Omar Bennett
Roe v. Wade was a landmark legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional, violating a woman's constitutional right to privacy. The case was brought by Jane Roe (a pseudonym for Norma McCorvey), a pregnant single woman who challenged the Texas abortion law that only permitted abortions to save the mother's life. The Supreme Court's decision, handed down on January 22, 1973, established that the right to privacy, inherent in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, protects a woman's choice to have an abortion. This case, embedded in a line of cases concerning personal liberty and privacy, has had a significant impact on abortion rights and the ongoing debate surrounding it.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Constitutional basis | The right to privacy, which is implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment |
| Year of ruling | 1973 |
| Ruling | Unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional |
| Ruling specifics | The right to privacy protects a woman's choice to have an abortion, but this right is limited as the pregnancy advances by the State's interest in maternal health and in fetal life after viability |
| Abortion laws in Texas | Permitted abortion only to save the life of the mother |
| Plaintiff | Jane Roe, a pseudonym for Norma McCorvey |
| Defendant | Henry Wade, district attorney for Dallas County |
| Ruling judge | Justice Harry A. Blackmun |
| Ruling result | Texas abortion ban was struck down |
| Ruling justification | The Constitution guarantees "the right of choice over events which, by their character and consequences, bear in a fundamental manner on the privacy of individuals." |
| Similar cases | Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Loving v. Virginia (1967), Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) |
| Overturned by | Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The right to privacy
Roe v. Wade was a landmark legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional, violating a woman's constitutional right to privacy. The case centred on "Jane Roe," a pseudonym for Norma McCorvey, who, in 1970, sued Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, where abortion was only permitted to save the life of the mother.
The Court's decision was based on the right to privacy, which was found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". The Court's majority opinion asserted that privacy is a fundamental right and that procreation falls under "the rights of personal privacy protected under the Constitution".
The ruling in Roe v. Wade was that the right to privacy protected abortion as a fundamental right, with the government retaining the power to regulate or restrict abortion access depending on the stage of pregnancy. After fetal viability, outright bans on abortion were permitted if they contained exceptions to preserve life and health. This decision sparked a national debate and affirmed the "right to choose".
Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022, with the Court voting to uphold a Mississippi law that banned all pre-viability abortions. This decision ended the constitutional right to abortion that had been upheld for 49 years.
Citing the US Constitution: Chicago Style Guide
You may want to see also
Abortion as a fundamental right
Roe v. Wade was a landmark legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. The Court held that the right to privacy, inherent in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, protects a woman's choice to have an abortion. This right to privacy was deemed to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
The case was brought by "Jane Roe" (a pseudonym for Norma McCorvey), a single pregnant woman, who sued Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, where abortion was only permitted to save the life of the mother. Roe argued that the Texas law was unconstitutional, infringing on her right to privacy. The Supreme Court agreed, establishing abortion as a fundamental right.
The ruling in Roe v. Wade was based on a line of individual liberty cases concerning privacy, such as Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), and Loving v. Virginia (1967). These cases recognised a right to personal privacy or "zones of privacy" under the Constitution. The Court's decision in Roe v. Wade affirmed that privacy is a fundamental right and that procreation falls under the "rights of personal privacy protected under the Constitution".
While Roe v. Wade established abortion as a fundamental right, it did not grant absolute freedom. The government retained the power to regulate or restrict abortion access depending on the stage of pregnancy. After fetal viability, outright bans on abortion were permitted if they contained exceptions to preserve life and health. The ruling in Roe v. Wade sparked ongoing debates and legal challenges, with states, healthcare providers, and citizens fighting over the limits of government intervention in abortion access.
In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to abortion that had been upheld for nearly five decades. Despite this, some state constitutions continue to independently protect abortion rights.
Attorney Appearance in Maryland: What Constitutes It?
