Marlene Montilla

Kelly Thomas

Iliana Colon

Political Science

Abortion

Christopher Malone

Abortion is one of the most controversial issues in American society today. It is a medical procedure in which a unborn fetus is extracted from a woman's womb. The main controversy concerning abortion is whether it is murder or not. There are two general interest groups involved with this debate. They are the Pro-life and the Pro-choice groups. Abortions are legal due to a supreme court decision on January 22, 1973 known as Roe vs. Wade. This decision stated that banning abortions was unconstitutional and in direct opposition to the ninth and fourteenth amendments. Despite this decision the two groups continue to debate. Both groups use the idea of civil rights and liberties as a way to explain their own point of view and to contradict each other. This paper will focus on the supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, that legalized abortion, the civil rights and liberties that guarantee a woman's right to choose, and the resulting opposing interest groups.

Before the most well known court case involving abortion, Roe v. Wade, there were three legal precedents that helped the lawyers for the plaintiffs in Roe v. Wade develop their case. These precedents include Griswold v. Connecticut, People v. Belous, and United States v. Vuitch. The Supreme

Court case Griswold v. Connecticut involved Estelle Griswold, the executive director of the Planned Parenthood league of Connecticut and Charles Lee Buxton, a local physician and head of obstetrics and gynecology at Yale University. Griswold and Buxton were arrested for giving birth control information and instructions to a married couple. They (Griswold and Buxton) were tried in a local court, found guilty, and fined one hundred dollars each. Griswold and Buxton decided to appeal this decision in the United States Supreme Court. One of the arguments used by their lawyer, Fowler Harper, was that the Connecticut laws violated the married couple's right to privacy, which is protected by the ninth amendment even if it is not specifically mentioned. {http://www.siskiyms.edu}

Another, perhaps the most significant precedent to Roe v. Wade was People v. Belous. This California Supreme Court case involved the arrest of a doctor who had referred the couple to an abortionist. The judges in the case declared California's abortion laws as vague, which therefor violated the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, which states that a state can not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This argument would be

crucial to and further developed by the lawyers for the plaintiffs in Roe v. Wade.

The third precedent to Roe v. Wade, United States v. Vuitch, was a law- suit involving a doctor who was freely interpreting a Washington D.C. law which allowed abortions which would save a woman's life. The abortions that Vuitch preformed were "therapeutic", that is they were not life threatening. The federal court that heard Vuitch overturned Washington D.C.'s existing laws, because they were too vague to guide "either the doctor, the jury, or the court."

Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee, two lawyers, began to build a case that would change abortion's legal status in the United States. The original basis for Roe v. Wade was to challenge Texas abortion laws, which only allowed abortion if the woman's pregnancy was life threatening. Coffee and Weddington found a valid defense against Texas abortion laws, Norma McCorvey, also known as "Jane Roe" to protect her privacy. McCorvey was poor, single, and pregnant. She wanted an abortion and could not afford to travel to another state or country to obtain a safe one, and she was afraid to have an illegal abortion. The two lawyers already had a strong case with McCorvey but wanted to make it stronger by examining it from

all possible angles. Weddington and Coffee decided to file a married couple, the "Does", as plaintiffs. "Mrs. Doe" was not pregnant but felt that she should be able to legally terminate a pregnancy if the need was ever present. By adding the "Does" as plaintiffs, the case was seen as respectable because, then, a single woman was seen as a social stigma. {http://www.naral.org}

The focal point for Weddington's and Coffee's case was that Texas abortion laws were too vague. This violated the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. After years of hard work and dedication on the parts of Coffee and Weddington, the United States Supreme Court finally reached its decision on January 22, 1973. Justice Harry A. Blackmun, who wrote the court's decision, declared Texas' abortion laws unconstitutional. He wrote that the right to privacy includes the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. The right to privacy, thus, the right to have an abortion, is protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that a woman could have an abortion for whatever reason in the first six months of pregnancy. After that, the fetus is considered viable because it can survive outside the mother's womb. {http://www.now.org}

In essence, abortion is a constitutional issue. Roe v. Wade and its precedents demonstrated that the government can not infringe on the constitutional rights of Americans. Even if not specifically mentioned, The United States Constitution protects inalienable rights that all Americans are entitled to.

The basis for the Roe v. Wade was the Ninth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ninth reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Fourteenth reads: "…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…" The Ninth Amendment, though extremely vague, was interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean the Constitution guaranteed freedom of privacy. This means a person's decision concerning many things including abortion, can not be infringed upon by the state or anybody else. The Fourteenth Amendment aided the people accused of violating abortion laws. The Fourteenth Amendment, in this content, was said to mean that a person could not be charged with breaking a law if it was vague, as most abortions laws were at the time. These Amendments were both used to guarantee the civil rights and liberties of the people who believed in abortion.

In American society today there are basically two stances a person can take concerning abortion. The first is Pro-life. This group believes a person's life begins at the time of fertilization and is therefore guaranteed certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, or property. This group suggests alternatives to abortion such as adoption and family parenting. Their main point is that abortion ends a human life and should be punishable by law. The second stance or interest group involved in this debate is Pro-choice. This group believes that a woman has the right to terminate a pregneancy, before or after fetus viability if the life of the mother is at stake. They also believe that several factors such as medical complications, fetal abnormality, rape, incest, lack of finances, or teenage pregnancy are all justifications for having an abortion. They believe that one civil right that is guaranteed to woman is the right to choose or control their own bodies. Their main point is that abortion should be legal and available to all women. {http://www.abortion.com}

Being that abortion is one of the most controversial issues in America today there are many opposing views. The main groups are Pro-life and Pro-choice. Respectively, one

group believes abortion should be punishable by law and the latter believes that it is the right of every female. The bottom line is that abortion is legal because of the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. This decision will be difficult to change because of civil rights and liberties which are bestowed to all Americans. Any law that is made can not disparage the civil rights and liberties given to the people by the Constitution. A law banning abortion would be in direct opposition to this. In closing, abortion is constitutional and should remain a choice that can be made by females and not by a male dominated government.