Webster v. Reproductive Health Services

A record-breaking 78 amicus curiae briefs were filed. That was almost double the 42 such briefs filed in Roe v. Wade. This was a clear indication that both sides of the abortion debate viewed the forthcoming decision as a crucial one.

William L. Webster was first to address the Court. He outlined the three basic areas of Missouri's statute:

The first, the constitutional boundaries on the limitations of public funding; the second, the effect of and the facial constitutionality of legislation declaring that life begins at conception; and, third, the ability of a state to require a physician to perform tests and to make and record findings when determining viability.

He contended that legal decisions at all judicial levels since 1973 had "repeatedly interpreted that [Roe v. Wade] mandate, frequently strictly against the states. One result is that states have effectively been forbidden . . . to regulate abortion in any significant way."

Webster defended his state's law forbidding the abortion-related employment of any public facility or person on the public payroll. He argued that "the government is certainly not obligated in and of itself to become an advocate for abortion." He characterized the act's preamble--declaring that Missouri believed human life begins at conception--as "an abstract, philosophical statement of the legislature" which "doesn't affect anyone" and states should be entitled to "have a philosophical statement of when they contend life begins."

Finally, he defended Missouri's requirement that physicians perform specific tests in order to verify fetal viability. Every state has a legitimate and compelling interest, he emphasized, in the fetus, most especially when it becomes viable. Therefore, doctors should perform whatever tests are necessary to protect unborn viable babies.