Tying Everything Together
Cases In Favor
The cases which rule in favor of the abortion rights controversy all challenge certain laws or bills passed by their state regarding restrictions placed on abortion, such as House Bill 1211 in Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danford, the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt with House Bill 2. Each one of these cases questions the constitutionality of these restrictions placed on women’s bodies. Within Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danford, many of the provisions within the House Bill 1211 were overturned due to their strict requirements on physician practices and the violation of women’s privacy through certain consent forms (“Planned”). Within the other two cases, which have ruled in favor of the abortion rights controversy, the idea of an “undue burden” is the main factor in the decisions regarding these cases (Seward). The regulations within these two cases place many obstacles in the way of women attempting to receive a safe abortion, thus rendering them unconstitutional ("Whole"). All three of these cases have progressed the abortion rights controversy and women’s rights in general with the removal of these unfair restrictions and the advocacy of safe abortion access.
Cases Against
The cases which rule against the abortion rights controversy are denials of safe abortion access by the lawmakers. Within Harris v. McRae, the “Hyde Amendment” was brought into question due to the inability of the plaintiff, a Medicaid recipient, to access abortion due to financial inability which was ruled constitutional (“Harris”). The choice of abortion should not be denied due to a woman’s financial immobility but should be covered by healthcare programs such as Medicaid because that is their purpose: to cover the health costs of very low-income people. Gonzales v. Carhart is another instance where the advocacy of woman’s rights was rejected due to a 5-4 vote concerning partial-birth abortions being unconstitutionally vague and the undue burden on women’s access to abortion (“Gonzales”). Both of these cases were turned down by the court, but bring up valid issues which should be revisited in order to progress the access of abortion as well as women’s rights to their body.
