Original Jurisdiction states that the Supreme Court has the ultimate power to resolve conflicts that involve federal and state laws. The Texas law being inflicted addresses the states restrictions on the availability of abortion clinics. The Texas case questions the constitutionality of how far a state may go in attempts to restrict abortion. On November 13, 2015 The Supreme Court announced that it would accept its first abortion case in nearly a decade. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide on two issues, whether the appeals of the court will properly handle new restrictions and whether or not woman’s health and safety are protected. The Supreme Court will also determine if the laws imposed will affect the undue burden on women who seek …show more content…
The Federal Government deems abortion legal in the United States of America. The Supremacy Clause helps justify that the Texas law violates the Constitution as a result of the Supreme Court Case known as, Roe v. Wade. The Roe v. Wade case challenged the Texan statute that made it a crime to perform an abortion unless a woman’s life was at stake (Roe v. Wade). The official Planned Parenthood Website states, “The Supreme Court recognizes that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s right to make her own personal medical decisions — including the decision to have an abortion without interference from politicians.” Planned Parenthood continues to state, “In Roe, the Supreme Court found that a woman’s right to make her own decisions about her pregnancy deserves the highest level of constitutional protection.” Infringing on the nationwide legality of abortion is against the Constitution. Texas’s desire to implement laws that will close nearly three quarters of clinics will ultimately violate the Roe v. Wade ruling. Supporters of the law disagree and believe that the Constitution is not being violated (Vogue, Ariane De). According to the official Planned Parenthood association, “The court ruled that in order to succeed in a constitutional challenge, a law must be shown to …show more content…
Hagstrom stated, “By forcing clinics to close, Texas legislators have multiplied the barriers women face when they need an abortion.” If the Supreme Court is to rule the Texas law lawful, the rights to the health of women will be denied. Implementing provisions that require facilities to be equipped with those of outpatient surgical centers effects a woman’s ability to receive affordable health care. Clinics such as Planned Parenthood, not only offer access to abortion but are the main providers of sex education. Planned Parenthoods also helps prevent unintended pregnancies through contraception, reduce the spread of sexually transmitted infections through testing and treatment, and screen for cervical and other cancers for an affordable price.”(Home - Planned Parenthood Action). If the Supreme Court rules the proposed Texas law constitutional, the state of Texas will have 10 abortion centers that offer service to 5.4 million women (Carmon Irin). Hagstrom, the founder of Whole Woman’s Health continued and stated, “Texas women are forced to go to multiple and unnecessary visits at clinics that are now farther away, take more days off of work, losing income, find childcare, and arrange and pay for transportation for hundreds of miles.” (Carmon Irin). The MSNBC reporter Irin
A previously stated with medical marijuana and marriage equality, each state has individual views on abortion depending on their location and history. Such as, the South tends to have more conservative views and be Pro-Life while Northeasters tend to be more liberal and Pro-Choice. The federal government has had “no challenge to the federal law against partial-birth abortion on this ground ever went to the Supreme Court” (Ponnuru 2015). The federal government has already declared abortion legal through the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973. “Roe v. Wade (1973)… ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester. Even then, an exception had to be made to protect the life of the mother” (The federal government should have the power because it is unconstitutional for certain citizens of the United States to have more rights than other citizens just because of state lived in.
(Antevil, Jeffrey. Supreme Court rules on Roe vs. Wade in 1973. New York Daily News. print.) So the court analyzed abortion laws and its history from then till now, and with that they found 3 justifications for outlawing abortions: "a Victorian social concern to discourage illicit sexual conduct"; protecting the health of women; and protecting prenatal life.” (McBride, Alex. Roe v. Wade (1973). The Supreme Court. December 2006. Print.) The Court denied the first two as they were pointless but as for the third, the Court disputed that fetal life wasn’t necessarily a "person" as said and guarded in the U.S. Constitution. Culturally, although a few associations view fetuses as human beings that justify full rights, no general agreement exists. The Court than stated that Texas was thus capturing that only one "view" of many individuals. Securing all fetuses beneath this outlook of prenatal life wasn’t amply valuable to explain the state's prevention of roughly all
“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.
Is the Texas law banning abortion unconstitutional? This is just one of the many issues proposed throughout the case. According to Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun-no, it is not. The decision was made that there is a right to abortion and women
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).
There have been many debates over abortion. One of the more famous acts in history about abortion is Roe vs. Wade on January 22, 1973. In this case the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman’s right to make her own personal medical decisions. This includes the decision to have an abortion without interference from politics and regulations, or religion. Therefore, a state may not ban abortion prior to viability.
"The Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas. The question then becomes whether the state interests advanced to justify this abridgment can survive the 'particularly careful scrutiny' that the Fourteenth Amendment here requires. The asserted state interests are protection of the health and safety of the pregnant woman, and protection of the potential
However, everything that was ruled by Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade case was contradicted, In1992, the Supreme court case “...Planned Parenthood V. Casey that said an abortion regulation was unconstitutional if it had 'the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.'” (Levy). This court ruled that the states had the right to restrict a woman's right to an abortion and prohibit public funding for the poor women that can not afford an abortion.
Regardless of the opinions surrounding abortion, a majority of people are familiar with the Supreme court cases of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. These two cases have played a tremendous role in regard to the abortion debate. In 1973, the Roe v. Wade case was ruled in favour of Roe and stated the stringent criminalization of abortion in Texas was deemed unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment. The law violated the right of privacy, which implied the privacy of a woman’s decision to an abortion. Although the courts agreed with Roe, they also recognized the rights to an abortion are not absolute. Limitations to the right was based on the trimesters of pregnancy with the first trimester protecting the woman’s choice and the third trimester being acceptable for states to regulate or even ban abortions outside of therapeutic reasons.
Texas is a key state when it comes to looking at abortion policy, and the laws surrounding it. The fight for a women’s right of choice regarding her body came about in Texas in 1969 with the supreme court case regarding a women’s right to an abortion. Now, in 2016 the state of Texas continues to fight with congress regarding issues surrounding women obtaining an abortion. The HB2 bill, which people from all over the country are fighting both for, and against, is in the eye of the camera as Texas implements some of the strictest rules yet regarding who, when, where, and how abortions can be performed.
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
Before 1973, abortion access was determined by state legislature for each individual state with no consistency across the United States. Some states allowed abortions but most state statues heavily restricted or completely banned abortion. The restricted states would generally only allow abortion in the event of rape, incest, fetal anomalies, or the woman’s life is at risk. The state of Texas enforced a state statute that made it illegal for an abortion to be performed unless the woman’s
In Roe v. Wade, the court looked at a Texas law that did not permit abortion
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
The issue of abortion is notoriously controversial. Since the Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, states have enacted different restrictions on the procedure. These restrictions vary from state to state. Nineteen states currently have laws prohibiting partial-birth abortion, and forty-one states strictly prohibit abortions except in cases of life-endangerment. One particularly incendiary area of abortion law is that of public funding. However, as of this year there are only seventeen states that cover abortion procedures through public funding. In this paper we will discuss federal abortion legislation, while describing the laws and political ideologies of the following states: Texas, California, New