This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Law and Medicine  • Pregnancy and Breast Feeding  • Women's Health, Other  • Patient-Physician Communication  • Alert me on articles by topic

Clinical Freedom, Trust in the Judiciary, and the Autonomy of Women

Lawrence O. Gostin, JD

JAMA. 2007;298:1562-1564.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

During their Senate confirmation hearings in 2005/2006, now Chief Justice John G. Roberts¹ and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito² pledged to "respect under principles of stare decisis" ("to stand by things decided"), the precedents of Roe v Wade³ and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey.⁴ These cases established that (1) before viability, the state may not impose an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose to have an abortion; (2) after viability, the state has the power to restrict abortion if the law contains an exception for pregnancies that endanger a woman's life or health; and (3) the state has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus. Affirming these central holdings numerous times since 1973, the Supreme Court has stated clearly that the government has an obligation to protect . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Trust in the Judiciary

Author Affiliations: O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC; and Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.