First of all, i will just remind you of some of the things that we have studied this semester. Some of the Historical Context and one is that before 1821, laws were based upon English Common law. From an earlier reading, you might know that according to English Common law, abortion was criminalized only after quickening, and remind me, what was quickening . Yes . And when who feels the heartbeat . Or when who feels the fetus move . It was when the woman reported having felt the fetus move. Dear member from our reading of approximately when that is in a pregnancy . This is from an early reading. It is about four or five months, into a pregnancy. So about that time when the fetus actually moves, a woman read report it had moved and it was after that point that abortion was criminalized. But again, before that point it was not a criminal activity. And the very first new abortion laws that were passed in the United States, were done so in the 1820s. So i hashed a handful of states began to criminalize abortion, after quickening, and these were new laws that departed a little bit, from English Common law, but these were poison control measures. A reason why, the authorities wanted to intervene, is that there were unlicensed entrepreneurs, who were selling women products, that they promised would induce an abortion, but were in some cases, actually, they were misleading these women. They were false products. They were poisons that these women were ingesting. There were women who were getting very ill and dying from these poisons. So a handful of states stepped in, and wanted to control the sale of poisons. Things that were harming women. And it is important to note that women were not prosecuted, they were not the subjects of these laws, physicians were not the subjects of these laws. So surgical abortions were not outlawed, mechanical ones were not. Rather it was a poison control method. It was intended to protect women. From these kind of nefarious entrepreneurs. And i also want to note, abortion was not a big deal in this time, in 1820s. There werent ministers taking abortion from the pulpit. When candidates were running for office, they were not asked about their view. These were embedded and very technical language, this was not covered in the newspapers routinely. Most americans had no idea that these new laws were being passed. Now, it starts to become a more public issue. A more controversial issue. Between 1847 and 1867. And it is during this time period, about these 20 years, that every state that was at that time in the union, criminalized abortion in most circumstances. So usually the only way that it became legal, to perform an abortion is if a womans life was at risk. A handful of states also made an exemption if a Womans Health was at risk. Louisiana is right smack in the middle of this effort. Louisiana criminalized abortion in 1856. Technically that law was pretty strict. It was only if a womans life would be jeopardized by a pregnancy. Anyone caught performing an abortion for any other reason, was subject of up to 10 years of hard labor. In the state penitentiary. If they were found guilty. Now when historians go back and look at what actually happened, we found that when physicians performed abortions even in the state of louisiana because they were worried about a Womans Health, we found that they were never prosecuted. Even though technically that law was pretty strict, we always found that courts did not really intervene attorneys generals did not press charges. So sometimes we have to be very mindful of the difference between what is written in the law, and then how the law is practiced. In society. This is an important moment for historians to intervene and just see what was actually happening. You may recall, from the essay that we read by leslie regan, that there was a reason why these laws were passed. You recall who initiated the First Campaign to criminalize abortion at all stages in pregnancy . Who wanted these laws on the books . Yes . Specifically, before hospitals are a big deal, who was in hospitals, that wanted these laws, do you remember . Initially, you are very close. That is going to come up especially in the 1950s. But it is during this 100 years before it is largely physicians who want criminal abortion laws. And who is providing most of the abortions in this time period . Midwives and people like that. Yes, it was midwives who had been performing the abortions. A lot of historians now look back at this moment, and understand this to be a professional tension. That these physicians wanted control over the gynecological market. Because in the 19th century, as is the case today was one of the most lucrative markets. Childbirth is very expensive. So as you grow older, you will learn that the bill that you get when you or your partner has a , it is very high. So physicians very much wanted control over this market. So the argument that they offered was that abortion was murder. But that it was sometimes necessary and that we needed people with a professional expertise to understand when it was necessary to intervene. They said this is a professional issue, let the professionals handle this issue. Do not let midwives control this market. They are not as welltrained as we are. So it was really a professional powerplay. And it was successful. And so one thing, and one reason why it is interesting to study this issue through the lens of history, is that we can kind of cut through the vitriolic debates that we now have about abortion, to see how did people respond to these laws . One thing that historians know, for certain, is that even as every single date criminalized abortion, the practice still continued. So we have looked at a rest records, we have looked at hospital records, and we have looked at death records. And historians are now pretty confident that up to 25 of pregnancies between 1967, and 1973, and it through abortion. So again, between 25 of pregnancies, between 1967, and 1973, ended by abortion. The practice continued, even though it was technically criminal in most cases. A student asked me to repeat the dates. Between 1967, as every state has criminalized it, and 1973. Im sorry, 1867. 1867 and 1973, up to 25 of pregnancies was ended by abortion. [ inaudible question ]. During the period that was criminalized. It is a commonly practiced procedure. Even though it is usually done criminally. And another thing, this is something that was right about this semester, is that the enforcement of these criminal laws, vary tremendously over time. So according to a reading we did earlier this semester, at one point in global history, did the stories kind of ignore these laws . Yes . Francis said during the great depression. This was the case globally. And the soviet union, most parts of latin america and the United States, why did the authorities turn a blind eye to these laws . Yes. Maggie. They recognize that if people did not have jobs, they likely did not have the means to take care of children. And by ignoring some of the abortions that were going on they allowed people to have a better chance for economic prosperity. Okay. Absolutely. So one thing that historians have found when we survey the record, is that during periods of economic decline, when people are suffering, generally authorities are more permissive of practices like Birth Control, and abortion. As people are suffering and having a difficult time feeding their families and may want to delay pregnancy or just have fewer children. And so, this kind of brings us to where we are at this point of the semester. What is the economy like in the 1950s . The postwar economy . Yes, trent. Booming and everybody has a lot of money. It kind of gets generalized. Okay, so the economy is doing very well in the 1950s. And what are we in the middle of right after world war ii . The baby boom. Absolutely. There is a lot of cultural emphasis on having a lot of children, being happy, being wanting to have more children, so some people call this pro needleless. It is pro baby. Pro having more children. And so it is during this time period, that the authorities actually ratchet up their enforcement of criminal abortion laws. Again, they have been pretty hands off during the 1930s, and they begin to reverse course in the 1950s. And there is much more scrutiny of abortion and making sure people are not performing the procedure illegally. And that women who are not technically qualified dont get them. At the same time, there is a medical history that is unraveling. And that is that physicians had previously usually performed in private practice and think about like going to the dentist. You often probably go to a house like structure, it is usually not in the hospital. That is what going to the doctor used to be like. Sometimes the doctor would come into your home. But by the 1950s, physicians started to move their practices into hospitals. So, whereas in the 1920s, and 1930s, if a woman wanted an abortion and had a Good Relationship with her doctor, this is something we have talked about in this class. Her doctor would often sign the paperwork that would make it look like this was medically necessary. And perform it and really no one was the wiser. If the doctor had her in that on a piece of paper, that was sufficient. But now the doctors are starting to move into hospitals. In the 1950s. There are a lot more people scrutinizing what those doctors are doing. And the decisions they are making. And so that leads us to todays lecture. This period of increased scrutiny, on abortions. Okay. So there was popular, so the reform movements that lead us to roe v wade. How do we get to this period of increased street need to reform . And among the reasons why there was a lot of popular support, for criminal abortion laws, is that the number of women who began suffering skyrocketed. By the 1950s. So as it became more difficult to obtain abortions from doctors, women turned to the illegal underground market. And it is estimated that 1. 2 million women were turning to the underground by the 1960s. So rather than going and getting a legal abortion, they are turning to a variety of providers. And again, these experiences vary wildly. Some women find trained nurses, and physicians who give them safe abortions. And these doctors and nurses are working illegally, they could be put in jail for their work. Other women, and up going to know farias untrained people. And getting unsafe botched abortions. As i have mentioned to you there was a two lane student who got a botched abortion in the French Quarter in the early 1960s and died from that procedure. So again, 1. 2 million women were navigating this underground, this illegal market, and having wildly different experiences. And by the mid1960s, as many as 5000 american women were dying every year. From botched abortions. So again, overwhelmingly, most are getting safe abortions, but still, 5000 women a year started to die, this was a significant increase. From where we had been in the 1930s. And women of color were four times more likely to die from botched abortions, than white women. Why do you think that would be the case, why would women of color be so vulnerable to an illegal market . Any ideas . They couldnt get a safe abortion because of segregation and things like that. So there doctor, they could not get a good doctor. Okay, yes. Most people found safe abortions through people they already knew had abortions. So if they do not have access in the past, they would not have been able to have access then. What im hearing from both of you is that you need a doctor willing to vouch for you in order to get through a hospital appropriation process. Yes . [ inaudible question ] so if i am understanding florence correctly, what you said is that women of color might have been more reluctant to get help after getting a botched abortion, or had fewer places to turn. Okay. Yes . I think it is cost prohibitive as well. [ inaudible question ]. Francis is pointing out that it became cost prohibitive and that is one thing we know about these abortion committees. That is what they were called. You had to go through a Committee Approval process. In a hospital. And in order to get Committee Approval you had to see a psychiatrist and often, to separate physicians and you had to pay usually out of pocket for all of these visits. Plus you had to pay for the abortions. So, women of means were much more likely to be able to afford this process. But it is important to note that even women of means, their petitions were usually rejected also. Okay. So, in a sense, by the 1960s, we have a Public Health crisis on our hands. Hospitals have to open special septic words, to treat all the women flooding in from botched abortions. And this is affecting women, across all socioeconomic groups, all religions, and so again, this is considered to be a Public Health crisis. By the 1960s. So one thing you might find interesting, is that among the people who called for reform or clergy. Some of the most vocal proponents for revising these laws. And why clergy . Why would clergy be calling for the decriminalization of abortion . What position do they have in society . What are their experiences . Who would you imagine some of these young women were turning to for help . Yes . I guess [ inaudible comment ] okay. You are mentioning that clergy are witnessing women in their lives, and maybe in their congregations suffering. Okay. Yes . I think it becomes clear like during religion with putting an emphasis on confession and other things, so people hearing about these problems per se. Okay. So among the things that i am hearing from you, is that we tend to confess deeply personal things only to certain people, right . And among the people who end up taking in a lot of deeply personal information, or clergy. That is often who we turn to to have these Difficult Conversations with. And keep in mind that clergy, are also presiding over the funerals. Of young women. Of mothers . Who are dying from abortions, so for them it became a very personal issue. They are comforting grieving families. They are trying to help young scared women, who are potentially going to break the law. So, it becomes a moral imperative for some of these clergy. And again, this group that formed, it was called the clergy consultation service. It was, there were rabbis, there were baptist preachers, there were methodist ministers, and what they did, is especially by the 1970s, what they did is they helped to ferry women to states where the procedure had been legalized. So especially to new york state, to washington dc, and they strictly regulated who they would let women see, so they wanted to make sure that the physicians who were performing these procedures were not overcharging women. They would interview women after their experience to make sure they were treated well. So they provided their own regulatory mechanisms, as well. And it is estimated, that by 1970, the clergy consultation service, was helping an estimated 150,000 women a year. To secure legal abortions. They were in almost every state, and they often worked with College Student groups, because there were so many College Women who sought abortions. Another group that was important, were women who were deemed to be sympathetic. So a sympathetic woman, in this era wouldve been a woman who did not want an abortion, but somehow had to have one. And so, two things really guided this. There were a lot of pregnant women, who had wanted pregnancies, wanted to have their children, who were infected with german measles. The german measles epidemic in the 1960s. And this caused horrible birth defects. And babies. So for women who are pregnant, this caused horrible birth defects, and the second major thing that happened was that there was a solidifies to scare. Have any of you ever heard of that drug . Thalidomide . What do you know about thalidomide . It is like a tranquilizer . But it was really dangerous, and it was not tested very well before they put it on the market. So it was not tested very well. And among the reasons why many of you probably have never heard of it, is that it was never approved by the fda in the United States. In the 1960s, the fda was headed by a woman, and she said you know, there just has not been enough data on this drug. I dont feel comfortable signing off on the approval of this. It was never legal in the United States. This is why there werent a lot of women who ingested this drug in the 1960s. But nevertheless, this drug made it into the medicine cabinets of some american households. And perhaps the most famous person, americans to have taken thalidomide while and pregnant unknowingly was a woman named sherry finkbine. This is a very typical tragic story of like how somebody unwittingly needs an abortion. So in 1962, she was pregnant with her fifth. She was a wellknown person, an arizona. She hosted a popular childrens show, called romper room. It was kind of like mister rogers. So among children in arizona, she was very well known. It was a Public Access show. She was married, pregnant with her fifth , wanted this pregnancy. And her husband was a High School Band leader. And went over to england with his band. Is High School Band. And while he was there, he had a hard time sleeping. We went to a doctor, and the doctor prescribed him thalidomide. And it helped him a lot. He was able to sleep the rest of the trip. And he brought that prescription, that medicine home with him. To arizona. And it was at that time, that his wife, sherri, started to suffer from a lot of morning sickness. She was very uncomfortable and she was not sleeping well. And she was still filming the show and so he said to his wife, why dont you take this drug that i was prescribed when i was in england, it helped me so much to get to sleep. She began to take it for several nights. And then one morning she opened the newspaper, and read an article about how this drug thalidomide, had been linked to all sorts of very bad birth defects throughout europe, especially in belgium, germany, and of course in england. And these were very tragic stories. Depending upon what stage of pregnancy women ingested this drug, their babies would be born with all of their organs outside of their body, they often only survived a couple of hours. If it was ingested in other parts of the pregnancy, it often resulted in flipper arms, so like people would just have like a little bit of a limb, often order on their arms or their legs. She called her doctor immediately and said look, i just read this article, can you help me to understand like what the implications of this are . So, he made a few phone calls, to physicians in england, and he learned that she had taken it during that point in pregnant in which the outcome is almost inevitably horrible, that a baby is born with their intestines out, that the only survived a few hours. This is an error in medical history before there was a lot of good neonatal care. So there was very little that physicians could do to help these babies that were born. So of course she and her husband are just like so beside themselves. They were incredibly saddened by this news. They wanted this baby. But, her physician had advised her, he said if you were my daughter, i would advise you to get an abortion. What makes this all very tricky, is that in 1962, in arizona, as in most states in the United States at this time, the only way a woman could legally get an abortion, is if her own health or life were at risk. And in cases like this, with german measles, and thalidomide, a woman could carry a pregnancy to term and be perfectly healthy the whole time. Is the fetus, it was the baby that was going to be born deformed. So according to the letter of the law, Sherri Finkbine shouldve never been approved for an abortion in the state of arizona. But her physician pulled some strings, and got her approved, for a medically approved abortion at a phoenix hospital. And Sherri Finkbine, in between you know, getting this approved, getting an appointment set, she called a local newspaper because she wanted to get the word out, there was a military base, really close to her house and she said if my husband brought this drug back from england, these military guys could be bringing this drug back to their wives. And these women who want to have babies could unwittingly be taking this drug that will cause them to have children who are going to die. So she granted an interview with a local newspaper and it was a frontpage headline. Local woman, takes his thalidomide, has been approved for an abortion in an arizona hospital. How would you imagine that the administrators of that arizona hospital that had approved that abortion, reacted . They locked it down. They knew they could be sued by the attorney general for being in violation of the state law. So they immediately called her and said your abortion is canceled. You cannot have it here. You have put us at enormous risk of being sued. So then she started calling around to other hospitals. Well, by this point, the story had been picked up on the wires and it had run in almost every newspaper in the country. No hospital wanted to touch this case. Eventually, she had to go to sweden to get this procedure. And her husband was a high school teacher. She hosted a Public Access show, so they found a travel agent who was willing to pay their ticket, because they cannot afford to go on their own. What is especially tragic about this, is that almost immediately, they were targeted by protesters, they got hate mail, their house had to be, the fbi had to come out to protect them for a while because they received so many Death Threats, their children received Death Threats and even their dog received a death threat. This is all in the archives. Nevertheless, she became this rallying cry, so people who had previously thought abortion is a private issue that something we do not talk about in polite society, the tide began to turn because if this woman who needed an abortion but like never thought she would want one, was put under this much stress, what could happen to my daughter, or my wife if something happened . So this became a catalyst for a lot of people to engage this controversial topic, who really had never wanted to have anything to do with it. And then as we have been talking about, in the second half of the semester, there is also a resurgent feminist movement, by the late 1960s and into the 1970s, and these women are making the claim, that in order to be equal participants in society, women need the right to Birth Control and abortion, so in order to finish college, to complete a graduate program, women needed to be able to delay their pregnancy. But, one thing that is important to note, is that in large part, these are not the influential people, who are influencing state legislators or judges at the time. So, another thing that is circulating in the background, and again, when we think about abortion, we almost always fixate immediately on the legal history, but again, theres this important social history, but there is also an important legislative history that is unfolding at this again, there was a reformed movement already afoot. Any questions so far . Okay. Among the most successful lobbyists and the most well funded lobbyists at this time were physicians, so they had the ear of these state legislators and what is interesting about this is who had led the campaign to criminalize abortions in the 19th century . Physicians. Now once again it is a physicians leading the campaign to decriminalize abortion in the 20th century. For them, they were very away from the acute Public Health crisis. They were the ones treating 15 yearold girls coming in with botched abortions. The argument that they made is that these laws interfered with their ability to make a professional judgment. That the state had no business interfering in their relationship with their patient and providing the care they think ought to be provided or not provided. Again, the most successful powerful lobbying group was not feminist going in and talking to the state legislators or them being particularly interested. For the most part it would be physicians. What is also notable is that in the 1960s a Record Number of women became state legislators. Both republican and democrat. The types of issues that they thought were important to start litigating changed because diversity matters. These legislators became more attentive to things like Domestic Violence laws or Birth Control laws or abortion laws or family laws. What is interesting is that many of these days that reform to repeal their laws and this legislation was often initiated by women legislators and it was just as likely to be a republican as it was a democratic woman, so there were a lot of feminist identified prochoice republican legislators. Many of you did your oral history projects and found his republican women. Can you raise your hand if you were one of them . I knew there were a few of you. What is it that you found . You studied the oral history records of one of these women and what was she like . At one point she lost her seat in the gop representative called her to ask her to run again and she told him she refused to run if they tried to muzzle her with this issue and so they refused and they tried to fight her when she was talking about womens issues in general that she would not run and they need her so much that about her run and contradict whatever she said. She found the example of a very powers of claimant powerful North Carolina legislator who was a republican, but feminist identified and advocated on a range of womens issues. What the transcript she studied god at is in the 1970s the Republican Party was in flux. It was changing a lot and so for a lot of these feminist identified republican women there would not be a place for them in the Republican Party by the 1980s. Okay. She is getting at the issue of how did abortion become this hot button, very partisan, very ideological history or issue in Politics Today and i think one thing that is so interesting about the history of it is that we now know that was not always the case. It was not always the sort of question we would have asked a president ial candidate in 1964. What are your thoughts on abortion . It would have been considered impolite and kind of irrelevant to politics. It has become such a very divisive issue and that began in the 1970s and into the 1980s. What we have in the 1960s are republican women and they do not feel like they are being hypocrites or strange and remember that the Democratic Party is still the party of catholics in the 1960s, so a significant number of state legislators who are democrats are antiabortion during the 1960s. It looks very different from the politics that we see today. All right. Again, 1967 colorado became the 1st day to completely repeal its abortion law. A woman did not have to health have the help exemption or a life exemption in order to get an abortion. The insurer it was only for in state residences so that the case study that we are more familiar with is new york. In the 1970s they passed a similar law allowing elective abortions, but they allowed any woman to come in. She could come in from louisiana or tennessee. Its much better now because women from all over the country flooded into new york to get abortions in the 1970s. It is a betterknown study. You might look at this and think that is strange. All of these states that have historically been conservative are all pink. Was there something going on there . Often the thing was going on was they were reforming their law from having a strict on the in the case of a life being in jeopardy of a woman to also saying if the health is in jeopardy. In mazdas immodest expansion. Do not look at that and think these are states we are suddenly mimicking new york. They were not. They were modestly expanding their laws. Now i am going to move closer to the reading that we did today and that was about the legal history. Before we talk about abortion specifically it is important to know what is afloat and in the air legally and what is in the air is the revision of Birth Control laws. The regal reform begins with the legalization of Birth Control. The case you are probably most familiar with is griswold versus connecticut. That was in 1965. He basically invalidated a law that has been lurking in this class all semester. When Margaret Sanger was arrested for talking about Birth Control and trying to open a Birth Control clinic what was she found guilty of violating . An old 19thcentury law. The act was passed in 1873 and that was still on the books until 1965. The 1873 law was on the books and that prohibited people from disseminating information or actual Birth Control that was people were prosecuted if they did that. It did not matter if you are married or single. That was a crime. In 1965 the Supreme Court ruled that the law that prohibited Birth Control from being dispensed were unconstitutional. What is important is the griswold case only legalized it for married woman, but not for unmarried women. The Supreme Court pointed to the 14th amendment and they said although it is not explicitly stated in the 14th amendment embedded within the 14th amendment and other places in the constitution, including the fifth amendment, as the right to privacy. Again, this privacy does factor that would appear in the constitution . No. They are making a tricky argument here. They said one of those contacts yes, jordan. There were no women on the Supreme Court in 1965. The court ruled there is a right to privacy and certain contacts. One of the times in which americans should be entitled to privacy is when they are meeting with their doctor in the office of a Doctors Office. You should be able to be honest with your doctor. Your doctor should be able to exercise their professional judgment. Under the sacred space in that the state really should not intervene. It was like there was a right to privacy. In 1972 the ruling in griswold was extended to unmarried women. It is kind of shocking when you think about the sequence of events. It is one year before roe v. Wade, so we are starting to see this legal history unfolding kind of quickly just before roe v. Wade and again it is the concept of privacy. The most famous and controversial of all abortion cases is roe v. Wade, which was decided in 1973. I have a picture of the lead attorney for roe. I wanted to see how young she was. She was 26 years old when she was litigating before the Supreme Court. Many of you already know this, but some of you who dont want to go through this. When there is a controversial case people asked to be anonymous because they do not want the pushback. They want to keep their privacy. In portion cases this is especially common and it makes sense. This is a controversial issue. In this case of the woman who was filed on behalf of was unnamed. They gave her a pseudonym. That is why it is called a roe v. Wade. Roe is not an actual person. It is a pseudonym. Wade was the District Attorney whose name was put on the cases. It is not mr. Wade the human being that is being sued. It is the District Attorney having to enforce the laws on the books. Do you remember what state this originated out of . Where does