Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
ROE V. WADE
Transcript of ROE V. WADE
-The state law of Texas prohibited the termination of a pregnancy by artificial means (surgery) except when the life of the mother was in danger. Roe, a Texas woman, claiming privacy as a “fundamental right,” challenged the Texas statute to recognized “right of privacy” against the “compelling interest” of the States to regulate abortions.
- Henry Wade, Disctrict attorney of Rockwell County
-Texas, that was obliged to support all laws that prohibited abortion.
-Norma Leah McCorvey, better known by the legal pseudonym "Jane Roe", was the plaintiff in the landmark American lawsuit Roe v. Wade in 1973.
- Roe v Wade was brought up to court to discuss the right to pricacy rather than to discuss abortion.
Legal Issue #1
1.Yes. State criminal abortion laws that except from criminality only life-saving procedures on the mother’s behalf, and that do not take into consideration the stage of pregnancy and other interests, are unconstitutional for violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
1.Do abortion laws that criminalize all abortions, except those required on medical advice to save the life of the mother, violate the Constitution of the United States?
ROE V WADE
BY: AMANDA COCOTL
Jane Roe was Norma's fake name when she went to court to protect her identity from being exposed.
Legal issue #2
2.Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protect the right to privacy, including the right to obtain an abortion?
legal issue #2
2.Yes. The Due Process Clause protects the right to privacy, including a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, against state action.
legal issue #3
3.Are there any circumstances where a state may enact laws prohibiting abortion?
Legal issue #3
3.Yes. Though a state cannot completely deny a woman the right to terminate her pregnancy, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life at various stages of pregnancy.
SHOULD ABORTION BE LEGAL?
- According to the supreme court, abortion should be legal because it dealt with the right of privacy of the mother, and as long as the fetus is before Vialibility (the likely ability of the fetus to be able to survive outside and separated from the uterus), it is the mother's right to choose under the 9th and 14th amendment .
The State has a duty to protect prenatal life.
Life is present at the moment of conception.
The unborn are people, and as such are entitled to protection under the Constitution.
The Texas law is a valid exercise of police powers reserved to the States in order to protect the health and safety of citizens, including the unborn.
The law is constitutional and should be upheld.
Under the Bill of Rights, a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy.
It is improper for a State to deny individuals the personal, marital, familial, and sexual right to privacy. Moreover, in no case in its history has the Court declared that a fetus—a developing infant in the womb—is a person. Therefore, the fetus cannot be said to have any legal “right to life.” Because it is unduly intrusive, the Texas law is unconstitutional and should be overturned.
In a 7-2 decision, the Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman a right to abortion during the entirety of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters.
Justice Goldberg relied extensively on the Ninth Amendment, which states that the specific rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are not exhaustive. He remarked: To hold that a right so basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the Constitution is to ignore the Ninth Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever.” Justice Goldberg further noted that the marital right includes decisions whether to “bear children and raise a family.”
Justices Black and Stewart took a literalist approach, arguing that a right of privacy did not exist in the Constitution because it was not specifically written into the text. Each was harshly critical of the flexible approaches used to discover a constitutional right to personal privacy.
-Desagree with the practice of abortion
-Agree with court's decision to legalize abortion because it should be a person's choice.