Keywords
Constitutional lawSupreme Court of the United States
reproductive rights
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
abortion
medical ethics
health care administration
Bioethics and Medical Ethics
Constitutional Law
Courts
Health and Medical Administration
Health Law and Policy
Insurance Law
Labor and Employment Law
Law
Law and Gender
Law and Society
Medical Jurisprudence
Public Law and Legal Theory
Women's Health
Full record
Show full item recordOnline Access
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1474http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2475&context=faculty_scholarship
Abstract
The Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case is in many ways a sequel to the Court's 2012 decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The majority decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, is a setback for both the ACA's foundational goal of access to universal health care and for women's health care specifically. The Court's ruling can be viewed as a direct consequence of our fragmented health care system, in which fundamental duties are incrementally delegated and imposed on a range of public and private actors. Our incremental, fragmented, and incomplete health insurance system means that different Americans have different access to health care. A central goal of the ACA was to repair some of this incremental fragmentation by universalizing certain basic health care entitlements. The Court has once again expressed its disagreement with this foundational health-policy goal.Date
2014-01-01Type
textIdentifier
oai:scholarship.law.upenn.edu:faculty_scholarship-2475http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1474
http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2475&context=faculty_scholarship