preview

Abortion Case Study

Good Essays

In today’s decision, this case was brought because Governor Mike Pence of Indiana signed House Bill 1337 making it illegal for women to seek an abortion on a discriminatory basis on the grounds of gender, race, or disability. Specifically, the law: Prohibited a person from performing an abortion if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because of: (1) the race, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex of the fetus; or (2) a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability. The day after Governor Pence signed the law, Planned Parenthood challenged the law in a Federal District Court claiming it was unconstitutional. The District Court agreed and issued an immediate …show more content…

The House Bill 1337 was passed under state power and we know that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Under the Tenth Amendment. Also, under Harris v. McCrae (1980) the Hyde amendment was upheld. under the Hyde Amendment, we know that the amendment prohibits the use of Medicaid funding for abortion nationwide, with extremely narrow exceptions. With the establishment of state power and the supreme court giving the government a say in abortion whether it being on funding or legitimate state interest, we can see that the constitution and the court opened a pathway for bills like The House Bill …show more content…

Connecticut (1965). in the court ruled the state law as unconstitutional. “The Court acknowledged that the Constitution does not mention a right to marital privacy, but it reasoned that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights - such as the right to free speech, the prohibition against quartering soldiers, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right against self-incrimination - together form "penumbras" or "zones of privacy." The Court concluded that marital privacy is in these "penumbras" and includes the right of married people to obtain contraceptives.” Also in the realm of privacy and contraceptives, Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) deals with the same outcome. Which was the “Court ruling that law limiting contraceptives to married people is discriminatory and violates "right to privacy" of unmarried people. The Court said the right to privacy belongs not to the married couple but to the individual person, and prevents government interference with "matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a

Get Access