The United States Constitution and laws are subject to the ages and fads of the social system it travels through. Published in the Columbia Law Review, Dr. Andrew Koppelman of Northwestern University deconstructs the Originalist approaches to constitutional laws on abortion, and juxtaposes U.S. 13th and 14th Amendment rights and their implications on individuals. The way that the constitution is approached and digested by court officials, by legislators, by Americans, can severely impact the outcome of things such as controversial rights and liberties. The author addresses the impact that interpretation can have on individual’s rights. Depending on level of judicial review, or of prior cases and precedence, an individual can be far more restricted if a law is outdated or not applicable to current standards. Koppelman begins his dissection of understanding abortion prohibitions and limitations with a dissection of the opposing constitutional interpretation, originalism. For a premise “originalists claim that interpretation just is recovery of original meaning, that nothing else could count as interpretation.” (Koppelman 1919) Originalism refers to the means of interpreting the constitution, such as the Koppelman’s construction of 13th Amendment Right, with a emphasis on remaining as “faithful as possible to the original constitution.” (Koppelman 1918) This negates the contribution of outliers such as historical progress or subsequent precedence to the amendments in helping interpret the laws and current issues. His intro clearly states that there is a difference between Originalist understanding of intent and originalist meaning. The evolution of originalist approach strays from intent, such as the 13th Amendment being a response... ... middle of paper ... ...;” (Koppelman 1945) though now more clearly defined and finally concise. CONCLUSION Abortion restrictions are and will be controversial because of the many elements they incorporate including State and Federal Constitutional rights, individual and congressional application of Amendments, or historical influence on interpretation. Koppelman makes an argument that ultimately tries to maintain the purest constitutional understanding, yet maintains that times have changed, that history then is not like the present now. With his emphasis on Originalist “meaning,” Koppelman refutes Originalist “intent” and understanding of core rights such as the 13th and 14th Amendments that have stood to protect individuals. This finally resolves that limitations on abortion face a similar battle in terms of civil and individual rights to self over what State or Congress can mandate.
Instead, the court recognized that the right to abortion was guaranteed under personal privacy. Thus, any law regulating abortion in any state across the United States was supposed to be justified by stating any of the compelling state interests. Additionally, any legislative enactment set forth should be tailored in meeting the compelling interests of all parties. The judges also agreed that the right to abortion was unlimited; therefore, it was important for the court to determine a framework that would balance the right to abortion and those of the government (Stewart et al. 307). The latter sought to protect the rights of all mothers and at the same time protect the human life. If the abortion law was completely unregulated, then there would be cases where individuals would practice abortion without factoring the important role of government in conserving life (Saad). As a result, the trimester framework that took the above issues into consideration was conceived. The framework established when the fundamental rights of women to issues relating abortion became absolute. It also established when the state's interests were more compelling than the rights of the woman. In the first trimester, the Court left the decision to the woman and the physicians. However, after the first trimester or at the end of the first trimester when fetal viability had been established, the state had a right to protect the health of the mother as well as the unborn child (Saad). The state was also required to regulate all abortion procedures so that they became reasonable. The procedures were supposed to protect and preserve maternal health. At the third trimester, the state interest would become compelling since the viability of the fetus becomes compelling. In such cases, the state has the right to regulate abortion to protect human life. Also, the
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 to choose has largely ignored the nature of the relationship between the mother and the fetus through the gestational period and a woman’s right to either accept or decline participation in this relationship.
As to any argument, there are two opposing sides when it comes to the matter of abortions. These two opposers usually refer to themselves as “pro-life” and “pro choice”. Pro-life supporters maintain that abortion is wrong and pro-choice believe that it is a woman’s freedom to choose her pregnancy decisions. When it comes to the topic of abortions, most of us will readily agree that it’s a woman’s choice to decide what her reproductive decisions are, i.e. pro-choice. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is in the question of whether or not abortion is a fundamental right granted to women by the Constitution. Whereas some are convinced that a fetus is considered alive at conception, usually citing the word of God, others maintain that
In the later half of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century, many states adopted laws against abortion because abortions were performed in unsanitary conditions, which made the operation dangerous for women. Plus, society believed killing a possible life was immoral. However, as time progressed and morals changed, people begin to question weather or not the government had the right to interfere with peoples’ carnal matters.
Controversy and arguments that were setbacks in the ongoing battle for women’s rights, specifically the right to an abortion, were put to slight a rest with the landmark verdict of Roe v. Wade. The revolution in reproductive rights caused by Roe v. Wade evolved from a spark in the hearts of women everywhere. When women claimed their rights as humans, that was when the face of women’s equality in all aspects started to change. The case of Roe v. Wade was the official legalization of a woman’s constitutional right to get an abortion in the United States, but the aftermath of any case is what makes or breaks the future laws and regulations. Through all of the restrictions, regulations, and loopholes, Roe v. Wade’s verdict stuck and continued to
The debate of abortion continues to be a controversial problem in society and has been around for many decades. According to Jone Lewis, “In the United States, abortion laws began to appear in the 1820’s, forbidding abortion after the fourth month of pregnancy” (1). This indicates that the abortion controversy has been debated far back into American history. Beginning in the 1900’s, legalized abortion became a major controversy. In 1965, all fifty states in the United States banned abortion; however, that was only the beginning of the controversy that still rages today (Lewis 1). After abortion was officially banned in the United States, groups such as the National Abortion Rights Action League worked hard on a plan to once again legalize abortion in the United States (Lewis 1). It wasn’t until 1970 when the case of Roe (for abortion) v. Wade (against abortion) was brought...
January 22, 1973, a monumental ordeal for all of the United States had come about, which was that abortion was legalized. It was the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade that made us take a turn into this political issue. In this case Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) was an unmarried woman who wasn’t permitted to terminate her unborn child, for the Texas criminal abortion law made it impossible to perform an abortion unless it was putting the mother’s health in danger. Jane Roe was against doing it illegally so she fought to do it legally. In the court cases ruling they acknowledged that the lawful right to having privacy is extensive enough to cover a woman’s decision on whether or not she should be able to terminate her pregnancy.
Abortion laws first developed in the 1820’s within the United States. These laws were forbidding abortion after the fourth month of pregnancy (2). By the 1900’s, the American Medical Association and legislators outlawed the act of abortions and by 1965 abortion was banned in all 50 states(3). In 1973, the permissibility of “abortion” was innate with the proceedings of Texas’s “Roe v. Wade”. [410 U.S. 113 (1973)] which was the most consequential legal juncture on abortion.
No other element of the Women’s Rights Movement has generated as much controversy as the debate over reproductive rights. As the movement gained momentum so did the demand for birth control, sex education, family planning and the repeal of all abortion laws. On January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court handed down the Roe v. Wade decision which declared abortion "fundamental right.” The ruling recognized the right of the individual “to be free from unwanted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” (US Supreme Court, 1973) This federal-level ruling took effect, legalizing abortion for all women nationwide.
Abortion is a controversial topic in today’s society as many opinions from different social groups on whether it should be legal or not create the big question: should the government be able to take away a woman’s reproductive right if it is to protect a fetus? In the United States particularly, much of the debate since the 1970s has focused on the Supreme Court case Roe v Wade, in which the court proclaimed women's’ rights to abortion but declared that the states could limit and regulate the procedure. That means that currently, the state of California allows abortions, but many groups against abortion, mostly called “pro-lifers,” still try to fight against it and want it banned. Women have a right to their own body and should
Over the duration of the last century, abortion in the Western hemisphere has become a largely controversial topic that affects every human being. In the United States, at current rates, one in three women will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45. The questions surrounding the laws are of moral, social, and medical dilemmas that rely upon the most fundamental principles of ethics and philosophy. At the center of the argument is the not so clear cut lines dictating what life is, or is not, and where a fetus finds itself amongst its meaning. In an effort to answer the question, lawmakers are establishing public policies dictating what a woman may or may not do with consideration to her reproductive rights. The drawback, however, is that there is no agreement upon when life begins and at which point one crosses the line from unalienable rights to murder.
In the second part of the twentieth century, women’s rights once again gained a lot of momentum. The women’s liberation movement was born out of women civil right activists who were tired of waiting for legislative change for women’s rights. Even though women are being recognized more in society, they still face difficult issues. Sexism –especially in the workforce –is becoming a major issue, birth control pills are still not popular, and abortions are frowned upon in society. The case Roe v. Wade is about a woman with the fake name of Jane Roe who wanted an abortion but the state of Texas would not let her unless her life was in danger. She sued the district attorney of Dallas County saying that it violated the right to privacy under the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments. Usually, some arguments for being against abortions are because it is like killing a life, religious reasons, and less chance of future pregnancies. Some arguments that approve abortion are the rights of privacy and the mother to make her own decision. I decided to pick the landmark case Roe v. Wade because there are many ways to argue for and against abortions, so I wanted to give it an overarching view before I personally pick a side. Roe v. Wade is a significant case because it shows how rights in the Constitution do not have to be explicitly mentioned for it to implement and the change in abortion laws that affect women.
Since the early 1970’s abortion has been an important issue to the United States (Tietze 1). The problem begins with whether it is the woman’s choice to keep or terminate her pregnancy or the government’s choice. When this problem happens, a woman loses her right as a person. Most women argue about this issue, but if you look at it, it is the woman’s body, and she should do with it as she pleases. I believe that if a woman, under the right circumstances, should be able to make her own choices in life and not be influenced by family or the government.
With so many women choosing to have abortions, it would be expected that it would not be so greatly frowned up, yet society is still having problems with its acceptance. Every woman has the fundamental right to decide for herself, free from government interference, whether or not to have an abortion. Today, more than ever, American families do not want the government to trample on their right to privacy by mandating how they must decide on the most intimate, personal matters. That is why, even though Americans may differ on what circumstances for terminating a crisis pregnancy are consistent with their own personal moral views, on the fundamental question of who should make this personal decision, the majority of Americans agree that each woman must have the right to make this private choice for herself. Anti-choice proposals to ban abortions for “sex-selection” or “birth-control” are smokescreens designed to shift the focus of the debate away from this issue and trivialize the seriousness with which millions of women make this highly personal decision. Any government restriction on the reasons for which women may obtain legal abortions violates the core of this right and could force all women to publicly justify their reasons for seeking abortion.
With the issue of abortion, we are able to relate it easily to several principles throughout the Constitution. Every human has the right to make decisions about their own body, and this includes a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy. The Constitution doesn’t classify an unborn baby as a human. Which leads straight in to the 14th amendment, a right for personal privacy and not allowing the government and Constitution to be a pressuring standpoint in this decision on whether you want to keep your child. As a human, we have the rights that no state shall make or enforc...