Refocusing the Undue Burden Test: Inconsistent Interpretations Pose a Substantial Obstacle to Constitutional Legislation.
Decades after Roe, debate over abortion remains as contentious as ever. States continue to pass regulations burdening the abortion right, but lack clear guidance on how to evaluate such regulations using the undue burden test. This Article chronicles Supreme Court jurisprudence on abortion and examines how the current circuit split surrounding FDA-protocol legislation fits within the larger framework. Finally, this Article applies the proper version of the undue burden test to FDA-protocol legislation, which resolves the circuit split and provides lower courts with a clear means of analyzing abortion issues moving forward.
David L
DL
Rosenthal
D000021:Abortifacient Agents, Steroidal / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000009:adverse effects; D000029:Abortion, Legal / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000379:methods; D004305:Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; D004334:Drug Administration Schedule; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D015735:Mifepristone / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000009:adverse effects; D016595:Misoprostol / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000009:adverse effects; D056687:Off-Label Use / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D011247:Pregnancy; D014481:United States; D014486:United States Food and Drug Administration
D000021:Abortifacient Agents, Steroidal; D016595:Misoprostol; D015735:Mifepristone