| Webster V. Reproductive Health Services |
Article Index for Webster |
Website Links For Webster |
Information AboutWebster V. Reproductive Health Services |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES | |
| 1989 in law | |
| court cases litigated by the american civil liberties union | |
| substantive due process cases | |
| united states first amendment case law | |
| united states fourteenth amendment case law | |
| united states supreme court cases | |
| united states abortion case law | |
|
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE The state of Missouri passed a Law which, in its preamble, stated that "the life of each human being begins at Conception " and "unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being". The statute # required that all Missouri state laws be interpreted to provide unborn children with rights equal to those enjoyed by other persons, subject to limits imposed by the federal constitution, and federal court rulings; # prohibited doctors from aborting a fetus they believed to be viable; # prohibited the use of state employees or facilities to perform or assist abortions, except where the mother's life was in danger; and # prohibited the use of public funds, employees, or facilities to "encourage or counsel" a woman to have an abortion, except where her life was in danger. The Federal District Court struck down the above provisions, and prohibited their enforcement. This decision was affirmed by the Court Of Appeals , which ruled that above provisions violated '' Roe V. Wade '' and later Supreme Court decisions. William L. Webster , then Attorney General for the state of Missouri , appealed the decision to the Supreme Court . It was argued before the Court on April 26 , 1989 . THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the lower court, stating that: # The court did not need to consider the constitutionality of the law's preamble, as it is not used to justify any Abortion regulation otherwise invalid under '' Roe V. Wade ''. # The prohibitions on the use of public employees, facilities, and funds did not violate any of the Court's abortion decisions, as no affirmative right to the use of state aid for nontherapeutic Abortion s existed. The state could allocate resources in favor of childbirth over Abortion if it so chose. # Provisions requiring testing for viability after 20 weeks of pregnancy were constitutional, but those limiting abortions in the second Trimester of pregnancy were unconstitutional. THE CONCURRENCES Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia wrote separate concurring opinions. O'Connor claimed that overturning '' Roe V. Wade '' in the context of the ''Webster'' litigation, where upholding Missouri's law could arguably be squared with ''Roe'', would violate an important principle of judicial restraint. She then explained that she voted to uphold Missouri's law because she did not feel that it would place an undue burden on the right to abortion. Scalia, who was angered by the refusal of the plurality, especially O'Connor, to overturn ''Roe v. Wade'', wrote a sharp opinion concurring in the judgment. In his concurrence, he argued that the Court should have overturned ''Roe'', rather than attempting to uphold both ''Roe'' and the laws at issue, and he attacked O'Connor's justification for declining to overturn ''Roe''. REFERENCES
|
|
|