Klein 1

Elizabeth Klein

Mr. Jason King

A.P. Seminar

12 December 2016

Unconstitutional Religious Involvement in Reproductive Rights

Imagine, a woman has just found out she is pregnant. The pregnancy is unexpected and

unwanted, and the woman is not prepared to have a child. She has two options: go through with

the pregnancy, or have an abortion. Faced with these prospects, the woman chooses the latter.

However, there are complications. Her preferred hospital is Catholic and refuses to perform the

abortion due to their religious affiliation. She drives out of her way to reach Planned

Parenthood, where she must pay for her abortion out of pocket because her insurance provider,

Medicaid, cannot cover it. Then finally, Planned Parenthood must give the woman an ultrasound

of the pregnancy she is about to terminate. These traumatic events never would have even

occurred if the womans employer had not refused to insure morning-after pills for their

employees. Each of these problems was supposed to have been prevented by the Supreme Court,

but is still occurring all over the country. For women to truly have reproductive rights, her

abortion should not be subject to the religious beliefs of others and should be better protected by

the regulations instated to give her the freedom to choose.

In 1973, the Supreme Court sided with Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade to determine that under

the Fourteenth Amendment, a womans right to privacy includes receiving an abortion in her

first trimester (U.S. Constitution; Roe v. Wade). After this case, a trimester framework was

set up to determine at which point in a womans pregnancy could the state intervene with her
 Klein 2

right to an abortion (Roe v. Wade). After Planned Parenthood v. Casey, this framework was

replaced with the Undue Burden Standard (Planned Parenthood v. Casey). This guideline

declares that the state may pass no measures which place unreasonable obstacles in the way of

abortion (Planned Parenthood v. Casey). However, recent research shows that many states are

getting away with contravening these standards on the grounds of religion. This is because

religious affiliation is seen as a justifiable reason for placing burdens in the way of the

procedure. This is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment and Undue Burden

Standard, yet these violations still present themselves at every phase of a womans abortion.

There are two particular regulations in particular that place limitations on a womans

abortion. The first is the Hyde Amendment. This law states that Medicaid, a federal insurance

program, cannot use federal funds to cover abortions except under extreme circumstances

(Halperin 4). It was proposed by Christian Representative Henry Hyde with the intent of

decreasing funds for the execution of...human lives (Grossu). However, this amendment

greatly affects low-income women enrolled in the program, because they are often not able to

afford abortions without coverage. A report conducted by the Center for Reproductive Rights

claims that because of the Hyde Amendment, 18-37% of women who would have obtained an

abortion if Medicaid funding were available continue their pregnancies to term (Halperin 14).

In other words, these women are forced to have babies they are not prepared for because the

government wants to discourage abortion. The second regulation is a series of laws in sixteen

states that force a woman to receive an ultrasound before terminating her pregnancy (Sanger

375). During these ultrasounds, women are invited to view a picture of the fetus they are about

to abort (Sanger 378). Nancy Keenan, the former president of N.A.R.A.L. Pro-Choice America,
 Klein 3

states that these mandates are neither medically needed, nor [wanted] (Rachel Maddow

Discusses). In both the ultrasound statutes and the Hyde Amendment, pro-life legislators are

wrongfully attempting to make a woman comply with their own religious beliefs.

The main reason pro-life people support these regulations is because they align with their

religious beliefs, which reject abortion. However, this decision belongs only to women

considering this procedure. The Fourteenth Amendment states that every citizen of the country

is entitled to a right to privacy (U.S. Constitution). The Supreme Court acknowledged in Roe v.

Wade that abortion is protected by this right and should be between a woman and her doctor

(Roe v. Wade). The opinions of pro-life supporters do not have a right to interfere here, yet the

Hyde Amendment and the ultrasound statutes aim to involve these beliefs with a womans

control over her own body. They violate the Undue Burden Standard and breach a womans

right to privacy.

Another violation of these protections is found within the outcome of Burwell v. Hobby

Lobby Stores, Inc. In a 5-4 decision in favor of Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court decided that

private, for-profit companies do not have to insure certain contraceptives for their employees if

they have a religious opposition to them (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby). Hobby Lobby sued for their

right to oppose emergency contraceptive pills and IUDs. They claimed these contraceptives are

abortifacients, or drugs that cause abortion, and go against the stores staunch Christian beliefs

(Burwell v. Hobby Lobby). The decision of this case promotes the idea that someones personal

religious affiliation is more important than a womans access to basic medical resources. It

encourages religious involvement in a womans private reproductive choices and decreases her

control over her body.

 Klein 4

A common claim from supporters of Hobby Lobby is that women can obtain these

contraceptives at places other than their workplace. While the basic principle of this idea holds

true, the issue lies within the financial aspect of the situation. Emergency contraceptive pills

commonly cost $50 (Ella Prices), and IUDs often exceed $600 when not insured (IUD;

Mirena Prices). Without coverage, many women could not afford to purchase these

contraceptives. The Hobby Lobby regulation places a large economic obstacle in the way of

abortion, thus transgressing the Undue Burden Standard. In addition, the rule breaches the

Fourteenth Amendment because it allows religious beliefs to come in the way of a womans

privacy.

The last of these violations is found within Catholic hospitals. A report published by the

American Civil Liberties Union and written by Julia Kaye explains that Catholic hospitals must

follow a set of religious mandates known as the Directives (7). The Directives do not permit

abortion if the fetus displays cardiac activity, so Catholic hospitals only perform abortions in

certain cases (10). The report details multiple stories where women were denied their access to

abortion, even when their life was at stake. In one example, Mindy Swank knew she was

experiencing a miscarriage, but her Catholic hospital refused to terminate the pregnancy until

five weeks later when she began severely hemorrhaging (8). In another, an anonymous woman

who was also experiencing vaginal bleeding due to a miscarriage was denied an abortion for

seven hours at a Catholic hospital while they checked for a fetal heartbeat (10). By the time they

began the abortion, the woman needed a blood transfusion (11). As the report explains, these

hospitals are validating the notion that religion...takes precedence over medical standards (5).
 Klein 5

A common response in support of Catholic hospitals is that women seeking an abortion

can go elsewhere to receive them. Yet due to pro-life backlash, one of the most common places

to receive this procedure has had to close many of its doors. After a controversial video surfaced

that supposedly depicted Planned Parenthood officials participating in the sale of fetal tissue, the

organization shut down many of its centers. In fact, five states have only one center left

(Morris). Women who seek abortions are rebutted from Catholic hospitals, but their main source

of reproductive services is facing closure because of allegations that have yet to be proven true

(Kurtzleben). Not only do the Directives of Catholic hospitals place undue burdens in a

womans path to an abortion, but the war against Planned Parenthood does as well. In addition

to violating this standard, it infringes upon a womans right to privacy by involving religious

beliefs with their personal procedures.

The outcome of Planned Parenthood v. Casey was decided with the intent of further

elaborating on the ruling of Roe v. Wade. However, while this ruling states that no unnecessary

obstacles may be placed in a womans way to an abortion, the aforementioned examples prove

that the Undue Burden Standard is constantly being breached. They also display the intrusion of

religious beliefs into a womans reproductive rights. This interference is a direct violation of the

outcome of Roe v. Wade and the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees all people with an

undeniable right to privacy (U.S. Constitution). For these transgressions to be rectified, the

Undue Burden Standard must be verified. It should explicitly state that any attempt to

discourage abortion that uses religious affiliation as justification is still a violation of the

regulation. The reformed standard should note that religion should not supplant a womans right

to make her own choices about her body. It should also do more to protect the Fourteenth
 Klein 6

Amendment, as the current form of the Undue Burden Standard does nothing to acknowledge the

importance of this addendum. It should be altered to better illustrate how imposing religious

beliefs on a womans abortion decreases her right of privacy for the procedure. If the Undue

Burden Standard is refined in these ways, it will better reflect the sentiments that both Planned

Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade originally intended to make. For women to have the

reproductive freedoms they are entitled to, the Undue Burden Standard must be revised. If this is

done, then the standard will better uphold the rights endowed to all citizens by the United States

Constitution.
 Klein 7

Works Cited

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.. 573 U.S. ___ (2014). Supreme Court of the United

States.

Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center, http://tinyurl.com/gqvjdms. Accessed 11 Nov.

2016.

Ella Prices, Coupons, and Patient Assistance Programs. Drugs.com,

https://www.drugs.com/price-guide/ella. Accessed 28 Nov. 2016.

Grossu, Arina. The Hyde Amendment Has Saved 2 Million Lives. Democrats Want to Kill It.

The Federalist, 30 Sept. 2016, http://tinyurl.com/z62xem9.

Halperin, Jinna, et al. Whose Choice? How the Hyde Amendment Harms Poor Women.

Center for Reproductive Rights, http://tinyurl.com/zhhetuu. Accessed 14 Nov.

2016.

IUD: Prices for Paragard. Bedsider.org, https://bedsider.org/methods/iud#costs_tab.

Accessed

28 Nov. 2016.

Kaye, Julia, et al. Health Care Denied. American Civil Liberties Union, May 2016,

http://tinyurl.com/jpm4p3p. Accessed 13 Nov. 2016.

Kurtzleben, Danielle. Planned Parenthood Investigations Find No Fetal Tissue Sales. NPR,

28

Jan. 2016, http://tinyurl.com/zmrk53m. Accessed 18 Nov. 2016.

Maddow, Rachel. Rachel Maddow Discusses Roe v. Wade with Nancy Keenan. The Rachel

Maddow Show. MSNBC, 2013, http://tinyurl.com/hphbwc9.

 Klein 8

Mirena Prices, Coupons, and Patient Assistance Programs. Drugs.com,

https://www.drugs.com/price-guide/mirena. Accessed 28 Nov. 2016.

Morris, Alex. The War on Planned Parenthood. Rolling Stone, 16 Apr. 2016,

http://tinyurl.com/z5o489p.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v. Casey. 505 U.S. 833 (1992). Supreme Court of the

United States. Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center, http://tinyurl.com/hbhjab6. Accessed

16 Nov. 2016.

Roe v. Wade. 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Supreme Court of the United States. Justia U.S. Supreme

Court Center, http://tinyurl.com/gsgvnoh. Accessed 11 Nov. 2016.

Sanger, Carol. Seeing and Believing: Mandatory Ultrasound and the Path to a Protected

Choice. UCLA Law Review, http://tinyurl.com/hh6zja4. Accessed 16 Nov. 2016.

U.S. Constitution. Amend. XIV, Sec. 1.