Harm and Regret in Abortion Disputes

Emily M. Calhoun

in Losing Twice

Published in print March 2011 | ISBN: 9780195399745
Published online May 2011 | e-ISBN: 9780199894444 | DOI:
Harm and Regret in Abortion Disputes

More Like This

Show all results sharing this subject:

  • Constitutional and Administrative Law


Show Summary Details


When people discuss what Supreme Court justices should do when asked to resolve passionately contested rights disputes, the topic of abortion inevitably surfaces. This chapter explores failures to satisfy harm-amelioration and harm-avoidance obligations in two well-known abortion rights decisions: Roe v. Wade and Gonzales v. Carhart. It argues that honoring rather than attacking the constitutional stature of all parties is perhaps the best way that justices can ensure that the Constitution has meaning for “people of fundamentally different views.” It will require justices, however, to be willing to take some risks in their opinions.

Keywords: abortion debates; harm amelioration; harm avoidance; constitutional rights; constitutional stature

Chapter.  6045 words. 

Subjects: Constitutional and Administrative Law

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Buy this work at Oxford University Press »

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.