The Constitutional Right to an Abortion Does Not Encompass the Right to Be Uninformed: The Fourth Circuit’s Puzzling Approach to Evaluating Mandatory Ultrasound Provisions in Stuart v. Camnitz, 774 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2014)

Authors

Lindsey Schmidt, University of Nebraska College of Law

Abstract

I. Introduction

II. Background ... A. The History and Constitutionality of Informed Consent Statutes ... B. The First Amendment and Its Limitations—Legitimate Government Regulation of Speech ... C. Professionals and First Amendment Protections––Or Lack Thereof ... D. Speech and Display Cases—the Circuits’ Attempt to Construe Roe, Casey, and the Professional Speech Doctrine Alluded to in Lowe

III. Stuart v. Camnitz ... A. Facts ... B. The Fourth Circuit Weighs In

IV. Analysis ... A. The North Carolina Statute Is a Permissible Exercise of State Police Powers Even Though It Implicates the First Amendment ... B. The Fourth Circuit Inappropriately Ignores Its Own Professional Speech Doctrine ... C. The Information Required Is Spoken in the Physician’s Professional Context and Is Not Ideological Speech ... D. North Carolina’s Ultrasound Provision Truthful, Non-Misleading, Non-Ideological, and Medically Necessary Information and Must be Upheld

V. Conclusion

Recommended Citation

Lindsey Schmidt, The Constitutional Right to an Abortion Does Not Encompass the Right to Be Uninformed: The Fourth Circuit’s Puzzling Approach to Evaluating Mandatory Ultrasound Provisions in Stuart v. Camnitz, 774 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2014), 95 Neb. L. Rev. 1124 (2016)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol95/iss4/6