Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:37:39.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Access to Elective Abortions for Female Prisoners under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2021

Avalon Johnson
Avalon Johnson*
Affiliation:
Boston University School of Law, University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Victoria, a pregnant inmate housed in a Louisiana state prison, brought a civil rights action challenging the prison’s policy of requiring her to obtain a court order to receive an elective abortion. Although Louisiana state law purported to allow Victoria to obtain an elective abortion, Victoria was unable to obtain her abortion because of procedural delays. Victoria was released from prison before she gave birth but her pregnancy was too far along for her to legally obtain an abortion. She was therefore forced to carry her pregnancy to term and forced to place her newborn child with adoptive parents. Had she given birth in prison, she would have been shackled to her hospital bed, as Louisiana policies require.

Little information regarding pregnancy, prenatal care, perinatal outcomes, and access to elective abortions for female inmates exists. We know, however, that between six and ten percent of the women entering jail or prison are pregnant and that more women may become impregnated in prison as a result of rape by prison guards.

Type
Article
Information
American Journal of Law & Medicine , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 652 - 683
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics and Boston University 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 369 F.3d 475, 478 (5th Cir. 2004).

2 Id.

3 Id. at 480.

4 AMNESTY INT’L USA, WOMEN IN PRISON: A FACT SHEET 2 (2005), available at http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/womeninprison.html.

5 Kasdan, Diana, Abortion Access for Incarcerated Women: Are Correctional Health Practices in Conflict with Constitutional Standards?, 41 PERSP. ON SEXUAL & REPROD. HEALTH 59, 59 (2009).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

6 Bell, Cheryl et al., Rape and Sexual Misconduct in the Prison System: Analyzing America's Most “Open” Secret, 18 YALE L. & POL’Y REV. 195, 203 (1999).Google Scholar

7 See, e.g., AMNESTY INT’L USA, supra note 4; State Standards for Pregnancy-Related Health Care and Abortion for Women-Map, ACLU, http://www.aclu.org/state-standards-pregnancy-relatedhealth- care-and-abortion-women-prison-map (last visited Sept. 23, 2011).

8 WILLIAM C. COLLINS & ANDREW W. COLLINS, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS, WOMEN IN JAIL: LEGAL ISSUES 4 (1996).

9 AMNESTY INT’L USA, supra note 4, at 2.

10 ACLU, supra note 7; see also AMNESTY INT’L USA, supra note 4, at 2.

11 AMNESTY INT’L USA, supra note 4, at 2.

12 Id.

13 See, e.g., Roth, Rachel, Do Prisoners Have Abortion Rights?, 30 FEMINIST STUD. 353 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Compare Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2008) (holding that the Fourteenth Amendment, but not the Eighth Amendment, protects the rights of pregnant inmates to elective abortions), and Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 369 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2005) (holding that neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Eighth Amendment protect the rights of pregnant inmates to elective abortions), and Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532 (6th Cir. 1991) (holding that prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity from an inmate's claim that the Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments protect pregnant inmates’ right to elective abortions, and that the officials’ conduct did not amount to a constitutional violation), with Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326 (3d Cir. 1987) (holding that both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments protect pregnant inmates’ right to elective abortions).

15 For other articles discussing female inmates’ access to elective abortions under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, see Blumenthal, Thomas M. & Brunie, Kelly M., The Absence of Penological Rationale in the Restrictions on the Rights of Incarcerated Women, 32 U. ARK. LITTLE ROCK L. REV. 461 (2010)Google Scholar (critiquing the Eighth Circuit's holding in Roe v. Crawford and arguing that analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be framed in terms of basic human dignity); Elizabeth Budnitz, Note, Not a Part of Her Sentence: Applying the Supreme Court's Johnson v. California to Prison Abortion Policies, 71 BROOK. L. REV. 1291 (2006) (arguing that, in light of Johnson v. California, courts should examine restrictions on elective abortion access for prisoners under the Casey undue burden standard rather than the Turner test); Claire Deason, Note, Unexpected Consequences: The Constitutional Implications of Federal Prison Policy for Offenders Considering Abortion, 93 MINN. L. REV. 1377 (2009)Google Scholar (discussing constitutionality of Bureau of Prison elective abortion policies in light of Turner v. Safley and Estelle v. Gamble, and suggesting possible reform); Mark Egerman, Comment, Roe v. Crawford: Do Inmates Have an Eighth Amendment Right to Elective Abortions?, 31 HARV. J.L. & GENDER 423 (2008) (arguing that female inmates’ access to elective abortions is better protected under the Eighth Amendment); Kasdan, Diana, Abortion Access for Incarcerated Women: Are Correctional Health Practices in Conflict with Constitutional Standards?, 41 PERSP. ON SEXUAL & REPROD. HEALTH 59 (2009)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed (presenting results from nationwide survey of correctional healthcare providers describing abortion access and barriers); Angela Thomas, Note, Inmate Access to Elective Abortion: Social Policy, Medicine and the Law, 19 HEALTH MATRIX 539 (2009)Google Scholar (discussing arguments for protecting female inmates’ right to elective abortions under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, examining social policy arguments behind altering prison policies, and proposing reforms).

16 U.S. DEP't OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, PRISONERS IN 2005 4 (2006).

17 U.S. DEP't OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, PRISONERS IN 2008 16 (2009).

18 Women and the Criminal Justice System, ACLU, http://www.aclu.org/women-and-criminaljustice- system (last visited Feb. 27, 2011).

19 U.S. DEP't OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, supra note 17, at 30.

20 AMNESTY INT’L USA, supra note 4, at 2.

21 ACLU, supra note 18.

22 AMNESTY INT’L USA, supra note 4, at 2.

23 See, e.g., Medical Problems of Prisoners, U.S. DEP't OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS (Apr. 8, 2011), http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/html/mpp/tables/mppt10.cfm (reporting that three percent of women entering federal prison and six percent of women entering state prison are pregnant); Kasdan, supra note 5, at 59 (reporting that between six and ten percent of women entering jail or prison are pregnant).

24 U.S. DEP't OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, supra note 23.

25 AMNESTY INT’L USA, supra note 4, at 2.

26 Id.

27 ACLU, Blog Series on Reproductive Rights in Prison, BLOG OF RIGHTS (Dec. 19, 2007), http://www.aclu.org/2007/12/19/blog-series-on-reproductive-rights-in-prison/.

28 See Claire Deason, Note, Unexpected Consequences: The Constitutional Implications of Federal Prison Policy for Offenders Considering Abortion, 93 MINN. L. REV. 1377 (2009)Google Scholar for a comprehensive discussion of the implications and constitutionality of the two Bureau of Prisons policies governing inmates’ access to abortions.

29 The Bureau of Prisons is an agency of the United States Department of Justice. The Bureau operates all federal prisons. Thus, its policies are binding on, and govern the operation of, all federal prisons. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, U.S. DEP't OF JUSTICE, PROGRAM STATEMENT: BIRTH CONTROL, PREGNANCY, CHILD PLACEMENT AND ABORTION (1996) [hereinafter, BIRTH CONTROL, PREGNANCY, CHILD PLACEMENT AND ABORTION], available at http://www.bop.gov/policy/ progstat/5070_005.pdf; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, U.S. DEP't OF JUSTICE, PROGRAM STATEMENT: RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND PRACTICES (2004) [hereinafter RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND PRACTICES], available at http://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5360_009.pdf; see Deason, supra note 28, at 1385-86 (discussing the implementation of these Bureau of Prisons policies).

30 BIRTH CONTROL, PREGNANCY, CHILD PLACEMENT AND ABORTION, supra note 29, § 551.20; see also Deason, supra note 28, at 1384-86 (discussing the role that religious counseling plays in federal prisons with regards to Bureau of Prisons policies).

31 BIRTH CONTROL, PREGNANCY, CHILD PLACEMENT AND ABORTION, supra note 29, § 551.22.

32 Id.

33 Id. § 551.23(b).

34 Id.

35 Id.

36 Id.

37 Id.

38 Id. (emphasis added).

39 RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND PRACTICES, supra note 29, § 548.12(a)(3)(a); see Deason, supra note 28, at 1384 (discussing same).

40 RELIGIOUS BELIEFS AND PRACTICES, supra note 29, § 548.12(a)(3)(a).

41 Id.

42 BIRTH CONTROL, PREGNANCY, CHILD PLACEMENT AND ABORTION, supra note 29, § 551.20(f).

43 See Deason, supra note 28, at 1385-86 (noting the growing evangelical presence in women's prisons and discussing the Bureau of Prisons’ religious counseling services and arguing that the Bureau of Prisons religious counseling requirement severely restricts female inmates’ access to elective abortions); Terrorist Recruitment and Infiltration in the United States: Prisons and Military as an Operational Base: Hearing before the S. Subcomm. on Terrorism and Homeland Security of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. 3 (2003) (statement of Dr. Michael Waller, Annenberg Professor of International Communication, the Institute of World Politics) (stating that Muslim prison recruits range between fifteen and twenty percent of the prison population).

44 See BIRTH CONTROL, PREGNANCY, CHILD PLACEMENT AND ABORTION, supra note 29, at § 551.23(c).

45 Deason, supra note 28, at 1386.

46 Id. at 1399-400; accord Elizabeth Budnitz, Note, Not a Part of Her Sentence: Applying the Supreme Court's Johnson v. California to Prison Abortion Policies, 71 BROOK. L. REV. 1291, 1291 (2006)Google Scholar (“Most prisons and jails either deny women access to abortion outright, or place regulations and restrictions on access that effectively deny inmates freedom of choice.”); Thomas, Angela, Note, Inmate Access to Elective Abortion: Social Policy, Medicine and the Law, 19 HEALTH MATRIX 539, 547 (2009)Google ScholarPubMed (quoting state officials who admitted to using policies to delay prisoner access to abortion).

47 ACLU, supra note 7 (listing the individual laws of each state, and comparing state laws with the prescribed standards for healthcare, prenatal care, and access to elective abortions determined by independent agencies).

48 Id.

49 Id.

50 Id.

51 For a comprehensive discussion of court order policies, see Thomas, supra note 46, at 548, which examines whether court order policies violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and discusses social policy arguments for altering prison policies.

52 Budnitz, supra note 46.

53 Id. (“[T]he reproductive rights of women in prison are subject to the whim of politicians, prison administrators, judges, and prison doctors, who decide whether to allow female inmates to terminate their pregnancies … .”).

54 Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 523 (1984).

55 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

56 Id.

57 Id.

58 Id. (quoting Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 586 (1984)).

59 Id.

60 Id. at 90.

61 Id.

62 Id.

63 Id.

64 DeHart v. Horn, 227 F.3d 47, 59 (3d Cir. 2000).

65 Id.

66 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976).

67 Id. at 102 (quoting Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F.2d 571, 579 (Cal. 1986)).

68 Id. at 103 n.7 (citing Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)).

69 Id. at 103.

70 Id. (citing Gregg, 428 U.S. 153).

71 Id. at 104 (quoting Gregg, 428 U.S. 153).

72 Id. at 106.

73 Id. at 103, 105.

74 See Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2008); Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 369 F.3d 475, 478 (5th Cir. 2004); Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532 (6th Cir. 1991); Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326 (3d Cir. 1987).

75 See Crawford, 514 F.3d 789; Victoria W., 369 F.3d 475; Gibson, 926 F.2d 532; Monmouth, 834 F.2d 326.

76 Gibson, 926 F.2d at 533.

77 Id. at 533.

78 Id. at 533-34.

79 Id. at 536.

80 Id.

81 Id. at 537.

82 Id. at 538.

83 Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 326 (3d Cir. 1987).

84 Id. at 334.

85 Id. at 335.

86 Id. at 338 (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)).

87 Id.

88 Id.

89 Id. at 343.

90 Id. at 338.

91 Id.

92 Id. at 339.

93 Id. Although a woman imprisoned for a lesser offense might be able to obtain a court-ordered release on her own recognizance, the delay in receiving the court order might “push a woman into the second trimester, thus requiring that the operation be performed in a hospital, and significantly increasing the procedure's cost, inconvenience, and, of course, risk.” Id. (quoting Zbaraz v. Hartigan, 763 F.2d 1532, 1537 (7th Cir. 1985)).

94 Id.

95 Id. at 340.

96 Id.

97 Id.

98 Id. at 341.

99 Id. at 342.

100 Id.

101 Id.

102 Id. at 343 (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 90 (1987)).

103 Id. at 344.

104 Id.

105 Id.

106 Id. at 345.

107 Id.

108 Id.

109 Id. at 346.

110 Id. at 347.

111 Id.

112 Id.

113 Id. at 348.

114 Id. at 349.

115 Id.

116 Id.

117 Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 369 F.3d 475, 478 (5th Cir. 2005).

118 Id. at 478.

119 Id.

120 Id. at 478-80.

121 Id. at 480.

122 Id.

123 Id. at 481.

124 Id.

125 Id. at 484-85.

126 Id. at 485-86.

127 Id. at 486.

128 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 90 (1987); Victoria W., 369 F.3d at 484.

129 Victoria W., 369 F.3d at 487.

130 Id.

131 Id.

132 Id.

133 Id.

134 Id. at 484, 486.

135 Id.

136 Id. at 487.

137 Id. at 489.

138 Id. at 487.

139 Id. at 488.

140 Id. at 487.

141 Id. at 488.

142 Id. at 489.

143 Id.

144 Id. (quoting Piotrowski v. City of Hous., 237 F.3d 567, 579 (5th Cir. 2001)).

145 Id. at 489-90.

146 Id. at 489.

147 Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789, 792 (8th Cir. 2008).

148 Id.

149 Id.

150 Id.

151 Id.

152 Id.

153 Id. at 793.

154 Id. at 801.

155 Id. at 793-94.

156 Id. (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)).

157 Id. at 795.

158 An “outcount” occurs any time a prisoner is removed from prison.

159 Id.

160 Id.

161 Id.

162 Id. at 796.

163 Id.

164 Id. (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 90 (1987)).

165 Id.

166 Id.

167 Id. at 797.

168 Id.

169 Id.

170 Id.

171 Id. at 796.

172 Id. at 797 (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 90 (1987)).

173 Id.

174 Id. at 798.

175 Id.

176 Id. (quoting Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 90 (1987)).

177 Id.

178 Id.

179 Id.

180 Id.

181 Id. at 799.

182 Id. (quoting Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 205 F. Supp. 2d 580, 601 (E.D. La. 2002)).

183 Id. at 800 (quoting Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 355 (3d Cir. 1987) (Mansmann, J., concurring)).

184 Id. at 801.

185 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

186 Id. at 154.

187 Thornburgh v. Am. Coll. of Obstetricians, 476 U.S. 747, 772 (1986), overruled by Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

188 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

189 Roe, 410 U.S. at 154.

190 Casey, 505 U.S. at 844-45.

191 Id. at 833.

192 Id.

193 Id.

194 Id. at 834.

195 Id. at 878.

196 Id. at 837.

197 Id.

198 Id. at 878.

199 See Deason, supra note 28, at 1387.

200 In Roe v. Crawford, the Eighth Circuit considered whether restrictions on a pregnant inmate's access to an elective abortion should be analyzed under a strict scrutiny test. The court held that because restrictions on abortion are not generally subject to strict scrutiny outside of the prison context, but are instead subject to the Casey undue burden test, they should not receive strict scrutiny in the prison context. 514 F.3d 789, 794 (8th Cir. 2008). For an argument that the Casey undue burden standard should be applied to such cases, see Budnitz, supra note 46, at 1294.

201 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987).

202 See id. at 99; see also Thomas, supra note 46, at 551 (examining the Turner standard as applied to the court order policies in Monmouth and Victoria W., and arguing that “prison's court order policies should be invalidated because they are not reasonably related to legimate penological interest”).

203 Turner, 428 U.S. at 89.

204 Id.

205 Crawford, 514 F.3d at 795-96; Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 369 F.3d 475, 486 (5th Cir. 2005); Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 343 (3d Cir. 1987); see also Blumenthal & Brunie, supra note 15, at 483.

206 Blumenthal & Brunie, supra note 15, at 462 (citing CORRECTIONAL ASS’N OF N.Y., WOMEN IN PRISON FACT SHEET (2009)), available at http://www.correctionalassociation.org/publications/ download/wipp/factsheets/Wome_in_Prison_Fact_Sheet_2009_FINAL.pdf.

207 See Crawford, 514 F.3d at 798.

208 COLLINS & COLLINS, supra note 8, at 4.

209 See Crawford, 514 F.3d at 795.

210 Id.

211 See, e.g., id. at 797.

212 See Webster v. Reprod. Health Serv., 492 U.S. 490, 511 (1989); Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980).

213 See, e.g., Crawford, 514 F.3d at 797.

214 See id.

215 Simmons, Charlene Wear, Children of Incarcerated Parents, 7 CALIFORNIA RESEARCH BUREAU 1 (2000).Google Scholar

216 Id. at 10 (reporting that children of incarcerated parents may have behavioral, learning, mental health, and substance abuse problems as a result of their separation from their parent).

217 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 78 (1987).

218 See Thomas, supra note 46, at 554.

219 Id.

220 Id.

221 See Roe v. Crawford, 14 F.3d 789, 797 (8th Cir. 2008).

222 See, e.g., id. at 795.

223 Id. at 798.

224 Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 91 (1987).

225 See Deason, supra note 28, at 1403-08, for suggestions as to how the Federal Bureau of Prison policies might be amended to ensure adequate access to elective abortions for female prisoners, and Thomas, supra note 46, at 564-68, for suggestions on feasible solutions for changing prison policies.

226 Turner, 482 U.S. at 91.

227 See DeHart v. Horn, 227 F.3d 47, 51 (3d Cir. 2000).

228 See Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d. 326, 326 (3d Cir. 1987); Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789, 789 (8th Cir. 2008).

229 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976).

230 Id.

231 Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993).

232 Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 643 (1979).

233 Monmouth, 834 F.2d at 349.

234 Id. at 347.

235 Id.

236 Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789, 799 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Camberos v. Branstad, 73 F.3d 174, 176 (8th Cir. 1995); Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 205 F. Supp. 2d 580, 600-01 (E.D. La. 2002) (“Logically, if a procedure is not medically necessary, then there is no necessity for a doctor's attention.”)).

237 Garrett v. Elko, No. 95-7939, 1997 WL 457667, at *3 (4th Cir. Aug. 12, 1997).

238 See Blumenthal & Brunie, supra note 15, at 462 (examining the prison policy at issue in Roe v. Crawford as one that violates the Eighth Amendment); Egerman, supra note 15, at 424 (arguing that a pregnant inmate's need for an elective abortion constitutes a “serious medical need”); Thomas, supra note 46, at 557 (same).

239 Garrett, 1997 WL 457667, at *3.

240 See Egerman, supra note 15, at 423 (discussing the serious psychological and physical health consequences that may result from denying a prisoner access to an elective abortion).

