The chosen topic area for evaluation is abortion, and it will be analyzed using the case of Roe v. Wade.
Policy background
The case was brought into court in 1971 by the Roe, the litigant against Wade, who was the district attorney of Dallas Country. The defendant was accused of enforcing the Texas law, which forbidden abortion except when saving the life of a woman. The litigant filed the case in the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case against the respondent who executed the Texas abortion statute, which had been rendered illegal in an earlier federal district court case. The defendant had ignored the previous ruling on the law, and this made both the parties in the case to appeal in the Supreme Court.
In 1973, the Supreme Court affirmed the legitimacy of the woman’s entitlement to terminate a pregnancy under the 14th Amendment of the law of the land. After the affirmation of the case by the Supreme Court, the plaintiff later in 2003 filed a motion with the US lower court in Dallas to overturn the case and ask the court to review the unprecedented proof that abortion hurts women. The problem in the case is about abortion of women, where the plaintiff argues that women have a right to resolve to terminate their pregnancy at any point. The event that catalyzed the case was the execution of the illicit Texas abortion law by the respondent. Additionally, the problem requires immediate attention to assist in protecting the women’s choice to end a pregnancy. Pregnant women are concerned in the case because the lawsuit would determine if their choices to either abort or not would be protected under the constitution.
Facts of the case
The pertinent facts and legal points raised in the lawsuit surrounded the legitimacy of abortion by pregnant women. Both the parties to the case raised various legal arguments that formed the basis of determining the case. The defendant defended the Texas abortion law by placing forth three significant arguments that justified his action of executing the code. First, the respondent argued that a fetus is a person protected by the 14th Amendment. The defendant also argued that safeguarding the prenatal life from the duration of conception is an engrossing state interest. Lastly, the respondent put forth an argument that the state has attentiveness in preserving the wellbeing, keeping clinical standards along with protecting gustatory life. The litigant, on the other side, argued that the Texas law violated an individual’s entitlement to liberty under the 14th Amendment. Also, the plaintiff argued that the entitlement to abortion is outright since women are entitled to terminate a pregnancy at any point in any way they choose. Additionally, the litigant argued that the law contravened the women’s entitlements to marital along with sexual privacy assured by the Bill of Rights. The court used the arguments raised by the parties to the case while referring to the provision of the 14th Amendment along with the past judicial precedents to rule on the case.
Reasoning and opinions
On January 22, 1973, the Highest bench of the USA affirmed the legitimacy of the woman’s entitlement to terminate a pregnancy under the 14th Amendment. It ruled in favor of the plaintiff after being convinced that the constitution protects the right to abort. The 7-2 decisions made by the supreme court gave the plaintiff victory over the case. While ruling the case, the court relied on the opinion of the majority, which recognized that entitlement to solitude protects the woman’s choice on whether to terminate a pregnancy. A larger number of jury resolute that a woman’s entitlement to resolve whether to terminate pregnancy encompassed the question of whether the law of the land safeguarded a right to privacy. While responding to the majority’s question, the judge stated that the 14th ratification of the constitution which forbids the state from denying any individual the freedom to abort protected a basic right of privacy.
Additionally, the court stated that the phrase “person” as applied in the 14th ratification does not encompass the embryo. The entitlement of a woman to resolve to terminate a pregnancy fell withing the basic entitlement to solitude and was safeguarded by the constitution. Moreover, while deciding the case, the court stated that a woman’s entitlement to choose to terminate a pregnancy was not preserved as an outright entitlement. It also stated that the government’s limitations on a woman’s entitlement to resolve to end a pregnancy at any point were subjected to a soaring standard of review of stern inspection. The standard of review required that for the law to be applicable, the state limitation on the woman’s right to abortion must be shown to be narrowly converted to attain a compelling state interest. However, the court found that the states did not have some legal interest in regulating or forbidding the termination of pregnancy.
Likewise, the court reasoned that in the first trimester of pregnancy, a woman’s entitlement to privacy surrounding the choice to end the pregnancy exceeded the state’s interest to regulate the decision. It further stated that during the first trimester, terminating pregnancy does not expose a great danger to life along with the wellbeing of a mother since the fetus is still undeveloped. The court found that the arguments raised by the defendant were not having weight compared to those raised by the plaintiff. Hence it ruled the case in favor of the litigant.
Analysis
The case is essential because it shows that pregnant women have the right to decide to end their pregnancies at any time with genuine reason without being condemned by the government. In the case, the plaintiff condemned the action of the respondent after the defendant enforced the illicit Texas abortion law, which infringed on the right of a pregnant woman. The court affirmed that the defendant infringed a pregnant woman’s right by applying the law, and it, in turn, ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The ruling of the case is, therefore, essential to pregnant women because it permits them to end pregnancy whenever they wish to after giving a genuine reason for the termination of the pregnancy.
Besides, the case relates to Colautti v. Franklin’s case in which the court declined a Pennsylvania law that would have demanded the health specialists to safeguard the life of unborn baby both during and after the termination of pregnancy. Furthermore, the case reveals that the Supreme Court has the power to alter the ruling made by the lower court. Historically, the case is believed to advocate for the rights of pregnant women by permitting them to terminate a pregnancy with a genuine reason. The case impacts public health and society by contributing to the increase in the number of abortions.