|
WLP SidebarWomen’s Law Project Decries Supreme Court Decision Upholding Federal Abortion BanThe U.S. Supreme Court set aside 30 years of precedent protecting women’s health and safety by allowing Congress to dictate medical procedures used in abortions. On April 18th, the Court upheld the federal abortion ban...Pittsburgh: Women’s Advocates Celebrate New Protection for Patients, Escorts, and Protesters (December 2005)15-Foot Clinic Buffer Zone, 8-Foot Personal Bubble Zone Bill Passes Pittsburgh City Council....Judge Alito's Role:In 1988 and 1989, the Pennsylvania legislature passed amendments to the Abortion Control Act that included parental consent, husband notification, mandatory delays, biased abortion counseling, reporting requirements, and a host of other restrictions....The husband notification provision - relevant today because of Supreme Court nominee, Judge Samuel Alito’s dissenting opinion - would have required a married woman to sign a form provided by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that she had notified her husband of her intended abortion. See more about Judge Alito's Role.Other Resources:
If You Are Pregnant and Seriously Ill (PA Medical Assistance) (November 2002) If You've Been Raped (PA Medical Assistance) (November 2002) Medical Assistance for Abortion in Pennsylvania (November 2002)
Young Women's Guide to Abortion in Pennsylvania guia para las jovenes en cuanto al aborto en Pennsylvania Young Women’s Reproductive Rights in Pennsylvania - More Q&As
Many documents on this site require Adobe Reader. You can download a free copy by clicking on the icon below:
|
Abortion RestrictionsThe Women's Law Project has a stellar record of achievement protecting reproductive freedom in Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the United States. We represented the plaintiffs in three landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions on reproductive freedom: ACOG v. Thornburgh (1986), Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), and Ferguson v. City of Charleston (2001). We led the massive, nationwide amicus effort upholding abortion rights in the U.S. Supreme Court in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000); our litigation struck down Pennsylvania's rape and incest police reporting requirements for low-income women's Medicaid-funded abortions in Blackwell v. Knoll (1996). On a daily basis, WLP attorneys troubleshoot for Pennsylvania clinics, hospitals, doctors, patient advocates, and women seeking abortions, providing acurrate, authoritative information about Pennsylvania's abortion laws. One of only a handful of organizations with extensive expertise in the legal areas of abortion rights, WLP is widely recognized as a national leader in this field as well as a unique resource for women in Pennsylvania. Our work in this area includes:
"Partial Birth" Abortion RestrictionsThe Women's Law Project has provided repeated amicus support to challenges to state and federal "partial birth" abortion restrictions. These laws use terminology that is not medical ("partial birth" abortion has no medical meaning), is vague, and can cover almost any form of second-trimester abortion, including some first-trimester abortions as well. (These laws do not target third-trimester abortions as almost all states already ban third-trimester abortions.) These laws also do not include an exeption for when the woman's health is at risk. In 2000, the Law Project wrote a Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of 75 organizations committed to women's equality. In a victory for women, the Supreme Court ultimately decided that the Nebraska law at issue was unconstitutional because it had no health exception and it was so broad that it would outlaw almost all second-trimester abortions. After that decision, some states and Congress ignored the Supreme Court and enacted new laws banning "partial birth" abortions. The Law Project wrote an amicus brief on behalf of physicians in a case challenging Virginia's new law. That law was struck down by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The federal law has been struck down by several federal courts as well, and we await word whether the Supreme Court will hear the case. The Law Project has submitted amicus briefs on behalf of individual doctors describing the medical need for this procedure. Briefs have been filed in the federal courts in New York, Nebraska (both trial and appellate court), and California Pittsburgh: Women’s Advocates Celebrate New Protection for Patients, Escorts, and Protesters (December 2005)15-Foot Clinic Buffer Zone, 8-Foot Personal Bubble Zone Bill Passes Pittsburgh City Council In response to an atmosphere of heightened conflict and confrontational protests in front of women’s health clinics, the Women’s Law Project researched and organized support for a Pittsburgh ordinance that would establish limited medical safety zones around health care facilities, including those that provide abortion care. Bill 1944 sponsored by Pittsburgh City Council members Doug Shields, Bill Peduto, Sala Udin, and Jim Motznik would establish a safety zone of 15 feet around the entrance to a health care facility, within which people may not congregate, patrol, picket or demonstrate. It would also bar anyone near a health care facility from knowingly approaching within 8 feet of another person to leaflet, display a sign to, or engage in oral protest, education or counseling unless that person consents. On December 7, 2005, after three and a half hours of testimony from pro- and anti-choice citizens, City Council voted in favor of the ordinance to support safe, unfettered access to medical facilities. The final vote was taken on December 13, 2005, and the ordinance was passed with a 6-3 vote. Voting in support of the ordinance were Councilpersons Deasy, Carlisle, Motznik, Peduto, Shields, and Udin. The ordinance is modeled in part after a Colorado statute that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hill v. Colorado in 2000. The Court held that the statute did not interfere with protesters’ First Amendment rights, but merely placed a minor place restriction on speech. The Women’s Law Project is proud to support this necessary and narrowly tailored legislation, and extends our gratitude to City Council for voting to approve it. Related Press
Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New EnglandIn October 2005, the Women's Law Project, in conjunction with Howrey, LLP in Washington, DC, filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court on behalf of nine groups committed to preserving minors' access to reproductive health services in emergency medical situations. The brief was filed in the case of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, in which the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on November 30, 2005. At issue in the case is New Hampshire's law requiring parental notice for minors seeking abortion services. The law has no exception for emergency medical situations, so both federal courts that have looked at the case have struck down the law as violating basic principles of constitutional law previously laid out by the Supreme Court. The state argues, among other things, that any minor facing an emergency medical situation can go to a judge to get a judicial bypass so she can have the abortion. Our amicus brief, drawing on basic law in the field as well as the experiences of other states with judicial bypass systems in place, explains that requiring court permission for emergency abortions will create an unwarranted and unwise exception to the general rule permitting doctors to act in emergency situations, one that will necessarily create delay and threaten minors' health. Alaska v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, S-11365 (Alaska 2004)In October 2004, the Women's Law Project filed an amicus brief in support of Planned Parenthood of Alaska's challenge to the Alaska's judicial bypass law. The brief described the enormous burden the judicial bypass procedure would impose upon young women in Alaska who seek an abortion. The Alaska Supreme Court has not yet ruled in the case. |
|
 |
||
