Whole Woman's Health Vs Hellerstedt Case Study

This controversial case ruled that a woman’s ability to be able to chose to get an abortion is considered a protected liberty. It also concluded that this

"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 a 5-3 ruling, the justices ruled out the law and became a victory for women’s reproductive rights which leads to the significance of pro-choice

One of the other plaintiffs was Hallford, a doctor facing criminal charges for violating state abortion laws. The other plaintiff was a married couple without children, the Does. The Does were seeking an injunction against the enforcement of the laws because they were unconstitutional. The Texas Federal Court which was composed of a panel of three judges did find the law to be unconstitutional based on the Ninth Amendment. The Ninth Amendment states: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This Amendment has helped to establish a Constitutional right to privacy. Texas Federal Court ruled that the laws were too vague and therefore violated the Constitutional rights of the plaintiffs. Wade appealed this decision to the United States Supreme

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.

FACTS The prosecution, Jane Roe, a pregnant single women brought a class action lawsuit in an effort to challenge the laws in Texas surrounding abortion and their constitutionality. Texas laws made it illegal to have an abortion without the medical direction of a medical professional, in which case it would be for the health and well-being of the pregnant mother. The respondents made up of Dr. Hallford who was criminally charged with for violating Texas abortion laws; and a married couple with no children, the Does, who sought to fight the enforcement of Texas abortion laws by the government for being unconstitutional. The defendant was Henry Wade, the county District

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

This utilizes two similar court cases, Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), in order to provide support for the second premise. In these cases, the Supreme Court approved the Federal Abortion Ban, which “outlaws certain second-trimester abortions and has no exceptions for cases when a woman’s health is in danger” (Abortion, p. 2). NARAL (2013) explains that these cases reason that “other procedures are available to women who would have undergone the banned procedure” (Abortion, p. 2), which can imply that the women are basically on their own to find a safe alternative to a traditional abortion if they may need one. To conclude this premise, NARAL (2013) states that because of the cases, women can be forced to continue carrying the child, even if it will be at the expense of either the mother or child’s health or life (Abortion, p. 2). The two cases used in this premise also provide sufficient evidence for this section of the

The Facts of the Case: The conservative state of Missouri passed a law which restricted the use of state money and means for abortions. The United States District Court of the Western District of Missouri denied the law and as well as the enforcement for the law. This decision was also supported

Casey, the issue is whether a multistep process that women must go through before obtaining an abortion violates the Fourteenth Amendment. This case affirms the right that a woman can get an abortion decided in Roe (416). Like in Roe, the Court recognizes that the Due Process Clause grants the right to an abortion (416). Where this case diverts from Roe is with its elimination of the trimester system and the establishment of an undue burden standard (420). The reason why the Court strikes down the trimester system is for States “to ensure that the woman’s choice is informed, and measures designed to advance this interest will not be invalidated as long as their purpose is to persuade the woman to choose childbirth over abortion” (421). An undue burden is “shorthand for the conclusion that a state regulation has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus”

Wade decision inspires many types of analyses, solutions, and criticisms. One solution is that the Court could shift its focus in abortion cases and view abortion rights as raising issues of inequality. This would mean to present the issue of a woman’s right to take complete charge of her life and destiny as well as of her position in society in relation to man. This approach is probably the most appropriate solution to the dilemma in Roe because it avoids the trimester analysis and avoids the due process

This case was about a pregnant mother, that wished to undergo an abortion in Texas because she could not afford to go somewhere else for the medical procedure. Jane Roe sued on behalf of ever women to prevent the enforcement of Texas statutes criminalizing all abortions except those performed to save the life of the mother. Jane Roe sought a declaratory judgment that the statutes were unconstitutional vague and abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The right to personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but the right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

Doe (1977), page 397. Taking place in St. Louis, the court was determining the constitutional ability of a city to restrict public funds to public hospitals from contributing to non-therapeutic abortions. The court had to determine if this restriction was violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and a woman’s right to an abortion in the state. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the policy was not unconstitutional because it did not entirely restrict a woman’s right to an abortion. Abortions were still available in state to woman who needed them. Also argued in Missouri was Planned Parenthood Assn. v. Ashcroft (1983), page 393. The case brought by Kansas City Planned Parenthood clinics challenged four regulations in Missouri regarding abortion: (1) abortions after 12 weeks must be performed in a hospital, (2) pathology reports are required for each abortion, (3) a second physician must be present for abortions performed after viability, and (4) minors must secure parental consent or the consent of the court for an abortion. The court held that (1) the states requirement of abortions to be held in a hospital was unconstitutional because it unnecessarily interfered with a woman’s constitutional right to obtain an abortion. All of the other requirements were deemed constitutional. The second challenged regulation was constitutional because it placed no undue burden on the right to obtain an abortion and did not

In Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, the Supreme Court will decide on the constitutionality of 2 provisions from the 2013 Texas law, H.B. 2, which places requirements on physicians who perform abortions and the clinics that they perform them in. The first provision of H.B. 2 requires that physicians, who perform abortions at clinics, have admitting privileges at a hospital 30 miles or closer to every clinic in which they are performing the abortion. The second provision requires that abortion clinics “have facilities equal to an outpatient surgical center.” H.B. 2 was enacted to protect the health of the woman procuring an abortion but will close down a majority of clinics in Texas, which limits where women can go to seek help.

Facts: Texas legislation passed House Bill 2 (H.B. 2) in 2013 which contained various provisions on abortion. A group of abortion providers, including Whole Woman’s Health, sued on the claims that those provisions denied equal protection, unlawful delegation, and used arbitrary and unreasonable state action, while also adding a burden on a woman’s ability to get a legal abortion. The district court dismissed these claims—as did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit—prior to being appealed to the Supreme Court.