Journal articles on the topic 'Oklahoma. Supreme Court'

Historical analysis of Oklahoma traditions and policies relating to the various tribes reveals a theme of willful malice, organized systematic oppression, theft from, and killing of Indians. This tradition is grounded in racism and greed. Today, this philosophy continues — even after Supreme Court decisions McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) and Sharp v. Murphy (2020) elucidated the historical harms and apt legal framework. These cases acknowledged Oklahoma Indian territory had always persisted. Through discussion about these cases, related legislation, historical events, including the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, this paper connects Oklahoma’s law-breaking customs imposed on the Indians to its founding.

On December 7,1999, a divided Oklahoma Supreme Court held in Nealis v. Baird that a claim may be brought under Oklahoma's wrongful death statute on behalf of a nonviable fetus born alive. The decision represents a departure from the traditional notion that “viability”—the ability of a fetus to sustain life outside the womb with or without medical assistance—is the standard for wrongful death recovery. In replacing the “viability” standard with a “live birth” standard, the majority maintained that live birth is the “unassailable point at which legal rights must be said to attach to the human person. “ By holding a nonviable fetus a legal “person” for the purpose of a wrongful death claim, the court's decision emphasizes the limited application of the United States Supreme Court's holding in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In its landmark opinion in Ake v. Oklahoma, the United States Supreme Court enunciated a broad right to psychiatric assistance for criminal defendants who raise the defense of insanity or whose mental condition is relevant to sentencing in a capital case. Recognizing such assistance as essential to the proper functioning of the adversary process in cases in which an issue concerning the defendant's mental condition has been raised, the opinion may be read to pose an ethical dilemma for the psychiatrist who regards his or her assessment as objective and, hence, not a proper subject for adversarial presentation or inquiry. The authors contend, however, that rather than inviting psychiatrists to compromise their objectivity in these cases, in fact the Supreme Court's ruling challenges psychiatrists to demonstrate and assure their objectivity by revealing and explaining the bases for their opinions, thereby enhancing their utility in the criminal justice process and, ultimately, their credibility in the minds of the public.

After capital punishment opponents’ pressure on drug suppliers reduced the lethal injection drug supply, Oklahoma began using midazolam, resulting in botched executions. Condemned inmates sought to stop use of this lethal injection protocol. In Glossip v. Gross, the U.S. Supreme Court found inmates failed to establish that such protocols entail a substantial risk of severe pain compared with available alternatives, undermining the supply side attack strategy and leaving inmates facing the possibility of an unnecessarily painful execution. This article places the Glossip decision within the context of method of execution jurisprudence and discusses implications for the ongoing battle over capital punishment.

In 1939, at the end of almost two decades of statewide want and despair, Oklahoma adopted the community property system “to save state residents on their federal income tax.” Between 1939 and 1947, Oklahoma and four other states openly and unabashedly exploited the Supreme Court's creation of what amounted to a tax loophole for the nation's wealthy; several more states seriously considered doing the same. In 1930, the Court had ruled that the community marital property regime of eight western states permitted their married couples to split family income between spouses, so that each spouse reported half of that income for federal income tax purposes. As a result of the federal government's progressive income tax bracket structure, in most cases this split meant that more of the family's income would be taxed in lower tax brackets. Thus, a property regime that was purely a creation of state law had the effect of reducing residents' federal tax obligations.

The 1984 Supreme Court ruling in the antitrust suit between the Universities of Oklahoma and Georgia, representing the College Football Association (CFA), versus the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) provided mat individual institutions had proper authority to sell television rights to their football games. The NCAA had controlled television appearances of collegiate football teams with the rationale of preventing erosion of game attendance due to televised home football games. Records of home games televised, television revenues from football games, and attendance at televised football games were gathered from 57% of NCAA Division I institutions and compared for a 3-year period prior to the 1984 ruling, with a 3-year period following the ruling. Four sets oft tests between mean data for the pre- and posttime periods showed that although the number of games scheduled per season remained the same, the number of televised football games significantly increased, the television revenues from football remained constant, and attendance at televised home football games decreased significantly after the 1984 ruling.

Texas’ unique elective system of workers’ compensation (WC) coverage is being discussed widely in the United States as a possible model to be adopted by other states. Texas is the only state that does not mandate that employers provide state-certified WC insurance. Oklahoma passed legislation for a similar system in 2013, but it was declared unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in 2016. This study examined 9523 work-related hospitalizations that occurred in Texas in 2012 using Texas Department of State Health Services data. We sought to examine work-related injury characteristics by insurance source. An unexpected finding was that among those with WC, 44.6% of the hospitalizations were not recorded as work related by hospital staff. These unrecorded cases had 1.9 (1.6–2.2) times higher prevalence of a severe risk of mortality compared to WC cases that were recorded as work related. Uninsured and publicly insured workers also had a higher prevalence of severe mortality risk. The hospital charges for one year were $615.2 million, including at least $102.8 million paid by sources other than WC, and with $29.6 million that was paid for by injured workers or by taxpayers. There is an urgent need for more research to examine how the Texas WC system affects injured workers.

For years, the federal government has failed to uphold its promises to provide health care to Native Americans. These promises are echoed in treaties, the Constitution, and judicially-created law. As a result of this breach of promise and chronically underfunding, there are significant health disparities between indigenous populations and other Americans. In a recent 2020 case, McGirt v. Oklahoma, the U.S. Supreme Court held that both the federal government and individual states must follow the terms of a treaty made with a tribe, encouraging the possibility of direct health care funding. This reform, however, means little without tribal sovereignty and self-determination, which give dignity and decisionmaking capabilities back to a group that has long been without them. This Note explores two examples of self-determination in Native American health care, the Alaskan Native health care system and the recent vaccine rollout, proposing a framework for increasing self-determination in health care to provide support for funding reform, which becomes increasingly necessary as Native Americans continue to struggle to access health care.

AbstractThe map of the American petroleum industry shifted rapidly from the Northeast to the Southwest at the turn of the twentieth century when spectacular gushers were struck first in Texas and soon in California, Kansas, and Oklahoma. The flood of small and mid-size oil producers broke the hold that the Standard Oil Company had for decades held on the industry. Competition defeated monopoly. Or so the conventional story goes. This article offers a more complicated narrative by focusing on conflicts between Standard Oil and independent producers in the booming towns of southeast Kansas in 1904 and 1905. In those years, John D. Rockefeller's firm established a monopoly through technologies of distribution and distillation and the production of scientific knowledge and opaque classifications of commodities. Oil producers revolted. A reform movement turned to the rhetoric and policy ideas of Populism as it sought to use state power to challenge the stranglehold of the “octopus.” This article explores the previously unrecognized significance of this movement by showing how the Kansas oil war contributed to the breakup of Standard Oil by the Supreme Court in 1911 and constituted one of the bottom-up sources for the reconstruction of American capitalism.

<p><em>I begin by sharing a bit about my past. Before I became a professor, I spent 13 years as a lawyer representing persons with mental disabilities, including three years in which my focus was primarily on such individuals charged with crime. In this role, when I was Deputy Public Defender in Mercer County (Trenton) NJ, I represented several hundred individuals at the maximum security hospital for the criminally insane in New Jersey, both in individual cases, and in a class action that implemented the then-recent US Supreme Court case of Jackson v Indiana, that had declared unconstitutional state policy that allowed for the indefinite commitment of pre-trial detainees in maximum security forensic facilities if it were unlikely he would regain his capacity to stand trial in the ‘foreseeable future.’</em></p><p><em>I continued to represent this population for a decade in my later positions as Director of the NJ Division of Mental Health Advocacy and Special Counsel to the NJ Public Advocate. Also, as a Public Defender, I represented at trial many defendants who were incompetent to stand trial, and others who, although competent, pled not guilty by reason of insanity. Finally, during the time that I directed the Federal Litigation Clinic at New York Law School, I filed a brief on behalf of appellant in Ake v Oklahoma, on the right of an indigent defendant to an independent psychiatrist to aid in the presentation of an insanity defence. I have appeared in courts at every level from police court to the US Supreme Court, in the latter ‘second-seating’ Strickland v Washington. I raise all this not to offer a short form of my biography, but to underscore that this article draws on my experiences of years in trial courts and appellate courts as well as from decades of teaching and of writing books and articles about the relationship between mental disability and the criminal trial process. And it was those experiences that have formed my opinions and my thoughts about how society’s views of mental disability have poisoned the criminal justice system, all leading directly to this paper, that will mostly be about what I call ‘sanism’ and what I call ‘pretextuality’. The paper will also consider how these factors drive the behaviour of judges, jurors, prosecutors, witnesses, and defence lawyers, whenever a person with a mental disability is charged with crime, and about a potential remedy that might help eradicate this poison.