Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1989 that addressed the legality and regulation of abortion in the United States. The case arose from a Missouri law that included a declaration that life begins at conception, restrictions on the use of public facilities for abortions, and requirements for fetal viability testing. This case was significant as it came at a time when there was potential for the Supreme Court to reconsider the precedent set by Roe v. Wade in 1973, leading to intense involvement from both pro-choice and pro-life advocates who submitted a record number of amicus curiae briefs.
The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the Missouri law in a narrow 5-4 decision, although the justices could not reach a unified opinion. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist recognized a woman's limited right to choose but suggested that states could impose regulations throughout pregnancy. Meanwhile, dissenting opinions highlighted concerns about the violation of fundamental rights and the endorsement of religious perspectives. While the decision did not overturn Roe, it indicated a willingness from the Court to support more restrictive abortion regulations, setting the stage for future cases, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey in 1992, which further developed the legal standards surrounding abortion rights.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
Date: July 3, 1989
Citation: 492 U.S. 490
Issue: Abortion
Significance: The Supreme Court substantially expanded the ability of the states to place restrictions on the availability of abortion services.
In 1986 the state of Missouri enacted an abortion statute that included three major provisions: a preamble declaring that human life “begins at conception” and that “unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being”; a prohibition on the use of public facilities and personnel for performing abortions or for counseling a woman to obtain an abortion, with exceptions allowed to save the life of a pregnant woman; and a requirement for a viability test whenever a physician believed that a fetus was twenty weeks of gestational age. Because of recent changes on the Supreme Court, it appeared possible that the justices might use the case to overturn the Roe v. Wade (1973) precedent. Thus, pro-choice and pro-life groups filed seventy-eight amicus curiae briefs, the largest number ever submitted to the Court in a single case.
The Court responded in a fragmented and complex manner. By a 5-4 vote, the Court upheld all the provisions of the statute, but the majority could not agree on a united opinion. Speaking for a plurality of three, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist acknowledged that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protected a “liberty interest” that included a woman’s limited right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. However, Rehnquist applied the rationality test and insisted that the state’s legitimate interest in protecting “potential human life” was of equal weight throughout the pregnancy. It appeared that such an approach would have allowed the states to enact almost any regulation to protect fetal life, even to the extent of making abortions illegal. Although Justice Sandra Day O’Connor voted with the majority, she continued to push her undue burden approach, which accepted the woman’s fundamental right to an abortion until the development of fetal viability. Justice Antonin Scalia, in contrast, argued in favor of overturning Roe entirely. Harry A. Blackmun, joined by two other dissenters, argued that the statute violated a fundamental right as recognized in Roe. Also dissenting, Justice John Paul Stevens found that the preamble of the statute violated the First Amendment because it endorsed a particular religious view.
Although the Webster decision did not overturn Roe, it signaled that the Court was willing to approve quite restrictive regulations. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), a controlling plurality of the justices endorsed the undue burden test as advocated by Justice O’Connor.