An evaluation of the Texas "A Woman's Right to Know" booklet: A state mandated patient education document for induced abortion

Many patient educational documents are written at a grade level higher than the level at which most individuals can read. This discrepancy can lead to treatment noncompliance and negative health outcomes. Therefore, it is important that patients receive readable health information. The Texas "A Woman's Right to Know" booklet is a state mandated informational document provided to women seeking abortion services. Given the significance of the abortion procedure, it is imperative that women considering having an abortion receive accurate and readable health materials. However, no published studies were found that evaluated the readability of the "A Woman's Right to Know" booklet. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the readability of the "A Woman's Right to Know" booklet. To assess the readability, the Flesch-Kincaid readability test was used to evaluate the reading grade level of the entire "A Woman's Right to Know" booklet and each of the 7 sections of the booklet. The results showed that the readability of the entire booklet as well as each section of the booklet was written below the 8th grade reading level. Although the booklet was written below the estimated United States reading level (8th grade), the reading level of this booklet may still be too high for people in Texas who read below the 8th grade level. Based on these results, it is recommended that health care professionals involved in the distribution and explanation of the "A Woman's Right to Know" booklet provide their patients with both written and verbal medical information. The patients should be allowed to ask questions about the abortion procedure so that they can make the most informed choice.^

Texas Health & Safety Code, Section 165.002 - Right to Breastfeed in Texas

The language used in Section 165.002 of the Texas Health and Safety Code renders breastfeeding women vulnerable and susceptible to harassment, discrimination, and persecution via the Texas Penal Code, Sec. 30.05 (Criminal Trespassing), Sec. 21.08 (Indecent Exposure), and Sec. 21.22 (Indecency with a Child). ^ The overall goal of this paper is to develop a solution to this problem via a proposed law or legislative action that offers protection and support for breastfeeding women who choose to nurse in public. Data to inform these recommendations were collected through a literature review and structured interviews with several breastfeeding stakeholders. A literature review of state and federal breastfeeding legislation was conducted to compare and contrast differences between existing legislation in the United States. Interviews were conducted with breastfeeding legislation stakeholders, which included state legislators who have been active in breastfeeding legislation, breastfeeding mothers, and representatives from the Central Texas Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies Coalition (Centex HMHB Coalition), Texas Breastfeeding Coalition (TXBF coalition), La Leche League International, and the Texas Business Association. Data from the literature and legislation reviews and interviews were transcribed and examined for common themes using qualitative data techniques. ^ Overall, most of the stakeholders came to a general consensus on three points, (1) breastfeeding women are supported by stakeholders within the community, (2) other legislation or penal codes should not override the right to breastfeed, and (3) the current breastfeeding legislation needs to be improved to adequately support breastfeeding women. The interviews with breastfeeding legislation stakeholders yielded two major recommendations for the improvement of Section 165.002 of the Texas Health and Safety Code: advocacy efforts to change the wording of the legislation and education to inform people about the legislation. ^ The right to breastfeed is an important public health issue in that it provides a host of health benefits for mothers and children, and is more economical and environmentally superior to alternative feeding methods. While breastfeeding in public is not illegal nor ever has been, adequate legislation is important to affirm this right for women so that they can confidently feed their children without embarrassment or harassment.^

A woman's right to know: A policy review of abortion legislation in Texas

Introduction: Despite its legalization, abortion remains a controversial issue, one that has many divided on either side of the political spectrum. While there have been several changes made to abortion policy over the past few decades, one that continues to have many asking questions is the Woman’s Right to Know Act, a piece of state imposed abortion legislation that has implemented strict restrictions and requirements of women seeking abortion, including pre-abortion mandatory counseling and a 24 hour waiting period. This project analyzed four controversial components of the mandatory counseling materials in Texas in an attempt to examine the scientific validity behind this legislation. Methods: In order to understand the scientific validity behind the content of the preabortion mandatory counseling, I conducted a systematic literature review to analyze: the purported link between abortion and breast cancer, the existence of fetal pain, the risk of abortion to future fertility, and the negative psychological effects of abortion. An electronic search in EBSCO and PubMed of review articles published between 1995 and 2010 resulted in fourteen reviews. Results: Results of the systematic review found (1) inconclusive evidence suggesting a link between abortion and breast cancer, (2) that fetal pain likely does not occur until the third trimester of pregnancy, (3) that associations exist between induced abortion and subsequent preterm birth and placenta previa, and (4) that there is mixed evidence relating to the negative psychological effects that exist among women having had an abortion and those who have not had abortion. Conclusion: Based on these conclusions, a recommendation was made to revise the current state mandated counseling materials to reflect more accurate and scientifically-based information about abortion and its potential risks.^

The First Century of Right to Arms Litigation

This Article examines state court cases involving the right to arms, during the first century following ratification of the Amendment in 1791. This is not the first article to survey some of those cases. This Article includes additional cases, and details the procedural postures and facts, not only the holdings. The Article closely examines how the Supreme Court integrated the nineteenth century arms cases into Heller and McDonald to shape modern Second Amendment law. Part I briefly explains two English cases which greatly influenced American legal understandings. Semayne’s Case is the foundation of “castle doctrine” — the right to home security which includes the right of armed self-defense in the home. Sir John Knight’s Case fortified the tradition of the right to bear arms, providing that the person must bear arms in a non-terrifying manner. Part II examines American antebellum cases; these are the cases to which Heller looked for guidance on the meaning of the Second Amendment. Part III looks at cases from Reconstruction and the early years of Jim Crow, through 1891. As with the antebellum cases, the large majority of post-war cases are from the Southeast, which during the nineteenth century was the region most ardent for gun control. The heart of gun control country was Tennessee and Arkansas; courts there resisted some infringements of the right to arms, but eventually gave up. Heller and McDonald did not look to the Jim Crow cases as constructive precedents on the Second Amendment.

Brèves observations sur la consécration constitutionnelle d’un droit de retrait volontaire = Brief comments on the constitutional recognition of the right to withdraw. Research Papers in Law, 5/2004.

No abstract.

Competition law proceedings before the European Commission and the right to a fair trial: no need for reform? Research Papers in Law, 5/2008

From the Introduction. This paper will thus show that, given the rapid "criminalisation" of competition law proceedings, sanctions should in principle be imposed at first instance I. Sanctions imposed by the Commission in competition proceedings are "criminal charges" within the meaning of Article 6 ECHR by an independent and impartial tribunal fulfilling all the conditions of Article 6 ECHR (part I). Or at the very least, these sanctions should be subject to full jurisdictional review by an independent and impartial tribunal in order to comply with Article 6 ECHR and to cure the defects of the administrative procedure (part II). It is doubtful however whether such a full jurisdictional review, as it is understood by the ECtHR, is available at Community-level in antitrust cases.