"...[R]ecognizing a fundamental right of privacy that protects a woman's decision to choose to terminate her pregnancy, ... the Court found the right to be a matter of personal liberty embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment....
The Court acknowledged, however, that the right protecting the pregnant woman's interests could not exist in a vacuum, but must be balanced against the state's interests in safeguarding health and medical standards (including the health of the mother) and in protecting potential human life."
Fall 2003 - Lisa Shaw Roy "Roe and the New Frontier," Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
"Roe established the following framework for evaluating abortion restrictions: 1) in the first trimester, the state may not regulate abortion, but instead must leave 'the abortion decision and its effectuation ... to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician'; 2) after the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure, but only in ways 'reasonably related to maternal health'; 3) after viability, 'the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion,' so long as it provides exceptions to protect the woman's life and health."
Mar. 2004 - Caitlin E. Borgmann - "The Current State of Abortion Law and Reproductive Rights, Winter Count. Taking Stock of Abortion Rights After Casey and Carhart" Fordham Urban Law Journal
In this case the "law upheld by the Court included (1) barring public employees from performing or assisting in abortions not necessary to save the life of the mother; (2) barring the use of public buildings for performing abortions, despite the fact that there were no public monies involved (e.g., a building situated on public land); and (3) requiring physicians believing a woman desiring an abortion to be at least 20 weeks pregnant to perform tests to determine whether the fetus is viable. The Webster ruling was narrow in that it did not affect private doctors’ offices or clinics, where most abortions are performed...."
"[The Supreme] Court abandoned the trimester framework articulated in Roe and the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review of abortion restrictions. Instead, it adopted a [less restrictive] 'undue burden' [analysis]...
"The Casey joint opinion redefined Roe's holding as comprising three parts: 1) a recognition of the woman's right to choose an abortion before viability and to obtain it 'without undue interference' from the state; 2) a confirmation of the government's power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, provided such restrictions contain exceptions 'for pregnancies which endanger the woman's life or health'; and 3) a recognition that the government has 'legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus.'"
Mar. 2004 - Caitlin E. Borgmann "The Current State of Abortion Law and Reproductive Rights," Fordham Urban Law Journal
The provisions of the statute upheld by the Supreme Court "were the 24-hour waiting period; informed consent; parental consent for minors’ abortions with a judicial bypass; and reporting requirements. [The Court did not uphold the spousal notification provision]....
In 2000 the Supreme Court decided Sternberg v. Cahart, in which it "had to decide whether, under Casey, Nebraska's partial birth abortion law constituted an undue burden on a woman's abortion decision.
The Nebraska statute completely banned partial birth abortion except where necessary to save the life of the mother.... [The Court] found the statute unconstitutional under Casey because it did not contain an exception for the health of the mother.....
[The Court held that] because the statute could be read to prohibit D&E abortions, [one of the most common procedures for second trimester previability abortions], the Court predicted that abortionists would fear criminal prosecution for performing routine second trimester abortions, thus creating an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion as established in Roe and Casey."
Fall 2003 - Lisa Shaw Roy "Roe and the New Frontier," Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
Legislative Responses:
"After the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roe ... one of the first federal legislative responses was enactment of restrictions on the use of federal money for abortions....
The Supreme Court, in three related decisions, ruled that the states have neither a statutory nor a constitutional obligation to fund elective [or nontherapeutic] abortions or provide access to public facilities for such abortions.... [The Court] left open the question whether federal law, such as the Hyde Amendment (restrictions on Medicaid funding of abortion), or similar state laws, could validly prohibit governmental funding of therapeutic abortions....
Rather than settle the issue, the Court’s decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton have prompted debate and precipitated a variety of governmental actions at the national, state and local levels to limit their effect.... In the decade prior to the decision in Roe v. Wade, ten pieces of legislation relating to abortion were introduced in either the House or the Senate. Since 1973, more than 1,000 separate legislative proposals have been introduced....
Since 1973, a series of constitutional amendments have been introduced in each Congress in an attempt to overrule the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. To date, no constitutional amendment has been passed in either the House of the Senate....
As an alternative to a constitutional amendment to prohibit or limit the practice of abortion, opponents of abortion have introduced a variety of bills designed to accomplish the same objective without resorting to the complex process of amending the Constitution....
In addition to the temporary funding limitations contained in appropriation bills, abortion restrictions of a more permanent nature have been enacted in a variety of contexts since 1970 [such as the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1988 and the Civil Rights Commission Amendments Act of 1994]...
On November 5, 2003, the President signed S. 3, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.... Within two days of the signing of the act, federal courts in Nebraska, California, and New York blocked its enforcement. Permanent injunctions have since been issued by three courts..... Appeals are expected for all of the cases. An appeal to the Supreme Court is also expected."
