1620; see also City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 448-49, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985). a. Singling out Doctors who Provide Abortions Plaintiffs argue that discrimination between abortion and comparable medical procedures should be subject to strict scrutiny because it impacts abortion rights as well as informational privacy rights, and both of these are fundamental rights protected by the due process clause. They argue that this claim is not the same as a claim that the scheme unconstitutionally infringes the abortion liberty interest, because the test for when a law is subject to strict scrutiny is when that law impacts a fundamental right, not when it infringes it. See Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 638, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969) (<HOLDING>), overruled in part on .other grounds by
holding that it would be inappropriate to predict whether state law would foreclose state postconviction review of the petitioners habeas claim where the state permitted second or successive state petitions when the procedural bar would result in fundamental injustice holding that when information which potentially undermines the best interest of the child as well as the interest sought to be protected by the legitimation statutes and the policy of this state it must first be tested in light of the best interest of the child standard holding that a federal court must decide an issue regarding the interpretation of a state law according to its anticipation of how the highest state court would hold holding that an order to clean up a toxic waste site was a claim dischargeable under the code because it constituted a required payment of money under state law because congress has generally left the determination of property rights in the assets of a bankrupts estate to state law butner v united states the classification of ohios interest as either a lien on the property itself a perfected security interest or merely an unsecured claim depends on ohio law that classification  a question not before us  generally determines the priority of the states claim to the assets of the estate relative to other creditors cf 11 usc  545 thus a state may protect its interest in the enforcement of its environmental laws by giving cleanup judgments the status of statutory liens or secured claims holding that because a classification of welfare applicants according to whether they have lived in the state for one year  touches on the fundamental right of interstate movement its constitutionality must be judged by the stricter standard of whether it promotes a compelling state interest