Abortion Laws

Question 1 

The Court in Roe v. Wade legislated that a woman had a constitutional right to eliminate her pregnancy within the first trimester. Before this, most states had rules that elective abortion was unlawful, especially abortion in circumstances where a pregnant woman's life is not in danger. The cutoff for elective abortion in the first trimester was a logical cutoff since induced abortion in later pregnancy stages might trigger physical and psychological complications. Post-abortion health outcomes are better when abortions are performed during the early pregnancy phase. 

Question 2 

Abortion laws were established upon the three pregnancy trimesters. There were two primary state interests; the woman's health and the life for a fetus, which created a significant divide after the first trimester. The constitution termed the decision to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester as a woman's discretion. Nonetheless, after the first trimester, the state-regulated but not outlawed abortions based on a mother's well-being. During the third trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state could outlaw abortions in the interests of a fetus’ life, excluding when mandatory to safeguard a mother's life. 

Question 3 

Under Planned Parenthood v. Casey, states were allowed to regulate abortions during the entire period before birth for other reasons apart from protecting a mother's health. It upheld Roe but banned Roe's abortion regulations during the first trimester. It modified the measure for examining limitations on the lawful right to abortion, introducing the undue burden criterion. The Court substituted Roe's stringent investigation standard of review with the undue burden standard. It stated that abortion restraints are unlawful when established for "the goal or influence of setting a boundary in the way of a woman attempting abortion of a nonviable fetus." 

Question 4 

Roe v. Wade permitted "no restrictions" on abortion during the first two trimesters. During the third trimester, states were not prohibited from regulating abortions for "health" exceptions. The Supreme Court reinstated the decision by mandating regulations such as informed consent and waiting periods and sanctioned states to be definite concerning what constitutes "health" reasons. No state could ban third-trimester abortion provided it was necessary for healthcare purposes. 

Question 5 

In the Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) case, the Court decreed that a prohibition of "partial birth" aborting was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court affirmed that the Nebraska ban on "partial birth" abortions was unlawful. It claimed that the law violated Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992), such that it rejected partial abortions, which included D&X and D&E procedures. It lacked an exclusion to protect the mother's health, and the Court had forbidden states from outlawing abortions and only authorizing some state statutes. Nebraska's laws would potentially outlaw "pre-viability second-trimester aborting." Since D&X and D&E were proven safer than other methods to preserve women's health, the Court banned laws that would ban the procedures without providing a constitutional health exception. The D&E procedure was less advocated for since it carries severe implications. Handling devices within the uterus prompted the threat of accidental injury to adjacent organs. D&X has been proven to be more reliable, with low risks to a mother. 

Question 2 

Brian will be successful in his suit against Dr. James for negligent sterilization since it is evident that he did not perform the vasectomy effectively. Unlawful life claims are viable since the child's conception could have been evaded if the vasectomy and sonogram were conducted prudently. Parents have a right to prevent the birth of a child with a physical condition; physicians and other healthcare providers should assist them in doing so. The disabled child can sue to recover extra costs incurred during her lifetime due to the congenital disability. If Lisa had been born healthy, Brian's claims could still be successful since Dr. James' negligence led to unplanned birth, but it would depend on whether Brian accepted the pregnancy. State courts acknowledge the wrongful-conception accusations of individuals seeking damages from doctors after the birth of a healthy but unplanned child due to negligent sterilization.