Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt
GPTKB entity
Statements (373)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:advocacy |
Pro-choice organizations
Anti-abortion organizations |
| gptkbp:affects |
Abortion clinics in Texas
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
March 2, 2016
|
| gptkbp:associated_with |
Reproductive rights
Women's health advocacy |
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Reviewed by legal scholars
Used in law schools for constitutional law education Examined state interests vs. women's rights Examined state regulations on abortion Future of abortion access in the U. S. Ongoing discussions about reproductive health Examined state interests versus individual rights Ongoing debates about reproductive rights |
| gptkbp:case_number |
15-274
Challenged by Whole Woman's Health Supreme Court opinion documents Involved multiple plaintiffs Involved multiple abortion clinics Challenged Texas abortion laws Part of a series of abortion-related cases |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
5-3 ruling
Set a precedent for future cases Legal challenges to restrictive laws Impact on women's health services Increased scrutiny of abortion laws Struck down restrictions Influenced public policy on abortion Influence on future Supreme Court cases Public discourse on reproductive rights Affected state-level abortion regulations Influenced public opinion on abortion Invalidated certain provisions of Texas law Reaffirmed Roe v. Wade Reaffirmed the importance of access to healthcare Reinforced the right to choose Significant for reproductive health policy Strengthened legal protections for abortion access Reaffirmed women's autonomy over reproductive choices Invalidated certain Texas abortion laws Reinforced the undue burden standard Reaffirmed constitutional protections Legal precedent for abortion rights Reinforced women's health rights Increased scrutiny of state abortion laws Majority opinion emphasized women's health Reaffirmed Roe v. Wade principles Reinforced legal standards for abortion access Shaped future legal arguments in reproductive health Constitutional protection of abortion rights Clarified state regulation limits on abortion Influenced national abortion policy discussions Invalidated specific Texas abortion restrictions Reaffirmed the role of the Supreme Court in reproductive rights Set precedent for future abortion-related cases Highlighted importance of medical evidence in regulations |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
National implications
Landmark decision on reproductive rights Strengthened legal protections for abortion access Reinforced the undue burden standard Landmark abortion case Landmark decision in reproductive rights |
| gptkbp:case_types |
gptkb:Judicial_review
gptkb:Constitution gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States gptkb:Public_interest gptkb:legal_case Public policy Legal rights Constitutional interpretation Public health policy Access to healthcare Constitutional rights Legal challenges Legal precedent Judicial decisions Health and safety regulations Legal implications Legal standards Legal rights of women State regulation Constitutional law case Public health concerns Civil rights case Judicial interpretation Legal analysis Legal challenges to abortion laws State interests Constitutional protections Judicial scrutiny of state laws Judicial precedent Judicial scrutiny Women's autonomy Judicial interpretation of rights Legal standing Legal implications for states Legal standards for abortion access Medical necessity Judicial review of abortion regulations |
| gptkbp:championship |
5-3
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
Strengthened legal protections for abortion access
Potential for future challenges to abortion laws |
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Washington,_D._C.
gptkb:Roberts_Court gptkb:United_States_District_Court |
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
June 27, 2016 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Roberts
gptkb:Justice_Alito gptkb:3 gptkb:Justice_Neil_Gorsuch gptkb:Justice_John_Roberts gptkb:Justice_Thomas gptkb:Justice_Samuel_Alito gptkb:Justice_Clarence_Thomas Constitutional interpretation Access to healthcare services Public health considerations Judicial review of state laws Judicial restraint Historical context of abortion laws Impact on women's health services Impact on future abortion legislation Legal implications for future cases Balance of interests Judicial overreach Legal precedent on abortion rights Constitutional interpretation of privacy rights Criticism of majority's reasoning Burden on women seeking abortions Constitutional limits on judicial power Constitutional rights of states Economic implications for women Empirical evidence on abortion safety Impact on abortion access in Texas Impact on abortion clinics Impact on women's autonomy Judicial interpretation of burdens Judicial interpretation of state powers Judicial interpretation of the Constitution Judicial philosophy of originalism Legal framework for reproductive rights Legal implications for state regulations Legal standards for evaluating burdens Legal standards for health and safety regulations Legal standards for health regulations Legislative intent of Texas law Legitimacy of state regulations Public interest in health regulations Public policy considerations in health law Role of empirical evidence in legal decisions Role of states in health policy Role of the judiciary in policy matters Safety of abortion procedures State interests in regulating medical practices States' rights to regulate health care Judicial interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment Criticism of majority ruling Conservative legal arguments States have rights to regulate health care Supported state regulations Dissenters argued that the majority's ruling was not grounded in law Dissenters claimed the majority's ruling undermined state authority Dissenters claimed the majority's ruling would have unintended consequences Dissenters emphasized the role of states in public health policy Dissenters argued that the majority's decision was politically motivated Concerns about the majority's interpretation of evidence Dissenters emphasized the importance of state regulation Dissenters expressed concern over judicial overreach Critique of the majority's balancing of interests Dissenters argued that the majority's ruling was not based on sound legal principles Majority opinion disregarded state interests Regulations were justified for health and safety Dissenters criticized the majority's reliance on anecdotal evidence Dissenters argued for deference to state legislatures Dissenters argued that the majority's decision was overly broad Dissenters argued that the majority's decision was a departure from precedent Dissenters expressed skepticism about the majority's evidence evaluation Dissenters warned of the chilling effect on state regulations Dissenters warned that the ruling could lead to increased abortion rates Dissenters criticized the majority's view on medical necessity Dissenters expressed concern over the majority's disregard for state expertise Dissenters claimed the majority's ruling would disrupt established legal standards Dissenters believed the majority mischaracterized the law's effects Dissenters argued for the legitimacy of the Texas law Dissenters expressed concern over the majority's interpretation of 'health' Dissenters believed the ruling would embolden challenges to state laws Dissenters highlighted the potential consequences of the ruling Dissenters argued that the majority's ruling could lead to more litigation Dissenters argued that the law was not a pretext for restricting access Dissenters claimed the majority ignored relevant data Dissenters believed the ruling would lead to more restrictive abortion laws in other states Dissenters warned of implications for future abortion laws Dissenters believed the law did not impose an undue burden Dissenters believed the ruling would complicate future abortion legislation Dissent argued for state regulation authority Concern over state regulation |
