ONE STEP FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK !
CHALLENGES TO ROW V. WADE:
Among the most significant modern illustrations of the use of the courts as strategy for political influence are those that accompanied the ‘sexual revolution’ of the 1960s and the emergence of the movement of women’s rights. A series of cases were brought into the federal courts in an effort to force definition of a right to privacy in sexual matters. The effort began with a challenge to state restrictions on obtaining contraceptives for non-medical purposes, a challenge that was effectively made in Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court held that states could neither prohibit the dissemination of information about nor prohibit the actual use of contraceptives by married couples. That case was soon followed by Eisenstadt v. Bair, in which the Court held that the states could not prohibit the use of contraceptive in single persons any more than it could prohibit their use by married couples. One year later, the Court held, in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, that states could not impose an absolute ban on voluntary abortions. Each of these cases as well as others, were part of the Court’s enunciation of a constitutional doctrine of privacy.
Not everything was “honey over flakes,” conservative groups as far back as 1973 made extensive use of the courts to undermine the scope of the privacy doctrine. They obtained rulings that prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for voluntary abortions. In 1989, right-to-life groups were able to use a strategy of litigation that significantly undermined the Roe v. Wade decision, in the case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which restored the right of states to place restrictions on abortion.
Among the most significant modern illustrations of the use of the courts as strategy for political influence are those that accompanied the ‘sexual revolution’ of the 1960s and the emergence of the movement of women’s rights. A series of cases were brought into the federal courts in an effort to force definition of a right to privacy in sexual matters. The effort began with a challenge to state restrictions on obtaining contraceptives for non-medical purposes, a challenge that was effectively made in Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court held that states could neither prohibit the dissemination of information about nor prohibit the actual use of contraceptives by married couples. That case was soon followed by Eisenstadt v. Bair, in which the Court held that the states could not prohibit the use of contraceptive in single persons any more than it could prohibit their use by married couples. One year later, the Court held, in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, that states could not impose an absolute ban on voluntary abortions. Each of these cases as well as others, were part of the Court’s enunciation of a constitutional doctrine of privacy.
Not everything was “honey over flakes,” conservative groups as far back as 1973 made extensive use of the courts to undermine the scope of the privacy doctrine. They obtained rulings that prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for voluntary abortions. In 1989, right-to-life groups were able to use a strategy of litigation that significantly undermined the Roe v. Wade decision, in the case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, which restored the right of states to place restrictions on abortion.
The president’s most direct influence on the court is the power to nominate justices. Presidents typically nominate judges who they believe are close to their policy preferences and close enough to the preferences of a majority of senators, who must confirm the nomination. Justice O’Connor disappointed conservatives by opposing limitations on abortion.
President George W. Bush was presented with an opportunity to fill two Supreme Court vacancies, one by the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and the other by the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Immediately, liberal and conservative advocacy groups mobilized for battle. In particular, pro-choice and pro-life groups saw the two Supreme Court appointments as a decisive point in the long-standing national struggle over abortion. Pro-choice groups feared that Bush would appoint justices hostile to abortion rights while pro-life groups feared that he would not. President Bush had to withdraw the name of one nominee, Harriet Miers, and almost lost the candidacy a second nominee, Samuel Alito.
One of the most widespread efforts to restrict abortions without violation Roe is state requirements that underage females must seek parental consent or show parental notification or, failing that, the notification of a local judge in order to receive an abortion.California will decide in such matter this coming tuesday!
It seems that with the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist and the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the future of Row and of abortion rights may have changed drastically.
President George W. Bush was presented with an opportunity to fill two Supreme Court vacancies, one by the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and the other by the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Immediately, liberal and conservative advocacy groups mobilized for battle. In particular, pro-choice and pro-life groups saw the two Supreme Court appointments as a decisive point in the long-standing national struggle over abortion. Pro-choice groups feared that Bush would appoint justices hostile to abortion rights while pro-life groups feared that he would not. President Bush had to withdraw the name of one nominee, Harriet Miers, and almost lost the candidacy a second nominee, Samuel Alito.
One of the most widespread efforts to restrict abortions without violation Roe is state requirements that underage females must seek parental consent or show parental notification or, failing that, the notification of a local judge in order to receive an abortion.California will decide in such matter this coming tuesday!
It seems that with the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist and the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the future of Row and of abortion rights may have changed drastically.
posted by GG at 10:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home