and injunctive relief challenging the constitutionality of a Missouri state statute regulating abortions. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri declared several portions of statute unconstitutional and permanently enjoined their enforcement. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court led to a reversal, with the central decision holding that the statutory ban on the use of public employees and facilities for the performance of nontherapeutic abortions did not contravene the Constitution.
Many felt that this would be an opportunity for a conservative Supreme Court to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, on the assumption that a conservative Court would want to do just that. Yet, the Court has not overturned Roe v. Wade at all, and has indeed affirmed it. Only Justice Scalia wanted to reconsider and explicitly overrule Roe v. Wade when considering the issue in Webster. The Court as a whole, however, seems to have avoided doing this by deciding the case in as narrow a manner as possible. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the Webster decision. This decision does not address the issue of abortion itself directly but rather confines itself to the issue of whether the state can compel its medical employees not to perform certain procedures and whether the state can refuse to pay for certain procedures. Rehnquist cited earlier cases that had rejected the claim that the unequal subsidization of childbirth and abortion was impermissible under Roe v. Wade. These cases had also held that the State could use public facilities and staff to encourage childbirth over abortion without being seen as placing a governmental obstacle in the path of a woman choosing to have an abortion. The State had also been held not to be required to commit any resources to facilitating abortions.
The Missouri Act involved in the Webster decision contained three provisions...