PHL Final Exam Review - PHL 304 Final Exam Review Abortion...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
PHL 304 Final Exam Review – Abortion Roe v. Wade Majority Opinion Right to privacy not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but recognized at least since 1891, and rooted in 1 st , 4 th , 5 th , 9 th , and 14 th amendment (concept of personal liberty) Background 19 th Century: woman had right to terminate pregnancy o Law changed (allegedly) Against promiscuity Protect health of women (abortion mortality was high) Protect prenatal/potential life Griswold v. Connecticut: women decides method of contraception o Right to privacy had already been extended to reproductive issues Majority Opinion (Blackmun) Tripartite decision o 1 st trimester: state cannot prohibit abortions Because: right to privacy of women o 2 nd trimester: state may regulate abortions Because: protection of women’s health (not true anymore) o 3 rd trimester: state may prohibit abortion because: protection of potential life when fetus reaches viability (now on 24 th week) Right to privacy isn’t absolute: o Other legit state’s interest became compelling during pregnancy Interest in protecting women’s health – becomes compelling at beginning of 2 nd trimester when abortions are not as safe for the woman Interest in protecting potential life – becomes compelling at beginning of 3 rd trimester when ability is reached: fetus is potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb with artificial aid o 1 st trimester: free of interference from the state No position about the ontological or legal status of the fetus
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
o No consensus among physicians, scientists, philosophers, and theologians o Great divergence o Supreme Court cannot speculate as to the answer o Law has been reluctant to endorse any “theory of life” Legislative Challenges Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania “essential holding” of Roe v. Wade retained and reaffirmed Rejection of trimester framework (but not of “critical facts”) State’s interest in potential life justifies throughout pregnancy measures to persuade the woman to choose childbirth over abortion Introduction of “undue burden” analysis Following provisions: o Informed consent provision (24 hours waiting period) o Spouse notification o Parental consent Undue burden = not a substantial obstacle 1. Informed consent (24 hours waiting period) = CONSTITUTIONAL a. “particularly burdensome” for some women but not all
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/07/2008 for the course PHL 304 taught by Professor Leon during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Page1 / 7

PHL Final Exam Review - PHL 304 Final Exam Review Abortion...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online