Download Reproductive Freedom Chapter

7/31/2019 Download Reproductive Freedom Chapter

1/8

120018thStreet,N.W.,Suite1002,Washington,D.C.20036 www.theusconstitution.org

WilltheSupremeCourtContinuetoChip

AwayAt,orOverrule,theConstitutions

ProtectionofReproductiveChoice?

TheConstitutionataCrossroads

Introduction

WedonthavetoseeaRoev.WadeoverturnedintheSupremeCourttoendit....Wewantto.Butif

wechipawayandchipaway,wellfindoutthatRoereallyhasnoimpact.Andthatswhatweare

doing.

PatMahoney,ChristianDefenseCoalition

NoissuehasdividedtheSupremeCourtmoresharply,alongideologicallines,thanthequestion

whethertheConstitutionprotectsafundamentalrighttoreproductivechoice.Inthenearlyfortyyears

sincetheCourtdecidedRoev.Wade,1theJusticeshavevehementlydisagreedaboutwhetherthe

ConstitutionprotectsfundamentalrightsnotexplicitlyenumeratedinthetextoftheConstitution,about

whetherawomansrighttoreproductivechoiceisoneofthefundamentalrightsthatstatesmust

respect,andabouthowcourtsshouldreviewstatelawsrestrictingthatright.In1992,afterbeing

repeatedlyurgedyearafteryearbytheJusticeDepartmentunderPresidentsRonaldReaganandGeorge

H.W.BushtooverruleRoe,theSupremeCourt,inits5-4rulingin PlannedParenthoodv.Casey,2

substantiallyreaffirmedtheruling,relyinginlargemeasureonthedoctrineof staredecisis.Surprising

virtuallyeveryone,JusticeKennedy,whohadjoinedtheanti- Roeblocindecisionsupholdingrestrictive

lawsin1989,1990,and1991,3becamethefifthvotetoreaffirmRoesprotectionofarightto

reproductivefreedom.SinceCasey,JusticeKennedyhasdriftedbacktotherightonthisissue,joining

theCourtsconservativeJusticesinapairofdecisionsconcerningtheconstitutionalityoffederaland

statelawsbanningso-calledpartialbirthabortions.4Inthesecases,JusticeKennedyaloneamong

Roessupportersgaveanarrowconstructiontoconstitutionalprotectionforreproductivefreedom

andabroadonetotheauthorityofstatestoenactlawsthatpromotethepotentiallifeofthefetus.

Today,almosttwodecadesafterCasey,Roestillhangsonbyathread,withsupportersofa

womansrighttoreproductivefreedomdependentonthevoteofJusticeKennedy,whohasonlyonce

1410U.S.113(1973).2505U.S.833(1992).3SeeWebsterv.Reprod.HealthServs.,492U.S.490(1989);Ohiov.AkronCtr.ForReproductiveHealth,497U.S.

502(1990);Hodgsonv.Minnesota,497U.S.417(1990);Rustv.Sullivan,500U.S.173(1991).4Gonzalesv.Carhart,550U.S.124(2007)(opinionoftheCourtauthoredbyKennedy,J.);Stenbergv.Carhart,530

U.S.914,956-79(2000)(Kennedy,J.,dissenting).


2/8

Crossroads:ReproductiveFreedom Page|2

inCaseyitselfvotedtostrikedownarestrictivestatelaw.5Duringthelastseveralyears,theJustices

havebeensilentontheseissues,butinthewakeofthe2010elections,stateafterstatehaspassednew

restrictions,requiringawomantoviewasonogramofthefetus,receivepotentiallymisleadingmedical

informationabouttherisksofabortion,and,inonestate,evensubmittoaninterviewandcounselingby

membersofananti-abortioncrisispregnancycenter.6Otherstateshavegoneeverfurther,banningall

abortionsaftertwentyweeksofpregnancy. 7Overthenextdecade,SupremeCourtdecisionsthat

addresstheconstitutionalityofthesemeasureswillgivetheCourtsconservativesfurtheropportunities

tochipawayatawomansrighttoreproductivechoice,possiblyevensettingthestageforafuture

showdownoverRoeitself.

TheGreatDebateovertheConstitutionsProtectionofSubstantiveLiberty

Thereislittledoubt,inthewordsofChiefJusticeRobertsduringhisconfirmationhearingsthat,

undertheConstitution,libertyisprotectednotsimplyprocedurally,butasasubstantivematteras

well.8IndraftingtheFourteenthAmendment,theframersexplainedthattheAmendmentwould

foreverdisableeveryoneofthe[][States]frompassinglawstrenchingupon...fundamentalrightsandprivileges.

9ThelistofsubstantivefundamentalrightstheFourteenthAmendmentwasdesignedto

protectbeganwiththeBillofRights,butitdidnotendthere.Theframersregularlyaffirmedalonglist

offundamentalrightssuchastherighttofreedomofmovement,therighttobodilyintegrity,andthe

righttohaveafamilyanddirecttheupbringingofoneschildrenthathavenoobvioustextualbasisin

theBillofRights.10Thesewerecorerightsofpersonallibertyandpersonalsecurity;itdidnotmatter

thattheywerenotenumeratedelsewhereintheConstitution.WhiletheframersoftheFourteenth

AmendmentdesignedthePrivilegesorImmunitiesClausetobethenaturaltextualhomefor...

unenumeratedrights,11theSupremeCourtguttedthatClauseinits1873decisioninthe Slaughter-

HouseCases12and,eversince,theCourthasturnedtotheAmendmentsDueProcessClausetoprotect

substantivefundamentalrights.13

5Casey,505U.S.at887-898(strikingdownhusband-notificationprovision).6Foradescriptionofthenewlaws,seeDahliaLithwick,TheDeathofRoev.Wade,SLATE,April19,2011.7SeeErikEckholm,SeveralStatesForbidAbortionAfter20Weeks,N.YTIMES,June26,2011.8ConfirmationHearingontheNominationofJohnG.Roberts,Jr.tobeChiefJusticeoftheUnitedStates,109

th

Cong.,1stSess.,Sen.Hrg.109-158,at147(2005).

9Cong.Globe,39thCong.,1stSess.2766(1866).10SeeDAVIDH.GANS&DOUGLAST.KENDALL,THEGEMOFTHECONSTITUTION:THETEXTANDHISTORYOFTHEPRIVILEGESOR

IMMUNITIESCLAUSEOFTHEFOURTEENTHAMENDMENT7-8(2008).11MichaelJ.Gerhardt,TheRippleEffectsofSlaughter-House:ACritiqueoftheNegativeRightsViewofthe

Constitution,43VAND.L.REV.409(1990).FordiscussionofthetextandhistoryofthePrivilegesorImmunities

Clause,seeGANS&KENDALL,THEGEMOFTHECONSTITUTION,supra.1283U.S.(16Wall.)36(1873).

13See,e.g.,Meyerv.Nebraska,262U.S.390(1923);Piercev.SocietyofSisters,268U.S.510(1926);Griswoldv.

Connecticut,381U.S.465(1965);Lovingv.Virginia,388U.S.1(1967).


3/8


InRoe,Casey,andmanyothercases,theSupremeCourthasreaffirmedthattheDueProcess

ClauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentnowsometimescalledtheLibertyClause14securestoall

personsarealmofpersonallibertythatthegovernmentmaynotenter.15InCasey,inajointopinion

authoredbyJusticesAnthonyKennedy,SandraDayOConnor,andDavidSouter,a5-4majorityofthe

CourtreasonedthattheConstitutionsprotectionofsubstantivelibertysafeguardstherightofself-

determinationandautonomyconcerningpersonaldecisionsrelatingtomarriage,procreation,

contraception,familyrelationships,andeducation....Thesematters,involvingthemostintimateand

personalchoicesapersonmaymakeinalifetime,choicescentraltopersonaldignityandautonomy,are

centraltothelibertyprotectedbytheFourteenthAmendment.16Caseyrecognizedthatwomens

reproductivefreedomwascriticaltotheirequalcitizenship.Ifwomenweretobeself-governing

citizens,theStatecouldnotinsistuponitsownvisionofthewomansrole,howeverdominantthat

visionhasbeeninthecourseofourhistoryandourculture.Thedestinyofthewomanmustbeshaped.

..onherownconceptionofherspiritualimperativesandherplaceinsociety.17Thus,asJusticeRuth

BaderGinsburgputitmorerecently,legalchallengestounduerestrictionsonabortionproceduresdo

notseektovindicatesomegeneralizednotionofprivacy;rather,theycenteronawomansautonomyto

determineherlifecourse,andthustoenjoyequalcitizenshipstature. 18

ThedissentersinRoe,Casey,andotherreproductivefreedomcasesfirmlyrejectedthenotion

thattheDueProcessClauseshouldbereadtoprotecttherighttoreproductivefreedom. Roe,Casey

andothersrulingsinthisarea,theycharged,wereanewmodeofconstitutionaladjudicationthatrelies

notontextandtraditionalpracticestodeterminethelawbutuponwhattheCourtcallsreasoned

judgment,whichturnsouttobenothingbutphilosophicalpredilectionandmoralintuition.19There

wasnobasis,theyargued,forextendingconstitutionalprotectiontoarightthathasnogroundinginthe

traditionsoftheAmericanpeople,andwasproscribedbythestatesformanyyears.AsChiefJustice

RehnquistexplainedinhisCaseydissent,[a]tthetimeoftheadoptionoftheFourteenthAmendment,

statutoryprohibitionsorrestrictionsonabortionwerecommonplace;in1868,atleast28ofthethen-37

statesand8Territorieshadstatutesbanningorlimitingabortion.Bytheturnofthecenturyvirtually

everyStatehadalawprohibitingorrestrictingabortiononitsbooks...21oftherestrictivelawsin

effectin1868werestillineffectin1973when Roewasdecided....Onthisrecord,itcanscarcelybe

saidthatanydeeplyrootedtradition...supportedclassificationoftherighttoabortionas

fundamentalundertheDueProcessClause....20

14SeeMcDonaldv.CityofChicago,130S.Ct.3020,3091-92(2010)(Stevens,J.,dissenting);ConfirmationHearing

ontheNominationofElenaKagantobeAssociateJusticeoftheSupremeCourt(June29,2010)(availableat

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/KAGANHEARINGSDAY2.pdf).15Casey,505U.S.at847.

16Id.at851.

17Id.at852.

18Gonzales,550U.S.at172(Ginsburg,J.,dissenting).

19Casey,505U.S.at1000(Scalia,J.,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart).

20Id.at952(Rehnquist,C.J.,concurringinpartindissentinginpart);id.at980(Scalia,J.,concurringinpartand

dissentinginpart)(arguingthatthelongstandingtraditionsofAmericansocietypermit[abortion]tobelegally

proscribed).


4/8


Further,thedissentersarguedthattherighttoterminateapregnancywasdifferentfromother

substantiveconstitutionalrightstheCourthadrecognized.Onecannotignorethefactthatawomanis

notisolatedinherpregnancy,andthatthedecisiontoabortnecessarilyinvolvesthedestructionofthe

fetus.21Thewholeargumentofabortionopponents,JusticeScaliaobserved,isthatwhattheCourt

callsthefetusandwhatotherscalltheunbornchild isahumanlife.Thus,whateveranswerRoecame

upwith...isboundtobewrong,unlessitiscorrectthatthehumanfetusisinsomecriticalsense

merelypotentiallyhuman.Thereisofcoursenowaytodeterminethatasalegalmatter;itisinfacta

valuejudgment.22Thus,thedissentersconcludedthat Roeandtheentirelineofcasesfollowingit

shouldbeoverruledandweshouldgetoutofthisareawherewehavenorighttobe,andwherewedo

neitherourselvesnorthecountryanygoodbyremaining.23

TheEmergingUndueBurdenStandard

Bya5-4vote,anarrowmajorityoftheCourtin Caseyrejectedtheseargumentsforoverturning

Roe,andcraftedtheundueburdenstandardtogovernchallengestorestrictiveabortionlaws.While

JusticesKennedy,OConnor,andSouterjoinedJusticeHarryBlackmunandJusticeJohnPaulStevensinreaffirmingRoesessentialholding,

24thejointopiniondepartedfrom Roeinsignificantmeasureby

givingstatesbroadleewaytoenactregulationstopromotethestatesinterestinthepotentiallifeofthe

fetusthroughoutpregnancy.Under Caseysundueburdenstandard,statesmaynotimposeregulations

withthepurposeoreffectofplacingasubstantialobstacleinthepathofthewomanseekingan

abortionofannonviablefetus,25buttheymaytakemeasurestoensurethatthewomanschoiceis

informed,includinggivingtruthful,non-misleadinginformationdesignedtopersuadethewomanto

choosechildbirthoverabortion.26Asthejointopinionputit,[w]hatisatstakeisthewomansrightto

maketheultimatedecision,notarighttobeinsulatedfromallothersindoingso.Regulationswhichdo

nomorethancreateastructuralmechanismbywhichtheState,ortheparentorguardianofaminor,

mayexpressprofoundrespectforthelifeoftheunbornarepermitted,iftheyarenotasubstantial

obstacletothewomansexerciseoftherighttochoose.27AsJusticeKennedylaterwrote, Casey...

struckabalancegivingtheState,fromtheinceptionofpregnancy...itsownregulatoryinterestin

protectingthelifeofthefetusthatmaybecomeachild....28Citingthisbalance,JusticeKennedyhas

consistentlysidedwiththeCourtsconservativesinrejectingchallengestoabortionregulations.29

Today,thecontoursofCaseysundueburdenstandardarestilluncertain.Inthelastdecade,

theCourthasgrantedplenaryreviewofcasesinvolvingabortionrestrictionsonlytwice,inboth

instancesreviewingtheconstitutionalityoflawsprohibitingso-calledpartialbirthabortions,amethod

21Id.at952(Rehnquist,C.J.,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart).

22Id.at982(Scalia,J.,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart)(emphasisinoriginal).23Id.at1002(Scalia,J.,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart).

24Casey,505U.S.at846.

25Id.at877.

26Id.at878.

27Id.

28Gonzales,550U.S.at146,158.

29See,e.g.Websterv.Reprod.HealthServs.,492U.S.490(1989);Rustv.Sullivan,500U.S.173(1991);Stenbergv.

Carhart,530U.S.914,956-79(2000)(Kennedy,J.,dissenting);Gonzalesv.Carhart,550U.S.124(2007).


5/8


ofabortionusedafterthefirsttrimesterofpregnancy.30Notably,theselawscriminalizedpartialbirth

abortionsevenwhentheprohibitedprocedurewastheonebestsuitedtosafeguardthehealthofthe

woman.Inapairofsharplydivided5-4rulings,theCourtin2000 struckdownaNebraskalawin

Stenbergv.Carhartandthen,in2007,followingJusticeOConnorsretirementandJusticeAlitos

confirmationtosucceedher, upheldasimilarfederalbaninGonzalesv.Carhart,withJusticeAlitosiding

withtheStenbergdissenters.31WhiletheopinionoftheCourtin Gonzalestrieditsbesttodistinguish

Stenberg,insistingthatthefederalbanwasnarrowerthantheNebraskalaw,JusticeKennedysopinion

fortheCourtsconservativemajorityeffectivelyoverruledthe2000rulingandrejecteditsreasoning.32

AsthefourdissentingJusticesobserved,theCourt,differentlycomposedthanitwaswhenwelast

consideredarestrictiveabortionregulation,ishardlyfaithfultoourearlierinvocationsoftheruleof

lawandtheprinciplesof staredecisis.33

InGonzales,JusticeKennedysopinionfortheCourtheldthatthePartial-BirthAbortionBanAct

(theAct)wasaconstitutionallypermissibleefforttoprotectpotentiallifewithoutimpingingonthe

womansliberty,consistentwiththebalancestruckinCasey.Whateveronesviewsconcerningthe

Caseyjointopinion,itisevidentthatapremisecentraltoitsconclusionthatthegovernmenthasalegitimateandsubstantialinterestinpreservingandpromotingfetallifewouldberepudiatedwere

theCourttostrikedownthefederalban.34TheCourtsfive-Justiceconservativemajorityreasonedthat

thegovernmenthadamplepowertoforbidphysiciansfromperformingpartialbirthabortions,

proceduresthatCongresssingledoutasespeciallygruesomeandethicallysuspect,35andthatcouldbe

particularlyemotionallydamagingtowomenwhocametoregrettheirdecisiontohaveanabortion.36

WhilerecognizingthatCaseyhadreaffirmedthatanabortionregulationmustcontainanexceptionto

protectawomanshealth,JusticeKennedyrefusedtointerpret[] Caseysrequirementofahealth

exceptionsothatitbecomestantamounttoallowingadoctortochoosetheabortionmethodheorshe

mightprefer,explainingthatthelawneednotgiveabortiondoctorsunfetteredchoiceinthecourseof

theirmedicalpractice.... 37Giventhealternativemethodsofabortionavailable,JusticeKennedy

concludedthattheActdidnotimposeanundueburden.

Inasharplywordeddissent,JusticeGinsburg,joinedbyJusticesBreyer,Souter,andStevens,

arguedthattheActandtheCourtsdefenseofit,cannotbeunderstoodasanythingotherthanan

30Intwoothercases,theCourtissuedpercuriamsummaryreversalsthatbrokenonewlegalground,upholding

challengedstatelawsundertheCourtspriorprecedents.SeeLambertv.Wicklund,520U.S.292(1997)(upholding

Montanasparentalnotificationrequirementwithjudicialbypass);Mazurekv.Armstrong,520U.S.968(1997)

(upholdingMontanastatuterequiringthatabortionsbeperformedbylicensedphysicians).31Stenbergv.Carhart,530U.S.914(2000);Gonzalesv.Carhart,550U.S.124(2007).JusticeOConnorprovided

thefifthvotetostrikedowntheNebraskastatuteinStenberg;followingherretirement,JusticeAlitovotedwith

thedissentersinStenbergtoupholdthefederalbanonso-calledpartialbirthabortions.32CompareStenbergv.Carhart,530U.S.914(2000)withGonzalesv.Carhart,550U.S.124(2007).Onstealth

overruling,seeBarryFriedman,TheWagesofStealthOverruling(WithParticularAttentiontoMirandav.Arizona),

99GEO.L.J.1(2010).33Gonzales,550U.S.at191(Ginsburg,J.,dissenting).

34Id.at145.

35Id.at158(callingtheprocedureladenwiththepowertodevaluehumanlife).

36Id.at159-60.

37Id.at158,163.


6/8


efforttochipawayatarightdeclaredagainandagainbythisCourtandwithincreasing

comprehensionofitscentralitytowomenslives.38Byupholdingthefederalban,JusticeGinsburg

explained,theCourtdepriveswomenoftherighttomakeanautonomouschoice,evenattheexpense

oftheirsafetyandforthefirsttimesince Roe...blessesaprohibitionwithnoexceptionsafeguarding

awomanshealth.39JusticeGinsburgfoundthesuggestionthattheActfurtheredanyinterestin

protectingpotentiallifebaseless,explainingthatthelawsavesnotasinglefetusfromdestructionforit

targetsonlyamethodofperformingabortion.40

PossibleDevelopmentsintheFuture

Themostdramaticpotentialfuturedevelopmentintheareaofreproductivefreedomwouldbe

iftheCourtagainreviewedandthistimeoverturned RoesessentialholdingthattheConstitution

protectsafundamentalrighttoreproductivechoice.Thisseemsunlikelywiththecurrentmake-upof

theCourtand,inparticular,givenJusticeKennedysrulingin Caseyandhissubsequentopinionin

Lawrencev.Texas,41whichreliedheavilyonCaseyinprotectingarighttointimatesexualconduct.But

itcertainlyispossiblethattheCourtwouldoverturn RoeifJusticeKennedyoroneoftheCourtsmoreliberaljusticeswerereplacedbythenomineeofaconservativePresident.

Themoreimmediatebattlegroundoverreproductivechoicewillalmostcertainlybethenew

restrictivestatelaws,manyenactedthroughoutthecountryin2011.Theselawspushtheenvelopeon

theauthorityCaseygavetothestatestoensurethatthewomansdecisionisinformed,somerequiring

doctorstodelivertowomenananti-abortionmessage,whileothersrequirewomentoviewasonogram

ofthefetus,orsubmittocounselingbyananti-abortioncrisispregnancycenter.Stillothersblatantly

challengecurrentSupremeCourtprecedent,banningabortionsaftertwentyweeksofpregnancy,

withoutanymedicalevidencethatafetusisviableatthatpoint.InArizona,Gov.JanBrewersignedinto

lawabanthatwentevenfurther,effectivelyprohibitingabortionateighteenweeksbydatingawomanspregnancybythefirstdayofherlastmenstrualperiod,whichoccurstwoweeksbefore

conception.42Thechallengestotheselaws,nowmakingtheirwaythroughthelowerfederalcourts,

43

willgivetheconservativemajorityoftheRobertsCourtplentyofopportunitiestocontinuechipping

awayatwomensrightofreproductivefreedom.

38Id.at191(Ginsburg,J.,dissenting).

39Id.at184,171(Ginsburg,J.,dissenting).

40Id.at181(Ginsburg,J.,dissenting).

41539U.S.558(2003).

42SeeAmandaPetersonBeadle,WhyArizonasNewAnti-AbortionBillIsWorseThanItSeems(Mar.30,2012)

(availableathttp://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/03/30/455643/why-arizonas-new-anti-abortion-bill-is-worse-

than-it-seems/).43See,e.g.PlannedParenthoodMinnesotav.Rounds,653F.3d662(8

thCir.)(strikingrequirementthatphysician

informawomanofincreasedsuicideriskfromobtainingabortion),rehgenbancgranted,662F.3d1072(8thCir.

2011);TexasMedicalProvidersPerformingAbortionServicesv.Lakey,667F.3d570(5thCir.2012)(reversing

preliminaryinjunctionagainstTexassonogramstatute);Stuartv.Huff,2011WL6330668,No.1:11CV804(M.D.N.C.

Dec.19,2011)(preliminarilyenjoiningNorthCarolinastatuterequiringaphysician,beforeperforminganabortion,

toshowthewomananultrasoundofherfetusanddescribetheimagesseenontheultrasound);Planned

ParenthoodMinnesotav.Daugaard,799F.Supp.2d1048(D.S.D.2011)(preliminarilyenjoiningSouthDakota

statuterequiringwomantosubmittocounselingbycrisispregnancycenter).


7/8


Forexample,theCourtcouldupholdthesomeorallofthenewabortioncounselinglawsonthe

basisoftheprecedentsinCaseyandGonzales,reasoningthatthatstatehaswidelatitudetodissuadea

womanfromterminatingthelifeofthefetus,includingbyrequiringhertobetoldofallofthe

conceivablerisksoftheprocedure,byrequiringthatsheviewasonogramofthefetus,orbyrequiring

thatsheconsultwithathirdpartywhocanofferadifferentperspectiveonthedecision.44Indeed,in

Gonzales,JusticeKennedyalreadyacceptedtheideathatsomewomencometoregrettheirchoiceto

aborttheinfantlifetheyoncecreatedandsustained,necessitatingasubstantialroleforstatesin

ensuring[that]sograveachoiceiswellinformed.45

Inthecasesseekingtoinvalidatetheserecentlaws,plaintiffshavechallengedthemnotmerely

ascreatingundueburdensonwomen,butalsoasaviolationofthephysiciansFirstAmendmentrightto

befreefromgovernment-mandatedspeech,seekingtotakeadvantageofthefactthattheRoberts

CourthasaggressivelyexpandedFirstAmendmentrightsinotherareassuchascampaignfinancelaw

andcommercialspeech.46WeretheCourttoapply Sorrellv.IMSHealthandconcludethatthesenew

abortionregulationsmustbesubjecttoheightenedscrutinybecausetheyenactspeaker-and

content-basedburdenonprotectedexpression,47

thatgowellbeyondtherequirementsofinformedconsentandestablishedmedicalpractice,itislikelythatthesenewmeasureswouldbeinvalidated.

48

Butsofar,theSupremeCourthasrefusedtoplaceanyFirstAmendmentchecksontheauthorityofthe

statestoregulateabortion,notingin CaseythatthephysiciansFirstAmendmentrightsnottospeak

areimplicated,butonlyaspartofthepracticeofmedicine,subjecttoreasonableandlicensingand

regulationbytheState.49InGonzales,theCourtsconservativemajorityrejectedtheideathat

physicianshadconstitutionalrightstopracticemedicinethattrumpedstateregulationtothecontrary,

explainingthattheStatehasasignificantroletoplayinregulatingthemedicalprofessionandthat

thelawneednotgiveabortiondoctorsunfetteredchoiceinthecourseoftheirmedicalpractice,nor

shoulditelevatetheirstatusaboveothermembersofthemedicalcommunity.50Thesestatements

suggestthatFirstAmendmentclaimsmaynotfareanybetterthanundueburdenclaimsintheRoberts

Court.

ItisevenpossiblethattheconservativeJusticesontheRobertsCourtwouldupholdthenew

twenty-weekbansonabortion,perhapscitinglegislativefindingsthatcurrentmedicaltechnologyshows

that,attwentyweeks,afetusiscapableoffeelingpain,thoughnotviableoutsidethewomb.Upholding

theserecentstatebansonabortionaftertwentyweeks,ofcourse,wouldrequireJusticeKennedyto

joininoverrulingtheCourtsholdingsinRoe,Casey,andothercasesthatviabilitymarkstheearliest

pointatwhichtheStatesinterestinfetallifeisconstitutionallyadequatetojustifyalegislativebanon..

44SeeTexasMedicalProviders,667F.3dat574-76(relyingheavilyonCaseyandGonzales).

45Gonzales,550U.S.at159.46See,e.gCitizensUnitedv.FEC,130S.Ct.876(2010);Sorrellv.IMSHealth.Inc.,131S.Ct.2653(2011).For

discussion,seeCrossroadsChapter4(TheFirstAmendment,PoliticalSpeech,andtheFutureofCampaignFinance

Laws)&Chapter6(ProtectingCommercialSpeechandPrivacyintheInternetAge).47Sorrell,131S.Ct.at2667.

48SeeStuart,2011WL6330668at**2-6(applyingstrictscrutinyinpreliminarilyenjoiningrequiringphysicianto

displaytoawomanseekinganabortionanultrasoundofthefetus).49Casey,505U.S.at884.

50Gonzales,550U.S.at157,163.


8/8


.abortions,51astephemaybereluctanttotake.ButJusticeKennedyhasalreadydemonstrateda

willingnesstonarrowRoeconsiderablyandmightbepersuadedtodepartfrom Roesviabilitylineon

thegroundthatthatstatesshouldhavetheauthoritytobalancetheinterestsofthewomanandthe

fetusinawaythatrespectsthewomansrightupuntilthepointthatthefetusmayfeelpainfromthe

procedure.Nolessthanatviability,JusticeKennedymightreason,awomanwhofailstoactafter

twentyweeksofpregnancyhasconsentedtotheStatesinterventiononbehalfofthedeveloping

child.52

IfthecompositionoftheCourtchangesandmovestheCourtinamoreconservativedirection,

conservativestatelegislatureswouldlikelyrespondbypassinganewwaveofrestrictivelaws,some

possiblygoingsofarastobanabortionoutright.WithanotherconservativeJusticeonthebench,the

RobertsCourtwouldbeinapositiontosignificantlyscalebackconstitutionalprotectionforawomans

righttoreproductivefreedom,ifnotreconsider RoeandCasey.

Todate,theRobertsCourthasappearedcontenttoavoidmostquestionsonthehot-button

topicofreproductiverights.TheCourthasonlygrantedreviewofoneabortioncasesinceJohnRoberts

wasconfirmedasChiefJusticeGonzalesv.Carhartandinthatcase,JusticeKennedyhadalready

stakedouthispositionthatthegovernmentmayprohibitthetypeofabortionprocedurelabeleda

partialbirthabortion.Butthisrelativequietonthisdivisivefrontisunlikelytocontinue.Newstate

lawswillalmostforcethecurrentCourttoaddressnewquestionsunder Caseysundueburdentest,and

changesintheCourtscomposition,shouldtheyoccur,couldagainputtheessentialholdingof Roevery

muchinplay.

51Casey,505U.S.at860.

52Id.at870.

Documents

Download Reproductive Freedom Chapter