Next Issue
Volume 6, September
Previous Issue
Volume 6, March

Laws, Volume 6, Issue 2 (June 2017) – 2 articles

  • Issues are regarded as officially published after their release is announced to the table of contents alert mailing list.
  • You may sign up for e-mail alerts to receive table of contents of newly released issues.
  • PDF is the official format for papers published in both, html and pdf forms. To view the papers in pdf format, click on the "PDF Full-text" link, and use the free Adobe Readerexternal link to open them.
Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
Article
Human Rights and Social Justice
Laws 2017, 6(2), 7; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws6020007 - 16 Jun 2017
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 3771
Abstract
This paper addresses the question of the normative domains of human rights and social justice. Today, the dominant view in political philosophy is that they occupy largely distinct spheres, with social justice being a set of stronger egalitarian norms and human rights functioning [...] Read more.
This paper addresses the question of the normative domains of human rights and social justice. Today, the dominant view in political philosophy is that they occupy largely distinct spheres, with social justice being a set of stronger egalitarian norms and human rights functioning as baseline protections against common threats posed by states to the general interests of persons subjected to them. Reflecting on current human rights practice and discourse, this paper develops a reconstructed normative model of social justice and human rights as nested membership norms in political societies. By connecting membership to processes of political legitimacy, human rights are conceptualized as increasingly functioning as the language of contesting and reforming barriers of exclusion to that status. This leads to an understanding of the possible content of human rights that is dynamic and relational, bringing it closer in line with the egalitarianism of social justice. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Law of Human Rights and Social Justice)
Article
A New Approach to Abortion Informed Consent Laws: How An Evidence Law Framework Can Clarify Casey’s Truthful, Non-Misleading Standard
Laws 2017, 6(2), 6; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws6020006 - 01 Apr 2017
Viewed by 2599
Abstract
United States Supreme Court doctrine has, for a quarter century, permitted regulations designed—through facts or nudges, but not force—to persuade pregnant women to choose childbirth over abortion. States have increasingly exceeded the bounds of this persuasive power by subjecting women to emotive and [...] Read more.
United States Supreme Court doctrine has, for a quarter century, permitted regulations designed—through facts or nudges, but not force—to persuade pregnant women to choose childbirth over abortion. States have increasingly exceeded the bounds of this persuasive power by subjecting women to emotive and potentially distressing ‘information’ like real-time fetal images, heart beat recordings, or state-mandated directives by their doctors that abortion would “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.” This article advances a novel approach to informed consent in abortion that draws on established principles in the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). Evidentiary rules requiring “completeness”, exempting “common knowledge”, and prohibiting evidence that is “more prejudicial than probative” provide a sounder way for courts to determine which informed consent regulations on abortion mislead and demean a woman in ways that violate her constitutional right to make the ultimate decision about whether to continue a pregnancy. This evidence law framework would resolve conflicts between a woman’s right and the state’s interest by forbidding mandatory disclosures of incomplete, unnecessary, and emotionally charged information designed to promote childbirth over abortion. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Intersection of Human Rights Law and Health Law)
Previous Issue
Next Issue
Back to TopTop