Source: http://www.demblognews.com/2013/01/womens-right-of-choice-turns-40.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 06:44:08+00:00

Document:
In 1970, two recent graduates of the University of Texas Law School, Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, brought a lawsuit on behalf of a pregnant woman, Dallas area resident Norma L. McCorvey ("Jane Roe"), claiming a Texas law criminalizing most abortions violated Roe's constitutional rights. The Texas law banned all abortions except those necessary to save the life of the mother. Roe claimed that while her life was not endangered, she could not afford to travel out of state and had a right to terminate her pregnancy in a safe medical environment. The lawsuit was filed against Henry Wade, Dallas Country District Attorney, in a Texas federal court. The Texas court ruled that the law violated the Constitution. Wade appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case throughout 1971 and 1972.
In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackman (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws and cited past cases ruling that marriage, contraception, and child rearing are activities covered in this "zone of privacy." The Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This decision involved myriad physical, psychological, and economic stresses a pregnant woman must face.
The Court rejected the first two justifications as irrelevant given modern gender roles and medical technology. As for the third justification, the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons deserving protection.
Culturally, while some groups regard fetuses as a "person" deserving full "personhood" rights, no consensus exists. The Court ruled that Texas was thus taking one "view" of many. Protecting all fetuses under this contentious "view" of prenatal life was not sufficiently important to justify the state's banning of almost all abortions. In the last few years Republicans in state legislatures and the U.S. Congress have been pushing legislation to declare Personhood At Conception to Criminalize Abortion and the use of Birth Control. This personhood movement stems directly from the court's Roe decision "persons" finding.
However, the Court ruled that narrower state laws regulating abortion might be sufficiently important to be constitutional. For example, because the medical community finds that the human fetus might be "viable" ("capable of meaningful life") outside the mother's womb after six months of growth, a state might constitutionally protect a fetus from abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy, as long as it permitted an exception to save the life of the mother. Additionally, because second- and third-trimester abortions present more health risks to the mother, the state might regulate certain aspects of abortions related to maternal health after three months of pregnancy. In the first trimester, however, a state's interests in regulating abortions can never be found "important" enough. Such abortions are thus exclusively for the patient and her doctor to govern.
The Pew poll found that more than six-in-ten (63%) say the Roe v. Wade decision should not be overturned while only about three-in-ten (29%) want the ruling overturned. These opinions are little changed from Pew surveys conducted 10 and 20 years ago.
As the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision takes place on Tuesday, a majority of Americans — for the first time — believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Many of us don’t recall the deadly days before Roe when abortions were illegal, and "choice" for too many women meant a dangerous back-alley procedure. Before the Roe decision granted women the right to make their own reproductive decisions — nearly one-fifth of all maternal deaths in the United States were due to illegal, unsafe abortions.
40 years later, a woman’s constitutional right to choose still isn’t safe, and Roe is in jeopardy. In 2005, Congress confirmed the appointment of two new conservative anti-choice Supreme Court justices — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. — both of whom had been nominated by President George W. Bush. Roberts and Alito joined conservative Justices Thomas and Scalia who were appoint by Republican Presidents Bush (41) and Reagan, respectively.
All four of these conservative justices believe the U.S. Constitution does not grant Americans a right of privacy in any circumstance, including the right of women to choose to have an abortion, or even to use contraception. Last summer, Justice Scalia said in a Fox News interview that it is a “lie” that women have a Constitutional right of privacy to choose to have an abortion, or use contraception. Those four conservative justices believe states should be allowed to pass laws restricting or every outlawing abortion and contraception use.
The court is but a single vote away from not only overturning Roe but also overturning the court's 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision granting women the right of privacy to choose to use contraception. At the time Griswold was decided, most states severely restricted or banned the distribution of contraceptive products and information. It was even unlawful for doctors to discuss contraceptive options with their patients, women or men.
The court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was predicated on the court's 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut finding that women and men have a right of privacy to make their own reproductive family planing choices. Anti-choice legislators in Republican controlled red states like Texas continue to pass a wave of onerous state legislation to effectively ban abortion in the hope they can pass laws so onerous that one will finally be appealed to the Supreme Court. Anti-choice Republican hope the four anti-choice justices might convince one of the other nine justices to join them overturning the court's finding that the Constitution grants a right of privacy for Americans, women and men, to make their own reproductive family planning decisions.
Perry has asked Texas lawmakers to approve a so-called fetal pain bill. The proposed law would prohibit abortion once a fetus is capable of experiencing pain. Citing disputed research, pro-life advocates claim a fetus can feel pain after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
The fetal pain bill would run counter to Roe v. Wade, which upheld a woman’s right to have an abortion within the first 24 weeks of her pregnancy. Courts have blocked similar fetal pain laws in Georgia, Oklahoma and Arizona from taking effect.
Perry has also called for more regulations on abortion clinics, following the example of other states, that would force abortion clinics to shut down.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.