After reading about the Roe vs. Wade case about abortions, I agree with the courts decision. As a young woman, you are not ready to be a mother and most times the parents of the pregnant young lady cannot take care of the baby as well. Teenagers now a days are having sex more which then leads to pregnancy and if you are a teenager in high school, getting pregnant would ruin your school career. An abortion would save the teen from losing her school career. I also believe that abortion can be bad depending on how late you do it. What the court did which was smart, was they stated the woman was allowed an abortion until viability. Viability they stated is when the baby would be able to survive outside the womb which would be around 28 weeks. This makes sense because if you were going to have an abortion, have it once you find out so the baby isn't fully developed yet and still very, very small. Why would anyone stay pregnant for 8 months and then decide to have an abortion and at that time, the baby would be almost fully grown. Once 28 weeks has been finished, if you still do not want the baby than you can have it and give it up for adoption. Many parents who cannot have kids would love to have one. Overall, the courts decision on the Roe vs. Wade case was in my legal assessment a smart and helpful decision that is fair for people with/against abortion. -Cody Lucey
The Court's decision that a woman's right to an abortion, fell within that woman's right to privacy which falls under the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first, second and third trimester. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. These two arguments show that this was not an easy decision to rule on. As a result, 46 states where affected by the Court's ruling and changed their laws regarding abortions. Personally, I agree with the courts decision that it is the woman's right to privacy whether or not to have an abortion. There are a lot of circumstances and situation's that go into the ultimate decision of having an abortion. For example, if there was a young teen who got pregnant while having unprotected sex, that female might not be suitable and not ready to become a parent. That young girls life would have to change in order to have a baby. Her schooling and other activities that she might have participated would be effected tremendously. In some circumstances abortion is the mature and right thing to do. If that child is born into a household where it is not suitable for a child, that child is going to struggle a very long time because the parents where not ready and not yet responsible to take care of a child. But, there are downs sides to having abortions. I still agree that it is the woman's right to have an abortion, but the abortions should have a deadline. I do not believe that a woman should have an abortion when the baby is capable of living outside of the womb. Viability is when a child is suitable to live outside of its mothers womb. A baby is capable of living outside of the womb in most cases around 8 months into the pregnancy. The courts should have made a ruling that a woman has to a certain deadline into the pregnancy, to have an abortion. Having an abortion when a baby is capable of living outside of the womb, in my opionion is wrong. Adoption is always another option. There are many suitable families that would be capable of taking care of a child. But overall the ruling on Roe v Wade was the right decision and has saved many females from difficult situations.
The Court's decision that a woman's right to an abortion, fell within that woman's right to privacy which falls under the Fourteenth Amendment. A woman’s privacy can include her religious background, cultural beliefs, and other views regarding abortion. No matter what religious or cultural beliefs, any female is allowed to have an abortion under the US constitution. The courts decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first three months of pregnancy. After granting certiorari, the Court heard two arguments. The courts choice to hear two arguments provides evidence that the ruling over abortion was not an easy decision to rule on. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the Court’s opinion that women have the decision wether or not to have an abortion. As a result, 46 states where affected by the Court's ruling and changed their laws regarding abortions within the first three months of a woman’s pregnancy. Personally, I agree with the courts decision that it is the woman's right whether or not to have an abortion. There are a lot of circumstances and situation's that go into the ultimate decision of having an abortion. For example, if there was a young teen who got pregnant while having unprotected sex, that female might not be suitable and not ready to become a parent. That young girls life would have to change in order to have a baby. Her schooling and other activities that she might have participated would be effected tremendously. In some circumstances abortion is the mature and right thing to do. If that child is born into a household where it is not suitable for a child, that child is going to struggle a very long time because the parents where not ready and not yet responsible to take care of a child. Having an abortion when in that situation might be the right decision for both the mother and the child. But, there are downs sides to having abortions. I still agree that it is the woman's right to have an abortion, but the abortions should have a deadline. I do not believe that a woman should have an abortion when the baby is capable of living outside of the womb. Viability is when a child is suitable to live outside of its mothers womb. A baby is capable of living outside of the womb in most cases around 8 months into the pregnancy. The courts should have made a ruling that a woman has to a certain deadline into the pregnancy, to have an abortion. Having an abortion when a baby is capable of living outside of the womb, in my opinion is wrong. If that baby is capable of living outside of the womb, than that baby should not be aborted. Yes, the decision to have an abortion is a very tough decision to make, but there should be a deadly in which and mother should decide. Adoption is always another option. There are many suitable families that would be capable of taking care of a child. But overall the ruling on Roe v Wade was the right decision and has saved many females from difficult situations.
My legal assessment of the Court's decision in Roe v Wade (1973) is that the constitution had been interpreted correctly.
Many Christian religions identify the moment a life is created as the moment of conception. This is a respectable opinion, but it is an opinion based on a religion. The constitution's 1st amendment separated Church and State in all laws and decisions. So it was the Supreme Court's job to only use the constitution to interpret the legality of abortion, not the morality of abortion. This point was brought up and argued by Roe's lawyer, Weddington. The 9th amendment to the constitution described how any right not prohibited to the people, is by default, the people's. No where in the constitution does it mention abortion. While Henry Wade argued the 10th amendment, which states, that any power not denied the state's is by default their own, the purpose of the constitution was to establish a fair and just government. This being said, democracy in its most basic form is meant to give the power to the citizens to control their own government, not the other way around. So I believe the 9th amendment takes priority over the 10th in this argument, another way the constitution was interpreted correctly. Weddington also argued the 14th amendment, so this court's decision would apply to all states. It also was argued for the purpose of supporting the idea of personal over state power, furthering the idea that the 9th amendment argument trumped the 10th. This interpretation was correct in my opinion, and that had the courts ruled in favor of Wade, this would violate the 14th amendment. Since the writ Roe submitted to the Texas state court was denied, she appealed the case to the supreme court. Where her lawyer argued this decision to deny her writ was a violation of her 5th Amendment in her right to the Due Process of Law. The constitution was meant to protect basic human rights such as the right to a fair trial and the right to be secure in their persons. This was another argument used in support of abortion, using the 4th amendment. While the decision was mostly based on the 9th and 14th amendments, I believe all the other amendments applied to the situation to a point where there was no way the courts could rule in favor of Wade without denying the constitution. The Court's decision ultimately had more substantial constitutional backing, in that their decision gave the power to the people more than the states, fully supporting the idea of a true democracy. The court's decision did not fully infringe upon the powers of the states though. It only made abortions legal for the first trimester, which I believe to be the correct decision on the court's part, as forcing the states to legalize something past a certain point would be in violation of the 10th amendment. So the courts ruled using solely the constitution in a just way to both the people and the states, ultimately producing the correct verdict in my opinion based on the constitution.
The US Supreme Court decided in a 7-2 decision that abortion is a fundamental right under the United States Constitution using the 9th and 14th amendments in Roe V. Wade (1973). There are many people who, to this day, disagree with the decision; however, in my opinion the Supreme Court assessed both the Constitution and the beliefs of many religions honorably and made the right ruling. The ninth amendment, granting rights not denied in the constitution to the people, was assessed by the Supreme Court for the case due to the fact that there is no place in the Constitution that denies the right to an abortion. With this knowledge, the Court interpreted this amendment, in my opinion, correctly; the Constitution writes “certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”, this includes the right to an abortion, and therefore this right cannot be denied. The other amendment that the Supreme Court looked at in deciding this case is the 14th, the right not allowing states to take way basic rights. This amendment in my opinion was also interpreted correctly, for the Supreme Court decided that no states could deny someone the right to an abortion during the first trimester; however, in the second trimester the states can restrict this right. I believe that the Supreme Court interpreted the law with an unbiased eye and correctly; they allowed for women to have the right to an abortion, following the ninth amendment, as well as incorporating state’s rights in restriction for the second trimester using the 14th. This is a country of freedom and liberty, and allowing women the right to decide for themselves whether to have an abortion and how to govern their own bodies is implementing this liberty.
The US Supreme Court decided in a 7-2 decision that abortion is a fundamental right under the United States Constitution using the 9th and 14th amendments in Roe V. Wade (1973). There are many people who, to this day, disagree with the decision; however, in my opinion the Supreme Court assessed both the Constitution and the beliefs of many religions honorably and made the right ruling. There are many religions that support the fundamental rights surrounding that of an abortion, that women should be granted the right to control what happens to their bodies. The basis of their beliefs surrounds the concept that life does not begin until a baby is born physically born. Many devout Christian’s however, believe that a baby is born the moment of contraception, therefore believing that abortion, no matter how early, is murder of a child. The Supreme Court did know that there were conflictions between religious beliefs and the right to an abortion, however they also know that the first amendment to the US Constitution separates the beliefs of Church from the actions of the State in Court, meaning these beliefs, although helpful to know in this decision, cannot be used. The Court rightfully respected the this amendment and kept the notions of religion out, restricting abortions to be legal everywhere only for the first trimester, while also respecting the religious beliefs and allowing the states to decide past the first trimester. I personally believe that this was very fair and right for the Supreme Court to do. The ninth amendment, granting rights not denied in the constitution to the people, was assessed by the Supreme Court for the case due to the fact that there is no place in the Constitution that denies the right to an abortion. With this knowledge, the Court interpreted this amendment, in my opinion, correctly; the Constitution writes “certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”, this includes the right to an abortion, and therefore this right cannot be denied. The other amendment that the Supreme Court looked at in deciding this case is the 14th, the right not allowing states to take way basic rights. This amendment in my opinion was also interpreted correctly, for the Supreme Court decided that no states could deny someone the right to an abortion during the first trimester; however, in the second trimester the states can restrict this right. I believe that the Supreme Court interpreted the law with an unbiased eye and correctly; they allowed for women to have the right to an abortion, following the ninth amendment, as well as incorporating state’s rights in restriction for the second trimester using the 14th. This is a country of freedom and liberty, and allowing women the right to decide for themselves whether to have an abortion and how to govern their own bodies is implementing this liberty. Although the right to an abortion is a difficult topic and question to answer unbiased and lawfully, I truly believe that the United States Supreme Court did so in their interpretation of the law and knowledge of cultural aspects in the decision of Roe V. Wade (1973).
The class action suit of Roe vs. Wade (1973) was a landmark decision, allowing for abortion to be legal in all states if a woman is in the first trimester of her pregnancy. The States have the ability to regulate abortion in the second trimester for two legitimate interests. These interests include protecting prenatal life and protecting woman’s health. Roe v. Wade (1973) prompted a national debate that still continues today regarding issues involving the extent to which abortions should be legal. In 1973, the United States Supreme Court decided in a 7-2 decision that the right to privacy under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, should not be denied of any person, therefor legalizing abortion in the Roe v. Wade class action suit. Contrary to religious beliefs and moral interpretations of the law, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the law correctly in this case. The Supreme Court ruled primarily on two amendments set forth by Roe and her lawyer, Weddington. According to the Ninth Amendment, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Or in other words, any person that is not denied of a certain right in the Constitution obtains that right. The Constitution does not deny any person of the right to an abortion, nor takes away their right to life, liberty or property. Therefor, the Supreme Court interpreted the Law correctly in ruling their decision off of the Ninth amendment. The Fourteenth amendment states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” Texas denied Roe the right to an abortion. This contradicted the Fourteenth amendment because a state was denying a person of their legal right. The Supreme Court was correct in ruling on the constitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment. Roe and Weddington argued the rights of the Fourth and Fifth amendments as well however, these amendments were not viable in regards to the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the Supreme Court made the right decision by not ruling off of these amendments. The Fourth amendment is the right of the people to be protected against unlawful and unreasonable searches or seizures. It allows for people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects. Roe was never denied this right by the state of Texas. The Fifth Amendment grants people the right to a fair trial stating, “no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…” This amendment has no connection to what was denied of Roe by the state of Texas. Although the Fifth Amendment does state that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, the only rights that were arguably denied of Roe were life and liberty. However, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth amendment covered those rights.
On January 22nd 1973, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision that the abortion of Jane Roe’s unborn child constitutional. To this day, the ruling remains controversial and is considered a landmark court decision, meaning that it established a significant new legal principle or concept at the time, leaving little room for any form of interpretation of existing laws. Norma McCorvey, under the legal pseudonym of “Jane Roe” served as the plaintiff in the case. At the age of 21, she falesly claimed that her third pregnancy was the result of rape. She was represented by Sarah Weddington. The Supreme Court ruled that abortion was constitutional, and I believe that the Court made the right decision based on the legal parameters put in place by the constitution. The main controversy surrounding this case came from the 9th and 14th amendments. The first major conflict between the opposing sides was over whether or not the abortion of an unborn child was murder, which would be unconstitutional. Although many people believe that the life of a child begins at birth (making an abortion not murder), several religions believe that life begins at conception, which would make an abortion murder and therefore unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court was obligated to separate Church from State as a result of the 1st amendment. This is where legality and morality must be separated, and the Court must disregard beliefs such as these when making their decision. Weddington argued that because of the 9th amendment, abortion was Roe’s constitutional right. The 9th amendment states that any right not specifically prohibited in the constitution is the right of the people, and because abortion is not specifically prohibited anywhere in the constitution, it is Roe’s constitutional right. In contrast, Wade argued the 10th amendment, which asserts each state’s power by ensuring that the Federal Government would not step over the boundaries established in the Constitution, meaning that any power not specifically denied to the states is their own, allowing Texas to deny Roe an abortion. However, I believe that to use the 10th amendment as the only form of validation for denying Roe an abortion would be arbitrary, and that its purpose was not to allow states to overlook other aspects and amendments in the Constitution but to rather to allow citizens their right to have some form of influence in their own government. -Caroline D. Skinner (pt. 1)
So in this respect, I agree with the Court’s decision based on the 9th amendment, because it is not specified anywhere in the constitution that an abortion is prohibited so to prevent Roe from receiving and abortion would in fact be a violation of her constitutional rights, and I believe that the meaning of the 10th amendment was not intended to be interpreted in this way and therefore Wade’s assertion is invalid and to buy into it would be a very loose interpretation of this amendment. In addition to these amendments, the Court had to consider the 14th amendment, which was argued by Weddington. The 14th amendment states that the States do not have the right to take away the rights of any citizens as described in the constitution, and by denying Roe an abortion, this would be infringing upon her rights defined in the 9th amendment. This assertion further discredited Wade’s interpretation of the 10th amendment as the 14th amendment focused on the rights of the people much more heavily than the rights of the state. I think that the Court interpreted this amendment accurately. Because the 9th amendment and Wade’s interpretation of the 10th amendment were slightly contrasting and contradictory, the Court had to decide which amendment was superior to the other. If they had chosen that the 10th amendment trumped the 9th, they would be violating the 14th amendment. Therefore, I believe that the Courts interpretation of both the 9th and 14th amendment was correct and legitimate. In addition to these two main arguments, Weddington argued that Roe’s rights as described in the 4th amendment were violated, meaning that she had been subject to illegal search and seizure, however, Roe was never denied this right. In addition Weddington argued the 5th amendment which stated that every person is granted the right to a fair trial standing, and this right was also not violated by the state of Texas, however, these issues were covered by the 14th amendment. Overall, I believe that the Court’s interpretation of the main arguments made by Weddington for Roe (being the 9th and 14th amendment) was both constitutional and legally valid. Although this is a subject that at the time was very controversial and still is controversial today, the Court was able to separate the conflicting opinions coming from Church and State and successfully satisfied all the applicable amendments that were relevant in the case. To rule in the favor of Wade would have been unconstitutional, and would have violated Roe’s constitutional rights, and therefore I believe that despite controversy and matters of personal morals and opinions, the Court made a ruling that was both Constitutionally and legally valid. -Caroline D. Skinner (pt. 2)
The US Supreme Court decided that abortion is legal under the US constitution using the 14th and 9th amendment. I agree that abortion should be legal because a young woman who is not able to take care of her child properly should have the right to choose not to have that child. If there is any other way that abortion could be avoided, alternative should be considered. However, abortion is only legal to happen until viability which is when the baby can survive outside of the womb. If you want to have an abortion, you should know and not wait until the third trimester. Considering that women should have their own privacy, I think this ruling was fair and good for many young women who are not ready to be moms. Also, if there is a child that is not gonna be healthy and will suffer a lot in life, parents should be able to decide if they want to have unhealthy child or not. For the sake of the child, parents should have a say too. This ruling affected 46 states and they had to decide if they want to make abortion legal or not.
The decision to have an abortion is truly a private one. For this reason, I believe the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was correct in ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to privacy including a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. The Court also referred to the Constitution's First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments citing cases involving a person's "zone of privacy". The Court's ruling was specific as to different stages of pregnancy: In the first trimester, the state can only treat abortion as a medical condition, leaving medical judgment to the woman's physician; in the second trimester, the state's interest was seen as legitimate when protecting the health of the mother; and after viability, the potential of human life could be considered a "legitimate state interest" and the state could choose to regulate or even prohibit abortion as long as the life and health of the mother was protected. Protecting the mother's health and life, as well as the life of the fetus once viable, is the most important theme in this decision. Prior to Roe v. Wade, there were abortions being performed on the black market by non-physicians which truly endangered the lives of women and possibly a viable fetus. The court was successful in protecting a women's health during pregnancy but also in eliminating unsafe abortion conditions around the country. The decision remains one of the most debated rulings in the United States because it involves issues of ethics, religion, and biology. Often, politicians seek to influence the abortion debate with their personal beliefs. This only further demonstrates that abortion is truly a personal and private decision. I believe the court was so specific in its ruling to prevent politicians from making a personal decision on behalf of a woman, especially when the her health and the life of a viable fetus is at stake.
The 7-2 decision in Roe vs. Wade (1973) caused the outcome of abortion to be legal in states, if the woman is in the first trimester of her pregnancy. During the second and third trimester of the pregnancy, however, the states have the right to disagree with the mother’s choice. For example, if the delivery of the child will kill the mother. This class action suit, under the protection of law of the Fourteenth Amendment, allows for privacy. By applying this amendment to the case, the court knew that the influence of religion, might affect on the outcome of the law. By giving the mother the right of abortion during her first trimester of pregnancy, the court applied the belief and respect of religion to the law. In todays society the idea of abortion is still a controversial idea. I believe that the court decision was right. There are times when a women or girl is not prepared to have a child, for reason that she can not support it, or will not care for it. By having the decision that the mother can make for herself, to not have the baby, is right, rather her being told that she has no choice, but to have it.
