Roe v. Wade: The Struggle over Women's Reproduction Rights

Roe v. Wade: The Struggle over Women's Reproduction Rights"
Name
Course
Instructor
Date
Roe v. Wade was a landmark ruling that broadened the meaning reproductive rights of women (Divine et al., 2013). Abortion rights activists were increasingly represented in the women rights movement in the 1960’s calling for the right of women to control their bodies, but the law was strict on the question of abortion rights. Nonetheless, activists against abortion were also vocal stating that human life started at conception meaning that the fetus right ought not to be ignored. Subsequently, the Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1973 continues to draw varied reaction from pro choice and pro life activists.
Nonetheless, there still remained numerous restrictions varying from state to state on the issue of abortion rights. Divine et al (2013) delve into the case of Norma McCorvey, a Texas resident who in 1998 protested the ruling in Roe v. Wade where it was held that women had the right to seek abortion even when there was no risk to the mothers’ health. “The ruling had voided forty six state laws that denied or restricted a woman’s access to the controversial procedure.” At the time, McCorvey was an ardent opponent of abortion rights like many religious people. McCorvey had been the previously unnamed Jane Roe, whose struggles as a struggling young mother made her to seek abortion legally by first overturning criminalization of abortion in Texas.
Norma McCorvey agreed to be enjoined in the lawsuit challenging the Texas abortion law that seemed punitive and agreed to use the pseudonym Jane Roe, being represented by lawyers Washington and Coffee. The two lawyers argued that the state of Texas ought to have overturned the law on the grounds that “it was written too vaguely to be applied fairly,” the two also argued that the law infringed to a woman’s right to privacy (Divine et al., 2013). To support this argument the two made inferences to the constitution which touched on zone of personal privacy, but lawyers against the suit stated that the law touched on doctors rather than punish women who had abortions and it was not necessary to bring the suit before the court.
In the Texas law courts, the Judges held that the law infringed on the right to privacy as guaranteed in the Ninth amendment, but they did not issue an injection to compel the district attorney to do away with the law (Divine et al., 2013). Without an injunction it was clear that only a Supreme Court decision would help interpret the law, culminating in the hearing of Roe v. Wade twice in the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court decision, Blackmun recognize privacy interest in abortions, and though the constitution did not expressly mention privacy and abortion privacy was duly protected (Blackmun, 1973). Furthermore, Hallford a physician with pending abortion prosecutions was...