|
|
|
|
|
Webster V. Reproductive Health ServicesWebster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989) was a United States Supreme Court decision on July 3, 1989 that some believe in part compromised Roe v. Wade's protection of abortion rights. Specifically, it approved a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on the use of state funds, facilities and employees in performing, assisting with, or conseling on abortions. The Supreme Court thus allowed for states to legislate in an area that had been previously been thought to be forbidden under Roe. 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 constituion, and federal court rulings.
- any doctor performing an abortion he beleives to be at least 20 weeks pregnant must determine whether the fetus is viable prior to performing the abortion, and limited abortions where the fetus was determined to be viable
- prohibits the use of state employees or facilities to perform or assists abortions, except where the mother's life is in danger
- prohibits the use of public funds, employees, or facilities to "encourage or counsel" a woman to have an abortion, except where her life is 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. The Supreme Court's decision The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the lower court stating that: - The court does not need to consider the constituionality of the laws 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 or facilities do not violate any of the Court's abortion decisions. No affirmitive right to the use of state aid for nontherapeutic abortions exists. The state can allocate resources in favor of childbirth over abortion if it so chooses. As the state was not restricting a womans choice to obtain an abortion, but only the ability to do so at a state ran facility, it does not violate any prior ruling of the Court.
- provision regarding the use of public funds is reinstated
- provisions requring testing for viability after 20 weeks of pregancy are consitutional, but those limiting abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy are unconsitutional
References
|
 |
|
| Copyright 2005-2009 OnPedia.com. All Rights Reserved |
|
|