I believe in the right to an abortion, and that the decision of abortion should rest in the hands of the mother, not the government. In the year of 1973, a Texas citizen by the name of Roe brought a class action suit against the Supreme Court. She was denied her right to an abortion, which was argued against in a 7-2 decision in the court of law. The result of the case was that a woman could get an abortion as long as she is in the first trimester of her pregnancy, and later on if needed to save the mother. Roe’s lawyer, Weddington, argued that denying abortion is a violation of the 1st, 9th and 14th amendment. The argument used for 1st amendment was freedom of religion. Abortion is a religion based concept, some religions are pro-life and do not support the act of an abortion, and others believe it should be up to the mother. However, this amendment did not support Roe’s case as much as the 9th and 14th. The 9th amendment states that human rights are rights as long as they are not denied in the constitution. For example: abortion. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that no woman shall have an abortion, therefor abortion automatically is a right. The first section of the 14th amendment was argued in the case to prove that no state can take away the rights of any citizen, and proven by the 9th amendment, abortion is an automatic right. Also, the 14th amendment states that no person born or naturalized in the United States can be deprived of life, liberty, and property. Some may argue that that includes the fetus. I however, consider “born” as the day of delivery. When someone is asked for his or her birthday, they do not say the day of conception; they say the date at which they were born, the day of delivery. Personally, I believe that abortion should be legal, and the government cannot force a mother to keep a child. I agree in the ruling of this case, and I agree that the time for abortion should be during the beginning stages, and only in the later stages if necessary for the mother’s health. I believe that if the mother decided to have an abortion after the first trimester it could be considered murder, or a violation of the 14th amendment, because the fetus has formed into a baby, and is more human-like. The reason why I think that abortion should be legal in the first trimester is because the fetus as not yet become developed enough to look like a baby. I think this case is a huge turning point and landmark in our society. I think that the legalization of abortion is necessary for young women and teenagers because they are not yet mature enough for childbirth, and could not go through school carrying a child. This case changed the lives of many women, who were not yet ready to become mothers.
I believe the decision of getting a abortion is up to the mother and should only happen in the first and the very latest the second trimester of pregnancy. After reading about the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, I agree with the decision that ruled in favor of Jane Roe. The case was ruled in a 7-2 decision that stated that if Roe was denied the right of aborting her fetus, it would violate her fourteenth amendment rights. The fourteenth amendment states that all people "born" in the United States are citizens of America. All born U.S. citizens are protected under the law. Since the fetus is not born, Roe was granted the abortion, because it was her first term of pregnancy and did not fully develop yet. I think only the mother should have the decision of aborting her child in the first term of pregnancy because the mother would know what is best and nobody should question or pressure her. Although, aborting your child later than the second trimester of pregnancy I do consider murder, because then the fetus has had more time to develop and is more likely to live outside of the womb. I believe that the right of abortion is a necessity because many teenage girls make the mistake of getting pregnant and having a child is a big responsibility, so their right to abort their baby should be theirs.
In our world currently, lies one of the biggest debates on an issue that draws clashing views. This debate happens to be over the growing question of whether abortion should be legal. In the American class action suit of Roe v. Wade (1973), the United States Supreme Court made the landmark decision that made abortion legal as long as it was professionally done in the first trimester of pregnancy. During the second trimester of pregnancy, it was ruled that mother’s had the choice of abortion but states have the right to regulate the process. Anything after the second trimester is therefore illegal. My personal view on the issue of abortion is much like that of the ruling of the case of Roe v. Wade. Obviously it is ignorant for me to say that women do not have the right to abortions because I will never be pregnant, but the thought of killing a growing baby is something that I have trouble wrapping my mind around. I believe that abortion should only be legal in the first trimester of pregnancy. I truly believe this is the only right time for an abortion because mothers can get attached to their babies and will therefore be tougher on the mother’s mental state afterwards. Life is a beautiful thing and I find it wrong to deny any human that opportunity, but obviously I understand that there are exceptions such as rape and young pregnancy. Abortion is an issue that brings about truly different views, which I find to be very understandable. I am able to see both views and that is why I agree mostly with the result of the Roe v. Wade case of 1973. I believe the 7-2 decision made in this case was one that was right for the United States, and I hope that this decision will continue to stand as the law of our country.
The decision of the United States Supreme Court to legalize abortions in the case Roe V. Wade (1973) made it applicable to all fifty states. Universally in the United States a women could get a legal abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy; can have an abortion in the second trimester of the pregnancy with the states discrete; and there can be no abortions in the third trimester unless the mother life is at risk. The Supreme Court, taking into factor the beliefs of religions and the public norm, made this decision carefully. Many Christians believe that babies are alive at the moment of conception, while the Jews believe that they are alive once out of the mother’s womb. They went about the consideration of religion without making it a priority to the decision with the separation of church and state. They did it well. The regional aspect of public opinion makes a bigger deal in later semesters. The states are involved in the second and third trimester, which should be allowed. The United States Federal government has no authority over the ability to have or not to have abortions so they did over step their grounds. But since it came to the Court under appellate jurisdiction their ruling is justified. They did not violate the states right in the 10th Amendment saying that any power not given to the US Federal government is the states. The states still have the power to over look abortions in the second and third trimester. They also do a good job not violating the 9th Amendment saying that any right not denied the people in the constitution is the peoples right. The decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Roe V. Wade (1973) was very constitutionally sound. Sam Topham
In the case of Roe v. Wade(1973), The U.S Supreme Court decided in a 7-2 that abortion is a basic right under the U.S constitution using the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 14th amendments. In my opinion, the Supreme Court made the right decision in this case and did their best not to offend any religions with it. In Christianity, the strict interpretation of the Bible is that life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore saying that abortion is the murder of a child. Contrary to this belief, I believe that women should be able to make their own choice regarding their bodies. The Supreme Court’s ruling was correct in making the decision because if they had ruled the other way, there would a conflict in the separation of church and state in the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the 1st amendment. The decision kept the separation of church and state and keeping status quo on that end. The 4th amendment was used in the idea that the right of the people to be secure in their persons was used correctly by the Supreme Court because Jane Roe’s body was hers and she could do what she wanted. Along with the 1st and 4th amendments, the 9th amendment of ‘any right not prohibiting the people, is the people’s’ giving citizens the power to control their own government. Under the 14th amendment, the ruling applied to all states, allowing Roe to get an abortion. Overall, the Supreme Court made the right decision in the ruling of this case because they had constitutional backing in support of their decision, making abortions legal for the first trimester of pregnancy, and allows the states to use their discretion beyond that point of pregnancy, giving some regulation to the operation.
Though abortion is a very controversial topic, I believe that the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Roe v Wade very well. They used the 9th and 14th amendment in the proper way, supporting the decision that abortion is legal within the first trimester of pregnancy. They used the 9th amendment, which states that, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”. This means that if the Constitution doesn’t deny you of a certain right, then that is your right. Anything that is not forbidden in the Constitution is our right. Since the Constitution doesn’t say anything anywhere about abortions, that would mean that it is a woman’s right to an abortion. The second Amendment that the Supreme Court used to make their decision was the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment says, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Since a baby would be considered life, the State cannot deprive you of your right to an abortion. With these two amendments in mind, I believe that the court’s ruling was completely correct. Everyone has an opinion about abortion, and feel very strongly for one side or the other. Different religions, especially, have strong opinions about being pro-life or pro-choice. The Jewish Scripture says, only when the fetus comes into the world is it a person. The Greek Orthodox Catholic Church says a fetus is not a person until it has a soul, and the Roman Catholic Church says that abortion of any kind is condemned as an unspeakable crime. Every religion has very strong opinions about abortion, which the courts took into consideration, but left them out of their official decision, making abortions legal only in the first trimester. I think that the courts did a great job of separating church from state, as well as interpreting the law in the correct manner. For these reasons, I think that the rights given to women to have abortions is completely constitutional and a fundamental right for citizens to have. -Mary Corcran
In 1973, the Supreme court ruled in a 7-2 decision that abortion is a right protected under the United States Constitution, as long as it happens during the first trimester of pregnancy, or the second trimester depending on state regulation. I believe the Supreme Court ruled correctly on this case. Norma McCorvey, under the alias of Jane Roe, was a single pregnant woman in the state of Texas who claimed her pregnancy was a result of rape. She sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion, but Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the life of the mother. Roe took this class action case to the Supreme Court in hopes of overturning state law. She got her wish on January 22, 1973, when the Supreme Court overturned all state statues that prohibit abortions during the first three months of pregnancy. The official ruling detailed that during the first trimester, it is the mother’s choice and that there will be no state interference. If during the second trimester, it is the mother’s choice, but it will be regulated by the state. If in the third trimester, abortions will only be legal if it is to save the mother’s life. Here is why they were able to make this correct decision. First off, many religions frowned upon abortions and many considered them murder. However, the United States has no declared religion, therefore the law cannot be based of any religion. Roe, represented by Sarah Weddington, mainly used the 9th and 14th amendments to back up their argument. The 9th amendment says “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Or in other words, if the constitution does not specifically deny you of a right, then you have that right. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that abortions are unconstitutional. The 14th amendment says, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” Texas denied Roe the right to an abortion. This contradicted the Fourteenth amendment because a state was denying a person of their legal right. The defendant, Henry Wade, used the the 10th amendment is his counterargument. He claimed that if the federal government does not rule on an issue, then the power goes to the states to decide on that issue. However, the Supreme Court saw more evidence in the Constitution to protect the right of abortion. - Joel Mayo
I believe that the courts decision on the Roe v. Wade case is constitutionally sound. Based off the 9th amendment that states “there are other rights that may exist aside from the ones explicitly mentioned, and even though they are not listed, it does not mean they can be violated.” Since abortion is in no way mentioned in the constitution as being unlawful, citizens of the United States should not be denied the right to have an abortion. Also, the 14th amendment says, “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Since a baby is considered a form of life, the 14th amendment clearly allows any citizen to have an abortion if they so chose. Furthermore, the first amendment enforces the separation of church and state. Although in many religions abortions are not allowed it does not mean that abortions are illegal. The first amendment clearly states that religion is completely separate from the legal system. In conclusion, the court of law was completely justified in making the Roe v. Wade case a class action case stating that abortion is legal.
There have been many changes over the course of history in the United States of America. The Constitution has gone from a piece of paper to an important document that protects the citizens of our country. The Supreme Court has finally accepted the Constitution and are ruling based of what it states. One case that was a landmark decision for the United States was the case of Roe v Wade (1973). Roe v Wade (1973) was a class action suit that legalized abortion in the United States during the first trimester of pregnancy; after the first trimester is complete the process of abortion is under the discretion/regulation of the states. There are only two things that the states would allow you to have an abortion: prenatal health is in danger or if the mother’s health is in danger. If either of those criteria is met than a woman is allowed to have an abortion. Still to this day however, the argument on abortion is still a large debate. In Roe v Wade (1973) the United Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision that “a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment” (Oyez). The majority opinion however did state that “a woman [has] total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters” (Oyez). I agree with the majority opinion, the reason being that I too believe that it is a women’s right to privacy and that the Fourteenth Amendment protects her from anyone saying otherwise; however, lets start from the beginning. The reason for Norma McCorvey’s (Jane Roe) abortion was that she could not afford to raise a child. Her attorney’s, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, were young lawyers committed to the advancement of women’s rights and wanted to help her. In 1970, Roe sued Henry Wade, Dallas County district attorney, who was responsible for enforcing the state’s abortion laws in Dallas. The Court in Texas states, “single and married person had the right to decide whether or not to have children based upon the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments” (The Pursuit of Justice). Even though the lower courts accepted the constitution, they did not issue injunctions. Injunctions are legal orders directing someone to cease doing something – which in this case would forbid the states for enforcing the antiabortion laws. My legal opinion on the Texas courts decision was that they made the right decision; however, I do disagree in the fact that they did not issue injunctions.
What was the point of this case if nothing is being changed for not only McCorvey (Roe) but also other women that wish to have abortions? Norma McCorvey (Roe) decided to appeal to the Supreme Court, making this case appellate jurisdiction. Norma and her lawyers turned this case into a class action suit, representing all women wishing to receive an abortion. Roe, and her attorney’s Weddington and Coffee, argued that pregnancy is a burden on a woman and that the ban of abortion has a negative impact on their well-being. More importantly they argued that the right to an abortion was included in the Ninth Amendment and extended to McCorvey through the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Jay Floyd, the assistant attorney representing Wade argued, “women made their choice before they became pregnant by deciding to live in Texas and under its abortion laws. States such as Texas had a compelling interest in protecting fetal life at all times, he continued, because life beings at the moment of conception” (The Pursuit of Justice). I disagree with his argument. I believe that life does not being until there is a heart beat. The reason being is that if there is no heartbeat, than evidently it would not be alive, just as a dead adult does not have a heart beat. This was a new opportunity to grant women a fundamental right to an abortion based on the concept of privacy. I agree, the decision of this case changed everything; however, it is still a large dispute to this day. Later in the case, Powell concluded that antiabortion laws simply increase the number of illegally and dangerous abortions, which only gave McCorvey a stronger argument. I agree with Blackmun’s majority opinion. He said that if there was to be an abortion it is to be in the first trimester because it is safer for women’s health. I also agree with him when he says that the states can ban abortions in the 2nd trimester if they are in a viability state. After than, abortions were illegal unless needed for protection of the baby’s health or the mother’s health. In conclusion, I agree with the 7-2-majority opinion. I believe that McCorvey (Roe) had a stronger argument in which was supported well. The right of an abortion is protected under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. An abortion is a woman’s right to not have a child if they so choose, to a certain point. I strongly agree with Blackmun’s opinion when it comes to when the states can step in and take authority on the matter. After the first-trimester, I do believe it is murder to have an abortion, unless under extreme circumstances.
Sources: 1) Notes 2) Oyez 3) Text Book - The Pursuit of Justice 4) Olivia Good's Post
The majority opinion in Roe v Wade (1973), written by Justice Henry Blackman, was a seven to two majority vote to strike down Texas abortion laws and resulted in abortion being legal in every state in the United States. On January 22, 1973 the United States Supreme Court, using the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, overturned all state statues that prohibit abortions during the first three months of pregnancy. My legal assessment of the Roe v Wade (1973) decision is complete agreement with the decision made by the United States Supreme Court. Abortion is, and always has been, an extremely controversial topic and some may not morally agree with the Supreme Court’s decision, but through a closer look at the Constitution, one will see that the ruling is constitutional and gives options for all women facing pregnancy. Under the 1st Amendment, abortion laws are religious based; the Supreme Court’s decision helps support this by giving women the choice on what they want to do in regards to abortion and their religious beliefs. If one does not believe in abortion and it goes against their religious beliefs, then they do not have to have any part in it, therefore it does not violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The 4th Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their person”, I interpret this in regards to abortion as giving the woman her right to chose what she wants to do with her own body, this too is supported by the Supreme Court’s decision. Debatably the most controversial argument of all lies under the 14th Amendment where is states, “All persons born”, some believe that this includes fetuses and some do not. Although this statement causes major controversy, the Roe v Wade (1973) decision gives women the right to have their own opinion and interpretation of this Amendment and act upon it how they would like. Some may not agree with abortion, but when it comes down to it, it is a personal choice that should be made by the woman who is pregnant and not allowing abortion would be infringing on women’s constitutional rights. I am in agreement with the Supreme Court’s decision because it does not violate the constitution, or anyone’s constitutional rights, and it gives women the power to chose what they want to do with their own bodies, which is how it should be. - Emily Czajkowski
After considering the Supreme Court's ruling of Roe v Wade (1973), I do believe that they made the constitutionally just decision. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that abortions are constitutional by the 9th amendment right of citizens to all rights not prohibited in the constitution, and the 14th amendment right to privacy and incorporation in the states. Wade argued against abortion, citing the 10th amendment right that gave all powers not prohibited in the constitution to the states, and the 14th amendment that granted all rights to anyone "born" in the US. This argument, however, was rooted in religious values that argued life begins at conception; the court denied this argument, rightfully, as the constitution clearly states, by separating Church and State. To refute Wade's assertion, the court objectively defined "life" of a fetus: the fetus' life would be determined by its "viability", its ability to live outside the womb at any given moment, essentially stating that abortion cannot be murder if the fetus could not live on its own anyway. Based on this definition, any abortion in which the fetus was not viable (any abortion within the first trimester) would not be considered murder and would therefore be permitted by the constitution. This definition of life by the Supreme Court, I believe, is the most important declaration in the case: it put any opposition to rest, declaring that no matter what their personal/religious beliefs may be, the constitution, the law of the land, permits abortion.
The decision to legalize abortions in the Roe v. Wade (1973) made it possible for women in the U.S to have an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, can have an abortion in the second trimester of the pregnancy with the states discrete and there can be no abortions in the third trimester unless the mother well being or life at risk. there was a lot of controversy surrounding this decision by the Supreme Court. They looked to religions to see what there rules were. This is because many Christians feel that it is murder, the Jews believe in pro choice. The states are now only involved in the second and third trimester. The Federal Government is not allowed in the process. The Supreme Court ruled write in this case. They did not violate any amendment. The states still have the power to over look abortions in the second and third trimester. The decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Roe V. Wade was constitutional.
The 7-2 decision in Roe vs. Wade (1973) made abortion legal in the United States, if and only if the woman is in the first trimester of her pregnancy. I believe that in this case, the jury got came to the correct conclusion. I believe that unless you believe that the child is actually alive and living during the first stage of pregnancy, a woman has the right to choose whether or not to keep the baby. A case could be made that the baby would be murdered if it were killed, which is why the Supreme Court made the decision to make it illegal for an abortion during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. They believe that during the first trimester, the baby has not yet developed enough for it to be considered murder, so therefore a woman has the right to choose. Abortion has saved a lot of women from situations that would ruin their lives. Many women who are rape victims end up pregnant after the attack. A woman should not have go through with a baby who was conceived during a rape. This would be very damaging to the mother and her family. Another instance could be a young girl in high school who gets drunk and has unprotected sex. This girl may not be suited to become a mother. Having a baby would shake up her entire world as she knew it. It would mess up her schooling, her social life, her mental health, and her family life. However, I believe that abortion is wrong when the baby is capable of living on its own outside of her mother. There comes a point in pregnancy when the baby becomes able to survive on its own without needing her mother anymore. Killing a baby at this stage in the game would be considered murder and I believe it would be wrong. The Supreme Court made the right decision of making sure that after the first trimester of pregnancy, abortion is not legal and you would have to turn to other alternatives such as adoption. I believe that the Supreme Court got the case of Roe vs. Wade correct from both a legal standpoint, and from a moral standpoint. - Hunter Reynolds
In 1973 the United States Supreme Court made a vital decision affecting all fifty states. Abortion was and still is a hot-button topic with views varying all over the country. This court case decided that it is legal to have an abortion in the first trimester regardless of the situation or the states views. However, the state has loose restrictions in the second trimester and strict restrictions in the final third trimester where most states prohibit abortion. The Supreme Court made this decision diplomatically taking religion and the public’s opinion under consideration. This was a job well done by the Supreme Court, as they kept the perfect balance between religious beliefs and state government. As we went over in class different religions believe life begins at different times. Most Christians believe life starts when the baby begins to develop in the mother’s womb. Jews believe life starts when the baby is delivered out of the mother’s womb. The Supreme Court was effective in taking both religions under consideration using the trimester system. Constitutionally the Federal Court was sound. They did not violate the tenth amendment taking power away form the states as they aloud the states to make decisions regarding abortion in the second and third trimester. The ninth amendment, which grants any right that is not in the constitution to the people, was not violated by this court case. As the Supreme Court kept the right to have an abortion under official regulations. Overall the Federal Court did a good job not stepping over their boundaries in this ruling. Spencer Cookson
The Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade (1973) legalized abortion in the first trimester of a women’s pregnancy. The Supreme Court correctly interpreted the constitution in their 7 to 3 decision. Weddington argued the 1st Amendment by showing why a popular argument against abortion held no ground in the legality of abortion. Many people against abortion argued that it was wrong because according to the Bible life begins at conception and to kill an innocent person would be morally wrong. Weddington argued that the 1st Amendment requires a separation of church and state, and therefore what is said in the Bible cannot be used as a justification for a law, the Supreme Court must only rule based on the law and not morality. Weddington also used the 9th Amendment in her argument. The 9th Amendment says that any right that was not denied the people in the constitution is the peoples right. Weddington argued that abortion is not denied in the constitution therefore it must be a Roe’s right to have one. The lawyer for Wade apposed this by using the 10th Amendment, which says that any power not denied that states in the Constitution is the states power. The lawyers for Wade said that therefor Texas had the power to make abortion illegal. Weddington used the 14th Amendment to both apply the other amendments to the states, and also as an argument for why the 9th Amendment holds more ground than the 10th. The 14th Amendment states: “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” the Texas law outlawing abortion abridges the privileges of the citizens of the US therefore it is unconstitutional. The court’s decision legalized abortion in the first trimester, but it still allowed states to regulate it in the second and made it illegal in the third. The decision was based mostly off of the arguments for the 9th and 14th Amendments, and less so on the 1st and 5th. Their decision was based on the constitution instead of their personal feelings, which is why in my opinion this was the right interpretation of the constitution.
