The Last Abortion Clinic
  • home
  • watch online
  • abortion wars
  • shifting attitudes
  • map
  • discussion

bonnie scott jones

Bonnie Scott Jones

She is an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights, a non-profit organization based in New York which works worldwide to protect and advance reproductive choice. Through the center, Jones represents the sole abortion provider in the state of Mississippi, the Jackson Women's Health Organization, and is challenging state regulations that she says threatens the clinic's existence. She calls these laws, which regulate medical practices, facilities, and administration, TRAP laws, short for Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers, because "… they are health facility regulations that apply only to physicians that provide abortions and not to physicians that provide any comparable procedures." In this interview, she tells FRONTLINE about the effects of these laws on women in Mississippi and elsewhere and explains how they are creating a two-tiered system of abortion access that harkens back to the days before legalized abortion. "It is the women with resources who continue to be able to get abortion," says Jones, "And it is the low-income women, people in marginalized populations, people that live in rural areas, who just don't have good access to legal abortion and turn to very unhealthy alternatives." This is an edited transcript drawn from two interviews conducted on Aug. 30, 2005 and Oct. 4, 2005.

… Give me a sense of [the abortion debate in] Mississippi.

Well, Mississippi is a very conservative state, and it's a state that's very, very hostile to abortion. … It's a place where the legislature and state officials work very closely with anti-choice activists in sort of a united effort to stop abortion in the state. … It certainly is sort of a hotbed for the entire battle between the pro-choice movement and the anti-choice forces in the United States, and things have really reached an extreme there. …

There are a lot of women there that need abortions. There's a lot of poverty there. There's a lot of anti-choice activism there. [But] there's also support from around the country for the abortion provider that is there. …

Tell me about the Jackson clinic. I know that you represent them. Tell me about your role with them and how you help them.

The Jackson Women's Health Organization is an abortion provider in Mississippi. It is the only abortion provider right now in Mississippi. They've been providing abortions there for quite some time -- about a decade, I believe -- and we represent the clinic. We've represented the clinic in a number of matters. Usually what we do is we help the clinic to challenge restrictive laws that would make it impossible for them to continue providing abortions to the women in Mississippi. …

Let's first of all just talk about what a TRAP law is -- talk to me about what that word means.

… We use the word "TRAP" law [because] it's an acronym for Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers. Basically they are health facility regulations that apply only to physicians that provide abortions and not to physicians that provide any comparable procedures. So they are laws that regulate anything from the staff that the facility must have, the structure, the physical building that the service is provided in to the kinds of written policies and procedures that the facility has -- any sort of health facility regulations like that that apply only to [abortion providers] and not to other facilities. …

In your mind, what's so wrong with an abortion clinic having to meet these standards?

[T]he anti-choice movement knows that it can't outright ban abortion, but it would like to do everything possible to make it as difficult as possible to provide and obtain an abortion.

There are really three problems with TRAP laws. The first is that they reduce women's access to abortion by making it extremely burdensome and costly to provide abortions. The second is that TRAP laws completely destroy the confidentiality of abortion services. And the third is that TRAP laws impose those two harms without making abortion any safer at all.

Let me explain these a little bit further. In terms of access, TRAP laws impose really extensive and intrusive requirements that govern every aspect of the medical procedure. And they make it really difficult, really a hassle, really burdensome and really costly to provide abortions. And the result of that is [fewer] doctors are able to become abortion providers, and less doctors are going to want to become abortion providers because it's a nightmare to be an abortion provider under a TRAP law.

The other result is because of that, doctors are much less likely to incorporate abortion provision as part of more generalized women's health care practice. A gynecologist is not going to want to do seven abortions a month if it means he or she has to comply with the TRAP law. They'll just leave it out. So that means really, women are only going to be able to get abortions at specialized clinics that are segregated from the rest of their medical care. And it also means that abortion is just going to be more costly, because the fact is, it costs money to comply with all of these requirements, and that cost inevitably gets passed on to patients.

So all of those things reduce access, and we know, as just a basic principle of public health, that if you reduce access to a medical service, that harms the health of the people that need that service, in this case pregnant women. So that's the first problem.

The second problem that I really see with TRAP laws is the intrusion on patient confidentiality, or the destruction of confidentiality in abortion services. TRAP laws, by their inspection schemes, which allow third-party protesters to trigger inspections of clinics, really open up what was a private place -- i.e., the doctor's office -- to be a much more public space in which the state could be coming in at any time: while people are sitting in the waiting room or sitting in a procedure room or wherever in the process. That really changes the sense of privacy in the office of an abortion provider.

And the other way the TRAP laws intrude on patient privacy is by opening up patient medical records to state health departments. Many TRAP laws allow the health department to go in and review complete medical records with the patients' medical history, and that is just a complete violation of the expectation of privacy that everyone has in seeking medical services.

[The state says] that the motivation behind these laws is to increase the safety for women when they are wanting to get an abortion.

I think the real motive behind TRAP laws is to further an anti-choice agenda, which is to make abortion in America something that is legal but unavailable. In other words, the anti-choice movement knows that it can't outright ban abortion, but it would like to do everything possible to make it as difficult as possible to provide and obtain an abortion. And TRAP laws are an effective means of doing that, because they reduce access so severely and because they so severely intrude on patient privacy.

I think that the anti-choice movement tries to defend these laws by saying that they're about the health of the woman or something to that effect, and that is really false. I think the evidence is very clear that these laws really endanger women's health by denying them access to a procedure that we know they need and we know they're going get. And if we put it out of their hands, we really just are hurting them. TRAP laws are really unrelated to the woman's health, and they do not make abortion any safer. And the reason they don't make abortion any safer is because they impose these extensive, completely unnecessary requirements that are largely unrelated to the safety of the procedure itself.

Let me give you a couple of examples. In Mississippi, in the new TRAP law, there's a provision that requires that the facility be located in an attractive setting. Now, how does putting the facility in an attractive setting affect the safety of the procedure at all? Obviously it doesn't. Well, first of all, who's going to determine whether it's an attractive setting or not and to whom? So that's question number one. But besides the question of just whose aesthetics are going to govern this, the attractiveness of the setting in which the facility is located has very little, if nothing, to do with the safety of the procedure.

Another example in South Carolina: A provision that was upheld by the 4th Circuit says that the facility must keep its outside areas free of grass that might serve as a haven for insects. Well, does the fact that there's grass outside the abortion facility affect abortion safety? I really don't think so.

Another example in Arizona: There's a provision that requires that the doctors provide the care that they give in a manner designed to enhance the patient's self-esteem and self-worth. And it's a laudable goal, but I have no idea what it means or how to put it into practice, and I really don't think it has a lot to do with whether that abortion is safely carried out.

So these laws, they impose requirements that are unnecessary, that aren't related to safety. They then subject doctors to the costs of complying with them, to the risk of criminal penalty if they somehow make a misstep in their attempt to comply. And so all you're going to do is drive doctors away from being abortion providers, drive women further from abortion availability. And that does not protect women's health or safety, and we know that from the past from when abortion was illegal. If abortion is hard to get, women die, or women get very serious health problems. So TRAP laws have really nothing to do with improving abortion safety.

[Part of] your job is to deal with TRAP laws. Tell me about that responsibility and what you've seen change over the last few years.

The Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood [of Southeastern Pennsylvania] v. Casey has made it much, much more difficult to challenge TRAP laws. Prior to Casey, when we were under Roe v. Wade, virtually all TRAP laws that were challenged were struck down. They were struck down as either overly intrusive on the abortion procedure, or they were struck down because the Court found it improper for the states to single out abortion from other medical procedures for regulation.

Under Casey, those grounds for striking down laws don't apply anymore. Now, even if those things are true, even if a law is very intrusive and it singles out abortion from other medical procedures for no apparent reason, we still, in order to strike down the law, have to show that the law imposes a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking abortions. And that is very difficult to do, and we actually don't know yet whether that can be done with respect to a TRAP law. I have not yet seen a case striking down a TRAP law on the grounds that it violates that Casey standard.

And just to give you an idea of how hard that standard is to meet, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a South Carolina TRAP law despite the fact that we proved that the law would increase the cost of abortion in the state by an average of $100 per procedure and would close down the only provider in one fairly big geographic area of the state. So despite those findings, the court still said, "Well, those things might happen, but you haven't proven to us that that's a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking abortions." So this new Casey standard really seems to make it difficult, if not impossible, to challenge TRAP laws. …

What's wrong with [trying to] … increase the safety of abortion?

Well, what's wrong with TRAP laws is that they don't make abortion any safer. And in the process of not making abortion any safer, they threaten the health of women by making abortion much less accessible, making it much harder to be an abortion provider [and] intruding on patient privacy, which really pushes women away from legal abortion services. … And the result of that is to harm women's health. The result of that is to hurt the safety of women. …

The other point that I would make in response to the argument that TRAP laws improve abortion safety is if TRAP laws were such a good idea, why wouldn't the legislature apply them to all other medical procedures that are done in doctors' offices? There are all kinds of procedures that are done on an outpatient basis in doctors' offices: vasectomies; there are all sorts of gynecological procedures that are very much like abortion. When a woman has an incomplete miscarriage and goes to the doctor to have the miscarriage basically completed, the doctor does the exact same procedure as in an abortion. So there are all kinds of procedures that are very much like abortion or exactly the same in terms of what's involved, yet TRAP laws only apply to abortion. …

So I think that really points to the falseness in the argument [that TRAP laws are aimed at protecting women]. These same people that claim that they want the best facility for women are the people that are doing everything they can to pass laws that make state hospitals, university hospitals, public funds … not participate in any way in abortions. … If the state of Mississippi really thinks that abortions would be safer in hospitals, well, it could fund abortions. We could fund abortions in the state hospitals so that when women sought abortions, that's where they would go. Obviously they're not doing that. The anti-choice activists aren't doing that. The state's not doing that, because their motive is not to provide an abortion in the environment they believe is safest; it's simply to stop abortion. …

Tell me about some of the extreme things that have happened [as a result of these] laws?

One provider in South Carolina, who is the only provider in one part of that state, closed down after the TRAP law went into effect there. …

There was a TRAP law recently passed in Texas that applies to providers of second-trimester abortions, and as soon as that law went into effect, I believe none of the existing second-trimester abortion [providers] in the state were able to go on providing second-trimester abortions for some period of time. And at that time there were actually quite a few second-trimester providers in the state. After that, I think a couple of providers have been able to bring their facilities in compliance and provide second-trimester procedures, but the fact still remains that Texas in an enormous state, and so now women are having to travel great distances to get second-trimester abortions. And many of them are actually having to go out of state to get those procedures because the providers are now so far away and so few and far between. …

Talk to me a little about clinic closures in Mississippi -- what [has this] meant for the Jackson clinic?

Well, there did used to be a number of abortion providers in Mississippi, and over recent years they have closed. I mean, all of them except for the Jackson Women's Health Organization have closed. I don't know the details of why they've closed. I can conjecture certainly that the cost of complying with the abortion laws, particularly the TRAP laws in Mississippi, may play a role in that, but I really don't know the details.

But the fact that those clinics have closed, and that we now only have one provider, one abortion provider in the entire state of Mississippi, it means that that facility is incredibly important. That is the only access for women in that state, many of whom are poor and therefore could not easily travel great distances to go get an abortion. It is their only access to this procedure. So the recent clinic closures just mean that it is more and more important that we protect the ability of that clinic to be able to provide abortions and to not succumb to harassment protests and these various laws that are thrown at them. …

When you look at the state of Mississippi and the Jackson clinic, and you look at the future, where do you see the fight going?

Well, when I look at the Jackson clinic, I see a model of what in some ways the future will be and already is in some states, where, because of onerous laws and harassment of abortion providers and all these different obstacles that abortion providers face, you end up with one abortion provider in an entire state. Maybe [there are] a couple, but really [there are] a very small number of providers in very specialized facilities that really focus on abortion who are going to just face a constant onslaught of burdens to deal with from protests, endless rounds of legislation regulating all of the different aspects of abortion and raising the costs of providing abortions in those facilities. I think that is unfortunately a model for how the future will look in many states. These very isolated abortion providers are holding back the floodgates and trying to keep providing abortions to the women in those states, to take on the whole battle.

When you look at pre-and post-Roe , what you see before Roe is that women of middle-class and upper-class wealth were able to get [safe] abortions. Poor women couldn't. What I'm starting to see now is a similar dynamic, where middle-class and rich women can go across the [state] border if they need to, they can access abortion in a safe place like the Jackson clinic, they can travel; [but for] poor women, like the women we met in the Delta, abortion is completely out of reach. Can you explain this to me?

