Webster v. Reprod. Health Servs.

492 U.S. 490, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989)



In Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the State has important and legitimate interests in protecting maternal health and in the potentiality of human life. During the second trimester, the State may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. After viability, when the State's interest in potential human life was held to become compelling, the State may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. 


Appellees, state-employed health professionals and private nonprofit corporations providing abortion services, brought suit in the District Court for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the constitutionality of a Missouri statute regulating the performance of abortions. A Missouri statute stated in its preamble, Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 1.205.1(1), (2) (1986), a finding that human life began at conception and that unborn children had protectable interests in life and well-being. Among other things, the statute prohibited the use of public employees and facilities to perform abortions not necessary to save the mother's life, and it prohibited the use of public funds to counsel a woman to have an abortion that was not necessary to save her life. The District Court struck down each of the above provisions, among others, and enjoined their enforcement. The Court of Appeals affirmed, striking down several provisions of the statute pursuant to Roe v. Wade. The State appealed from that decision.


Was the Missouri statute unconstitutional?




The Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals. The Court reasoned that it was not necessary to determine the constitutionality of the statute's preamble because it simply expressed a value judgment and did not regulate abortions. The Court declined to invalidate the statute's prohibition against the use of public funds, employees, and facilities to provide abortions because the prohibition placed no governmental obstacle in the path of a woman who chose to have an abortion. She was no less off than if the state had chosen not to provide public health care. The Court found that the statute's prohibition against public funded counseling in favor of abortions was moot because appellees contended that they were not adversely affected by this provision.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.