Margaret S. v. Treen

597 F. Supp. 636 (1984)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Margaret S. v. Treen

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
597 F. Supp. 636 (1984)

Facts

The state of Louisiana enacted a law that required an attending physician to perform an ultrasound test before performing an abortion. A lawsuit challenging the law was brought by a number of parties impacted by the law. These groups included two individuals who represented the class of pregnant women who wanted an abortions, along with several doctors who performed abortions and several clinics that offered abortion (the abortion-right advocates) (plaintiffs). The abortion-right advocates argued that the Louisiana law unconstitutionally interfered with a woman’s fundamental right to an abortion. Specifically, the abortion-right advocates claimed that the law would increase the cost of abortions by imposing an unnecessary test and would decrease the availability of abortion services in Louisiana because the law would lead to physicians being able to perform fewer abortions. To substantiate their claim, the abortion-right advocates offered evidence showing that the ultrasound requirement would add at least $100 to the $60 to $195 range of abortion-service costs in Louisiana. Further, the evidence indicated that few potential abortion providers owned ultrasound machines or had training to perform ultrasound tests. Further, evidence was offered showing that the time required to perform an ultrasound would cause the number of abortions that could be performed in a 4-hour window to drop from 24 to 8. Louisiana argued that ultrasound testing was necessary to determine gestational age and, in turn, determine which abortion method should be employed. At trial, several physicians testified that a clinical examination and an ultrasound were comparably accurate and reliable methods of determining gestational age. Louisiana offered no evidence showing that the common clinical method for determining gestational age was inaccurate or unreliable.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Collins, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership