112 S. Ct. 2791 (1992).Google Scholar

410 U.S. 113(1973).Google Scholar

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 110 S. Ct. 2841 (1989).Google Scholar

Cunningham, M., “The Abortion War,” National Review 11/2/92.Google Scholar

Newswire, P.R., “Supreme Court Overrules Roe v. Wade; Clinics Vow to Continue to Help Women,” June 29, 1992.Google Scholar

Brock, D., “Fertility, Contraception, and Reproductive Freedom,” a paper presented at the meeting on Women, Equality, and Reproductive Technology, United Nations University, World Institute for Development and Economic Research, Helsinki, Finland, Aug 2–6, 1992.Google Scholar

In fact, with the last sentence quoted, it would appear that the plurality is finally recognizing what this author and others have argued for years: that the only significant difference between a fetus and a baby is whether its mother wishes to bring it to term. That is why a miscarriage or a diagnosis of severe impairment in a fetus is a death in the family to a woman hoping to give birth, but a voluntary abortion is not.Google Scholar

For lengthier treatment of equality-based arguments for abortion rights, see Sunstein, “Gender Difference, Reproduction, and the Law,” a paper presented at the meeting on Women, Equality, and Reproductive Technology, United Nations University, World Institute for Development and Economic Research, Helsinki, Finland, Aug. 2–6, 1992.Google Scholar

It is not enough to argue that men are forced to risk their personal safety when drafted for war just as women are forced to risk their safety when denied pregnancy terminations. Equality requires equal burdening for each activity, not a communal trade off. For example, it would not satisfy constitutional standards if some jobs were reserved for men but were offset by other jobs reserved for women. As for the draft, there is a constitutional argument waiting to be made that the failure to draft women constitutes irrational discrimination against men in the area of personal safety.Google Scholar

Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 93 S. Ct. 1764 (1973).Google Scholar

CLINIC VIOLENCE AND HARASSMENT PROHIBITIONS: (5 states) California, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, Wisconsin. LEGISLATIVE PRO-CHOICE DECLARATIONS: (4 states) Connecticut, Maryland, Nevada, Washington.Google Scholar

PUBLIC FUNDING OF ABORTIONS: (12 states) Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia.Google Scholar

ABORTION BANS: PRE-ROE (18 states plus DC) Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin.Google Scholar

Ada v. Guam Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 113 S. Ct. 633 (1992); Sojourner T. v. Edwards, 974 F. 2d 27 (1992); Jane L. v. Bangertner, 809 F.Supp. 865 (1992).Google Scholar

HUSBAND NOTICE AND CONSENT: (10 states) Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Montana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah.Google Scholar

Current Anti-Choice Legislative Declarations: (11 states) Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, UtahGoogle Scholar

RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION COUNSELLING (“GAG RULES”): (3 states) Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota.Google Scholar

MANDATORY INFORMATION FOR “INFORMED CONSENT” (includes wide range of photographic information and descriptions of emotional risks; usually without regard to actual needs of patient for information for informed consent and without comparison to risks attendant to child birth): (24 states) Alabama, Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin.Google Scholar

LIMITING A MINOR'S ACCESS: (34 states) (includes parental notice or consent, with judicial or other concerned adult bypass): Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.Google Scholar

MANDATORY VIABILITY TESTING: (3 states) Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri.Google Scholar

POST-VIABILITY RESTRICTIONS: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming)Google Scholar

PROHIBITS ABORTION SERVICES IN PUBLIC FACILITIES: (6 states) Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Pennsylvania (KY possibly continues unenforceable).Google Scholar

PROHIBITS NEARLY ALL PUBLIC FUNDING OF ABORTION SERVICES: (38 states plus DC) (no public funding unless life, grave health, incest or rape exception applies): Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming.Google Scholar

MANDATORY WAITING PERIODS PRIOR TO OBTAINING ABORTION: (13 states) Delaware (24 hours); Idaho (24 hours); Indiana (24 hours); Kansas (8 hours); Kentucky (2 hours); Maine (48 hours); Massachusetts (24 hours); Mississippi (24 hours); Pennsylvania (24 hours); North Dakota (24 hours); Ohio (24 hours); South Dakota (24 hours); Tennessee (48 hours).Google Scholar

Barnes v. Moore, 970 F. 2d 12 (1992).Google Scholar

448 U.S. 297 (1980).Google Scholar

432 U.S. 464 (1977).Google Scholar

Of course, political scientists and economists might dispute that conclusion.Google Scholar

388 U.S. 1 (1967).Google Scholar

316 U.S. 535 (1942).Google Scholar

See Charo, R.A., “Mandatory Contraception in the U.S.,” The Lancet 1992; 339:1104–05 (5/2/92).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

842 S.W. 2d 588 (Tenn, June 1, 1992).Google Scholar

Such a challenge has already failed once. See Planned Parenthood Federation of America v. McPherson, 915 F. 2d 59 (1990). In 1993, after this paper was delivered at the Toronto meeting, newly elected President Bill Clinton repealed the gag rule, both domestic and international, and also repealed the moratoria on fetal tissue transplantation research and abortion service provision on U.S. military bases. He also called for a dispassionate review of the safety and efficacy of the French abortifacient RU 486. See, generally, Public Papers of the Presidents, “Remarks on Signing Memorandums on Medical Research and Reproductive Health and an Exchange With Reporters,” 29 Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 85, January 22, 1993.Google Scholar

That law was struck down by the German High Court as violating the German Basic Law's guarantee of a “right to life,” a provision originally inserted in the post-WWII basic law in reaction to the genocidal policies of the Nazi regime. See S. Kinzer, “German Court Restricts Abortion, Angering Feminists and the East,” New York Times May 29, 1993; Crawshaw, S., “Court Annuls Germany's Liberal Law on Abortion,” The Independent (U.K.) 5-29-93Google Scholar

H.R. 25 and S. 25, 103rd Congress.Google Scholar

In re T.W., 551 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 1989); Amer. Acad. Pediatr. v. van de Kamp, 214 Cal. App. 3d 831 (1989), pending on remand sub nom. Amer. Acad. Pediatr. v. Lundgren, 530 P.2d.Google Scholar

Minor's Rights: CA, CT, MA, MI, NJ, NY, VT, OR; Privacy: AK, AZ, CA, FL, HA, LA, IL, MT, SC, WA. See R. Pine and S. Law, “Envisioning a Future for Reproductive Liberty: Strategies for Making the Rights Real,” 27 Harvard Civil Rights— Civil Liberties Law Review 407, 435 (1992)Google Scholar

In re T.W., 551 So. 2d 1186 (Florida 1989) and Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights, 29 Cal. 3d 252 (1981).Google Scholar

Cunningham, M., “The Abortion War,” National Review November 11, 1992.Google Scholar

Charo, R.A., “A Political History of the Abortion Pill,” in Institute of Medicine, Biomedical Politics (National Academy Press, Washington DC 1991)Google Scholar

Childress, J.F., “Deliberations of the Human Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research Panel,” in Institute of Medicine, Biomedical Politics (National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1991)Google Scholar

Personal communication from Wisconsin state assembly Rep. Rebecca Young, July 1991.Google Scholar