What is your legal assessment of the Roe v Wade (1973) decision by the United States Supreme Court?
Within the imperative Supreme Court Case of Roe v Wade (1973), a 7-judge majority opinion to 2-judge minority opinion ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, Norma L. McCorvey, or better known for her protected alias, “Jane Roe”. The Supreme Court Case arrived in court in 1970 when Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington filed a suit for “Jane Roe” in a U.S. District Court located in Texas. McCorvey, the Plaintiff, claimed that her pregnancy was one produced through rape, so she requested a legal abortion. The Dallas County District Attorney, a Texas Representative, Henry Wade, denied her request for an abortion. Her motion was brought to court under the basis that her 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendment rights were violated. The 1st Amendment Right was allegedly violated because abortion laws were religious based; the 4th Amendment Right was allegedly violated because Jane Doe was not “secure in their persons”, the 5th Amendment Right was allegedly violated because she was deprived of the due proves of law, the 9th Amendment Right was allegedly violated because she was deprived of a right that was not listed as a right or restriction, and her 14th Amendment Right was allegedly violated because of incorporation of states. The ruling decided based on the trimester of the pregnancy. During the first trimester of pregnancy, abortion is the mother’s choice and the States are unable to interfere with the decision. During the second trimester of pregnancy, it is the mother’s decision, but it is regulated by the state. And during the third trimester of pregnancy, it is only legal at “the point of viability”, meaning in order to save the mother’s life. I believe that the decision in the Supreme Court Case of Roe v Wade (1973) is for the most part, adequate. However, there are aspects of the decision that should be changed in order for protection of the mother and the unborn child. Greater lengths should’ve gone to protecting the unborn child, such as, I believe that a second term abortion should be strongly dissuaded. The first term, about three months long, should be long enough to make a decision whether to keep an infant or not. This is not only to protect the baby, but also the mother. This is because the mother could suffer from serious psychological detriments. Though I feel the laws should not change to be more restrictive, I feel greater measures should be taken to inform the pregnant women (in their second trimester) about how they can be affected and the possible consequences. The decision in Supreme Court Case of Roe v Wade (1973) was an accurate one because it allows choice however it also has protective restrictions. However, that is my personal belief. In the eyes of the law, I see that the belief of the start of life is also in many cases a violation of the 1st Amendment right of the U.S. Constitution because in some terms is religious based (on scripture/sacred text). Overall, I feel the choice of having a baby should be the choice of the mother because ultimately it should be her decision because it is her physical, mental, and economical wellbeing at stake.
In 1973, the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case decided the legality of abortions in the United States. The 7-2 decision was made that women may legally have abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy, leaving the legality of abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters up to the state decisions. While this is a very touchy, and complicated subject, I believe that the court made the correct ruling in this case. The idea of abortion is a religious based concept, specifically in the first trimester, and denying a woman the right to have an abortion at this time would be a violation of the 1st amendment, denying her freedom of religion. The right to have an abortion is also protected by the 9th amendment, stating that all human rights are rights, unless they violate the constitution. No where in the constitution does it say that a woman may not have the right to an abortion, therefore the right is protected. This changes however when a woman enters her later stages of pregnancy. When a fetus is viable (capable of surviving out of a mothers womb), I do not believe that it would be right for a woman to abort the fetus. At this stage in pregnancy, abortion would be ending the life of a viable human being, which would be murder. However, I do believe that abortion can in many cases be the right course of action. If a teen girl becomes pregnant and is unable to support and raise a child, then attempting to do so would be irresponsible. If a child is born into a world where its mother is unable to care for it, and support it, then it wouldn't be worth the suffering the child would most likely experience to have the child in the first place. In some cases, a woman needs to abort a fetus due to threat of her own life. If a woman is medically unable to carry a fetus without it being fatal to herself, then abortion must be available to that individual. I believe that the Supreme Court was correct in its decision on the Roe v. Wade case, and that the current laws of abortion are moral and fair.
After learning about the Roe vs. Wade case, I have decided that I agree that the result is fair and just. If you look at it from a constitutional standpoint, Roe clearly outmatches Wade. The first amendment protected Roe from religion. Because abortion is religious based and the United States separates church and state, religious ideas can not be a basis of why the abortion should not occur. The 9th amendment states that human rights are definite rights as long as the constitution does not deny them. The constitution never says that women do not have the right to abort their child. The 14th amendment states that no citizen of the USA can be deprived of life, liberty, and property. I truly believe that the woman should have the right to abort her child or not. The decision that it is legal to abort in the first trimester is a good one because it is a compromise of some sorts. I know that some people truly believe that it is murder, and although there is some validity behind that, women baring children can only be controlled so much. In the end, it is their child.
I’ve always considered myself pro-choice because I believe it is the women’s body and she has the right to do with is as she pleases, as the fourth amendment states, “the right of the people to be secure in their person.” I think the very, specific laws and decision made by the Supreme Court was justly fit. They give women the option of abortion within the first two trimesters, although in the second trimester there is some state regulation. This was a difficult court decision to make and I think they handled it rather well. These court rulings affected the laws in forty six of our fifty united states. This independence and responsibility given to women was, in my opinion, a step towards progress. Also, leaving the controversy of abortion to the state government makes it a flexible procedure, because if the woman lives in a state where it is prohibited at whichever stage of pregnancy she decides she no longer wants the baby, she could have it done somewhere it is allowed.The definition of the word “born” also played a significant role in this decision. If the court would have ruled it legal past the point the chose, they would essentially be legalizing murder. Overall, I believe this court decision has helped many lives and females caught in difficult predicaments. Although, the procedure of removing a fetus from within a woman’s body could have many complications if the woman is willing to take that risk with her body, then I don’t think the government should have the right to hinder her from making decisions concerning her own body. It’s almost better for a fetus not to be born, than be born into a situation where no one wants it or does not have the means to take care of it. While I also believe adoption may be the best option, I don’t think the government really needs a say in these situations, but when brought to the Supreme Court, I don’t think there was a better way to respond to the case.
The Supreme Court’s decision on the laws of abortion are completely plausible and the best decision in any situation, even in the modern era. The Roe vs Wade case is a great example of how the constitution was used correctly to justify the laws on abortion. According to the 9th Amendment of the United States Constitution it states “The enumeration in the Constituition, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”, which means that whatever is not outlawed in the Constitution, can be acquired as a right of the people. At the time of the Roe vs Wade case, there was no law prohibiting abortion; therefore Jane Roe had the right to an abortion properly operated by a qualified doctor. Also according to the 5th Amendment of the United States constitution, it states that the government cannot deprive citizens of life, liberty or property to which Jane Roe held the rights. She obtained the right to privacy under the 14th Amendment also which was the ultimate decision of the court to the reasoning to state the Dallas State Law unconditional. The ruling of the court has affected 46 other states in the country, which indicates how significant the decision of the court was. In my opinion, the option of having an abortion is perfectly logical, however it should not be taken for granted, as the procedure is nothing to play with. There are multiple complications that come with the process, which can lead to long-term malfunctions of the reproductive system. However, it has definitely been a positive affect on society because people have found themselves in unsolicited situations where the only way to satisfy it is through abortion.
In the 1960s, there was no federal law regulating abortions. The fight to allow women the choice to have an abortion began in Texas in 1973. Throughout Texas and most of the United States, abortions were outlawed unless a doctor determined that the mother’s life was in danger. Jane Roe, which was an alias, challenged this new law and eventually changed the opinions of millions of Americans. Two main conflicting opinions arose once this trial was taken to the highest court in the land. The issue involved basic faiths. Those who argued that the unborn child deserves as much protection as does an adult, also thought that ending such a life is thought to be murder. On the other hand, others argued that life begins at birth so an abortion is not considered murder and women should have the right to choose based on their health and other personal reasons. From the Roe vs. wade trail, the government legalized abortions in the first trimester of the pregnancy, as well as in the second trimester with the states interest to protect the mother, but none in the third trimester. Personally, I agree with the outcome of the Roe vs. Wade trial. I believe it is up to the women carrying the child to decide whether or not to have an abortion, as long as it is in her best interest as well as in the first or early second trimester. Although there are precautions one can take many people have unwanted pregnancies. In many cases young adults or even teenagers who aren’t ready to have a child find themselves in that position. Abiding by the fourteenth amendment, a fetus is not a citizen of the United States because it is not yet born. Early on in her pregnancy, Roes’ fetus was only beginning to develop in the womb, permitting her the right to have an abortion. I imagine making the decision to abort your child is one no person wants to make, but if someone is going to make that decision it should only be the mother.
In the Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade of a woman’s right to an abortion, my legal assessment is that the constitution was interpreted correctly. Under the constitution, the suit was an alleged violation of Jane Roe’s right to privacy. The constitution protects the rights to privacy, which includes the decisions women make about their own bodies. Under the 14th and 9th Amendment, in incorporation to the states, since the denial of an abortion is not written in the constitution, it is legal. Under the 14th Amendment, “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Under the 1st Amendment, a woman cannot be denied the right to abortion based on religion; the law is written in the separation of church and state. For those who believe that abortion goes against their own morals or religion, they shall be able to make the decision on abortion for themselves, but not make the decision for other people. The United States promotes freedom for its citizens. Under the founding father’s intent for liberty, abortion allows the individual to make the decision. Under the 9th Amendment, the constitution cannot deny a woman an abortion or take away a person’s life, liberty, or property. To define this more clearly, in Roe v Wade, a conclusion was reached that specified what stages during pregnancy abortion is legal to clarify what points of development around variability. In the court’s decision, during the first trimester of pregnancy, the woman is entitled to make the decision; during the second trimester, it is still the mother’s decision, but it is regulated by the state; and in the third trimester, the pregnancy has reached the point of variability so abortion is no longer legal unless in a case of emergency. Justice Harry Blackmum wrote on the case’s decision the right to abortion, which served as a class action suit that has had a major impact on society. Today, women are able to make the controversial and difficult decision on the topic of abortion for themselves.
My legal assessment of the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision in favour of Jane Roe in Roe vs. Wade (1973) is that the court interpreted the constitution in the most accurate manner through the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments. Norma McCorvey, who filed suit underneath the name of Jane Roe, claimed that she became pregnant as a result of a rape. As a result, she decided to try and get an illegal abortion by a licensed doctor since it was law in the state of Texas forbidding the practice unless it was to save a mother’s life. Ms. McCorvey took this case to the Supreme Court in 1970 alongside her attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington. The suit was based off the violation of rights mainly in the 1st, 9th and 14th Amendments. Weddington was able to deduce that the abortion laws were almost solely based off religion. And the citizens of the United States have freedom of religion. I agree fully with Elizabeth on the role of the 1st Amendment in this court case. The separation of church and state in all laws and decisions should be upheld and never be brought up to justify anyone’s opinion. Yes the religious opinion is a valid one, but the morality of the abortion practice should not have been used in this case. According to the 9th Amendment if the constitution does not deny you of a right, then you have that right. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that a woman cannot have an abortion. Therefore, they should be able to choose whether or not they want to have one or not. In the 14th Amendment, it states “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law…” The state of Texas was denying Ms. McCorvey her right to have an abortion. Since that right isn’t being denied to her anywhere in the constitution, she should have the right. Eventually the case went in favour of Norma McCorvey to legalize abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, give the mother the choice in the second trimester by the regulation by the state, and only make it legal to abort a baby in the third trimester to save the mother’s life (point of viability). Henry Wade and the state of Texas did not have enough constitutionality backing their argument while Norma McCorvey did. The people now have more of a decision on abortion than the states do, which I agree with Elizabeth, that it allows the country to be a better democracy. Giving the people the power to choose during the first trimester, the people to choose under state regulation in the second and only legalizing it to save the mother’s life in third makes total sense and gives both parties equal say in the decisions regarding abortion, which is why I believe that the court ruling in favour of Roe and making just laws on abortion was indeed very constitutional.
I believe the court interpreted the Constitution well in the Supreme Court decision in favor of Jane Roe in Roe vs. Wade (1973). Norma McCorvey (using the name Jane Roe in court) was denied an abortion in Texas. She brought the issue to the Supreme court, where her attorney, Sarah Weddington, argued that the ban on abortion violated Roe's 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendment rights. The first amendment gave Jane Roe the freedom of religion. Weddington argued that the illegalization of abortions in Texas was based on religious beliefs, which would deny Roe of her religious freedom. Although religion may have been a part in illegalizing abortions in Texas, I find that this amendment would be hard to prove because Texas could have interpreted life to start in the womb, which would have made abortion illegal because it was depriving that embryo of life (not because a religion didn't believe in abortion). So, although I do believe religion was a reason for this law, this argument would not be enough to reverse the decision. The Fourth Amendment states that everyone has"the right of the people to be secure in their persons…". This would also be a hard argument to make since this Amendment is intended to protect United States citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. Not only was it not intended for the security Roe was asking for but the fourth amendment clearly states protection from "unreasonable searches and seizures" if the phrase Sarah Weddington used were to be continued. It would be extremely difficult to interpret the U.S. Constitution to the extent Sarah was asking for. The 9th Amendment says that if the Constitution doesn't deny you of a right, then you have that right. Since the United States Constitution does not say anything denying Jane Roe an abortion, then it must be her right. There is no arguing with this. The 14th Amendment makes the United States Constitution applicable to state governments. The State of Texas denied Jane Roe her constitutional right to an abortion. Nowhere in the Constitution is Norma denied this right, so she must be able to have it. Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) won the right to an abortion in the first trimester, a choice in the second trimester with regulation from the state, and no abortions with the exception to save the mother's life in the 3rd trimester. I believe that this decision was a good interpretation of the Constitution, and it has really helped to empower women in the United States. The laws allowing and restricting abortion right now, in my opinion, are good ones that should remain as they for now. Although birth control should always be used first to prevent unwanted pregnancies, having abortion legalized is an important safety net and right to all women and men.
Does the Constitution contain the right of a woman to obtain an abortion, nullifying the Texas prohibition? This was the constitutional predicament in Roe vs. Wade, a class action suit; however, on January 22, 1973 the U.S. Supreme court deemed, in a 7-2 decision, that abortion does in fact hold its legitimacy. Based on the 9th and 14th amendments, it would seem that abortion is a right and there should be no legal constraints. The ease of this decision was not easily perceived by Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County from 1951 to 1987, whom argued against Norma McCorvey’s, in documents Joe Roe, assertion that she had the legal right to an abortion. Wade, who enforced a Texas law that prohibited abortion except to save a woman’s life, argued that the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy; thus, the states uphold their power to decide if abortion is legal or not. Wade used the 10th amendment as the base of his argument, saying that Federal Government would be overstepping its authority as a court; therefore, he thought that it is the job of state legislatures to determine how abortions should be regulated, not federal courts. The 10th amendment states that any power not specifically granted to the government in the Constitution, is the state’s right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention abortion; thus, Wade sought that Texas’ rights would be violated, by the federal government, if they could not deem abortion as legal or illegal. What also made this decision very controversial was that many conceive the idea of birth differently. Many believe that the start of one’s life is the day of their birth; however, many religious groups believe that birth is considered right at conception. In the United States, there must be a separation between church and state, this means that the court cannot argue with a religiously bias point. This means that the use of the word “person” in the Constitution does not include a fetus; thus, the fourteenth amendment cannot be interpreted to protect the unborn. The 14th amendment was further used in Weddington’s, Roe’s lawyer, argument that abortion should be a state’s ultimate decision. The Fourteenth Amendment states "No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Different abortion laws in each state prevents certain women in states with restrictive laws from accessing abortions, while wealthier women can travel elsewhere to have a legal and safe abortion; thus, there is no equality. Furthermore, The Fourteenth Amendment says, "No State shall…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This means that the government cannot infringe on liberty and any law that infringes on liberty has to be very precise. Any law that infringes on a protected liberty is presumed to be unconstitutional; thus, denying someone the right to an abortion would be infringing upon his or her liberty. Furthermore, Weddington argued the ninth amendment protects one’s privacy in making their own decision. The ninth amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” Ultimately, this is saying that people retain other rights that are not explicitly listed in the Constitution, if it is not denied, it is a given right. Nowhere in the constitution is abortion denied; thus, it should be a given right. People have the right to privacy; this includes freedom of choice.
In Roe v. Wade, the court established a law using the due process clause in the 14th amendment that permits a women the right to decide if they would or would like to bear their child. The law itself is logical and fair due to multiple, previously existing amendments that must be obeyed under every circumstance, starting with: the 9th amendment's right to anything that is not denied to you in the constitution, and because this was the first case dealing with abortion, there were no laws previously created that classified it as illegal. Secondly, in order to make abortion illegal, the rights in the constitution would have to apply to the baby itself, which could not be possible because a baby in the womb is dependent on its mother in order to be born and become an individual, until it was an individual, those rights would not apply to it. In addition, the case behind the creation of the law Is arguably logical as well if the mother does not want the child due to inability to provide for them, or rape. Before the creation of the law, Roe was threatened with prosecution by Weddington if an abortion took place, which would be illegal in itself because abortion isn’t mentioned in the constitution, therefor not illegal, and if she were to be prosecuted it would be murder for killing an innocent. So, the case that created the law that classified abortion as legal and the law itself is completely constitutional.
The practice and legality of abortion in the United States is being debated to this day. But thankfully we are able to look to the Supreme Courts 7-2 decision made in 1973 for the case of Roe v. Wade in order to better understand and move forward on this issue while abiding by the constitution. Faced with an overwhelming amount of cultural influences, religious viewpoints and rights to protect, I believe the Supreme interpreted the case of Roe v. Wade, as well as the constitution, correctly. In order to interpret and understand the legality, and ultimately the decision of this case, it is necessary to examine the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments. Those five rights were considered during the trial and eventually considered in the Supreme Courts decision as the rights of privacy or “marital privacy” that Roe held. The 1st amendment considered the religious influence surrounding abortion laws. The 4th pertained to a citizen’s protection from unlawful searches and seizers, in Roe’s case her request for this surgery was private and her rights were indeed violated when prevented from having the surgery. The 5th was included to ensure the due process of law was upheld not only for Roe, but the child she was having. This became a point of debate, as the Court had to then determine when the fetus should be considered “alive”, therefore receiving rights and requiring its right of the due process of law. The 9th protected against state infringement of unremunerated rights like marital privacy in the case of Roe. Lastly the 14th amendment, specifically the Due Process Clause, made the bill of rights (some of the rights included and considered by the court to be “marital privacy”) binding to the state governments as they were held to the same standard as the Federal government. Including the 14th and Due Process clause made if evident that the Supreme Court did not believe in passing legislation that intrudes too far into the personal lives of citizens. This collection of rights, which served as Roe’s right to privacy, helped the court correctly interpret and uphold the constitution in the case. In the end the Supreme Court voted 7-2 in favor of Roe, resulting in the overturning of all the state statutes that prohibited abortion in the first three months of pregnancy. Additionally, the Supreme Court determined that in certain cases of pregnancy past three months, states can restrict access to abortion with law, but only under the notion of protecting the woman’s health and life. With the case resulting in an almost unanimous decision, I think that the US Supreme Court interpreted the constitution correctly, protected the rights of Roe, and established a new constitutional right for women in the US that they deserved. -Grayson Keith
Roe v. Wade deals with an emotional topic that somehow had to be dealt with unemotionally by the court. In certain ways that are stated under the law, abortion should be completely legal. The best example of this is the 9th amendment which deals with any rights the are not stated under the constitution. If it is not specifically stated that it is not allowed constitutionally for a women to get an abortion then it is in fact legal, and the choice is up to the mother. Women should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies because of this. That being said, the 14th amendment also plays a part in this. Under this amendment abortion can also be legal. The 14th also says, "No State shall…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” If someone wants the liberty to have an abortion, that is their right and cannot be taken away from them. However, there are contradictory statements within the constitution that make this case much more complex. Also in the 14th and in the 1st amendment, it states that life cannot be compromised which technically an abortion is depriving life if one is had. This "unborn" person has no control over what happens to them and could be interpreted that the right of life is being taken from them. However, it is stated that the said person must be born in order to have rights, and everyones interpretaion of this is different. Some people think its right at consception and some people belive its when the baby is out of the womb, in the world, and anywhere in between those two. You can see how it would be hard for the court to make a sound decision, because either way the decision was going to upset different groups of people. The law can be interpreted in many way which can make it extremely difficult to make a sound decision under the law.
Roe vs. Wade was an important case which changed and will continue to change the lives of women all over the country. The Supreme Court’s decision allowed for women to terminate a pregnancy within the first trimester of the pregnancy, or the second trimester state permitting. Many religious people believed that this decision was wrong. Their opinion came from their core belief that life begins at conception. Although there are many different religious beliefs as to when life begins, the Supreme Court could not base their decision on any of the religious beliefs. The justices could only interpret the law as it stands. The first amendment states that state and church should be separated making the religious aspect invalid in the court of law. The ninth amendment was very important in the decision of the Supreme Court as well. The ninth amendment states that any powers not denied by the people are retained by the people and also that people have the right to privacy of their bodies. With regards to this case, there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution. This allows for women to retain the right to an abortion and also her right to privacy was violated. The Supreme Court ruled correctly with the application of the first and ninth amendments. Whether or not the decision was moral does not matter, it should be up to the woman, the person who is giving birth, to decide whether or not she would like to carry out the act of giving birth. It is a woman’s right to the privacy of her body.
Roe v. Wade case is a decision made by the US Supreme Court to allow abortion, and I think it is just and an appropriate decision. "In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that abortions are constitutional by the 9th amendment right of citizens to all rights not prohibited in the constitution, and the 14th amendment right to privacy and incorporation in the states." (Dillon Cunningham) This decision is so extreme and there are an endless amount of different opinions on this case. If a child has not come out of the womb of their mother yet, and it is decided to be aborted, I think that is not murder. Many people argue that it is murder, but the law states that during the first trimester of the pregnancy, the baby is not developed enough. However, the law states that it is illegal to abort a baby during the second and third trimester of a woman's pregnancy because the baby is too far along in the process of pregnancy. Woman/Mothers should have the right to choose what they want to do to their baby and body and that is why I agree with the Roe v. Wade decision of allowing abortion. -Hanna Derrig
The first, fourth and ninth amendments were used in a beneficial way and "claiming that abortion is religious-based, people have the right to be secure in their own body, and that any laws not prohibiting the people are retained by the people." (Jack L.) This supports my opinion of approval on how abortion is legal in the first trimester because ultimately, the mother should have the choice of whether or not she should have the baby. I think the US Supreme Court made a tough, yet correct decision by looking at the Constitution closely and making abortion legal in the first trimester of pregnancy.
Abortion is a topic many people have strong opinions about; it is a question of when life begins. Whether life starts at birth or at the time of conception, some people say that the baby has to have a heartbeat and others believe it is when the fetus can feel pain. Back in 1973 a decision about an abortion was made so big that it was sent to the United States Supreme Court and the Court ruled in a 7-2 decision that the abortion of Jane Roe’s unborn child constitutional. This decision made this an important case due to the amount of amendments to the Constitution that were involved. Jane Roe was another name for Norma McCorvey, when she was 21 she said that her third pregnancy happened because of a rape. Sarah Weddington was Jane Roe’s lawyer, and the Supreme Court ruled the abortions constitutional. I agree with the decision of the court because the followed the United States Constitution. Roe vs. Wade involved the 9th and the 14th amendment. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state the abortion is prohibited therefore it was her decision to get an abortion. -Lane Mayher
In this particular case the Supreme Court made a very smart decision in allowing all abortions within the first trimester and some in the second trimester. They thought of peoples needs economically and religiously. For people who are under the belief that a fetus has a soul they received some good news when the supreme court made third trimester abortions illegal once the fetus got to the point where it could survive outside the womb. This decision is great and to me, not controversial. The court thought of all who may be affected of this decision, including an unborn fetus, and made the proper decision using the 14th, 9th and 1st amendment. This decision is validated and supported by the 9th amendment. The 9th amendment of course means any right not disallowed by the state is right the people have. No where in the constitution does it say anything about abortions being illegal therefor American women should have the right to choice. The court used the 14th amendment to apply the rights of the 9th amendment at the state level to get rid of state laws prohibiting abortions. This to me is a great decision by the Supreme Court that gives American women a powerful right of choice allowing them to have more say in what happens to their body. -Luke Amero
In Roe v Wade (1973), the United States Supreme Court ruled that abortion is legal until after the first trimester, where then it is regulated by the states. In a 7-2 ruling, the court ruled that a woman has the privacy to have an abortion, which falls underneath the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Roe’s counsel, Weddington, also used the 1st, 4th, and 9th amendments, claiming that abortion is religious-based, people have the right to be secure in their own body, and that any laws not prohibiting the people are retained by the people. I believe that from a legal standpoint, the court made the correct decision giving a pregnant women the choice of abortion until after the first trimester, after which the states regulate the laws of pregnancy in the second trimester. The United States Supreme Court, in my opinion, correctly interpreted both the 9th and 14th amendments. The 9th amendment applies to abortion because there is no right in the US Constitution that states that a woman can not get an abortion, therefore she is granted that right. The Supreme Court ruled that women in all 50 states can legally have an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy, then using the 14th amendment to give states the right to decide the laws of abortion during the second. During the third trimester, if the baby is viable, there is no legal abortion, the woman must have the child, unless the pregnancy puts the mother’s life in danger. Overall, I think the Supreme Court fully enforced the US Constitution and gave an unbiased, lawful decision in the end.
The courts decision on Roe v wade was in the best interest of all the people either against are pro abortion. We still leave the privacy of women in their own hands by giving them a decision which makes sure their constitutional rights are not infringed upon, but instead the court decided, "up until the point of viability" Concluding that the unborn child cannot be aborted if it can survive outside of the womb. I believe this is the best politically correct answer and the court made the right decision due to the fact that the length of a women's first trimester is ample time to consider the option of abortion. Even those against abortion must realize that the 14th and 9th amendment must be upheld and if there is any further decision such as after the first trimester those laws will be left to the state government to decide upon. I personally believe that this was a fair and correct interpretation of our constitution; the simple fact that abortion was not apart of our constitution pre-trial we have to accept the legality of the supreme courts decision.
The Supreme Court Decision in Roe vs. Wade (1973) was an accurate interpretation of the Constitution, and I believe it was the correct decision. The 7 to 2 majority vote to remove Texas abortion laws was the right decision. Based solely off of the Constitution, not including any religious views, a woman has more of her rights violated if she is not given the choice to have an abortion or not, compared the baby. Jane Roe had her first amendment right violated because abortion laws were religious based. Her fourth amendment right was violated because people have “the right to be secure in their persons.” Her fifth amendment was violated because she was not provided the due process of law. Her ninth amendment was violated because if there is not a right prohibited in the Constitution, then it is the right of the people. Lastly her fourteenth amendment was violated as well. The right argued to be violated when defending the baby’s life is the fourteenth amendment. It states all persons born are citizens and deserve equal protection of the law. However the definition of born is “existing as a result of birth.” Therefore the baby is not technically alive and a part of this world yet, so the fourteenth amendment can be and was argued to not apply. The Supreme Court’s new rules and regulations after this case created a fair balance between protecting women and their choice of that right and protecting state’s potential citizens. The Supreme Court overturns all state rules that prohibit abortions during the first three months of pregnancy. During the first trimester, it is completely up to the mother and the state cannot interfere. During the second trimester it is still up to the mother, but the state can regulate. During the third trimester, it is the point of viability. Overall the decision used the Constitution well and addressed the main issue of maintaining balance. Although the topic of abortion is still very controversial, the Supreme Court came up with the appropriate decision.
After reviewing the case of the Roe v Wade (1973) decision by the United States Supreme Court, I personally agree with the Supreme Courts Decision because I believe they interpreted the U.S Constitution correctly. The first step I took to decide if I agreed with the ruling was by looking at the facts of the case. The Plaintiff, Norma L. McCorvey, was ruled in favor. She claimed that her pregnancy was the result of a rape, so she requested a legal abortion. I believe whether it is a rape or not, women are able to make the decision of aborting a child or not because it is there body. Also, if the court told Ms. McCorvey that she could not have an abortion, they are violating her first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendment rights. Her first amendment was violated because abortion laws were religious based. Her fourth amendment was violated because “The right of the people to be secure in their persons...” Her fifth amendment was violated because the due process of law. Her ninth amendment was violated because rights not prohibited the people are the peoples. Last, her fourteenth amendment was violated because of incorporation to the states. Considering that five of her amendments were violated she should be legally allowed to make her own decision. On January 22nd, 1973 Supreme Court overturns all state statues that prohibit abortions during the first three months of pregnancy. The issue with the decision was, what as the balance between a woman's 9th amendment right to the privacy of her body and the states duty to protect the potential life of its citizen. But I believe in this case the best decision to make. The First trimester no state interference, it is up to the mother. The second trimester, mother's decision, but regulated by the state. The third trimester is the point of viability, abortions only legal to save the life of the mother. The Supreme Court decision is the only decision that is appropriate for everyone. There could be many reasons why women say they do not want to have their child but it is their decision. Although this is a very personal subject, the law should allow anyone to make any decision they choose too. Although many people and religions believed this decision was wrong, this was solemnly the best decision with using the U.S. Constitution and that is why I strongly agree with the 7-2 courts decision. Though a state cannot completely deny a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life at various stages of pregnancy.
Sources Elizabeth Hosage Roe, a pregnant single woman, brought a class action suit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas abortion laws. These laws made it a crime to obtain or attempt an abortion except on medical advice to save the life of the mother. Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit included Hallford, a doctor who faced criminal prosecution for violating the state abortion laws; and the Does, a married couple with no children, who sought an injunction against enforcement of the laws on the grounds that they were unconstitutional. The defendant was county District Attorney Wade .A three judge District Court panel tried the cases together and held that Roe and Hallford had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies, and that declaratory relief was warranted. The court also ruled however that injunctive relief was not warranted and that the Does’ complaint was not justiciable. Roe and Hallford won their lawsuits at trial. The district court held that the Texas abortion statutes were void as vague and for over broadly infringing the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs. The Does lost, however, because the district court ruled that injunctive relief against enforcement of the laws was not warranted. The Does appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the United States and Wade cross-appealed the district court’s judgment in favor of Roe and Hallford. The Court ruled that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman a right to abortion during the entirety of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters. Many religions identify the moment a life is created as the moment of conception. Although this is a respectable opinion it is based on a religion. The constitution's 1st amendment separated Church and State in all laws and decisions hence it was the Supreme Court's job to only use the constitution to interpret the legality of abortion, not the morality of abortion. The courts interpreted the law well because a fetus in the womb is not yet a citizen hence the unborn baby is not protected by the 14 amendment but when the fetus reaches the second and third trimesters the fetus has a possibility of surviving on its own i.e. (Outside of its mother’s womb) hence on some level when the fetus reaches these stages it might reserve the right to be protected by the 14 amendment hence the supreme court made the right decision by making it up to states to judge if women could get abortions during the second and third trimesters.
In the court case Roe Vs. Wade, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that in a certain amount of time, a woman could legally get an abortion. After this time period, it could be considered an interest of the state. This decision came about because in Texas a woman was denied an abortion but did not want to have the child. This case slowly made its way to the Supreme Court where two main amendments where brought into question. The first being the 9th Amendment, this was argued by the complainant against Texas. The woman fighting in court was Jane Roe, which was an alias; she was aided in court by Sarah Weddington. Together they argued that according to the 9th amendment of the US constitution, any right not denied in the constitution was our right. This was apparent, because abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. On the other hand, the defense, argued primarily with the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which said that any power not given to the National Government was then a state power, and subject to regulation by the means of the state in the opinion of the state. In this case, Texas believed it had the right to regulate abortion because that was not ever stated as being up to the National Government. In the end, the Supreme Court gave into each side a little and created a compromise. The Supreme Court ruled that in the first trimester of pregnancy, a woman cannot be denied an abortion if that is her wish. If she is in her second trimester, the state can step in and regulate these abortions because they are after the first three months of pregnancy. In addition to these abortions, if they are allowed and executed, the procedure must be done at a state facility. The last part of the decision was that in the third trimester, which is when viability begins an abortion is illegal. Viability means, if the baby was to be born then it would have a chance of living. In this time, the only way for the termination of the pregnancy is if it to save the life of the mother. I think in a case with great controversy due to many different beliefs as to when life begins, the Supreme Court made a decision that can be beneficial to most people who have an opinion about it. Abortion is something that can save the life of many young girls who otherwise would have to give up their lives to raise a child who might not benefit from having everything it needs. I agree with the decision made in 1973.
In the Roe vs. Wade case the court debated on whether banning abortion was permitted by the constitution. McCorvey, or Jane Roe, was a 21-year-old female who falsely asserted that she had been raped so that she could legally abort her baby. Her plan was unsuccessful and couldn’t receive an illegal abortion because all clinics were shut down. With attorneys Coffee and Waddington she fought her case in court, and it took them three years to reach the Supreme Court, which by that point the baby in question had been born and adopted. In a 7-2 vote, it was decided by the court that it was constitutional to allow abortion. The controversy of this decision is still debated largely around the country because many debated when a child is considered born. If a child is born during conception, then abortion would be considered murder, whereas if a child is born at birth then abortion is not murder. To come to a consensus the ninth amendment and the fourteenth amendment were the most debated. Focusing particularly on the ninth amendment, since abortion is not directly banned by the constitution, it is the right of Roe, and any other women to abort a baby. However restrictions were applied to protect the mother as after the first trimester, risks of repercussions from abortions increase. The court emphasized that the safety and health of the mother were large focuses. The fourteenth amendment declares that the States do not have the right to take away the freedoms given to citizens through the amendments. As already discussed with the 9th amendment, by disallowing abortion in Texas, that state was interfering with her rights and therefor the ruling of the court allowed abortion. I personally agree with the ruling of the courts because since a child is creates such an impact in ones life, it would be wrong for states or the government to oppose these changes against ones wishes, especially when abortion is not already banned through the constitution. For those against abortion for moral or religious reasons are not forced to partake in the procedure, but allowing unprepared mothers the freedom of choice of whether they can support another human being, in my opinion was the right choice.
I believe that the right to have an abortion is a personal matter and should be the decision of the female. In the Roe vs. Wade case (1973); there was a controversial issue with the abortion rights of an individual in Texas. Basically this case captures the essence of a woman's personal rights and how there should be a set of laws with the timing of abortion procedures. Laws came into place and they were basically that a woman can decide within the firsts three months if she wants to have an abortion. States can restrict abortion rights only if it is in the best interest of the woman. The last one being “Once the fetus is viable, an abortion must still be available if the woman's health or life are at risk. State governments are free to pass legislation that will allow or prohibit late-term abortions -- those on a viable fetus -- for other reasons.”(rtolerance) These are the three laws that were created after the case had been completed. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of personal privacy where it is “implicit in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” The Due Process of Law basically protects and guarantees fairness, justice, and liberty to all citizens.(religoustolerance.org) The Supreme Court declared a Texas anti-abortion statute unconstitutional and thereby instituted these three laws. It is in the hands of the woman to make the decision unless one is over the first trimester. So, my overall legal assessment after analyzing the factual evidence of this case would be that the Constitution had made a just decision and interpreted it perfectly.
My legal assessment of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court case is that the constitution was correctly interpreted. Jane Roe lied saying she was raped so she was allowed to get an abortion, however she was found out. She tried then to get an abortion illegally, but was unsuccessful there too. So she took her case to court. She and her lawyer eventually reached the Supreme Court and won their case. The outcome was that if the mother is still in her first trimester, she has the right to an abortion. If she is in her second trimester, it s up to the state to decide. And finally, if she is in her third trimester when the baby is almost fully developed, an abortion would be considered murder and therefore unconstitutional. Roe’s lawyer argued the 9th, 10th, and 14th amendment. The 9th amendment states that any right not directly stated in the Constitution is the right of the people, and since abortions are not mentioned anywhere in the constitution, abortion is the right of the people. The 14th amendment states that the states do not have the right to take away rights of any people that are not described in the Constitution. By arguing the 9th and the 14th amendments, Roe’s lawyer correctly interpreted the United States Constitution and won her case. I believe the way she approached this case and the outcome of it is completely legitimate and right.
After reading about the Roe vs. Wade case about abortions, I agree with the courts decision. As a young woman, you are not ready to be a mother and most times the parents of the pregnant young lady cannot take care of the baby as well. Teenagers now a days are having sex more which then leads to pregnancy and if you are a teenager in high school, getting pregnant would ruin your school career. An abortion would save the teen from losing her school career. I also believe that abortion can be bad depending on how late you do it. What the court did which was smart, was they stated the woman was allowed an abortion until viability. Viability they stated is when the baby would be able to survive outside the womb which would be around 28 weeks. This makes sense because if you were going to have an abortion, have it once you find out so the baby isn't fully developed yet and still very, very small. Why would anyone stay pregnant for 8 months and then decide to have an abortion and at that time, the baby would be almost fully grown. Once 28 weeks has been finished, if you still do not want the baby than you can have it and give it up for adoption. Many parents who cannot have kids would love to have one. Overall, the courts decision on the Roe vs. Wade case was in my legal assessment a smart and helpful decision that is fair for people with/against abortion.
ReplyDelete-Cody Lucey
The Court's decision that a woman's right to an abortion, fell within that woman's right to privacy which falls under the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first, second and third trimester. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. These two arguments show that this was not an easy decision to rule on. As a result, 46 states where affected by the Court's ruling and changed their laws regarding abortions. Personally, I agree with the courts decision that it is the woman's right to privacy whether or not to have an abortion. There are a lot of circumstances and situation's that go into the ultimate decision of having an abortion. For example, if there was a young teen who got pregnant while having unprotected sex, that female might not be suitable and not ready to become a parent. That young girls life would have to change in order to have a baby. Her schooling and other activities that she might have participated would be effected tremendously. In some circumstances abortion is the mature and right thing to do. If that child is born into a household where it is not suitable for a child, that child is going to struggle a very long time because the parents where not ready and not yet responsible to take care of a child. But, there are downs sides to having abortions. I still agree that it is the woman's right to have an abortion, but the abortions should have a deadline. I do not believe that a woman should have an abortion when the baby is capable of living outside of the womb. Viability is when a child is suitable to live outside of its mothers womb. A baby is capable of living outside of the womb in most cases around 8 months into the pregnancy. The courts should have made a ruling that a woman has to a certain deadline into the pregnancy, to have an abortion. Having an abortion when a baby is capable of living outside of the womb, in my opionion is wrong. Adoption is always another option. There are many suitable families that would be capable of taking care of a child. But overall the ruling on Roe v Wade was the right decision and has saved many females from difficult situations.
ReplyDeleteJames Coyle
The Court's decision that a woman's right to an abortion, fell within that woman's right to privacy which falls under the Fourteenth Amendment. A woman’s privacy can include her religious background, cultural beliefs, and other views regarding abortion. No matter what religious or cultural beliefs, any female is allowed to have an abortion under the US constitution. The courts decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first three months of pregnancy. After granting certiorari, the Court heard two arguments. The courts choice to hear two arguments provides evidence that the ruling over abortion was not an easy decision to rule on. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the Court’s opinion that women have the decision wether or not to have an abortion. As a result, 46 states where affected by the Court's ruling and changed their laws regarding abortions within the first three months of a woman’s pregnancy.
DeletePersonally, I agree with the courts decision that it is the woman's right whether or not to have an abortion. There are a lot of circumstances and situation's that go into the ultimate decision of having an abortion. For example, if there was a young teen who got pregnant while having unprotected sex, that female might not be suitable and not ready to become a parent. That young girls life would have to change in order to have a baby. Her schooling and other activities that she might have participated would be effected tremendously. In some circumstances abortion is the mature and right thing to do. If that child is born into a household where it is not suitable for a child, that child is going to struggle a very long time because the parents where not ready and not yet responsible to take care of a child. Having an abortion when in that situation might be the right decision for both the mother and the child. But, there are downs sides to having abortions. I still agree that it is the woman's right to have an abortion, but the abortions should have a deadline. I do not believe that a woman should have an abortion when the baby is capable of living outside of the womb. Viability is when a child is suitable to live outside of its mothers womb. A baby is capable of living outside of the womb in most cases around 8 months into the pregnancy. The courts should have made a ruling that a woman has to a certain deadline into the pregnancy, to have an abortion. Having an abortion when a baby is capable of living outside of the womb, in my opinion is wrong. If that baby is capable of living outside of the womb, than that baby should not be aborted. Yes, the decision to have an abortion is a very tough decision to make, but there should be a deadly in which and mother should decide. Adoption is always another option. There are many suitable families that would be capable of taking care of a child. But overall the ruling on Roe v Wade was the right decision and has saved many females from difficult situations.
James Coyle
My legal assessment of the Court's decision in Roe v Wade (1973) is that the constitution had been interpreted correctly.
ReplyDeleteMany Christian religions identify the moment a life is created as the moment of conception. This is a respectable opinion, but it is an opinion based on a religion. The constitution's 1st amendment separated Church and State in all laws and decisions. So it was the Supreme Court's job to only use the constitution to interpret the legality of abortion, not the morality of abortion. This point was brought up and argued by Roe's lawyer, Weddington. The 9th amendment to the constitution described how any right not prohibited to the people, is by default, the people's. No where in the constitution does it mention abortion. While Henry Wade argued the 10th amendment, which states, that any power not denied the state's is by default their own, the purpose of the constitution was to establish a fair and just government. This being said, democracy in its most basic form is meant to give the power to the citizens to control their own government, not the other way around. So I believe the 9th amendment takes priority over the 10th in this argument, another way the constitution was interpreted correctly.
Weddington also argued the 14th amendment, so this court's decision would apply to all states. It also was argued for the purpose of supporting the idea of personal over state power, furthering the idea that the 9th amendment argument trumped the 10th. This interpretation was correct in my opinion, and that had the courts ruled in favor of Wade, this would violate the 14th amendment. Since the writ Roe submitted to the Texas state court was denied, she appealed the case to the supreme court. Where her lawyer argued this decision to deny her writ was a violation of her 5th Amendment in her right to the Due Process of Law. The constitution was meant to protect basic human rights such as the right to a fair trial and the right to be secure in their persons. This was another argument used in support of abortion, using the 4th amendment.
While the decision was mostly based on the 9th and 14th amendments, I believe all the other amendments applied to the situation to a point where there was no way the courts could rule in favor of Wade without denying the constitution. The Court's decision ultimately had more substantial constitutional backing, in that their decision gave the power to the people more than the states, fully supporting the idea of a true democracy.
The court's decision did not fully infringe upon the powers of the states though. It only made abortions legal for the first trimester, which I believe to be the correct decision on the court's part, as forcing the states to legalize something past a certain point would be in violation of the 10th amendment. So the courts ruled using solely the constitution in a just way to both the people and the states, ultimately producing the correct verdict in my opinion based on the constitution.
-Elizabeth Hosage
The US Supreme Court decided in a 7-2 decision that abortion is a fundamental right under the United States Constitution using the 9th and 14th amendments in Roe V. Wade (1973). There are many people who, to this day, disagree with the decision; however, in my opinion the Supreme Court assessed both the Constitution and the beliefs of many religions honorably and made the right ruling.
ReplyDeleteThe ninth amendment, granting rights not denied in the constitution to the people, was assessed by the Supreme Court for the case due to the fact that there is no place in the Constitution that denies the right to an abortion. With this knowledge, the Court interpreted this amendment, in my opinion, correctly; the Constitution writes “certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”, this includes the right to an abortion, and therefore this right cannot be denied. The other amendment that the Supreme Court looked at in deciding this case is the 14th, the right not allowing states to take way basic rights. This amendment in my opinion was also interpreted correctly, for the Supreme Court decided that no states could deny someone the right to an abortion during the first trimester; however, in the second trimester the states can restrict this right. I believe that the Supreme Court interpreted the law with an unbiased eye and correctly; they allowed for women to have the right to an abortion, following the ninth amendment, as well as incorporating state’s rights in restriction for the second trimester using the 14th. This is a country of freedom and liberty, and allowing women the right to decide for themselves whether to have an abortion and how to govern their own bodies is implementing this liberty.
-Julia Allyn
The US Supreme Court decided in a 7-2 decision that abortion is a fundamental right under the United States Constitution using the 9th and 14th amendments in Roe V. Wade (1973). There are many people who, to this day, disagree with the decision; however, in my opinion the Supreme Court assessed both the Constitution and the beliefs of many religions honorably and made the right ruling.
DeleteThere are many religions that support the fundamental rights surrounding that of an abortion, that women should be granted the right to control what happens to their bodies. The basis of their beliefs surrounds the concept that life does not begin until a baby is born physically born. Many devout Christian’s however, believe that a baby is born the moment of contraception, therefore believing that abortion, no matter how early, is murder of a child. The Supreme Court did know that there were conflictions between religious beliefs and the right to an abortion, however they also know that the first amendment to the US Constitution separates the beliefs of Church from the actions of the State in Court, meaning these beliefs, although helpful to know in this decision, cannot be used. The Court rightfully respected the this amendment and kept the notions of religion out, restricting abortions to be legal everywhere only for the first trimester, while also respecting the religious beliefs and allowing the states to decide past the first trimester. I personally believe that this was very fair and right for the Supreme Court to do.
The ninth amendment, granting rights not denied in the constitution to the people, was assessed by the Supreme Court for the case due to the fact that there is no place in the Constitution that denies the right to an abortion. With this knowledge, the Court interpreted this amendment, in my opinion, correctly; the Constitution writes “certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”, this includes the right to an abortion, and therefore this right cannot be denied. The other amendment that the Supreme Court looked at in deciding this case is the 14th, the right not allowing states to take way basic rights. This amendment in my opinion was also interpreted correctly, for the Supreme Court decided that no states could deny someone the right to an abortion during the first trimester; however, in the second trimester the states can restrict this right. I believe that the Supreme Court interpreted the law with an unbiased eye and correctly; they allowed for women to have the right to an abortion, following the ninth amendment, as well as incorporating state’s rights in restriction for the second trimester using the 14th. This is a country of freedom and liberty, and allowing women the right to decide for themselves whether to have an abortion and how to govern their own bodies is implementing this liberty.
Although the right to an abortion is a difficult topic and question to answer unbiased and lawfully, I truly believe that the United States Supreme Court did so in their interpretation of the law and knowledge of cultural aspects in the decision of Roe V. Wade (1973).
-Julia Allyn
The class action suit of Roe vs. Wade (1973) was a landmark decision, allowing for abortion to be legal in all states if a woman is in the first trimester of her pregnancy. The States have the ability to regulate abortion in the second trimester for two legitimate interests. These interests include protecting prenatal life and protecting woman’s health. Roe v. Wade (1973) prompted a national debate that still continues today regarding issues involving the extent to which abortions should be legal. In 1973, the United States Supreme Court decided in a 7-2 decision that the right to privacy under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, should not be denied of any person, therefor legalizing abortion in the Roe v. Wade class action suit. Contrary to religious beliefs and moral interpretations of the law, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the law correctly in this case. The Supreme Court ruled primarily on two amendments set forth by Roe and her lawyer, Weddington. According to the Ninth Amendment, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Or in other words, any person that is not denied of a certain right in the Constitution obtains that right. The Constitution does not deny any person of the right to an abortion, nor takes away their right to life, liberty or property. Therefor, the Supreme Court interpreted the Law correctly in ruling their decision off of the Ninth amendment. The Fourteenth amendment states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” Texas denied Roe the right to an abortion. This contradicted the Fourteenth amendment because a state was denying a person of their legal right. The Supreme Court was correct in ruling on the constitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment.
ReplyDeleteRoe and Weddington argued the rights of the Fourth and Fifth amendments as well however, these amendments were not viable in regards to the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the Supreme Court made the right decision by not ruling off of these amendments. The Fourth amendment is the right of the people to be protected against unlawful and unreasonable searches or seizures. It allows for people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects. Roe was never denied this right by the state of Texas.
The Fifth Amendment grants people the right to a fair trial stating, “no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…” This amendment has no connection to what was denied of Roe by the state of Texas. Although the Fifth Amendment does state that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, the only rights that were arguably denied of Roe were life and liberty. However, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth amendment covered those rights.
-Olivia Good
On January 22nd 1973, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision that the abortion of Jane Roe’s unborn child constitutional. To this day, the ruling remains controversial and is considered a landmark court decision, meaning that it established a significant new legal principle or concept at the time, leaving little room for any form of interpretation of existing laws. Norma McCorvey, under the legal pseudonym of “Jane Roe” served as the plaintiff in the case. At the age of 21, she falesly claimed that her third pregnancy was the result of rape. She was represented by Sarah Weddington. The Supreme Court ruled that abortion was constitutional, and I believe that the Court made the right decision based on the legal parameters put in place by the constitution. The main controversy surrounding this case came from the 9th and 14th amendments. The first major conflict between the opposing sides was over whether or not the abortion of an unborn child was murder, which would be unconstitutional. Although many people believe that the life of a child begins at birth (making an abortion not murder), several religions believe that life begins at conception, which would make an abortion murder and therefore unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court was obligated to separate Church from State as a result of the 1st amendment. This is where legality and morality must be separated, and the Court must disregard beliefs such as these when making their decision. Weddington argued that because of the 9th amendment, abortion was Roe’s constitutional right. The 9th amendment states that any right not specifically prohibited in the constitution is the right of the people, and because abortion is not specifically prohibited anywhere in the constitution, it is Roe’s constitutional right. In contrast, Wade argued the 10th amendment, which asserts each state’s power by ensuring that the Federal Government would not step over the boundaries established in the Constitution, meaning that any power not specifically denied to the states is their own, allowing Texas to deny Roe an abortion. However, I believe that to use the 10th amendment as the only form of validation for denying Roe an abortion would be arbitrary, and that its purpose was not to allow states to overlook other aspects and amendments in the Constitution but to rather to allow citizens their right to have some form of influence in their own government.
ReplyDelete-Caroline D. Skinner (pt. 1)
So in this respect, I agree with the Court’s decision based on the 9th amendment, because it is not specified anywhere in the constitution that an abortion is prohibited so to prevent Roe from receiving and abortion would in fact be a violation of her constitutional rights, and I believe that the meaning of the 10th amendment was not intended to be interpreted in this way and therefore Wade’s assertion is invalid and to buy into it would be a very loose interpretation of this amendment. In addition to these amendments, the Court had to consider the 14th amendment, which was argued by Weddington. The 14th amendment states that the States do not have the right to take away the rights of any citizens as described in the constitution, and by denying Roe an abortion, this would be infringing upon her rights defined in the 9th amendment. This assertion further discredited Wade’s interpretation of the 10th amendment as the 14th amendment focused on the rights of the people much more heavily than the rights of the state. I think that the Court interpreted this amendment accurately. Because the 9th amendment and Wade’s interpretation of the 10th amendment were slightly contrasting and contradictory, the Court had to decide which amendment was superior to the other. If they had chosen that the 10th amendment trumped the 9th, they would be violating the 14th amendment. Therefore, I believe that the Courts interpretation of both the 9th and 14th amendment was correct and legitimate. In addition to these two main arguments, Weddington argued that Roe’s rights as described in the 4th amendment were violated, meaning that she had been subject to illegal search and seizure, however, Roe was never denied this right. In addition Weddington argued the 5th amendment which stated that every person is granted the right to a fair trial standing, and this right was also not violated by the state of Texas, however, these issues were covered by the 14th amendment. Overall, I believe that the Court’s interpretation of the main arguments made by Weddington for Roe (being the 9th and 14th amendment) was both constitutional and legally valid. Although this is a subject that at the time was very controversial and still is controversial today, the Court was able to separate the conflicting opinions coming from Church and State and successfully satisfied all the applicable amendments that were relevant in the case. To rule in the favor of Wade would have been unconstitutional, and would have violated Roe’s constitutional rights, and therefore I believe that despite controversy and matters of personal morals and opinions, the Court made a ruling that was both Constitutionally and legally valid.
Delete-Caroline D. Skinner (pt. 2)
The US Supreme Court decided that abortion is legal under the US constitution using the 14th and 9th amendment. I agree that abortion should be legal because a young woman who is not able to take care of her child properly should have the right to choose not to have that child. If there is any other way that abortion could be avoided, alternative should be considered. However, abortion is only legal to happen until viability which is when the baby can survive outside of the womb. If you want to have an abortion, you should know and not wait until the third trimester. Considering that women should have their own privacy, I think this ruling was fair and good for many young women who are not ready to be moms. Also, if there is a child that is not gonna be healthy and will suffer a lot in life, parents should be able to decide if they want to have unhealthy child or not. For the sake of the child, parents should have a say too. This ruling affected 46 states and they had to decide if they want to make abortion legal or not.
ReplyDeleteMaria Ahmed
The decision to have an abortion is truly a private one. For this reason, I believe the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was correct in ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the right to privacy including a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. The Court also referred to the Constitution's First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments citing cases involving a person's "zone of privacy". The Court's ruling was specific as to different stages of pregnancy: In the first trimester, the state can only treat abortion as a medical condition, leaving medical judgment to the woman's physician; in the second trimester, the state's interest was seen as legitimate when protecting the health of the mother; and after viability, the potential of human life could be considered a "legitimate state interest" and the state could choose to regulate or even prohibit abortion as long as the life and health of the mother was protected. Protecting the mother's health and life, as well as the life of the fetus once viable, is the most important theme in this decision. Prior to Roe v. Wade, there were abortions being performed on the black market by non-physicians which truly endangered the lives of women and possibly a viable fetus. The court was successful in protecting a women's health during pregnancy but also in eliminating unsafe abortion conditions around the country. The decision remains one of the most debated rulings in the United States because it involves issues of ethics, religion, and biology. Often, politicians seek to influence the abortion debate with their personal beliefs. This only further demonstrates that abortion is truly a personal and private decision. I believe the court was so specific in its ruling to prevent politicians from making a personal decision on behalf of a woman, especially when the her health and the life of a viable fetus is at stake.
ReplyDelete-Hunter Borwick
Eliza Griffin
ReplyDeleteThe 7-2 decision in Roe vs. Wade (1973) caused the outcome of abortion to be legal in states, if the woman is in the first trimester of her pregnancy. During the second and third trimester of the pregnancy, however, the states have the right to disagree with the mother’s choice. For example, if the delivery of the child will kill the mother. This class action suit, under the protection of law of the Fourteenth Amendment, allows for privacy. By applying this amendment to the case, the court knew that the influence of religion, might affect on the outcome of the law. By giving the mother the right of abortion during her first trimester of pregnancy, the court applied the belief and respect of religion to the law. In todays society the idea of abortion is still a controversial idea. I believe that the court decision was right. There are times when a women or girl is not prepared to have a child, for reason that she can not support it, or will not care for it. By having the decision that the mother can make for herself, to not have the baby, is right, rather her being told that she has no choice, but to have it.
I believe in the right to an abortion, and that the decision of abortion should rest in the hands of the mother, not the government.
ReplyDeleteIn the year of 1973, a Texas citizen by the name of Roe brought a class action suit against the Supreme Court. She was denied her right to an abortion, which was argued against in a 7-2 decision in the court of law. The result of the case was that a woman could get an abortion as long as she is in the first trimester of her pregnancy, and later on if needed to save the mother. Roe’s lawyer, Weddington, argued that denying abortion is a violation of the 1st, 9th and 14th amendment. The argument used for 1st amendment was freedom of religion. Abortion is a religion based concept, some religions are pro-life and do not support the act of an abortion, and others believe it should be up to the mother. However, this amendment did not support Roe’s case as much as the 9th and 14th. The 9th amendment states that human rights are rights as long as they are not denied in the constitution. For example: abortion. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that no woman shall have an abortion, therefor abortion automatically is a right. The first section of the 14th amendment was argued in the case to prove that no state can take away the rights of any citizen, and proven by the 9th amendment, abortion is an automatic right. Also, the 14th amendment states that no person born or naturalized in the United States can be deprived of life, liberty, and property. Some may argue that that includes the fetus. I however, consider “born” as the day of delivery. When someone is asked for his or her birthday, they do not say the day of conception; they say the date at which they were born, the day of delivery.
Personally, I believe that abortion should be legal, and the government cannot force a mother to keep a child. I agree in the ruling of this case, and I agree that the time for abortion should be during the beginning stages, and only in the later stages if necessary for the mother’s health. I believe that if the mother decided to have an abortion after the first trimester it could be considered murder, or a violation of the 14th amendment, because the fetus has formed into a baby, and is more human-like. The reason why I think that abortion should be legal in the first trimester is because the fetus as not yet become developed enough to look like a baby.
