National institute of family and life advocates (NIFLA) : V. Becerra, or the right to be informed about your own reproductive rights.

Abstract

The Supreme Court has issued its decision in NIFLA v. Becerra, a 5–4 vote holding that the state of California cannot compel pregnancy-resource centers to advertise for the state’s abortion services. This decision represents a considerable victory for both the right to free speech and the conscience rights of pro-life Americans. The case concerned California’s Reproductive FACT Act, which mandated that both licensed and unlicensed women’s-health clinics (crisis-pregnancy or pregnancy-resource centers) not performing abortions had to provide a pre-written notice to clients. Though the law related specifically to abortion, free speech was the fundamental issue at stake. This paper analyzes the history of abortion in US legislation and the perspective of one of its fundamental civil rights.

Keywords:

Abortion Health Rights

References

Adams, A. (2005). Aborting Roe: Jane Roe questions the viability of Roe v. Wade. A Texas Review of Law & Politics, 9(2).

Barsotti, V. (1999). L’arte di tacere (Strumenti e tecniche di non decisione della Corte suprema degli Stati Uniti). Torino: Giappichelli.

Casadei, T. (2017). Diritto e (dis)parità Dalla discriminazione di genere alla democracia paritaria, Roma: Aracne.

Chen, E. J. (2014). Restoring Rights for Reproductive Justice. IThe American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 22(2).

Chieregato, E. (2016). La Corte Suprema condanna la chiusura delle cliniche abortive: un commento a Whole Woman’s Health et al. v. Hellerstedt, in AIC.

Dworkin, R. (1996). Freedom’s Law – The moral reading of the american constitution. Oxford University Press, p. 87.

Faralli, C. (2015). Donne e diritti. Un’introduzione storica. In: Donne, diritto, diritti. Prospettive del giusfemminismo. Torino: Giappichelli, p.12.

Ghorashi, A. R. (2019). When It Comes to Abortion Restrictions, State Legislatures Try Fighting Fire with Fire. Retrieved from: blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu

Giolo, O. (2012). Le “periferie” del patriarcato. L’uguaglianza, i diritti umani e le donne, in Th. Casadei (a cura di), Diritti umani e soggetti vulnerabili. Torino: Giappichelli, pp. 119-142.

Giordano V. & Langford P. (ed.) (2017). Judical decision-making: Artificio – razionalità – Valori. Torino: Giappichelli, p. 39.

Hart Ely, J. (1996). On Constitutional Ground. Princenton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, p. 284.

Howe, A. (2014). Court strikes down abortion clinic “buffer zone”: In Plain English, SCOTUS blog (Jun. 27, 2014, 5:22 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/courtstrikes-down-abortion-clinic-buffer-zone-in-plain-english/

Yarnold, B. M. (1995). Abortion Politics in the Federal Courts – Right Versus Right. Westport, Conn: Praeger, p. 10.

Linton, B. (2012). The Legal Status of Abortion in the States If Roe V. Wade Is Overruled, By Linton, in Law & Medicine, 27(3).

Lonzi, C. (1971). Sessualità femminile e aborti, Milano.

Mackinnon, C. (2012). Privacy vs eguaglianza: a partire dal caso Roe vs Wade. In Le donne sono umane? Roma-Bari: Laterza.

Pomeranz, J. L. (2019). Abortion Disclosure Laws and the First Amendment: The Broader Public Health Implications of the Supreme Court’s Becerra Decision. American Journal of Public Health, March.

Rizzieri, A. (2001). L’aborto nella giurisprudenza della Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti, in La nuova giurisprudenza civile commentata, 3.

Scheb, J. M. – Scheb, J. M. II (2002). Foundations of American Law, in An Introduction to the American Legal System, pp. 5-6. Albany, NY: West Thomson Learning.

Siegel, R. (2008). Dignity and the Politics of Protection: Abortion Restrictions Under Casey/Carhart. Yale Law Journal, 117, 1694.

Siegel, R. (2016). Why the Supreme Court’s new abortion ruling really matters: The standard in Whole Women’s Health vs. Hellerstedt will change law across the nation, in NY Daily News, 27 June 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/reva-siegel-court-new-abortion-ruling-matters-article-1.2690337.

Urley, L. H. (2016). Supreme Court firmly backs abortion rights, tosses Texas law. Reuters, 28 June 2016, in http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-abortionidUSKCN0ZC0JL.

Reference by