A community debrief to discuss Wednesday’s oral arguments before SCOTUS in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization – the case challenging Mississippi’s pre-viability, 15-week abortion ban.
Join us for a panel discussion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the upcoming Supreme Court case determining if Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks is constitutional.
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.