In law school, I had several opportunities to write papers on issues of my choosing, within the course's parameters. In Strategic Litigation, we had to design a mass tort lawsuit modeled after the cases against Big Tobacco. In a small class of twelve students, two of us picked football helmets. My classmate focused on the NFL and the NFLPA. I focused on youth, high school, and college football. There is a vast disparity in the equipment used at those levels, and many programs were using basic Riddell helmets (rated 1/5 stars) chosen for their affordability. I pulled my data from a Virginia Tech program that tested impacts on helmets and the Boston University Center on CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy).
I wasn't exploring any ground-breaking science in 2011 - I think most of my peers knew about concussions even if they didn't know about TBI (traumatic brain injury). It was really neat to think about how you would build a liability case. Who is responsible for a 12 year old's concussion, and the subsequent impact on his ability to recall dates in history class? The coach for not teaching correct form and keeping practices under control? The Pop Warner program re-using old helmets instead of purchasing the highest quality of protection affordable? The parent, for allowing his minor child to take part in a dangerous activity? There were no good answers for protecting youth players. It seemed a lawsuit against a helmet manufacturer might be the best way to get safer helmets to all the children playing. If a manufacture claimed a helmet was safer than its competition and reduced concussions, this was a claim that could be tested at Virginia Tech and challenged in court. If a certain helmet was determined unfit and either leagues banned it or the manufacturer recalled it, that might bring real change.
TBI and football helmet safety is an ongoing debate, and I have enjoyed staying updated with scientific advances and the stories from current and former NFL players. Like many fans and players, I struggle to balance the desire to protect players with the belief that adult players should have the personal freedom to choose to play a game that they love. As a mostly retired rugby player who hasn't played since a bad concussion in August 2014, I understand weighing the long-time risks of repeated head injuries (of course, I'm not paid millions to play rugby, so that made my decision a bit easier).
I also took International Health Law in the fall of 2012 in preparation for my winter co-op with the Reproductive Rights division of Human Rights Law Network in India. IHL was probably my most challenging upper-level law school course because my professor assigned a heavy load of reading and the issues were new to me - millennium development goals, tubal ligation, privatization of water. I knew I wanted to write my final paper, which would also become my Upper-Level Writing Requirement paper, on abortion rights and the steady attempt to erode that right.
In my initial research (Googling), I found that most of the currently proposed laws restricting abortions weren't restricting abortions per se. Instead, they regulated tangential and even unnecessary elements of the abortion process.
States wanted to close down abortion facilities for not having enough water fountains!
For not having hospital-style six foot wide hallways!
For not being able to treat advanced emergencies on site!
For doctors not being licensed at additional nearby medical facilities!
It's almost laughable until you realize it's coming true, and it's affecting millions of women. There is no medical evidence that patients need wider hallways or fully stocked ERs. There is no medical justification for why the doctor would have to obtain licensing at the nearest full-service hospital. Abortion facilities already have agreements in place governing the transfer of patients who need additional care. And certainly, no one ever died from not having enough bubblers in the waiting room!
I had trouble organizing my research paper. I tried to include the history of the use of zoning laws to curtail individual rights, as opposed to, for example, demarcating building size and usage. I tried to capture Roe and Casey and the backlash. But when I reached the current era, it was like fighting a war on too many fronts. In the 4th Circuit, Maryland was getting some of it right, but was still promoting religious crisis pregnancy centers. Virginia was worried about its bubblers. Oklahoma and Texas were creating wide swaths of land where women would have to drive all day to reach an abortion facility. And of course, she would have to come back a second time after taking at least 3 days to consider the abortion. But not too much later - first term only.
The more I researched, the angrier I got, the more disorganized my paper sprawled. There was no end to the story, despite my attempt to tell it in a linear format. I'm grateful to my professor for helping me reel it in to a manageable size. And now, I find this topic back in the headlines again. It popped up in 2013 and 2014 on occasion. But two weeks ago, the Supreme Court announced it would take up cases on TBI and on abortion.
