8/9/2019 Roe vs Wade - Abortion vs Right to Life

1/2

Roe vs. Wade – (right to life vs. abortion policy)

 Three distinct parties have fled cases challenging the constitutionality o the Texas criminalabortion laws which “proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice orthe purpose o saving the mother’s lie.” The three parties are:

1 !ane "oe # alleged that she was pregnant and could not attain a legal abortion as shepleased because Texas laws prohibited a mother with no health ris$ rom procuring one.%owever& she could not travel to another state to get one any longer and was thusultimately impeded in her rights. This case is 'usticiable.

( !ames %ubert %alord& a licensed physician& had been arrested or violations o the Texasabortion law as he claimed that the provisions were unclear and vague. %e merely couldnot determine i women were under the exception or not. )n any case& it is claimed thatthe law violates the privacy o doctor#patient relations and his right to practice medicine.

 This case is 'usticiable.* !ohn and +ary ,oe& a married couple& also fled a complaint based on their ear that

perhaps in the uture& due to contraceptive ailure& +ary might get pregnant and will su-erhealth problems due to her neural#chemical disorder. )n this case& the law might prohibither rom getting an abortion and thus ta$ing a toll even more on her health. This petitionwas dismissed or its premature and speculative character.

 The bases o their arguments were primarily:1 The statute is void because it is vague and overbroadly inringing plainti-s’ inth

/mendment’s “reservations o rights to the people”( 0iolates “personal liberty” in due process clause o ourteenth /mendment which protects

against “state action to the right o privacy& including a woman’s right to terminate herpregnancy.”

 The issue here is whether or not the Texas abortion law is unconstitutional or not.

 The court held that the right o privacy as can be ound in the ourteenth /mendment is “broadenough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” %owever&this right o privacy is not absolute. 2he is not entitled to terminate her pregnancy at “whatevertime& way& and reason she alone chooses.”

 This is because:1 “/bortion& li$e any other medical procedure& should not be perormed when contrary to the

best interests o the patient since good medical practice re3uires due consideration or thepatient4s welare and not mere ac3uiescence to the patient4s demand.”

( The state nevertheless has a responsibility in regulating areas around the right o privacyas deemed appropriate. )t has interests in maintaining medical standards& saeguardinghealth& and protecting potential lie.

“5e& thereore& conclude that the right o personal privacy includes the abortion decision& butthat this right is not un3ualifed and must be considered against important state interests inregulation.”)n sum& Texas cannot override the right o privacy o the woman. %owever& it does have stateinterests and responsibilities it must execute such as the protection o the health o the mother.

/s or the law itsel&/rt. 1167 o the Texas 8enal 9ode& in restricting legal abortions to those procured or attemptedby medical advice or the purpose o saving the lie o the mother&4 sweeps too broadly. Thestatute ma$es no distinction between abortions perormed early in pregnancy and thoseperormed later& and it limits to a single reason& saving4 the mother4s lie& the legal 'ustifcationor the procedure. The statute& thereore& cannot survive the constitutional attac$ made upon ithere.

 Additional notes: Stipulations of Current Texas Law

8/9/2019 Roe vs Wade - Abortion vs Right to Life

2/2

;a or the stage prior to approximately the end o the frst trimester& the abortion decision and itse-ectuation must be let to the medical 'udgment o the pregnant woman4s attending physician. 8p.