under the health exception. Due to the subjectivity of these decisions, it would be extremely difficult for the court to review. This would grant a dangerous amount of freedom and power for doctors to commit ill-advised abortions.

IV. Undue Burden

The Abortion Clarification Act also affirms the concept of “undue burden” that was implemented in the Casey decision. Under this standard, the State cannot place an undue burden on a woman trying to get a pre-viability abortion. This replaced Roe’s strict trimester standard with a much more loosely defined structure. Roe originally granted the State the ability to regulate abortions regarding women’s health in the second trimester, but the undue burden allowed for these regulations to be revoked. The argument against undue burden arises in its subjectivity. Undue burden can essentially be applied to any abortion regulation in the woman’s second trimester. This vagueness essentially nullifies the basic concept of the Roe trimester framework. Even legitimate regulations to protect the mother can be claimed as undue burdens. This broad and subjective standard would present issues in applying it equally across the states as well as applying it without prejudice.

Juxtaposed against the subjectivity argument, the argument for the undue burden standard can be potentially found within the Court’s reading of the 14th Amendment’s right to privacy. If one would assume that right to privacy is a fundamental right implied in the Due Process Clause, then the courts must take all measures to protect this right. Using undue burden as a measure of restrictions placed on these abortions, it would allow for the most protection of the woman’s right to early pregnancy abortions. Undue burden eliminates the ability for the State to infringe on the woman’s rights with obscure regulations and completely protects the women’s fundamental right.

V. Deferment to Legislature