American Constitutionalism in Historical Perspective (packet)

Aftermath: In later cases that women have the right to reproductive autonomy as individuals.

Criticisms: (Ely) instead of defining the point of viability, the court should have let the democratic process sort this out. By making a decision here engaging in Lochnerizing, putting the court’s moral values in place of the peoples where there is no law.

1. 
   Women are not a minority. State should decriminalize abortion but can only interfere when group is unfairly rep. Women can easily decriminalize abortion thru political action. Fetuses more of a discrete and insular minority
   
2. 
   Inappropriate judicial intervention: unsettled public opinion, not like Griswold where public opinion against contraception has shifted
   
3. 
   Undemocratic
   
4. 
   Prob: women who want abortions are minority & c/n speak out about it when want to do it.
   

No spousal consent required:

1. 
   Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth: (1976) p. 658: may not be his child, worries about domestic abuse, etc
   
2. 
   Rt extended to teenage women in conflict w/ parents. If parental consent req need alt judicial procedure to get around it. Bellotti II, Planned Parenthood Assn of Kansas City v. Ashcroft.
   

Upholds parental notification: HL v. Matheson. Problem of child abuse when learn child is pregnant, worried about this

Funding: court has also made clear that it is legitimate for Congress to limit funding of abortions. (Maher v. Roe, Harris v. Macrae). P. 569-70 Hyde Amendment.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v. Casey, 1992: p. 574 Declined to overrule Roe, and affirmed constit rt of privacy using substantive DP based on liberty in 14 A. Reaffirm Griswold as correct and legit rt to intimate life is similar to free exercise jurisprudence values. Having child is her decision unless her health/ life is in danger or potential life of fetus is compelling.

1. 
   Stare decisis pp. 576-78. Distinguishes other cases which have been overruled b/c rt to privacy and need for compelling secular state purpose is still good law. Application of Roe is faulty but not underlying principle/structure. Also afraid that overruling it would delegitimize court.
   
2.