Annabelle Oh's Roe v. Wade Brief

BRIEF OF Roe v. Wade (1973)

APPELLANT: Roe

APPELLEE: Wade

SUMMARY: A class action suit was filed against the District Attorney of Dallas, Wade, questioning the constitutionality and enforcement of a Texas statute. This statute prohibited procuring abortions unless it was to save the mother’s life. Three separate cases (within this suit) came before the federal district court: Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Wade, and Hallford v. Wade. Doe v. Wade was dismissed on the grounds that the situation was too hypothetical (a couple claiming that their wife would not be able to obtain a legal abortion if pregnant). The Supreme Court dismissed Hallford v. Wade. The last case involved a resident of Texas. Jane Roe (pseudonym) was pregnant (before this came before the Court) and claimed she could not support another child. Also, she could not afford to leave the state to obtain a safe, legal abortion. Roe came before the District Court requesting two things: a declaratory judgment stating that the statute was unconstitutional and an injunction to stop enforcing this statute and others like it. The District Court granted the declaratory judgment by saying that the law was overbroad and vague in its language. It also declared that the statute violated the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. It did not grant the injunction.

ISSUE: Do state laws prohibiting abortion violate the Ninth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the right of privacy?

HOLDING: YES.
The Supreme Court upheld the declaratory judgment of the District Court by stating the statute unconstitutional. It also granted the injunction, which would prohibit enforcement of anti-abortion laws. The states are allowed to place restrictions on abortion as the pregnancy terms increase. However, these restrictions must be in the state’s interest. The state may also regulate the procedure and define the term "physician" (who will perform the surgery).

RATIONALE: The Court reasoned the Texas statute did infringe on the zone of privacy created by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. It also stated that the statute was too vague and broad in its application. The Court stated that it respected the state’s right to regulate, however, it is too difficult to enforce this statute. It then went on to refer to Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479, 1965) and the holding on that case. In Griswold, a zone of privacy is declared to be defined by the Amendments mentioned above. The Court stated that in that zone of privacy is the woman’s right to choose what could be done to her body and within her zone of privacy. It also stated the holding of this case to be relevant to present-day problems and situations. Therefore, the Court could expand the definitions of the Constitution to apply to the modern day.

DISSENT: Justices Rehnquist and White dissented. Justice Rehnquist stated that the right of privacy was not the issue at hand. This case (Roe) was irrelevant because the Due Process Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was not deprived, according to the rational basis test. "The test traditionally applied in the area of social and economic legislation is whether or not a law such as that challenged has a rational relation to a valid state objective." Justice Rehnquist also said Roe’s life was not at stake, meaning the pregnancy would not put her life in danger.
DICTA: "We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life." Justice Blackmun (wrote majority opinion) states this on several occasions.

Back to top

Abby Killilea's Roe v. Wade Thesis

Thesis for Roe v. Wade

The spirit behind the decision made by the Court was correct, the government should not regulate what a woman can do with her body. However, Blackmun went too far. He should have stopped with declaring the Texas law unconstitutional and not proceeded to legislate the issue in his decision. It was this act that has caused such controversy to continue more than twenty years after the decision was rendered.

Back to top

Back to Sequenced Assignments on the Roe v. Wade decision

Back to Assignments and Student Writing