Analysis Of The Supreme Court Case Of Roe Vs. Wade

Roe vs. Wade Roe vs. Wade is a very well-known court case about abortion in the United States. It broke the news in 1969 when a divorced, poverty stricken, high school dropout, Norma McCorvey, desired for an abortion.1 In the state of Texas during this time, abortion was prohibited unless it jeopardized a woman’s health. So, Norma decided to have her child and set the child up for adoption. Then, she met Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee. Dictating on whether Texas’ Law was constitutional, the women testified against it. Becoming Jane Roe, the three women were battling against Henry Wade, who was the criminal district attorney for Dallas, Texas. Wade agreed to go to court, and from then on became the start of Roe vs. Wade. Texas in 1969
This era used minimum protection for the little ones. Also Supreme Court included Connecticut because it was the first state to ordain abortion legislation. In the 1950s abortion was banned in exception of jeopardy to the life of the mother. Justice Blackmun included three reasons to explain criminal abortion laws. One reason is to discourage illicit sexual conduct.4 Another is medical procedures.5 During the 1970s, the state was concerned with the medical procedures and medicines that physicians provide to their patients because it could put the mother in harms way. Past days, the medicines and procedures are not as sterile as they are today. The procedures present day are far more innocuous. The state has an important state interest when dealing with health and safety. The state also has a legitimate state interest when the procedure is performed under maximum safety for the patient.6 The last reason is the states interest.7 The state believes that only an abortion should occur when the mother is at risk for health. Unless that exception, no abortion should be performed. The embryo should not subsist when the mother is at risk even though the moment of conception is the start of a human life. Although whether that sentiment is true or false, it should not rest on the states legitimate
In the 4th amendment, it states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...”9 This amendment protects the right to privacy of search and seizure. Also in amendment 5, it states “no person shall be held for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury...”10 This amendment protects the privacy not to talk, or the right to remain silent. None of these amendments including the others not stated say anything about the right to privacy, but the right broader than the actual