After the landmark decision of Roe v Wade in 1973, women had the right to abortion under the 14th amendment of the constitution. In this case, the Supreme Court also ruled that the state had the right to intervene after a certain time frame. In 1992, Planned Parenthood v Casey, the Supreme Court ruled that there can be no undue burden to getting an abortion. This case was about what regulations were considered legal.
Today, there are many states that provide adequate access to abortions. But a few outliers may be pushing these rulings. Mississippi has only one abortion clinic in the whole state. On top of that, Mississipi makes a woman wait 24 hours before getting the procedure, have certified counseling, have a fetal ultrasound, and fetal heart tone procedure. If you're a minor, you have to have both parents' written consent unless you get a judicial waiver or it's a medical emergency. The case of medical emergency would be that the mother's life is in imminent danger. In late March, they passed a bill that lowered the period of legal abortion to 15 weeks.
Meanwhile, in California, there are around 512 abortion providing facilities, minors do not need written parent consent, and there is no mandatory waiting period, forced counseling, or ultrasounds. The contrast between these two states lies in the ruling for Roe v Wade, where states had some say in regulating abortions, and these regulations are due to the rulings in Planned Parenthood v Casey.
Both of these SC rulings were pretty vague. According to sources such as the LA Times, if Mississippi's new bill is appealed to the Supreme Court, Mississippi's new abortion restrictions will not be able to stand.
Sources:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/mississippi-law/mississippi-abortion-laws.html
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-california
https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-stone/implied-fundamental-rights/planned-parenthood-of-southeastern-pennsylvania-v-casey-4/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-mississippi-abortion-20180308-story.html
This was a very informative report on the two major Supreme Court rulings pertaining to the issue of Abortion and choice. As most Supreme Court rulings, the verdicts are vague and open to interpretation and manipulation. States such as Missouri in which is it incredibly difficult and painful to get an abortion procedure contrasts completely with the situation in California which remains more liberal and pro-choice. The fact that the Supreme Court allowed states to have the power and choose the restrictions to having this procedure makes it increasingly difficult to get it done in states that don't truly want it to be legal.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post, Tanshi. Mississippi sounds really strict (and somewhat emotionally traumatizing). Other states still have similar issues. For example, in Michigan, 83% of Michigan counties have no abortion provider. 96% of counties in Oklahoma don't have an abortion provider. In 93% of Indiana counties, people don't have access to abortion. 91% of counties in South Carolina don't have an abortion provider. So many issues stem from this lack of a vital institution, like dangerous medical practices such as coat hanger abortions. Luckily for us, we have over 500 safe places to go to as an option.
ReplyDelete