Create a new account

It's simple, and free.

WEBSTER v. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES

g of the Court was that the imposition of these duties did not violate the Due Process Clause.

In his opinion announcing the decision of the Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist said that the 8th Circuit in striking down the Preamble as unconstitutional had misconstrued Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416 (1983). The latter case held, Rehnquist said, that a state abortion regulation which was otherwise invalid under Roe v. Wade could not be justified on the ground that it embodied the state's view of when life begins. The Chief Justice said that Akron did not apply in this case because the Preamble was an abstract proposition which did not by its terms regulate abortion and that therefore the court need not decide as to its validity (427-428). Justices White, O'Connor, Scalia and Kennedy concurred in this finding. Rehnquist speculated that the Preamble might have been designed to confer rights on unborn fetuses in tort law and under the state probate code, which were the province of state court

...

< Prev Page 3 of 16 Next >

More on WEBSTER v. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES...

Loading...
APA     MLA     Chicago
WEBSTER v. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES. (1969, December 31). In LotsofEssays.com. Retrieved 10:45, May 18, 2024, from https://www.lotsofessays.com/viewpaper/1692639.html