Changes

==Opinion==

==Opinion==

===Concurrences===

===Majority and concurrences===

====Blackmun====

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."

The "health of the mother" was defined to include the physical, psychological, and emotional health of the mother. There can be no requirement that the abortion reason be reported to anyone. The upshot is that any pregnant woman could get an abortion for any reason throughout the entire nine months as a constitutional right, provided that she could find an abortionist to do it.

The "health of the mother" was defined to include the physical, psychological, and emotional health of the mother. There can be no requirement that the abortion reason be reported to anyone. The upshot is that any pregnant woman could get an abortion for any reason throughout the entire nine months as a constitutional right, provided that she could find an abortionist to do it.

Associate Justice [[Potter Stewart]] concurred with the Court's majority opinion on the basis that liberty extends to a women's right to [[Pro-choice|"choose"]] to end her pregnancy through abortion. Stewart cited the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] to further argue that the woman's interests should be protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.<ref>[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade/Concurrence_Stewart]</ref> However, Stewart had only interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment in a very biased manner to support his personal opinion, as the phrase "no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" should technically apply to unborn children and not just the mother.

Associate Justice [[Potter Stewart]] concurred with the Court's majority opinion on the basis that liberty extends to a women's right to [[Pro-choice|"choose"]] to end her pregnancy through abortion. Stewart cited the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] to further argue that the woman's interests should be protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.<ref>[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade/Concurrence_Stewart Roe v. Wade/Concurrence Stewart]</ref> However, Stewart had only interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment in a very biased manner to support his personal opinion, as the phrase "no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" would, by definition, apply to unborn children and not just the mother.

Associate Justice [[William O. Douglas]] noted in his concurrence that legalizing abortion is part of "protecting privacy"  and that sometimes these decisions need to be made by the mother, as he listed pregnancy discomforts, supposed higher mortality rates, mental and physical health burdens, and even lifelong stigma as possible reasons for allowing abortion. Rather than give much rational nor logical explanation, Douglas exaggerated the notion of constitutional rights and offered examples of possible incidents to support his biased opinion.<ref>[http://landmarkcases.c-span.org/pdf/Roe_Douglas_Concurrence.pdf]</ref>

Associate Justice [[William O. Douglas]] noted in his concurrence that legalizing abortion is part of "protecting privacy"  and that sometimes these decisions need to be made by the mother, as he listed pregnancy discomforts, supposed higher mortality rates, mental and physical health burdens, and even lifelong stigma as possible reasons for allowing abortion. Rather than give much rational nor logical explanation, Douglas exaggerated the notion of constitutional rights and offered examples of possible incidents to support his personal opinion that was part of his [[judicial activism]].<ref>[http://landmarkcases.c-span.org/pdf/Roe_Douglas_Concurrence.pdf Roe_Douglas_Concurrence.pdf]</ref>

Associate Justice [[Thurgood Marshall]] also concurred with the Court's majority opinion<ref>[https://www.lifenews.com/2010/05/19/nat-6347/]</ref>, though any possible documents of his statements regarding his opinion have yet to be found.

Associate Justice [[Thurgood Marshall]] also concurred with the Court's majority opinion<ref>[https://www.lifenews.com/2010/05/19/nat-6347/ Thurgood Marshall’s Pro-Abortion Record Good Indicator of Elena’s Kagan’s]</ref>, though any possible documents of his statements regarding his opinion are not known.

===Dissents===

===Dissents===

[[William Rehnquist]] cited his dissent in ''Roe v. Wade'' on the argument that Roe's complaint does not justify nor give the court power to outlaw abortion restrictions in every state. He also listed 36 states with abortion restrictions to further argue his point in the general sense that powers not given to the federal government should be left to the states (also known as the [[Tenth Amendment]]).<ref>[https://college.cengage.com/polisci/eduspace/sources/civil_liberties/hmps_roevwade_dissent.html]</ref>

[[William Rehnquist]] cited his dissent in ''Roe v. Wade'' on the argument that Roe's complaint does not justify nor give the court power to outlaw abortion restrictions in every state. He also listed 36 states with abortion restrictions to further argue his point in the general sense that powers not given to the federal government should be left to the states (also known as the [[Tenth Amendment]]).<ref>[https://college.cengage.com/polisci/eduspace/sources/civil_liberties/hmps_roevwade_dissent.html Roe v. Wade—Dissenting Opinion]</ref>

[[Byron White]]'s dissent in ''Roe v. Wade'' was owed to his findings that nowhere in the Constitution supports the majority of the Court's opinion. He is known to have said: "The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers, and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes." White also concluded that the Court's majority opinion values convenience over potential life and that its ruling in prohibiting the protection of that potential life was unacceptable to him.<ref>[http://www.americasfuture.net/2001/jan01/01-0121a.html]</ref>

[[Byron White]]'s dissent in ''Roe v. Wade'' was owed to his findings that nowhere in the Constitution supports the majority of the Court's opinion. He is known to have said: "The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers, and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes." White also concluded that the Court's majority opinion values convenience over potential life and that its ruling in prohibiting the protection of that potential life was unacceptable to him.<ref>[http://www.americasfuture.net/2001/jan01/01-0121a.html White's Vigorous Dissent in Roe v. Wade]</ref>

==Subsequent jurisprudence==

==Subsequent jurisprudence==