Abortion Case Summary

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), a case involving the right to privacy, had to go through uncharted territory. A Connecticut statute prohibited the use of contraceptives both by married and unmarried persons. The statute also prohibited anyone from helping couples obtain contraceptives. Griswold provided information as to preventing contraception and was fined as an accessory under the statute. The case was brought to Supreme Court where they ruled in Griswold’s favor.

In Griswold v. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right of Privacy, Johnson outlines the struggle to overturn an 1897 Connecticut anticontraception law while arguing for the right of privacy. In the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, attorney Thomas Emerson argued that the “anticontraception statutes denied Griswold and Buxton their right to liberty and property without due process of law, as guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Furthermore, in constructing the constitutional right of privacy, Emerson cited the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Then, in the Supreme Court’s 1965 majority opinion, Justice William Douglas stated that “The First Amendment… has a penumbra where privacy is protected from government intrusion.” He went on to elaborate that the 1897 Connecticut anticontraception law was unconstitutional because “a law such as Section 53-32 that attempts to punish the mere use of contraceptives ‘sweep[s] unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade[s] the area of protected freedoms.’” Therefore, Griswold was finally able to achieve a fight that had begun fifty years prior.

Roe v. Wade was first heard before the Supreme Court on December 13, 1971, one term after Roe requested that the case be heard. The main reason for the delay was that the Court was addressing other cases on judicial jurisdiction and abortion statutes that they felt would impact the outcome of Roe v. Wade. Rearrangement of the Supreme Court during Roe v. Wade’s first arguments, combined with indecision about the rationale behind striking down Texas law, led the Supreme Court to make the rare request for the case be reargued the following

Norma McCorvey, who was unable to care for her ready born child felt that abortion was the only solution for her unborn child. But with Texas law only allowing abortions as a means of saving the life of a mother, she was denied the right to an abortion. That’s when Texas lawyers, who were trying desperately to bring a “lawsuit of change”, felt that McCorvey’s case was the one they needed. Unfortunately for Norma, Roe v. Wade was not passed in time for her to abort her baby. Her lawyers argued the woman’s right to abortion was protected by the 9th amendment, being that the denying abortion was a violation of the right to privacy. Abortion ties into privacy; the right to privacy ties into the 1st, 4th, 9th and 14th amendments.

Jane’s doctor stated that if he couldn’t tell about the fatality of the pregnancy, he couldn’t give the abortion because of his fear of getting his practice taken away as a result of breaking the law. The final opponents to the law were John and Mary Doe. Mary had a health problem and her doctor had advised her not to get pregnant until it improved. The Does argued that if Mary accidentally got pregnant, although the pregnancy may not be fatal, she would still want to abort. Roe won in a seven to two decision by using the fourteenth amendment which states “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” She argued that she was being deprived of the liberty to do what she wanted with her own body. She also used the unenumerated right to privacy decided in Griswold v. Connecticut (oyez). I believe that because the right to privacy has become an unenumerated right, women should have access to

"The Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas. The question then becomes whether the state interests advanced to justify this abridgment can survive the 'particularly careful scrutiny' that the Fourteenth Amendment here requires. The asserted state interests are protection of the health and safety of the pregnant woman, and protection of the potential

In the year 1970, it was illegal for women in many states to get an abortion. One day, a woman named Jane Roe wished to challenge those laws which kept her from getting what she wanted: an abortion. Her stand against these laws was, is, and will always be controversial among American citizens and people around the world. The historical court case in which this occurred was called Roe v. Wade, and was caused by the events of one woman and many factors of the country in which she called home.

Roe vs. Wade is one of the most controversial cases in U.S. history. The historic decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 legalized abortion on a federal level. Now more than thirty years later people all over the country are trying to overturn the decision as well as striving to keep it intact.

It states in the decision of Roe v. Wade that, “The constitution does not define “person” in so many words” (http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/ 18). The amendment discusses “person” 3 times in it, but it does not indicate that it has any possible pre-natal relevance; this is what made the abortion issue so hard. The state court ruled in favor of Roe, but the verdict was not strong enough to change the arrest of abortion doctors in Texas because the exact part that dealt with the right to privacy could not be decided

Texas continues to fight women’s rights groups for the life of the “unborn child” and has won on many levels. According to the Texas Abortion Laws, Texas includes mandatory ultrasound imaging and parental consent for minors, and women must make at least four visits to a doctor and receive an ultrasound. Women may only receive a third trimester abortion if it is necessary to prevent death or substantial risk of serious impairment to a women’s physical or mental health, or if fetus has severe and irreversible abnormality. Texas considers an illegal abortion if it destroys the vitality or life of child in birth or before (which otherwise would have been born alive); operating a facility without a license, failure to meet Board of Health standards, or failure to make reports to Department of Health; act preformed after pregnancy with intent to cause termination of pregnancy other than for purpose of birth of live fetus or removal

In 1973, Norma McCovery who is also known as Jane Roe brought a case to the Supreme Court. She and her defense team claimed that the 1859 Texas abortion law violated women’s constitutional right to have an abortion. Before reaching the Supreme Court, this case, which was a class-action suit, was argued in a Dallas Fifth Circuit Court on May 23, 1970. The judges in Dallas ruled that the Texas law violated Roe’s right to privacy which is found in both the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment, so this case was then sent to the U.S. Supreme Court (Brannen and Hanes, 2001).

She does not want to kill her unborn child but feels like there is no other

The case began in 1970, when Norma McCorvey, also known as Jane Roe, began seeking a legal abortion. Jane Roes attorney, Sarah Weddington, understood her position because she became pregnant when she was attending law school. Weddington was also working three jobs but could barely afford the procedure (Gold & Donovan, 2017, pp. 58-59). Women were afraid to have abortions due to the risks they would have to take like crossing the Mexico–United States border or other health related risks. Countless abortions either resulted in death or painful infections that would lead to more problems. In fact, untrained doctors would attempt to perform these procedures with no anesthetics and unfit equipment. “As late as 1965, illegal abortion accounted for an estimated 17 percent of all officially

Before 1973, abortion access was determined by state legislature for each individual state with no consistency across the United States. Some states allowed abortions but most state statues heavily restricted or completely banned abortion. The restricted states would generally only allow abortion in the event of rape, incest, fetal anomalies, or the woman’s life is at risk. The state of Texas enforced a state statute that made it illegal for an abortion to be performed unless the woman’s

It could be argued that as the child could not possibly survive independently of the mother, at least before approximately four months into the pregnancy, it is not yet an independent human being, but an attachment of the mother, therefore she should be allowed to terminate it, if this is what she wants to do to herself, as opposed to when the child is physically independent of the mother, when any potentially life ending action against it would be inflicted upon the child directly, not its mother (Kellough 35).