I think this case is a huge turning point and landmark in our society. I think that the legalization of abortion is necessary for young women and teenagers because they are not yet mature enough for childbirth, and could not go through school carrying a child. This case changed the lives of many women, who were not yet ready to become mothers.
-Molly Coleman
I believe the decision of getting a abortion is up to the mother and should only happen in the first and the very latest the second trimester of pregnancy. After reading about the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade, I agree with the decision that ruled in favor of Jane Roe. The case was ruled in a 7-2 decision that stated that if Roe was denied the right of aborting her fetus, it would violate her fourteenth amendment rights. The fourteenth amendment states that all people "born" in the United States are citizens of America. All born U.S. citizens are protected under the law. Since the fetus is not born, Roe was granted the abortion, because it was her first term of pregnancy and did not fully develop yet. I think only the mother should have the decision of aborting her child in the first term of pregnancy because the mother would know what is best and nobody should question or pressure her. Although, aborting your child later than the second trimester of pregnancy I do consider murder, because then the fetus has had more time to develop and is more likely to live outside of the womb. I believe that the right of abortion is a necessity because many teenage girls make the mistake of getting pregnant and having a child is a big responsibility, so their right to abort their baby should be theirs.
ReplyDelete- Annie Love
In our world currently, lies one of the biggest debates on an issue that draws clashing views. This debate happens to be over the growing question of whether abortion should be legal. In the American class action suit of Roe v. Wade (1973), the United States Supreme Court made the landmark decision that made abortion legal as long as it was professionally done in the first trimester of pregnancy. During the second trimester of pregnancy, it was ruled that mother’s had the choice of abortion but states have the right to regulate the process. Anything after the second trimester is therefore illegal.
ReplyDeleteMy personal view on the issue of abortion is much like that of the ruling of the case of Roe v. Wade. Obviously it is ignorant for me to say that women do not have the right to abortions because I will never be pregnant, but the thought of killing a growing baby is something that I have trouble wrapping my mind around. I believe that abortion should only be legal in the first trimester of pregnancy. I truly believe this is the only right time for an abortion because mothers can get attached to their babies and will therefore be tougher on the mother’s mental state afterwards. Life is a beautiful thing and I find it wrong to deny any human that opportunity, but obviously I understand that there are exceptions such as rape and young pregnancy.
Abortion is an issue that brings about truly different views, which I find to be very understandable. I am able to see both views and that is why I agree mostly with the result of the Roe v. Wade case of 1973. I believe the 7-2 decision made in this case was one that was right for the United States, and I hope that this decision will continue to stand as the law of our country.
The decision of the United States Supreme Court to legalize abortions in the case Roe V. Wade (1973) made it applicable to all fifty states. Universally in the United States a women could get a legal abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy; can have an abortion in the second trimester of the pregnancy with the states discrete; and there can be no abortions in the third trimester unless the mother life is at risk. The Supreme Court, taking into factor the beliefs of religions and the public norm, made this decision carefully. Many Christians believe that babies are alive at the moment of conception, while the Jews believe that they are alive once out of the mother’s womb. They went about the consideration of religion without making it a priority to the decision with the separation of church and state. They did it well. The regional aspect of public opinion makes a bigger deal in later semesters. The states are involved in the second and third trimester, which should be allowed. The United States Federal government has no authority over the ability to have or not to have abortions so they did over step their grounds. But since it came to the Court under appellate jurisdiction their ruling is justified. They did not violate the states right in the 10th Amendment saying that any power not given to the US Federal government is the states. The states still have the power to over look abortions in the second and third trimester. They also do a good job not violating the 9th Amendment saying that any right not denied the people in the constitution is the peoples right. The decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Roe V. Wade (1973) was very constitutionally sound.
ReplyDeleteSam Topham
In the case of Roe v. Wade(1973), The U.S Supreme Court decided in a 7-2 that abortion is a basic right under the U.S constitution using the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 14th amendments. In my opinion, the Supreme Court made the right decision in this case and did their best not to offend any religions with it.
ReplyDeleteIn Christianity, the strict interpretation of the Bible is that life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore saying that abortion is the murder of a child. Contrary to this belief, I believe that women should be able to make their own choice regarding their bodies. The Supreme Court’s ruling was correct in making the decision because if they had ruled the other way, there would a conflict in the separation of church and state in the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the 1st amendment. The decision kept the separation of church and state and keeping status quo on that end. The 4th amendment was used in the idea that the right of the people to be secure in their persons was used correctly by the Supreme Court because Jane Roe’s body was hers and she could do what she wanted. Along with the 1st and 4th amendments, the 9th amendment of ‘any right not prohibiting the people, is the people’s’ giving citizens the power to control their own government. Under the 14th amendment, the ruling applied to all states, allowing Roe to get an abortion.
Overall, the Supreme Court made the right decision in the ruling of this case because they had constitutional backing in support of their decision, making abortions legal for the first trimester of pregnancy, and allows the states to use their discretion beyond that point of pregnancy, giving some regulation to the operation.
Brooks Kiley
Cite: Julia Allyn
Though abortion is a very controversial topic, I believe that the Supreme Court ruled on the case of Roe v Wade very well. They used the 9th and 14th amendment in the proper way, supporting the decision that abortion is legal within the first trimester of pregnancy. They used the 9th amendment, which states that, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”. This means that if the Constitution doesn’t deny you of a certain right, then that is your right. Anything that is not forbidden in the Constitution is our right. Since the Constitution doesn’t say anything anywhere about abortions, that would mean that it is a woman’s right to an abortion. The second Amendment that the Supreme Court used to make their decision was the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment says, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Since a baby would be considered life, the State cannot deprive you of your right to an abortion. With these two amendments in mind, I believe that the court’s ruling was completely correct. Everyone has an opinion about abortion, and feel very strongly for one side or the other. Different religions, especially, have strong opinions about being pro-life or pro-choice. The Jewish Scripture says, only when the fetus comes into the world is it a person. The Greek Orthodox Catholic Church says a fetus is not a person until it has a soul, and the Roman Catholic Church says that abortion of any kind is condemned as an unspeakable crime. Every religion has very strong opinions about abortion, which the courts took into consideration, but left them out of their official decision, making abortions legal only in the first trimester. I think that the courts did a great job of separating church from state, as well as interpreting the law in the correct manner. For these reasons, I think that the rights given to women to have abortions is completely constitutional and a fundamental right for citizens to have.
ReplyDelete-Mary Corcran
In 1973, the Supreme court ruled in a 7-2 decision that abortion is a right protected under the United States Constitution, as long as it happens during the first trimester of pregnancy, or the second trimester depending on state regulation. I believe the Supreme Court ruled correctly on this case. Norma McCorvey, under the alias of Jane Roe, was a single pregnant woman in the state of Texas who claimed her pregnancy was a result of rape. She sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion, but Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the life of the mother. Roe took this class action case to the Supreme Court in hopes of overturning state law. She got her wish on January 22, 1973, when the Supreme Court overturned all state statues that prohibit abortions during the first three months of pregnancy. The official ruling detailed that during the first trimester, it is the mother’s choice and that there will be no state interference. If during the second trimester, it is the mother’s choice, but it will be regulated by the state. If in the third trimester, abortions will only be legal if it is to save the mother’s life. Here is why they were able to make this correct decision. First off, many religions frowned upon abortions and many considered them murder. However, the United States has no declared religion, therefore the law cannot be based of any religion. Roe, represented by Sarah Weddington, mainly used the 9th and 14th amendments to back up their argument. The 9th amendment says “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Or in other words, if the constitution does not specifically deny you of a right, then you have that right. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that abortions are unconstitutional. The 14th amendment says, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” Texas denied Roe the right to an abortion. This contradicted the Fourteenth amendment because a state was denying a person of their legal right. The defendant, Henry Wade, used the the 10th amendment is his counterargument. He claimed that if the federal government does not rule on an issue, then the power goes to the states to decide on that issue. However, the Supreme Court saw more evidence in the Constitution to protect the right of abortion.
ReplyDelete- Joel Mayo
I believe that the courts decision on the Roe v. Wade case is constitutionally sound. Based off the 9th amendment that states “there are other rights that may exist aside from the ones explicitly mentioned, and even though they are not listed, it does not mean they can be violated.” Since abortion is in no way mentioned in the constitution as being unlawful, citizens of the United States should not be denied the right to have an abortion. Also, the 14th amendment says, “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Since a baby is considered a form of life, the 14th amendment clearly allows any citizen to have an abortion if they so chose. Furthermore, the first amendment enforces the separation of church and state. Although in many religions abortions are not allowed it does not mean that abortions are illegal. The first amendment clearly states that religion is completely separate from the legal system. In conclusion, the court of law was completely justified in making the Roe v. Wade case a class action case stating that abortion is legal.
ReplyDeleteBrendan Moloy
Haleigh Sullivan
ReplyDeleteThere have been many changes over the course of history in the United States of America. The Constitution has gone from a piece of paper to an important document that protects the citizens of our country. The Supreme Court has finally accepted the Constitution and are ruling based of what it states. One case that was a landmark decision for the United States was the case of Roe v Wade (1973). Roe v Wade (1973) was a class action suit that legalized abortion in the United States during the first trimester of pregnancy; after the first trimester is complete the process of abortion is under the discretion/regulation of the states. There are only two things that the states would allow you to have an abortion: prenatal health is in danger or if the mother’s health is in danger. If either of those criteria is met than a woman is allowed to have an abortion. Still to this day however, the argument on abortion is still a large debate. In Roe v Wade (1973) the United Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision that “a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment” (Oyez). The majority opinion however did state that “a woman [has] total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters” (Oyez). I agree with the majority opinion, the reason being that I too believe that it is a women’s right to privacy and that the Fourteenth Amendment protects her from anyone saying otherwise; however, lets start from the beginning. The reason for Norma McCorvey’s (Jane Roe) abortion was that she could not afford to raise a child. Her attorney’s, Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, were young lawyers committed to the advancement of women’s rights and wanted to help her. In 1970, Roe sued Henry Wade, Dallas County district attorney, who was responsible for enforcing the state’s abortion laws in Dallas. The Court in Texas states, “single and married person had the right to decide whether or not to have children based upon the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments” (The Pursuit of Justice). Even though the lower courts accepted the constitution, they did not issue injunctions. Injunctions are legal orders directing someone to cease doing something – which in this case would forbid the states for enforcing the antiabortion laws. My legal opinion on the Texas courts decision was that they made the right decision; however, I do disagree in the fact that they did not issue injunctions.
Continued:
DeleteWhat was the point of this case if nothing is being changed for not only McCorvey (Roe) but also other women that wish to have abortions? Norma McCorvey (Roe) decided to appeal to the Supreme Court, making this case appellate jurisdiction. Norma and her lawyers turned this case into a class action suit, representing all women wishing to receive an abortion. Roe, and her attorney’s Weddington and Coffee, argued that pregnancy is a burden on a woman and that the ban of abortion has a negative impact on their well-being. More importantly they argued that the right to an abortion was included in the Ninth Amendment and extended to McCorvey through the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Jay Floyd, the assistant attorney representing Wade argued, “women made their choice before they became pregnant by deciding to live in Texas and under its abortion laws. States such as Texas had a compelling interest in protecting fetal life at all times, he continued, because life beings at the moment of conception” (The Pursuit of Justice). I disagree with his argument. I believe that life does not being until there is a heart beat. The reason being is that if there is no heartbeat, than evidently it would not be alive, just as a dead adult does not have a heart beat. This was a new opportunity to grant women a fundamental right to an abortion based on the concept of privacy. I agree, the decision of this case changed everything; however, it is still a large dispute to this day. Later in the case, Powell concluded that antiabortion laws simply increase the number of illegally and dangerous abortions, which only gave McCorvey a stronger argument. I agree with Blackmun’s majority opinion. He said that if there was to be an abortion it is to be in the first trimester because it is safer for women’s health. I also agree with him when he says that the states can ban abortions in the 2nd trimester if they are in a viability state. After than, abortions were illegal unless needed for protection of the baby’s health or the mother’s health. In conclusion, I agree with the 7-2-majority opinion. I believe that McCorvey (Roe) had a stronger argument in which was supported well. The right of an abortion is protected under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. An abortion is a woman’s right to not have a child if they so choose, to a certain point. I strongly agree with Blackmun’s opinion when it comes to when the states can step in and take authority on the matter. After the first-trimester, I do believe it is murder to have an abortion, unless under extreme circumstances.
Sources:
1) Notes
2) Oyez
3) Text Book - The Pursuit of Justice
4) Olivia Good's Post
The majority opinion in Roe v Wade (1973), written by Justice Henry Blackman, was a seven to two majority vote to strike down Texas abortion laws and resulted in abortion being legal in every state in the United States. On January 22, 1973 the United States Supreme Court, using the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, overturned all state statues that prohibit abortions during the first three months of pregnancy. My legal assessment of the Roe v Wade (1973) decision is complete agreement with the decision made by the United States Supreme Court. Abortion is, and always has been, an extremely controversial topic and some may not morally agree with the Supreme Court’s decision, but through a closer look at the Constitution, one will see that the ruling is constitutional and gives options for all women facing pregnancy. Under the 1st Amendment, abortion laws are religious based; the Supreme Court’s decision helps support this by giving women the choice on what they want to do in regards to abortion and their religious beliefs. If one does not believe in abortion and it goes against their religious beliefs, then they do not have to have any part in it, therefore it does not violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The 4th Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their person”, I interpret this in regards to abortion as giving the woman her right to chose what she wants to do with her own body, this too is supported by the Supreme Court’s decision. Debatably the most controversial argument of all lies under the 14th Amendment where is states, “All persons born”, some believe that this includes fetuses and some do not. Although this statement causes major controversy, the Roe v Wade (1973) decision gives women the right to have their own opinion and interpretation of this Amendment and act upon it how they would like. Some may not agree with abortion, but when it comes down to it, it is a personal choice that should be made by the woman who is pregnant and not allowing abortion would be infringing on women’s constitutional rights. I am in agreement with the Supreme Court’s decision because it does not violate the constitution, or anyone’s constitutional rights, and it gives women the power to chose what they want to do with their own bodies, which is how it should be.
ReplyDelete- Emily Czajkowski
After considering the Supreme Court's ruling of Roe v Wade (1973), I do believe that they made the constitutionally just decision. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that abortions are constitutional by the 9th amendment right of citizens to all rights not prohibited in the constitution, and the 14th amendment right to privacy and incorporation in the states. Wade argued against abortion, citing the 10th amendment right that gave all powers not prohibited in the constitution to the states, and the 14th amendment that granted all rights to anyone "born" in the US. This argument, however, was rooted in religious values that argued life begins at conception; the court denied this argument, rightfully, as the constitution clearly states, by separating Church and State. To refute Wade's assertion, the court objectively defined "life" of a fetus: the fetus' life would be determined by its "viability", its ability to live outside the womb at any given moment, essentially stating that abortion cannot be murder if the fetus could not live on its own anyway. Based on this definition, any abortion in which the fetus was not viable (any abortion within the first trimester) would not be considered murder and would therefore be permitted by the constitution. This definition of life by the Supreme Court, I believe, is the most important declaration in the case: it put any opposition to rest, declaring that no matter what their personal/religious beliefs may be, the constitution, the law of the land, permits abortion.
ReplyDelete-Dillon Cunningham
The decision to legalize abortions in the Roe v. Wade (1973) made it possible for women in the U.S to have an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, can have an abortion in the second trimester of the pregnancy with the states discrete and there can be no abortions in the third trimester unless the mother well being or life at risk. there was a lot of controversy surrounding this decision by the Supreme Court. They looked to religions to see what there rules were. This is because many Christians feel that it is murder, the Jews believe in pro choice. The states are now only involved in the second and third trimester. The Federal Government is not allowed in the process. The Supreme Court ruled write in this case. They did not violate any amendment. The states still have the power to over look abortions in the second and third trimester. The decision of the United States Supreme Court in the Roe V. Wade was constitutional.
ReplyDelete-Ben Lang
The 7-2 decision in Roe vs. Wade (1973) made abortion legal in the United States, if and only if the woman is in the first trimester of her pregnancy. I believe that in this case, the jury got came to the correct conclusion. I believe that unless you believe that the child is actually alive and living during the first stage of pregnancy, a woman has the right to choose whether or not to keep the baby. A case could be made that the baby would be murdered if it were killed, which is why the Supreme Court made the decision to make it illegal for an abortion during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. They believe that during the first trimester, the baby has not yet developed enough for it to be considered murder, so therefore a woman has the right to choose. Abortion has saved a lot of women from situations that would ruin their lives. Many women who are rape victims end up pregnant after the attack. A woman should not have go through with a baby who was conceived during a rape. This would be very damaging to the mother and her family. Another instance could be a young girl in high school who gets drunk and has unprotected sex. This girl may not be suited to become a mother. Having a baby would shake up her entire world as she knew it. It would mess up her schooling, her social life, her mental health, and her family life. However, I believe that abortion is wrong when the baby is capable of living on its own outside of her mother. There comes a point in pregnancy when the baby becomes able to survive on its own without needing her mother anymore. Killing a baby at this stage in the game would be considered murder and I believe it would be wrong. The Supreme Court made the right decision of making sure that after the first trimester of pregnancy, abortion is not legal and you would have to turn to other alternatives such as adoption. I believe that the Supreme Court got the case of Roe vs. Wade correct from both a legal standpoint, and from a moral standpoint.
ReplyDelete- Hunter Reynolds
In 1973 the United States Supreme Court made a vital decision affecting all fifty states. Abortion was and still is a hot-button topic with views varying all over the country. This court case decided that it is legal to have an abortion in the first trimester regardless of the situation or the states views. However, the state has loose restrictions in the second trimester and strict restrictions in the final third trimester where most states prohibit abortion. The Supreme Court made this decision diplomatically taking religion and the public’s opinion under consideration. This was a job well done by the Supreme Court, as they kept the perfect balance between religious beliefs and state government. As we went over in class different religions believe life begins at different times. Most Christians believe life starts when the baby begins to develop in the mother’s womb. Jews believe life starts when the baby is delivered out of the mother’s womb. The Supreme Court was effective in taking both religions under consideration using the trimester system. Constitutionally the Federal Court was sound. They did not violate the tenth amendment taking power away form the states as they aloud the states to make decisions regarding abortion in the second and third trimester. The ninth amendment, which grants any right that is not in the constitution to the people, was not violated by this court case. As the Supreme Court kept the right to have an abortion under official regulations. Overall the Federal Court did a good job not stepping over their boundaries in this ruling.
