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
14 - Commentary on Does v. Gillespie
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 Does v. Gillespie, Medicaid beneficiaries sued the director of the Arkansas Department of Human Services claiming that terminating Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid provider agreements violated their federal right under the Medicaid Act to choose any “qualified” provider that offers covered services. The Eighth Circuit held that the free choice of provider provision in the federal Medicaid Act did not create rights enforceable by individual beneficiaries. In their feminist judgment, Melissa Alexander and Jennifer Oliva argue that the clear language of the Medicaid Act unambiguously demonstrates that Congress intended to confer a private right of enforcement under the free choice of provider provision. Elizabeth Kukura’s commentary emphasizes the importance of focusing on the lived experience of Medicaid beneficiaries who rely on Planned Parenthood for basic health care needs. Kukura highlights the influence of anti-abortion politics and ideology on health care access and the structural forms of discrimination that shape it.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Feminist Judgments: Health Law Rewritten , pp. 357 - 392Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022