If stem cell-based therapies are developed, we will likely confront a difficult problem of justice: for biological reasons alone, the new therapies might benefit only a limited range of patients. In fact, they might benefit primarily white Americans, thereby exacerbating long-standing differences in health and health care.

Courts are divided as to whether abortion informed consent mandates violate the First Amendment. This article argues that given the doctor's and patient's unique expertise, the patient's strong interests in autonomous decision making, and the fact that these laws regulate speech, rather than conduct, heighted or strict scrutiny should apply to such mandates.

: Common wisdom in genetic counseling, which is supported by Biesecker, holds that counselors should strive not to influence their clients' decision making. Such a presumption of nondirectiveness is challenged in this commentary.

The third of three commentaries on “A Defense of Genetic Discrimination,” from the July‐August 2013 issue.

Post-Dobbs abortion restrictions impact access and choice in the context of reproductive genetic medicine, raising serious reproductive justice concerns. The consequences of these restrictions are particularly acute and far-reaching for individuals with genetic conditions and their families.

The Supreme Court and lower courts have not articulated a clear or consistent framework for First Amendment analysis of speech restrictions in health care and with respect to abortion. After offering a coherent doctrine for analysis of speech restrictions in the doctor-patient relationship, this piece demonstrates how potential legislation restricting patient access to information from reproductive testing intended to limit “undesirable” reproductive choices would violate the First Amendment.

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 10, Page 52-53, October 2012.