Why Roe vs Wade was Correct or Incorrect Legally and Constitutionally - Term Paper Example

College Roe v. Wade Was Incorrect Legally and Constitutionally In Roe vs. Wade case, the Supreme Court held that the Twelfth Amendment allows a woman to have an abortion; The Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade was incorrect legally and constitutionally. However, as with many rights in the constitution, this one had to be fair to the rights of the fetus (the unborn child) and the right of the country to protect the health of the woman and that of the unborn child. The main argument here is that no woman has the right to abortion no matter what the circumstance or situation is. This paper provides arguments regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade’s constitutionality with reference to the written constitution. There is so much false information regarding the Supreme Court’s decision on this case. To say that the decision of the Supreme Court was legally and constitutionally correct means that the decision should base on principles enshrined in the constitution of the United States, on precedents in constitutional law and on rights, which the constitution purposely created to secure and protect. The Case Abortion has been generally a debated issue for many years. Abortion gets opposition especially by the church and activists’ arguing that abortion is murder, and therefore, women should not have the right to an abortion. On this case, the Supreme Court gave Roe the right to an abortion saying that it was her constitutional right not to bear the child of a rapist. The court emphasized that they were not deciding when human life starts. They ruled that an unborn child is not a human being within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore, not entitled to have rights to life, liberty, and property. The court effectively argued that unborn children are not living human beings and therefore, they are not entitled to the Fourteenth amendment rights1. Historical evidence of abortion does not support a woman’s right to an abortion. Early feminists opposed abortion, as the medical procedure was not safe for women, endangering their health and life. By 1965, all the fifty states had banned abortion, with some exceptions, which were different depending on the state: to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape or incest, or if the unborn child was deformed. These words gave women the right to an abortion. Groups such as the National Abortion Rights League struggled to liberalize anti-abortion laws. The history of abortion is much familiar to the Roe v. Wade case as it made most existing state abortion laws unconstitutional. The Court did not interpret in the right way all cited historical evidence of abortion. To emphasize on this historical evidence, we start by a 1965 decision known as Griswold v. Connecticut, which was 13 years before the Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court had recognized a right of a woman’s privacy that protected the right of married couples to exercise birth control in their own home. The oral argument on Griswold took place before the Supreme Court in 1961 where Professor Thomas Emerson argued for the right to privacy in birth control for married couples. Justice Hugo black asked Professor Emmerson: “Would your words based on these things you’ve been talking about relating to privacy; invalidate all laws that punish people for bringing about abortions?” Prof. Emerson told the Court:             “No, I think it would never cover the abortion laws. That conduct does not occur in the privacy of the home.” Seven years later, a Massachusetts law prohibiting birth control for all married people became unconstitutional. This law did not follow the principles of the constitution. The right of a woman’s privacy became an individual right, unlike before where this only applied to the family. The relevance of this historical evidence to the case is that it also involved the right of an individual to make his or her medical decision2. These two cases are familiar with each other since pregnancy is a medical related issue and therefore, it is upon the person to decide what to do with it. There are factors, which make the opposing of the conclusion probable. First, the decision takes a woman’s right to privacy. Second, it denies the unborn babies their right to life. Thirdly, the right to abortion is legal and therefore, the state may infringe upon the right when there is a very important interest not achieved by the state in a less restrictive way. These factors explain why it is probable to refuse to accept the conclusion of the case by the Supreme Court. The Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution states that, and I quote “We declare the unalienable right of Life to be secured by our Constitution ‘to ourselves and our Posterity.’ Our posterity includes children born and future generations yet unborn. Any legalization of the termination of innocent life of the born or unborn is a direct violation of our unalienable right to life.” The pre-born child, whose life begins at conception, is a human being created in Gods image. The first function of the law is to prevent the killing of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the main function of all governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.”3 Natural law is always against abortion. It does not support a woman’s right to an abortion. Natural law has a definition as “a rule of reason, promulgated by God in man’s nature, whereby man can discern how he should act.” This obviously tells us that a woman’s right to have an abortion does not maintain natural law. The Supreme Court did not consider natural law in its decision claiming that an unborn child is a human being. In respect to the natural law, the Supreme Courts ruling on the Roe v. Wade case was not correct. Their research on the case was not thorough; they assumed straightforward facts and took writings to come up with their conclusion. The Supreme Court made abortion as a private matter though it is very clear that abortion involves not only the woman but also the family, father and even the friends of the woman4. The Supreme Court never took into account that according to natural law, abortion is a sinful, and above all, it is murder. The emotions of the family and the friends of the woman not considered when the Supreme Court had its ruling on the case. Natural law does not absolutely support abortion. Natural law insists that abortion is sinful and denies the unborn its right to life. To start with, abortion is automatically evil, being unjust murder of an innocent human being. This directly makes it unnatural and against the laws, God gave us. In addition, natural law argues that abortion is an abnormal termination of a natural thing. It interrupts a natural process, which, if not interrupted, leads to the natural order of things. Abortion, which occurs in today’s world, will leads to regret because of the condition of the couple, when they come to realize that what they have done is unjust and evil. The court’s treatment of natural law on this issue was not conclusive. The Supreme Court would have given a different ruling if the treatment of natural law on this case had been conclusive. Conclusion The conclusion was warranted by the court since the proclaimed right to abortion was concerned more on the right of privacy, and because of the self-determination of the woman. It is illegal and unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to give a ruling which only favors the mother and deprives the unborn child their right to life. The Supreme Court should have taken into account the interest of the mother and the unborn child in order to come up with a legal and constitutionally correct ruling. The Supreme Court debated that Roe v. Wade upholds the idea that an individual has a right to make a decision on what happens to his or her body and the right to decide what medical procedures they should undertake. It is not a difficult task as the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution suggested that the state will not deprive any person of the right to living, having property, and justice. It is, therefore, not constitutional to deprive an unborn child of its existence. After this extensive research on the Roe v. Wade case, it is very clear and obvious to conclude that the ruling made by the Supreme Court was incorrect legally and constitutionally. Works Cited Nathan son, Bernard, N., and Richard N. Jostling. Aborting America. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1979. Print. Rice, Charles E. 50 Questions on the Natural Law: What It Is and Why We Need It. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1993. Print. Cox, Archibald. The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government. New York: Oxford University Press, 1976. Print. Mohr, James C. Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, 1800-1900. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Print. Tomlins, Christopher L. The United States Supreme Court: The Pursuit of Justice. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2005. Print. Read More