Analysis of Roe v. Wade: The State Should Protect the Potential Life of the Unborn

In contemporary America it can be argued that nothing is more contentious and controversial of an issue than abortion. From the vehement pro-life movement to the impassioned pro-choice coalition, this policy issue is one that has become increasingly important in our society. This debate has raised important questions regarding the value of human life, at what stage of development does a fetus have it’s constitutionally ensured rights take hold over that of the mother and at what stage can a state start regulating abortions.

In Roe v. Wade, in 1973, the Supreme Court held a case that a pregnant woman has the full privacy right to have an abortion. The right to abortion is not guaranteed and must be stable against the State’s countervailing benefits in keeping the health of the woman and in protecting the life of the unborn child. The State’s belief in protecting the health of the woman becomes definite, therefore greatly enough to support state ruling of abortion under the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review; after the first trimester, which is the stage of pregnancy when abortion becomes dangerous to the mother carrying the child to term. The State’s concern in protecting the life of the unborn child becomes irresistible, after possibility, the stage of pregnancy when the unborn child is capable of independent life. Because neither interest is irresistible before the second trimester, the State may not regulate abortion in the first trimester either to reserve the woman’s health or to protect the life of the unborn child. After the first trimester the State may control the act of an abortion, but only for the purpose of protecting the woman’s health, not for the purpose of protecting the life of the unborn child. After viability, the State may regulate, and even forbid, abortion to protect the life of the unborn child, except when the act of abortion is needed to

abortion was a fundamental right under the “right to privacy” clause of the fourteenth of the

Justice Blackmun who was in the majority thought that the right of privacy might be too narrow when considering important state interests. He viewed the woman’s decision as a fundamental right and the Court then applied the test that only a compelling interest pursues through narrowly tailored legislation, can survive the strict scrutiny that is used to assess a law’s constitutionality. The court pointed out two important state interests, first, the preservation of maternal health and two, the protection of fetal life. It is important to note that each interest becomes “compelling” at different points during the pregnancy. In order to accommodate these state interests, as well as the woman’s fundamental right, the Court used a framework that divided the pregnancy into three trimesters. In the first trimester, no state interest can be considered compelling and so the Court doesn’t have the authority to stop someone from having an abortion. At the beginning of the second trimester, the state’s interest in maternal health is considered to be compelling and the Court can regulate abortion procedures

In our long history as well as in the modern society, childbearing and motherhood have undoubtedly held a great weight in most women’s lives. We cannot deny that a woman’s choice to bear a child or not would have significant impact on the health and welfare of a woman. Although it is important that the government’s act is intended to protect profound respect for human life, the Court’s decision would allow the federal government to overstep the boundary of a woman’s liberty and discerning decision. The Act would impose an undue burden and substantial obstacles on a woman’s right to abortion. Power to enact a law to promote welfare of individuals is vested with the state, not Congress, unless otherwise such power is expressly prohibited by the Constitution. In the present case, the state’s power to regulate procedural options for a legal abortion is not expressly prohibited by the

The landmark decision Roe v Wade was issued in 1973, after three years of different challenges and differences of opinions. These decision affirms the legality of a woman’s right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth amendment of the United States. In the mean time this case continues to be a debate among government and society. The U.S Supreme Court states that a woman right to abortion is within the right of privacy and is protected by the fourteenth Amendment. Roe v Wade illustrates not only human rights, but also how a case gets its way to a different level and is decided by the Supreme

On a cold day in January of 1973, Roe V. Wade was passed by the Supreme Court. This nationwide case made abortion fully legal in the United States. Supreme Court justices agreed that the constitutions first, fourth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments protect an individual’s rights of privacy against state laws. Things such as marriage, contraception, and so forth fall under such laws. It was found that abortion falls under these privacy laws, as well. This was a huge win for women’s rights. Not only did women gain the right to make a safe and legal decision about their own bodies, but it was also an important win because at the time one in five maternal deaths were due to illegal abortions (Abortion, Issues and Controversies). Now that abortion is legal, and has been for over forty years, the maternal death rate is much lower and the number of abortions is actually declining (Rachel, Jones, et al.). Women in the modern age now have access to safe abortions, which is good. However, they also

Throughout history and prevailing to modern times, abortion has proved to be one of the largest controversies in America. There are two main stances on abortion: pro-life and pro-choice. People who are pro-life believe that abortion is inhumane and should not be conducted. On the other hand, ones who are pro-choice support and work towards reducing abortion, preventing unwanted pregnancies, educating women and the youth, promoting contraception, and guaranteeing that families have the obligatory resources to raise fit children. Although the pro-choice movement is heavily supported by women and men who believe in reproductive freedom and abortion as a fundamental human right, recent changes and lack-there-of in the U.S. government considering abortion laws have proved America to be ambiguous on their stance on abortion as pro-choicers are constantly fighting for their rights.

Abortion as we all know is a medical procedure used to terminate a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by death of the embryo or fetus. This topic has been diving the country for over many years; whether it’s a right choice or not, politics still seem to not find common ground. The controversy of Abortion begins in 1821; Connecticut passes the first law in the U.S barring abortions after “quickening”, which were

Abortion has been a controversial topic of the world for decades. In 1973, Roe v. Wade, a Supreme Court case, made abortion legal. During this case, Roe, a single woman, wanted an abortion in Texas. At this time, Texas had a law that women could only have an abortion if the pregnancy endangered their life. However, Roe’s life was not put at risk by any means. Wade, the Dallas County district attorney, argued that an abortion was prohibited. Roe established that abortion was found in the Constitution under the fourteenth amendment, where it discusses privacy and that a woman has the right to her own body (Linder 1). After the ruling of this case, pro-choice and pro-life supporters argued whether abortion was right or wrong, doctors created simpler procedures, risks became a consideration, and the world continued to agree or disagree with this concept.

Although after the verdict, states were free to ban abortion or implement methods to promote interest in protecting life. Even after that point, however, the state’s interest in constructing laws against abortion after a certain term must acknowledge that the woman’s right to have an abortion to protect her life and health should be recognized and respected.

Abortion is dividing America. Without a common understanding of abortion, this issue will always be divisive in America. Throughout the history of America, abortion has been an issue that has generally separated people into two camps, those in favor of abortion and those against abortion. However, these two groups, more often than not, have not approached their understanding of this issue from the same perspective. Generally speaking, those in favor of abortion see the issue of the personal rights of women. However, those against abortion, view the issue of the rights of the child. As a result, these two perspectives will never gain unity or a common understanding of abortion. The purpose of this paper is to not only give a clear understanding of both sides of the issue, but to argue that this issue will never be a unifying issue in American culture.

Abortion in the United States has been and still remains one of the biggest and most controversial problems in American politics and culture. Many anti-abortion laws have been on the statue books of every state since around 1990. In 1937, abortion was forbidden, or banned, in thirty states and legal under very narrow circumstances in twenty other states. Their idea of “narrow circumstances” are pregnancies derived from rape or incest. In that same exact year, the Supreme Court abolished all these laws in Roe v. Wade. It also set some guidance for the availability of abortion. Roe entrenched that the right for a woman to obtain an abortion, in privacy, “must be considered against important state interest in regulation.” A set a “trimester”,

Less then twenty-five years ago, any women who elected to terminate her pregnancy usually had to resort to illegal, unsanitary, and unsafe means. Abortion was frequently considered a criminal offense committed by the woman and the physician performing the procedure. The Supreme Court cases leading to the legalization of abortion began in 1963 with Griswold v. Connecticut. The court invalidated a Connecticut statute that made possession and use of contraceptives by married couples a criminal offense. The case of Griswold was later expanded to encompass the woman’s right not only to prevent but also to terminate her pregnancy. In the case of Roe v.

In addition, the Roe v. Wade decision is a direct illustration of judicial activism. Prior to the Court’s ruling, many states limited or completely prohibited abortion. In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that Roe’s right to privacy permitted women to receive abortions given to them by in their First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments (Roe v. Wade). As stated, this case is an illustration of judicial activism because the Supreme Court Justices interpreted the law loosely, creating their own law that became the Supreme Law of the Land. The Court’s decision enables states to pass their own legislation concerning abortion. As noted in Justice Harry Blackmun’s majority opinion, “A State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life (“Key excerpts from the majority opinion”). The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, states, “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws” (“The Heritage Guide to The Constitution”). However, when the Supreme Court ruled that women have the right to abortion as an extension of her right to privacy, they exhibited judicial activism. Justice Blackmun stated in his opinion a “The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute….We, therefore include that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion