Rep. Carolyn Maloney "sounds alarm" observing federal and states' regulation of abortion and "constitutional rights" thereof.

US House Oversight and Reform Committee, 30 Sep 2021, featuring dubious reading comprehension, a RAFT of bills purporting to perfect "constitutional rights", tears, sippy cups, and Gloria Steinem, "feminist icon" of the middling sort--possibly low-income menstruating colored people--as is the custom when FIFTH WAVE politicians have exhausted a philosophy of "qualified" equity and meritocracy which has bound the nation in their exceptional ignorance in "cases of rape or incest". running time 05:01:39.

reference
Jane ROE, et al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Held:

1. While 28 U.S.C. § 1253 authorizes no direct appeal to this Court from the grant or denial of declaratory relief alone, review is not foreclosed when the case is properly before the Court on appeal from specific denial of injunctive relief and the arguments as to both injunctive and declaratory relief are necessarily identical. P. 123.

2. Roe has standing to sue; the Does and Hallford do not. Pp. 123-129.
   

[...]
3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.
[...]

4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.

5. It is unnecessary to decide the injunctive relief issue, since the Texass authorities will doubtless fully recognize the Court's ruling

And so they have but for the 4mm embryo "heart beat" limitation

314 F. Supp. 1217, affirmed in part and reversed in part.

[the contrite Klans man] BLACKMUN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART, MARSHALL, and POWELL, JJ., joined. BURGER, C.J., post, p. 410 U. S. 207, DOUGLAS, J., post, p. 209, and STEWART, J., post, p. 167, filed concurring opinions. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, J., joined, post, p. 221. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 171.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1992
"undue burden" test of states' regulations
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 2016
"balancing of benefits and burdens" of states' legitimate interests
Whole Woman's Health et al. v Paxton, et al., 18 Aug 2021
wherein 5th Cir. enumerates US district ct errors in findings of fact and case law pertaining to one medical procedure (rather than "viability" per se), then recites "constitutional" restriction and permissions (109 pp)
Whole Woman's Health, et al. v Judge Austin Reeve Jackson, et al. 5th Cir. per curiam, 10 Sep 2021
wherein "light of S.B. 8's enforcement mechanism, Plaintiffs have adopted a novel strategy for their pre-enforcement [!] challenge. Principally, they seek to enjoin the entire Texas judiciary to prevent any [!] court from entertaining S.B. 8 lawsuits."

archived Who is a "health provider"?