Analysis Of The Supreme Court Case Of Roe Vs. Wade
Roe vs. Wade Roe vs. Wade is a very well-known court case about abortion in the United States. It broke the news in 1969 when a divorced, poverty stricken, high school dropout, Norma McCorvey, desired for an abortion.1 In the state of Texas during this time, abortion was prohibited unless it jeopardized a woman’s health. So, Norma decided to have her child and set the child up for adoption. Then, she met Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee. Dictating on whether Texas’ Law was constitutional, the women testified against it. Becoming Jane Roe, the three women were battling against Henry Wade, who was the criminal district attorney for Dallas, Texas. Wade agreed to go to court, and from then on became the start of Roe vs. Wade. Texas in 1969
…show more content…
was anti-abortion unless it puts the life of the mother at risk. Jane Roe wanted to prove that this law was unconstitutional because women also have the right to property. The due process clause under the 14th amendment states proceeding according to law and with adequate protection for individual rights. 2 The perception of the due process of law means that the government must admire all legal rights which every individual is authorized to. Section 1 of the 14th amendment also states “… nor shall any state deprive any person from life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”3 Meaning no one can take away one’s own individual life, individual freedom, or individual property without the due process of law. Supreme Court introduced the history of Greek and Roman times where abortion first commenced.
This era used minimum protection for the little ones. Also Supreme Court included Connecticut because it was the first state to ordain abortion legislation. In the 1950s abortion was banned in exception of jeopardy to the life of the mother. Justice Blackmun included three reasons to explain criminal abortion laws. One reason is to discourage illicit sexual conduct.4 Another is medical procedures.5 During the 1970s, the state was concerned with the medical procedures and medicines that physicians provide to their patients because it could put the mother in harms way. Past days, the medicines and procedures are not as sterile as they are today. The procedures present day are far more innocuous. The state has an important state interest when dealing with health and safety. The state also has a legitimate state interest when the procedure is performed under maximum safety for the patient.6 The last reason is the states interest.7 The state believes that only an abortion should occur when the mother is at risk for health. Unless that exception, no abortion should be performed. The embryo should not subsist when the mother is at risk even though the moment of conception is the start of a human life. Although whether that sentiment is true or false, it should not rest on the states legitimate …show more content…
interest. Including the three trimesters of pregnancy, the state has a compelling state interest at the point of viability. The point of viability is when the fetus is capable of living outside the mother's womb. In the first trimester, which is one to three months, the fetus is more likely to become ill first than preforming an abortion. The second trimester which is from four to six months, this trimester only protects the mother. If the mother is sick or in jeopardy from the fetus, then the fetus will be terminated. The state has an important state interest in this trimester. Now, in the third trimester, which is from seven to nine months, the baby is able to live outside the womb. At this point, the state has a compelling state interest due to point of viability. The state can prohibit abortion in the third trimester. Justice Blackmun states “Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to preform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or maybe a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of that facility; and the like.”8 Meaning the physician and his patient can decide based on his medical judgment if the procedure should take place. The state cannot interfere with this judgment. The Constitution is an important landmark in the United States.
In the 4th amendment, it states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...”9 This amendment protects the right to privacy of search and seizure. Also in amendment 5, it states “no person shall be held for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury...”10 This amendment protects the privacy not to talk, or the right to remain silent. None of these amendments including the others not stated say anything about the right to privacy, but the right broader than the actual
text. Justice Rehnquist dissents he has difficulty concluding the right of privacy is involved in this case.11 The right to privacy is not word for word stated in the constitution, but it is assumptive in the first, fourth, and fifth amendments. Justice Rehnquist states “A transaction resulting in an operation such as this is not “private” in an ordinary usage of that word.”12 The word privacy means ones business or being is isolated from the public. He is right in one's opinion, although the Bill of Rights supports the right to privacy hidden in the text. The court's final opinion given by Justice Blackmun was that the state law, performing a medical procedure for an abortion in Texas with exception to the unhealthy mother without respect to the unborn fetus' stage nor state interests, violates the constitution directly from the 14th amendment section 1 of the due process clause.13 Justice Blackmun states lastly “This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interest involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day.”14 Wade is correct on the basis of the violations. Jane Roe accused this state law being unconstitutional, including the right to privacy was invaded. Henry Wade had an opposite belief. Justice Blackmun and the court are correct about violating the due process clause. The individual rights of the due process clause are collectible to each and every person, which the government must honor. Individual rights are rights deserved by every individual no matter the age, color, or size or even the unborn. Justice White made important points in his dissent which are correct. He stated “The upshot is that the people and legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dis-entitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, and against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand.”15 His opinion was correct and a good point on the court's holding opinion. All babies should be considered human even if they are unborn. An abortion in today's world happens at 17 weeks, which is during the second trimester. Due to medical advances, the nurses can correct problems for unborn babies in the mother's womb. It could even be something that the mother is doing to the baby unknown or sometimes the mother knows what shes doing to the baby. Therefore, in today's world the state has a compelling state interest in the second and third trimester which knocks down the time the mother has to consider an abortion. I support the 5th amendment when it says “...no one can be deprived of their life...”16 Every individual has their own rights and everyone is entitled to the same ones. Every individual including unborn babies.
