Erasmus School of Law and Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2023 Jul;32(3):323-336. doi: 10.1017/S0963180122000913. Epub 2023 Jan 23.
In June 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned The European Court of Human Rights is also expected to decide on several abortion cases. In this paper, the interpretative approaches of both courts are compared. Whereas the U.S. Supreme Court in decided on an originalist approach to the Constitution, the highest European court has always regarded the European Convention on Human Rights as a living instrument. As a result, domestic laws regulating the interruption of pregnancy are seen by the Strasbourg court as interferences with a fundamental right, the right to respect for private life. Although member states of the Council of Europe enjoy a wide margin of appreciation with regard to the circumstances in which abortion will be permitted, its highest court put forward the state's positive obligation to secure pregnant women's right to effective respect for their physical and psychological integrity in several landmark judgments. In this way, it ensures the existence of effective mechanisms in countries with a poor record of implementing the right to a lawful abortion. Albeit at a minimum, the Strasbourg court offers protection, whereas the U.S. Supreme Court no longer does.
2022 年 6 月,美国最高法院推翻了罗伊诉韦德案,预计欧洲人权法院也将对若干堕胎案件作出裁决。本文比较了这两个法院的解释方法。美国最高法院在 一案中对宪法采取了原意主义的解释方法,而欧洲最高法院一直将《欧洲人权公约》视为活的文书。因此,斯特拉斯堡法院认为,管制终止妊娠的国内法律干涉了一项基本权利,即尊重私生活的权利。虽然欧洲委员会成员国在允许堕胎的情况下享有广泛的斟酌权,但该委员会的最高法院在几项具有里程碑意义的判决中提出了国家的积极义务,即为孕妇确保有效尊重其身心完整的权利。这样,它确保了在实施合法堕胎权利方面记录不佳的国家建立有效的机制。尽管程度较低,但斯特拉斯堡法院提供了保护,而美国最高法院则不再提供保护。