Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

( 1989 ) Commentary by Michael J. O'Neal, Ph.D.

“Nothing in the Constitution requires States to enter or remain in the business of performing abortions. Nor, as appellees suggest, do private physicians and their patients have some kind of constitutional right of access to public facilities for the performance of abortions.” - William Rehnquist: Majority Opinion
“The tests that § 188.029 requires the physician to perform are designed to determine viability. The State here has chosen viability as the point at which its interest in potential human life must be safeguarded. … Since the tests will undoubtedly show in many cases that the fetus is not viable, the tests will have been performed for what were, in fact, second-trimester abortions. But we are satisfied that the requirement of these tests permissibly furthers the State’s interest in protecting potential human life, and we therefore believe § 188.029 to be constitutional.” - William Rehnquist: Majority Opinion
“No decision of this Court has held that the State may not directly promote its interest in potential life when viability is possible.” - Sandra Day O’Connor: Concurrence
“It is clear to me that requiring the performance of examinations and tests useful to determining whether a fetus is viable, when viability is possible, and when it would not be medically imprudent to do so, does not impose an undue burden on a woman’s abortion decision.” - Sandra Day O’Connor: Concurrence

Chief Justice William Rehnquist (Library of Congress)

View Full Size

Related Docs