REPOZYTORIUM UNIWERSYTETU
W BIAŁYMSTOKU
UwB

Proszę używać tego identyfikatora do cytowań lub wstaw link do tej pozycji: http://hdl.handle.net/11320/15355
Pełny rekord metadanych
Pole DCWartośćJęzyk
dc.contributor.authorMachaj, Łukasz-
dc.date.accessioned2023-10-04T09:19:39Z-
dc.date.available2023-10-04T09:19:39Z-
dc.date.issued2023-
dc.identifier.citationBiałostockie Studia Prawnicze, Vol. 28 nr 3, 2023, s. 259-277.pl
dc.identifier.issn1689-7404-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11320/15355-
dc.description.abstractSince the Roe v. Wade decision was announced (1973), the question of abortion has constituted an important element of American constitutional discourse. This article analyses the most recent decision of the United States Supreme Court on this matter, i.e. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which rejected the thesis that the Constitution establishes the right to terminate pregnancy. It is possible to identify three fundamental points of the Court’s opinion. First, the Court allowed lawmakers to accept an ontological assumption that a foetus is a human being. Second, the decision was rooted in the doctrine of moderate originalism and in the concept of substantive due process, limited by historical factors. Third, the Supreme Court adopted a liberal interpretation of the stare decisis principle, consenting to the overturning of precedents even if they introduced new civil rights. The author contends that it is highly unlikely that the decision will constitute the last word of American jurisprudence on the question of abortion.pl
dc.language.isoplpl
dc.publisherFaculty of Law, University of Białystok; Temida 2pl
dc.rightsUznanie autorstwa-Użycie niekomercyjne-Bez utworów zależnych 4.0pl
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/-
dc.subjectabortionpl
dc.subjectDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationpl
dc.subjectRoe v. Wadepl
dc.subjectUnited States Constitutionpl
dc.subjectUnited States Supreme Courtpl
dc.subjectaborcjapl
dc.subjectDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationpl
dc.subjectRoe v. Wadepl
dc.subjectKonstytucja USApl
dc.subjectSąd Najwyższy USApl
dc.titleDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization – epitafium dla Roe v. Wadepl
dc.title.alternativeDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: The Epitaph for Roe v. Wadepl
dc.typeArticlepl
dc.rights.holder© 2023 Łukasz Machaj published by Sciendo. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.pl
dc.identifier.doi10.15290/bsp.2023.28.03.11-
dc.description.Emaillukasz.machaj@uwr.edu.plpl
dc.description.AffiliationUniwersytet Wrocławski, Polskapl
dc.description.referencesAdkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923).pl
dc.description.referencesAmar V. D., Morse, School Speech, and Originalism, „UC Davis Law Review” 2009, vol. 42.pl
dc.description.referencesBeckwith F.J., Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice, New York 2007.pl
dc.description.referencesBeckwith F.J., The Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade, and Abortion Law, „Liberty University Law Review” 2006, vol. 1.pl
dc.description.referencesBerger R., Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Indianapolis 1977.pl
dc.description.referencesBlack H. Campbell, The Principle of Stare Decisis, „The American Law Register” December 1886.pl
dc.description.referencesBork R.H., The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law, New York 1990.pl
dc.description.referencesBrown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).pl
dc.description.referencesButler J., Undoing Gender, New York 2004.pl
dc.description.referencesChemerinsky E., Ending Roe is a Pure Exercise of Republican Power, Wielded to Reduce Women’s Freedom and Equality, „Los Angeles Times” 24.06.2022.pl
dc.description.referencesCoppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915).pl
dc.description.referencesDay T., Weatherby D., The Dobbs Effect: Abortion Rights in the Rear-View Mirror and the Civil Rights Crisis that Lies Ahead, „William & Mary Law Review Online” 2022, vol. 64.pl
dc.description.referencesDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. (2022).pl
dc.description.referencesDworkin R., Life’s Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom, New York 1993.pl
dc.description.referencesEpstein L., Knight J., The Choices Justices Make, Washington 1998.pl
dc.description.referencesEpstein L., Walker T.G., Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice, Washington 1992.pl
dc.description.referencesFallon R.H., Jr., Implementing the Constitution, Cambridge 2001.pl
dc.description.referencesFerrando F., Philosophical Posthumanism, London 2019.pl
dc.description.referencesForsythe C.D., A Draft Opinion Overruling Roe v. Wade, „The Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy” 2018, vol. 16.pl
dc.description.referencesFreeman S., Quillin K., Allison L., Black M., Podgorski G., Taylor E., Carmichael J., Biological Science, Harlow 2017.pl
dc.description.referencesGans D.H., Reproductive Originalism: Why the Fourteenth Amendment’s Original Meaning Protects the Right to Abortion, „SMU Law Review Forum” February 2022.pl
dc.description.referencesGerhardt M.J, The Power of Precedent, New York 2011.pl
dc.description.referencesGlover J., Causing Death and Saving Lives, London 1990.pl
dc.description.referencesGreenhouse L., Becoming Justice Blackmun: Harry Blackmun’s Supreme Court Journey, New York 2005.pl
dc.description.referencesGriswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).pl
dc.description.referencesGuiness O., The Case for Civility and Why Our Future Depends on It, New York 2008.pl
dc.description.referencesHorowitz D., Dark Agenda: The War to Destroy Christian America, West Palm Beach 2018.pl
dc.description.referencesLazarus E., Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall and Future of the Modern Supreme Court, New York 1999.pl
dc.description.referencesLawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).pl
dc.description.referencesLazzarini Z., The End of Roe v. Wade – States’ Power Over Health and Well-Being, „New England Journal of Medicine” 2022, vol. 387.pl
dc.description.referencesLevy L.W., Seasoned Judgments: The American Constitution, Rights, and History, New Brunswick 1995.pl
dc.description.referencesLochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).pl
dc.description.referencesMachaj Ł., The United States Supreme Court Reverses Itself: Sense of Injustice or Public Pressure?, „Przegląd Prawa i Administracji” 2015, vol. C/I.pl
dc.description.referencesMarcus N.C., Yes, Alito, There Is a Right to Privacy: Why the Leaked Dobbs Opinion Is Doctrinally Unsound, „ConLawNOW” 2022, vol. 13.pl
dc.description.referencesNowak J.E., Rotunda R.D., Nelson Young J., Constitutional Law, St. Paul 1983.pl
dc.description.referencesNorris P., Inglehart R., Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism, New York 2019.pl
dc.description.referencesObergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).pl
dc.description.referencesPeachman K.N., The Need to Codify Roe v. Wade: A Case for National Abortion Legislation, „Journal of Legislation” 2019, vol. 45.pl
dc.description.referencesPerry S.P, Jipping T., Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: An Opportunity to Correct a Grave Error, Washington 2021.pl
dc.description.referencesPlanned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).pl
dc.description.referencesPlessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).pl
dc.description.referencesPoe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961).pl
dc.description.referencesRoe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).pl
dc.description.referencesRosenfeld A., Iden S., Abortion, (w:) S.G. Post (red.), Encyclopedia of Bioethics, vol. 1, New York 2004.pl
dc.description.referencesRubenfeld J., On the Legal Status of the Proposition That „Life Begins at Conception”, „Stanford Law Review” 1991, vol. 43.pl
dc.description.referencesSandel M.J., Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?, New York 2010.pl
dc.description.referencesScalia A., Common-law Courts in a Civil Law System: the Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting Constitution and Laws, (w:) A. Gutmann (red.), A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Princeton 1997.pl
dc.description.referencesSimson G.J., Simson R.S., Rescuing Roe, „Legislation and Public Policy” 2022, vol. 24.pl
dc.description.referencesSinger P., Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of our Traditional Ethics, New York 1995.pl
dc.description.referencesStrauss D.A., The Living Constitution, New York 2010.pl
dc.description.referencesStrossen N., Justice Ginsburg’s Legacy: Promoting All Fundamental Freedoms for All People Through Strategic Alliances and Incremental Reform, „New York Law School Law Review” 2021/22, vol. 66.pl
dc.description.referencesWashington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).pl
dc.description.referencesUrbańczyk M., Fight Against Discrimination. Human Dignity in American Legal Tradition, Poznań 2022.pl
dc.description.referencesViney W., William James’ Pluralism: an Antidote for Contemporary Extremism and Absolutism, New York 2022.pl
dc.description.referencesZiegler M., Abortion and the law in America: Roe v. Wade to the Present, New York 2020.pl
dc.identifier.eissn2719-9452-
dc.description.volume28pl
dc.description.number3pl
dc.description.firstpage259pl
dc.description.lastpage277pl
dc.identifier.citation2Białostockie Studia Prawniczepl
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-7247-0138-
Występuje w kolekcji(ach):Białostockie Studia Prawnicze, 2023, Vol. 28 nr 3

Pliki w tej pozycji:
Plik Opis RozmiarFormat 
BSP_28_3_L_Machaj_Dobbs_v._ Jackson_ Women’s_ Health_Organization.pdf270,65 kBAdobe PDFOtwórz
Pokaż uproszczony widok rekordu Zobacz statystyki


Pozycja ta dostępna jest na podstawie licencji Licencja Creative Commons CCL Creative Commons