Book contents
- Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Feminist Judgments Series Editors
- Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments Series
- Titles in the US Feminist Judgments Series
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Commentary on Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital
- 3 Commentary on Reynolds v. McNichols
- 4 Commentary on Conservatorship of Valerie N.
- 5 Commentary on Bouvia v. Superior Court
- 6 Commentary on Moore v. Regents of the University of California
- 7 Commentary on Linton v. Commissioner of Health and Environment
- 8 Commentary on Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring
- 9 Commentary on Doe v. Mutual of Omaha
- 10 Commentary on Smith v. Rasmussen
- 11 Commentary on Burton v. State
- 12 Commentary on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
- 13 Commentary on Means v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
- 14 Commentary on Does v. Gillespie
- 15 Commentary on National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
12 - Commentary on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 December 2022
- Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Feminist Judgments Series Editors
- Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments Series
- Titles in the US Feminist Judgments Series
- Advisory Panel for Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Commentary on Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital
- 3 Commentary on Reynolds v. McNichols
- 4 Commentary on Conservatorship of Valerie N.
- 5 Commentary on Bouvia v. Superior Court
- 6 Commentary on Moore v. Regents of the University of California
- 7 Commentary on Linton v. Commissioner of Health and Environment
- 8 Commentary on Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring
- 9 Commentary on Doe v. Mutual of Omaha
- 10 Commentary on Smith v. Rasmussen
- 11 Commentary on Burton v. State
- 12 Commentary on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
- 13 Commentary on Means v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
- 14 Commentary on Does v. Gillespie
- 15 Commentary on National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
Summary
In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, decided in 2012, twenty-six states as well as private individuals and an organization of independent businesses challenged the constitutionality of two key components of the Affordable Care Act. The Court upheld the individual mandate but converted the Medicaid eligibility expansion from mandatory to optional for states. Elizabeth Weeks’ feminist rewrite breaks down the public law-private law distinction to get beyond the traditional view of health insurance as a commercial product providing individual financial protection against risk and instead to view it as effecting a risk pool premised on cross-subsidization of the health-care “haves” by the health-care “have-nots.” Weeks also rejects the original opinion’s dichotomy between “old” and “new” Medicaid as an artifice evidencing a fundamental discomfort with extending public assistance to able-bodied people who are judged capable of providing for themselves on the private market. In their commentary, Mary Ann Chirba and Alice Noble assess the original opinion and Weeks’ feminist rewrite in terms of their concrete effects on women’s lives.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten , pp. 293 - 329Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022