Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Roe v Wade (PP3)
Please read the 1973 US Supreme Court Decision in the case of Roe v Wade provided via the linked Touro College website. Discuss the following: What did the Supreme Court say about personhood, privacy, and state rights and obligations? Was the Supreme Court capricious in its decision or was the case carefully considered and the reasoning sound? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
I think the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe vs Wade was carefully considered and reasonable. The court basically suggested that the preborn are not considered as persons under the law, so they do not have the full protection under the law as a person. However, they used “viability” as a criterion as to when states had the right to interfere with a woman’s fundamental right to reproductive liberty/privacy. I agree that reproductive liberty should be protected as a fundamental right or as an important aspect of privacy to be protected. Viability is when a fetus could survive outside of its mother’s body, and to me this is close enough to being a person so that the court is adequately protecting against late stage pregnancy abortions (when the fetus is that much closer to being a person, if not a person). So long as the fetus is not considered a person, the court said that states may not interfere with a woman’s privacy/reproductive autonomy. If the fetus was considered a person with rights, then states would have a “compelling state interest” to interfere with a woman’s reproductive autonomy (to protect the unborn child, a “person” with rights). The court seems to basically be saying that a state may not interfere with a woman’s reproductive liberty/privacy unless the fetus reaches viability (third trimester of pregnancy), and even during the second trimester the states may impose some regulations, but not as much as in the third. During the first trimester, states may not interfere at all with woman’s decision to have an abortion. This all seems to track the development of the fetus so that the sooner an abortion happens, the better – since we don’t know exactly when the fetus becomes a person, and I agree we don’t know, it is better to have an abortion sooner than later, and Roe vs Wade establishes that. I think it’s fair to say that the fetus is not a person during the first trimester, but that is just my opinion. It’s a bit more unclear in the second/third trimesters, but that’s when states are able to impose restrictions on abortions.
In regards to what the Supreme Court said about personhood, they defined it as not including the unborn.
Privacy – the court said that states could not interfere as long as the woman was not knowingly putting the baby in harm. The court ruled that states cannot interfere with the privacy of a woman having an abortion in the first trimester (protected by the 14th amendment) and having the right to get involved if they deemed it necessary in the later part of the second trimester but in the third trimester the states could then prosecute a woman for having an abortion because of the baby’s viability.
Since I have never read another report on a decision of a court case and have nothing to compare it to I would say that the Supreme Court in 1973 was in no way capricious, they gathered views from as far back as the Romans and the Greeks. They researched the standing of the common law, The English statutory law, the American law, the American Medical Association, and the American Public Health Association they did not just decide for themselves. This is probably the reason that the controversial decision was never overturned because they did such a good job building their decisions from several different sources and views.
The Supreme Court had sound reasoning in the case but since there is no way in knowing when a child becomes a person I have a problem with the fact that they determined a child born is then considered a person. I think the fetus becomes a person before it comes out of the wound simply because of how they react inside the mother to the food she eats, music they hear, and the sound of your voice. I will agree and it has been proven over and over that the fetus is not viable until 22 to 24 weeks without medical assistance, but to allow a woman to legally end a fetus’s life before the 24 weeks is just too late in the pregnancy, in my opinion. I would have liked the Supreme Court decision to be much younger than 24 weeks, maybe 10 at the most. Anything over two weeks is too long for me but the majority of women do not know they are pregnant in two weeks.
The Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade was a very controversial case in 1973; in fact it still is today. Did they get it right? Was the decision sound and rational? This one can go either way, it all depends on how you read and interpret the Constitution of the United States.
First of all, when does a human being begin to have rights? Is it upon conception? When brain activity starts? If it’s upon conception then that future being as the same rights as we do, primarily the right to live. If it’s the latter, then the future being is essentially just property; we have the right to privacy and can do what we want, to an extent. Personally, I think it’s the woman’s choice, with limitations based on time frames. I support the reasoning based on the “quickening” of the fetus. Up till this point it’s the Woman’s right to decide if she wants to proceed with the birth or abort. However, I don’t support abortion when its used as a form of birth control I do believe it is necessary in certain uncontrollable situations. I think the woman as the right to choose, that being said the United States Supreme Court got this one right.
The Supreme Court stated that District Courts decision was unconstitutional and violated the plaintiffs’ rights. Specifically, the right for single or married persons to have a child or not have a child. This act is protected by the Ninth Amendment through the Fourteenth Amendment. The State clearly overstepped their boundaries when the ruled on this one, they infringed on the plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights, something that NO STATE can do. They also stated that common law does not indict when an abortion is formed before “quickening”.
When reading the case the Constitution was mentioned continually. References to the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments we made, this tells me that the Justices thought things out and made what they thought was a rational ruling based on how they interpreted the Constitution. It wasn’t unanimous so that tells me that some Justices most likely interpreted the Constitution differently.
1973 Roe versus Wade Texas District Court ruling set the precedent for abortion law through out the United States. It was currently illegal to have an abortion for any reason outside the preservation of the mother’s life. Roe was challenging Texas’s current abortion law based on the violation of the constitutional Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of all individuals. Abortion laws wavered throughout history from as early as Ancient Greece. The Roe vs. Wade decision went to great lengths to discuss the historical views and rulings of abortion which most court rulings have not done in the past. The major dilemma throughout history appeared to be the determination of when “life” was produced. Many felt it was from the moment of conception and others not until the moment of birth. There was a lot of reference to states of “quickening” which I took to mean the stages of pregnancy. Ultimately the court ruled an unborn child has never been recognized in the law as a person in the whole sense, yet the closer to fetus viability will determine the rights of the state to interfere with an abortion. Abortion was ruled legal for early trimester pregnancy. States were given the right to place restrictions on when, where and who could perform the abortions. Late trimester abortions could be interfered with by the state in defense of preservation of life. The overall exception to state interference with abortion rights is when the mother’s life is at risk. The mother’s health trumps that of the unborn child.
Was it an ethical ruling? In my opinion…Yes and long overdue! Think of the hundreds of lives lost due to “basement” abortions gone wrong. Abortion is and always will be a disputed decision. It is a subject that everyone takes a position for or against and even somewhere in the middle. I agree that a woman should have the option to terminate an early stage pregnancy without interference from the state or government. Based on viability, I agree with legally aborting a fetus prior to 23 weeks gestation. Regardless of medical advances and heroics, a child will not have an unburdened, fulfilling life if they even survive the delivery. I do have a hard time with late stage abortions, even though the usual reasoning is for genetic inconsistencies or disabilities. I feel once the brain of a fetus has begun to develop, the unborn child can feel pain. In regards to my feelings, I would never expect or want my feelings to alter the law. It is not my place to tell a woman what to do with her body or the life of her unborn child. Though I may disagree with someone’s choice, I still firmly believe they have the right to make their own choice as I have the right to make my own.
Although the subject of “personhood” was never truly established, at least in 1974, The Supreme Court finally upheld the Constitution re-granting women their civil rights to choose motherhood or not. The decision upheld privacy laws and placed adequate restrictions and guidelines upon those women choosing to have the procedure, regardless of reason. The court was careful in considering such a delicate issue and made a good judgment granting both parties (pro-choice and anti-abortionists) some say in the final decision. Regardless of what the courts concluded, neither party could be completely satisfied. At least the decision granted those who wished to abort a time frame in which to carry out the procedure, and those against abortion a larger time frame in which the procedure could not be preformed (except in those cases in which harm to the mother or fetus was occurring).
The desicion in the Roe vs. Wade case was carefully considered and reasonable. The court states that personhood does not include the unborn, however the state could use viability where a baby can survive out of the womans body at which woman can not abort a fetus unless it's a medical amergency. I personaly think 24-28 weeks is more than enough time to decide if a woman wants to have the baby. Matter a fact I think they should lower the weeks, because I mean 24 weeks is six months the baby is moving around and kicking.
Since the baby is moving around in the woman by this time who can say when personhood is established? The baby is moving around and things and in some cases at six months can live outside the mothers body. So maybe these woman should'nt have that many weeks to decide. I'ts still the womans decision and rite to abort the fetus if she wants too not only in a emergency situation.
In the Roe vs. Wade January 22, 1973 decision the Supreme Court said the constitutional rights to privacy include a woman’s decision to have an abortion. This decision must abide by the states interest and regulations. According to the Supreme Court the state does not have the right to restrict a woman’s decision to have an abortion to any degree in the first trimester. During the second trimester the state can only regulate the type of procedure that takes place. The Supreme Court also said during the third trimester when the fetus is viable (ability of a fetus to live outside of the mother’s womb), the state can restrict an abortion except for when the mother’s life is at risk.
The Supreme Court basically said the fetus would have rights, if it was defined as a legal person. It has yet been determined when life begins. There is no concrete evidence that could be submitted on when life begins, and therefore we can not consider a fetus a person, and because of that a fetus can not receive the constitutional protect that we receive. Since a fetus doesn’t have a right to personhood the 14th amendment doest apply. The 14th amendment did not include the protection of the unborn.
I believe the Supreme’s Court decision was carefully considered because they took the constitutional rights and the amendments into account; they also took professional medical documentation into consideration. There is no concrete evidence as to when a fetus is consideration a person except for when the mother has giving girth. Up until that point, it’s the woman’s body and that woman has the right to make the decision when it comes to her body.
