Professor Thusi is an Associate Professor of Law at Delaware Law School. Her research examines racial and sexual hierarchies as they relate to policing, race, and gender. Her articles and essays have been published or are forthcoming in the Harvard Law Review, NYU Law Review, Northwestern Law Review, Georgetown Law Journal, Cornell Law Review Online, and Utah Law Review.
Please join us for the second event in our series exploring racial disparities in medicine. This panel will center on legal and historical perspectives on racial equity in fertility care. All are welcome!
Defending Reproductive Rights in the Trump era and the meaning of June Medical Services v. Russo (2020); Julie Rikelman
Julie Rikelman is the Senior Director of the U.S. Litigation Program at the Center for Reproductive Rights. She successfully argued June Medical Services v. Russo in the Supreme Court, the Court's most recent case concerning abortion rights. She has challenged numerous regulations on abortion providers, from unnecessary physical plant and admitting privileges requirements, invasive ultrasound laws, and restrictions on medication abortion.
Khiara M. Bridges is a professor of law at UC Berkeley School of Law. She has written many articles concerning, race, class, reproductive rights, and the intersection of the three. Her scholarship has appeared or will soon appear in the Harvard Law Review, Stanford Law Review, the Columbia Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Virginia Law Review, among others.
Please join the Lillian Goldman Law Library and the Program for the Study of Reproductive Justice for a panel discussion of "Reproductive Rights and Justice Stories" and the future of this area of the law. Editors and contributors include professors Linda Greenhouse ’78 M.S.L., Melissa Murray ’02, Douglas NeJaime, Kate Shaw, and Reva Siegel ’86. Moderated by Emily Bazelon ’00.
Dinner will be served at 6:05pm
The Constitutional Case Against Defining Infertility, Faren Tang, Reproductive Justice Fellow, Program for the Study of Reproductive Justice at Yale
Legal definitions of infertility, usually for the purposes of state insurance mandates, rely on a faulty distinction between “medical” and “social” infertility and logically inconsistent double-standards for different-sex couples, same-sex couples, and single non-partnered individuals. But fertility coverage mandates, like all laws, must comport with basic Constitutional principles of equal protection and equal right to liberty.
This chapter tells the story of Madrigal v. Quilligan, an unpublished decision from a California federal district court refusing to remedy sterilization abuse in the early 1970s. After a whistleblower leaked evidence of rampant sterilization abuse at the Los Angeles County USC Medical Center, ten women (the Madrigal Ten) filed a lawsuit alleging that medical personnel systematically coerced Mexican-American women into submitting to sterilization. The case dramatically altered public consciousness and public policy on coerced sterilization.
After the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, many have predicted the reversal, or at least the complete hollowing out, of Roe v. Wade in near future. Indeed, despite the Supreme Court’s stay of a restrictive Louisiana abortion law last month, there are at least 20 abortion cases that are currently in the pipeline to the highest court, any of which could gut women’s right to reproductive autonomy. What are the devils hidden in the details of so-called “TRAP” and other anti-abortion laws? What are the up-to-date states and prospects of related lawsuits?