Changes

{{caselaw|Roe v. Wade|410 U.S. 113|1973}}

{{caselaw|Roe v. Wade|410 U.S. 113|1973}}

'''''Roe v. Wade''''' was a landmark 1973 [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decision which held that it was [[constitutionality|unconstitutional]] for the Federal government or states to prohibit or "unreasonably limit" access to [[abortion]], prior to a fetus' [[viability]].  The ''Roe'' decision was issued the same day as ''[[Doe v. Bolton]]'', a companion case, which held that states could not prohibit a physician from performing an abortion after the fetus has become "viable" if the physician determines that the abortion is necessary for the "health" of the mother, which could include "physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age," all of which the Court determined were "relevant to the wellbeing of the patient."

'''''Roe v. Wade''''' (Jan. 22, 1973) was a [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decision which created a new right in the [[Constitution]] for a woman to have an [[abortion]], in effect at any time during pregnancy.  The ''Roe'' decision was issued the same day as ''[[Doe v. Bolton]]'', a companion case, which held that states could not prohibit a physician from performing an [[abortion]] after the fetus has become "viable" if the physician determines that the abortion is necessary for the "health" of the mother, which could include "physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age," all of which the Court determined were "relevant to the wellbeing of the patient."

This case dealt with an exception to the usual rule that one must allege 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."

==Opinion==

==Opinion==

The opinion, written by Justice [[Harry Blackmun]], centers around the holding that abortion is a "fundamental right" under the [[U.S. Constitution]] and [[substantive due process]] under the [[Fourteenth Amendment]].  Essentially, he argued, 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."

Specifically, Blackmun found that the right to terminate a pregnancy is in the penumbra of [[privacy]] rights protected by [[substantive due process]], since pregnancy can occasion life-changing events for women, changes not to be taken lightly.  However, he noted that the woman's interest in her own privacy is counterbalanced, obviously, by the fetus' interest in life, and the state's interest in protecting life.  The question, then, is when each interest trumps the other, and what that means at law.  Blackmun set up this framework specifically:

Specifically, Blackmun found that the right to terminate a pregnancy is in the penumbra of [[privacy]] rights protected by [[substantive due process]], since pregnancy can occasion life-changing events for women, changes not to be taken lightly.  However, he noted that the woman's interest in her own privacy is counterbalanced, obviously, by the fetus' interest in life, and the state's interest in protecting life.  The question, then, is when each interest trumps the other, and what that means at law.  Blackmun set up this framework specifically: