not obtained the status of illegality yet. He then said therefore when the Ninth Amendment was drafted abortion included itself within the unenumerated rights the Ninth Amendment provided. Weddington also delicately referenced the Court’s divided opinion in Griswold V. Connecticut, noting that the justices themselves seemed uncertain “as to the specific constitutional framework of the right which they held to exist.” While the Court in that decision had upheld Griswold’s right to distribute birth control information and devices, the various opinions from the justices cited a range of amendments as the foundations for the rights they were upholding. The entire matter of a personal right to privacy, Weddington implied, did in fact exist in numerous constitutional contexts. This should serve to strengthen, not dilute its constitutional protection (Romaine 60-62) (Oyez). Justice Steward then asked if Roe's position relied on the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. Weddington replied that it did, then, in an effort to drive home her earlier point, she quickly added that it relied on the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause as well, and on the Ninth Amendment. Then came the obvious argument of if the fetus obtained the same rights as a born human being; and for her main argument Weddington argued that clearly stated in the Constitution is all the proof she needs that a fetus does not attain the same rights as a born person. She referenced the Fourteenth Amendment specifically the line that reads "All persons BORN... in the United States." So in her opening statement Weddington held her composure and did not fold when the pressure swallowed her whole and most importantly she did not make any major mistakes. (Romaine 64... ... middle of paper ... ...d that the Texas law as it stood violated a woman's Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights (Romaine 83-83) (Wikipedia) (Legal Information Institute). The Court's presentation concluded with Justices White and Rehnquist reading their dissents. It took less than an hour for the Court to deliver the opinion that would reshape every abortion law in the nation and in the process fuel bitter and sometimes violent controversy-for decades to come. “There is no scientific consensus that a human life begins at conception, at a given stage of fetal development, or at birth. The question of ‘when a human life begins’ cannot be answered by reference to scientific principles. . . . The answer to that question will depend on each individual’s social, religious, philosophical, ethical and moral beliefs and values (Romaine 84) (Wikipedia) (Dudley 14-16) (Andryszewski 49-55, 60-77).”
" Abortion and the Constitution: Reversing Roe v. Wade Through the Courts. Horan, Grant, Cunningham, eds., pp. 113-117. Washington, D.C. - The. : Georgetown University Press, 1987.
... tagging along. By taking the foundation of America and creating this so-called right to abortion, the Supreme Court attacks not only the value of human life itself, but the liberty of all Americans as well.[22] They next referred to the Emolument Clause and to the Electors provisions, which would also exclude most children and anyone unable to “[hold] any office of Profit or Trust.”[23]Furthermore, they turned to the required qualifications of being defined as a “person.” Clearly, this can refuse personhood to someone unable to commit a crime, for instance, a child who has not yet arrived at the door of reason. Fr. Clifford Stevens recognizes this denial as a threat to the dignity of the human person and draw from the words of President Lincoln’s rebuttal of Dred Scott to point out that the purposes for abortion are very similar to the motives behind slavery:
Overall, the ruling in this case was a perfect interpretation of the Constitution. Despite opposition claiming that it is not addressed in the Constitution, too few rights are ever addressed in the Constitution of the United States. That is why there is a thing called Judicial Review. By utilizing judicial review, the interpreters of the law –Supreme Court, may make changes to policies and laws. Abortion, medicinal marijuana, and marriage fall under the umbrella of Equal Protection since they correspond to the rights and liberties of US citizens.
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.
In 1973, in what has become a landmark ruling for women’s rights, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a woman’s right to an abortion. Ever since, individual states have adopted, altered, and/or mutilated the edict to fit their agendas – Texas included. However, the decision made by the justices in Roe v. Wade didn’t set clear cut, inarguable demarcation lines, which has allowed the fiery debate to consume the nation. Rather than establishing a legal ruling of what life is, or is not, the Supreme Court has remained silent on the issue.
Abortion cannot be discussed unless you know the origin of the debate. In December 13, 1971, the argument of abortion surfaced (“Roe v. wade,”). The class action suit was brought by a pregnant single woman who challenged the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother’s life (“Roe v. wade,”). Proceeding Roe v. Wade, abortion was illegal in almost every State. In 1973, the courts ruled and abortion became legal again.
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...
In 1971, Norma McCorvey or Jane Roe, filled a case against the district attorney of Dallas County, Henry Wade, because he enforced a Texas law that prohibited abortion unless the abortion was needed medically, to save the mother’s life. Being a single, pregnant woman , Roe did not have the choice to have an abortion because the pregnancy was not endangering her life. Plus, Roe could not afford to travel to have the operation done safely. As a result, Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, two lawyers that graduated from the University of Texas Law School, claimed a lawsuit against the abortion laws in Texas because they violated Roe’s constitutional rights. Besides Roe’s two laywers, Hallford, a licensed physician, and a childless married couple known as the Does supported Roe’s case. The lawsuit against Wade was filed in a Texas Federal Court. The Texas Federal Court heard the case on December 13th, 1971 and again, on October 11th, 1972. After the examination of Weddington and Coffee’s argument against Jay Floyd’s, the lawyer for Wade during the first argument, and Robert C. Flower’s, the lawyer for Texas in the second argument, the court ruled in Roe’s favor by claiming that the law did violate the Constitution. Consequently, Wade appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Wade was “the fetal right to life against a woman’s right to privacy,” and which right gets priority (“Roe v. Wade.” Roe v. Wade). An unmarried pregnant woman, Norma McCorvey, but known as Jane Roe, sought an abortion in the state of Texas where abortion, by law, was a criminal offense. Roe challenged the Texas statute arguing that it was unconstitutional (Landmark Supreme Court Cases 2). At the same time of Roe’s challenges, young lawyers, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, were seeking a plaintiff to challenge the Texas abortion laws. The trial did not end in time for Roe to get an abortion, but she kept fighting for future women in her same situation ("Roe vs Wade." TheFreeDictionary.com). Up against the District Attorney of Dallas, Texas, and Henry Wade, Jane Roe argued that the statutes regarding abortion were unconstitutionally vague and violated her first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendment rights (Landmark Supreme Court Cases 4). Roe was “unable to have a ‘legal’ abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy” (Landmark Supreme Court Cases 2). Although other jurisdictions offered legal abortions, Roe argued that she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction and that she had a right to have an abortion “performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions” (Landmark Supreme Court Cases 2). Texas refuted the use of the
The Roe vs. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy. It invalidated all state laws limiting women's access to abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy based on the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights. The Court's decision in this case was that the Ninth Amendment, "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," protected a person's right to privacy.
Right to Life: Little argues that every person has “a fundamental right to life,” as well as a “fundamental right to privacy” (p. 297). She strongly supports the “pro choice” stand point when it comes to the discussion revolving around abortion — as opposed to the pro-life position. This debate “requires [humans] to weigh the competing rights held by fetuses and women” (p. 297). Gestation is a commitment, more specifically, a nine-month-long commitment to create a living and breathing being. It’s interesting to note that the fetus’s right to life, seems to constantly outweigh their own mother’s right to choice. In some instances “pro-life treatments fail to [even] mention that pregnancy involves women at all,” because all of their focus, for the most part, is solely on the fetus (p. 298)....
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.
...t the court left for states to ban late-term abortions. Many feel that a fetus near the end of a pregnancy is simply too like a human to come up with any justification for killing it, unless the pregnancy threatens the health of the mother. The line on the spectrum that the court ended up defining was based on when the fetus becomes viable. Before this point, the fetus is entirely dependent on the mother and the court left the mother with the ability to withdraw her support from the fetus. After the point of viability, society as a whole is then able to assist in taking care of the infant. This then, is where the fetus gains the added requirement to its right to life discussed earlier.
...ade decided that a woman’s privacy, entailed in the fourteenth amendment, made it acceptable for woman to have more discretion on the status of their pregnancy and whether or not to have an abortion. However, abortions were only acceptable when it involved “defending prenatal life and protecting the health of the mother” (Roe v. Wade, Morality and Moral Controversies, 209). Although this case took a step in the right direction by giving women some direction with abortion, I feel it could have done a better job by making abortion legal under all circumstances seeing how it is morally justifiable from every aspect from the motivations to the process itself.
In 1971 Linda Coffee and Sarah Wellington sued on Norma McCorvey behalf, arguing that the state of Texas abortion law was unconstitutional. Defending the state of Texas was Henry Wade, district attorney of Dallas. The state of Texas only allowed abortions in cases where the mother’s life was at risk or the women was sexually assaulted. After two years of hearing evidence, the US Supreme Court affirms legality, a women’s right to abort, and that a right to privacy being implied by the Ninth and Fourteenth amendments in a 7-2 decision in 1973. It had encompassed a woman’s decision whether or not to stop her pregnancy. No states could restrict abortion during first three months or trimester of a pregnancy.