Abortion Regulations: An Avenue for Abolishing Abortion?

Abstract

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental “right to privacy” that protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose whether to have an abortion. Across the nation, however, many states seek to restrict women’s open access to abortion through targeted restrictions on abortion providers and other regulations. Often, these abortion regulations place substantial burdens on abortion providers and abortion access. To determine an abortion regulation’s constitutionality, the U.S. Supreme Court applies the undue- burden test: if an abortion regulation’s burdens outweigh its benefits, the regulation is unconstitutional. June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo (“June”) is the latest Supreme Court decision to hold that a state abortion regulation that presents a substantial burden on abortion access is unconstitutional. The author examines the Court’s precedent for creating standards to analyze abortion restrictions and determine their constitutionality. Applying such precedent, the author analyzes June and Louisiana’s Act 620, the state’s controversial abortion regulation that closely resembled a Texas admitting-privilege requirement deemed invalid in 2016. The June Court applied the undue-burden test and ruled Act 620’s benefits did not substantially outweigh the burdens it imposed on abortion access, thus rendering the law unconstitutional. The author concludes with discussing June’s political and societal significance amid constant jurisprudential challenges and political opposition against open abortion access. Significantly, June possibly deters state legislators from imposing unduly burdensome abortion regulations, lest the regulation be deemed unconstitutional. Further, June and its precedent serve as a reinforced bulwark for women’s civil liberties. Women have the right to an abortion free from unduly onerous regulations, and this right must be protected.