</em></p><p><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: medium;">It is essential that lawyers representing criminal defendants with mental disabilities understand the meanings and contexts of sanism </span><span style="font-size: medium;">and </span><span style="font-size: medium;">pretextuality </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">and to show how these two factors infect all aspects of the criminal process, and offer some thoughts as to how they may be remediated. </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">I believe – and I have been doing this work for over 40 years – that an understanding of these two factors is absolutely essential to any understanding of how our criminal justice system works in the context of this population, and how it is essential that criminal defence lawyers be in the front lines of those seeking to eradicate the contamination of these poisons from our system.</span></em></p><p><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></em></p><p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">*Please note this is an invited paper - ie. not peer reviewed*</span><em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></em></p><p> </p>

BackgroundOn June 24, 2022; the Supreme Court of the United States (US) overturned the right established in Roe v. Wade to terminate a pregnancy. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution conferred the right to have an abortion. This decision returns to the states the power to set abortion laws. Pregnant people considering abortion already had been dealing with a near complete ban in Oklahoma and a prohibition after six weeks in Texas. Other states immediately passed abortion ban laws prohibiting the use of abortive methods, which include the medication used for this procedure such as prostaglandins, mifepristone, and methotrexate (MTX).In the case of MTX, despite its use as an abortive agent, it has been a cornerstone drug in the treatment of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Consequently, the medication ban laws has triggered a deep fear among people with RMDs and the health professionals who treat them which have voiced concerns about potential restrictions. Some of these concerns were expressed in social media (SoMe) platforms specially on Twitter.ObjectivesTo explore and analyze SoMe data on Twitter to better comprehend the short-term implications of the overturn of Roe v. Wade for those treating RMDs as well as for those living with RMDs.MethodsThis study is a secondary source convergent parallel mixed methods study using SoMe public data. All the tweets publicly posted using “#Methotrexate or Methotrexate” were tracked with Keyhole (http://www.keyhole.co). The tweets were monitored from June 24 to July 1. A combination of SoMe performance data with a qualitative analysis of tweets was conducted. In addition, usage metrics and location were collected. Regarding the qualitative analysis we performed a hashtag co-occurrence analysis and a content analysis.ResultsA total of 5,180 posts using #Methotrexate or Methotrexate were generated. Retweets were more frequent than original posts and replies. In addition, female users posted more than 50% of all publications. Users from 88 countries tweeted using the tracked hashtag or keyword. However more than half of all publications came from the US (73%). Focusing the analysis at the national level, users from the 50 states tweeted using the tracked hashtag or keyword. However, five states made up 38% of all publications: California (10%), New York (10%), Texas (9%), Florida (5%), and Pennsylvania (4%). From the hashtag co-ocurrence analysis the three pairs of hashtags with higher co-ocurrence with #Methotrexate were: #roevswade, #abortionishealthcare, and #rheumatoidarthritis. These relations provided context to the MTX restrictions and revealed more details about the complexities of the judicial decision. Finally, from the content analysis three main themes were generated: (i) Violence against women, (ii) Health policy without public health intelligence, and (iii) Call for strategic alliances in favor of public health.ConclusionBiological sex differences will condition the usage of MTX. Men will be able to continue their treatment without hesitation. However, women treated with MTX could lose the continuity of their treatment and may be switched to another medication. Moreover, women in childbearing age with a recent RA diagnosis could be denied MTX as the standard of care for the initial management of the disease. Inequity in access to treatment is a political decision, just as it is to reproduce inequities and vulnerabilities through the actions taken. Not having access to MTX for RMDs is a critical issue. Limiting the access to MTX endangers the physical and mental health of people with RMDs. MTX is an affordable drug and the options to replace it are very expensive for poor people with minimal or no health insurance. Our study is a snapshot of the immediate effects of the overturn of Roe v. Wade in the treatment and management of RMDs. Future research should focus on the mid-term and long-term effects of this decision in the states level and its impact in health outcomes in people with RMDs.AcknowledgementsTo María Piedad Rosario (medical librarian) for obtaining the full-texts in order to review the existing literature.Disclosure of InterestsNone Declared.

The Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta defied much current precedent and practice, as four dissenters protested. But neither side grappled with the Constitution’s original meaning. Both text and early practice confirm that the federal power to regulate “commerce with the Indian tribes” was a different, more constrained power than the power to regulate “commerceamong the states.” But as nineteenth century courts recognized, federal Indian law could also draw on powers inherent in national sovereignty—a wider, but not unbounded, source of authority and one which necessarily excluded interference from states. Even if tribal reservations are now seen as no more independent than states, they have good claims to protection under constitutional safeguards for the free flow of commerce—rather than being treated as colonial dependents of state governments. In contrast to the conformist and assimilationist policies imposed by federal authority in the decades after the Civil War, today’s Americashould be more receptive to the Constitution’s original view on Indian tribes—as separate nations within the larger American nation.

Osbaldo Torres was tried by jury, convicted of first degree murder and other charges, and received the death penalty in the Oklahoma County District Court, Case No. CF-1993-4302. This Court affirmed Torres's conviction for murder, and the United States Supreme Court denied Torres's petition for certiorari. This Court denied Torres's first Application for Post-Conviction Relief on August 4,1998. Torres's application for federal habeas relief was denied. This Court subsequently denied Torres's second Application for Post-Conviction Relief. Torres's execution date is set for Tuesday, May 18,2004. On April 29,2004, Torres filed a Subsequent Application for Post-Conviction Relief. The State filed a Response on May 11,2004. Briefs were also filed on behalf of amici curiae the Government of the Republic of Mexico and international law experts and former diplomats.

Photo by Christian Bowen on Unsplash ABSTRACT Assisted Reproductive Technology can be a beneficial tool for couples unable to reproduce independently; however, it has historically discriminated against the LGBTQ+ community members. Given the evolution and acceptance of LGBTQ rights in recent years, discrimination and barriers to access reproductive technology and health care should be readdressed as they still exist within this community. INTRODUCTION In recent years, the LGBTQ+ community has made great strides toward attaining equal rights. This fight dates back to 1970 when Michael Baker and McConnell applied for a marriage license in Minnesota.[1] After the county courthouse denied the couple's request, they appealed to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Baker and McConnell’s dispute reached the US Supreme Court. Baker v. Nelson[2] was the first time a same-sex couple attempted to pursue marriage through higher courts in the US.[3] Because the couple lost the case, Baker changed his name to a gender-neutral one, and McConnell adopted Baker, allowing Baker and McConnell to have legal protections like the ability to receive certain inheritances. Baker and McConnell received a marriage license from an unsuspecting clerk from Blue Earth County, where they wed on September 3, 1971.[4] BACKGROUND The Supreme Court’s decision left individual state legislatures the option to accommodate same-sex couples’ rights constitutionally. As a result, some states banned same-sex marriage, while others offered alternative options such as domestic partnerships. With many obstacles, such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and President Bush’s efforts to limit marriage to heterosexual people, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2003.[5] Other states slowly followed. Finally, in 2015 the US Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states in Obergefell v. Hodges,[6] marking an important milestone for the LGBTQ+ community’s fight toward marriage equality. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision emphasized that members of the homosexual community are “not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions,” thus granting them the right to “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”[7] This paper argues that in the aftermath of the wide acceptance of LGBTQ rights, discrimination and barriers to access reproductive technology and health care persist nationally. Procreation also faces discrimination. Research supports that children’s overall psychological and physical welfare with same-sex parents does not differ compared to children with heterosexual parents.[8] Some others worry about the children’s developmental health and argue that same-sex male couples’ inability to breastfeed their children may be harmful; however, such parents can obtain breast milk via surrogate donation.[9] Further concerns regarding confusion in gender identity in children raised by same-sex parents are not supported by research in the field indicating that there are “no negative developmental or psychological outcomes for a child, nor does it result in differing gender identity, gender role behavior or sexual partner preference compared to opposite-sex parents.”[10] ANALYSIS l. Desire to Procreate The American perception toward same-sex unions has evolved “from pathology to deviant lifestyle to identity.”[11] In 2001, only 35 percent of Americans favored same‐sex marriage, while 62 percent favored it in 2017.[12] The “Gay marriage generation”[13] has a positive attitude toward same-sex unions, arising from the “interaction among activists, celebrities, political and religious leaders, and ordinary people, who together reconfigured Americans’ social imagination of homosexuality in a way that made gay marriage seem normal, logical, and good.”[14] Same-sex couples’ right to build a biological family and ability to do so using modern reproductive technology is unclear. The data generated by the LGBTQ Family Building Survey revealed “dramatic differences in expectations around family building between LGBTQ millennials (aged 18-35) and older generations of LGBTQ people,”[15] which may be in part attributable to recent federal rulings in favor of same-sex couples. Three important results from this survey are that 63 percent of LGBTQ millennials are considering expanding their families throughout parenthood, 48 percent of LGBTQ millennials are actively planning to grow their families, compared to 55 percent of non-LGBTQ millennials; and 63 percent of those LGBTQ people interested in building a family expect to use assisted reproductive technology (ART), foster care, or adoption to become parents.[16] There are 15.9 million Americans who identify as LGBTQ+ (6.1 million of whom are 18 to 35 years old); thus, an estimated “3.8 million LGBTQ+ millennials are considering expanding their families in the coming years, and 2.9 million are actively planning to do so.”[17] Yet access and affordability to ART, especially in vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy for same-sex couples, has not been consistent at a national level. The two primary problems accessing ART for the LGBTQ community are the lack of federal law and cost. A federal law that guaranteed coverage would address both problems. ll. ART for Same-Sex Couples All same-sex male (SSM) couples and same-sex female (SSF) couples must involve third parties, including surrogates or egg or sperm donors.[18] ART involves the legal status of “up to two women (surrogate and egg donor),” the intended parents, and the child for SSM couples.[19] While sometimes necessary for heterosexual couples using ART, an egg or sperm from someone other than the intended parents or a surrogate will always be necessary for the LGBTQ people seeking ART. ART, in particular IVF, is essential for infertile couples unable to conceive on their own. Unlike other industrialized countries (such as Canada, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany, and Australia), the US does not heavily oversee this multibillion-dollar industry.[20] The American Society for Reproductive Medicine does provide lengthy guidelines to fertility clinics and sperm banks; however, state lawmakers have been less active as they seem to avoid the controversy surrounding controversial topics like embryo creation and abortion.[21] As a result, states “do not regulate how many children may be conceived from one donor, what types of medical information or updates must be supplied by donors, what genetic tests may be performed on embryos, how many fertilized eggs may be placed in a woman or how old a donor can be.”[22] lll. A Flawed Definition of Infertility The WHO defines the medical definition of infertility as “a disease of the reproductive system defined by the failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after twelve months or more of regular unprotected sexual intercourse.”[23] This antiquated definition must be updated to include social infertility to integrate same-sex couples’ rights.[24] In the US, single individuals and LGBTQ couples interested in building a family by biological means are considered “socially infertile.”[25] If insurance coverage is allotted only to those with physical infertility, then it is exclusive to the heterosexual community. Although some states, such as New York, discussed below, have directly addressed this inequality by extending the definition of infertility and coverage of infertility treatments to include all residents regardless of sexual orientation, this is not yet the norm everywhere else. The outdated definition of infertility is one of the main issues affecting same-sex couples’ access to ART, as medical insurance companies hold on to the formal definition of infertility to deny coverage. lV. Insurance Coverage for IVF Insurance coverage varies per state and relies on the flawed definition of infertility. As of August 2020, 19 states have passed laws requiring insurance coverage for infertility, 13 of which include IVF coverage, as seen in Figure 1. Also, most states do not offer IVF coverage to low-income people through Medicaid.[26] In states that mandate IVF insurance coverage, the utilization rate was “277% of the rate when there was no coverage,”[27] which supports the likelihood that in other states, the cost is a primary barrier to access. When insurance does not cover ART, ART is reserved for wealthy individuals. One cycle of ART could cost, on average, “between $10,000 and $15,000.”[28] In addition, multiple cycles are often required as one IVF cycle only has “about a 25% to 30%” live birth success rate.[29] Altogether, the total cost of successful childbirth was estimated from $44,000 to $211,940 in 1992.