DOCSLIB.ORG

SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS RETAINED by PRISONERS, 39 Geo

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS RETAINED by PRISONERS, 39 Geo For Educational Use Only SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS RETAINED BY PRISONERS, 39 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim.... 39 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc. 995 Georgetown Law Journal Annual Review of Criminal Procedure 2010 Thirty-Ninth Annual Review of Criminal Procedure VI. Prisoners’ Right Copyright © 2010 by Georgetown University and The Georgetown Law Journal SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS RETAINED BY PRISONERS Right of Access to Courts. The Constitution guarantees prisoners the right of meaningful access to the courts.2981 This right of access imposes an affirmative duty on prison officials to help inmates prepare and file legal papers either by establishing an adequate law library or by providing adequate assistance from persons trained in the law, but prison officials are not required to provide both as long as access to either is “meaningful.”2982 However, the constitutional right of access to the courts does not *996 require states to provide affirmative assistance to prisoners on civil matters arising under state law or on other matters unrelated to their incarceration.2983 Denial of access to legal materials for a short period of time is not necessarily a constitutional violation.2984 Courts will also allow some restrictions on a prisoner’s access to legal resources to accommodate legitimate administrative concerns that include: (1) maintaining security and internal order;2985 (2) preventing the introduction of contraband; *997 2986 (3) preventing the domination of the library by regular users;2987 and (4) observing budget constraints.2988 In the absence of a legitimate administrative concern, however, a prisoner may not be hindered in seeking access to the judicial process.2989 Prisoners must demonstrate actual injury resulting from a denial of *998 access to the courts to support a claim alleging a constitutional violation.2990 The *999 right of access to courts provides no independent right for an inmate to assist fellow inmates with legal matters.2991 The courts recognize that prisoners face practical difficulties in exercising their right of legal access and may relax procedural hurdles in some circumstances to allow prisoners to file and prosecute claims; for example, the “prison mailbox rule” deems legal materials to be filed on the date of delivery to prison officials for many purposes.2992 *1000 Legislation limits the ability of prisoners to file lawsuits in forma pauperis, or without paying filing fees. Prisoners may be responsible for paying partial fees, depending on their financial resources.2993 Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), prisoners who file three in forma pauperis complaints determined to be frivolous, malicious, or lacking a legal claim are barred from filing further suits in forma pauperis, but this “three-strikes provision” may be suspended if a prisoner seeking in forma pauperis status is in “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”2994 Freedoms of Speech, Association, and Religion. Prison officials may not interfere with prisoners’ exercise of First Amendment rights unless the interference is reasonably related to a legitimate penal interest.2995 Similarly, prison officials may not *1001 retaliate against a prisoner for exercising his or her First Amendment rights.2996 *1002 Inmates also have the right to send and receive information, subject to limits “reasonably related” to legitimate penal interests.2997 Specifically, incoming correspondence from either other inmates or noninmates may be prohibited if it is “detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution or ... might facilitate criminal activity,”2998 but because © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 For Educational Use Only SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS RETAINED BY PRISONERS, 39 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim.... outgoing correspondence is less likely to pose a *1003 threat to internal prison security, any regulation or censorship of outgoing correspondence must “further an important or substantial governmental interest” and be “no greater than is necessary” to achieve that penological interest.2999 Prison officials may prohibit correspondence between inmates at different facilities because of legitimate security concerns relating to the potential for communication regarding escape plans and other violent acts.3000 Prisoners in minimum- or low-security institutions may receive hardcover books in the mail only from publishers, bookstores, or book clubs but may receive softcover books from any source; prisoners in medium-security, high-security, or administrative *1004 institutions may receive both hardcover and softcover books only from publishers, bookstores, or book clubs.3001 However, no federal prison may expend federal funds to provide any inmate with sexually explicit materials or materials containing nudity.3002 The First Amendment also affords