[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.207.108.191. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
September 15, 1989

The Implications of Webster for Practicing Physicians

Author Affiliations

From The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC.

From The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC.

JAMA. 1989;262(11):1510-1511. doi:10.1001/jama.1989.03430110100037
Abstract

THE SUPREME Court's decision in Webster v Reproductive Health Services has little immediate impact on physicians' practices but is certain to have dramatic long-range effects. The actual ruling of the court, in the opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, addressed four distinct issues.

First, the court refused to strike down a statement in the Missouri Abortion Control Act that "[t]he life of each human being begins at conception" and that "[u]nborn children have protected interests in life, health and well-being," on the grounds that it can be read merely as a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion rather than as an enforceable proviso.

The Supreme Court then upheld the Missouri prohibitions against performance of abortions in public facilities and against public employees' performing or assisting abortions, unless the abortion is necessary to save the mother's life. The Court held that these provisions do not constitute a "government obstacle" obstructing a

×