Limiting State Control over Abortion: Commentary on Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Limiting State Control over Abortion: Commentary on Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Introduction

The case of Thornburgh, Governor of Pennsylvania, et al. v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Others (476 U.S. 747) addressed significant constitutional questions concerning state regulation of abortion. Decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on June 11, 1986, the case challenged several provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982, arguing that these provisions violated the U.S. Constitution. The primary parties involved were the state officials of Pennsylvania as appellants and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists along with other medical and legal entities as appellees.

Summary of the Judgment

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which had struck down multiple provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act as unconstitutional. The provisions invalidated included:

  • Informed consent requirements (§ 3205)
  • Mandatory printed information (§ 3208)
  • Reporting requirements (§§ 3214(a) and (h))
  • Determination of fetal viability (§ 3211(a))
  • Degree of care for post-viability abortions (§ 3210(b))
  • Second-physician requirement for abortions when viability is possible (§ 3210(c))

The Supreme Court held that these provisions infringed upon the constitutional rights established in ROE v. WADE and subsequent cases, particularly undermining the right to privacy and bodily autonomy of women seeking abortions. The Court emphasized that states cannot impose measures that effectively coerce women into continuing pregnancies or unduly burden their decision-making process in consultation with their physicians.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced precedents that shaped abortion jurisprudence:

These cases collectively reinforced the constitutional framework that limits state regulation of abortion to ensure that such laws do not infringe upon a woman’s privacy and autonomy. For instance, Akron reaffirmed principles from Roe, emphasizing that state interests in maternal health and potential life must be balanced against the woman’s right to choose an abortion.

Legal Reasoning

The Court employed a strict scrutiny approach, a standard applied when fundamental rights are at stake. It assessed whether the Pennsylvania provisions served compelling state interests and were narrowly tailored to achieve those interests without unnecessary infringement on constitutional rights. Key points in the Court’s reasoning included:

  • Subordination of Rights: The provisions were found to subordinate constitutional privacy interests and maternal health concerns to the state’s goal of deterring abortions.
  • Informed Consent: Mandatory informational requirements were deemed coercive and akin to state-sponsored anti-abortion messaging, infringing on genuine informed consent.
  • Public Reporting: Reporting requirements threatened the anonymity and privacy of women seeking abortions, leading to potential harassment and stigmatization.
  • Post-Viability Restrictions: Requirements such as the degree of care and second-physician mandates imposed unnecessary burdens on both women and physicians, potentially endangering women's health without proportionate justification.

The Court held that while states have interests in protecting maternal health and potential life, these interests do not permit the types of regulations imposed by the Pennsylvania Act, which effectively curbed a woman's ability to make autonomous decisions regarding her reproductive health.

Impact

The judgment had profound implications for abortion law and state regulation of medical procedures. It reinforced the precedent that while states can regulate abortions, such regulations must not infringe upon the fundamental rights established in ROE v. WADE and must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling interests. This decision limited the scope of state authority in regulating abortions, ensuring that laws do not coerce or unduly burden women's reproductive choices.

Furthermore, the decision underscored the importance of maintaining the privacy and autonomy of medical consultations, preventing states from embedding their ideological positions within the informed consent process.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Strict Scrutiny: A judicial standard requiring that a law or regulation must serve a compelling state interest and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest without unnecessary infringement on constitutional rights.

Informed Consent: A legal and ethical requirement that patients must be adequately informed about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a medical procedure before consenting to it.

Facial Invalidity: A legal doctrine where a statute is deemed invalid in all its applications because of a fundamental flaw, without needing to prove injury in specific cases.

Viability: In the context of abortion law, viability refers to the point in pregnancy when the fetus can potentially survive outside the womb, typically around 24 weeks gestation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists strengthened the constitutional protections surrounding abortion by striking down overly restrictive state regulations that undermined women's autonomy and privacy. By emphasizing that state interests must not override fundamental rights without compelling justification, the Court ensured that future state laws would need to carefully balance interests without infringing on individual liberties. This judgment remains a critical reference point in ongoing debates and legal battles over reproductive rights, underscoring the judiciary's role in safeguarding personal freedoms against coercive state measures.

Case Details

Year: 1986
Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Judge(s)

John Paul StevensHarry Andrew BlackmunWilliam Hubbs RehnquistWarren Earl BurgerSandra Day O'Connor

Attorney(S)

Andrew S. Gordon, Senior Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, and Allen C. Warshaw, Chief Deputy Attorney General. Kathryn Kolbert argued the cause for appellees. With her on the brief was Thomas E. Zemaitis. Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal filed for the United States by Acting Solicitor General Fried, Acting Assistant Attorney General Willard, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kuhl, John F. Cordes, and John M. Rogers; for the National Right to Life Committee, Inc., by James Bopp, Jr.; for the United States Catholic Conference by Wilfred R. Caron and Mark E. Chopko; for Senator Gordon J. Humphrey et al. by Robert A. Destro and Basile J. Uddo; for Watson D. Bowes, Jr., et al. by Steven Frederick McDowell; and for John D. Lane et al. by John E. McKeever. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Attorney General of New York by Robert Abrams, Attorney General, pro se, Robert Hermann, Solicitor General, Rosemarie Rhodes, Assistant Attorney General, and Lawrence S. Kahn, Sanford M. Cohen, and Martha J. Olson, Assistant Attorneys General; for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. by Nan D. Hunter, Janet Benshoof, and Suzanne M. Lynn; for the American Medical Association et al. by Benjamin W. Heineman, Jr., Carter G. Phillips, Newton N. Minow, Jack R. Bierig, Stephan E. Lawton, Joel I. Klein, Joseph A. Keyes, Jr., and Ann E. Allen; for the Center for Constitutional Rights et al. by Anne E. Simon, Nadine Taub, Rhonda Copelon, and Judith Levin; for the National Abortion Federation by David I. Shapiro, Sidney Dickstein, Kenneth M. Simon, and Amy G. Applegate; for the National Abortion Rights Action League et al. by Lynn I. Miller; for the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, Inc., by Robert T. Crothers; for the National Organization for Women et al. by Diane E. Thompson; and for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., et al. by Dara Klassel and Eve W. Paul. Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the American Psychological Association by Donald N. Bersoff and Bruce J. Ennis; for the Women's Lawyers' Association of Los Angeles, California, et al. by Susan R. Schwartz, Carol Boyk, Judith Gordon, and Lorraine Loder; for the Unitarian Universalist Association et al. by Madeline Kochen; for Senator Bob Packwood et al. by Laurence H. Tribe and Kathleen M. Sullivan; for Susan Bandes et al. by Arthur Kinoy; and for Olivia Gans et al. by James Bopp, Jr.

Comments