Minnesota Law Review

Note, Unexpected Consequences: The Constitutional Implications of Federal Prison Policy for Offenders Considering Abortion

As many as 6,000 women are pregnant in prison in the United States. The option of abortion is particularly suited for these women, who struggle with public assistance, drug addiction, or who are at risk of losing their child to the foster system. The Bureau of Prisons policies governing abortion in prison effectively require potentially coercive religious counseling, empower prison administrators to “pass the buck” and control abortion access, and disregard the time constraints associated with pregnancy. Although these federal prison policies are facially constitutional and therefore survive substantive challenges, they are unconstitutional as applied because they deny pregnant offenders the constitutionally protected procedures that should accompany the right to abortion. A simple, albeit surprising, analogy to prison correspondence policies can provide a roadmap for establishing the basic protections of notice and a hearing. These procedural safeguards ensure that incarcerated women have the information they need to make reproductive decisions behind prison walls.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]