Abstract
Texas has enacted several new anti-abortion legislations under the false interest of regulating the medical profession while directly placing an obstacle on women’s ability to obtain an abortion. The most recent illustration of this overreach is the newest Texas Health and Safety Code §171.0031, which requires that physicians have an agreement with a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic in order to have hospital admitting privileges. This statute does not provide an exemption for medical emergencies in order to preserve the patient’s health or life and insures that twenty-four (24) counties in Rio Grande Valley in Texas will be left without abortion providers. Most legal scholars and courts interpret the undue burden test in Planned Parenthood v. Casey to prohibit state regulations that create an actual, substantial burden on women’s rights to choose an abortion. Nevertheless, the United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth District departed from Casey’s well-established legal precedent by staying the Western District of Texas’ injunction relating to this unconstitutional statute. I demonstrate that the only reasonable way to understand the precedent established by Planned Parenthood v. Casey is that women’s right to privacy supersedes a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity of the medical profession. The United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth District departed from this precedent and, instead, relied on the inaccurate use of the undue burden test in Gonzales v. Carhart as a mechanism to allow the enforcement of Texas’ unconstitutional statute.
Faculty Sponsors
Dr. Vicki Toscano
Project Type
Event
Location
Alvin Sherman Library
Start Date
4-4-2014 1:00 PM
End Date
4-4-2014 5:30 PM
The Excessive Political Dominance Over Doctors: How Texas' Newest Abortion Regulations Violate Women's Constitutional Rights
Alvin Sherman Library
Texas has enacted several new anti-abortion legislations under the false interest of regulating the medical profession while directly placing an obstacle on women’s ability to obtain an abortion. The most recent illustration of this overreach is the newest Texas Health and Safety Code §171.0031, which requires that physicians have an agreement with a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic in order to have hospital admitting privileges. This statute does not provide an exemption for medical emergencies in order to preserve the patient’s health or life and insures that twenty-four (24) counties in Rio Grande Valley in Texas will be left without abortion providers. Most legal scholars and courts interpret the undue burden test in Planned Parenthood v. Casey to prohibit state regulations that create an actual, substantial burden on women’s rights to choose an abortion. Nevertheless, the United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth District departed from Casey’s well-established legal precedent by staying the Western District of Texas’ injunction relating to this unconstitutional statute. I demonstrate that the only reasonable way to understand the precedent established by Planned Parenthood v. Casey is that women’s right to privacy supersedes a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity of the medical profession. The United States Court of Appeal for the Fifth District departed from this precedent and, instead, relied on the inaccurate use of the undue burden test in Gonzales v. Carhart as a mechanism to allow the enforcement of Texas’ unconstitutional statute.
