Roe V. Wade's Case Of Abortion

1732 Words7 Pages
Although some women feel as though abortion is wrong. Others feel that they should have the right to go things to their body without government interference. In 1973 the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Roe V. Wade. Jane Roe was a single mother trying to raise one child on a limited income. She was living in Dallas Texas when she became pregnant with another child. There were no medical issues that would have prevented her from carrying this child to full term. The lack of income and already having a child was her deciding factor. In March of 1970 Jane Roe filed suit against the state of Texas. She declared that the Texas Criminal Abortion Statues were unconstitutional. Jane Roe claimed that the Texas statue was vague and took…show more content…
To look at abortion as murder the court decided that a fertilized egg should have the same traits as a full term baby. The court looked at the principal of privacy and the fourteenth amendment and did not extend the rights to an unborn fetus. The court in Roe V. Wade turned to medical evidence this evidence led them to a three-tiered approach. In this approach they separated a pregnancy into three trimesters. The first trimester is when most abortions occur. In fact, in the first trimester is when ninety percent of the abortions occur. The court deemed that a woman’s rights in the first trimester to have an abortion could not be infringed upon. In the second trimester greater restrictions were put into place. These restrictions in the second trimester would be left up to individual states. These restrictions would be for the health and safety of the woman pregnant only. In the third trimester when a fetus is capable of surviving outside a woman’s body abortions are illegal, only the government can interfere. This sparked great controversy out side the courts and inside the…show more content…
I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. . . . As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.” Quoted by Justice Bryon R.
Open Document