Abortion Policy Before Roe: Grassroots and Interest-Group Mobilization

2001 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 463-478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemary Nossiff
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Interest Group ◽  
Abortion Policy ◽  
Elective Abortion ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Group Mobilization ◽  
Roe V Wade

In 1965 abortion was illegal in every state in America except when the woman's life was endangered. Eight years later, in its decision in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court held that a woman's decision to have an early elective abortion was constitutionally protected.

Shaping Policy Through Litigation: Abortion Law in the United States

1993 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Ann Farr
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
The United States ◽  
Abortion Policy ◽  
Abortion Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Roe V Wade

The criminalization of abortion in the United States began in the early 1800s and was nearly universal by the late 1800s. It was not until the middle of the 1900s that abortion reform gained momentum, culminating in 1973 in the Roe v. Wade decision that protected women's right to abortion. In this article it is argued that since Roe, litigation has been increasingly used to shape abortion policy. The rise of such litigation, as well as the kinds of issues and concerns raised by litigants, are described. The role played by the Supreme Court in changing the legal status of abortion is examined.

Roe v. Wade and the History of Abortion Regulation

1989 ◽  
Vol 15 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 227-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Benjamin Linton
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Personal Privacy ◽  
Personal Liberty ◽  
Personal Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Right Of Privacy ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Right Of Privacy ◽  
The Right ◽  
Roe V Wade

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court held that “[the] right of privacy … founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty … is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” The Court acknowledged that “[t]he Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.” Nevertheless, the Court held that a “right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.” However, “only personal rights that can be deemed ‘fundamental’ or ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’ … are included in this guarantee of personal privacy.”

scholarly journals Evoluzione della giurisprudenza costituzionale statunitense in materia d’aborto (II)

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Persano
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Single Case ◽  
The United States ◽  
Planned Parenthood ◽  
Abortion Debate ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Long Time ◽  
The Right ◽  
Roe V Wade

Negli Stati Uniti il dibattito sull’aborto è sempre un tema molto caldo. Questo saggio, diviso in due parti (la prima parte è stata pubblicata sul precedente numero della rivista) prova a ripercorrere l’evoluzione della giurisprudenza costituzionale statunitense in materia d’aborto, evidenziando i cambiamenti che ciascuna decisione ha apportato al quadro giuridico precedente. In questa seconda parte, la dissertazione sui singoli casi giurisprudenziali decisi dalla Suprema Corte prosegue con il caso Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Esso è stato una vera occasione mancata nella storia dell’aborto negli Stati Uniti, perchè venne sfiorata la overrule di Roe v. Wade. Ciononostante, venne sostanzialmente confermato l’impianto delle decisioni precedenti, in considerazione del fatto che una decisione contraria all’aborto avrebbe spiazzato un popolo che per decenni aveva organizzato la propria vita in funzione anche della possibilità di abortire. Con questa decisione si distinse la gravidanza in due periodi: quello della pre-viabilità, in cui la donna era completamente libera di abortire in accordo col medico; quello della post-viabilità, in cui gli Stati avrebbero potuto legiferare, pur dovendo consentire l’aborto nel caso di pericolo per la vita o la salute della madre. Inoltre il diritto d’aborto venne radicato nella libertà riconosciuta nel XIV Emendamento della Costituzione. Nel successivo caso Stenberg v. Carhart fu oggetto di giudizio l’aborto a nascita parziale: una legge del Nebraska aveva bandito questa pratica, ma la legge fu annullata dalla Corte Suprema, nonostante il duro dissenso di ben quattro giudici, fra cui Anthony Kennedy. Successivamente a questa decisione, il Congresso prese l’iniziativa di emanare il Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Questa legge fu impugnata in via d’azione davanti alla Corte Suprema e ne scaturì la sentenza Gonzalez v. Carhart. In questa decisione la Corte fece un passo indietro rispetto a Stenberg, affermò la legittimità del bando, sostenne che l’aborto a nascita parziale non è mai necessario per tutelare la vita della donna e che Stenberg era fondato su convinzioni erronee sul punto. Il saggio si conclude con delle interessanti considerazioni in merito ai possibili sviluppi futuri circa il tema dell’aborto negli Stati Uniti, auspica la “liberalizzazione del diritto alla vita” ed avanza una originale proposta, valida per tutti i Paesi in cui l’aborto è legalizzato. ---------- Abortion debate is always a hot subject in the United States. This essay, divided into two parts (the first part has been published on the previous issue of this review) tries to go along the development of U.S. constitutional caselaw about abortion, pointing out the change that each judgement caused to the previous law framework. In this second part, the dissertation about U.S. Supreme Court single case-law goes on by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It was a real missed occasion in the abortion affair in the United States, because it was on the verge of overruling Roe v. Wade. However, the framework of the previous cases was substantially confirmed, considering that a decision against abortion would place out people who for a long time organized their own life in connection to the right of abortion. By this judgement, pregnancy was divided into two periods: pre-viability, when woman was completely free to have an abortion in agreement with her doctor; post-viability, when States could restrict abortion, except for woman life or health risks. Moreover, abortion right was founded on liberty, acknowledged by XIV Amendement. In the following case Gonzalez v. Carhart, partial-birth abortion was judged: a statute of Nebraska banned this activity, but it was stroked down by Supreme Court, despite of the dissenting opinion of four judges (Anthony Kennedy was one of them). After this judgement, the Congress wanted to issue Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. This statute was pre-enforcement challenged to the Supreme Court, and Gonzalez v. Carhart was poured. In this judgment, the Court drew back Stenberg, it stated the ban was legitimate, partial-birth abortion never is necessary to safeguard woman health, and Stenberg was founded on wrong beliefs on this matter. This essay concludes with interesting considerations about possible developments about abortion affair in the United States, wishes “liberty of right to life” and proposes a solution for all the countries where abortion is legal.

BECOMING HUMAN

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1978 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-7
Author(s):  
Christopher Jenks
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Body ◽  
Human Suffering ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Arbitrary Decision ◽  
Real Person ◽  
The Right ◽  
Roe V Wade

Opponents of abortion sometimes argue that a fetus "wants" to grow up into a real person. But every egg and sperm also "want" to become a person in this sense. And if that is the case, how can one defend either contraception or celibacy, both of which deny life to millions of eggs and sperms that "want" to become people, and both of which also involve repression of "natural" impulses? The question of whether abortion is morally wrong depends on when we become "human." Unfortunately, this does not happen all at once, as in medieval fantasies of the soul's entering the body. It happens bit by bit. We must therefore make some arbitrary decision about when to confer the "right to life." Because nature offers no clear guidance about where this line should be drawn, the most humane solution is to draw it so as to minimize human suffering. I doubt, however, that opponents of abortion will accept this approach, for once you accept it, you will almost inevitably be led to precisely the same "liberal" conclusion the Supreme Court reached five years ago in Roe v. Wade.

The Role of Stare Decisis in the Reconsideration of Roe v. Wade

1989 ◽  
Vol 15 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 204-210
Author(s):  
Albert P. Blaustein ◽  
Edward R. Grant ◽  
Ann-Louise Lohr ◽  
Kevin J. Todd
Keyword(s):  
Reproductive Health ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Reproductive Health Services ◽  
Stare Decisis ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Abortion Laws ◽  
Roe V Wade

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services represented the first occasion in which a state, defending a challenge to its abortion laws, called for the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade. This opportunity presented a two-fold challenge to those engaged in seeking the reversal of Roe through the courts. First was to persuade the Court that Roe had been erroneously decided. Second was to overcome the defense of Roe premised upon stare decisis.Two briefs, representing separate groups of Members of Congress and Senators as amici, were filed on behalf of the appellants, each addressed to one of these challenges.

“Sound Law and Undoubtedly Good Policy”: Roe v. Wade in Comparative Perspective

1995 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Mylchreest
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Medical Procedure ◽  
Patient Relationship ◽  
Personal Choice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Abortion Laws ◽  
Good Policy ◽  
Roe V Wade

The Supreme Court changed abortion laws across the United States on 22 January 1973. Abortion had been illegal in many states, and in others a closely regulated medical procedure. In only four states did the law provide a broad right to terminate a pregnancy in the early months. Roe v. Wade declared that this right in the context of the doctor-patient relationship was protected by the Constitution's “right to privacy.” In practice, abortion became a matter of personal choice.

scholarly journals Abortion and the Supreme Court: The Retreat from Roe v. Wade

1989 ◽  
Vol 138 (1) ◽  
pp. 83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter Dellinger ◽  
Gene B. Sperling
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Roe V Wade
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document