Legal Opinion

Hope v. Perales

New York Court of Appeals

Decided May 5, 1994PublishedCited by 44 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Chief Judge Kaye.

At issue is the validity, under the State Constitution, of New York’s Prenatal Care Assistance Program (PCAP) (Public Health Law § 2520 et seq.). Plaintiffs claim that the statute is facially unconstitutional by reason of underinclusiveness, for its failure to include medically necessary abortions in a prenatal care public funding scheme for women with incomes up to 85% over the Federal poverty level (meaning annual income for a single pregnant woman of between $9,840 and $18,204). 1 We now reverse the Appellate Division order and declare the statute…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Sherbert v. VernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  4. Harris v. McRaeSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  5. Regan v. Taxation With Representation of WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by44 opinions

  1. People v. KnoxNew York Court of Appeals · 2009
  2. Hernandez v. RoblesNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
  3. New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. JohnsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1998
  4. State, Department of Health & Social Services v. Planned Parenthood of Alaska, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Women of the State v. GomezSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1995

39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API