Document Type
Essay
Publication Title
UCLA Journal of Gender & Law
Publication Date
2022
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5070/L329158297
Abstract
In the face of state-by-state attacks on the right to choose, which result in regular challenges to Roe v. Wade in the U.S. Supreme Court, this essay asks whether Roe is needed at all. Decades of state law encroachments have caused Roe to fail to properly protect the right to choose. Building on prior works that challenge the premise of fetal personhood and highlighting the status of Roe-based rights after decades of challenges, this essay proposes an alternative solution to Roe. Federal legislative and executive efforts, including the Women’s Health Protection Act, are necessary to ensure the right to choose remains accessible to all pregnant persons.
Recommended Citation
Carliss Chatman, We Shouldn't Need Roe, 29 UCLA J. Gender & L. 81 (2022).
Included in
Health Law and Policy Commons, Law and Gender Commons, Legislation Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons