{
  "id": "RL33467",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "RL",
  "number": "RL33467",
  "active": true,
  "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "summary": null,
      "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=RL33467",
      "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "formats": [
        {
          "sha1": "ce59ea3d345cd0b432848a71a59ebe6b9eabf674",
          "format": "PDF",
          "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL33467/52",
          "filename": "files/2022-02-25_RL33467_ce59ea3d345cd0b432848a71a59ebe6b9eabf674.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/2022-02-25_RL33467_ce59ea3d345cd0b432848a71a59ebe6b9eabf674.html"
        }
      ],
      "title": "Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response",
      "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov",
      "retrieved": "2022-04-05T04:04:00.770601",
      "date": "2022-02-25",
      "typeId": "RL",
      "id": "RL33467_52_2022-02-25",
      "active": true
    },
    {
      "summary": null,
      "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=RL33467",
      "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "formats": [
        {
          "sha1": "4908497b77ebf97cbb5cd371537a9979968f2ca2",
          "format": "PDF",
          "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL33467/51",
          "filename": "files/2021-09-20_RL33467_4908497b77ebf97cbb5cd371537a9979968f2ca2.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/2021-09-20_RL33467_4908497b77ebf97cbb5cd371537a9979968f2ca2.html"
        }
      ],
      "title": "Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response",
      "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov",
      "retrieved": "2022-04-05T04:04:00.769721",
      "date": "2021-09-20",
      "typeId": "RL",
      "id": "RL33467_51_2021-09-20",
      "active": true
    },
    {
      "summary": null,
      "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=RL33467",
      "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "formats": [
        {
          "sha1": "542ef30f576df03a69c95098696ad803b556ce2b",
          "format": "PDF",
          "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL33467/50",
          "filename": "files/2021-02-08_RL33467_542ef30f576df03a69c95098696ad803b556ce2b.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/2021-02-08_RL33467_542ef30f576df03a69c95098696ad803b556ce2b.html"
        }
      ],
      "title": "Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response",
      "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov",
      "retrieved": "2022-04-05T04:04:00.769040",
      "date": "2021-02-08",
      "typeId": "RL",
      "id": "RL33467_50_2021-02-08",
      "active": true
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 604970,
      "date": "2019-09-09",
      "retrieved": "2019-09-16T22:09:24.951028",
      "title": "Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response",
      "summary": "In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Roe v. Wade that the U.S. Constitution protects a woman\u2019s decision to terminate her pregnancy. In a companion decision, Doe v. Bolton, the Court found that a state may not unduly burden the exercise of that fundamental right with regulations that prohibit or substantially limit access to the procedure. Rather than settle the issue, the Court\u2019s rulings since Roe and Doe have continued to generate debate and have precipitated a variety of governmental actions at the national, state, and local levels designed either to nullify the rulings or limit their effect. These governmental regulations have, in turn, spawned further litigation in which resulting judicial refinements in the law have been no more successful in dampening the controversy.\nFollowing Roe, the right identified in that case was affected by decisions such as Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which gave greater leeway to the states to restrict abortion, and Rust v. Sullivan, which narrowed the scope of permissible abortion-related activities that are linked to federal funding. The Court\u2019s decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, which established the \u201cundue burden\u201d standard for determining whether abortion restrictions are permissible, gave Congress additional impetus to move on statutory responses to the abortion issue, such as the Freedom of Choice Act.\nLegislation to prohibit a specific abortion procedure, the so-called \u201cpartial-birth\u201d abortion procedure, was passed in the 108th Congress. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act appears to be one of the only examples of Congress restricting the performance of a medical procedure. Legislation that would prohibit the performance of an abortion once the fetus reaches a specified gestational age has also been introduced in numerous Congresses.\nSince Roe, Congress has attached abortion funding restrictions to various appropriations measures. The greatest focus has arguably been on restricting Medicaid abortions under the annual appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services. This restriction is commonly referred to as the \u201cHyde Amendment\u201d because of its original sponsor. Similar restrictions affect the appropriations for other federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, where federal funds may not be used to perform abortions in the federal prison system, except in cases of rape or if the life of the mother would be endangered. Hyde-type amendments also have an impact in the District of Columbia, where federal and local funds may not be used to perform abortions except in cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the mother would be endangered, and affect international organizations like the United Nations Population Fund, which receives funds through the annual Foreign Operations appropriations measure.\nThe debate over abortion also continued in the context of health reform. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), enacted on March 23, 2010, includes provisions that address the coverage of abortion services by qualified health plans that are available through health benefit exchanges. The ACA\u2019s abortion provisions have been controversial, particularly with regard to the use of premium tax credits or cost-sharing subsidies to obtain health coverage that includes coverage for elective or nontherapeutic abortion services. Under the ACA, individuals who receive a premium tax credit or cost-sharing subsidy are permitted to select a qualified health plan that includes coverage for elective abortions, subject to funding segregation requirements that are imposed on both the plan issuer and the enrollees in such a plan.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33467",
          "sha1": "31140c05dd17b1456fd0e7306db550f8287816c0",
          "filename": "files/20190909_RL33467_31140c05dd17b1456fd0e7306db550f8287816c0.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33467",
          "sha1": "f89fd782cbecb85c33066cd23d003013ca23625f",
          "filename": "files/20190909_RL33467_f89fd782cbecb85c33066cd23d003013ca23625f.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4846,
          "name": "Civil Rights & Liberties"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4848,
          "name": "Abortion & Family Planning Services"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4921,
          "name": "Labor, HHS, & Education Appropriations"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 588637,
      "date": "2018-12-07",
      "retrieved": "2019-04-18T13:17:42.969970",
      "title": "Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response",
      "summary": "In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Roe v. Wade that the U.S. Constitution protects a woman\u2019s decision to terminate her pregnancy. In a companion decision, Doe v. Bolton, the Court found that a state may not unduly burden the exercise of that fundamental right with regulations that prohibit or substantially limit access to the procedure. Rather than settle the issue, the Court\u2019s rulings since Roe and Doe have continued to generate debate and have precipitated a variety of governmental actions at the national, state, and local levels designed either to nullify the rulings or limit their effect. These governmental regulations have, in turn, spawned further litigation in which resulting judicial refinements in the law have been no more successful in dampening the controversy.\nFollowing Roe, the right identified in that case was affected by decisions such as Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which gave greater leeway to the states to restrict abortion, and Rust v. Sullivan, which narrowed the scope of permissible abortion-related activities that are linked to federal funding. The Court\u2019s decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, which established the \u201cundue burden\u201d standard for determining whether abortion restrictions are permissible, gave Congress additional impetus to move on statutory responses to the abortion issue, such as the Freedom of Choice Act.\nLegislation to prohibit a specific abortion procedure, the so-called \u201cpartial-birth\u201d abortion procedure, was passed in the 108th Congress. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act appears to be one of the only examples of Congress restricting the performance of a medical procedure. Legislation that would prohibit the performance of an abortion once the fetus reaches a specified gestational age has also been introduced in numerous Congresses.\nSince Roe, Congress has attached abortion funding restrictions to various appropriations measures. The greatest focus has arguably been on restricting Medicaid abortions under the annual appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services. This restriction is commonly referred to as the \u201cHyde Amendment\u201d because of its original sponsor. Similar restrictions affect the appropriations for other federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, where federal funds may not be used to perform abortions in the federal prison system, except in cases of rape or if the life of the mother would be endangered. Hyde-type amendments also have an impact in the District of Columbia, where federal and local funds may not be used to perform abortions except in cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the mother would be endangered, and affect international organizations like the United Nations Population Fund, which receives funds through the annual Foreign Operations appropriations measure.\nThe debate over abortion also continued in the context of health reform. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), enacted on March 23, 2010, includes provisions that address the coverage of abortion services by qualified health plans that are available through health benefit exchanges. The ACA\u2019s abortion provisions have been controversial, particularly with regard to the use of premium tax credits or cost-sharing subsidies to obtain health coverage that includes coverage for elective or nontherapeutic abortion services. Under the ACA, individuals who receive a premium tax credit or cost-sharing subsidy are permitted to select a qualified health plan that includes coverage for elective abortions, subject to funding segregation requirements that are imposed on both the plan issuer and the enrollees in such a plan.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33467",
          "sha1": "baf00d5681587f95de9d92534148e16675fa4b61",
          "filename": "files/20181207_RL33467_baf00d5681587f95de9d92534148e16675fa4b61.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33467",
          "sha1": "d13b2bfc4af47cbac824f9317856884b2614b555",
          "filename": "files/20181207_RL33467_d13b2bfc4af47cbac824f9317856884b2614b555.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4846,
          "name": "Civil Rights & Liberties"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4848,
          "name": "Abortion & Family Planning Services"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4921,
          "name": "Labor, HHS, & Education Appropriations"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 585362,
      "date": "2018-01-26",
      "retrieved": "2018-09-20T14:36:49.136726",
      "title": "Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response",
      "summary": "In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Roe v. Wade that the U.S. Constitution protects a woman\u2019s decision to terminate her pregnancy. In Doe v. Bolton, a companion decision, the Court found that a state may not unduly burden the exercise of that fundamental right with regulations that prohibit or substantially limit access to the means of effectuating the decision to have an abortion. Rather than settle the issue, the Court\u2019s rulings since Roe and Doe have continued to generate debate and have precipitated a variety of governmental actions at the national, state, and local levels designed either to nullify the rulings or limit their effect. These governmental regulations have, in turn, spawned further litigation in which resulting judicial refinements in the law have been no more successful in dampening the controversy.\nIn recent years, the rights enumerated in Roe have been redefined by decisions such as Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which gave greater leeway to the states to restrict abortion, and Rust v. Sullivan, which narrowed the scope of permissible abortion-related activities that are linked to federal funding. The Court\u2019s decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, which established the \u201cundue burden\u201d standard for determining whether abortion restrictions are permissible, gave Congress additional impetus to move on statutory responses to the abortion issue, such as the Freedom of Choice Act.\nLegislation to prohibit a specific abortion procedure, the so-called \u201cpartial-birth\u201d abortion procedure, was passed in the 108th Congress. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act appears to be one of the only examples of Congress restricting the performance of a medical procedure. Legislation that would prohibit the knowing transport of a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion has been introduced in numerous Congresses.\nSince Roe, Congress has attached abortion funding restrictions to various appropriations measures. The greatest focus has arguably been on restricting Medicaid abortions under the annual appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services. This restriction is commonly referred to as the \u201cHyde Amendment\u201d because of its original sponsor. Similar restrictions affect the appropriations for other federal entities, including the Department of Justice, where federal funds may not be used to perform abortions in the federal prison system, except in cases of rape or if the life of the mother would be endangered. Hyde-type amendments also have an impact in the District of Columbia, where federal funds may not be used to perform abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother would be endangered, and affect international organizations like the United Nations Population Fund, which receives funds through the annual Foreign Operations appropriations measure.\nThe debate over abortion continued in the context of health reform. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), enacted on March 23, 2010, includes provisions that address the coverage of abortion services by qualified health plans that are available through health benefit exchanges. The ACA\u2019s abortion provisions have been controversial, particularly with regard to the use of premium tax credits or cost-sharing subsidies to obtain health coverage that includes coverage for elective or nontherapeutic abortion services. Under the ACA, individuals who receive a premium tax credit or cost-sharing subsidy are permitted to select a qualified health plan that includes coverage for elective abortions, subject to funding segregation requirements that are imposed on both the plan issuer and the enrollees in such a plan.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33467",
          "sha1": "962a246ba8b8762d5e6ad540cf22b4df531e229f",
          "filename": "files/20180126_RL33467_962a246ba8b8762d5e6ad540cf22b4df531e229f.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33467",
          "sha1": "7dd209b22c3e7bb8c56352606a133ce770198f46",
          "filename": "files/20180126_RL33467_7dd209b22c3e7bb8c56352606a133ce770198f46.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4846,
          "name": "Civil Rights & Liberties"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4848,
          "name": "Abortion & Family Planning Services"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4921,
          "name": "Labor, HHS, & Education Appropriations"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 577518,
      "date": "2018-01-10",
      "retrieved": "2018-01-16T23:11:52.217317",
      "title": "Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response",
      "summary": "In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Roe v. Wade that the U.S. Constitution protects a woman\u2019s decision to terminate her pregnancy. In Doe v. Bolton, a companion decision, the Court found that a state may not unduly burden the exercise of that fundamental right with regulations that prohibit or substantially limit access to the means of effectuating the decision to have an abortion. Rather than settle the issue, the Court\u2019s rulings since Roe and Doe have continued to generate debate and have precipitated a variety of governmental actions at the national, state, and local levels designed either to nullify the rulings or limit their effect. These governmental regulations have, in turn, spawned further litigation in which resulting judicial refinements in the law have been no more successful in dampening the controversy.\nIn recent years, the rights enumerated in Roe have been redefined by decisions such as Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which gave greater leeway to the states to restrict abortion, and Rust v. Sullivan, which narrowed the scope of permissible abortion-related activities that are linked to federal funding. The Court\u2019s decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, which established the \u201cundue burden\u201d standard for determining whether abortion restrictions are permissible, gave Congress additional impetus to move on statutory responses to the abortion issue, such as the Freedom of Choice Act.\nLegislation to prohibit a specific abortion procedure, the so-called \u201cpartial-birth\u201d abortion procedure, was passed in the 108th Congress. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act appears to be one of the only examples of Congress restricting the performance of a medical procedure. Legislation that would prohibit the knowing transport of a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion has been introduced in numerous Congresses.\nSince Roe, Congress has attached abortion funding restrictions to various appropriations measures. The greatest focus has arguably been on restricting Medicaid abortions under the annual appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services. This restriction is commonly referred to as the \u201cHyde Amendment\u201d because of its original sponsor. Similar restrictions affect the appropriations for other federal entities, including the Department of Justice, where federal funds may not be used to perform abortions in the federal prison system, except in cases of rape or if the life of the mother would be endangered. Hyde-type amendments also have an impact in the District of Columbia, where federal funds may not be used to perform abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother would be endangered, and affect international organizations like the United Nations Population Fund, which receives funds through the annual Foreign Operations appropriations measure.\nThe debate over abortion continued in the context of health reform. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), enacted on March 23, 2010, includes provisions that address the coverage of abortion services by qualified health plans that are available through health benefit exchanges. The ACA\u2019s abortion provisions have been controversial, particularly with regard to the use of premium tax credits or cost-sharing subsidies to obtain health coverage that includes coverage for elective or nontherapeutic abortion services. Under the ACA, individuals who receive a premium tax credit or cost-sharing subsidy are permitted to select a qualified health plan that includes coverage for elective abortions, subject to funding segregation requirements that are imposed on both the plan issuer and the enrollees in such a plan.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33467",
          "sha1": "56f7bcfc8666faeb5101c55c02cb692b027a70b7",
          "filename": "files/20180110_RL33467_56f7bcfc8666faeb5101c55c02cb692b027a70b7.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33467",
          "sha1": "659416c5e21d7db478f2d64268c17d17f960dc33",
          "filename": "files/20180110_RL33467_659416c5e21d7db478f2d64268c17d17f960dc33.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4846,
          "name": "Civil Rights & Liberties"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4848,
          "name": "Abortion & Family Planning Services"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4921,
          "name": "Labor, HHS, & Education Appropriations"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 573737,
      "date": "2017-09-29",
      "retrieved": "2017-10-04T13:54:12.162881",
      "title": "Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response",
      "summary": "In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Roe v. Wade that the U.S. Constitution protects a woman\u2019s decision to terminate her pregnancy. In Doe v. Bolton, a companion decision, the Court found that a state may not unduly burden the exercise of that fundamental right with regulations that prohibit or substantially limit access to the means of effectuating the decision to have an abortion. Rather than settle the issue, the Court\u2019s rulings since Roe and Doe have continued to generate debate and have precipitated a variety of governmental actions at the national, state, and local levels designed either to nullify the rulings or limit their effect. These governmental regulations have, in turn, spawned further litigation in which resulting judicial refinements in the law have been no more successful in dampening the controversy.