UC Law Constitutional Quarterly
Abstract
Courts have long recognized bodily autonomy as a core constitutional value. Yet, doctrine governing reproductive healthcare tells a different story. Sama v. Hannigan exposes the fragility of the right to refuse medical treatment, particularly for incarcerated patients whose claims must survive the demanding standard of qualified immunity. When physicians removed Carrie Rahat Sama’s ovary despite her explicit refusal, her constitutional claim failed because no precedent with sufficiently similar facts had previously condemned such conduct. This case reveals how the “clearly established” prong of qualified immunity can foreclose redress for blatant violations of autonomy.
This Note argues that the viability of patients’ constitutional claims hinge not only on federal doctrine but also on state-based statutory schemes outlining informed consent law. State variations in informed consent law create uneven plaintiff protections to bodily autonomy, particularly for hysterectomy care. Through a comparative analysis of Texas, California, and Nebraska, this Note demonstrates how state statutory frameworks determine whether bodily autonomy is protected or effectively denied. Patient-centered informed consent laws strengthen bodily autonomy by requiring meaningful patient education while simultaneously providing plaintiffs a more viable statutory foundation to overcome the barrier of clearly established law in the defense of qualified immunity.
Recommended Citation
Mallory Yeates,
The Body at the Mercy of the State: Sama v. Hannigan and the Fragmented Right to Refuse Across State Lines,
53 UC Law SF Const. Q. 465
(2026).
Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly/vol53/iss3/5