Literature DB >> 1443311

The Supreme Court, abortion, and the jurisprudence of class.

W K Mariner1.   

Abstract

The US Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey both protects a woman's liberty to choose to terminate her pregnancy and permits the state to make it more difficult for her to exercise her choice. In their opinion on the case, Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter eloquently defend constitutional protection of the right to make intimate decisions like continuing or ending a pregnancy. At the same time, they permit the state to try to persuade pregnant women not to have abortions and to make abortion harder to obtain and more costly, as long as the state's methods do not create an "undue burden" on the decision. Any restriction on abortion is a burden; whether it is "undue" (and therefore unconstitutional) depends on one's circumstances. The Court appears to view the difference between an undue burden and mere inconvenience from the perspective of privilege. The restrictions that were upheld may not significantly affect middle-class access to abortion, but they could prove insurmountable for many less privileged women.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Fourteenth Amendment; Genetics and Reproduction; Legal Approach; Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act; Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey; Roe v. Wade

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1443311      PMCID: PMC1694608          DOI: 10.2105/ajph.82.11.1556

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Public Health        ISSN: 0090-0036            Impact factor:   9.308


  5 in total

1.  The center holds!

Authors:  Ronald Dworkin
Journal:  New York Rev Books       Date:  1992-08-13

2.  Induced abortion and health as a value.

Authors:  M Susser
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1992-10       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Mum's the word: the Supreme Court and family planning.

Authors:  W K Mariner
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  The right of privacy protects the doctor-patient relationship.

Authors:  G J Annas; L H Glantz; W K Mariner
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1990-02-09       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 5.  Access to health care and equal protection of the law: the need for a new heightened scrutiny.

Authors:  W K Mariner
Journal:  Am J Law Med       Date:  1986
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.