Roe Versus Wade's Abortion Trial - Case Study Example

Roe. V. Wade the Abortion Trial Introduction: In the Middle of 1971, the Supreme Court of the United s of America took a path breaking decisionto hear a case challenging the constitutional validity of the long-standing state laws that made abortion a crime, unless the abortion was performed because of a life threatening situation for the mother. The decision of the Supreme Court to provide a hearing to this constitutional challenge and the outcome of the case has been responsible for reverberations in religious, society and political platforms then and continues to do so even today. (1). Overview of Roe V. Wade: Court – The U. S. Supreme Court. Case – ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) Contesting Parties – ROE ET AL. v. WADE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DALLAS COUNTY Argued - December 13, 1971. Reargued – October 11, 1972. Decided – January 22, 1973. Plaintiff – Norma N. McCorvey. In the case the name was changed to “Jane Roe”, which was an alias representing every American pregnant woman. Defendant – Henry B. Wade the then Texas District Attorney. Plaintiff’s Claim – The Texas abortion laws were a violation of the constitutional rights of Norma McCorvey and all other American women. Lawyers for the Plaintiff – Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee. Defense Lawyers Assistant Attorney General Jay Floyd and Assistant Attorney General Robert Flowers. Justices for the Court – Harry A. Blackmum, William, J. Brennan, Jr., Warren, E. Burger, William O. Douglas, Thurgood, Marshall, and Lewis F. Powell. Justices Dissenting – William H. Renquist, and Byron, R. White. Place – Washington. Date of Decision – January 22, 1973. Decision – Overturned all the state laws that acted as a restriction to the access of women to abortions during the first three months of pregnancy and allowed to stand the restrictions during the second three months of pregnancy only as far as they were designed to offer protection for the health of pregnant women. (2). Background to the Case: Norma N. McCorvey, tried to get an abortion in the State of Texas, but the state laws did not permit her to get a legal abortion in that state. She subsequently chose to have the baby, and gave the baby for adoption. The young lawyers Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee decided to use this denial of legal adoption to challenge the constitutional validity of this Texas law, attempting to establish a new constitutional right for women that allowed them control over their own bodies. Roe was the name given to the plaintiff to represent all American women in this class-action lawsuit, with Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee the lawyers for the plaintiff. They were opposed by the Texas District Attorney Henry B. Wade. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, while declaring the abortion law of Texas unconstitutional refused to give injunctive relief to the plaintiffs. Roe and the attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court against this injunctive ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, while Wade cross-appealed, challenging the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on the constitutional validity of the Abortion Law of Texas. Weddington argued the case in front of seven instead of nine justices, as two of them had recently retired. Weddington’s arguments were based on reasoning than on the exact constitutional issues pertinent to the case. The over confidence of the defending lawyer Assistant Attorney General was the undoing of the defense case at this stage. Though the justices initially voted to strike down the Texas Law some differences and uncertainties among the justices along with the development of the appointment of two new justices to the Supreme Court caused the Supreme Court to decide to hear a second argument in the Roe vs. Wade case, and it was scheduled for October 11, 1972. (3). Sarah Weddington, and Linda Coffee were fairly inexperienced fresh lawyers. They took up the case as they believed in the right for abortion for women. Sarah Weddington as a woman’s activist was to be elected twice to the Texas House of Representatives starting in 1972. (4). The unsatisfactory performance of Assistant Attorney General Jay Floyd was to cause Assistant Attorney General Robert Flowers to become the main defense attorney in the second hearing with Assistant Attorney general in a supporting role. (3). Summary of the Case: Jane Roe an unmarried woman residing in Dallas County, Texas was instrumental in instituting the federal action in March 1970, against the then District Attorney of Dallas County, Henry B. Wade. Her plea was for a declaratory judgment that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were unconstitutional and sought an injunction restraining the defendant from enforcing the statutes. Her plea was based on the denial of legal abortion to her when she sought an abortion during the time when he was unmarried and pregnant. She had sought this termination of pregnancy to be performed by a licensed and competent physician in an environment that was safe and in clinical conditions. She was denied a legal abortion in Texas, because her continued pregnancy did not pose any life threatening conditions. She could not afford the expenses to travel to another jurisdiction so that she could have a legal abortion under safe conditions. It was her contention that the statutes of Texas under which she was denied an abortion were unconstitutionally vague and denied her the right of personal privacy, which was protected by the First, Fourth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. In an amendment to her complaint Roe purported that he case was on behalf of her, and all other women who found themselves in a similar situation. James Hubert Hallford, who was a licensed physician, sought leave to intervene in the class action of Roe. He was granted leave. His complaint was that he had been arrested previously for violating the same statutes of Texas on abortion, and two such prosecutions were pending against him. It was his contention that with the Texas abortion statutes were vague, which led to the situation, where as a physician he was unable to decide whether patients coming to him for an abortion were within or outside the Texas abortion statutes. He further contended that the vagueness in the Texas abortion statutes resulted in the violation of the Fourteenth amendment of the Constitution by violating his own and his patient’s rights to privacy in the doctor-patient relationship and his own rights to practice medicine, which were guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. John and Mary Die came into the picture with a companion complaint to that of Roe. In their complaint too the Texas District Attorney was named the defendant. They claimed constitutional deprivations and appealed for declaratory and injunctive relief. It was the allegation of the does that they were a childless couple and Mrs. Doe was afflicted with a neural-chemical disorder, owing to which she had been advised by her physician to avoid pregnancy till her condition suitably improved. Based on medical advice she had discontinued the use of birth control pills. Should she fall pregnant it was her plea that she would want and be allowed to terminate the pregnancy through an abortion performed by a competent and licensed physician under safe, clinical conditions. In an amendment to their plea the Does contended that they were acting on behalf of themselves and all other couples that were in a similar situation. The two actions were combined and were heard together by a duly convened three-judge district court. The Roe vs. Wade case thus represented the situations of a pregnant single woman, a childless couple with the wife not pregnant, and the licensed practitioner, all in conjunction challenging the Texas criminal abortion statutes. The District Court observed that Roe and members of her class, and Dr. Hallford have standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. However, it held that the Does had failed to present sufficient facts to allow for a present controversy and did not have a standing. Based on the merits of the case the District Court held that the “fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment”. (5). The court also held that the Texas criminal abortion statutes were in their face, as they were both constitutionally vague and a infringed on the rights of the plaintiffs provided by the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution. However, the Court also held that abstention was warranted in the case of the requests for an injunction. It therefore dismissed the complaint of the Does, declared the Texas abortion statutes void, and dismissed the appeal for injunctive relief. (5). Using 28 U.S.C 1253 the plaintiffs Roe and Doe and the intervenor Hallford appealed to the Supreme Court against the District Courts denial of injunction. The District Attorney Henry Wade cross appealed to the same statute against the District Court giving Roe and Dr. Hallford declaratory relief. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal and the cross appeal and decided to hear the merits of the case. The main thrust of the appellant’s case in the attack on the Texas statutes was the improper invasion of the right of a pregnant woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Merit for this right was claimed from the concept of personal liberty as enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendments Due Process Clause and in the personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy protected by the Bill of Rights and its penumbras. The appellant further contended that right based either in the concept of personal, liberty of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution or in the rights to the people as found in the Ninth Amendment and determine as such by the District Court is broad enough to encompass the decision of a woman on whether to terminate her pregnancy or not. The statutes of the State clearly impose on the pregnant woman by denying her this choice in totality. There is the possibility of specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in the case of early pregnancy. Maternity and also possibly additional offspring may be forced on a woman leading to a distressful life and future. There is the distinct possibility of psychological harm. The taxing requirements of child care could cause impairment of mental and physical health. Distress to all concerned, associated with the unwanted child is another issue. There also occur problems in the bringing up a child in a family that is already unable to psychologically and in many other ways to care for the child. In the case of Roe there is the additional issue the social stigma attached to unwed mothers. It is all these aspects that are taken into consideration at the time of the consultation before the decision to terminate the pregnancy is taken. Based on the elements of merit presented, the appellants further argued that the woman’s right is absolute and that she has the right to terminate pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever manner and for any reasons that she chooses to have the abortion. (5). The Supreme Court Justices gave a seven to two ruling in the case of Roe v. Wade. In a ruling that was to become one of the most controversial rulings, they ruled that the governments lacked the power to prohibit abortions. The Supreme Court in essence based its decision on the right of a woman to terminate her pregnancy emanating from the freedom of personal choice in family matters, as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However the Supreme Court did not see eye to eye with the contention that Woman could terminate pregnancy at whatever time that she chose during her pregnancy, and the appellants arguments that the State had either no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest that was strong enough to provide support to any limitation on the sole determination of the woman on when the pregnancy could be done. Thus the court differentiated between different stages of pregnancy and gave American women the absolute right on any decisions pertaining to termination of pregnancy during the first three months of pregnancy. It allowed the state to place some restrictions on the women’s right to determination of termination of pregnancy during the second three months of pregnancy. It gave the States the right to restrict or even ban abortions in the final three months of pregnancy, which was the period when the fetus neared the point, where it was possible for it to live outside the womb of the mother. The Supreme Court allowed termination of pregnancy during this stage of the pregnancy, even if a ban was in force, if the doctors were to certify that the termination of pregnancy was necessary in the interests of saving the life or health of the woman. (6). Importance of the Trial: The importance of the case at that time was that it gave an impetus to women rights and pro-abortion activists. Roe versus Wade allowed pre-viability for women to terminate their pregnancy and the state had right to regulate only after viability. In essence women in their first three months of pregnancy were free to decide and receive the required legal termination of pregnancy, if so desired. It removed any obstacles making it necessary for even religious oriented healthcare institutions in the U. S. to provide this facility for women. The controversial decision of this trial was to face attacks and over the subsequent decades was to lose its sheen. More than thirty States in the U.S. have now adopted laws limiting the abortion rights of women received through this trials decision. Further limits were to be imposed through the acts of the Congress. The end result of all these restrictions brought into place o offset the decision in this trial was to penalize poor women, as women now have to travel across State borders to more liberal states and pay more for a termination of pregnancy. (6). Works Cited 1. Savage, G. David. “A Brief History Of Roe vs. Wade. Los Angeles Times. 15 Dec. 2007. . 2. “Roe v. Wade - Further Readings”. Great American Court Cases. Law Library- American Law and Legal Information. Other Free Encyclopedias. 15 Dec. 2007. . 3. Goldman, Jerry. “A Case of Privacy”. 1998. 15 Dec. 2007. . 4. Spingola, Deanna. “Roe versus Wade, revisited”. 2005. Renew America. 15 Dec. 2007. . 5. “ROE v. WADE< 410 U.S. 113 (1973). FindLaw For Legal Professionals. 15 Dec. 2007. . 6. “Roe v Wade: Key US abortion ruling”. BBC NEWS. 2004. 15 Dec. 2007. . Read More