English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

My thinking on the subject of extraterritorial regulation of abortions was sparked originally by two events that occurred about a year ago. The first was the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari1 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 2 to address the question of whether Roe v. Wade3 remained the law of the land. At the time, the betting was that, with the substitutions of Justice Thomas for Justice Marshall and Justice Souter for Justice Brennan, the Court would answer "no"; abortion would be remitted entirely to the political process. The expected green light created the risk of a checkerboard of abortion rights, with some states dedicated to the total elimination of abortion and others equally committed to the protection of reproductive autonomy, either as a matter of statute or of state constitutional law. This result appeared likely to reinstate the pattern that existed in the years immediately before Roe, under which more than forty percent of abortions were performed for women outside of their home states. Women with resources traveled from restrictive states to more liberal ones to obtain abortions.

"But Whoever Treasures Freedom...": The Right to Travel and Extraterritorial Abortions