ReplyDeleteSpencer Cookson
The Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade (1973) legalized abortion in the first trimester of a women’s pregnancy. The Supreme Court correctly interpreted the constitution in their 7 to 3 decision. Weddington argued the 1st Amendment by showing why a popular argument against abortion held no ground in the legality of abortion. Many people against abortion argued that it was wrong because according to the Bible life begins at conception and to kill an innocent person would be morally wrong. Weddington argued that the 1st Amendment requires a separation of church and state, and therefore what is said in the Bible cannot be used as a justification for a law, the Supreme Court must only rule based on the law and not morality. Weddington also used the 9th Amendment in her argument. The 9th Amendment says that any right that was not denied the people in the constitution is the peoples right. Weddington argued that abortion is not denied in the constitution therefore it must be a Roe’s right to have one. The lawyer for Wade apposed this by using the 10th Amendment, which says that any power not denied that states in the Constitution is the states power. The lawyers for Wade said that therefor Texas had the power to make abortion illegal. Weddington used the 14th Amendment to both apply the other amendments to the states, and also as an argument for why the 9th Amendment holds more ground than the 10th. The 14th Amendment states: “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” the Texas law outlawing abortion abridges the privileges of the citizens of the US therefore it is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteThe court’s decision legalized abortion in the first trimester, but it still allowed states to regulate it in the second and made it illegal in the third. The decision was based mostly off of the arguments for the 9th and 14th Amendments, and less so on the 1st and 5th. Their decision was based on the constitution instead of their personal feelings, which is why in my opinion this was the right interpretation of the constitution.
-Will MacClarence
What is your legal assessment of the Roe v Wade (1973) decision by the United States Supreme Court?
ReplyDeleteWithin the imperative Supreme Court Case of Roe v Wade (1973), a 7-judge majority opinion to 2-judge minority opinion ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, Norma L. McCorvey, or better known for her protected alias, “Jane Roe”. The Supreme Court Case arrived in court in 1970 when Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington filed a suit for “Jane Roe” in a U.S. District Court located in Texas. McCorvey, the Plaintiff, claimed that her pregnancy was one produced through rape, so she requested a legal abortion. The Dallas County District Attorney, a Texas Representative, Henry Wade, denied her request for an abortion. Her motion was brought to court under the basis that her 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendment rights were violated. The 1st Amendment Right was allegedly violated because abortion laws were religious based; the 4th Amendment Right was allegedly violated because Jane Doe was not “secure in their persons”, the 5th Amendment Right was allegedly violated because she was deprived of the due proves of law, the 9th Amendment Right was allegedly violated because she was deprived of a right that was not listed as a right or restriction, and her 14th Amendment Right was allegedly violated because of incorporation of states. The ruling decided based on the trimester of the pregnancy. During the first trimester of pregnancy, abortion is the mother’s choice and the States are unable to interfere with the decision. During the second trimester of pregnancy, it is the mother’s decision, but it is regulated by the state. And during the third trimester of pregnancy, it is only legal at “the point of viability”, meaning in order to save the mother’s life. I believe that the decision in the Supreme Court Case of Roe v Wade (1973) is for the most part, adequate. However, there are aspects of the decision that should be changed in order for protection of the mother and the unborn child. Greater lengths should’ve gone to protecting the unborn child, such as, I believe that a second term abortion should be strongly dissuaded. The first term, about three months long, should be long enough to make a decision whether to keep an infant or not. This is not only to protect the baby, but also the mother. This is because the mother could suffer from serious psychological detriments. Though I feel the laws should not change to be more restrictive, I feel greater measures should be taken to inform the pregnant women (in their second trimester) about how they can be affected and the possible consequences. The decision in Supreme Court Case of Roe v Wade (1973) was an accurate one because it allows choice however it also has protective restrictions. However, that is my personal belief. In the eyes of the law, I see that the belief of the start of life is also in many cases a violation of the 1st Amendment right of the U.S. Constitution because in some terms is religious based (on scripture/sacred text). Overall, I feel the choice of having a baby should be the choice of the mother because ultimately it should be her decision because it is her physical, mental, and economical wellbeing at stake.
-Kay Humes
In 1973, the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case decided the legality of abortions in the United States. The 7-2 decision was made that women may legally have abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy, leaving the legality of abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters up to the state decisions. While this is a very touchy, and complicated subject, I believe that the court made the correct ruling in this case. The idea of abortion is a religious based concept, specifically in the first trimester, and denying a woman the right to have an abortion at this time would be a violation of the 1st amendment, denying her freedom of religion. The right to have an abortion is also protected by the 9th amendment, stating that all human rights are rights, unless they violate the constitution. No where in the constitution does it say that a woman may not have the right to an abortion, therefore the right is protected. This changes however when a woman enters her later stages of pregnancy. When a fetus is viable (capable of surviving out of a mothers womb), I do not believe that it would be right for a woman to abort the fetus. At this stage in pregnancy, abortion would be ending the life of a viable human being, which would be murder. However, I do believe that abortion can in many cases be the right course of action. If a teen girl becomes pregnant and is unable to support and raise a child, then attempting to do so would be irresponsible. If a child is born into a world where its mother is unable to care for it, and support it, then it wouldn't be worth the suffering the child would most likely experience to have the child in the first place. In some cases, a woman needs to abort a fetus due to threat of her own life. If a woman is medically unable to carry a fetus without it being fatal to herself, then abortion must be available to that individual. I believe that the Supreme Court was correct in its decision on the Roe v. Wade case, and that the current laws of abortion are moral and fair.
ReplyDelete-Alex DeChellis
After learning about the Roe vs. Wade case, I have decided that I agree that the result is fair and just. If you look at it from a constitutional standpoint, Roe clearly outmatches Wade. The first amendment protected Roe from religion. Because abortion is religious based and the United States separates church and state, religious ideas can not be a basis of why the abortion should not occur. The 9th amendment states that human rights are definite rights as long as the constitution does not deny them. The constitution never says that women do not have the right to abort their child. The 14th amendment states that no citizen of the USA can be deprived of life, liberty, and property. I truly believe that the woman should have the right to abort her child or not. The decision that it is legal to abort in the first trimester is a good one because it is a compromise of some sorts. I know that some people truly believe that it is murder, and although there is some validity behind that, women baring children can only be controlled so much. In the end, it is their child.
ReplyDelete-Ben Wolf
I’ve always considered myself pro-choice because I believe it is the women’s body and she has the right to do with is as she pleases, as the fourth amendment states, “the right of the people to be secure in their person.” I think the very, specific laws and decision made by the Supreme Court was justly fit. They give women the option of abortion within the first two trimesters, although in the second trimester there is some state regulation. This was a difficult court decision to make and I think they handled it rather well. These court rulings affected the laws in forty six of our fifty united states. This independence and responsibility given to women was, in my opinion, a step towards progress. Also, leaving the controversy of abortion to the state government makes it a flexible procedure, because if the woman lives in a state where it is prohibited at whichever stage of pregnancy she decides she no longer wants the baby, she could have it done somewhere it is allowed.The definition of the word “born” also played a significant role in this decision. If the court would have ruled it legal past the point the chose, they would essentially be legalizing murder. Overall, I believe this court decision has helped many lives and females caught in difficult predicaments. Although, the procedure of removing a fetus from within a woman’s body could have many complications if the woman is willing to take that risk with her body, then I don’t think the government should have the right to hinder her from making decisions concerning her own body. It’s almost better for a fetus not to be born, than be born into a situation where no one wants it or does not have the means to take care of it. While I also believe adoption may be the best option, I don’t think the government really needs a say in these situations, but when brought to the Supreme Court, I don’t think there was a better way to respond to the case.
ReplyDeleteLivi Robinson
The Supreme Court’s decision on the laws of abortion are completely plausible and the best decision in any situation, even in the modern era. The Roe vs Wade case is a great example of how the constitution was used correctly to justify the laws on abortion. According to the 9th Amendment of the United States Constitution it states “The enumeration in the Constituition, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”, which means that whatever is not outlawed in the Constitution, can be acquired as a right of the people. At the time of the Roe vs Wade case, there was no law prohibiting abortion; therefore Jane Roe had the right to an abortion properly operated by a qualified doctor. Also according to the 5th Amendment of the United States constitution, it states that the government cannot deprive citizens of life, liberty or property to which Jane Roe held the rights. She obtained the right to privacy under the 14th Amendment also which was the ultimate decision of the court to the reasoning to state the Dallas State Law unconditional. The ruling of the court has affected 46 other states in the country, which indicates how significant the decision of the court was. In my opinion, the option of having an abortion is perfectly logical, however it should not be taken for granted, as the procedure is nothing to play with. There are multiple complications that come with the process, which can lead to long-term malfunctions of the reproductive system. However, it has definitely been a positive affect on society because people have found themselves in unsolicited situations where the only way to satisfy it is through abortion.
ReplyDelete- Jack Harrison
In the 1960s, there was no federal law regulating abortions. The fight to allow women the choice to have an abortion began in Texas in 1973. Throughout Texas and most of the United States, abortions were outlawed unless a doctor determined that the mother’s life was in danger. Jane Roe, which was an alias, challenged this new law and eventually changed the opinions of millions of Americans. Two main conflicting opinions arose once this trial was taken to the highest court in the land. The issue involved basic faiths. Those who argued that the unborn child deserves as much protection as does an adult, also thought that ending such a life is thought to be murder. On the other hand, others argued that life begins at birth so an abortion is not considered murder and women should have the right to choose based on their health and other personal reasons. From the Roe vs. wade trail, the government legalized abortions in the first trimester of the pregnancy, as well as in the second trimester with the states interest to protect the mother, but none in the third trimester. Personally, I agree with the outcome of the Roe vs. Wade trial. I believe it is up to the women carrying the child to decide whether or not to have an abortion, as long as it is in her best interest as well as in the first or early second trimester. Although there are precautions one can take many people have unwanted pregnancies. In many cases young adults or even teenagers who aren’t ready to have a child find themselves in that position. Abiding by the fourteenth amendment, a fetus is not a citizen of the United States because it is not yet born. Early on in her pregnancy, Roes’ fetus was only beginning to develop in the womb, permitting her the right to have an abortion. I imagine making the decision to abort your child is one no person wants to make, but if someone is going to make that decision it should only be the mother.
ReplyDeleteIone Bartlett
DeleteIn the Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade of a woman’s right to an abortion, my legal assessment is that the constitution was interpreted correctly. Under the constitution, the suit was an alleged violation of Jane Roe’s right to privacy. The constitution protects the rights to privacy, which includes the decisions women make about their own bodies. Under the 14th and 9th Amendment, in incorporation to the states, since the denial of an abortion is not written in the constitution, it is legal. Under the 14th Amendment, “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Under the 1st Amendment, a woman cannot be denied the right to abortion based on religion; the law is written in the separation of church and state. For those who believe that abortion goes against their own morals or religion, they shall be able to make the decision on abortion for themselves, but not make the decision for other people. The United States promotes freedom for its citizens. Under the founding father’s intent for liberty, abortion allows the individual to make the decision. Under the 9th Amendment, the constitution cannot deny a woman an abortion or take away a person’s life, liberty, or property. To define this more clearly, in Roe v Wade, a conclusion was reached that specified what stages during pregnancy abortion is legal to clarify what points of development around variability. In the court’s decision, during the first trimester of pregnancy, the woman is entitled to make the decision; during the second trimester, it is still the mother’s decision, but it is regulated by the state; and in the third trimester, the pregnancy has reached the point of variability so abortion is no longer legal unless in a case of emergency. Justice Harry Blackmum wrote on the case’s decision the right to abortion, which served as a class action suit that has had a major impact on society. Today, women are able to make the controversial and difficult decision on the topic of abortion for themselves.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa Cass
My legal assessment of the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision in favour of Jane Roe in Roe vs. Wade (1973) is that the court interpreted the constitution in the most accurate manner through the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendments. Norma McCorvey, who filed suit underneath the name of Jane Roe, claimed that she became pregnant as a result of a rape. As a result, she decided to try and get an illegal abortion by a licensed doctor since it was law in the state of Texas forbidding the practice unless it was to save a mother’s life. Ms. McCorvey took this case to the Supreme Court in 1970 alongside her attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington. The suit was based off the violation of rights mainly in the 1st, 9th and 14th Amendments. Weddington was able to deduce that the abortion laws were almost solely based off religion. And the citizens of the United States have freedom of religion. I agree fully with Elizabeth on the role of the 1st Amendment in this court case. The separation of church and state in all laws and decisions should be upheld and never be brought up to justify anyone’s opinion. Yes the religious opinion is a valid one, but the morality of the abortion practice should not have been used in this case. According to the 9th Amendment if the constitution does not deny you of a right, then you have that right. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that a woman cannot have an abortion. Therefore, they should be able to choose whether or not they want to have one or not. In the 14th Amendment, it states “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without the due process of law…” The state of Texas was denying Ms. McCorvey her right to have an abortion. Since that right isn’t being denied to her anywhere in the constitution, she should have the right. Eventually the case went in favour of Norma McCorvey to legalize abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, give the mother the choice in the second trimester by the regulation by the state, and only make it legal to abort a baby in the third trimester to save the mother’s life (point of viability). Henry Wade and the state of Texas did not have enough constitutionality backing their argument while Norma McCorvey did. The people now have more of a decision on abortion than the states do, which I agree with Elizabeth, that it allows the country to be a better democracy. Giving the people the power to choose during the first trimester, the people to choose under state regulation in the second and only legalizing it to save the mother’s life in third makes total sense and gives both parties equal say in the decisions regarding abortion, which is why I believe that the court ruling in favour of Roe and making just laws on abortion was indeed very constitutional.
ReplyDelete-Justin Donawa
Credit to: Elizabeth Hosage
I believe the court interpreted the Constitution well in the Supreme Court decision in favor of Jane Roe in Roe vs. Wade (1973). Norma McCorvey (using the name Jane Roe in court) was denied an abortion in Texas. She brought the issue to the Supreme court, where her attorney, Sarah Weddington, argued that the ban on abortion violated Roe's 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteThe first amendment gave Jane Roe the freedom of religion. Weddington argued that the illegalization of abortions in Texas was based on religious beliefs, which would deny Roe of her religious freedom. Although religion may have been a part in illegalizing abortions in Texas, I find that this amendment would be hard to prove because Texas could have interpreted life to start in the womb, which would have made abortion illegal because it was depriving that embryo of life (not because a religion didn't believe in abortion). So, although I do believe religion was a reason for this law, this argument would not be enough to reverse the decision.
The Fourth Amendment states that everyone has"the right of the people to be secure in their persons…". This would also be a hard argument to make since this Amendment is intended to protect United States citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. Not only was it not intended for the security Roe was asking for but the fourth amendment clearly states protection from "unreasonable searches and seizures" if the phrase Sarah Weddington used were to be continued. It would be extremely difficult to interpret the U.S. Constitution to the extent Sarah was asking for.
The 9th Amendment says that if the Constitution doesn't deny you of a right, then you have that right. Since the United States Constitution does not say anything denying Jane Roe an abortion, then it must be her right. There is no arguing with this.
The 14th Amendment makes the United States Constitution applicable to state governments. The State of Texas denied Jane Roe her constitutional right to an abortion. Nowhere in the Constitution is Norma denied this right, so she must be able to have it.
Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) won the right to an abortion in the first trimester, a choice in the second trimester with regulation from the state, and no abortions with the exception to save the mother's life in the 3rd trimester. I believe that this decision was a good interpretation of the Constitution, and it has really helped to empower women in the United States. The laws allowing and restricting abortion right now, in my opinion, are good ones that should remain as they for now. Although birth control should always be used first to prevent unwanted pregnancies, having abortion legalized is an important safety net and right to all women and men.
Sarah Kinney
Sources:
Justin Downawa, Notes
Does the Constitution contain the right of a woman to obtain an abortion, nullifying the Texas prohibition? This was the constitutional predicament in Roe vs. Wade, a class action suit; however, on January 22, 1973 the U.S. Supreme court deemed, in a 7-2 decision, that abortion does in fact hold its legitimacy. Based on the 9th and 14th amendments, it would seem that abortion is a right and there should be no legal constraints. The ease of this decision was not easily perceived by Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County from 1951 to 1987, whom argued against Norma McCorvey’s, in documents Joe Roe, assertion that she had the legal right to an abortion. Wade, who enforced a Texas law that prohibited abortion except to save a woman’s life, argued that the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy; thus, the states uphold their power to decide if abortion is legal or not. Wade used the 10th amendment as the base of his argument, saying that Federal Government would be overstepping its authority as a court; therefore, he thought that it is the job of state legislatures to determine how abortions should be regulated, not federal courts. The 10th amendment states that any power not specifically granted to the government in the Constitution, is the state’s right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention abortion; thus, Wade sought that Texas’ rights would be violated, by the federal government, if they could not deem abortion as legal or illegal. What also made this decision very controversial was that many conceive the idea of birth differently. Many believe that the start of one’s life is the day of their birth; however, many religious groups believe that birth is considered right at conception. In the United States, there must be a separation between church and state, this means that the court cannot argue with a religiously bias point. This means that the use of the word “person” in the Constitution does not include a fetus; thus, the fourteenth amendment cannot be interpreted to protect the unborn. The 14th amendment was further used in Weddington’s, Roe’s lawyer, argument that abortion should be a state’s ultimate decision. The Fourteenth Amendment states "No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Different abortion laws in each state prevents certain women in states with restrictive laws from accessing abortions, while wealthier women can travel elsewhere to have a legal and safe abortion; thus, there is no equality. Furthermore, The Fourteenth Amendment says, "No State shall…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This means that the government cannot infringe on liberty and any law that infringes on liberty has to be very precise. Any law that infringes on a protected liberty is presumed to be unconstitutional; thus, denying someone the right to an abortion would be infringing upon his or her liberty. Furthermore, Weddington argued the ninth amendment protects one’s privacy in making their own decision. The ninth amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” Ultimately, this is saying that people retain other rights that are not explicitly listed in the Constitution, if it is not denied, it is a given right. Nowhere in the constitution is abortion denied; thus, it should be a given right. People have the right to privacy; this includes freedom of choice.
ReplyDelete-Molly Crabtree
In Roe v. Wade, the court established a law using the due process clause in the 14th amendment that permits a women the right to decide if they would or would like to bear their child. The law itself is logical and fair due to multiple, previously existing amendments that must be obeyed under every circumstance, starting with: the 9th amendment's right to anything that is not denied to you in the constitution, and because this was the first case dealing with abortion, there were no laws previously created that classified it as illegal. Secondly, in order to make abortion illegal, the rights in the constitution would have to apply to the baby itself, which could not be possible because a baby in the womb is dependent on its mother in order to be born and become an individual, until it was an individual, those rights would not apply to it. In addition, the case behind the creation of the law Is arguably logical as well if the mother does not want the child due to inability to provide for them, or rape. Before the creation of the law, Roe was threatened with prosecution by Weddington if an abortion took place, which would be illegal in itself because abortion isn’t mentioned in the constitution, therefor not illegal, and if she were to be prosecuted it would be murder for killing an innocent. So, the case that created the law that classified abortion as legal and the law itself is completely constitutional.
