Reproductive Healthcare Services and the U.S. Supreme Court: beyond Roe v. Wade and 'Abortion Clinics'

At a time when the United States is sharply divided on women's reproductive rights, the focus has shifted from legality to that of access to reproductive healthcare services. This debate is too often defined by the pro-choice/anti-choice binary. This binary overlooks women who seek reproductive...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Vergara, Karla
Format: Article
Language:Portuguese
Published: 2017
Subjects:
Law
Online Access:https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=5846603
Source:Revista de Investigações Constitucionais, ISSN 2359-5639, Vol. 4, Nº. 1, 2017, pags. 43-68
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
id
dialnet-ar-18-ART0001125283
record_format
dialnet
spelling
dialnet-ar-18-ART00011252832017-03-01Reproductive Healthcare Services and the U.S. Supreme Court: beyond Roe v. Wade and 'Abortion Clinics'Vergara, KarlaLawConstitutional Lawreproductive healthcare clinicsabortion clinicsfirst amendmentsidewalk counselorsRoe vWadeAbortionAt a time when the United States is sharply divided on women's reproductive rights, the focus has shifted from legality to that of access to reproductive healthcare services. This debate is too often defined by the pro-choice/anti-choice binary. This binary overlooks women who seek reproductive healthcare services for reasons other than abortion (such as pap smears, gynecological check-ups, birth control, STD testing, breast cancer preventive screenings, etc.). Self-proclaimed sidewalk counselors approach these women to convince them that there are alternatives to abortion. While some women may welcome a sidewalk counselor's approach, the women who choose to ignore them more often than not risk being scolded, yelled at, harassed, and humiliated publicly. These interactions leave many of these women shaken, nervous, and deterred from seeking necessary reproductive healthcare services. Many states have enacted buffer zone legislation to protect women trying to access reproductive healthcare clinics, but an overwhelming amount of these laws have been struck down on a First Amendment basis.The Supreme Court has decided these cases without defining who qualifies as a sidewalk counselor and who is properly deemed a more threatening protester against whom a legal action may be brought. This has caused great uncertainty in the law. This paper argues that sidewalk counselors and activists’ protesting against abortion outside of these clinics is futile. Reproductive healthcare clinics offer a wide range of services—not just abortions. Therefore, it is impossible for anti-abortion activists to ascertain who is seeking an abortion and who is not without intruding into women’s personal reproductive choices and medical needs. Buffer zones around reproductive healthcare facilities help protect women’s privacy and their right to access so they may obtain the reproductive healthcare they are entitled to receive.2017text (article)application/pdfhttps://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=5846603(Revista) ISSN 2359-5639Revista de Investigações Constitucionais, ISSN 2359-5639, Vol. 4, Nº. 1, 2017, pags. 43-68porLICENCIA DE USO: Los documentos a texto completo incluidos en Dialnet son de acceso libre y propiedad de sus autores y/o editores. Por tanto, cualquier acto de reproducción, distribución, comunicación pública y/o transformación total o parcial requiere el consentimiento expreso y escrito de aquéllos. Cualquier enlace al texto completo de estos documentos deberá hacerse a través de la URL oficial de éstos en Dialnet. Más información: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI | INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS STATEMENT: Full text documents hosted by Dialnet are protected by copyright and/or related rights. This digital object is accessible without charge, but its use is subject to the licensing conditions set by its authors or editors. Unless expressly stated otherwise in the licensing conditions, you are free to linking, browsing, printing and making a copy for your own personal purposes. All other acts of reproduction and communication to the public are subject to the licensing conditions expressed by editors and authors and require consent from them. Any link to this document should be made using its official URL in Dialnet. More info: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI
institution
Dialnet
collection
Dialnet AR
source
Revista de Investigações Constitucionais, ISSN 2359-5639, Vol. 4, Nº. 1, 2017, pags. 43-68
language
Portuguese
topic
Law
Constitutional Law
reproductive healthcare clinics
abortion clinics
first amendment
sidewalk counselors
Roe v
Wade
Abortion
spellingShingle
Law
Constitutional Law
reproductive healthcare clinics
abortion clinics
first amendment
sidewalk counselors
Roe v
Wade
Abortion
Vergara, Karla
Reproductive Healthcare Services and the U.S. Supreme Court: beyond Roe v. Wade and 'Abortion Clinics'
description
At a time when the United States is sharply divided on women's reproductive rights, the focus has shifted from legality to that of access to reproductive healthcare services. This debate is too often defined by the pro-choice/anti-choice binary. This binary overlooks women who seek reproductive healthcare services for reasons other than abortion (such as pap smears, gynecological check-ups, birth control, STD testing, breast cancer preventive screenings, etc.). Self-proclaimed sidewalk counselors approach these women to convince them that there are alternatives to abortion. While some women may welcome a sidewalk counselor's approach, the women who choose to ignore them more often than not risk being scolded, yelled at, harassed, and humiliated publicly. These interactions leave many of these women shaken, nervous, and deterred from seeking necessary reproductive healthcare services. Many states have enacted buffer zone legislation to protect women trying to access reproductive healthcare clinics, but an overwhelming amount of these laws have been struck down on a First Amendment basis.The Supreme Court has decided these cases without defining who qualifies as a sidewalk counselor and who is properly deemed a more threatening protester against whom a legal action may be brought. This has caused great uncertainty in the law. This paper argues that sidewalk counselors and activists’ protesting against abortion outside of these clinics is futile. Reproductive healthcare clinics offer a wide range of services—not just abortions. Therefore, it is impossible for anti-abortion activists to ascertain who is seeking an abortion and who is not without intruding into women’s personal reproductive choices and medical needs. Buffer zones around reproductive healthcare facilities help protect women’s privacy and their right to access so they may obtain the reproductive healthcare they are entitled to receive.
format
Article
author
Vergara, Karla
author_facet
Vergara, Karla
author_sort
Vergara, Karla
title
Reproductive Healthcare Services and the U.S. Supreme Court: beyond Roe v. Wade and 'Abortion Clinics'
title_short
Reproductive Healthcare Services and the U.S. Supreme Court: beyond Roe v. Wade and 'Abortion Clinics'
title_full
Reproductive Healthcare Services and the U.S. Supreme Court: beyond Roe v. Wade and 'Abortion Clinics'
title_fullStr
Reproductive Healthcare Services and the U.S. Supreme Court: beyond Roe v. Wade and 'Abortion Clinics'
title_full_unstemmed
Reproductive Healthcare Services and the U.S. Supreme Court: beyond Roe v. Wade and 'Abortion Clinics'
title_sort
reproductive healthcare services and the u.s. supreme court: beyond roe v. wade and 'abortion clinics'
publishDate
2017
url
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=5846603
_version_
1709745443986997248