Roe v. Wade Essay

"The Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas. The question then becomes whether the state interests advanced to justify this abridgment can survive the 'particularly careful scrutiny' that the Fourteenth Amendment here requires. The asserted state interests are protection of the health and safety of the pregnant woman, and protection of the potential …show more content…

However, Floyd contended that despite external factors, each person had free autonomy. "Now I think she makes her choice prior to the time she becomes pregnant. That is the time of her choice. It's like, more or less, the first three or four years of our life we don't remember anything. But once a child is born, a woman no longer has a choice, and I think pregnancy then determines that choice". Thus, Floyd contended, the fourteenth amendment was not violated since pregnancy was based on free will, and liberty was not denied. If pregnancy was a deliberate choice on the woman's part, then abortion was not warranted. Another crucial aspect of the Roe vs. Wade trial was the status of when a fetus is guaranteed constitutional rights. In response to Texas' harsh abortion restrictions, Floyd explained that Texas "recognized the humanness of the embryo, or the fetus" and had "a compelling interest because of the protection of fetal life". However, there were several flaws with this statement in the court. First, the topic of the Court was not the constitutional rights of embryos, but whether abortion violated a person's right to liberty. Second, no state law or court decision had equated abortion with murder. Thus, Floyd's contention amounted to a mere personal opinion, with no bearing on the case. The Court needed to uphold the constitutional rights of the woman before protecting the "rights" of the unborn