Federalism Doctrines and Abortion Cases: A Response to Professor Fallon
Anthony J. Bellia Jr.
Notre Dame Law School
St. Louis University Law Journal, Vol. 51, 2007
Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper No. 07-41
This Essay is a response to Professor Richard Fallon's article, "If Roe Were Overruled: Abortion and the Constitution in a Post-Roe World." In that article, Professor Fallon argues that if the Supreme Court were to overrule Roe v. Wade, courts might well remain in the "abortion-umpiring business." This Essay proposes a refinement on that analysis. It argues that in a post-Roe world courts would not necessarily subject questions involving abortion to the same kind of constitutional analysis in which the Court has engaged in Roe and its progeny, that is, balancing a state's interest in protecting life against a pregnant woman's interest in choosing to terminate a pregnancy. Though questions of state power to regulate abortion might well implicate the legitimacy of state interests to regulate abortion in certain ways, questions of federal power to regulate abortion might more implicate structural constitutional concerns that transcend the perceived worth of particular regulatory outcomes. Thus, whether post-Roe the Court would remain involved in resolving the legitimacy of governmental interests in regulating abortion may depend on what kind of federal or state regulation emerged in a post-Roe world.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 31
Keywords: Federalism, Abortion, Roe v. Wade, Federal CourtsAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: July 23, 2007
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.391 seconds