in securing reproductive freedom moving past the Dobbs decision, recognizing that women of color must be considered and uplifted in political advocacy and action. This reporting provides an opportunity for all people to expand their understanding of how the fight for reproductive justice is interwoven with systemic racism and organize effectively to secure bodily autonomy. Disrupting abortion stigma at the micro, mesa, and macro levels through interpersonal relationships, incorporating intersectionality in research about women of color and reproduction, and organizing with advocacy groups who prioritize women of color’s health care solutions I suggest towards advocating for reproductive justice in 2024 and beyond
Realizing The Americans with Abilities Act: Promoting Civil Rights & Capabilities in the Service of Individuals with Brain Injury
No full textBrain injuries often result in varying degrees of impairment to communication and cognitive processes, impeding an individual’s ability to engage in daily activities, participate in social interactions, and achieve independence. This paper builds upon our legislative proposal from Designing An Americans With Abilities Act: Consciousness, Capabilities, and Civil Rights, published in the Boston College Law Review in 2022. That paper proposed new legislation called “The Americans with Abilities Act” (“AWAA”), a comprehensive framework for the effective development, uptake, and utilization of advanced assistive technology (“AT”). These technologies aid individuals with brain injuries in realizing their capabilities and reintegrating into broader society.
Addressing the crucial need for person-centered disability legislation, the AWAA would establish a comprehensive and coordinated governmental effort to assist the recovery journey of brain injury survivors and their families. It does this through establishing tailored support networks and new mechanisms for improved research, development, and uptake of accessible AT. When offered to those with brain injuries, AT can foster communication and improve reintegration.
This paper builds on our 2022 paper, focusing on administrative law and civil rights to introduce a central component of the AWAA: an innovative interagency committee called “The Interagency Committee for Brain Injury Recovery” (“ICBIR”). The ICBIR will synergize efforts among healthcare providers, technology experts, rehabilitation specialists, those with brain injuries and their family members, to create cohesive individualized care plans. These plans will more effectively address the multifaceted needs of brain injury survivors throughout their long recovery, while supporting their civil liberties and fostering reintegration.
Our legislation includes a structured framework that ensures equitable access to rehabilitation, medical support, and state-of-the-art AT tailored to the needs of brain injury survivors. These benefits improve independence, quality of life, and communication. By facilitating effective communication, cognitive rehabilitation, and community reintegration, the AWAA aims to address the unique challenges that brain injury survivors encounter during their recovery process. The AWAA will also nurture the independence and well-being of brain injury survivors by broadening their capabilities, thus enhancing their prospects for community reintegration and independent living.
Through a person-centered administrative law approach, the AWAA and its constitutive ICBIR catalyze governmental support systems for brain injury survivors by bolstering their capabilities and safeguarding their civil rights. Ultimately, this legislative endeavor exemplifies a transformative step toward fostering inclusivity, maximizing potential, and creating a society that embraces diverse abilities
“For Whom the Bell Tolls”?* Is the Corporate Transparency Act Dead, and if Not, What Is Its Impact on Corporate Governance?
No full textThe Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA” or “the Act”) was enacted by Congress in 2021 to combat illicit financial activity through mandated beneficial ownership disclosure. While the current administration has opted not to enforce the CTA’s reporting requirements on domestic entities, the law remains in effect, and its future is uncertain amid ongoing constitutional litigation.
This Note argues that the CTA should be repealed, and state legislatures should refrain from mirroring the Act. The CTA creates undue burdens that threaten effective and efficient corporate governance in small businesses and many non-profits. This Note traces the contentious history of the CTA and the burdens on corporate governance, given the uncertain nature, impact, and overbroad scope of the CTA. Furthermore, it discusses why the current administration’s recent executive decision not to enforce the CTA’s reporting requirements on domestic businesses does not sufficiently mitigate the detrimental impacts on small businesses and non-profit corporations. The CTA, and state laws that mirror it, putatively deter bad actors from exploiting corporate structures and increase accountability for owners, directors, and senior directors. But ultimately, the purported benefits are grossly outweighed by federal government overreach, burdensome compliance costs and requirements for companies ill-equipped to meet these burdens, and a possible chilling effect on directors’ and officers’ participation in small businesses and non-profit corporations