You may want to see also
The liberty guarantee
Roe v. Wade was a landmark legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. The case centred on the constitutional right to privacy, which was found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This clause states that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
The case was brought by "Jane Roe" (a pseudonym for Norma McCorvey), a pregnant single woman from Texas, who sued Henry Wade, the local district attorney tasked with enforcing the state's abortion statute. At the time, Texas law only permitted abortion when necessary to save the life of the mother. Roe argued that this law was unconstitutional and infringed on a woman's right to privacy and liberty.
The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the right of privacy, inherent in the Fourteenth Amendment, protects a woman's choice to have an abortion. This decision was based on a line of cases concerning personal liberty in the realm of privacy, including Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Loving v. Virginia (1967), and Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972). The Court's ruling affirmed the "right to choose" and became a foundation for subsequent individual liberty cases concerning privacy.
While Roe v. Wade established a constitutional right to abortion, the government retained the power to regulate or restrict abortion access depending on the stage of pregnancy. After fetal viability, outright bans on abortion were permitted if they contained exceptions to preserve life and health. This decision sparked ongoing debates and legal challenges, with states, healthcare providers, and citizens fighting over the limits of government intervention in abortion access.
In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, ending the constitutional right to abortion that had been upheld for nearly five decades. Despite this, some state constitutions continue to independently protect abortion rights.
Joining an International Organization: What Makes You a Member?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Involuntary servitude
The Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 established a framework for legal abortions across the United States, ruling that restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. The decision was based on the constitutional right to privacy, which is derived from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that this right to privacy extends to control over pregnancy and procreation, and that being forced to continue a pregnancy puts a woman at risk.
Some academics have argued that the denial of abortion rights is equivalent to compulsory motherhood, and thus, abortion bans violate the Thirteenth Amendment. This argument states that forcing women to carry and bear children subjects them to "involuntary servitude" in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment. The argument asserts that even if a woman has consented to the risk of pregnancy, the state does not have the right to compel her to remain pregnant.
In the context of Roe v. Wade, involuntary servitude refers to the idea that denying a woman's right to abortion and forcing her to continue a pregnancy can be likened to a form of servitude. The argument suggests that pregnancy and childrearing can be a form of forced labour, as they require physical and emotional labour, time, and energy from the pregnant person. This argument has been rejected by some courts, with a district court in 1993 choosing to uphold abortion rights based on privacy concerns rather than involuntary servitude.
While the Roe v. Wade decision did not directly address the issue of involuntary servitude, the broader implications of the decision, including the recognition of a right to privacy and control over one's body, have been significant in shaping the legal landscape surrounding abortion rights and reproductive freedom. The decision affirmed that the state cannot override the rights of a pregnant woman and that abortion restrictions must consider the balance between state interests and privacy rights.
The Constitution's Framework for the Judiciary
You may want to see also
The mootness doctrine
When a case becomes moot, it means that the facts that gave rise to the dispute have changed, or an act of one of the parties has dissolved the dispute. This could be due to a change in the law, a change in the status of the parties, or the voluntary cessation of allegedly wrongful conduct by the defendant. In such situations, federal courts typically dismiss the case as they no longer have the power to entertain the legal claims.
However, there are exceptions to the mootness doctrine, and the Supreme Court has developed several of them over time. One example is the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception, which was applied in the Roe v. Wade case. This exception considers the potential for short-term disputes to recur but always fail to last long enough to permit federal judicial review. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court held that the case was not moot because the average gestation period of pregnancy was shorter than the usual appellate process. Therefore, it fell under the exception, and the Court could reach its merits.
Another exception to the mootness doctrine is when a defendant voluntarily stops the alleged wrongful conduct but could resume it at their discretion. In such cases, the Court should not necessarily declare the case moot because the defendant's voluntary cessation of the conduct does not guarantee that the allegedly unlawful behaviour will not recur.
Exploring Ticket Prices for DAR Constitution Hall Events
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Roe v. Wade was a legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court held that the right to privacy, inherent in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, protects a woman's choice to have an abortion. The Court also cited the Ninth Amendment as a basis for the right to privacy.
Roe v. Wade guaranteed a constitutional right to abortion for 49 years. The decision resulted in states, healthcare providers, and citizens debating the limits the government could place on abortion access.
