FACT: Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services is a legal case that was fought and concluded on July 23, 1989. The incidentals and details to the Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services are as follows:

FACT: Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services was brought to bear to challenge an earlier act, which
a. declared that life begins at conception;
b. forbade the use of public funds for the purpose of counseling a woman to have an abortion not necessary to save her life;
c. forbade the use of public facilities for abortions not necessary to save a woman's life;
d. required physicians to perform tests to determine viability of fetuses after 20 weeks gestational age. (plannedparenthood.org fact sheet)

Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services case held the following:

(a) the court allowed the declaration of when life begins to go into effect because five justices agreed that there was insufficient evidence that it would be used to restrict protected activities such as choices of contraception or abortion. Should the declaration be used to justify such restrictions in the future, the affected parties could challenge the restrictions at that time;
(b) the court unanimously declined to address the constitutionality of the public funds provision;
(c) the court accepted Missouri's representation that this provision was not directed at the conduct of any physician or health care provider, private or public, but solely at those persons responsible for expending public funds, and that the provision would not restrict publicly employed health care professionals from providing full information about abortion to their clients;
(c) the court upheld the provision that barred the use of public facilities. It ruled that the state may implement a policy favoring childbirth over abortion by allocations of public resources such as hospitals and medical staff;
(d) the court upheld the provision requiring viability tests by interpreting it not to require tests that would be "imprudent" or "careless" to perform. (plannedparenthood.org fact sheet)

This case, the antithesis to Roe vs. Wade, has incited the wrath of women throughout the United States, seeing them to position themselves at voting polls based on this issue. That is, many national women’s rights organizations on the one hand and pro-choice organizations on the other side are insisting that the way now to vote is to base one’s decisions on how the candidates position themselves with regards to the abortion issue. (Nancy Ross The National Alliance)