Will Webster redefine Roe v. Wade? The Supreme Court could use a Missouri case to begin limiting abortion rights

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to review Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, a Missouri case that challenges the validity of legislative direction of public policy as outlined in Roe v. Wade, has fueled speculation that the Court will use the case to reconsider, and perhaps reverse, Roe. When the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade opened the door to legalized abortion, it guaranteed only a woman's right to choose to terminate or continue a pregnancy without undue interference by the state--citing legitimate grounds for "due" interference by the state. In 1986 the Missouri legislature passed a statute that regulated medical practices related to abortion, including broad restrictions on the expenditure of state funds. Further, the state attempted to protect viable fetuses and directed physicians to perform certain tests to ascertain the baby's gestational age. It also contained a legislative finding that "life begins at conception." A challenge was filed almost immediately. In its application for Supreme Court review, Missouri questioned whether the Roe "trimester approach for selecting the test for which state regulation of abortion services is reviewed should be reconsidered and discarded in favor of a rational basis test." It further argued that if Missouri's statutory provisions are unconstitutional under Roe, then "Roe v. Wade should itself be reconsidered." Under current jurisprudence, it is debatable whether this formulation of the case will invite direct review of Roe. For the foreseeable future, the law will likely protect the notion that an abortion decision implicates a fundamental liberty interest.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Religious hiring exemption upheld: anatomy of a Supreme Court ruling

In 1980 the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) notified five employees that they could no longer continue in church employment because they would not or could not attend the temple as members in good standing. Together, the five filed suit in federal district court in Utah, alleging that the LDS Church discriminated against them on religious grounds in violation of Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which generally prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of religion. The plaintiffs said the statutory exemption for religious organizations in Section 702 operated as a religious preference and penalized their personal choices of religion in violation of the First Amendment. The case ended up in the Supreme Court, which upheld the provision exempting religious organizations from Title VII with respect to employing people of a particular religion for all not-for-profit activities. Evidence in the case included: Legislative history. As first enacted in 1964, Section 702 provided a limited exemption to religious corporations. In 1972 Congress enacted a broader exemption, effectively exempting from the sweep of Title VII employment decisions made by religious employers with respect to members of that religion in any work connected with the religious corporation. District court proceedings. The Utah court borrowed from several earlier cases, including one that avoided the constitutional issue by deciding that the function challenged was uniquely religious and, thus, exempted. Briefs amicus curiae. Four religious organizations filed briefs amicus curiae.