241 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973).

242 Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d. 326, 349 (3d Cir. 1987) (citing amicus brief of ACLU and American Public Health Association).

243 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976).

244 Id. at 104-05.

245 Blumenthal & Brunie, supra note 15, at 487 (citing Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106).

246 Ancata v. Prison Health Servs., 769 F.2d 700, 704 (11th Cir. 1985).

247 Estelle, 429 U.S. at 102 (quoting Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F.2d 571, 579 (Cal. 1986)).

248 Id. (quoting Jackson, 404 F.2d at 579).

249 Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d. 326, 351 (3d Cir. 1987).

250 For example, many statutes regulating and restricting women's access to elective abortions were proposed in the months following November 2010 elections, reflecting a strong pro-life sentiment among legislators. See, e.g., S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 34-23A-56 (2011) (requiring a threeday waiting period and requiring pregnant women to have a consultation at a “pregnancy help center”).

251 Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 821 (2008); Monmouth, 834 F.2d 326, cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1006 (1988).

252 410 U.S. 113, 154 (1973).

253 Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 145 (2007) (quoting Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 846 (1992)); Casey, 505 U.S. at 846.

254 Carhart, 550 U.S. at 146 (quoting Casey, 505 U.S. at 879).

255 Id. (quoting Casey, 505 U.S. at 878).

256 Id. at 171 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (quoting Casey, 505 U.S. at 869).

257 Id. at 182 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (citing Casey, 505 U.S. at 869).

258 See, e.g., Deason, supra note 28, at 1398 (“[T]he BOP policy allows for unnecessary and potentially strategic delay.”).

259 Carhart, 550 U.S. at 182 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (citing Casey, 505 U.S. at 869).

260 530 U.S. 914 (2000).

261 Id. at 920.

262 See Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005) (Ginsburg, J., concurring) (holding that strict scrutiny review governs an inmate's § 1983 challenge to the California prison system's policy of placing new or transferred inmates with inmates of the same race during their initial evaluation).

263 Carhart, 550 U.S. at 168-69 (Thomas, J., concurring) (quoting Casey, 505 U.S. at 878).

264 Casey, 505 U.S. at 953 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

265 543 U.S. at 524 (Thomas, J., dissenting).

266 Casey, 505 U.S. at 953 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

267 Charlie Savage, On Abortion, No Set Path is Seen, N.Y. TIMES, May 28, 2009, at A17, available at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A07E4DE133AF93BA15756C0A96F9 C8B63&scp=19&sq=Sotomayor&st=nyt&pagewanted=1.

268 Id.

269 Bill Saunders, What Kagan's Time With Marshall Could Mean for Abortion Laws, ROLL CALL, June 22, 2010, http://www.rollcall.com/news/-47602-1.html.

270 Id.

271 Confirmation Hearings on the Nomination of Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 111th Cong. 96 (2010) (statement of Elena Kagan, Solicitor General of the United States) (responding to Senator Feinstein's question, “Do you believe the Constitution requires that the health of the mother be protected in any statute restricting access to abortion?” with the following answer: “I do think that the continued holding of Roe and Doe v. Bolton is that women's lives and women's health have to be protected in abortion regulation.”).

272 131 S. Ct. 1910 (2011).

273 Alito Rejected Abortion as a Right, WASH. TIMES, Nov. 14, 2005, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/nov/14/20051114-015136-2101r/?page=1.

274 Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682, 720 (3d Cir. 1991) (Alito, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

275 Editorial, Judge Alito on Abortion, WASH. POST, Nov. 7, 2005, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/06/AR2005110600836.html.

276 220 F.3d 127, 152 (2000) (Alito, J., concurring).

277 Id. (Alito, J., concurring) (“Our responsibility as a lower court is to follow and apply controlling Supreme Court precedent.”).

