Abstract
The law has taken the lead in delineating the contours of the public debate over reproductive liberty. Most of that debate, in turn, has focused on the Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. This decision followed two other major opinions on “the right to privacy” and has itself been followed by more than a dozen other decisions on abortion. A few words about these important decisions provide an introduction to this chapter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
410 U.S. 113 (1973). See generally Symposium Issue: Justice Harry A. Blackmun: The Supreme Court and the Limits of Medical Privacy, 13 Am. J. Law & Med. 153-525 (1987).
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 (1972).
The US Supreme Court has further defined viability as follows: Viability is reached when, in the judgment of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus’ sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support. Because this point may differ with each pregnancy, neither the legislature nor the courts may proclaim one of the elements entering into the ascertained of viability—be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor—as the determinant of when the State has a compelling interest in the life or health of the fetus. Viability is the critical point. And we have recognized no attempt to stretch the point of viability one way or the other. (Colautti v. Franklin, 439 US 379, 388-89 [1979].) If and when an early abortion pill or “contragestive” drug is approved for use in this country, early abortion will seem more like birth control, and the decision to use it will be almost exclusively in the hands of the woman herself. See, e.g., Greenhouse, “A New Pill: A Fierce Battle,” New York Times Magazine, Feb. 12, 1989, at 23.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 A. Xr. 3040 (1989); Annas, The Supreme Court, Privacy, and Abortion, 321 New Eng. J. Med. 1200 (1989).
E.g., Kritter v. Citron, 101 Cal. App. 2d 33, 224 P.2d 808 (1950); Rosenberg v. Feigin, 119 Cal. App.2d 783, 260 P.2d 143 (1953); Rytkonen v.Lojacono, 269 Mich. 270, 257 N.W. 703 (1934).
Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth, 428 US 52 (1976).
Murray v. Vandevander, 522 P.2d 302, 304 (Okla. Ct. App. 1974).
Inderbitzen v. Lane Hospital, 124 Cal. App. 462, 12 P.2d 744 (1932).
ACOG, Standards for Obstetric-Gynecologic Services, 6th ed. (Washington, DC: ACOG, 1985), at 18–19.
Hulit v. St. Vincent’s Hospital, 164 Mont. 168, 520 P.2d 99 (1974).
Fitzgerald v. Porter Memorial Hospital, 523 F.2d 716 (7th Cir. 1975).
Shiono, Fielden, McNellis, et al., Recent Trends in Cesarean Birth and Trial of Labor Rates in the United States, 257 JAMA 494 (1987). On fetal monitors, see Friedman, The Obstetrician’s Dilemma: How Much Fetal Monitoring and Cesarean Sections Is Enough?, 315 New Eng. J. Med. 641 (1986).
Friedman, “Consumer Group Calls Half of Nation’s Cesareans Unnecessary,” Medical World News, Dec. 28, 1987, at 70–71. In Oct. 1988, ACOG issued new guidelines to require its members to encourage women to attempt vaginal delivery, even if the woman has had one or more cesarean sections (Knox, “Inhibit Cesareans, Doctors Told,” Boston Globe, Oct. 26, 1988, at 1). See also American Medical News, Feb. 10, 1989, at 12. C/SEC, a consumer education and support group, called the new ACOG policy a “ray of hope” (22 Forest Rd., Framingham, Mass. 01701).
Kolder, Gallagher & Parsons, Court-Ordered Obstetrical Interventions, 316 New Eng. J. Med. 1192 (1987); and see Jefferson v. Griffin Spalding Cty. Hospital Auth., 247 Ga. 86, 274 S.E.2d 457 (1981).
Annas, Protecting the Liberty of Pregnant Patients, 316 New Eng. J. Med. 1213 (1987); and see McFall v. Shimp, 10 Pa. D. & C.3d 90 (Allegheny Cty. 1978) (bone marrow donation cannot be compelled by law even to save a life of a relative).
Application of the President and Directors of Georgetown College, 331 F. 2d 1000 (DC Cir. 1964).
Elias & Annas, supra note 4, at 256-60; and see Gallager, Prenatal Invasions and Interventions: What’s Wrong with Fetal Rights?, 10 Harv. Women’s L. J. 9 (1987). But see Robertson, The Right to Procreate and In Utero Fetal Therapy, 3 J. Legal Med. 333 (1982).
The facts of this case are taken from the transcript. And see Annas, She’s Going to Die: The Case of Angela C., 18(1) Hastings Center Report 23 (Feb. 1988); letters, 18(3) Hastings Center Report 40-42 (June 1988); and Burt, Uncertainty and Medical Authority, 16 Law, Medicine & Health Care 190, 192-95 (1988).
In re A.C., 533 A.2d 611 (App. D.C. 1987).
In re A.C., 573 A.2d 1235 (App. D.C. 1990) discussed in Annas, Foreclosing the Use of Force: A.C. Reversed, Hastings Center Rpt. 27-29.
Elias & Annas, supra note 4, at 261-62. A more detailed account is in G. J. Annas, Judging Medicine (Clifton, N. J.: Humana Press, 1988), at 91-96.
Elias & Annas, supra note 4, at 262. And see Johnsen, The Creation of Fetal Rights: Conflicts with Women’s Constitutional Rights of Liberty, Privacy and Equal Protection, 95 Yale L. Rev. 599 (1986). The crack epidemic simply increases the urgency of making prenatal care available to the poor. See Mariner, Glantz & Annas, Pregnancy, Drugs, and the Perils of Prosecution, 9 Criminal Justice Ethics 30-41 (1990).
See Robertson, Involuntary Euthanasia of Defective Newborns, 27 Stan. L. Rev. 213 (1975).
See generally S. Sagov et al., eds., Home Birth (Rockville, Md.: Aspen, 1984).
Bowlandv. Municipal Hospital of Santa Cruz, 134 Cal. Rptr. 630, 638 (1976).
Robertson, supra note 18; and Commonwealth v. Edelin, 359 N.E.2d 4 (Mass. 1976).
Elias & Annas, supra note 4, at 222-42. See also US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Infertility: Medical and Social Choices (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1988) (OTA-BA-358); Symposium Issue: Surrogate Motherhood: Politics and Privacy, 16 Law, Medicine & Health Care 1-137 (1988).
ACOG, supra note 10, at 84.
ICEA Publication Center, PO Box 9316, Midtown Plaza, Rochester, NY 14604.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1992 George J. Annas and the American Civil Liberties Union
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Annas, G.J. (1992). Pregnancy and Birth. In: The Rights of Patients. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-0397-1_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-0397-1_8
Publisher Name: Humana Press, Totowa, NJ
Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-6743-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4612-0397-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive