The fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and 50 years of established precedent is being felt far and wide. It was reasonable to speculate that a new, emboldened conservative majority on the nation’s highest court would consider tighter restrictions on abortion. A complete overhaul? That was a stretch, even for the current composition of the court.

As recently as January, this column explored the high court’s balance between government control and bodily autonomy in the context of mandatory vaccination regulations. At that time, we wrote: “The current construct of the majority on the high court has demonstrated a commitment to protecting private businesses from overreach by the government. One could even say that striking down the vaccine mandate is a pivotal win for individual rights, personal liberty and body autonomy. It will be very interesting to see how those same principles play out when these same justices are asked to opine in a different context involving overreach by the government. Will fundamental rights carry the day? Or will we see a much different approach to how the government controls the individual choices we make with our bodies?”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]