Seminal Facts of the Case of Roe v Wade
The case under consideration is that of Norma McCorvey (alias Jane Roe); a single mother of two children and was pregnant with a third child who was involved in an attempt to seek legal approval for her decision to undertake an abortion. She sought the legal approval from the Texas Law Courts to abort the child but her request was turned down. The case occurred in the early 1970s when the United States was divided into those who supported the view that a parent should have the right to abortion and those who opposed it ( Solinger, 2013) . The arguments regarding the case were set for hearing on December 13th, 1971 but Justices Hugo Black and John Marshall Harlan II retired. Justice Potter Stewart and Justice Blackbmun were asked to determine whether the case involving Roe should be heard according to schedule. In the opening argument as presented by Blackmun, the restrictions provided by attorney Jay Floyd were considered to be ‘the worst joke of the legal history’ ( Solinger, 2013) , which resulted in a tentative agreement among the judges that the Texas law should be abolished but on a number of different grounds.
Since the Texas Law prevented Roe from having an abortion, she presented her case to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to authorize her decision. The Supreme Court decided that due to the need for personal privacy of decisions made, pregnant women were allowed to procure abortions. The basis on which the decision of Supreme Court was the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which states that in the first trimester of pregnancy, the states could only consider abortion if it was a decision by a medical officer or a physician involved in the provision of medical judgment to a woman. In the second semester of pregnancy, the state has the interest of ensuring the legitimacy to the protection of the interest of a child or a mother.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Main Laws That have been Violated
The laws that were violated in this case is the Texas Reproductive Rights Laws which prohibits the decision to abort a child by a pregnant mother. The law defines illegal abortion as an act of destroying the vitality of child during birth before the child is born. It also illegalizes abortion in cases where the mothers’ life has not been subjected to risk. According to Texas Laws on abortion, a parent is not allowed to abort a child in the first and the second trimesters of pregnancy. In the first trimester, the woman was allowed to terminate a pregnancy at her personal request. After the first trimester, the state did not possess a legal authority to regulate her decision to terminate the pregnancy ( Solinger, 2013) . In the second trimester, the state had the authority to regulate abortion in order to protect the interests of the mother such as her health. After the second trimester, the fetus was considered to be viable, and the state had the legal authority to regulate abortions to ensure the potential life was protected with an exception of the case where the life of the mother was at risk. In order to ensure compliance with the law, it is required that an act of abortion can only be performed in the third trimester by a licensed physician who certifies the medical indications that warrant its performance. This law also prohibits private hospitals from making their facilities available for abortive practices with the exception of a case where the life of the mother is endangered. The law also requires that an ultrasound must be performed on the patient who wants abortion to be performed on her to determine the risks that may impact the mother’s health condition. This ensures compliance with the ‘Women’s Right to Know Act which requires that the physician has the duty to provide information about the impacts of abortion on their health and whether they are ready to be held responsible for its impacts. On the contrary, Justice White and Justice Rehnquist provided different views which emphasized that the people, not Courts had the ability to determine whether abortion should be performed or not.
Possible Penalties Associated with the Law
The possible penalties that a person can be subjected to if she is found to have committed abortion under the anti-abortion laws of Texas include: a fine of between $100 and $500 per day for a facility that is involved in assisting women to abort, an imprisonment term of 5 years to life imprisonment, and a possibility of revocation of an operating license for a facility that does not comply with the laws regulating abortion ( Greenhouse & Siegel, 2010) . For individuals who illegally abort children, they can be imprisoned for the duration of 3 years under the Texas anti-abortion laws or fined $100 to $300.
Case Hearing Court and Jurisdictional Requirements
Both the Texas Courts and the Supreme Courts had jurisdictional powers to determine whether Roe could abort the child or not in their respective areas of service. Within the state level, Texas Courts had the jurisdictional authority to prevent Roe from aborting the child based on their existing laws on abortion at that time. The decision made by the State Court was autonomous from that of the Federal Courts. However, if Roe believed that the state courts could not provide her with a fair judgment, she was able to present her case to the Federal Courts such as the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had the jurisdictional powers to annul the judgments passed by the State Courts such as that of Texas regarding abortion. The reason why it is recommended that some cases should be heard in the Federal Courts such as the Supreme Court is that the latter ensures issues focusing in violation of the U.S. Constitution can be heard in them ( Levine et al. 1999) . The transfer of a case to a Federal Court also enables hearing disputes where opposing parties are citizens who are from different states. It is also suitable to hear a case where the laws used to make judgments in state courts do not comply with the constitutional requirements regarding the decision about a particular case. In the case involving Roe and the Texas Courts, the act of transfer of the case to the Supreme Court provided her with the opportunity to determine whether the former had implemented laws which are against the U.S. Constitution.
Outcome of the Case
The Federal Court did not make the ruling immediately and Roe had to wait for a significantly long time which resulted in her giving birth to her third child. She had the child and gave it up for adoption. However, in 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that it was a constitutional right of every woman to have an abortion. However, it acted as a guarantee for every woman in the United States to terminate a pregnancy by performing abortions by requiring all states to legalize the controversial medical practice. This was contrary to the district court’s Ninth Amendment by asserting that Roe had the right to privacy such as the ability to make the decision to seek termination of her pregnancy. It was found that the Ninth Amendment did not create a federally enforceable right. The decision made by the Supreme Court Judge was totally opposite to the ‘fetal right to life’ argument. The court developed the perception that right to abortion was a fundamental right that guaranteed personal privacy.
Justification of the Outcome
The outcome of the case was not justified because the ruling was done after Roe had given birth to her third-born child. This implied that she did not benefit from the decision made by the Court of Appeal ( Solinger, 2013) . Furthermore, since the ruling was done without presenting any particular case, Roe did not have a ‘standing’ to assert the need to protect the rights of pregnant women. Since the ruling by the Supreme Court was provided in an advisory manner, it does not guarantee that the state courts structured their laws on abortion to ensure the rights of women to the practice was implemented after 1973. However, the ruling was a major milestone towards the achievement of the rights of women to abortion, personal freedom, and the ability to seek a fair hearing in case the state Courts do not provide satisfactory rulings.
References
Greenhouse, L., & Siegel, R. B. (2010). Before (and after) Roe v. Wade: new questions about backlash. The Yale Law Journal , 2028, 2011.
Levine, P. B., Staiger, D., Kane, T. J., & Zimmerman, D. J. (1999). Roe v Wade and American fertility. American Journal of Public Health , 89 (2), 199-203.
Solinger, R. (2013). Wake up little Susie: Single pregnancy and race before Roe v. Wade . Routledge.
