Authors:Joseph Blocher Abstract: The most prominent line-drawing debate in Second Amendment law and scholarship is whether and to what degree the right to keep and bear arms extends outside the home. Inside the home, the right is thought to be strongest, as private interests are at their apex and governmental interests are correspondingly weaker. But an uncritical acceptance of this home-centric Second Amendment is not well-equipped to account for the intersection between guns and domestic violence (DV). For women in particular, domestic violence in the home is a more significant threat than assault by a stranger, and studies have shown that the availability of a firearm in the home can exacerbate the already-significant risk that such violence ends in murder. The reality of armed DV poses a challenge for the home-bound or home-centric right to keep and bear arms, and for Second Amendment law and scholarship more generally. PubDate: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 10:40:49 PDT
Authors:Kerry Abrams Abstract: This Twenty-fifth Anniversary Volume of the Duke Journal of Gender Law and Policy is dedicated to Katharine T. Bartlett, A. Kenneth Pye Distinguish Professor of Law Emerita. She is a path-breaking scholar, inspiring leader, dynamic teacher, and loyal friend. Thank you, Kate, for your many contributions to furthering gender equality for generations of lawyers, students, and scholars. PubDate: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 10:40:40 PDT
Authors:Gabrielle Goodrow Abstract: Discourse around reproductive and contraceptive technology in the United States is typically organized around ideas of autonomy, privacy, and free choice. The dichotomy of “pro-choice” and “pro-life” structures all debates on the topic, and the political framework of neoliberalism channels discussion into prepackaged frameworks of cost-benefit analysis and the primacy of free market choice. However, an examination of history and present policy developments paints a different picture. This Note argues that access to and regulation around contraception, abortion, and overall reproductive health and technology has been informed by and continues to interact with ideas of biopower and both positive and negative eugenics, and that neoliberal conceptions of free reproductive choice ignore the implications of this connection.Part II traces the history of the eugenics movement in America, exemplified by forced and coerced sterilization of people considered mentally or physically “degenerate,” particularly those confined to institutions, and explores the rhetoric in early contraceptive-focused treatises and court decisions that reflect eugenicist views. Part III analyzes the modern trends on legal access to and regulation of reproductive and contraceptive technology and its interaction with race, socioeconomic status, and, in particular, disability (one of the more anxiety-producing categories of humanity in the neoliberal era). In Part IV, the Note goes on to argue that construction of a rational and compassionate legal framework where a woman’s right to choose is preserved (or revived) and the humanity of disabled persons is also respected is not only possible, but essential.A truly feminist reproductive framework must be built on justice, not market choice, and must respect both the agency and autonomy of pregnant women and the humanity and individual subjectivity of disabled persons. Policy strategies towards this end will not be easy, but attention to all the intersectional and overlapping factors that affect women’s reproductive decision-making, especially with regard to disability and reproductive technology, can change the way we view and value disabled personhood in our society. PubDate: Mon, 13 May 2019 07:38:32 PDT
Open Access journal
[20 journals]
