Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health
"Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health" is a significant Supreme Court case that addressed various municipal regulations concerning abortion in Akron, Ohio. The city ordinance included requirements such as performing abortions after the first trimester only in hospitals, a mandatory twenty-four-hour waiting period, and a stipulation for physicians to inform patients that life begins at conception. Additionally, it mandated parental consent for minors seeking abortions and outlined specific disposal methods for fetal remains. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down all provisions, citing that they imposed undue burdens by increasing costs and potentially dissuading women from choosing abortion. The decision emphasized that the disposal requirement was vague and could imply unnecessary rights for the fetus. Notably, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor dissented, advocating for a standard that would allow restrictions on abortion only if they did not place an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to make her choice. This case remains pivotal in discussions about reproductive rights and legal limitations surrounding abortion in the United States.
Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health
Date: June 15, 1983
Citation: 462 U.S. 416
Issue: Abortion
Significance: Reaffirming the strict scrutiny approach established in 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that a city ordinance imposed unjustifiable restrictions on a woman’s exercise of a fundamental constitutional right.
An ordinance of Akron, Ohio, required that all abortions after the first trimester be performed in hospitals, that abortions not be performed before a twenty-four-hour waiting period, that physicians should advise patients that “the unborn child is a human life from the moment of conception,” that parents of unmarried minors must consent for abortions to be performed, and that all fetal remains must be disposed of in a “humane and sanitary” way. By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court struck down all the provisions. It found that the hospital and waiting-period requirements unnecessarily increased the cost of abortions and that the information requirement was designed to persuade women not to have abortions. In addition, the disposal requirement was “impermissibly vague,” implying that a fetus had a right to a burial.
The most notable aspect of Akron Center was Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s dissenting opinion, which criticized the trimester approach and argued that restrictions on abortions should be allowed unless they placed an “undue burden” on the woman’s decision.