州内优先权:负担选择的新前沿

Juliana L. Bennington
{"title":"州内优先权:负担选择的新前沿","authors":"Juliana L. Bennington","doi":"10.7916/CJGL.V40I1.7055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The use of intrastate preemption by states to undo local ordinances enacted to protect reproductive health and access to reproductive services has increased in recent years. State-local conflict is a long-standing aspect of the United States government system; however, these conflicts have become increasingly politicized. Explicit intrastate preemption of localities’ protective action is a new strategy states are using to make accessing reproductive care more difficult and adding burdens to the right to choose. This article explores the intrastate preemption trend, possible litigation under traditional preemption jurisprudence, and reproductive specific litigation strategies to combat this form of anti-choice legislation. While litigation against intrastate preemption may be more successful in the reproductive health space as compared to non-public health related local measures experiencing state preemption, this article concludes that advocacy against intrastate preemption legislation is the best strategy to allow localities to protect access.","PeriodicalId":84468,"journal":{"name":"Columbia journal of gender and law","volume":"40 1","pages":"93-127"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intrastate Preemption: A New Frontier in Burdening Choice\",\"authors\":\"Juliana L. Bennington\",\"doi\":\"10.7916/CJGL.V40I1.7055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The use of intrastate preemption by states to undo local ordinances enacted to protect reproductive health and access to reproductive services has increased in recent years. State-local conflict is a long-standing aspect of the United States government system; however, these conflicts have become increasingly politicized. Explicit intrastate preemption of localities’ protective action is a new strategy states are using to make accessing reproductive care more difficult and adding burdens to the right to choose. This article explores the intrastate preemption trend, possible litigation under traditional preemption jurisprudence, and reproductive specific litigation strategies to combat this form of anti-choice legislation. While litigation against intrastate preemption may be more successful in the reproductive health space as compared to non-public health related local measures experiencing state preemption, this article concludes that advocacy against intrastate preemption legislation is the best strategy to allow localities to protect access.\",\"PeriodicalId\":84468,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Columbia journal of gender and law\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"93-127\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Columbia journal of gender and law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7916/CJGL.V40I1.7055\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia journal of gender and law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7916/CJGL.V40I1.7055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

近年来,各州利用州内优先权来撤销为保护生殖健康和获得生殖服务而颁布的地方法令的情况有所增加。州与地方的冲突是美国政府体制长期存在的一个方面;然而,这些冲突越来越政治化。州内对地方保护行动的明确抢占是一种新的策略,各州正在使用这种策略使获得生殖保健更加困难,并增加了选择权的负担。本文探讨了州内优先购买权的趋势,传统优先购买权法理下可能的诉讼,以及对抗这种形式的反选择立法的生殖特定诉讼策略。虽然在生殖健康领域,与经历州优先的非公共卫生相关地方措施相比,针对州内优先的诉讼可能更成功,但本文得出的结论是,倡导反对州内优先立法是允许地方保护获取的最佳策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Intrastate Preemption: A New Frontier in Burdening Choice
The use of intrastate preemption by states to undo local ordinances enacted to protect reproductive health and access to reproductive services has increased in recent years. State-local conflict is a long-standing aspect of the United States government system; however, these conflicts have become increasingly politicized. Explicit intrastate preemption of localities’ protective action is a new strategy states are using to make accessing reproductive care more difficult and adding burdens to the right to choose. This article explores the intrastate preemption trend, possible litigation under traditional preemption jurisprudence, and reproductive specific litigation strategies to combat this form of anti-choice legislation. While litigation against intrastate preemption may be more successful in the reproductive health space as compared to non-public health related local measures experiencing state preemption, this article concludes that advocacy against intrastate preemption legislation is the best strategy to allow localities to protect access.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Day 2 Panel 3: Self-Care as Self-Preservation: Understanding Vicarious Trauma & Enhancing Support for Providers Justice For Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence Conference Report Day 2 Panel 2: Promoting Equity From the Bench: Judicial Selection, Oversight, and Training Day 1 Lunchtime Speaker: Stephanie McGraw CEO W.A.R.M - We All Really Matter Day 1 Panel 2: How Bias Manifests in New York State's Family Law System
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1