ReplyDelete-Melody Barros
Legal Interpretation of Roe v. Wade (1973)
ReplyDeleteThe practice and legality of abortion in the United States is being debated to this day. But thankfully we are able to look to the Supreme Courts 7-2 decision made in 1973 for the case of Roe v. Wade in order to better understand and move forward on this issue while abiding by the constitution. Faced with an overwhelming amount of cultural influences, religious viewpoints and rights to protect, I believe the Supreme interpreted the case of Roe v. Wade, as well as the constitution, correctly. In order to interpret and understand the legality, and ultimately the decision of this case, it is necessary to examine the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments. Those five rights were considered during the trial and eventually considered in the Supreme Courts decision as the rights of privacy or “marital privacy” that Roe held. The 1st amendment considered the religious influence surrounding abortion laws. The 4th pertained to a citizen’s protection from unlawful searches and seizers, in Roe’s case her request for this surgery was private and her rights were indeed violated when prevented from having the surgery. The 5th was included to ensure the due process of law was upheld not only for Roe, but the child she was having. This became a point of debate, as the Court had to then determine when the fetus should be considered “alive”, therefore receiving rights and requiring its right of the due process of law. The 9th protected against state infringement of unremunerated rights like marital privacy in the case of Roe. Lastly the 14th amendment, specifically the Due Process Clause, made the bill of rights (some of the rights included and considered by the court to be “marital privacy”) binding to the state governments as they were held to the same standard as the Federal government. Including the 14th and Due Process clause made if evident that the Supreme Court did not believe in passing legislation that intrudes too far into the personal lives of citizens. This collection of rights, which served as Roe’s right to privacy, helped the court correctly interpret and uphold the constitution in the case. In the end the Supreme Court voted 7-2 in favor of Roe, resulting in the overturning of all the state statutes that prohibited abortion in the first three months of pregnancy. Additionally, the Supreme Court determined that in certain cases of pregnancy past three months, states can restrict access to abortion with law, but only under the notion of protecting the woman’s health and life. With the case resulting in an almost unanimous decision, I think that the US Supreme Court interpreted the constitution correctly, protected the rights of Roe, and established a new constitutional right for women in the US that they deserved.
-Grayson Keith
Sources:
DeleteNotes
Powerpoint
Oyez
Roe v. Wade deals with an emotional topic that somehow had to be dealt with unemotionally by the court. In certain ways that are stated under the law, abortion should be completely legal. The best example of this is the 9th amendment which deals with any rights the are not stated under the constitution. If it is not specifically stated that it is not allowed constitutionally for a women to get an abortion then it is in fact legal, and the choice is up to the mother. Women should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies because of this. That being said, the 14th amendment also plays a part in this. Under this amendment abortion can also be legal. The 14th also says, "No State shall…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” If someone wants the liberty to have an abortion, that is their right and cannot be taken away from them. However, there are contradictory statements within the constitution that make this case much more complex. Also in the 14th and in the 1st amendment, it states that life cannot be compromised which technically an abortion is depriving life if one is had. This "unborn" person has no control over what happens to them and could be interpreted that the right of life is being taken from them. However, it is stated that the said person must be born in order to have rights, and everyones interpretaion of this is different. Some people think its right at consception and some people belive its when the baby is out of the womb, in the world, and anywhere in between those two. You can see how it would be hard for the court to make a sound decision, because either way the decision was going to upset different groups of people. The law can be interpreted in many way which can make it extremely difficult to make a sound decision under the law.
ReplyDeleteAnna Flaherty
DeleteRoe vs. Wade was an important case which changed and will continue to change the lives of women all over the country. The Supreme Court’s decision allowed for women to terminate a pregnancy within the first trimester of the pregnancy, or the second trimester state permitting.
ReplyDeleteMany religious people believed that this decision was wrong. Their opinion came from their core belief that life begins at conception. Although there are many different religious beliefs as to when life begins, the Supreme Court could not base their decision on any of the religious beliefs. The justices could only interpret the law as it stands. The first amendment states that state and church should be separated making the religious aspect invalid in the court of law.
The ninth amendment was very important in the decision of the Supreme Court as well. The ninth amendment states that any powers not denied by the people are retained by the people and also that people have the right to privacy of their bodies. With regards to this case, there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution. This allows for women to retain the right to an abortion and also her right to privacy was violated.
The Supreme Court ruled correctly with the application of the first and ninth amendments. Whether or not the decision was moral does not matter, it should be up to the woman, the person who is giving birth, to decide whether or not she would like to carry out the act of giving birth. It is a woman’s right to the privacy of her body.
-Komar
Roe v. Wade case is a decision made by the US Supreme Court to allow abortion, and I think it is just and an appropriate decision. "In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that abortions are constitutional by the 9th amendment right of citizens to all rights not prohibited in the constitution, and the 14th amendment right to privacy and incorporation in the states." (Dillon Cunningham) This decision is so extreme and there are an endless amount of different opinions on this case. If a child has not come out of the womb of their mother yet, and it is decided to be aborted, I think that is not murder. Many people argue that it is murder, but the law states that during the first trimester of the pregnancy, the baby is not developed enough. However, the law states that it is illegal to abort a baby during the second and third trimester of a woman's pregnancy because the baby is too far along in the process of pregnancy. Woman/Mothers should have the right to choose what they want to do to their baby and body and that is why I agree with the Roe v. Wade decision of allowing abortion.
ReplyDelete-Hanna Derrig
Hanna Derrig
DeleteThe first, fourth and ninth amendments were used in a beneficial way and "claiming that abortion is religious-based, people have the right to be secure in their own body, and that any laws not prohibiting the people are retained by the people." (Jack L.) This supports my opinion of approval on how abortion is legal in the first trimester because ultimately, the mother should have the choice of whether or not she should have the baby. I think the US Supreme Court made a tough, yet correct decision by looking at the Constitution closely and making abortion legal in the first trimester of pregnancy.
Cite: Jack Lambrecht's post.
Abortion is a topic many people have strong opinions about; it is a question of when life begins. Whether life starts at birth or at the time of conception, some people say that the baby has to have a heartbeat and others believe it is when the fetus can feel pain. Back in 1973 a decision about an abortion was made so big that it was sent to the United States Supreme Court and the Court ruled in a 7-2 decision that the abortion of Jane Roe’s unborn child constitutional. This decision made this an important case due to the amount of amendments to the Constitution that were involved. Jane Roe was another name for Norma McCorvey, when she was 21 she said that her third pregnancy happened because of a rape. Sarah Weddington was Jane Roe’s lawyer, and the Supreme Court ruled the abortions constitutional. I agree with the decision of the court because the followed the United States Constitution. Roe vs. Wade involved the 9th and the 14th amendment. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state the abortion is prohibited therefore it was her decision to get an abortion.
ReplyDelete-Lane Mayher
In this particular case the Supreme Court made a very smart decision in allowing all abortions within the first trimester and some in the second trimester. They thought of peoples needs economically and religiously. For people who are under the belief that a fetus has a soul they received some good news when the supreme court made third trimester abortions illegal once the fetus got to the point where it could survive outside the womb. This decision is great and to me, not controversial. The court thought of all who may be affected of this decision, including an unborn fetus, and made the proper decision using the 14th, 9th and 1st amendment. This decision is validated and supported by the 9th amendment. The 9th amendment of course means any right not disallowed by the state is right the people have. No where in the constitution does it say anything about abortions being illegal therefor American women should have the right to choice. The court used the 14th amendment to apply the rights of the 9th amendment at the state level to get rid of state laws prohibiting abortions. This to me is a great decision by the Supreme Court that gives American women a powerful right of choice allowing them to have more say in what happens to their body.
ReplyDelete-Luke Amero
In Roe v Wade (1973), the United States Supreme Court ruled that abortion is legal until after the first trimester, where then it is regulated by the states. In a 7-2 ruling, the court ruled that a woman has the privacy to have an abortion, which falls underneath the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Roe’s counsel, Weddington, also used the 1st, 4th, and 9th amendments, claiming that abortion is religious-based, people have the right to be secure in their own body, and that any laws not prohibiting the people are retained by the people.
ReplyDeleteI believe that from a legal standpoint, the court made the correct decision giving a pregnant women the choice of abortion until after the first trimester, after which the states regulate the laws of pregnancy in the second trimester. The United States Supreme Court, in my opinion, correctly interpreted both the 9th and 14th amendments. The 9th amendment applies to abortion because there is no right in the US Constitution that states that a woman can not get an abortion, therefore she is granted that right. The Supreme Court ruled that women in all 50 states can legally have an abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy, then using the 14th amendment to give states the right to decide the laws of abortion during the second. During the third trimester, if the baby is viable, there is no legal abortion, the woman must have the child, unless the pregnancy puts the mother’s life in danger. Overall, I think the Supreme Court fully enforced the US Constitution and gave an unbiased, lawful decision in the end.
Jack Lambrecht
D Period
The courts decision on Roe v wade was in the best interest of all the people either against are pro abortion. We still leave the privacy of women in their own hands by giving them a decision which makes sure their constitutional rights are not infringed upon, but instead the court decided, "up until the point of viability" Concluding that the unborn child cannot be aborted if it can survive outside of the womb. I believe this is the best politically correct answer and the court made the right decision due to the fact that the length of a women's first trimester is ample time to consider the option of abortion. Even those against abortion must realize that the 14th and 9th amendment must be upheld and if there is any further decision such as after the first trimester those laws will be left to the state government to decide upon. I personally believe that this was a fair and correct interpretation of our constitution; the simple fact that abortion was not apart of our constitution pre-trial we have to accept the legality of the supreme courts decision.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court Decision in Roe vs. Wade (1973) was an accurate interpretation of the Constitution, and I believe it was the correct decision. The 7 to 2 majority vote to remove Texas abortion laws was the right decision. Based solely off of the Constitution, not including any religious views, a woman has more of her rights violated if she is not given the choice to have an abortion or not, compared the baby. Jane Roe had her first amendment right violated because abortion laws were religious based. Her fourth amendment right was violated because people have “the right to be secure in their persons.” Her fifth amendment was violated because she was not provided the due process of law. Her ninth amendment was violated because if there is not a right prohibited in the Constitution, then it is the right of the people. Lastly her fourteenth amendment was violated as well. The right argued to be violated when defending the baby’s life is the fourteenth amendment. It states all persons born are citizens and deserve equal protection of the law. However the definition of born is “existing as a result of birth.” Therefore the baby is not technically alive and a part of this world yet, so the fourteenth amendment can be and was argued to not apply. The Supreme Court’s new rules and regulations after this case created a fair balance between protecting women and their choice of that right and protecting state’s potential citizens. The Supreme Court overturns all state rules that prohibit abortions during the first three months of pregnancy. During the first trimester, it is completely up to the mother and the state cannot interfere. During the second trimester it is still up to the mother, but the state can regulate. During the third trimester, it is the point of viability. Overall the decision used the Constitution well and addressed the main issue of maintaining balance. Although the topic of abortion is still very controversial, the Supreme Court came up with the appropriate decision.
ReplyDeleteKristalyn Baisden
After reviewing the case of the Roe v Wade (1973) decision by the United States Supreme Court, I personally agree with the Supreme Courts Decision because I believe they interpreted the U.S Constitution correctly. The first step I took to decide if I agreed with the ruling was by looking at the facts of the case. The Plaintiff, Norma L. McCorvey, was ruled in favor. She claimed that her pregnancy was the result of a rape, so she requested a legal abortion. I believe whether it is a rape or not, women are able to make the decision of aborting a child or not because it is there body. Also, if the court told Ms. McCorvey that she could not have an abortion, they are violating her first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendment rights. Her first amendment was violated because abortion laws were religious based. Her fourth amendment was violated because “The right of the people to be secure in their persons...” Her fifth amendment was violated because the due process of law. Her ninth amendment was violated because rights not prohibited the people are the peoples. Last, her fourteenth amendment was violated because of incorporation to the states. Considering that five of her amendments were violated she should be legally allowed to make her own decision. On January 22nd, 1973 Supreme Court overturns all state statues that prohibit abortions during the first three months of pregnancy. The issue with the decision was, what as the balance between a woman's 9th amendment right to the privacy of her body and the states duty to protect the potential life of its citizen. But I believe in this case the best decision to make. The First trimester no state interference, it is up to the mother. The second trimester, mother's decision, but regulated by the state. The third trimester is the point of viability, abortions only legal to save the life of the mother. The Supreme Court decision is the only decision that is appropriate for everyone. There could be many reasons why women say they do not want to have their child but it is their decision. Although this is a very personal subject, the law should allow anyone to make any decision they choose too. Although many people and religions believed this decision was wrong, this was solemnly the best decision with using the U.S. Constitution and that is why I strongly agree with the 7-2 courts decision. Though a state cannot completely deny a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life at various stages of pregnancy.
ReplyDeleteSamone DeFreese – D Period
Sources
ReplyDeleteElizabeth Hosage
Roe, a pregnant single woman, brought a class action suit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas abortion laws. These laws made it a crime to obtain or attempt an abortion except on medical advice to save the life of the mother. Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit included Hallford, a doctor who faced criminal prosecution for violating the state abortion laws; and the Does, a married couple with no children, who sought an injunction against enforcement of the laws on the grounds that they were unconstitutional. The defendant was county District Attorney Wade .A three judge District Court panel tried the cases together and held that Roe and Hallford had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies, and that declaratory relief was warranted. The court also ruled however that injunctive relief was not warranted and that the Does’ complaint was not justiciable. Roe and Hallford won their lawsuits at trial. The district court held that the Texas abortion statutes were void as vague and for over broadly infringing the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs. The Does lost, however, because the district court ruled that injunctive relief against enforcement of the laws was not warranted. The Does appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the United States and Wade cross-appealed the district court’s judgment in favor of Roe and Hallford. The Court ruled that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman a right to abortion during the entirety of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters. Many religions identify the moment a life is created as the moment of conception. Although this is a respectable opinion it is based on a religion. The constitution's 1st amendment separated Church and State in all laws and decisions hence it was the Supreme Court's job to only use the constitution to interpret the legality of abortion, not the morality of abortion. The courts interpreted the law well because a fetus in the womb is not yet a citizen hence the unborn baby is not protected by the 14 amendment but when the fetus reaches the second and third trimesters the fetus has a possibility of surviving on its own i.e. (Outside of its mother’s womb) hence on some level when the fetus reaches these stages it might reserve the right to be protected by the 14 amendment hence the supreme court made the right decision by making it up to states to judge if women could get abortions during the second and third trimesters.
Another Kushaina
In the court case Roe Vs. Wade, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that in a certain amount of time, a woman could legally get an abortion. After this time period, it could be considered an interest of the state. This decision came about because in Texas a woman was denied an abortion but did not want to have the child. This case slowly made its way to the Supreme Court where two main amendments where brought into question. The first being the 9th Amendment, this was argued by the complainant against Texas. The woman fighting in court was Jane Roe, which was an alias; she was aided in court by Sarah Weddington. Together they argued that according to the 9th amendment of the US constitution, any right not denied in the constitution was our right. This was apparent, because abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. On the other hand, the defense, argued primarily with the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which said that any power not given to the National Government was then a state power, and subject to regulation by the means of the state in the opinion of the state. In this case, Texas believed it had the right to regulate abortion because that was not ever stated as being up to the National Government. In the end, the Supreme Court gave into each side a little and created a compromise. The Supreme Court ruled that in the first trimester of pregnancy, a woman cannot be denied an abortion if that is her wish. If she is in her second trimester, the state can step in and regulate these abortions because they are after the first three months of pregnancy. In addition to these abortions, if they are allowed and executed, the procedure must be done at a state facility. The last part of the decision was that in the third trimester, which is when viability begins an abortion is illegal. Viability means, if the baby was to be born then it would have a chance of living. In this time, the only way for the termination of the pregnancy is if it to save the life of the mother. I think in a case with great controversy due to many different beliefs as to when life begins, the Supreme Court made a decision that can be beneficial to most people who have an opinion about it. Abortion is something that can save the life of many young girls who otherwise would have to give up their lives to raise a child who might not benefit from having everything it needs. I agree with the decision made in 1973.
ReplyDeleteEmma Weinstein
In the Roe vs. Wade case the court debated on whether banning abortion was permitted by the constitution. McCorvey, or Jane Roe, was a 21-year-old female who falsely asserted that she had been raped so that she could legally abort her baby. Her plan was unsuccessful and couldn’t receive an illegal abortion because all clinics were shut down. With attorneys Coffee and Waddington she fought her case in court, and it took them three years to reach the Supreme Court, which by that point the baby in question had been born and adopted. In a 7-2 vote, it was decided by the court that it was constitutional to allow abortion. The controversy of this decision is still debated largely around the country because many debated when a child is considered born. If a child is born during conception, then abortion would be considered murder, whereas if a child is born at birth then abortion is not murder. To come to a consensus the ninth amendment and the fourteenth amendment were the most debated. Focusing particularly on the ninth amendment, since abortion is not directly banned by the constitution, it is the right of Roe, and any other women to abort a baby. However restrictions were applied to protect the mother as after the first trimester, risks of repercussions from abortions increase. The court emphasized that the safety and health of the mother were large focuses. The fourteenth amendment declares that the States do not have the right to take away the freedoms given to citizens through the amendments. As already discussed with the 9th amendment, by disallowing abortion in Texas, that state was interfering with her rights and therefor the ruling of the court allowed abortion. I personally agree with the ruling of the courts because since a child is creates such an impact in ones life, it would be wrong for states or the government to oppose these changes against ones wishes, especially when abortion is not already banned through the constitution. For those against abortion for moral or religious reasons are not forced to partake in the procedure, but allowing unprepared mothers the freedom of choice of whether they can support another human being, in my opinion was the right choice.
ReplyDeleteJamie E
I believe that the right to have an abortion is a personal matter and should be the decision of the female. In the Roe vs. Wade case (1973); there was a controversial issue with the abortion rights of an individual in Texas. Basically this case captures the essence of a woman's personal rights and how there should be a set of laws with the timing of abortion procedures. Laws came into place and they were basically that a woman can decide within the firsts three months if she wants to have an abortion. States can restrict abortion rights only if it is in the best interest of the woman. The last one being “Once the fetus is viable, an abortion must still be available if the woman's health or life are at risk. State governments are free to pass legislation that will allow or prohibit late-term abortions -- those on a viable fetus -- for other reasons.”(rtolerance) These are the three laws that were created after the case had been completed. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of personal privacy where it is “implicit in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” The Due Process of Law basically protects and guarantees fairness, justice, and liberty to all citizens.(religoustolerance.org) The Supreme Court declared a Texas anti-abortion statute unconstitutional and thereby instituted these three laws. It is in the hands of the woman to make the decision unless one is over the first trimester.
ReplyDeleteSo, my overall legal assessment after analyzing the factual evidence of this case would be that the Constitution had made a just decision and interpreted it perfectly.
-Taylor Wray
My legal assessment of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court case is that the constitution was correctly interpreted. Jane Roe lied saying she was raped so she was allowed to get an abortion, however she was found out. She tried then to get an abortion illegally, but was unsuccessful there too. So she took her case to court. She and her lawyer eventually reached the Supreme Court and won their case. The outcome was that if the mother is still in her first trimester, she has the right to an abortion. If she is in her second trimester, it s up to the state to decide. And finally, if she is in her third trimester when the baby is almost fully developed, an abortion would be considered murder and therefore unconstitutional. Roe’s lawyer argued the 9th, 10th, and 14th amendment. The 9th amendment states that any right not directly stated in the Constitution is the right of the people, and since abortions are not mentioned anywhere in the constitution, abortion is the right of the people. The 14th amendment states that the states do not have the right to take away rights of any people that are not described in the Constitution. By arguing the 9th and the 14th amendments, Roe’s lawyer correctly interpreted the United States Constitution and won her case. I believe the way she approached this case and the outcome of it is completely legitimate and right.
ReplyDelete-Sophia Peluso