SUPREME COURT DECISION ON REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

  • Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) – Cited in over 100 Supreme Court cases, the Court established a constitutional right of parents to send their children to private schools.
  • Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) – This decision holds that states may not impose sterilization as a penalty for a crime.
  • Prince v. Massachusetts (1944) – This decision established that the government has the authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children – even against parental authority – according to the child’s best interests. In this case, the Court held that a mother may be prosecuted for having her children distribute religious literature.
  • Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) – The Court struck down a law that prohibited married couples from using birth control and thereby found a constitutional right of married couples to use contraceptives.
  • Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) – This decision established that unmarried people have the same contraception rights as married couples and may thereby engage in non-procreative sexual intercourse on the same basis.
  • Roe v. Wade (1973) – In this landmark case, the Court held that women have a constitutional right to terminate pregnancies up to 12 weeks through abortion. This was the case that ended all abortion bans. After the 12-week mark, however, the Court found that states have a greater interest in regulating a woman’s right to privacy in this area. Read a detailed discussion of this landmark case.
  • Carey v. Population Services International (1977) – The Court expanded constitutional protections in the area of birth control by allowing makers of contraceptives more freedom to distribute and sell their products to teens. Prior to this decision, only licensed doctors and pharmacists could distribute birth control to minors.
  • Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) – Reaffirming the essential holding in Roe v. Wade, the Court held that states may regulate some aspects of abortion, such as imposing a waiting period to obtain an abortion or requiring that abortion providers explain the risks of abortion. It also established the “viability” standard – that a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy was constitutionally protected until the fetus could survive outside the womb.
  • Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood (2006) – The Court refused to strike down a parental notification law because only a few applications of the law presented a constitutional problem.
  • Gonzales v. Carhard (2007) – In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the federal ban on so-called “partial-birth” abortions.
  • McCullen v. Coakley (2014) – The Court struck down a Massachusetts abortion clinic “buffer zone” law that kept protesters more than 11 yards away from patients. The Court ruled that the “buffer zone” effectively cut off free speech efforts on sidewalks and other public thoroughfares.
  • Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) – The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance coverage for contraception under the Affordable Care Act violated a federal law protecting religious freedom. The Court ruled that a federal religious-freedom law applied only to “closely held” for-profit corporations run on religious principles.
  • Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) – Texas passed a law requiring all abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where the abortion was performed, which would have cut the number of abortion clinics in half. In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that this law placed an undue burden on women seeking an abortion – as it severely limited abortion access – and was therefore unconstitutional.
  • June Medical Services v. Russo (2020) – Louisiana passed a law nearly identical to the one struck down in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. The Supreme Court stuck to precedent and declared Louisiana’s law unconstitutional. However, this was a 5-4 decision, as Justice Gorsuch, who was appointed in 2017, joined the dissenting conservative justices.
  • Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) – Hoping that the addition of Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett would lead to a more receptive court, Mississippi’s legislature enacted a law that prohibited all abortions after 15 weeks. This clearly violated previous Supreme Court decisions and was designed as a vehicle to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, did so, holding that the Constitution does not provide a right to abortion and specifically invalidated both Roe and Casey. The result is that abortion rights are now regulated by state law.

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.