Ariel Bonus & Sierra Bryner Abortion Ariel Bonus & Sierra Bryner

Roe vs. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973), a landmark decision by the U.S Supreme Court on the issue of abortion…

What is the constitutional issue involved in the case? Texas law made it a felony to abort a fetus unless the mother was going to be in danger and lose her life during birth. (First Amendment)

Who were the parties involved in the case Who were the parties involved in the case ? the parties involved in the case? Jane Roe and Henry Wade (District Attorney). Wade enforced a texas law that prohibited abortion, except if it were to save the mother's life.

When and where did the case take place? The case took place in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The case took place on December 13th, 1971

What events lead up to this case going before the Supreme Court? Jane Roe had just lost her job, was poor, and did not want to continue with her pregnancy. Texas law prohibited abortion with the exception to save a woman's life. Norma McCorvey tried to find a doctor who would be willing to perform an illegal abortion. Norma McCorvey- was her real name she used the name Jane Roe to protect her real name and nobody knew her real name until the 1800’s

What courts or court heard this before getting to the supreme court ? Texas law had been declared unconstitutional in an earlier federal district court case (United States v Vuitch) , 1971 -1972

Historical Context: what was happening in the world that this case needed to be tried? The court recognized for the first time that the constitutional right to privacy “is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy”

What was the SUpreme Court’s ruling/decisions? The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy protected by the 14th amendment. The decision gave a women a right to abortion during entirety of the pregnancy & defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second & third trimesters Affected in 46 states

WHat was the reasoning given by the Supreme court for making their decision? It was based on the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. It stated that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" protected a person's right to privacy. The Supreme Court chose to base its decision on the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Opposing Viewpoints For Roe: Under the Bill of Rights, a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy. It is improper for a State to deny individuals the personal, marital, familial, and sexual right to privacy. Moreover, in no case in its history has the Court declared that a fetus—a developing infant in the womb—is a person. Therefore, the fetus cannot be said to have any legal "right to life." Because it is unduly intrusive, the Texas law is unconstitutional and should be overturned. For Wade: The State has a duty to protect prenatal life. Life is present at the moment of conception. The unborn are people, and as such are entitled to protection under the Constitution. The Texas law is a valid exercise of police powers reserved to the States in order to protect the health and safety of citizens, including the unborn. The law is constitutional and should be upheld.

How do you feel about the ruling , & why? I think that if a woman feels the need to terminate her pregnancy then she has the right to do so. If you have a reason to terminate your pregnancy then you should be allowed to without somebody else making the decision for you. If you cannot support your child and if you are not fit to be a mother you shouldn't be forced to keep it without being able to look at other options.

Mr Justice White’s dissenting opinion At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons — convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. The common claim before us is that, for any one of such reasons, or for no reason at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical advisor willing to undertake the procedure.With all due respect, I dissent. 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 [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. 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.