No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Role of Women in Abortion Jurisprudence: From Roe to Casey and Beyond
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2009
Extract
In many ways, Roe v. Wade marked a new chapter in American life. By assuring women of greater reproductive freedom., It gave women greater economic and social freedom, Inflamed a partisan battle between pro-life and pro-choice camps, and provoked a public debate regarding the proper sphere of judicial action. Hence, just as Roe has been critical to the changing politics of gender, it has been the focus of a political debate about the meaning of personhood and morality of abortion, the scope of individual freedom, and the judiciary's role in effecting social change.
- Type
- Special Section: From Cells to Selves: Ethics at the Beginning of Life
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993
References
Notes
1. 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
2. See note 1, p. 116.
3. 112 S. Ct. 2791 (1992).Google Scholar
4. See note 3, pp. 2820, 2821.
5. See note 3, p. 2821.
6. See note 3, p. 2820.
7. See note 1, p. 155, quoting Kramer v. Union Free School Dst., 395 U.S. 621, 627 (1969);Google ScholarShapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 634 (1969);Google ScholarPubMed and Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406 (1963).Google Scholar
8. See note 1, citing Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 485 (1965);Google ScholarPubMedAptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 508 (1964);Google ScholarCantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 307–8 (1940);Google ScholarPubMedEisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 460, 463–4 (1972) (J. White concurring in result).Google Scholar
9. 381 U.S. 479 (1965).Google ScholarPubMed
10. 405 U.S. 438 (1972).Google Scholar
11. See note 9, p. 486.
12. See note 9, p. 486.
13. See note 9, p. 485.
14. See note 10, p. 453.
15. See note 1, p. 153.
16. See note 1, p. 153.
17. See note 1, p. 153.
18. See note 1, p. 163.
19. See note 1, p. 165.
20. See note 1, p. 166.
21. See note 1, p. 166.
22. 462 U.S. 416 (1983).Google Scholar
23. 476 U.S. 747 (1986).Google ScholarPubMed
24. See note 23, p. 772 (citations omitted).
25. 492 U.S. 490 (1989).Google Scholar
26. See note 25, p. 521.
27. See note 25, p. 520.
28. See note 25, p. 538 (Blackmun, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part).Google Scholar
29. See note 25, p. 560.
30. See note 25, p. 538.
31. See note 25, p. 558.
32. See note 25, p. 558.
33. See note 25, p. 558.
34. 112 S. Ct., p. 2804.Google Scholar
35. See note 34, p. 2808.
36. U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1.
37. See note 34, p. 2805, quoting Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 543 (1961) (Harlan, J. dissenting from dismissal on jurisdictional grounds).Google Scholar
38. See note 34, p. 2806.
39. See note 34, p. 2806.
40. See note 34, p. 2807.
41. See note 34, p. 2807.
42. See note 34, p. 2807.
43. See note 34, p. 2807.
44. See note 34, p. 2807.
45. See note 34, p. 2808.
46. See note 34, p. 2808.
47. See note 34, p. 2815.
48. See note 34, p. 2815.
49. See note 34, p. 2815.
50. See note 34, p. 2815.
51. See note 34, p. 2816.
52. See note 34, p. 2815.
53. See note 34, p. 2816 (emphasis added).
54. See note 34, p. 2820.
55. See note 34, p. 2820.
56. With relatively little discussion, the Court also upheld a parental consent requirement and all but one provision of a requirement under which abortion facilities have to report certain information regarding their ownership structure and the abortions performed at the facility. The stricken provision sought information as to whether a spouse had been notified of an abortion.
57. See note 34, p. 2828.
58. See note 34, p. 2828.
59. See note 34, p. 2829.
60. See note 34, p. 2831.
61. See note 34, p. 2831.
62. See note 34, p. 2823.
63. See note 34, p. 2824.
64. See note 34, pp. 2824–5.
65. See note 34, p. 2825.
66. See note 34, p. 2831.
67. See note 34, p. 2843 (Stevens, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part) (emphasis added).Google Scholar
68. Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 724–5 (1982).Google ScholarPubMed