Dobbs vs. Jackson : un giro copernicano en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos
| Autor: | Didier, María Marta |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | Spanish; Castilian |
| Rok vydání: | 2022 |
| Předmět: | |
| Zdroj: | Prudentia Iuris. 2022, 94 Repositorio Institucional (UCA) Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina instacron:UCA |
| Popis: | Fil: Didier, María Marta. Universidad Católica de Santa Fe; Argentina Resumen: En este artículo se analizan los principales argumentos esgrimidos por el voto de la mayoría en el caso Dobbs State Health Officer of Mississippi Department of Health et al. vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al., en el que la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos declaró la validez constitucional de la Ley de Mississippi que prohibía el aborto libre, luego de la semana quince de gestación del ser humano no nacido. Como fundamento de su decisión, afirmó que no existe un derecho constitucional al aborto, derogando los precedentes Roe vs. Wade y Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. vs. Casey. Abstract: This article analyzes the main arguments put forward by the majority vote in “Dobbs State Health Officer of Mississippi Department of Health et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al”, in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared the constitutional validity of the Mississippi law prohibiting free abortion after the fifteenth week of gestation of the unborn human being. As the basis for his decision, he asserted that there is no constitutional right to abortion, overruling “Roe v. Wade” and “Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey”. Sommario: Questo articolo analizza le principali argomentazioni addotte dal voto della maggioranza nel caso Dobbs State Health Officer of Mississippi Department of Health et al. vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al, in cui la Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti dichiarò la validità costituzionale della legge del Mississippi che vietava l’aborto libero, dopo la quindicesima settimana di gestazione dell’essere umano non nato. Come base della sua decisione, ha affermato che non esiste un diritto costituzionale all’aborto, abrogando i precedenti Roe vs. Wade e Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. vs. Casey. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|