Rethinking Roe v. Wade: defending the abortion right in the face of contemporary opposition

In 2008, many states sought to pass Human Life Amendments, which would extend the definition of personhood to encompass newly fertilized eggs. If such an amendment were to pass, Roe v. Wade, as currently defended by the Supreme Court, may be repealed. Consequently, it is necessary to defend the right to an abortion in a manner that succeeds even if a Human Life Amendment successfully passes. J.J. Thomson's argument in "A Defense of Abortion" successfully achieves this. Her argument is especially strong when one considers that her central thesis-that one person's right to life does not entail the right to use another's person's body for continued sustenance-is pervasive in legal policies in the U.S.A.     

The National Right to Life Committee: its founding, its history, and the emergence of the pro-life movement prior to Roe v. Wade

During the mid-1960s a few Catholic journals and individuals advised that a more active role should be taken in defeating abortion reform. In 1967 the National Conference of Catholic Bishops selected James Thomas McHugh, administrator of the United States Catholic Conference’s Family Life Bureau, to guide its National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). Several pro-life organizations, including Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, emerged and affiliated with the NRLC national office. To appeal to a more broad-based, nonsectarian movement, key Minnesota leaders proposed an organizational model that would separate the NRLC from its founder. In early 1973 McHugh and his executive assistant, Michael Taylor, proposed a different plan, facilitating the NRLC’s move to independence.     

Tarasoff v. confidentiality

The Tarasoff decision is discussed as a logical extension of evolving legal doctrine imposing a special duty on caretakers. The mental health professions are being held to a standard of negligence and perhaps even to a standard of strict liability. Tarasoff is viewed as a part of society's interest in using the information disclosed in confidential relationships as a means of social control. This in turn is seen as part of a disquieting trend to curtail First Amendment rights. The adversarial nature of the relationship between the 1974 Tarasoff decision and the constitutional rights of patients to privacy, confidentiality, and privilege is discussed. The author re-asserts: “As asepsis is to surgery, so is confidentiality to psychiatry” (Beigler, 1978, p. 255).     

Commentary on Martin v. Benson

Neuropsychology Review -     

The aftermath of Ford v. Wainwright

Whatever happened to Alvin Ford? This paper describes the aftermath of the Supreme Court's 1986 ruling in Ford v. Wainwright. The Ford decision held that exempting the mentally incompetent from execution is a matter of constitutional right, and hence the determination of who is competent for execution cannot be left solely in the hands of the executive branch of the government. We describe the hearing in Ford's case in federal district court that occurred after the Supreme Court's decision, the judge's ruling, and Ford's subsequent (and final) appeal. We conclude that despite the decision in Ford, it remains all but impossible for defense attorneys to prove that psychotic death row clients are incompetent for execution.     

Ward v. Wilbanks: Students Respond

Ward v. Wilbanks is the most important legal case for the profession of counseling in the last 25 years. This qualitative research used general content analysis to examine master's‐level counseling students’ responses to the Ward v. Wilbanks case. Emergent themes from data analysis include (a) the role of gatekeeping; (b) Julea Ward and Eastern Michigan University: inflexible and uncompromising; (c) Ward v. Wilbanks: confusion, complexity, and certainty; and (d) personal values, professional values, and the ACA Code of Ethics (American Counseling Association, 2005 ).     

The fleck affair: Fashions v. heritage

The problem of how to handle interesting but ignored thinkers of the past is discussed through an analysis of the case of Ludwik Fleck. Fleck was totally ignored in the ‘30s and declared an important thinker in the 70s and ‘80s. In the first case fashion ignored him and in the second it praised him. The praise has been as poor as the silence was unjust. We may do such thinkers more justice if we recognize that intellectual society is fickle, that we cannot make amends in many cases, but that we can do such thinkers justice by treating them critically ‐ even if this means explaining away any impact they might have had. If we wish to be autonomous and independent of fashion, we must abandon efforts to use the making of amends the occasion for making intellectual society seem fairer than it is.     

On Overrating Oneself. . . and Knowing it

When it comes to evaluating our own abilities and prospects, most (non-depressed) people are subject to a distorting bias. We think that we are better – friendlier, more well-liked, better leaders, and better drivers – than we really are. Once we learn about this bias, we should ratchet down our self-evaluations to correct for it. But we don’t. That leaves us with an uncomfortable tension in our beliefs: we knowingly allow our beliefs to differ from the ones that we think are supported by our evidence. We can mitigate the tension by waffling between two belief states: a reflective state that has been recalibrated to take into account our tendency to overrate ourselves, and a non-reflective state that has not.     

Probative v. prejudicial value of eyewitness memory research

A commentary is given on Ebbesen and Konecnis (1996) critical review ofeyewitness memory research and their conclusions that expert testimony hasgreater prejudicial than probative value and should not be admissible incourt. Selective attention is given to issues of admissibility, researchprocedures, face validity, voice identification, lineup fairness, showupsand lineups, and common knowledge. It is concluded that Ebbesen andKonecnis review is a necessary contribution to the field of eyewitnessmemory research. However, the psycho-legal conclusions drawn from thisreview appear to reflect a negative predisposition rather than a balancedscientific appraisal of the literature.     

Commentary on Huntoon v. TCI Cablevision of Colorado

Neuropsychology Review -