Planned Parenthood Vs Hyde Case

Public health researchers with the UC San Francisco group, Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, conducted a longitudinal study of 956 women who sought an abortion and were turned away. Diana Foster’s study reveals what happened to the women’s economic standing, health and relationship status after being denied their right. She claims that, “When a woman is denied the abortion she wants, she is statistically more likely to wind up unemployed, on public assistance, and below the poverty line” (Newitz). This is clear because one of the major factors in a woman’s decision to abort, is because of her awareness that she will not be able to financially support her child. One of a woman’s most formidable fears is to fail to adequately raise her child and provide him with his greatest odds to succeed. Naturally, a mother’s ultimate goal is for her children to have a better life than she did. This fuels the majority of people’s ambition and determination to obtain a comfortable and promising life style, to then pass on to their offspring. Women living in poverty seek abortions because they do not want to bring a child in a life of misery and suffering. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is not just blindly decided, all aspects of the mother’s and child’s life are considered. In fact, after initially being denied the right to abort, the survey demonstrates that 45% of the women were on public assistance (Newitz). However, Foster concludes, “a year later, they were far more likely to be on public assistance — 76% of the turnaways were on the dole…67% percent of the turnaways were below the poverty line” (Newitz). Therefore, it is evident that not allowing women to legally have abortions creates more strain on the state because of these mothers' increased dependence on social assistance programs.

This tiered system sets up privileges that are difficult, if not impossible, to break out of. “Even before the cuts less than 20% of women in need… were served… out of the 1.7 million women in need” (Stevenson, 2014). A legislation that was created to benefit and, as the advocates for the bill have said before, create the ideal world without abortion has succeed in undermining the health and safety of the individuals within the state. The benefits of this bill help little to no one as people are forced to conform based around moral ideals.

The case of A.C.L.U and Planned Parenthood v. Pence has brought attention to the Supreme Court with the question of which of the two is of greater importance: the duty to honor the woman’s autonomy versus the duty to respect potential life. Indiana’s governor, Mike Pence, has signed a House Enrolled Act No.1337 to amend the Indiana health code, which will go in effect on July 1 of 2016. The act affects abortions in several ways which include that doctors much provide perinatal hospice care information to women considering abortion after receiving a diagnosis of a lethal fetal anomaly, prohibits all abortions solely based on fetus’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis of the fetus having any disability, and lastly requires the women to take responsibility financially for the disposal of the remain of any abortion or miscarriage. After the act was signed into law, A.C.L.U of Indiana and Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky sued Governor Pence on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional. The A.C.L.U and Planned Parenthood won in the district court. The case was appealed to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals and was reversed. Today, the court responds to the petitioners’ appeal by holding that Indiana’s House Enrolled Act No.1337 is unconstitutional. This decision stems from the recognition that the law while attempting to do its duty

Following the Supreme Court’s judgment on Roe and Doe, among the initial federal legislative reactions was enacting restrictions on the utilization of federal funds for abortions. For instance, there were restrictions on Medicaid money, and this was referred to as the Hyde Amendment. However, the restrictions were challenged almost immediately in the courts. Consequently, two classifications of the public funding cases were heard and judged by the Supreme Court. Principally, these involve funding restrictions for the elective or non-therapeutic abortions and funding limitations for medically necessary or therapeutic abortions.

The court also recognized that the right to privacy is not absolute and that a state has valid interests in protecting maternal health and protecting potential life. A state is allow to ban abortion after viability, except when it is necessary to protect a woman’s life or health. The ability to make this personal health care decision has also enabled women to pursue educational and employment opportunities that were often denied before the Roe case, The Supreme Court noted that “the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives” (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1992). According to the Economist, "Roe v. Wade may have liberated many women; yet it has also trapped America in an irresolvable clash of absolutes. On April 18, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court gave politicians the permission to interfere in the private health care decisions of women and families by creating the first federal law banning abortion procedures. The federal government made a decision to ban and criminalizes abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy . This ban affects more than just the women who need second-trimester abortions due to the fact that the Court's decision dismissed more than 30 years of precedent that prioritize women’s health when it came to laws that cast restriction on abortions. In the states that have passed laws similar to this, many women and their families were put into agonizing and tragic situations; being unable to end a pregnancy for serious medical reasons (Federal and State Bans and Restrictions on Abortion). As Politicians across the country succeed in restricting access to abortion, women are facing the consequences. Laws that restrict access to abortion hurt women's

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

Beginning with the 1973 landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has consistently guarded the abortion rights of women in America. Abortion advocates have praised the decision for decades, and it has become a staple, however controversial, of American law. Throughout the following decades, various cases reached the Court that forced it to reconsider its decision, and Roe v. Wade was always upheld. This changed in 2007 with Gonzales v. Carhart, the first decision in which the Court allowed certain abortion rights to be curtailed. Much evidence suggests that Gonzales is the beginning of a new trend, and that the Court may begin to slowly allow abortion rights to be eroded. Behind this change lies a battle between conservatives and liberals, not about abortion, but about the role of the Supreme Court in American politics. Unfortunately, the abortion issue, difficult in of itself, is being used as a stage on which to fight a much larger battle about our government’s structure, unnecessarily perpetuating the controversy and uncertainty surrounding abortion policy in the United States. As a result of this, it may be better for abortion advocates in pursuit of their cause to avoid the Supreme Court altogether.

In May of 1991, America experienced the Supreme Court make a five justice majority decision to uphold the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) regulations on prohibiting recipients of Title X funds from counseling patients regarding abortion, finding that this condition did not violate the recipients ' First Amendment right to freedom of speech (Stan L. Rev. 1). Prior to Rust v. Sullivan, Roe v. Wade stood as the foundational case for all abortion cases to come. Roe v. Wade initiated that a woman’s right to be free of government interference in deciding whether to have ab abortion does not imply a right to have the government subsidize that procedure. However, in Rust v. Sullivan, we are dealing with the first time the government has decided to deprive pregnant women of factually correct and medically necessary information. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the majority opinion addressing that the gag rule stands with the support of his claim: “The government is not denying a benefit to anyone, but is instead simply insisting that the public funds be sent for the purposes for which they were authorized.” This case brings forward major controversy making a claim that the denying of counseling regarding abortion to pregnant women can be harmful to their health and a violation of their rights stated in the First and Fifth Amendment.

The Severity of Abortion and its Role in the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act

The topic of women’s reproductive rights has become a major, controversial issue in today’s society. Grounded in a history of opposition for religious, political, and moral reasons, reproductive rights have only legally been around for a short period of history. Specifically, the landmark case Roe v. Wade was the major stride that this country took towards enforcing women’s reproductive rights. The ruling for this case determined that reproductive rights are legal rights women hold, inclusive of the right to have abortions. However, many laws today are made in an effort to prevent abortions, acting as “undue burdens” that aim to create obstacles for women who seek this type of medical procedure.

One can say the cost of abortion is a pricy one, each person has different feelings on the subject. Whether they are for or against it, what most people seem to forget is that it’s a right nonetheless. For decades, women have fought for the right to be able to make decisions on personal issues like abortion. The Roe v. Wade (1963) Supreme court case serves as an example of how a woman fought the system of the criminal abortion laws that prohibited abortion calling them “unconstitutional” (Roe vs Wade Fast Facts, CNN, 2017). Abortion was deemed as a right protected by the 14th Amendment (right to privacy) and made legal for the first trimester of a pregnancy. Although the court case ruling went in favor of abortion, restrictions were still

The Hyde Amendment (HA) was one of the many created to restrict access to abortion; it specifically restricts Medicaid funding and is renewed annually. Created in 1976, the Hyde Amendment bans federal funding for abortion with the exception of rape, incest or endangers the womans life. These exceptions have an evident history of being omitted, reinstated, redefined and debated throughout the existence of the amendment. “Each modification has simultaneously reflected and reinforced deep cultural ambiguities about the definitions of these circumstances” (SOURCE 3). “One of the first concerns immediately following the HA initial implementation was whether large numbers of poor women would resort to illegal or self-induced abortions as a result of the public policy change” (SOURCE

These resulting problems are probably best shown by the individual cases that have reached the Federal Courts over the years; of the many issues and cases that have made it to the Supreme Court on the basis of violated rights and expectations, the topic of abortion still remains relevant in today’s society, and has “sharply divided” American citizens for approximately four decades (Patterson 2013, p. 98). For many people, it is an issue of personal privacy and personal choice, and on the other hand, abortion remains a life and death struggle for others. For Democrats and Republicans, the basic situational context is not all that different, but the divide between the two parties has only widened over time for political purposes. This issue specifically resonated with me when I considered myself in the position of one of the countless women who have been denied for an abortion. If I was suffering from a health risk as a result of the pregnancy, or if I

Women all around the United States are losing their voice to something that cannot speak; their unborn children. Pregnant women are being caught up in laws not to protect them but the baby inside them, and this means that any action or mistake they make could possibly be interpreted as harm or abuse against their child. Tripping down the stairs, taking the wrong medicine, being involved in an abusive relationship, or even simply being a victim of drug abuse can mark many pregnant women as criminals under new laws. Based on already established prejudices against drug users, the poor, and those who seek abortions, fetal protection laws set a new value on unborn children while serving to devalue the status of women. Women who get the worst treatment are those who are already trapped in prejudice guided systems, such as women of color or people living within conservative, religious oriented states. Through the discussion of the problems within fetal protection laws and the possible policy solutions that could be made, I will unravel the deeper problem with pregnancy rights and the tangled connections it has with thousands of other social issues.

To begin with, the first fallacy that we come across is that barring an abortion by the government does not place a burden on the woman's rights. This fallacy is supported by various claims that states that the federal government has to find a sponsor so that it does not have to arrange for the procedure itself; is an either/or fallacy since even an NGO can sponsor the operation and government doesn’t have to be involved. Now, following the ruling by the federal appeals court concerning Jane Doe, a young teenager who wants to terminate her pregnancy, it is evident that the purported claim is aimed at making the case for the teenager a subject of human rights concept (Editorial Board). As it stands, the definition of human rights, particularly regarding the unborn, has been debated for a century with different parties claiming support for pro-choice and pro-life alike.