More handpicked essays just for you.
Planned parenthood v. casey for men
Essay paper on abortion the readers companion to American history
Abortion and united states law, ESSAYS
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Planned parenthood v. casey for men
Historical Background of Policy The 1992 US Supreme Court decision Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey set a new standard for the regulation of abortion, making restrictions allowable as long as they do not place an “undue burden” on women. In response to this decision, states have passed more than 500 laws restricting access to abortions. Some of these laws, such as waiting periods, biased-counseling requirements, and parental involvement mandates, target women's decision-making, seeking to dissuade them from having abortions. These laws may also impose criminal penalties on providers for failure to comply. A second set of laws directly target abortion providers, make the provision of abortion more difficult and costly,
Roe V. Wade is known as the case that went to Supreme Court and eventually got abortion legalized. An abortion is defined as the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end or terminate a pregnancy. Thousands of years ago abortion was accepted. In ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt herbs were used to induce the labor prematurely. (The American Bar Association 210) Similar methods are still used today. There are many countries where abortion is illegal. In these places the option is herbal abortions. These are less effective but sometimes it is the only option for women who need to end their pregnancies. Although the method is natural it is probably the most ineffective. Women who undergo this natural method also can
In this essay, I will hold that the strongest argument in defence of abortion was provided by Judith Jarvis Thompson. She argued that abortion is still morally permissible, regardless if one accepts the premise that the foetus is a person from the moment of conception. In what follows, I agree that abortion is permissible in the ‘extreme case’ whereby the woman’s life is threatened by the foetus. Furthermore, I agree that abortion is permissible to prevent future pain and suffering to the child. However, I do not agree that the ‘violinist’ analogy is reliable when attempting to defend abortion involving involuntary conception cases such as rape, whereby the foetus does not threaten the woman’s health. To achieve this, I will highlight the distinction
On June 7th 1965, married couples in the State of Connecticut received the right to acquire and benefit from contraceptive devises. In a majority decision by the United States Supreme Court, seven out of the nine judges believed that sections 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statues of Connecticut , violated the right of privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The case set precedence by establishing marital (and later constitutional) privacy, and had notable influence on three later controversial ruling=s in Roe v. Wade (1973), Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) . The issue at hand was, and is still, one that still causes debate, wether a state has the authority to restrict the use and sale of contraceptives. Though it is not contraceptives, anymore, that is at the heart of the abortion debate, this ruling was the first step to the expectation of constitutional privacy.
Justice John Paul Stevens initially took a moderate stance on abortion rights prior to and immediately after joining the Supreme Court. When President Gerald Ford nominated then-Judge Stevens, abortion rights were not as politically controversial as they are today. In a sense, Justice Stevens did not have to take a strong stance on abortion in order to make it onto the Supreme Court. As his time on the Supreme Court went on, Justice Stevens developed a more pro-choice stance in deciding abortion rights cases. After the Reagan-era rise of conservative Republicans, evangelical abortion advocates emerged to the forefront of American politics and media. Justice Stevens always recognized the right to choose established in Roe v. Wade, but may not have felt the strong need to preserve and protect it early in his career. As the years went on, Justice Stevens’ abortion jurisprudence developed into a more pro-choice friendly jurisprudence than that which he initially espoused, likely due to the increased controversial nature of the abortion debate. Justice Stevens felt the need to protect and preserve the stare decisis first established in Roe. In some of the later cases, Justice Stevens developed a strategy to approaching abortion cases and realized that some compromise was required in order to preserve the right to choose. In the early 1990s, Stevens acted as almost a mediator between the liberal and conservative Justices. Stevens did what he could to preserve the fundamental rights from Roe.
“I intend to judge things for myself; to judge wrongly, I think, is more honorable than not to judge at all.” What author Henry James meant by this was that it is better to make up one’s mind and have an opinion than to remain complacent, such as the case of Mary Anne Warren. Warren’s arguments for abortion’s possible permissibility are lacking in substance. The aim of my paper is to discuss Warren’s insufficient criteria for personhood and address the problem with her concept of potential personhood.
In the case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Pennsylvania law required an informed consent and a twenty-four-hour waiting period before an abortion could be performed, parental or judicial consent for minors, spousal notification, and comprehensive record keeping and reporting. Many clinics challenged the Pennsylvania law after it went in affect. However, in a controversial decision, the clinics appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme court in a 5-4 decision reaffirmed Roe, but it upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions, except for the husband notification. For the first time, the justices imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions. The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden," which is defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." Under this standard, the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the husband notification requirement.
Three Works Cited Many people believe abortion is only a moral issue, but it is also a constitutional issue. It is a woman's right to choose what she does with her body, and it should not be altered or influenced by anyone else. This right is guaranteed by the ninth amendment, which contains the right to privacy. 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 right guarantees the right to women, if they so choose, to have an abortion, up to the end of the first trimester.
