Eleanor Finch
Abortion has been a contentious issue in the United States for decades, with legal and moral debates surrounding the procedure. The landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling by the US Supreme Court recognised abortion as a federal constitutional right, abolishing state-level restrictions. However, this decision sparked ongoing national controversy, with some Americans opposing abortion under any circumstances. While the Court has reaffirmed abortion access in subsequent cases, the makeup of the Court has shifted, and in 2022, the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the federal constitutional right to abortion. This has resulted in a wave of state-level abortion bans, impacting access for millions of women and disproportionately affecting marginalised communities. The debate continues, with ongoing discussions around federalism, individual rights, and the role of the Supreme Court in shaping abortion legislation.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Abortion in the US | Abortion has been around longer than the US government |
| Outlawing abortion | Outlawing abortion did not eliminate it, but instead turned it into a risky practice |
| US Constitution and abortion | The US Constitution does not include the right to abortion as a freedom |
| Roe v. Wade | The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision abolished state-level abortion restrictions, but did not protect access to abortion |
| Supreme Court | The Supreme Court has eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion |
| State laws | Some states have restricted access to abortion, while others have laws that make it nearly impossible to get an abortion |
| Federal funding | The Hyde Amendment restricts the use of federal funds for abortions provided through the Medicaid program |
| Court rulings | Court rulings have considered the balance between government interest in potential life and a woman's right to decide |
| Gonzales v. Carhart | The Court ruled that the federal law prohibiting the D&E abortion method was not overbroad |
| Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization | The Supreme Court ruling overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the federal constitutional right to abortion |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Roe v. Wade
The case then moved to the Supreme Court in 1973, where it was decided by a 7-2 majority that the right to decide whether to continue a pregnancy comes within the constitutional protection that the liberty clause in the 14th Amendment affords to privacy. This meant that abortion was legalised across the United States, and abortion restrictions previously imposed at the state level were abolished. The decision in Roe v. Wade marked the beginning of an ongoing national debate on a woman's right to choose to have an abortion.
The ruling in Roe v. Wade was consistent with earlier Supreme Court rulings that recognised a right to privacy in matters of child-rearing, marriage, procreation, and the use of contraception. The Court's decision meant that abortion was no longer a criminal offence, improving safety for many pregnant people across the country. However, it is important to note that Roe did not ensure equal access to abortion services for everyone, and low-income people, people of colour, and young people still faced barriers in accessing abortion care.
In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, abandoning its duty to protect the fundamental right to abortion. This decision has had profound implications, with more than a dozen states banning abortion outright, forcing people to travel long distances to access abortion care or carry unwanted pregnancies to term.
The Constitution's Power Balance: Words and Their Weights
You may want to see also
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
The case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization addressed whether the US Constitution protects the right to an abortion. The Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of Mississippi's Gestational Age Act, which banned most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies and fetal abnormalities.
The case was brought about when Mississippi's only abortion clinic, Jackson Women's Health Organization, and one of its doctors, Sacheen Carr-Ellis, sued state officials Thomas E. Dobbs, state health officer, and Kenneth Cleveland, executive director of the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure, to challenge the Act's constitutionality. The clinic performed surgical abortions up to 16 weeks' gestation. In November 2018, Judge Carlton W. Reeves of the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi ruled in favor of the clinic, stating that Mississippi had "no legitimate state interest strong enough, prior to viability, to justify a ban on abortions".
However, in a divided opinion, the Supreme Court upheld the Mississippi law, overturning Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). The Court concluded that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion, and the issue of abortion regulation was returned to the elected branches. Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor criticized the Court's decision, stating that it unsettled nearly five decades of precedent and undermined the Constitution's promise of freedom and equality for women.
The Dobbs case had far-reaching implications, with public health activists exploring ways to make medical abortion more available in states with limitations. The decision was also criticized by international figures and organizations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Director-General of the World Health Organization, and Chinese government officials, who viewed it as a setback for women's rights and human rights.
Understanding PII: What Data Elements Are Considered Personally Identifiable?
You may want to see also
Rust v. Sullivan
The case arose when the Department of Health and Human Services removed all family planning programs involving abortions. Physicians and clinics challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that the First Amendment was violated due to the implementation of this new policy. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 opinion, allowed the regulation to go into effect, holding that the regulation was a reasonable interpretation of the Public Health Service Act. Justice Rehnquist wrote the opinion for the majority, with Justice Souter joining the majority in a 5–4 decision. Justices O'Connor and Stevens filed dissenting opinions.
