WEBSTER v. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES

This research paper presents and analyzes the facts, issues, holdings and reasoning of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989), and provides an evaluation of the opinions of various members of the Court in that case. The principal significance of the case lies in the fact that a divided court for the first time substantially modified in effect, if not in so many words, the holding of the leading case in the field of abortion, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

Appellees, five health professionals, including three physicians, a nurse and a social worker employed by agencies of the State of Missouri, and two health professionals employed by non-profit organizations which provided abortion services in that state, brought a class action against Webster, the Attorney General of Missouri, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri for declaratory relief and an injunction which challenged the constitutionality of a Missouri statute, MO. REV. STAT. Sections 1.205 et seq. That statute, which had been enacted in June, 1986, regulated certain aspects of abortions performed in that state. The District Court struck down seven provisions of that statute and issued an injunction against its enforcement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit (hereafter the 8th Circuit) affirmed the decision of the District Court based on the hold

. . .
essed in Roe v. Wade and in Coloutti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 388-389 (1979), which he said had made "constitutional law in this area a virtual Procrustean bed" (435). Such a distinction, he said, was "unsound in principle and unworkable in practice" (421). In his view, the state had a legitimate interest in prescribing procedures for determining when a fetus had viability and that the "requirement of these tests permissibly furthers the state's interest in protecting human life" (437). He viewed the requirement that such tests and examinations be run after the 20 week point as reflective of a presumption by the state that the fetus was viable at that time which the physician would have to rebut through such tests and examinations. He also indicated that he believed that the states have compelling interests in the life of the mother and the welfare of the unborn child throughout the pregnancy and not only after the first trimester, which was a departure from the holding of Roe v. Wade.In her concurring opinion, Justice O'Connor went into this subject in greater depth. She stated that "it is not unconstitutionally impermissible for the State to enact regulations designed to protect [its] interests in potential life when viabilit
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Justice Stevens, Roe Wade, Justice Blackmun, Justice O'Connor, Webster Court, Supreme Court, Coloutti Franklin, Fourteenth Amendment, Blackmun Missouri, Rehnquist Blackmun, roe wade, justice stevens, justice blackmun, fetus viable, 8th circuit, webster court, 14th amendment, holding roe, provisions statute, non-life saving, due process clause, holding roe wade, non-life saving abortions, public facilities personnel, constitutional 14th amendment,
Approximate Word count = 4046
Approximate Pages = 16 (250 words per page)

More Essays on WEBSTER v. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES