Summary Of Whole Woman's Health Vs Hellerstedt

Kelly Fadden Business Law Professor Saunders 4/20/2015 Style of Case Roe v. Wade Citation 410 U.S. 114(1973) Factual Background Roe was an unmarried woman looking to get an abortion. The law in Texas, where she lived and the case was decided, was that a woman could get an abortion if, and only if, she was in a life threatening situation because of the pregnancy. Roe brought forth the case to speak on behalf of all women in the same position she herself was. There were also two other cases being brought before the court on the same matter with the plaintiffs being Hallford and the Does. Hallford was a doctor facing criminal charges for performing abortions on three women. The Does were a childless couple who were not expecting, though Mrs. Doe, if she were to become pregnant might face complications,

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

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,

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.

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

"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

- 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,

In contemporary America it can be argued that nothing is more contentious and controversial of an issue than abortion. From the vehement pro-life movement to the impassioned pro-choice coalition, this policy issue is one that has become increasingly important in our society. This debate has raised important questions regarding the value of human life, at what stage of development does a fetus have it’s constitutionally ensured rights take hold over that of the mother and at what stage can a state start regulating abortions.

Since Roe v Wade, there have been major advancements in the maternal-fetal world of medicine. Advanced technology and science have shown us that there is “life” to a fetus before the last trimester, leading to many regulations and laws to prohibit abortion for the life the fetus. Discussed in this paper are the policies, court cases, and executive decisions affecting legal abortion in the US and the ethical implications that debate them.

In the 19th century, after tremendous progress in surgical processes, abortions were then conducted by surgeons on a wide scale, while medical abortions are used concurrently. However, as abortion technology prospers, legal restrictions came with it. In 1803, a English statute abolished the previously-legal first trimester abortions. The act “condemned the willful, malicious, and unlawful use of any medical substance when used with the intent to induce abortion” (Stern, 1968). In 1821, Connecticut enabled the first statute in the United States regulating abortions. Within 10 years, states like Illinois, Ohio, New York, Alabama, and others enabled abortion restriction statutes, and by 1968, 50 of the 51 jurisdictions in the United States have prohibited abortion except in the case women’s life is endangered (Ibid., at 3). In 1965, Britain, however, legalized abortion for “medical conditions of the mother, for socio-economic reasons, for eugenic considerations, and for pregnancies which resulted from rape or incestuous intercourse”, which is still law today (Ibid, at 4). In Canada, abortion has been legalized since 1969 through Bill C-150 if “a committee of three physicians determined that the pregnancy was a threat to the woman's life or health” (Norman, 2012). In 1988, Canadian Supreme Court struck down bill C-150’s provision requiring committee approval to receive an abortion in its decision R v Morgentaler, legalizing abortion across Canada for any reasons (Ibid.).

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

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).

As a surgery performed so commonly that three out of ten women will go through this procedure in their life, abortion remains a controversial topic. Ranging from establishing when the human life begins, the safety of the surgery, to social and welfare status of the mother, it has become an unending battle between the two stand. However, as a landmark decision made by the United States Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade case, abortion is ruled legal in the United States while adhering to each state’s regulations. We Do Abortions Here: A Nurse’s Story by Sallie Tisdale described personal experiences of a nurse at an abortion clinic. Sallie Tisdale has earned many awards for her work, including the Regional Arts and Culture Council Literary Fellowship, Pushcart Prize, and James Phelan Literary Award.

In 1973, the Supreme Court made a decision in one of the most controversial cases in history, the case of Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), in which abortion was legalized and state anti-abortion statues were struck down for being unconstitutional. This essay will provide a brief history and analysis of the issues of this case for both the woman’s rights and the states interest in the matter. Also, this essay will address the basis for the court ruling in Roe’s favor and the effects this decision has had on subsequent cases involving a woman’s right to choose abortion in the United States. The court’s decision created legal precedent for several subsequent abortion restriction cases and has led to the development of legislation to protect women’s health rights. Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade was a historic victory for women’s rights, it is still an extremely controversial subject today and continues to be challenged by various groups.

Health care professionals have a significant role in the provision of abortion services. Health care professionals has an obligation to treat patients to the best of their ability and protect their privacy. Provisions of the Affordable Care Act states it is unlawful to discriminate against patients based on their sex, race, color, and other statuses such as medical history (Rehnstrom 2015). The ruling of Judge O’Connor blocks this provision of the Affordable Care Act. Which can have a detrimental effect on the health of the community. Allowing health care providers to refuse services to women who has previously had an abortion may create situation where patient will not truthfully disclose information about previous procedures and health issues which will affect the quality of care the patient receives. It will also reduce access to quality health care within the rural and low income community and may discourage individuals from seeking health care services.