Abortion and the Supreme Court: Why legislative motive matters

L.H. Glantz

American Journal of Public Health, 1986, vol. 76, issue 12, 1452-1455

Abstract: Glantz reviews the 1986 Supreme Court decision, Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, that struck down Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act. The Justices found fault (5-4) with the statute's provisions relating to informed consent, reporting of abortion statistics, and post-viability abortions. Glantz notes that the Court for the first time used "antiabortion" to characterize a piece of legislation. In Glantz's view, Thornburgh was meant to reaffirm Roe v. Wade and to signal the states that future abortion-related laws will be strictly scrutinized for legislative intent as well as for constitutionality. A good faith desire to protect maternal health is the only justification the Court will recognize for regulating abortion. Glantz concludes that the majority of the Justices, anticipating changes in Court personnel, intended to re-affirm the right to make personal decisions without inappropriate state interference.

Date: 1986
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1986:76:12:1452-1455_6

Access Statistics for this article

American Journal of Public Health is currently edited by Alfredo Morabia

More articles in American Journal of Public Health from American Public Health Association
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Christopher F Baum ().