One of the most sensitive and heavily debated topics in American politics is the issue of whether there should be and under what circumstances should a woman have a right to terminate her pregnancy. This issue has been the topic of legal, social, moral and religious discourse with a variety of different interests bringing their views to the table. The issue was initially thought to be settled in the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973. This decision was by a fairly strong majority of seven to two, established the trimester system and stated that any restriction on abortion be subject to strict scrutiny. After a series of legal challenges culminating nearly two decades Pennsylvania passed a strict anti-choice law called the Abortion Control Act which sought to impose an informed consent requirement, a mandatory waiting period, a parental consent requirement for minors a spousal notification requirement and a reporting requirement. The joint opinion of the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey upheld the informed consent, mandatory waiting period, the parental consent requirements and the reporting requirement minus the spousal notification exception reporting because the Court invalidated the spousal notification requirement and revised the standard of evaluation from strict scrutiny to undue burden. In short, the Court cut back on reproductive rights while still maintaining a standard in which the right to choose is still protected under the Constitution, the highest law of the land. States today have sought to abuse such relatively newly granted powers by passing TRAP laws which do not reasonably advance women's health but instead, are an attempt shut down clinics and prevent women from exercising their constitutional rights. This is done the name of public safety, but in reality, there is often a different motive in mind. The purported motive is not actually the motive that supported enacting such legislation. There are basic requirements that are not meant to be TRAP in nature. Abortions should be required to be performed by doctors in licensed, sanitary clinics. Such requirements are necessary for basic medical needs and are not questioned by pro-choice advocates. However requirements imposed by the state of Texas, which were under question, were not within such a reasonable realm. The law in Texas examined by the court in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, in part, required doctors to have admitting privilege; this law lacked a legitimate purpose. Individuals cannot be denied access to an emergency room, thus making the restriction unnecessary, thus triggering the notion and indeed, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, that is an undue burden since it lacks a legitimate medical purpose. The right to choose must be effective, it must not simply be a meaningless theory on paper without any practical meaning; it must have an actual effect, allowing women the ability to actually terminate their pregnancies. Thus, it is necessary to find and articulate a careful balance so that the woman's right to choose is protected and that proper and legitimate medical safeguards and taken to secure proficient levels of safety. This is easier said than done, but it is vital to the integrity of women and our healthcare system. All parties must engage in a good faith effort and put the needs of all ahead of narrow ideological convictions, compromising does not mean compromising ones principles, it is necessary to achieve meaningful results in our present society.
