Roe V. Wade

One of the first moral issues addressed by both sides of the abortion debate concerns a pregnant woman’s so-called natural “right” to make “reproductive choices.” (“The Rights of Pregnant Women”) Anti-abortion advocacy groups claim that “the only way to actually protect the mother’s rights will be by enforcing laws that secure her child’s right to life,” (“Argument 2”) whereas pro-abortion groups contend that these laws “create a dangerous precedent for wide-ranging government intrusion into the lives of all women.” (“The Rights”) With two fundamentally contrasting viewpoints at odds with each other, it is apparent that one of the core issues concurrent with abortion is a woman’s rights versus the rights of her unborn fetus.

The ruling of Roe v. Wade included three key ideas. The first key idea was that women had the right to choose to have an abortion during the stage of pregnancy when the fetus had little chance of survival outside the womb and that women were able to obtain an abortion within unreasonable interferences from the state. The second idea confirmed a state’s power to restrict abortions when a fetus could live outside the womb, except in the case when the mother’s life was at risk. The final key idea that was decided in the ruling was that the state has interests in both the health of the women and the life of the fetus (Brannen and Hanes, 2001).

The research that I chose to elaborate my topic on is the Roe v. Wade court case which is about abortion. The case history is about a woman who was single and pregnant; she decided to bring a stimulating challenge suit to the constitution of Texas laws. The laws that Texas made were given to prohibit mothers from aborting children because it was a crime. They could not do it without medical advice for the reason that it was to save the life of the unborn child. As I begin to go into detail about the court case. First Dr. Hallford, a medical doctor who faced criminal prosecution for violating the state abortion law. Second, you have the Does. They are a married couple with no children who were against Jane Roe and her decisions. Lastly, you have District Attorney Wade. Roe and Hallford had a portion of controversies and declaratory that was warranted. The court ruled a decision relief that was not warranted and the Does criticism was not justiciable. This is a brief synopsis of what the court case will expand on later on in the research paper. I will be utilizing reviews to test what male and female dispositions were towards fetus removal and how they feel about it. The study will extremely differ and I will be getting a broad gender preference perspective of the subject that I decided to do the review on. It will all tie once again into the Roe v. Wade court case. As you are perusing my examination paper; the researcher made an investigation on Chowan University

Norma McCorvey, who was unable to care for her ready born child felt that abortion was the only solution for her unborn child. But with Texas law only allowing abortions as a means of saving the life of a mother, she was denied the right to an abortion. That’s when Texas lawyers, who were trying desperately to bring a “lawsuit of change”, felt that McCorvey’s case was the one they needed. Unfortunately for Norma, Roe v. Wade was not passed in time for her to abort her baby. Her lawyers argued the woman’s right to abortion was protected by the 9th amendment, being that the denying abortion was a violation of the right to privacy. Abortion ties into privacy; the right to privacy ties into the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th amendments.

"The Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas. The question then becomes whether the state interests advanced to justify this abridgment can survive the 'particularly careful scrutiny' that the Fourteenth Amendment here requires. The asserted state interests are protection of the health and safety of the pregnant woman, and protection of the potential

It states in the decision of Roe v. Wade that, “The constitution does not define “person” in so many words” (http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/ 18). The amendment discusses “person” 3 times in it, but it does not indicate that it has any possible pre-natal relevance; this is what made the abortion issue so hard. The state court ruled in favor of Roe, but the verdict was not strong enough to change the arrest of abortion doctors in Texas because the exact part that dealt with the right to privacy could not be decided

Before the 1973 ruling of the case of Roe v Wade, the estimated average number of illegal abortions every year ranged from 200,000 to 1.5 million. The methods used were violently dangerous including women ingesting toxic substances such as bleach and detergents which often times was ineffective. Women around the country were concerned that the anti-abortion laws conflicted with a person’s right to privacy and equal protection given by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. Gale University’s William Sullivan explains ”The right to abort unborn children is not specifically protected by the Constitution, and prior to 1973, abortion legislation had been understood to be limited to the power of the states per the Tenth

Regardless of the opinions surrounding abortion, a majority of people are familiar with the Supreme court cases of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. These two cases have played a tremendous role in regard to the abortion debate. In 1973, the Roe v. Wade case was ruled in favour of Roe and stated the stringent criminalization of abortion in Texas was deemed unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment. The law violated the right of privacy, which implied the privacy of a woman’s decision to an abortion. Although the courts agreed with Roe, they also recognized the rights to an abortion are not absolute. Limitations to the right was based on the trimesters of pregnancy with the first trimester protecting the woman’s choice and the third trimester being acceptable for states to regulate or even ban abortions outside of therapeutic reasons.

In her essay “Abortion, Intimacy, and the Duty to Gestate,” Margaret Olivia Little examines whether it should be permissible for the state to force the intimacy of gestation on a woman against her consent. Little concludes that “mandating gestation against a woman’s consent is itself a harm - a liberty harm” (p. 303). She reaches this conclusion after examining the deficiencies in the current methods used to examine and evaluate the issues of abortion. Their focus on the definition of a “person” and the point in time when the fetus becomes a distinct person entitled to the benefits and protections of the law fails to capture “the subtleties and ambivalences that suffuse the issue” (p. 295). Public debate on the right to life and the right

In 1973, the Supreme Court made a decision in one of the most controversial cases in history, the case of Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 (1973)), in which abortion was legalized and state anti-abortion statues were struck down for being unconstitutional. This essay will provide a brief history and analysis of the issues of this case for both the woman’s rights and the states interest in the matter. Also, this essay will address the basis for the court ruling in Roe’s favor and the effects this decision has had on subsequent cases involving a woman’s right to choose abortion in the United States. The court’s decision created legal precedent for several subsequent abortion restriction cases and has led to the development of legislation to protect women’s health rights. Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade was a historic victory for women’s rights, it is still an extremely controversial subject today and continues to be challenged by various groups.

Roe vs. Wade changed the law for abortions, and made women feel more secure if they can’t handle a child. The idea for future laws is to ensure that women maintain power over their bodies, but do not dominate over the law and use exceptions for abortion. The problem is that pro-choice women and pro-life women have many clashing ideas that make it hard to organize one final law. Pro-choice women believe that abortions should be allowed to a certain extent. SOme even believe it can be a form of birth control, and that there should be no limit of uses. Pro-life women do not agree with the idea of abortion, and think it is crossing the line of the law, since it involves a fetus. The facts from articles in use show the contrasting sides of each

In 1973, the US Supreme Court declared abortion a nationwide fundamental right through a trial called Roe vs. Wade and protected this right underneath the Fourteenth Amendment, more specifically, the right to privacy. A basic human right, especially one outlined by the Supreme Court, must never run at risk or threat chiefly because not everyone agrees with it. Under no circumstances should a pregnancy ever adjudge mandatory. Abortion is a Constitutional right and as a nation we must fight to give the right and freedom of safe abortions to women all around the nation, make birth control and sex education accessible to women, and raise awareness about the topic itself. (LawCornell)

Never in the history of the United States, with the exception of the Slave Trade, has a public policy carved such an unmistakable social divide. Never before has a public policy spurned so many questions about social and political standards of American culture. To understand the abortion controversy and ultimately the Supreme Court’s involvement and decision in Roe v. Wade, the roots of abortion must be examined.

The case of Roe vs. Wade was an example of an individual’s rights and privacy against long held doctrines based on religious beliefs. In 1973, a woman by the name of Norma L. McCorvey, using an alias of Jane Roe, was single and living in Texas. She got pregnant and wanted an abortion, but it was illegal. The case eventually made its way to the United States Supreme Court. The Court recognized in a 7 to 2 decision that the Constitutional right to privacy should include a person’s choice to terminate their pregnancy. This case became not known as one of a person’s right to privacy, but rather the case that legalized abortion (Roe v. Wade).

The debate on abortion is another large argument that puts in jeopardy the right to life. Some argue that life doesn’t start until birth or a certain stage of development, but the truth is that a unique individual is created at conception. “Scientific research shows that at the moment of fertilization, two separate cells join to form one new life, genetically distinct from every other human being.” (Durband 7).Although women feel they have the right to choose the fate of their offspring, “The "right to choose" does not trump the inalienable right to life of a child whether born or unborn” (Durband 8). They are forgetting that they already made the choice to create a child, and that child now has a right to live.