Roe vs. Wade (1973)

Roe v. Wade (1973)
Name
Course
Instructor
Date
Background
Roe v. Wade was widely supported by those advocating for reproductive rights, but the ruling affirming the right of women to choose whether to abort is still controversial. The1960’s and 70’ saw active activism in public life including the reproductive rights of women, but anti abortion activists affirmed the right to support life under all circumstances. At the center of the controversy is the provision that women had the right to seek abortion as a form of bodily self-determination and right of privacy (Curry, 2010). Over time, states adopted variations of the Supreme Court Decision on legalizing abortion. This paper looks into the case of Roe v. Wade with the judges relying on judicial activism and the extent to which the decision was appropriate.
The debate surrounding the decision on Roe v. Wade has taken a more ideological and political angle departing from the legal decisions behind the ruling. For instance the Planned Parenthood group tends to discuss on the choices that women make, while anti abortion activists seek to overturn the ruling. In other words it is a debate pitying the progressive elements versus the conservative elements of society on the principles that should govern reproductive rights in the US. It is noteworthy that there has been increased skepticism on the question of abortion, while some states also have their own laws that make abortion legal (Forsythe, 2014). As such, the composition of the US Supreme Court will likely influence future decisions on whether to continue upholding the original ruling, since a more conservative bench with pro life judges is likely to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Roe v. Wade and Judicial activism
The Roe v. Wade (1973) ruling merely extended the right to privacy, and the judges ruled to strike down some of the state laws also that placed limits on abortion. American judges handle statutory interpretation as well as judicial review depending on whether legislation is consistent with the Constitution. Judges who adhere to the Constitution strictly by supporting the validity of laws to the letter exercise judicial restraint. On the other hand, those who look at the fundamental principles of legislations regardless of whether the principles are identified in the laws exercise judicial activism. As such if it appears as though the federal legislations are giants the Constitution principles they are more likely to be struck down by the activist judges.
The Roe v. Wade (1973) decision was based on an implied right to privacy for women to choose abortion as a reproductive right. In other words, the right of privacy was not explicitly enumerated in the constitution, meaning that the judges relied more on judicial activism. In essence, the judges relied on the Substantive Due Process where unremunerated rights are protected under the 14th amendment (Myers, 2014). The right of privacy is one of the rights which fall under liberty meaning that all fundamental rights are protected. In any case the Substantive Due process might be relied upon to protect an individual, even in cases where the Constitution does not mention a specific right in the Constitution.
The appropriateness of the Roe decision
The controversy surrounding Roe increasingly focused on whether the ruling was a matter of fundamental rights. In 1989, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of retaining stricter provisions for women procuring abortions in Missouri, but this also showed that there were differences on the need to restrict reproductive rights (Greenhouse, 2009). This provided a basis for pro life activists to argue that indeed the Supreme Court could also uphold some of the restrictions that may have been deemed an assault on the right of personal choice. The Missouri ruling recognized that state legislatures could regulate abortion (Greenhouse, 2009).
Even though, the decision has garnered controversy since the ruling, the decision was right at the time, but some changes can be adopted by each state, given that at times women are not provided with adequate information (Cobb, 2007). The right to privacy is a guaranteed right in the Constitution, and the previous rulings on abortion tended to be vague on whether women had the right of privacy with regards to abortion. The Texas lower courts agreed that the right of privacy was wall articulated in the 9th Amendment and although it was applicable in the case it was not sufficient to require overturning some of the restrictions on abortions. As such, the Supreme Court was well placed to issue a decision on the case, with the majority decision agreeing to overturn the previous rulings. Judge Blackmun gave the Court’s verdict correctly pointing out that the case for protecting the right of privacy was vital in the case, even if the Constitution did not expressly mention the issue of abortion.
The case for upholding the Roe decision is that states cannot limit the interest of individuals without reasonable cause. Since privacy is a fundamental right, it follows that the judicial decisions take into account Amendments (Geer, Schiller & Segal, 2013). Furthermore, Roe was a special judicial concern given the need to identify the non–enumerated fundamental rights that all are identified with the right of privacy. The court was right in determining that the right to choice extended to abortion, and there was also a need to understand whether the state of Texas had valid reasons to curtail the right to choice. As such, taking into account the fundamental rights shows that the constitutional basis for the ruling does exist albeit indirectly.
There are suggestions that the ruling will most likely still court controversy unlike other landmark rulings. As such, there is a need to review the ruling gradually and incorporate the citizens views on the case. In other words local elections need to tackle the issue with each state left to decide on whether the decision is worthwhile. The court decision on the case brought forward the question for safe and legal abortions, but it has inadvertently led to deeper divisions between opposing camps. There is no clear consensus on ‘reproductive rights’ even more than 40 year...