1 / 5

Webster V. Reproductive Health Services

Webster V. Reproductive Health Services. By Ross Sobotta Hour 5A A.P Government. In 1986, State of Missouri passed legislation intending to reduce the number of abortions

gazit
Download Presentation

Webster V. Reproductive Health Services

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Webster V. Reproductive Health Services By Ross Sobotta Hour 5A A.P Government

  2. In 1986, State of Missouri passed legislation intending to reduce the number of abortions • Statutes' preamble:”The life of each human being begins at conception” and that “unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and wellbeing". • Didn’t allow public employees and public facilities to assist or perform abortion, • Public funding, encouragement and counseling to have abortions was prohibited. • Physicians were to perform viability test on woman 20 or more weeks pregnant. • Five Health Professionals employed by state and Reproductive Health Services challenged Missouri statute. The Case

  3. Fourteenth Amendments (Equal Protection Clause) • Privacy rights of pregnant women seeking abortions. • Women’s right to abortion. • Right of privacy relationship for women and physician. • Physicians right to practice medicine. • Pregnant women’s right to receive medical treatment related to abortions. What Freedoms were Violated?

  4. None of challenged provisions of Missouri legislation were unconstitutional. • Preamble didn’t present a constitutional question. • There were no controversial issues that challenged provisions of the law. • Viability testing promoted states interest of protecting potential life. • States can promote childbirth over abortions. • If being has ability to live outside the womb, it has its own rights. Supreme Courts Ruling

  5. "Webster V Reproductive Health Serives." U.S Supreme Court Media Oyez. Illinois Institute of Technology, 2008. Web. 15 Nov 2010. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_605>. • "Webster V. Reproductive health Services." Legal Information Institution 1-4. Web. 15 Nov 2010. <http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0492_0490_ZO.html>. Works Cited

More Related