Webster v. Reproductive Health Services: devaluing the right to choose.

Abstract

This article analyzes the constitutional significance of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989). The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court has two prominent features. First, the Court upheld the restrictions on the right of women to abort by devaluing the provisions of the challenged Missouri law. It is suggested that these provisions are far more significant than the Court majority acknowledged, and that their significance became apparent soon after the Court's resolution of the case. Second, the Court's approach to resolving Webster suggests a reconceptualizing of fundamental rights questions wherein state action jurisprudence has been turned upside down and compelling state interest analysis has been eschewed. While Roe v. Wade (1973) was not overruled in Webster, it appears that the contemporary Court's approach to operationalizing the right of choice is unlikely to restrict the power of the states to regulate in this area.