8353 research outputs found
Sort by
The Ethics of Patents in the Medical Field: An Analysis of Drug and Pharmaceutical Patents and their Enforcement in the U.S. and France
Full text linkDobbs and Exit in Antidiscrimination Law
Full text linkIn the last couple of decades, pursuit of what Robin West has called “exit rights” has played an increasingly important role in the development of antidiscrimination law. From religiously affiliated schools seeking to insulate employment decisions for employees through a judicially crafted ministerial exception, to corporate challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate using the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, employers have sought to escape the burdens of complying with legal protections for workers. The current wave of litigation seeks broad exemptions from antidiscrimination laws for two types of employers: for-profit businesses who wish to discriminate against employees based on the employers’ religious beliefs, and state and local government employers in states with socially conservative majority or super-majority governments. The Court’s Dobbs decision will almost certainly accelerate this trend, providing new grounds of argument for employers to seek exit from a variety of antidiscrimination requirements. This paper explores these issues, primarily in the context of two cases, Bear Creek Bible Church v. EEOC (now Braidwood v. EEOC) and Kelley v. Azar (now Braidwood v. Becerra), both of which seek to avoid application of federal law to for-profit entities that wish to discriminate. In the course of that discussion, this paper also considers related litigation brought by the same attorney, who also crafted one of the most sweeping and problematic abortion statutes in the country, SB 8, along with a network of socially conservative legal organizations
Abortion, Citizenship, and the Right to Travel
Full text linkThis article considers the changed landscape for abortion rights since the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. Before Dobbs, the right to choose an abortion was a fundamental right under federal law, enforceable against all state governments. After Dobbs, the scope of one’s right to choose an abortion depends on the state in which one lives, and if abortion is illegal in their home state, their right to travel to another state where abortion is legal. The right to travel is particularly important for workers who must live in an anti-abortion state because their jobs are located there. Yet some states and localities have enacted laws effectively banning the right to travel out of state to obtain abortions—and other states are considering such laws. This article considers the origins and scope of that right to travel, based in the efforts of fugitives from slavery and the activism of free Black people in the anti-slavery and civil rights movements. The article argues that the right to travel to obtain an abortion is essential to equal citizenship, protected by Article IV and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. States banning travel to obtain abortions also arguably impose involuntary servitudes on those travelers, violating the Thirteenth Amendment