The Court found that Title X does not define the term "method of family planning" or enumerate what types of medical and counselling services are entitled to Title X funding. As such, the Court could not say that the Secretary's interpretation of the prohibition in § 1008, which required a ban on counselling, referral, and advocacy within the Title X project, was impermissible. The Court's decision also noted that financial constraints on a woman's ability to access abortion services did not affect the outcome of the case, as these constraints were a result of her indigency and not governmental restrictions.
In response to the Court's decision, Congress quickly passed an amendment to Title X, stating that publicly-funded clinics should be permitted to make referrals to licensed abortion providers when requested by a pregnant patient. However, President Bush vetoed this legislation, and the House failed to override the veto, so the regulations upheld in Rust v. Sullivan remained in effect.
The Executive Branch: Power, Roles, and Responsibilities
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Gonzales v. Carhart
The case reached the Supreme Court after U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, appealed a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favour of LeRoy Carhart, which struck down the Act. The Supreme Court's decision upheld Congress's ban, holding that it did not impose an undue burden on the due process right of women to obtain an abortion.
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 5, 2003. It was found unconstitutional in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California, the Southern District of New York, and the District of Nebraska. The federal government appealed the district court rulings, first bringing Carhart v. Gonzales before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The panel unanimously affirmed the ruling of the Nebraska court on July 8, 2005, finding that the Act was unconstitutional because it lacked an exception for the health of the woman.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Carhart case on February 21, 2006. The Court found that there was "uncertainty [in the medical community] over whether the barred procedure is ever necessary to preserve a woman's health", and that "the State has an interest in ensuring so grave a choice is well informed". Gonzales was widely interpreted as signalling a shift in Supreme Court jurisprudence toward a restriction of abortion rights.
How Special Interests Get Their Way in Lawmaking
You may want to see also
Common law and abortion
Abortion has been a controversial topic in many societies for various reasons, including religious, moral, ethical, practical, and political grounds. While abortion has been a practice since ancient times, with the earliest known records of abortion techniques dating back to 2700 BC in China and 1550 BC in Egypt, it has also been banned or restricted by law in many jurisdictions.
In the context of common law, abortion was historically treated as illegal in England and the United States after "quickening", which refers to the stage of pregnancy when the movements of the fetus can first be felt by the woman. This meant that abortion was not considered murder under English law, as the fetus was not yet deemed a "reasonable being".
In the United States, the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973, abolished almost all abortion restrictions previously imposed at the state level. This decision sparked a national debate on a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, with some Americans supporting abortion under certain circumstances, while others strongly opposing it entirely. Despite this, abortion was not included in the list of fundamental liberties protected by the US Constitution.
The history of abortion laws in the United States is deeply rooted in white supremacy and patriarchal control. During the Civil War, a coalition of male doctors, with support from religious institutions, lobbied state governments to outlaw abortion. By 1910, abortion was banned nationwide, but wealthy white women could still access abortions by travelling or other means. Even after slavery was abolished in 1865, Black women continued to face societal control over their bodies, and they were, and still are, judged for both having children and having abortions.
On a global scale, abortion laws vary significantly. While abortions are legal under certain conditions in the vast majority of countries, the specific circumstances differ widely. International organizations like the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UN HRC) have affirmed that access to safe and legal abortion is a human right. In 2005, the UN HRC ordered Peru to compensate a woman who was denied a medically indicated abortion, setting a precedent for holding countries accountable for ensuring access to abortion.
How New Jersey's Support Shaped the US Constitution
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, the right to abortion is not protected by the US Constitution. While the US Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 abolished state-level abortion restrictions, it did not establish abortion as a constitutional right.
The Roe v. Wade ruling legalised abortion in the United States and stood as a federal constitutional right for nearly 50 years. However, it did not protect people's access to abortion, and many states passed laws that made it difficult to obtain one.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the federal constitutional right to abortion in the US. This decision allowed states to ban or severely restrict abortion access.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey and Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt are two cases that reaffirmed constitutional protection of abortion access.
Between 2016 and 2020, anti-abortion politicians worked to appoint three new Supreme Court justices with records hostile to reproductive health and rights. This shift in the Court's composition contributed to the eventual overturning of Roe v. Wade.
