In America, a pre-quickening process for the termination of a pregnancy was considered a crime in the common law. That implied that if a pregnant woman died, the person carrying out the termination of pregnancy was to be charged with murder. In addition, negative birth rights from case laws were not applicable in scenarios induced by voluntary or consensual actions, which permitted the termination of a fetus conceived in an accepted way. On the other hand, those who championed banning abortion claimed that the aim was to preserve the fetus’ life, establish determent against abortions in the future, and avoid threatening the mother’s ability to give birth. The main issue in Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 was to determine if the 14th amendment safeguards the right of privacy for women seeking an abortion.
Summary of the Case
The United States apex court reached a verdict in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), ruling that the constitution provided the right for pregnant mothers to seek abortion care. The ruling by the apex court struck down different state and deferral abortion laws, causing a continual debate about the termination of pregnancy in America (Abortion: Roe v. Wade, 1973). That heated debate was about the entity that should rule on the legality of abortion, to what extent abortion would be legalized, and the position of religious and ethical values in the political domain. The court’s verdict also fueled conversations about the approaches to be used by the apex court in constitutional adjudication.
Norma McCorvey brought the lawsuit before the U.S. apex court under the legal appellation Jane Roe. In 1969, the plaintiff got her third pregnancy and wanted to terminate it, although it was illegal in Texas, where McCorvey lived, except when the mother’s life was in danger. McCorvey’s lawyers, including Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, filed litigation in an American law court in support of their client against Henry Wade, arguing that the abortion regulations in Texas were unconstitutional (Coen-Sanchez et al., 2022). After a three-judge panel heard the case, the court ruled in support of McCorvey. In 1973, the apex court decided in support of McCorvey, stating that the fourteenth amendment in the constitution provides a right to privacy, allowing a pregnant mother to terminate her pregnancy (Coen-Sanchez et al., 2022). The decision meant that the abortion decision was not fixed and must be balanced with the government’s policies to safeguard the mother’s health and prenatal life.
The supreme court in the United States categorized abortion rights as fundamental demanding courts to assess challenged laws of abortion under strict scrutiny. Moreover, it solved the competing interests by declaring a timetable for the pregnancy stages of development to regulate all abortion laws in the country. Until the 21st century, the decision by the apex court in favor of McCorvey remains one of the most controversial debates in the history of America. In June 2022, the apex court overturned its previous ruling because the fundamental rights to termination were not deeply ingrained in the traditions of the United States. However, this ruling was supported by the pro-life movements and opposed by the pro-choice movements in the nation.
Background of the Case
Sara Weddington selected Linda Coffee to help file an abortion lawsuit in court. Coffee had a neurochemical disorder, and the healthcare professionals advised her not to give birth or raise children due to her medical condition. However, she did not want to abstain from sex (Abortion: Roe v. Wade, 1973). Since she was not pregnant then, the lawyer (Weddington) advised that they look for a pregnant mother in Texas willing to terminate her pregnancy and thus serve as a plaintiff. By so doing, they would enhance the probability that the judging panel would aid them in winning their litigation. The case would be presented to a three-judge bench, including a jury they considered to be sympathetic; hence this would be possible by filing one case in Dallas.
Initially, Weddington was unsuccessful in finding a suitable expectant mother. Fortunately, being a 21-year-old, in June 1969, Norma McCorvey discovered that she had a third pregnancy (Abortion: Roe v. Wade, 1973). Customarily, attorneys were only mandated to advise clients with pre-existing relations directly, but Joe’s case had a qualified exception. Both Coffee and Weddington filed a case, Roe v. Wade, representing McCorvey in the law court of the Northern District of Texas in America (Okonofua, 2022). They also filed Does v. Wade in support of a husband and a wife, with the defendants being Henry Wade, on behalf of the Lone Star State and the county District Attorney of Dallas.
Similarly, the court allowed James Hallford, a doctor prosecuted for performing an abortion, to be part of the suit. Out of the two cases, one was to be heard by a pool of judges, including Sarah Hughes, who was believed to commiserate, and the lawsuits were consolidated. The court’s regulations stated that two judges hearing the merged lawsuit should be assigned based on their juridical district, and the third one must be a circuit court jury.
The consolidated case was presented before a three-judge bench comprising district court judges. Coffee used to work as a clerk in Hughes’ firm between 1968 and 1969, and thus they knew each other (Okonofua, 2022). In addition, the professional background of judges Irving Goldberg and William Taylor Jr. gave Coffee and her lawyer confidence that they would win their case. The three-judge panel unanimously gave a ruling in favor of McCorvey on 17th June 1970, announcing that the abortion laws in Texas were unconstitutional and violated the right to privacy (Okonofua, 2022). Primarily, the judges relied on the concurrence of Arthur Goldberg in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 (Okonofua, 2022). Furthermore, the bench refused to give an injunction against law enforcement and overruled the married couple, maintaining that their case lacked standing.
Discussion of the Court’s Decision
The United States apex court granted a ruling expressing support for Jane Roe, maintaining that American women had constitutional rights to decide if to terminate a pregnancy without extreme governmental limitation. The apex court also dropped the banning of abortion in Texas as unconstitutional. According to the court, the right to privacy encompassed the choice by a woman whether or not to abort. Additionally, the right to terminate a pregnancy was not fixed. Thus, it might be restricted by the nation’s vested interests in protecting the health of women, safeguarding potential prenatal life, and maintaining the right standards of medical care. The court shed light on the fact that before completing the first three months of fetus development, the government should not interfere with or control an attending doctor’s decision, attained in agreement with the patient.
Along with decisions related to contraception, family relationships, education, and marriage, the court maintains that the decision to have an abortion is fundamental to personal freedom. By denying this choice, the government would impose detrimental repercussions upon pregnant mothers, such as the economic and health problems of being compelled into pregnancy continuation (Rohan, 2022). Limitations on the abortion right were based on strict scrutiny and the most rigorous review of the law’s constitutionality. That legal framework provided that violations of the right be closely customized to serve a coercive regime (Rohan, 2022). Application of the three stages of pregnancy, the case authorized more abortion regulation as pregnancy advanced, but only when that law was consistent with how other medical procedures were treated and when it was evidence-based. Thus, the government should not pressure pregnant women about their choice of whether to terminate or continue a pregnancy.
In conclusion, the majority decision by the American apex court to overturn Roe v. Wade case has taken away the fundamental right to seek termination of pregnancy. This ruling will have adverse and discriminatory impacts on the sexual health of American women. The Roe v. Wade case rules that it is the expectant woman’s choice but not the government’s to choose whether to continue a pregnancy before viability. Thus, the government of the U.S. may not prohibit abortion rights for whatever reason before the fetus’s viability. Moreover, the court’s decision in favor of Roe made bans on state abortion unlawful and abortion services easily accessible, legal, and safer across the United States. The significance of this case is that the U.S. apex court acknowledged the right to liberty as provided for in the constitution safeguards personal privacy, including the right to terminate a pregnancy or choose to continue it.
References
Abortion: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113(1973), Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. (1974), 64 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (393) 1973. Web.
Coen-Sanchez, K., Ebenso, B., El-Mowafi, I. M., Berghs, M., Idriss-Wheeler, D., & Yaya, S. (2022). Repercussions of overturning Roe v. Wade for women across systems and beyond borders. Reproductive Health, 19(1), 1-5. Web.
Okonofua, F. (2022). Roe vs. Wade conundrum: Africa must increase commitment to sexual and reproductive health and rights. African Journal of Reproductive Health, 26(6), 9-14. Web.
Rohan, A. J. (2022). Overturning Roe v. Wade: What are the implications for perinatal nurses? MCN: The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing, 47(6), 309. Web.