Whole Women's Health Case Study
This case involves the Petitioner Whole Women’s Health and respondent John Hellerstedt the Commissioner of Texas Department of State Health Services. Whole Women’s Health argues that the constitutional right to abortion as upheld by the fourteenth amendment is being hindered by the two provisions of Texas’ House Bill 2 approved by the Texas Republican-majority state legislation in October of 2013. The court decides matters of abortion rights by using the substantial burden test to determine wither the Texas’ House Bill 2 set forth an undue burden on women seeking abortions. The court needs to determine whether this bill has positive effects on women’s health or if the burden out ways the positive. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Whole Women’s
…show more content…
Wade (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that under the fourteenth amendment to the constitution woman’s right to privacy includes her right to an abortion. The constitution guaranties all Americans the freedom from government interfering with their personal lives. However, the government does maintain the right to place restrictions on abortion rights. It was stated in Roe v. Wade that such restrictions must fulfill a very important matter of government interest. The right of privacy trumps the governments interests in protecting fetal life and women’s health. The government may restrict abortions late in pregnancy because it is more dangerous to the mother and the fetus is viable and could life outside the mother. There is an exception to these rules if the abortion is performed to keep the mother healthy. This landmark case influences the way the courts determine current abortion matters and had a substantial impact on Whole Women’s Health v. …show more content…
Wade legal philosophy transpired when the Supreme Court decided Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. A Missouri state statute that banned public facilities and public health workers from performing abortions. Public funds can only be used to perform abortions if the mother’s health is at risk. The statute also states that life begins at conception. Due to this fact physicians are to perform fetal viability tests on women that are 20 or more weeks pregnant. The Supreme Court found that the Missouri statute is constitutional and that it does not affect woman’s access to abortion clinics. The Supreme Court also upheld prohibiting public facilities and health workers from perform abortions. Roe v. Wade establishes the right to abortions but does not contain the right to government assistance for abortions. It was also found that the viability test is constitutional because the state has an interest in protecting human life at 20 weeks or more of a women’s pregnancy. Supreme Court judge Rehnquist wrote “We do not see why the state’s interest in protecting potential human life should come into existence only at the point of viability and should therefore be a rigid line allowing state regulation after viability but prohibiting it before
Wade (1973), the Supreme Court ruled that under the fourteenth amendment to the constitution woman’s right to privacy includes her right to an abortion. The constitution guaranties all Americans the freedom from government interfering with their personal lives. However, the government does maintain the right to place restrictions on abortion rights. It was stated in Roe v. Wade that such restrictions must fulfill a very important matter of government interest. The right of privacy trumps the governments interests in protecting fetal life and women’s health. The government may restrict abortions late in pregnancy because it is more dangerous to the mother and the fetus is viable and could life outside the mother. There is an exception to these rules if the abortion is performed to keep the mother healthy. This landmark case influences the way the courts determine current abortion matters and had a substantial impact on Whole Women’s Health v. …show more content…
Wade legal philosophy transpired when the Supreme Court decided Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. A Missouri state statute that banned public facilities and public health workers from performing abortions. Public funds can only be used to perform abortions if the mother’s health is at risk. The statute also states that life begins at conception. Due to this fact physicians are to perform fetal viability tests on women that are 20 or more weeks pregnant. The Supreme Court found that the Missouri statute is constitutional and that it does not affect woman’s access to abortion clinics. The Supreme Court also upheld prohibiting public facilities and health workers from perform abortions. Roe v. Wade establishes the right to abortions but does not contain the right to government assistance for abortions. It was also found that the viability test is constitutional because the state has an interest in protecting human life at 20 weeks or more of a women’s pregnancy. Supreme Court judge Rehnquist wrote “We do not see why the state’s interest in protecting potential human life should come into existence only at the point of viability and should therefore be a rigid line allowing state regulation after viability but prohibiting it before