Abortion Restrictions Analysis

The ruling of Roe v. Wade included three key ideas. The first key idea was that women had the right to choose to have an abortion during the stage of pregnancy when the fetus had little chance of survival outside the womb and that women were able to obtain an abortion within unreasonable interferences from the state. The second idea confirmed a state’s power to restrict abortions when a fetus could live outside the womb, except in the case when the mother’s life was at risk. The final key idea that was decided in the ruling was that the state has interests in both the health of the women and the life of the fetus (Brannen and Hanes, 2001).

"The Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas. The question then becomes whether the state interests advanced to justify this abridgment can survive the 'particularly careful scrutiny' that the Fourteenth Amendment here requires. The asserted state interests are protection of the health and safety of the pregnant woman, and protection of the potential

However, everything that was ruled by Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade case was contradicted, In1992, the Supreme court case “...Planned Parenthood V. Casey that said an abortion regulation was unconstitutional if it had 'the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.'” (Levy). This court ruled that the states had the right to restrict a woman's right to an abortion and prohibit public funding for the poor women that can not afford an abortion.

For many years abortion has been the topic of controversy among the political, social and religious spectrum. Each holds individuals with dichotomous views on the legality of abortion. In recent times, the topic of abortion has returned to the courts to challenge political and religious opposing views. In this case, Texas has attempted to combine their religious perspective of abortion into the political sphere by demanding laws restricting abortion practices in clinics. On the other hand, liberal women and women’s rights groups are demanding the unconstitutionality of these restrictions. Therefore the restriction of women’s reproductive rights in laws that are being implemented in Texas should be rejected because of its potential threat

In Casey, the plurality opinion began with the pronouncement, “[l]iberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt.” Ironically, the ensuing holding failed to create a clear standard for abortion laws, thereby guaranteeing decades of continued doubt about how severely states may regulate before they cross the “undue burden” line. In the decades following the Court’s decision in Casey, states have aggressively pushed back against abortion rights by passing a host of ever more restrictive statutes. With the new focus on women’s “right to know” as opposed to the fetus’s “right to life,” anti-abortion activists have found increased success in the battleground over abortion access. By holding that there must be some limit on what the state can

In Texas, a large cultural controversy has resurfaced. State lawmakers want to introduce a new set of guidelines which would essentially limit the availability of abortions to Texan women. This debate is very clearly divided into two opposing sides: pro-life and pro-choice. The pro-life side wants to pass this law, which says that clinics must be held to hospital grade standards and doctors must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where the abortion takes place. According to the pro-choice side and abortion clinicians themselves, “the regulations [are] expensive, unnecessary and intended to put many [offices] out of business” (nytimes). This case has made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, meaning that

A new precedent needs to be set. The medical industry and political landscape have both changed drastically since 1973, making the decades-old court decision weak and irrelevant. Players in all three branches of government, as well as civilian advocate organizations on both sides, such as National Right to Life and Planned Parenthood, have fought tooth and nail over how to interpret the Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey decisions, whether they are valid, and whether or not they should be

On June 27th, 2016 The Supreme Court threw out a Texas abortion access law in a victory to supporters of abortion rights, Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that Texas anti-abortion law is unconstitutional. “The Supreme Court ruled in favor of abortion rights in a major case challenging an anti-abortion law passed in Texas. The majority opinion, written by Justice Breyer, struck down the legislation mandating clinics have admitting privileges with local hospitals and requiring they meet the same standards as surgical centers. Breyer wrote "We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes,". He said that the restrictions placed "a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a provability abortion," amounted to an undue burden on abortion access," and were violations of the U.S. Constitution. He was joined by Justices Kennedy, Ruth Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. “The 5-3 decision was courts most far-reaching statement on abortion since planned Parenthood V. Casey in 1992, which reaffirmed the constitution right to abortion established in 1973 in Roe V. Wade (the right to safe and legal abortion) ”