278 Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr. to be Chief Justice of the United States Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 146 (2005) (statement of John Roberts, District of Columbia Circuit J.).

279 Id. at 301.

280 550 U.S. 124 (2007).

281 Id. at 169 (Thomas, J., dissenting).

282 Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 853 (1992).

283 550 U.S. 124.

284 See id.

285 See id. at 151, 158 (“No one would dispute that, for many, D&E is a procedure itself laden with the power to devalue human life.”).

286 Id. at 145 (quoting Casey, 505 U.S. at 846).

287 131 S. Ct. 1910, 1928 (2011).

288 See Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789, 789 (8th Cir. 2008); Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d. 326, 326 (3d Cir. 1987).

289 Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 205 F. Supp. 2d 475, 490 (E.D. La. 2002).

290 Id. (“Her attorney's actions, not the policy, denied Victoria an abortion.”).

291 Casey, 505 U.S. at 846.

292 514 F.3d 789, 801 (8th Cir. 2008).

293 Monmouth, 834 F.2d at 341.

294 448 U.S. 297, 316 (1980).

295 492 U.S. 490, 511 (1989).

296 Harris, 448 U.S. at 311; Webster, 492 U.S. at 509.

297 Harris, 448 U.S. at 316.

298 Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 124 (2007.

299 Harris, 448 U.S. at 316.

300 Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d. 326, 355 (3d Cir. 1987); see also Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789, 789 (8th Cir. 2008); Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 205 F. Supp. 2d 475, 475 (E.D. La. 2002).

301 Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 560 (2005) (quoting Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 85, 100-01 (1958)).

302 See, e.g., id. at 560; Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407, 419 (2008).

303 543 U.S. at 578.

304 Id. at 561.

305 554 U.S. 407, 429 (2008).

306 Roper, 543 U.S. at 589; Kennedy, 554 U.S. at 605.

307 131 S. Ct. 1910, 1924 (2011).

308 Id. at 1924-26.

309 Id.

310 Pitre v. Cain, 131 S. Ct. 8, 9 (2010) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).

311 Id. (Sotomayor, J., dissenting).

312 131 S. Ct. 813.

313 Pitre, 131 S. Ct. at 9 (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) (internal citations omitted).

314 Id.

315 131 S. Ct. 1910, 1921 (2011).

316 See, e.g., Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 170 (2007) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).

317 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976).

318 Carhart, 550 U.S. at 174 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).

319 Id.

320 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade, 63 N.C. L. REV. 375, 383 (1985).

321 Row, David R. et al., Judicial Activism on the Rehnquist Court: An Empirical Assessment, 23 ST. JOHN's J. LEGAL COMMENT. 35, 58 (2008).Google Scholar

322 Id. at 41.

323 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 95 (Thomas, J., dissenting) (quoting Helling v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 42 (1993) (Thomas J., dissenting)).

324 503 U.S. 1, 21 (1992) (Thomas, J., dissenting).

325 Id. (Thomas, J., dissenting).

326 Wilkins v. Gaddy, 130 S. Ct. 1175, 1180 (2010).

327 Hudson, 503 U.S. at 1011.

328 131 S. Ct. 1910, 1951 (2011) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (citing Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 615-16 (2005) (Scalia, J., dissenting)).

329 Id. at 1959 (Alito, J., dissenting) (quoting Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981)).

330 A Selection of Kagan's Marshall Memos, N.Y. TIMES 13, http://documents.nytimes.com/aselection- of-kagans-marshall-memos#document/p12; see also Confirmation Hearings on the Nomination of Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, supra note 271, at 30.

331 A Selection of Kagan's Marshall Memos, supra note 330, at 13.

332 Id.

333 See, e.g., Saunders, supra note 269.

334 See, e.g., Roth, supra note 13, at 353.

335 See Roe v. Crawford, 514 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2008); Victoria W. v. Larpenter, 369 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2005); Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532 (6th Cir. 1991); Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326 (3d Cir. 1987).