Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T19:45:35.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Brief for 885 Law Professors in Support of Maintaining Adherence to the Roe Decision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2021

Frank I. Michelman ,
Norman Redlich ,
Stephen R. Neuwirth  and
Denise Carty-Bennia
Frank I. Michelman
Affiliation:
Harvard Law School
Norman Redlich
Affiliation:
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, New York and New York University Law School (on leave)
Stephen R. Neuwirth
Affiliation:
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, New York
Denise Carty-Bennia
Affiliation:
Northeastern University Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The mission of this brief was not only to oppose the outright over-ruling of Roe v. Wade. It was further to resist any weakening of the protective doctrine surrounding Roe's central holding that would allow states to eviscerate the right that Roe recognized. Because the brief was written on behalf of nearly 900 law professors, we consulted widely among our constituency, drawing heavily on the scholarship developed since Roe. We relied on extensive work by our colleagues supporting Roe's holding, reasoning and legitimate place in constitutional jurisprudence.

Type
The Webster Amicus Curiae Briefs: Perspectives on the Abortion Controversy and the Role of the Supreme Court
Information
American Journal of Law & Medicine , Volume 15 , Issue 2-3 , 1989 , pp. 197 - 203
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics and Boston University 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

This is a summary of the “Brief for a Group of American Law Professors as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellees.” The brief may be found at Congressional Information Service Microfiche, United States Supreme Court Records and Briefs, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, Card No. 38.

References

1 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 222 (1973) (White, J., dissenting).

2 City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416, 458 (1983) (O'Connor, J., dissenting).

3 E.g., Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973); Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976).

4 U.S. Const, amend. IX (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.“).

5 Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 53 (1964).

6 Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969); Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (6 Wall.) (1868).

7 Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978).

8 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v.Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).

9 Richmond Newspaper, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980).

10 Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954).

11 City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416, 458 (1983) (O'Connor, J., dissenting).