The Constitutional Basis of Roe v. Wade

Thanks to C-Mach for posting this debate. Abortion debates are common but one discussing the actual Supreme Court ruling seems like fun. My opponent has made two central statements. First, he claims that the Supreme Court's ruling on Roe v. Wade had no constitutional basis. Second, he claims anti-abortion laws of the time did not violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Thus, my position is that the Supreme Court's ruling on Roe v. Wade had constitutional basis, referring specifically but not exclusively to the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. ::The 14th Amendment:: In 1971, the Roe v. Wade case challenged abortion laws of the time that restricted the act to cases that endangered the mother's life. The 1973 ruling of the Supreme Court was in favor of Roe, stating that such anti-abortion laws violated the Due Process Clause (or DPC) of the 14th Amendment [1]. As my opponent correctly stated above, the DPC reads that no state will "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law [2]." In terms of Roe v. Wade, the relevant aspect of the clause centers on two concepts: liberty and privacy: - Liberty: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges [3] - Privacy: freedom from unauthorized intrusion [4] The personal liberty mentioned in the DPC thus ensures one's enjoyment of our nation's rights and privileges. Unfortunately, the governmental interference in anti-abortion laws infringes on one's right to privacy. Because anti-abortion laws restrict an individual's right to privacy, and the DPC promises an individual's enjoyment of rights, anti-abortion laws violate the DPC. As a point of clarification, our nation's right to privacy is based on an amalgamation of specific privacy laws and protections. The privacy of belief is protected by the 1st Amendment, privacy of the home by the 3rd, privacy of the self and possessions against unwarranted searches by the 4th, and privacy of information by the 5th. The 9th Amendment, which protects rights not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights, has also been used as a basis for additional privacy laws [5]. These laws have been viewed by the Supreme Court as amble evidence that privacy stands as a fundamental right. ::Constitutional Basis Elsewhere:: In addition to questioning the validity of the 14th amendment's role in the decision, my opponent states "the ruling of Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade has NO constitutional basis." This is untrue, as the ruling finds foundation in several other constitutional arguments. Some of these include: - 5th Amendment: An identical DPC to the one found in the 14th Amendment is present here, providing additional support to the latter's argument [6]. - 9th Amendment: Freedom of choice and privacy specific to a woman's right to an abortion are both potentially protected under this amendment's protection of non-stated rights [6]. - 13th Amendment: Anti-abortion laws create mandatory motherhood and force "involuntary servitude," which is banned by this amendment [7]. - 14th Amendment (Equality Clause): Because only females would be burdened with pregnancy, labor, and the possibility of extended motherhood, anti-abortion laws violate the equal protection of law promised by this amendment [2]. The sources given here provide the reader with the amendment in question, as an objective reading of the laws make these arguments self-explanatory. ::Conclusion:: In short, the DPC promises personal liberties, ensuring the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges. As privacy has been established on numerous occasions by the Supreme Court to be a right, and anti-abortion laws infringe upon this right, such laws violate the DPC. Furthermore, several other amendment-based arguments can be made in favor of the Roe v. Wade ruling, demonstrating that it is not without constitutional basis. I will refrain from elaborating on my arguments until my opponent has the chance to present his case. Despite the brevity of my points, however, I have already shown that both the 14th Amendment alone and the amendments as a whole can serve as basis for the Roe v. Wade ruling, effectively defeating both of Con's claims. I thank C-Mach again for this debate and eagerly await his response. ::References:: 1. http://www.law.cornell.edu... 2. http://www.law.cornell.edu... 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 5. http://www.law.umkc.edu... 6. http://www.law.cornell.edu... 7. http://www.law.cornell.edu...