Justice Blackmun's Case
In the case of Doe vs Bolton, 5 judges had a say in the case. Mr. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the case. Blackmun states that in section 21202(a) of the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code that “an abortion is necessary because:a continuation of the pregnancy would endanger the life of the pregnant woman or would seriously and permanently injure her health; or the fetus would very likely be born with a grave, permanent, and irremediable mental or physical defect; or the pregnancy resulted from forcible or statutory rape.” Therefore Blackmun’s opinion states that in order to get an abortion is to follow the Penal Code. Which basically states that to get an abortion without breaking the law is if the mother’s life or health
…show more content…
is seriously endanger of carrying that fetus. Also a mother can decide to get an abortion if their is something physically or mentally wrong with the fetus. Furthermore the mother can also get an abortion if the pregnancy was non consensual. Blackmun also concludes that, “The District Court, held that all the plaintiffs had standing, but that only Doe presented a justiciable controversy.On the merits, the court concluded that the limitation in the Georgia statute of the "number of reasons for which an abortion may be sought," which improperly restricted Doe's rights of privacy articulated in Griswold versus Connecticut, and of "personal liberty," both of which it thought "broad enough to include the decision to abort a pregnancy.” According to Blackmun’s statement that even though the other plaintiffs had standing, that only Doe’s case had an issue that the court can determine.Yet he states that even though Georgia’s statutes of limitation had a point but it was completely inappropriate and confined Doe’s right to privacy and personal liberty. Blackmun also brings up their decision in the Roe versus Wade case. Stating “despite Roe’s pseudonym, we may accept as true, for this case, Mary Doe's existence and her pregnant state on April 16, 1970; at the constitutional issue is substantial; that the interim termination of Doe's and all other Georgia pregnancies in existence in 1970 has not rendered the case moot; and that Doe presents a justiciable controversy, and has standing to maintain the action.” Mr.Chief Justice Burger concurring opinion states, “I agree that, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the abortion statutes of Georgia and Texas impermissibly limit the performance of abortions necessary to protect the health of pregnant women, using the term health in its broadest medical context.” Mr.Burger is also referring his opinion to the case of Roe versus Wade. Burger also includes that he believes that many of the members in the court did not take scientific or medical facts into reaching their conclusions. Then Burger also brings up “ the State of Texas informed the Court that early abortion procedures were routinely permitted in certain exceptional cases, such as nonconsensual pregnancies resulting from rape and incest. In the face of a rigid and narrow statute, such as that of Texas, no one in these circumstances should be placed in a posture of dependence on a prosecutorial policy or prosecutorial discretion.” So he is generally speaking that for a women to get an abortion if it resulted in rape that they should not be credited for committing an illegal procedure or any punishment. For instance Burger’s opinion includes, “I would be inclined to allow a State to require the certification of two physicians to support an abortion, but the Court holds otherwise. I do not believe that such a procedure is unduly burdensome, as are the complex steps of the Georgia statute, which require as many as six doctors and the use of a hospital certified by the JCAH.” In that reply he is admittedly saying that he would be willing to just have two physicians to support an abortion. That he believes that it is overly demanding to have over six doctors to be there for the support of a simple procedure.Burger especially says “I do not read the court's holdings today as having the sweeping consequences attributed to them by the dissenting justices.” This generally says that he does not agree with the dissenting opinions. That is because the dissenting opinions disregard the reality of the physician's quality of their profession. Also that physicians certainly only act carefully considers medical decisions based on life and health. Furthermore Justice Burger’s opinion sided with Doe.
Mr.Justice Douglas concurring opinion adds a few words to the court's opinion.Specifically in Douglas’s opinion,he relates this case to Griswold versus Connecticut and other related cases.
In addition to that statement concludes that Doe,Griswold,and related cases “establishes on a Constitutional right to privacy broad enough to encompass the right of a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy in its early stages, by obtaining an abortion.” This statement states that women get the privacy to get an abortion if that pregnancy is unwanted by the mother.It is their right to obtain that procedure under the Bill of Rights. “The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights. It merely says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In this situation Douglas is getting to the point that it does not give the government to enforce rights without interpreting it to the people. “The right to remain silent as respects one's own beliefs.” This statement which is in Douglas’s opinion overall states that people should respect others decisions even if you do not agree because they are listed to their own beliefs in their first amendment. Douglas brings out a saying in the Griswold case, “It is true that, in Griswold, the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital relationship. Yet the marital couple is not an independent entity, with a mind and heart of its own, but an association of two individuals, each with a separate intellectual and emotional makeup. If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” Which on the other hand says that the right of privacy means that women can make a decision of aborting their child whether single or married without the intrusion
of the government. “That right of privacy includes the privilege of an individual to plan his own affairs, for,"outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” To put this statement differently it means that the person has the right to set up their life the way that is best for them to do with their life.Douglas points out that under the Georgia Statute it “demonstrates that childbirth may deprive a woman of her preferred lifestyle and force upon her a radically different and undesired future.” In comparison means that “rejected applicants under the Georgia statute are required to endure the discomforts of pregnancy; to incur the pain, higher mortality rate, and after-effects of childbirth; to abandon educational plans; to sustain loss of income; to forgo the satisfactions of careers; to tax further mental and physical health in providing child care; and, in some cases, to bear the lifelong stigma of unwed motherhood, a badge which may haunt, if not deter, later legitimate family relationships.” Douglas’s opinion states that he “also agrees that the superstructure of medical supervision which Georgia has erected violates the patient's right of privacy inherent in her choice of her own physician.” In conclusion, Douglas sided with Doe’s case.
In the case of Doe versus Bolton there were two justices who did not agree with the decision of the case. Mr.Justice White’s dissenting opinion disagrees with the court's judgement of this case. White acknowledges that “the Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries.” Which means that White is against abortion because of the potential life the mother carries can be a value to the world. Also concludes that “he cannot accept the Court's exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it.” By this statement he believes that the mother and doctor is doing the wrong move on aborting the potential life but cannot interfere with their decision based on his beliefs. With all this in mind White did not agree with the decision in the Doe case based on his beliefs of protecting human life.
The other justice who had a dissenting opinion was Rehnquist. Rehnquist proclaims that “he views the compelling state interest standard as an inappropriate measure of the constitutionality of state abortion laws, I respectfully dissent from the majority's holding.” In other hand he believes that the court did not take interest in the measure of state abortion laws into correct manner. He is totally against the use of abortion with Justice White.
is seriously endanger of carrying that fetus. Also a mother can decide to get an abortion if their is something physically or mentally wrong with the fetus. Furthermore the mother can also get an abortion if the pregnancy was non consensual. Blackmun also concludes that, “The District Court, held that all the plaintiffs had standing, but that only Doe presented a justiciable controversy.On the merits, the court concluded that the limitation in the Georgia statute of the "number of reasons for which an abortion may be sought," which improperly restricted Doe's rights of privacy articulated in Griswold versus Connecticut, and of "personal liberty," both of which it thought "broad enough to include the decision to abort a pregnancy.” According to Blackmun’s statement that even though the other plaintiffs had standing, that only Doe’s case had an issue that the court can determine.Yet he states that even though Georgia’s statutes of limitation had a point but it was completely inappropriate and confined Doe’s right to privacy and personal liberty. Blackmun also brings up their decision in the Roe versus Wade case. Stating “despite Roe’s pseudonym, we may accept as true, for this case, Mary Doe's existence and her pregnant state on April 16, 1970; at the constitutional issue is substantial; that the interim termination of Doe's and all other Georgia pregnancies in existence in 1970 has not rendered the case moot; and that Doe presents a justiciable controversy, and has standing to maintain the action.” Mr.Chief Justice Burger concurring opinion states, “I agree that, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, the abortion statutes of Georgia and Texas impermissibly limit the performance of abortions necessary to protect the health of pregnant women, using the term health in its broadest medical context.” Mr.Burger is also referring his opinion to the case of Roe versus Wade. Burger also includes that he believes that many of the members in the court did not take scientific or medical facts into reaching their conclusions. Then Burger also brings up “ the State of Texas informed the Court that early abortion procedures were routinely permitted in certain exceptional cases, such as nonconsensual pregnancies resulting from rape and incest. In the face of a rigid and narrow statute, such as that of Texas, no one in these circumstances should be placed in a posture of dependence on a prosecutorial policy or prosecutorial discretion.” So he is generally speaking that for a women to get an abortion if it resulted in rape that they should not be credited for committing an illegal procedure or any punishment. For instance Burger’s opinion includes, “I would be inclined to allow a State to require the certification of two physicians to support an abortion, but the Court holds otherwise. I do not believe that such a procedure is unduly burdensome, as are the complex steps of the Georgia statute, which require as many as six doctors and the use of a hospital certified by the JCAH.” In that reply he is admittedly saying that he would be willing to just have two physicians to support an abortion. That he believes that it is overly demanding to have over six doctors to be there for the support of a simple procedure.Burger especially says “I do not read the court's holdings today as having the sweeping consequences attributed to them by the dissenting justices.” This generally says that he does not agree with the dissenting opinions. That is because the dissenting opinions disregard the reality of the physician's quality of their profession. Also that physicians certainly only act carefully considers medical decisions based on life and health. Furthermore Justice Burger’s opinion sided with Doe.
Mr.Justice Douglas concurring opinion adds a few words to the court's opinion.Specifically in Douglas’s opinion,he relates this case to Griswold versus Connecticut and other related cases.
In addition to that statement concludes that Doe,Griswold,and related cases “establishes on a Constitutional right to privacy broad enough to encompass the right of a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy in its early stages, by obtaining an abortion.” This statement states that women get the privacy to get an abortion if that pregnancy is unwanted by the mother.It is their right to obtain that procedure under the Bill of Rights. “The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights. It merely says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” In this situation Douglas is getting to the point that it does not give the government to enforce rights without interpreting it to the people. “The right to remain silent as respects one's own beliefs.” This statement which is in Douglas’s opinion overall states that people should respect others decisions even if you do not agree because they are listed to their own beliefs in their first amendment. Douglas brings out a saying in the Griswold case, “It is true that, in Griswold, the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital relationship. Yet the marital couple is not an independent entity, with a mind and heart of its own, but an association of two individuals, each with a separate intellectual and emotional makeup. If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” Which on the other hand says that the right of privacy means that women can make a decision of aborting their child whether single or married without the intrusion
of the government. “That right of privacy includes the privilege of an individual to plan his own affairs, for,"outside areas of plainly harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases.” To put this statement differently it means that the person has the right to set up their life the way that is best for them to do with their life.Douglas points out that under the Georgia Statute it “demonstrates that childbirth may deprive a woman of her preferred lifestyle and force upon her a radically different and undesired future.” In comparison means that “rejected applicants under the Georgia statute are required to endure the discomforts of pregnancy; to incur the pain, higher mortality rate, and after-effects of childbirth; to abandon educational plans; to sustain loss of income; to forgo the satisfactions of careers; to tax further mental and physical health in providing child care; and, in some cases, to bear the lifelong stigma of unwed motherhood, a badge which may haunt, if not deter, later legitimate family relationships.” Douglas’s opinion states that he “also agrees that the superstructure of medical supervision which Georgia has erected violates the patient's right of privacy inherent in her choice of her own physician.” In conclusion, Douglas sided with Doe’s case.
In the case of Doe versus Bolton there were two justices who did not agree with the decision of the case. Mr.Justice White’s dissenting opinion disagrees with the court's judgement of this case. White acknowledges that “the Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries.” Which means that White is against abortion because of the potential life the mother carries can be a value to the world. Also concludes that “he cannot accept the Court's exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it.” By this statement he believes that the mother and doctor is doing the wrong move on aborting the potential life but cannot interfere with their decision based on his beliefs. With all this in mind White did not agree with the decision in the Doe case based on his beliefs of protecting human life.
The other justice who had a dissenting opinion was Rehnquist. Rehnquist proclaims that “he views the compelling state interest standard as an inappropriate measure of the constitutionality of state abortion laws, I respectfully dissent from the majority's holding.” In other hand he believes that the court did not take interest in the measure of state abortion laws into correct manner. He is totally against the use of abortion with Justice White.