DOCSLIB.ORG

Constitutional Law: Principles and Policy, Cases and Materials

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Constitutional Law: Principles and Policy, Cases and Materials Copyright © 2021 Carolina Academic Press, LLC. All rights reserved. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PRINCIPLES AND POLICY, CASES AND MATERIALS EIGHTH EDITION 2021 Supplement Jerome A. Barron Harold H. Greene Emeritus Professor of Law The George Washington University Law School The Late C. Thomas Dienes Lyle T. Alverson Professor Emeritus of Law The George Washington University Law School Wayne McCormack E.W. Thode Professor of Law University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law Martin H. Redish Louis and Harriet Ancel Professor of Law and Public Policy Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Copyright © 2021 Carolina Academic Press, LLC. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2021 Carolina Academic Press, LLC All Rights Reserved Carolina Academic Press 700 Kent Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Telephone (919) 489-7486 Fax (919) 493-5668 E-mail: [email protected] www.cap-press.com Copyright © 2021 Carolina Academic Press, LLC. All rights reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 JUDICIAL REVIEW: INSTRUMENT OF AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM ............................................................................................................................ 8 Rucho v. Common Cause ..................................................................................................................... 8 Zivotofsky v. Kerry ................................................................................................................................ 9 Chapter 2 NATIONAL POWERS & FEDERALISM ............................................................. 10 Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission ...................................... 10 Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association ............................................................................ 11 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [Health Care Cases] ................................... 13 Shelby County v. Holder....................................................................................................................... 34 Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland ........................................................................................... 35 Chapter 3 STATE POWER IN AMERICAN FEDERALISM............................................... 36 McBurney v. Young .............................................................................................................................. 36 Arizona v. United States ....................................................................................................................... 37 Chiafolo v. Washington… .................................................................................................................... 38 Chapter 4 EXECUTIVE AND CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS: SEPARATION OF POWERS ........................................................................................................... 40 Gundy v. United States .......................................................................................................................... 40 Collins v. Yellen......................................................................................................................................40 Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ........................................................................... 41 NLRB v. Canning .................................................................................................................................... 42 Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission ..................................................................................... 47 Copyright © 2021 Carolina Academic Press, LLC. All rights reserved. Zivotofsky v. Kerry .................................................................................................................................. …..48 Trump v. Hawaii .......................................................................................................................................... 50 Bond v United States ..................................................................................................................................... 53 Wood v. Moss ................................................................................................................................................. 56 Trump v. Mazars ............................................................................................................................................ 59 Trump v. Vance .............................................................................................................................................. 62 Chapter 5 LIMITATIONS ON GOVERNMENTAL POWER ........................................................ 65 Ramos v. Louisiana… ..................................................................................................................................... 65 Sessions v. Dimaya............................................................................................................................................ 65 Caetano v. Massachusetts ................................................................................................................................ 67 Chapter 6 FORMS OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS ................................................................. 68 Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States .................................................................................... 68 Horne v. Department of Agriculture ................................................................................................................ 68 Murr v. Wisconsin ............................................................................................................................................ 69 Sveen v. Melin .................................................................................................................................................. 69 Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt ............................................................................................................. 71 Box v. Planned Parenthood… .......................................................................................................................... 79 June Medical Services v. Russo… .................................................................................................................... 80 Obergefell v. Hodges ........................................................................................................................................ 81 Pavan v. Smith .................................................................................................................................................. 98 Chapter 7 THE MEANING OF EQUAL PROTECTION .................................................................. 102 Armour v. City of Indianapolis .......................................................................................................................... 102 Schuette v. BAMN ............................................................................................................................................... 102 Copyright © 2021 Carolina Academic Press, LLC. All rights reserved. Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin ............................................................................................................ 105 Ala. Legis. Black Caucus v. Alabama ............................................................................................................... 116 Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections ........................................................................................... 117 Cooper v. Harris ............................................................................................................................................... 118 North Carolina v. Covington ............................................................................................................................. 119 Sessions v. Morales – Santana ........................................................................................................................... 121 Evenwell v. Abbott .............................................................................................................................................. 124 Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission .................................................................................. 124 Chapter 8 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ............................................................................................. 126 Reed v. Town of Gilbert ....................................................................................................................................... 126 National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra ............................................................................... 126 United States v. Alvarez ...................................................................................................................................... 129 Elonis v. United State .......................................................................................................................................... 140 Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky ................................................................................................................ 140 McCullen v. Coakley ........................................................................................................................................... 146 Lane v. Franks ...................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MEDICATION ABORTION Overview of Research & Policy in the United States
    MEDICATION ABORTION Overview of Research & Policy in the United States Liz Borkowski, MPH Julia Strasser, MPH Amy Allina, BA Susan Wood, PhD Bridging the Divide: A Project of the Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health December 2015 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 2 OVERVIEW OF MEDICATION ABORTION ...................................................................... 2 MECHANISM OF ACTION .............................................................................................................................. 2 SAFETY AND EFFICACY ................................................................................................................................. 4 FDA DRUG APPROVAL PROCESS ....................................................................................... 6 FDA APPROVAL OF MIFEPREX ................................................................................................................... 6 GAO REVIEW OF FDA APPROVAL PROCESS FOR MIFEPREX ................................................................ 8 MEDICATION ABORTION PROCESS: STATE OF THE EVIDENCE ............................ 9 FDA-APPROVED LABEL ............................................................................................................................... 9 EVIDENCE-BASED PROTOCOLS FOR MEDICATION ABORTION ........................................................... 10 Dosage .......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hayley White* Mark Schrad, from Villanova, Pennsylvania, Was
    \\jciprod01\productn\G\GMC\29-1\GMC101.txt unknown Seq: 1 11-DEC-18 15:09 A CRITICAL REVIEW OF OHIO’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL “RIGHT TO LIFE DOWN SYNDROME NON-DISCRIMINATION” BILL Hayley White* INTRODUCTION Mark Schrad, from Villanova, Pennsylvania, was expecting the birth of his daughter when he got the news.1 His pregnant wife, Jen- nifer, had undergone a routine prenatal ultrasound a week earlier when the test revealed “soft markers,” which sometimes suggest genetic abnormalities in an unborn fetus.2 Then, as many expectant mothers have done before her, Jennifer nervously underwent addi- tional prenatal tests to get a more definitive result.3 Following these tests, Jennifer and Mark’s physicians explained that they were expecting a child with Down Syndrome.4 Not only would their future daughter have cognitive impairments, need special educational programs, face social ostracism, and have a host of other medical issues, but the physicians explained that her life would be far shorter than the typical child’s life.5 This would be the best-case sce- nario because an in utero diagnosis of Down Syndrome means a fifty- fifty chance of a miscarriage or stillbirth.6 Reflecting on this conversa- tion, and his now eight-year-old daughter Sophia, who has Down Syn- drome, Mark wrote in his New York Times opinion piece that he believed “[h]ammering home the momentous difficulties that would await us as parents was clearly a tactical move by the doctor to push us toward an abortion.”7 * Antonin Scalia Law School, J.D. expected, 2019. I would like to dedicate my paper to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
    [Show full text]
  • SUMMARY CHART 45 Amicus Briefs Filed in the Supreme Court in Opposition to Texas’S Abortion Clinic Shutdown Law Whole Woman’S Health V
