MBZags wrote:Mickey Quicknumbers wrote:con law. I hate you. I don't really understand *where* abortion doctrine is after the 4 cases we went over since Roe, and have no clue how to put it into a practical outline for the test.
We haven't gotten to abortion yet, but I also despise Con Law.
#1. Buy Chemerinsky (sp?).
#2. Test for abortion is as follows: Prior to viability the State/Govt may not 1) pose an undue burden, or a 2) substantial obstacle for a woman to obtain an abortion. Such a right is presumed in the 5th/14th amendments, because it is considered a fundamental right... thus the Court strictly scrutinizes such legislation, i.e. when the state paces a law in regards to regulating abortion, they need to ensure that neither 1 nor 2 are violated. For example, a Cali law stated than a woman was to notify her husband prior to obtaining an abortion. Constitutional? No. The Court found that such a law would be a substantial obstacle in obtaining abortions because many husbands are abusive, or a woman may fear her husband/boyfriend/one night stand, would be abusive and present an impermissible obstacle for a woman to obtain an abortion. Side note: You can also analyze this as an equal protection issue.
However, you should know the Court used "undue burden" in defining the test because had they called for "strict scrutiny" some of the Justices (can't remember who) would not sign on and thwart the holding.
Hope this helped
edit: you should also know that the burden is on the government to prove they did not place either 1) undue burden, or 2) sub obstacle.
