Case Application 1

.docx

School

University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

302

Subject

Political Science

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ib0319

PS 302 21 February 2024 Case Application 1 In order to determine the constitutionality of the Pregnancy Protection Act in Illinois, we can look at precedents set by the landmark case of Roe v. Wade (1973), which established the choice to terminate a pregnancy as a constitutional right. Although Roe v. Wade primarily focused on abortion, it set the precedent for laws regarding abortion by discussing the balance between a woman’s right to privacy and the state’s interest in protecting potential life. In Roe v. Wade , the Supreme Court ruled that laws that criminalized or significantly restricted abortion violated a woman’s right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court specified that the regulations on abortion were dependent on which trimester of pregnancy the woman was in. During the first trimester, the decision to have an abortion was up to the woman under the advisement of her doctor. During this period, there was to be little to no state interference. As the woman progressed into the second and third trimesters of her pregnancy, the state could enact more restrictions to protect both the woman’s life and the potential new life. Using the precedent set by Roe v. Wade to the Pregnancy Protection Act, we can determine whether the new law puts an undue burden on a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. The Pregnancy Protection Act provides proper coverage for prenatal care and childbirth which shows that the state does have an interest in promoting women’s health during pregnancies, however, it excludes coverage for elective abortions, which requires women who choose to terminate their pregnancy to pay for their abortion out of pocket. Jessica Smith argues that the Pregnancy Protection Act targets women in poverty. This raises concerns about whether women are equally protected under the law because it disproportionately affects those struggling to afford an abortion. This reaffirms the main holding of Roe v. Wade that states can regulate abortion as long as the regulations do not place an undue burden on women seeking abortions.

The Pregnancy Protection Act’s requirement for reimbursing elective abortions could be seen as imposing a financial burden on women exercising their constitutional right to choose, especially those who are economically disadvantaged. This resembles the undue burden standard established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which allows states to regulate abortion as long as it doesn't give a substantial obstacle to the woman seeking an abortion. In conclusion, while the Pregnancy Protection Act does show the state’s legitimate interest in promoting maternal health, the requirement concerning elective abortions could be considered an undue burden on a woman’s right to choose. Thus, the constitutionality of the Pregnancy Protection Act would be questioned under the precedents set by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey .

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help