Klein 1

Klein, Elizabeth

Mr. King

A.P. Seminar

8 November. 2016

Annotated Bibliography

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.. 573 U.S. ___ (2014). Supreme Court of the United

States.

Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center, http://tinyurl.com/gqvjdms. Accessed 11 Nov.

2016.

This official opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States was delivered by Justice

Alito. Justice Alito is a reputable source of information because he has been a Supreme Court

Associate Justice since 1990. He has the ability to observe because he was present at the court

hearing of which the opinion is based. His vested interest comes from his position as a judge; he

would be highly criticized if he were not truthful in the source because judges are expected to be

completely honest. Justice Alitos expertise comes from his two degrees from both Princeton

and Yale University. Justice Alitos neutrality is weakened by his reputation as a conservative

judge, but because the document is an opinion, this does not do much to diminish his overall

credibility.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is a case that argues whether or not it is

constitutional for family owned, for-profit companies to deny their employees insurance for

contraceptives because of religious affiliations. The owners of Hobby Lobby contended that
 Klein 2

they should not be required under the Affordable Care Act to insure certain forms of birth control

for their employees. They claimed their religious beliefs hold that life begins immediately after

conception, and certain contraceptives meant to stop that life are means of abortion. In the end,

the Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and decided family owned, for-profit businesses do not

have to cover certain contraceptives under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The outcome of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. starkly contradicts my claim that a

womans body and religious ideology should be separate. This means I will be able to use it as

an example of the injustice women face regarding reproductive freedom. As I explore the

different areas of a womans life where she is told what to do with her body, I will add this court

ruling under the In the Workplace section of my argument. A question that comes to mind

while reading this opinion is: Why is it fair that a woman can be denied her access to basic health

care due to her employers religion?

Halperin, Jinna, et al. Whose Choice? How the Hyde Amendment Harms Poor Women.

Center for Reproductive Rights, http://tinyurl.com/zhhetuu. Accessed 14 Nov.

2016.

Jinna Halperin is the main author of this report as she was the original drafter for the

document. Halperin is a reputable source because she has written three other publications that

are as revered as this one. Halperins ability to observe derives from her degree and certificate in

Public Health, which is the overall topic of this source. Her qualifications in the field indicate

that she has spent a good amount of time studying it, which would provide her with access to the
 Klein 3

information she used in the report. Halperins vested interest comes from her position, because a

freelance writer would gain nothing by writing untruthfully. If she had been dishonest in the

report, her professional reputation would have suffered. Her expertise comes from her Master of

Public Health from Boston University and her certificate in the same field from Harvard

University. Halperin is a neutral source because both her job as a writer and her educational

qualifications signify that she is able to effectively deliver information without bias.

The report itself illustrates the effect of the Hyde Amendment on low-income women.

The Hyde Amendment cut off federal funding for abortion for women in the Medicaid program.

The only three exceptions to this amendment are if the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother

or is caused by incest or rape. This measure especially impacts women with low incomes

because in many cases, they cannot afford to pay for an abortion without coverage. It has forced

those who do want abortions to pay for them out of pocket. This report claims the amendment is

detrimental to many women who want an abortion but do not have the money for it.

The data presented in this source will fuel my argument by providing facts for my claims.

Specifically, I will use it to illustrate another area in a womans life where she faces

unreasonable restrictions to her right to privacy. The information in this report falls under the

medical and public health field, so I will combine it with my other citations included in this same

topic of study. One question I have after reading this report is: Does this amendment violate the

outcome of Planned Parenthood v. Casey?

Kaye, Julia, et al. Health Care Denied. American Civil Liberties Union, May 2016,

http://tinyurl.com/jpm4p3p. Accessed 13 Nov. 2016.

 Klein 4

The main author of this report is Julia Kaye. Kaye is a reputable source because she is a

staff attorney at the esteemed American Civil Liberties Union. Kayes ability to observe comes

from her position as an attorney for the ACLUs Reproductive Freedom Project, which defends

certain cases in order to defend womens reproductive rights. This means that Kaye herself

argues court hearings to fight for reproductive freedom. Kayes vested interest stems from her

job; if she were untruthful in the report, then she would likely be fired or removed from her

position. She would gain nothing by being deceitful. Kayes expertise is validated by her Juris

Doctorate and Bachelors degree in Womens Studies. Her neutrality is weakened by her

position because it is her job to argue in favor of reproductive freedom. However, she is still a

credible source overall and is completely qualified to write this report.

The report itself details many incidents where women were not able to obtain abortions

due to the religious beliefs of others. In most of the cases, a pregnant woman who wanted an

abortion due to a medical emergency was denied one by a Catholic Hospital. Because of this

rebuttal, the pregnant woman often had to endure serious medical consequences. These

narratives demonstrate the reports claim that hospitals should not be able to deny a woman an

abortion when she desperately needs one based on their religious affiliation.

This report will provide my research with solid examples of the medical consequences

that occur when women are denied the abortions that they need. The information in the text

offers strong evidence to support my claim that religious ideology should not supersede a

womans control of her own body. I will use the data in this report to strengthen my argument

and provide facts for my opinions. One supporting question that this report leads one to consider
 Klein 5

is: If a Catholic hospital must compromise their beliefs in order to better support womens

reproductive rights, are they still able to be considered a Catholic institution?

Kurtzleben, Danielle. Planned Parenthood Investigations Find No Fetal Tissue Sales. NPR,

28

Jan. 2016, http://tinyurl.com/zmrk53m. Accessed 18 Nov. 2016.

The author of this article is Danielle Kurtzleben. Kurtzleben is a reputable source

because she has had many different jobs in the field of journalism, including Associate Editor,

digital political reporter, business/economics reporter, and more. She has the ability to observe

the topic of the article because she is a political reporter. Therefore, she has an increased access

to information about political issues such as those surrounding Planned Parenthood because

finding that data is part of her job. Her vested interest comes from her job as a reporter; if she

were to lie in her article, her career and reputation would suffer. Her expertise is affirmed by her

degrees in English and Media/Public Affairs. Her neutrality is proven by her job description: on

NPRs page about Kurtzleben, it states that her job is to collect political data and incorporate it

into her writing. This means that she focuses on numbers rather than bias or opinions.

This informative article is about the ongoing state investigations into Planned

Parenthood. Last year, a video was released that supposedly depicted employees of Planned

Parenthood attempting to illegally sell fetal tissue. Kurtzleben summarizes the outcome of

twelve different states investigations and reports that no evidence of sales of fetal tissue has
 Klein 6

been found. She concludes by saying that despite these outcomes, the videos did heavily

influence public opinion on Planned Parenthood.

The information in this article will support my argument by allowing me to address a

common complaint about reproductive health centers. After the controversial videos about

Planned Parenthood surfaced, many people called for the program to be shut down. My

argument is that Planned Parenthood provides women with vital services and should remain

open. The article will support this claim by defending Planned Parenthood and proving that the

investigations against the program have amounted to nothing. A question I have after reading

this article is: If Planned Parenthood is shut down, will it violate the undue burden clause of

Planned Parenthood v. Casey?

Maddow, Rachel. Rachel Maddow Discusses Roe v. Wade with Nancy Keenan. The Rachel

Maddow Show. MSNBC, 2013, http://tinyurl.com/hphbwc9.

This interview by Rachel Maddow is conducted with Nancy Keenan. Nancy Keenan is a

reputable source of information because she is the former president of NARAL Pro-Choice

America. Her ability to observe comes from her position; being the president of a pro-choice

foundation would have allowed her to obtain access to information about abortion laws. Her

vested interest also comes from her position, if she were to lie or be dishonest, her reputation and

career would be affected. She would gain nothing by being untruthful. Her expertise stems from

her position as a former member of the Montana House of Representatives. This occupation

makes her qualified to discuss politics and laws in the interview. Lastly, her neutrality is
 Klein 7

weakened by her strong pro-choice stance, but she makes up for this bias with her solid

reputation and overall credibility.

In this interview with Rachel Maddow, Nancy Keenan discusses abortion, Roe v. Wade,

and the various laws that restrict a womans right to choose. Keenan claims that thanks to Roe v.

Wade, todays issue with abortion is no longer about legality. She states that instead, the

problem lies with a womans ability to gain access to abortion. She adds that state laws which

regulate abortion make it difficult for a woman to obtain an abortion, and it is a womans place

to make decisions about her own body. She concludes by saying it is the responsibility of the

next generation to help reform unjust abortion laws which are in place now.

The discussion between Maddow and Keenan will be very beneficial to my argument.

Keenan provides strong examples of the ways that abortion laws restrict a womans access to

abortion. I can tie that information in with the Supreme Courts ruling in Planned Parenthood v.

