"Casey" and the Clinic Closings: When "Protecting Health" Obstructs Choice

We offer a fresh understanding of how the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence addresses laws that invoke not potential life, but women's health as a reason to single out abortion for burdensome regulation that has the effect of closing clinics. The current wave of health-justified restr...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Yale Law Journal. - The Yale Law Journal Company, 1891. - 125(2016), 5, Seite 1428-1480
1. Verfasser: GREENHOUSE, LINDA (VerfasserIn)
Weitere Verfasser: SIEGEL, REVA B.
Format: Online-Aufsatz
Sprache:English
Veröffentlicht: 2016
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:The Yale Law Journal
Schlagworte:Health sciences Economics Behavioral sciences Political science Social sciences Law Biological sciences
LEADER 01000caa a22002652 4500
001 JST138919046
003 DE-627
005 20240626000243.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 240115s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)JST138919046 
035 |a (JST)43894435 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a eng 
100 1 |a GREENHOUSE, LINDA  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a "Casey" and the Clinic Closings: When "Protecting Health" Obstructs Choice 
264 1 |c 2016 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a We offer a fresh understanding of how the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence addresses laws that invoke not potential life, but women's health as a reason to single out abortion for burdensome regulation that has the effect of closing clinics. The current wave of health-justified restrictions — including laws that require abortion providers to secure admitting privileges at nearby hospitals or to become the functional equivalents of hospitals themselves — is destroying the clinic infrastructure on which women depend in order to exercise their constitutional right to end a pregnancy. How should judges evaluate the states' claims that such laws protect women's health? We argue that such laws must actually serve the ends claimed for them if they are not to circumvent constitutional limits on the means by which states can protect unborn life. Careful judicial scrutiny is essential to vindicate values at the core of the Court's decisions in Phnned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey and Gonzales v. Carhart. We ground our argument in the principles of the undue burden standard as explained in Casey and applied there and later in Carhart. Casey modified Roe v. Wade to provide that from the beginning of pregnancy, states may protect two interests, unborn life and women's health. States may express a preference for childbirth by trying to persuade a woman, through a twenty-four hour waiting period and the provision of information, to forgo abortion. But states cannot express a preference for childbirth in ways that obstruct women from acting on their constitutionally protected choice. Casey and Carhart allow the government to express respect for the dignity of human life by means that respect the dignity of women. Regulations that close clinics in the name of women's health, but without health-related justification, do not persuade: they prevent. In adopting such regulations, states — along with the courts that defer to them— violate the principle at the core of the Supreme Court's protection for the abortion right. 
540 |a Copyright © 2016 The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. 
650 4 |a Health sciences  |x Medical treatment  |x Medical procedures  |x Surgical procedures  |x Abortion 
650 4 |a Economics  |x Economic disciplines  |x Financial economics  |x Finance  |x Financial status  |x Bankruptcy  |x Bankruptcy claims  |x Undue burden 
650 4 |a Health sciences  |x Health and wellness  |x Womens health 
650 4 |a Behavioral sciences  |x Sociology  |x Human societies  |x Social institutions  |x Families  |x Parenting  |x Parenthood 
650 4 |a Political science  |x Government  |x Government officials  |x Judicial officers  |x Judges 
650 4 |a Political science  |x Government  |x Public administration  |x Government regulation 
650 4 |a Social sciences  |x Population studies  |x Human populations  |x Persons  |x Women 
650 4 |a Law  |x Judicial system  |x Courts of law  |x Federal courts  |x United States courts  |x Federal district courts 
650 4 |a Biological sciences  |x Biology  |x Developmental biology  |x Reproduction  |x Pregnancy 
650 4 |a Health sciences  |x Medical treatment  |x Medical procedures  |x FEATURES 
655 4 |a research-article 
700 1 |a SIEGEL, REVA B.  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
773 0 8 |i Enthalten in  |t The Yale Law Journal  |d The Yale Law Journal Company, 1891  |g 125(2016), 5, Seite 1428-1480  |w (DE-627)341344834  |w (DE-600)2067193-3  |x 00440094  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:125  |g year:2016  |g number:5  |g pages:1428-1480 
856 4 0 |u http://www.jstor.org/stable/43894435  |3 Volltext 
912 |a GBV_USEFLAG_A 
912 |a SYSFLAG_A 
912 |a GBV_JST 
912 |a GBV_ILN_11 
912 |a GBV_ILN_20 
912 |a GBV_ILN_22 
912 |a GBV_ILN_23 
912 |a GBV_ILN_24 
912 |a GBV_ILN_31 
912 |a GBV_ILN_39 
912 |a GBV_ILN_40 
912 |a GBV_ILN_60 
912 |a GBV_ILN_62 
912 |a GBV_ILN_63 
912 |a GBV_ILN_65 
912 |a GBV_ILN_69 
912 |a GBV_ILN_70 
912 |a GBV_ILN_73 
912 |a GBV_ILN_90 
912 |a GBV_ILN_95 
912 |a GBV_ILN_100 
912 |a GBV_ILN_101 
912 |a GBV_ILN_110 
912 |a GBV_ILN_120 
912 |a GBV_ILN_151 
912 |a GBV_ILN_152 
912 |a GBV_ILN_161 
912 |a GBV_ILN_184 
912 |a GBV_ILN_206 
912 |a GBV_ILN_213 
912 |a GBV_ILN_230 
912 |a GBV_ILN_285 
912 |a GBV_ILN_293 
912 |a GBV_ILN_370 
912 |a GBV_ILN_374 
912 |a GBV_ILN_602 
912 |a GBV_ILN_702 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2001 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2003 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2005 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2006 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2007 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2008 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2009 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2010 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2011 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2014 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2015 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2018 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2020 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2021 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2025 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2026 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2027 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2031 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2034 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2038 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2044 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2048 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2050 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2055 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2056 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2057 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2061 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2107 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2108 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2111 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2113 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2190 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2935 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2949 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2950 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4012 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4035 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4037 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4046 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4112 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4125 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4126 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4242 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4249 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4251 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4305 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4306 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4307 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4313 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4322 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4323 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4324 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4325 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4326 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4335 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4338 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4346 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4367 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4393 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4700 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4753 
951 |a AR 
952 |d 125  |j 2016  |e 5  |h 1428-1480