Roe v. Wade is a historical decision of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the legislation of abortions. The decision appears to be one of the most controversial and politically significant in the entire U.S. history. Therefore, it is important to dwell on the historical context to reveal the reasons of this decision that would have its reflection in the generations ahead.
On September of 1969, working away from home, the plaintiff discovered that she was pregnant. Upon returning to Dallas, Roe declared about a rape by friends' advice, since the Texas laws permitted to terminate abortion in cases of rapes incest only (Faux, 1988, pp. 19-21) (Higgins, Dellapenna, 2013, p. 14). Roe, however, did not manage to provide enough evidence regarding the rape. The Court eventually sentenced that a woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy at her own request until the fetus becomes viable. In the context of this decision viability implies autonomy, that is, the ability to exist out the maternal organism, including the condition under the obligatory medical care. The approximate date of the achievement of autonomy is 7 months, 28 weeks; the threshold, however, can be reduced to 24 weeks. Considering the late stage of the pregnancy, abortion can be made only if is represents a danger to the mother. This norm was set during the lawsuit Doe v. Bolton (Faux, 1988, p. 236). The decision was justified by the right to privacy deriving from the Due Process Clause included in the Fourteenth Amendment (Wasserman, 2004, pp. 6-10).
In point of fact, as stated by Roe, the issue was much more complicated. According to Roe, she was not aware of many facts regarding her case, and the advocates simply manipulated her trying to reach their own ends. As stated by the plaintiff, the advocates were searching for anything that could proves useful in reaching their goals. Indeed, Roe was pregnant with her third child and was trying to get rid of him, but she was not aware of all the consequences of abortion, or even its very nature. She later admitted that to her abortion meant returning to the initial condition before pregnancy. With that, Norma McCorvey, which is Roe's real name, was not completely aware of the fact that this process would kill the fetus. As stated by her words, her advocate Sarah Weddington was intentionally confusing hear instead of helping her to sort the things out (Higgins, Dellapenna, 2013, p. 14). Norma claimed that her advocates were lying to her about the abortion process. Weddington assured her that it was simply a piece of cloth, and the plaintiff would simply miss a certain period.
Another problem that played a role in the lawsuit was that Norma had initially claimed her pregnancy to be the result of a gang rape, thus trying to present a more emotional picture to the judges. As later stated by herself, there was no actual rape, and her statements were deceitful (The Truth About Roe). With that, the plaintiff claimed her own involvement in the case to be minor, later discovering the Court's decision from newspapers.
Still, considering the taken decision, the possibility of the proceedings in this case was not evident. There exists the rule that the U.S. Supreme Court can resolve only real and actual disputes. However, at the material time the plaintiff had already gave birth to her child, thus, the conflict was settled. Likewise, Norma could not act on behalf of all women. The Court, however, made an exception, basing on the possibility of similar situations in the future. In the final analysis, Norma's appeal to the court seems to present no actual reasoning, since she child had already been born, thus rendering no practical use for the plaintiff, except for possible cases in the future.
References
Faux, M. (1988). Roe v. Wade: The Untold Story of the Landmark Supreme Court Decision that Made Abortion Legal (pp. 19-21). New York: Macmillan.
Higgins, M., & Dellapenna, J. W. (2013). Roe v. Wade: Abortion and a Woman's Right to Privacy (p. 14). Minneapolis, MN: ABDO Pub.
The Truth About Roe v. Wade. Retrieved January 31, 2016, from http://www.toomanyaborted.com/roevwade/
Wasserman, R. (2004). Procedural Due Process: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution (pp. 6-10). Westport, CT: Praeger.
