Reference no: EM132241630
Spousal Consent
Provisions of the Florida Therapeutic Abortion Act, which required a married woman to obtain the husband’s consent before abortion, were found to be unconstitutional. The state’s interest was found not to be sufficiently compelling to limit a woman’s right to abortion. The husband’s interest in the baby was held to be insufficient to force his wife to face the mental and physical risks of pregnancy and childbirth.43 In Doe v. Zimmerman (1975),44 the court declared unconstitutional the provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act, which required that the written consent of the husband of a married woman be secured before performing an abortion. The court found that these provisions impermissibly permitted the husband to withhold his consent either because of his interest in the potential life of the fetus or for capricious reasons. The natural father of an unborn fetus in Doe v. Smith (1988)45 was not entitled to an injunction to prevent the mother from submitting to an abortion. Although the father’s interest in the fetus was legitimate, it did not outweigh the mother’s constitutionally protected right to an abortion, particularly in light of evidence that the mother and father had never married. In the 1992 decision of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court ruled that spousal consent would be an undue burden on the woman.
Incompetent Persons’ Consent
Abortion was found to be proper by a family court in In re Doe (1987)46 for a profoundly retarded woman. She had become pregnant during her residence in a group home as a result of a sexual attack by an unknown person. The record had supported a finding that if the woman had been able to do so she would have requested the abortion. The court properly chose welfare agencies and the woman’s guardian ad litem (a guardian appointed to prosecute or defend a suit on behalf of a party incapacitated by infancy, mental incompetence, etc.) as the surrogate decision makers.
The Court Was Appalled, Tomcik v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehabilitation and Correction.
In 500 words explain the following
1. Do you agree with the court’s decision? Discuss your answer
2. Discuss why the court was appalled
3. What ethical values were lacking by the caregivers?