So Ordered

On March 2nd, 2016, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. This case is about a Texas law, HB 2, that introduced requirements for abortion clinics. The regulations include physicians who perform abortions having admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles, and many standards similar to ambulatory surgical centers. Opponents argue that these regulations are simply a front meant to limit women’s access to abortion, as the procedure is considered safe already and 3/4 of the state’s abortion clinics closed under HB 2.

This is the final episode of our reproductive rights arc. We provide argument analysis and explanations of possible outcomes, since we’ll have to wait for a decision.

Many thanks to Peter Cheun and Biz Reilly, our research assistants who have made So Ordered possible.

The Supreme Court decided Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007, and until the 2015 term, it was the last major case the Court faced on reproductive rights. In Gonzales, the Court was to decide the constitutionality of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, passed by Congress and signed by the President in 2003. Since there was no exception in the Act for the health of the mother, the Supreme Court had to decide if the Act violated the Fifth Amendment. 

This arc leads up to Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case about Texas’ abortion clinic law. Be sure to join us next week for the audio and our analysis of this case.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey shaped modern abortion law in the United States. This 1992 case was a major challenge to Roe v. Wade and had the potential to overturn the right to abortions. With a drastically different Court membership, including several justices whose views on the issue were unknown, Court-watchers everywhere couldn’t predict what would happen. Find out what happened in this episode as you listen to arguments and the unusual opinion announcement.

This arc leads up to the beginning of March 2016, when the Supreme Court will hear Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case about Texas’ abortion laws.

Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health was the first major challenge to Roe v. Wade. The city of Akron enacted an ordinance that strictly regulated abortions, and it was challenged by the Center. The Supreme Court was asked to determine if several provisions of the law were unconstitutional. The case didn’t directly challenge Roe, but it started to test the boundaries of what regulations would be acceptable.

This arc leads up to the beginning of March 2016, when the Supreme Court will hear Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case about Texas’ abortion law.

In this special episode, we look back on the career of Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away unexpectedly on February 13. Justice Scalia’s career was marked by an ardent defense of originalism and textualism in his opinoins, and an pointed and witty approach to oral arguments. In this episode, we share some audio clips that reflect his jurisprudence and style.

Roe v. Wade is the most famous case dealing with abortion and reproductive rights. But when you push past all of the political and social commentary, backlash, and fervor surrounding the decision, what actually happened? Learn the issues that brought the case to the Supreme Court, what each side argued for, and what the decision was in this week’s episode of So Ordered. We’re happy to welcome back to the show Chris Schmidt (Professor at Illinois Tech Chicago-Kent College of Law, Director of the Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States), who provides commentary and guidance after each section of oral argument and a full analysis of the opinion and its effects. 

This arc leads up to the beginning of March 2016, when the Supreme Court will hear Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case dealing with abortion law in Texas.

In Eisenstadt v. Baird, the question presented to the Court was a natural continuation of the issue in Griswold. While the previous case determined that states could not prevent married couples from having access to contraception, this one asked whether states could prevent unmarried individuals from accessing contraception. Some could argue this case provided the bridge to our next episode, Roe v. Wade.

This arc leads up to the beginning of March 2016, when the Supreme Court hears Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstadt, about a current Texas abortion law.

We start our reproductive rights arc with Griswold v. Connecticut, the first case the Supreme Court heard on the subject. The issue in 1965 was whether a state could ban the sale, advice, or use of contraception for married couples, as Connecticut had. The Court tackled the notion of privacy as a constitutional right for the first time, and several important themes set the stage for the many legal battles to follow. Join us this episode for something different - we’ll play you important clips from the argument and discuss them with Professor Christopher Schmidt of Illinois Tech Chicago-Kent College of Law and ISCOTUS.

(Join us for an exploration of a related case every week leading up to the beginning of March 2016, when the Court hears Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, the case about Texas’ abortion law.)

Last week, the Supreme Court heard the latest case on the subject of affirmative action: Fisher v. University of Texas. This was the second time this case has come before the Court. What’s new? What’s the same? Listen to the arguments and find out.

The most recent affirmative action case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, first came to the Supreme Court in 2012. Did the University of Texas’ use of race in their undergraduate admissions process violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? In this episode, listen to arguments and find out how the Court ruled then.