Los puntos clave no están disponibles para este artículo en este momento.
Dear Editor, In Roe v. Wade, Jane Roe, a rape survivor filed an abortion petition by challenging the constitutionality of Texas criminal abortion laws which imposed a complete ban on abortions except mother's life was endangered. Further, the Texas District Court held that those abortion laws violate the petitioner's fundamental right to privacy guaranteed under the USA Constitution; however, the said court rejected the interim injunction since the petitioner can obtain the relief as the abortion statutes were struck down as unconstitutional. In appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) held that the USA Constitution guarantees women's reproductive rights until fetal viability (fetus's ability to survive outside the mother's womb, i.e., before 24 weeks of pregnancy) under the substantive due process clause that protects citizens' fundamental rights from the government's interference.1 Further, the SCOTUS recognized the trimester system of abortion rights, i.e., women have absolute abortion rights for the first trimester, states may impose certain limitations during the second trimester, and the states may restrict or ban abortions during the third trimester except when the mother's life was endangered. However, such abortion rights and the state's legitimate interests in regulating abortion must be balanced. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the SCOTUS upheld the constitutionality of abortion rights; however, the trimester system was rejected for allowing the states to enact abortion laws in favor of a more flexible medical definition of viability.2 Recently, in the matter of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), the petitioner, who is a doctor at an abortion clinic, challenged the constitutionality of Mississippi abortion laws which fixed gestational limit for abortions up to 15 weeks of pregnancy except in case of a medical emergency or severe fetal abnormality alleging that these laws violated the SCOTUS landmark precedents that recognized the constitutional right to abortion. The SCOTUS held that the USA Constitution does not confer any abortion rights on the grounds that these rights are neither "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition" nor "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." Thus, these rights cannot be recognized under the substantive due process clause of the USA Constitution.3 This judgment empowered the federal states to enact their respective abortion laws. Moreover, the Guttmacher Institute, a nongovernmental organization reported that 24 out of 50 states have banned abortion or are likely to ban abortion.4 Currently, six US states, namely, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, South Dakota, and Tennessee, have enforced a complete ban on abortion with very limited exceptions. In addition, six states, namely, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas, and West Virginia, have enforced a near-ban; however, the ban is challenged before the respective state courts. In two states, namely, North Dakota and Wisconsin, abortion is not available even though the ban has not been enforced. Furthermore, four states, namely, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Utah, restricted abortion based on the gestational limit of pregnancy. Moreover, three states, namely, Indiana, Wyoming, and Ohio, imposed a near-total ban or early-gestational-age ban, which has been blocked by the state courts. Three states, namely, Iowa, Montana, and Nebraska may ban or restrict abortion.5 Such an abortion ban will have severe implications on female rape or incest survivors who are forced to give childbirth, which leads to social stigma, financial burden, emotional distress, and unsafe abortions which are directly proportionate to an increase in the maternal mortality rate. Many other implications include women from marginalized groups have financial instability to access medical facilities and proper nutrition during pregnancy, the heavy workload on medical staff as the patients may travel to those states which legalize abortion, and abortion becomes expensive due to travel and stay costs. Financial support and sponsorship Nil. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.
J. Lakshmi Charan (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: