Derogada la sentencia Roe vs. Wade

Autores/as

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5294/pebi.2022.26.2.1

Palabras clave:

Aborto, biojurídica, cultura de la vida, embrión, dignidad

Resumen

Después de casi medio siglo fue derogada la sentencia del caso Roe vs. Wade por la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos, lo que puede suponer el fin del aborto en ese país. Se mencionan algunos antecedentes, hitos históricos, arreglos y el contexto de la situación que desembocó en la sentencia mediante la cual se estableció el derecho constitucional al aborto (Roe vs. Wade), se mantuvo la decisión tomada (Planned Parenthood vs. Casey) y finalmente cómo se revocaron las sentencias anteriores (Dobbs vs. Organización de Salud Femenina Jackson). Se concluye, desde una perspectiva biojurídica, que se corrigió un fallo no solo controvertido en su aplicación, sino sobre todo en su génesis, donde queda claro que el aborto no es un derecho constitucional y que los organismos judiciales no son competentes para regular sobre esa materia y sobre otras análogas. Desde el punto de vista bioético, es un fallo revocatorio histórico, que rectificó una de las mayores injusticias contemporáneas, que puso por encima la autonomía individual sobre el hecho biológico incontrovertible de una nueva vida humana y el cuidado que demanda su dignidad ontológica: Roe vs. Wade costó la vida a millones de embriones, en los Estados Unidos y en el resto del mundo.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

Attorney General of Texas. AG Paxton Celebrates End of Roe v. Wade; Announces Abortion Now Illegal in Texas. 24 jun 2022 [Consulta: 28 jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/ag-paxton-celebrates-end-roe-v-wade-announces-abortion-now-illegal-texas

Warren D. Held. Twitter [Internet]. 24 jun 2022 [Consulta: 28 jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://twitter.com/danielforsenate?lang=es

Supreme Court of the United States. About the Court [Consulta: 28 Jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/institution.aspx.

Supreme Court of the United States. Jane Roe, et al., Appellants, vs. Henry Wade [Consulta: 28 Jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

Oyez. Roe v. Wade. [Consulta: 29 Jun 2022]. Disponible en: www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18

Nathanson BN. Ambulatory abortion: experience with 26,000 cases. N Engl J Med. 1972;286:403-407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM197202242860805

Hollis for Archival Discovery. Records of the National Abortion Rights Action League, 1968-1976. [Consulta: 29 Jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://hollisarchives.lib.harvard.edu/repositories/8/resources/6738

McCorvey N, Meisler A. I am Roe: my life, Roe v. Wade, and Freedom of Choice. New York: HarperCollins; 1994.

Rafferty PA. Roe v. Wade: the birth of a constitutional right. Ann Arbor, Mich. 1992. 459-765.

Dellapenna JW. Dispelling the myths of abortion history. Durham: Carolina Academic Press; 2006.

Means Jr C. The Phoenix of abortional freedom. New York Law Forum. 1971;17(2):335-410.

Scaturro F. Abortion and the Supreme Court. Holy Cross Journal of Law and Public Policy. 1998;3:133-262.

Roden GR. The abortion mythology of Roe v. Wade. Human Life Review. 2005;31(4):65-71.

Robenalt J. The 1973 Roe v. Wade decision also was leaked to the press. Washington Post. Disponible en: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/02/leak-time-magazine-roe-wade/

Robenalt J. How the Roe v. Wade ruling evolved: a behind-the-scenes visual tour. Washington Post. Disponible en: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/06/26/evolution-roe-v-wade-ruling/

Time. The Law: the Court’s uncompromising libertarian. 24 nov 1975 [Consulta: 30 jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://web.archive.org/web/20110505171211/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,913732-2,00.html

Dworkin R. Dissent on Douglas. 19 feb 1981 [Consulta: 30 Jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1981/02/19/dissent-on-douglas/

Nathanson B. Aborting America. New York: Doubleday; 1979.

Nathanson B. The hand of God: a journey from death to life by the abortion doctor who changed his mind. Washington: Regnery Publishing; 1996.

Supreme Court of the United States. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania et al. v. Casey, governor of Pennsylvania, et al. [Consulta: 30 jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/505bv.pdf

Oyez. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. [Consulta: 30 jun 2022]. Disponible en: www.oyez.org/cases/2021/19-1392

Cohen IG, Adashi EY, Gostin LO. The Supreme Court, the Texas Abortion Law (SB8), and the beginning of the end of Roe v. Wade? JAMA. 2021;326(15):1473-1474. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.17639

Serrano R. El final de “Roe” devuelve la regulación del aborto a los estados. 24 jun 2022. [Consulta: 30 jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.aceprensa.com/ciencia/aborto/el-final-de-roe-devuelve-la-regulacion-del-aborto-a-los-estados/?utm_source=sendinblue&utm_campaign=Newsletter_20220630&utm_medium=email

FindLaw. U.S. Constitutional Amendments. 14 jun 2022. [Consulta: 30 jun 2022] Disponible en: https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendments.html#f6

Supreme Court of the United States. June Medical Services L. L. C. et al. v. Russo, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. [Consulta: 30 jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf

Justia. Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179. [Consulta: 30 jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/179/

Supreme Court of the United States. Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders, et al. 18-364 v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, et al. [Consulta: 30 jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-364_08m1.pdf

Supreme Court of the United States. Obergefell v. Hodges. [Consulta: 30 Jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Supreme Court of the United States. Azar, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Allina Health Services et al. [Consulta: 30 Jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-1484_4f57.pdf

Weisberg T. ‘Anything’s on the table’: Missouri legislature may revisit contraceptive limits post-Roe. [Consulta: 29 jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/urls_cited/ot2021/19-1392/19-1392-11.pdf

Supreme Court of the United States. Gonzalez v. Oregon. [Consulta: 30 Jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2005/04-623.pdf

Supreme Court of the United States. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. [Consulta: 30 jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf

Supreme Court of the United States. McCullen et al. v. Coakley, Attorney general of Massachusetts, et al. [Consulta: 29 jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1168_6k47.pdf

Supreme Court of the United States. Burwell, secretary of health and human Services, et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al. [Consulta: 29 jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

Supreme Court of the United States. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. v. Bruen, superintendent of New York State Police, et al. [Consulta: 30 jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

Supreme Court of the United States. West Virginia et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. [Consulta: 29 jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf

The New York Times. Companies are more vocal than ever on social issues. 24 Jun 2022. Not on abortion. [Consulta: 29 Jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/business/abortion-roe-wade-companies.html

Bowdey S. 56 Companies Announce Abortion Perks. Hundreds More Stay Silent. The Washington Stand. [Consulta: 29 jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://washingtonstand.com/commentary/56-companies-announce-abortion-perks-hundreds-more-stay-silent-

Lenharo M. After Roe v. Wade: US researchers warn of what’s to come. Nature. 24 jun 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01775-z

Lawmakers v. The Scientific Realities of Human Reproduction. N Engl J Med. 2022;387:367-368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe2208288

Harris L. Navigating loss of abortion services — a large academic medical center prepares for the overturn of Roe v. Wade. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:2061-2064 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2206246

Cohen IG, Daar J, Adashi EY. What overturning Roe v. Wade May mean for assisted reproductive technologies in the US. JAMA. 2022;328(1):15-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.10163

Ginsberg NA, Shulman LP. Life without Roe v Wade. Contracept Reprod Med. 2021;6(5). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40834-021-00149-6

Rubin R, Abbasi J, Suran M. How caring for patients could change in a post-Roe v. Wade US. JAMA. 2022;327(21):2060-2062. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.8526

Lau S. The United States needs people to stand up for abortion. BMJ. 2022;377:o1493. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o1493

Guttmacher Institute. Guttmacher-Lancet Commission on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights. [Consulta: 1 jul 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.guttmacher.org/guttmacher-lancet-commission

Jaffe S. Federal abortion rights end, but not legal challenges. The Lancet. 2022;400(10345):13-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01236-3

US District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Roe v. Wade, 314 F. Supp. 1217 (N.D. Tex. 1970). [Consulta: 29 jun 2022]. Disponible en: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/314/1217/1472349/

Supreme Court of the United States. Dobbs, state health officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al. [Consulta: 1 jul 2022]. Disponible en: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

Gureghian-Hall M. Abortion rights in international law: the Inter-American Human Rights System and a post-Roe v. Wade America. UCLA Undergraduate Law Journal. 2022;21:63-89. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4101586

González-Moreno AM. El aborto en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos: algo más que un “giro procedimental”. Anuario de Filosofía del Derecho. 2021;XXXVII:173-195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53054/afd.vi37.7739

Jozkowski KN, Crawford BL, Hunt ME. Complexity in attitudes toward abortion access: results from two studies. Sex Res Soc Policy. 2018;15:464.482 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-018-0322-4

Jozkowski KN, Crawford BL, Turner RC, et al. Knowledge and sentiments of Roe v. Wade in the wake of justice Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Sex Res Soc Policy. 2020;17:285-300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-019-00392-2

Adamczyk A, Kim C, Dillon L. Examining public opinion about abortion: a mixed-methods systematic review of research over the last 15 years. Sociol Inq. 2020;90:920-954. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12351

Gallup. Abortion. 2022. [Consulta: 1 jul 2022]. Disponible en: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx

Navas A. El debate medioambiental cincuenta años después de “Los límites del crecimiento”. Nuevas Tendencias. 2022;108(2):37-43.

López-González SP (Coord.). Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible de la Agenda 2030. Una visión iberoamericana. Ciudad de México: Ed. Tirand lo Blanch; 2022.

Ziegler M. The end of Roe v. Wade. The American Journal of Bioethics. 2022;22(8):16-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2075962

Descargas

Publicado

2023-01-25

Cómo citar

Gamboa Bernal, G. A. (2023). Derogada la sentencia Roe vs. Wade. Persona Y Bioética, 26(2), e2621. https://doi.org/10.5294/pebi.2022.26.2.1

Número

Sección

Editorial