Abortion

Juliet got into a terrible accident and is rushed to the hospital. She is only a 16 year old minor but is 4 weeks pregnant and wants to get an abortion. When she arrives at the hospital, the doctor informs her that she needs to terminate her pregnancy right away or else she might face serious health consequences, or even death. However, a State law passed that prohibited doctors from performing an abortion on minors without notification of a parent or guardian or authorization to undergo the abortion from a judge. The State also required that the abortion could not be performed until 48 hours after a written notice had been written to the parent or guardian. The doctor, however, could decide to perform the abortion if it is necessary to prevent the death of the minor. After hearing about the state laws, Juliet feels that they violate her right of privacy and that the state laws create a substantial obstacle in getting an abortion. She also argues that the state laws are in conflict with the principles announced by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. Should the Court rule in favor of Juliet and decide that the judicial bypass and 48 hour waiting period imposes an undue burden on Juliet or should the Court rule in favor of the State and decide that they do not impose an substantial obstacle in the path of Juliet getting an abortion because she is a minor? In using the Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey cases as precedents, the Courts must use strict scrutiny to the rule that the State law that requires parental consent or judicial bypass do not violate Juliet’s right to privacy as established by the Courts under liberty and do not impose an undue burden, or a substantial obstacle, on Juliet who seeks an abortion because she is a minor.
An intermediate scrutiny test is used by Courts when the cases deal with the category of gender and the cases serve important governmental objectives. For instance, in...