\nIn recent years, the rights enumerated in Roe have been redefined by decisions such as Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which gave greater leeway to the states to restrict abortion, and Rust v. Sullivan, which narrowed the scope of permissible abortion-related activities that are linked to federal funding. The Court\u2019s decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, which established the \u201cundue burden\u201d standard for determining whether abortion restrictions are permissible, gave Congress additional impetus to move on statutory responses to the abortion issue, such as the Freedom of Choice Act.\nLegislation to prohibit a specific abortion procedure, the so-called \u201cpartial-birth\u201d abortion procedure, was passed in the 108th Congress. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act appears to be one of the only examples of Congress restricting the performance of a medical procedure. Legislation that would prohibit the knowing transport of a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion has been introduced in numerous Congresses.\nSince Roe, Congress has attached abortion funding restrictions to various appropriations measures. The greatest focus has arguably been on restricting Medicaid abortions under the annual appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services. This restriction is commonly referred to as the \u201cHyde Amendment\u201d because of its original sponsor. Similar restrictions affect the appropriations for other federal entities, including the Department of Justice, where federal funds may not be used to perform abortions in the federal prison system, except in cases of rape or if the life of the mother would be endangered. Hyde-type amendments also have an impact in the District of Columbia, where federal funds may not be used to perform abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother would be endangered, and affect international organizations like the United Nations Population Fund, which receives funds through the annual Foreign Operations appropriations measure.\nThe debate over abortion continued in the context of health reform. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), enacted on March 23, 2010, includes provisions that address the coverage of abortion services by qualified health plans that are available through health benefit exchanges. The ACA\u2019s abortion provisions have been controversial, particularly with regard to the use of premium tax credits or cost-sharing subsidies to obtain health coverage that includes coverage for elective or nontherapeutic abortion services. Under the ACA, individuals who receive a premium tax credit or cost-sharing subsidy are permitted to select a qualified health plan that includes coverage for elective abortions, subject to funding segregation requirements that are imposed on both the plan issuer and the enrollees in such a plan.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33467",
          "sha1": "f161a33b0a41b91b68223a2796da3134dc0dd1e6",
          "filename": "files/20170929_RL33467_f161a33b0a41b91b68223a2796da3134dc0dd1e6.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33467",
          "sha1": "ffb3603560aa61f99440b9d805fd49b21b75658a",
          "filename": "files/20170929_RL33467_ffb3603560aa61f99440b9d805fd49b21b75658a.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4846,
          "name": "Civil Rights & Liberties"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4848,
          "name": "Abortion & Family Planning Services"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4921,
          "name": "Labor, HHS, & Education Appropriations"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 456443,
      "date": "2016-10-13",
      "retrieved": "2016-10-17T19:16:06.630255",
      "title": "Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response",
      "summary": "In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Roe v. Wade that the U.S. Constitution protects a woman\u2019s decision to terminate her pregnancy. In Doe v. Bolton, a companion decision, the Court found that a state may not unduly burden the exercise of that fundamental right with regulations that prohibit or substantially limit access to the means of effectuating the decision to have an abortion. Rather than settle the issue, the Court\u2019s rulings since Roe and Doe have continued to generate debate and have precipitated a variety of governmental actions at the national, state, and local levels designed either to nullify the rulings or limit their effect. These governmental regulations have, in turn, spawned further litigation in which resulting judicial refinements in the law have been no more successful in dampening the controversy.\nIn recent years, the rights enumerated in Roe have been redefined by decisions such as Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which gave greater leeway to the states to restrict abortion, and Rust v. Sullivan, which narrowed the scope of permissible abortion-related activities that are linked to federal funding. The Court\u2019s decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, which established the \u201cundue burden\u201d standard for determining whether abortion restrictions are permissible, gave Congress additional impetus to move on statutory responses to the abortion issue, such as the Freedom of Choice Act.\nLegislation to prohibit a specific abortion procedure, the so-called \u201cpartial-birth\u201d abortion procedure, was passed in the 108th Congress. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act appears to be one of the only examples of Congress restricting the performance of a medical procedure. Legislation that would prohibit the knowing transport of a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion has been introduced in numerous Congresses.\nSince Roe, Congress has attached abortion funding restrictions to various appropriations measures. The greatest focus has arguably been on restricting Medicaid abortions under the annual appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services. This restriction is commonly referred to as the \u201cHyde Amendment\u201d because of its original sponsor. Similar restrictions affect the appropriations for other federal entities, including the Department of Justice, where federal funds may not be used to perform abortions in the federal prison system, except in cases of rape or if the life of the mother would be endangered. Hyde-type amendments also have an impact in the District of Columbia, where federal funds may not be used to perform abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother would be endangered, and affect international organizations like the United Nations Population Fund, which receives funds through the annual Foreign Operations appropriations measure.\nThe debate over abortion continued in the context of health reform. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), enacted on March 23, 2010, includes provisions that address the coverage of abortion services by qualified health plans that are available through health benefit exchanges. The ACA\u2019s abortion provisions have been controversial, particularly with regard to the use of premium tax credits or cost-sharing subsidies to obtain health coverage that includes coverage for elective or non-therapeutic abortion services. Under the ACA, individuals who receive a premium tax credit or cost-sharing subsidy are permitted to select a qualified health plan that includes coverage for elective abortions, subject to funding segregation requirements that are imposed on both the plan issuer and the enrollees in such a plan.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33467",
          "sha1": "7f239174ec8c5942976d393f61654dfe495989bf",
          "filename": "files/20161013_RL33467_7f239174ec8c5942976d393f61654dfe495989bf.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33467",
          "sha1": "9e705d09820df36d9d5105a972e09ac59ad8f4b5",
          "filename": "files/20161013_RL33467_9e705d09820df36d9d5105a972e09ac59ad8f4b5.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4846,
          "name": "Civil Rights & Liberties"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4848,
          "name": "Abortion & Family Planning Services"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4921,
          "name": "Labor, HHS, & Education Appropriations"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 448813,
      "date": "2016-01-15",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T17:28:41.438988",
      "title": "Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response",
      "summary": "In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Roe v. Wade that the U.S. Constitution protects a woman\u2019s decision to terminate her pregnancy. In Doe v. Bolton, a companion decision, the Court found that a state may not unduly burden the exercise of that fundamental right with regulations that prohibit or substantially limit access to the means of effectuating the decision to have an abortion. Rather than settle the issue, the Court\u2019s rulings since Roe and Doe have continued to generate debate and have precipitated a variety of governmental actions at the national, state, and local levels designed either to nullify the rulings or limit their effect. These governmental regulations have, in turn, spawned further litigation in which resulting judicial refinements in the law have been no more successful in dampening the controversy.\nIn recent years, the rights enumerated in Roe have been redefined by decisions such as Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which gave greater leeway to the states to restrict abortion, and Rust v. Sullivan, which narrowed the scope of permissible abortion-related activities that are linked to federal funding. The Court\u2019s decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, which established the \u201cundue burden\u201d standard for determining whether abortion restrictions are permissible, gave Congress additional impetus to move on statutory responses to the abortion issue, such as the Freedom of Choice Act.\nLegislation to prohibit a specific abortion procedure, the so-called \u201cpartial-birth\u201d abortion procedure, was passed in the 108th Congress. The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act appears to be one of the only examples of Congress restricting the performance of a medical procedure. Legislation that would prohibit the knowing transport of a minor across state lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion has been introduced in numerous Congresses.\nSince Roe, Congress has attached abortion funding restrictions to various appropriations measures. The greatest focus has arguably been on restricting Medicaid abortions under the annual appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services. This restriction is commonly referred to as the \u201cHyde Amendment\u201d because of its original sponsor. Similar restrictions affect the appropriations for other federal entities, including the Department of Justice, where federal funds may not be used to perform abortions in the federal prison system, except in cases of rape or if the life of the mother would be endangered. Hyde-type amendments also have an impact in the District of Columbia, where federal funds may not be used to perform abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother would be endangered, and affect international organizations like the United Nations Population Fund, which receives funds through the annual Foreign Operations appropriations measure.\nThe debate over abortion continued in the context of health reform. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), enacted on March 23, 2010, includes provisions that address the coverage of abortion services by qualified health plans that are available through health benefit exchanges. The ACA\u2019s abortion provisions have been controversial, particularly with regard to the use of premium tax credits or cost-sharing subsidies to obtain health coverage that includes coverage for elective or non-therapeutic abortion services. Under the ACA, individuals who receive a premium tax credit or cost-sharing subsidy are permitted to select a qualified health plan that includes coverage for elective abortions, subject to funding segregation requirements that are imposed on both the plan issuer and the enrollees in such a plan.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33467",
          "sha1": "3816855331bd907c68a9973b64ee40eefd0814f2",
          "filename": "files/20160115_RL33467_3816855331bd907c68a9973b64ee40eefd0814f2.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33467",
          "sha1": "e77231fd119e3c98aaf589c7dae2ab5ef8c3a349",
          "filename": "files/20160115_RL33467_e77231fd119e3c98aaf589c7dae2ab5ef8c3a349.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 2347,
          "name": "Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 3178,
          "name": "Abortion, Family Planning, and Reproductive Health"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc821384/",
      "id": "RL33467_2015Sep16",
      "date": "2015-09-16",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20150916_RL33467_21b5f0ea30ab520e044dbb6aca5ce77db418fb8e.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20150916_RL33467_21b5f0ea30ab520e044dbb6aca5ce77db418fb8e.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc501975/",
      "id": "RL33467_2015Jan23",
      "date": "2015-01-23",
      "retrieved": "2015-03-30T22:03:27",
      "title": "Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response",
      "summary": "The focus of this report is on legislative actions with respect to abortion, but also discusses leading Supreme Court decisions concerning a woman's right to choose.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20150123_RL33467_6e3869ff45d05244456519228a1cc4f411453eaf.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20150123_RL33467_6e3869ff45d05244456519228a1cc4f411453eaf.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Abortion",
          "name": "Abortion"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Abortion policy",
          "name": "Abortion policy"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Pro-choice movement",
          "name": "Pro-choice movement"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc284498/",
      "id": "RL33467_2014Mar24",
      "date": "2014-03-24",
      "retrieved": "2014-05-06T21:21:54",
      "title": "Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response",
      "summary": "The focus of this report is on legislative action with respect to abortion, and discussion of the various legislative proposals that involves an examination of the leading Supreme Court decisions concerning a woman's right to choose",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20140324_RL33467_e43a6c4cc545a01663fbb967a4ce97c91e55d017.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20140324_RL33467_e43a6c4cc545a01663fbb967a4ce97c91e55d017.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Abortion",
          "name": "Abortion"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Abortion policy",
          "name": "Abortion policy"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Pro-choice movement",
          "name": "Pro-choice movement"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc816081/",
      "id": "RL33467_2013Jun14",
      "date": "2013-06-14",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20130614_RL33467_bf533e0418b8f1750008471d3ff44f8da842a665.pdf"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc806096/",
      "id": "RL33467_2013Jan08",
      "date": "2013-01-08",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Abortion: Judicial History and Legislative Response",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20130108_RL33467_6c75c93770587b6e40432489b7c04ac23eb91b49.pdf"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc819311/",
      "id": "RL33467_2009Jan15",
      "date": "2009-01-15",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Abortion: Legislative Response",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20090115_RL33467_f376dee9a156bf1c8fb89a1cf1f9a900656d4417.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20090115_RL33467_f376dee9a156bf1c8fb89a1cf1f9a900656d4417.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc818849/",
      "id": "RL33467_2007Jun12",
      "date": "2007-06-12",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Abortion: Legislative Response",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20070612_RL33467_d259714ec64d09fe958a636b673ed88d9a12769a.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20070612_RL33467_d259714ec64d09fe958a636b673ed88d9a12769a.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc820760/",
      "id": "RL33467_2006Jun08",
      "date": "2006-06-08",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Abortion: Legislative Response",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20060608_RL33467_0cbf2f9face41ade649d94d0dd3cb96d179cb9cc.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20060608_RL33467_0cbf2f9face41ade649d94d0dd3cb96d179cb9cc.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions",
    "Health Policy"
  ]
}