Webster v Reproductive Health: Syllabus
Concur #1 |
Concur #2 |
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
WEBSTER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, ET AL
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES, ET AL
No. 88-605. Argued April 26, 1989 -- Decided July 3, 1989
Appellees, state-employed health professionals and private nonprofit
corporations providing abortion services, brought suit in the District
declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the constitutionality of a
Missouri statute regulating the performance of abortions. The statute,
inter alia: (1) sets forth "findings" in its preamble that "[t]he life
of each human being begins at conception," and that "unborn children have
protectable interests in life, health, and well-being," §§1.205.1(1),
(2), and requires
that all state laws be interpreted to provide unborn children with the same
rights enjoyed by other persons, subject to the Federal Constitution and this
Court's precedents, §1.205.2; (2) specifies that a physician, prior to
performing an abortion on any woman whom he has reason to believe is 20 or more
weeks pregnant, must ascertain whether the fetus is "viable" by performing
"such medical examinations and tests as are necessary to make a finding of [the
fetus'] gestational age, weight, and lung maturity," §188.029; (3)
the use of public employees and facilities to perform or assist
abortions not necessary to save the mother's life, §§188.210,
188.215; and (4)
makes it unlawful to use public funds, employees, or facilities for the purpose
of "encouraging or counseling" a woman to have an abortion not necessary to
save her life, §§ 188.205, 188.210, 188.215. The District Court
struck down each of the above provisions, among others, and enjoined their
Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that the provisions in question violated this
Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, and subsequent cases.
Held: The judgment is reversed.
Rehnquist, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court
and delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Part II-C, the
opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II-A, and II-B, in which White,
O'Connor, Scalia, and Kennedy, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to
Parts II-D and III, in which White and Kennedy, JJ., joined.
O'Connor, J., post, p. 522, and
Scalia, J., post, p. 532, filed opinions concurring
in part and concurring in the judgment.
Blackmun, J., filed an opinion concurring
in part and dissenting in part, in which Brennan and Marshall, JJ., joined,
post, p. 537.
Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and
dissenting in part, post, p. 560.
Concur #1 |
Concur #2 |
Posted 9 Sep 2000.
Copyright 2000 by Pregnant Pause
Contact Pregnant Pause