Roe Vadega qarshi - Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia

Kelgusi film uchun qarang Roe Vadega qarshi (film).

Roe Vadega qarshi
Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Oliy sudining muhri
1971 yil 13-dekabrda bahslashdi
1972 yil 11 oktyabrda qayta ishlangan
1973 yil 22-yanvarda qaror qilingan
To'liq ish nomiJeyn Rou va boshq. v. Genri Ueyd, Dallas okrugining tuman prokurori
Iqtiboslar410 BIZ. 113 (Ko'proq )
93 S. Ct. 705; 35 LED. 2d 147; 1973 yil AQSh LEXIS 159
DalilOg'zaki bahs
Qayta hujjatQayta hujjat
QarorFikr
Ish tarixi
OldinDa'vogarlar uchun sud hukmi, buyruq rad etildi, 314 F. Ta'minot. 1217 (Texn. 1970); ehtimoliy yurisdiktsiya qayd etildi, 402 BIZ. 941 (1971); qayta sozlash uchun o'rnatildi, 408 BIZ. 919 (1972)
KeyingiMashq qilish rad etildi, 410 BIZ. 959 (1973)
Xolding
The Amalga oshiriladigan ishlar to'g'risidagi band ning AQSh Konstitutsiyasiga o'n to'rtinchi o'zgartirish homilador ayolga ega bo'lish yoki yo'qligini tanlash erkinligini himoya qiladigan asosiy "shaxsiy hayotga bo'lgan huquq" ni taqdim etadi abort. Bu huquq mutlaq emas va hukumatning ayollar salomatligini muhofaza qilish va tug'ruqdan oldin hayotni himoya qilish manfaatlariga muvozanatli bo'lishi kerak. Texas qonuni ayolga abort qilishda yordam berish jinoyat deb hisoblaydi, bu huquqni buzgan.
Sudga a'zolik
Bosh sudya
Uorren E. Burger
Associates Adliya
Uilyam O. Duglas  · Uilyam J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Styuart  · Bayron Uayt
Thurgood Marshall  · Garri Blekmun
Lyuis F. Pauell Jr.  · Uilyam Renxist
Ishning xulosalari
Ko'pchilikBlackmun, unga Burger, Duglas, Brennan, Styuart, Marshal, Pauell qo'shildi
Qarama-qarshilikBurger
Qarama-qarshilikDuglas
Qarama-qarshilikStyuart
Turli xilOq, unga Renxist qo'shildi
Turli xilRekvist
Amaldagi qonunlar
AQSh Konst. Tuzatish. XIV;
Tex. Kod jinoiy javobgarligi. Proc. san'at. 1191-94, 1196
Tomonidan bekor qilingan
(qisman) Rejalashtirilgan ota-onalik va Keysi (1992)

Roe Vadega qarshi, 410 AQSh 113 (1973),[1] edi a muhim qaror ning AQSh Oliy sudi unda sud qaroriga binoan Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Konstitutsiyasi homilador ayolni tanlash huquqini himoya qiladi abort haddan tashqari hukumat cheklovisiz. Bu AQShning ko'plab federal va shtatlarini urib yubordi abort to'g'risidagi qonunlar,[2][3] va davom ettirishga undadi milliy munozara Qo'shma Shtatlarda abort qilish qonuniymi yoki yo'qmi, abortning qonuniyligini kim hal qilishi kerak, Oliy sud konstitutsiyada qanday usullardan foydalanishi kerakligi haqida sud qarori va bu qanday rol o'ynaydi diniy va ahloqiy siyosiy sohadagi qarashlar bo'lishi kerak. Roe Vadega qarshi Amerika siyosatini qayta shakllantirdi, Qo'shma Shtatlarning ko'p qismini ikkiga bo'lib tashladi abort qilish huquqlari va abortga qarshi harakatlar paytida, faollashtirilganda oddiy ikkala tomonning harakatlari.

Ismli ayolning ishi bilan bog'liq qaror qabul qilindi Norma Makkorvi - "Jeyn Rou" taxallusi bilan sudda ma'lum bo'lgan - kim 1969 yilda uchinchi farzandiga homilador bo'lgan. Makkorvi abort qilishni xohlagan, ammo u Texasda yashagan, bu erda abort qilish noqonuniy bo'lib, onaning hayotini saqlab qolish uchun zarur bo'lgan holatlar bundan mustasno. U advokatlarga yuborildi Sara Weddington va Linda kofe, uning nomidan AQSh federal sudida mahalliy fuqarosiga qarshi da'vo qo'zg'agan tuman prokurori, Genri Ueyd, Texasning abort qilish to'g'risidagi qonunlari konstitutsiyaga zid deb da'vo qilmoqda. Uch sudyadan iborat hay'at Texasning Shimoliy okrugi uchun AQSh okrug sudi ishni ko'rib chiqdi va uning foydasiga qaror chiqardi. Keyinchalik Texas ushbu qaror ustidan to'g'ridan-to'g'ri AQSh Oliy sudiga shikoyat qildi va sud bu ishni ko'rib chiqishga rozi bo'ldi.

1973 yil yanvar oyida Oliy sud 7-2 qarorni chiqargan Amalga oshiriladigan ishlar to'g'risidagi band ning AQSh Konstitutsiyasiga o'n to'rtinchi o'zgartirish homilador ayolning abort qilish yoki qilmaslikni tanlash huquqini himoya qiluvchi "shaxsiy hayot huquqini" ta'minlaydi. Ammo, shuningdek, ushbu huquq mutlaq emas va hukumatning ayollar salomatligini himoya qilish va tug'ruqdan oldin hayotni himoya qilish manfaatlariga muvozanatli bo'lishi kerakligi to'g'risida qaror qabul qilindi.[4][5] Sud buni hal qildi muvozanat sinovi abortni davlat tomonidan tartibga solishni uchga bog'lash orqali homiladorlikning trimestrlari: birinchi trimestrda hukumatlar abort qilishni umuman taqiqlay olmadilar; ikkinchi trimestrda hukumatlar sog'liqni saqlash bo'yicha oqilona qoidalarni talab qilishi mumkin; qonunchilikda onaning hayoti yoki sog'lig'ini saqlab qolish uchun zarur bo'lgan holatlar istisno qilingan bo'lsa, uchinchi trimestrda abort qilish butunlay taqiqlanishi mumkin edi.[5] Sud abort qilishni tanlash huquqini "asosiy" deb tasnifladi, bunda sudlar tomonidan "abort qilish to'g'risidagi e'tiroz to'g'risidagi qonunlarni"qattiq nazorat "standarti, Qo'shma Shtatlardagi sud nazoratining eng yuqori darajasi.[6]

Roe ba'zi yuridik jamoatchilik tomonidan tanqid qilindi,[7] va ba'zilari qarorni shakl deb atashgan sud faolligi.[8] 1992 yilda Oliy sud o'zining qonuniy qarorlarini qayta ko'rib chiqdi va o'zgartirdi Roe bo'lgan holatda Rejalashtirilgan ota-onalik va Keysi.[9] Yilda Keysi, Sud yana bir bor tasdiqladi Roe"s ayolning abort qilishni tanlash huquqi konstitutsiyaviy ravishda himoyalangan, ammo tashlab qo'yilgan Roe"s trimester ramkasi asosida standart foydasiga homila hayotiyligi va bekor qilindi Roe"s abort qilish to'g'risidagi hukumat qarorlari qat'iy tekshiruv standartidan o'tkazilishini talab qilish.[4][10]

Fon

Qo'shma Shtatlarda abort qilish to'g'risidagi qonunlar tarixi

Sudning so'zlariga ko'ra, "bugungi kunda aksariyat Shtatlarda amalda bo'lgan abortni cheklovchi qonunlar nisbatan yaqinda ishlab chiqarilgan". Abort bo'yicha tarixiy tahlilni taqdim etish, Adolat Garri Blekmun abort Yunoniston va Rim davrida "shafqatsiz murojaat qilinganligini" ta'kidladi.[11] Blekmun ham tarix davomida abort qilishning ruxsat etilgan va cheklovchi munosabatlari va qonunlariga murojaat qilib, o'sha davrlarda rahbarlar (har xil kasb egalari) o'rtasidagi kelishmovchiliklar va shakllantiruvchi qonunlar va holatlarni qayd etdi.[12] Qo'shma Shtatlarda, 1821 yilda, Konnektikut abortni jinoyat deb hisoblaydigan birinchi shtat qonunini qabul qildi. 1900 yilgacha har bir shtatda abort qilish to'g'risidagi qonun hujjatlari mavjud edi.[13] Qo'shma Shtatlarda abort ba'zan a deb hisoblangan umumiy Qonun jinoyat,[14] garchi Adliya Blekmun abortni jinoiy javobgarlikka tortish "ingliz odob-axloq an'analariga asoslanmagan" degan xulosaga keladi.[15] Abort qilayotgan ayollarni hibsga olish o'rniga, yuridik mansabdor shaxslar ushbu ayolning ishini yopish uchun abort qiluvchiga qarshi dalillarni olish uchun so'roq qilishlari mumkin edi.[16][17]

1971 yilda Florida shtatidagi kasalxona xodimlari uning noqonuniy aborti haqida politsiyaga xabar berishganidan so'ng, Shirli Uilerga odam o'ldirishda ayblov e'lon qilindi. U ikki yillik sinov jazosini oldi va shartli ravishda yana Shimoliy Karolinadagi ota-onasining uyiga ko'chib o'tishga majbur bo'ldi.[16] Bostonda ayollar abort qilish koalitsiyasi Bostondagi Uiler uchun pul yig'ish va uning ayblovlari to'g'risida xabardor bo'lish uchun miting o'tkazdi, shuningdek mitingda Xotin-qizlar abort qilish bo'yicha milliy koalitsiya (WONAAC) xodimlari so'zga chiqdilar.[18] Uiler, ehtimol, abort qilish uchun jinoiy javobgarlikka tortilgan birinchi ayol edi.[19] Uning hukmini Florida Oliy sudi bekor qildi.[16]

Kaliforniya terapevtik abort qonuni qabul qilinishi bilan[20] 1967 yilda abort ushbu shtatning talabiga binoan asosan qonuniy holga aylandi. Boshqa shtatlardagi homilador ayollar, agar imkoni bo'lsa, qonuniy abort qilish uchun Kaliforniyaga borishlari mumkin edi. Dallasdan Los-Anjelesga uchadigan samolyot "abort qilish maxsus" laqabini oldi, chunki uning ko'plab yo'lovchilari shu sababli sayohat qilishgan. "Oilaviy bo'lmagan reja" deb nomlanuvchi qadoqlangan sayohatlar mavjud edi.[21]

Ishning tarixi

1969 yil iyun oyida 21 yoshli Norma Makkorvi uning uchinchi farzandiga homilador bo'lganligini aniqladi. U qaytib keldi Dallas, do'stlari unga "zo'rlangan deb yolg'on da'vo qilishni maslahat berib, Texas qonunchiligi zo'rlash va intsest holatlarida abort qilishga imkon beradi, deb noto'g'ri ishonib, faqat" onaning hayotini saqlab qolish uchun "abort qilishga ruxsat berganida. U an-ni olishga urindi noqonuniy abort, ammo ruxsatsiz ob'ekt politsiya tomonidan yopilganligini aniqladi. Oxir-oqibat, u advokatlarga yuborildi Linda kofe va Sara Weddington.[22][23] Makkorvi ish tugamaguncha tug'ilishni tugatadi va bolani asrab olishga topshiradi.[24]

1970 yilda Coffee and Weddington da'vo arizasi bilan murojaat qildi Texas shtatining Shimoliy okrugi uchun AQSh sudi Makkorvey nomidan (taxallus ostida) Jeyn Rou ). Ishda sudlanuvchi bo'lgan Dallas okrugi prokurori Genri Ueyd, Texas shtati vakili bo'lgan. Makkorvey endi homiladorligi zo'rlash natijasida bo'lgan deb da'vo qilmadi va keyinroq ayolning hayotiga xavf tug'diradigan holatlar bundan mustasno, Texasning abort qilishni taqiqlovchi qonunini chetlab o'tish umidida u zo'rlanganligi to'g'risida yolg'on gapirganini tan oldi.[25][26][27] "Zo'rlash" jinoyat ishi bo'yicha sud xulosalarida qayd etilmagan.[28]

1970 yil 17 iyunda Texas sudyalarining Shimoliy okrugidan iborat tuman sudining uch sudyadan iborat hay'ati Sara T. Xyuz, Uilyam Maklolin Teylor kichik. va Beshinchi tuman apellyatsiya sudi Hakam Irving Loeb Goldberg, bir ovozdan[28] Texas qonunini konstitutsiyaga zid deb topdi va uning shaxsiy hayotga daxldorlik huquqini buzganligini aniqladi To'qqizinchi o'zgartirish. Bundan tashqari, sud Adolat sudiga tayangan Artur Goldberg 1965 yilgi kelishuv Grisvold va Konnektikut. Biroq sud sud qarzini berishdan bosh tortdi buyruq qonun ijrosiga qarshi.[29]

Oliy sud oldidagi masalalar

Og'zaki bahslar va dastlabki munozaralar

Roe Vadega qarshi 1970 yilda Apellyatsiya shikoyati bilan Oliy sudga murojaat qildi. Sudlar bu choralarni ko'rishni kechiktirdilar Roe va chambarchas bog'liq ish, Doe va Bolton, ular qaror qilgunga qadar Yoshroq va Xarrisga qarshi (chunki ular murojaatlarda sud yurisdiksiyasi bo'yicha qiyin savollar tug'dirganini sezishgan) va Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Vuitchga qarshi (unda ular a-ning konstitutsiyaviyligini ko'rib chiqdilar Kolumbiya okrugi abortni jinoiy javobgarlikka tortadigan nizom, onaning hayoti yoki sog'lig'iga xavf tug'diradigan holatlar bundan mustasno). Yilda Vuitch, Sud qonunni qat'iyan qo'llab-quvvatladi, ammo bunda abortni tibbiy protsedura sifatida ko'rib chiqdi va shifokorlarga (jismoniy yoki ruhiy) sog'liq uchun nima xavf tug'dirishini aniqlash uchun joy berilishi kerakligini aytdi. Ertasi kuni ular qarorlarini e'lon qilishdi Vuitch, ikkalasini ham eshitish uchun ovoz berishdi Roe va Doe.[30]

Bahslar to'liq sud tomonidan 1971 yil 13-dekabrga belgilangan edi. Sud og'zaki bahslarni eshitmasdan oldin, Adliya Ugo Blek va Jon Marshall Xarlan II nafaqaga chiqqan. Bosh sudya Uorren Burger - deb so'radi Adolat Potter Styuart yoki yo'qligini aniqlash uchun Adliya Blekmun Roe va Doeboshqalar qatorida, rejalashtirilganidek eshitilishi kerak. Blekmunning so'zlariga ko'ra, Styuart bu ishlarning to'g'ridan-to'g'ri qo'llanilishi deb hisoblagan Yoshroq va Xarrisga qarshiva ular sudga belgilangan muddat bo'yicha harakat qilishni maslahat berishdi.[31]

Abortga qo'yilgan cheklovlarni himoya qilish uchun o'zining dastlabki argumentida advokat Jey Floyd keyinchalik "huquqiy tarixdagi eng yomon hazil" deb ta'riflagan.[32] Ikki ayol huquqshunosga qarshi paydo bo'lgan Floyd, "janob bosh sudya va bu sudga ma'qul bo'lsin. Bu eski hazil, ammo erkak bu kabi ikkita go'zal xonimga qarshi bahslashganda, ular oxirgi so'zni aytishadi" deb boshladi. Uning so'zlarini sovuq sukunat kutib oldi; Kuzatuvchilardan biri, sudyaning bosh sudyasi Burger "unga qarama-qarshi skameykadan tushadi", deb o'yladi.[33][34]

Birinchi tortishuvlardan so'ng, etti sudya ham Texas qonuni bekor qilinishi kerak, ammo har xil asoslarda shartli ravishda kelishib oldilar.[35] Burger sud xulosasini yozish rolini tayinladi Roe (shu qatorda; shu bilan birga Doe) Blekmunga, u Texas qonunining noaniqligi deb hisoblagan dastlabki fikrni tuzishni boshladi.[36] (Bu vaqtda Blek va Xarlanning o'rnini Adlislar egallashgan edi Uilyam Renxist va Lyuis F. Pauell Jr., ammo ular birinchi bahsni eshitish uchun juda kech kelishdi.) Ammo Blekmun o'zining fikri uning liberal hamkasblari qarashlarini etarli darajada aks ettirmasligini sezdi.[37] 1972 yil may oyida u ishni qayta ko'rib chiqishni taklif qildi. adolat Uilyam O. Duglas orqa sud buyrug'idan norozilikni yozish bilan tahdid qildi (u va boshqa liberal odil sudlar Rehnquist va Pauell qonunni qo'llab-quvvatlash uchun ovoz berishidan shubhalanishdi), lekin uning hamkasblari uni harakatdan chiqarib yuborishdi va uning noroziligi shunchaki orqada qayd etildi qo'shimcha bayonot yoki fikrsiz buyurtma.[38][39] Ish 1972 yil 11 oktyabrda qayta ko'rib chiqildi. Weddington o'z vakilligini davom ettirdi RoeJey Floyd o'rniga Texas shtati bosh prokurorining yordamchisi Robert C. Gulz Texasga tayinlandi.[40]

Fikrni tayyorlash

Blackmun yozgi ta'tilda ikkala holatda ham o'z fikrlari ustida ishlashni davom ettirdi, garchi unga yana ularni yozish tayinlanganiga kafolat yo'q edi. Tanaffus paytida u bir hafta davomida abort qilish tarixini o'rganib chiqdi Mayo klinikasi u 1950-yillarda ishlagan Minnesota shtatida. Sud ikkinchi bahs bahslarini tinglagandan so'ng, Pauell Blekmununning xulosasiga rozi bo'lishini aytdi, ammo bunga majbur qildi Roe abort qilish bo'yicha ko'rib chiqilayotgan ikkita ishning etakchisi bo'lish. Shuningdek, Pauell sudga Texas qonunchiligini maxfiylik nuqtai nazaridan bekor qilishni taklif qildi. adolat Bayron Uayt Blackmunning fikriga imzo chekishni istamadi va Rehnquist allaqachon boshqa fikrga kelishga qaror qilgan edi.[41]

Qaror qabul qilinishidan oldin, odil sudlovchilar trimestr doirasini uzoq vaqt muhokama qilishdi. Adliya Pauell davlatning aralashishi mumkin bo'lgan nuqtani hayotga yaroqliligiga qo'yishni taklif qilgan edi Thurgood Marshall shuningdek qo'llab-quvvatlandi.[42] Ko'pchilik qarori e'lon qilinishidan oldin boshqa odil sudyalarga yozgan ichki eslatmasida Adliya Blekmun shunday yozgan edi: "Men birinchi trimestrning oxiri juda muhim degan xulosaga kelganimni kuzatasiz. Bu o'zboshimchalik bilan, lekin ehtimol boshqa har qanday tanlangan nuqta, masalan tezlashtirish yoki hayotiylik teng darajada o'zboshimchalik bilan amalga oshiriladi. "[43] Re tarafdorlari shoshilinch ravishda ta'kidladilar, ammo bu eslatma faqat Blackmunning trimester doirasi vaqtiga nisbatan noaniqligini aks ettiradi, ramka yoki xoldingning o'zi emas.[44] Blackmun-dan farqli o'laroq, Adliya Duglas birinchi trimestr qatorini afzal ko'rdi.[45] Adliya Styuartning ta'kidlashicha, bu yo'nalishlar "qonunchilikka asoslangan" va Blackmunning qaroriga qo'shilgan bo'lsa-da, shtat qonunchilik organlariga ko'proq moslashuvchanlik va e'tibor berilishini talab qilmoqda.[46] adolat Uilyam J. Brennan Jr. homilaning yoshiga qarab tuzilmalardan voz kechishni taklif qildilar va buning o'rniga davlatlarga ona uchun xavfsizligi asosida protsedurani tartibga solishga imkon berishdi.[45]

Oliy sud qarori

1973 yil 22 yanvarda Oliy sud Norma Makkori ("Jeyn Rou") foydasiga AQShning ayollari abort qilish yoki qilmaslikni hukumat tomonidan haddan tashqari cheklovsiz tanlashda asosiy huquqqa ega ekanligi to'g'risida 7-2 qaror qabul qildi. va Texasning abort qilishni taqiqlash konstitutsiyaga zid deb topildi. Qaror, sherik ishi bilan birga chiqarilgan, Doe va Bolton, shunga o'xshash qiyinchiliklarni o'z ichiga olgan Gruziya Abort qilish to'g'risidagi qonunlar.

Sudning fikri

adolat Garri Blekmun, ko'pchilik fikri muallifi Roe Vadega qarshi

Etti adolat ko'pchilikni tashkil qildi va Adolat tomonidan yozilgan fikrga qo'shildi Garri Blekmun. Fikr ishning faktlarini o'qidi, keyin protsedura masalalari ko'rib chiqildi va asoslilik ishning asosiy konstitutsiyaviy masalalariga o'tishdan oldin.

Tik turib

Sud xulosasi birinchi navbatda huquqiy masalalarni ko'rib chiqdi tik turib va mavhumlik. Ushbu qoidalarning an'anaviy talqiniga ko'ra, Norma Makkorveyning ("Jeyn Rou") e'tirozi juda muhim edi, chunki u allaqachon o'z farzandini dunyoga keltirgan va shu sababli sud qaroriga ta'sir qilmaydi; u boshqa homilador ayollarning huquqlarini himoya qilish uchun o'z mavqeiga ega emas edi.[47] U "haqiqiy" ni taqdim etmaganligi sababli ish yoki tortishuv "(shikoyat va yordamni talab qilish), Oliy sud tomonidan chiqarilgan har qanday xulosa quyidagini anglatadi maslahat fikri.[48]

Sud xulosa qilishicha, bu ish belgilangan qoidalardan istisno qilingan: "takrorlashga qodir bo'lgan, ammo ko'rib chiqishdan qochgan" masalani ko'rib chiqishga imkon bergan.[49] Ushbu ibora 1911 yilda Adolat tomonidan ishlab chiqilgan Jozef MakKenna yilda Janubiy Tinch okeani terminal terminali va ICC.[50] Blekmunning fikri Makkennadan keltirgan va homiladorlik odatda apellyatsiya jarayoniga qaraganda tezroq tugashini ta'kidlagan: "Agar bu tugatish ishning mohiyatini keltirib chiqaradigan bo'lsa, homiladorlik bo'yicha sud jarayoni kamdan-kam hollarda sinov bosqichidan tashqarida omon qoladi va apellyatsiya tekshiruvi inkor etiladi".[51]

Abort qilish va shaxsiy hayotga bo'lgan huquq

Vaziyatni ko'rib chiqqandan so'ng, sud ishning asosiy masalasiga o'tdi: abort to'g'risidagi qonunlarning konstitutsiyaga muvofiqligi. Bu abortning huquqiy holatini tarixiy o'rganish bilan boshlandi Rim qonuni va Angliya-Amerika umumiy huquqi.[5] Shuningdek, 20-asrning boshlarida ishonchli xavfsiz holatga kelgan abortlarni amalga oshirish bo'yicha tibbiy protseduralar va texnologiyaning rivojlanishi ko'rib chiqildi.[5]

Tarixiy so'rovdan so'ng, Sud konstitutsiyaviy "shaxsiy hayotga bo'lgan huquq" kontseptsiyasini taqdim etdi, bu avvalgi holatlarda farzand tarbiyasi ustidan ota-onalarning nazorati bilan bog'liq edi (Meyer va Nebraska va Pirs va opa-singillar jamiyati va kontratseptsiya yordamida reproduktiv muxtoriyat (Grisvold va Konnektikut ).[5] Keyin, "maxfiylik qiymatini deyarli izohlashsiz",[6] Sud qaroriga ko'ra, ushbu qoidalarning qaysi biri bilan bog'liq bo'lishidan qat'iy nazar, AQSh Konstitutsiyasining erkinlik kafolatlari, odatda, homilador ayolning homiladorlikni bekor qilish yoki qilmaslik to'g'risidagi qarorini himoya qiladigan shaxsiy hayot huquqini qamrab oladi.[5]

Ushbu maxfiylik huquqi, unda belgilanadimi yoki yo'qmi O'n to'rtinchi o'zgartirish Shaxsiy erkinlik kontseptsiyasi va davlat harakatlarini cheklash, biz buni his qilganimiz kabi yoki ... ichida To'qqizinchi o'zgartirish Odamlarga bo'lgan huquqlarni saqlab qolish, ayolning homiladorligini to'xtatish yoki qilmaslik to'g'risidagi qarorini qamrab oladigan darajada kengdir.

— Roe, 153 da 410 AQSh.[52]

Sud abortlarni taqiqlash bir necha sabablarga ko'ra homilador ayolning shaxsiy hayotiga daxl qilmaslik huquqini buzadi, deb ta'kidladi: istalmagan bolalar tug'ilishi "ayolga og'ir hayot va kelajakni majbur qilishi mumkin"; yaqinda psixologik zarar etkazishi mumkin; bolaga g'amxo'rlik qilish onaning jismoniy va ruhiy sog'lig'iga soliq solishi mumkin; va "istalmagan bola bilan bog'liq barcha tashvishlar" bo'lishi mumkinligi sababli.[53]

Ammo sud ushbu shaxsiy hayotga bo'lgan huquq mutlaq edi degan tushunchani rad etdi. Buning o'rniga abort qilish huquqi boshqa hukumat manfaatlariga muvozanatli bo'lishi kerak edi. Sud davlatlarning abort qilishni tanlash huquqiga ba'zi cheklovlar qo'yishiga etarli darajada "majburiy" bo'lgan ikkita hukumat manfaatlarini aniqladi: birinchidan, onaning sog'lig'ini himoya qilish, ikkinchidan, homila hayotini himoya qilish.[5][5]

Davlat sog'liqni saqlash, tibbiy standartlarni saqlash va potentsial hayotni muhofaza qilishda muhim manfaatlarni munosib ravishda ta'minlashi mumkin. Homiladorlikning bir nuqtasida, ushbu manfaatlar abort qilish to'g'risidagi qarorni boshqaradigan omillarni tartibga solishni ta'minlash uchun etarlicha majburiy bo'lib qoladi. ... Shunday qilib, biz shaxsiy shaxsiy hayot huquqi abort qilish to'g'risidagi qarorni o'z ichiga oladi, ammo bu huquq malakasiz emas va tartibga solishda muhim davlat manfaatlariga qarshi ko'rib chiqilishi kerak degan xulosaga kelamiz.

— Roe, 410 AQSh 154 da.

Texas shtati abortga umuman taqiqlarni asosli deb ta'kidlagan edi, chunki "hayot" shu paytdan boshlanadi kontseptsiya va shuning uchun uning tug'ruqdan oldin hayotni muhofaza qilishdagi davlat manfaati, ularning bosqichidan qat'i nazar, barcha homiladorlik uchun qo'llanilishi kerak.[6] Ammo sud, Konstitutsiyada "odam" so'zi homilani o'z ichiga olishi uchun hech qanday ishora yo'qligini aniqladi va shu sababli Texasning homilani qonuniy va konstitutsiyaviy hayot huquqiga ega bo'lgan "shaxs" deb hisoblash kerak degan fikrini rad etdi.[5] Tug'ilmagan homila qachon tirik mavjudotga aylanishi to'g'risida hali ham katta kelishmovchiliklar mavjudligini ta'kidladilar.[54]

Hayot qachon boshlanadi degan qiyin savolni hal qilishimiz shart emas. Tegishli tibbiyot, falsafa va ilohiyot fanlari bo'yicha o'qitilganlar biron bir kelishuvga erisha olmasalar, sud hokimiyati inson bilimlarini rivojlantirishning ushbu nuqtasida javob sifatida taxmin qilish imkoniyatiga ega emas.

— Roe, 159 da 410 AQSh.[55]

Sud uchta qarorga keldi homiladorlikning trimestrlari muammoni hal qilish uchun asos sifatida. Birinchi trimestrda, protsedura deb ishonilganida tug'ruqdan ko'ra xavfsizroq, Sud qaroriga ko'ra, hukumat ayolning homiladorlikni bekor qilishni tanlashiga hech qanday cheklov qo'ymasligi mumkin, masalan, litsenziyalangan shifokorning protsedurani bajarishini talab qilish kabi minimal tibbiy choralar.[6] Ikkinchi trimestrdan boshlab, Sud onaning sog'lig'i uchun xavf-xatarni ko'payishi davlatga jiddiy qiziqish uyg'otdi va ushbu protsedura bo'yicha tibbiy qoidalarni oqilona va onalarning huquqlarini himoya qilish uchun "tor darajada" ishlab chiqilgan bo'lishi mumkin deb qaror qildi. sog'liq.[6] Uchinchi trimestrning boshlanishi odatda 1970-yillarning boshlarida mavjud bo'lgan tibbiyot fanlari darajasida homilaning hayotga kiradigan nuqtasi deb hisoblanganligi sababli, Sud uchinchi trimestrda davlat tug'ruqdan oldin hayotni himoya qilishga jiddiy qiziqish bildirgan. va onaning hayoti yoki sog'lig'ini himoya qilish uchun zarur bo'lgan holatlar bundan mustasno, barcha abortlarni qonuniy ravishda taqiqlashi mumkin.[6]

Sud Texasning abort qilish to'g'risidagi qonunlari konstitutsiyaga zid deb xulosa qildi va ularni bekor qildi:

Homiladorlik davrini hisobga olmagan holda va boshqa manfaatlarni hisobga olmasdan, onaning nomidan faqat hayotni saqlab qolish tartibini istisno qiladigan amaldagi Texas shtatidagi abort qilish to'g'risidagi davlat to'g'risidagi nizom, "Jinoyat ishi" qoidalarini buzgan hisoblanadi. O'n to'rtinchi o'zgartirish.

— Roe, 410 AQSh 164 da.

Qarama-qarshiliklar

Oliy sudning yana bir nechta a'zolari ish bo'yicha o'zaro fikr bildirdilar. adolat Potter Styuart kelishilgan fikrni yozdi, u Konstitutsiyada abort qilishni aralashishsiz tanlash huquqi haqida hech narsa aytilmagan bo'lsa-da, sud qarorini doktrinaning joiz talqini deb o'ylardi. moddiy sud jarayoni, deyilgan Amalga oshiriladigan ishlar to'g'risidagi band"s erkinlikni himoya qilish oddiy protseduralardan tashqarida va ba'zi asosiy huquqlarni himoya qiladi.[56][57] adolat Uilyam O. Duglas kelishilgan fikrni yozdi, u sudning abort qilishni tanlash huquqi asosiy huquq ekanligini aniqlashda to'g'ri ekanligiga qaramay, uni buni To'qqizinchi o'zgartirish - bu huquqning Konstitutsiyada maxsus qayd etilmaganligi, o'n to'rtinchi tuzatishning tegishli protsedurasi moddasi orqali emas, balki amerikaliklar unga egalik qilmasligi bilan izohlanmasligi kerakligini ta'kidlaydi.[56][57] Bosh sudya Uorren Burger bir kelishuvni yozib, u abortni amalga oshirishdan oldin davlatga ikkita shifokorning guvohnomasini talab qilishiga ruxsat berish joiz deb o'ylaganini yozgan.[56]

Qarama-qarshiliklar

Adolatlar Bayron Uayt (chapda) va Uilyam Renxist (o'ngda), ikki norozi Roe Vadega qarshi

Adolatlar Bayron Uayt va Uilyam Renxist Sud qaroridan norozi bo'lib, ularning noroziligi keyinchalik tanqid qilinishiga olib keladigan fikrlarga to'xtaldi Roe qaror.[6]

Uaytning noroziligi chiqarildi Roe"s sherik ishi, Doe va Bolton va sudning homilador ayollar va tug'ilmagan bolalarning raqobatdosh qadriyatlari o'rtasida qaror qabul qilish uchun asos yo'qligiga ishonishini tavsiflaydi. U abortning qonuniyligini "odamlar o'z ishlarini boshqarish uchun o'ylab topgan siyosiy jarayonlar va odamlar ixtiyorida qoldirish kerak" deb hisoblagan.[58]

Men Konstitutsiyaning tili yoki tarixida Sud qarorini qo'llab-quvvatlovchi hech narsa topolmadim. Sud shunchaki modalar va homilador ayollar uchun yangi konstitutsiyaviy huquqni e'lon qiladi va deyarli har qanday sabab yoki vakolat bilan ushbu huquqni mavjud davlat abort qilish to'g'risidagi qonunlarni bekor qilish uchun etarli miqdordagi mablag 'bilan sarflaydi. Xulosa shuki, 50 shtatning xalqi va qonun chiqaruvchi organlari, bir tomondan, homilaning davom etishi va rivojlanishining nisbiy ahamiyatini, bir tomondan, ayolga, shu bilan birga, ayolga ta'sir etishi mumkin bo'lgan spektrga nisbatan solishtirish uchun konstitutsiyaviy ravishda nogiron. . Sud sud hokimiyatini amalga oshirish sifatida, sud bugungi kunda nimani qilish vakolatiga ega bo'lsa; ammo, mening fikrimcha, uning qarori Konstitutsiya ushbu Sudga taalluqli bo'lgan sud nazorati vakolatlarini noma'lum va ekstravagant ravishda amalga oshirishdir.

— Doe, 410 AQSh soat 221-22 da (Oq, J., boshqacha fikrda).

Rehnquistning noroziligi ko'pchilik tomonidan ishlatilishini taqqosladi moddiy sud jarayoni sudning 1905 yildagi ishda ushbu doktrinadan rad etilgani uchun Lochner va Nyu-York.[6] U sudning tarixiy tahlilida nuqson bo'lganligini ta'kidlab, Uaytning bir nechta fikrlarini batafsil bayon qildi:

Uning natijasiga erishish uchun sud, albatta, o'n to'rtinchi tuzatish doirasida, aftidan, tuzatishlar ishlab chiqaruvchilari uchun umuman noma'lum bo'lgan huquqni topishi kerak edi. 1821 yildayoq Konnektikut qonun chiqaruvchisi tomonidan to'g'ridan-to'g'ri abort bilan shug'ullanadigan birinchi davlat qonuni chiqarildi. 1868 yilda o'n to'rtinchi tuzatish qabul qilinganida, abortni cheklovchi shtat yoki hududiy qonun chiqaruvchi organlar tomonidan qabul qilingan kamida 36 qonun mavjud edi. Ko'pgina davlatlar o'zlarining qonunlariga o'zgartirishlar kiritgan yoki yangilagan bo'lsa-da, 1868 yildagi kitoblar to'g'risidagi 21 qonun bugungi kunda ham o'z kuchida qolmoqda.

— Roe, 410 AQSh 174-76 yillarda (Rehnquist, J., boshqacha fikrda).[59][60][61]

Ushbu tarixiy yozuvdan Rexkvist shunday xulosaga keldi: "O'n to'rtinchi tuzatish qabul qilinganda, ehtimol ushbu qoidaning yoki boshqa davlat qonunlarining birortasi to'g'risida hech qanday savol tug'ilmagan". Shuning uchun, uning fikriga ko'ra, "ishlab chiquvchilar o'n to'rtinchi tuzatish bu masalada qonun chiqarish huquqini Shtatlardan olib qo'yishni niyat qilmaganlar".[62]

Qabul qilish

Siyosiy

Siyosiy mansublikning abort qilish huquqi va abortga qarshi masalalar bilan bog'liqligini statistik baholash shuni ko'rsatadiki, jamoatchilik fikri abort odatdagidek qabul qilinadigan vaqtga nisbatan ancha nozikroq.[63] Bunga javoban safarbar bo'lgan eng taniqli uyushgan guruhlar Roe ular Abort qilish huquqlari bo'yicha milliy harakat ligasi va Milliy yashash huquqi qo'mitasi.

Qo'llab-quvvatlash

Advokatlari Roe uni saqlab qolish uchun juda muhim deb ta'riflang ayollar huquqlari, shaxsiy erkinlik, tana yaxlitligi va shaxsiy hayot. Himoyachilar, shuningdek, xavfsiz abort qilish va reproduktiv erkinlikdan foydalanish odatda asosiy huquqlardir, deb o'ylashdi. Ba'zi olimlar (Oliy sudning biron bir a'zosi, shu jumladan emas), abort qilish huquqini rad etishni majburiy onalikka tenglashtirdilar va shuning uchun abort qilishni taqiqlash buzilishini buzadi O'n uchinchi tuzatish:

Ayollar bolalarni ko'tarishga va tug'ishga majbur bo'lganda, ular O'n uchinchi tuzatishni buzgan holda "majburiy xizmatga" duchor bo'lmoqdalar…. uni homilador bo'lishga majbur qilish.[64]

Ning tarafdorlari Roe O'n to'rtinchi tuzatishda qaror konstitutsiyaviy asosga ega yoki abort qilishning asosiy huquqi Konstitutsiyaning boshqa qismida topilgan, ammo qarorda ko'rsatilgan moddalarda emas, deb da'vo qilish.[64][65]

Qarama-qarshilik

Namoyishchilar 2009 yilda Hayot uchun mart qarshi miting Roe Vadega qarshi

Har yili, ushbu qarorning yubileyida, abortga qarshi chiqqanlar saf tortishadi Konstitutsiya xiyoboni uchun Oliy sud binosi yilda Vashington, Kolumbiya, ichida Hayot uchun mart.[66] Yurishda 2010 yilgacha 250 mingga yaqin kishi qatnashgan.[67][68] Hisob-kitoblarga ko'ra, 2011 va 2012 yilgi tashriflar har biri 400 ming kishidan iborat,[69] va 2013 yilgi Hayot uchun Mart 650,000 kishini jalb qildi.[70]

Muxoliflari Roe qarorning haqiqiy konstitutsiyaviy asosga ega emasligini tasdiqlang.[71] Boshqa muxoliflar singari Roe, ular Konstitutsiya bu masalada jim turishini va bu savolga to'g'ri echimlarni Oliy sudning hamma narsani qamrab olgan qarori bilan emas, balki shtat qonun chiqaruvchi organlari va qonun chiqaruvchi jarayonlar orqali topish mumkinligini ta'kidlaydilar.[72]

Ga qarshi taniqli dalil Roe Qaror shuki, mazmunli hayot qachon boshlanishi haqida kelishuv bo'lmasa, zarar etkazish xavfidan saqlanish yaxshiroqdir.[73]

Bunga javoban Roe Vadega qarshi, aksariyat davlatlar abort qilishni cheklovchi yoki tartibga soluvchi qonunlarni qabul qilgan yoki qabul qilishga urinishgan, masalan, talab qilinadigan qonunlar ota-onalarning roziligi yoki voyaga etmaganlarning abort qilishlari to'g'risida ota-onalarning xabarnomasi; turmush o'rtoqlarning o'zaro roziligi to'g'risidagi qonunlar; turmush o'rtog'ining xabarnomasi qonunlar; abortlarni klinikalarda emas, kasalxonalarda amalga oshirishni talab qiluvchi qonunlar; abortni davlat tomonidan moliyalashtirishni taqiqlovchi qonunlar; qonunlarni taqiqlash yaxlit kengayish va ekstraktsiya, qisman tug'ilishning aborti deb ham ataladi; abortdan oldin kutish muddatlarini talab qiluvchi qonunlar; va abort qilishdan oldin ayollar ayrim adabiyot turlarini o'qishlari va homilaning ultratovush tekshiruvini o'tkazishlari kerakligi to'g'risidagi qonunlar.[74] 1976 yilda Kongress o'tdi Hyde-ga o'zgartirish, kambag'al ayollar uchun abortlarni federal tarzda moliyalashtirishni taqiqlash (zo'rlash, qarindoshlararo munosabatlar yoki onaning hayotiga tahdid). Medicaid dastur. Oliy sud 1970-yillarning o'rtalaridan 1980-yillarning oxiriga qadar davom etadigan uzoq qator ishlarda ba'zi davlat cheklovlarini bekor qildi, ammo mablag 'ajratish bo'yicha cheklovlarni, shu jumladan Hyde Tuzatish, Xarris va Makrey (1980).[75]

Abortga qarshi chiquvchilarning ba'zilari buni qo'llab-quvvatlamoqda shaxsiyat dan boshlanadi urug'lantirish yoki kontseptsiya va shuning uchun Konstitutsiya bilan himoya qilinishi kerak;[65] norozi odil sudyalar Roe aksincha abort qilish to'g'risida qarorlarni "odamlar o'z ishlarini boshqarish uchun o'ylab topgan siyosiy jarayonlar va odamlar ixtiyorida qoldirish kerak" deb yozgan.[76]

1995 yilda Norma L. Makkorvi aylanganligini oshkor qildi abortga qarshi va shu vaqtdan boshlab 2017 yilda vafotigacha u abortning ashaddiy raqibi edi.[77] 2017 yilda vafotidan oldin suratga olingan hujjatli filmda u abortni qo'llab-quvvatlashini qayta tikladi va abortga qarshi guruhlar, shu jumladan, qutqarish operatsiyasi tomonidan unga yordam berish evaziga pul to'laganini aytdi.[78][79]

Huquqiy

Mualliflik qilgan adolat Blackmun Roe qaror, u tashkil etgan analitik asosda turibdi Roe faoliyati davomida.[80] Dastlabki istamasligiga qaramay, u suddagi keyingi yillarda qarorning bosh chempioni va himoyachisi bo'ldi.[81]Liberal va feministik huquqshunos olimlar tomonidan turli xil munosabat bildirilgan Roe, har doim ham qarorni malakasiz qo'llab-quvvatlamaydi. Bitta dalil shuki, Adolat Blekmun to'g'ri natijaga erishdi, ammo noto'g'ri yo'l tutdi.[82] Boshqasi - bu oxiriga etkazish Roe vositalarini oqlamaydi sud fiat.[83]

adolat Jon Pol Stivens, qaror bilan rozi bo'lish bilan birga, maxfiylik masalasiga torroq e'tibor qaratish lozim edi. Stivensning so'zlariga ko'ra, agar bu qaror trimestr doirasidan qochgan bo'lsa va shunchaki shaxsiy hayot huquqi abort qilishni tanlash huquqini o'z ichiga olganligini bildirgan bo'lsa, qonuniy nuqtai nazardan "bu juda maqbulroq bo'lishi mumkin edi".[84] adolat Rut Bader Ginsburg sudga qo'shilishidan oldin, liberallashtirish uchun paydo bo'layotgan harakatni tugatish uchun qarorni tanqid qilgan edi abort to'g'risidagi qonun qonunchilik orqali.[85] Ginsburg, shuningdek, sudning yondashuvini "shifokor o'z kasbini o'zi yaxshi bilganidek shug'ullanishi uchun erkinligi to'g'risida .... Ayollarga yo'naltirilgan emas. Shifokorlarga yo'naltirilgan edi", deb aybladi.[86] Votergeyt prokuror Arxibald Koks yozgan: "[Roe's] bu masalaga printsipial jihatdan duch kelmaslik fikrni kasalxonadagi qoidalar va qoidalar kabi o'qishga qoldiradi .... na tarixchi, na oddiy odam va na advokat Blackmunning barcha ko'rsatmalari Konstitutsiyaning bir qismi ekanligiga ishonishmaydi. . "[87]

Yuqori darajada keltirilgan Yel huquqi jurnali qaror qabul qilinganidan keyin bir necha oy ichida chop etilgan maqola,[8] amerikalik huquqshunos olim John Hart Ely qattiq tanqid qilindi Roe Amerika konstitutsiyaviy qonunchiligidan uzilib qolgan qaror sifatida.[88]

Qo'rqinchli narsa Roe bu o'ta himoyalangan huquq Konstitutsiya tili, ishlab chiquvchilarning mulohaza qilinayotgan muammoni, ular kiritgan qoidalardan kelib chiqadigan har qanday umumiy qiymatni hurmat qilganligi yoki millatning hukumat tuzilmasidan kelib chiqadigan xulosasi emas. ... muammo Roe u o'zi qo'ygan savolga javob beradigan darajada emas, aksincha Konstitutsiya sud ishiga aylantirmagan savolni o'zi qo'yadi. ... [Roe] yomon, chunki u yomon konstitutsiyaviy qonun, aniqrog'i shunday emas konstitutsiyaviy qonun va deyarli hech qanday majburiyatni anglatmaydi.

— Jon Xart Eli (1973), "Yig'layotgan bo'rining ish haqi: sharh Roe Vadega qarshi", Yel huquqi jurnali, 82 (5): 920–49, doi:10.2307/795536, JSTOR  795536, PMID  11663374.[89]

Professor Lorens Tribe shunga o'xshash fikrlarni boshdan kechirdi: "Eng qiziq narsalardan biri Roe shundan iboratki, o'zining og'zaki tutun ekrani orqasida, unga asoslangan mohiyatli hukm hech qaerda topilmaydi. "[90] Liberal huquq professorlari Alan Dershovits,[91] Kass Sunshteyn,[92] va Kermit Ruzvelt bilan xafsalasini pir qilgan Roe Vadega qarshi.[93]

Jeffri Rozen[94] va Maykl Kinsli[95] abort qilish huquqini qo'llab-quvvatlash uchun qonunchilik harakati yanada mustahkam konsensusni yaratish uchun to'g'ri yo'l bo'lar edi, deb ta'kidladi Ginsburg. Uilyam Saletan "Blekmunning (Oliy sudning) hujjatlari har bir ayblov aybini oqlaydi Roe: ixtiro, ortiqcha ma'lumot, o'zboshimchalik, matnga befarqlik. "[96] Benjamin Vittes buni yozgan Roe "millionlab konservatorlar o'zlarini juda qiziqtirgan masala bo'yicha huquqidan mahrum qilishdi".[97] Va Edvard Lazar, sobiq Blackmun xizmatchisi "sevgan Roe'muallifi bobosi kabi "deb yozgan edi:" konstitutsiyaviy talqin va sud uslubi sifatida, Roe himoyalanmaydigan bilan chegaradosh .... Adolat Blekmunning fikri, uning o'tkazilishini qo'llab-quvvatlash uchun hech qanday asos yo'q. Va bundan buyon deyarli 30 yil ichida Roe 's e'lon, hech kim ishonchli himoya qilgan Roe o'z shartlari bilan. "[98]

Oliy sud qonunchilik qarorini qabul qildi degan da'vo ko'pincha qarori muxoliflari tomonidan takrorlanadi.[99] Tibbiyot fanidan erta tug'ilgan chaqaloqlarning omon qolishiga yordam beradigan usullarni topganligi sababli hayotiylik darajasi o'zgargan bo'lsa ham, "hayotiylik" mezonlari amalda.[100]

Jamoatchilik fikri

Shuningdek qarang: Qo'shma Shtatlardagi abort: jamoatchilik fikri

Amerikaliklar bu masalada teng ravishda ikkiga bo'lingan; 2018 yil may Gallup so'rovi amerikaliklarning 48% o'zlarini "tanlov tarafdorlari" va 48% o'zlarini "hayot tarafdorlari" deb ta'riflaganligini ko'rsatdi. 2018 yil iyul oyida o'tkazilgan so'rov natijalariga ko'ra amerikaliklarning atigi 28 foizi Oliy sudning bekor qilinishini istashgan Roe Vadega qarshi, 64% esa qaror bekor qilinishini istamadi.[101]

A Gallup so'rovi 2009 yil may oyida o'tkazilgan amerikaliklarning 53% i abortlar muayyan holatlarda qonuniy bo'lishi kerak, 23% abort har qanday sharoitda qonuniy bo'lishi kerak va 22% abort barcha sharoitlarda noqonuniy bo'lishi kerak, deb hisoblashadi. Biroq, ushbu so'rovnomada ko'proq amerikaliklar o'zlarini "Pro-Life" deb atashdi, 1995 yilda so'rovnoma o'tkazilgandan beri birinchi marta savol berildi, 51% "Pro-Life" va 42% aniqlandi "Pro-Choice" sifatida.[102] Xuddi shunday, 2009 yil aprel Pew tadqiqot markazi O'tkazilgan so'rovnoma barcha holatlarda, so'rovnomaning oldingi yillariga nisbatan qonuniy abortni qo'llab-quvvatlash yumshatilishini ko'rsatdi. Abortni ko'p hollarda yoki ko'p hollarda qo'llab-quvvatlashini aytgan odamlar 2008 yildagi 54% dan 2009 yilda 46% gacha kamaydi.[103]

Aksincha, 2007 yil oktyabr Xarris so'rovnoma Roe Vadega qarshi quyidagi savolni berdi:

1973 yilda AQSh Oliy sudi ayolning homiladorlikning uch oyigacha abort qilishni noqonuniy qilgan qonunlarni konstitutsiyaga zid deb qabul qildi va ayolning homiladorlikning uch oyigacha abort qilish kerakligi to'g'risida qaror qabul qilishi kerak. qaror qabul qilish uchun ayol va uning shifokoriga topshiring. Umuman olganda, AQSh Oliy sudining homiladorlikning uch oyigacha bo'lgan abortlar to'g'risidagi qarorining ushbu qismini ma'qullaysizmi yoki qarshi chiqasizmi?[104]

Bunga javoban, respondentlarning 56% i ma'qul ko'rgan bo'lsa, 40% i qarshilik ko'rsatgan. Harris tashkiloti ushbu so'rovnomadan "56 foiz hozir AQSh Oliy sudining qarorini ma'qullaydi" degan xulosaga keldi. Abortga qarshi faollar, Xarrisning so'rovi jamoatchilik fikrining asosli o'lchovi ekanligi haqida bahslashdilar Roe'umumiy qaror, chunki savol faqat homiladorlikning dastlabki uch oyiga qaratilgan.[105][106] The Harris poll has tracked public opinion about Roe 1973 yildan beri:[104][107]

Roe v Wade.svg

Haqida Roe decision as a whole, more Americans support it than support overturning it.[108] When pollsters describe various regulations that Roe prevents legislatures from enacting, support for Roe tomchilar.[108][109]

Role in subsequent decisions and politics

Qarshilik Roe on the bench grew when President Reagan, who supported legislative restrictions on abortion, began making federal judicial appointments in 1981. Reagan denied that there was any litmus testi: "I have never given a litmus test to anyone that I have appointed to the bench…. I feel very strongly about those social issues, but I also place my confidence in the fact that the one thing that I do seek are judges that will interpret the law and not write the law. We've had too many examples in recent years of courts and judges legislating."[110]

In addition to White and Rehnquist, Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Konnor began dissenting from the Court's abortion cases, arguing in 1983 that the trimester-based analysis devised by the Roe Court was "unworkable."[111] Shortly before his retirement from the bench, Chief Justice Warren Burger suggested in 1986 that Roe be "reexamined";[112] the associate justice who filled Burger's place on the Court—Justice Antonin Skaliya —vigorously opposed Roe. Concern about overturning Roe played a major role in the defeat of Robert Bork 's nomination to the Court in 1987; the man eventually appointed to replace Roe-supporter Lewis Powell was Entoni Kennedi.

The Kanada Oliy sudi used the rulings in both Roe va Doe va Bolton as grounds to find Canada's federal law restricting access to abortions unconstitutional. That Canadian case, R.ga qarshi Morgentaler, was decided in 1988.[113]

Reproduktiv salomatlik xizmatlari

Asosiy maqola: Reproduktiv salomatlik xizmatlari

In a 5–4 decision in 1989's Reproduktiv salomatlik xizmatlari, Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, declined to explicitly overrule Roe, because "none of the challenged provisions of the Missouri Act properly before us conflict with the Constitution."[114] In this case, the Court upheld several abortion restrictions, and modified the Roe trimester framework.[114]

In concurring opinions, O'Connor refused to reconsider Roeva Adolat Antonin Skaliya criticized the Court and O'Connor for not overruling Roe.[114] Blackmun—author of the Roe decision—stated in his dissent that White, Kennedy and Rehnquist were "callous" and "deceptive," that they deserved to be charged with "cowardice and illegitimacy," and that their ko'plik opinion "foments disregard for the law."[114] White had recently opined that the majority reasoning in Roe Vadega qarshi was "warped."[112]

Rejalashtirilgan ota-onalik va Keysi

Asosiy maqola: Rejalashtirilgan ota-onalik va Keysi

During initial deliberations for Rejalashtirilgan ota-onalik va Keysi (1992), an initial majority of five Justices (Rehnquist, White, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas) were willing to effectively overturn Roe. Kennedi changed his mind after the initial conference,[115] and O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter joined Blackmun and Stevens to reaffirm the central holding of Roe,[116] saying, "Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. [...] These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."[117] Only Justice Blackmun would have retained Roe entirely and struck down all aspects of the statute at issue in Keysi.[80]

Scalia's dissent acknowledged that abortion rights are of "great importance to many women", but asserted that it is not a liberty protected by the Constitution, because the Constitution does not mention it, and because longstanding traditions have permitted it to be legally proscribed. Scalia concluded: "[B]y foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish."[118]

Stenberg va Karxart

Asosiy maqola: Stenberg va Karxart

During the 1990s, the state of Nebraska attempted to ban a certain second-trimester abortion procedure known as yaxlit kengayish va ekstraktsiya (sometimes called partial birth abortion). The Nebraska ban allowed other second-trimester abortion procedures called kengayish va evakuatsiya abortlar. Ginsburg (who replaced White) stated, "this law does not save any fetus from destruction, for it targets only 'a method of performing abortion'."[119] The Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska ban by a 5–4 vote in Stenberg va Karxart (2000), citing a right to use the safest method of second trimester abortion.

Kennedy, who had co-authored the 5–4 Keysi decision upholding Roe, was among the dissenters in Stenberg, writing that Nebraska had done nothing unconstitutional.[119] In his dissent, Kennedy described the second trimester abortion procedure that Nebraska was not seeking to prohibit, and thus argued that since this dilation and evacuation procedure remained available in Nebraska, the state was free to ban the other procedure sometimes called "partial birth abortion."[119]

The remaining three dissenters in Stenberg—Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas—disagreed again with Roe: "Although a State may permit abortion, nothing in the Constitution dictates that a State must do so."[120]

Gonsales va Karxart

Asosiy maqola: Gonsales va Karxart

2003 yilda Kongress Tug'ilishni qisman taqiqlash to'g'risidagi qonun,[121] which led to a lawsuit in the case of Gonsales va Karxart.[122] Sud ilgari qaror chiqardi Stenberg va Karxart that a state's ban on "partial birth abortion" was unconstitutional because such a ban did not have an exception for the health of the woman.[123] The membership of the Court changed after Stenberg, bilan Jon Roberts va Samuel Alito replacing Rehnquist and O'Connor, respectively.[124][125] The ban at issue in Gonsales va Karxart was a federal statute, rather than a state statute as in the Stenberg case, but was otherwise nearly identical to Stenberg, replicating its vague description of partial-birth abortion and making no exception for the consideration of the woman's health.[123]

On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court handed down a 5 to 4 decision upholding the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.[125] Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, asserting that Congress was within its power to generally ban the procedure, although the Court left the door open for as-applied challenges.[iqtibos kerak ] Kennedy's opinion did not reach the question of whether the Court's prior decisions in Roe Vadega qarshi, Rejalashtirilgan ota-onalik va Keysi va Stenberg va Karxart remained valid, and instead the Court stated that the challenged statute remained consistent with those past decisions whether or not those decisions remained valid.[iqtibos kerak ]

Bosh sudya Jon Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined the majority. Justices Ginsburg, joined by Stevens, Souter, and Breyer, dissented,[125][124] contending that the ruling ignored Supreme Court abortion precedent, and also offering an equality-based justification for abortion precedent. Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Scalia, contending that the Court's prior decisions in Roe Vadega qarshi va Rejalashtirilgan ota-onalik va Keysi teskari bo'lishi kerak.[iqtibos kerak ] They also noted that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act may have exceeded the powers of Congress under the Savdo qoidalari but that the question was not raised before the court.[126]

Butun ayolning sog'lig'i va Hellerstedtga qarshi

Asosiy maqola: Butun ayolning sog'lig'i va Hellerstedtga qarshi

Bo'lgan holatda Butun ayolning sog'lig'i va Hellerstedtga qarshi, the most significant abort rights case before the Supreme Court since Rejalashtirilgan ota-onalik va Keysi 1992 yilda,[127][128][129] the Supreme Court in a 5–3 decision on June 27, 2016, swept away forms of state restrictions on the way abortion clinics can function. The Texas legislature enacted in 2013 restrictions on the delivery of abortions services that created an undue burden for women seeking an abortion by requiring abortion doctors to have difficult-to-obtain "admitting privileges" at a local hospital and by requiring clinics to have costly hospital-grade facilities. The Court struck down these two provisions "facially" from the law at issue —that is, the very words of the provisions were invalid, no matter how they might be applied in any practical situation. According to the Supreme Court the task of judging whether a law puts an unconstitutional burden on a woman's right to abortion belongs with the courts and not the legislatures.[130]

Activities of Norma McCorvey

Norma Makkorvi became a member of the anti-abortion movement in 1995; she supported making abortion illegal until shortly before her death in 2017.[131] In 1998, she testified to Congress:

It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible." Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes.[26]

As a party to the original litigation, she sought to reopen the case in AQSh okrug sudi in Texas to have Roe Vadega qarshi ag'darildi. Biroq, Beshinchi davr decided that her case was moot, in McCorvey v. Hill.[132] Qarama-qarshi fikrda sudya Edit Jons agreed that McCorvey was raising legitimate questions about emotional and other harm suffered by women who have had abortions, about increased resources available for the care of unwanted children, and about new scientific understanding of fetal development. However, Jones said she was compelled to agree that the case was moot.[iqtibos kerak ] On February 22, 2005, the Supreme Court refused to grant a sertifikat yozuvi, and McCorvey's appeal ended.[iqtibos kerak ]

In an interview shortly before her death, McCorvey stated that she had taken an anti-abortion position because she had been paid to do so and that her campaign against abortion had been an act. She also stated that it did not matter to her if women wanted to have an abortion and they should be free to choose.[78][79][133][134][135] Robert Schenck, a pastor and anti-abortion activist who helped entice McCorvey to claim she changed sides, stated that what they had done with her was "highly unethical" and he had "profound regret" over the matter.[136]

Activities of Sarah Weddington

After arguing before the Court in Roe Vadega qarshi at the age of 26, Sara Weddington went on to be a representative in the Texas House of Representatives for three terms.[137] Weddington has also had a long and successful career as General Counsel for the United States Department of Agriculture, Assistant to President Jimmy Carter, lecturer at Texas Wesleyan University, and speaker and adjunct professor at the University of Texas at Austin.[137]

Presidential positions

Prezident Richard Nikson did not publicly comment about the decision.[138] In private conversation later revealed as part of the Nikson lentalari, Nixon said, "There are times when an abortion is necessary,... ."[139][140] However, Nixon was also concerned that greater access to abortions would foster "permissiveness," and said that "it breaks the family."[139]

Generally, presidential opinion has been split between major party lines. The Roe decision was opposed by Prezidentlar Jerald Ford,[141] Ronald Reygan,[142] va Jorj V.Bush.[143] Prezident Jorj X.V. Bush also opposed Roe, though he had supported abortion rights earlier in his career.[144][145]

Prezident Jimmi Karter supported legal abortion from an early point in his political career, in order to prevent birth defects and in other extreme cases; he encouraged the outcome in Roe and generally supported abortion rights.[146] Roe was also supported by President Bill Klinton.[147] Prezident Barak Obama has taken the position that "Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe Vadega qarshi."[148]

Prezident Donald Tramp has publicly opposed the decision, vowing to appoint anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court.[149] Upon Justice Kennedy's retirement in 2018, Trump nomzod Bret Kavanaugh to replace him, and he was confirmed by the Senate in October 2018. A central point of Kavanaugh's appointment hearings was his stance on Roe Vadega qarshi, of which he said to Senator Syuzan Kollinz that he would not "overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided".[150] Despite Kavanaugh's statement, there is concern that with the Supreme Court having a strong conservative majority, that Roe Vadega qarshi will be overturned given an appropriate case to challenge it. Further concerns were raised following the May 2019 Supreme Court 5–4 decision along ideological lines in Kaliforniyadagi Franchise soliq kengashi va Hyatt. While the case had nothing to do with abortion rights, the decision overturned a previous 1979 decision from Nevada va Xoll without maintaining the qarama-qarshi qaror precedent, indicating the current Court makeup would be willing to apply the same to overturn Roe Vadega qarshi.[151]

State laws regarding Roe

Since 2010 there has been an increase in state restrictions on abortion.

Several states have enacted so-called qo'zg'atuvchi qonunlar which would take effect in the event that Roe Vadega qarshi is overturned, with the effect of outlawing abortions on the state level. Those states include Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota.[152] Additionally, many states did not repeal pre-1973 statutes that criminalized abortion, and some of those statutes could again be in force if Roe teskari edi.[153]

Other states have passed laws to maintain the legality of abortion if Roe Vadega qarshi ag'darilgan. Those states include California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada and Washington.[152]

The Mississippi Legislature has attempted to make abortion unfeasible without having to overturn Roe Vadega qarshi. The Mississippi law as of 2012 was being challenged in federal courts and was temporarily blocked.[154]

Alabama House Republicans passed a law on April 30, 2019 that will criminalize abortion if it goes into effect.[155] It offers only two exceptions: serious health risk to the mother or a lethal fetal anomaly. Alabama gubernatori Kay Ivey signed the bill into law on May 14, primarily as a symbolic gesture in hopes of challenging Roe Vadega qarshi Oliy sudda.[156][157][158]

According to a 2019 study, if Roe Vadega qarshi is reversed and abortion bans are implemented in trigger law states and states considered highly likely to ban abortion, the increases in travel distance are estimated to prevent 93,546 to 143,561 women from accessing abortion care.[159]

Shuningdek qarang

Izohlar

  1. ^ Roe Vadega qarshi, 410 BIZ. 113 (1973).
  2. ^ Mears, William; Franken, Bob (January 22, 2003). "30 years after ruling, ambiguity, anxiety surround abortion debate". CNN. In all, the Roe and Doe rulings impacted laws in 46 states.
  3. ^ Issiqxona 2005 yil, p. 72
  4. ^ a b Nowak va Rotunda (2012), § 18.29(a)(i).
  5. ^ a b v d e f g h men Chemerinskiy (2019), § 10.3.3.1, p. 887.
  6. ^ a b v d e f g h Nowak va Rotunda (2012), § 18.29(b)(i).
  7. ^ Dworkin, Roger (1996). Limits: The Role of the Law in Bioethical Decision Making. Indiana universiteti matbuoti. 28-36 betlar. ISBN  978-0253330758.
  8. ^ a b Issiqxona 2005 yil, 135-36 betlar
  9. ^ Chemerinskiy (2019), § 10.3.3.1, pp. 892–95..
  10. ^ Chemerinskiy (2019), § 10.3.3.1, pp. 892–93.
  11. ^ Roe, 410 U.S. at 130.
  12. ^ Roe, 410 U.S. at 131–36, 143.
  13. ^ Cole, George; Frankowski, Stanislaw. Abortion and protection of the human fetus : legal problems in a cross-cultural perspective, p. 20 (1987): "By 1900 every state in the Union had an anti-abortion prohibition." Google Books orqali. Retrieved (April 8, 2008).
  14. ^ Uilson, Jeyms, "Of the Natural Rights of Individuals Arxivlandi 2008 yil 24 sentyabr, soat Orqaga qaytish mashinasi " (1790–1792): "In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb." Also see Blekston, Uilyam. Sharhlar Arxivlandi February 24, 2019, at the Orqaga qaytish mashinasi (1765): "Life ... begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb."
  15. ^ Issiqxona 2005 yil, p. 92
  16. ^ a b v Paltrow, Lynn M. (January 2013). "Roe v Wade and the New Jane Crow: Reproductive Rights in the Age of Mass Incarceration". Amerika sog'liqni saqlash jurnali. 103 (1): 17–21. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.301104. PMC  3518325. PMID  23153159.
  17. ^ Reagan, LJ (1997). When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and Law in the United States 1867–1973. Kaliforniya universiteti matbuoti.[sahifa kerak ]
  18. ^ "Rally Today Supports Wheeler". Garvard qip-qizil. Kembrij, Mass. Olingan 29-noyabr, 2016.
  19. ^ Nordheimer, Jon (December 4, 1971). "She's Fighting Conviction For Aborting Her Child". The New York Times. Olingan 15 dekabr, 2017.
  20. ^ California Health & Safety Code § 25950 va boshq.
  21. ^ See Karen Blumenthal, Jane Against the World: Roe v. Wade and the Fight for Reproductive Rights, Roaring Brook Press, 2020.
  22. ^ McCorvey, Norma and Meisler, Andy. I Am Roe: My Life, Roe V. Wade, and Freedom of Choice (Harper Collins 1994).
  23. ^ Friedman Goldstein, Leslie (1994). Contemporary Cases in Women's Rights. Madison: The University of Wisconsin. p. 15.
  24. ^ Rurk, Meri; Reyes, Emily Alpert (February 18, 2017). "Norma McCorvey, once-anonymous plaintiff in 'Roe vs. Wade,' dies at 69". Los Anjeles Tayms. Olingan 19 fevral, 2017.
  25. ^ Richard Ostling. "A second religious conversion for 'Jane Roe' of Roe vs. Wade" Arxivlandi 2008 yil 20 fevral, soat Orqaga qaytish mashinasi, Associated Press (October 19, 1998): "She confessed that her tale of rape a decade before had been a lie; she was simply an unwed mother who later gave the child up for adoption."
  26. ^ a b McCorvey, Norma. Testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights (January 21, 1998), also quoted in the parliament of Western Australia (PDF) (May 20, 1998): "The affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court didn’t happen the way I said it did, pure and simple." Retrieved January 27, 2007
  27. ^ Noble, Kenneth B.; Times, Special To the New York (September 9, 1987). "Key Abortion Plaintiff Now Denies She Was Raped". The New York Times. ISSN  0362-4331. Olingan 27 sentyabr, 2020.
  28. ^ a b Roe Vadega qarshi, 314 F. Supp. 1217, 1221 (N.D. Tex. 1970) ("On the merits, plaintiffs argue as their principal contention that the Texas Abortion Laws must be declared unconstitutional because they deprive single women and married couple of their rights secured by the Ninth Amendment to choose whether to have children. We agree.").
  29. ^ O'Konnor, Karen. Testimony before U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, "The Consequences of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton ", via archive.org (June 23, 2005). Retrieved January 30, 2007
  30. ^ Issiqxona 2005 yil, 77-79 betlar
  31. ^ Issiqxona 2005 yil, p. 80
  32. ^ Sant, Geoffrey. "8 horrible courtroom jokes and their ensuing legal calamities ", Salon.com (July 27, 2013): "The title of Worst Joke in Legal History belongs to one of history's highest-profile cases. Defending Texas's abortion restrictions before the Supreme Court, attorney Mr. Jay Floyd decided to open oral argument with a sexist joke. Arguing against two female attorneys, Floyd begins: 'It's an old joke, but when a man argues against two beautiful ladies like this, they are going to have the last word.'" Retrieved August 10, 2010.
  33. ^ Malphurs 2010, p. 48
  34. ^ Garrow 1994, p. 526
  35. ^ Issiqxona 2005 yil, p. 81
  36. ^ Schwartz 1988, p. 103
  37. ^ Issiqxona 2005 yil, pp. 81–88
  38. ^ Garrow 1994, p. 556
  39. ^ Issiqxona 2005 yil, p. 89
  40. ^ "Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113". LII / Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. Olingan 24 oktyabr, 2020.
  41. ^ Issiqxona 2005 yil, 93-95 betlar
  42. ^ Issiqxona 2005 yil, 96-97 betlar
  43. ^ Vudvord, Bob. "The Abortion Papers Arxivlandi 2008 yil 14 iyun, soat Orqaga qaytish mashinasi ", Vashington Post (January 22, 1989). Qabul qilingan 2007 yil 3-fevral.
  44. ^ Michelman, Kate; Johnsen, Dawn (February 4, 1989). "The Abortion Papers (Op-Ed)". Washington Post.
  45. ^ a b Issiqxona 2005 yil, p. 97
  46. ^ Kmiec, Duglas. "Testimony Before Subcommittee on the Constitution, Judiciary Committee, U.S. House of Representatives " (April 22, 1996), via the "Abortion Law Homepage". Retrieved January 23, 2007.
  47. ^ Abernathy, M. et al. (1993), Civil Liberties Under the Constitution. U. South Carolina, p. 4. Retrieved February 4, 2007.
  48. ^ Hames, Joanne Banker; Ekern, Yvonne (2012). Konstitutsiyaviy huquq: printsiplar va amaliyot. O'qishni to'xtatish. p. 62. ISBN  978-1-285-40122-5.
  49. ^ Chemerinskiy, Ervin (2003). Federal yurisdiktsiya. Introduction to Law (4th ed.). Aspen Publishers. p. 132. ISBN  978-0-7355-2718-8.
  50. ^ Southern Pacific v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 BIZ. 498 (1911).
  51. ^ Roe, 410 U.S. at 125; Shuningdek qarang Schwartz 1988, pp. 108–09
  52. ^ Iqtibos qilingan Chemerinskiy (2019), § 10.3.3.1, p. 887.
  53. ^ Chemerinskiy (2019), § 10.3.3.1, p. 887, quoting Roe, 410 U.S. at 153.
  54. ^ Chemerinskiy (2019), § 10.3.3.1, pp. 887–88.
  55. ^ Iqtibos qilingan Chemerinskiy (2019), § 10.3.3.1, p. 888.
  56. ^ a b v Chemerinskiy (2019), § 10.3.3.1, p. 888, note 47.
  57. ^ a b Nowak va Rotunda (2012), § :18.29(b)(i).
  58. ^ Chemerinskiy (2019), § 10.3.3.1, p. 888, quoting Doe, 410 U.S. at 222 (White, J., dissenting).
  59. ^ Roe, 410 U.S. at 174–77 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
  60. ^ Currie, David (1994). "The Constitution in the Supreme Court: The Second Century, 1888–1986". 2. University of Chicago Press: 470. Iqtibos jurnali talab qiladi | jurnal = (Yordam bering)
  61. ^ "Rehnquist's legacy ", Iqtisodchi (2005 yil 30-iyun).
  62. ^ Kommers, Donald P.; Finn, John E.; Jacobsohn, Gary J. (2004). American Constitutional Law: Essays, Cases, and Comparative Notes. Rowman va Littlefield. ISBN  978-0-7425-2687-7.
  63. ^ "Analysis | How America feels about abortion". Washington Post. Olingan 25 aprel, 2017.
  64. ^ a b Koppelman, Andrew. "Forced Labor: A Thirteenth Amendment Defense of Abortion" Arxivlandi 2009 yil 25 fevral, soat Orqaga qaytish mashinasi, Shimoli-g'arbiy qonunlarni ko'rib chiqish, Jild 84, p. 480 (1990).
  65. ^ a b What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said; The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial decision, Jack Balkin Ed. (NYU Press 2005). Retrieved January 26, 2007
  66. ^ Shimron, Yonat. "Democratic Gains Spur Abortion Foes into Action," Yangiliklar va kuzatuvchi (January 18, 2009): "The annual March for Life procession is already among Washington's largest rallies, drawing an estimated 200,000 people."
  67. ^ Harper, Jennifer. "a marchers lose attention," Washington Times (January 22, 2009): "the event has consistently drawn about 250,000 participants each year since 2003."
  68. ^ Jonson, Laura. "Cleveland's first March for Life anti-abortion event draws 200," Oddiy diler (January 18, 2009): "the Washington March for Life…draws 200,000 annually on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision."
  69. ^ "Youth Turnout Strong at US March for Life". Catholic.net. Zenit.org. 2011 yil 25-yanvar. Olingan 9-fevral, 2011.
  70. ^ Portteus, Danielle (February 10, 2013). "Newport: 650,000 In March For Life". MonroeNews. MonroeNews. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2014 yil 13 fevralda. Olingan 14 aprel, 2013.
  71. ^ James F. Childress (1984). Bioethics Reporter. Amerika universiteti nashrlari. p. 463. Olingan 2 avgust, 2013. Roe v. Wade itself provided abortion rights with an unstable foundation.
  72. ^ Alex Locay (2008). Unveiling the Left. Xulon Press. p. 187. ISBN  978-1-60266-869-0. Olingan 2 avgust, 2013. To justify their decision the Court made up a new "right", not found in the Constitution: the right to privacy. The founders of course never intended for such rights to exists, as we know privacy is limited in many ways.
  73. ^ Reygan, Ronald. Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, (Nelson 1984): "If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it. I think this consideration itself should be enough for all of us to insist on protecting the unborn." Retrieved January 26, 2007
  74. ^ Guttmacher Institute, "State Policies in Brief, An Overview of Abortion Laws (PDF) ", published January 1, 2007. Retrieved January 26, 2007.
  75. ^ Xarris va Makrey, 448 BIZ. 297 (1980).
  76. ^ Doe va Bolton, 410 BIZ. 179 (1973).
  77. ^ McCorvey, Norma, with Andy Meisler (1994). I Am Roe: My Life, Roe v. Wade, and Freedom of Choice. Nyu-York: Harper-Kollinz.
  78. ^ a b Bleyk, Meredit (2020 yil 19-may). "Roe vs Wade" ning ortida turgan ayol abort qilish to'g'risida qarorini o'zgartirmadi. U pul oldi ". Los Anjeles Tayms. Olingan 20 may, 2020.
  79. ^ a b Gessen, Monika (2020 yil 20-may). "'Jeyn Rou, "Ro qarshi Veyd" dan, o'lim joyini tan oldi. Endi nima?". Washington Post. Olingan 20 may, 2020.
  80. ^ a b Keysi, 505 U.S. at 930–34 (Blackmun, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) ("In sum, Roe's requirement of strict scrutiny as implemented through a trimester framework should not be disturbed.").
  81. ^ Issiqxona 2005 yil, pp. 183–206, 250
  82. ^ Balkin, Jack. Bush v. "Gore and the Boundary Between Law and Politics" Arxivlandi 2008 yil 27 fevral, soat Orqaga qaytish mashinasi, 110 Yel huquqi jurnali 1407 (2001): "Liberal and feminist legal scholars have spent decades showing that the result was correct even if Justice Blackmun's opinion seems to have been taken from the Court's Kubist davr. "
  83. ^ Koen, Richard. "Support Choice, Not Roe", Vashington Post, (October 19, 2005): "If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument—but a bit of our soul as well." Qabul qilingan 2007 yil 23-yanvar.
  84. ^ Rozen, Jeffri (2007 yil 23 sentyabr). "The Dissenter". The New York Times jurnali. Rosen notes that Stevens is "the oldest and arguably most liberal justice."
  85. ^ Ginsburg, Ruth. "Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in Relation to Roe v. Wade ", 63 Shimoliy Karolina qonunlarini ko'rib chiqish 375 (1985): "The political process was moving in the early 1970s, not swiftly enough for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian institutions were listening and acting. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict." Qabul qilingan 2007 yil 23-yanvar.
  86. ^ Bullington, Jonathan (May 11, 2013). "Justice Ginsburg: Roe v. Wade not 'woman-centered'". Chicago Tribune.
  87. ^ Cox, Archibald. Oliy sudning Amerika hukumatidagi roli, 113–14 (Oxford U. Press 1976), via Google Books. Qabul qilingan 2007 yil 26-yanvar. Styuart Teylor deb ta'kidladi "Roe Vadega qarshi was sort of conjured up out of very general phrases and was recorded, even by most liberal scholars like Archibald Cox at the time, John Harvey Link—just to name two Harvard scholars—as kind of made-up constitutional law." See Styuart Teylor kichik, Onlayn yangiliklar soati, PBS 2000 yil 13-iyul.
  88. ^ Eli, Jon Xart. "The Wages of Crying Wolf Arxivlandi 2007-06-25 da Orqaga qaytish mashinasi ", 82 Yel huquqi jurnali 920 (1973). Retrieved January 23, 2007. Professor Ely "supported the availability of abortion as a matter of policy." See Liptak, Adam. "Jon Xart Eli, Konstitutsiya bo'yicha olim, 64 yoshida vafot etdi", The New York Times (2003 yil 27 oktyabr). Ely is generally regarded as having been a "liberal constitutional scholar." Perry, Michael (1999). Biz odamlar: o'n to'rtinchi tuzatish va Oliy sud da Google Books
  89. ^ Iqtibos qilingan Chemerinskiy (2019), § 10.3.3.1, p. 856.
  90. ^ Tribe, Laurence (1973). "The Supreme Court, 1972 Term – Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law". Garvard qonuni sharhi. 87 (1): 1–314. doi:10.2307/1339866. JSTOR  1339866. PMID  11663596. Iqtibos qilingan Morgan, Richard Gregory (1979). "Roe Vadega qarshi and the Lesson of the Pre-Roe Case Law". Michigan qonunchiligini ko'rib chiqish. 77 (7): 1724–48. doi:10.2307/1288040. JSTOR  1288040. PMID  10245969.
  91. ^ Dershovits, Alan. Oliy adolatsizlik: Oliy sud 2000 yilgi saylovni qanday o'g'irlagan (Oxford U. Press 2001): "Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy)...." quoted by Green, "Bushed and Gored: A Brief Review of Initial Literature ", ichida The Final Arbiter: The Consequences of Bush V. Gore for Law And Politics, tahrir. Banks C, Cohen D & Green J., editors, p. 14 (SUNY Press 2005), via Google Books. Qabul qilingan 2007 yil 26-yanvar.
