Roe v. Wade 판결폐기와 낙태권의 헌법적 근거

김명식 미국헌법학회 2023 美國憲法硏究 Vol.34 No.3

In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. The Wade decision was repealed. This Roe decision recognized a woman's right to choose an abortion as a basic constitutional right under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Dobbs v. The ruling in the Jackson Women's Health Organization case argued that a woman's right to abortion was neither deeply rooted in American history and culture nor included in the concept of orderly freedom, thereby exceeding the scope of basic rights not enumerated in the Constitution. will be. The resulting social chaos and responses from various perspectives will also be important issues, but in this paper, we will discuss what kind of interpretation and impact it can have in relation to the guarantee of the right to abortion, which is recognized based on the right to privacy in Article 17 of our Constitution. do. In particular, considering the implications of the recent ruling that the abortion law is unconstitutional, consideration from this perspective can serve as an opportunity to gauge the direction in which the guarantee of abortion rights in Korea will be directed in the future. From a comparative legal perspective, the constitutional law of abortion rights can be examined. I think it is necessary to review the evidence and its implications. 2022년 6월 미연방대법원은 50여 년간 미국 여성들의 낙태권을 보장해오던 Roe v. Wade 판결을 폐기하기에 이르렀다. 이 Roe판결은 수정헌법 제14조의 적법절차조항에 따라 낙태를 선택할 여성의 자유권을 헌법상의 기본권으로 인정하였던 것인데, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization 사건의 판결은 여성의 낙태권이 미국의 역사와 문화에 깊이 뿌리 내리고 있지도 않고 질서정연한 자유의 개념에 내포되어 있지 않다고 봄으로써 헌법에 열거되지 아니한 기본권의 보장범위를 넘어선 것으로 설시하였던 것이다. 이에 따른 사회적 혼란과 다양한 관점에서의 대응도 중요한 쟁점이 되겠지만, 본고에서는 우리 헌법 제17조의 사생활권을 근거로 인정되고 있는 낙태권의 보장과 관련하여 어떠한 해석과 영향을 미칠 수 있는지에 대해 논구해보고자 한다. 특히 근래 낙태죄조항에 대한 헌법불합치결정의 함의를 고려할 때 이러한 관점에서의 고찰은 우리나라에서 낙태권의 보장을 향후 어떠한 방향으로 정향하게 할지를 가늠할 계기가 될 수 있는바, 비교법적 관점에서 낙태권의 헌법적 근거과 그 함의에 대한 검토가 필요하다고 본다.

소수자 인권에 있어 Dobbs 판결의 의미와 반향 — 근본적 권리 분석틀의 경직된 적용과 소수자 보호 법리의 훼손을 중심으로 —

한유진 세계헌법학회한국학회 2023 世界憲法硏究 Vol.29 No.2

미국 연방대법원은 2022. 6. 24. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization로 낙태권을 미국 연방헌법상 근본적 권리목록에서 퇴출하였다. 낙태권은 1973년 Roe v. Wade 판결에서 근본적 권리로 확인된 이래 수정헌법 제14조 적법절차조항에서 도출되는 대표적인 근본적 권리로 여겨져 왔으나, 약 반세기 만에 미국 연방 법체계에서의 헌법적 가치와 위상을 상실하게 되었다. Dobbs 판결에 대한 논쟁과 갈등은 과거 낙태권을 처음 인정한 Roe 판결이 야기했던 사회적 동요를 역으로 재현한다. 이 글은 종교적・도덕적・정치적 기반 위에 다양하게 전개되는 낙태에 대한 찬반을 직접 논하지 않는다. 그보다 헌법이론 및 사법정책의 관점에서 Dobbs 판결이 소수자의 인권에 끼칠 영향을 논하고자 한다. Dobbs 판결은 미국 여성들의 삶과 권리에 직접적 영향을 미칠 뿐 아니라 그 전개된 법리에 비춰 소수자 일반의 인권에 결정적 변곡점이 될 여지가 있다. 주지하듯 미국 연방대법원은 수정헌법 제14조(적법절차조항, 평등보호조항)를 바탕으로, 해석을 통해 헌법 문언에 명시적 규정을 두지 않은 일련의 개인적 자유와 권리를 근본적 권리로 발견하고 그에 특별한 헌법적 보호를 인정해왔다. 근본적 권리에 대한 제한이나 근본적 권리에 관한 차별은 높은 강도의 사법심사기준을 적용받으며 엄격히 통제된다. 어떤 방법과 기준으로 근본적 권리를 인정할지는 미국 연방대법원의 인권 옹호 기능 발동에 있어 매우 중요한 부분으로, 특히 자신의 가치와 생활양식을 다수결에 의한 정치과정에서 존중받을 수 없어 사법적 보호를 기대할 수밖에 없는 소수자에게 막대한 영향을 끼친다. 연방대법원은 진작부터 근본적 권리를 확인하는데 ‘역사와 전통’을 주요한 기준으로 삼아왔지만, Dobbs 판결은 위 기준을 더욱 보수적 방향으로 적용하였다. 이로써 위 판결은 근본적 권리분석에 관하여 2015년 Obergefell v. Hodges 판결에서 관찰되었던 진보적 변화추세를 일축하고, 일견 반혁명적으로까지 보이는 결론 – 낙태권을 근본적 권리목록에서 ‘퇴출’-을 도출하기에 이르렀다. 이 지점에서 Dobbs 판결은 연방대법원이 수정헌법 제14조 근본적 권리 분석에 토대하여 이뤄온 헌법적 진보의 반환점이라거나 연방대법원이 강조하여 온 소수자 인권 옹호 역할과 기능에 관한 균열로 평가될만하다. On June 24, 2022, the United States Supreme Court effectively removed the right to abortion from the list of fundamental rights under the U.S. Constitution in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The right to abortion had been considered a core right, derived from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since its affirmation in Roe v. Wade in 1973, but it lost its constitutional value and stature in the U.S. federal legal system nearly half a century later. The debate and conflict surrounding the Dobbs decision echo the social unrest that the Roe decision, which first recognized abortion rights, initially induced. This article does not engage directly with the varied and contentious positions on abortion that rest on religious, moral, and political grounds. Rather, it seeks to discuss the impact of the Dobbs decision on the rights of minorities from the perspective of constitutional theory and judicial policy. The Dobbs decision not only directly affects the lives and rights of women in the United States, but it also potentially represents a critical turning point in the rights of minorities in general when viewed in light of the legal principles it espoused. Based on the Fourteenth Amendment (Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause), the U.S. Supreme Court has discovered a series of individual liberties and rights that are not explicitly stipulated in the constitutional text through interpretation, recognizing these as fundamental rights deserving of special constitutional protection. Restrictions or discrimination relating to fundamental rights are subjected to a high-intensity judicial review standard and are strictly controlled. The method and criteria for recognizing fundamental rights are extremely important in activating the human rights advocacy function of the U.S. Supreme Court and have a profound impact on minorities, who can only expect judicial protection as they cannot secure respect for their values and lifestyles in the political process governed by majority rule. The Supreme Court has long used ‘history and tradition’ as a key criterion in confirming fundamental rights, but the Dobbs decision applied this criterion in a more conservative direction. As a result, the decision curtailed the progressive trend observed in the fundamental rights analysis in the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, leading to what can be seen as a counter-revolutionary conclusion - ‘evicting’ the right to abortion from the list of fundamental rights. From this point, the Dobbs decision can be assessed as a rupture in the constitutional progress that the Supreme Court has made based on the Fourteenth Amendment's fundamental rights analysis, as well as a fracture in the role and function of advocating for minority rights that the Supreme Court has emphasized.

모자보건법상 낙태가능결정기간 도입과 부양비 배상 - 우리나라 판례를 중심으로 -

봉영준 ( Young-jun Bong ) 한국법정책학회 2019 법과 정책연구 Vol.19 No.4

의료과오로 인하여 건강한 아이가 출생하여 부모가 지출하게 될 부양비에 대하여 ‘손해성’을 부정하였던 원치 않은 임신 소송인 1996년 서울고등법원 판결을 제외하고, 우리나라 대법원은 원치 않은 임신 소송에서는 물론 원치 않은 출산 소송에서 ‘부양비의 손해성’에 대하여 지금까지 그 입장을 밝힌 바 없었다. 또한 부모가 지출하게 될 부양비에 대하여 손해라고 인정하는 것이 아이의 인간의 존엄성을 침해한다고 언급한 적도 없었다. 원치 않은 출산 소송에서 부양비의 손해성에 대하여 법원이 그 입장을 밝히지 않고 있는 것은 원고의 청구가 없었기도 하지만, 다운증후군, 소두증 및 구개열 파열, 윌리암스증후군은 모자보건법 제14조의 낙태적응요건에 해당하지 않기 때문에 임산부의 낙태권을 인정할수 없고 또한 낙태권의 침해가 없다는 이유이었다. 그러나 2019년 4월 간통죄에 대하여 헌법재판소는 헌법불합치 결정을 하였는데, 이 결정이유에서 모자보건법 제14조의 낙태적응요건에서 낙태결정가능기간의 도입을 언급하면서 모자보건법의 개정이 예정된 상황이 발생하였다. 이처럼 모자보건법이 개정되어 낙태결정가능기간이 도입된다면 1973년 낙태결정가능기간을 인정한 미국연방대법원의 Roe v. Wade 판결과 동일한 상황이 이제는 우리나라에서 발생한 것이다. 따라서 우리나라 대법원은 원치 않은 임신 소송과 원치 않은 출산 소송에서 원치 않은 임신·출산의 경우에 낙태권을 인정하여야 하고 ‘부양비의 손해성’ 여부에 대해 적극적인 입장을 표명하여야 할 것이다. 또한 미국의 일부 주, 호주의 일부 주, 프랑스 등의 외국과 같이 원치 않은 아이에 관한 손해배상에 대한 입법적 해결정책도 논의가 필요한 시점이 되었다. Except for the 96Na10449 decision, the decision of the Seoul High Court in 1996, no court decision has still examined and mentioned that the physician who committed a medical malpractice should be responsible for the child support expenses on the ‘wrongful conception case’ and ‘wrongful birth case’ in Korea. In addition, no court has mentioned that the approval of damages for the child support expenses violates the child’s human dignity. The court did not recognize the abortion right of the pregnant woman and found that the defendant did not infringe on the right to abortion, not revealing its position on the loss of support, because plaintiff did not request the loss of support and Down’s syndrome, microcephaly and cleft palate, and Williams syndrome do not fall under the legal abortion requirement under article 14 of the Mother and Child Health Act. However, in March 2019, with the decision of unconstitution on the abortion rule in the Criminal Act, the Constitutional Court issued and mentioned an amendment to the Mother and Child Health Act by referring to the abortion requirement in Article 14 of the Mother and Child Health Act. Therefore if the abortion determination period is introduced in the Mother and Child Health Act, new situation will arise on the field of ‘Unwanted Child Case’ like the era of the Roe v. Wade case in U.S.A. The Supreme Court will have to admit abortion rights in the wrongful conception case and the wrongful birth case and have an active stance on the loss of support.

낙태죄 위헌판단에서 이익형량 구조 및 기준 비판-헌법재판소 2012.8.23.선고 2010헌바402 결정을 중심으로-

송윤진 조선대학교 법학연구원 2018 法學論叢 Vol.25 No.3

Women's abortion rights have been justified on the basis of an individual's right to self-determination in the light of the philosophical view of rights. Women's abortion claims, however, can not be adequately explained by inviolable protection of their ‘choices’ and have the nature of reproductive rights, which are understood as part of women's human rights or citizenship. In view of the collective responsibility for reproduction, the abortion rights of the pregnant women should be more considered according to women's interests and disadvantages. In addition, this study critically reviews on the 2012 Korean Constitutional decision on the Crime of Abortion. In particular, an improper setting of the framework based on the conflict of the right of the fetus’ life versus the right of mother’s self-determination is examined. The Constitutional Court should not allow the limitation of basic rights by the abstract interest of protecting the life of the fetus, taking into account the specific interests and disadvantages of the pregnant women. Because the Constitutional Court's decision is a process of looking for specific individuals' rights and should be distinguished from the legislative policy consideration of abortion regime and life protection. 여성의 낙태권은 법철학적으로 볼 때 권리의 선택설의 입장에서 개인의 자기결정권을 근거로 정당화되어 왔다. 그러나 여성들의 낙태권은 자신의 ‘선택’에 대한 불가침적보호로 충분히 설명될 수 없으며, 오늘날 여성 인권 혹은 시민권의 일부로 이해되는재생산권의 성격을 가진다. 재생산에 대한 공동체 전체의 책임이라는 관점에서, 여성의 낙태권은 여성의 이익과 불이익을 실질적으로 고려하는 논의가 필요하다. 아울러 본 연구는 낙태죄 위헌판단의 이익형량 구조 및 내용 분석을 통해, 헌법재판소의 법익 균형성 판단 방식을 비판적으로 검토한다. 특히 헌법재판소의 위헌판단에서나타난 태아의 생명권과 임부의 자기결정권의 충돌 프레임은 법원리의 충돌과 이익형량의 개방적 구조라는 측면에서 볼 때, 일종의 범주 오류를 범하는 것이다. 헌법재판소는 임부의 구체적인 이익과 불이익을 최대한 고려하여, 태아의 생명보호라는 추상적이익에 의한 기본권 제한을 쉽게 용인하지 말아야 한다. 왜냐하면 헌법재판소의 낙태죄 위헌여부 결정은 구체적 개인의 권리를 찾는 과정이며, 낙태 규제 방식 및 생명 보호에 관한 입법 정책적 고려와는 구별되어야 하기 때문이다.

낙태죄와 낙태권에 대한 소고

김용화 가천대학교 법학연구소 2013 가천법학 Vol.6 No.4

(형)법이 규율하고 있는 행위 중에 오래전부터 비범죄화가 주장되는 범죄가 있다. 특히 sexuality와 관련된 문제가 많은데, 낙태죄, 성매매, 간통죄 등이 대표적이다. 사회통제를 위해 범죄화했던 사안들에 대한 인식의 변화로 법 개정이 필요하게 된 것이다. 이러한 필요성과 맞물려 있는 사안 중 끊임없는 논쟁 속에 있는 것이 낙태에 대한 것이다. 범죄행위로 낙태를 처벌할 것인가. 아니면 임부의 낙태권으로 인정할 것인가이다. 재생산 조절 능력은 여성들의 삶의 핵심이다. 일반적으로 낙태는 범죄성을 떠나 원치않는 임신을 조절하는 하나의 행위로 존재해 왔다. 낙태를 금지하거나 낙태를 어렵게 또는 비용이 많이 들도록 만드는 법은 임부에게 매우 중요한 자유와 기회를 박탈한다. 임부가 조기에 안전한 낙태를 하지 못하여 원하지 않은 아이를 출산하게 되는 것은 자신의 삶을 파괴하는 것과 같다. 최근 헌법재판소는 자기낙태죄가 헌법에 위배되지 않는다는 결정을 내리면서도, 태아에 대한 국가의 보호의무에는 여성이 임신 중 또는 출산 후 겪게 되는 어려움을 도와주는 것까지 포함되어야 하고, 자기낙태죄로 달성하려는 태아의 생명보호라는 공익은 더 이상 자기낙태죄를 통하여 달성될 것으로 보기 어려우며, 자기낙태죄로 제한되는 사익인 임부의 자기결정권도 결코 가볍게 볼 수 없는데 이러한 법익의 균형성 요건을 갖추지 못하고 임신 초기의 낙태까지 전면적, 일률적으로 금지하고 처벌하는 것은 임부의 자기결정권을 침해한다고 결정하였다. 태아의 생명권과 임부의 자기결정권이라는 기본권의 충돌을 전제하는 낙태에 관한 논쟁에 대한 제고가 필요하다. 궁극적으로 국가나 사회가 복지시스템으로 임부 및 새 생명에게 인간다운 삶을 보장해 줄 수 있다면 낙태율은 현저히 감소할 것이다. 이러한 제도적 장치마련없이 개인이 전적인 책임을 져야하는 현 상황을 고려한다면, 낙태를 결정한 임부의 선택은 존중되어야 할 것이다. 낙태는 임부(여성)가 태아의 생명자체를 거부하는 것이 아니라 출산이후의 양육, 보호 등에 대한 절대적 책임과 관련되어 있기 때문이다. Among acts regulated by criminal law, there are some crimes that have been purported to be decriminalized for a long time. Especially related with sexuality, illegal abortions, sex trades, adulteries are the typical examples. The time of sexuality only for reproduction has gone. Premodern ways of thinking or ideas that used to regulate women's sexuality are no longer accepted. That is why we need to think about revising the laws that used to tolerate 'some kinds of illegal acts' in order to regulate the society. Abortion has been in the center of this controversy. It's about whether to punish the act of abortion as a crime or to admit the right of choice of the woman concerned. It's the solemn right of women to control their reproduction. Whether, when and how many kids they'll have are all important factors to directly influence women's lives, especially when they have opportunities to work and study. Generally, abortion has been regarded as an act of control to terminate unwanted pregnancy. Abortin, therefore, has something to do with the whole responsibility to nurture, protect, etc after birth, not with denying the life of fetus itself. Meanwhile the Constitutional Court has recently found 'constitutional' on an unconstitutionality suit against criminality of self-abortion, adding that the state needs to assist its pregnant women to get through the whole procedure successfully, not only during pregnancy but also after pregnancy especially in terms of its responsibility for the fetus. The Constitutional Court ruled at the same time that the provision on illegal abortions of criminal laws is 'unconstitutional' because it is against the individual right of the woman concerned in terms of self-determination, as well as it seems hard to achieve its original goal to protect the life of fetus due to the provision has been no longer effective. Based on all these circumstances, we should hurry to revise related regulations on abortions in order to guarantee their actual effectiveness.

미국 연방대법원의 낙태에 관한 Dobbs 판결의 의미와 영향

최희경 이화여자대학교 젠더법학연구소 2024 이화젠더법학 Vol.16 No.2

미국에서 여성은 50년간 낙태에 대한 권리를 헌법상의 권리로 인정받아왔다. 하지만 2022년 6월 24일 미연방대법원은 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization 판결에서 임신 15주 이후의 낙태를 금지하는 미시시피주의 임신주수법을 합헌으로 결정하였다. 연방대법원은 Dobbs 판결에서 미시시피주 법을 합헌으로 판단한 것에서 나아가 종래 여성의 낙태에 대한 헌법상 권리를 인정해 온 Roe v. Wade 판결과 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern. Pa. v. Casey 판결을 폐기하였다. 이로 인해 미국 여성들은 낙태에 대한 권리의 연방헌법상 보호를 상실하게 되었으며 동시에 낙태를 제한하는 주 법률의 확산을 막아왔던 장벽 역시 제거되었다. 이제 낙태금지 여부 및 낙태권의 범위는 연방대법원의 판결에 의해서가 아니라 주 정부 또는 주 의회의 정치적 결정에 따르게 되었으며, 각 주에서 낙태허용 여부에 관한 입법 및 정책을 둘러싸고 정치적 논쟁이 계속 이어지고 있다. 이 논문에서는 연방대법원의 Dobbs 판결의 주요 내용과 의미를 살펴본 후, Roe 판결과 Casey 판결을 폐기하기 위한 논거들의 타당성을 검토한다. 또한 Dobbs 판결 이후 미국에서 개별 주를 중심으로 낙태에 대한 접근권이 관련 법과 현실에서 어떻게 어느 정도 보장되어 가는 지를 고찰하고자 한다. 특히 Dobbs 판결에 대하여는 낙태의 금지가 성차별의 문제임을 강조하면서 평등권에 근거하여 여성의 권리를 인정하려는 주장들이 다시 목소리를 높이고 있으며, 또한 낙태허용 여부, 허용 범위에 대한 논의가 이루어지는 주 의회에서 여성의 목소리가 충분히 반영되지 않고 있는 점과 관련하여 여성유권자 뿐만 아니라 여성의원의 증가를 통한 여성 대표성의 확보가 중요한 문제로 제기되고 있다. In the United States, woman's right to abortion has been recognized as a constitutional right for fifty years. In 2022, however, in Dobbs v. The Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court declared that the U.S. Constitution does not protect abortion rights and overturned Roe v. Wade. This resulted in American women losing federal constitutional protection of their right to abortion, while also removing barriers that had prevented the spread of state laws restricting abortion. Now, whether abortion is permitted and the scope of regulation are determined by the political discussions of state governments or legislatures, not by the rulings of the Supreme Court. In each state, political debate continues over legislation and policies regarding whether abortion is allowed. This article reviews the majority’s reasoning of the Dobbs decision and then examines the validity of the arguments for overruling the Roe decisions. It also analyzes the extent to which access to abortion is guaranteed in laws and practice, focusing on individual states, since the Dobbs decision. In particular, since the ban on abortion is a matter of gender discrimination, the argument that women's rights should be based on the equal protection is raising voices again. In relation to the fact that women's voices are not sufficiently reflected in state legislatures where abortion laws and policies are debated, securing women's representation through an increase the number of female legislators as well as female voters is being raised as an important issue.

헌법해석의 정치도구화 ― 미국연방대법원 돕스 대 잭슨 판결을 중심으로 ―

김해정 ( Haijeong Kim ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 2023 연세법현논총 Vol.1 No.2

In March 2018, the government of Mississippi enacted the Gestational Age Act, which prohibits abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. In response, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, an abortion clinic, challenged the Act in Federal District Court, and on June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion. The right to abortion, which had been maintained for 50 years, lost its status as a fundamental right under the Constitution, and the state government was able to ban abortion through autonomous legislation. The issue in the Dobbs decision was whether to acknowledge the right to abortion, which is not written in the U.S. Constitution, as a fundamental right implicitly protected by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution according to the principle of substantive due process. The conflict between the majority opinion and the minority opinion was based on the difference of how to interpret the Constitution. The majority opinion was based on originalism, while the minority opinion was based on the non-originalism. In the United States, the controversy between originalism and non-originalism appears in conjunction with issues such as democracy and judicial review, neutrality and objectivity of courts, conservatism and progressivism, judicial activism and judicial passiveness, as well as the issue of constitutional interpretation itself. Although the two theories are opposite concepts, they have received the following common criticisms: First, both theories depend on the justices’ political views, and second, they undermine the legal stability by giving justices arbitrariness in interpretation. Both originalism and non-originalism had a limit in that they cannot prevent the intervention of the justices' subjectivity, and rather, justices can abuse the subjectivity of constitutional interpretation to project their political ideology into the judgment. Furthermore, since the authority to nominate the Supreme Court Justices in the United States is given to the president, the ruling party's opinion may be involved in the judicial judgment of the justice, causing a problem of blurring the boundary between politics and the judiciary. The United States Supreme Court is often recognized as a political institution that decides political issues through judicial review, since the Constitution, which is the basis for judicial review, is directly related to national politics and contains more abstract concepts than other legal norms. Therefore, in order to conduct judicial review by deriving specific meaning from the Constitution, the process of interpreting the Constitution is essential. At this time, the justices can intervene their personal opinions in the interpretation of the Constitution, and they can support the political ideology of the president who nominated them. This goes directly against the principle of separation of powers, which requires the law to be independent from politics, and weakens the function of the court as an independent dispute resolution institution. In recent years, Supreme Court have shown conservative and progressive tendencies, as if reflecting the party's ideology, and are frequently making decisions with minority opinions. The ruling party expects the Supreme Court justices they appoint to make a certain judgment, and such tacit (or explicit) agreements prevent justices from betraying the party. It is time to raise a problem that the justices of the highest court of the judiciary, which should be the most neutral and fair, serve the ruling party that nominated them, and the civil society that tolerates the court functioning as an institution representing political power.

