Difference between revisions of "Roe v. Wade"
(Expanded the legal section on the case, and added notes on test cases up at SCOTUS this term, and possible fallout) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Roe v. Wade was a landmark Supreme Court ruling legalizing [[abortion]] in 1973. | + | ''Roe v. Wade'' (410 U.S. 113) was a landmark Supreme Court ruling legalizing[[abortion]] in limited circumstances in 1973. |
| − | == | + | |
| + | ==Parties== | ||
Roe's real name was [[Norma McGarvey]], a carnival barker, who became pregnant. | Roe's real name was [[Norma McGarvey]], a carnival barker, who became pregnant. | ||
| − | |||
Wade refers to [[Henry Wade]] the [[Texas]] [[Attorney General]] at the time. | Wade refers to [[Henry Wade]] the [[Texas]] [[Attorney General]] at the time. | ||
| + | |||
==Opinion== | ==Opinion== | ||
| − | The opinion written by Justice [[Harry Blackmun]] divided a pregnancy into sections. Up until the [[fetus]] was viable, the State could not regulate [[abortion]]. However | + | The opinion written by Justice [[Harry Blackmun]], and divided a pregnancy into sections. Up until the [[fetus]] was viable, at the "quickening," the State could not regulate [[abortion]]. |
| + | |||
| + | Notable for its definition of [[fundamental rights]], the opinion is an expansion of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence under the [[Fourteenth Amendment]], which, along with [[Griswold v. Connecticut]], sets up spheres of personal activity which the state cannot regulate without good cause.<ref>See generally Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479</ref> Specifically, the Court held that the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] protects implicit rights enumerated in its [[penumbra]], if not the text itself, which includes the [[right to privacy]].<ref>See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113</ref> The holding of the Court has become a foundation of fundamental rights jurisprudence, and has been heavily relied upon since it was decided, and underpins many other famous cases, such as [[Lawrence v. Texas]].<ref>See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Controversy== | ||
| + | Several cases, up for decision at the Supreme Court in the 2007 term, may whittle away at the holding of the case. Specifically, a South Dakota law banning nearly all abortions is seen as a deliberate attempt to force a [[test case]], where "pro-life" activists will have a chance to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider ''Roe''.<ref>The Economist, http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VVJRJTN</ref> However, while ''Roe'' may be highly distinguished in these cases, the fact that the central holding of ''Roe v. Wade'' is so important to modern [[civil rights]] jurisprudence suggests that the whole case is unlikely to be overturned in its entirety, based on the United States concept of [[stare decisis]], or respect for legal precedent. Under this outlook, losing ''Roe'''s holding would be fatal to an entire constitutional structure, which the Court disfavors.<ref>See Lawrence v. Texas, supra (relying strongly on Roe v. Wade)</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Some commentators suggest that limitations of Roe may actually be good for the "pro-choice" movement, as it would allow "pro-life" activists to vent their animosity against [[judicial activism]], while forcing the public to create a more moderate legislative solution to the problem. These commentators perceive the American public as more moderate than either the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" movements.<ref>The Economist, http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VNSRJQV</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | <references/> | ||
Revision as of 15:43, March 10, 2007
Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113) was a landmark Supreme Court ruling legalizingabortion in limited circumstances in 1973.
Parties
Roe's real name was Norma McGarvey, a carnival barker, who became pregnant.
Wade refers to Henry Wade the Texas Attorney General at the time.
Opinion
The opinion written by Justice Harry Blackmun, and divided a pregnancy into sections. Up until the fetus was viable, at the "quickening," the State could not regulate abortion.
Notable for its definition of fundamental rights, the opinion is an expansion of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence under the Fourteenth Amendment, which, along with Griswold v. Connecticut, sets up spheres of personal activity which the state cannot regulate without good cause.[1] Specifically, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects implicit rights enumerated in its penumbra, if not the text itself, which includes the right to privacy.[2] The holding of the Court has become a foundation of fundamental rights jurisprudence, and has been heavily relied upon since it was decided, and underpins many other famous cases, such as Lawrence v. Texas.[3]
Controversy
Several cases, up for decision at the Supreme Court in the 2007 term, may whittle away at the holding of the case. Specifically, a South Dakota law banning nearly all abortions is seen as a deliberate attempt to force a test case, where "pro-life" activists will have a chance to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe.[4] However, while Roe may be highly distinguished in these cases, the fact that the central holding of Roe v. Wade is so important to modern civil rights jurisprudence suggests that the whole case is unlikely to be overturned in its entirety, based on the United States concept of stare decisis, or respect for legal precedent. Under this outlook, losing Roe's holding would be fatal to an entire constitutional structure, which the Court disfavors.[5]
Some commentators suggest that limitations of Roe may actually be good for the "pro-choice" movement, as it would allow "pro-life" activists to vent their animosity against judicial activism, while forcing the public to create a more moderate legislative solution to the problem. These commentators perceive the American public as more moderate than either the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" movements.[6]
References
- ↑ See generally Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479
- ↑ See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113
- ↑ See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558
- ↑ The Economist, http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VVJRJTN
- ↑ See Lawrence v. Texas, supra (relying strongly on Roe v. Wade)
- ↑ The Economist, http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_VNSRJQV