Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1989

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

492 U.S. 490 | 109 S. Ct. 3040 | 106 L. Ed. 2d 410 | 1989 U.S. LEXIS 3290 | 57 U.S.L.W. 5023

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, Webster upheld key Missouri abortion restrictions, narrowed Roe’s trimester framework without formally overruling Roe, and signaled greater room for state abortion regulation before viability.

Background

Missouri enacted a 1986 abortion-regulation statute containing, among other provisions, a declaration that life begins at conception; restrictions on the use of public employees and public facilities for abortions not necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life; a prohibition on using public funds to encourage or counsel such abortions; and a requirement that physicians perform viability-related testing before abortions when they had reason to believe the pregnancy was at least 20 weeks’ gestational age.

Health professionals, abortion providers, and nonprofit organizations challenged the statute. The District Court invalidated seven provisions, including the preamble, the public-facility and public-employee restrictions, the public-funding restriction on abortion counseling, and the viability-testing requirement. The Eighth Circuit largely affirmed. Missouri appealed four of those rulings to the Supreme Court.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Missouri’s statutory declaration that life begins at conception was facially unconstitutional.

Holding

The Court declined to decide the preamble’s constitutionality because it had not been applied or threatened to be applied in a concrete way against the plaintiffs.

Reasoning

The preamble did not itself regulate abortions or directly govern the plaintiffs’ medical practice. At most, it expressed Missouri’s value judgment favoring childbirth, a judgment that prior cases recognized a State may make.

The provision directed Missouri law to be construed consistently with fetal interests, but its actual effect on other statutes and regulations depended on how Missouri courts would interpret it. Federal courts could not supply an authoritative state-law construction on a speculative record.

Because no concrete enforcement action or application was before the Court, a declaratory judgment would resolve an abstract dispute rather than a live constitutional controversy. The Court therefore left challenges to any future restrictive application for a future case.

Issue #2

Whether Missouri could bar public employees and public facilities from performing or assisting abortions not necessary to save the mother’s life.

Holding

Yes. Missouri could choose not to devote public employees and facilities to nontherapeutic abortions.

Reasoning

The Due Process Clause generally does not create an affirmative entitlement to governmental assistance. Under Maher v. Roe, Poelker v. Doe, and Harris v. McRae, a government may favor childbirth over abortion in allocating public resources without thereby placing an unconstitutional obstacle in the path of abortion.

Missouri’s policy did not prohibit private abortions or impose a direct legal restriction on a woman’s choice. It left a woman in essentially the position she would occupy if the State did not operate public hospitals or employ public medical staff at all.

The Court rejected the distinction drawn by the Eighth Circuit between withholding direct funding and withholding public hospitals or employees. If a State may decline to subsidize abortions, it may likewise decline to supply other public resources for them, even where a patient could otherwise pay the facility’s costs.

Issue #3

Whether the prohibition on using public funds to encourage or counsel women to obtain nontherapeutic abortions presented a live constitutional controversy.

Holding

No. The dispute over the public-funding provision was moot under the State’s limiting interpretation, so the Court ordered dismissal of that part of the challenge.

Reasoning

Missouri represented that the provision governed only state fiscal officers’ allocation of public money and did not directly regulate physicians’ or health-care providers’ conduct. The Court accepted that interpretation for purposes of the case.

The plaintiffs responded that, under that construction, they were no longer adversely affected by the provision and no longer sought declaratory relief against it. A majority therefore concluded that no live case or controversy remained.

The Court directed the lower courts to vacate the relevant judgment and dismiss that portion of the complaint with prejudice. The dismissal did not prevent later litigation if Missouri courts ultimately gave the provision a broader interpretation that again affected the plaintiffs.

Issue #4

Whether Missouri’s requirement of viability-related testing before abortions performed at or after an estimated 20 weeks’ gestational age was constitutional.

Holding

Yes. The Court upheld the testing requirement after construing it to require only medically useful and prudent tests for determining viability.

Reasoning

The Court rejected the lower courts’ reading that the statute invariably required tests to determine gestational age, fetal weight, and lung maturity. Read as a whole, the statute required physicians to exercise ordinary professional care, so its reference to tests “necessary” for specified findings meant tests useful to the viability determination, not irrelevant or dangerous procedures.

The provision effectively required a physician to investigate possible viability where gestational-age estimates could be inaccurate. That requirement furthered Missouri’s legitimate interest in protecting potential human life by helping ensure that viable fetuses were not aborted mistakenly.

A plurality consisting of the Chief Justice and Justices White and Kennedy concluded that Roe’s rigid trimester framework was unsound and unworkable. In its view, the State’s interest in potential life exists throughout pregnancy, and a regulation reasonably designed to determine viability could be sustained even though it incidentally increased the expense of some previability abortions.

Issue #5

Whether the Court should overrule Roe v. Wade in this case.

Holding

No. The Court left Roe’s core holding formally undisturbed, although the plurality stated that it would modify and narrow Roe and its succeeding cases.

Reasoning

Missouri’s statute protected fetal life at viability rather than imposing the across-the-board criminal prohibition challenged in Roe. The Court concluded that this case did not require reconsideration of Roe’s holding that the Texas statute at issue there unconstitutionally infringed a due-process right to abortion.

The plurality nevertheless used its analysis of the viability-testing provision to reject Roe’s trimester framework and to permit some regulations that earlier abortion decisions might have prohibited. Thus, the judgment preserved Roe’s central result while signaling a substantial narrowing of its doctrinal protections.

Concurrences

Justice O'Connor

Reasoning

Justice O'Connor joined the Court's result, but justice O’Connor agreed that the preamble challenge was premature, that the public-facility and public-employee restrictions were not facially invalid under the Court’s public-funding precedents, and that the public-funding counseling dispute was moot. She emphasized that a facial challenge fails when at least some applications of a law are constitutional, while recognizing that particular applications of the public-facility restriction could still be challenged later.

She also agreed that the lower courts misread the viability-testing provision. In her view, the statute required only tests that were useful and medically prudent in determining viability; so interpreted, it was consistent with existing abortion precedent and imposed no undue burden on a woman’s decision.

Justice O’Connor rejected the plurality’s reconsideration of Roe’s trimester framework as unnecessary. Applying judicial-restraint principles, she reasoned that the Court should not revise constitutional doctrine when the statute could be upheld under existing law.

Justice Scalia

Reasoning

Justice Scalia agreed with the Court’s treatment of the preamble, the public-resource restrictions, and the moot counseling-funding provision. He also concurred in the judgment upholding the viability-testing requirement.

He believed the plurality’s treatment of the testing requirement effectively undermined Roe v. Wade and that the Court should instead have overruled Roe expressly. In his view, abortion policy was predominantly a political rather than a judicial question, and retaining Roe while narrowing it incrementally prolonged confusion and damaged public understanding of the Court’s role.

Justice Scalia criticized Justice O’Connor’s reliance on judicial restraint. The Court necessarily had to decide a constitutional question, he reasoned, and it should decide candidly whether Roe supplied the proper constitutional rule rather than evade that larger issue.

Dissents

Justice Blackmun

Reasoning

Justice Blackmun, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, agreed only with the dismissal of the challenge to the public-funding counseling provision. He argued that the plurality’s nominal preservation of Roe was deceptive because its reasoning would permit broad abortion restrictions and effectively abandon Roe’s protection of a woman’s constitutional liberty.

He maintained that the lower courts correctly read the testing statute to mandate findings of gestational age, fetal weight, and lung maturity. That reading could require medically unjustified and risky procedures, including amniocentesis, and would irrationally impose cost and danger on women seeking abortions.

Even under the plurality’s narrowing construction, Justice Blackmun argued that the statute could be upheld without disturbing Roe because a medically prudent test to identify possible viability merely protects the State’s recognized postviability interest. The plurality therefore created an unnecessary conflict with Roe’s trimester framework in order to narrow that framework.

He defended Roe’s viability line as a principled accommodation between a woman’s liberty and the State’s growing interest in potential life. The plurality’s new standard—that a law need only permissibly further the State’s interest in potential life—provided no meaningful protection for abortion rights and could justify virtually any abortion restriction.

Justice Blackmun further stressed reliance interests, bodily autonomy, equality, and the grave health consequences of criminalizing abortion. He warned that weakening Roe without a candid justification invited States to enact increasingly restrictive laws and threatened both women’s liberty and the Court’s institutional legitimacy.

Justice Stevens

Reasoning

Justice Stevens agreed that the public-funding counseling issue was moot but would have affirmed the invalidation of the preamble, the public-facility restrictions, and the viability-testing provision. He concluded that Missouri’s broad definition of a public facility could restrict abortions in otherwise private institutions with only an attenuated governmental connection, going beyond a mere refusal to subsidize abortion.

He argued that the lower courts correctly gave the testing provision its plain meaning: physicians were required to make findings about gestational age, weight, and lung maturity, whether or not each test was relevant or medically appropriate to determining viability. On that reading, the law imposed risk and expense without a rational relation to a legitimate purpose.

Justice Stevens also concluded that the preamble’s declaration that life begins at fertilization threatened constitutionally protected contraceptive practices, including methods that may prevent implantation after fertilization. He reasoned that such interference conflicted with Griswold and its progeny.

Finally, he argued that if the preamble had no operative legal effect, it still lacked an identifiable secular purpose and impermissibly endorsed a theological view about when life begins. For that reason, he viewed the declaration as violating the Establishment Clause as well as threatening reproductive liberty.