Roe V. Wade Case Study

“Abortion: Roe v. Wade” American Decades. Ed. Judith S. Baughman, et al. Vol 8: 1970-1979.

Planned parenthood V Casey: An abortion law required informed consent as well as a 24 hour waiting period prior to any abortion procedure in Pennsylvania. Any married woman had to state that her husband was in fact knowledgeable of this intention. Additionally, any minor seeking an abortion requires the consent of a parent. These laws were challenged by many clinics specializing in abortion, as well as many doctors. An appellate court upheld all of these stipulations with the exclusion of the married woman.

Since the landmark court case of Roe v. Wade in 1973, the controversy of abortion has only increased. Though the court subjected the act of abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, pro-life activists continue to prevail. The Constitution protects the natural rights of citizens, including the freedom of choice in abortion, thereby the right to abortion should be protected.

the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 (Seward par. 1). During 1988 and 1989 the

The landmark "Roe v. Wade" ruling began an era of nationally sanctioned abortion rights and a new wave of controversy (History). The controversy often took shape as court cases aimed at reversal. Two pivotal cases were: The Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth and the Supreme Court declares a statute that requires parental and spousal consent for abortions unconstitutional.

Casey (1992) was centered on four statutes, which dealt with access to obtaining an abortion. The statues required a woman seeking an abortion give informed consent, that a minor obtain parental consent, that a married woman notify her husband that she was having the procedure, and finally that clinics would provide certain information to a woman and then would wait 24 hours before deciding to perform the procedure. All of these statues but the one involving the married woman were upheld. This ruling continued to narrow the scope of a woman’s control over obtaining abortion, giving more and more power back to the states to regulate as they saw

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

In Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, a Supreme Court case which took place in 1992, five

The Court held that a women has a right right in an abortion unchanged from the Roe v. Wade’s decision. The Supreme Court also upheld that the states has an interest in an unborn life and that at some point a women rights to an abortion can be restricted. The Court further rejected the trimester designation as an undue burden and used the term viable as to when the States can intervene in not allowing a women to have an abortion. Additionally, the SupremeCourt upheld parental informed consent and also allow for informed consent of a women seeking and abortion requiring a 24 hr waiting period. The States was also required to furnish the women with information about abortion, in addition religious organization could provide information that could counsel a women

The main constitutional question or issue was “Does the Constitution embrace the right of a woman to obtain an abortion?”

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 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

Before the 1973 ruling of the case of Roe v Wade, the estimated average number of illegal abortions every year ranged from 200,000 to 1.5 million. The methods used were violently dangerous including women ingesting toxic substances such as bleach and detergents which often times was ineffective. Women around the country were concerned that the anti-abortion laws conflicted with a person’s right to privacy and equal protection given by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Gale University’s William Sullivan explains ”The right to abort unborn children is not specifically protected by the Constitution, and prior to 1973, abortion legislation had been understood to be limited to the power of the states per the Tenth

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 Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989. Among the new changes, law required the informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the abortion. A girl who was a minor that was wanting an abortion required the consent of one parent. A married woman who wanted an abortion had to prove she had told her husband about her intentions to abort the child. The new changes were challenged by numerous abortion clinics and physicians. The federal appeals court upheld all of the changes except for the notification of the husband requirement. There was question that can a state require women who want to have an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, and if minors who obtain parental consent, without