Abstract
At the First Symposium on Genetics and the Law held in May 1975 there was no paper presented whose sole purpose was to discuss abortion laws. Roe v. Wade 1 and Doe v. Bolton 2 were sufficiently new so that little legislative and judicial action had been taken. Since then there has been an outpouring of both legislative and judicial activity. Legislation has, for the most part, focused on ways to limit the impact of Roe and Doee, while the judiciary has been concerned with assuring that legislation not invade the zone of privacy created by Roe, as well as by previous and subsequent cases. Legislative activity can be described as ingenious at times and lawless at other times. The tension that exists between prochoice and antichoice (or prolife/antilife or proabortion/antiabortion, depending on which side of the issue you stand) factions is amply reflected in the tension between legislatures and the courts. Individual legislators feeling the pressure from well-organized antiabortion groups may vote for legislation they do not personally believe in, or that they know will be struck down in the courts.3 The situation we find is that the prochoice viewpoint is litigated with scant private funds, while the antiabortion point of view is litigated with state funds through attorneys-general offices. Given this, the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood, and other groups have amassed a remarkable record of successful litigation in defense of the rights of individuals to make procreative decisions without undue state interference.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References and Notes
U.S. 113 (1973).
U.S. 179 (1973).
See the remarks of Massachusetts state senator Louis Bertonazzi in Dilemmas of Dying: Policies and Procedures for Decisons Not to Treat, G. K. Hall, Boston (1980).
U.S. at 160.
H.C.S. House Bill No. 1211 $2(2).
Planned Parenthood of Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976).
U.S. 379, 47 U.S. Law Week 4094 (1979).
Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 35 J6605(a).
U.S. at 163.
U.S. Law Week at 4096.
U.S. Law Week at 4097.
Supra note 6 at fn. 8.
La. R.S. 40: 1299. 35. 6.
Fight brewing over louisiana abortion law, Medical World News, p. 42, Sept. 4 (1978).
Wynn v. Scott, 449 F. Supp. 1302, 1316 (N.D. 111. 1978 ).
U.S. 132 (1976).
Ibid, at 145.
Rev. St. Ch. 38, $ 81-51 et seq.
Wynn v. Carey, 582 F. 2d 1375 (7 Cir. 1978 ).
U.S. 438, 45 U.S. Law Week 4781 (1977).
U.S. Law Week 4781 n. 3.
Citing, Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192.
U.S. 464, 45 U.S. Law Week 4787 (1977).
U.S. Law Week at 4790.
Ibid.
Poelker v. Doe, 45 U.S. Law Week 4794 (1977).
Chapter 367, J2, Item 4402-5000 of the Massachusetts Acts of 1978.
No. 78-1324 (U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Cir. 1978 ).
C.F.R. J440.230(c) 1978.
Supra note 28 at 10.
Section 209 of Pub. L. 95-205; 91 Stat. 1460 (Dec. 9, 1977 ).
House Rule XXI (2).
Zbaraz v. Quern, Cir. No. 77C 4522 (N.D. 111. May 15, 1978 ).
But see Woe v. Califano, 460 F. Supp. 234 (S.D. Ohio 1978), holding an earlier and more restrictive version of the Hyde Amendment to the constitutional. The short opinion appears to base its holding on lack of violation of due process, and does not discuss the equal protection issue.
Supra note 28 at 21.
La. R.S. 14:88.
Preterm, Inc. v. MBTA, Civ. No. 74-159-M (D.C. Mass. 1974), discussed in Fam. Plann./Popul. Rep. 3:76 (August, 1974 ).
U.S. 748 (1976).
U.S. 678 (1977).
New York Education Law $6811(8).
Framingham Clinic v. Bd. of Selectmen of Southborough, 367 N.E. 2d 606 (Mass., 1977); and see Planned Parenthood of Minnesota v. Citizens for Community Action, 538 F.2d 861 (8th Cir. 1977 ).
West Side Women’s Serv. v. City of Cleveland, 450 F. Supp. 796.
Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, supra note 6.
See Freiman v. Ashcroft, 584 F.2d 247 (8th Cir. 1978 ).
La. R.S. 40:1299.35.17 ($1000 per year for each facility plus an additional fee of $500 per year for each physician who performs abortions).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1980 Plenum Press, New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Glantz, L.H. (1980). Recent Developments in Abortion Law. In: Milunsky, A., Annas, G.J. (eds) Genetics and the Law II. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3078-3_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3078-3_18
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-3080-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-3078-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive