Contact: Pat Tremmel
Email: [email protected]
Phone: (847) 491-4892
Mary Jane Twohey (for broadcast media)
(847) 491-4889
[email protected]
NORTHWESTERN PROFESSORS SHARE EXPERTISE ARGUING ABORTION BEFORE SUPREME COURT AND A WEB SITE WITH ORAL ARGUMENTS FROM ROE V. WADE
CHICAGO --A couple of Northwestern University School of Law professors who held opposing positions in an abortion case that they argued before the Supreme Court are available to offer perspective on Roe v. Wade as it approaches its 25th anniversary on Thursday, Jan. 22. And to hear the historical arguments that have divided the nation ever since Roe was decided in 1973, you need only to click on a popular Supreme Court web site (http://court.it-services.nwu.edu/oyez/) designed by Jerry Goldman, a Northwestern University political scientist
Williams v. Zbaraz is the case that Professor Robert Bennett (312-503-8430) and Victor Rosenblum, the Nathaniel Nathanson Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law (312-503-8443), argued before the Supreme Court on April 21, 1980; the issues concerned the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment and prohibitions on funding of abortion under the Medicaid program.
"The Court agreed that while Roe contained the right to be left alone, it did not create an entitlement for funding abortions," said Rosenblum, whose position triumphed in the Zbaraz case. "For the first time, the Court built a fence around abortion, providing a heightened climate for public evaluation in which the issues on all sides could be presented and considered."
At the same time, Rosenblum , who represented the Americans United for Life Legal Defense Fund, conceded that Bennett held his own in the opposing argument in the Zbaraz case, arguing that the Hyde Amendment did not meet the rational relationship test by funding childbirth but denying abortion funding. "My concern was that my colleague and close friend was going to make a very strong equal protection argument, which he did," said Rosenblum.
Despite the battering Roe has taken over the years, the law has remained relatively intact, according to Bennett. "Considering the great controversy that Roe caused and the many political actors who tried to undo it, the fact that it remained law is an incredible story in itself," he said. "It is a story with numerous lessons about the role of the courts and judicial dynamics, including, of course, the influence of a relatively small group of conservative justices who want to adhere to precedent. "
Rosenblum, however, is convinced that Roe was decided on a shaky constitutional right to privacy that the Court is moving away from in recent abortion cases. "The court is putting more of an emphasis on the liberty interest, deciding that the privacy issue is not an adequate basis for dealing with abortion or especially cases involving people's sexual preferences," said Rosenblum. No matter what your position is, Goldman, a professor of political science at Northwestern, is convinced that the oral arguments on his OYEZ OYEZ OYEZ web site will deliver the nuances of Roe in a manner that a mere reading of the opinion could not. The website offers scores of Supreme Court oral arguments linked to hundreds of consitutional decisions and biographical sketches.
"Roe was argued twice, and we provide two hours of argument on the Oyez site," said Goldman. "It is intriguing to hear how difficult it was for Sarah Weddington, who was just 26 at the time, to find a constitutional hook on which to hang her argument. The second time around,less than a year later, Weddington had a much more focused presentation, but her opponent was also better. It is clear that this was not a cakewalk for anybody, even though the case ultimately was decided 7 to 2. "
RSS