Rowe vs Wade
Roe vs. Wade:
"The Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas. The question then becomes whether the state interests advanced to justify this abridgment can survive the 'particularly careful scrutiny ' that the Fourteenth Amendment here requires. The asserted state interests are protection of the health and safety of the pregnant woman, and protection of the potential future human life within her. But such legislation is not before us, and I think the Court today has thoroughly demonstrated that these state interests cannot constitutionally support the broad abridgment of personal liberty worked by the existing Texas law. Accordingly, I join the Court 's opinion holding that that law is invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" (Craig and O 'Brien 17). On January 22nd, 1973 Justice Harry Blackmun gave the decision of the Supreme Court in regards to the Roe vs. Wade case. A single pregnant woman, "Jane Roe," had filed a class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal laws regarding abortion, which stated having or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the reason of saving the mother 's life. Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff 's legal name, was young and recently divorced at the time, searching for a way to resolve her unplanned pregnancy. "No legitimate doctor in Texas would touch me," stated McCorvey. "There I was - pregnant, unmarried, unemployed, alone and stuck" (Craig and O 'Brien 5). The plaintiff 's argument was that prohibiting abortion at any time before the actual birth of the child violated a woman 's constitutional
"The Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas. The question then becomes whether the state interests advanced to justify this abridgment can survive the 'particularly careful scrutiny ' that the Fourteenth Amendment here requires. The asserted state interests are protection of the health and safety of the pregnant woman, and protection of the potential future human life within her. But such legislation is not before us, and I think the Court today has thoroughly demonstrated that these state interests cannot constitutionally support the broad abridgment of personal liberty worked by the existing Texas law. Accordingly, I join the Court 's opinion holding that that law is invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" (Craig and O 'Brien 17). On January 22nd, 1973 Justice Harry Blackmun gave the decision of the Supreme Court in regards to the Roe vs. Wade case. A single pregnant woman, "Jane Roe," had filed a class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal laws regarding abortion, which stated having or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the reason of saving the mother 's life. Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff 's legal name, was young and recently divorced at the time, searching for a way to resolve her unplanned pregnancy. "No legitimate doctor in Texas would touch me," stated McCorvey. "There I was - pregnant, unmarried, unemployed, alone and stuck" (Craig and O 'Brien 5). The plaintiff 's argument was that prohibiting abortion at any time before the actual birth of the child violated a woman 's constitutional
Cited: Craig, Barbara Hinkson and David M. O 'Brien. Abortion and American Politics. Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham House Publishers, 1993. Hickok, Eugene W. Justice vs. Law: Courts and Politics in American Society. New York: Free Press/Macmillan, 1993. Joffe, Carole. Doctors of Conscience: The Struggle to Provide Abortion Before and After Roe v. Wade. Boston: Beacon Press, 1995. Olasky, Marvin. Abortion Rites: A Social History of Abortion in America. Washington DC: Regnery Publishing, 1992. Rubin, Eva R. Abortion, Politics, and the Courts: Roe v. Wade and its Aftermath. New York: Greenwood Press, 1987.