choose not about the right to actually have an abortion whether you can afford

Choose not about the right to actually have an

This preview shows page 38 - 40 out of 135 pages.

choose, not about the right to actually have an abortion ( whether you can afford it is not the court's problem)the indigent argumentWhere don’t you find this?--Substantial burden on woman's right to choose?--yes! It effects the woman's right to choose;Constitutional?-- no; Hypo:( Fetal heartbeat hypo) law requires woman to get ultrasound & hear fetal heartbeat before getting the abortion establishing medical regulations & not letting tax payers money pay for the procedure is okay;Its not about right to have abortion in least costly manner as possible,it's about having the unfettered right to have the abortionConstitutional?-- yesHypo: states decide that no public doctor can perform an abortion because they don’t want to allow abortions--"Is the purpose or effect of law ( to explain pain theory to woman)places a substantial obstacle on woman who want abortion?"Purpose--Tries to slow down woman's right to choose;Effect-- does just that YesThe purpose is just want to inform the woman of what could happen to the fetus; It's not their fault if the effect is to actually slow down abortions The Fetal Heart beat theoryNot yesMust decide if there is an undue burden?Yes & not yesConstitutional?Hypo: (The pain theory)-- Law limits woman's right to have abortion after 20 weeks unless woman is informed about the pain the fetus feels during the abortion; law makes a requirement that woman pay for pain killers to be injected into fetus from painNoif clinics close then that creates a "substantial obstacle" against the woman's right to choose Undue burden?-- yes; Constitutional?Hypo:(Regulate the procedure theory)-- only certain people can get abortions & other clinics can't allow abortions there OUTLINE Page 38
Background image
right to choose _________________________________________________________________________________Webster v. Reproductive Health Services(1989)(pg 360)Plurality: Rehnquist, White, KennedyConcurrence: O'Connor, ScaliaMissouri statute declared t that life begins at conception & prohibited use of government funds or facilities to perform, encourage or counseling a woman to have an abortionFacts:Supreme Court upheld the Roe holding but without a majority opinion; abandoned the Trimester Approach.Holding: expression of the state's view that life begins at conception does not regulate abortion restricting government funds placed no substantial obstacles in the path of a woman who chooses to terminateher pregnancy. State allowed to show a preference for child birth so long as it does not actively restrict the right to choose an abortion.Rationale: (Plurality--Rehnquist, White, Kennedy)-Scalia wants to explicitly overrule Roe v. Wadeand criticizes the plurality for not doing so.Concurrence: O'Connor & Scalia A woman only has a right to choose an abortion not the right to have an abortion. The fact that one is not conveniently accessible or affordable is irrelevant.
Background image
Image of page 40

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 135 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture