Pro Life And Abortions Analysis

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 the Judicial Branch, Supreme Court’s decision in the 1972 case of Roe v. Wade is still an important decision, Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole says that the clinics are going to be forced to be shut down under a law from the United States Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court found that criminal abortion laws, like the ones involved here, go against the Due Process Clause that are found in the fourteenth Amendment. The 14th Amendment protects citizens against state action the right to one’s privacy. There will not be any clinics at all in the 500 miles between San Antonio and the New Mexico border. The new requirement that also applies to clinics that only offer medication abortion which means the abortion after care may not be thorough and

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 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

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 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

FACTS: in 1973 with the passing of Roe v. Wade, women were guaranteed, under a right to privacy in which the woman has the right to choose whether or not to get an abortion, however, this right was not confirmed to be absolute. Nearly 20 years later, in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the “central holdings” of Roe v. Wade were reaffirmed, by providing limits in which federal and state governments can regulate abortion. Unfortunately, conflict arose between Casey and Roe, when trying to ensure the woman still has a right to choose, which lead to allowing a prohibition of late-term abortions, unless the health of the mother was at stake. Next, in 2000, the case of Stenberg v. Carhart forced the court to consider a Nebraska state law that was passed banning late-term abortions and whether the statute was unconstitutional, which it was found to be, because the statute did not include an exception for the health of the mother and that the language used was so broad that it burdened a woman’s right to choose. Then, in 2007, the case of Gonzales v. Carhart raised the issue once again on a federal law that had been passed, the Partial-Birth Ban Act of 2003. The lower courts claimed it to be unconstitutional because of the lack of exception for the health of the mother. This Act however, was found to be constitutional and The Supreme Court decided to look once again at the precedent, under stare decisis

- In New York Times of February 27, 2016, similar to ones around country, the 2013Texas’ law was written by anti-abortion activists with only one purpose of shutting down clinics since its two main requirements have nothing to do with protecting women’s health. First, admitting privileges are often hard for doctors to get for bureaucratic reasons. Second, ambulatory surgical center standards are prohibitively expensive to meet and medically unnecessary due to the fact that abortion is one of the safest of all medical procedures, with a complication rate less than one-tenth of 1%. (The Editorial Board,

have been organizing and lobbying local, state and federal government to restrict abortion. Not only that, but they have also lobbied evangelical voters to gain support. That puts politicians in a tight spot, either work against abortion or leave politics. (1) So far, 18 states require abortion procedures done at hospitals, and Wisconsin requires it done no closer than 30 minutes away from a

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

October 16, 1916 was the day that Planned Parenthood was founded. Over the years, this nonprofit organization has grown in more ways than one. When abortion was legalized, Planned Parenthood then began to administer these abortions and give more information towards this service. Many people refer to Planned Parenthood as an abortion clinic because of how many they administer and because that is what they are mostly known for. Abortion has gradually grown more common and is seen as an action that you shouldn’t be ashamed of, when it used to be illegal. My question is, how many women go to Planned Parenthood not expecting to get an abortion, and leave with the idea that it would be a better choice to abort the child? If Planned Parenthood wants

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

Abortion is never an easy decision, but women have been making the choice for thousands of years. It has become a large dilemma since 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court passed a law making the procedure legal, and an even larger controversial issue. The controversy is divided into “Pro-Choice” and Pro-Life” views. Pro-Choice supporters believe that the woman should have to choice whether to abort or not. Pro-Life supporters believe that it should be illegal to abort and preformed. However, there are many ways for this procedure to be performed. Abortion still remains today a controversial issue, by who should determine if it is the right thing to terminate a pregnancy or not and by how the procedure should be preformed.

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).

Some of you know that I have a book forthcoming (Howard, 2016) on work and vocation. Since the book is primarily for Christian women, I am profiling several women whose work reflects the gospel in various professions. One of them is Susanne Metaxas—yes, Eric Metaxas's wife. Since 2006, Susanne has served as president of Avail, a "care network" in New York City for women facing unplanned pregnancy.