Volume 30, Number 2, Full Issue 2018
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
VOLUME THIRTY NUMBER TWO 2018 The Yale Journal of Law and Feminism is published twice a year, in the Summer and Winter, by a student-run organization at the Yale Law School, 127 Wall Street, New Haven, CT 06511. Mailing address: P.O. Box 208215, New Haven, CT 06520-8215 Webpage: https://www.law.yale.edu/student-life/student-journals-and- publications/yale-journal-law-feminism Email: [email protected] Subscriptions: Subscriptions are $30.00 per volume for institutions and $20.00 per volume for individuals. International subscribers please add $10.00 to these prices. Subscriptions paid by institutional check will be billed at the institutional rate of $30.00. All subscriptions will be renewed automatically, unless the subscriber otherwise notifies the Journal. Back issues can be purchased at the rate of $16.00 for institutions and $10.00 for individuals. Claims for non-receipt of issues will be honored for only one calendar year from publication date. Inquiries regarding subscriptions can be made by email or through the mail at the above address. Manuscripts: The Journal welcomes the submission of unsolicited articles, comments, and other pieces for consideration. Authors may send submissions to [email protected]. Each author will be notified as soon as a publication decision is made. Production: The citations in the Journal follow THE BLUEBOOK:AUNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATION (20th ed. 2015), published by the Columbia Law Review, the Harvard Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and The Yale Law Journal. The Journal is typeset by Journal staff members and printed by Sheridan, Inc., in Hanover, Pennsylvania. Copyright 2018 by the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism. Publication number ISSN 1043-9366. Articles in this issue should be cited as 30 YALE J.L. &FEMINISM __ (2018). Cover illustration by Jacqueline Coy Charlesworth. Graphic design by Ann Mackey. I NSIDE Teneille R. Brown Marie Boyd Sherally Munshi Sarah Steadman Lisset M. Pino YALE JOURNAL OF LAW AND FEMINISM P.O. BOX 208215 127 WALL STREET NEW HAVEN, CT 06520-8215 Y ALE JOURNALOFLAW AND FEMINISM 2018 VOLUME THIRTY NUMBER TWO VOLUME THIRTY . NUMBER TWO . 2018 Advisory Board Members Clare Dalton Martha Minow Boston, Mass. Harvard Law School Lucinda Finley Frances Olsen SUNY Buffalo University of California School of Law Los Angeles School of Law Owen Fiss Judith Resnik Yale Law School Yale Law School Shelley Geballe Barbara Safriet Yale School of Public Health Lewis & Clark Law School Elizabeth Holtzman Vicki Schultz Herrick, Feinstein LLP Yale Law School New York, NY Reva Siegel Sherrilyn Ifill Yale Law School NAACP Legal Defense Fund New York, NY Kate Stith Yale Law School Sylvia Law New York University Jamienne Studley School of Law Beyond 12 San Francisco, CA Catharine MacKinnon University of Michigan Patricia Williams School of Law Columbia University School of Law VOLUME THIRTY . NUMBER TWO . 2018 Editors-in-Chief Leanne Gale Scott Stern Kath Xu Articles Editors Sarah Jane Bever-Chritton Juliana Moraes Liu Kathryn Pogin Melanie Sava Notes & Comments Editors Lauren Nathan Anna Windemuth Board Members at Large Meghan Brooks Catherine McCarthy Elise Wander Editors Eric Baudry Adrian Gonzalez Ann Manov Claire Benoit Megan Hauptman Cara Newlon Mollie Berkowitz Annie Himes Megan Pearson Lauren Blazing Hannah Hussey Kamini Persaud Sumaya Bouadi Chandini Jha Molly Petchenik Taylor Burgess Anna Kaul Natalie Savoie Peter Damrosch Matt Kellner Cauley Jordan Dannenberg Adair Kleinpeter- Soren Schwab Kyla Eastling Ross Kshithij Shrinath Carolina Eguchi Sophie Laing Jessica Tueller Yamamoto Dianne Lake Erica Turret Stephanie Garlock Sarah Lamsifer Serena Walker Casey Gilfoil Kate Levien Caroline Wallace VOLUME THIRTY . NUMBER TWO . 2018 Contents Articles Crisis at the Pregnancy Center: Regulating Pseudo-Clinics and Reclaiming Informed Consent Teneille R. Brown .....................................................................................221 Gender, Race & the Inadequate Regulation of Cosmetics Marie Boyd...............................................................................................275 White Slavery and the Crisis of Will in the Age of Contract Sherally Munshi........................................................................................327 It’s Still Me: Safeguarding Vulnerable Transgender Elders Sarah Steadman........................................................................................371 Comment Wal-Mart v. Dukes: The Feminist Case Against Individualized Adjudication Lisset M. Pino...........................................................................................401 Crisis at the Pregnancy Center: Regulating Pseudo- Clinics and Reclaiming Informed