[30] On February 11, 2021, New York Governor Andrew M. Cuomo “directed the Department of Financial Services to ensure that insurers begin covering fertility services immediately for same-sex couples who wish to start a family.”[31] New York had recently passed an IVF insurance law that required “large group insurance policies and contracts that provide medical, major medical, or similar comprehensive-type coverage and are delivered or issued for delivery in New York to cover three cycles of IVF used in the treatment of infertility.”[32] But the law fell short for same-sex couples, which were still required to “pay 6 or 12 months of out-of-pocket expenses for fertility treatments such as testing and therapeutic donor insemination procedures before qualifying for coverage.”[33] Cuomo’s subsequent order made up for gaps in the law, which defined infertility as “the inability to conceive after a certain period of unprotected intercourse or donor insemination.”[34] Cuomo’s order and the law combine to make New York an example other states can follow to broaden access to ART. V. Surrogacy Access to surrogacy also presents its own set of problems, although not exclusive to the LGBTQ community. Among states, there are differences in how and when parental rights are established. States in dark green in Figure 2 allow pre-birth orders, while the states in light green allow post-birth parentage orders. Pre-birth orders “are obtained prior to the child’s birth, and they order that the intended parent(s) will be recognized as the child’s only legal parent(s) and will be placed on the child’s birth certificate,” while post-birth parentage orders have the same intent but are obtained after the child’s birth. [35] For instance, states can require genetic testing post-birth, possibly causing a delay in establishing parentage.[36] Although preventable through the execution of a health care power of attorney, a surrogate mother could be the legal, medical decision-maker for the baby before the intended parents are legally recognized. On February 15, 2021, gestational surrogacy – the most popular type of surrogacy in which the surrogate has no biological link to the baby – was legalized in New York,[37] but it remains illegal in some states such as Nebraska, Louisiana, and Michigan.[38] In addition, the costs of surrogacy are rising, and it can cost $100,000 in the US.[39] Medicaid does not cover surrogacy costs,[40] and some health insurance policies provide supplemental surrogacy insurance with premiums of approximately $10,000 and deductibles starting at $15,000.[41] Thus, “surrogacy is really only available to those gay and lesbian couples who are upper class,”[42] leaving non-affluent couples out of options to start a family through biological means. Vl. A Right to Equality and Procreation Some argue that same-sex couples should have the right to procreate (or reproductive rights). Based on arguments stemming from equal rights and non-discrimination, same-sex couples who need to use ART to procreate should have access to it. The need to merge social infertility into the currently incomplete definition of fertility could help same-sex couples achieve access through insurance coverage. The human right of equality and non-discrimination guarantees “equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground.”[43] The United Nations later clarified that “sexual orientation is a concept which is undoubtedly covered” [44] by this protection. The right to procreate is not overtly mentioned in the US Constitution; however, the Equal Protection Clause states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States… without due process of law.”[45] In fact, some states have abridged the reproductive privileges of some US citizens by upholding prohibitive and intricate mechanisms that deter same-sex couples from enjoying the privileges other citizens have. The Supreme Court acknowledged procreation as a “fundamental”[46] personal right, in Skinner v. Oklahoma, mandating that the reproductive rights of individuals be upheld as the right to procreate is “one of the basic civil rights of man”[47] because “procreation [is] fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”[48] In Eisenstadt v. Baird, the courts also supported that “the decision whether to bear or beget a child” fundamentally affects a person.[49] I argue that this protection extends to same-sex couples seeking to procreate. Finally, Obergefell v. Hodges held that the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses ensure same-sex couples the right to marriage, as marriage “safeguards children and families, draw[ing] meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.”[50] By implicit or explicit means, these cases align with the freedom to procreate that should not be unequally applied to different social or economic groups. Yet, the cases do not apply to accessing expensive tools to procreate. As heterosexuals and the LGBTQ community face trouble accessing expensive ART for vastly different reasons, especially IVF and surrogacy, the equal rights or discrimination argument is not as helpful. For now, it is relevant to adoption cases where religious groups can discriminate.