I obviously have a lot of mixed feelings around law school after my extended job search. It is exciting to look back and see how my predictions came true. Law school is known for its ancient, pedantic technique and the case law method of teaching and the memorization of black letter law. Yes, I did that 1L year, but I also did four amazing co-ops and tangled with important, topical issues. I'm grateful for the opportunity to study the subjects I care about and the issues I feel passionate about.
I wasn't exploring any ground-breaking science in 2011 - I think most of my peers knew about concussions even if they didn't know about TBI (traumatic brain injury). It was really neat to think about how you would build a liability case. Who is responsible for a 12 year old's concussion, and the subsequent impact on his ability to recall dates in history class? The coach for not teaching correct form and keeping practices under control? The Pop Warner program re-using old helmets instead of purchasing the highest quality of protection affordable? The parent, for allowing his minor child to take part in a dangerous activity? There were no good answers for protecting youth players. It seemed a lawsuit against a helmet manufacturer might be the best way to get safer helmets to all the children playing. If a manufacture claimed a helmet was safer than its competition and reduced concussions, this was a claim that could be tested at Virginia Tech and challenged in court. If a certain helmet was determined unfit and either leagues banned it or the manufacturer recalled it, that might bring real change.
TBI and football helmet safety is an ongoing debate, and I have enjoyed staying updated with scientific advances and the stories from current and former NFL players. Like many fans and players, I struggle to balance the desire to protect players with the belief that adult players should have the personal freedom to choose to play a game that they love. As a mostly retired rugby player who hasn't played since a bad concussion in August 2014, I understand weighing the long-time risks of repeated head injuries (of course, I'm not paid millions to play rugby, so that made my decision a bit easier).
I also took International Health Law in the fall of 2012 in preparation for my winter co-op with the Reproductive Rights division of Human Rights Law Network in India. IHL was probably my most challenging upper-level law school course because my professor assigned a heavy load of reading and the issues were new to me - millennium development goals, tubal ligation, privatization of water. I knew I wanted to write my final paper, which would also become my Upper-Level Writing Requirement paper, on abortion rights and the steady attempt to erode that right.
In my initial research (Googling), I found that most of the currently proposed laws restricting abortions weren't restricting abortions per se. Instead, they regulated tangential and even unnecessary elements of the abortion process.
States wanted to close down abortion facilities for not having enough water fountains!
For not having hospital-style six foot wide hallways!
For not being able to treat advanced emergencies on site!
For doctors not being licensed at additional nearby medical facilities!
It's almost laughable until you realize it's coming true, and it's affecting millions of women. There is no medical evidence that patients need wider hallways or fully stocked ERs. There is no medical justification for why the doctor would have to obtain licensing at the nearest full-service hospital. Abortion facilities already have agreements in place governing the transfer of patients who need additional care. And certainly, no one ever died from not having enough bubblers in the waiting room!
I had trouble organizing my research paper. I tried to include the history of the use of zoning laws to curtail individual rights, as opposed to, for example, demarcating building size and usage. I tried to capture Roe and Casey and the backlash. But when I reached the current era, it was like fighting a war on too many fronts. In the 4th Circuit, Maryland was getting some of it right, but was still promoting religious crisis pregnancy centers. Virginia was worried about its bubblers. Oklahoma and Texas were creating wide swaths of land where women would have to drive all day to reach an abortion facility. And of course, she would have to come back a second time after taking at least 3 days to consider the abortion. But not too much later - first term only.
The more I researched, the angrier I got, the more disorganized my paper sprawled. There was no end to the story, despite my attempt to tell it in a linear format. I'm grateful to my professor for helping me reel it in to a manageable size. And now, I find this topic back in the headlines again. It popped up in 2013 and 2014 on occasion. But two weeks ago, the Supreme Court announced it would take up cases on TBI and on abortion.
I obviously have a lot of mixed feelings around law school after my extended job search. It is exciting to look back and see how my predictions came true. Law school is known for its ancient, pedantic technique and the case law method of teaching and the memorization of black letter law. Yes, I did that 1L year, but I also did four amazing co-ops and tangled with important, topical issues. I'm grateful for the opportunity to study the subjects I care about and the issues I feel passionate about.