Roe v. Wade was the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the legality of abortion and the states’ role in abortion in regards to privacy and the rights of the individual and the legality of abortion. First the Supreme Court had to establish personhood in order to make judgment on the whether the embryo has individual rights of its own from conception or is considered not a viable person until a certain stage of development. Based on ancient opinion and common law the court took into consideration the idea of quickening to establish viability. Quickening stated that viability of the fetus would be established with noticeable movement of the fetus. The Supreme Court eventually established viability at 24-28 weeks, which the court regards fetal viability as the capability to sustain life outside of the womb.
The court’s decision regarding right to privacy is upheld by the 9th Amendment with regard to the reservation of rights to the people, stating the amendment is broad enough to encompass a women’s right to continue or terminate a pregnancy. The Supreme Court stated that denying a women choice could potentially cause undue psychological harm to a women, distressful life and future, the court also took into consideration the possible of bringing an unwanted child into an already distressed situation, the stigma of unwed motherhood, the court reserved that choice should ultimately considered by the mother and her physician.
The Supreme Court did rule that Texas was in violation of Roe’s constitutional rights in regards to abortion and choice it did note various states’ reason behind abortion criminality and obligation to the unborn child. The court notes that in many states abortion was deemed criminal on the basis that the procedure itself was medical harmful and dangerous to the women, potentially resulting in death. However, the court noted that state law did not progress as medical and scientific advancements were made. Aseptic techniques over time made it safer for physicians to perform abortions with fewer complications. States’ viewed their laws as means of ultimately protecting women and noted that the states viewed it as their right to protect all life, especially including prenatal life, which was seen as the duty or obligation of the state. The state viewed that its obligation to protect life begins at conception. However, the state does view abortion as a means when the unborn fetus threatens the life of the mother. The Supreme Court noted that this loophole truly keeps the state from committing to personhood but would still allow the state to assert protection of the unborn fetus and the mother as well.
cont...I do believe the Supreme Court considered its decision on abortion carefully. Ultimately the court ruled in favor of constitutional rights and the rights of the individual. The important decision in Roe v. Wade is in regards to the right of the individual to choose in regards to a medical condition. The court also recognized the potential harms associated with unwanted pregnancies, physical, psychological and financial. The Supreme Court was also wise to set guidelines in terms of viability and the definition of such viability of life. Should the court only ruled that abortion be legal states could therein set terms regarding the conditions for abortion. Essentially states could have been allowed to establish viability at any time in the pregnancy. What I do not agree with is the court’s decision stating that abortion is merely covered by the rights of privacy but that the right is not absolute and may be subject to limitations allowing the state interest in protection of health, medical standards and prenatal life to dominate the ruling. Essentially this part of the decision still grants autonomy to the states. The states must legally allow the right to and be provided a safe abortion, the states have found in this decision to ultimately control access to abortions allowing states to lay down strict abortion laws and regulations making the ability to obtain abortions difficult and discouraging. Overall, the court’s decision was wise and carefully considered, however I do believe decision governing all states should have more federal guidelines in regards to the individual’s rights.
On January 23, 1973 the Supreme court made the decision following our country's constitution.The court was responsible for deciding the rights of mothers, weighed by the rights or lack thereof their unborn child, and the states ability to dictate a mothers choice to abort pregnancy. The court opinion on person hood was that a fetus had no rights since there was no evidence when life began. although the state during the first trimester has no authority the state can during the third trimester when the fetus is viable (this is when the fetus can live outside the womb) set guidelines to what type of procedure can be done. The court made a smart decision to protect the mother. The mother has a fourth amendment right to fundamental privacy and to make a qualified decision to have an abortion without the states interference. The court although was able to keep the state rights to place restrictions on the abortion at the 28 week period.This was to protect the fetus from those late term abortions that cause much controversy for both sides of the issue.
The courts decision was a monumental case that has to this date caused a religious, political, and moral divide. The decision was thought out and concise the judges were methodical in explaining the law and the the constitutional rights of a mother. although the a fetus still has no rights the judges allowed states a certain period (the third trimester )in which states rights to regulate the abortions afford a viable fetus some rights in my eyes. The decision was right to give mothers their right over their body and health as is afforded in the fourth and ninth amendment. The courts decision to allow mothers this choice has limited the states overwhelming reach on the individual. In my opinion the court made the best possible decision while considering all of the factual information pertaining to the case.
The case of Roe vs. Wade in 1973 became to be very controversial even until today. I believe the court's decisions was at all not capricious, in my opinion they made a sound judgment based on viability. The Supreme Court ruled that by the fourteen amendment the state could not interfered with the mother decision of abortion at her first trimester. The court ruled that the state can if they feel is necessary to interfere in the late second trimester and definitely the state can get involved if the mother gets an abortion on her third trimester. I think the court did a valid and sound judgment because they did not let their own opinion or view influence this case. They were aware of the sensitive and emotional issue that abortion brought to the table. Therefore, they seek resources liable and well established. The court went way back to the history of abortion; they review the constitution and waded the importance of each source. I think the Supreme decision in Roe vs. Wade was carefully made.
Post a Comment