Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T14:29:03.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Membership Has its Privileges?: Life, Personhood, and Potential in Discussions about Reproductive Choice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Jonathan F. Will
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States established that women have a constitutionally protected right to choose whether to terminate their pregnancies. The right, however, is not absolute. It must be weighed against competing State interests. As the title of Dov Fox’s excellent essay points out, one of the primary competing interests asserted in Roe was The State’s Interest in Potential Life. But the Roe Court determined that this interest in potential life alone was insufficient to justify regulation of the procedure pre-viability. Then, 17 years later, the Court stated in Casey that Roe’s framework “undervalue[d] the State’s interest in potential life,” and instead of just discussing potential life, the Court also referenced the State’s “legitimate interest from the outset of pregnancy in protecting…the life of the fetus that may become a child.”

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , Summer 2015 , pp. 358 - 362
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 164–165 (1973)Google Scholar
Fox, D., “The State's Interest in Potential Life,” Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 43, no. 2 (2014): 345–357 [hereinafter Fox, “Potential Life”].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roe, , 410 U.S. at 163–165.Google Scholar
Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 873 (1992).Google Scholar
Casey, , 505 U.S. at 846.Google Scholar
Fox, D., “Interest Creep,” George Washington Law Review 82, no. 2 (2014): 273–357.Google Scholar
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 159 (1973).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Borgmann, C., “The Meaning of ‘Life’: Belief and Reason in the Abortion Debate,” Columbia Journal of Gender & the Law 18, no. 2 (2009): 551–608.Google Scholar
See Fox, , “Potential Life,” supra note 2.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Rawls, J., Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
Webster v. Reprod. Health Servs., 492 U.S. 490, 566–567 (1989) (Stevens, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part).Google Scholar
Dworkin, R., Life's Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom (New York: Knopf, 1993), at 165.Google Scholar
See Fox, , “Potential Life,” supra note 2.Google Scholar
Robertson, J. A., “Symbolic Issues in Embryo Research,” Hastings Center Report 25, no. 1 (January-February 1995): 37–38, at 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 157 (2007).Google Scholar
Hill, J. L., “The Constitutional Status of Morals Legislation,” Kentucky Law Journal 98, no. 1 (2009): 1–66, at n. 30.Google Scholar
Marquis, D., “Why Abortion Is Immoral,” Journal of Philosophy 86, no. 4 (1989): 183–202, at 193 (citing Kant, I., “Duties to Animals and Spirits,” in Infeld, L., trans., Lectures on Ethics (New York: Harper, 1963): At 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, Fox, , “Potential Life,” supra note 2.Google Scholar
Peters, P., “The Ambiguous Meaning of Human Conception,” UC Davis Law Review 40, no. 1 (2006–2007): 199–228.Google Scholar
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 147 (2007).Google Scholar
See Hill, , supra note 16, at 3.Google Scholar
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 282 (1990).Google Scholar
Will, J., “Beyond Abortion: Why the Personhood Movement Implicates Reproductive Choice,” American Journal of Law & Medicine 39, no. 4 (2013): 573–616, at 582–583.Google Scholar
Cruzan, , 497 U.S. at 344 (Stevens, J. dissenting).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Siegel, R., “Concurring,” in Balkin, J., ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts ReWrite America's Most Controversial Decision (New York: New York University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
Paulsen, M., “The Plausibility of Personhood,” Ohio State Law Journal 74, no. 1 (2013): 13–74.Google Scholar
Thomson, J., “A Defense of Abortion,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 1, no. 1 (1971): 1–13.Google Scholar
Regan, D., “Rewriting Roe v. Wade,” Michigan Law Review 77, no. 7 (1979): 1569–1646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar