Author: Shweta Kumar

Shweta Kumar is a clinical teaching fellow in the iPIP Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center. Her areas of research interest include pharmaceutical law, patent law, Food and Drug Administration law, access to medicine and health privacy. Prior to joining Georgetown, Kumar practiced intellectual property litigation at Goodwin Procter, LLP, in Washington, D.C. Her experience includes representing clients in district court litigation and proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), spanning a broad range of technologies, including pharmaceutical sciences, 3D printers and software. She also has experience working with the Intellectual Property Section of the Department of Justice, defending the government in patent cases brought under 28 U.S.C. Section 1498. Kumar is a member of the ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law (ABA-IPL) and a 2022-2024 ABA-IPL Young Lawyer Fellow. During law school, she served as editor-in-chief of the Virginia Journal of Law & Technology and took part in the law school’s Patent Clinic. She received her J.D. from UVA Law, and BS in neuroscience from the College of William and Mary.

When the Supreme Court Cites Modern Medical Evidence, Abortion Rights Expand. When Relying on Political Evidence, They Contract.

, and

Abortion court cases often turn on questions that are part law and part science—questions such as when a fetus becomes viable or what constitutes a threat to the health or life of a mother. Judges receive no formal training in scientific and medical literacy and few students with STEM backgrounds attend law school. Yet, judges play central roles in gatekeeping what science gets brought into the courtroom and, eventually, into a judicial opinion.

But what can non-lawyers do about this issue? Remember that judges are often elected, and if not elected, then appointed by other elected officials.