Whole Woman's Health V. Wade

- 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,

The research that I chose to elaborate my topic on is the Roe v. Wade court case which is about abortion. The case history is about a woman who was single and pregnant; she decided to bring a stimulating challenge suit to the constitution of Texas laws. The laws that Texas made were given to prohibit mothers from aborting children because it was a crime. They could not do it without medical advice for the reason that it was to save the life of the unborn child. As I begin to go into detail about the court case. First Dr. Hallford, a medical doctor who faced criminal prosecution for violating the state abortion law. Second, you have the Does. They are a married couple with no children who were against Jane Roe and her decisions. Lastly, you have District Attorney Wade. Roe and Hallford had a portion of controversies and declaratory that was warranted. The court ruled a decision relief that was not warranted and the Does criticism was not justiciable. This is a brief synopsis of what the court case will expand on later on in the research paper. I will be utilizing reviews to test what male and female dispositions were towards fetus removal and how they feel about it. The study will extremely differ and I will be getting a broad gender preference perspective of the subject that I decided to do the review on. It will all tie once again into the Roe v. Wade court case. As you are perusing my examination paper; the researcher made an investigation on Chowan University

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

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.

The two-minute wait is over. Beth looks down, there it is on the Stick, PREGNANT. Her life has automatically changed. No more hopes of finishing college, of finding her dream ob. Poof! All of a sudden everything was gone, just because of a stupid mistake at that dumb party! She knows the fetus in her body has no heartbeat and two simple pills can make this nightmare go away. Too bad, Beth lives in a small town of Louisiana, where abortion is a synonym for the devil. The Roe vs Wade case where the Supreme Court ruled that it is a woman's decision to have an abortion is overlooked to the point of being considered illegal. They argue that Roe vs. Wade must be overturned. They say Abortion is unconstitutional and is encouraging murder; Re evaluation

The section of the law mandates that abortion doctors ought to have registration at a standing hospital in case of an emergency. However, organizations have filed suit against the enactment of the law before it came into action on October 29, 2013, including the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Center for Reproductive Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union and clinic owners (“American Civil Liberties”). Based on Erik Eckholm’s New York Times article “Judge in Texas Partly Rejects Abortion Law,” once the law was taken into court, Judge Lee Yeakel of United States District Court in Austin, Texas blocked part of the law based on "the act's admitting-privileges provision is without a rational basis and places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.” Although the majority of Texans stands against abortion they still ought to respect women’s reproductive rights.

While the fight to legalize abortion, for reasons other than a mothers health concerns, was won, states such as Texas are now reconsidering the regulations, which go along with such right. In 2004 the State of Texas introduced the Woman’s Right to Know Act, which “requires that all abortions at or after 16 weeks’ gestation be performed in an ambulatory surgical center (ASC)” (Colman, S., & Joyce, T. (2010), p. 775). Roe V Wade’s Supreme Court decision makes it federal law that abortion be legal, therefore the state of Texas cannot make a law specifically prohibiting abortions around this time. However, they can implement acts such as the one discussed above to hinder a women’s access to such rights. By implementing the Woman’s Right to Know Act, the state of Texas is allowing abortion, however it makes access to it within the state of Texas out of reach for the majority of women. In the time following the effect of this law “not one of Texas’s 54 nonhospital abortion providers met the requirements of a surgical center” (Colman, S., & Joyce, T. (2010), p. 775. Following that, a

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.

To help the court determine the decision for this case, they used several widely-known Supreme Court decisions to help build the framework for their ruling. The Supreme Court decisions included: Roe v. Wade (1973), Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproduction (1983). In determining the ruling, the court felt that the regulations were without a rational basis. Initially, the court was in support of the provision. They argued that the admitting privileges requirement furthers health and safety in two respects by noting that the first provision serves as a “quality control mechanism” due to hospitals not wanting to grant admitting privileges to disreputable or incompetent physicians. (Clerk, 2014). The second argument was that admitting privileges ensures a continuity of care between the abortion clinic and the hospital.

Abortion has always been considered a controversial issue in America. When it comes to abortion there are and there will continue to be many different views about the moral acceptance and the social political sides of abortion. Therefore when the Roe vs. Wade decision was announced on January 22, 1973, it was received with a lot of controversy from the public. The Roe vs. Wade case is known to be the case that legalized abortion in the U.S. Before the Roe vs. Wade case, abortion was looked at as morally wrong and it was considered a crime that could cause a woman to spend time in prison. When Roe vs. Wade case ruling, made the court accepted for the first time that the constitutional right to privacy “is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy” (Summary of Roe v. Wade, 1973). A woman’s life was changed with the ruling because now a pregnant woman who did not wish to have her child was allowed to terminate her pregnancy without the fear of being arrested if they were ever caught or the fear of risking their life going through with an illegal abortion.

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 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 law passed by the Texas Legislature in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt violates the constitution in two ways. The law requires abortion clinics to operate within 30 miles of a surgical center, and the physician performing or inducing the abortion must have active admitting privileges at said surgical center. By requiring all medical clinics providing abortions to meet specific regulations, the law places undue burden on the affected patients. The law also violates the constitution by attempting to put in place regulations that do not relate to a legitimate state interest.