{"id":45,"date":"2022-01-31T06:08:51","date_gmt":"2022-01-31T06:08:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/?p=45"},"modified":"2022-01-31T06:27:41","modified_gmt":"2022-01-31T06:27:41","slug":"whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/2022\/01\/31\/whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt\/","title":{"rendered":"Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Hellerstedt"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Almost half a century after the first \u2013 and some would say the most important \u2013 decision about abortion and women\u2019s rights case in the United States, Roe v. Wade<\/em>, the legal battle between pro-choice and pro-life groups has still not come to an end. Every now and then, a case like the currently pending\u00a0Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization<\/em>\u00a0finds its way to the Supreme Court.\u00a0 The current case is specifically about abortions performed after 15-weeks, or as the petitioners put it, after viability, even though the question of viability is also one of those still waiting to be answered. The parties of the case\u00a0Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization\u00a0<\/em>are waiting for the Supreme Court to decide its fate. In both of the documents submitted by the petitioner and the respondent to the Supreme Court the case\u00a0Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016)<\/em>\u00a0can be found. This case has already been before the Supreme Court already where the Court had to decide about the constitutionality of the abortion laws in the state of Texas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case of Hellerstedt <\/em>started with a Texas law voted in in 2013. The said law did not ban the abortions performed in the state, however it did severely restrict the facilities providing abortions. The law contained two specific provisions that were challenged before the Supreme Court. One of the requirements was the so-called \u2018admitting-privileges requirement\u2019, which meant that the doctor performing the abortion procedure must have had active admitting privileges in a hospital no further than 30 miles from the abortion-providing facility on the day of the procedure. The other challenged part of the law contained the \u2018surgical-center requirement\u2019, which means that the abortion facility had to meet the minimum standards of a surgical center.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While the aforementioned law was explained as one protecting women\u2019s health which is the legitimate interest of a State, it resulted in the number of the abortion-providing facilities to decrease to half. When the case was before the District Court, it made findings such as the number of facilities would\u2019ve dropped to only seven or eight in case of the surgical-center requirement being in effect and that before the law, abortions were already safe in the state with a very low late of complications and no deaths.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court in its ruling highlighted to findings of the District Court. With all the mentioned information in mind, the Court ruled that the challenged parts of the law provide only a few health benefits for women, however they do pose as obstacles when seeking abortion and constitute and \u2018undue burden\u2019 on the constitutional right of freely seeking abortion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Handling of Whole Woman\u2019s<\/em><\/strong> Health v. Hellerstedt<\/em> by the litigants in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case of Hellerstedt was included in both the petitioner\u2019s and the respondent\u2019s documents, however on the petitioner\u2019s side it\u2019s only mentioned occasionally. However, the respondent leans on the case and uses it as one of the main cases to support its own arguments. The reason for this is the similarities between the cases and the fact that the Court has already decided in favour of the abortion providers in a previous case where the state tried to regulate their operation. The Hellerstedt<\/em> case is also known as one of the biggest victories of the women\u2019s rights movement since the historical victory of Roe v Wade, which is also one of the cases cited by both of the parties. For this reason having the Hellerstedt<\/em> case supporting the arguments of the respondent can be seen as a political move as well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The main question that is shared by the two cases is whether the State has the right to restrict abortion and abortion-providing facilities. The case also revolves around the viability question, which is really similar to the Hellerstadt <\/em>case\u2019s question in the perspective of the health reasons supporting banning abortion, and whether the protection of one\u2019s healtj by the State is enough for the State to restrict their right of controlling their own body.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a windup if anything certain of this case can be said; the ruling of this case can adumbrate the future of abortion cases and woman\u2019s rights issues in the United States and for that alone it is a case worth following. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

V.N.B.A<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Introduction Almost half a century after the first \u2013 and some would say the most important \u2013 decision about abortion and women\u2019s rights case in the United States, Roe v. Wade, the legal battle between pro-choice and pro-life groups has still not come to an end. Every now and then, a case like the currently … Continue reading Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Hellerstedt<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35805,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-45","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-scotus-2022"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35805"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=45"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":50,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45\/revisions\/50"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}