Case Against Abortion

During the second trimester, the state could find out abortion procedures for the sole purpose of protecting the m some other's health, although the had to be middling related to her health. Since the foetus typically became viable at the offset printing of the third trimester, according to the chat up, the state could regulate and proscribe abortion, buy food where it was necessary to protect the mother's health.

There are two problems with this last. First, The prat for the apostrophize's reasoning, the right of privacy, was itself based upon an uncertain constitutional premise. Nowhere does the personality explicitly provide for such a right. It was developed through and through an expansive interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process clause. To be fair, this interpretation was extension of that put forth in Griswold v. Connecticut. There, the Court held that the law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives to unmarried persons infringed upon a relationship residing deep down a "zone of privacy created by several thoroughgoing constitutional guarantees." However, the Griswold opinion avoided labeling privacy as a all important(p) due process right, instead placing it within a "penumbra" of other constitutional rights.

Roe, on the other hand, made no judge to en

Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).

La Rue, Janet. Abortion: umpire Harry A. Blackmun and the Roe v. Wade Decision. 2 Simon Greenleaf Law round off 122 (1982-83).

Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 221 (1973).

Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942).

Garfield, Helen. Privacy, Abortion, and Judicial Review: Haunted by the Ghost of Lochner. 61 Washington Law Review 293 (1986).

The second, and to the highest degree public, problem with the Roe decision is its balancing of interests. There is itsy-bitsy denying that the Court overwhelmingly came down on the side of the mother's interests, rather than on the side of the state's interests in preserving the spiritedness history of the fetus. And it did this with very slender discussion of the balancing action.

Instead, the Court virtually ignored the life of the fetus, never explaining why the interests of the mother should outweigh those of state in preserving the fetus. The Court apparently found this an easy exercise subsequently property that the life of the fetus was not human life but " potential drop" human life. Even then, it should have spend some time discussing the factors weighing in favor of potential human life.

There can be no closedown to this controversy so long as the Court adheres to an to a fault expansive interpretation of substantive due process. The decision in Casey shows that most of the Court remains uncomfortable with the Roe holding but is unwilling to overturn it. Roe, however, cannot be overturned if the Court continues to accept Griswold and its progeny.

Moreover, the Court took apart the balancing action away from the state legislatures, which is where it belongs. Weighing the interests of a pregnant woman against those of the fetus she is carrying is a controversial decision to say the least. As such, it should be left to the most democratic of institutions in this country: the legislature. The decision is a moral one and its outcome should reflect the will of the people. Only the legislature can make such
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.