Casey (1992), the Court refashioned its position on the right to abortion. Through her stewardship in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)-in which the Court upheld a Missouri law that prohibited public employees from performing or assisting in abortions not necessary to save a woman’s life and that required doctors to determine the viability of a fetus if it was at least 20 weeks old-she reduced the Court’s opinion to a plurality. By “defecting” in part from the conservative majority in Webster v. In a series of rulings, she signaled a reluctance to support any decision that would deny women the right to choose a safe and legal abortion. In similar fashion, O’Connor’s views on abortion rights were articulated gradually. Vera ), and sided with the Court’s more liberal members in upholding the configuration of a congressional district in North Carolina created on the basis of variables including but not limited to race ( Easley v. Reno ), declared unconstitutional district boundaries that are “unexplainable on grounds other than race” ( Bush v. In her decisions in election law she emphasized the importance of equal-protection claims ( Shaw v. In such disparate fields as election law and abortion rights, she attempted to fashion workable solutions to major constitutional questions, often over the course of several cases. O’Connor quickly became known for her pragmatism and was considered, with Justice Anthony Kennedy, a decisive swing vote in the Supreme Court’s decisions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |