Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court decision on upholding a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on the use of state funds, facilities, and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling an abortions. The Supreme Court in "Webster" allowed for states to legislate in an aspect that had previously been thought to be forbidden under "Roe v. Wade" (1973). Background. The state of Missouri passed a law which in its preamble stated that "the life of each human being begins at conception", and "unborn children have protectable  interests in life, health, and well-being." The statute The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri struck down the above provisions, and prohibited their enforcement. This decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which ruled that these provisions violated "Roe v. Wade" and later Supreme Court decisions. William L. Webster, then Missouri Attorney General, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. It was argued before the Court on April 26, 1989. Opinion of the Court. The Court overturned the decision of the lower courts, stating that: Chief Justice Rehnquist  wrote the opinion of the Court for all but Parts II-D and III; however, only Justices White and Kennedy joined that opinion in its entirety. In discussing the fetal viability section, the plurality asserted that the right to abortion was a "liberty interest protected by the Due Process clause" subject to restriction by any laws which would permissibly further a rational state interest such as protecting potential life. The plurality said that this would require the court to "modify and narrow "Roe" and succeeding cases." Justices O'Connor and Scalia joined Rehnquist's opinion except for the section on viability  testing. Each wrote a separate concurring opinion. Justice O'Connor claimed that narrowing "Roe v. Wade" in the context of the "Webster" litigation, where upholding Missouri's law could arguably be squared with "Roe", would violate an important principle of judicial restraint. She then explained that she voted to uphold Missouri's law because she did not feel that it would place an undue burden on the right to abortion. Justice Scalia, who was angered by the refusal of the plurality, as well as Justice O'Connor, to overturn "Roe v. Wade", wrote a sharp opinion concurring in the judgment. In his  concurrence he argued that the Court ought to have overturned "Roe", rather than attempting to uphold both "Roe" and the laws at issue, and he attacked Justice O'Connor's justification for declining to overturn "Roe". He also agreed with Blackmun's assertion that the approach of the plurality would make "Roe" a dead letter. Dissent. Justice Blackmun wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, which focused on the plurality's desired narrowing of "Roe" as described in the section on the viability testing requirement. He wrote that the plurality's approach would allow a state  to put virtually any restriction on abortion so long as it was rationally related to promoting potential life, and that this in effect would overturn "Roe". Noting that the plurality and Scalia together were only a single vote away from effectively overruling "Roe", he wrote "I fear for the future" and "a chill wind blows." Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a separate dissent, where he concurred with the plurality in allowing the state to prohibit public funds from being allocated for abortion counselling, but argued the court otherwise should have upheld the lower courts in striking down the remaining restrictions