Summary Of Roe V. Wade

In Roe v Wade (1973) case, the Supreme Court would rule that the Texas state law: that denied women to have an abortion, was unconstitutional. The Texas state law only allowed for the mothers to follow through an abortion if only was to the save the life of the mother. The Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester. Even then, an exception had to be made to protect the life of the mother. Jane Roe was an unmarried and pregnant Texas resident

The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face. All of these problematic situations contributed to her stance and to the final decision. However, the Court ruled that narrower state laws regulating abortion might be sufficiently important to be constitutional. The Court would look into how long the fetus should live in the mother’s stomach for it to be liable for its rights. The court had a hard time finding where it was unconstitutional or not, you can look whether it was wrong for the fetus and it’s just not fair, or you can look into the well-being of the soon-to-be mother. Justice William Rehnquist wrote the dissenting opinion, stating that since the fetus is a living being, it should have the same rights to continue living. He also claimed that it was unfair to the soon to be baby. Rehnquist quoted, "I would reach a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Court." The Court had identified a woman's "right to abortion" under the more general "right to privacy" that it had

This is mainly because I believe women should do as they please with their own bodies. Mistakes happen, and if you really do not want the child, you should not have to follow through with it. Why ruin your future with an unwanted child, when you could get rid of the unborn fetus. I do believe there should be limits on the time when you can abort whatever is inside of you. I think the time-frame should be before it develops fingerprints (5 months at the very latest). But usually if the mother is completely sure they do not want the baby, they would definitely would be sure to do it right away. But the biggest thing about this case is that abortions are very important and can literally determine an individual’s future. America should not cut Planned Parenthood mainly because they are crucial to this process, and not only do they deliver abortion support, but most importantly they offer contraception such as birth control and condoms. Planned Parenthood creates refuge for the young girls in the world who feel as if they cannot speak out for help. While abortions are only 2% of what Planned Parenthood consists of, they still have many other great opportunities for women. (sorry about the plug for Planned Parenthood, both of my cousins live in New York and work for the National Institute of Reproductive Health. So, it kinda just comes with who I am)