Well, I think what has happened post-Casey is that we really are moving towards a world that the anti-choice movement wants, which is a world in which abortion is legal but unavailable. And it is unavailable because they have placed so many restrictions on it that it is only accessible to women who have the resources to travel far distances to providers, to pay the increased price of the abortion, to have sort of the mobility and wherewithal to jump through the hoops and deal with the harassment … and pass all the obstacles that have been placed in their path on the way there. So in a way, Casey has allowed us to sort of go back in some form to the world of pre-legal abortion in the sense that, again, it is the women with resources who continue to be able to get abortions, and it is the low-income women, people in marginalized populations, people that live in rural areas, who just don't have good access to legal abortion and turn to very unhealthy alternatives. …

One of the strategies that has shifted for the pro-life movement is from being all about the unborn to being about a woman's health. Can you tell me if you've seen that shift?

I think there has been a shift for the anti-choice movement to some degree from their focus on potential life or unborn life to talking about women's health and that what they really want to do is protect women's health. Part of what Roe v. Wade and Casey both say is that these are the two areas that the states can regulate abortion in: They can regulate to protect potential life, and they can regulate to protect women's health.

So in some ways, I feel like the anti-choice movement went down the potential-life alley and passed all the kinds of legislation that they could think of arguably related to protecting potential life. And now they have this untapped area of women's health they're going into or using as their supposed motive for passing laws.

But the other thing that I have also seen happening, and I think is going to happen more and more, is the anti-choice movement really delving further and further into the confidential relationship between doctor and patient. And I think the reason for that is that Roe v. Wade really kept the states out of that area; it really safeguarded the privacy of that and gave a lot of respect to the exercise of professional judgment by physicians. So it really did maintain the zone of privacy between doctor and patient. And Casey changed that. Casey really gave the anti-choice movement inroads into that.

And so what I see now is this rush to make up for lost time and dive into that relationship and pass these laws that intrude on patient privacy, [that] give states authority to look at medical records or review medical records or do these inspections in the middle of the clinic day; or that allow the state to regulate the very procedure the doctor's carrying out, like telling the doctor how to do the medical procedure that they're conducting and dictate every aspect of the medical practice. These are areas that Roe v. Wade did not let the movement legislate before. …

Tell me about the Jackson clinic. What are the kinds of TRAP laws that that clinic has faced?

Some of the requirements that the Jackson clinic is going to have to meet under the new TRAP law are things that -- they have to have a certain amount of parking, to have certain sizes of the rooms and the hallways; they have to have certain written manuals and policies in place. There is a laundry list of requirements that govern every area of their practice.

… [For instance,] the Jackson Clinic frequently has protesters at their clinic. I mean, they're there all the time, and they drive there, and then they hang out all day across the street, and they protest. And recently they've started calling in and complaining to the health department about the lack of parking on the street, some of which they're obviously using because they're there. And so they've called up and said to the health department: "Oh, we see all these cars on the street in legal parking spots, but in on-street parking. We see all these cars. We don't think they're giving enough parking."

And the health department has actually turned around and come in and done inspections based on the fact that the protesters [who] have driven to the clinic to protest are complaining about the lack of parking at the facility. [They] interrupted the clinic day, did full inspections, sat down with the staff to discuss the parking of cars on the street, and they were cited for a violation that would have subjected them to a fine and possible further penalties. And [it] wasn't until we intervened on their behalf that they had that violation removed. …

[Tell me about] the most recent ambulatory surgical standards that [the Jackson clinic has] to meet.

Well, the newest law that they've imposed on the Jackson clinic is a law that says if you provide abortions after the first trimester -- and the Jackson clinic provides abortions just up to 16 weeks, which is beyond the first trimester --you not only have to meet the abortion facility regulations, but you also have to meet the ambulatory surgical facility regulations. You can't be an ambulatory surgical facility, you can't become licensed as one, but you must meet all of the requirements that ambulatory surgical facilities do.

Ambulatory surgical facilities are very different than abortion facilities. An ambulatory surgical facility is a facility in which many doctors come in and do all sorts of different surgical procedures, sort of like a hospital, except all of the surgery is just same-day surgery. In any event, now the Jackson clinic, in order to continue providing the abortions that it does, will have to meet those ambulatory surgical facility regulations as well as the abortion facility regulations.

And these regulations impose requirements on all areas of practice, from staffing to the size of the rooms to the equipment in there to the beauty of the surroundings to policies and procedures and so forth. And a number of the requirements are extremely burdensome and would be very, very difficult for the clinic to comply with.

I know [the Jackson clinic] building was pre-emptive [in that] they built the building appropriately to meet the standards [of an ambulatory surgical facility]. What are the things that could stop them from meeting all of the requirements?

One of the ambulatory surgical facility requirements that would be particularly difficult for the Jackson clinic to meet is the admitting-privilege requirement. The regulations are a little bit vague, but they seem to require that every doctor that provides abortions in the facility must have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The reason that that's so difficult for this clinic or for many clinics across the country to comply with is that often there aren't enough abortion providers in a particular state to provide the services needed in that state, so doctors will come in from other places to provide abortions. And that's true at the Mississippi clinic. Some of the doctors come in from out of state.

Generally it is virtually impossible, if not impossible, to get admitting privileges in a state in which a person does not reside. The hospitals don't want to give admitting privileges to doctors that don't live there. Part of what they want in terms of getting admitting privileges is to have the doctors serve the hospital in some way, whether it's doing emergency room rotations or things like that.

So if you have to have admitting privileges at an abortion facility, that effectively means you can't use doctors who come in from out of state. You can only provide abortions to the extent that you have willing physicians in Mississippi to provide those services. And the fact is that in Mississippi, there are not enough doctors that are willing to provide abortions, just like in many, many states in the United States. There are not enough doctors in the particular state to serve the abortion needs of the people in that state. …

… The striking thing about the admitting-privileges requirement is that it really serves no function, because the clinic is already required to have a transfer agreement with a hospital 15 minutes away under which the hospital will accept the patients of the clinic in an emergency and treat them. And the clinic has this transfer agreement. So there already is in place a mechanism to deal with emergencies, to admit patients in emergencies, to promptly treat them in emergencies and so on. …

Do you think that they knew this when they proposed this [legislation]? Do you think that this was part of their strategy to limit abortion?

I don't know if it was the specific intent of the legislature in Mississippi. I can tell you that many TRAP laws that are being passed in recent years include admitting-privilege requirements, and I think it is a way to limit the amount of doctors that can provide abortions. And limiting the amount of doctors that can provide abortions inevitably limits the availability of abortions. …

Back to the Jackson clinic -- [without admitting privileges,] would they just have to stop after the 12th week if they can't meet these standards? And what does that say to you?

If second-trimester abortions were not offered in the state of Mississippi, that would be extremely dangerous for the health of women there, because there are many women who need second-trimester abortions in Mississippi who seek them there. If they were not able to obtain them there, they would have to go out of state, to clinics some distance away, which inevitably delays women because of [what] the cost and the burdens of travel are. It pushes them further into the second trimester, either to a point where the procedure is more dangerous or to the point where they can't get a procedure at all because they can't find a provider close enough who does procedures at that stage of gestation. …

[What are you doing right now to prevent this from happening?]

What we're doing right now is working with the clinic to try to analyze the regulations [to] determine which parts of the regulations they can comply with [and] which parts they really cannot comply with or would be extremely burdensome for the women patients who are coming in, [to] try to work with the health department to see if we can get waivers for them on those requirements. If we can get waivers and can come up with an ability to comply with enough of the scheme that they can get a license, then they will go forward, obviously, and keep providing abortions as they do now.

If the regulations are so burdensome that they cannot comply, and they are unable to obtain waivers from the health department, and the regulations would force them to stop providing second-trimester abortions, obviously we'll have to consider bringing a legal challenge to the regulations, because that would effectively mean there is no second-trimester abortion provider in the state of Mississippi.

Generally speaking, how successful have you guys been in fighting TRAP laws?

Our success in fighting TRAP laws has been mixed thus far. We have had some success in striking down portions of TRAP laws that are particularly intrusive on patient privacy. For example, we have had [little] success in striking down TRAP laws in their entirety; however, when TRAP laws effectively ban second-trimester abortions, we have been successful. I expect and hope we would continue to be. The Supreme Court has made clear that the states cannot ban second-trimester abortions or require that they be performed in hospitals. So to the extent a TRAP law does that effectively as a second-trimester ban or a second-trimester hospitalization requirement, I'm optimistic that we would be able to still stop those kind of laws. …

Tell me about the nursing shortage and the issue there of requiring more nurses. [I believe the] ambulatory surgical requirement requires a certain number of nurses.

