Roe V. Wade Supreme Court Case Study

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

In 1973 the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Roe V. Wade. Jane Roe was a single mother trying to raise one child on a limited income. She was living in Dallas Texas when she became pregnant with another child. There were no medical issues that would have prevented her from carrying this child to full term. The lack of income and already having a child was her deciding factor.

In 1973 the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade established the legality of abortions. Since then, 23 cases on women’s reproductive rights have been through the Supreme Court, five of which have directly involved Planned Parenthood as the petitioner or respondent. Each of these has posed some threat to Planned Parenthood’s ability to provide abortion and have had the potential to deal a serious blow to women’s reproductive rights as whole. Nonetheless, Planned Parenthood has persevered and retained their ability to provide a full range of reproductive services to women. However, the political climate has shifted once again to one of the most right-wing governments in American history (Linker). Planned Parenthood faces an intense opposition,

“Abortion: Roe v. Wade” American Decades. Ed. Judith S. Baughman, et al. Vol 8: 1970-1979.

Kelly Fadden Business Law Professor Saunders 4/20/2015 Style of Case Roe v. Wade Citation 410 U.S. 114(1973) Factual Background Roe was an unmarried woman looking to get an abortion. The law in Texas, where she lived and the case was decided, was that a woman could get an abortion if, and only if, she was in a life threatening situation because of the pregnancy. Roe brought forth the case to speak on behalf of all women in the same position she herself was. There were also two other cases being brought before the court on the same matter with the plaintiffs being Hallford and the Does. Hallford was a doctor facing criminal charges for performing abortions on three women. The Does were a childless couple who were not expecting, though Mrs. Doe, if she were to become pregnant might face complications,

Roe v. Wade was a landmark Supreme Court case in 1973. The plaintiff, Jane Roe, was challenging the state of Texas and its abortion laws when she was denied an abortion in 1969. She was suing the Dallas county district attorney, Henry Wade, in order to prove the laws unconstitutional. The laws stated that “abortion is illegal except if necessary to protect the woman's health,” (Mezey). The cases end result was that the court ruled the law as unconstitutional and that abortion be legal, with certain restrictions.

The Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision on January 22, 1973 changed things and made abortion legal worldwide. Jane Rose, an unmarried who wanted to have an abortion, filed the case. During this time almost all states outlawed abortion, unless it was to save a woman’s life or for reasons such as maintaining the woman’s health. Therefore, the court struck down the law and the decision was handed down. Roe thought these laws were unconstitutional. This reached the Supreme Court, which said the government couldn’t interfere with personal decisions. People against abortion were outraged and urged the lawmakers to pass laws banning abortion. In 1992, due to changes in the Supreme Court, it was to believe that Roe might be overturned, because it

Texas is home to the well-known Roe v. Wade court case, yet has typically remained socially conservative on abortion and Texas’ pro-life community has since made an impact into revising past legislation that went against their views.

Each year, the United States Supreme Court “receives approximately 10,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each year” and “hears oral argument in about 75-80 cases” (supreme court). With the number of petitions reaching 5 figures every year it can be implied that each case will be chosen, decided, and enforced in a legitimate way. However, history has shown that this is not always the circumstance. Specifically, President Andrew Jackson’s remark regarding Worcester v. Georgia created an argument questioning the justification of the courts. This significant case as well as the court cases Brown v. Board of Education, Ex Parte Merryman, Roe v. Wade, U.S v. Nixon, and present how the legitimacy of the U.S court system

Noonan, CC 152). Fetuses aren’t tangible individuals, crawling around, acting like normal babies. Instead they’re developing, waiting until one day they are grown enough to survive without the protection of a mother’s womb. Noonan claims that advocates of abortion don’t make enough of an effort to recognize the personhood

In 1973, the Supreme Court took on the case of Roe v. Wade. This Supreme Court case was based on the right of privacy in reference to abortion. The case ruled that the U.S Constitution effectively mandates a nationwide policy of abortion on demand. This case is one of the most criticized cases in Supreme Court history.

Theologically and scientifically the concept of death has remained unopposed for centuries, however the idea of how do we conclude what is the true essence of living continues to be widely debated. A curveball case would be one regarding brain-dead patients. In December 2014, patient Jahi McMath of Oakland California – a state in which one who is brain dead is classified as not legally alive - was declared brain-dead by three doctors, thus lawfully ordered to be removed from life support. Valiant disagreement ensued upon her parents refusal to accept this judgement and till today Jahi is on life support. (Drummond, 2015). Fieser (2008) argues that the neurological theory holds the most rational denotation of death, in which absence of any form

Brain- death humans are difficult to classify as either dead or alive because of their conflicting states. For one part, brain- death humans have working internal regulatory functions, such as the ability for homeostasis, but lacked the complexity for external and high cortical functions. This includes the ability for thought, communicate and other survival functions Thus, one ethical dilemma is whether internal somatic functions are enough to consider a brain- death human alive, despite lacking the qualities that makes them “human”. To answer this question, Bragger juxtaposes the views of Dr. Alan Shewmon, a professor of pediatric neurology and a leading critic of the whole- brain argument and the 2008 White Paper on Brain Death, published by the President Council of Bioethics. Dr. Shewmon argues that despite lacking high-cortical functions, many brain- death mediated patients demonstrate qualities of living organisms, such as maintaining homeostasis and eliminating

The permissibility of abortion is not dependent on whether a human fetus is considered a person, but whether the rights of the mother obtain more moral significance than the fetus. This is as there is ambiguity around the conclusive stage at which a fetus becomes a person, thus alternative methods must be utilized to determine the morality of abortion other than the concept of personhood. Alternative criteria outlined by philosophers such as Warren, Marquis and Thomson(Warren,1997,pp94-96; Marquis,1989, pp.183-202; Thomson, 1971,47-66), demonstrates that the permissibility of abortion reposes with the concept of rights and conferred moral significance. Once determining that personhood cannot be defined, it is integral to this argument that

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