Here’s a record of reproductive rights authorized circumstances dealt with by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) NASW Legal Defense Fund.
McRae v. Mathews (U.S. Dist. Ct, E.D.N.Y., 421 F. Supp. 533 (E.D.N.Y. 1976))
Case Desc.: Problem to Federal Appropriation Act that denied funding to indigent, pregnant girls for elective abortions
NASW Supported: McRae
Consequence: Received/Favorable.
Date Temporary Filed: 10/1/1976 12:00:00 AM Keep Denied: 11/8/1976
McRae v. Mathews, 421 F. Supp. 533 (E.D.N.Y. 1976) :: Justia
Proper to Select v. Byrne (N,J. S. Ct., 450 A.2nd 925 (1982))
Case Desc.: N,J. problem to state legislation prohibiting state-funded elective abortions
NASW Supported: Proper to Select
Consequence: Blended: Ct. discovered NJ restriction on medically mandatory abortions unconstitutional, however discovered it permissible to ban elective, nontherapeutic abortions
Determined: 8/18/1982Right to Select v. Byrne :: 1982 :: Supreme Court docket of New Jersey Selections :: New Jersey Case Regulation :: New Jersey Regulation :: US Regulation :: Justia
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (U.S. S. Ct., 492 U.S. 490 (1989))
Case Desc.: Missouri abortion rights case
NASW Supported: Reproductive Well being Companies, et al.
Consequence: Misplaced/Unfavorable.
Date Temporary Filed: 3/30/1989 12:00:00 AM Determined: 7/3/1989
Webster v. Reproductive Well being Svcs. :: 492 U.S. 490 (1989) :: Justia US Supreme Court docket Middle
Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (U.S. S. Ct., 497 U.S. 502 (1990))
Case Desc.: Constitutional problem to Ohio parental notification requirement for minors looking for abortions
NASW Supported: Akron Middle for Reproductive Well being
Consequence: Misplaced/Unfavorable.
Date Temporary Filed: 9/1/1989 12:00:00 AM Determined: 6/25/1990
Ohio v. Akron Middle :: 497 U.S. 502 (1990) :: Justia US Supreme Court docket Middle
Weeks v. Connick (U.S. Dist. Ct, E.D. La. E.D. Louisiana, 733 F. Supp. 1036 (E.D. La. 1990))
Case Desc.: Louisiana case clarifying repeal of felony abortion statutes
NASW Supported: Weeks, et al.
Consequence: Received/Favorable.
Date Temporary Filed: 11/13/1989 12:00:00 AM Determined: 1/23/1990
Weeks v. Connick, 733 F. Supp. 1036 (E.D. La. 1990) :: Justia
Rust v. Sullivan (U.S. S. Ct., 500 U.S. 173 (1991))
Case Desc.: Problem to federal rules prohibiting abortion counseling and referral in Title X household planning applications
NASW Supported: Rust
Consequence: Misplaced/Unfavorable.
Date Temporary Filed: 7/27/1990 12:00:00 AM Determined: 5/23/1991
Rust v. Sullivan :: 500 U.S. 173 (1991) :: Justia US Supreme Court docket Middle
Doe v. Babcock (Michigan S. Ct., 487 N.W.2nd 166 (Mich. 1992))
Case Desc.: use of public funds to pay for an abortion not mandatory to avoid wasting the mom’s life
NASW Supported: Doe
Consequence: Misplaced/Unfavorable. Date Temporary Filed: 10/9/1991 Determined: 6/9/1992
Doe v. Dep’t. of Social Companies, 487 N.W.2nd 166, 439 Mich. 650 – CourtListener.com
Deliberate Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (U.S. S. Ct., 505 U.S. 833 (1992))
Case Desc.: Abortion rights case
NASW Supported: Deliberate Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania
Consequence: Blended.
Date Temporary Filed: 3/6/1992 12:00:00 AM Determined 6/29/1992
Deliberate Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey :: 505 U.S. 833 (1992) :: Justia US Supreme Court docket Middle
Hope v. Perales (New York Supreme Court docket, Appellate Division, 595 N.Y.S.2nd 948 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993); rev’d, 83 N.Y.2nd 563 (1994))
Case Description: Constitutional problem to state legislation offering girls with prenatal providers, however denying funding for abortions
NASW Supported: Hope
Consequence: Received, however case was later reversed on attraction.
Date Temporary Filed: 2/3/1992 12:00:00 AM Determined: 5/5/1994
Hope v. Perales :: 1994 :: New York Court docket of Appeals Selections :: New York Case Regulation :: New York Regulation :: US Regulation :: Justia
Rosie v. North Carolina Department of Human Resources (North Carolina Supreme Court docket, 491 S.E.2nd 535 (N.C. 1997))
Case Description: Problem to North Carolina coverage of funding childbirth bills however not abortions for indigent girls
NASW Supported: Rosie
Consequence: Misplaced/Unfavorable.
Date Temporary Filed: 7/22/1996 12:00:00 AM Determined: 10/3/1997
ROSIE J. v. Dept. of Human Sources :: 1997 :: North Carolina Supreme Court docket Selections :: North Carolina Case Regulation :: North Carolina Regulation :: US Regulation :: Justia
State v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska (Alaska Supreme Court docket, No. S-11365, 171 P.3d 577(2007))
Case Description: Problem to judicial bypass process for minors looking for abortions
NASW Supported: Deliberate Parenthood of Alaska
Consequence: Court docket granted aid and held that Parental Consent Act violated state structure.
