Greasley, K;
(2017)
Taking Abortion Rights Seriously: Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt.
The Modern Law Review
, 80
(2)
pp. 325-338.
10.1111/1468-2230.12256.
Preview |
Text
Greasley_Taking Abortion Rights Seriously_Whole Woman_.pdf - Accepted Version Download (446kB) | Preview |
Abstract
In Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt the Supreme Court of the United States passed down its most important decision on abortion for just under a decade. By a majority of 5-3, the Court ruled that two provisions in a Texas law regulating abortion on grounds of women's health were constitutionally invalid, placing a ‘substantial obstacle’ in the way of women seeking to exercise their right to abortion. This comment delineates the key ways in which the Court's application of the standard of constitutional review under Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) to the Texas provisions marks a landmark development for the protection of the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v Wade, not the least by making clear that state abortion regulations which cite ‘women's health’ justifications should not pass constitutional review where those justifications lack a credible factual basis.
| Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Title: | Taking Abortion Rights Seriously: Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt |
| Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
| DOI: | 10.1111/1468-2230.12256 |
| Publisher version: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12256 |
| Language: | English |
| Additional information: | This version is the author accepted manuscript. For information on re-use, please refer to the publisher’s terms and conditions. |
| UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > UCL SLASH > Faculty of Laws |
| URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1544129 |
Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