roe v. Wade come out of . Texas. The final case we read for today what date was that . It was kind of interesting that texas ended up being the hotbed of all of these cases. In this case this woman who at the time was anonymous and we do now know her name. She came forward and openly said her name. She was a young, single woman. She had other unwanted pregnancies given those babies up for adoption. She finds herself pregnant once again unmarried. Taxes had one of the strictest laws in the nation. It was one that only allowed abortion in the case of a womans life being in risk. Neither her life or health was at risk. She simply did not want to have another baby. Sarah weddington and another group came together in sued the state of texas saying this is not constitutional. There is no way most women who have unwanted pregnancies qualify under the terms of the laws as they were written, so they filed suit against wade and texas essentially. In this case, again which is one year after . The court ruled in favor of roe. There is a really interesting book that i recommend to you about the Supreme Court justice who broke this decision. It was Justice Blackmun. The book is called becoming Justice Blackmun. Becoming Justice Blackmun. It was a journalist for the New York Times who now is a professor at yale who wrote the book. It is glenda greenhouse. She wrote this book and its all about how it is that this guy came to write this decision. One of the things that was interesting about Justice Blackmun is before becoming a Supreme Court justice he was in the mayo clinic in minnesota. He was a doctors lawyer. He was used to malpractice suits and so the summer while he was trying to think through the decision he went back to minnesota and looked at medical data about pregnancies and as i get to the decision you will kind of see the training at play. Has longstanding interest in medicine at play. He says abortion restrictions early in a pregnancy violate a constitutional right to privacy. That is very familiar to us now. That is where griswold sounded like. He is extending that rationale to abortion in 1973. This was where we see his medical training, in. Very famously in this decision he established what was called a trimester framework. When is it appropriate and inappropriate . He said during roughly the 1st trimester during the early stages states cannot prohibit abortion. He argued at this point abortion is more safe than childbirth, so they do not have a compelling interest to intervene in doctors judgment at that time. As the pregnancy advances the state does have more of an interest in regulating abortion according to this decision. During the 2nd trimester states can begin to impose some laws. This is an important part of his decision. The laws have to be reasonably related to maternal health. Because the procedure had become more technically complicated it makes sense for the stage to intervene and regulate more strictly. More technically complicated procedures. According to roe v. Wade he said in the final trimester of pregnancy states can regulate or even prohibited persons, but they must those exemptions. They must always have an exemption to allow a woman to have an abortion if it jeopardizes her life or her health. We are now at the stage she is asking the question how does the proliferation of laws and regulations that seemingly dont advance Womens Health how are those on the books and is an incongruent with what is written here . That is exactly what we are going to get to. Between 1973 and 1991 and lot of those laws that you are talking about, the more criminal laws, were ruled more constitutional. Those laws they said this does not really comply with part 2 of the decision. It does not seem to advance Womens Health. Therefore it is unconstitutional. A lot of state efforts to regulate abortion until the early 1990s were trying to enact them, but courts usually invalidated them and ruled them unconstitutional according to the terms of roe and one thing im sometimes reluctant to go through this into much detail because this is not the law anymore. This is what we read about. This was replaced altogether. A lot of people commonly think there is this trimester framework. This is what you wrote about for today. This trimester of framework the question is why do we still have this debate whether roe is going to be overturned and that is because the basic premise still stands. The basic premise that endorsing is our right to privacy is still a case law. The metrics by which we determine whether states can regulate is what has changed. Good question. This is what we read about today. The next major case and you can ignore this map for now. Do write down plan to parenthood of southern pennsylvania verse casey. This is a change. Basically this is the case that flew out the trimester framework. This no longer upholds. It replaced the trimester framework with a new standard that still is law and is still is the benchmark for assessing whether something is constitutional and that is the undo burden standard. Trimester framework was replaced with the undo burden. I have written about how the justice is defined. Immaturity of the decisions they sent if the purpose of the law to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability. How did we get here . In the early 1990s pennsylvania legislator passed a law that was called the abortion control act. In the early 1990s Pennsylvania Legislature passed the abortion control act. Embedded within this act were a host of regulations that are now familiar to us. They said that women had to wait 24 hours before getting an abortion, so they would go see a provider and the man to go home for 24 hours before they could come back and get the procedure. 24 hour requirement. Women were required to receive what they called and informed consent booklet that itemizes the health risks of abortion and they had to risk minor children had to receive written consent from at least one parent. They are called parental notification laws, so minor children had to receive written consent from at least one parent. According to this act married women who wanted abortions had to notify their spouse. There was what is called a spell solidification law. These were some of the things that were in the act. It got litigated. What is interesting is that when this case was handed down in 1992 nobody knew what to make of it. Prochoice people did not know whether to be happy in the antiabortion did not know whether they should be celebrating. It was a complicated and confusing decision. One of the reasons why it was so complicated is the start up us and we want to assure you roe v. Wade is still the law of the land and we still believe abortion is a right to privacy implicit in the 14th amendment. At that news prochoice people were happy. This sounds good. Antiabortion people were very distressed. And then with the framer we are going to undo that and replace it. As we look at these different laws that are a part of this here is what we think is an undue burden. They said the 24 hour waiting period was not an undue burden. Minors needing written consent was not an undue burden. Informed consent booklet was not an undue burden. The only one that they said was an undue burden was the spousal notification requirement. They said that is an undue burden. That fails to pass the test. They said a woman to be married to a man in a Domestic Violence relationship and she could be subject to abuse from her partner if she is required to tell them she is having an abortion. Almost immediately after reading this decision a lot of prochoice people read that and said isnt it just as probable a minor girl can be in a domestically violent family situation . The court did not intervene in that, so it did not play that logic to minors. They applied to adult women in married relationships. To get back to jordans question this is when we see the proliferation of all of these laws and regulations. Between 1992 and 2016 almost no regulations were deemed to be undue burden. This is why we see the regulations. This is a map that only just shows the parental notification requirements in every state. I know its a little tough to see in the back of, so i will decode the map before you. The dark purple are laws that have parental consent in effect. The yellow states like florida, georgia, west virginia, and much of the midwest. They have parental notifications. You simply have to inform your parent. They do not have to get permission. The green states like texas, oklahoma, virginia, and then in the west those of laws requiring both consent and notification. There are places where it is not being enforced, so new mexico and california technically has the law on the book, but they are not being litigated. That means that physicians are going at and perform these abortions without getting technically that notification. There are only a handful of states up in the northeast and washington and oregon that do not have parental involvement laws. As of right now these are constitutional. This is all legal. 1 thing that is very interesting. The abortion rate has declined pretty significantly in the past 5 or 6 years and there were a lot of theories like what is happening . Is there better Sex Education or the economy doing better so people are not seeking abortions . Public Health Researchers help to give us facts that we need to understand the Public Health researchers have helped us to figure out that more people than ever have access to Birth Control. Largely because of the Affordable Care act. More people have insurance. According to the Affordable Care act Birth Control is one of the things that is free. Public Health Researchers have identified that because that is now free a Record Number of women are taking it end in medical history one thing that has happened is that iuds are more popular than they have ever been and they are like 99. 9 effective. I think its like the more women are using more effective Birth Control. There is a demand for an abortion to make abortion the clinic significantly. As was the case in the early 1970s women from all ranges of life is still on the demographic seeking abortion. A lot of women have already had children or want to have more. The majority identified as having a religion. 1 thing that we have seen historically. This is the case with both Birth Control and abortion to women across religions are equally as likely to want either Birth Control or abortions. Catholic women have sought Birth Control and revenant number 2 protestant women and an equivalent number 2 jewish women. The social history does not always match some of the debates we had at the higher level. The last cased we read about today is heller stated. There are a lot of cases in between. This is the most significant one in our lifetime with whole Womens Health. A case that originated out of taxes. What do you remember from our reading about this case . What was being litigated or challenged . It is basically physicians who perform abortions according to a new law that was passed in 2013 in texas called hb 2. House bill 2. It was kind of like that pennsylvania act. A lot of different requirements. One of the requirements passed in 2013. Abortion providers had to have privileges at a local hospital. You may like when you go to get if you have ever had oral surgery done that bad Doctors Office looks a little bit different than when you would go see a pediatrician, which looks a little bit different from your dentist office. There are different requirements for all sorts of different medical offices. What taxes trying to do was 7 abortion clinics needed to abide by the same standards that we require of ambulatory surgical centers. They needed to be able to resuscitate people and have 2 gurneys in case some sort of surgical this have happens. The types of abortion performed at these clinics will surgical. There was no surgery ever happening. It was very expensive to retrofit a clinic to meet these new standards. Is a part of the informed consent law. That is not what was being challenged here. That is still commonplace in many states including louisiana that those types are still given out. What was notable about this case is that the litigants and the people challenging them send this is an undue burden and they were not hopeful when they went to the Supreme Court because they have been very reluctant to identify anything as an undue burden. In this case the Supreme Court came back and said many sections of this actually are an undue burden. There are almost no physicians at these clinics have been granted admitting privileges because hospitals do not have to do that. The way that they were you usually have to perform a certain number of surgeries at a hospital in order for them to want to give you the privileges. Because its so safe the doctors never have any reason to go to the hospital to perform surgery. They had almost no relationship with these hospitals. Understandably they did not want to give the privileges beauty Supreme Court saw this inset these laws do not make sense. This is not the way medicine is actually occurring on the ground. The thing about this case is that it applied only to texas law. That is why there are similar laws on the books in other states and why they are still constitutional. Because the scope of that decision only applied to texas. This is something that would be an interesting question for you to talk about in your Political Science class because this is unraveling things that are very complicated because in some states for example, with the most recent election. A lot of states that had been pretty conservative have turned to to be more prochoice and progressive. Nationally the federal bench is becoming much more conservative in the Supreme Court is becoming more conservative. It kind of leaves both pro choice and antiabortion activists at an impasse. They do not know on the lower level my one side the successful. As it gets picked up suddenly the other side is at an advantage. This is a really tricky time legally. If roe v. Wade is overturned at some point does that invalidate or does that overturning get rid of the later thesis . If roe v. Wade were to be overturned suddenly none of that matters anymore. Cases like planned parenthood verse casey would be invalidated by that. Good question. She is pointing out a very interesting ethical question. In the 60s it would not be considered ethically controversial to say my child is going to be born with the profound ability i would like an abortion. That would not have been the controversial of the statement. There has been a disability and suddenly that has become a very tricky position to defend. Some people say that abortion talking about it is almost like a test for talk about a range of issues that almost had nothing to do with abortions. This issue of disability is among the issues that creep up absolutely. All of my life abortions have been it has never really been a health issue. When did it take that shift from when did the transfer happen . There are a few different moments. One is that it really became a public issue that was talked about in newspapers and the my mid19th century. Doctors really made it front page news. One think that is kind of interesting is when we go back and look at Historical Records when newspapers were getting off the ground and trying to sell a lot of issues there were very tablet like. They like to do exposis of a famous guy who had an affair or an explosive divorce. One of the things that newspapers started publishing were examples of very wellto do women trying to get abortions because it was so a lot of newspapers. It was fascinating and morally shaming and here are some of the taboos about abortion really took off in the mid19th century. As far as where we are in Politics Today and the way that is one of the 1st question that is asked to politicians that became commonplace in the late 1970s and early 1980s. That is when we see the shift. A lot of people think this will. You are absolutely right. If roe v. Wade is overturned individual states are still at liberty to legalize or been abortion as they like. The speculation is that the portion will be available in states that have been historically presorted probably places like texas or new york. In louisiana it probably would be prohibited. On the state legislator has been pretty opposed to abortion. It will probably be across the nation. After roe v. Wade it basically invalidated every state that had a criminal prohibition like louisiana and like a lot of states. In response what a lot of legislators did was immediately after 1973 they passed a law saying if roe v. Wade is ever overturned this is a go. We already have it on the books. This takes effect once again. Louisiana is among several states that have that provision on the books ready to go. His question if roe v. Wade were to be overturned without affect other policy or laws in which privacy like when you know you are to charge your attorney you have Attorney Client privilege. There are other laws that would not be afraid. This is pacific to abortion. Our general right to privacy in life is not contingent upon the abortion law. Trust with regard to abortion. His question would it also invalidate griswold and the answer is no. Many of the same legislators who seek to criminalize abortion are also opposed to, for example the inclusion of Birth Control in the Affordable Care act. There is a correlation. Some states like mississippi only have one provided. Why is that not an undue burden . The right to abortion is as it was written is not a guarantee you have a right that you can get an abortion. The state has no affirmative responsibility to help a person pay for one. It has no affirmative responsibility to ensure a doctor is providing them in your stay. If you do not have an affirmative right to abortion there is nothing the state is compelled to do to enable you to exercise that right. Most famously, in 1976 Congress Passed this amendment and it prohibits federal dollars from being used to pay for abortions. If a person is receiving federal medicaid dollars or that money cannot be applied to an abortion. Planned parenthood because it sometimes receive federal grants there were quired . Article 2 different account books. Any money they get goes into one account and that be key used for Cervical Cancer screenings or routine health exams, but any money that they used to pay for abortions comes out of a separate account and those of the private donations. If you donate money to planned parenthood that goes in the separate account that is not taxpayer money and that is by federal law. Any other questions . All right. Very good to see you
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.