Date Temporary Filed: 10/1/2004 Determined: 11/2/2007 Rehearing Denied: 12/14/2007
STATE v. PLANNED PARENTHO | 171 P.3d 577 (2007) | 1p3d5771748 | Leagle.com
Roe v. Crawford (United States Court docket of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 06-3108) (United States Court docket of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 514 F.3d 789 (eighth Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 76 U.S.L.W. 3646 (U.S. Oct. 6, 2008)
Case Description: Missouri inmates’ sought entry to abortion providers.
NASW Supported: Roe, et al.
Consequence: Court docket granted aid.
Date Temporary Filed: 12/11/2006 Determined: 1/22/2008
Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest v. State of Alaska (S. Ct. of Alaska, Nos. 15010, 15030, 15039)
Case Desc.: Authorized problem to Alaska’s parental notification legislation for minors looking for abortion.
NASW Supported: Deliberate Parenthood of the Nice Northwest
Consequence: Pending.
Date Temporary Filed: 5/10/2013 12:00:00 AM
Hopkins v. Jegley (U.S. Court docket of Appeals eighth Circuit, 17-2879)
Case Desc: The Middle for Reproductive Rights’ problem to 4 Arkansas legal guidelines that will ban 2 of the commonest strategies of abortion and a girl’s proper to decide on can be topic to prohibitive varieties of consent necessities.
NASW Supported: Plaintiff/Appellee, Hopkins
Consequence: Pending
Date Temporary Filed: 3/5/2018 12:00:00 AM
NASW and different amici filed an amicus temporary in Hopkins v. Jegley, that’s on attraction to the U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The case entails the Middle for Reproductive Rights’ problem to 4 not too long ago enacted Arkansas legal guidelines that haven’t but been applied as the results of a preliminary injunction. If applied, the 2 most typical strategies of abortion would successfully be banned in Arkansas and the lady’s proper to decide on can be topic to prohibited varieties of consent necessities. The amicus temporary offered data to coach the Eighth Circuit on how the 4 challenged legal guidelines disproportionately impacts victims of rape and home violence and the way they significantly disproportionately hurt minors.
Hope Clinic v. Adams (Supreme Court docket of Illinois, Determined as Hope Clinic v. Flores, 2013 IL 112673; 991 N.E.2nd 745)
Case Desc: Illinois case difficult parental notification legislation for minors’ entry to abortion.
NASW Supported: Hope Clinic
Consequence: Misplaced/Unfavorable – 7/11/2013 Court docket held that parental notification legislation was not unconstitutional.
Date Temporary Filed: 7/18/2012 Determined: 7/11/2013
The Hope Clinic for Ladies, LTD v. Flores, 2013 IL 112673 (justia.com)
Cochran v Gresham (and consolidated circumstances) (U.S. Supreme Court docket 20-37 & 20-38)
Case Desc: Problem to Well being and Reproductive Rights below the Affected person Safety and Reasonably priced Care Act.
NASW Supported: Respondent Gresham
Consequence: Abeyance
Date Temporary Filed: 2/24/2021 Determined: 4/5/2021
Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Org. (U.S. Supreme Court docket No. 19-1392)
Case Description: Abortion
NASW Supported: Jackson Ladies’s Well being Group
Consequence: Pending
Date Temporary Filed: 9/20/2021
Entire Girl’s Well being v Jackson
Case Description: Abortion
NASW Supported: Entire Girl’s Well being
Consequence: Pending
Date Temporary Filed: 10/27/2021
(U.S. Supreme Court docket 21-463)
On October 27, 2021, NASW and 10 different civil rights organizations joined in an amicus temporary led by the Legal professionals’ Committee for Civil Rights Below Regulation within the Entire Ladies’s Well being v. Jackson case filed within the U.S. Supreme Court docket. This case entails Texas’s Senate Invoice 8 (SB 8), banning abortion after six weeks of being pregnant and permitting personal residents to implement the legislation by suing anybody who carried out, aided, or abetted an abortion in violation of the ban. The temporary aptly describes this as “a scheme of state-sanctioned personal vigilantism [designed] to forestall Texans from exercising their basic rights.”
The only query earlier than the Supreme Court docket at this level is whether or not Texas can insulate SB 8 from federal courtroom evaluation by changing state enforcement with civil actions by personal residents. Our temporary contends that if the state’s arguments are profitable, this enforcement scheme presents an instantaneous and critical risk to Texans’ constitutional rights. Even worse, allowing Texas to evade evaluation right here would open the floodgates for states to enact legal guidelines violating civil and constitutional rights whereas stopping their well timed problem in federal courts. This might intestine the effectiveness of “part 1983” litigation, a essential device to guarantee redress to people for deprivation of their civil rights below colour of legislation.
The NASW Texas Chapter has been an amazing advocate round this challenge, opposing the invoice and offering steering to Texas social staff whose work is threatened by this legislation. The Chapter’s efforts embrace facilitating a current convention panel on the difficulty, producing two reality sheets for members, taking an energetic function in coalitions, and serving as a useful resource for different teams. A member of the NASW Texas Chapter has additionally filed a lawsuit in opposition to the invoice and a MoveOn.org marketing campaign was created to assist these efforts.
Additionally, listed below are the NASW Texas Chapter sources on this challenge:
