Scott Gaylord engages Constitutionality of compelled physician speech
Elon Law Professor Scott Gaylord has authored both an article for the spring 2015 issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics and an amicus brief in Walker-McGill v. Stuart, which is pending petition in the United States Supreme Court.
Professor Gaylord was invited to write both the article for the Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics and the amicus brief in Walker-McGill v. Stuart.
The Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics summarizes Gaylord’s article “A Matter of Context: Casey and the Constitutionality of Compelled Physician Speech” as follows: "Under the Supreme Court’s compelled speech cases, the context of government-mandated disclosures determines the standard of review. Pursuant to Casey, Zauderer, and Whalen, compelled disclosures in the medical context, such as speech-and-display ultrasound laws, are subject to — and survive — a form of rational basis scrutiny."
Professor Gaylord’s amicus brief in Walker-McGill v. Stuart recommends that the U.S. Supreme Court resolve divergent decisions in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals regarding whether state statutory requirements that an ultrasound image be displayed and described to the patient prior to an abortion procedure violates the First Amendment rights of the provider.