    SUMMARY CHART 45 Amicus briefs filed in the Supreme Court in opposition to Texas’s abortion clinic shutdown law Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole A diverse and impressive set of stakeholders have filed 45 amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court to once again affirm longstanding precedent and uphold a woman’s constitutional right to access safe and legal abortion services. This term, the United States Supreme Court will review provisions of a sweeping Texas law that imposes numerous restrictions on access to abortion. This case challenges two provisions in that law: (1) the requirement that doctors who provide abortion services must obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals no farther than 30 miles away from the clinic; and (2) the requirement that abortion facilities must meet building specifications to essentially become mini-hospitals (also known as ambulatory surgical centers, or ASCs). The law, commonly referred to as “HB 2”, was designed to shut down abortion clinics and has already forced more than half of Texas’ clinics to close their doors. If the challenged provisions are upheld, it will leave 10 or fewer abortion clinics open in Texas, the second-most populous state in the nation, and will gravely harm women in Texas. A broad array of organizations and individuals – including leading medical experts, social scientists, legal experts, federal/state and local governmental entities and officeholders, Republican voices, military officers, religious leaders, ethicists, reproductive rights and other civil rights advocates, and many others – have filed briefs in support of Whole Woman’s Health and other Texas providers – the Petitioners in the case – in what will be the most consequential reproductive rights case in the last two decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Abortion in the United States – Protecting and Expanding Access
    ABORTION IN THE UNITED STATES – PROTECTING AND EXPANDING ACCESS by Anand Cerillo Sharma A capstone project submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Public Management Baltimore, Maryland December 2019 © 2019 Anand Cerillo Sharma All Rights Reserved Abstract Access to abortion in the United States is becoming increasingly determined by the state legislatures. Restrictive abortion laws at the state level that impose onerous requirements on providers and restrict women and girls’ access to the procedure have been on the rise. The 2019 state legislative session saw an unprecedented level of such laws being passed by state lawmakers committed to restricting access, some attempting to criminalize abortion at 6 weeks of gestation when most women wouldn’t even have learnt of their pregnancy. Much of the activity at the state level seems to be a concerted effort to bring the abortion issue back to the Supreme Court, attempting to challenge the legal status of abortion at the federal level. With Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation, the court has a strong conservative majority which has the potential to have a lasting impact on abortion access in the United States. Research shows that abortion is a routine medical procedure, and restricting legal access only results in an increase in unsafe/illegal procedures. Coercing women to continue an unintended pregnancy to term by limiting abortion access results in a negative impact on their lives, and a high cost to the taxpayers when such unintended births are publicly funded. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) was a key vote in Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation, and a change in the legal landscape for abortion resulting from Justice Kavanaugh’s actions on the Supreme Court is likely to be politically damaging to the Senator.
    [Show full text]
  • Republican-Majority-For-Choice-Morvillo-Abramowitz.Pdf
    No. 15-274 In the Supreme Court of the United States WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH; AUSTIN WOMEN’S HEALTH CENTER; KILLEEN WOMEN’S HEALTH CENTER; NOVA HEALTH SYSTEMS d/b/a REPRODUCTIVE SERVICES; SHERWOOD C. LYNN, JR., M.D.; PAMELA J. RICHTER, D.O.; and LENDOL L. DAVIS, M.D., on behalf of themselves and their patients, Petitioners, – v. – KIRK COLE, M.D., Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services; MARI ROBINSON, Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board, in their official capacities, Respondents. ____________________________ ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT BRIEF OF REPUBLICAN MAJORITY FOR CHOICE AND ITS NATIONAL CHAIRS, FORMER REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, AND CURRENT AND FORMER REPUBLICAN STATE OFFICEHOLDERS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS CATHERINE M. FOTI Counsel of Record ROBERT M. RADICK ASHLEY C. BURNS MORVILLO ABRAMOWITZ GRAND IASON & ANELLO P.C. 565 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 856-9600 [email protected] i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................... iii STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...................................................... 5 ARGUMENT ............................................................... 9 I. THE LIBERTY PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION ENCOMPASSES THE RIGHT TO MAKE DEEPLY PERSONAL AND SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS WITHOUT UNWARRANTED INTERFERENCE BY THE STATE ................. 9 II. A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHETHER TO TERMINATE A PREGNANCY IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION ............................................ 14 A. The Constitutional Right First Recognized in Roe v. Wade Was Reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey .............................. 14 B. Casey Clarified That the Government May Enact Only Those Regulations That Do Not Unduly Burden the Woman’s Right to Terminate Her Pregnancy ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Anderson Tx Declaration
    Case 1:14-cv-00284-LY Document 23-4 Filed 04/14/14 Page 1 of 43 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH, et al. ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL ACTION v. ) ) CASE NO. 1:14-cv-0284 DAVID LAKEY, M.D., et al. ) ) Defendants. ) DECLARATION OF JAMES ANDERSON, M.D. JAMES ANDERSON, M.D., declares under penalty of perjury that the following statements are true and correct: 1. For 22 years I have been an Emergency Room Physician in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I received my M.D. from the University of Virginia, School of Medicine in 1978. I have been board certified in Family Practice since 1981 and board certified in Emergency Medicine since 1996 by the American Association of Physician Specialists. I have been certified in Advanced Trauma Life Support since 1992 and in Advanced Cardiac Life Support since 1984. 2. I am a Clinical Professor in the Department of Family Medicine & Population Health at Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, having served on the clinical faculty since 1995. In 2002, I joined the U.S. Army Reserves. In 2005, I resigned from U.S. emergency rooms due to the time demands of my military responsibilities and have served in the emergency departments of the U.S. Army’s Combat Support Hospitals (CSH) while deployed to Iraq in 2007 and 2009. In 2011, I served in the out-patient department at Craig Hospital at Case 1:14-cv-00284-LY Document 23-4 Filed 04/14/14 Page 2 of 43 Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan and held the rank of Colonel, USAR.
    [Show full text]
  • American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American Osteopathic Association in Support of Petitioners
    No. 15-274 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH, et al., Petitioners, v. KIRK COLE, M.D., et al., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS, AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS, AND AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS KIMBERLY A. PARKER Counsel of Record SKYE L. PERRYMAN EMILY L. STARK JESSICA E. NOTEBAERT WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 663-6000 [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................... iii STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ....................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF AR- GUMENT ...................................................................... 4 ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 5 I. H.B. 2’S ASC REQUIREMENT IMPOSES MEDICALLY UNNECESSARY DEMANDS ON ABORTION FACILITIES AND SERVES NO MEDICAL PURPOSE ...................................................... 5 A. Abortion Is An Extremely Safe Medi- cal Procedure And No Medical Evi- dence Suggests That Abortion Would Be Safer If Performed In An ASC Set- ting .......................................................................... 6 B. H.B. 2’s ASC Requirement Imposes Medically Unnecessary Demands On Abortion Facilities ...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Not in the Name of Women's Safety: Whole Woman's Health As a Model
    \\jciprod01\productn\H\HLG\40-2\HLG203.txt unknown Seq: 1 12-SEP-17 15:15 NOT IN THE NAME OF WOMEN’S SAFETY: WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH AS A MODEL FOR TRANSGENDER RIGHTS SHAYNA MEDLEY* The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hel- lerstedt struck down two burdensome Texas regulations on abortion provid- ers that would have closed seventy-five percent of clinics in the state. The decision has been lauded by the reproductive justice community, not only as a victory for abortion rights, but also as a victory for science, data, and evidence. The Court acknowledged the consensus in the medical community that abortion is a safe procedure, that the clinic regulations could not be proven to increase the safety of even one patient, and that women’s health and safety would dramatically suffer because of, rather than be improved by, the laws. In this Article, I draw connections between the abortion restric- tions at issue in Whole Woman’s Health and the recent anti-transgender “bathroom bills” that have cropped up in a number of states over the past couple of years—from the myths and fear campaigns that propel them, to the women’s health and safety justifications that attempt to sustain them— and propose that a correct application of the Whole Woman’s Health prece- dent similarly necessitates striking these laws down. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................... 442 R I. WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH AND ITS IMPACT ............... 445 R A. The Undue Burden Standard ......................... 445 R B. The Myths Behind TRAP Laws and the Court’s Response: A Victory For Science, Data, and Evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Benevolent Sexism: Manifestation in American Social Systems Amanda D
    St. Catherine University SOPHIA Doctor of Social Work Banded Dissertations School of Social Work 5-2018 Benevolent Sexism: Manifestation in American Social Systems Amanda D. Greubel Follow this and additional works at: https://sophia.stkate.edu/dsw Part of the Social Work Commons Recommended Citation Greubel, Amanda D.. (2018). Benevolent Sexism: Manifestation in American Social Systems. Retrieved from Sophia, the St. Catherine University repository website: https://sophia.stkate.edu/dsw/29 This Banded Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Social Work at SOPHIA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctor of Social Work Banded Dissertations by an authorized administrator of SOPHIA. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BENEVOLENT SEXISM: MANIFEST IN AM SOCIAL SYSTEMS Benevolent Sexism: Manifestations in American Social Systems by Amanda D. Greubel A Banded Dissertation in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Social Work St. Catherine University | University of St. Thomas School of Social Work May 2018 BENEVOLENT SEXISM: MANIFEST IN AM SOCIAL SYSTEMS ii Abstract This banded dissertation focused on the manifestation of benevolent sexism in American social systems, past and present. Benevolent sexism takes a subjectively-positive view of women in traditional roles, revering them as gentle, nurturing, and in need of protection by men or other more powerful members of society. These beliefs fall into three categories: protective paternalism, complementary gender differentiation, and heterosexual intimacy. The first product was a historical textual analysis of documents from the Council on Social Work Education Task Force on Women. In 1973, the task force surveyed programs about their curricular content on women.
    [Show full text]
  • Rebound of Medication Abortion in Texas Following Updated Mifepristone Label
    Contraception 99 (2019) 278–280 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Contraception journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/con Original article Rebound of medication abortion in Texas following updated mifepristone label Sarah E. Baum a,b,⁎,KariWhitea,c, Kristine Hopkins a,d, Joseph E. Potter a,d, Daniel Grossman a,e a Texas Policy Evaluation Project, Austin, TX b Ibis Reproductive Health, Oakland, CA c Department of Health Care Organization and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL d Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX e Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Cali- fornia, San Francisco, Oakland, CA article info abstract Article history: Background: In 2013, Texas House Bill 2 (HB 2) placed restrictions on the use of medication abortion, which later Received 1 November 2018 were nullified with the 2016 FDA-approved mifepristone label. Received in revised form 4 January 2019 Methods: Using data collected directly from Texas abortion facilities, we evaluated changes in the provision and Accepted 6 January 2019 use of medication abortion during three 6-month time periods corresponding to the policy changes: before HB 2, after HB 2 and after the label change. Keywords: Results: Medication abortion constituted 28% of all abortions before HB 2, 10% after implementation of the restric- Medication abortion tions and 33% after the label change. Mifepristone Abortion restrictions Conclusions: Use of medication abortion in Texas rebounded after the FDA label change. Texas © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Taking Abortion Rights Seriously
    Taking Abortion Rights Seriously (Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt) Kate Greasley* In Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt the Supreme Court of the United States passed down its most important decision on abortion in just under a decade. By a majority of 5-3, the Court ruled that two provisions in a Texas law regulating abortion on grounds of women’s health were constitutionally invalid, placing a ‘substantial obstacle’ in the way of women seeking to exercise their right to abortion. This comment delineates the key ways in which the Court’s application of the standard of constitutional review under Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) to the Texas provisions marks a landmark development for the protection of the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v Wade, not the least by making clear that state abortion regulations which cite ‘women’s health’ justifications should not pass constitutional review where those justifications lack a credible factual basis. Keywords: abortion, reproductive rights, Planned Parenthood v Casey, Roe v Wade, TRAP laws. ‘TRAP’ LAWS AND HOUSE BILL 2 Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt1 is without doubt the most important US Supreme Court decision on abortion in little under a decade, and arguably the most important since the Court’s fundamental restatement of the abortion right in Planned Parenthood v Casey in 1992.2 At the end of its term in June, the Court ruled by a majority of 5-3 to strike down as unconstitutional two provisions in a 2013 Texas law regulating abortion on the ground that they failed to meet the Casey standard of constitutional review by placing an ‘undue burden’ on Texan women seeking abortions.
    [Show full text]
  • Fetal Funerals: an Unconstitutional Attempt to Undermine Abortion Rights*
    FETAL FUNERALS: AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL * ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE ABORTION RIGHTS I. INTRODUCTION In the spring of 2016, a new form of protest overwhelmed Indiana Governor Mike Pence. Women assembled in hordes to call his offices, informing his staff (in sometimes graphic detail) about their menstrual cycles—their cramps, their flow, their bloating, and their tampon use: Them: ‘Good Morning, Governor Pence’s office’ Me: ‘Good Morning. I just wanted to inform the Governor that things seem to be drying up today. No babies seem to be up in there. Okay?’ Them: (Sounding strangely horrified and chipper at the same time) ‘Ma’am, can we have your name?’ Me: ‘Sure. It’s Sue.’ Them: ‘And your last name?’ Me: ‘Magina. That’s M-A-G-I-N-A. It rhymes with —’ Them: ‘I’ve got it.’1 They incessantly posted on Pence’s Facebook page, asking, for example, how to properly insert a menstrual cup: Dear Governor Pence, I recently switched from tampons to a menstrual cup and have found that it has an unexpected learning curve. I am having trouble with the position of my cervix at the onset of my period and as a result the cup leaks. Since you are so invested in my reproductive health and clearly understand my anatomy better than I do, I would appreciate any advice you have in cup placement and rotation techniques. Thanks!2 What caused countless women to contact Governor Pence’s office with the * Brianna M. Vinci, J.D., Temple University Beasley School of Law, 2018. Many thanks to Kathryn Stanchi for your guidance, insight, and support throughout the process of writing this Comment.
    [Show full text]