Planned Parenthood: A Case Study
In fall 2013, Jane Doe, was taken to Baptist Memorial Hospital after being sexually assaulted on the campus of the University of Mississippi. During the six-hour examination, she was asked if she was on any form of birth control, she replied “no.” The nurse then told her that there was a possibility that she was pregnant, Jane Doe asked for levonorgestrel, commonly called “Plan B.” She was subsequently told that the hospital did not carry or prescribe levonorgestrel due to their right to religious freedom. Jane Doe personally contacted Planned Parenthood who were willing to bring her levonorgestrel to the hospital, but the hospital administration refused admittance to physicians and/or practitioners who worked for Planned Parenthood. Levonorgestrel
…show more content…
Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Court held that though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. According to Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 13 (1973), the “right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent.” The precedent set in Roe v. Wade should be used when deciding this case, due to Jane Doe being denied levonorgestrel, to terminate her possible …show more content…
Under the Act the hospital is allowed to deny treatment to patients if it goes against the hospitals religious belief. The appellee may also argue that they are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, that prohibits any agency department, or official of the United States or any State from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 573 US__(2014), the Court held that corporations are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Court also concluded that providing contraceptives forces religious corporations to fund what they consider abortion, which goes against their stated religious principles, and creates a substantial burden that is not the least restrictive method of satisfying the government’s
Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Court held that though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. According to Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 13 (1973), the “right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent.” The precedent set in Roe v. Wade should be used when deciding this case, due to Jane Doe being denied levonorgestrel, to terminate her possible …show more content…
Under the Act the hospital is allowed to deny treatment to patients if it goes against the hospitals religious belief. The appellee may also argue that they are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, that prohibits any agency department, or official of the United States or any State from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 573 US__(2014), the Court held that corporations are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Court also concluded that providing contraceptives forces religious corporations to fund what they consider abortion, which goes against their stated religious principles, and creates a substantial burden that is not the least restrictive method of satisfying the government’s