Personhood Amendments after Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt

S. Morrison
{"title":"Personhood Amendments after Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt","authors":"S. Morrison","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2805197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Over the past six years, pro-life advocates have used Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws and state-level constitutional personhood amendments to end abortion. The Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt suggests that the TRAP strategy will give way to a greater push for personhood amendments. This is so for three reasons. First, Whole Woman’s Health undermined the woman’s-health basis for TRAP laws, and may encourage advocates to refocus their efforts on fetal rights. Second, Whole Woman’s Health limited the types of statute that can survive judicial scrutiny, but left constitutional amendments untouched. Third, with TRAP laws under attack, the pro-life movement’s only other sustained, institutional strategy is to push personhood amendments.Whole Woman’s Health also reinforced the Planned Parenthood v. Casey undue burden test. The law around abortion rights, therefore, has become less favorable to pro-life advocates. The fight over reproductive rights will thus become more overtly political. Because personhood amendments are broad and vague enough not to be facially unconstitutional, and because they engage voters’ social and moral preferences, they represent the political future of the pro-life movement. Advocates would, therefore, do well to concentrate on the political aspects of personhood amendments. This article illuminates those political aspects by analyzing the 2014 campaign against North Dakota’s personhood amendment, which is broadly representative of past and probably future campaigns, from three vantage points. Historically, it places North Dakota’s campaign in the context of the post-Roe v. Wade fight over abortion rights and the probable effect of Whole Woman’s Health. Legally, it analyzes the salient legal issues arising from the amendment and its possible impacts, most importantly on reproductive rights, end-of-life care, and in vitro fertilization. Politically, the article reports the results of a survey the author performed, which details why the North Dakota amendment failed so decisively at the ballot box. Whole Woman’s Health may signal a new era for reproductive rights; it will certainly mean that personhood amendments become more attractive to pro-life advocates. This article provides the insight necessary to understand that shift.","PeriodicalId":306953,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Population & Family Planning (Topic)","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: Population & Family Planning (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2805197","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Over the past six years, pro-life advocates have used Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws and state-level constitutional personhood amendments to end abortion. The Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt suggests that the TRAP strategy will give way to a greater push for personhood amendments. This is so for three reasons. First, Whole Woman’s Health undermined the woman’s-health basis for TRAP laws, and may encourage advocates to refocus their efforts on fetal rights. Second, Whole Woman’s Health limited the types of statute that can survive judicial scrutiny, but left constitutional amendments untouched. Third, with TRAP laws under attack, the pro-life movement’s only other sustained, institutional strategy is to push personhood amendments.Whole Woman’s Health also reinforced the Planned Parenthood v. Casey undue burden test. The law around abortion rights, therefore, has become less favorable to pro-life advocates. The fight over reproductive rights will thus become more overtly political. Because personhood amendments are broad and vague enough not to be facially unconstitutional, and because they engage voters’ social and moral preferences, they represent the political future of the pro-life movement. Advocates would, therefore, do well to concentrate on the political aspects of personhood amendments. This article illuminates those political aspects by analyzing the 2014 campaign against North Dakota’s personhood amendment, which is broadly representative of past and probably future campaigns, from three vantage points. Historically, it places North Dakota’s campaign in the context of the post-Roe v. Wade fight over abortion rights and the probable effect of Whole Woman’s Health. Legally, it analyzes the salient legal issues arising from the amendment and its possible impacts, most importantly on reproductive rights, end-of-life care, and in vitro fertilization. Politically, the article reports the results of a survey the author performed, which details why the North Dakota amendment failed so decisively at the ballot box. Whole Woman’s Health may signal a new era for reproductive rights; it will certainly mean that personhood amendments become more attractive to pro-life advocates. This article provides the insight necessary to understand that shift.
在整个妇女健康诉海勒斯泰特案之后的人格修正案
在过去的六年里,反堕胎的倡导者们利用堕胎提供者的目标监管(TRAP)法律和州一级的宪法人格修正案来终止堕胎。最高法院最近在“全妇女健康诉Hellerstedt”一案中的意见表明,“陷阱”策略将让位于对人格修正案的更大推动。这有三个原因。首先,“全妇女健康”法案破坏了“陷阱”法律的妇女健康基础,并可能鼓励倡导者重新将精力集中在胎儿权利上。第二,《全妇女健康法案》限制了可以通过司法审查的法规类型,但没有触及宪法修正案。第三,在陷阱法律受到攻击的情况下,反堕胎运动唯一持续的制度性策略是推动人格修正案。整个妇女的健康也加强了计划生育诉凯西不当负担测试。因此,有关堕胎权的法律变得不那么有利于反堕胎倡导者。因此,围绕生育权利的斗争将变得更加明显地政治化。由于人格修正案的内容广泛而模糊,表面上不会违宪,而且由于它们涉及选民的社会和道德偏好,它们代表了反堕胎运动的政治未来。因此,提倡者最好把精力集中在人格修正案的政治方面。本文通过分析2014年反对北达科他州人格修正案的运动,从三个有利的角度阐明了这些政治方面,这一运动广泛地代表了过去和可能未来的运动。从历史上看,它将北达科他州的竞选置于罗伊诉韦德案之后围绕堕胎权的斗争和“全妇女健康”可能产生的影响的背景下。在法律上,它分析了修正案产生的突出法律问题及其可能的影响,最重要的是对生殖权利、临终关怀和体外受精的影响。在政治上,文章报告了作者进行的一项调查的结果,该调查详细说明了北达科他州修正案在投票箱中如此决定性地失败的原因。《全妇女健康》可能标志着生殖权利进入了一个新时代;这当然意味着人格修正案对反堕胎倡导者来说变得更有吸引力。本文提供了理解这种转变所必需的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信