State courts continue to debate whether a state’s constitution recognizes a right to “liberty of privacy” or personal autonomy that would encompass the right to make personal health care decisions, including abortion.
In the post-Dobbs era, state supreme courts have been divided over whether state constitutions offer protections for abortion. Supreme courts in Florida and Iowa have rejected state constitutional protections for abortions, while those in Oklahoma and Montana have found or upheld certain constitutional protections for abortion. Recently, district court judges in Georgia and North Dakota have issued injunctions against their respective state’s abortion bans, finding that each state’s constitution protects a right to abortion.
On September 14, 2024, a district court judge in North Dakota enjoined North Dakota’s total prohibition on abortion, and on September 30, 2024, a superior court judge in Fulton County, Georgia, issued an injunction blocking the state’s six-week abortion ban. While the fate of the North Dakota injunction remains pending, on October 7, the Georgia Supreme Court stayed the lower court’s injunction, allowing Georgia’s six-week ban on abortion to once again take effect. One Georgia Supreme Court justice—Justice John J. Ellington—dissented in part from the decision, opining that “[t]he ‘status quo’ that should be maintained is the state of the law before the challenged law took effect.”
The market for direct-to-consumer (“DTC”) genetic testing has increased dramatically over recent years as more people are using at-home DNA tests. The global market for this industry is projected to hit $2.5 billion by 2024. Many consumers subscribe to DTC genetic testing because they can provide insights into genetic backgrounds and ancestry. However, as more consumers’ genetic data becomes available and is shared, legal experts are growing concerned that safeguards implemented by U.S. companies are not enough to protect consumers from privacy risks.
Some states vary ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- HHS Reverses Its Longstanding Policy and Limits Public Participation in Rulemaking
- Sitting Atop a Telehealth Cliff?
- A Regulatory Haze of Uncertainty Continues as the Clock Ticks Toward Phase One of FDA’s LDT Final Rule
- First Circuit Joins Sixth and Eighth Circuits in Adopting “But-For” Causation Standard Under the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute for False Claims Act Liability
- New York’s Health Information Privacy Act Poised to Become the Latest in a Growing Trend of State Data Privacy Laws