计划生育联合会诉凯西案:最高法院对理性的逃避。

Paul Benjamin Linton
{"title":"计划生育联合会诉凯西案:最高法院对理性的逃避。","authors":"Paul Benjamin Linton","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3201636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, a bare majority of the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. Although Roe was not directly implicated by any of the statutes challenged in Casey, all of which could have been upheld without overruling Roe, the Justices agreed to reexamine Roe because of the uncertainty regarding its continued viability and the need to provide guidance to state and federal courts and state legislatures. The result of this reexamination, however, was a badly divided Court that could not muster a majority in support of any standard of re-","PeriodicalId":82633,"journal":{"name":"Saint Louis University public law review","volume":"13 1 1","pages":"15-137"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1993-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Planned Parenthood v. Casey: the flight from reason in the Supreme Court.\",\"authors\":\"Paul Benjamin Linton\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3201636\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, a bare majority of the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. Although Roe was not directly implicated by any of the statutes challenged in Casey, all of which could have been upheld without overruling Roe, the Justices agreed to reexamine Roe because of the uncertainty regarding its continued viability and the need to provide guidance to state and federal courts and state legislatures. The result of this reexamination, however, was a badly divided Court that could not muster a majority in support of any standard of re-\",\"PeriodicalId\":82633,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Saint Louis University public law review\",\"volume\":\"13 1 1\",\"pages\":\"15-137\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1993-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Saint Louis University public law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3201636\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Saint Louis University public law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3201636","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

在宾夕法尼亚州东南部计划生育联合会诉凯西案中,最高法院以微弱多数重申了罗伊诉韦德案。尽管Roe案件与Casey案中受到质疑的任何法规都没有直接关系,所有这些法规都可以在不推翻Roe案件的情况下得到支持,但法官们同意重新审查Roe案件,因为它的持续可行性存在不确定性,并且需要为州和联邦法院以及州立法机构提供指导。然而,这次重新审查的结果是一个严重分裂的法院,无法召集多数人支持任何重新审查的标准
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Planned Parenthood v. Casey: the flight from reason in the Supreme Court.
In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, a bare majority of the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. Although Roe was not directly implicated by any of the statutes challenged in Casey, all of which could have been upheld without overruling Roe, the Justices agreed to reexamine Roe because of the uncertainty regarding its continued viability and the need to provide guidance to state and federal courts and state legislatures. The result of this reexamination, however, was a badly divided Court that could not muster a majority in support of any standard of re-
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: disease control or child objectification? The Oregon Death with Dignity Act: reversal of the Department of Justice's position on physician assisted suicide and the ensuing court battle. Slavery, segregation and racism: trusting the health care system ain't always easy! An African American perspective on bioethics. Gender and culture in the globalization of bioethics. Planned Parenthood v. Casey: the flight from reason in the Supreme Court.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1