Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 15 Dec 2022).

Introduction / Seema Mohapatra and Lindsay F. Wiley -- Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospitals, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914) / commentary, Danielle Pelfrey ; judgment, Kelly Dineen -- Reynolds v. McNichols, 488 F.2d 1378 (10th Cir. 1973) / commentary, Aziza Ahmed ; judgment, Wendy Parmet -- Conservatorship of Valerie N., 707 P.2d 760 (Cal. 1985) / commentary, Cynthia Soohoo and Sofia Yakren ; judgment, Doriane Lambelet Coleman -- Bouvia v. Superior Court, 225 Cal. Rptr. 297 (Cal Ct. App. 1986) / commentary, Joan H. Krause ; judgment, Barry Furrow -- Moore v. Regents of University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990) / commentary, Jessica Roberts ; judgment, Lisa C. Ikemoto -- Linton v. Commissioner of Health and Environment, 65 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 1995) / commentary, Ruqaiijah Yearby ; judgment, Gwendolyn Roberts Majette -- Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) / commentary, Doron Dorfman ; judgment, Becka Rich -- Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., 179 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 1999) / commentary, Christina S. Ho ; judgment, Valarie Blake -- Smith v. Rasmussen, 249 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2001) / commentary, Heather Walter McCabe ; judgment, Craig Konnoth -- Burton v. State, 49 So.3d 263 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010) / commentary, Greer Donley ; judgment, Nadia Sawicki -- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebeliussiness v. Sebeliussiness v. Sebeliussiness v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) / commentary, Mary Ann Chirba and Alice A. Noble ; judgment, Elizabeth Weeks -- Means v. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 836 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2016) / commentary, Maya Manian ; judgment, Leslie C. Griffin -- Does v. Gillespie, 867 F. 3d 1034 (8th Cir. 2017) / commentary, Elizabeth Kukura ; judgment, Jennifer Oliva and Melissa Alexander -- National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S.Ct. 2361 (2018) / commentary, Brietta R. Clark ; judgment, Sonia Suter.

This volume provides an alternate history of health law by rewriting key judicial opinions from a feminist perspective. Each chapter includes a rewritten opinion penned by a leading scholar relying exclusively on court precedents and scientific understanding available at the time of the original decision accompanied by commentary from an expert placing the case in historical context and explaining how the feminist judgment might have shaped a different path for subsequent developments. It provides a map of the health law field-where paternalism, individualism, gender stereotypes, and tensions over the public-private divide shape decisions about informed consent, medical and nursing malpractice, the relationships among health care professionals and the institutions where they work, end-of-life care, reproductive health care, biomedical research, ownership of human tissues and cells, the influence of religious directives on health care standards, health care discrimination, long-term care, private health insurance, Medicaid coverage, the Affordable Care Act, and more.