Roe V. Wade Summary

Jane Roe, a pregnant single woman, brought a lawsuit challenging Texas abortion laws that made it a crime to obtain or attempt an abortion, except on medical advice to save the life of the mother. Roe argued that these laws violated her constitutional rights. Although her life was not in danger, she argued that she could not afford to travel out of state and and had the right to terminate her pregnancy in a safe medical environment. The issue in question was whether or not women have the legal right to an abortion. Roe argued that, since it was her own reproductive system, she should have the right to make her own choices and, if need be, have the right to a medically safe abortion. On the other hand, Wade, the Texas District Attorney, argued that it was the duty of the government to preserve the rights of its citizens, including those of the not yet born. He argued that the government must protect the rights of the fetus because it does not have a voice.
The judges ruled in favor of Roe and stated that the statues were unconstitutional, but they refused to grant declaratory relief. Thus, Roe bypassed the US Court of Appeals and went to the Supreme Court on expedited appeal for injunction. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roe and the district court’s judgement was affirmed. The court argued that Roe had a constitutional right to privacy and preventing her from getting an abortion violated her “zone of privacy.” Despite this, the court did not rule completely in favor of abortion. They agreed that during the first trimester of pregnancy, the decision for abortion is that of the doctor and and the patient. However, they concluded that states might regulate certain aspects of abortion during the second and third trimester of pregnancy to protect the health of the