Otto von Bismarck once said, “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” The arduous process that a bill undergoes in order to become a law may seem grueling and pointless; however, the processes high caliber of difficulty allows for the extreme prestige and exclusivity of bills that are passed. Because the process is so exhausting, and filibusters, subsequently requiring a super-majority vote to pass a bill, have always been such a threat in Congress, historically, bills that attempt to reform sensitive issues have not fared well in the legislative branch. However, when Congress does pass controversial laws, it then also faces the task of effectively enforcing them. But, when the process is carried out to completion, laws that are enforced have significant impacts on the everyday lives of the American people—such as laws concerning abortion rights. In the United States, the government and Congress have significantly affected the rights of women with regard to abortions through laws that either restrict or guarantee their legality and availability, while the government’s capacity to do so is affected by the principle of federalism along with that of the separation of powers.
After creating the word “birth control,” in 1916, Margaret Sander began a rebellion in a Brooklyn storefront. Opening America’s first birth control clinic, Sanger establishing the foundation for what it is today known as Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Consequently, she was arrested for thirty days for violating the “Comstock Law,” which prohibits the conversation and distribute of birth control. What brought the attention of Planned Parenthood was the Supreme Court ruling that the constitutional right of seclusion expands to a woman’s choice, in discussion with her physician, to have an abortion. The issue of Planned Parenthood being defunded will affect everyone not just woman.
Abortion is a topic that many don’t want to discuss. It’s a very personal decision that many women have to make each day, but in certain states, getting an abortion was becoming an even more difficult process. Not only did women have to decide to get an abortion that alone is a difficult choice, they now had to wait 24 hours, minors had to get consent, and/or inform the father of the child. But after all of this process, what if a woman couldn’t receive all of this? Would she be denied her right to get an abortion? The Supreme Court case, Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey, wasn’t known for what it did, but mainly for what it did not do, which was not overruling Roe v. Wade, but reaffirming a woman’s right to an abortion; it questioned a state’s right to impose or place an “undue burden” on women.
Though the population experts have not yet aligned themselves on the side of abortion-law reform, something is beginning to happen. Seven states--Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, New Mexico, and North Carolina--have amended their laws to permit abortion not only to save life but also to protect the health, mental and physical, of the mother, in cases of rape and incest, and to avert the birth of defective offspring (Governor Reagan forced the omission of this ground in the California law). Many other states have been and are now considering abortion reform or repeal bills but usually without the support of the powerful groups who are backing other forms of population control.
There are many factors that are taken into consideration when determining if abortion is morally permissible, or wrong including; sentience of the fetus, the fetuses right to life, the difference between adult human beings and fetuses, the autonomy of the pregnant woman, and the legality of abortion. Don Marquis argues that abortion is always morally wrong, excluding cases in which the woman is threatened by pregnancy, or abortion after rape, because fetuses have a valuable future. Mary Anne Warren contends that late term abortions are morally permissible because birth is the most significant event for a fetus, and a woman’s autonomy should never be suspended.
With so many women choosing to have abortions, it would be expected that it would not be so greatly frowned up, yet society is still having problems with its acceptance. Every woman has the fundamental right to decide for herself, free from government interference, whether or not to have an abortion. Today, more than ever, American families do not want the government to trample on their right to privacy by mandating how they must decide on the most intimate, personal matters. That is why, even though Americans may differ on what circumstances for terminating a crisis pregnancy are consistent with their own personal moral views, on the fundamental question of who should make this personal decision, the majority of Americans agree that each woman must have the right to make this private choice for herself. Anti-choice proposals to ban abortions for “sex-selection” or “birth-control” are smokescreens designed to shift the focus of the debate away from this issue and trivialize the seriousness with which millions of women make this highly personal decision. Any government restriction on the reasons for which women may obtain legal abortions violates the core of this right and could force all women to publicly justify their reasons for seeking abortion.
Thanks to the attorneys’ tough, strategic work, these laws remain blocked and women in both states are able to access medication abortion while the cases are on appeal. In Alabama, a federal judge struck down a harmful state law that would have forced three of the five abortion providers in the state to cease their work, thus severely restricting access to safe, legal abortion and thereby threatening women’s health. They are pushing back against similar laws that closed health centers across Texas and threaten access to abortion in Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin (“The revered Marther Luther King Jr
Millions of illegal abortions were done by the 1950s, and over a thousand women died each year as result. Moreover, millions of women who had illegal abortions were rushed to the emergency ward; some died of abdominal infection, and other, found themselves sterile and chronically ill. In 1969, 75% of the women who died from these abortions were either poor or of color. In the landmark case of Roe v. Wade (1973) the Supreme Court ruled that woman had the right of privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to obtain an abortion, yet, keeping in mind that, protecting the health of the woman and the potential life of the fetus is the main interest. As result of this decision, safe and unpainful abortion services were offered to many women. In addition, some health care centers provided counseling, women’s group offered free referral services, and, non-profit abortion facilities were created. Nevertheless, legalization was not enough to ensure that abortions will be available to all women, women of low income and of color still found themselves without safe and inexpensive abortions. Between the early 1980s, feminist health centers provided low-cost abortions, however, by the early 1990s, only 20% of these centers survived the harassment by the IRS and the competition of other