One of the other requirements imposed on the Jackson clinic by the ambulatory surgical facility regulations is a requirement that they have one registered nurse per every six patients in the facility, as well as a registered nurse to supervise the nursing staff. What that means is if there are, for example, eight or nine patients in the facility, you would have to have three registered nurses in the facility: one supervising, one for the first six patients, and then another for the second two or three patients. That is a significant number of registered nurses to be taking care of quite a small number of patients recovering from a very safe procedure.

The problem with the registered nurse requirement is kind of twofold. One is that registered nurses are extremely expensive compared to other nurses, so that raises the cost of the procedure, which always gets passed on to the women, who already have a great deal of trouble affording it. The other problem is that there is a nursing shortage in this country, particularly with respect to registered nurses. Registered nurses are highly desirable for all kinds of jobs where they have quite a bit of responsibility. And the kind of work that they would be doing in an abortion facility -- taking care of patients after an abortion procedure -- is really sort of below what they're capable of doing and what they're asked to do in many kinds of positions. So it's in some ways not the most desirable job for an RN in the market that exists in this country for nurses. So a number of facilities in states all over the country have had difficulty getting enough registered nurses to meet these kinds of requirements. …

How do these laws really affect women?

I think the problem with TRAP laws and all of the other kinds of laws affecting abortion that are being passed in recent years, whether it's informed consent or parental involvement or mandatory delays -- these endless procedural hoops and hurdles that women have to go through to get an abortion -- the real problem with them is that each of them adds significant burdens and delays for women, [and] once you keep piling on enough obstacles, you really do stop women from getting abortions. …

Who does this affect?

I think that the women most affected by TRAP laws are the same women that are most affected by any abortion restriction, and those are women that are poor, live in rural areas, that are in marginalized communities, women that are in abusive relationships. For women like that, any obstacle to getting an abortion procedure can be insurmountable, or it can cause significant delays that ultimately will hurt her health.

If you are a poor woman living in rural Mississippi with an abusive husband, you have to come up with the money on your own, come up with it in a way that your husband's not going know about, get out of the house to make your appointment, go through whatever waiting period you have to go through, get yourself there, and so forth and so on just to get your abortion procedure. Then [when you finally get there,] the cost of the abortion is more expensive than you thought because of some TRAP law that's in place making it more expensive to provide the procedure. These are real obstacles, and they're not always surmountable. For a lot of women in this country, getting an abortion is a very, very difficult task. And each of these laws, whether it's a TRAP law or any of these other kinds of laws, just adds more and more hurdles and obstacles. …

So when you look at the [Supreme Court's] "undue burden" standard, how is it that laws like this are passed when it affects women [and prevents them from having an abortion]? …

Under Casey, the new standard is that a law will only be struck down if it imposes an "undue burden" on women seeking abortion. So even if it targets abortion, even if it is regulating the medical aspects of abortion and treats abortion differently than everything else, the Court will only strike it down if we can prove that it amounts to an undue burden, that it imposes a significant obstacle in the path of women seeking abortions.

So it's a much harder standard. The Court is no longer striking down laws just because they're sort of discriminating against abortion as a medical procedure. You have to show that these laws impose an undue burden on women, and that is an extremely hard standard to meet.

What happens [when you try to prove this in the courts]?

Well, the problem that we've seen is that in many cases, we have put on evidence showing that a law imposes an undue burden -- for example, showing that a law is going to so increase the cost of abortion that some women won't get it anymore, or some women will be delayed from getting an abortion until it's much more dangerous. Or we put on evidence showing that a law will close down abortion providers in a state, therefore making it much harder for women in that part of the state to get an abortion. We put on all sorts of evidence showing that various laws impose particular burdens for poor women or women in abusive relationships by exposing them to more abuse. And [we] still have had courts look at this evidence and remain unconvinced that those kind of burdens are an undue burden for constitutional purposes. Sometimes they look at those realities for women, and they say, "We see your evidence, but it's not enough to strike down this law." So the undue burden standard is a very hard one to meet.

And it's not at all clear what kind of burdens one has to show to be able to convince a court that the law is going to be harmful enough to enough women that finally the court will say: "OK, enough. You can't impose this particular burden." …

home + introduction + watch online + the abortion wars + shifting attitudes + interviews
map + related FRONTLINE: "abortion clinic" + discussion + teacher's guide + readings & links
producer's chat + tapes & transcript + press reaction + credits + privacy policy

posted nov. 8, 2005

FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of wgbh educational foundation.
photo copyright ©2005 corbis
web site copyright 1995-2014 WGBH educational foundation