No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Recent Developments in Health Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2021
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Other
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2007
References
References
127 S. Ct. 1610 (2007).Google Scholar
Finer, L. B. Henshaw, S. K., “Abortion Incidence and Services in the United States in 2000,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 35, no. 1 (2003): 6–15, at 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
505 U.S. 833 (1992).Google Scholar
Guttmacher Institute, State Policies in Brief as of June 1, 2007: Mandatory Counseling and Waiting Periods for Abortion, available at <http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_MWPA.pdf> (last visited October 1, 2007).+(last+visited+October+1,+2007).>Google Scholar
Simon, S., “Abortion Foes Work to Expand Informed-Consent Laws,” Los Angeles Times, April 12, 2007.Google Scholar
Those states are Georgia (House Bill 147), Idaho (House Bill 248), and Mississippi (Senate Bill 2391).Google Scholar
House Bill 3355, 117th Gen. Assem. §§ A(1)(a), A(1)(b) (S.C. 2007).Google Scholar
Sheinin, A. G., “S. C. House: View Fetal Image Prior to Abortion,” The State (South Carolina), March 22, 2007.Google Scholar
Burris, R. A., “Abortion Ultrasound Bill Likely to Change,” The State (South Carolina), March 29, 2007.Google Scholar
Letter from Henry McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, to Michael L. Fair, State Senator (April 3, 2007).Google Scholar
Burris, R., “Ultrasound an ‘Option’ in Bill,” The State (South Carolina), April 19, 2007.Google Scholar
Smith, T., “Abortion-Ultrasound Bill Undergoes Change,” The Greenville News (South Carolina), May 16, 2007.Google Scholar
Adcox, S., “Vote on Compromise Ultrasound Abortion Bill Delayed,” The State (South Carolina), June 5, 2007.Google Scholar
S. D. Codified Laws § 34–23A-10.2 (2006).Google Scholar
Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota v. Rounds, 375 F. Supp. 2d 881 (D.S.D. 2005), aff'd 467 F. 3d 716 (8th Cir. 2006), reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated, No. 05–3093 (8th Cir. January 9, 2007).Google Scholar
Id., at 888.Google Scholar
Planned Parenthood Minnesota v. Rounds, 467 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2006) reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated, No. 05–3093, (8th Cir. January 9, 2007) [hereinafter cited as Parenthood].Google Scholar
Id., at 725–26.Google Scholar
Id., at 723.Google Scholar
Id., at 724.Google Scholar
Id., at 727.Google Scholar
Id., at 738 (Judge Greunder dissenting).Google Scholar
Saulny, S., “Full Federal Appellate Court Will Revisit Abortion Issue in South Dakota,” New York Times, April 11, 2007.Google Scholar
See Simon, , supra note 5.Google Scholar
Id., at 1622.Google Scholar
Id., at 1628.Google Scholar
Id., at 1645 (Justice Ginsburg dissenting).Google Scholar
Id., at 1635 (majority opinion).Google Scholar
See Carhart, supra note 30, at 1618.Google Scholar
See supra note 16.Google Scholar
See Carhart, supra note 30, at 1648, n. 7 (Justice Ginsburg dissenting) (noting the evidence against the contention that women who obtain abortions are at higher risk for psychological distress than women who carry their pregnancies to term).Google Scholar
Id., at 1633, 1638; see also id., at 1650 (Justice Ginsburg dissenting).Google Scholar
Id., at 1633 (majority opinion).Google Scholar
Id., at 1647 (Justice Ginsburg dissenting).Google Scholar
Id., at 1627 (majority opinion).Google Scholar
505 U.S. at 851 (plurality opinion).Google Scholar
References
Batte-Holmgren v. Commissioner of Public Health, 281 Conn. 277 (2007) [hereinafter cited as Batte-Holmgren].Google Scholar
Id., at n. 1.Google Scholar
Id., at 280–82 (citing Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-342 [2003]).Google Scholar
Id., at 282.Google Scholar
Id., at 282–83.Google Scholar
Id., at 283–92.Google Scholar
Id., at 284 (quoting Conn. Prac. Book § 17–56 [b]).Google Scholar
Id., at 284.Google Scholar
Id., at 288.Google Scholar
Id., at 289.Google Scholar
Id., at 288.Google Scholar
Id., at 294.Google Scholar
Id., at 295.Google Scholar
Id., at n. 14.Google Scholar
Id., at n. 12.Google Scholar
Id., at 297–98 (citing Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 30–23 and 30–23a).Google Scholar
Id., at 298.Google Scholar
Id., at 304.Google Scholar
Id., at 304–5.Google Scholar
Id., at 305 (quoting Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713, 718 [1983]).Google Scholar
Department of Taxation and Finance of New York v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc., 512 U.S. 61 (1994) (discussed in Batte-Holmgren, supra note 1, at 305–306) [hereinafter cited as Department].Google Scholar
