In this Article, Professor Goldstein argues that the primary concerns of Planned Parenthood v. Casey's joint opinion were expressive, not regulatory, in nature: to allow the state more leeway to structure the woman's decisionmaking process and to engage in its own speech regarding her exercise of her procreative choice. To this end, he identifies three models by which the state can engage in such structuring: the autonomy informed consent model, the dialogical model, and the government speech model. He then analyzes Casey in light of each model to understand what limits Casey places on state abortion regulation. He also develops an argument for the special speech rights of the learned professions in order to discuss the right of the physician to counter the state's message, even when the state funds the physician's speech under Rust v. Sullivan. In conclusion, he offers his own suggestions about the appropriate subjects of a state-sponsored conversation about abortion

Included in

Family Law Commons