In 1970, Congress enacted Title X of the Public Health Service Act (the Act), which provided federal funding for family planning services. Section 1008 of the Act prohibited the use of Title X federal funding “for programs where abortion [was] a method of family planning.” The Regulations to the Act (the Regulations), introduced by the …Read more

The Appellants brought this case challenging an amendment to the Minors’ Consent to Health Services Act (the Act) on the basis that it violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Subdivision 2 of the Act provided, with certain exceptions, that no abortion shall be performed on a …Read more

The Respondents, including a facility that provides abortions, a physician who performs abortions, and a minor woman who sought an abortion, brought suit challenging the constitutional validity of Ohio’s Amended Substitute House Bill 319, which made it a criminal offence, except in four specified circumstances, for a physician or other person to perform an abortion …Read more

Canada Safeway Ltd. maintained a group insurance plan that included weekly benefits for loss of pay due to accident or illness. The plan excluded pregnant women from coverage during a seventeen week period before, during, and after pregnancy. During that period, the plan excluded pregnant women suffering from both pregnancy and non-pregnancy-related afflictions. For part …Read more

Reproductive Health Services (RHS), a non-profit organization, brought this class action suit challenging the constitutionality of a Missouri law (the Act) regulating the performance of abortions. The Act did the following: Set forth, in the preamble, that the “life of each human being begins at conception,” and that “unborn children have protectable interests in life, …Read more

Section 251(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada (the Code) permitted abortions to be performed only at accredited hospitals and then with approval from the performing hospital’s therapeutic abortion committee. Drs. Morgentaler, Smoling, and Scott had together established an abortion clinic in Toronto to perform abortions not approved by a therapeutic abortion committee.  Following public …Read more

Respondents, including Pennsylvania physicians, abortion counselors and providers, brought this challenge to provisions of Pennsylvania’s Abortion Control Act 1982 (the Act). The Act imposed the following conditions on the provision of abortion services in Pennsylvania: 1.     The informed consent provision (§ 3205) required women to be informed of: The name of the physician performing the …Read more

Tellier-Cohen was employed by the Government of Canada and was not permitted to use her sick leave or annual leave for her absence from work due to her pregnancy and childbirth. She filed a complaint in the Human Rights Tribunal challenging the action of the government on the basis of sex discrimination under sections 7(b) …Read more

The Appellant, H.L., brought this class action suit challenging a Utah law which required a physician to notify, if possible, the parents or guardian of a minor upon whom an abortion was to be performed. H.L. represented a class consisting of unmarried minor women who wished to terminate their “unwanted pregnancies” but were unable to …Read more

The Appellant, an obstetrician gynaecologist, brought suit challenging the constitutionality of a Virginia statute, which required second-trimester abortions to be performed in a licensed hospital. The Appellant instituted these proceedings after he was indicted for unlawfully performing an abortion during the second trimester of a pregnancy outside of a licensed hospital. The Appellant performed an …Read more