Question

In the court case Harris v. McRae what did district court Judge Dooling mean when he said that a woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy because medically necessary to her health is an exercise of “the most fundamental of rights, nearly allied to her right to be.”? Does the denial of that right for poor women by the U.S. Supreme Court deny those women their “right to be”?

Answer 1

In the month of June 30, in the year 1980, the US Supreme Court handed down the decision or ruling that tended to extinguish for the indigent women the very importance of the fundamental right to an abortion. This right was recognized in Roe v. Wade.

The supteme Court held that, in a five to four decision,the denial of Medicaid benefit for the therapeutic abortions was both constitutionally and statutorily valid.

The McRae Court defined the right to abortion. It was defined as the protection from undue burdensome interference with a woman's freedom to judge whether to terminate her pregnancy or not.

This definition overlooks and ignores the crucial importance of Roe's trimester distinction ruling.

The Roe Court concluded that,

“the right of personal privacy and freedom includes the abortion decision or judgement ,but this right is not unqualified . And this right must be considered against the various important state interests in regulation."

Hence, The Court divided this right into the following three stages:

Stage 1- a) For this is the stage prior to approximate end of the first trimester.

The decision of abortion and its effectuation must be left in the hands of the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's physician or doctor.

Stage 2-(b) For this is the stage subsequent to approximating the end of the first trimester.

The State by promoting its interest in the health of the mother,if it chooses, may regulate the abortion procedure. This can be done in ways that are related to mothers health.

Stage 3-(c) For the is the stage subsequent to viability.

The State by promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, if it chooses, may regulate, or even proscribe the abortion. Except where it is necessary and for the preservation of the life or health of the mother respectively.

The Roe Court identified that the state also has 2 crucial and legitimate interests in the abortion decision/judgement of the mother.

(i) That is to preserve and protect the health of a pregnant woman; and

(ii) to protect the potentiality of human life;
and both of these interests are separate and distinct in their own terms.

They become more compelling as the pregnancy progresses.

The US supreme court defined the exact nature and scope of the fundamental right which was identified in Roe as protecting, “the woman from unduly burdensome interference with her freedom to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy."

The supreme court believed, that since the Connecti-cut regulation did not place any hurdles in the indigent woman's path to obtain an abortion. That was not already present due to her indigency.

And so, hence , it did not interfere with the woman's decision or judjement about terminating pregnancy.
So, the state just made a value judgment by choosing and favoring the childbirth over abortion by allocating the required funds for childbirth only.

But the Court would not substitute its given values for that of the state's legislature.

And in some point during pregnancy, the state interests in safeguarding and protecting the health, maintaining the medical standards, and protecting potential life could become sufficiently and necessarily compelling to sustain and implement the regulation of abortion.

And so, summarizing, the US supreme court held that a woman's fundamental right to the freedom of choice does not necessarily embody a constitutional entitlement to financial resources.

Even when such finances are quiet necessary for that woman to have an abortion to protect her own health."

2. The denial of the right to terminate pregnancy for poor women by the U.S. Supreme Court deny those women their “right to be”.

The Laws that restrict, prohibit or impede any poor women’s access to necessary crucial pregnancy-related health services and technologies tend to form a context in which the poor adolescent and adult women’s health and lives may be harmed in a way .

And also , in which multiple human rights get violated.
But such laws and regulations are invoked and formed to protect the prenatal development.

Although the government has the obligation and responsibility to provide the measures that promote the poor woman’s autonomy, well-being, and health .while, simultaneously ensuring that all the pregnancies that are wanted and carried to term in a healthy manner.

The laws that tend to criminalize and penalize the actions during pregnancy and impede access to needed reproductive health services. These laws end up in the violations of poor women’s rights to the detrimental effects that these laws have on poor women’s reproductive health & the human rights.

The laws, particularly from the authoritative bodies such as the human rights organizations and professional medical associations interfere with the right of freedom of poor women.

The significant impact and effect that the laws regulating pregnancy-related issues have on poor women’s fundamental rights, the civil society organizations must work with the legal advocates and the governmental institutions inorder to promote the rights of poor pregnant women and the women who are seeking to begin or end a pregnancy.

They must provide assistance to poor women who are coping with substance abuse or problems of depression, the stress caused by poverty and also the violence through treatment programs, and other forms of support( housing / employment) for overcoming these problems faced during their pregnancy.