{"id":114,"date":"2023-01-30T16:08:25","date_gmt":"2023-01-30T16:08:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/?p=114"},"modified":"2023-01-30T16:08:26","modified_gmt":"2023-01-30T16:08:26","slug":"the-issue-of-abortion-for-the-hands-of-the-peoples-elected-representatives-majority-opinion-of-the-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/2023\/01\/30\/the-issue-of-abortion-for-the-hands-of-the-peoples-elected-representatives-majority-opinion-of-the-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"The issue of abortion for the hands of the people\u2019s elected representatives \u2014 majority opinion of the Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization<\/em> concerns a crucial ruling that discusses the constitutionality of the women\u2019s right to abortion. The dispute in this case concerns the legality of the state law of Mississippi that prohibited abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. When considering the outcome of this case, it is vital to review the majority opinion of the Supreme Court. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization,<\/em> the Court stated that they do not possess the jurisdiction to declare the constitutional right to abortion nor declare the constitutional ban on abortion. Moreover, the Court highlights the importance of not considering the Constitution neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution should be considered neutral and therefore the issue of abortion should be addressed to the people and their elected representatives. Furthermore, the Court implies that the people should resolve the issue of abortion, just like the other questions of American social and economic policies, which the Constitution does not have authority to address.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court takes a view on the previous cases in its decision \u2013 overruling Roe v. Wade<\/em> and Casey v. Planned Parenthood.<\/em> The Court claims that the Court in Roe <\/em>did err by taking sides on the issue of the abortion. The Constitution does not grant power to decide on these important moral issues. They base its decision on the particular fact that there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution nor in the Nations\u2019 history, and therefore, Roe<\/em> and Casey<\/em> should be overruled.  Moreover, Roe <\/em>has caused major negative jurisprudential and real-world consequences, and it is necessary to overrule Roe<\/em> and Casey<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court in Roe <\/em>and Casey <\/em>stated that women\u2019s right to abortion is considered as a constitutional right as it falls under the liberty <\/em>in the 14th Amendment. However, the Court argues that abortion cannot be considered under the branch of liberty. As mentioned previously, the Constitution does not recognize abortion, and no constitutional provision, including the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, provides implicit protection for it. This clause has been used to recognize the rights that are not explicitly written in the Constitution, but these rights must have a strong historical tradition or be crucial for the ordered liberty. Until the late 20th century, American law did not acknowledge abortion as a right. At the time when the 14th Amendment was enacted, abortion was illegal in three-quarters of the states at all stages of pregnancy. The right to abortion differs from the other rights recognized as part of the 14th Amendment’s protection of liberty<\/em>, such as intimate relationships, contraception and marriage. This certainly raises a question \u2013 when can the Supreme Court overturn its misguided decision? Or in particular, what sort of erroneous decision can be overturned by the Supreme Court? According to the Court itself, the incorrectness of a precedent does not necessarily mean it should be overruled, but as the Court further explains, Roe<\/em> has caused negative effects both in legal practice and in theory, including the legal disputes which were addressed in Casey<\/em>. By taking a stance on a controversial issue that is not specified in the Constitution, the Court in Roe<\/em> went beyond its constitutional authority, distorted the perception of the court’s role and caused harm to the state’s interest in protecting fetal life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The opinion raises another question of whether this leads to the weakening of the protection of other rights. Nevertheless, the Court underlines that this ruling concerns the constitutional right to abortion and not any other right. Moreover, the opinion mentioned above does not challenge precedents unrelated to abortion. However, at this present time it is extremely relevant to consider what the outcome of this case will lead to for the rights of women and other minorities. In order to understand the problematic nature of this case, one must compare and examine the arguments between the majority and minority as well as consider the general impact on equality between the states.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

E.P.M.J.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization concerns a crucial ruling that discusses the constitutionality of the women\u2019s right to abortion. The dispute in this case concerns the legality of the state law of Mississippi that prohibited abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. When considering the outcome of this case, it is vital to review the majority … Continue reading The issue of abortion for the hands of the people\u2019s elected representatives \u2014 majority opinion of the Supreme Court<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35805,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-114","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-scotus2023"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35805"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=114"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":115,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114\/revisions\/115"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}