ENGLISH TUTORIAL

ABOUT LANDMARK
CASES

Roe v. Wade.

Name: Jalitza Hurtado Snchez

Course: VII A

Name: Jalitza Hurtado Snchez

Course: VII A

ENGLISH TUTORIAL
1.- INVESTIGATE IN LAW LIBRARIES AND/OR INTERNET AND SELECT A
LANDMARK CASE THAT HAS CALLED YOUR ATTENTION. THEN DO
THE FOLLOWING:
I.
II.

READ THE CASE THOROUGHLY

IN 5 PAGES PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
1. NAME OF THE CASE:
Roe v. Wade. Abortion, Right to Privacy.
2. IDENTIFY THE MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT THAT
DECIDED THE CASE:
-

Majority: Harry A. Blackmun (for the Court), William J. Brennan,

Lewis F. Powell Jr., Thurgood Marshall.

Concurring: Warren Burger, William Orville Douglas, Potter Stewart.

Dissenting: William H. Rehnquist, Byron White.

3. POINT OUT THE IDEOLOGY OF EACH OF THE JUDGES OF

THE SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court decided in favor of Roe in a 7-2 decision. Justice
Blackmun wrote the opinion for the majority, which recognized that a
womans choice whether to have an abortion is protected by her right to
privacy. Justices Stewart, Burger and Douglas wrote concurring opinions.
Justices White and Rehnquist dissented.
The majority determined that a womans right to decide whether to have an
abortion involved the question of whether the Constitution protected a right
to privacy. The justices answered this question by asserting that the

Name: Jalitza Hurtado Snchez

Course: VII A
Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from depriv[ing] any person
of liberty without due process of law, protected a fundamental right to
privacy. Further, after considerable discussion of the laws historical lack of
recognition of rights of a fetus, the justices concluded the word person, as
used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. The right
of a woman to choose to have an abortion fell within this fundamental right
to privacy, and was protected by the Constitution.
A womans right to choose to have an abortion was not considered an
absolute right. The Court stated that government restrictions on a womans
right to choose were subject to the highest standard of review, that of strict
scrutiny. This level of review requires that in order to be enforceable, a
government regulation of this right must be shown to be narrowly tailored to
a meet a compelling state interest. The justices noted that states did have
some legitimate interests in regulating or prohibiting abortions. The first
interest was the protection of the health of the mother from the dangers of
abortion procedures; the second was the protection of the life of the fetus.
While these interests were not very strong in the early stages of pregnancy,
they became stronger (more compelling) in the later stages of the pregnancy.
Striking a balance between a womans right to privacy and a states interests,
the Court set up a framework laying out when states could regulate and even
prohibit abortions.
According to the framework, in the first trimester (the first three months of
the pregnancy), a womans right to privacy surrounding the choice to have
an abortion outweighed a states interests in regulating this decision. In the
first trimester, having an abortion does not pose a grave danger to the life
and health of the mother, and the fetus is still undeveloped. The states
interests are not yet compelling, so it cannot interfere with a womans right
to privacy by regulating or prohibiting her from having an abortion during
the first trimester. During the second trimester, the states interests become
more compelling as the danger of complications increases and the fetus
becomes more developed. During this stage, it may regulate, but not
prohibit abortions, as long as the regulations are aimed at protecting the

Name: Jalitza Hurtado Snchez

Course: VII A
health of the mother. During the third trimester, the danger to the womans
health becomes the greatest and fetal development nears completion. In the
final trimester the states interests in protecting the health of the mother and
in protecting the life of the fetus become their most compelling. The state
may regulate or even prohibit abortions during this stage, as long as there is
an exception for abortions necessary to preserve the life and health of the
mother.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Rehnquist argued that the framers of the
Fourteenth Amendment did not intend for it to protect a right of privacy, a
right which they did not recognize, and that they definitely did not intend for
it to protect a womans decision to have an abortion. Justice Rehnquist
further argued that the only right to privacy is that which is protected by the
Fourth Amendments prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures.
Finally, he concluded that because this issue required a careful balance of the
interests of the woman against the interests of the state, it was not an
appropriate decision for the Court to make, but instead was a question that
should have been left up to state legislatures to resolve.
4. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
Since the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, the legal, moral, and
political controversy surrounding the abortion issue has polarized the
American public. Two campsone hailing Roe as a victory for choice, the
other arguing that the decision deprives the unborn child of its right to
lifesquared off in the wake of the Court's decision. Their protracted
political battle continues today. The deep political divisions that the case
created, or revealed, reflect not only conflicting social and moral views, but
conflicting views of the law as well. The case pitted two accepted doctrines
against one anotherthe individual's right to privacy and the compelling
and overriding interest of a State. Roe v. Wade sought an extension of the
right to privacy, which the Court explicitly recognized for the first time in
the case Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965. In that case, family counselors in
Connecticut challenged a State law forbidding the use of any drug,
medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception. In

Name: Jalitza Hurtado Snchez

Course: VII A
Griswold, the Court decided that there was a right of privacy implied by
the Bill of Rights. It ruled that the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th
Amendments together create a right of marital privacy.
5. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE
Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas
law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. After
granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe's
attorney -- Sarah Weddington -- could not locate the constitutional hook of
her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in
the second round. Her new opponent -- Robert Flowers -- came under strong
questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall.
6. ISSUE IN CONTROVERSY
This case involved the right of privacy as implied by Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5,
9, and 14 versus the police power of the States. Did States have a compelling
and overriding interest in regulating the health, safety, and morals of the
community? Was there an area of personal, marital, familial, and sexual
privacy protected by the Bill of Rights? Was the Texas law an unreasonable
invasion of privacy, or was it a reasonable exercise of the police power?
Were women permitted to terminate pregnancies at will, or were fetuses
persons with rights to be protected by the State?
7. DECISION OF THE COURT
By a vote of 7-2, with Justices White and Rehnquist in dissent, the Court
agreed with Roe and upheld her right to terminate a pregnancy in the first
trimester (90 days). The Court observed that Section 1 of the 14th
Amendment contained three references to person. In his majority opinion,
Justice Blackmun noted that, for nearly all such references in the
Constitution, use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally.
None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible prenatal
application.

Name: Jalitza Hurtado Snchez

Course: VII A
Blackmun's opinion carefully steered between the right to privacy and the
question of compelling State interest. On the first point, he wrote, the
majority of the justices do not agree with Texas that the State may
override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. On the other
hand, the State does have an important and legitimate interest in protecting
the potentiality of human life and in protecting the mother's health.
Blackmun's decision revolved around the development of the fetus during
pregnancy. He held that during the first trimester, or three months, of a
pregnancy, the woman in consultation with her physician had an unrestricted
right to an abortion. During the second trimester, States could regulate
abortion to protect a woman's health. Finally, during the third trimester, the
State's interest in protecting the potential life of the fetus was sufficient to
justify severe restrictions.
Approaching the matter of when life begins, Blackmun was clearly hesitant
to commit the Court to any position.
Controversial when announced, the Roe decision remains at the center of the
legal controversy over the right to privacy versus the rights of the unborn. In
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1992, the Court
reaffirmed Roe's central holding but abandoned its trimester structure. The
Court permitted States to require informed consent, a 24-hour waiting
period, and/or parental notification, but held that States may not place an
undue burdenon a woman's right to an abortion.
8. HOW DOES THE DECISION OF THE COURT IMPACT THE
SOCIETY?
The decision gave a woman a right to abortion during the entirety of the
pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating
abortion in the second and third trimesters.
The decisin was delivered on January 22, 1973. In a 7-2 opinopn, the Court
decided that:

Name: Jalitza Hurtado Snchez

Course: VII A
a) During the first trimester of pregnancy a woman could have an
abortion on demand without interference from the state;
b) During the second trimester the state could regulate abortions for
safety but could not prohibit them entirely; and
c) During the third trimester, the state could regulate or forbid all
abortions except to sabe the life of the mother.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html
2. http://www.streetlaw.org/en/Page/661/Summary_of_the_Decision
3. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18
4. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/04/us/roe-v-wade-fast-facts/
5. https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jrr02
6. http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar35.html