Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar

See, e.g., Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588, 603 (Tenn. 1992); Cohen, I. G., “The Constitution and the Rights Not to Procreate,” Stanford Law Review 60, no. 4 (2008): 1135–1196, at 1135, 1144–1145, 1154.Google Scholar

Reva Siegel and Jed Rubenfeld have addressed the possible meanings of the state's interest in potential life in more detail than any other scholars, and each have done so in just a single paragraph. See Siegel, R. B., “Dignity and the Politics of Protection: Abortion Restrictions Under Casey/Carhart,” Yale Law Journal 117, no. 8 (2008): 1694–1800, at 1694, 1739, 1746–1747; Rubenfeld, J., “On the Legal Status of the Proposition That ‘Life Begins at Conception,”’ Stanford Law Review 43, no. 3 (1991): 599–636, at 599, 610–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Roe, 410 U.S. at 162, 150 (emphasis in original). This interest in potential life does not, the Court has held, extend to sperm or eggs, considered separately, before they are combined into a single organism. Its reach is limited to the still-unborn organism that those cells form together “postconception.” Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 859, 871 (1992).Google Scholar

Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 146 (2007).Google Scholar

6. Corkey v. Edwards, 322 F. Supp. 1248, 1253 (W.D.N.C. 1971), vacated by 410 U.S. 950 (1973).Google Scholar

Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 914 (1992) (Stevens, J., concurring and dissenting in part).Google Scholar

Because the state's interest in potential life is not “implicated” by conduct that takes place before the union of sperm and egg, the Court has held, it “cannot be invoked to justify” the “regulation of contraceptives.” Carey v. Population Serv. Int’l, 431 U.S. 678, 690 (1977).Google Scholar

9. Casey, 505 U.S. at 870.Google Scholar

See, e.g., Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 29 (1905) (upholding the state's authority to mandate smallpox vaccinations in service of the public health); Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F.3d 559, 574–76 (2d Cir. 2009) (invoking national security justification to authorize the restriction of constitutional remedies available to foreign nationals).Google Scholar

Roe, 410 U.S. at 150.Google Scholar

Skinner v. State of Okla. Ex’ Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).Google Scholar

Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 852 (1992).Google Scholar

Id., at 896–97.Google Scholar

Id. at 150, 154, 162.Google Scholar

Id., at 150.Google Scholar

Id., at 156, 161–162.Google Scholar

Id., at 162.Google Scholar

Id., at 163.Google Scholar

Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 846 (1992).Google Scholar

Roe, , 410 U.S. at 162–63.Google Scholar

Casey, , 505 U.S. at 869.Google Scholar

Roe, , 410 U.S. at 150.Google Scholar

Thornburgh v. Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747, 795 (1986) (White, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

Roe, , 410 U.S. at 163.Google Scholar

See, e.g., Thornburgh, 476 U.S. at 778 (Stevens, J., concurring) (listing among possible candidates that might explain the “progressive[]” growth of the potential-life interest the fact that “the organism's capacity to feel pain, to experience pleasure, to survive and to react to its surroundings increases day by day”).Google Scholar

Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 478 (1977).Google Scholar

See Fox, D., “Luck, Genes, and Equality,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 35, no. 4 (2007): 712–726, at 713.Google Scholar

See Cohen, I. G., “Beyond Best Interests,” Minnesota Law Review 96, no. 4 (2012): 1187–1274, at 1208–1111. In this and a companion piece, Professor Cohen limits his analysis to those “cases where the State seeks to influence who will be conceived not who will be born.” Cohen, I. G., “Regulating Reproduction: The Problem with Best Interests,” Minnesota Law Review 96, no. 2 (2011): 423–519, at 441. He therefore brackets from examination the regulation of practices that affect the already existing embryos and fetuses that the Supreme Court has defined as “potential life.” See supra notes 4.Google Scholar

See 21 C.F.R. § 101.79 (2013).Google Scholar

See, e.g., Houghton, L. A. et al., “Long-Term Effect of Low-Dose Folic Acid Intake: Potential Effect of Mandatory Fortification on the Prevention of Neural Tube Defects,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 94, no. 1 (2011): 136–141, at 140–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Siemieniec v. Lutheran Gen. Hosp., 512 N.E.2d 691, 697 (Ill. 1987).Google Scholar

See Procanik v. Cillo, 478 A.2d 755, 762 (N.J. 1984) (affirming that “[w]hatever logic inheres in…denying the child's own right to recover” for preconception “medical malpractice” that caused him to be born – in a way that he himself could not have been otherwise – with an injury whose treatment incurs the “crushing burden of extraordinary expenses” “must yield to the injustice of that result”).Google Scholar

Johnsen, D. E., “Shared Interests: Promoting Healthy Births without Sacrificing Women's Liberty,” Hastings Law Journal 43, no. 3 (1992): 569–614, at 570.Google Scholar

See, e.g., Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 639 & n.7 (1968).Google Scholar

See Cohen, , “Best Interests,” supra note 29, at 1265–1269.Google Scholar

See Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 474, 478 (1977).Google Scholar

Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 877 (1992).Google Scholar

Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 956–57 (2000) (Kennedy, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

See, e.g., Fox, D. Griffin, C. L. Jr., “Disability-Selective Abortion and the Americans with Disabilities Act,” Utah Law Review 2009, no. 3 (2009): 845–905, at 853–855.Google Scholar

See, e.g., Meyer, M. J. Nelson, L. J., “Respecting What We Destroy: Reflections on Human Embryo Research,” Hastings Center Report 31, no. 1 (Jan.-Feb. 2001): 16–31, at 16, 19, 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Richardson, V., “Aborted Fetus Cells Used in Anti-Aging Products,” Washington Times, November 3, 2009, at A1.Google Scholar

See, e.g., McCreary Cnty. v. ACLU of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005).Google Scholar

See Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 16 (1947).Google Scholar

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 116 (1973).Google Scholar

Webster v. Reprod. Health Servs., 492 U.S. 490, 571, 566–67 (1989) (Stevens, J., concurring and dissenting in part).Google Scholar

Dworkin, R., Life's Dominion: An Argument about Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom (New York: Knopf, 1993): At 165 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

See Sanger, C., “Infant Safe Haven Laws: Legislating in the Culture of Life,” Columbia Law Review 106, no. 4 (2006): 753–829, at 807.Google Scholar

Fox, D., “Retracing Liberalism and Remaking Nature: Designer Children, Research Embryos, and Featherless Chickens,” Bioethics 24, no. 4 (2010): 170–178, at 172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

See Robertson, J. A., “Symbolic Issues in Embryo Research,” Hastings Center Report 25, no. 1 (Jan.-Feb. 1995): 37–38, at 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 319 (1980).Google Scholar

Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 158 (2007).Google Scholar

Id., at 141, 157, 158.Google Scholar

Id., at 157–158 (internal quotation marks omitted).Google Scholar

See id., at 158. That the social values interest was not illegitimate was justification enough for those five justices that Congress's ban on a particular method of terminating a pregnancy did constitute an undue burden on abortion generally. The undue burden framework established in Casey elevates judicial analysis of the potential-life interest to a prominent place. For this is the interest that the plurality of the Court held that any legitimate regulation of abortion must, in the first place, advance. Only if it duly “further[s] the State's interest in fetal life” need a court even analyze whether such regulation is designed not to “hinder,” but to “inform the woman's free choice” about whether to carry a pregnancy to term, and whether it “plac[es] a substantial obstacle in the path of…[her] choice.” Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 874–79 (1992). This standard requires courts to determine, as a baseline inquiry before reaching these other concerns, the extent to which any challenged regulation of abortion serves that potential-life interest that the joint opinion held too weak before viability to legitimately restrict, in its purpose or substantial effect, a woman's decision about whether to continue a pregnancy. Id.Google Scholar

Id., at 877.Google Scholar

See id.; id., at 882–883 (consent provision); id., at 886–887 (waiting period provision).Google Scholar

See id., at 882–883, 886–887.Google Scholar

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).Google Scholar

Id., at 571.Google Scholar

See id.Google Scholar

Id., at 577–578 (quoting Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 216 (1986) (Stevens, J., dissenting)).Google Scholar

See id., at 580 (O'Connor, J., concurring).Google Scholar

Id., at 599 (Scalia, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Earle, 517 F.3d 738, 745 (5th Cir. 2008).Google Scholar

Williams v. Morgan, 478 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir. 2007).Google Scholar

Reliable Consultants, 517 U.S. at 745.Google Scholar

Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973).Google Scholar

Id., at 69.Google Scholar

Id., at 108–109 (Brennan, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

Id., at 109.Google Scholar

Id., at 109–111.Google Scholar

See, e.g., Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. v. Zeltwanger, 144 S.W.3d 438, 447 (Tex. 2004).Google Scholar

See Cohen, I. G. Sayeed, S., “Fetal Pain, Abortion, Viability, and the Constitution,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 39, no. 2 (2011): 235–242, at 238, 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

No controlling precedent has categorically ruled out that multiple non-compelling and mutually reinforcing interests could converge into a compelling one capable of overriding rights. But neither have any cases endorsed this possibility, while many have tacitly declined the invitation to do so and others have expressly rejected such interest aggregation, if only in nonbinding dicta or concurring opinions. See, e.g., Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701, 759–60 (2007) (Thomas, J., concurring) (arguing in the Fourteenth Amendment context that “the combination of” “‘three essential elements”’ said to comprise a compelling interest, “does not,” if “[n]one of these elements is [itself] compelling,” thereby “produce an interest any more compelling than that represented by each element independently”); California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567, 584–85 (2000) (holding that California's blanket primary violated a political party's First Amendment right to free association in part because, even though the primary served several legitimate state interests, none of those was by itself compelling).Google Scholar