prisoners some freedom of communication and association, such as visitation rights, but this freedom may be limited to advance legitimate penal concerns.3003 Moreover, a prisoner has no liberty interest in remaining with inmates at a particular facility,3004 but prison officials may not transfer an *1005 inmate in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right.3005 Prison officials must afford prisoners opportunities to exercise their religious freedom.3006 Prison regulations interfering with an inmate’s free exercise of religion must be “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests”3007 and are analyzed under the Turner factors.3008 A prisoner claiming a violation of the right to religious *1006 freedom must establish that his or her beliefs are sincere3009 and religious in *1007 nature.3010 The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment protects prisoners from forced participation in religious activities.3011 Rights Related to Searches, Seizures, and Personal Privacy. Although prisoners retain certain fundamental rights of personal privacy,3012 prison officials may search *1008 prisoners’ cells randomly without violating the Fourth Amendment3013 because prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy within their cells.3014 A seizure of an inmate’s property by prison officials does not constitute a Fourth Amendment violation if the seizure serves legitimate institutional interests.3015 Additionally, a parole *1009 officer or other peace officer may search a parolee at any time.3016 Courts will closely scrutinize the constitutionality of strip and body-cavity searches by balancing the government’s need for a particular search against the extent of the invasion suffered by the prisoner.3017 Prisoners retain some privacy rights with respect to decisions about family life and *1010 reproduction,3018 but these rights may be limited by valid penal interests.3019 The right to privacy in preventing nonconsensual disclosures of medical conditions may also be required to yield to valid penal interests.3020 Rights Related to Living Conditions, Medical Care, and Disciplinary Treatment. The Eighth Amendment protects prisoners against cruel and unusual punishment during confinement.3021 In reviewing a prisoner’s Eighth Amendment claim, the Supreme Court has distinguished between official conduct that is part of the punishment formally imposed for a crime and official conduct that does not purport to be punishment, such as conditions of confinement, medical care, and restoration of control over inmates.3022 Formally imposed punishment is cruel and unusual if it involves “the unnecessary *1011 and wanton infliction of pain,” such as punishment “totally without penological justification” or “grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime.”3023 The Supreme Court has stated, however, that harsh conditions and rough disciplinary treatment are part of the price that convicted individuals must pay for their offenses against society.3024 A prisoner challenging official conduct that is not part of the formal penalty for a crime must demonstrate: (1) a “sufficiently serious” deprivation;3025 and (2) that officials acted with a “sufficiently culpable state of mind.”3026 “[O]nly those deprivations denying ‘the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities’ ... are sufficiently grave to form the © 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 For Educational Use Only SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS RETAINED BY PRISONERS, 39 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim.... basis of an Eighth Amendment violation.”3027 General prison overcrowding may rise to the level of cruel and unusual *1012 punishment,3028 but “double-celling” by itself does not make prison conditions cruel *1013 and unusual.3029 Prison officials’ actions in furtherance of legitimate penal interests do not reflect a culpable state of mind and thus do not generally constitute cruel and unusual punishment.3030 With respect to conditions of confinement, the “deliberate indifference” *1014 test is used to determine whether officials acted with a sufficiently culpable state of mind.3031 Under this standard, prison officials may be found liable for denying humane conditions of confinement only if they knew that an inmate faced a substantial risk of serious harm and disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it.3032 The Supreme Court rejected an objective standard under *1016 which a prison official who was unaware of a substantial risk of harm to an inmate would nevertheless be held liable under the Eighth Amendment if the risk was obvious and a reasonable prison official would have been aware of it.3033 The subjective approach to deliberate indifference does
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reproductive Rights in the Legal Academy: a New Role for Transnational Law
    Reproductive Rights in the Legal Academy: A New Role for Transnational Law Martha F. Davis Northeastern University - School of Law United States Bethany Withers Harvard University Law School United States Journal of Legal Education, September 2009 Abstract: Most law school courses approach reproductive rights law from a purely domestic perspective, as an extensive survey of casebooks and course material reveals. The authors argue that a transnational perspective can enhance the teaching of sexual and reproductive health in all of the law school courses and doctrinal settings in which this topic in treated. While the topic of “Global Sexual and Reproductive Rights” can be presented in a free-standing course, transnational perspectives should also be integrated across the curriculum where sexual and reproductive rights are discussed. Expanding reproductive rights pedagogy to address transnational perspectives will aid in exposing a wide range of students to transnational material, will expand students’ preparedness to analyze such materials, and will better reflect the debates on sexual and reproductive health currently taking place outside of law school classrooms. Drawing on a range of foreign and international material, the authors provide specific suggestions for integrating such material into courses on Constitutional Law, Family Law and Bioethics. The pages below are an excerpt from a forthcoming article by Professor Davis and Bethany Withers in the Journal of Legal Education. Constitutional Law Right to Procreate and Transnational Law Beginning with Skinner, transnational material can supplement a discussion of domestic fundamental rights questions in a constitutional law course. Interestingly, Justice Douglas’s opinion in Skinner framed the case as one that “touches a sensitive and important area of human rights,” thus signaling the relevance of transnational law—if not jurisprudentially then certainly as it is suggested here, for pedagogical purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • THE ROLE of the RULE of LAW in VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES Nicolas Suop
    THE ROLE OF THE RULE OF LAW IN VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES Nicolas Suop TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................1818 II. THE DETERMINISTIC TREND IN CYBERLAW THEORY .............................................. 1820 A. THE DEVELOPMENT OF CYBERLAW THEORETICAL DISCOURSE .................................................... 1821 1. The FlawedAssumptions in the Development of Cberlaw Theoretical Discourse...................................... 1825 2. Situating Cyberspace in Order to Overcome the Dichotomy Between Regulation andA utonomy......................... ... .................. 1830 B. USING THE RULE OF LAW TO BETTER CONCEPTUALIZE PRIVATE GOVERNANCE POWER ............................ 1836 III. GOVERNANCE LIMITED BY LAW .................. .............. 1842 A. RULE OF LAW LIMITATIONS ON ARBITRARY PUNISHMENT .......... 1843 B. PROTECTION OF SUBSTANTIVE INTERESTS .......... ............ 1845 1. Freedom of Expression Concerns: Discrimination,Speech, and Protest.. 1850 2. Propert Rights..................................... 1856 3. Right to Privacy.................................... 1861 4. Rights of Legal Enforcement............................ 1863 5. Summary of Substantive Values and a More GeneralApplication........ 1865 IV. FORMAL LEGALITY....................... ............. 1866 A. PREDICTABILITY ................................... ...... 1866 1. Clear Rules ................................. ...... 1867 2. Changing Rules.................................... 1868 3. Emergent Behavior and Uncertain Rules..........................
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Freedom of Association and Assembly
    6. Freedom of Association and Assembly Contents Summary 161 The common law 163 Protections from statutory encroachment 164 Australian Constitution 164 The principle of legality 165 International law 166 Bills of rights 167 Justifications for limits on freedom of association and assembly 168 Legitimate objectives 168 Balancing rights and interests 170 Laws that interfere with freedom of association and assembly 171 Criminal law 172 Public assembly 176 Workplace relations laws 176 Migration law character test 184 Other laws 186 Conclusion 188 Summary 6.1 Freedom of association concerns the right of all persons to group together voluntarily for a common goal or to form and join an association, such as a political party, a professional or sporting club, a non-government organisation or a trade union. 6.2 This chapter discusses the source and rationale of the common law rights of freedom of association and freedom of assembly; how these rights are protected from statutory encroachment; and when laws that interfere with them may be considered justified, including by reference to the concept of proportionality. 6.3 Freedom of association is closely related to other fundamental freedoms recognised by the common law, including freedom of speech. It has been said to serve the same values as freedom of speech: ‘the self-fulfilment of those participating in the meeting or other form of protest, and the dissemination of ideas and opinions essential to the working of an active democracy’.1 Freedom of association is different from, but also closely related to, freedom of assembly. 1 Eric Barendt, Freedom of Speech (Oxford University Press, 2nd ed, 2007) 272.
    [Show full text]
  • Government Information Practices
    DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL'S SCHOOL CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22903-1781 PREFACE This compilation of cases and materials is designed to provide students with primary source material concerning government information practices. The right of the American public to be informed about the operation of its government has been established. Through the Freedom of Information Act, Congress has sought to ensure that this right is preserved. Of equal importance to American citizens is their right of privacy. Only in recent years has it become evident that this right is subject to infringement by the record-keeping practices of government. The Privacy Act of l974 is the first comprehensive legislative scheme designed to assure individuals that their privacy will not be improperly eroded by such practices. The first part of this casebook is devoted to a study of public access to agency records under the Freedom of Information Act and the need to protect legitimate commercial and governmental interests. The second part of the book focuses on the individual's right of privacy as affected by the federal government's collection, use, and dissemination of information. It includes material related to the key provisions of the Privacy Act and the "privacy exemption" of the Freedom of Information Act. This casebook does not purport to promulgate Department of the Army policy or to be in any sense directory. The organization and development of legal materials are the work product of the members of The Judge Advocate General's School faculty and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Judge Advocate General or any governmental agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Overcoming Dred: a Counterfactual Analysis Louise Weinberg
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 2007 Overcoming Dred: A Counterfactual Analysis Louise Weinberg Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Weinberg, Louise, "Overcoming Dred: A Counterfactual Analysis" (2007). Constitutional Commentary. 653. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/653 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OVERCOMING DRED: A COUNTERFACTUAL ANALYSIS Louise Weinberg* I. INTRODUCTION Could anything have been done about Dred Scott1 in its own day, in a Supreme Court remade by Abraham Lincoln? That is, was Dred Scott vulnerable to overrule, even in its own day, even in advance of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments? Would the power of then-existing constitutional theory have been sufficient to support overcoming Dred? If the answer is yes, we would have the key to the essential wrongness of Dred Scott, quite apart from the usual critiques of Chief Justice Roger Taney's opinion. Analysis of this question is best performed in a counterfac­ tual setting. By stripping away the aftermath of the election of 1860, the South's secession and the Civil War, and by examining a Lincoln Supreme Court's likely options as rationally perceiv­ able by voters in 1860, we can isolate for consideration the con­ stitutional vulnerabilities of Dred Scott in the context of the na­ tional predicament at the time.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Liberty Judicial Review Is As Legitimate As Equality Review: the Case of Gay Rights Jurisprudence
    ARTICLES WHY LIBERTY JUDICIAL REVIEW IS AS LEGITIMATE AS EQUALITY REVIEW: THE CASE OF GAY RIGHTS JURISPRUDENCE Carlos A. Ball * Although legal commentators these days rarely question the legitimacy of judges engaging in judicial review based on equality grounds, judicial review on substantive due process grounds remains highly controversial. One of the principal reasons for this legitimacy disparity is the view that substantive due process calls on judges to incorporate their personal views and moral values into the constitutional analysis in ways that equality review does not. This Article introduces the concept of “equality’s dependence” to explain how value judgments that fall outside of egalitarian considerations must be incorporated into the analysis to give the concept of equality its normative bite. The Article also uses gay rights constitutional cases to question the legitimacy disparity between liberty and equality review by showing how judges make normative judgments in equality gay rights cases that are surprisingly similar to the ones they make while engaging in substantive due process review. These similarities undermine the view that equality is a more neutral or “self- contained” constitutional norm than liberty, one that allows judges to decide cases without bringing to bear their normative values regarding the underlying moral and policy issues raised by the litigation. The Article also uses gay rights cases to explain why judicial review on liberty grounds can play a role in reinforcing democratic processes that is as salutary as that played by equal protection review. In addition, the Article points to examples from gay rights constitutional litigation to question the widely held view that the striking down of legislation on substantive due process grounds inevitably imposes greater limitations on legislative discretion than does the voiding of laws on equality grounds.
    [Show full text]
  • A Handbook for Legal Aid Attorneys 1 Version 7/21/14 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    2 Human Rights in the United States: A Handbook for Legal Aid Attorneys 1 Version 7/21/14 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Handbook was prepared by the Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law at American University Washington College of Law (the “Center”) through its Local Human Rights Lawyering Project. We are especially grateful to the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, the Human Rights Clinic and the Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School, as well as Professor Carrie Bettinger-Lopez at the University of Miami School of Law, and Professor Martha Davis at Northeastern School of Law, for granting us permission to adapt their previously published works for sections of this Handbook. Lauren E. Bartlett, Project Director of the Local Human Rights Lawyering Project, developed the concept for the Handbook, adapted the previously published works mentioned above, compiled Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.9, 5.10, 5.12 and 5.13 of the Handbook, and supervised the additional research and editing of the Handbook. Other contributors to the research and drafting of the Handbook include: Lynsay Gott, Acting Director of Human Rights USA, Sections 5.1, 5.7. and 5.8; Sarah Paoletti, Director of the Transnational Legal Clinic at University of Pennsylvania School of Law, Section 5.2; Erik Pitchal, former advisory board member for the Project, Section 5.6.; Kevin Cremin, Director of Litigation for Disability and Aging Rights for MFY Legal Services, Inc., Section 5.10; Pamela Brown, Director of the Bi-National Family Violence Project of Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, Inc., Section 5.11; Professor Martha Davis at Northeastern School of Law, Risa Kaufman, Executive Director of the Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, and John Pollock, Coordinator, National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel, Section 5.13.
    [Show full text]
  • Reining in Abuses of Executive Power Through Substantive Due Process Rosalie Berger
    Florida Law Review Volume 60 | Issue 3 Article 1 11-18-2012 Reining in Abuses of Executive Power through Substantive Due Process Rosalie Berger Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Health Law Commons, Legal Profession Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Rosalie Berger, Reining in Abuses of Executive Power through Substantive Due Process, 60 Fla. L. Rev. 519 (2008). Available at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol60/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida Law Review by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Berger: Reining in Abuses of Executive Power through Substantive Due Proc Florida Law Review Founded 1948 Formerly University of Florida Law Review VOLUME 60 JULY 2008 NUMBER 3 REINING IN ABUSES OF EXECUTIVE POWER THROUGH SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS Rosalie Berger Levinson* “‘The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government.’”1 Abstract Although substantive due process is one of the most confusing and controversial areas of constitutional law, it is well established that the Due Process Clause includes a substantive component that “bars certain arbitrary wrongful government actions ‘regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.’” The Court has recognized substantive due process limitations on law-enforcement personnel, public- school officials, government employers, and those who render decisions that affect our property rights. Government officials who act with intent to harm or with deliberate indifference to our rights have been found to engage in conduct that “shocks the judicial conscience” contrary to the guarantee of substantive due process.
    [Show full text]
  • 14Th Amendment US Constitution
    FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS GUARANTEED PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENSHIP, DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CONTENTS Page Section 1. Rights Guaranteed ................................................................................................... 1565 Citizens of the United States ............................................................................................ 1565 Privileges and Immunities ................................................................................................. 1568 Due Process of Law ............................................................................................................ 1572 The Development of Substantive Due Process .......................................................... 1572 ``Persons'' Defined ................................................................................................. 1578 Police Power Defined and Limited ...................................................................... 1579 ``Liberty'' ................................................................................................................ 1581 Liberty of Contract ...................................................................................................... 1581 Regulatory Labor Laws Generally ...................................................................... 1581 Laws Regulating Hours of Labor ........................................................................ 1586 Laws Regulating Labor in Mines .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Legitimacy of Fundamental Rightsasserted Using Substantive Due Process: Privacy, Abortion, Sodomy, and Marriage Jamie Kainalu Nakoa University of Lynchburg
    University of Lynchburg Digital Showcase @ University of Lynchburg Undergraduate Theses and Capstone Projects Spring 3-2015 The Legitimacy of Fundamental RightsAsserted Using Substantive Due Process: Privacy, Abortion, Sodomy, and Marriage Jamie Kainalu Nakoa University of Lynchburg Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalshowcase.lynchburg.edu/utcp Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Nakoa, Jamie Kainalu, "The Legitimacy of Fundamental RightsAsserted Using Substantive Due Process: Privacy, Abortion, Sodomy, and Marriage" (2015). Undergraduate Theses and Capstone Projects. 121. https://digitalshowcase.lynchburg.edu/utcp/121 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Showcase @ University of Lynchburg. It has been accepted for inclusion in Undergraduate Theses and Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of Digital Showcase @ University of Lynchburg. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Legitimacy of Fundamental RightsAsserted Using Substantive Due Process: Privacy, Abortion, Sodomy, and Marriage Jamie Kainalu Nakoa Submitted in partial fulfillment of the graduation requirements for Honors in Political Science Political Science Department School of Humanities and Social Sciences Lynchburg College March, 2015 Dr. Lorna Dawson Dr. Timothy Meinke Dr. Katherine Gray Abstract The aim of my research was to determine, through an original intent approach to the United States Constitution, whether the asserted “fundamental” rights associated with
    [Show full text]
  • Substantive Due Process and U.S. Jurisdiction Over Foreign Nationals
    Fordham Law Review Volume 82 Issue 5 Article 4 2014 Substantive Due Process and U.S. Jurisdiction over Foreign Nationals Jennifer K. Elsea Congressional Research Service Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jennifer K. Elsea, Substantive Due Process and U.S. Jurisdiction over Foreign Nationals, 82 Fordham L. Rev. 2077 (2014). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol82/iss5/4 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND U.S. JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN NATIONALS Jennifer K. Elsea* The due process rights of suspected terrorists have played a major role in the debate about how best to engage terrorist entities after September 11, 2001. Does citizenship or immigration status have a bearing on the treatment of terrorists? Does location within or outside the United States matter? This Article explores the connection between citizenship and alienage, enemy status, allegiance, and due process rights against a backdrop of international law. It surveys the application of due process to citizens and aliens based on the location of misconduct within or outside the territory of the United States and notes the expansion of criminal law to cover ever more extraterritorial conduct, including that of noncitizens who otherwise have no connection to the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Advancing Reproductive Rights in a Religious World: a Comparative Survey of Reproductive Rights in Poland, Indonesia and Israel
    Advancing Reproductive Rights in a Religious World: A Comparative Survey of Reproductive Rights in Poland, Indonesia and Israel by Erin Fowler A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws Graduate Department of the Faculty of Law University of Toronto © Copyright by Erin Fowler (2013) Advancing Reproductive Rights in a Religious World: A Comparative Survey of Reproductive Rights in Poland, Indonesia and Israel Erin Fowler Master of Laws Graduate Department of the Faculty of Law University of Toronto 2013 Abstract This paper surveys the legal implications of religious doctrines at they relate to the universal acceptance of reproductive rights. While the use of human rights to advance reproductive health has gained momentum over the last several decades, the variance in arranging religion and state relations and the significant impact religious institutions have over the substantive rights to reproductive freedom in many parts of the world necessitates a break from considering reproductive rights as a strictly secular issue. Using Israel, Poland and Indonesia as examples, this paper will explain how an understanding of the doctrines underlying maJor world religions is a crucial step towards recognizing how reproductive rights and freedoms can be advanced in a world where laws and policies are informed by both the sacred and the secular. ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor Lorraine Weinrib who provided me with invaluable guidance throughout the research and drafting process. I would also like to thank my SJD advisor Carolina S. Ruiz Austria who provided me with guidance and support throughout this proJect.
    [Show full text]