was anti-abortion unless it puts the life of the mother at risk. Jane Roe wanted to prove that this law was unconstitutional because women also have the right to property. The due process clause under the 14th amendment states proceeding according to law and with adequate protection for individual rights. 2 The perception of the due process of law means that the government must admire all legal rights which every individual is authorized to. Section 1 of the 14th amendment also states “… nor shall any state deprive any person from life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”3 Meaning no one can take away one’s own individual life, individual freedom, or individual property without the due process of law. Supreme Court introduced the history of Greek and Roman times where abortion first commenced.
This era used minimum protection for the little ones. Also Supreme Court included Connecticut because it was the first state to ordain abortion legislation. In the 1950s abortion was banned in exception of jeopardy to the life of the mother. Justice Blackmun included three reasons to explain criminal abortion laws. One reason is to discourage illicit sexual conduct.4 Another is medical procedures.5 During the 1970s, the state was concerned with the medical procedures and medicines that physicians provide to their patients because it could put the mother in harms way. Past days, the medicines and procedures are not as sterile as they are today. The procedures present day are far more innocuous. The state has an important state interest when dealing with health and safety. The state also has a legitimate state interest when the procedure is performed under maximum safety for the patient.6 The last reason is the states interest.7 The state believes that only an abortion should occur when the mother is at risk for health. Unless that exception, no abortion should be performed. The embryo should not subsist when the mother is at risk even though the moment of conception is the start of a human life. Although whether that sentiment is true or false, it should not rest on the states legitimate …show more content…
interest. Including the three trimesters of pregnancy, the state has a compelling state interest at the point of viability. The point of viability is when the fetus is capable of living outside the mother's womb. In the first trimester, which is one to three months, the fetus is more likely to become ill first than preforming an abortion. The second trimester which is from four to six months, this trimester only protects the mother. If the mother is sick or in jeopardy from the fetus, then the fetus will be terminated. The state has an important state interest in this trimester. Now, in the third trimester, which is from seven to nine months, the baby is able to live outside the womb. At this point, the state has a compelling state interest due to point of viability. The state can prohibit abortion in the third trimester. Justice Blackmun states “Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to preform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or maybe a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of that facility; and the like.”8 Meaning the physician and his patient can decide based on his medical judgment if the procedure should take place. The state cannot interfere with this judgment. The Constitution is an important landmark in the United States.
In the 4th amendment, it states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...”9 This amendment protects the right to privacy of search and seizure. Also in amendment 5, it states “no person shall be held for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury...”10 This amendment protects the privacy not to talk, or the right to remain silent. None of these amendments including the others not stated say anything about the right to privacy, but the right broader than the actual
text. Justice Rehnquist dissents he has difficulty concluding the right of privacy is involved in this case.11 The right to privacy is not word for word stated in the constitution, but it is assumptive in the first, fourth, and fifth amendments. Justice Rehnquist states “A transaction resulting in an operation such as this is not “private” in an ordinary usage of that word.”12 The word privacy means ones business or being is isolated from the public. He is right in one's opinion, although the Bill of Rights supports the right to privacy hidden in the text. The court's final opinion given by Justice Blackmun was that the state law, performing a medical procedure for an abortion in Texas with exception to the unhealthy mother without respect to the unborn fetus' stage nor state interests, violates the constitution directly from the 14th amendment section 1 of the due process clause.13 Justice Blackmun states lastly “This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interest involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day.”14 Wade is correct on the basis of the violations. Jane Roe accused this state law being unconstitutional, including the right to privacy was invaded. Henry Wade had an opposite belief. Justice Blackmun and the court are correct about violating the due process clause. The individual rights of the due process clause are collectible to each and every person, which the government must honor. Individual rights are rights deserved by every individual no matter the age, color, or size or even the unborn. Justice White made important points in his dissent which are correct. He stated “The upshot is that the people and legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dis-entitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, and against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand.”15 His opinion was correct and a good point on the court's holding opinion. All babies should be considered human even if they are unborn. An abortion in today's world happens at 17 weeks, which is during the second trimester. Due to medical advances, the nurses can correct problems for unborn babies in the mother's womb. It could even be something that the mother is doing to the baby unknown or sometimes the mother knows what shes doing to the baby. Therefore, in today's world the state has a compelling state interest in the second and third trimester which knocks down the time the mother has to consider an abortion. I support the 5th amendment when it says “...no one can be deprived of their life...”16 Every individual has their own rights and everyone is entitled to the same ones. Every individual including unborn babies.