- Casebriefs - https://www.casebriefs.com -

Roe v. Wade

Brief Fact Summary. A Texas law criminalizing abortion except where the procedure is necessary to “save the life of the mother” and without regard to the state of pregnancy was found by the Supreme Court of the United States to violate due process.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The right of privacy protects a married or unmarried woman’s liberty to choose an abortion, but this right must be considered against important state interests in regulation such as the stage of the pregnancy.

Facts. A Texas law criminalized the procurement of an abortion except by “medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” The challengers are a single pregnant woman, Ms. Roe, a childless couple, the wife not pregnant, Mr. and Mrs. Doe, and a licensed physician, Dr. Hallford. Suits by Ms. Roe and the Doe’s were class actions. The three-judge district court ruled the Doe’s complaint non-justiciable, but granted declaratory relief to Appellants Ms. Roe and Dr. Hallford, holding the law unconstitutional.

Issue. Whether the Texas statute improperly invades the right of a pregnant woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy.
Whether a fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Whether the pregnant woman can be isolated in her privacy.

Held. Yes. The three-judge district court judgment affirmed. The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. However, the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy does exist under the Constitution. This right of privacy, whether found in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty as this Court feels it is, or as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the state would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. She could suffer from medical harm, a distressful life and future, psychological harm, thereby making the unwanted child suffer as well. This right of privacy is not absolute, however. The state may regulate such fundamental rights if that regulation is justified by a “compelling state interest” and is narrowly drawn to express only the legitimate state interests at stake.
No. The use of the word “person” in the Constitution has only postnatal applications. The word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.
No. When a woman carries an embryo, and later a fetus, her privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly. A fetus becomes viable (can survive outside the womb) after the first trimester. The state does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman. The state also has an important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. The attending physician and his patient are free to determine, without regulation by the state, that the patient’s pregnancy should be terminated during the period prior to the fetus’ viability, the “compelling point.” The state may thus increase restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests.

Dissent. The drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the states the power to legislate with respect to abortion. There is not a right of privacy involved in this case.
Concurrence. The asserted state interests are legitimate objectives, but the Court has demonstrated these state interests cannot constitutionally support the broad abridgement of personal liberty worked by the Texas law.
The Ninth Amendment acknowledges a catalogue of rights within the meaning of “liberty” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment. First is the autonomous control over the development and expression of one’s intellect, interest, tastes and personality. Second is freedom of choice in the basic decisions in one’s life respecting marriage, divorce, procreation, contraception, and the education and upbringing of children. Third is the freedom to care for one’s health and person, freedom from bodily restraint, freedom to walk, stroll or loaf.

Discussion. This monumental case roots the right of privacy it protects in the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The woman’s right of privacy can only be defeated by a “compelling state interest” such as protecting the woman’s health and protecting the potentiality of life.