{"id":43,"date":"2022-01-31T06:06:57","date_gmt":"2022-01-31T06:06:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/?p=43"},"modified":"2022-01-31T06:06:58","modified_gmt":"2022-01-31T06:06:58","slug":"roe-v-wade","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/2022\/01\/31\/roe-v-wade\/","title":{"rendered":"Roe v. Wade"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Roe v. Wade, <\/em>410 U.S. 113 (1973)\u00a0is one of the landmark decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding abortion laws. The case was decided in 1973 and it substantially changed the interpretation of existing law in the United States. The case has had a strong standing for almost half a decade, but its place is wavering under the tension of the Supreme Courts pending case, namely\u00a0Dobbs v.\u00a0Jackson Women’s Health Organization.\u00a0<\/em>This case addresses the problem with the constitutionality of a state law called the Gestational Age Act that banned abortion operations in Mississippi after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. The core issue of the case is whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional. It is yet to be seen if the Supreme Court will overturn its own precedent and decide against\u00a0Roe v. Wade.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As stated before, the case Roe v. Wade <\/em>is about abortion laws. The plaintiff of the case was Jane Roe (a fictional name used in court documents to protect the identity of the plaintiff\u2019s), who brought a class action suit against the district attorney of Dallas County, Henry Wade, challenging the constitutionality of the Texas abortion laws. Eventually, the case was about a conflict between the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which has inherent a fundamental \u201cright to privacy\u201d that protects woman\u2019s choice on whether to have an abortion, and the government\u2019s interests in protecting \u201cthe potentiality of human life\u201d and protecting women\u2019s health. The case eventually led to a decision, in which the court held that the decision regarding abortions during the first trimester must be left to the decision of the pregnant woman\u2019s doctor. In other words, abortion during the first trimester shouldn\u2019t be regulated by states. However, then the court stated that states may promote their interests in the potentiality of human life by controlling or even forbidding abortion during the third trimester, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Handling of Roe v. Wade <\/em>by the litigants in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case Roe v. Wade <\/em>is brought up by both litigants, Thomas E. Dobbs and the Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization. No doubt their arguments are rather polar opposites. Where Dobbs argues that Roe\u2019s viability line is arbitrary, constantly changing as medical knowledge increases, and even that it doesn\u2019t respect the fact that states have interests of their own beginning from the beginning of pregnancy, the Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization brings up that as Dobbs tries to argue that the Roe\u2019s central holding would be \u201cinconsistent with the Court\u2019s recognition that states have legitimate interests in maternal health, potential life, and the integrity and ethics of the medical profession\u201d, he is incorrect, since the court has already accounted for these interest before and decided that they do not contradict. The Organization continues to argue that Roe and the Court\u2019s subsequent cases speak in favour of the fact that it is for the pregnant person to make the final decision on abortion before viability. To clarify, \u201cviability\u201d is a concept that the Court itself has made a pivotal issue in its cases. Viability means, in short, the point at which a fetus is capable of living outside the womb with medical intervention. As both parties make their arguments based on numerous precedents, it is yet for the Supreme Court to decide how this case will unravel. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To conclude, the most central holding of Roe v. Wade <\/em>is that an individual has the right to decide whether to continue a pre-viability pregnancy. This has been confirmed in later Supreme Court cases, hence I agree with the Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization as they state that a pre-viability abortion ban unquestionably would contravene with the fundamental tenet of the Court\u2019s abortion jurisprudence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, as Dobbs continues to assert that Roe\u2019s viability clause is outdated, and most states reject viability as the rule for determining when prenatal injuries are actionable, it is nonetheless clear that Roe v. Wade <\/em>has strong standing when it comes to abortion cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

V.N.B.A<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Introduction Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)\u00a0is one of the landmark decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court regarding abortion laws. The case was decided in 1973 and it substantially changed the interpretation of existing law in the United States. The case has had a strong standing for almost half a decade, but its place … Continue reading Roe v. Wade<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":35805,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-43","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-scotus-2022"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/35805"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":44,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43\/revisions\/44"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogit.utu.fi\/caselaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}