The Debate Over Roe v. Wade
Many critics of the Roe v Wade resolution dispute that the Supreme
Court's decision was mistaken because, as said by Robert Bork, "the right
to abort, whatever one thinks of it, is not to be found in the
Constitution". Consequently, they say the court did not translate the
Constitution at all in making their influential mark on the citizens of the
United States. Ronald Dworkin, on the other hand holds a different
perspective of this situation. He tends to believe that although the
technical terminology of abortion was not stated in the Constitution, the
simple right of privacy, which in his mentality, deals with termination of
a pregnancy.
Some critics of the decision regarding Roe v Wade feel that the
court is, in a sense, legalizing murder. Most refined critics on the other
hand believe that the Court's decision on this issue was indeed wrong, but
for different reasons. Like Bork, many feel that the Court had no right to
interpret the binding piece of our country, the Constitution. Since the
word "abortion" is not used in the Constitution, right-wing lawyer Bork
states " Unfortunately, in the entire opinion there is not one line of
explanation, not one sentence that qualifies as a legal argument ". (pg,
103, Bork) He continues to say " It is unlikely that it ever will,
because the right to abort, whatever one thinks of it, is not found in the
Constitution ". (Pg, 103, Bork)
Dworkin, distinguished author of the book titled Life's Dominion,
feels differently than the critics described above. He deems that the
court does in fact have the right to interpret the Constitution. Dworkin
agrees with Justice Blackmun's opinion in this great philosophical issue.
Blackmun feels that " a pregnant woman has a specific constitutional right
to privacy in matters of procreation, and that this general right includes
a right to an abortion if she and her doctor decide upon it". (pg. 105,
Blackmun)
In 1965, another case regarding the right of privacy made a lasting
and influential mark as well. In Griswold v. Connecticut the Court decided
that a state does not have the right to prohibit the sale of contraceptives.
Justice Brennan, speaking for the Court states that " If the right of
privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or
single, to be free from government intrusion into matters so fundamentally
affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child ". (pg.
106, Brennan) According to this statement and Dworkin, " the Court
therefore cannot logically hold that a woman's right to control her role in
procreation ends with fertilization without permitting states to outlaw
these contraceptives ". (pg. 107, Dworkin) This is another example of
Dworkin's belief.
Suppose that we decide that there is a constitutionally protected
right to privacy in matters of reproduction. Would this be enough to
determine whether states can ban abortions? This is another aspect of the
ongoing controversy of abortion as a whole. One side of this argument can
dispute that since abortion is in fact a matter of reproduction, they as
citizens are protected to their privacy. Therefore, this would not be
enough to prove to the Court that states can prohibit abortions. According
to this belief, abortions are a private issue and should have nothing
dealing with the government. As stated earlier a quote from Brennan, if
this is in fact a private issue, the Court does not have a right to
interfere with the bearing or begetting of a child.
Contrary to this opinion, some also feel that although abortions
are considered a reproductive matter, the government would be intruding and
disrupting on the intrinsic rights of the human. They feel that although
the rights the women have, single or married, to their private reproductive
issues, the inborn rights of the child are being intruded upon.
Consequently, they feel that the states do in fact have the right to ban
abortions.
Even though abortion is a protected right under the constitution,
the states still can debate whether they have the right to ban it.
According to the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the
states are obliged to act rationally whenever it restricts liberty in any
form. This is basically saying that states may limit citizen's liberties
if this confinement offers a general welfare or promotes a goal or
expediency that the states may seek. The states can argue that the general
welfare of the child is being taken into consideration, hence giving them
the right to be able to ban abortion.
The Court's decision of Roe v. Wade has made an enduring
indentation on many of our lives. Since this is such a private, yet
universal issue, it is destined to arouse controversy. Does the Court have
the right to interpret the Constitution, the foundation of our democratic
nation? Or is the Constitution to ordained and sacred to improvise and
translate? The question will remain on, along with the Courts ruling,
always scrutinized, disputed and causing conflict.Partner sites: Spanish Language Schools, Pit Bull, and Free Essays and Term Papers