낙태규제에 관한 미국 판례와 학설의 전개

Abstract

낙태규제에 관한 미국연방대법원의 판례는 Roe v. Wade 사건(1973), Webster v. Reproductive Health Services 사건(1989), Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey 사건(1992)의 3단계를 거쳐 형성되었다. Roe v. Wade 판례가 나온 이후 미국 학계에서는 낙태규제에 대한 헌법학적인 대립이 심각하게 전개되었다. Ely, Bork, Tribe 등 미국 헌법학을 대표하는 학자들이 가담하고 있는 이 논쟁은 단순히 낙태의 권리가 헌법상의 권리인가 아닌가 하는 문제를 넘어서서 헌법해석에 관한 주석주의 대 비주석주의라는 헌법철학적 대립이 뒷받침하고 있다. 현재 판례와 다수학설은 비주석주의의 입장에서 여성의 낙태의 권리를 헌법상 보장된 근본적 권리로 보고 있는데 이 태도는 태아를 인간이 아닌 다른 어떤 존재로 전락시킴으로써 태아의 생명권을 무의미하게 하는 결정적인 단점을 드??내고 있다. 이는 미국 특유의 자유주의적이고 프라그마틱한 사상의 소산이어서, 우리나라에서 낙태규제 입법정책을 정립할 때 이를 받아들이기에 부적절한 측면이 많다고 생각한다.

Decisions of the Supreme Court of the U.S.A. on abortion regulation are made throughthree cases, Roe v. Wade(1973), Webster v. Reproductive Health Services(1989) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey(1992). Since Roe v. Wade decision, there are serious debates on abortion regulation in the American academic society of constitutional law. Ely, Bork and Tribe who are famous American constitutional law scholars participate in this debate. In the debate there is constitutional philosophical clash, between interpretivism and noninterpretivism about interpretation of constitution, beyond the question that the right of abortion is a constitutional right or not.

Now the Supreme Court and majority of scholars of the U.S.A. recognize a right of abortion of woman as a constitutional fundamental right. But this view has a fatal defect that the fetus is not a person but another living thing, so right to life of the fetus becomes meaningless. This view comes from the liberalistic and pragmatic thought of America. Therefore it seems incompatible to accept in policy making process on our abortion regulation.

Decisions of the Supreme Court of the U.S.A. on abortion regulation are made throughthree cases, Roe v. Wade(1973), Webster v. Reproductive Health Services(1989) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey(1992). Since Roe v. Wade decision, there are serious debates on abortion regulation in the American academic society of constitutional law. Ely, Bork and Tribe who are famous American constitutional law scholars participate in this debate. In the debate there is constitutional philosophical clash, between interpretivism and noninterpretivism about interpretation of constitution, beyond the question that the right of abortion is a constitutional right or not.

Now the Supreme Court and majority of scholars of the U.S.A. recognize a right of abortion of woman as a constitutional fundamental right. But this view has a fatal defect that the fetus is not a person but another living thing, so right to life of the fetus becomes meaningless. This view comes from the liberalistic and pragmatic thought of America. Therefore it seems incompatible to accept in policy making process on our abortion regulation.