Malcolm Rivera
Abortion rights have been a contentious issue in the United States for decades, with a long history of legal battles and proposed amendments to the Constitution. The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973 ruled that the Constitution protects a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, and struck down state laws that prohibited abortions. Since then, there have been numerous attempts to amend the Constitution to restrict abortion rights, with proposals such as the Human Life Amendment seeking to define human life as beginning at conception and forbidding Congress and states from legalizing abortion. The debate continues to evolve, with recent court cases like Whole Woman's Health and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org. further shaping abortion-related laws and sparking discussions about the role of government in reproductive rights.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Court rulings | In 1973, the Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the U.S. Constitution protects a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy. |
| In Doe v. Bolton, the Court extended Roe by warning that states may not make abortions unreasonably difficult to obtain. | |
| In 1976, Representative Henry J. Hyde offered an amendment restricting the use of funds to pay for abortions provided through the Medicaid program. | |
| In 1983, Senators Orrin Hatch and Thomas Eagleton introduced an amendment asserting that a right to abortion is not secured by the Constitution. | |
| In 1992, the Court adopted an "undue burden" standard for examining abortion regulations, recognizing the need to reconcile the government's interest in potential life with a woman's right to decide. | |
| In 2007, the Court applied the "undue burden" standard and emphasized that reviewing courts must consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access. | |
| In 2022, the Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org. dramatically increased judicial oversight of abortion laws and struck down aspects of abortion-related laws in multiple jurisdictions. | |
| Amendment proposals | The Human Life Amendment seeks to overturn Roe v. Wade and forbid Congress and states from legalizing abortion. |
| Some proposals define human life as beginning with conception or fertilization. | |
| These amendments are sponsored or supported by anti-abortion movements and opposed by abortion rights movements. | |
| As of August 2022, none of the proposals have succeeded. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Human Life Amendment
The proposals, sponsored by anti-abortion movements, seek to not only overturn Roe v. Wade but also to prevent Congress and the states from legalizing abortion. Some of the proposals define human life as beginning with conception or fertilization, and they assert that the right to life applies to all human beings, including their unborn offspring, regardless of their stage of biological development.
Despite these repeated attempts, as of August 2022, none of the Human Life Amendment proposals have been successful. However, in 2022, Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, marking a significant shift in abortion rights in the United States.
The Unused Method to Amend the Constitution
You may want to see also
Roe v. Wade
The case reached the Supreme Court in 1970 when both sides appealed. In 1973, the Court concluded that the U.S. Constitution protects a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy. The Roe Court ruled that states may not categorically proscribe abortions by making their performance a crime. In a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court extended Roe by warning that states may not make abortions unreasonably difficult to obtain by prescribing elaborate procedural barriers.
In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court officially reversed Roe v. Wade, declaring that the constitutional right to abortion no longer exists. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the 1973 Roe ruling and subsequent high court decisions reaffirming Roe "must be overruled" because they were "egregiously wrong". The decision means that abortion rights will be rolled back in nearly half of the states, with more restrictions expected to follow.
Amendments from Civil War: Expanding Constitutional Rights
You may want to see also
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 and the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey. The Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org. held that the Constitution does not expressly mention a right to abortion and that stare decisis (the legal principle of respecting precedent) does not justify retaining Roe and Casey.
The case centred on a Mississippi law that generally prohibits abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy, several weeks before viability outside the womb. Abortion clinics and one of its doctors (the respondents) filed a suit alleging that the law violated Roe and Casey, which protect a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy. The district court ruled in favour of the respondents, a decision that was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit. However, the Supreme Court, through an opinion by Justice Alito, reversed and remanded the lower court's decision.
In reaching its conclusion, the Supreme Court conducted a historical review of medical and legal perspectives on abortion, finding that modern prohibitions on the procedure lacked a robust historical foundation. The Court also addressed the contention that people have organised their lives and made choices based on the availability of abortion, asserting that it is ill-equipped to assess such "generalized assertions about the national psyche".
The Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org. has had a significant impact on abortion laws across the United States, increasing judicial oversight and striking down abortion-related laws in numerous states, the District of Columbia, and the territories. It has also sparked a broader debate about the role of the Court in interpreting the Constitution and the potential need for an amendment to protect abortion rights explicitly.
The Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection Clause Explained
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Hyde Amendment
However, proponents of the Hyde Amendment argue that it is supported by a majority of the American public. They contend that taxpayers should not be forced to pay for elective abortions and that the government has no duty to subsidize an activity simply because it is constitutionally protected. In 1980, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the original Hyde Amendment language, finding that it did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment or the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Over the years, the Hyde Amendment has undergone several alterations. In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed into law a new version of the amendment that expanded the category of abortions eligible for federal funding under Medicaid to include cases of rape and incest. This change was reflected in a letter sent by Health and Human Services in 1998 to all state Medicaid directors, clarifying that "all abortions covered by the Hyde Amendment, including those related to rape or incest, are medically necessary services and are required to be provided by states participating in the Medicaid program." The Hyde Amendment continues to be re-enacted annually, reflecting a longstanding consensus among legislators who oppose abortion and object to the use of taxpayer money for abortion services.
Unchangeable Constitution: What Can't Be Amended
You may want to see also
Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson
The debate surrounding whether an amendment on abortion should be added to the US Constitution has been brought to the fore by the 2022 Supreme Court case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which reversed Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the decisions that originally asserted the fundamental right to abortion before foetal viability. The court ruled that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion and that the authority to regulate abortion is "returned to the people and their elected representatives".
This ruling has had a direct impact on subsequent cases, such as Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, where a Texas abortion clinic sued the state after it passed a law banning abortion after a foetal heartbeat is detected, which typically occurs six weeks into pregnancy. The plaintiffs argued that the law violated federal law by creating a mechanism to avoid federal judicial review while suppressing the right to abortion in Texas, due to its chilling effect on abortion providers. The League of Women Voters of the US, together with 12 other civil rights organizations, filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs challenging the law, marking a significant development in the case.
The district court's ruling in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson is particularly noteworthy. The court denied the defendant Texas state officials', judges', and court clerks' motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The court applied the Ex parte Young doctrine, which allows state officials to be sued if they violate federal law or the US Constitution. This decision underscores the importance of holding state actors accountable when their actions infringe upon protected rights, even in the context of abortion laws.
The outcome of Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson has significant implications for abortion access in Texas and beyond. The case highlights the ongoing legal battles and complexities surrounding abortion rights in the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision. It also underscores the critical role of the courts in interpreting and applying the law, even in the face of controversial and divisive issues. As the legal landscape surrounding abortion continues to evolve, cases like Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson will play a pivotal role in shaping the rights and protections afforded to individuals seeking abortion access.
In conclusion, the debate surrounding the need for an amendment on abortion in the US Constitution has intensified following the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling, which left the decision-making power on abortion rights to individual states. The subsequent case of Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson exemplifies the legal challenges and efforts to uphold abortion rights in the face of restrictive state laws. The outcome of this case will have a significant impact on abortion access and shape the legal landscape surrounding abortion rights in the US.
Amending the Constitution: Who Holds the Power?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Human Life Amendment is a proposal to amend the United States Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which ruled prohibitions against abortion as unconstitutional.
The Roe Court ruled that states may not categorically proscribe abortions by making their performance a crime. The ruling concluded that the right to privacy includes a woman's decision to carry a pregnancy to term.
Those in favour of adding an amendment on abortion to the Constitution argue that it would give states the power to prohibit abortions and define human life as beginning with conception.
Those against adding an amendment on abortion to the Constitution argue that it would restrict women's access to safe and legal abortions, and that the government has no duty to subsidize an activity simply because it is constitutionally protected.
As of August 2022, none of the proposals to add an amendment on abortion to the Constitution have succeeded. However, Roe v. Wade was overturned in full by the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization in 2022.