| gptkbp:effective_date |
June 27, 2016
|
| gptkbp:historical_context |
Part of ongoing abortion debate
|
| gptkbp:historical_significance |
Landmark case in reproductive rights
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Judicial appointments
State-level abortion laws Women's reproductive rights Influenced future abortion legislation State legislation on abortion Women's health access Access to abortion services Abortion access in Texas Abortion regulations in Texas Federal abortion policies National abortion laws |
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:Whole_Woman's_Health
gptkb:Texas gptkb:Greg_Abbott gptkb:Texas_Department_of_State_Health_Services |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
Subsequent Supreme Court cases
Subsequent abortion cases 579 U. S. 582 (2016) 579 U. S. 582 |
| gptkbp:is_debated_in |
Abortion rights in America
Abortion rights and regulations |
| gptkbp:is_significant_for |
abortion access
|
| gptkbp:is_standardized_by |
Undue burden standard
Undue burden test |
| gptkbp:judges |
5-3
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
gptkb:Constitution
Health and safety standards Abortion clinic regulations Constitutionality of state laws Strict scrutiny Evaluated state interests vs. individual rights Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch Evaluated state interests vs. women's rights |
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
gptkb:United_States_federal_law
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
Women's health
Reproductive rights Health regulations Reproductive Health Services Texas House Bill 2 Part of a larger national debate on abortion Abortion access in the U. S. |
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Influenced future abortion legislation
Increased access to abortion services Constitutional protections for women State laws on abortion Reaffirmed the undue burden standard Clarified legal standards for abortion laws Constitutional protections for privacy State abortion laws nationwide Struck down medically unnecessary regulations Constitutional scrutiny of abortion laws |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
Women's rights
Health and safety regulations Abortion rights Abortion clinic regulations Undue burden standard State interests Abortion regulations Health and safety of women Burden on women seeking abortions Unnecessary health regulations |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Increased access to abortion services
Unconstitutional restrictions Strengthened reproductive rights Struck down specific provisions of Texas law Influenced public opinion on abortion rights Struck down provisions requiring admitting privileges Struck down surgical center requirements |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
gptkb:Whole_Woman's_Health
gptkb:State_of_Texas Constitutional protections for women Balancing state interests and women's rights Whole Woman's Health organization |
| gptkbp:legal_standard_applied |
Undue burden test
|
| gptkbp:legal_standard_established |
Undue burden standard
|
| gptkbp:legislation |
gptkb:Judicial_review
gptkb:Constitution gptkb:Equal_protection_clause gptkb:Right_to_privacy Health and safety regulations Undue burden standard Due process clause State regulation of abortion Texas House Bill 2 |
| gptkbp:majority_opinion_cited |
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U. S. 582 (2016)
|
| gptkbp:material |
Challenge to Texas abortion restrictions
Texas abortion clinics Challenge to Texas abortion regulations |
| gptkbp:media_coverage |
Significant media attention
Extensive national media coverage |
| gptkbp:outcome |
Struck down Texas law
Struck down Texas abortion laws Struck down Texas abortion law |
| gptkbp:precedent |
gptkb:Roe_v._Wade
gptkb:Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey gptkb:Whole_Woman's_Health_v._Hellerstedt Influenced future abortion legislation Undue burden standard Impact on state laws Influenced state-level abortion laws Abortion access rights Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt decision Set a standard for evaluating abortion laws Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt established standards for abortion regulations Future abortion-related cases Set standard for evaluating abortion laws |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Sotomayor
gptkb:Justice_Kagan gptkb:Justice_Ginsburg gptkb:Justice_Breyer gptkb:Justice_Stephen_Breyer 5-3 Health and safety regulations Expanded abortion rights Emphasis on women's health Support for women's health access Health regulations must not impose undue burden Law imposed an undue burden Emphasized health and safety |
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
Protests
Mixed reactions Opposition from anti-abortion groups Pro-choice advocacy Support for abortion rights Polarizing issue Pro-life opposition Protests and support rallies |
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Texas_v._United_States
gptkb:Roe_v._Wade gptkb:Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey gptkb:June_Medical_Services_v._Russo gptkb:Gonzales_v._Carhart Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2014) |
| gptkbp:related_to |
gptkb:Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey
Reproductive rights Texas House Bill 2 |
| gptkbp:scholarly_analysis |
Constitutional interpretation
Women's rights advocacy Ethical considerations Legal scholars Legal implications Social justice issues Political implications Public health considerations Judicial activism Public health experts Public opinion trends Impact on state laws Legal strategy Legislative responses Constitutional law experts Future of reproductive rights Examined implications for reproductive rights |
| gptkbp:significance |
Constitutional rights
Influenced future abortion legislation Impact on abortion regulations Reaffirmed Roe v. Wade Reaffirmed the undue burden standard Affirmed right to access abortion services Affirmed constitutional right to abortion Set standard for abortion regulations Established standards for abortion regulations Affirmed women's rights Affirmed women's right to choose |
| gptkbp:state_interest |
Protecting women's health
|
| gptkbp:struck_down |
Texas abortion restrictions
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States gptkb:United_States_Supreme_Court |
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
3
|