(usa) roe v. wade

8/10/2019 (USA) Roe v. Wade

1/6

Derecho a la vida Roe v. Wade 1

Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued December 13, 19 1 Reargued !ctober 11, 19 " Decided #anuar$ "", 19 3 %u&& case name' #ane Roe, et a&. v. (enr$ Wade, District Attorne$ of Da&&as Count$(o&ding)e*as &a+ ma ing it a crime to assist a +oman to get an abortion vio&ated her due process rights. U.S.District Court for the -orthern District of )e*as affirmed in part, reversed in part.Court membershipChief #ustice' Warren . /urger

0a+s app&iedU.S. Const. Amend. 2 4 )e*. Code Crim. 5roc. arts. 1191697, 1198Roe v. Wade, 71 U.S. 113 :19 3; +as a United States Supreme Court case that resu&ted in a &andmardecision regarding abortion. no+n companion case, Doe v. /o&ton, +as decided atthe same time.


2/6


vagueness.< = #ustices Wi&&iam RehnIuist and 0e+is %. 5o+e&&, #r. oined the Supreme Court too &ate tohear the first round of arguments. )herefore, Chief #ustice Warren /urger proposed that the case bereargued4 this too p&ace on !ctober 11, 19 ". Weddington continued to represent Roe, and )e*asAssistant Attorne$ Fenera& Robert C. %&o+ers stepped in to rep&ace Wade. #ustice Wi&&iam !. Doug&athreatened to +rite a dissent from the reargument order, but +as coa*ed out of the action b$ hisco&&eagues, and his dissent +as mere&$ mentioned in the reargument order +ithout further statement or

opinion.< =


3/6


Rights or ?penumbras, formed b$ emanations?, as the Court had done in Fris+o&d v. Connecticut, theRoe Court re&ied on a ?right of privac$? that it said +as &ocated in the due process c&ause of theConstitution.

)he Court determined that ?arguments that )e*as either has no va&id interest at a&& in regu&ating theabortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support an$ &imitation upon the +omanBs so&edetermination, are unpersuasive?, and dec&ared, ?We, therefore, conc&ude that the right of persona&privac$ inc&udes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unIua&ified and must be consideredagainst important state interests in regu&ation.?

When +eighing the competing interests that the Court had identified, /&ac mun a&so asserted that if thefetus +as defined as a person for purposes of the %ourteenth Amendment then the fetus +ou&d have aspecific right to &ife under that Amendment. (o+ever, the Court ma orit$ determined that the origina& intentof the Constitution :up to the enactment of the %ourteenth Amendment in 1 8 ; did not inc&ude theunborn.

)he CourtBs determination of +hether a fetus can en o$ constitutiona& protection +as separate from thenotion of +hen &ife begins' ?We need not reso&ve the difficu&t Iuestion of +hen &ife begins. When thosetrained in the respective discip&ines of medicine, phi&osoph$, and theo&og$ are unab&e to arrive at an$consensus, the udiciar$, at this point in the deve&opment of manBs no+&edge, is not in a position tospecu&ate as to the ans+er.? )he Court on&$ be&ieved itse&f positioned to reso&ve the Iuestion of +hen aright to abortion begins.

)he decision estab&ished a s$stem of trimesters that attempted to ba&ance the stateBs &egitimate interestsagainst the abortion right. )he Court ru&ed that the state cannot restrict a +omanBs right to an abortionduring the first trimester, the state can regu&ate the abortion procedure during the second trimester ?in

+a$s that are reasonab&$ re&ated to materna& hea&th?, and the state can choose to restrict or proscribeabortion as it sees fit during the third trimester +hen the fetus is viab&e :?e*cept +here it is necessar$, inappropriate medica& udgment, for the preservation of the &ife or hea&th of the mother?;.


4/6


/$ron White +as the senior dissenting ustice.Associate #ustices /$ron R. White and Wi&&iam (.RehnIuist +rote emphatic dissenting opinions in this case. #ustice White +rote'

K 2 find nothing in the &anguage or histor$ of the Constitution to support the CourtBs udgment. )he Courtsimp&$ fashions and announces a ne+ constitutiona& right for pregnant mothers and, +ith scarce&$ an$reason or authorit$ for its action, invests that right +ith sufficient substance to override most e*isting stateabortion statutes. )he upshot is that the peop&e and the &egis&atures of the G States are constitutiona&&$disentit&ed to +eigh the re&ative importance of the continued e*istence and deve&opment of the fetus, onthe one hand, against a spectrum of possib&e impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an e*erciseof ra+ udicia& po+er, the Court perhaps has authorit$ to do +hat it does toda$4 but, in m$ vie+, its udgment is an improvident and e*travagant e*ercise of the po+er of udicia& revie+ that the Constitutione*tends to this Court.&ife protesters demonstrate outside the Supreme Court /ui&ding in Washington, D.C. in the Earchfor 0ife. Supporters describe Roe as vita& to preservation of +omenBs rights, persona& freedom, andprivac$.

USA


5/6


!pponents of Roe have ob ected that the decision &ac s a va&id Constitutiona& foundation. 0i e thedissenters in Roe, the$ have maintained that the Constitution is si&ent on the issue, and that properso&utions to the Iuestion +ou&d best be found via state &egis&atures and the democratic process, ratherthan through an a&&>encompassing ru&ing from the Supreme Court. Supporters of Roe contend that thedecision has a va&id constitutiona& foundation, or contend that ustification for the resu&t in Roe cou&d be

found in the Constitution but not in the artic&es referenced in the decision.birth abortion;, &a+s reIuiring +aitingperiods before abortion, or &a+s mandating +omen read certain t$pes of &iterature before choosing anabortion.19 s to the &ate 19 s, but uphe&d restrictions on funding, inc&uding the ($de Amendment,in the case of (arris v. EcRae :19 ;.choice side, and the -ationa& Right to 0ife Committee on the pro>&ife side.During his &ife, (arr$ /&ac mun, author of the Roe opinion, +as a determined advocate for the decision.!thers have oined him in support of Roe, inc&uding #udith #arvis )homson, +ho before the decision hadoffered an inf&uentia& defense of abortion.


6/6


that this super>protected right is not inferab&e from the &anguage of the Constitution, the framers thin ingrespecting the specific prob&em in issue, an$ genera& va&ue derivab&e from the provisions the$ inc&uded, othe nation s governmenta& structure.?

Simi&ar&$, (arvard &a+ professor 0aurence )ribe has noted that, ?!ne of the most curious things aboutRoe is that, behind its o+n verba& smo escreen, the substantive udgment on +hich it rests is no+here tobe found.?

(usa) roe v. wade

Documents