Casey that involves undue burdens. Based on what Keenan says in the interview, the abortion

laws in place today seem to violate that ruling and place unfair obstacles in a womans path to

obtaining an abortion. Some supporting questions I have after listening to the interview are: Are

the laws that Keenan mentions in the video in violation of the outcome of Planned Parenthood v.

Casey? If so, why have they not been repealed?

Morris, Alex. The War on Planned Parenthood. Rolling Stone, 16 Apr. 2016,

http://tinyurl.com/z5o489p.
 Klein 8

Alex Morris is the author of this article. Morris is a reputable source because she is a

Contributing Editor for New York Magazine and a frequent contributor for Rolling Stone. She

has the ability to observe the topic she writes about because she herself had to terminate her

pregnancy due to a miscarriage. Her vested interest comes from her pro-choice stance; if she

were to be dishonest in her article, she would only be hurting herself and her cause. Morriss

expertise comes from her English degree from Dartmouth College. This degree makes her a

qualified person to write the article. Her neutrality is weakened by her staunch pro-choice

stance, but she is a credible source nonetheless.

The article is essentially the authors recount of visiting Ohio to watch legislators make a

decision about Planned Parenthood. The vote was to decide whether or not to defund Planned

Parenthood in Ohio. The author claims that Planned Parenthood is an indispensable program

that women rely on for many important services. The author supports her claim with statistics

about abortion laws and personal anecdotes.

This article is a great source for me to use in my argument because it combines research

with a personal narrative that illustrates the importance of programs like Planned Parenthood.

The author writes with a more opinionated perspective than any of my other citations, which will

add rhetoric to my argument. If this article proves anything, it is that a womans choice to obtain

an abortion is extremely specific to her own circumstances. Therefore, a question I have is: Why

do politicians continue to push their religious beliefs onto women without considering the fact

that the circumstances of a womans abortion are completely personal to her?

 Klein 9

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v. Casey. 505 U.S. 833 (1992). Supreme Court of the

United States. Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center, http://tinyurl.com/hbhjab6. Accessed

16 Nov. 2016.

This opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States was delivered by a few associate

justices of the Court, but Justice OConnor played the largest part in doing so. Justice OConnor

is a reputable source of information because she has been a member of the Supreme Court for 35

years. OConnors ability to observe comes from her being present at the hearing that she writes

about in the opinion. Her vested interest comes from her position: because she is a judge, she

would receive a great deal of criticism if she were untruthful in the opinion. OConnors

expertise is proven by her two degrees from Stanford, one of them being in the field of law.

Even though OConnor is technically a Republican, she is still neutral source because she is

known for being fairly moderate.

In this case, the main issue was the obstacles that women faced when attempting to obtain

an abortion. Planned Parenthood argued that certain laws enacted in Pennsylvania violated the

fourteenth amendment by restricting a womans right to privacy. The Court ruled in favor of

Planned Parenthood and decided no state is allowed to pass any measure that places an undue

burden in a womans path to obtaining an abortion. By executing this law, the Court rejected

the trimester framework decided in Roe v. Wade and put this new standard in its place.

This opinion will greatly help to support my argument because it provided an entire new

set of rules for the legality of abortion. The outcome of Planned Parenthood v. Casey established

the regulatory abortion rules which are in place today. The information from this source will
 Klein 10

help me illustrate the different ways in which undue burdens are placed upon women despite the

fact that this court case illegalized such actions. Two questions I have after reading this opinion

are: Is the undue burden law a bad measure due to the fact that it provides only a loose

definition of what an undue burden actually is? Does the law therefore need reforming because

it is not able to easily be enforced?

Roe v. Wade. 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Supreme Court of the United States. Justia U.S. Supreme

Court Center, http://tinyurl.com/gsgvnoh. Accessed 11 Nov. 2016.

This source is an official opinion of the Supreme Court, and was delivered by Justice

Blackmun. Justice Blackmun is a reputable source because he held the position of Associate

Justice of the Supreme Court for 24 years. He has the ability to observe the event he writes

about because he was present for the Roe v. Wade court case. Justice Blackmuns vested interest

comes from his position; his job as a judge means that he must give his truthful thoughts in

official opinions. He would only gain criticism by lying. His expertise is affirmed by his law

degree from Harvard Law School. Blackmuns neutrality is affected by his reputation as a

liberal judge, but is not incredibly weakened due to the fact that the source is an opinion.

In this document, Justice Blackmun offers the official opinion of the Supreme Court on

Roe v. Wade. The job of the court was to decide whether or not abortion should be legal. Jane

Roe was not allowed to obtain an abortion in Texas because her pregnancy did not endanger her

life, but Roe claimed that she had a right to do so under the fourteenth amendment. The

defendant claimed that fetuses are people, and are therefore protected from abortion by the
 Klein 11

Constitutional. The Court ruled in favor of Roe and decided abortion would be legal during the

first trimester of a womans pregnancy, then the state was allowed to intervene and set certain

regulations on abortion during the second and third trimesters.

The information presented in this opinion drives my research because it is the foundation

of womens reproductive rights. Roe v. Wade was a very important case, and changed how the

nation perceived abortion forever. Many of the laws decided in the outcome of Roe v. Wade are

still in place today, and they allow women to legally obtain abortions. I can use this source in

my project when referring to the abortion laws that are in place currently and illustrate when the

government and state are allowed to interfere. However, despite the effectiveness of the case,

one question comes to mind that contradicts the Supreme Courts ruling. That question is: Does

the Roe v. Wade ruling that the state can become involved in a womans right to abortion even

before her fetus becomes viable violate a womans right to privacy?

Sanger, Carol. Seeing and Believing: Mandatory Ultrasound and the Path to a Protected

Choice. UCLA Law Review, http://tinyurl.com/hh6zja4. Accessed 16 Nov. 2016.

The author of this report is Carol Sanger. Sanger is a reputable source because her many

publications have earned her three prestigious awards: The Green Bag Award, The Innovations

in Scholarship Award, and the Myra Bradwell Prize. Sangers ability to observe derives from

her position as a professor of law at Columbia Law School. This occupation grants her access to

information on the laws she discusses in her report. Sangers vested interest also comes from her

position, as Sanger might lose her job as a professor if she were to be dishonest in her findings.
 Klein 12

Her expertise is proven by her former executive position at Columbias Womens Studies

Program. Lastly, her neutrality is weakened by the fact that she tends to write about womens

studies, but the above points still prove her to be a credible source of information.

This report discusses the legislation which states that a woman must be forced to undergo

an ultrasound before obtaining an abortion. Sanger claims this mandatory procedure is an

invasion of a womans right to privacy. She states that an abortion and the steps leading up to it

should be legally protected, and the ultrasound mandate infringes upon this right. Sanger adds

that this forced practice is an unethical way for legislators to protest abortion rather than provide

an effective service to women receiving one.

The claims presented in this report will greatly assist me in highlighting another undue

burden that the government inflicts upon women. As Sanger states in the text, mandated

ultrasounds are another way for the government to try to limit a womans right to choose. This

research will help prove my argument; the religious beliefs of lawmakers do not supercede a

womans right to her own body. It will also support my claim that although Roe v. Wade

legalized the theory that women have a constitutional right to privacy, this is constantly

overlooked when religious beliefs come into play. One question I have after reading this report

is: Do mandated ultrasound laws violate the undue burden law set in place by Planned

Parenthood v. Casey?

U.S. Constitution. Amend. XIV, Sec. 1.

 Klein 13

The Constitution was created over 200 years ago by the delegates to the Constitutional

Convention. The three original purposes of the Constitution were to separate the government

into three branches, to secure the rights of citizens of the United States, and to balance the power

between federal and state government. The Constitution is one of the most important American

documents because even today it is indispensable. It is the supreme law of the land, and every

judge in the nation is bound to support it. It protects every citizen of the country by securing

their individual rights. The American Constitution founds the idea that government should be in

the hands of the people, and is paramount to the functioning of our society.

Section one of the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution declares that

any person born in the United States is a citizen of the country. It states that no law can be made

that denies a person the privileges of citizenship. The amendment claims laws cannot be passed

if they deprive a person of their right to life, liberty, or property. It then adds that U.S. citizens

are entitled to due process and equal protection of laws.

This amendment was applied in the court case Roe v. Wade, which I will use in my

research. The Supreme Court decided the right to privacy fell under this portion of the

Constitution, and a womans right to obtain an abortion in her first trimester of pregnancy is

protected by this ruling. I will use this amendment to justify my opinions regarding abortion and

its protection by the fourteenth amendment. One question that arises from this source is: Is the

fourteenth amendment applicable to fetuses, or does the very wording of the amendment imply

that the unborn are not people?