Policy Background
The Reproductive Health Services of Planned Parenthood, located in the St. Louis Region, provides reproductive care services and pre-viability abortions in Missouri. They partner with Dr. Colleen P. Mc Nicholas, as well as the RHS, to provide vital reproductive health services to women. However, on July 30, 2019, RHS took the initiative of filing a lawsuit on its behalf, including its employees, physicians, and parents. The suit was launched to challenge the constitutionality of various provisions 126. The RHS believed that Gestational Age Provisions were ineffective in treatment and hence wanted them revisited in order to protect the lives of pregnant women. Many expectant mothers are humiliated by the Gestation Age Provision of the Constitution, which states that abortion should not be conducted on a woman at her eight-week gestation period or afterward (Rubin, 2020). Because the law denied women the ability to choose when to abort on their own, the case was brought to the court for an appeal of the Gestational Age Provisions.
Facts of the Case
The first component of the Gestation Age Provision prohibits abortion in a woman during her eighth week of pregnancy. The law makes an exemption in the case of a medical emergency that requires a woman to have an abortion. Except in circumstances when abortion is performed at 14, 18, or 20 weeks of gestation, sections 188.375, 188.058, and 188.057 are identical to the first legislative provision (Thomas et al., 2016). A healthcare provider who breached the Gestation Age requirements would risk criminal charges as well as professional repercussions. Furthermore, the Down Syndrome Provision makes abortion illegal depending on a variety of reasons. In certain cases, the expectant mother goes for an abortion because a prenatal diagnosis test or screening revealed that her unborn child has Down syndrome. As a result, the provider should refrain from performing the abortion as specified in section 188.038.2. (Thomas et al., 2016). Those who do not follow the rules will be arrested and tried (Beckman, 2017). Section 188.038.4 necessitates the doctor who initiates a woman to sign a personal report for each abortion performed, subject to certain penalties.
RHS petitioned for a preliminary injunction, asserting that the Gestation Age stipulations prevented them from providing pre-viability abortion services to Missouri clients. The district court ruled that the two provisions, Gestational Age and Down Syndrome, ought to be prohibited instead of simply being controlled. Nevertheless, the trial court did explain that the documentation did not show that enforcing the Down Syndrome Provision would indeed pose any threat to anyone during the period leading to the final judgment. Following the rejection of a temporary order against women, Missouri lodged an application and a motion for reassessment.
Thus, the above declared that a practitioner ought not to know if a woman requested abortion because of a prenatal diagnostic test or Down syndrome scan of the unborn baby. Missouri asked the district court for a temporary restraining order because the ruling forbids abortions done after 20 weeks of pregnancy (Thomas et al., 2016). Nonetheless, the court dismissed the motion, implying that the partial injunction would restrict approximately two weekly abortions. This, in turn, would have an impact on the familial conditions and lives of expectant mothers who might contemplate having abortions during the latter stages of pregnancy. As a result, the district court ruled that Missouri’s lawsuit should not be deemed an appeal.
Reasoning and Opinions
The Supreme Court heard Missouri’s case, in which certain grounds were presented against the Gestational Age Regulations and the Down Syndrome Stipulations. Missouri contends in Casey, 505 U.S. at 877, that the requirements do not prohibit pre-viability abortions for women but rather restrict them. The court decided that in a 24-week gestation period, a fetus is not eligible for termination and, therefore, should not be viable at 12 weeks (Rubin, 2020). Clients could have an abortion at any point before fetal viability, according to 505 U.S. at 881-87, as long as the information request was delivered within 24 hours (Rubin, 2020). Prior to the operation, Missouri made an argument based on Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), where it did claim that the legislation prohibited specific medical methods for use during abortions yet did not prohibit pre-viability abortions (Rubin, 2020). Nevertheless, the court decided that the action was not unconstitutional because of the uncertainty over whether the treatments protect a person’s health if other suitable options are available.
Furthermore, Missouri objects to the Supreme Court’s rejection of an assertion in Roe where it demonstrates an individual as having the right to abort at any time, for any cause, and in any fashion. However, in 505 U.S. at 860, the Court of law (Supreme Court) decided that its concern in the life of a fetus was constitutionally sufficient to prohibit nontherapeutic abortions. The district court determined that the Down Syndrome Provision affects a limited percentage of women after obtaining a supplementary declaration from Dr. Mc Nicholas.
The district court, however, denied Missouri’s motion to forbid categorical abortions due to a lack of evidence on the legislation. Missouri further claims that the harms caused by the state and numerous innocent third parties at the time of HB 126 implementation would be significant. However, the court cautions federal courts to exercise caution before postponing the impact of state legislation (Thomas et al., 2016). For each of these considerations, the Judge ruled and found no mistake in the district court’s determination that the balancing of equities supported injustice assistance.
Analysis
Missouri’s case is crucial because it educates all doctors and women seeking abortions on the numerous variables to consider before making such decisions. The court’s reaction is reminiscent of the traditional game of telephone (Andaya et al., 2016). Dr. Mc Nicholas indicated that several of their patients had abortions after being diagnosed with Down Syndrome. Nevertheless, the district declares that the regulation of Down syndrome will be imposed against Reproductive Health Services, even though the district is unaware that a client requires abortion primarily because of Down syndrome. The message conveyed towards the conclusion, like in the telephone game, shows a small similarity in the initial message. Dr. Nicholas failed to convey a more legitimate message, and the court was unable to identify the case’s true conclusions owing to a lack of evidence.
Therefore, the case demonstrates the court’s meticulous deliberation before issuing decisions on a matter. The court does not make errors in its decisions. Applying for a temporary restraining order in society would result in many pregnant women having issues with their family conditions if they aborted before viability. In this sense, reproductive Health Services urge the population to fill knowledge and causation voids through guessing. The court could connect all of the pieces to demonstrate the necessary background to rescind the preliminary injunction. The Down Syndrome Provisions and Gestational Age Provisions depict the government’s attempts to avoid abortion-related human rights violations. The district court also establishes its competence to carry out genuine findings with no mistakes. It implies that a failure to show damage to a woman considering an abortion is an effective independent reason for refusing a preliminary injunction.
References
Andaya, E., & Mishtal, J. (2016). The erosion of rights to abortion care in the United States: A call for a renewed anthropological engagement with the politics of abortion. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 31(1), 40-59. Web.
Beckman, L. (2017). Abortion in the United States: The continuing controversy. Feminism & Psychology, 27(1), 101-113. Web.
Rubin, R. (2020). A Day in the life: Planned parenthood physician provides reproductive health care to the underserved. JAMA, 319(11), 1081. Web.
Thomas, R., Norris, A., & Gallo, M. (2017). Anti-legal attitude toward abortion among abortion patients in the United States. Contraception, 96(5), 357-364. Web.