Presentation on theme: "William L. Webster Frank Susman Judge William Rehnquist By: Al and Arty."— Presentation transcript:
William L. Webster Frank Susman Judge William Rehnquist By: Al and Arty
In 1986, Missouri placed restrictions on abortions. The main premise was the part of the preamble that stated that life begins at conception. This imposed the restrictions on public employees and public facilities, disallowing the procedure unless the mother’s life was threatened. Furthermore encouragement and counseling to have abortions was prohibited, and viability tests to check the health of the fetus were made mandatory. This case was essentially the follow-up to Roe v. Wade. Webster was the defendant for three physicians, one nurse, and a social worker, who filed a case against Missouri’s ruling against abortions.
The main question of the debate was basically the question of the power of states over rights of the people. It was debated whether Missouri's restrictions were unconstitutional because of the infringement on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling was very close, with a win for Webster of 5:4.
1 st - The Court ruled that the preamble had not been applied in any concrete manner for the purposes of restricting abortions, and it was deemed an unconstitutional question. 2 nd - The Court ruled that according to the Due Process Clause, states were not required to enter into the business of abortion, and thus did not create an affirmative right of governmental aid in the pursuit of constitutional rights. 3 rd - The Court stated that they found that no case or controversy existed in relation to the counseling provisions of the law 4 th - The Court upheld the viability testing requirements, arguing that the State's interest in protecting potential life could come into existence before the point of viability The Court emphasized the decision not to revisit Roe v. Wade
“State need not commit any resources to facilitating abortions."
This case did not have as profound an effect on society as other cases, but the effect was still felt across the country. The ruling on this case basically said that states did not have to provide women with the means to abort an unborn child. This made it much more difficult for women to have abortions if their state did not want them to. However, it did not restrict them from having one.