More handpicked essays just for you.
Planned parenthood v casey summary
Confidentiality and privacy in healthcare
Confidentiality and privacy in healthcare
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Planned parenthood v casey summary
Lastly, ACLU is challenging the law which requires abortion providers to provide every patient a copy of her medical records, regardless of whether the medical records were being requested by the patients. In a recent case in Alabama, abortion clinics declared that the law which requires patients to receive copies of their medical records is unconstitutional (Kass). The Alabama abortion clinics expressed that upholding this law would be a violation of patient privacy rights as it could place women in dangerous positions, “especially for women in domestic abuse situations who do not want a paper trail of their actions” (Kass).
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court noted that “tragic prevalence of men abusing their wives and said that
Why is important for the HIPAA and the Bill of Right work in the healthcare system.
The case rests on the violation of Griswold (the executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut and Buxton (the Medical director for the Center) of the Connecticut Statute that states :
I was interviewed last June by Eric Zorn, a columnist from the Chicago Tribune. Mr. Zorn's "thesis," as he explained it to me, was this: if any partial birth abortions were being performed for truly "elective" reasons, for reasons the public would consider nonserious, as the pro-life movement was claiming, the movement should produce the mothers involved. I explained at some length that it wasn't "the movement" claiming that the majority of these procedures were "elective", this fact was asserted by the partial-birth abortion providers themselves. I sent Zorn Dr. Haskell's statements as quoted in the American Medical News. I also sent the charts Dr. McMahon had provided to the Subcommittee on the Constitution in which he had detailed the rationales for abortions he had performed. These documents showed the elective nature of the majority of these procedures -- and in the words of the abortionists themselves. I asked Zorn to reconsider his own logic: aren't patient records confidential and in the possession of the abortion providers themselves, I asked? And if you were a woman who had your healthy child aborted would you be eager to go public? Nothing, however, could shake Mr. Zorn's tenacious grip on his thesis. He ended up writing- "That explanation won't do. If these once callous, cruel, selfish women who drive this national debate truly exist, let's hear from ." (June 6, 1996). In a follow-up column, he wrote: "Well, there are late-term abortions, there are "partial-birth" abortions and there are abortions performed for non-medical or elective reasons. We find very little overlap ... because later-term abortions are very rare and almost always performed for serious medical reasons. . .." (June 13, 1996).
Abortion, or premature termination of pregnancy, can be accidental or intentional, and both types can be legal or illegal. If the ongoing pregnancy becomes a medical threat, abortion is not illegal. Legal developments and healthcare services are intertwined. The American Medical Association stated that abortions were wrong and unsafe, which led the National Abortion Federation to make abortion a "physicians-only" practice that could be performed legally to save a woman's life (National Abortion Federation NAF). It wasn't until 1973 that abortions were made legal in the United States due to the "Supreme Court's decision in Roe vs. Wade, ruling that Americans' right to privacy included the right of a woman to decide whether to have children, and the right of a woman and her doctor to make that decision without state interference" (NAF).
In 1970, Norma McCorvey, a single and pregnant woman in Texas wanted to get an abortion. The state laws of Texas at that time stated that it was illegal to have an abortion in Texas. Even though the state told her that she could go to one of the four states in which abortion was legal to have the procedure done, she decided that she could not afford to travel to another state to receive the procedure. Norma McCorvey decided that she would sue the state of Texas, claiming that her constitutional rights were being taken from her. She then changed her name to the pseudonym “Jane Roe” to protect her right of privacy. The district court found that Roe did have grounds to file the suit against the state of Texas. They ruled on the grounds that the abortion laws in Texas infringed on the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments of the constitution. The first amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html). The fourth amendment states that, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”
In 1971, Norma McCorvey or Jane Roe, filled a case against the district attorney of Dallas County, Henry Wade, because he enforced a Texas law that prohibited abortion unless the abortion was needed medically, to save the mother’s life. Being a single, pregnant woman , Roe did not have the choice to have an abortion because the pregnancy was not endangering her life. Plus, Roe could not afford to travel to have the operation done safely. As a result, Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, two lawyers that graduated from the University of Texas Law School, claimed a lawsuit against the abortion laws in Texas because they violated Roe’s constitutional rights. Besides Roe’s two laywers, Hallford, a licensed physician, and a childless married couple known as the Does supported Roe’s case. The lawsuit against Wade was filed in a Texas Federal Court. The Texas Federal Court heard the case on December 13th, 1971 and again, on October 11th, 1972. After the examination of Weddington and Coffee’s argument against Jay Floyd’s, the lawyer for Wade during the first argument, and Robert C. Flower’s, the lawyer for Texas in the second argument, the court ruled in Roe’s favor by claiming that the law did violate the Constitution. Consequently, Wade appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"The Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the Wake of Romer v. Evans ." New
The 1992 US Supreme Court decision Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey set a new standard for the regulation of abortion, making restrictions allowable as long as they do not place an “undue burden” on women. In response to this decision, states have passed more than 500 laws restricting access to abortions. Some of these laws, such as waiting periods, biased-counseling requirements, and parental involvement mandates, target women's decision-making, seeking to dissuade them from having abortions. These laws may also impose criminal penalties on providers for failure to comply. A second set of laws directly target abortion providers, make the provision of abortion more difficult and costly,
More than one in three women in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime (The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2012). Thirty to sixty percent of perpetrators tend to also abuse children in the household (Edelson, 1999). Witnessing violence between parents or caretakers is considered the strongest risk factor for transmitting violent behavior from one generation to the next (Break the Cycle, 2006). State legislatures are increasingly passing statues that encourage participants in the Criminal Justice System to attack the issue of domestic violence more aggressively. Some states still fail to realize that IPV involving a woman that is pregnant should be considered a felony because it affects the well-being of the unborn child.
Not only has abortion affected the population it has also caused protest which has lead to injuries. Since the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion in 1973, reproductive health clinics and health care providers across the United States and Canada have become the targets of violence by anti-abortion extremists. Physicians and clinic workers have been murdered; clinics have been bombed, burned down, invaded, and blockaded; and patients have been harassed and intimidated.
Purdy, Elizabeth. "Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey." In Schultz, David. Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court. New York: Facts On File, Inc., 2005. American History Online. Facts On File, Inc. http://www.fofweb.com/activelink2.asp?
Bolton), the requirement for spousal consent (Planned Parenthood v. Danforth), federal funding for abortion procedures (Harris v. McRae), and age of consent (Hodgson v. Minnesota) (Masci & Lupu 2013). One of the more controversial topics debated was the legality of partial birth abortions, which by its description is a terrible procedure. In this scenario, a fetus is partially delivered feet with the head remaining in the birth canal, and a tool is used to puncture the skull and remove the brain of the fetus, with the delivery of the dead fetus then completed (“The Facts,” n.d.) The Supreme Court first ruled this practice to be legal and invalidated the law banning the practice in 30 states in the Stenberg v. Carhart case, but the practice was deemed illegal through enactment of the Partial Birth Abortion Act. This topic was once again brought before the Supreme Court challenging the law based on the precedent set in Stenberg v. Carhart. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the federal law thereby reversing the original decision (Masci & Lupu, 2013). From an ethical point of view, the fierceness in which this topic has been debated, especially in the United States, presents a justified moral argument for and against the practice of
Wade case in 1973, it was ruled unconstitutional a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother” (par. 1). The court states that abortions were outlawed during the first trimester of the pregnancy. The abortion regulations could only pertain to the mother’s health in the second and third trimesters and an exception had to be made to protect the mother’s life. I can understand where the medical staff would want to save the mother’s life in a life-threatening situation. However, the medical staff should do everything in their power to prevent them from doing the abortion, no matter what the mother wants to do. I know by going against the mother’s wishes wouldn’t be right, however, an abortion is immoral. Adoption is always an option if the mother doesn’t want her child. Abortion is legal in the United States, however, that doesn’t make it
Banning abortion, put women at a higher risk of going out and finding illegal way to have the procedure done (“Abortion Information” 1). Once abortion became illegal in the United States 1.2 million abortions were preformed illegally. Dangerous attempts have been made by women to preform their own abortion, or have them done by unskilled surgeons often with dangerous instruments and sometimes in unsanitary conditions. Serious complication from unsafe abortion included, “perforations of the uterus, retained placentas, severe bleeding, cervical wounds, and rampant infections” (Currie 17.) Abortion has become safer over the years and should be legalized in every state in the United States; abortion should also be kept private between the client and doctor.
Millions of illegal abortions were done by the 1950s, and over a thousand women died each year as result. Moreover, millions of women who had illegal abortions were rushed to the emergency ward; some died of abdominal infection, and other, found themselves sterile and chronically ill. In 1969, 75% of the women who died from these abortions were either poor or of color. In the landmark case of Roe v. Wade (1973) the Supreme Court ruled that woman had the right of privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to obtain an abortion, yet, keeping in mind that, protecting the health of the woman and the potential life of the fetus is the main interest. As result of this decision, safe and unpainful abortion services were offered to many women. In addition, some health care centers provided counseling, women’s group offered free referral services, and, non-profit abortion facilities were created. Nevertheless, legalization was not enough to ensure that abortions will be available to all women, women of low income and of color still found themselves without safe and inexpensive abortions. Between the early 1980s, feminist health centers provided low-cost abortions, however, by the early 1990s, only 20% of these centers survived the harassment by the IRS and the competition of other