See Batte-Holmgren, supra note 1, at 305–306 (discussing Department of Taxation & Finance of New York, 512 U.S. 61 [1994]).Google Scholar
Id., at 305.Google Scholar
See Department, supra note 30.Google Scholar
See Batte-Holmgren, , supra note 1.Google Scholar
Id., at 305–6 (discussing Department, supra note 30).Google Scholar
Id., at 307–8.Google Scholar
Id., at 308.Google Scholar
Montgomery County v. Anchor Inn Seafood Restaurant, 374 Md. 327 (2003) (cited in Batte-Holmgren, supra note 1, at 303); Club 2000, Inc. v. Rhode Island, Superior Court, Docket No. 05–135 (March 31, 2005) (cited in Batte-Holmgren, supra note 1, at 302); Ohio Licensed Beverage Assn. v. Ohio Dept. Health, Franklin County Common Pleas Case No. 07-CV-005103 (Ohio Common Pleas filed April 13, 2007) (court granted temporary restraining order making private clubs curtailing private clubs' exemption from the smoking ban), available at <http://suealtmeyer.typepad.com/cleveland_law_library_web/business_regulation/index.html> (last visited September 28, 2007). (last visited September 28, 2007).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=40+Montgomery+County+v.+Anchor+Inn+Seafood+Restaurant,+374+Md.+327+(2003)+(cited+in+Batte-Holmgren,+supra+note+1,+at+303);+Club+2000,+Inc.+v.+Rhode+Island,+Superior+Court,+Docket+No.+05–135+(March+31,+2005)+(cited+in+Batte-Holmgren,+supra+note+1,+at+302);+Ohio+Licensed+Beverage+Assn.+v.+Ohio+Dept.+Health,+Franklin+County+Common+Pleas+Case+No.+07-CV-005103+(Ohio+Common+Pleas+filed+April+13,+2007)+(court+granted+temporary+restraining+order+making+private+clubs+curtailing+private+clubs'+exemption+from+the+smoking+ban),+available+at++(last+visited+September+28,+2007).>Google Scholar
References
Retail Industry Leaders Association v. Fielder, 475 F.3d 180, 198 (4th Cir. 2007) [hereinafter cited as Retail Industry].Google Scholar
Id., at 183 (citing Md. Code Ann., Labor and Employment §§ 8.5–101 to −07 [2006]).Google Scholar
See Retail Industry, supra note 1, at 183; Md. Code Ann., Health-General § 15–142 (2006) defines this fund.Google Scholar
Id. (Retail Industry), at 183.Google Scholar
Id., at 185. Because this court found that ERISA preempted the Fair Share Act, it did not address the merits of RILA's equal protection challenge: id., at 198.Google Scholar
Id., at 185 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1341 [2000]).Google Scholar
Id., at 186 (relying on Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333, 345 [1977]). Hunt mandated that associational standing exists when “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit”: See Hunt, 432 U.S. at 343.Google Scholar
Id. (Retail Industry), at 186.Google Scholar
Id., at 187.Google Scholar
Id., at 188.Google Scholar
See Hunt, supra note 9, at 343.Google Scholar
Id., at 188.Google Scholar
Id., at 189 (articulating the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341 [2000]).Google Scholar
28 U.S.C. § 1341 (2000).Google Scholar
Id., at 189 (applying Valero Terrestrial Corp. v. Caffrey, 205 F.3d 130, 134 [4th Cir. 2000]).Google Scholar
Id., at 189 (citing Valero, 205 F.3d at 134).Google Scholar
Id., at 189.Google Scholar
Id., at 190.Google Scholar
Id., at 191 (emphasis in opinion) (quoting the ERISA preemption provision at 29 U.S.C. § 1144[a]).Google Scholar
Id., at 191 (citation omitted).Google Scholar
Id., at 193.Google Scholar
Id., at 191.Google Scholar
Id., at 192.Google Scholar
Id., at 193.Google Scholar
Id., at 195.Google Scholar
Id. In a footnote, the court went on to address Wal-Mart's other alternatives. These included moving employees to a different state so that it would employ less than 10,000 people in Maryland and reducing its payroll in order to meet the eight percent spending quota: id., at 194, n. 3. It found both suggestions so implausible that “not even the Secretary advances these arguments”: id.Google Scholar
Id., at 195.Google Scholar
Id., at 196.Google Scholar
Id., at 194.Google Scholar
Id., at 197.Google Scholar
Id., at 198.Google Scholar
Id., at 184 (referencing the background portion of the Department of Legislative Services report that informed Maryland's General Assembly about Wal-Mart's average wage paid to employees).Google Scholar
Id., at 198 (Judge Michael dissenting).Google Scholar
Id., at 200 (expressing agreement with the majority “that the claims asserted by the Retail Industry Leaders Association are justiciable, but not for all of the same reasons”).Google Scholar
Id., at 204.Google Scholar
Id., at 191 (majority opinion).Google Scholar
Id., at 203 (Judge Michael dissenting).Google Scholar