미 연방대법원 Roe v. Wade 판결폐기의 함의와 향후 주별 입법 전망 = The Impact of Overturning Roe, and the Prospects for the State Legislation

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The leak of the draft opinion of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization caused a stir across the States. In about two months after the leak, the final opinion, not very different from the leaked draft, was rendered, and the historic Roe v. Wade was indeed overturned.
Through Roe and Casey, a woman’s right to an abortion was established as a constitutional right under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. Justice Alito stated that the right to an abortion was not protected under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause because the constitutional protection of the rights not enumerated in the Constitution must be deeply rooted in American history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.
Such reasoning is not concrete enough to abolish Roe that has been embedded in the American legal system for almost 50 years, against Stare Decisis. The same reasoning imposes threat to other constitutional rights not enumerated but recognized under the 14th Amendment; however, Justice Alito explicitly stated that his opinion in this case applies only to this case and to no other, which is against Stare Decisis, again.
State governments have started banning abortion with the overturning of Roe, and such trend is expected to increase. Now that it is in the realm of the State legislatures, with short of political power in the Congress to pass a federal law, the President has issued executed order promising to provide whatever is possible in his power to ensure right to an abortion. The ultimate resolution would be an enactment of a federal law or a new Supreme Court decision in the same matter, but on a different ground.
As the Due Process Clause is not deemed a legally concrete enough ground for a constitutional right to an abortion, as criticized by many liberal legal scholars back when Roe was decided, now bringing in the case with the Equal Protection Clause as the ammunition may be the way to pursue.
Political diversion in the Supreme Court induced overruling of Roe that harms women’s right to an abortion. In the absence of follow-up legislation for 3 years after Korean Constitutional Court’s decision rendering abortion not a crime, Korean women are also not able to receive adequate medical services while simply placed in limbo. Legislation based on women’s health and reproductive rights are needed without delay.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization 사건의 대법원 판결문 초안이 유출되고 미국 전역에 큰 파장을 일으킨 가운데, 유출된 판결문 초안과 크게 다르지 않은 판결이 내려졌고 50여 년간 미국 여성들의 임신중절권을 보장해오던 Roe v. Wade 사건의 판결이 폐기되었다.
Roe와 Casey 사건은 모두 수정헌법 제14조 적법절차조항에 따라 임신중절을 선택할 여성의 자유권을 헌법상의 권리로 인정하였는데, Dobbs 판결은 수정헌법 제14조 적법절차조항은 임신중절권을 보장하지 않음을 판시하면서 그 사유로 헌법에 열거되지 않은 권리의 헌법적 보호는 역사와 문화에 깊이 뿌리내리고 있고 질서정연한 자유의 개념에 내포되어야 한다는 점을 들고 있다. 하지만 선례구속의 원칙에 반하여 50여 년간 미국법체계의 일부를 이루어 왔고 사회적으로도 대다수가 지지하는 Roe의 법리를 폐기하기 위한 논리로는 부적절하며, 또한 이는 같은 선상에서 판례로 굳어진 다른 중요한 헌법상의 권리에도 위협이 될 수 있고, 다른 권리에 대하여 적용하지 않겠다는 것 또한 선례구속의 원칙에 다시 위배한다.
Roe의 폐기와 함께 각 주에서는 주별 입법으로 임신중절권을 금지하고 있으며, 앞으로도 늘어날 전망이다. 주별 입법가의 영역으로 바뀐 이상 연방법을 제정하기에는 정치적 지형이 부족한 지금 대통령은 행정명령으로 최대한 임신중절권을 보장하기 위한 지원을 약속했지만, 결국 가장 근본적인 해결책은 연방법의 제정 또는 같은 사안의 헌법소원을 통해 새로운 판례를 수립하는 것이 있을 것이다. 수정헌법 제14조 적법절차조항이 임신중절권의 기반이 되기에 부족하다는 점은 이미 진보적 법학자측에서도 Roe 판결 시절부터 지적된 바 있기에, 이제 수정헌법 제14조 평등보호조항을 근거로 임신중절권을 보장하는 방안을 강구해볼 수 있을 것이다.
결국 대법원의 정치화에 따른 판례의 폐기로 피해를 보는 것은 임신중절이 필요한 여성의 건강권이다. 우리나라의 낙태죄 헌법불합치 결정 이후 3년간 후속입법 없이 공백인 상황에서 우리나라 여성들 역시 임신중절이 필요한 경우 필요한 의료서비스를 적절히 받지 못하고 있다. 지체없이 여성의 건강과 재생산권에 기반한 입법이 필요하다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 "캘리포니아 주지사 Gavin Newsome, As Abortion Rights Constitutional Amendment Heads to Ballot, Governor Newsome Takes Additional New Action to Protect Women and Providers in California"
• 2 "유출된 판결문 초안"
• 3 "아이다호 주법전"
• 4 "백악관 보도자료"
• 5 "미시건주 보도자료, 2022년 6월 24일, Whitmer Files Motion in Michigan Supreme Court to Protect Constitutional Right to Abortion"
• 6 "https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-wyoming"
• 7 "Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702"
• 8 Dylan Lysen, "Voters in Kansas decide to keep abortion legal in the state, rejecting an amendment"
• 9 "Transcript of Oral Argument at 4-6, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org.,No. 19-1392 (U.S. argued Dec. 1, 2021)"
• 10 "Transcript of Oral Argument at 4-6, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., No. 19-1392 (U.S. argued Dec. 1, 2021)"
• 11 "Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. 497"
• 12 "The Constitution of the United States of America"
• 13 "SCA10"
• 14 "Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113"
• 15 NPR, "Poll: Two-thirds say don't overturn Roe"
• 16 "Poe v. Ullman 367 U.S. 497"
• 17 "Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537"
• 18 "Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 873"
• 19 "Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644"
• 20 "Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1"
• 21 "Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558"
• 22 Tom Davies, "Indiana Republicans propose banning abortion with exceptions"
• 23 Kate Ainsworth, "How the story of a 10yo rape victim in Ohio forced to travel interstate for a legal abortion highlighted America’s post-Roedivide"
• 24 Josh Gerstein, "How rare is a Supreme Court breach? Very rare"
• 25 Kate Sullivan, "Here’s what’s in Biden’s executive order on abortion"
• 26 "Guttmacher Institute 의 정책분석보고서"
• 27 "Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479"
• 28 "Gestational Age Act, Miss. Code Ann. §41–41–191"
• 29 "Dredscott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 363"
• 30 "Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organzation, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S.873_(2022) Pet. for Cert. i., 2310"
• 31 "Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organzation, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. 873"
• 32 "Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483"
• 33 Kate Smith, "Biden pledged to make Roe v. Wade “the law of the land.” Abortion-rights supporters want more"
• 34 NPR, "Arizona’s attorney general says a pre-1901 abortion ban is enforceable"
• 35 Elizabeth Nash, "2022 State Legislative Sessions: Abortion Bans and Restrictions on Medication Abortion Dominate"