Cf. Cohen, “Best Interests,” supra note 29, at 1217–1218 (referring to the harms that preconception conduct imposes on third parties as “reproductive externalities”).Google Scholar

See Donohue, J. J. III Levitt, S. D., “The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 116, no. 2 (2001): 379–420, at 381, 386–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

See Fox, D., “Silver Spoons and Golden Genes: Genetic Engineering and the Egalitarian Ethos,” American Journal of Law & Medicine 33, no. 4 (2007): 567–623, at 581–583.Google Scholar

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 29 (1905).Google Scholar

Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 915 (1992) (Stevens, J., concurring and dissenting in part).Google Scholar

Webster v. Reprod. Health Servs., 492 U.S. 490, 569 (1989) (Stevens, J., concurring and dissenting in part).Google Scholar

See Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 478 n.11 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 321 (1993).Google Scholar

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 635 (1996).Google Scholar

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 452 (1985) (Stevens, J., concurring).Google Scholar

U.S. Dep't of Agric. v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 535 (1973).Google Scholar

Romer, , 517 U.S. at 632.Google Scholar

See Webster v. Reprod. Health Servs., 492 U.S. 490, 569 (1989) (Stevens, J., concurring and dissenting in part).Google Scholar

See Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007).Google Scholar

Id., at 157–158.Google Scholar

Id., at 158.Google Scholar

Id. at 157–158.Google Scholar

Id., at 158 (quoting Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 732 & n.23 (1997)).Google Scholar

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 150, 162–64 (1973) (emphasis omitted).Google Scholar

See Robertson, J. A., “Abortion and Technology: Sonograms, Fetal Pain, Viability, and Early Prenatal Diagnosis,” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 14, no. 2 (2011): 327–390, at 335.Google Scholar

Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 165 (2007).Google Scholar

Id., at 166. But see id., at 161–163 (upholding the federal law based in part on Congress' findings, convincingly rejected by the lower court, that the regulated abortion procedure was never medically necessary).Google Scholar

See, e.g., Act of May 1, 2012, §§ 1–2, 2012 Ga. Laws Act 631; 2011 Ind. Legis. Serv. P.L. 193–2011 (H.E.A. 1210) (West); H.R. 5711, 96th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Mich. 2012); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28–3,104(1) (Supp. 2010); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 63, § 1–738.10 (West 2011); 2011 Ala. Act. (H.B.18); 2011 Kansas Sess. Laws Ch. 41 (H.B. 2218). The Arizona and Idaho fetal pain laws were struck down for placing an undue burden on abortion. See 2012 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 250, overturned by Isaacson v. Horne, 716 F.3d 1213, 2013 WL 2160171, at *8 (9th Cir., 2013); Idaho Code Ann. § 18–501 (West 2011), overturned by McCormack v. Hiedeman, 900 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1149 (D. Idaho 2013).Google Scholar

See, e.g., Isaacson, 716 F.3d at 2160171; McCormack, 900 F. Supp. at 1149; Women's Med. Prof’l Corp. v. Voinovich, 911 F. Supp. 1051, 1071–72 (S.D. Ohio 1995), aff’d, 130 F.3d 187 (6th Cir. 1997). Glenn Cohen and Sadath Sayeed have suggested an alternative way to construe fetal pain statutes as seeking not to prevent fetal pain, but to establish the capacity for such pain sensation as “itself a criterion of constitutional personhood, such that pain-capable fetuses are constitutional persons.” See Cohen, Sayeed, , supra note 78, at 240. However, the unborn have never been thus recognized in the law as persons” or “accord[ed] legal rights.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 156, 162 (1973).Google Scholar

See Women's Med. Prof’l Corp., 911 F. Supp. at 1071–72.Google Scholar

See id., at 1072 & n.28.Google Scholar

See id., at 1073.Google Scholar

See id.Google Scholar

Id., at 1071–72 and n.28.Google Scholar

Id., at 1074.Google Scholar

See, e.g., Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 920–21 (2000) (recognizing that citizens hold “virtually irreconcilable” beliefs about when “life begins”).Google Scholar

Calabresi, G., Ideals, Beliefs, Attitudes and the Law: Private Law Perspectives on a Public Law Problem (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1985): At 95–96 (internal quotation marks omitted).Google Scholar

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 156 (1973).Google Scholar

Id., at 150 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

Id., at 163 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 172 (2007) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

Roe, 410 U.S. at 150.Google Scholar

Calabresi, G., “Bakke as Pseudo-Tragedy,” Catholic University Law Review 28, no. 3 (1979): 427–444, at 429.Google Scholar

Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 914–15 (1992) (Stevens, J., concurring and dissenting in part).Google Scholar

See Fox, , supra note 51, at 173.Google Scholar

Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 921 (2000).Google Scholar

See Fox, , supra note 51, at 173.Google Scholar