Roe V. Wade: A Victory as well as a Defeat - Research Paper Example

? Roe V. Wade: A Victory as well as a Defeat In 1973 the United s Supreme court decided on a case that fundamentally affected many aspects of American society and culture. This decision on Roe v. Wade essentially made the Supreme Court decide upon restriction on a woman’s body. This two year trial pitted colleague against colleague, as well as families against each other. What started as a case of a single mother from Texas ended with national contemplation of what life meant and who had the power to decide. This decision affected the way many people saw the nation. All in all, Roe v. Wade changed three fundamental elements of the United States public life: how women felt about their bodies, the effect that the ruling had on the medical community, and how this ruling solidified the governments standing on inalienable rights. Prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling, there was a long history of abortion disputes and conversation about legality and a woman’s choice. For thousands of years abortions had been legal and an established medical practice. Even when the pilgrims came to the United States abortion was thought of as something that herbs and midwives performed (Rubin, 1). Abortions up to the mid 1900s were considered family business, done usually in the privacy of the woman’s home. It was not until the mid to late 1800s that individual states started to pass legislation that banned abortions. While the driving force for illegality is debated, there are certain elements that proved to ease the ban. These elements ranged from fear that new immigrants could outnumber Anglo-Saxon residents to doctors not wanting their potential profit being spent on apothecaries and midwives. What originally began in Connecticut in 1821 as a way to ensure that women were not being poisoned in hopes of having a miscarriage, soon turned into statutes that made abortion a crime, and the woman who sought one out a criminal.1 The argument by many was that the Christian faith had always banned abortion and therefore should be brought back into legislation in the United States. Due to the previous statutes regarding government be separate from church, this argument should not have had the baring it did. While some did not agree with these bans, it was not until the 1950s-1960s that voices against abortion bans started to be heard loudly. It was not that people did not fight it before, but three aspects in the United States started to change the flow of thought. In the early 20th century Margaret Sanger and a group of fellow feminists began the conversation of family planning by calling for the legalization of birth control. Until this point, anything that count be construed as inhibiting birth was prohibited. In addition to Sanger was the emergence of movement for the blacks’ civil rights, along with women’s rights. Both of these movements in the 1960s gave the term “rights” to the discussion. Last but not the least part of American History that is often overlooked is the eugenics movement that emerged in the progressive era. This movement demanded that strong, native, Caucasian Americans be strengthened while lesser populations are removed from society though birth control, sterilization, and immigration restriction.2 The medical community was generally behind these measures, as it allowed a medical monopoly on the reproductive process. Not all those in the medical community agreed with the state statutes regarding a ban of birth control and abortion. In three separate cases prior to Roe V. Wade, the notion that women had a right to their bodies with respects to reproductive choices collided with the states belief that contraceptives were illegal and therefore a woman had no rights. The first case that directly affected the future of contraceptives for women was Tileston V Ullman. The case came about due to a doctor instructing his patients who he believed may have life altering consequences during child-baring.3 The doctor attempted to invoke the 14th Amendment which states that no state or local government could deprive persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken. This case was decided February 1, 1943 and, as the doctor’s own life was not in danger due to the states laws, the ruling was in favor of the states. In this instance the State of Connecticut was within its bounds as a state to set limitations on what doctors may or may not instruct their patients. In 1961 the same doctor from the case of Tileston V. Ullman was in front of the United States Supreme Court due to Poe V. Ullman case. This case differs as the two married women went to Dr. Buxton due to previous complications to receive advice and necessary tools to prevent further pregnancies.4 Foreseeing the possibility of persecution, Dr. Buxton was unable to assist them. Due to the fact that neither the two women nor the doctor were tried on charges and the doctor again attempted to use the 14th amendment, the case was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Tensions, however, were increasing among pro-choice and anti-choice citizens of Connecticut. In 1965 it came to the attention of the state of Connecticut that the “executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and its medical director, a licensed physician”5 were providing married couples with the information and tools to prevent unwanted pregnancies. The Supreme Court using previous decisions to rule that married couples had a level of privacy that was afforded to them by the basic tenets of being married and therefore the Connecticut rule that prohibited the use of contraceptives violated said right to privacy. During this time more and more individuals were realizing that a right for privacy and choice was more important. Building on the previous cases as a backdrop, Jane Roe from Texas, a single pregnant woman fought the laws regarding rather or not she could receive an abortion. Ms. Roe bought a class action suit challenging the fairness of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which stated that unless the procedure was to save the mother, it was illegal to both perform and receive an abortion. The first court ruled in favor of Ms. Roe and her fellow complainants. Yet upon review, the ruling was overturned. In the two year hearing, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roe stating that the 14th amendment did directly apply to this case and that the laws in Texas directly opposed the liberty and wellness of Ms. Roe and, therefore, were unconstitutional.6 This ruling affected women, the medical profession, and religion in one fell swoop. Women previously were destined, if married, to either have many children or to have a sexless marriage. While the rhythm method worked and there were herbs that could be used, most women wanted something more of a sure thing. No matter the situation, be it married or not, many women wanted the choice to end a pregnancy, if necessary. It was not until Roe V. Wade that women were given that choice without having to go to unlicensed doctors or worse. This ability to get birth control, if an unwanted pregnancy occurred, allowed women to expand their horizons regarding their bodies and sexuality. Women were also freed to live their lives as individuals which during the 1970s included free sex, and the usage of drugs. Roe V. Wade did not make women do these things, more women felt free to be themselves without worrying about the chance of a child conception. The medical profession over the years had ranged from pro abortion to anti abortion stances. This change occurred during times of outside influences taking away patients and doctors wanting to be the only ones with control over a woman’s body. What was once legal among the medical community, became illegal, except in cases of life threatening disorders or otherwise doctor-dictated conditions. This resulted in doctors having complete control over the abortion process. Many women during this time were going to black market abortionists or doing it themselves. Doctors began to realize that assisting in the process may result in more patients and less deaths. While the American Medical Association (AMA) held one belief many doctors, such as Dr. Buxton in Connecticut and Ms. Roe’s doctor in Texas, refused to obey the law and assisted patients in abortions and birth control. After the ruling by the Supreme Court doctors and the medical community had no choice but to allow abortions and therefore birth control to whomever asked for it.7 This allowed those doctors that were already doing so to openly help their patients. For those doctors that did not believe in abortion or birth control were forced to go against their beliefs or to leave the profession. Some doctors left for church funded hospitals that were more in line with their belief systems. Of all three, it was the church that was affected the most by this ruling. Most religions, specifically the Catholic Church, were against contraception and strongly against abortion.8 Since the ruling stated that not providing the opportunity for abortion was unconstitutional, it gave the churches no real stance to change the decision. They continued to preach against the practice but it was not effective against the government or the AMA. This decision was a victory for those who believed in the separation of church and state. It forced the state, no matter how religious, to abide by something that was historically and religiously complicated. This was a major strike to how churches perceived themselves and their power in a state. Not only did the ruling of Roe V Wade open the doors for women to take more control over their bodies, but it also allowed more lawsuits against invalid historical statutes on many states books. The decision and implications did not end in the 1970s but has continued to present day. States are attempting to undermine the validity of Roe V. Wade and take away what was considered a milestone in women’s rights. There are those in the medical and religious community who believe that the original ruling was faulty and therefore have been attempting to reverse it. Bibliography “Griswold Et Al. v. Connecticut”. 381 U.S. 479 (1965). Accessed 28 November 2011; available from Findlaw.com Joffe, Carole. Doctors of conscience: the struggle to provide abortion before and after Roe v. Wade. Boston: Beacon Press, 1995. Melton, J. Gordon. The Churches speak on – Abortion: Official Statements from religious bodies and ecumenical organizations. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Research, 1989. “Poe Et Al. v. Ullman, State’s Attorney”. 367 U.S. 497 (1961). Accessed 28 November 2011; available from Findlaw.com “Roe et al. v. Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County”. 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Accessed 28 November 2011;available from Findlaw.com The Abortion Controversy: A Documentary History. Edited by Rubin, Eva R. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,1994. The Politics of Abortion and Birth Control in Historical Perspective. Edited by Critchlow, Donald T. UniversityPark, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996. “Tileston v. Ullman, State’s Attorney, et al.” 318 U.S. 44 (1943). Accessed 28 November 2011; available from Findlaw.com Read More