认真对待堕胎权利:整个妇女的健康诉Hellerstedt

K. Greasley
{"title":"认真对待堕胎权利:整个妇女的健康诉Hellerstedt","authors":"K. Greasley","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt the Supreme Court of the United States passed down its most important decision on abortion for just under a decade. By a majority of 5-3, the Court ruled that two provisions in a Texas law regulating abortion on grounds of women's health were constitutionally invalid, placing a ‘substantial obstacle’ in the way of women seeking to exercise their right to abortion. This comment delineates the key ways in which the Court's application of the standard of constitutional review under Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) to the Texas provisions marks a landmark development for the protection of the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v Wade, not the least by making clear that state abortion regulations which cite ‘women's health’ justifications should not pass constitutional review where those justifications lack a credible factual basis.","PeriodicalId":205352,"journal":{"name":"U.S. Constitutional Law: Interpretation & Judicial Review eJournal","volume":"53 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Taking Abortion Rights Seriously: Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt\",\"authors\":\"K. Greasley\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1468-2230.12256\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt the Supreme Court of the United States passed down its most important decision on abortion for just under a decade. By a majority of 5-3, the Court ruled that two provisions in a Texas law regulating abortion on grounds of women's health were constitutionally invalid, placing a ‘substantial obstacle’ in the way of women seeking to exercise their right to abortion. This comment delineates the key ways in which the Court's application of the standard of constitutional review under Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) to the Texas provisions marks a landmark development for the protection of the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v Wade, not the least by making clear that state abortion regulations which cite ‘women's health’ justifications should not pass constitutional review where those justifications lack a credible factual basis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":205352,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"U.S. Constitutional Law: Interpretation & Judicial Review eJournal\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"U.S. Constitutional Law: Interpretation & Judicial Review eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12256\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"U.S. Constitutional Law: Interpretation & Judicial Review eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12256","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在“整个妇女健康诉Hellerstedt”一案中,美国最高法院做出了近十年来最重要的堕胎裁决。法院以5比3的多数裁定,德克萨斯州法律中关于基于妇女健康理由的堕胎的两项规定在宪法上是无效的,这给妇女寻求行使其堕胎权利设置了"实质性障碍"。这一评论描述了法院在计划生育诉凯西案(1992)中对德克萨斯州条款适用宪法审查标准的关键方式,标志着对罗伊诉韦德案中确立的堕胎宪法权利的保护具有里程碑意义的发展,尤其是明确指出,引用“妇女健康”理由的州堕胎法规不应通过宪法审查,因为这些理由缺乏可信的事实基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Taking Abortion Rights Seriously: Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt
In Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt the Supreme Court of the United States passed down its most important decision on abortion for just under a decade. By a majority of 5-3, the Court ruled that two provisions in a Texas law regulating abortion on grounds of women's health were constitutionally invalid, placing a ‘substantial obstacle’ in the way of women seeking to exercise their right to abortion. This comment delineates the key ways in which the Court's application of the standard of constitutional review under Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) to the Texas provisions marks a landmark development for the protection of the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v Wade, not the least by making clear that state abortion regulations which cite ‘women's health’ justifications should not pass constitutional review where those justifications lack a credible factual basis.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信