Date of Publication:
Louis J. Virelli and Richard W. Murphy, Tea Leaves and Maybe a Stay, 49 Administrative & Regulatory Law News 18 (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
C. Max Finlayson et al., Closing the Driver–Response Loop for Halting and Reversing Wetland Degradation and Loss from Agriculture, 75 Marine & Freshwater Research MF24050 (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Context. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands has considered agriculture–wetland interactions, but without linking policy responses to agricultural drivers of change.
Aims. Assess the disconnect between the rhetoric of analysing and reporting on the role of agriculture in wetland loss and degradation (the ‘drivers’) with actions on the ground (the ‘responses’).
Methods. An analysis of almost 400 Convention documents was undertaken to understand how the Convention has addressed agriculture and what
responses were identified. The documents were filtered through a word search for their relevance to the direct and indirect drivers of degradation in wetlands.
Key results. Although there was a focus on issues and problem framing and generic responses, they were insufficient to address the range of drivers
underpinning agriculture–wetland interactions. They also present a generic and partial viewof agriculture and broader food systems.
Conclusions. We make the following four recommendations for addressing the driver–response gap: deepening our understanding of the drivers in agriculture that affect wetlands; exploring and exploiting windows of opportunities within agriculture that are aligned with wetland use; enhancing our ability to work with indirect drivers; and ensuring that resolutions agreed through the Convention are more specific on key drivers of adverse change in wetlands.
Implications. The current impetus for ‘agriculture transformation’ creates an opportunity for the Convention to broaden its engagement in wetland–agriculture interactions and close the driver–response loop.
Date of Publication:
Will Bunting, The Optimal Allocation of Scarce Resources: Three Fundamental Theorems in Property Law, 76 Baylor L. Rev. 576 (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This Article contends that the scope of the Coase Theorem has been extended too far by those who have interpreted the Theorem as setting forth a powerful argument against public intervention in private markets. The Coase Theorem can be viewed as a decentralization result only if certain restrictive conditions hold true. First, the Coasean prediction that the private exchange of state-enforced private property rights will yield the optimal use of scarce resources in the absence of transaction costs is correct, conditional upon the assumption that a random grant of private property rights is the socially optimal resource allocation rule. This assumption might not hold true, however. This Article provides three economic reasons for why the political process might select a socially suboptimal allocation rule-what this paper terms political transaction costs. Second, the final allocation of scarce resources depends upon the initial wealth endowment of the transacting parties. These wealth endowments, however, might be the product of an inefficient labor market. This Article identifies three sources of market failure in labor markets and contends that these inefficiencies must be fully considered in any broader assessment of the Coase Theorem as a decentralization result.
Date of Publication:
Robyn Powell et al., Experiences with and Perceptions of the Child Welfare System During the Perinatal Period of Mothers with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Journal of Public Child Welfare (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Robyn Powell et al., Preconception Health Risks by Presence and Type of Disability Among U.S. Women, Disability and Health Journal (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Robyn Powell, Reproductive Justice for Disabled People Post-Dobbs: A Call-to-Action for Researchers, Disability and Health Journal (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Robyn Powell, Under the Watchful Eye of All: Disabled Parents and the Family Policing System’s Web of Surveillance, 112 Cal. L. Rev. (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The child welfare system, more accurately referred to as the family policing system, employs extensive surveillance that disproportionately targets marginalized families, subjecting them to relentless oversight. Scholars observe that this ongoing surveillance obstructs effective parenting, exacerbates existing injustices, and contradicts its stated protective purpose. Instead of safeguarding, surveillance transforms into a tool of control against the families it should assist, particularly those who are already vulnerable. This Article extends the analysis of the family policing system’s surveillance practices to encompass parents with disabilities and their children, revealing the unique consequences of continuous observation. The system’s ableism amplifies scrutiny of disabled parents, disregarding their disability-related needs and causing harm under the guise of protection. The culmination of this persistent surveillance results in heightened systemic harm, trapping families in an inescapable cycle of perpetual scrutiny.
In response, this Article provides a nuanced and novel analysis of the extensive surveillance targeted at disabled parents and their children by the family policing system. It begins by detailing the legal framework that supports the surveillance apparatus, investigating constitutional protections, federal and state statutes, and disability rights laws. The exploration then turns to the intricate network of surveillance ensnaring disabled parents and their families. This encompassing scrutiny includes mandated reporting, family policing system investigations, “service” plans, child maltreatment registries, and digital surveillance tools. Subsequently, the Article uncovers the harms arising from this surveillance, both directly and within a broader context of societal injustices. Concluding with a call to action, the Article proposes normative legal and policy solutions to challenge the system’s pervasive surveillance. These measures encompass revising the definition of neglect, constraining the system’s scope of surveillance, establishing rights akin to Miranda warnings, revoking mandated reporting laws, ensuring prompt access to legal representation, and reimagining support systems for families. These solutions must be integrated into broader initiatives aimed at abolishing the family policing system entirely, freeing marginalized families from the cycle of being pathologized, controlled, and punished. Ultimately, the only path to liberating disabled parents and their children from perpetual scrutiny is through the complete dismantling of the family policing system, ensuring they are no longer under the watchful eye of all.
Date of Publication:
Robyn Powell, Forced to Bear, Denied to Rear: The Cruelty of Dobbs for Disabled People, 112 Geo. L.J. (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The history of the United States is marred by a shameful record of using reproduction to oppress disabled people through state-sanctioned legislation, policies, and programs that deprive them of their bodily autonomy and self-determination. Disabled people face structural, legal, and institutional barriers to accessing reproductive health services and information, including contraception and abortion care. They also experience high rates of violence and reproductive coercion, as well as stigma and discrimination from health providers. Consequently, people with disabilities are more likely to experience maternal morbidity and mortality, rendering pregnancy particularly dangerous for some.
The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision exacerbates this complex and challenging situation. Mounting abortion restrictions, coupled with the myriad barriers and challenges that people with disabilities already face, will result in some being forced to carry pregnancies to term even if they pose serious health risks or go against their wishes. Subsequently, should they choose to raise their children after childbirth, they will likely encounter ongoing threats to their parental rights due to pervasive assumptions of incompetence, inadequate family support, constant surveillance and scrutiny, and ableism within the family policing system’s laws, policies, and practices. Thus, the ruling creates a paradox for disabled people, where they may be forced to bear children but subsequently denied the opportunity to rear them, perpetuating a historical pattern of exploitation and subjugation.
In response, this Article presents a nuanced and novel analysis of the Dobbs decision and its implications for people with disabilities. To do so, first, the Article examines the profound impact of forced pregnancy on disabled people, delving into the underlying reasons for high rates of unintended pregnancies among this group. It also highlights the dangers and violations of bodily autonomy and self-determination that forced pregnancy entails for disabled people. Next, the Article’s focus shifts to the denial of parenting rights for people with disabilities, even after being compelled to bear children, exploring the societal, legal, and institutional obstacles that hinder their ability to parent, such as assumptions of incompetence, inadequate family support, constant surveillance and scrutiny, and ableism within the family policing system. Thereafter, it introduces the concept of disability reproductive justice and its relevance to these complex issues, providing a framework based on the principles of disability justice and reproductive justice to transform society into one that respects and supports disabled people’s reproductive freedom. Finally, the Article proposes legal and policy solutions guided by the principles of disability reproductive justice to address the reproductive needs of disabled people and dismantle the systemic causes of reproductive oppression, emphasizing the necessity of a comprehensive approach considering the rising threat to reproductive freedom.
Date of Publication:
Robyn Powell, Care Reimagined: Transforming Law by Embracing Independence, 122 Mich. L. Rev. (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Building upon the foundation laid by All Our Families: Disability Lineage and the Future of Kinship, this Review examines the complex issues surrounding care and their relevance to people with disabilities. Part I delves into the contrasting perspectives of the disability rights movement and disability justice. By juxtaposing the emphasis on independence with a focus on interdependence, I unravel the intricate dynamics shaping the care experiences of disabled people. Part II presents a descriptive analysis unveiling the current realities of care. In doing so, I seek to expose the limited availability and access to care, the legal and bureaucratic impediments hindering effective care delivery, and the pervasive inequities faced by both unpaid and paid caregivers. Finally, Part III proposes a normative vision for reimagining care. I suggest strategies for broadening availability and access to care, challenging legal and bureaucratic impediments to care, confronting caregiver inequities, and fostering mutual aid networks within disabled communities. This Review’s analysis of care issues and transformative proposals aims to enrich disability, health, and family law discourse, providing valuable insights and shaping discussions and actions toward more inclusive and equitable legal frameworks and practices.
Date of Publication:
Robyn Powell, Forward: Rewriting the Script, Oklahoma Law Review (2024)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.