Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 3.841
Filtrar
9.
Am J Obstet Gynecol ; 226(4): 529-534, 2022 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34954218

RESUMO

The new Texas abortion law requires the physician to determine whether a fetal heartbeat is present and prohibits abortion after a heartbeat has been documented. An exception is allowed when a "medical emergency necessitated the abortion." These and other provisions of the statute are to be enforced through "civil actions" brought by private citizens. This article identifies 3 populations of vulnerable women who will experience undue burdens created by the Texas abortion law. We begin with an account of the concept of undue burden in the jurisprudence of abortion, as expressed in the 1992 US Supreme Court case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey of Southeastern Pennsylvania. We then provide an evidence-based account of the predictable, undue burdens for 3 populations of vulnerable women: pregnant women with decreased freedom of movement; pregnant minors; and pregnant women with major mental disorders and cognitive disabilities. The Texas law creates an undue burden on these 3 populations of vulnerable women by reducing or even eliminating access to abortion services outside of Texas. The Texas law also creates an undue burden by preventably increasing the risks of morbidity, including loss of fertility, and mortality for these 3 populations of vulnerable women. For these women, it is indisputable that the Texas law will create undue burdens and is therefore not compatible with the jurisprudence of abortion as set forth in Planned Parenthood v. Casey because a "significant number of women will likely be prevented from obtaining an abortion." Federal courts should therefore strike down this law.


Assuntos
Aborto Induzido , Gestantes , Feminino , Regulamentação Governamental , Humanos , Gravidez , Governo Estadual , Decisões da Suprema Corte , Texas , Estados Unidos
10.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law ; 50(1): 97-105, 2022 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34933935

RESUMO

In its recent Kahler decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Kansas' abolition of the state's insanity defense was constitutional. It did so by framing the matter as a choice between the state's mens rea defense and a moral capacity defense, then mischaracterizing the mens rea defense as a type of insanity defense. In analyzing the two approaches, the Court missed the fundamental importance of rationality in criminal mental responsibility, a constitutional requirement for other criminal competencies, and a condition well described in the Court's Panetti ruling. The Court's acceptance of the abolition of a special insanity defense is a public policy in the direction of further criminalizing and punishing rather than providing prompt and proper treatment to those with serious mental illness, at a time when increasing modern research demonstrates the success of insanity acquittee dispositions with improved treatment and management resulting in lower rates of relapse and criminal recidivism.


Assuntos
Criminosos , Transtornos Psicóticos , Humanos , Defesa por Insanidade , Masculino , Princípios Morais , Decisões da Suprema Corte , Estados Unidos
12.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law ; 49(4): 601-609, 2021 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34764185

RESUMO

In Atkins v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the execution of defendants with an intellectual disability is "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. In a 6 to 3 decision, the Court noted the increasing number of states that blocked the executions of persons with an intellectual disability, reflecting the country's growing consensus that defendants with an intellectual disability are less culpable for their crimes than those without such a disability. Since this milestone decision, several subsequent cases have referenced this opinion. This article reviews other cases in which the execution of persons with an intellectual disability has been called into question, concluding with the Atkins-related appeal in Fuston v. State In that case, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals considered Oklahoma statutes regarding the bright-line cutoff by which defendants meet criteria for intellectual disability, as applied to the multiple intelligence measures that were administered to Mr. Fuston. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals determined that Mr. Fuston did not meet the criteria for intellectual disability because of his performance on a single IQ measure administered when he was 12 years old, instead of the totality of his performance on subsequent intelligence measures. Mr. Fuston was also denied 14 other, unrelated propositions on appeal, and the state reaffirmed his death sentence. Implications and recommendations for forensic practice are discussed.


Assuntos
Pena de Morte , Deficiência Intelectual , Criança , Crime , Humanos , Masculino , Decisões da Suprema Corte , Estados Unidos , Virginia
13.
Hastings Cent Rep ; 51(6): 6-10, 2021 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34786716

RESUMO

The Covid-19 pandemic has brought bioethics back to five topics-justice, autonomy, expert authority, religion, and judicial decisions-that were central during its formative period but has cast a new light on each, while also tangling public health policy in the current, rather radical, reshaping of the role of organized religion in society.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Aborto Legal , Feminino , Humanos , Pandemias , Gravidez , SARS-CoV-2 , Decisões da Suprema Corte
20.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law ; 49(4): 618-622, 2021 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34479941

RESUMO

In the post-Hinckley era, four states (Montana, Idaho, Utah, and Kansas) abolished their traditional insanity statutes in 1979 in favor of what are in certain circumstances mens rea insanity statutes. These changes were controversial and attracted early attention of legal scholars and courts in the individual states and at the U.S. Supreme Court. A 2006 Supreme Court decision in Clark v. Arizona had distinct but related concerns that helped crystallize the Court's attention on both mens rea and traditional insanity defense statutes. This decision led to a dramatic precedent that may have settled these matters for generations to come. This article will discuss the changes in the Arizona statutory and case law and the interplay between these changes and the important decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court during the same time span. The result of the changes has led to a situation in Arizona where, for the most serious criminal defendants with mental illness, there is no current mechanism to acquit a defendant on the basis of insanity by a mens rea statute or otherwise.


Assuntos
Criminosos , Transtornos Psicóticos , Arizona , Humanos , Defesa por Insanidade , Masculino , Decisões da Suprema Corte , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...