Who Really Decides Abortion

One of the first moral issues addressed by both sides of the abortion debate concerns a pregnant woman’s so-called natural “right” to make “reproductive choices.” (“The Rights of Pregnant Women”) Anti-abortion advocacy groups claim that “the only way to actually protect the mother’s rights will be by enforcing laws that secure her child’s right to life,” (“Argument 2”) whereas pro-abortion groups contend that these laws “create a dangerous precedent for wide-ranging government intrusion into the lives of all women.” (“The Rights”) With two fundamentally contrasting viewpoints at odds with each other, it is apparent that one of the core issues concurrent with abortion is a woman’s rights versus the rights of her unborn fetus.

Jane Roe, a pregnant mother wanting to abort her child sued in the interest of herself, and other women in comparable circumstances during a struggle to stop Texas from criminalizing all abortions except the ones that would save the life of a mother. Texas had made it a crime to receive an abortion except when the doctor advises the mother have an abortion for her own health and safety. Jane Roe wanted a ruling that declared these Texas’ statutes to be unconstitutional and also, she wanted to prevent the District Attorney from enforcing them. Roe alleged that she was pregnant and unmarried. She could not legally obtain an abortion by a licensed doctor because her life was not endangered. So, she argued that the law was unconstitutional and invaded upon her privacy rights that were protected by multiple amendments and laws. Claiming it invaded upon her privacy rights by not allowing her to abort her child.

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

In 1973, Roe v. Wade ruled a state law that banned abortions, except in the cases of risking the life of the mother, unconstitutional (Garrow 833). The Court ruled that states were forbidden from regulating or outlawing abortion performed during the first trimester of a woman’s pregnancy, could pass abortion regulations if they were related to the health of the mother in the second and third trimesters, and pass abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus in the third trimester (Paltrow 18). However, the primary concern would remain to be the mother’s health, regardless. Roe v. Wade, controversial since it was decided, divided America and continues to spark debates,

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 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.

Since the Supreme court ruled in the court case Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion has been a hot topic throughout the country. Americans disagree strongly about when an embryo or fetus becomes a person and consequently whether abortion is murder. People who are pro-life think that abortion is wrong because it is a procedure to kill a fetus while the pro-choice believe that a woman has the right to choose. Roe v. Wade was a case with three groups challenging a Texas abortion law which said that abortions were illegal unless they were to save the life of the mother. The first plaintiff was Jane Roe, an unmarried pregnant woman who wanted an abortion. Jane Roe’s doctor also challenged the law. He argued that the law was not specific enough and therefore limited his constitutional right to

In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the U.S Supreme court ruled that the woman has the right to make a choice giving support to the pro-choice groups that support abortion. This meant that, the fetus has no rights and is at the indispensable mercy of the mother. The rights of the state and the fetus cannot overrule the choice that the mother has made. In another case in 1992, Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the US Supreme Court maintained that a woman has the power and the right to commit an abortion (Knapp,

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

Abortion is a very touchy subject. For some, there were tears of joy, shock and sighs of relief. For others, there was disappointment. The U.S. Supreme Court gave people the right to abortion. In Texas, the "Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt case began, reactions were strong and divided, as they were nationwide." ""I am beyond elated," Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder and CEO of Whole Woman's Health, said in a written statement. "After years of fighting heartless, anti-abortion Texas politicians who would seemingly stop at nothing to push abortion out of reach, I want everyone to understand: you don't mess with Texas, you don't mess with Whole Woman's Health, and you don't mess with this beautiful, powerful movement of people dedicated to reproductive health, rights, and justice."" The Supreme Court was troubled when deciding whether "two key provisions in Texas' House Bill 2, enacted in 2013, constituted an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions in the Lone Star State." The state argued that the law protected

In our long history as well as in the modern society, childbearing and motherhood have undoubtedly held a great weight in most women’s lives. We cannot deny that a woman’s choice to bear a child or not would have significant impact on the health and welfare of a woman. Although it is important that the government’s act is intended to protect profound respect for human life, the Court’s decision would allow the federal government to overstep the boundary of a woman’s liberty and discerning decision. The Act would impose an undue burden and substantial obstacles on a woman’s right to abortion. Power to enact a law to promote welfare of individuals is vested with the state, not Congress, unless otherwise such power is expressly prohibited by the Constitution. In the present case, the state’s power to regulate procedural options for a legal abortion is not expressly prohibited by the

The “undue burden” test is significant to this course because it illustrates the limitations of a women’s right to abortion, as implied within the 14th Amendment due process clause, which implicitly states a right to personal privacy. The test itself does not protect women against regulations of their rights, even if those regulations place a substantial difficulty on them exercising their rights as long as there is other substantial reasoning for the regulation. For example, in Gonzales v. Carthart (2007) “The Partial- Birth Ban Act of 2003”, a federal stature prohibiting Dilation

This case, in the end, guaranteed women the right to an abortion, and therefore set the precedent for which level of government would ultimately end up deciding policy on abortion. Thirty years later, the Nebraska court of appeals struck down a law banning partial-birth abortion, but appellate courts in other states upheld their bans on partial-birth abortion. In 2000, the case went to the Supreme Court, who questioned if the Nebraska ban violated the rights guaranteed in the 14th Amendment. They ultimately ruled that the ban placed an undue burden on a woman’s right to an abortion, and therefore did violate the rights in the 14th Amendment. Even more recent was the Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt case in 2016. The Texas legislature passed a law called the House Bill 2, which placed restrictive provisions on abortion and where abortion could take place. The Supreme Court questioned if the court’s assessment of the burden placed on abortion rights take into account how much abortion restrictions actually serve the government’s stated health interest. The Court decided that House Bill 2 did not give enough medical benefits to counter the burdens placed on women who are trying to follow up on their constitutional right to an

The argument of abortion has been raging since the Supreme Court case, Roe vs. Wade, in 1973. This court case has divided the country into two factions: pro-choice and pro-life. Pro-life advocates argue that abortions are murder and extreme levels of child abuse. While pro-choice advocates believe abortions are a justifiable means to end pregnancies. The pro-choice argument is that the fetus is not yet a human being and its rights should not override that of the mother’s.