In reversing Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court shows lack of constitutional courage

In dobbsspecialty of the court Roe deer as “extremely wrong and in conflict with the Constitution on the day it was decided”. The decision stated that the court’s ruling in Roe “minimized the democratic process”, imposing detailed conditions for different stages of pregnancy, similar to a statute or law, except for those who disagreed with the decision. The decision was delivered by Justice Samuel Alito, comprising Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. Only Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan passed a dissenting opinion. The immediate implication of the majority opinion is that while nearly 26 US states are certain or likely to ban abortions, 13 states have “trigger bans” that go into effect immediately. Roe deer,

Declaring abortion a crime is a major legal barrier to safe abortion access, forcing women to resort to risky underground abortion procedures. in 2016 Mallett v. Ireland In the decision of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, the petitioner described the traumatic experience of traveling outside her country to access abortion services (as abortion was not permitted in Ireland at the time), and in accessing abortion and bereavement counselling. incapacity. Declaring abortion as a crime does not reduce the demand for services, but puts women under a heavy burden to access it.

Many countries have either decriminalized abortion or are moving towards abortion. Vietnam provides abortion upon request, made it outlawed in the 1960s, and explicitly recognizes women’s unconditional right to abortion. In Canada, in the Supreme Court RV Morning Tales It held that a ban on abortion was a “violation of the safety of the individual” that interfered with a woman’s right to bodily integrity, life and liberty. Other countries have relaxed restrictions on abortion, even though it is still within the criminal code. Singapore provides for abortion on request up to 24 weeks of age based on the diagnosis of rape/incest, risk to the life of the woman, or fetal anomaly. Nepal allows abortion up to 12 weeks on request, and up to 28 weeks on medical or compassionate grounds. Reversing abortion rights at a time when most countries are moving toward de-criminalization and maintaining abortion on demand could have serious implications for the legal and policy trajectory affecting reproductive rights of individuals globally.

First, it may fuel anti-domestic abortion movements with symbolic and financial resources to expand an anti-election campaign. It may also encourage anti-choice movements to adopt similar legislative strategies to challenge abortion in countries where it is legal. Furthermore, as Justice Clarence Thomas indicated, this reversal is likely to jeopardize same-sex relationships and constitutionally recognized rights to contraception, among others. Second, it cannot be denied that America is a global hegemonic power, with Roe deer To provide a well recognized framework for those involved in local abortion advocacy to articulate local abortion rights and demands. Third, the reversal of Roe deer International funding provided by the United States for maintaining and protecting sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) in low- and middle-income countries could have a serious impact. Finally, the decision is an important international precedent used in courts around the world to grant abortion rights – the Australian legislature, the Supreme Court of Canada and the High Court of Pretoria have all cited. Roe deer,

In India, Justice Chandrachud cited Roe deer In Justice KS Puttaswamy v Union of India, while constitutionally protected fundamental rights include the right to privacy and decision-making autonomy. The reversal is unlikely to affect domestic law. India has a strong legislative framework on abortion governed by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, which was amended in 2021. Although India’s penal code criminalises abortion, the MTP Act outlines statutory exceptions that make abortion legal. The Act provides legal abortion services up to 24 weeks, under certain conditions, with the approval of one or two registered medical professionals. Further, there is no upper gestational limit in case of abortion on grounds of fetal anomalies, but the decision of such abortion is left to the medical board. Although seemingly progressive, the law has been criticized for being doctor-centered, based on a eugenic, patriarchal and cis-heterosexual argument.

turn of Roe deer Opinions divided on the basis of the ideological leanings of individual judges in SCOTUS indicate an abdication of judicial responsibility from the country’s Supreme Court, which has the potential to affect not only individual rights, but also foster a trend among courts Capacity. world to make decisions based on the prevailing political environment.

In the dissenting opinion of SCOTUS, the majority decision was called for infringement decision made, which forms a “foundation stone” for the rule of law, and has been described by minority opinion as a “principle of judicial humility and humility”. Deviation from the established rule of law also lends credence to the argument of legal uncertainty, where all legal consequences of a case can be legally justified as being “correct”, regardless of the precedent. The disregard for the SCOTUS majority with respect to decades-old established legal precedent, as well as the dismantling of the then-balanced constitutional rule, which weighed the interests of both federal and pregnant individuals, for a regime that now weighs only the interest of the state , this has serious implications for the sexual and reproductive health rights of the latter. It is a painful example of the gender construction and interpretation of the constitution and judicial politics, rather than upholding constitutional rights and morals, and instead displaying a lack of constitutional courage.

The author is Professor at Jindal Global Law School