Planned Parenthood Case Summary

a.The high court also will decide major cases on abortion and contraceptive coverage. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, abortion providers allege that a Texas law makes it too difficult for women to get abortions, abridging their

“Texas’s new strict legislation is already forcing women to leave the state in order to receive medical services in neighboring states more sympathetic to their desires to obtain an abortion (Hagle).” This is causing many problems for expectant mothers, especially those who have preexisting genetic medical conditions. Many time a mother may have some type of illness that can be given to a fetus during pregnancy. Sometimes these issues are seen during a routine ultrasound and sometimes there are not noticed until the time of birth. This is causing woman who live in the state of Texas to have to cross state lines when they find out something is wrong with their baby and choose to terminate the pregnancy.

While the fight to legalize abortion, for reasons other than a mothers health concerns, was won, states such as Texas are now reconsidering the regulations, which go along with such right. In 2004 the State of Texas introduced the Woman’s Right to Know Act, which “requires that all abortions at or after 16 weeks’ gestation be performed in an ambulatory surgical center (ASC)” (Colman, S., & Joyce, T. (2010), p. 775). Roe V Wade’s Supreme Court decision makes it federal law that abortion be legal, therefore the state of Texas cannot make a law specifically prohibiting abortions around this time. However, they can implement acts such as the one discussed above to hinder a women’s access to such rights. By implementing the Woman’s Right to Know Act, the state of Texas is allowing abortion, however it makes access to it within the state of Texas out of reach for the majority of women. In the time following the effect of this law “not one of Texas’s 54 nonhospital abortion providers met the requirements of a surgical center” (Colman, S., & Joyce, T. (2010), p. 775. Following that, a

As a consequence, the ruling set the path toward new restrictive abortion laws that can completely block having an abortion. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), the Court recognized an undue burden was placed when Texas placed restrictions on the delivery of abortion providers. Justice Ginsburg, concurring with the majority states, “When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances… , faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety” (“Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt” Cornell 10). Having limited options to an abortion will lead women to another alternative that consists of an unsafe abortion. While this ruling upheld women’s right to a safe and legal abortion, States still have the opportunity to intervene and persuade women to not get an abortion as seen in Hellerstedt. Through the rulings made in Roe, Casey, and Hellerstedt, society has slowly progressed in accepting women have the basic liberty to control reproduction. Some individuals have learned to put aside their religious and moral beliefs when it comes to making a decision that will affect women. Overall, the United States still remains at conflict over the controversial subject of abortion. We as a nation have learned women have the basic liberty to decide over their body and terminate a pregnancy,

a woman is married, you should be required to tell your spouse if you are getting an

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) ”

Abortion is one of the most controversial topics in our country today. With a president who is definitely anti-choice and therefore wants to defund Planned Parenthood, this topic seems to be in the news every other day. In the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) Pro-Choice America Foundation’s article entitled “Abortion Bans Without Exception Endanger Women’s Health,” the topic of abortion bans without health exceptions is discussed with a viewpoint on the pro-choice side. The article discusses the different court cases that have helped bring abortion rights to our country, as well as the court cases that the anti-choice side of the argument has instilled to reverse these rights. NARAL (2013) incorporates many different

"The State of Texas will be unable to fully implement HB 2's common sense regulations to protect the health and safety of women at substandard abortion facilities. Our work to protect mothers and unborn babies from abortion will continue."" In my opinion, abortion should not be legal. Abortion is in a way, murder. You are killing a human being without probable cause. Understood, that some people may not be able to take care of a kid; however, why would you risk a humans' life, instead of trying to find it a home. I am 100% against abortion, for that reason. One person will not even get the chance to live, for another individuals pleasure of not having the care for them. To conclude, I do not think it is right for people to kill a individual, when they didn't make they mistake; the individual carrying the baby however,

Casey. In 1992, the case Planned Parenthood arose as a case that challenged restrictive Pennsylvania state laws that restricted abortion. It required doctors to inform the mother of health risks, required women to inform their husbands, minors to inform their parents, and imposed a twenty-four hour wait period before the procedure could be completed (505 U.S. 833, 1992). The District Court of Pennsylvania found all of these provisions to be unconstitutional under the legal reasoning in Roe. In the Appellate Courts, all of the restrictions were declared constitutional except for the spousal notification clause (505 U.S. 833, 1992) When it reached the Supreme Court, there were new justices on the bench, comprised of all Republican appointees. Casey gained a great deal of media attention for the possibility that the conservative bench could overturn Roe. In a 5-4 decision, the Court's reasoning reaffirmed Roe, but upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions using the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The opinion contained a novel standard to determine the validity of abortion restrictions, thus eliminating the previous trimester rule. The new standard asks whether the restriction has the purpose of imposing an "undue burden", which is a "substantial obstacle in the path of the woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability" (505 U.S. 833, 1992). Under

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled a 24-hour waiting period is constitutional but never has weighed in on a challenge to a longer waiting period. According to recent studies, forcing women to wait a 24-hour period between consulting with an abortion doctor and legally terminating their pregnancy can cause excessive hardships. There are not many studies showing the effectiveness of 48 hour waiting period.

Texas continues to fight women’s rights groups for the life of the “unborn child” and has won on many levels. According to the Texas Abortion Laws, Texas includes mandatory ultrasound imaging and parental consent for minors, and women must make at least four visits to a doctor and receive an ultrasound. Women may only receive a third trimester abortion if it is necessary to prevent death or substantial risk of serious impairment to a women’s physical or mental health, or if fetus has severe and irreversible abnormality. Texas considers an illegal abortion if it destroys the vitality or life of child in birth or before (which otherwise would have been born alive); operating a facility without a license, failure to meet Board of Health standards, or failure to make reports to Department of Health; act preformed after pregnancy with intent to cause termination of pregnancy other than for purpose of birth of live fetus or removal

Several states have made attempts to ban abortion, but most of them have failed. In this regard, the states have developed restrictive procedures

In the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey it was upheld for a woman’s right to legal abortion, but must have a 24 hour waiting period. Though legal abortion is still going on but it’s coming to have stricter boundaries. Parental involvement only one parent is to stay with child. In 1990, two cases which was Hodgson v. Minnesota as well as Ohio v. Akron center for Reproductive Health, determined that states requiring parental consent before a minor could have an abortion must allow for Judicial bypass. States governments can restrict abortion access after the first trimester with laws intended to protect the woman’s health. Abortions after fetal viability must be available if the woman’s health or life are at risk, state governments can prohibit other

In 1973, the US Supreme Court declared abortion a nationwide fundamental right through a trial called Roe vs. Wade and protected this right underneath the Fourteenth Amendment, more specifically, the right to privacy. A basic human right, especially one outlined by the Supreme Court, must never run at risk or threat chiefly because not everyone agrees with it. Under no circumstances should a pregnancy ever adjudge mandatory. Abortion is a Constitutional right and as a nation we must fight to give the right and freedom of safe abortions to women all around the nation, make birth control and sex education accessible to women, and raise awareness about the topic itself. (LawCornell)

The discussion of abortion, and whether it is within the constitutional powers to limit its availability to women is becoming an increasingly popular topic in both public and legislative scenes. From 2001-2006, “470,009 abortions occurred in Texas” (Colman 781). The debate on this subject is as much about morality and it is constitutionalism. In 1973 the supreme court case of roe vs wade affirmed the legality of the women's right to an abortion. This court case has become an important influence in current Supreme court's decisions. Most debates on the subject are whether to uphold or overturn Roe v. Wade. In recent years, abortion has become more socially acceptable, largely on behalf of the recent attention that has been drawn to women's rights. Many states that are more liberal, tend to be more lenient on laws and restrictions regarding abortion. However, Texas has been known for its strict regulations on the issue. In 2013 Texas passed House Bill Two that placed many restrictions on clinics and hospitals that provide abortion services. The bill banned fetal termination after 20 weeks gestation, enforced that abortion clinics meet the same standards as hospitals, and required that doctors who perform these procedures have admitting privileges at the nearest hospitals along with other regulations. House Bill Two hoped to ensure a safer experience for women and to decrease the total number of abortions by limiting access and availability to abortion