Final answer:
Senator Gorson's argument is best classified as an argument from consequences, focusing on the negative outcomes of adolescent abortions without parental consent. His argument involves claims that could potentially be interpreted as logical fallacies. The Supreme Court has ruled on various restrictions related to abortion, considering measures that present substantial obstacles to be undue burdens.
Step-by-step explanation:
Understanding the Argument of Senator Gorson:
Senator Gorson’s case for requiring parental consent for adolescent girls’ abortions revolves around an argument that may contain several logical fallacies. However, the logical fallacy that best fits his argument as described in the question is likely argument from consequences, as he focuses on the medically dangerous aspect of abortions. The identified logical fallacies listed as options include: Argument from consequences Slippery slope fallacy False dilemma fallacy Appeal to authority
Regarding the Supreme Court and abortion, options such as parental consent for minors and spousal notification might be considered burdensome. Yet, the Supreme Court has specifically weighed in on what constitutes an undue burden in relation to abortion rights. In past decisions, measures that have the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus have been considered an undue burden. For example, the Court found spousal notification to be an undue burden in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.