Fällt Roe v. Wade?
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE
Style
Format
Fällt Roe v. Wade?
Zur Abtreibungsrechtsprechung des US-Supreme Courts und den neuesten Entwicklungen im US-Abtreibungsrecht
Zeitschrift für Lebensrecht, Vol. 31(2022), Iss. 1 : pp. 83–95
Additional Information
Article Details
Pricing
Author Details
Christian Funck, LL. M. (The George Washington University), Wirtschaftsjurist (Univ. Bayreuth), Wiss. Mitarbeiter am Lehrstuhl für Öffentliches Recht (Prof. Dr. Christian Hillgruber) an der Universität Bonn.
Abstract
Fold Roe v. Wade?
The US abbreviation law is still used through the precedent ROE v. Wade from 1973 determined. According to this, prohibitions on abortion are only constitutionally permitted from the time of the "Viability", that is, if the nasciturus outside the uterus is able to survive. According to the current state of medicine, this is the case between the 23rd and the 24th week of pregnancy. The US state of Mississippi issued a law in 2018 that fundamentally prohibits abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The lower courts explained this law - Roe v. Wade and the previous case law of the Supreme Court - for illegal. The "Supreme Court" still took this case (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization) for decision. In the article, the previous abortion jurisdiction of the Supreme Courts is presented and discussed which decision the Supreme Court could make in Dobbs. While the three "liberal" judges nominated by democratic presidents to Roe v. Wade would like to capture, the other six "conservative" judges nominated by Republican President could take the case as an opportunity. Wade (at least partially) to "overrules". Due to the composition of the court and the course of the hearing last December, it is not unlikely that a majority of Mississippi's "15-Week-Ban"-contrary to the previous case law-will not be declared unconstitutional. U.S. ABORTION LAW is controlled to this day by the precedent roe v. Wade (1973). In Roe, the Supreme Court Ruled that ABORTION BANS ARE ONLY Constitutional from the moment of Viability, i. e., when the unorn is capable of surviving outside the Womb. According to the Current State of Medicine, This is the case between the 23rd and 24th Week of Pregnancy. In 2018, Mississippi Passed a Law That Bans Aborions After 15 Weeks of Pregnancy. The Lower Courts Declared This Law - Following Roe v. Wade and the Previous Case Law of the Supreme Court - Unlawful. However, The Supreme Court Granted Certiorari (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization). The article reviews the supreme Court’s ABORTION CASE LAW to date and discusses What Decision the Supreme Court Might Make in Dobbs. While the Three “Liberal” Justices Nominated by Democratic Presidents Support Roe v. Wade, The Remaining Six “Conservative” Justices Appointed by Republican Presidents Could Overrule (at Least Partialy) ROE v. Calf. Given the Composition of the Court and the Course of the Oral Argument Last December, it is not unlikely that a majority of Justices will not declare mississippi’s “15-Week Ban” unconstitutional, contrary to previous case law.
Table of Contents
| Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
|---|---|---|---|
| Christian Funck: Fällt Roe v. Wade? Zur Abtreibungsrechtsprechung des US-Supreme Courts und den neuesten Entwicklungen im US-Abtreibungsrecht | 83 | ||
| A. Einleitung | 83 | ||
| B. Die Grundsatzentscheidungen | 84 | ||
| I. Roe v. Wade (1973) | 84 | ||
| 1. Sachverhalt | 84 | ||
| 2. Entscheidung und Begründung | 84 | ||
| a) Recht auf Schwangerschaftsabbruch aus Recht auf Privatsphäre | 84 | ||
| b) Recht auf Schwangerschaftsabbruch ist nicht absolut | 84 | ||
| c) Ungeborener Mensch ist keine „person” im Sinne des 14. Verfassungszusatzes | 85 | ||
| d) „Trimester Framework”: Gesundheit der Mutter und „potentielles Leben” als „compelling state interests” | 85 | ||
| II. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) | 86 | ||
| 1. Sachverhalt und Prozessgeschichte | 86 | ||
| 2. Entscheidung und Begründung | 86 | ||
| a) Grundsätzliche Bestätigung von Roe | 86 | ||
| b) Recht auf Schwangerschaftsabbruch aus dem 14. Verfassungszusatz („substantive due process”) | 86 | ||
| c) „Stare decisis”-Erwägungen gegen eine Aufhebung von Roe | 87 | ||
| d) Einführung des „undue burden”-Standards | 88 | ||
| C. Bedeutende Abtreibungsentscheidungen der letzten Jahre | 88 | ||
| I. Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) | 88 | ||
| II. June Med. Servs. L.L.C. v. Russo (2020) | 89 | ||
| D. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization | 89 | ||
| I. District Court – Jackson Womens Health Org. v. Currier (20.11.2018) | 89 | ||
| 1. Sachverhalt und Prozessgeschichte | 89 | ||
| 2. Entscheidung | 90 | ||
| II. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit – Jackson Womens Health Org. v. Dobbs (13.12.2019) | 91 | ||
| 1. Entscheidung | 91 | ||
| 2. Concurring Opinion | 91 | ||
| III. „Oral arguments” vor dem Supreme Court am 1. Dezember 2021 | 83 | ||
| E. Fazit und Ausblick | 83 | ||
| Abstract | 83 | ||
| Schlagworte | 83 |