THE MORE THINGS CHANGE ... : ABORTION POLITICS & THE REGULATION OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY
Abortion and assisted reproductive technology (“ART”) may seem paradoxical in reproductive health: a woman seeks to terminate a pregnancy in the first, while a woman goes through herculean attempts to attain one in the latter. In fact, they share fundamental concerns: women’s health and autonomy. Both include medical procedures, with potential health risks and benefits, and both help a woman choose whether and when to become a mother. Abortion and ART share another commonality: when these issues enter public and political discourse, consideration of women’s health often recedes into the background. This response to articles by June Carbone and Jody Lynee Madeira suggests that issues central to the development of abortion-related regulation and jurisprudence have the potential to drive the development of ART and related law.
The First Amendment Right Against Compelled Listening
This Article argues for a new First Amendment right: the right against compelled listening. Free speech jurisprudence - which already recognizes the right to speak, the right to listen, and the right against compelled speech - is incomplete without the right against compelled listening. The same values that underlie the other free speech rights also lead to this right. Furthermore, this claim holds true regardless of whether one conceives of the primary purpose of the free speech clause as creating a marketplace of ideas, enhancing participatory democracy, or promoting individual autonomy. The Article starts by examining the protection afforded to unwilling listeners by the captive audience doctrine, which balances private speakers' right to communicate against listeners' rights to privacy, equality, and voting. It then argues that protection for captive listeners can be grounded in free speech values, and explores two possible approaches to delimiting the free speech right against compelled listening. The Article concludes by applying the new right to state-mandated abortion counseling and state-mandated diversity training.
City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health.

 The U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional an Akron, Ohio, ordinance regulating abortions because it interfered with a woman's right to obtain an abortion. The ordinance required that all abortions after the first trimester of pregnancy be performed in a hospital, prohibited physicians from performing abortions on unmarried minors under the age of 15 without parental consent or a court order, mandated a 24-hour waiting period after signing of the consent form, required physicians to talk to patients about fetal development and the risks of abortion, and stipulated that fetal remains be disposed of in a humane and sanitary manner.
