These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The role of women in abortion jurisprudence: from Roe to Casey and beyond.
    Author: Martin PA.
    Journal: Camb Q Healthc Ethics; 1993; 2(3):309-19. PubMed ID: 8293219.
    Abstract:
    The decision of the US Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade called upon a woman's right to privacy to assert a woman's right to a previability abortion in a framework based upon a consideration of the trimester of the pregnancy. A state policy or abortion law would only survive a constitutional challenge if it passed the exacting test of serving a "compelling state interest." The Court's decision in Roe grew out of an analysis which ignored the possibility that women as individuals would be able to arrive at an abortion decision for themselves. Instead, a physician's right to exercise medical judgement and perform a first-trimester abortion upon request was upheld. The decision of the Court in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey upheld the constitutionality of abortion but allowed states to impose abortion regulations which would only be invalid if they imposed an "undue burden" upon women. In Casey, the Court linked the abortion decision to the concept of liberty embodied in the 14th Amendment. Thus, the abortion decision is seen as solely a woman's rather than a medical decision undertaken only with the guidance of a physician. The Court acknowledged that its ruling in Roe was sound and that there was no compelling reason to overturn it. This allowed the Court to maintain its legitimacy and, thus, its authority and sense of responsibility to the people who had acted in good faith under Roe. The new "undue burden" test was applied to the Pennsylvania statutes, and the real experiences of individual women were called into play to explain why spousal notification would pose an undue burden but the informed consent requirement would not. This test will likely continue to reflect the real experiences of women and reveal the underpinnings of state regulations (such as the "repugnant" view of a woman's status within a marriage forwarded by the proposed spousal consent requirement). Unlike Roe, which resulted in delineation and polarization of the "prochoice" and "prolife" positions in the abortion debate, the "undue burden" test may achieve reconciliation of these views in light of the commonality of women's experience.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]