헌법해석의 정치도구화 -미국연방대법원 돕스 대 잭슨 판결을 중심으로 -

김해정 ( Haijeong Kim ) 연세대학교 법학연구원 의료·과학기술과 법센터 2023 연세 의료·과학기술과 법 Vol.13 No.2

In March 2018, the government of Mississippi enacted the Gestational Age Act, which prohibits abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. In response, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, an abortion clinic, challenged the Act in Federal District Court, and on June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion. The right to abortion, which had been maintained for 50 years, lost its status as a fundamental right under the Constitution, and the state government was able to ban abortion through autonomous legislation. The issue in the Dobbs decision was whether to acknowledge the right to abortion, which is not written in the U.S. Constitution, as a fundamental right implicitly protected by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution according to the principle of substantive due process. The conflict between the majority opinion and the minority opinion was based on the difference of how to interpret the Constitution. The majority opinion was based on originalism, while the minority opinion was based on the non-originalism. In the United States, the controversy between originalism and non-originalism appears in conjunction with issues such as democracy and judicial review, neutrality and objectivity of courts, conservatism and progressivism, judicial activism and judicial passiveness, as well as the issue of constitutional interpretation itself. Although the two theories are opposite concepts, they have received the following common criticisms: First, both theories depend on the justices’ political views, and second, they undermine the legal stability by giving justices arbitrariness in interpretation. Both originalism and non-originalism had a limit in that they cannot prevent the intervention of the justices' subjectivity, and rather, justices can abuse the subjectivity of constitutional interpretation to project their political ideology into the judgment. Furthermore, since the authority to nominate the Supreme Court Justices in the United States is given to the president, the ruling party's opinion may be involved in the judicial judgment of the justice, causing a problem of blurring the boundary between politics and the judiciary. The United States Supreme Court is often recognized as a political institution that decides political issues through judicial review, since the Constitution, which is the basis for judicial review, is directly related to national politics and contains more abstract concepts than other legal norms. Therefore, in order to conduct judicial review by deriving specific meaning from the Constitution, the process of interpreting the Constitution is essential. At this time, the justices can intervene their personal opinions in the interpretation of the Constitution, and they can support the political ideology of the president who nominated them. This goes directly against the principle of separation of powers, which requires the law to be independent from politics, and weakens the function of the court as an independent dispute resolution institution. In recent years, Supreme Court have shown conservative and progressive tendencies, as if reflecting the party's ideology, and are frequently making decisions with minority opinions. The ruling party expects the Supreme Court justices they appoint to make a certain judgment, and such tacit (or explicit) agreements prevent justices from betraying the party. It is time to raise a problem that the justices of the highest court of the judiciary, which should be the most neutral and fair, serve the ruling party that nominated them, and the civil society that tolerates the court functioning as an institution representing political power.

상권 : 낙태와 헌법 -헌재 2010헌바402결정과 관련하여-

박승호 ( Seung Ho Park ) 안암법학회 2014 안암 법학 Vol.0 No.43

Abortion has been very controversial topic in human society for a long time. In 2012, the Constitutional Court of Korea held that the crime of self-abortion was constitutional bacause it didn`t violate the proportionality principle. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany found that state had the obligation to protect fetus` life, that the fetus` life took precedence over pregnant woman`s right of self-determination for whole period of pregnancy, that abortion was permitted in exceptional situation that national laws couldn`t expect pregnant woman to hold pregnancy, and that abortion could be allowed through consultation in exceptional situation in the early stages of pregnancy. In Casey, the Supreme Court of United States reaffirmed the essential holding of Roe. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Second is a confirmation of the State`s power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman`s life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. The fetus is the subject of right to life. It is possible to restrict the right to life by law and differentiate protection according to the life development stage. The woman`s right to abortion is based on the article 10 of constitution. How to regulate abortion is the task of legislative and balancing conflicting interests differ with countries. The crime of self-abortion is constitutional bacause it doesn`t violate the proportionality principle. It is necessary to think about introducing the social indication to justify abortion.

장애 여성의 재생산권에 대한 고찰

차선자(Cha, seon-ja) 전남대학교 법학연구소 2007 법학논총 Vol.27 No.2

Women with disabilities have never played a leading role in our society. As women on the one hand and as persons with disabilities on the other hand, they have lived under the double burden of discriminations. In our society, reproductive right has always discussed how working women’s maternity right is to be protected or in which condition women can exercise her decision making power in abortion or bearing. On the contrary, in case of women with disabilities the problem of reproductive right shows different aspects compared with that in women without disabilities. Concretely, the most difficult problem in reproductive right of women with disabilities is that her right of choice for conception, bearing and rearing is often interrupted by other person or a nation. This paper aims at two things. First one is how to understand the meaning of reproductive right as a legal concept. Second one is how it is secured by legal system, in case that reproductive right of women with disabilities were interrupted by other person or a nation.