Boonstra HD, Medication
abortion restrictions burden women and providers — and threaten U.S. trend toward very early abortion, Guttmacher Policy Review, 2013, 16 (1): 18 — 23.
Not exact matches
«This ruling, the most significant
abortion decision in a generation, puts states on notice that they can not adopt
restrictions that unduly
burden or deny a woman's constitutional right to an
abortion.»
In June, the United States Supreme Court clearly ruled in Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt that the same medically unnecessary
restrictions in Texas created an undue
burden, which violated the constitutional rights of a patient seeking safe and legal
abortion.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey reaffirms the right to
abortion but outlines a weaker standard of review, allowing
restrictions unless they constitute an undue
burden to the woman.
that the same medically unnecessary
restrictions in Texas created an undue
burden, which violated the constitutional rights of a patient seeking safe and legal
abortion.
In the landmark Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt case on June 27, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that two
abortion restrictions in Texas are unconstitutional because they would shut down most clinics in the state and cause an «undue
burden» for Texas women to access safe, legal
abortion.
These medically unnecessary
restrictions impose an undue
burden on patients» constitutional right to access
abortion.
Policymakers and advocates must continue to work to reverse
restrictions on insurance coverage of
abortion, to stop the incessant attempts by antiabortion policymakers to drive a wedge between the provision of
abortion and family planning services, and to lighten the
burden of
abortion restrictions more generally on patients and providers.