Roe vs. Wade was the landmark abortion decision by the US Supreme Court in 1973, giving a constitutional right to abortion as part of the right of privacy. This was very significant, as with abortion made a constitutional right, the legislatures of both the States and Federal government could no longer pass laws banning abortion, or even restricting it in ways not allowed by the Court.
In some ways this is a bit anti-democratic, and is why a few of the Supreme Court justices, notably Scalia and Thomas, favour a limited interpretation of the constitution. This is because once the Supreme Court rules something constitutional or unconstitutional, that is the end of the matter. It is not possible to elect politicians to just change the law, and so the judge's ruling cannot be democratically overruled. By limiting the interpretation the constituation, the matter is left with the legislature, allowing democracy to work.
However, since Roe vs. Wade, the court has changed considerably. It is thought that there is a reasonable chance that a new abortion challenge may overturn it, or at least reduce it. So, the State of South Dakota has just passed a new law that bans abortion completely, unless the mother's health is at risk. The governor has indicated that he is inclined to sign it.
Of course it will be challenged as unconstitutional immediately, and a federal district court judge is likely to immediately strick it down. The South Dakota legislature expects this - they will then appeal it, and hopefully give the Supreme Court the chance to review Roe vs. Wade.
Just to be clear though, if the Supreme Court does overturn Roe vs. Wade, it does not immediately make abortion illegal. Such decision simply reverts to what the constitution terms "the legislatures of the several states". Democracy will be allowed to work again.
In some ways this is a bit anti-democratic, and is why a few of the Supreme Court justices, notably Scalia and Thomas, favour a limited interpretation of the constitution. This is because once the Supreme Court rules something constitutional or unconstitutional, that is the end of the matter. It is not possible to elect politicians to just change the law, and so the judge's ruling cannot be democratically overruled. By limiting the interpretation the constituation, the matter is left with the legislature, allowing democracy to work.
However, since Roe vs. Wade, the court has changed considerably. It is thought that there is a reasonable chance that a new abortion challenge may overturn it, or at least reduce it. So, the State of South Dakota has just passed a new law that bans abortion completely, unless the mother's health is at risk. The governor has indicated that he is inclined to sign it.
Of course it will be challenged as unconstitutional immediately, and a federal district court judge is likely to immediately strick it down. The South Dakota legislature expects this - they will then appeal it, and hopefully give the Supreme Court the chance to review Roe vs. Wade.
Just to be clear though, if the Supreme Court does overturn Roe vs. Wade, it does not immediately make abortion illegal. Such decision simply reverts to what the constitution terms "the legislatures of the several states". Democracy will be allowed to work again.
Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: