Whole Woman's Health Vs Hellerstedt Case Study

In February of this year 2017 the Texas Senate passed Bill 25 and is now on its way to The House of Representatives. According to TexasTribune.org this bill is meant to eliminate “wrongful birth” lawsuits. These law suits allow parents to sue their medical practioner if they give birth to a child with a medical disability or defect and were not properly informed beforehand. The author of this bill is hoping doctors will no longer encourage abortions out of fear of lawsuits (Evans).

"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

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

1. A pregnant woman lacked standing to sue over a law’s potential unconstitutionally since the law applied to medical practice (and not patients) (Dawn Stacey M.Ed, n.d.)

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.

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

“But despite their best efforts to chip away at women's fundamental rights, the courts have consistently rejected these extreme assaults on reproductive freedom (Associated Press). Oklahoma passed a law that required women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound followed by a verbal description of the contents before having the operation (Hoberock). This law was declared unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Supreme Court because it violated a 1992 Supreme Court ruling (Associated Press). This law held no legal, medical, or valid reason other than to discriminate against a class of pro-choice women. The U.S Supreme Court declined hearing the attorney general Scott Pruitt`s appeal to this law being declared unconstitutional (Hoberock). Martha Skeeters, president of the Oklahoman Coalition for Reproductive Justice, issued this statement after the U.S Supreme Court decision, saying:

Texas has a long history of conflict with the federal government over laws and policies, particularly when dealing with environmental, social, and educational issues. Texas has conservative right-wing views and has been in conflict more often with the federal government since President Obama has been in office. The dilemma generally arises from a clash in opposing political and social views. One major issue that has arisen in over the course of the last two years has been a battle over funding for Planned Parenthood. Although the courts have deemed that this quarrel is not about abortion rights or access to abortion, the truth of the matter is that it really is. Texas leaders are against abortion and are trying to skirt federal law that allows abortion by imposing their personal agenda opposing abortion or anything that seemingly supports abortion on the Texas people. The problem is that in the midst of this chaos, low-income women of Texas are the ones who are suffering through the loss of basic and preventative healthcare.

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 Texas anti-abortion law has taken the country’s attention by storm. It is an issue on many different woman’s minds, especially those who live in the state of Texas. The new laws are forcing many woman to have to cross state lines in order to receive an abortion and medical care. This includes woman who needs abortions due to preexisting medical conditions and those who are carrying fetuses which are diseased and are expected not to be born as healthy babies. The Texas Governor Rick Perry and Senator Ted Cruz are leading the fight for the abortion laws to become permanent, laws that are considered the strictest abortion laws that this country has ever seen.

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 first 3 provisions of HB2 were enforced by November 1, 2013; the ASC requirement is currently enjoined pending a US Supreme Court decision, as is the admitting privileges requirement as it applies to 2 Texas facilities.”- American Public Health Association. This shows that the abortion law in Texas is gradually being stricter by time and more improvements have been done in the law that strengthens the law and protected numerous unborn life.

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.

In the past few decades, the issue of abortion rights has created debates and controversy within the United States. Those who criticize the act of abortion – pro-life – argue that the act of abortion is equivalent to the murder of a baby. Those who support the legalization of abortion – pro-choice – argues women should be able to choose whether or not they want to have an abortion. Currently, abortion is legal in all states – a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe vs. Wade. However, it has become increasingly common for states to create anti-abortion laws, which makes it more difficult to have an abortion. In 2014, Missouri state representative Rick Brattin proposed H.B.131, a house bill that would require women to receive a written consent from the biological father in order to have an abortion. This bill serves to prevent women from having an abortion.

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