Planned Parenthood Case Summary

First I will like to discuss the effect this decision made on an organization. It is important, because this organization is a large vehicle to the effort of birth control. Planned Parenthood, is an organization which offer its services to help family control pregnancies, counsels young woman on abortion, and it 's a lead voice in protection of the body of the female over the offspring. I will continue with Planned Parenthood expansion, while I explained the consequences of the precedent established by Griswold v. Connecticut in subsequent landmark cases.

In the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Casey fought against the state of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Abortion Control act. The restrictions required the woman to give a written informed consent, seek parental consent if she was a minor, and notify her husband if she married. With the same violation of the fourteenth amendment as the Roe v. Wade case, the courts saw favour to Casey. While the majority of the restrictions were supported by the courts, the requirement of the husband’s notification was not. The result of this case added support of the decision of Roe

In the case of Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas v. Abbott (2014), The American Civil Liberties Union, The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and a Texas law firm filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of several women’s health-care providers in Texas for seeking to enforce their rights and those of patients for declaratory judgment and pertaining to the regulation of surgical abortions and abortion-inducing drugs by enjoining two provisions of the 2013 Texas House Bill No. 2. (Planned Parent Hood v. Abbott, 2014). To many, Planned Parenthood challenges the state of Texas abortion law as it places an unconstitutional restriction on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. It also

Not only has Planned Parenthood lied about the services that they provide, but a number of their own employees have filed lawsuits claiming that Planned Parenthood has cheated the system for their own profit. In 2011, Abby Johnson, the former director of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Texas, filed a lawsuit claiming that her affiliate had purposefully sent in approximately $6 million in false claims to Medicaid (Sedlak 15). Similarly, in 2008 a former financial executive of Planned Parenthood in California, P. Victor Gonzalez, filed a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood for overcharging state and federal governments by at least $180 million for birth control pills (Sedlak 15). Planned Parenthood clinics in Texas are currently entangled in a lawsuit that “alleges its involvement in ‘repeated false, fraudulent, and ineligible claims for Medicaid reimbursements’ through the Texas

The two sides of this case were the plaintiffs, who were five abortion clinics and doctors who provided abortion services, and the defendant, which was the state of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs filed suit to have the state declare the five provisions unconstitutional. During the appeal in the Third Circuit Court, the court upheld all but the husband notification requirement.

Estelle Griswold, the executive director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, doctor and professor at Yale Medical School, were arrested and found guilty as accessories to providing illegal contraception. They were fined $100 each. They sued the state of Connecticut claiming it violated their constitutional rights. Their argument was that a married couple has a constitutional “right of privacy” They directly argued that- "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...nor deny any person the equal

As the Courts continue to argue in terms of morality, their attitudes when it comes to dealing with cases concerning abortion are vague, even as they succeed in placing financial burdens on the process (Engstrom 25). Unfortunately, the ambiguity present allows for those who can’t afford their constitutional right to go through potentially harmful ‘back-alley’ abortions and risk their lives during the process (Engstrom 7). The Hyde Amendment and Supreme Court cases, such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey, are examples of the way Courts and Congress have placed restrictions on low-income women when it comes to obtaining an abortion (Engstrom 14). They do this through ‘back-door’ attempts that succeed in eroding at crucial legislation as they are refrained by current legislation from taking on the law directly (Engstrom 2). These restrictions can lead to horrible outcomes for women who are desperate enough to explore riskier options (McGee 102-103). Low-income women are facing limitations established by funding restrictions within the Hyde Amendment and the ambiguity of the Court in contradicting cases (Engstrom

wade. “Repeated challenges since 1973 narrowed the scope of Roe v. Wade but did not overturn it. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court established that restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if they place an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus is viable” (). “Since the roe decision, anti abortion lawmakers have not been able to ban abortion outright. Instead, they have developed a very successful strategy of limiting a woman’s access to the procedure and restricting the procedures that physicians can use to perform it” (76). “The restrictions that were given made life harder for women. All of these laws are meant to dissuade a woman from going through with the abortion. Feminists oppose the restrictions. They view the laws as condescending to women, who they feel know how to make up their own minds about this personal, private decision” (77). “When they eventually make their way back to a clinic, they may be much farther along in the pregnancy, when the procedure becomes more invasive, potentially more dangerous to the mother, and much more expensive” (77). “For some clinics, the expenses brought on by TRAP laws are so high the facilities shut down. By the fall of 2014, only eight abortion clinics in Texas were still standing. Before the law, some 10,000 Texas women had to travel more than 200 miles

    The director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, Estelle Griswold, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton were accused and found guilty of providing illicit contraception under a Connecticut law. They were both fined $100 each for this crime. Griswold and Buxton appealed to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, stating that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The Connecticut court endorsed the conviction, so they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court revised the case in 1965.

The Petitioners, who were antiabortion, Madsen and other protesters regularly protested the Respondent which is the Women Health Center in Melbourne, Florida. The Women’s Health center sought and was granted by a trial court and injunction on several outcomes, which restrained the Petitioners’ ability to protest. The Petitioner’s appeal to the Supreme Court which claimed that the injunction restricted the protester’s right of free speech that was protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The Next Battle in the War Over Planned Parenthood is an article featured in The New York Times by writer Sheryl Gay Stolberg. The article, written in response to the recent proposal put forth by the Trump administration essentially threatening to cut federal funding to Planned Parenthood if the group doesn’t start preforming abortions, addresses both sides of the highly controversial and political topic of abortion by quoting the opinions of individuals from opposite ends of the abortion debate such as pro-choice Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and pro-life Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life, an abortion opposing organization on college campuses. Stolberg also debunks the common misconception

The demonization of Planned Parenthood agencies has been in progress since the 1900’s. Even though abortion has been legalized with the 1973 Roe v. Wade court case, year after year there are attacks on clinics in hopes of shutting the organization down. In 1997 two clinics in Georgia were bombed, in 1998 more than 20 acid attacks were recorded, arson attacked plagued clinics across the country in the 2000s, and most recently murder and attempted murder occurred at the

The purpose of this memo is to provide an overview of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) constitutional challenges and the probability of a successful outcome. First, this memo will summarize the Supreme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Next, this memo will address the legal framework the court will apply to the ACLU’s constitutional challenges based on the three Setonia abortion laws. Finally, the memo will also address whether the ACLU’s constitutional challenge to each of the three Setonia abortion laws will

As one of the major co-sponsors of #ProtestPP, we coordinating pro-life protest at Planned Parenthood facilities across the country. We will confront the many abortionists and their allies wherever they are. We protest outside abortion facilities and at pro-abortion events, infiltrate their meetings and groups, investigate and expose their illegal activity, and even creatively confront them with the reality of what they’re doing. We have also published the moving testimonies of former abortion providers. (1)

This article was about the organization, Planned Parenthood and defunding its establishment. Defunding Planned Parenthood has been Mt. Everest of conservative public-policy ventures for decades, throughout multiple efforts Planned Parenthood has managed to repel their failed attempts. However, in recent discovery a video that went viral “showing a nonchalant Planned Parenthood doctor sipping wine and chatting up the best way to crush an unborn child’s abdomen has gone viral for a reason — it is appalling (Donovan).” The person in the video spoke with no regards to women’s health and mental health for his workers. Said person later went on in details about the extraction of the child and its brain, which left viewers in an unforgettable