The History Of Roe Becoming Law

Roe v. Wade was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protected a right to have an abortion. The case was brought by Norma McCorvey, under the legal pseudonym Jane Roe, who, in 1969, became pregnant with her third child. McCorvey wanted an abortion but lived in Texas, where abortion was illegal except when necessary to save the mother's life. Her lawyers filed a lawsuit on her behalf in U.S. federal court against her local district attorney, Henry Wade, alleging that Texas's abortion laws were unconstitutional.

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a fundamental right to privacy, which protects a pregnant woman's right to an abortion. It also held that the right to abortion is not absolute and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life.

Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2022.

The right to privacy

The Roe v. Wade case of 1973 established a framework for legal abortions across the United States. The case was brought by Norma McCorvey, under the legal pseudonym "Jane Roe", who, in 1969, became pregnant with her third child. McCorvey wanted an abortion but lived in Texas, where abortion was illegal except when necessary to save the mother's life. Her lawyers filed a lawsuit on her behalf in a U.S. federal court against her local district attorney, Henry Wade, alleging that Texas's abortion laws were unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court decided two important things:

• The United States Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a person's right to choose whether to have an abortion.
• The abortion right is not absolute. It must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting health and prenatal life.

The Court created a framework to balance the state's interests with privacy rights. Acknowledging that the rights of pregnant people may conflict with the rights of the state to protect potential human life, the Court defined the rights of each party by dividing pregnancy into three 12-week trimesters:

• During a pregnant person's first trimester, the Court held, a state cannot regulate abortion beyond requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor in medically safe conditions.
• During the second trimester, the Court held that a state may regulate abortion if the regulations are reasonably related to the health of the pregnant person.
• During the third trimester of pregnancy, the state's interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the right to privacy. As a result, the state may prohibit abortions unless an abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the pregnant person.

The Roe v. Wade decision was overturned in 2022 by the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health case.

The right to privacy is not absolute

Roe v. Wade, a 1973 lawsuit, led to the Supreme Court making a ruling on abortion rights. The Court decided two important things:

Firstly, that the United States Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a person's right to choose whether to have an abortion.

Secondly, that the right to abortion is not absolute. It must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting health and prenatal life.

The Court acknowledged that being forced to continue a pregnancy puts a lot at risk, such as the mother's health, psychological harm, and the financial and social burden of raising a child. However, the Court also recognised that the right to privacy does not prevent states from putting some regulations on abortion.

To balance the rights of pregnant people with the rights of the state to protect potential human life, the Court defined the rights of each party by dividing pregnancy into three 12-week trimesters:

• During the first trimester, the Court held that a state cannot regulate abortion beyond requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor in medically safe conditions.
• During the second trimester, the Court held that a state may regulate abortion if the regulations are reasonably related to the health of the pregnant person.
• During the third trimester, the state's interest in protecting the potential human life outweighs the right to privacy, and the state may prohibit abortions unless an abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the pregnant person.

The Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was among the most controversial in U.S. history. Some view the Court's decision as "judicial activism," meaning the judges based their decision on personal views rather than existing law. However, supporters of Roe say it is vital in preserving women's rights.

The state's interest in protecting health and medical standards

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to an abortion is not absolute and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting health and prenatal life.

The state's interest in safeguarding health and medical standards was one of the three main arguments put forth by Texas in its case to defend the abortion statute. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument, stating that the right to privacy does not prevent states from putting some regulations on abortion.

The Court created a framework to balance the state's interests with privacy rights by dividing pregnancy into three 12-week trimesters:

• During the first trimester, the Court held that a state cannot regulate abortion beyond requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor in medically safe conditions.
• During the second trimester, the Court held that a state may regulate abortion if the regulations are reasonably related to the health of the pregnant person.
• During the third trimester, the state's interest in protecting prenatal life outweighs the right to privacy, and the state may prohibit abortions unless an abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the pregnant person.

The Court's decision in Roe v. Wade thus acknowledged the state's interest in protecting health and medical standards while also recognizing a person's right to privacy and control over their pregnancy.

The state's interest in protecting prenatal life

The landmark Roe v. Wade case of 1973 established a framework for legal abortions across the United States. The Supreme Court decided that the United States Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a person's right to choose whether to have an abortion. However, this right to abortion is not absolute and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting health and prenatal life.

