Reproductive Justice最新文献

{"title":"For the Greater Good: The Subordination of Reproductive Freedom to State Interests in the United States and China","authors":"Marisa Silenzi Cianciarulo","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2847287","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2847287","url":null,"abstract":"This Article provides a comparative analysis of two very different restrictions on reproductive freedom that have startling parallels and similarities. Both China and the United States impose limits on reproductive freedom: China restricts the number of children that families can have, often in ways that violate international law, while some U.S. states have attempted to restrict access to abortion in ways that violate the precepts of Roe v. Wade as well as international law. Both China and U.S. states impose restrictions on reproductive freedom in order to achieve compelling state goals: protecting development and sustainability in China, and protecting prenatal life in the United States. Finally, both China and the United States have means other than severe restrictions on reproductive freedom at their disposal to achieve the governments’ goals: broad access to birth control and sex education. This Article uses the lens of international human rights law to evaluate the concept of subordinating individual reproductive choice to a perception of the common good. Part II provides an overview of the major international instruments addressing individual rights and how they interact with the rights and responsibilities of the state. Part III discusses anti-abortion laws in the United States and the anti-abortion movement’s rationale that protecting prenatal life justifies limiting reproductive choice. Part IV discusses China’s vast and population control system and the government’s rationale that providing a controlled, sustainable population justifies limiting reproductive choice. Part V examines three levels of coercion – compulsory sex education and unrestricted access to contraception, monetary incentive and disincentive programs, and forced abortion and forced child-bearing – and analyzes whether they are consistent with international human rights principles. Finally, the Article concludes that in light of modern access to education and contraception, and the ability to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies via those means, more coercive means are unnecessary (in the case of monetary incentives and disincentives) and unjustifiable (in the case of forced abortion and forced child-bearing).","PeriodicalId":305783,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Justice","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122963159","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Genes and Gestation in Australian Regulation of Egg Donation, Surrogacy and Mitochondrial Donation","authors":"Karinne Ludlow","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2745613","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2745613","url":null,"abstract":"This article considers genetic and legal relatedness for the purposes of Australian regulation of egg donation, surrogacy and parentage by examination of that regulation through the lens of mitochondrial (mt) donation. The article addresses whether mt donors would be a child's genetic parents following clinical use in that child's conception should mt donation be legalised for such use in Australia. It then considers how genetic and gestational relatedness are relevant in the discourse around legal parentage following egg donation and surrogacy and argues that the current approach is in need of reform so that intending parents of all children are deemed to be the resulting child's legal parents at birth.","PeriodicalId":305783,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Justice","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124755972","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Nuts and Seeds: Mitigating Third-Party Harms of Religious Exemptions, Post-Hobby Lobby","authors":"T. Massaro","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2414187","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2414187","url":null,"abstract":"The United States Supreme Court in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby held that for-profit businesses may claim a statutory right to an exemption from federal laws that burden their religious expression. The Court ostensibly limited the decision to its facts, but more commercial actors likely will seek religious exemptions in the years ahead. This Article offers a first look at steps government might take if this occurs. It steps beyond the vigorous debate over whether to grant an exemption, and explores alternatives that may mitigate third-party burdens imposed by such exemptions when granted. It examines in particular an “exemption-subject-to-notice” option, under which commercial actors would be required to provide notice to adversely affected third parties or would be subject to government-provided notice of their noncompliance. A notice condition on exit from generally applicable laws is not a problem-free option. Nevertheless, it is worth exploring as a third way for government to manage the inevitable liberty collisions of a pluralistic democracy, and is a superb vehicle for illuminating the relative costs of emerging regulatory patchworks.","PeriodicalId":305783,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Justice","volume":"2113 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129949874","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Millennium Development Goals and the Protection of Displaced and Refugee Women and Girls","authors":"S. Akram","doi":"10.3390/LAWS2030283","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3390/LAWS2030283","url":null,"abstract":"The international protection regime of refugee, stateless and displaced women and girls has significant deficiencies. As refugees and displaced persons, women and girls experience unique challenges. They suffer abuse disproportionately as women through rape, human trafficking, and female genital mutilation. Women and girl refugees face greater challenges and risks to safety at every stage of displacement: in refugee camps, in urban spaces, in transit to safe haven, and in the process of obtaining legal status. They are frequently at the mercy of male family members in making claims to refugee and asylum status, as females are often unable to obtain necessary documentation and navigate barriers to the asylum process that uniquely disfavor women’s claims. This paper argues that the UN must expand the scope of the Millennium Development Goals to specifically include state responsibility towards refugees and displaced persons in their territories, without regard to their legal status. Until the international regime designed to protect refugees and displaced persons closes the gaps in addressing female refugees and displaced persons’ unique vulnerabilities, the UN’s Millennium Development Goals should be reoriented to include state responsibility to meet these deficiencies.","PeriodicalId":305783,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Justice","volume":"61 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127905664","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Back to the Future? Abortion Before & after Roe","authors":"T. Joyce, Ruoding Tan, Yuxiu Zhang","doi":"10.3386/W18338","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3386/W18338","url":null,"abstract":"Next year marks the 40th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade. We use unique data on abortions performed in New York State from 1971-1975 to analyze the impact of legalized abortion in New York on abortion and birth rates of non-residents. We estimate that abortion rates declined by 12.0 percent for every hundred miles a woman lived from New York in the years before Roe. If Roe were overturned average travel distance to the nearest abortion provider would increase by 157 miles in the 31 states expected to prohibit abortion. Under this scenario abortion rates would fall by 14.9 percent nationally, resulting in at most, 178,800 additional births or 4.2 percent of the U.S. total in 2008. A ban in 17 states would result in a 6.0 percent decline in abortions and at most, 1.7 percent rise in births.","PeriodicalId":305783,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Justice","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130053473","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Assisted Reproduction Policy in Federal States: What Canada Should Learn from Australia","authors":"Dave Snow, Rainer Knopff","doi":"10.11575/SPPP.V5I0.42382","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11575/SPPP.V5I0.42382","url":null,"abstract":"Rapid advances in assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) confront policymakers worldwide with dilemmas that touch on the fundamentals of human existence — life, death, and sexuality. Canada, following the lead of non-federal Britain, spent 15 years developing the comprehensive, national Assisted Human Reproduction Act (2004), only to have the Supreme Court strike much of it down in 2010 for invading provincial jurisdiction. As Canadians return to square one on many ART issues, they should seek inspiration from Australia, where the lead role of the states in this policy area has not prevented significant coordination on matters of broad consensus. Like their federal cousins down under, Canadians who wish to harmonize ART policy in a constitutionally acceptable manner must now rely more heavily on legislative modeling among provinces, intergovernmental agreements, and non-statutory (even nongovernmental) guidelines.","PeriodicalId":305783,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Justice","volume":"97 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128452095","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Our Bodies, Our (Tax) Selves","authors":"Bridget J. Crawford","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2009314","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2009314","url":null,"abstract":"This Article considers important consequences of the commodification of human reproduction. Anyone who has opened a campus newspaper has seen advertisements seeking to match an infertile couple with a young woman who will “donate” her egg (in return for a fee). Some college-age men earn thousands of dollars through regular visits to a sperm bank. The characterization of human ova and sperm cells as transferrable “property” is the very foundation upon which the entire fertility industry rests. But the law of donative transfers has largely ignored the commercial market for human reproductive material. This Article considers how courts and the Internal Revenue Service -- unevenly and incompletely -- treat transfers of human bodily material. The Article reveals how classifying human eggs or sperm as descendible and devisable property could have far-reaching and even absurd consequences for human sexual relations. Property-related laws should never be the primary lens for considering complex questions regarding human reproduction, but the particular failure of tax law to address these transfers may create a de facto tax preference for work that many people may find objectionable or immoral.","PeriodicalId":305783,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Justice","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128707971","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Stateless Babies & Adoption Scams: A Bioethical Analysis of International Commercial Surrogacy","authors":"Seema Mohapatra","doi":"10.15779/Z380Q00","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z380Q00","url":null,"abstract":"Truth is often stranger than fiction, and nowhere is this more evident than when examining the real stories related to international commercial surrogacy that have occurred in the last few years. This Article utilizes these recent cases to analyze this industry using a bioethical lens. Bioethicists use stories effectively to demonstrate how theory and normative ideals apply to real world situations. By detailing examples of some of the unique scenarios that have arisen in far-flung cities of India, the United States, and the Ukraine, this Article highlights some of the bioethical dilemmas such stories raise. This Article examines these stories using the classic theoretical bioethics framework to demonstrate the need for clarification of state or national regulation and international guidelines related to international surrogacy. Global surrogacy is more popular than ever due to advances in technology allowing for gestational surrogacy, rather than traditional surrogacy. In a traditional surrogacy arrangement, a surrogate becomes pregnant via artificial insemination by sperm from the intended father or donor sperm. Because her own egg contributes to the embryo, a traditional surrogate carries her own genetically related child and agrees to give it up upon the baby’s birth. Due to well publicized cases where traditional surrogates decide they wish to raise the infant that they have carried, and due to public sympathy of these surrogates due to their genetic tie to the infant, gestational surrogacy, where there is no such genetic tie, has become vastly more popular than traditional surrogacy. Gestational surrogacy refers to the process whereby an embryo is created with an egg and sperm from the intended parents (or from donor eggs and sperm) through an in vitro fertilization procedure and is then transferred into the uterus of a genetically unrelated surrogate. Gestational surrogacy has largely replaced traditional surrogacy in the world of international surrogacy - and it is indeed a “world” of international surrogacy. The popularity of medical tourism, whereby consumers of health care travel around the world to receive cheaper medical care, has spread to reproductive tourism. International or global surrogacy is a booming business. Although some have written with concern about the potential exploitative nature of international surrogacy, the Western press has mostly positive press reports about success stories in international surrogacy. Although many countries still prohibit or restrict surrogacy arrangements, the market for international surrogacy is estimated to be six billion dollars annually worldwide. Some countries, such as India and Ukraine, wish to be seen as international surrogacy meccas by providing quality medical care for a low cost and attempting to provide the most legal protections for intended parents. In the United States and some European countries, the initial stigma associated with using a surrogate to build one’s family than","PeriodicalId":305783,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Justice","volume":"146 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134453566","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}