by Hillary Knight
Section I of this paper briefly describes constitutional privacy jurisprudence and why the government gains power and authority as it restricts the private sphere, particularly with regard to reproductive rights. Section II describes the exclusionary and discriminatory mechanisms employed to regulate the sale and purchase of PBOS, which is one of the ways that the government exercises its parent-like control over the decisions and freedoms of young women. The final section argues that privacy jurisprudence and exclusionary mechanisms are simply ways in which the state creates and perpetuates its role as guardian and parent over its citizens. Like the ability to ground rebellious teenagers or to set their curfews, the limitations set by the state are not to be challenged or questioned, but followed with the understanding that they are executed with our best interests in mind. This, I suggest, is quite dangerous and it is why Judge Korman’s reversal of Sebelius was deeply threatening, not only to the HHS, but also to the entire executive branch.