In the case, the state of Texas defended its abortion restriction with three main arguments:

• States have an interest in safeguarding health, maintaining medical standards, and protecting prenatal life.
• A fetus is a "person" protected by the 14th Amendment.
• Protecting prenatal life from the time of conception is a compelling state interest.

The Supreme Court, however, was skeptical of the state's argument that Constitutional protections begin at conception. They concluded that the unborn have never been recognized in law as persons and that it is not up to the states to decide when life begins.

Alabama

Alabama prohibits abortion unless "reasonable medical judgment" demonstrates that an abortion is necessary to protect the mother's life or prevent major impairment. Abortion does not include acts done to save the life or protect the health of her baby, to remove a dead baby, to deliver the baby prematurely to avoid serious risks to the mother's or baby's health, or procedures to treat ectopic pregnancy.

Arizona

Arizona's pre-Roe law prohibits abortion unless it is necessary to save a mother's life. The state's definition of abortion explicitly excludes contraception, actions to save the life or protect the health of the unborn baby or a baby after live birth, the treatment of ectopic pregnancy, or the removal of a dead baby.

Arkansas

Arkansas prohibits abortion except when the procedure is necessary to save the mother's life or to prevent substantial impairment. It does not prohibit contraception. The law excludes from the definition of abortion acts to preserve the life or health of the unborn baby, to remove an unborn baby who was miscarried, or to treat an ectopic pregnancy.

Florida

Florida prohibits abortion after 15 weeks unless it is necessary to save the mother's life or protect her from substantial impairment, or the unborn baby is not viable and has a "fatal fetal abnormality." The definition of abortion excludes actions taken to produce a live birth or remove a dead unborn baby.

Georgia

Georgia prohibits abortion after an unborn baby has a heartbeat except to save the mother's life or to prevent substantial impairment. Abortion is also permitted up to 20 weeks if the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest, or if the baby is unlikely to survive long after birth because of a "profound" anomaly. Abortion does not include removing a dead unborn baby after miscarriage or treating ectopic pregnancy.

Idaho

Idaho's abortion law permits a physician who performs an abortion to raise the affirmative defense that the abortion was necessary to save the mother's life or that the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest that was reported. In both cases, the physician must choose a procedure that is most likely to save the life of the baby and protect the mother. The law explicitly excludes contraception from the definition of abortion.

Indiana

Indiana's abortion law is written to protect unborn lives in nearly all circumstances with certain exceptions for rape and incest, medical risk to the mother, or "lethal fetal anomalies." Abortion is permitted before the earlier of viability or 20 weeks if it is necessary to prevent a serious health risk to a pregnant woman or to save her life, or the fetus is diagnosed with a lethal fetal anomaly.

Iowa

Iowa's abortion law is written to prohibit abortion after a heartbeat has been detected unless it is necessary to save the mother's life or protect her from substantial impairment. Further, before 20 weeks, abortion is permitted if pregnancy results from reported rape or incest, or the unborn baby has a condition deemed "incompatible with life."

Kentucky

Kentucky prohibits abortion except when the procedure is necessary to save the mother's life or to prevent substantial impairment. However, the physician should attempt to save the mother and the unborn baby. The law explicitly excludes contraception from the prohibition.

Louisiana

Louisiana prohibits abortion except when the procedure is necessary to save the mother's life or to prevent substantial impairment. However, the physician should attempt to save the mother and the unborn baby. The law explicitly excludes contraception from the prohibition.

Mississippi

The trimester framework

During the first trimester, the decision to terminate the pregnancy was solely at the discretion of the woman. The Court held that a state cannot regulate abortion beyond requiring that the procedure be performed by a licensed doctor in medically safe conditions.

During the second trimester, the state could regulate (but not outlaw) abortions in the interests of the mother's health. The Court held that a state may regulate abortion if the regulations are reasonably related to the health of the pregnant person.

During the third trimester, the fetus became viable, and the state's interest in protecting the potential life of the fetus outweighed the right to privacy. The Court held that the state could regulate or outlaw abortions in the interest of the potential life except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Frequently asked questions