Download pdf
Contemplating the U.S. Supreme Court's Reversal of ‘Roe v. Wade’
- 1 Anhui Jianzhu University
- 2 Shenzhen College of International Education
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
The Roe case and Casey case were important moments in the women's liberation movement in the United States, recognizing women's constitutional right to abortion, and a fundamental aspect of their autonomy. In contrast, the recent Dobbs case upended the established Roe precedent, rejecting constitutional recognition of women's right to abortion and reverting "regulation of abortion rights to the people and their elected representatives. To delve deeper into this matter, it's crucial to examine the legal doctrines at play. The Roe decision primarily invoked the Substantive Due Process Clause to protect a woman's privacy and reproductive choices, whereas the Dobbs case highlighted the importance of the democratic process and aligns with originalism in constitutional interpretation. This shift raises questions about the durability of constitutional precedents and the evolving nature of constitutional interpretation. The conflict between these cases underscores the profound implications for women's reproductive rights and the broader women's liberation movement, as the nation grapples with the balance between individual autonomy and democratic decision-making in shaping constitutional rights.
Keywords
Right to abortion, Originalism, Living constitutionalism, Living originalism
[1]. Dobbs v. Jachison Women s Health Organization, 597 U.S. (2022).
[2]. Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, (1973).
[3]. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, (1965).
[4]. Planned Parenthood w. Casey, 505 U.S.833, (1992).
[5]. Washington w. Gluchsberg, 521 U.S.702, (1997).
[6]. Lawrence, H.C., Jin, K.C.D. (2013) Interpreting the Precedent Law. Translated by Chen, L., Chu Z. Shanghai Sanlian Publishing House.
[7]. Cass R.S. (1988) Sexual Orientation and the Constitution: A Note on the Relationship between Due Process and Equal Protection[J]. University of Chicago Law Review, 55(4).
[8]. Keith, R.J. (2007) Judicial minimalism of the U.S. Supreme Court. Translated by Yang, Zhou,W., Peking University Press.
[9]. Lawrence v. Texas,539 U.S. 558, (2003).
[10]. Laurence, T. (2004) Lawrence v. Texas: The "Fundamental Right" That Dare Not Speak Its Name. Harvard Law Review ,117(6).
[11]. Ding, X. (2015) Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution from a Religious Perspective: A Review of Balkin's Living Originalism. Political and Legal Forum, 33(05),173-183.
[12]. Balkin, J. (2014) Living Originalism. Translated by Liu L., Liu Y. Xiamen University Press.
[13]. Fang, L. (1998) The Roe Case: Debates on the Boundary between Judiciary and Politics—Judicial Interpretation of Abortion and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Comparative Law Studies, (1).
Cite this article
Shuai,T.;Kong,Z. (2024). Contemplating the U.S. Supreme Court's Reversal of ‘Roe v. Wade’. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media,33,192-199.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Interdisciplinary Humanities and Communication Studies
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).