Consent Teneille R. Brown( ABSTRACT: Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) adopt the look of medical practicesFcomplete with workers in scrubs, ultrasound machines, and invasive physical examsFto deceive pregnant women into thinking they are being treated by licensed medical professionals. In reality, CPCs offer exclusively Bible- based, non-objective counseling. Numerous attempts to regulate CPCs have faced political roadblocks. Most recently, in NIFLA v. Becerra, the Supreme Court held that state efforts to require CPCs to disclose that they are not .ediHallW liHensed are unH,nstituti,nal 'i,lati,ns ,f !6!s’ Pirst #.end.ent right to free speech. In the wake of that decision, pregnant women in crisisFa disproportionate percentage of whom are low-income women, minority women, or women in vulnerable or dangerous situationsFcontinue to be subject to !6!s’ ide,l,giHal .arAetingS .as)uerading as .ediHal ad'iHe. This Article employs tort laZ t, ,ffer a n,'el ZaW t, regulate !6!s’ deHe*ti'e practices. It proposes that women who submit to physical exams or ultrasounds under !6!s’ false *retenses H,uld suHHessfullW raise a batterW Hlai.. TCe intimate touching of a woman would most certainly be considered objectively offensive, and while the woman might technically consent to the touching, this consent is meaningless if it is based on misrepresentations. Contrary to popular understanding, the touching need not be intentionally malicious or result in physical injury to the plaintiff. This Article makes two contributions to the literature. First, it provides a practicable, novel solution to an urgent and timely issue. By relying on private Hauses ,f aHti,nS tCis #rtiHle’s *r,*,sal sideste*s tCe collective action problems and political willpower obstacles that have long hampered larger-scale attempts t, regulate !6!s. It *laHes tCe inBured Z,.an in tCe dri'er’s seat and all,Zs Cer to be compensated for the dignitary harm imposed when CPCs use deception to ( Teneille R. Brown is a Professor of Law at the S.J. Quinney College of Law and an adjunct Professor of Internal Medicine at the University of Utah. This research was made possible, in part, through generous support from the Albert and Elaine Borchard Fund for Faculty Excellence. Copyright © 2018 by the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 222 Yale Journal of Law and Feminism [Vol. 30:2 gain access to her body. Second, this Article contributes to robust literatures in torts, informed consent, and medical ethics by reinforcing an increasingly blurry line between medicine and pseudo-medicine. Informed consent means something; it is not merely a vehicle through which ideology can be shoehorned. Where CPCs are not licensed, they should be sued for battery, which honors the indi'idual’s dignitW and is n,t deferential t, an industrW standard ,f Hare. Physicians should be allowed to have political voices. So, too, should pro-life activists. But each should have their policy debates, and win or lose them, in the political sphere. It does violence to the physician-patient relationship, and the trust that it requires, when this relationship is leveraged for ideological gains. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................223 I.REGULATING CPCS THROUGH LEGISLATIVELY-COMPELLED DISCLOSURES ......................................................................................231 A. Legislators Pass Disclosure Requirements to Curb the Documented, Deceptive Practices of CPCs.................................231 B. CPCs Challenge Disclosures as Violations of Free Speech.........232 1. NIFLA v. Becerra in the Ninth Circuit ..................................234 2. TCe Su*re.e !,urt 6r,teHts !6!s’ 4igCt t, _eHei'e bW Holding that They are Not Medical Providers .......................235 a. Is the CPC Speaking as a Commercial, Ideological, or Medical Entity?...............................................................237 b. The Supreme Court Classifies CPC Speech as Ideological ......................................................................239 3. The Unlicensed Disclosure Provision....................................239 4. The Majority Places Much Consumer Protection Law at Constitutional Risk ................................................................241 5. The Licensed Disclosure Provision........................................242 a. To Distinguish Casey, CPCs Deemed To Not Be Providing Medical Services, and the Licensed Disclosure was Not Informed Consent ...........................242 C. NIFLA Allows Ideological Speakers to Deceive.........................246 II. REGULATING CPCS THROUGH TORT LAW..................................................247 A. Legal Tools Discussed Thus Far Require the Political Will of Elected Officials ..........................................................................247