Law Commons^™

The Unconstitutionality Of Ohio's House Bill 125: The Heartbeat Bill As Analyzed Under The First Amendment Of The United States Constitution, Jessica L. Knopp

ConLawNOW

This article examines the constitutionality of Ohio’s controversial House Bill 125 (“H.B. 125”), which includes new restrictions and requirements for abortion procedures performed in Ohio. The author argues that, while the new abortion measures conflict with the Supreme Court’s Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence established in Roe v. Wade and in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, H.B. 125 also violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by imputing religious beliefs about conception and the value of life onto all Ohioans.

The article first outlines the current legal framework for constitutionally acceptable and unacceptable abortion restrictions, including a discussion of informed consent …

Not In My Hospital: The Future Of State Statutes Requiring Abortion Providers To Maintain Admitting Privileges At Local Hospitals, Daniel J. Glass

Akron Law Review

In recent years, state legislatures have enacted a variety of restrictive statutes making it more difficult for abortion providers to serve their patients, typically in the name of health and safety. Those opposing these restrictive statutes commonly refer to them as Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws. This Note discusses admitting privileges statutes, which require that abortion providers maintain permissions with a local hospital to admit and treat their patients. Admitting privileges statutes have been challenged in federal courts, but the resulting decisions have been inconsistent. This Note compares the analysis used by federal circuits and district courts in …

Abortion, Parental And Spousal Consent, Requirements; Right To Privacy; Planned Parenthood Of Central Missouri V. Danforth, Sharon L. Long, Patricia Ravenscraft

Akron Law Review

TWO MISSOURI-LICENSED physicians and Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri, a nonprofit corporation, originally brought this suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to challenge the constitutionality of the Missouri abortion statute' (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Striking as "overbroad" only that portion of the Act which would have required physicians to attempt to save an aborted fetus' life at any stage of pregnancy, the district court upheld the sections of the statute which required that during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, a married woman seeking an abortion must have the consent of her spouse,' …

Abortion, Parental And Spousal Consent, Requirements; Right To Privacy; Planned Parenthood Of Central Missouri V. Danforth, Sharon L. Long, Patricia Ravenscraft

Akron Law Review

TWO MISSOURI-LICENSED physicians and Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri, a nonprofit corporation, originally brought this suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to challenge the constitutionality of the Missouri abortion statute' (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Striking as "overbroad" only that portion of the Act which would have required physicians to attempt to save an aborted fetus' life at any stage of pregnancy,2 the district court upheld the sections of the statute which required that during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, a married woman seeking an abortion must have the consent of her spouse,' …

Abortion; Parental Consent; Minors' Rights To Due Process, Equal Protection And Privacy; State V. Koome, Barbara Child

Akron Law Review

The Washington court had before it a physician appealing his conviction for performing an abortion on an unmarried 16-year-old woman, a ward of the King County Juvenile Court, which had given its consent to the abortion. However, the young woman's parents and the Catholic Children's Services, her temporary guardian, both opposed the abortion and were granted a stay of the abortion order pending review by the state supreme court. During the stay, Dr. Koome performed the abortion. The supreme court held that the Washington consent statute "too broadly encumbers the right of unmarried minor women to choose to terminate pregnancy, …

State Funding Of Nontherapeutic Abortions; Medicaid Plans; Equal Protection; Right To Choose An Abortion; Beal V. Doe, Maher V. Roe, Poelker V. Doe, Constance Leistiko

Akron Law Review

In Beal v. Doe the United States Supreme Court held that Title XIX of the Social Security Act permits but does not require states participating in the Medicaid program established by that Act to fund nontherapeutic abortions. In the companion cases of Maher v. Roe and Poelker v. Doe, the same majority held in Maher that the Equal Protection Clause does not require a state that funds childbirth and therapeutic abortions to also fund the costs of nontherapeutic abortions, and in Poelker, that the Constitution does not prohibit a state or city from forbidding the performance of elective …