New Mexico Right to Choose/NARAL v. Johnson

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a coverage exclusion that denied state funding for medically necessary abortions singled out for unfavorable treatment a sex-linked condition that is unique to women and is presumptively unconstitutional
• holding restrictions unconstitutional where statutory scheme did not require that services be eligible for federal matching funds
• explaining that the power of the court to confer standing “does not equate with rights of indiscriminate intervention” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
• finding that a coverage exclusion was not the least restrictive means of advancing the state’s interest in potential life because it permitted the denial of an abortion that was necessary because of the health of the fetus
• declaring a more robust guarantee of equal protection of the law than that provided by the federal constitution
• declaring a more robust guarantee of equal protection of the law than that provided by the federal constitution

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).