PurvisD. E., “Expectant Fathers, Abortion, and Embryos,”Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics43, no. 2 (2015): 330–340.
2.
PurvisD. E., “Intended Parents and the Problem of Perspective,”Yale Journal of Law & Feminism24, no. 2 (2012): 210–53.
3.
See Purvis, supra note 1.
4.
Id.
5.
410 U.S. 113 (1973).
6.
Although estimates are from the perspective of women and hard data is unavailable, by one estimate 95 percent of abortions follow an unintended pregnancy. FinerL. B.ZolnaM. R., “Unintended pregnancy in the United States: Incidence and Disparities, 2006,”Contraception84, no. 5 (2011): 478–85, at 479 n.4. See also FinerL. B.FrohwirthL. F.DauphineeL. A.SinghS.MooreA. M., “Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives,”Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health37, no. 3 (2005): 110–18.
7.
For example, the Supreme Court split five to four to uphold a law that imposed different citizenship rules for children born abroad depending upon whether the child's mother or father was a U.S. citizen. Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001).
8.
DanielsK.MosherW. D.JonesJ., “Contraceptive Methods Women Have Ever Used: United States, 1982–2010,”National Health Statistics Report, No. 62 (February 14, 2013): At 8.
9.
MartinezG.DanielsK.ChandraA., “Fertility of Men and Women Aged 15–44 Years in the United States: National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010,”National Health Statistics Report, No. 51 (April 12, 2012): At 7.
10.
JonesR. K.KavanaughM. L., “Changes in Abortion Rates Between 2000 and 2008 and Lifetime Incidence of Abortions,”Obstetrics & Gynecology117, no. 6 (2011): 1358–66, at 1366.
11.
JonesR. K.FinerL. B.SinghS., “Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients, 2008,”Guttmacher Institute (May 2010): At 8.
12.
See Finer, supra note 6, at 112.
13.
FinerL. B.ZolnaM. R., “Shifts in Intended and Unintended Pregnancies in the United States, 2001–2008,”American Journal of Public Health104, no. S1 (2014): S43–S48, at S44 (counting among intended pregnancies those where women felt indifferent).
14.
Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 70–71 (1976).
15.
505 U.S. 833 (1992).
16.
Id. at 894. See also JonesR. K.MooreA. M.FrohwirthL. F., “Perceptions of Male Knowledge and Support among U.S. Women Obtaining Abortions,”Women's Health Issues21, no. 2 (2011): 117–23.
See ElsasserG., “Court Won't Hear Father's Abortion Appeal,”Chicago Tribune, November 15, 1988.
21.
See, e.g., Conn v. Conn, 526 N.E.2d 958 (Ind. 1988), cert denied, 488 U.S. 955 (1988); Lewis v. Lewis, No. 11140 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 1988), appeal denied, No. 84149, 1988 Mich. Lexis 1751, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 22, 1988), application for stay denied, 487 U.S. 165 (1988), cert. denied sub nom., Myers v. Lewis, 487 U.S. 165 (1988); Doe v. Smith, 527 N.E.2d 177 (Ind. 1988), applications for stay denied, 486 U.S. 1308 (1988) (StevensJ., in chambers).
22.
SinghS.SedghG.HussainR., “Unintended Pregnancy: Worldwide Levels, Trends and Outcomes,”Studies in Family Planning41, no. 4 (2010): 241–50, at 244.
23.
See Jones, supra note 13, at 5–9.
24.
GoldR. B.SonfieldA.RichardsC. L.FrostJ. J., “Next Steps for America's Family Planning Program: Leveraging the Potential of Medicaid and Title X in an Evolving Health Care System,”Guttmacher Institute (2009): At 6.
25.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014).
26.
Brief for the Guttmacher Institute and Professor Sara Rosenbaum as Amici Curiae Supporting the Government, at 4, Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014)
27.
Hobby Lobby, 134 S. Ct., at 2800 (GinsburgJ., dissenting).