Morgentaler v. The Queen in the Supreme Court of Canada.

In Morgentaler v. R., the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the abortion provisions in the Criminal Code. In a five to two split, a majority of the Supreme Court judges found that section 251 offended a pregnant woman's constitutionally protected right not to be deprived of her "life, liberty, and security of the person." Sheilah Martin reviews the three majority judgments and focuses on the decision written by Madame Justice Wilson. She believes that Madame Justice Wilson's opinion merits special attention in several regards: her conclusions on the constitutional rights of pregnant women; her recognition and validation of women's perspectives on abortion; and her approach to balancing women's interests in reproductive self-determination against the state's interest in regulating reproduction. Sheilah Martin concludes that this decision will reverberate far into the future. Even though it fails to establish clear guidelines concerning governmental power to control access to abortion, its principles outline the legal framework in which future litigation will occur, and it will limit and shape the terms of any ensuing political debate. In addition, Madame Justice Wilson's judgment holds great promise for those looking to the Court to promote the rights of women and other historically disadvantaged groups.     

Willis v. Wu. In the Supreme Court of South Carolina

South Carolina does not recognize a common law cause of action for life brought by or on behalf of a child born with congenital defect because it is impossible to prove that being terminated by elective abortion, and thus never being born, is better than being born and living a life with disabilities.     

The government's best offense is deference: the decision of the Supreme Court in Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital

The United States Supreme Court agreed with the Secretary of Health and Human Services that Guernsey Memorial Hospital's advance refunding transaction costs would be subject to a medicare reimbursement policy that is not based upon generally accepted accounting principles. According to the sharp dissent in this case, this policy, set forth in a manual provision, contradicts federal regulations.     

United States Supreme Court rules against Medicare providers in cost reimbursement case. Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital

In the long run, the impact of Guernsey will depend on the interpretation and application of the decision by HCFA, the Provider Reimbursement Review Board, and the courts. If HCFA interprets the decision as a signal that the Supreme Court is willing to grant federal agencies broad latitude to avoid the rulemaking requirements of the APA, providers may have fewer opportunities for formal input into payment policy issues under the Medicare program. The impact of the case may well go beyond cost-based reimbursement issues and affect all aspects of the Medicare program.     

Knight v. Beverly Health Care Center: in the Supreme Court of Alabama

HELD: Before tube feeding may be withdrawn from a person who is unconscious, pursuant to the directives of a living will, there must be a finding by clear and convincing evidence that the patient is in a "persistent vegetative state" as defined in her living will, or in a "permanent unconscious state" as defined by state statute.     

Sampson v. state of Alaska: in the Supreme Court of the state of Alaska

HELD: The Alaska Constitution's guarantees of privacy and liberty do not afford terminally ill persons the right to a physician's assistance in committing suicide and Alaska's statute prohibiting suicide assistance does not violate their right of equal protection.