This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

The Impact of the New Undue Burden Standard on Reproductive Health Care

Janet Benshoof, JD

JAMA. 1993;269(17):2249-2257.

Abstract
The recent US Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood v Casey, by changing the legal standard by which restrictions on abortion are evaluated, will have a profound effect on access to reproductive health care in the United States. This article reviews the Pennsylvania antiabortion restrictions at issue in Casey and discusses the ways in which the new constitutional standard fundamentally weakens the legal protections previously afforded women and physicians in the 1973 case, Roe v Wade. While the majority opinion reaffirmed a woman's right to choose an abortion, the opinion opens the door to a multitude of new restrictive abortion laws, which diminish, and in some cases completely block, a woman's ability to exercise that right. The effect of weakened legal protection will fall most heavily on young, poor, minority, and rural women, who will be unable to overcome obstacles imposed by mandatory waiting periods, biased counseling, and parental notification requirements. The restrictions are also likely to exacerbate the shortage of physicians providing abortion services by making the procedure more costly and the providers' jobs more dangerous. Finally, the medical community can help to ensure women access to comprehensive and competent reproductive health care.

(JAMA. 1993;269:2249-2257)

Author Affiliations
From The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, New York, NY.

Footnotes
Reprint requests to The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, 120 Wall St, New York, NY 10005 (Ms Benshoof).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Freedom of Conscience, Professional Responsibility, and Access to Abortion
Dresser
J Law Med Ethics 1994;22:280-285.
 

Planned Parenthood v Casey
Lasky
JAMA 1993;270:2559-2559.
ABSTRACT  

Planned Parenthood v Casey
Duraski
JAMA 1993;270:2559-2559.
ABSTRACT