Membership Has its Privileges?: Life,Personhood,and Potential in Discussions about Reproductive Choice

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 164–165 (1973)

Fox D. , “The State's Interest in Potential Life,” Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 43, no. 2 (2014): 345–357 [hereinafter Fox, “Potential Life”].

Roe , 410 U.S. at 163–165.

Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 873 (1992).

Casey , 505 U.S. at 846.

Fox D. , “Interest Creep,” George Washington Law Review 82, no. 2 (2014): 273–357.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 159 (1973).

See, e.g., Borgmann C. , “The Meaning of ‘Life’: Belief and Reason in the Abortion Debate,” Columbia Journal of Gender & the Law 18, no. 2 (2009): 551–608.

See Fox , “Potential Life,” supra note 2.

See, e.g., Rawls J. , Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993).

Webster v. Reprod. Health Servs., 492 U.S. 490, 566–567 (1989) ( Stevens J. concurring in part and dissenting in part).

Dworkin R. , Life's Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom (New York: Knopf, 1993), at 165.

See Fox , “Potential Life,” supra note 2.

Robertson J. A. , “Symbolic Issues in Embryo Research,” Hastings Center Report 25, no. 1 (January-February 1995): 37–38, at 37.

Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 157 (2007).

Hill J. L. , “The Constitutional Status of Morals Legislation,” Kentucky Law Journal 98, no. 1 (2009): 1–66, at n. 30.

Marquis D. , “Why Abortion Is Immoral,” Journal of Philosophy 86, no. 4 (1989): 183–202, at 193 (citing Kant I. , “Duties to Animals and Spirits,” in Infeld L. , trans., Lectures on Ethics (New York: Harper, 1963): At 239.

See, Fox , “Potential Life,” supra note 2.

Peters P. , “The Ambiguous Meaning of Human Conception,” UC Davis Law Review 40, no. 1 (2006–2007): 199–228.

Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 147 (2007).

See Hill , supra note 16, at 3.

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 282 (1990).

Will J. , “Beyond Abortion: Why the Personhood Movement Implicates Reproductive Choice,” American Journal of Law & Medicine 39, no. 4 (2013): 573–616, at 582–583.

Cruzan , 497 U.S. at 344 ( Stevens J. dissenting).

See, e.g., Siegel R. , “Concurring,” in Balkin J. , ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts ReWrite America's Most Controversial Decision (New York: New York University Press, 2005).

Paulsen M. , “The Plausibility of Personhood,” Ohio State Law Journal 74, no. 1 (2013): 13–74.

Thomson J. , “A Defense of Abortion,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 1, no. 1 (1971): 1–13.

Regan D. , “Rewriting Roe v. Wade,” Michigan Law Review 77, no. 7 (1979): 1569–1646.