Changes

In addition to creating a new constitutional right, '''''Roe v. Wade''''' also created an exception to the usual rule that one must face a threat of imminent prosecution in order to have [[standing]]. In ''Roe'', the Court held that there was [[standing]] because the alleged injury was said to be "capable of repetition yet evading review."

In addition to creating a new constitutional right, '''''Roe v. Wade''''' also created an exception to the usual rule that one must face a threat of imminent prosecution in order to have [[standing]]. In ''Roe'', the Court held that there was [[standing]] because the alleged injury was said to be "capable of repetition yet evading review."

This decision is therefore one of the most famous examples of law by judicial fiat, that is judges writing the laws. It created a dangerous precedent that is still followed today of the 'living constitution".

This decision is therefore one of the most famous examples of law by judicial fiat, that is judges writing the laws. It created a dangerous precedent that is still followed today of the 'living constitution."

==Opinion==

==Opinion==

The opinion, written by Justice [[Harry Blackmun]], declares that [[abortion]] is a "fundamental right" under the [[U.S. Constitution]] and [[substantive due process]] under the [[Fourteenth Amendment]].  Writing for the 7-2 Court, Justice Blackmun held that [[abortion]] is a fundamental right because it falls under the "[[penumbra]]" of the [[right to privacy]].  ''Roe'' provided the underpinning for cases such as [[Griswold v. Connecticut]]<ref>See generally Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479</ref> and [[Lawrence v. Texas]].<ref>See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558</ref>, all of which set up spheres of personal activity which states cannot regulate without "good cause."

The opinion, written by Justice [[Harry Blackmun]], declares that [[abortion]] is a "fundamental right" under the [[U.S. Constitution]] and [[substantive due process]] under the [[Fourteenth Amendment]].  Writing for the 7-2 Court, Justice Blackmun held that [[abortion]] is a fundamental right because it falls under the "[[penumbra]]" of the [[right to privacy]].  ''Roe'' provided the underpinning for cases such as [[Griswold v. Connecticut]]<ref>See generally Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479</ref> and [[Lawrence v. Texas]].<ref>See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558</ref>, all of which set up spheres of personal activity which states cannot regulate without "good cause."

==Subsequent jurisprudence==

==Subsequent jurisprudence==

The ''Roe'' holding was subsequently modified by [[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]], a [[plurality decision]] which did away with the [[trimester]] framework, as well as lessening the degree of scrutiny of regulation from "fundamental rights" analysis to "undue burden analysis."

The ''Roe'' holding was subsequently modified by [[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]], a plurality decision which did away with the trimester framework, as well as lessening the degree of scrutiny of regulation from "fundamental rights" analysis to "undue burden analysis."

Recently the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act (upheld in [[Gonzales v. Carhart]]) approved a ban on a particular kind of late-term abortion procedure. This was the first complete ban on a particular abortion procedure found to be constitutional since Roe v. Wade.

Recently the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act (upheld in [[Gonzales v. Carhart]]) approved a ban on a particular kind of late-term abortion procedure. This was the first complete ban on a particular abortion procedure found to be constitutional since Roe v. Wade.

==Controversy==

==Controversy==

''Roe'' and subsequent decisions following it have incited intense public controversy over whether abortion is such a "fundamental right" that it overrides the right of a child to live, the right of a father to prevent the abortion of his child, and the right of states to legislate the issue in accord with the will of the people.  [[Pro-choice]] activists generally argue that it does, while [[pro-life]] activists generally argue that it does not.

''Roe'' and subsequent decisions following it have incited intense public controversy over whether abortion is such a "fundamental right" that it overrides the right of a child to live, the right of a father to prevent the abortion of his child, and the right of states to legislate the issue in accord with the will of the people.  [[Pro-choice]] activists generally argue that it does, while [[pro-life]] activists generally argue that it does not.