News and Updates

Subscribe to News and Updates via RSS

In June 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court declared a law that regulated the sale and advertising of contraceptives unconstitutional. In this noteworthy opinion, the Court addressed the constitutional protection afforded to decisions related to childbearing.

Background
At issue in this case was a New York statute that made all of the following activities a crime:
For any person to sell or distribute any contraceptive of any kind to a minor under the age of 16 years
For anyone other than a licensed pharmacist to distribute contraceptives to persons 16 or older
For anyone, including licensed pharmacists, to advertise or display contraceptives
A corporation that sold non-medical contraceptive devices challenged the constitutionality of the statute. On appeal, the issue was ultimately resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Fundamental Right of Privacy
The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution to contain protections for certain fundamental rights. Various privacy rights, including, for example, decisions related to marriage, sexual relations, abortion and childrearing, are fundamental rights. In this case, the Court reiterated that “[t]he decision whether or not to beget or bear a child is at the very heart of this cluster of constitutionally protected choices.”
Continue Reading Noteworthy Supreme Court Case Declares Statute Regulating Contraceptives Unconstitutional

Adoption is the process by which an adult becomes the legal parent of an individual who is not their biological child. A finalized adoption severs all legal ties between the child and the natural parents, thereby terminating all parental rights. However, adoption also creates new obligations on the part of the adoptive parents. The new parent-child relationship establishes legal responsibility for child support, rights to an inheritance and/or custody. Typically, adoption laws vary by state and there are several different types or forms of adoption including agency and independent adoption
Continue Reading Agency and Independent Domestic Adoption

Suppose Michael and Terri Schiavo had resided in Illinois after she became incapacitated, and suppose Michael had wanted (or been willing) to divorce her – would Illinois law have allowed it?

The litigious end of Terri Schiavo’s life inspired headlines, editorials, and discussions across the country on whether Michael Schiavo, her husband and guardian, acted correctly and what, if anything, he should have done differently. Some critics of Mr. Schiavo’s actions in causing the removal of the feeding tube for his comatose wife, who died 13 days later, suggested that instead of doing so he could have simply exited the situation by divorcing her and allowing her parents, who wanted the feeding tube to remain in place, to be responsible for her care.

Having heard the Schiavos’ sad tale, let’s consider a hypothetical couple who reside not in Florida but in Illinois. Our hypothetical wife has been found by all physicians to be in a persistent vegetative state, and all agree that she has virtually no chance of recovery. Husband and wife are of modest means and have now, after several years of wife’s existing in her present state, exhausted their savings and medical insurance coverage.

The husband, who is his wife’s guardian, now accepts the physicians’ advice and conclusions that his wife has no realistic chance of recovery. Saying that his wife told him that she would not want to be kept alive in such a state by artificial means, he directs medical staff to remove her feeding tube. Her parents object, saying that they are willing to assume complete personal and financial responsibility for her care if the husband will divorce her. What if our hypothetical husband we’re willing to honor that request? Could he divorce his incapacitated wife in Illinois?
Continue Reading Would Illinois Allow the Schiavo’s to Divorce??

The “morning after” pill is currently a prescription contraceptive sold under the names “Plan B” and “Previn.” Plan B contains a higher dose of the hormone progestin than the birth-control pill, and is intended to be consumed by women within 72 hours after unprotected sexual intercourse to reduce the chances of an unwanted pregnancy. Plan B prevents ovulation or fertilization, and can possibly interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus. However, Plan B has no effect on a woman who is already pregnant, which distinguishes it from the RU-486 abortion pill.

On December 16, 2003, an advisory panel for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) voted to allow Plan B to be sold over-the-counter. Although the FDA has not formally approved the non-prescription availability of Plan B, the agency usually follows advisory panel advice, and is expected to return a decision in the near future.
Continue Reading FDA Panel Addresses Availability of Plan B Contraception