Doe (1977), page 397. Taking place in St. Louis, the court was determining the constitutional ability of a city to restrict public funds to public hospitals from contributing to non-therapeutic abortions. The court had to determine if this restriction was violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and a woman’s right to an abortion in the state. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the policy was not unconstitutional because it did not entirely restrict a woman’s right to an abortion. Abortions were still available in state to woman who needed them. Also argued in Missouri was Planned Parenthood Assn. v. Ashcroft (1983), page 393. The case brought by Kansas City Planned Parenthood clinics challenged four regulations in Missouri regarding abortion: (1) abortions after 12 weeks must be performed in a hospital, (2) pathology reports are required for each abortion, (3) a second physician must be present for abortions performed after viability, and (4) minors must secure parental consent or the consent of the court for an abortion. The court held that (1) the states requirement of abortions to be held in a hospital was unconstitutional because it unnecessarily interfered with a woman’s constitutional right to obtain an abortion. All of the other requirements were deemed constitutional. The second challenged regulation was constitutional because it placed no undue burden on the right to obtain an abortion and did not

This case touches on a very sensitive controversial topic in the United States- abortion. Many people are against abortion and many people agree with abortion. Both perspectives have great reasons supporting their side, but either way the decisions are life changing or sometimes life threatening. Children suffer from abuse, neglect, illness, and the imperfect foster care system. Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt is a case where Texas placed restrictions on abortion clinics an original ruling that required physicians of abortion clinics to have “admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where the abortion” will be performed and to comply with the same guidelines provided for ambulatory surgical centers (ASC). Ambulatory surgery

In Casey, the Court based their decision on the principles of institutional integrity and the rule of stare decisis and held the essential holding in Roe to be retained and reaffirmed (“Due Process and Fundamental Rights”). As a result of the holding, “a woman has a right to choose to have an abortion in the period before viability without ‘undue interference from the state” (“Due Process and Fundamental Rights”). Additionally, “the state has an interest in the fetus, which entitles to restrict abortions as long as exceptions exist for pregnancies that endanger a woman’s life or health” (“Due Process and Fundamental Rights”). Furthermore, “the state has an interest in the woman’s health and fetal health” (“Due Process and Fundamental Rights”).

The Federal Government deems abortion legal in the United States of America. The Supremacy Clause helps justify that the Texas law violates the Constitution as a result of the Supreme Court Case known as, Roe v. Wade. The Roe v. Wade case challenged the Texan statute that made it a crime to perform an abortion unless a woman’s life was at stake (Roe v. Wade). The official Planned Parenthood Website states, “The Supreme Court recognizes that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s right to make her own personal medical decisions — including the decision to have an abortion without interference from politicians.” Planned Parenthood continues to state, “In Roe, the Supreme Court found that a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her pregnancy deserves the highest level of constitutional protection.” Infringing on the nationwide legality of abortion is against the Constitution. Texas’s desire to implement laws that will close nearly three quarters of clinics will ultimately violate the Roe v. Wade ruling. Supporters of the law disagree and believe that the Constitution is not being violated (Vogue, Ariane De). According to the official Planned Parenthood association, “The court ruled that in order to succeed in a constitutional challenge, a law must be shown to

The issue of abortion is notoriously controversial. Since the Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, states have enacted different restrictions on the procedure. These restrictions vary from state to state. Nineteen states currently have laws prohibiting partial-birth abortion, and forty-one states strictly prohibit abortions except in cases of life-endangerment. One particularly incendiary area of abortion law is that of public funding. However, as of this year there are only seventeen states that cover abortion procedures through public funding. In this paper we will discuss federal abortion legislation, while describing the laws and political ideologies of the following states: Texas, California, New

In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt the Supreme Court decided that the state of Texas could not place restrictions on the delivery of abrotion services that create an undue burden for women seeking to have an abortion. In regards to the statute put forward by the state of Libertarian the following sections would be considered unconstitutional

The state of Texas passed a law that required abortion clinic physicians to have admitting privileges within thirty miles(oyez). The other part of the law states that the clinic must also coincide with ambulatory surgical center standards. The people that were against this bill, petitioned that the law put an “undue burden” (Center for Reproductive Rights) on the women who were going to these places to receive abortions. The case was dismissed in the district court, and that dismissal was agreed with at the U.S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. The House Bill would’ve required half of the