![]() Virginia restates the equal protection framework with attention to securing equality for the sexes across differences. Most recognize that Justice Ginsburg’s landmark opinion in United States v. Part I of our brief shows how, in the decades after Roe, equal protection doctrine has evolved to include laws regulating pregnancy. ![]() Why? Asking equal protection questions may move decision makers in federal and state venues, as well as in politics where, over time, equality claims have the potential to enable new intersectional forms of coalition and to transform the conversation about the meaning of our values and our practices, inside and outside the abortion context. As we show, Mississippi decided to ban abortion, choosing sex-based and coercive means to protect health and life at the same time that the state was refusing to enact safety-net policies that offered inclusive, noncoercive means to achieve the same health- and life-protective ends. Under equal protection, government must give reasons why it is better served regulating by group-based rather than facially neutral means, especially when group-based laws perpetuate historic forms of group-based harm. Hibbs extend to the regulation of pregnancy, hence provide an independent constitutional basis for abortion rights. ![]() Virginia and Department of Human Resources v. Our brief shows how the canonical equal protection cases United States v. Wade and will continue, in new forms, after Dobbs. The brief continues a tradition of equality arguments that preceded Roe v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, an amicus brief filed on our behalf demonstrated that Mississippi’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Equal Protection changes the questions we ask about abortion restrictions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |