Hill-Burton Hospitals after Roe and Doe: Can Federally Funded Hospitals Refuse to Perform Abortions
In the landmark decisions of Roe v. Wade and Doe v.Bolton, the Supreme Court balanced the conflicting interests of the pregnant woman, the fetus and the state, and proclaimed in its Roe opinion the following rules. First, during the initial trimester of pregnancy, abortion decisions are within the sole discretion of the woman and her physician. Thereafter, from the beginning of the second trimester, the state’s interest inmaternal health becomes sufficiently “compelling” that it may regulate abortion procedures to the extent such regulation reasonably relates to maternal health. Finally, at the point of viability of the fetus, the state’s “compelling” interest in potential life becomes controlling and it may proscribe all abortions except those necessary to save the life or health of the mother. From the period of conception to the “compelling” point, the decision to terminate a pregnancy, arrived at between a woman and her physician, “may be effected by an abortion free of interference by the state.”
While Roe and Doe guarantee a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy free of state interference within the guidelines set by the Court, they do not guarantee her an absolute right to an abortion. To the extent that states do not subsidize abortions, a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion is limited by her ability to pay. Financial considerations aside, the freedom from state interference is of little consequence unless facilities suitable for the performance of abortions are located within a reasonable distance of the woman’s place of residence and are willing to perform such operations. The Court’s abortion decisions do not require the states toprovide abortion facilities. States need only refrain from “interfering” with a woman’s decision to obtain an abortion before their interest in maternal health or unborn life becomes compelling.
The Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt Oral Argument: A Roundtable Discussion with Members of NYU Law Students for Reproductive Justice
Photo Courtesy of Juliana Morgan‑Trostle Introduction On June 27, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case referred to as “the most significant abortion case to come before the court since 1992.” The case centered
Abortion and Women's Legal Personhood in Germany: A Contribution to the Feminist Theory of the State
Review and analysis of abortion law in pre and post unified Germany.
Abortion: A Public Health and Social Policy Perspective
Much of what passes as concern for the fetus is in truth the punitive reaction of those who perceive abortion as an instrument of left-wing ideology; their anti-abortion stance is simply a smokescreen enabling them to vent their antagonism for
Burying the Dead: The Case against Revival of Pre-Roe and Pre-Casey Abortion Statutes in a Post-Casey World
Discusses the problem of Casey and the confusion and ambiguity it has caused and argues against the revival of pre-Casey criminal abortion statutes.
Challenging Fake Abortion Clinics: Protecting Women's Privacy Interests without Violating the First Amendment
Argues state attorneys can challenge fake abortion clinics under existing state statutes without violating 1st amendment.
“Beyond Rational Belief”: Evaluating Health-Justified Abortion Restrictions After Whole Woman’s Health
This article analyzes the medical evidence (or lack thereof) behind "health-justified" abortion regulations, and argues that such restrictions fail to meet the evidence-based standard of Whole Woman’s Health.