[51] The insurance coverage level may be the best approach. While the social norms adapt and become more inclusive, the elimination of the infertility requirement or changing the definition of infertility could work. Several arguments could address the insurance coverage deficit. Under one argument, a biological or physical inability to conceive exists in the homosexual couple trying to achieve a pregnancy. Depending on the wording or a social definition, a caselaw could be developed arguing the medical definition of infertility applies to the LGBTQ community as those trying to procreate are physically unable to conceive as a couple planning to become parents. One counterargument to that approach is that it can be offensive to label people infertile (or disabled) only because of their status as part of a homosexual couple.[52] CONCLUSION In the last 50 years, there has been a notable shift in the social acceptance of homosexuality.[53] Marriage equality has opened the door for further social and legal equality, as evidenced by the increased number of same-sex couples seeking parenthood “via co-parenting, fostering, adoption or surrogacy” – colloquially referred to as the ‘Gayby Boom’.[54] However, some prejudice and disdain toward LGBTQ+ parenting remain. Equitable access to ART for all people may be attainable as new technology drives costs down, legislators face societal pressure to require broader insurance coverage, and social norms become more inclusive. [1] Eckholm, E. (2015, May 17). The same-sex couple who got a marriage license in 1971. Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/the-same-sex-couple-who-got-a-marriage-license-in-1971.html [2] Eckholm, E. [3] A brief history of civil rights in the United States: A timeline of the legalization of same-sex marriage in the U.S. (2021, January 27). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=592919&p=4182201 [4] Eckholm, E. [5] A brief history of civil rights in the United States: A timeline of the legalization of same-sex marriage in the U.S. (2021, January 27). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/c.php?g=592919&p=4182201 [6] A brief history of civil rights in the United States [7] A brief history of civil rights in the United States [8] Lee, J., & Bolzendahl, C. (2019). Acceptance and Rejection: Patterns of opinion on homosexuality in the United States and the world. Sociological Forum, 34(4), 1026-1031. doi:10.1111/socf.12562 [9] Lee, J., et al. [10] Lee, J., et al. [11] Lee, J., et al. [12] Lee, et al. [13] Lee, et al. [14] Lee, et al. [15] LGBTQ family building survey. (2020, July 02). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.familyequality.org/resources/lgbtq-family-building-survey/ [16] LGBTQ family building survey. (2020, July 02). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.familyequality.org/resources/lgbtq-family-building-survey/ [17] LGBTQ family building survey. (2020, July 02). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.familyequality.org/resources/lgbtq-family-building-survey/ [18] Mackenzie, S. C., Wickins-Drazilova, D., & Wickins, J. (2020). The ethics of fertility treatment for same-sex male couples: Considerations for a modern fertility clinic. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 244, 71-75. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.11.011 [19] Mackenzie, et al. [20] Ollove, M. (2015, March 18). States not eager to regulate fertility industry. Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2015/3/18/states-not-eager-to-regulate-fertility-industry [21] Ollove, M. [22] Ollove, M. [23] World Health Organization. (2020, September 14). Infertility. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/infertility [24] Leondires, M. P. (2020, March 19). Fertility insurance Mandates & same-sex couples. Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.gayparentstobe.com/gay-parenting-blog/fertility-insurance-mandates-same-sex-couples/ [25] Lo, W., & Campo-Engelstein, L. (2018). Expanding the Clinical Definition of Infertility to Include Socially Infertile Individuals and Couples. Reproductive Ethics II, 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89429-4_6 [26] Mohapatra, S. (2015). Assisted Reproduction Inequality and Marriage Equality. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 92(1). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4146&context=cklawreview [27] Mohapatra, S. [28] Mohapatra, S. [29] Mohapatra, S. [30] Mohapatra, S. [31] Governor Cuomo announces new actions to expand access to FERTILITY coverage for same sex couples as part of 2021 Women's Agenda. (n.d.). [32] Health Insurers FAQs: IVF and Fertility Preservation Law Q&A Guidance. (n.d.). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.dfs.ny.gov/apps_and_licensing/health_insurers/ivf_fertility_preservation_law_qa_guidance [33] Governor Cuomo announces new actions to expand access to FERTILITY coverage for same sex couples as part of 2021 Women's Agenda. (n.d.). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-new-actions-expand-access-fertility-coverage-same-sex-couples-part#:~:text=February%2011%2C%202021-,Governor%20Cuomo%20Announces%20New%20Actions%20to%20Expand%20Access%20to%20Fertility,Part%20of%202021%20Women's%20Agenda&text=Cuomo%20today%20directed%20the%20Department,wish%20to%20start%20a%20family. [34] Leondires, M. P. [35] Assisted reproduction parentage proceedings information: Academy of Adoption and Assistive Reproduction Attorneys (AAAA). (2019, March 14). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://adoptionart.org/assisted-reproduction/parentage-proceedings/ [36] Assisted reproduction parentage proceedings information. [37] Governor Cuomo reminds surrogates and parents of their new Insurance rights and protections During Gestational Surrogacy. (n.d.). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-reminds-surrogates-and-parents-their-new-insurance-rights-and-protections-during [38] U.S. Surrogacy Map: Surrogacy laws by state. (2020, December 23). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.creativefamilyconnections.com/us-surrogacy-law-map/ [39] Mohapatra, S. [40] Beitsch, R. (2017, June 29). As surrogacy surges, new parents seek legal protections. Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2017/06/29/as-surrogacy-surges-new-parents-seek-legal-protections#:~:text=Medicaid%20does%20not%20cover%20surrogacy,and%20intended%20parents%20at%20risk. [41] Where to find surrogacy insurance? (2017, November 02). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://surrogate.com/intended-parents/surrogacy-laws-and-legal-information/where-can-i-find-surrogacy-insurance/ [42] Mohapatra, S. [43] International covenant on civil and political rights. (n.d.). Retrieved April 08, 2021, from https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx [44] United Nations. (2003). Human rights in the administration of justice: a manual on human rights for judges, prosecutors and lawyers. [45] U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. [46] Skinner v. Oklahoma, Https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/316/535.html (June 1, 1942). [47] Skinner v. Oklahoma [48] Skinner v. Oklahoma [49] Eisenstadt v. Baird, Https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-eisenstadt-v-baird (March 22, 1972). [50] Obergefell v. Hodges [51] Higgins, T. (2021, June 17). Supreme Court sides with Catholic adoption agency that refuses to work with LGBT couples. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/supreme-court-sides-with-catholic-adoption-agency-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html. [52] Bowerman, M., May, A., & Rossman, S. (2017, April 24). Should the definition of infertility be more inclusive? USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/04/22/same-sex-couples-covered-infertility-insurance/100644092/. [53] Mackenzie, et al. [54] Mackenzie, et al.

Abstract Introduction The Supreme Court of the United States’ (SCOTUS) decision to overrule Roe vs. Wade has rendered abortion illegal across a multitude of states. This decision, which directly impacts the management of women’s reproductive health, may also impact urologic practice. Objective Over the last decade, the number of vasectomies performed in the United States has steadily declined across all age groups. With the anticipated lack of reliable access to medical contraception and abortions, we may see a sudden reversal of this trend. Herein, we aim to provide a trend forecast using Google search trends as a surrogate for public interest in vasectomy. Methods To establish a baseline and quantify changes in search trends, Google search trends (https://trends.google.com/trends/?geo=US) data from three months prior to and three days after the SCOTUS decision (03/25/2022 – 06/29/2022) were queried for “Vasectomy.” Search trend results are reported using Google’s relative search volume (RSV) metric, which normalizes the data to the time and location of a query. RSV ranges from 0 – 100 and is stratified by state. For each state, we calculated the ratio of licensed Urologists to adult men (ages 18+) using data from the American Urological Association 2021 census and the United States 2020 census. Lastly, we referenced The New York Times to sort states based on legal status of abortion2. States were categorized as either Prohibited (abortion banned or expected to be), Restricted (gestational limit in effect or expected to be), Uncertain (decision based on 2022 ballot), or Legal. Spearman’s correlation was conducted to assess the relationship between RSV and Urologist ratio. ANOVA was used to calculate differences between legal status categories. All analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 27 and statistical significance was set at P-value &lt; 0.05. Results We found that RSV was highest in states with the lowest ratio of urologists to adult men (R = -0.36, P=0.017; Table 1). Figure 1 represents the inverse relationship between RSV and urologist-to-adult-men ratio. Following the SCOTUS’ decision, interest in vasectomies was greatest in Oklahoma (RSV = 100), Utah (96), and Idaho (92) and lowest in New York (45), Delaware (47), and New Jersey (50). The ratio of Urologist-to-adult-men (per 100,000) was highest in New York (14.73), Massachusetts (14.20), and New Hampshire (13.52), and lowest in Nevada (7.01), New Mexico (7.33), and Idaho (7.82). ANOVA analysis revealed a significant difference in mean RSV based on legal status of abortion. The difference was greatest between Prohibited states and Legal states (mean RSV 78.5 vs. 64.2, P&lt;0.001). Conclusions The field of Urology continues to face a shortage of physicians in the US. This shortage is most palpable in states where recent public interest for vasectomies is highest (and abortion is currently prohibited). The amalgam of high public interest in vasectomies, low urologist-to-adult-male ratio, and abortion prohibition is anticipated to put a strain on the urologic workforce and subsequently increase patient wait times; particularly in areas where the density of Urologists is lowest. Disclosure No