The Locator -- [(subject = "Women--Legal status laws etc")]

1745 records matched your query       


Record 21 | Previous Record | Long Display | Next Record
05087aam a2200481 i 4500
001 35760F8AE67F11EE94C7D61345ECA4DB
003 SILO
005 20240320010038
008 220627s2022    nyu      b    000 0 eng  
010    $a 2022030483
020    $a 1108816924
020    $a 9781108816922
020    $a 1108495095
020    $a 9781108495097
035    $a (OCoLC)1342489222
040    $a DLC $b eng $e rda $c DLC $d UKMGB $d OCLCF $d STL $d GZL $d YDX $d CLU $d OCLCQ $d GWL $d SILO
042    $a pcc
043    $a n-us---
050 00 $a KF3821 $b .F46 2022
084    $a LAW046000 $2 bisacsh
130 0  $a Feminist judgments (Health law)
245 10 $a Feminist judgments : $b health law rewritten / $c edited by Seema Mohapatra (SMU Dedman School of Law), Lindsay F. Wiley (UCLA School of Law).
263    $a 2209
264  1 $a Cambridge, UK : $b Cambridge University Press, $c 2022.
300    $a xxi, 431 pages ; $c 23 cm
490 1  $a Feminist judgments series
504    $a Includes bibliographical references.
505 00 $t National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra / $r commentary, Brietta R. Clark ; judgment, Sonia Suter. $t Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital / $r commentary, Danielle Pelfrey Duryea ; judgment, Kelly K. Dineen -- $t Reynolds v. McNichols / $r commentary, Aziza Ahmed ; judgment, Wendy E.  Parmet -- $t Conservatorship of Valerie N. / $r commentary, Cynthia Soohoo and Sofia Yakren ; judgment, Doriane Lambelet Coleman -- $t Bouvia v. Superior Court / $r commentary, Joan H. Krause ; judgment, Barry Furrow -- $t Moore v. Regents of University of California / $r commentary, Jessica Roberts ; judgment, Lisa C. Ikemoto -- $t Linton v. Commissioner of Health and Environment / $r commentary, Ruqaiijah Yearby ; judgment, Gwendolyn Roberts Majette -- $t Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring / $r commentary, Doron Dorfman ; judgment, Becka Rich -- $t Doe v. Mutual of Omaha / $r commentary, Christina S. Ho ; judgment, Valarie Blake -- $t Smith v. Rasmussen / $r commentary, Heather Walter-McCabe ; judgment, Craig Konnoth -- $t Burton v. State / $r commentary, Greer Donley ; judgment, Nadia Sawicki -- $t National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius / $r commentary, Mary Ann Chirba and Alice A. Noble ; judgment, Elizabeth Weeks -- $t Means v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops / $r commentary, Maya Manian ; judgment, Leslie C. Griffin -- $t Does v. Gillespie / $r commentary, Elizabeth Kukura ; judgment, Jennifer Oliva and Melissa Alexander -- $t National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra / $r commentary, Brietta R. Clark ; judgment, Sonia Suter.
520    $a "This book demonstrates how feminist analysis can transform law in a field where paternalism, individualism, gender stereotypes, and tensions over the public-private divide shape judicial decisions. Each chapter focuses on a single court decision related to health law. The decisions concern patient autonomy, informed consent, medical and nursing malpractice, the relationships among health care professionals and the institutions where they work, communications between health care providers and the patients they serve, end-of-life care, reproductive health care, biomedical research, ownership of human tissues and cells, the influence of religious directives on health care standards, health care discrimination, equitable access to long-term care in nursing homes, equitable access to community-based alternatives, private health insurance, Medicaid coverage, the Affordable Care Act, and more. Each chapter begins with a commentary from a scholar who puts the case in historical context, summarizes the original opinion, discusses what makes the rewritten opinion feminist, and describes how a feminist approach might have altered subsequent developments in health law. The feminist judgments take the form of rewritten majority opinions, concurrences, and dissents. The opinion authors are scholars who inhabit the role of a judge deciding the case. They rely exclusively on the factual record, precedents, and scientific understanding available at the time of the original decision to show how a judge with a feminist perspective could have adjudicated the matter differently"-- $c Provided by publisher.
650  0 $a Medical care $x Cases. $z United States $x Cases.
650  0 $a Feminist jurisprudence $z United States.
650  0 $a Women $x Legal status, laws, etc. $z United States.
650  7 $a LAW / Health. $2 bisacsh
650  7 $a Feminist jurisprudence. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst00922778
650  7 $a Women $x Legal status, laws, etc. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst01176824
651  7 $a United States. $2 fast $0 (OCoLC)fst01204155
700 1  $a Wiley, Lindsay F., $d 1977- $e editor. $e editor.
700 1  $a Mohapatra, Seema, $e editor. $e editor.
776 08 $i Online version: $t Feminist judgments. $d Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, NY : Cambridge University Press, 2022 $z 9781108860901 $w (OCoLC)1343161832 $w (OCoLC)1343161832
830  0 $a Feminist judgments series
941    $a 1
952    $l OVUX522 $d 20240320010852.0
956    $a http://locator.silo.lib.ia.us/search.cgi?index_0=id&term_0=35760F8AE67F11EE94C7D61345ECA4DB

Initiate Another SILO Locator Search

This resource is supported by the Institute of Museum and Library Services under the provisions of the Library Services and Technology Act as administered by State Library of Iowa.