  92. ^ Sunshteyn, Kass. Quoted by McGuire, Nyu-York Quyoshi (November 15, 2005): "What I think is that it just doesn't have the stable status of jigarrang yoki Miranda because it's been under internal and external assault pretty much from the beginning....As a constitutional matter, I think Roe was way overreached." Retrieved January 23, 2007. Sunstein is a "liberal constitutional scholar." See Herman, Eric. "Former U of C law prof on everyone's short court list", Chikago Sun-Times (2005-07-11).[o'lik havola ]
  93. ^ Ruzvelt, Kermit. "Shaky Basis for a Constitutional ‘Right’ ", Vashington Post, (January 22, 2003): "[I]t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result….This is not surprising. As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether. It supported that right via a lengthy, but purposeless, cross-cultural historical review of abortion restrictions and a tidy but irrelevant refutation of the straw-man argument that a fetus is a constitutional ‘person’ entitled to the protection of the 14th Amendment....By declaring an inviolable fundamental right to abortion, Roe short-circuited the democratic deliberation that is the most reliable method of deciding questions of competing values." Qabul qilingan 2007 yil 23-yanvar. "Arxivlangan nusxa". Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2007 yil 19 martda. Olingan 8 may, 2017.CS1 maint: nom sifatida arxivlangan nusxa (havola)
  94. ^ Rozen, Jeffri (2003 yil 24-fevral). "Why We'd Be Better off Without Roe: Worst Choice". Yangi respublika. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi on March 9, 2003. Olingan 23 yanvar, 2007. In short, 30 years later, it seems increasingly clear that this pro-choice magazine was correct in 1973 when it criticized Roe konstitutsiyaviy asoslarda. Its overturning would be the best thing that could happen to the federal judiciary, the pro-choice movement, and the moderate majority of the American people.
  95. ^ Kinsley, Michael. "Bad choice", Yangi respublika (June 13, 2004): "Against all odds (and, I'm afraid, against all logic), the basic holding of Roe v. Veyd Oliy sudda ishonchli .... [A] tanlash erkinligi to'g'risidagi qonun abort qilish huquqlarini konstitutsiyaviy origami bilan emas, balki demokratik yo'l bilan to'g'ri yo'l bilan kafolatlaydi. "2007 yil 23 yanvarda olingan.
  96. ^ Saletan, Uilyam. "O'ziga yaramaydigan adolat Blackmun", Huquqiy ishlar, May / iyun 2005. 23 yanvar 2007 yilda olingan. Saletan o'zini liberal deb ta'riflagan. Saletan, Uilyamga qarang. "Huquqlar va huquqbuzarliklar: liberallar, taraqqiyparvar va biotexnologiya", Slate (2007 yil 13-iyul).
  97. ^ Wittes, Benjamin. "Roeni qo'yib yuborish ", Atlantika oyligi, Yanvar / Fevral 2005. 23 yanvar 2007 yilda olingan. Uaytts ham dedi: "Men odatda abort qilishning ruxsat etilgan qonunlarini ma'qullayman". U boshqa bir joyda ta'kidlagan: "O'zlarining tinchroq paytlarida, ko'plab liberal olimlar bu qaror chalkashlik ekanligini tan olishadi". Wittes, Benjamin. "Biroz kamroq suhbat", Yangi respublika 2007 yil 29-noyabr
  98. ^ Lazar, Edvard. ""Roe vade" bilan bog'liq muammolar va nega yaqinda senatdagi Maykl Makkonellning nomzodi bo'yicha tinglovlar o'tkazilganligi ", Findlawning yozuvi (2002 yil 3 oktyabr). Qabul qilingan 2007 yil 23-yanvar.
  99. ^ Forsit, Klark (2013). Ehtiyotkorlikdan suiiste'mol: "Roe vade" ning ichki hikoyasi. Kitoblar bilan uchrashish. p. 496. ISBN  978-1594036927.
  100. ^ Stit, Irene. Abort qilish tartibi, Kongress uchun CRS hisoboti (PDF) (1997 yil 17-noyabr). Qabul qilingan 2007 yil 2-fevral.
  101. ^ "Gallup: Abort". Gallup so'rovi. 2007 yil 22-iyun.
  102. ^ Saad, Lidiya. Birinchi marta "Pro-Choice" dan ko'ra ko'proq "Pro-Life" amerikaliklar, Gallup (2009 yil 15-may).
  103. ^ "Qurol nazorati jamoatchilik tomonidan konservativ tarzda amalga oshirilmoqda, abort qilayotgan amerikaliklar endi ikkala masalada ham bo'linishmoqda", Pew tadqiqot markazi (2009 yil 30-aprel).
  104. ^ a b Harris Interactive, (2007 yil 9-noyabr). "Roe v Wade-ni qo'llab-quvvatlash sezilarli darajada oshib, to'qqiz yil ichida eng yuqori darajaga ko'tarildi Arxivlandi 2008 yil 1 yanvar, soat Orqaga qaytish mashinasi. "2007 yil 14-dekabrda olingan.
  105. ^ Frants, Vanda. "Roe veydga qarshi doimiy chalkashliklar" Arxivlandi 2008 yil 12 may, soat Orqaga qaytish mashinasi, NRL yangiliklari (2007 yil iyun).
  106. ^ Adamek, Raymond. "Abort bo'yicha so'rovnomalar", Har chorakda jamoatchilik fikri, Jild 42, № 3 (Kuz, 1978), 411-13 betlar. Doktor Adamek hayotni qo'llab-quvvatlaydi. Doktor Raymond J Adamek, tibbiyot fanlari nomzodi Pro-Life Fan va Texnologiyalar Simpoziumi.
  107. ^ Xarris Interaktiv. 'BIZ. Roga qarshi Veydga bo'lgan munosabat ". The Wall Street Journal Onlayn, (2006 yil 4-may). Qabul qilingan 2007 yil 3-fevral.
  108. ^ a b Ayres McHenry So'rov natijalari Roe Vadega qarshi Arxivlandi 2008 yil 13 oktyabr, soat Orqaga qaytish mashinasi orqali Angus Reid Global Monitor (2007).
  109. ^ Gallager, Maggi. "Pro-Life-saylovchilar - saylovning hal qiluvchi qismidir", Realclearpolitics.com (2007 yil 23-may).
  110. ^ Reygan, Ronald. Los Anjeles Tayms gazetasidan Eleanor Clift, Jek Nelson va Joel Xaveman bilan intervyu (1986 yil 23-iyun). Qabul qilingan 2007 yil 23-yanvar.
  111. ^ Akron shahri va Akron reproduktiv salomatlik markazi, 462 BIZ. 416 (1983).
  112. ^ a b Thornburgga qarshi Amerika akusherlik va ginekologlar kolleji, 476 BIZ. 747 (1986).
  113. ^ R.ga qarshi Morgentaler Arxivlandi 2008 yil 23 oktyabr, soat Orqaga qaytish mashinasi 1 S.C.R. 30 (1988).
  114. ^ a b v d Reproduktiv salomatlik xizmatlari, 492 BIZ. 490 (1989).
  115. ^ Totenberg, Nina (2004 yil 4 mart). "Hujjatlar" roi "ni saqlab qolish uchun jangni ochib beradi; sud abort qilish to'g'risidagi qarorni deyarli bekor qildi, Blackmun qog'ozlari namoyishi". Morning Edition. Milliy radio. Olingan 30 yanvar, 2007.
  116. ^ Issiqxona 2005 yil, 203–06 betlar
  117. ^ Keysi, 851 da 505 AQSh.
  118. ^ Keysi, 505 AQSh 1002 da (Skaliya, J., boshqacha fikrda).
  119. ^ a b v Stenberg va Karxart, 530 BIZ. 914, 958–59 (2000) ("Xomila, aksariyat hollarda, xuddi odam kattalar yoki bola kabi o'ladi: U oyoq-qo'ldan uzilib qonga qon quyiladi. Xomila parchalanish jarayonining boshida tirik bo'lishi va tirik qolishi mumkin) bir muddat uning oyoq-qo'llari yulib olinayotganda. ").
  120. ^ O'Nil, Nikolas K. F.; O'Nil, Nik; Rays, Simon; Duglas, Rojer (2004). Adolatsizlikdan chekinish: Avstraliyada inson huquqlari to'g'risidagi qonun. Federatsiya matbuoti. p. 128. ISBN  978-1-86287-414-5.
  121. ^ "S.3 - 2003 yilda tug'ilishni qisman tug'ruq qilishni taqiqlash to'g'risidagi qonun". Kongress.gov. Olingan 20 may, 2019.
  122. ^ Montopoli, Brayan (2006 yil 7-noyabr). "'Kechiktirilgan muddat Qisman tug'ilish'". CBS News. Olingan 16 yanvar, 2020.
  123. ^ a b Nelson, Erin (2013). Qonun, siyosat va reproduktiv avtonomiya. Bloomsbury nashriyoti. p. 121 2. ISBN  978-1-78225-155-2.
  124. ^ a b Mezey, Syuzan Glyuk (2017). Stoksberi, Qora E .; Scheb, Jon M., II; Stefens, Otis H., Jr (tahr.) Amerika fuqarolik huquqlari va erkinliklari ensiklopediyasi (Qayta ko'rib chiqilgan va kengaytirilgan nashr, 2-nashr). ABC-CLIO. p. 11. ISBN  978-1-4408-4110-1.
  125. ^ a b v Stout, Devid (2007 yil 18-aprel). "Oliy sud abort qilish tartibini taqiqladi". The New York Times. ISSN  0362-4331. Olingan 16 yanvar, 2020.
  126. ^ Greely, Genri T. (2016). Jinsiy aloqaning oxiri va insonning ko'payishi kelajagi. Garvard universiteti matbuoti. p. 285. ISBN  978-0-674-72896-7.
  127. ^ Green, Emma (2015 yil 13-noyabr). "Oliy sudning yangi da'vosi: Texasdagi abortga ruxsat yo'q qilish". Atlantika. Olingan 26 yanvar, 2016.
  128. ^ Xarli, Lourens (2016 yil 28-iyun). "Oliy sud abort qilish huquqini qat'iyan qo'llab-quvvatlaydi va Texas qonunchiligini chiqaradi". Reuters. Olingan 29 iyun, 2016.
  129. ^ Ariane de Vogue, Tal Kopan va Dan Berman (2015 yil 27 iyun). "Oliy sud Texasdagi abortga ruxsat berish to'g'risidagi qonunni bekor qildi". CNN. Olingan 29 iyun, 2016.
  130. ^ Denniston, Layl (2016 yil 27 iyun). "Butun ayolning sog'lig'i Hellerstedtga qarshi. Fikrlar tahlili: Abort qilish huquqlari qayta tiklanadi". SCOTUSblog. Olingan 29 iyun, 2016.
  131. ^ "Roe v Wade: AQShda abortda sud jarayonida ayol o'ldi". bbc.co.uk. 2017 yil 18-fevral.
  132. ^ Makkorvi va tepalik, 385 F.3d 846 (5-ts. 2004).
  133. ^ Porterfild, Karli (2020 yil 19-may). "'Roe va boshqalar. Wade 'da'vogariga abort qilishda tomonlarni almashtirish uchun pul to'langan, hujjatli fosh etilgan ". www.forbes.com. Forbes. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2020 yil 20 mayda. Olingan 20 may, 2020.
  134. ^ Serjant, Jill (2020 yil 20-may). "Roe v. Wade AQSh abort ishi bo'yicha da'vogar unga tomonlarni almashtirish uchun pul to'laganini aytmoqda". www.reuters.com. Reuters. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2020 yil 20 mayda. Olingan 20 may, 2020.
  135. ^ Goldberg, Mishel (2020 yil 22-may). "Jeyn Runing hayotni qo'llab-quvvatlovchi konversiyasi konkurs edi - Norma Makkori o'lim iztirobini tan oldi". The New York Times. Olingan 22 may, 2020.
  136. ^ Lozano, Alicia Victoria. "Abortga qarshi huquq harakati" Jane Roe "ga minglab pullarni to'lash uchun pul to'lagan, hujjatli filmda" NBC News (2020 yil 19-may).
  137. ^ a b Valeriy Lapinski, Reydga qarshi g'alaba: Veyd: Sara Uayton bilan savol-javob, Vaqt (2013 yil 22-yanvar), mavjud http://nation.time.com/2013/01/22/winning-roe-v-wade-qa-with-sarah-weddington/.
  138. ^ Rivz, Richard (2001). Prezident Nikson: Oq uyda yolg'iz (1-nashr). Simon va Shuster. p.563. ISBN  978-0-684-80231-2. Prezident qarorga bevosita izoh bermadi.
  139. ^ a b Vahshiy, Charli (2009 yil 23-iyun). "Nikson lentalarida Votergeytga emas, abortga qarshi ambiyansiya". The New York Times. Olingan 18 iyul, 2009.
  140. ^ Xarnden, Tobi. "Prezident Richard Nikson aralash irqiy bolalarni tushirish" zarur "deb aytdi, lentalari oshkor bo'ldi" Daily Telegraph (2009 yil 24-iyun).
  141. ^ Ford, Jerald. Sinsinnati arxiyepiskopiga xat, Amerika prezidentligi loyihasi tomonidan onlayn nashr etilgan. Santa Barbara: Kaliforniya universiteti matbuoti (1976 yil 10 sentyabr).
  142. ^ Reygan, Ronald. Abort va millat vijdoni (Nelson 1984).
  143. ^ Kornblut, Anne E. (2000 yil 22-yanvar). "Bush giyohvandlarga kimligini aniqlay olishini aytdi". Boston Globe. p. A12.
  144. ^ Fritz, Sara (18.08.1992). "'92 respublika anjumani: abortga qarshi qat'iy platforma rejasi OKd siyosati ". Los Anjeles Tayms. Prezident Jorj Bush abort qilish huquqini 1980 yilgacha qo'llab-quvvatladi, keyin Ronald Reygan Bushni uning o'rtog'i sifatida tanlaganidan keyin u tomonlarini o'zgartirdi.
  145. ^ Bush, Jorj Herbert Uoker."Hayot uchun mart" mitingi ishtirokchilariga so'zlar (1989 yil 23-yanvar): "Menimcha, Roening Veydga qarshi Oliy sudining qarori noto'g'ri edi va bekor qilinishi kerak."
  146. ^ Karter, Jeyms Graf. Larri King jonli, CNN, Jimmi Karter bilan intervyu (2006 yil 1-fevral). Shuningdek qarang Born, Piter, Jimmi Karter: tekisliklardan postprezidentlikka qadar keng qamrovli biografiya: "Karter gubernatorlik davrining boshida ayolning hayotini, tug'ma nuqsonlarni yoki boshqa o'ta og'ir vaziyatlarni saqlab qolish uchun abort qilishni o'z ichiga olgan oilani rejalashtirish dasturlarini qattiq qo'llab-quvvatlagan. Yillar o'tib u kitobga so'z boshini yozgan edi, Muhtoj ayollar, bu ayolning abort qilish huquqini afzal ko'rdi. U sudda da'vogarlarga shaxsiy dalda bergan, Doe va Bolton, abort qilish to'g'risidagi qonunlarni bekor qilish uchun Gruziya shtatiga qarshi sudga murojaat qildi. "
  147. ^ Klinton, Bill. Mening hayotim, p. 229 (Knopf 2004).
  148. ^ Obama, Barak. "1998 yil Illinoys shtati qonun chiqaruvchi milliy siyosiy xabardorlik testi", Archive.org orqali Smart Vote loyihasi. 2007 yil 21 yanvarda olingan.
  149. ^ Foran, Kler (29.06.2018). "Roe v.Vade-ni Oliy sudda bekor qilish rejasi allaqachon ishlab chiqilgan". CNN. Arxivlandi asl nusxasi 2018 yil 29 iyunda. Olingan 29 iyun, 2018.
  150. ^ Green, Emma (2018 yil 10-oktabr). "Syuzan Kollinz" Royning kelajagi va Veydning kelajagi bilan o'ynaydi ". Atlantika. Olingan 25 oktyabr, 2018.
  151. ^ Litman, Leah (2019 yil 13-may). "Oliy sud liberallari Roe vadega qarshi qo'ng'iroqni ko'tarishdi". The New York Times. Olingan 15 may, 2019.
  152. ^ a b Vestal, Kristin. "Shtatlar abort siyosatining chegaralarini tekshirmoqda", Stateline.org (2007 yil 11-iyun).
  153. ^ Markus, Frensis Frank. "Luiziana abortga qarshi harakat qilmoqda", The New York Times (1989 yil 8-iyul).
  154. ^ LZ Granderson "Missisipi abortni tugatdi", CNN (2012 yil 12-iyul).
  155. ^ Strakualursi, Veronika (2019 yil 1-may). "Alabama uyi abortni og'ir jinoyatga aylantiradigan qonun loyihasini qabul qildi". CNN. Olingan 2 may, 2019.
  156. ^ Kelly, Caroline (2019 yil 15-may). "Alabama gubernatori mamlakatning abortga qarshi eng cheklovchi qonun loyihasini imzoladi". CNN. Olingan 15 may, 2019.
  157. ^ Elliott, Debbi (2019 yil 1-may). "Alabama shtatidagi qonun chiqaruvchilar" Roe V. Wade "da'vosida abortni qonuniy ravishda bekor qilishga o'tmoqdalar". NPR.org. Olingan 6 may, 2019.
  158. ^ Rambaran, Vandana (2019 yil 15-may). "Alabama" abort qilish to'g'risidagi qonun loyihasi bilan "haddan oshib ketdi", deydi Pat Robertson ". Fox News. Olingan 15 may, 2019.
  159. ^ Mayers, Keytlin; Jons, Reychel; Upadhyay, Ushma (2019 yil 31-iyul). "Post-Roe dunyosida abortga kirish va kasallanishning bashorat qilingan o'zgarishlari". Kontratseptsiya. 100 (5): 367–73. doi:10.1016 / j. kontratseptsiya.2019.07.139. ISSN  0010-7824. PMID  31376381.

Adabiyotlar

Qo'shimcha o'qish

Tashqi havolalar