A Response to Professor I. Glenn Cohen’s Regulating Reproduction: The Problem with Best Interests

In this response to Professor I. Glenn Cohen’s article, Regulating Reproduction: The Problem with Best Interests, Professor Alvaré argues that rules restricting reproductive freedom serve an important societal purpose and need not be abandoned simply because they cannot be supported by a “best interests of the resulting child” (“BIRC”) rationale. Professor Alvaré acknowledges that such rules lead to the nonexistence of potential persons and might be misunderstood to suggest that some human lives are “not worth living,” but believes it is possible to avoid sending those undesirable messages without having to accept the extreme conclusion that adults need never constrain their behaviors respecting conception. She suggests that such a result can be achieved by re-conceiving the BIRC rationale as an effort to remind parents—prior to the moment when parenting begins (conception)—of what the law both needs and assumes them to be: fit parents who act in their children’s best interests. The state, Professor Alvaré says, must have some way of expressing to adults that important aspects of a child’s future are established at the moment of conception, and reproductive regulation often serves this important objective.

:: 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. [...]