Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
vania
LEGAT OPTNION
1
QttEsTroN PRESENTED
BRIEF .AI{SÛ{ER
STÀTEIqENT OF FACTS
2
DISCUSSION
4
likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the womb,
5
substantíal obstacle to a previability abortion. The central
holdings of the Casey decision regarding previability abortions
are: (1) a state may not prohibì-t a h/oman from obtaining an
abortion before the fetus attains viability"; and (3) a state may
6
Stenehj em v MKB Management Corp. 136 S.Ct. 981 (2016) (Mem.),
cert. denied. A fetal heartbeat, as the court found, can be
"by Supreme Court precedent holding that states may not prohibit
pre-viability abortions. .
It
Id. See afso: McCormack v. Herzoq,
7BB F.3d 1017,7029 (9th Cir. 20t5) ("Although the state may
ensure that the woman's choice is i-nformed and protect the health
and safety of a woman seeking an abortion, the state may not
prohibit a \^/oman from making the 'ultimate decision' to undergo
an abortion Ibefore the fetus reaches viability]."); Isaacson v
Horne, 11,6 F.3d 7273, 1222 (9Lh Cir. 2013) , cert. denied 734
1
unconstitutional-1y burdened a woman's ability to obtain an
abortion) .
B
Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. v. Commissioner/ Indiana
State Department of HeaJth, 194 F.Supp.3d B1B, 826-27 (D.C. Ind.
2016) . fndlana made the novel argument that abortlon is a binary
choice and once a woman has decided to bring a baby to term, she
9
interest is not strong enough to outweigh a woman's privacy
interest in seeking a previability abortion; and the courL of
appeals refused to reweigh those interests in light of Indiana's
ner^, law. Id. at 307. "The Supreme Court has been clear: the State
may inform a woman's decisj-on before viability' but it cannot
prohibit it. " Id.
10
unconstitutional prohibition and undue burden on a woman's
ability to obtain an abortion before an unborn child has reached
viability. Should Pennsylvania enact HB 327 into law, a challenge
to the Down syndrome-based ban may also call into question the
constitutionality of the existing gender-based abortion
prohibition.
CONCLUSION
11